PDA

View Full Version : Typical pitbull owner?


Kobble
03-01-2011, 05:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTptwotYGg


Have a look.

maverick66
03-01-2011, 05:17 PM
its very unfortunate that this breed has been adopted by wanna be tough guys that think its cool to have a strong tough dog.

Pitbulls are not bad dogs. They are extremely strong and I have no interest in fighting with one but once again when properly trained and cared for they can be very calm and good dogs.

Dog owners who let their dogs run wild and attack others should be jailed. Fines are not enough they need to start serving jail time.

Zimtack
03-01-2011, 05:58 PM
Ive had pitbulls, i'm not dumb, and i dont talk like him. stupid people shouldn't own a dog that is hard to control and train, idiots think that having a tough dog makes the tough, stupid idiot. The dog should be taken to a shelter instead of being killed, its not the dogs fault that the owner couldn't control or properly take care of his own pet. I hate the stereotype that surrounds pitbulls and pitbull owners.

Larrysümmers
03-01-2011, 06:02 PM
My uncle has two pitbulls. Sweet dogs. Loving. Playful. People gave pitbulls bad names.

Cindysphinx
03-01-2011, 07:06 PM
Boy, I dunno.

I've mentioned that I am volunteering at WARL (Washington Animal Rescue League). Guess what dogs seem to be in need of more rescuing than any other breed? Pit bulls.

I'll come right out and say it: I am not a fan of the breed. I think they are more likely to bite and to hurt. Plus, they are unbelievably strong. Even the claws on the puppies are like talons.

Part of the volunteering is "dog walking" and socializing. You leash a dog that needs to go out, you take it it to a fenced area and play with it for 10 minutes and let it do its business, and then you take it back to its den and go get the next dog. Not exciting, but it needs to be done.

The pit bulls are my least favorite dogs to take out. They are so strong that I can struggle to control them on a leash, although I can control my own 60-pound Aussie just fine. My teen son comes with me, and we work in tandem. A pit bull started jumping up and biting at my son's shirt, and I had to kind of punch the dog in the ribs to make it stop. And remember, we volunteers don't interact with the dogs until they have passed their temperament assessment -- so this dog was one of the "good" pit bulls.

In looking for a dogs, there are so many better choices. I don't understand the desire of anyone to own a pitbull, honestly.

ryushen21
03-01-2011, 08:55 PM
Not going to lie, I've kinda been hoping that a thread like this would pop up so that I can jump up on my soapbox.....

its very unfortunate that this breed has been adopted by wanna be tough guys that think its cool to have a strong tough dog.

Pitbulls are not bad dogs. They are extremely strong and I have no interest in fighting with one but once again when properly trained and cared for they can be very calm and good dogs.

Dog owners who let their dogs run wild and attack others should be jailed. Fines are not enough they need to start serving jail time.

It really is sad that these dogs end up in the hands of idiot owners. I could not agree more with the bolded part though.

Ive had pitbulls, i'm not dumb, and i dont talk like him. stupid people shouldn't own a dog that is hard to control and train, idiots think that having a tough dog makes the tough, stupid idiot. The dog should be taken to a shelter instead of being killed, its not the dogs fault that the owner couldn't control or properly take care of his own pet. I hate the stereotype that surrounds pitbulls and pitbull owners.

The owners should be put down not the dogs. That's my stance on it.

My uncle has two pitbulls. Sweet dogs. Loving. Playful. People gave pitbulls bad names.

Glad to hear that. I love my bully.

Boy, I dunno.

I've mentioned that I am volunteering at WARL (Washington Animal Rescue League). Guess what dogs seem to be in need of more rescuing than any other breed? Pit bulls.

I'll come right out and say it: I am not a fan of the breed. I think they are more likely to bite and to hurt. Plus, they are unbelievably strong. Even the claws on the puppies are like talons.

Part of the volunteering is "dog walking" and socializing. You leash a dog that needs to go out, you take it it to a fenced area and play with it for 10 minutes and let it do its business, and then you take it back to its den and go get the next dog. Not exciting, but it needs to be done.

The pit bulls are my least favorite dogs to take out. They are so strong that I can struggle to control them on a leash, although I can control my own 60-pound Aussie just fine. My teen son comes with me, and we work in tandem. A pit bull started jumping up and biting at my son's shirt, and I had to kind of punch the dog in the ribs to make it stop. And remember, we volunteers don't interact with the dogs until they have passed their temperament assessment -- so this dog was one of the "good" pit bulls.

In looking for a dogs, there are so many better choices. I don't understand the desire of anyone to own a pitbull, honestly.

Pit bulls are in dire need of rescue. My bully, Bella, was a rescue and we got her at 14 wks old.

Now, I will not argue for a second that they are not strong dogs. They have very powerful hind quarters and that gives them tremendous pulling strength. But, the easy way to remedy that....leash train the dog. It took about 4 walks (30 min each) to get my dog leash trained. Now, she does have the occasional moment where another dog barks through a fence and she gets excited. But other than that, not a problem.

As far as more likely to bite and hurt, I wholeheartedly disagree. They are no more likely to bite or hurt than any other dog. Domesticated dogs only follow actions that they have learned from their owners. I have seen plenty of dogs, of all breeds, raised responsibly that have never bitten or been aggressive towards anyone. I've also seen a Jack Russell terrier that was so mean and aggressive that it could only be handled by certain people. It's not the dog or the breed but who raised that particular animal.

As for the claws, part of responsible pet ownership is grooming and hygiene.

As for the dog that jumped on your son, someone should have better trained that one and I hope that more attention was given to that dog to correct that behavior. But from my own experience, well trained and behaved bullys are very social and playful. This may have been what this dog was trying to do but it had not been taught properly how to interact. I certainly hope that you brought that to the attention of the people at the shelter that you volunteer at and for your work there, I have the utmost respect.

I have to disagree on the last line you wrote though. If you look at the history of the breed, Pit Bulls were used in the frontier times as nanny dogs. their inherently docile nature lead parents to leave them with their children while they were out working the land.

It was not until humans started taking advantage of their temperament that pit bulls gained the completely undeserved reputation that they have today. A pit bull will do anything and everything for its owner or family. The dogs that are abused in fighting still show love towards the person they recognize as their owner. Just not towards anyone else.

Our dog routinely plays with our 6 and 3 year old and has never once nipped, bit or scratched them. Why? Our dog is trained on how to interact with our kids and our kids are trained on how to interact with the dog.

Owning a dog is a privilege that comes with great responsibility. And that goes both ways.

maverick66
03-01-2011, 08:57 PM
I'll come right out and say it: I am not a fan of the breed. I think they are more likely to bite and to hurt. Plus, they are unbelievably strong. Even the claws on the puppies are like talons.

I would have no issue with having one as I am a pretty strong guy but I agree with you that it is not for physically weaker people. They are big and very strong. Just like I wouldnt recommend an old lady get a Burmese Mountain Dog. People need to be more selective about the breed they adopt.

In looking for a dogs, there are so many better choices. I don't understand the desire of anyone to own a pitbull, honestly.

I honestly thought about trying to rescue a pittbull or a rottie but I live next to a lot of kids. My neighborhood has at least 2-3 kids a house so it wouldnt have been a smart decision to risk that. I trust myself and my family but when ever you have kids around everything is out the window. I cant count how many times kids have come screaming and running up to my Aussie and Jack Russel. Even with the Aussie I have to be careful as mine is 55lbs. If he jumps or bites it hurts.

Which also brings up something that really irks me. If you have children please inform them that it is not a good idea to run up to pet random dogs. I understand that some kids love animals and are curious but they need to understand that not all dogs are comfortable with being run up to. My Aussie is used to it as the little boys next door love him but my older Jack Russel never was really socialized with kids and gets really nervous when they come running at her.

GetBetterer
03-01-2011, 09:11 PM
Does anybody understand what this guy is saying?

Kobble
03-01-2011, 09:43 PM
I actually found the original pitbull owner video searching for exotic pet owners on Youtube.

Another sharp pitbull owner

Notice the big chain leash for public safety. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9i8RezZdho&feature=related


Alligator owners

"My dogs teeth are bigger." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi02psMSC34



Nile Crocodile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHQRYnZ-bk&feature=related



Saltwater Crocodile owners

If you don't know what a saltwater crocodile is, think Lake Placid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZh5poYu9Zs


"Attacks without fail." Sounds like the perfect pet.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQdR_1-8ybM

Kobble
03-01-2011, 09:46 PM
Does anybody understand what this guy is saying?

If anyone could make it through the whole video I would be surprised.

grimmbomb21
03-01-2011, 10:09 PM
If anyone could make it through the whole video I would be surprised.

I couldn't hang. Closed the window after about a minute in. That guy was absolutely pathetic.

In school and off the streets kids!:)

Brettolius
03-02-2011, 07:00 AM
I have 2 pit bulls that me and my fiancee rescued when they were pups, and they are the sweetest, most loving dogs. Of course if you leave any dog tied up all day and beat it with rusty chains, then it's going to have issues. It's the owners not the dogs people. They are just big and strong enough that when you have a poorly trained one attack someone, they do big time damage, that's why they get a bad name. And certain types gravitate to big strong dogs so they can be tough too.
Most poodles I've met are downright nasty, and the breed that actually bites more people a year than any other is .....golden retrievers. And of course little yappy dogs are always biting people, but they don't do much damage.
The reason people fight pit bulls is not because they are so much more aggressive, but their pain tolerance is super high. Another reason why they are known to be very good with small children, they can takes tugs on the ears and whatnot.

woodrow1029
03-02-2011, 07:00 AM
Which also brings up something that really irks me. If you have children please inform them that it is not a good idea to run up to pet random dogs. I understand that some kids love animals and are curious but they need to understand that not all dogs are comfortable with being run up to. My Aussie is used to it as the little boys next door love him but my older Jack Russel never was really socialized with kids and gets really nervous when they come running at her.

This is exactly right. I have a cocker spaniel that is 4 years old, and is a very young looking dog. Kids love cocker spaniels because of their cute floppy ears. Cocker spaniels are known for not being great dogs to have around kids, and sure enough mine is not good with kids. He was a rescue dog and we got him when he was almost 2 years old so we don't know what his background was.

We also have a 2 year old siberian husky who is very sweet and loves kids. We got her as a 7 week old puppy and were able to socialize her easier with kids.

We went to the dog park, and some lady comes in with her daughter, who was about 6 years old. I don't have a problem with kids coming to the dog park at all. What I do have a problem with is when people come to the dog park with their kids, and spend the whole time on their cell phone not paying attention to where their little kid is; which is why I am very careful with our cocker whenever there is a little kid in the dog park. So, this kid was sitting over by a tree, and our husky goes over to the kid and lies down right next to her and the girl was petting her. I was about 10 feet away with my other dog.

The lady comes running over to the daughter and says to get away from the husky because they are vicious and tells her to go play with the cute puppy over there (the spaniel). So, I just picked him up and walked to the other side of the park.

rommil
03-02-2011, 07:19 AM
Even people on Judge Judy don't wear pajamas in the court room. Get the dog (the animal) a proper owner and lock this guys ignant *** in jail.

hollywood9826
03-02-2011, 07:19 AM
Pit Bulls are great breed of dog.

They are the most loyal breed I have ever seen. Its that loyalty that makes them great to these thugs that fight them. They will literally die to win the affection of the owner, no matter how bad that owner treats them.

My moms pit bull, which my sister named Henessey has more personality than some poeple, and would never hurt another person not intending harm on my mom or her family.

Now in her older age she's 12 now, she has gotten less tolerable of other dogs, and only wants to be left alone when she is not in the mood to play.

LuckyR
03-02-2011, 07:43 AM
Boy, I dunno.

I've mentioned that I am volunteering at WARL (Washington Animal Rescue League). Guess what dogs seem to be in need of more rescuing than any other breed? Pit bulls.

I'll come right out and say it: I am not a fan of the breed. I think they are more likely to bite and to hurt. Plus, they are unbelievably strong. Even the claws on the puppies are like talons.

Part of the volunteering is "dog walking" and socializing. You leash a dog that needs to go out, you take it it to a fenced area and play with it for 10 minutes and let it do its business, and then you take it back to its den and go get the next dog. Not exciting, but it needs to be done.

The pit bulls are my least favorite dogs to take out. They are so strong that I can struggle to control them on a leash, although I can control my own 60-pound Aussie just fine. My teen son comes with me, and we work in tandem. A pit bull started jumping up and biting at my son's shirt, and I had to kind of punch the dog in the ribs to make it stop. And remember, we volunteers don't interact with the dogs until they have passed their temperament assessment -- so this dog was one of the "good" pit bulls.

In looking for a dogs, there are so many better choices. I don't understand the desire of anyone to own a pitbull, honestly.


It ain't about the dog. It is well established that through time, different dog breeds have appealed to the type of dog owner, who frankly shouldn't have any dog breed (except stuffed animals). You know, the type who are likely to mistreat the dog and excourage aggressive behavior.

There was once a time when that group of owners owned German Shepherds, then they bought Dobermans, then Rottweilers, now it is Staffordshires. True at this time Staffies are overrepresented in maulings etc but it is a popularity thing. That is, back when the buffoons prefered Dobermans Staffordshires were not in the top ten of attacks, etc. When the idiots move on to another breed, the percentage of Staffies who are in these attacks will drop.

jmverdugo
03-02-2011, 07:51 AM
I owned 2 pitbulls, very loving animals, very strong too. They indeed can be agressive with other dogs but you can usually control that. As other have posted the owner is to be blame. You can't blame an animal for being an animal, you can't forbid it either.

ryushen21
03-02-2011, 08:28 AM
I love the support that bully owners are showing for the breed. They are great dogs. It's the bad owners that give the breed a bad reputation.

Wicked4hand
03-02-2011, 08:46 AM
Any breed either pitbull or german shep ... They all barking @ mailman

OHAI
03-02-2011, 08:50 AM
I rescued a pitbull mix and it's the nicest, sweetest most loyal dog I've ever owned.

LOVE MY PITBULL!

Fifth Set
03-02-2011, 09:40 AM
You Tube videos are interesting but in reality there are a tremendous number of actual facts relating to dogs, dog attacks, breeds and legal issues surrounding all of these things. There is no question that our attempts to domesticate dogs have some real drawbacks.

There are about 5 million dog bites per year in the U.S. alone!

Pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks.

Whether you blame owners or the dogs, this is an epidemic. Nobody should be surprised by increasing regulation, lawsuits and challenges getting adequate insurance.

Much more at:

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

maverick66
03-02-2011, 10:09 AM
You Tube videos are interesting but in reality there are a tremendous number of actual facts relating to dogs, dog attacks, breeds and legal issues surrounding all of these things. There is no question that our attempts to domesticate dogs have some real drawbacks.

I will semi agree to this. Dogs are animals and people dont understand warning signs they give off. Dogs are territorial and when they think they are the big dog they will protect it at all costs. That means it will fight to the death to get you out of its area. This is where being a good owner is very critical. Especially if you have a stronger breed. If it thinks its the lead dog and has to protect everyone then the results will be bad.

Pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks.

I always argue these stats. How many dog bites go unreported?

Fifth Set
03-02-2011, 10:19 AM
I always argue these stats. How many dog bites go unreported?

What element are you debating and how do unreported bites change the data?

If you were to argue that it's not those breeds doing the attacking, you would be assuming that there is some kind of bias against specific breeds in the reporting process. Doesn't really make sense. People report bad bites, regardless of breed, and not so much small bites, again regardless of breed.

Indeed, the actual Clifton study focused on those serious injuries in the first place. It is linked below. Again, I'm not making a value judgment about whether it is the pit bull or its owner, but about outcomes - facts are facts.

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

max
03-02-2011, 10:20 AM
It's a bad breed, no doubt.

Some things I find interesting:

(1) politically, local cities find it tough to enact ordinances against pitbull because the pitbull owners seem, themselves, threatening and unreasonable, and they make a lot of noise.

(2) here, where I live, pit bulls are often in the pound.

(3) we have had a few cases of exceptionally aggressive behavior in which people were seriously harmed.

(4) The danger is real. I'm in favor of some kind of pitbull regulation.

Brettolius
03-02-2011, 10:41 AM
.
I always argue these stats. How many dog bites go unreported?

No kidding. So many ankle biter dogs bite people all the time, it goes unreported because the bite does no damage. Ya' think the size of the animal may have an impact on how severe the injury is? I've personally encountered far more aggressive little yappy dogs than any other. The worst part is the owners of these dogs typically don't take it very seriously when their dog bites someone.

mightyrick
03-02-2011, 10:49 AM
People buy pitbulls in order to make a statement. The same reason used by people who buy AK-47 assault rifles. The same reason used by bodybuilders who pack 285 pounds of muscle on a 5 foot 9 inch frame. The same reason why a person would buy a 150,000 dollar watch. The same reason why someone would buy a 1,000 gallon aquarium and fill it with carnivorous fish and feed them small live animals. The same reason why some people can't get through a single conversation without name-dropping a famous person.

They all love to drive on the "road to excess" (as coined by William Blake).

These kinds of people usually nauseate me. Everything they do screams "Look at me, look at me, look at me..." Can't stand that.

Brettolius
03-02-2011, 10:52 AM
It's a bad breed, no doubt.

Some things I find interesting:

(1) politically, local cities find it tough to enact ordinances against pitbull because the pitbull owners seem, themselves, threatening and unreasonable, and they make a lot of noise.

(2) here, where I live, pit bulls are often in the pound.

(3) we have had a few cases of exceptionally aggressive behavior in which people were seriously harmed.

(4) The danger is real. I'm in favor of some kind of pitbull regulation.

I'm sorry, but you are completely ignorant of the situation. Please stop perpetuating the myth. I'm in favor of "some kind of regulation" against people who spout non-informed opinions on subjects they are uneducated about, who don't look at both sides of the coin.

Also, pit bull is a generic term for 20-something different breeds of dog. So which one of them is threatening your security? Or would it happen to be all? 20-something different breeds all happen to have the same angry, hateful disposition? If they have a good owner, like any dog, they will have the exact temperament that you claim your signature describes you.

ryushen21
03-02-2011, 11:27 AM
It's a bad breed, no doubt.

Some things I find interesting:

(1) politically, local cities find it tough to enact ordinances against pitbull because the pitbull owners seem, themselves, threatening and unreasonable, and they make a lot of noise.

(2) here, where I live, pit bulls are often in the pound.

(3) we have had a few cases of exceptionally aggressive behavior in which people were seriously harmed.

(4) The danger is real. I'm in favor of some kind of pitbull regulation.

This is just wrong. All wrong.

I'm sure that there are cases like that. More pit bulls are put down every year because of the reputation.

If you want to enact some legislation, make it tougher for people to be able to own all animals. The simple fact is that people sell or adopt out pit bulls without doing a proper background check. The allure of fast cash in dogfighting is simply too much for many people deny. The dogs get abused and turned into violent creatures.

I personally believe that dogs are like humans in that they are born Tabula Rasa. Clean slate. A dog will be what it is raised to be it is not born violent or aggressive.

No kidding. So many ankle biter dogs bite people all the time, it goes unreported because the bite does no damage. Ya' think the size of the animal may have an impact on how severe the injury is? I've personally encountered far more aggressive little yappy dogs than any other. The worst part is the owners of these dogs typically don't take it very seriously when their dog bites someone.

Yeah, if everyone reported those what do you want to bet that some smaller breeds would overtake pit bulls.

But who is going to back legislation against Pomerainians.


If you wonder why Pits and Rotties are at the top of the bite list.....here's a big surprise.....THEY ARE THE DOGS THAT ARE BEING THE MOST ABUSED!!! Abused dogs are going to react the worst and cause the most damage because that is what their idiot owners have trained them to do.

It is not the dog's fault.

OldButGame
03-02-2011, 11:48 AM
It ain't about the dog. It is well established that through time, different dog breeds have appealed to the type of dog owner, who frankly shouldn't have any dog breed (except stuffed animals). You know, the type who are likely to mistreat the dog and excourage aggressive behavior.

There was once a time when that group of owners owned German Shepherds, then they bought Dobermans, then Rottweilers, now it is Staffordshires. True at this time Staffies are overrepresented in maulings etc but it is a popularity thing. That is, back when the buffoons prefered Dobermans Staffordshires were not in the top ten of attacks, etc. When the idiots move on to another breed, the percentage of Staffies who are in these attacks will drop.

It's a bad breed, no doubt.

Some things I find interesting:

(1) politically, local cities find it tough to enact ordinances against pitbull because the pitbull owners seem, themselves, threatening and unreasonable, and they make a lot of noise.

(2) here, where I live, pit bulls are often in the pound.

(3) we have had a few cases of exceptionally aggressive behavior in which people were seriously harmed.

(4) The danger is real. I'm in favor of some kind of pitbull regulation.

I'm sorry, but you are completely ignorant of the situation. Please stop perpetuating the myth. I'm in favor of "some kind of regulation" against people who spout non-informed opinions on subjects they are uneducated about, who don't look at both sides of the coin.

Also, pit bull is a generic term for 20-something different breeds of dog. So which one of them is threatening your security? Or would it happen to be all? 20-something different breeds all happen to have the same angry, hateful disposition? If they have a good owner, like any dog, they will have the exact temperament that you claim your signature describes you.
First,...If You watch the video, I dont believe 'Pitbull' is the issue at hand. The 'issue' that i saw was a complete refusal to own responsibility by a 'dog owner' to the point of absurdity.

I believe Max was exactly correct on his points, though somewhat subjective.

Irresponsible groups that harbor these kinds of animals historically 'hide behind' their responsibility through obfuscation, changing the issue, and quibbling over minutia (much as was done in the video).
Do You think owners of digs as the one in the video 'encourage domestication' of their animals??,..teaching them to 'not bite' ??(despite deep genetics,..in the dog). Somehow I think this is probably not the case.
The issue here is 'folks' keeping particular dogs or breeds of dogs because'its tough' and it can be used in the case of a street altercation.

oh, and by the way,...its also illegal to carry a handgun in your waist w/o a permit to carry.http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/icons/icon4.gif (that would be a fascinating statistic,...correlation between 'pitbull owners and handgun carriers'http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/icons/icon4.gif)

mightyrick
03-02-2011, 11:56 AM
I personally believe that dogs are like humans in that they are born Tabula Rasa. Clean slate. A dog will be what it is raised to be it is not born violent or aggressive.

It is not the dog's fault.

Yes, but if the dog already has the propensity, ability, physiology, and temperament for fighting, then it will probably be raised for fighting.

Evolution works this way for a reason. Pit bull breeds have evolved that way for a reason. And it isn't just their bodies that have evolved. Their minds have evolved commensurately. Pit bull breeds are aggressive. Just like fish... not all are created equal. Oscars are incredibly tempermental and aggressive fish while a Molly is incredibly passive.

If I want to find an escaped prisoner or a dope stash, I'm probably going to employ a bloodhound and not a pit bull. For good reason. The bloodhound has evolved as the better breed for that kind of task.

I hear too many pit bull owners try to make the argument that how a dog is raised is the sole determinant of its temperament. That couldn't be further from the truth. Animal breeds are predisposed for temperament and ability. That is the reality. Get over it.


It is not the dog's fault.

That's true. But that doesn't mean that the dog should be treated as if it were any other dog such as a toy poodle. All dogs are not created equal. And some are downright dangerous.

Kobble
03-02-2011, 12:06 PM
People buy pitbulls in order to make a statement. The same reason used by people who buy AK-47 assault rifles. The same reason used by bodybuilders who pack 285 pounds of muscle on a 5 foot 9 inch frame. The same reason why a person would buy a 150,000 dollar watch. The same reason why someone would buy a 1,000 gallon aquarium and fill it with carnivorous fish and feed them small live animals. The same reason why some people can't get through a single conversation without name-dropping a famous person.

They all love to drive on the "road to excess" (as coined by William Blake).

These kinds of people usually nauseate me. Everything they do screams "Look at me, look at me, look at me..." Can't stand that.Sure, they want the toughest animal they can get without going through legal red tape. And, something loyal to them, but not to others.

I've known some pitbull owners. One kid got one, and it was friendly. However, he would say crap like, "When we walk it, no dog messes with it, that dog knows it is badass."

I know a little something about pets and wild animals, as well as what emotions go with wanting certain things. These days, or at least for the last 5-8 years, people have been using dogs as some kind of bully tool. And I don't really think these people care if their dogs are put down, because that would be like a soldier dying in the line of duty. I say, start sending owners of dog attacks to jail. Then the owner can go play prisoner of war. Fines may not be that big of a deal. These guys might make that up by selling puppies. The amount of dog attacks making the news in my county is unreal, and I think Pitbulls were banned in the county south of me (Broward). So, now we have people moving here so they can keep their lifestyle.

OldButGame
03-02-2011, 12:07 PM
Yes, but if the dog already has the propensity, ability, physiology, and temperament for fighting, then it will probably be raised for fighting.

Evolution works this way for a reason. Pit bull breeds have evolved that way for a reason. And it isn't just their bodies that have evolved. Their minds have evolved commensurately. Pit bull breeds are aggressive. Just like fish... not all are created equal. Oscars are incredibly tempermental and aggressive fish while a Molly is incredibly passive.

If I want to find an escaped prisoner or a dope stash, I'm probably going to employ a bloodhound and not a pit bull. For good reason. The bloodhound has evolved as the better breed for that kind of task.

I hear too many pit bull owners try to make the argument that how a dog is raised is the sole determinant of its temperament. That couldn't be further from the truth. Animal breeds are predisposed for temperament and ability. That is the reality. Get over it.



That's true. But that doesn't mean that the dog should be treated as if it were any other dog such as a toy poodle. All dogs are not created equal. And some are downright dangerous.
(Rick You forgot, we're in America, and despite statistics, what You see on the news, what You read in the paper, what You hear on the radio, what You see on COPS, etc, ...You have to remember, 'always think of every dog as the same, until its too late',...because after all,..they might not ALL be like that,...:neutral:)

Brettolius
03-02-2011, 12:15 PM
Pit bulls are no more aggressive to other animals than Jake Russells or any other terrier. And fact is, they are not naturally aggressive towards humans. THAT is reality bud. Deal with that. Again, the main reason they are bred to fight is because they have a higher tolerance for pain than other breeds, not that they are more aggressive, Terriers, all terriers, are more aggressive towards other animals than other breeds. But you don't see Jack Russell fights going on, do you? I think they should probably put down all roosters as well. I hear they like to fight too.

ryushen21
03-02-2011, 12:21 PM
Yes, but if the dog already has the propensity, ability, physiology, and temperament for fighting, then it will probably be raised for fighting.

Ok. Physiology yes. Everything else you are absolutely wrong.

By your logic, my dog should be aggressive and ready to snap at anything that comes at it. But she's not.

She adapts to the people that are around her. If our kids our running around and playful, that's how she is. If my wife and are realaxing on the couch, she is relaxing with us.

If something is bothering her, she has ways to indicate it to us without becoming angered or aggressive. Why? Because that's how she was raised.

Evolution works this way for a reason. Pit bull breeds have evolved that way for a reason. And it isn't just their bodies that have evolved. Their minds have evolved commensurately. Pit bull breeds are aggressive. Just like fish... not all are created equal. Oscars are incredibly tempermental and aggressive fish while a Molly is incredibly passive.

Let's keep in mind that evolution takes an exceptional amount of time. You really think that it is reasonable to say that Pit Bulls, which were previously used as nanny dogs to keep after children in the mid to late 1800s and early 1900s, have in the span of appx. 100 years completely changed their demeanor to become aggressive attack dogs?

I don't think so. What has happened? PEOPLE have changed their attitudes and treatment of the animals to create new behaviors in the breed. It has nothing to do with the breed itself. I've seen mean dogs and nice dogs of all breeds. You cannot tell me that how that dog is raised and its owner's temperament have nothing to do with it.

If I want to find an escaped prisoner or a dope stash, I'm probably going to employ a bloodhound and not a pit bull. For good reason. The bloodhound has evolved as the better breed for that kind of task.

Of course dogs are raised with certain characteristics. Bloodhounds for scent ability, Greyhounds for sight. But ANY dog can be manipulated into aggressive and violent behavior.

I hear too many pit bull owners try to make the argument that how a dog is raised is the sole determinant of its temperament. That couldn't be further from the truth. Animal breeds are predisposed for temperament and ability. That is the reality. Get over it.

Sorry, but I think that you could not possibly have your head further up your butt. Maybe you should try reading a little bit more before you jump into a conversation such as this uninformed. There's wrong and then there is you.



That's true. But that doesn't mean that the dog should be treated as if it were any other dog such as a toy poodle. All dogs are not created equal. And some are downright dangerous.

See above comments.

user92626
03-02-2011, 12:35 PM
Pit bulls are no more aggressive to other animals than Jake Russells or any other terrier. And fact is, they are not naturally aggressive towards humans. THAT is reality bud. Deal with that. Again, the main reason they are bred to fight is because they have a higher tolerance for pain than other breeds, not that they are more aggressive, Terriers, all terriers, are more aggressive towards other animals than other breeds. But you don't see Jack Russell fights going on, do you? I think they should probably put down all roosters as well. I hear they like to fight too.

That doesn't remove the fact that they still can be dangerous. You can have a very angry chihuahua and still nobody gets hurt or killed, but you can't say the same for an average size pitbull.

Nobody disputes that responsibility with dangerous dogs lies much with their owners. But since we can't regulate people's irresponbisibility and stupidity -- we would if we could -- the next best thing is to get rid of these animals altogether. The same goes for guns in private citizen's hands.

What isn't clear with this argument?

OldButGame
03-02-2011, 12:36 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20020791-504083.html

http://www.startribune.com/local/11588186.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/22/national/main6703350.shtml


^^^a few articles obtained easily,....
the following is an excerpt from the web article that follows the excerpt.

The deadliest dogs

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf) to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states: If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.
Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogbiteepidemic

There really isnt much of an argument to this,...these were the first 4 sites i found,....i could go on and on,...but really??...is the issue 'pitbulls'??

SempreSami
03-02-2011, 12:39 PM
Them and rottweilers are the dog of choice for the filthy chav scum around the area I'm from.

Fifth Set
03-02-2011, 12:43 PM
The great irony of this thread is that the type of emotion seen here, mainly from the ultra-passionate defenders of pit bulls, is exacerbating the problem and preventing solutions.

Whenever reasonable regulations that merely address facts (without assigning blame between humans and dogs) are adopted or even suggested, the "pit bull lobby" goes ballistic.

The result is that we do not have a clear, predictable and consistent set of rules nationally. That, in turn, means that we "solve" this in the 21st century's version of the jungle - the courtroom. Litigation on this front is going bananas, causing much bigger problems than simple breed-specific regulation. Indeed, one of the best known experts on dog bites (and the guy who runs www.dogbitelaw.com) is Ken Phillips - a personal injury lawyer!

Brettolius
03-02-2011, 12:53 PM
That doesn't remove the fact that they still can be dangerous. You can have a very angry chihuahua and still nobody gets hurt or killed, but you can't say the same for an average size pitbull.

Nobody disputes that responsibility with dangerous dogs lies much with their owners. But since we can't regulate people's irresponbisibility and stupidity -- we would if we could -- the next best thing is to get rid of these animals altogether. The same goes for guns in private citizen's hands.

What isn't clear with this argument?

It's clear that it's an unbelievably stupid argument. Are they killing or injuring nearly the amount that guns are? Are they just running wild in the street destroying people and property alike, at all times?

I mean gosh, a semi truck does a helluva lot more damage when it collides with other vehicles than a Smart car. Should we get rid of them too? I mean it is people causing these accidents, but we can't blame them right?

Brettolius
03-02-2011, 12:55 PM
The great irony of this thread is that the type of emotion seen here, mainly from the ultra-passionate defenders of pit bulls, is exacerbating the problem and preventing solutions.

Whenever reasonable regulations that merely address facts (without assigning blame between humans and dogs) are adopted or even suggested, the "pit bull lobby" goes ballistic.

The result is that we do not have a clear, predictable and consistent set of rules nationally. That, in turn, means that we "solve" this in the 21st century's version of the jungle - the courtroom. Litigation on this front is going bananas, causing much bigger problems than simple breed-specific regulation. Indeed, one of the best known experts on dog bites (and the guy who runs www.dogbitelaw.com) is Ken Phillips - a personal injury lawyer!

You're not addressing facts. Thank you.

user92626
03-02-2011, 12:58 PM
It's clear that it's an unbelievably stupid argument. Are they killing or injuring nearly the amount that guns are? Are they just running wild in the street destroying people and property alike, at all times?

I mean gosh, a semi truck does a helluva lot more damage when it collides with other vehicles than a Smart car. Should we get rid of them too? I mean it is people causing these accidents, but we can't blame them right?

Your analogies are stupid and not applicable. We can't get rid of semi trucks, ie we need them, so we have to put up with the consequences. We can get rid of pitbulls or dangerous dogs as in we do not allow poisonous snakes, aligators to be owned as pet.

There are abundant other dogs that are harmless to own as pets. Nobody dies if pitbulls vanish tomorrow.

Brettolius
03-02-2011, 01:03 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20020791-504083.html

http://www.startribune.com/local/11588186.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/22/national/main6703350.shtml


^^^a few articles obtained easily,....
the following is an excerpt from the web article that follows the excerpt.

The deadliest dogs

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf) to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states: If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.
Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogbiteepidemic

There really isnt much of an argument to this,...these were the first 4 sites i found,....i could go on and on,...but really??...is the issue 'pitbulls'??

I like the part where it says "If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed" Often? Right. Are there stats on that too? Do they secrete a poison when they bite that kills ?
I know that you have to all be aware you can skew numbers in any way to prove a point.

I'm also sure that most of you have been on the other side of the fence, speaking to someone who has formed an opinion based on hearsay and "stats" that aren't even close to having a baseline, and wondering how someone can be so willfully ignorant. That's the internet though, I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, so have a good 'un.

OldButGame
03-02-2011, 01:04 PM
It's clear that it's an unbelievably stupid argument. Are they killing or injuring nearly the amount that guns are? Are they just running wild in the street destroying people and property alike, at all times?

I mean gosh, a semi truck does a helluva lot more damage when it collides with other vehicles than a Smart car. Should we get rid of them too? I mean it is people causing these accidents, but we can't blame them right?
Good point!!...Why didnt I think of that???...in fact,..more people die in auto related deaths than by handguns so,...obviously we shouldnt concern ourselves with handguns then!!!....(or vice versa,..im taking the time to look that up,..You get the point..)

...Know when You have no argument as opposed to trying to 'force that square peg into that round hole'.

Brettolius
03-02-2011, 01:06 PM
Your analogies are stupid and not applicable. We can't get rid of semi trucks, ie we need them, so we have to put up with the consequences. We can get rid of pitbulls or dangerous dogs as in we do not allow poisonous snakes, aligators to be owned as pet.

There are abundant other dogs that are harmless to own as pets. Nobody dies if pitbulls vanish tomorrow.

You're right. Kill a bunch of innocent animals because humans are irresponsible and stupid. I bet that humans kill and maim more humans by far than any breed of animal, or all animals combined, every year. What is your solution to that genius?

Brettolius
03-02-2011, 01:08 PM
Good point!!...Why didnt I think of that???...in fact,..more people die in auto related deaths than by handguns so,...obviously we shouldnt concern ourselves with handguns then!!!....(or vice versa,..im taking the time to look that up,..You get the point..)

...Know when You have no argument as opposed to trying to 'force that square peg into that round hole'.

My overall point was that it is an incredible overreaction by people. It's not like they are stamping through town killing everyone.

maverick66
03-02-2011, 01:09 PM
I think this argument comes down to those of us who have been around dogs our entire lives and love them and those that have not. I have been around all kinds of dogs including Pitbulls and have even had some be pretty aggressive towards me. I still have no fear and can tell you that no dog breed is dangerous when properly trained and worked with.

I am a firm believer that there are very few bad dogs but a very large group of people that should not own dogs. This isnt just the people that use them for fighting but just about everyone who isnt willing to make the commitment that a dog requires.

Fifth Set
03-02-2011, 01:09 PM
You're not addressing facts. Thank you.

You obviously didn't read any of the links I provided to www.dogbitelaw.com. More facts on the breed tendencies there than you can shake a stick at.

But thanks for continuing to prove my point with all of the emotion and personal attacks against those who disagree with you.

OldButGame
03-02-2011, 01:12 PM
Well in the case of 'humans' ,...they are 'deterred' by incarceration,...so they cant use their gun, knife, or pit bull against another human. I dont think anybody denies its a combination of the breed along with owners that 'choose' the breed...(with some occasional exceptions..) And I would argue that the majority of those owners ARE keeping that animal in the same way they would keep a gun or knife.

mightyrick
03-02-2011, 01:16 PM
By your logic, my dog should be aggressive and ready to snap at anything that comes at it. But she's not.


Wrong. That isn't what my logic says. My logic says that certain breeds are predisposed for certain levels of aggressiveness. If you deny that, then you are in biological fantasy land and need to go back to school.


She adapts to the people that are around her. If our kids our running around and playful, that's how she is. If my wife and are realaxing on the couch, she is relaxing with us.

If something is bothering her, she has ways to indicate it to us without becoming angered or aggressive. Why? Because that's how she was raised.

"She has ways." What... as if she were a human? I see. So what does she do? Does she "use her words" like a good girl? You raised your girl to reason properly like a good girl? You raised your girl to be non-violent? Sorry, but you are just another pet owner who treats and views their pet as a human.


Let's keep in mind that evolution takes an exceptional amount of time. You really think that it is reasonable to say that Pit Bulls, which were previously used as nanny dogs to keep after children in the mid to late 1800s and early 1900s, have in the span of appx. 100 years completely changed their demeanor to become aggressive attack dogs?


Where did you get that info? The Pit Bull Lovers page? Give me a real reputable source that shows how Pit Bulls were the primary guardian of children. You aren't going to find it. All you are going to find is a bunch of Pit Bull advocates and humanizers who spew the same garbage justifications on their blogs.


I don't think so. What has happened? PEOPLE have changed their attitudes and treatment of the animals to create new behaviors in the breed. It has nothing to do with the breed itself. I've seen mean dogs and nice dogs of all breeds. You cannot tell me that how that dog is raised and its owner's temperament have nothing to do with it.


I know for a fact that with every pit bull attack and fatality, you already would justify it as the dog being raised improperly, the owner being irresponsible... whatever. It doesn't matter what a pit bull does, you are going to explain its behavior away. In your mind, the perfectly raised pitbull (whatever that means), would never attack anyone incorrectly. It would never make a "mistake" (animals don't make mistakes by the way -- that is a human thing). You conveniently treat the dog as a human except when it comes down to choice. That is where you give the dog a pass.

Let's be clear... these are animals. They don't think like you and me. They don't reason like you and me. Animals don't have a value system. They don't know wrong or right. Animals can be dangerous. Pit bulls, due to their physiology and default temperament can be especially dangerous.

But we'll agree to disagree on this. I'm not going to convince you that your girl isn't human, and you aren't going to convince me that your girl isn't an animal. So we'll leave it at that.

user92626
03-02-2011, 01:25 PM
You're right. Kill a bunch of innocent animals because humans are irresponsible and stupid. I bet that humans kill and maim more humans by far than any breed of animal, or all animals combined, every year. What is your solution to that genius?

OHMYGOSH, you're stupid beyond reasoning. Yes, humans kill humans by far the most, but we can't get rid of humans. So, we deal with ourselves the best we could via rules and laws. We literally CAN outlaw, get rid of, owning a pitbull. And we do not have to do so instantly by killing the ones that are in existence. Neuter them all and don't breed them, sell them anymore for pet purposes. Do we breed wolfs and tigers to sell as pets?

big bang
03-02-2011, 01:39 PM
I dont know about the problems concerning pitbulls in the US.
But here in Denmark where I live they have been illegal since the 80´s.
Our government made this completely insane law last year, know we have 14 breeds thats illegal to keep, ppl who had these breeds before the law was made can keep their dogs, but they must wear a muzzle in public and you are not allowed to breed them. The list include amstaff, american bulldog, tosa and boer boel just to name the most common. Last month they came with an onservation list including rottweiler, staffordshire bull terrier, cane corso and 8 more not so common breeds.
In Denmark there are less bite incidents concerning all the breeds than other "regular" dogs like german shepard, golden retriever and smaller breeds, but they still forced this law upon us. very sad!. I have had amstaff, american bully and cane corso. All great and very friendly dogs but still protective of my family and property. My dogs have been attacked by all sorts of "regular" dogs but never acted aggresive towards anyone.. I feel that every responsible owner is being punished just because a few idiots cant control their dogs.

Cindysphinx
03-02-2011, 01:46 PM
I honestly thought about trying to rescue a pittbull or a rottie but I live next to a lot of kids. My neighborhood has at least 2-3 kids a house so it wouldnt have been a smart decision to risk that. I trust myself and my family but when ever you have kids around everything is out the window. I cant count how many times kids have come screaming and running up to my Aussie and Jack Russel. Even with the Aussie I have to be careful as mine is 55lbs. If he jumps or bites it hurts.



See, there's an inherent contradiction there.

If pit bulls are so harmless, if they are no different than any other breed, then why would you hesitate to own a pit bull because of the presence of children?

Nah, pit bulls are different. When they bite, the consequences are severe.

user92626
03-02-2011, 02:05 PM
I dont know about the problems concerning pitbulls in the US.
But here in Denmark where I live they have been illegal since the 80´s.Our government made this completely insane law last year, know we have 14 breeds thats illegal to keep, ppl who had these breeds before the law was made can keep their dogs, but they must wear a muzzle in public and you are not allowed to breed them. The list include amstaff, american bulldog, tosa and boer boel just to name the most common. Last month they came with an onservation list including rottweiler, staffordshire bull terrier, cane corso and 8 more not so common breeds.
In Denmark there are less bite incidents concerning all the breeds than other "regular" dogs like german shepard, golden retriever and smaller breeds, but they still forced this law upon us. very sad!. I have had amstaff, american bully and cane corso. All great and very friendly dogs but still protective of my family and property. My dogs have been attacked by all sorts of "regular" dogs but never acted aggresive towards anyone.. I feel that every responsible owner is being punished just because a few idiots cant control their dogs.


This is the first time I heard about a place and laws like that, and it rhyms with my reasoning. Be thankful that your govt did that. I wish I can safely walk, run in any neighborhood without fearing being bitten by dogs (on top of getting shot, mugged, etc.)

The problem we face in the US is the same that Denmark faced. Why, do you think your govt banned pitbulls because they were simply ugly?

Re responsible owners getting punished, that seems to be the effect of most laws. It only takes a few idiots who can't tolerate a low level of alcohol and drive but now everyone can't drive while over .08.

Many drive responsibly and would never likely get into accident and even if they do they'll own up responsibly, but everyone is required to purchase insurance. What gives!?

Kobble
03-02-2011, 02:35 PM
I disagree with people who think animals have no control. My current cat had triggers that were out of a monster movie. If she heard a screech, like dragging a chair, she would attack aggressively with fully dilated eyes. For some reason she saw it as a threat, and blanked out. You also couldn't touch her when another cat had her angry, either. Now, through learning, she doesn't attack from screeches, and you can touch her even when she is on guard. My cat is very sweet, but it posed a danger to anyone unaware of her triggers. You could grab her nose, craddle her, and hang her upside down, mess with her while she eats, but when she heard a chalk boar like screech, run. That tendency was found by complete accident, and no person would have ever expected a sweet cat to turn into a crazed animal due to a squeek. Animals can unlearn aggressive behavior. Regardless, I still do what I can to prevent my cat from accidentally turning someone into a victim. I always think of the worst case scenario, and try out take it out of play.

One thing I have noticed in life is people are cocky when it comes to social skill assessment. Much like self rating in tennis. They all think they can live on the edge of danger and maintain control, because they are just so good. They can always spot a liar, a thief, sex predator, and identify danger in all forms. Too many pet owners like to believe they have an insight like Steve Irwin that allows them to thread the needle. Then, their dog attacks a child and they are left dumbfounded. Like, I don't, yo, somebody must've done the wrong thing to it (****ed it off, touched it wrong, whatever). The more mature looking type usually argue, "The dog was just protecting its territory?"
Let me tell you what really happened. You let a pair of jaws with legs have access to something good to bite. Because I certainly don't see these things running around biting everything in its path. It is like blaming the camera flashes for King Kong running in New York City.

Let me tell you, for me it would be a dream to own a Lion or Tiger. But I am not dumb enough to believe that I am immune to getting slaughtered because I have life long experience with animals, and would surely do my homework.

CCNM
03-02-2011, 02:49 PM
Cindysphinx, I too volunteer at the local animal shelter in my home town, and there are quite a few pit bulls and pit bull mixes there as well. You're right in that they are strong dogs-I am much more afraid that I will be tackled by one than bitten. I also know people who own them, and they say that they are the sweetest things. I am MUCH more afraid of Rottweilers-one "goosed" me when I was a teenager, and several years later another one charged at me.

pepka
03-02-2011, 03:21 PM
You cant blame dogs for people mistakes. Pitbulls were created to fight other dogs, not humans. My pitbull, tosa and akita are dog therapists, they love kids and people in general. Do they like other dogs, no... but i never made them do it, nor did i cared for it. That being said, fighting dogs should be put to sleep and their owners sentenced to jail.

maverick66
03-02-2011, 04:13 PM
See, there's an inherent contradiction there.

If pit bulls are so harmless, if they are no different than any other breed, then why would you hesitate to own a pit bull because of the presence of children?

Nah, pit bulls are different. When they bite, the consequences are severe.

Sorry I dont wish to frighten my neighbors. Its not a smart move to get an animal that people fear whether its warranted or not. I dont want my neighbors to grab their kids and go inside every time I let my dog outside.

They are a harmless breed but they have a terrible reputation. Just look at the bs spouted in this thread of people that are afraid of them. If I lived in a less populated area or where there wasnt young families I would get one in a second because I have no fear of the animal. However I dont wish to scare the crap out of everyone when ever I walk my dog.

SFrazeur
03-02-2011, 04:22 PM
To paraphrase: Pit Bulls don't kill people, malicious owners kill people.

-SF

user92626
03-02-2011, 04:44 PM
To paraphrase: Pit Bulls don't kill people, malicious owners kill people.

-SF

I don't know what the point of your paraphrase is.

However, if people keep saying irrelevant and pointless things, we run the risk of muddling the issue, allow opportunists to come in to defend their position irrelevantly and make it worst!!!

Asides from malicious owners, what about careless, irresponsible or just pure ignorant folks? Their dogs may appear like angles or owners keep them on a leash 9 out 10 times and just one of those times the dogs act up and maul a kid, a bystander, then what?

There's no question that malicious people must pay for their crime or ignorant folks pay for their ignorance, but it's completely unnecessary to get to that point when it can be prevented.

SFrazeur
03-02-2011, 05:33 PM
^^Expression of one's opinion. That's the point. I have the same right to post my opinion as you do.


-SF

jmverdugo
03-02-2011, 06:30 PM
I also would like to mention that by the time I owned 2 pitbulls I also owned a terrier and my nephews were 3 and 4 and they always were playing with them, besides being knocked down a few times we never had any problems at all. I know that if you take good care of a pitbulls you will only face the same problems that you face with other dogs.

Cindysphinx
03-03-2011, 03:51 AM
Regarding the silly analogies between semi trucks and pits . . .

We regulate the crap out of semi-trucks. We require specialized training/licensing, safety equipment. We have load limits. We require mud flaps. If you think you can just go buy a semi tomorrow and park it in front of your house, you are much mistaken.

Yet any moron can buy a pit bull. The moron needs no training in assessing whether the particular dog has any temperament issues. The moron might or might not comply with laws requiring leashes and fencing.

And if the moron makes a mistakes as morons often do, someone can get maimed or killed.

Nah, we have to get pits out of the hands of morons. And since we have yet to devise a system to figure out who the morons are in advance, the better solution is simply to ban pits or make their ownership so burdensome and expensive that morons go off and find something else to do.

Speaking of which, there is a moron in my family. This moron decided he liked Rottis. Why? Because when he walked down the street with the Rotti, people were afraid and crossed the street to avoid the dog. The moron liked this -- it made him feel like Da Man.

During the life of the Rotti, I refused to take my small children over there for a visit. The moron was deeply offended by this. Well, that's too dang bad. If you want people to come visit, don't get a pit or a rotti. Eventually, the Rotti died. So the moron got another Rotti, and during the lifetime of that Rotti the moron remained deeply offended that other family members and myself refused to come and visit.

Now, they don't have a dog. So we come to visit.

equinox
03-03-2011, 04:22 AM
known dangerous dogs should be bread out of existence.

myself and small dog were attacked and the owner didn't care. my dog on a lead was being mauled and i literally had to pickup my small dog to protect it. in the process i received large gashes on my hand from the savage dog jumping up to continue its attack.

you know what the owners response was when he finally came across and called his dog off?

to blame me for my bleeding hand wound and say should have let them fight it out..wtf

then asked for his details and which he refused to provide. told him i was reporting the attack to local council.

i still have the healed white scaring lines.

ryushen21
03-03-2011, 05:24 AM
Wrong. That isn't what my logic says. My logic says that certain breeds are predisposed for certain levels of aggressiveness. If you deny that, then you are in biological fantasy land and need to go back to school.

If this were a case of animals in the wild, I certainly would have no problem agreeing with your argument here. But it's not. And my wife is a biology teacher (degree in biology, minor in chem) so is she in fantasy land if she agrees that how an animal is raised has a significant impact on it's behavior?

"She has ways." What... as if she were a human? I see. So what does she do? Does she "use her words" like a good girl? You raised your girl to reason properly like a good girl? You raised your girl to be non-violent? Sorry, but you are just another pet owner who treats and views their pet as a human.

Do you own any animals? If so, do they just squat a pee on the floor inside or do they go stand by the door so you can let them out? Your cynical condescension only invalidates any arguments you make. The fact that my dog can signal when she needs to go out, when she is hungry, and when something is bothering her is not all that outstanding and is, get your fragile psyche prepared for this, COMMON among pet owners of all domesticated breeds.

Where did you get that info? The Pit Bull Lovers page? Give me a real reputable source that shows how Pit Bulls were the primary guardian of children. You aren't going to find it. All you are going to find is a bunch of Pit Bull advocates and humanizers who spew the same garbage justifications on their blogs.

Perhaps you should recall that long before the internet there were these things called books. They were often large and cumbersome and made out of paper. They contain a great wealth of information. Try opening one sometime so that you might find a clue.

I know for a fact that with every pit bull attack and fatality, you already would justify it as the dog being raised improperly, the owner being irresponsible... whatever. It doesn't matter what a pit bull does, you are going to explain its behavior away. In your mind, the perfectly raised pitbull (whatever that means), would never attack anyone incorrectly. It would never make a "mistake" (animals don't make mistakes by the way -- that is a human thing). You conveniently treat the dog as a human except when it comes down to choice. That is where you give the dog a pass.

Here's what I'll say...I would not deny that a Pit or Rottie or any other large dog for that matter has a higher potential to harm someone/something based only on it's physical attributes. They are strong, muscular dogs with large mouths and teeth so, of course, the potential is there.

The perfectly raised dog, of any breed, would never attack, nip, pull etc etc but things happen because it's just about impossible to raise a dog perfectly. They may exhibit behaviors that we don't like (nipping, peeing in the house, etc.) but that is where it becomes our responsibility as owners and humans to correct that behavior in our animals rather than punishing them for it.


Let's be clear... these are animals. They don't think like you and me. They don't reason like you and me. Animals don't have a value system. They don't know wrong or right. Animals can be dangerous. Pit bulls, due to their physiology and default temperament can be especially dangerous.

I actually agree with you on some stuff here and I disagree as well. Animal reasoning is much simpler. And yes animals can be dangerous especially in the hands of the wrong people. I can't agree that animals don't have a value system, otherwise, no matter how much training, their behaviors would never change. I do not believe pit bulls have a default temperament. I have worked with enough of them and have seen how they can be and seen how they have changed.

But we'll agree to disagree on this. I'm not going to convince you that your girl isn't human, and you aren't going to convince me that your girl isn't an animal. So we'll leave it at that.

There's all I'm going to say on the matters. No need to continue further. Like you said, we have to agree to disagree on this.

max
03-03-2011, 06:17 AM
known dangerous dogs should be bread out of existence.

myself and small dog were attacked and the owner didn't care. my dog on a lead was being mauled and i literally had to pickup my small dog to protect it. in the process i received large gashes on my hand from the savage dog jumping up to continue its attack.

you know what the owners response was when he finally came across and called his dog off?

to blame me for my bleeding hand wound and say should have let them fight it out..wtf

then asked for his details and which he refused to provide. told him i was reporting the attack to local council.

i still have the healed white scaring lines.

There have been some bad pit bull incidents around my county.

max
03-03-2011, 06:19 AM
I think it might be a case here in which MANY bad pit bull owners are making the breed "notorious" . . . to get a cheap buzz off people's fear of their dog.

Of course, SOME pit bull owners might treat their dogs very well. The problem owners are the problem. It would be nice to make the dog less trendy: maybe if Elton John and his boyfriend had some, it would do the trick.

user92626
03-03-2011, 07:53 AM
Regarding the silly analogies between semi trucks and pits . . .

We regulate the crap out of semi-trucks. We require specialized training/licensing, safety equipment. We have load limits. We require mud flaps. If you think you can just go buy a semi tomorrow and park it in front of your house, you are much mistaken.

Yet any moron can buy a pit bull. The moron needs no training in assessing whether the particular dog has any temperament issues. The moron might or might not comply with laws requiring leashes and fencing.

And if the moron makes a mistakes as morons often do, someone can get maimed or killed.

Nah, we have to get pits out of the hands of morons. And since we have yet to devise a system to figure out who the morons are in advance, the better solution is simply to ban pits or make their ownership so burdensome and expensive that morons go off and find something else to do.

Speaking of which, there is a moron in my family. This moron decided he liked Rottis. Why? Because when he walked down the street with the Rotti, people were afraid and crossed the street to avoid the dog. The moron liked this -- it made him feel like Da Man.

During the life of the Rotti, I refused to take my small children over there for a visit. The moron was deeply offended by this. Well, that's too dang bad. If you want people to come visit, don't get a pit or a rotti. Eventually, the Rotti died. So the moron got another Rotti, and during the lifetime of that Rotti the moron remained deeply offended that other family members and myself refused to come and visit.

Now, they don't have a dog. So we come to visit.

Well-said, Cindy :smile:

I really don't hate dogs, but I AM tramatized by many of them (the big ones) because growing up I was constantly bitten one after another! Everytime was always ...an "accident"!!!!!

HunterST
03-03-2011, 08:00 AM
Boy, I dunno.

I've mentioned that I am volunteering at WARL (Washington Animal Rescue League). Guess what dogs seem to be in need of more rescuing than any other breed? Pit bulls.

I'll come right out and say it: I am not a fan of the breed. I think they are more likely to bite and to hurt. Plus, they are unbelievably strong. Even the claws on the puppies are like talons.

Part of the volunteering is "dog walking" and socializing. You leash a dog that needs to go out, you take it it to a fenced area and play with it for 10 minutes and let it do its business, and then you take it back to its den and go get the next dog. Not exciting, but it needs to be done.

The pit bulls are my least favorite dogs to take out. They are so strong that I can struggle to control them on a leash, although I can control my own 60-pound Aussie just fine. My teen son comes with me, and we work in tandem. A pit bull started jumping up and biting at my son's shirt, and I had to kind of punch the dog in the ribs to make it stop. And remember, we volunteers don't interact with the dogs until they have passed their temperament assessment -- so this dog was one of the "good" pit bulls.

In looking for a dogs, there are so many better choices. I don't understand the desire of anyone to own a pitbull, honestly.

Honestly, the most ignorant post I've ever seen. Pitbulls need rescuing more than any other dog because they're the most likely to be abused than any other dog. There was a study done about the most "people friendly" breeds of dogs. Number one was the golden retriever, and number two was the pitbull.

So, you see, all of your breeds of dogs that you say are "better choices" than a pitbull are actually LESS friendly towards people. In fact, part of why pitbulls are a breed of choice for fighting is because they have virtually no natural aggression towards people. They are powerful dogs and the humans can abuse them as much as they want without much fear of the dogs turning on them.

You may say "then why am I always hearing about people being attacked by pitbulls?" Well, largely because average people have no skill in determining the breed of a given dog. People are bitten, and they just assume or say it was a pitbull.

There's so much research and personal testimonies that well cared for pitbulls are loving, calm, peaceful dogs. Yet, you think one experience you had at an animal rescue disproves all of that.

HunterST
03-03-2011, 08:09 AM
Regarding the silly analogies between semi trucks and pits . . .

We regulate the crap out of semi-trucks. We require specialized training/licensing, safety equipment. We have load limits. We require mud flaps. If you think you can just go buy a semi tomorrow and park it in front of your house, you are much mistaken.

Yet any moron can buy a pit bull. The moron needs no training in assessing whether the particular dog has any temperament issues. The moron might or might not comply with laws requiring leashes and fencing.

And if the moron makes a mistakes as morons often do, someone can get maimed or killed.

Nah, we have to get pits out of the hands of morons. And since we have yet to devise a system to figure out who the morons are in advance, the better solution is simply to ban pits or make their ownership so burdensome and expensive that morons go off and find something else to do.

Speaking of which, there is a moron in my family. This moron decided he liked Rottis. Why? Because when he walked down the street with the Rotti, people were afraid and crossed the street to avoid the dog. The moron liked this -- it made him feel like Da Man.

During the life of the Rotti, I refused to take my small children over there for a visit. The moron was deeply offended by this. Well, that's too dang bad. If you want people to come visit, don't get a pit or a rotti. Eventually, the Rotti died. So the moron got another Rotti, and during the lifetime of that Rotti the moron remained deeply offended that other family members and myself refused to come and visit.

Now, they don't have a dog. So we come to visit.

This is more like it. Aggressive pitbulls are the fault of moronic PEOPLE. PEOPLE force them to be aggressive. What needs to be banned is idiots that want to abuse them.

That's why all of the major pitbull rescues are doing full house visits these days. They want to ensure that not only are the people not going to abuse the dogs, but that they have the means to give them a happy, safe life.

Honestly, I have a pitbull and several of my friends do as well. All of them have been around small children, many house guests, other small dogs (such as pomeranians) and even kittens. There has never been a single act of aggression.

In fact, a house guest once brought their two Chihuahuas to my house. The small dogs started growling, barking, and even nipping at my pitbull WHILE he was eating. My dog didn't even begin to fight or growl back.

Cindysphinx
03-03-2011, 08:14 AM
deleted . . . .

mightyrick
03-03-2011, 08:15 AM
Honestly, the most ignorant post I've ever seen. Pitbulls need rescuing more than any other dog because they're the most likely to be abused than any other dog. There was a study done about the most "people friendly" breeds of dogs. Number one was the golden retriever, and number two was the pitbull.

So, you see, all of your breeds of dogs that you say are "better choices" than a pitbull are actually LESS friendly towards people. In fact, part of why pitbulls are a breed of choice for fighting is because they have virtually no natural aggression towards people. They are powerful dogs and the humans can abuse them as much as they want without much fear of the dogs turning on them.

You may say "then why am I always hearing about people being attacked by pitbulls?" Well, largely because average people have no skill in determining the breed of a given dog. People are bitten, and they just assume or say it was a pitbull.

There's so much research and personal testimonies that well cared for pitbulls are loving, calm, peaceful dogs. Yet, you think one experience you had at an animal rescue disproves all of that.

The question is whether or not the average owner who owns the average pitbull should be required to do more than the average owner who owns the average toy poodle.

The answer is obviously YES.

If a toy poodle "goes nuts", it is unlikely to kill anything. Sure it may bite, but its bite is far less harsh than a pitbull.

It only matters how much damage the animal can do.

When it comes to guns, people are famous for saying... "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." While that is true, it takes different levels of training and/or background checks to own various kinds of firearms. Some levels of firearms you aren't allowed to even own at all. Some are just TOO dangerous.

The same follows for dogs. The dog that is most likely and/or able to cause a fatality (which would be pitbulls, rottweilers) or severe injury due to dog bite should require much more rigor around ownership than dogs that are very unlikely to cause a fatality or severe injury.

The logic follows. Bombs require more rigor and certification than AK-47s. AK-47s require more rigor than a handgun. Pitbulls require more rigor than german shephards. German shephards require more rigor than retrievers. Retrievers require more rigor than toy poodles. This is simply based on the potential damage due to "mis-use".

Cindysphinx
03-03-2011, 08:16 AM
Honestly, the most ignorant post I've ever seen. Pitbulls need rescuing more than any other dog because they're the most likely to be abused than any other dog. There was a study done about the most "people friendly" breeds of dogs. Number one was the golden retriever, and number two was the pitbull.

So, you see, all of your breeds of dogs that you say are "better choices" than a pitbull are actually LESS friendly towards people. In fact, part of why pitbulls are a breed of choice for fighting is because they have virtually no natural aggression towards people. They are powerful dogs and the humans can abuse them as much as they want without much fear of the dogs turning on them.

You may say "then why am I always hearing about people being attacked by pitbulls?" Well, largely because average people have no skill in determining the breed of a given dog. People are bitten, and they just assume or say it was a pitbull.

There's so much research and personal testimonies that well cared for pitbulls are loving, calm, peaceful dogs. Yet, you think one experience you had at an animal rescue disproves all of that.

^OK, now that was lame.

Really now. You want us to believe that people who are mauled by pit bulls don't know what a pit bull is? It was really a beagle, but they are so ignorant that they thought the dog clamped onto their thigh was a pit?

"Most people friendly breed?" My, that sounds scientific. How about the hard data about how many deaths and serious injuries are attributable to pits?

It makes no difference at all -- not even a little bit -- whether pits maim and kill because they have been abused. That is completely beside the point. For whatever reason, these dogs go off.

Nor does it matter that historically this and historically that and back at the turn of the century this and hundreds of years ago that. The dogs are what they are. They are strong, can have an aggressive temperament, can change from sweet to dangerous in the blink of an eye, and they can clamp on and be impossible to release until their prey is mortally wounded.

I suspect a lot of pits are adopted by people who mean well and just don't think it can happen to them.

jmverdugo
03-03-2011, 08:19 AM
Re reading all these posts, seems that none of the anti - pitbull people have ever owned one and all of the pro - pitbull people have onwed one.

Again, it is all in the onwer of the animal, not the animal. I have a perfect example of this, the most dangerous dog in my neighborghood used to be a German Sheppard, when the dog was growing up one of the owner's kids hitted the animal with a pipe in the head and every time you rised a hand in fron of the dog he would attack. One time he ran out of the house and my across the street neighbor was outside (16 years old by that time), the dog attack him, broke his arm in 3 parts and his leg in 7 parts, my father took my friend to the hospital. As you can see any big dog can attack and do a lot of damage if the onwer doesnt take good care of the animal. It just happen to that most pitbull owners are really stupid, it seems that not more than some poster on this thread thread.... how can you be in favor of erase from the earth a specie is way too much for me to understand.

SFrazeur
03-03-2011, 08:27 AM
It makes no difference at all -- not even a little bit -- whether pits maim and kill because they have been abused. That is completely beside the point. For whatever reason, these dogs go off.


It is not just solely abuse. It is abusive training many are trained and conditioned to attack and kill by owners. Yes. Some animals will "go off." However, it is not because they are a broken bread, but because a dog gets the wrong idea in it's head or overreacts to a situation. Such as seeing more threat than really exists. In fact, both animals and ordinary people can "go off." But they do it for a reason. You seem to be just assuming that Pit Bulls are made to go off without reason or provocation.

-SF

CDestroyer
03-03-2011, 08:27 AM
I love dogs but I wont go near a pit bull, won't let one near my dogs and wouldn't allow my kids to get one.Its a huge liability.I have never met a reasonable, intelligent pit bull owner.

hollywood9826
03-03-2011, 08:29 AM
I would be weary of a rescued pit bull. For the sole reason that more than likely the dog was used or trained for fighting.

But I know too many people who have raised Pits from puppies and in no case has any one of them done any harm to anyone.

Pits are loyal to a fault. When the owners teach them to fight, the pit will lay its life on the line to make the owners happy.

Fifth Set
03-03-2011, 08:30 AM
Speaking of which, there is a moron in my family. This moron decided he liked Rottis. Why? Because when he walked down the street with the Rotti, people were afraid and crossed the street to avoid the dog. The moron liked this -- it made him feel like Da Man.

During the life of the Rotti, I refused to take my small children over there for a visit. The moron was deeply offended by this. Well, that's too dang bad. If you want people to come visit, don't get a pit or a rotti. Eventually, the Rotti died. So the moron got another Rotti, and during the lifetime of that Rotti the moron remained deeply offended that other family members and myself refused to come and visit.

Now, they don't have a dog. So we come to visit.

Thanks for sharing, this is a pretty good story.

I say good on you for taking a principled position with your moron relative. One of the realities that contributes to the problem is that many people become bashful about the facts because they don't want to offend the dog owner, make waves, speak up, etc.

All this does is further enable the dysfunctional behavior of those dog owners who are looking for some macho self esteem boost, see dogs as people or whatever.

See a dog owner who is a jerk? He/she is harming the cause of every dog and every rational dog owner. So, speak up folks!

spaceman_spiff
03-03-2011, 08:31 AM
I'm not going to join in the debate about whether some breeds of dogs are bad or good or whatever, but I do have a question.

Has anyone ever met someone who believed in "dog control" (for the lack of a better term) because of the danger to others but was vehemently opposed to gun control? To me, the two seem like they would go hand in hand.

I'm not looking for an argument about whether or not we should have regulations for either. I'm just curious if anyone has ever known someone with what appears to me to be opposing beliefs.


Please, no arguments about gun control. Just a simple yes (and short explanation) or no.

hollywood9826
03-03-2011, 08:32 AM
I love dogs but I wont go near a pit bull, won't let one near my dogs and wouldn't allow my kids to get one.Its a huge liability.I have never met a reasonable, intelligent pit bull owner.

Come to my area that's all we got. There are more great pitbull owners than bad ones. Its just sad the dog is used the way it is to give them such a bad wrap.

I would not hesitate to get a pit bull. They are not my first breed of choice becasue I prefer bigger dogs like Newfoundlands, and Bernese Mountain dogs. But I am not scarred of Pit Bulls. 99% of the time they are the nicest calmest dogs in the bunch.

SFrazeur
03-03-2011, 08:33 AM
Re reading all these posts, seems that none of the anti - pitbull people have ever owned one and all of the pro - pitbull people have onwed one.


I guess you could call me Pro Pit Bull. However, I have never owned one.
I did grow up in a "bad neighborhood" where I saw first hand the negative conditioning that Pit Bulls and Rottweilers received. Myself, I have always had Dalmatians.

-SF

HunterST
03-03-2011, 08:36 AM
^OK, now that was lame.

Really now. You want us to believe that people who are mauled by pit bulls don't know what a pit bull is? It was really a beagle, but they are so ignorant that they thought the dog clamped onto their thigh was a pit?

"Most people friendly breed?" My, that sounds scientific. How about the hard data about how many deaths and serious injuries are attributable to pits?

It makes no difference at all -- not even a little bit -- whether pits maim and kill because they have been abused. That is completely beside the point. For whatever reason, these dogs go off.

Nor does it matter that historically this and historically that and back at the turn of the century this and hundreds of years ago that. The dogs are what they are. They are strong, can have an aggressive temperament, can change from sweet to dangerous in the blink of an eye, and they can clamp on and be impossible to release until their prey is mortally wounded.

I suspect a lot of pits are adopted by people who mean well and just don't think it can happen to them.

Once again, everything you posted is based on a complete ignorance of the topic. How about you stop believing all of the urban myths you hear an do some research before you condemn an entire breed of dogs?

Yes. People are ignorant about breeds of dogs. Obviously they do not mistake them for beagles. However, I would highly doubt the average persons ability to identify a boxer, american bulldog, shar pei, let alone all of the mixes out there. Now, we're not even talking about average people looking at a picture of a dog. They're being attacked and are thus frightened, frantic, and trying to get away. You're going to trust this persons evaluation of a dog's breed, a task usually reserved only for vets.

There's a reason that any authority on animals will tell you that pitbulls are not inherently aggressive and that people are the cause of problems. Because it's true.

Pitbulls CAN NOT lock their jaws. In fact, german shepherds have a stronger bite force than pitbulls. These are the typical arguments from ignorant parties that I hear all the time.

What you're doing is absolutely no different than saying that African Americans are natural criminals. If you look at the hard numbers, the majority of crimes, including aggressive offenses, are perpetrated by African Americans. However, any logical person recognizes that outside and societal factors are the reason for these statistics.

Now, I already know you're going to say "comparing racism to this is wrong" However, it is exactly the same thought process. To be clear, I'm not at all accusing you of racism. I certainly don't believe that. However, you've adopted the same, flawed logic.

We all agree that pitbulls need responsible owners. However, it is NOT because the dogs are inherently prone to attacks on humans. It's because abusive humans are more prone to seek out pitbulls.

HunterST
03-03-2011, 08:39 AM
It is not just solely abuse. It is abusive training many are trained and conditioned to attack and kill by owners. Yes. Some animals will "go off." However, it is not because they are a broken bread, but because a dog gets the wrong idea in it's head or overreacts to a situation. Such as seeing more threat than really exists. In fact, both animals and ordinary people can "go off." But they do it for a reason. You seem to be just assuming that Pit Bulls are made to go off without reason or provocation.

-SF

Very, very good post.

mightyrick
03-03-2011, 08:43 AM
Re reading all these posts, seems that none of the anti - pitbull people have ever owned one and all of the pro - pitbull people have onwed one.


What does that imply? I have read where many pedophiles use the same rationalization. Until you've "loved" a child, don't rush to judge.

Do such statements validate or invalidate anything?

One doesn't have to have personal experience participating in an activity in order to be qualified to interpret the results of that participation.

SFrazeur
03-03-2011, 08:46 AM
Once again, everything you posted is based on a complete ignorance of the topic. How about you stop believing all of the urban myths you hear an do some research before you condemn an entire breed of dogs?

Yes. People are ignorant about breeds of dogs. Obviously they do not mistake them for beagles. However, I would highly doubt the average persons ability to identify a boxer, american bulldog, shar pei, let alone all of the mixes out there. Now, we're not even talking about average people looking at a picture of a dog. They're being attacked and are thus frightened, frantic, and trying to get away. You're going to trust this persons evaluation of a dog's breed, a task usually reserved only for vets.

There's a reason that any authority on animals will tell you that pitbulls are not inherently aggressive and that people are the cause of problems. Because it's true.

Pitbulls CAN NOT lock their jaws. In fact, german shepherds have a stronger bite force than pitbulls. These are the typical arguments from ignorant parties that I hear all the time.

What you're doing is absolutely no different than saying that African Americans are natural criminals. If you look at the hard numbers, the majority of crimes, including aggressive offenses, are perpetrated by African Americans. However, any logical person recognizes that outside and societal factors are the reason for these statistics.

Now, I already know you're going to say "comparing racism to this is wrong" However, it is exactly the same thought process. To be clear, I'm not at all accusing you of racism. I certainly don't believe that. However, you've adopted the same, flawed logic.

We all agree that pitbulls need responsible owners. However, it is NOT because the dogs are inherently prone to attacks on humans. It's because abusive humans are more prone to seek out pitbulls.





Rottweiler: 328 pounds of force.
German Shepherd: 238,
Pit Bull: 235 pounds of force.


http://dogbitesinformationandstatistics.blogspot.com/2008/01/canine-bite-force.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9693626?ordinalpos=17&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

-SF

HunterST
03-03-2011, 08:48 AM
What does that imply? I have read where many pedophiles use the same rationalization. Until you've "loved" a child, don't rush to judge.

Do such statements validate or invalidate anything?

One doesn't have to have personal experience participating in an activity in order to be qualified to interpret the results of that participation.

Once again, it's ignorance. A fear of the unknown. You've never been around pitbulls to see that they are loving, peacful dogs. You've only seen biased, inaccurate reports.

As I said, most racist people do not have contact with the members of the race they discriminate against. They can look at the hard facts and see that African Americans commit crimes at a higher rate than whites. No reasonable person, however, would believe that African Americans are predisposed to be criminals.

maverick66
03-03-2011, 08:53 AM
Things this thread have tought me.

1. People who own pitbulls are being told they dont know about pitbulls.
2. Cindy thinks anyone who owns a pitbull or a rottie is a moron.
3. Fear of dogs is still very prevalent.
4. No matter how many times they are told that the dog is not the issue they wanna ban and kill every single one.

mightyrick
03-03-2011, 08:55 AM
As I said, most racist people do not have contact with the members of the race they discriminate against. They can look at the hard facts and see that African Americans commit crimes at a higher rate than whites. No reasonable person, however, would believe that African Americans are predisposed to be criminals.

Well, it is thread drift, but I'll use it to illustrate a point.

The reality is that African Americans are more predisposed to become criminals. And that is a tragedy that is the result of inadequate resources with regards to environment, education, opportunity... as well as pure racial discrimination. Things that have gone on here in the USA for hundreds of years.

Unlike many, I choose not to ignore that fact. I fully accept it and I vote for individuals people who will deal with that problem... instead of ignoring it.

I can choose to either ignore or deal with the fatality rates of pit bulls or rottweilers... compared to other major breeds.

If I choose not to ignore it, then I have to come up with a way to deal with it. A solution. That is what we should be discussing here.

jmverdugo
03-03-2011, 09:02 AM
What does that imply? I have read where many pedophiles use the same rationalization. Until you've "loved" a child, don't rush to judge.

Do such statements validate or invalidate anything?

One doesn't have to have personal experience participating in an activity in order to be qualified to interpret the results of that participation.

I am just saying that some people do not have first hand experience with these dogs and they are moved by the statistics that actually come from the main problem which is bad owners. How many of those dogs on those statistics you are interpreating were trained to fight or were bought with the sole purpose to scare people? all of them...

I am saying that if you get one puppy and raise it as a regular dog you will see things differently.

What dog would you buy if you want to scare people? a Pitbull of course, so you train it to scare people. But if you buy any other big dog and training it to attack and scare people it would work too.

What I am telling is the dogs are not mean by nature, they are strong and fast and have a high resistant to pain so that is why stupid people use them to dog fights. Also they are not the first dogs raised to fight, Sharpeis, Bullterries, Bull Dogs, and others were also used on dog fights.

user92626
03-03-2011, 09:13 AM
HunterST,

Your posts reek with ignorance and missing the point.

So what if pitbull and other large dogs have half the agressiveness, bad temperment that a chihuahua does when their bites are alot worse, even lethal??

Re your point that these dogs need to be understood, in other words people are ignorant about them, do people need that as a basic requirement to function in a society? H ell NO. What good does it do for anyone to understand someone else's dog? It serves no purpose!


We all agree that pitbulls need responsible owners. However, it is NOT because the dogs are inherently prone to attacks on humans. It's because abusive humans are more prone to seek out pitbulls.


So we're all in agreement with that statement, and we all should agree that not everyone is responsible. Would you agree that there should be a strict regulation on owning these dogs? Regulation that is kinda like with gun but hopefully even stricter -- for both guns and dogs -- because as it stands right now gun "incidents" are still a big problem. Agree?

HunterST
03-03-2011, 09:18 AM
Well, it is thread drift, but I'll use it to illustrate a point.

The reality is that African Americans are more predisposed to become criminals. And that is a tragedy that is the result of inadequate resources with regards to environment, education, opportunity... as well as pure racial discrimination. Things that have gone on here in the USA for hundreds of years.

Unlike many, I choose not to ignore that fact. I fully accept it and I vote for individuals people who will deal with that problem... instead of ignoring it.

I can choose to either ignore or deal with the fatality rates of pit bulls or rottweilers... compared to other major breeds.

If I choose not to ignore it, then I have to come up with a way to deal with it. A solution. That is what we should be discussing here.

Very good point. However, when I say predisposed, I mean before they are born. Some people carry the false belief that there is something in the DNA of pitbulls that makes them likely to attack people.

What is needed is to ensure that abusive people are not getting dogs. Obviously pitbulls are at a higher risk of being sought out by abusers, but I think all dogs should be protected from neglectful or abusive owners.

jmverdugo
03-03-2011, 09:21 AM
Let's put it this way, if you ban Pitbulls stupid people will find another breed to use, what to do then?

HunterST
03-03-2011, 09:25 AM
HunterST,

Your posts reek with ignorance and missing the point.

So what if pitbull and other large dogs have half the agressiveness, bad temperment that a chihuahua does when their bites are alot worse, even lethal??

Re your point that these dogs need to be understood, in other words people are ignorant about them, do people need that as a basic requirement to function in a society? H ell NO. What good does it do for anyone to understand someone else's dog? It serves no purpose!





So we're all in agreement with that statement, and we all should agree that not everyone is responsible. Would you agree that there should be a strict regulation on owning these dogs? Regulation that is kinda like with gun but hopefully even stricter -- for both guns and dogs -- because as it stands right now gun "incidents" are still a big problem. Agree?


I never said they needed to be understood. I don't care if you're scared of my dog or not. However, when people start trying to enact laws that will infringe upon my right to have him, you better damn well know your facts.

Why is it relevant that pitbulls are not aggressive towards people? You really can't come up with the relevance of that fact on your own? People constantly purport that pitbulls are the most aggressive and attack-prone dogs there are, and it's just not true. When people are basing their ideas off of an incorrect perception, that's significant, right?

Yes, there should be restrictions on owners to protect dogs. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However, the "anti-pitbull" people on this thread seem to have ideas that are dangerously similar to the people who want them banned.

ryushen21
03-03-2011, 09:33 AM
Regarding the silly analogies between semi trucks and pits . . .

We regulate the crap out of semi-trucks. We require specialized training/licensing, safety equipment. We have load limits. We require mud flaps. If you think you can just go buy a semi tomorrow and park it in front of your house, you are much mistaken.

Yet any moron can buy a pit bull. The moron needs no training in assessing whether the particular dog has any temperament issues. The moron might or might not comply with laws requiring leashes and fencing.

And if the moron makes a mistakes as morons often do, someone can get maimed or killed.

Nah, we have to get pits out of the hands of morons. And since we have yet to devise a system to figure out who the morons are in advance, the better solution is simply to ban pits or make their ownership so burdensome and expensive that morons go off and find something else to do.

Speaking of which, there is a moron in my family. This moron decided he liked Rottis. Why? Because when he walked down the street with the Rotti, people were afraid and crossed the street to avoid the dog. The moron liked this -- it made him feel like Da Man.

During the life of the Rotti, I refused to take my small children over there for a visit. The moron was deeply offended by this. Well, that's too dang bad. If you want people to come visit, don't get a pit or a rotti. Eventually, the Rotti died. So the moron got another Rotti, and during the lifetime of that Rotti the moron remained deeply offended that other family members and myself refused to come and visit.

Now, they don't have a dog. So we come to visit.

Absolutely. I am completely with you on this. I would be all in favor of there being tougher restrictions on adopting, buying and breeding pit bulls.

I think that there should be a mandatory criminal background check and home visit as part of the application or purchase process. I also think that part of the agreement should require the dog to be spayed/neutered (usually so the case in adoption), have mandatory professional obedience training and require the dog to through the AKC Canine Good Citizen certification.

If those measures were taken, I guarantee you that most of the reports and bad rap that Pits get would disappear.

ryushen21
03-03-2011, 09:40 AM
I love dogs but I wont go near a pit bull, won't let one near my dogs and wouldn't allow my kids to get one.Its a huge liability.I have never met a reasonable, intelligent pit bull owner.

That is a sad thing to hear. I hope some day you get the chance to meet a responsible owner and their good pit bull. If you were in my area, I would let you meet mine in a heartbeat.

I would be weary of a rescued pit bull. For the sole reason that more than likely the dog was used or trained for fighting.

But I know too many people who have raised Pits from puppies and in no case has any one of them done any harm to anyone.

Pits are loyal to a fault. When the owners teach them to fight, the pit will lay its life on the line to make the owners happy.

Sadly a lot of Pits rescued from fighting rarely get the chance to be rehabilitated and I firmly believe that they can have a great life once they have unlearned the malicious behavior they were taught.

max
03-03-2011, 09:41 AM
I love dogs but I wont go near a pit bull, won't let one near my dogs and wouldn't allow my kids to get one.Its a huge liability.I have never met a reasonable, intelligent pit bull owner.

I agree very much with the first part of this. I think it makes sense. The last sentence, though, I'd not agree with: certainly some are sensible, etc. people; the problem owners are the ones wanting to be gangstas.

Heck, for my part, I'd like to see rap music ended as well as making it less "notorious"/ glamorous to have a mean pit bull. I can't figure out why many people work hard to look antisocial.

ryushen21
03-03-2011, 09:47 AM
Things this thread have tought me.

1. People who own pitbulls are being told they dont know about pitbulls.
2. Cindy thinks anyone who owns a pitbull or a rottie is a moron.
3. Fear of dogs is still very prevalent.
4. No matter how many times they are told that the dog is not the issue they wanna ban and kill every single one.

Lol. That made me laugh. But it is apparently and sadly too true.

Re breed confusion, there are a lot of breeds that look like pits and can easily be mistaken from them. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself. See how many tries it takes you to find the Pit Bull.

Find the Pit Bull (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html)

angharad
03-03-2011, 10:11 AM
Well, it is thread drift, but I'll use it to illustrate a point.

The reality is that African Americans are more predisposed to become criminals. And that is a tragedy that is the result of inadequate resources with regards to environment, education, opportunity... as well as pure racial discrimination. Things that have gone on here in the USA for hundreds of years.



But is that based on genetics or environment? If you took two kids and put them in the same situation - a loving family, a good neighborhood and school, lots of opportunity to further their education - is the African American kid more likely to be a criminal? Similarly, if those two kids are put in a different situation - bad neighborhood, lots of crime within the family, bad school system - is the Caucasian kid less likely to be a criminal?

maverick66
03-03-2011, 10:13 AM
But is that based on genetics or environment? If you took two kids and put them in the same situation - a loving family, a good neighborhood and school, lots of opportunity to further their education - is the African American kid more likely to be a criminal? Similarly, if those two kids are put in a different situation - bad neighborhood, lots of crime within the family, bad school system - is the Caucasian kid less likely to be a criminal?

Its the argument that closet racists like to use. What they are really saying is we are superior because look at these stats. I am sure he will come back with the I have a black friend excuse next.:)

GPB
03-03-2011, 10:20 AM
Re breed confusion, there are a lot of breeds that look like pits and can easily be mistaken from them. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself. See how many tries it takes you to find the Pit Bull.

Find the Pit Bull (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html)

I would call many of these "pitt bulls." Wow.

user92626
03-03-2011, 10:34 AM
If I see those in photo 15, 22 charging at me for any reason, I'm not gonna stand there to find out what breed they are!!!

Dog owners, please share what values you see out of these dogs? Can't you get them from a chihuahua or any dog at similar size?? :)

Gimmick
03-03-2011, 10:50 AM
If I see those in photo 15, 22 charging at me for any reason, I'm not gonna stand there to find out what breed they are!!!

Dog owners, please share what values you see out of these dogs? Can't you get them from a chihuahua or any dog at similar size?? :)

It would be alot harder on my knees and back to throw frisbee with a chihuahua. Not to mention being dangerous for the chihuahua with some of the heavier frisbees.

jmverdugo
03-03-2011, 11:04 AM
If I see those in photo 15, 22 charging at me for any reason, I'm not gonna stand there to find out what breed they are!!!

Dog owners, please share what values you see out of these dogs? Can't you get them from a chihuahua or any dog at similar size?? :)

Exactly but when the time comes to tell the story to your friends (or the police) 4 out 5 people will say they were attacked by a pitbull and that may not be the case.

Cindysphinx
03-03-2011, 11:07 AM
Things this thread have tought me.

1. People who own pitbulls are being told they dont know about pitbulls.
2. Cindy thinks anyone who owns a pitbull or a rottie is a moron.
3. Fear of dogs is still very prevalent.
4. No matter how many times they are told that the dog is not the issue they wanna ban and kill every single one.

5. Maverick is having trouble following what people are saying in this thread.

Cindysphinx
03-03-2011, 11:13 AM
If I see those in photo 15, 22 charging at me for any reason, I'm not gonna stand there to find out what breed they are!!!

Dog owners, please share what values you see out of these dogs? Can't you get them from a chihuahua or any dog at similar size?? :)

Exactly.

I have an Australian Shepherd. He is sweet and lovable. And you know what would happen if ownership of Aussies were banned tomorrow because Aussies were attacking people right and left?

I'd get a different dog next time I was looking for a dog. Bearded Collie, Portuguese Water Dog, Wheaton Terrier, doesn't much matter.

So why do pit owners dig in? Why do they care to defend this breed to the point of absurdity? It's a macho thing, mostly. And a political thing ("You'll have to pry my pit from my cold dead hands.")

Whatever. We simply need to start holding all dog owners strictly liable in criminal court any time a dog attacks a person. Big injury? Big jail time.

As an owner of an Aussie, I'm Ok with that.

spaceman_spiff
03-03-2011, 11:14 AM
Dog owners, please share what values you see out of these dogs? Can't you get them from a chihuahua or any dog at similar size?? :)

I generally get along quite well with all sorts of dogs and cats (even my brother's paranoid schizo cat will let me pet him as long as I don't make any sudden movements), but I have never seen a chihuahua that was nice to anyone but the owner.

In fact, quite a lot of the smaller dogs I've seen are quite agressive towards everyone but the owner. I'm not sure if it is their fear of larger beings or what, but they seem to constantly bark and growl at everyone. My neighbor's yorkie barks up a storm at just about everyone who goes past when it's being walked. It's all bark and no bite, but that still doesn't mean it's not terribly annoying.

I'd never own a chihuahua, yorkie, or poodle based on the constant yapping they do towards everyone and everything.

Stick with cats, people.

jmverdugo
03-03-2011, 11:21 AM
[/b]

Exactly.

I have an Australian Shepherd. He is sweet and lovable. And you know what would happen if ownership of Aussies were banned tomorrow because Aussies were attacking people right and left?

I'd get a different dog next time I was looking for a dog. Bearded Collie, Portuguese Water Dog, Wheaton Terrier, doesn't much matter.

So why do pit owners dig in? Why do they care to defend this breed to the point of absurdity? It's a macho thing, mostly. And a political thing ("You'll have to pry my pit from my cold dead hands.")

I personally defend them because I have had them and I know for a fact that they are not a dangerous breed per nature. You do not know all of the people in here so I wonder how can you make such an statement.

Whatever. We simply need to start holding all dog owners strictly liable in criminal court any time a dog attacks a person. Big injury? Big jail time.

As an owner of an Aussie, I'm Ok with that.

Completely agree with this, again, dogs are not the problem, owners are.

ryushen21
03-03-2011, 11:25 AM
[/b]

Exactly.

I have an Australian Shepherd. He is sweet and lovable. And you know what would happen if ownership of Aussies were banned tomorrow because Aussies were attacking people right and left?

I'd get a different dog next time I was looking for a dog. Bearded Collie, Portuguese Water Dog, Wheaton Terrier, doesn't much matter.

So why do pit owners dig in? Why do they care to defend this breed to the point of absurdity? It's a macho thing, mostly. And a political thing ("You'll have to pry my pit from my cold dead hands.")

Whatever. We simply need to start holding all dog owners strictly liable in criminal court any time a dog attacks a person. Big injury? Big jail time.

As an owner of an Aussie, I'm Ok with that.

I can't speak for all Pit owners but I will say that I personally speak up for them because, in my opinion, the dogs do not get a fair shot to be seen for how great a dog they can be. All that people see is what happens with the fights and assume that all Pits are like that. They aren't and no one else is going to take up the cause to make sure that they get a fair chance.

If they banned Pits tomorrow, you'd better believe that I would protest and exercise my rights to the fullest extent on behalf of my dog. If at the end of the day nothing happened or changed then I would make arrangements for my Pit to stay somewhere that she wouldn't be faced with euthanization.

GPB
03-03-2011, 11:29 AM
If I see those in photo 15, 22 charging at me for any reason, I'm not gonna stand there to find out what breed they are!!!

Dog owners, please share what values you see out of these dogs? Can't you get them from a chihuahua or any dog at similar size?? :)

Maybe the fact that chihuahuas are yappy, annoying, ferocious ankle biters! I HATE it when they yap yap yap yap yap nonstop.

Look, if you see ANY dog charging at you for any reason, don't stand there to find out what breed it is. But if you see those dogs acting non-aggressive, either on or off a leash, there should be no fear at all!

I don't know any of those breeds' specific traits, but I have a German Shepherd who is like a daughter to me (full disclosure: I have no kids). She's fun to play with, she's VERY obedient, she's a mother towards our cats, and loving toward us as all get-out. My wife and I have had her since puppy-hood about 6 years ago.

We met a guy who had a blue pitt -- a beautiful puppy, full of energy but not rage. The pup was a rescue; her parents were fighting dogs. You'd think there would be problems, but the pup would run and play with our Shepherd, no problems. She had a ton of energy and loved to wrestle with me. No problems. When people would walk by, the puppy would sit pretty just like our dog, until we said they could play again. No problems.

It's amazing what the right owners can do for a dog.

---

Oh, and I wanted to echo something said already in this thread: people need to teach their kids proper dog etiquette. NEVER run up to a "stranger" dog trying to pet it, and NEVER run away from a dog who's chasing you. They will either defend or play in those situations, and neither is good for the child.

GPB
03-03-2011, 11:31 AM
We simply need to start holding all dog owners strictly liable in criminal court any time a dog attacks a person. Big injury? Big jail time.

I'd support that. 100%. If you own the animal, you need to control the animal.

HunterST
03-03-2011, 11:53 AM
[/b]

Exactly.

I have an Australian Shepherd. He is sweet and lovable. And you know what would happen if ownership of Aussies were banned tomorrow because Aussies were attacking people right and left?

I'd get a different dog next time I was looking for a dog. Bearded Collie, Portuguese Water Dog, Wheaton Terrier, doesn't much matter.

So why do pit owners dig in? Why do they care to defend this breed to the point of absurdity? It's a macho thing, mostly. And a political thing ("You'll have to pry my pit from my cold dead hands.")

Whatever. We simply need to start holding all dog owners strictly liable in criminal court any time a dog attacks a person. Big injury? Big jail time.

As an owner of an Aussie, I'm Ok with that.

You have provided absolutely no evidence that anyone is defending them to the point of absurdity.

Pitbulls are wonderful, loving, loyal dogs. That's why so many people that have had one choose the breed over and over again. Celebrities like Michael J. Fox, Jon Stewart, Rachel Ray, Brad Pitt and Jessica Alba all choose the breed. Not because they're stubborn, but because they love the dogs.

Honestly, it's appalling how much generalizing and, frankly, discrimination you are exhibiting in this discussion. All pitbulls are inherently killers and their owners only want them to prove how macho they are. There's a lot of hate and anger behind those opinions.

Maybe you'd feel differently if people were constantly trying to put forth legislation that could take your dogs away. There have been places where all pitbulls, even if they have not committed a single violent act, are taken away.

Cindysphinx
03-03-2011, 11:59 AM
Maybe we need some more actual facts. We should start by dismissing the theory that the bad rap of pits is due to people confusing them with other dogs:

**********

Clifton report (2009)

Mr. Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People News,[3] has compiled from press reports a log of dog attack deaths and severe bites in the United States and Canada from September 1982 through December 22, 2009. The study methodology counted attacks "by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, [that] have been kept as pets." Mr. Clifton acknowledges that the log "is by no means a complete list of fatal or otherwise serious dog attacks" since it excludes "dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, ...attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight..."[4]

The study found reports of 345 people killed by dogs over the 27-year period, of which "pit bull terrier", or mixes thereof, were reportedly responsible for killing 159, or about 46 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 70 fatalities or about 20 percent of the study-identified fatalities; in aggregate, pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 66% of the study-identified fatalities. In that same study, the number of serious maimings by a "pit bull terrier" was 778; the number of serious maimings by a Rottweiller was 244. The number of attributed fatalities to the German Shepherd dog was 9. The number of serious maimings by a German Shepherd was 50.[4]

Mr. Clifton concluded that

"Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."[4]


******************

Are any of you folks old enough to remember the Ford Pinto? Remember the furor it caused when everyone learned that they had a tendency to burst into flames in accidents? People were up in arms about it.

There were 27 deaths due to fires in Ford Pintos.

I guess pits are more dangerous than exploding cars! ;)

maverick66
03-03-2011, 12:03 PM
5. Maverick is having trouble following what people are saying in this thread.

So you didnt repeatedly call someone you know who has a Rottie a moron? Please explain what you really meant.



Honestly, it's appalling how much generalizing and, frankly, discrimination you are exhibiting in this discussion. All pitbulls are inherently killers and their owners only want them to prove how macho they are. There's a lot of hate and anger behind those opinions.

Maybe you'd feel differently if people were constantly trying to put forth legislation that could take your dogs away. There have been places where all pitbulls, even if they have not committed a single violent act, are taken away.

You are arguing with people who have no clue and really dont care.

ryushen21
03-03-2011, 12:07 PM
You have provided absolutely no evidence that anyone is defending them to the point of absurdity.

Pitbulls are wonderful, loving, loyal dogs. That's why so many people that have had one choose the breed over and over again. Celebrities like Michael J. Fox, Jon Stewart, Rachel Ray, Brad Pitt and Jessica Alba all choose the breed. Not because they're stubborn, but because they love the dogs.

Honestly, it's appalling how much generalizing and, frankly, discrimination you are exhibiting in this discussion. All pitbulls are inherently killers and their owners only want them to prove how macho they are. There's a lot of hate and anger behind those opinions.

Maybe you'd feel differently if people were constantly trying to put forth legislation that could take your dogs away. There have been places where all pitbulls, even if they have not committed a single violent act, are taken away.

I've been reading your posts hunter and I appreciate the passion that you obviously have for the breed.

But, you have to realize that yes, there are some people who defend things blindly and stupidly and that a lot of those people are the ones that we talk about not needing to own dogs because they do not care for them properly. They are the ones giving the breed and their owners a bad reputation.

Cindy really hasn't said anything inflammatory and it seems like you just have it out for her.

I'll defend Pits to great lengths but I can still see value and reason in a lot of the stuff Cindy has said.

ryushen21
03-03-2011, 12:12 PM
Maybe we need some more actual facts. We should start by dismissing the theory that the bad rap of pits is due to people confusing them with other dogs:

**********

Clifton report (2009)

Mr. Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People News,[3] has compiled from press reports a log of dog attack deaths and severe bites in the United States and Canada from September 1982 through December 22, 2009. The study methodology counted attacks "by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, [that] have been kept as pets." Mr. Clifton acknowledges that the log "is by no means a complete list of fatal or otherwise serious dog attacks" since it excludes "dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, ...attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight..."[4]

The study found reports of 345 people killed by dogs over the 27-year period, of which "pit bull terrier", or mixes thereof, were reportedly responsible for killing 159, or about 46 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 70 fatalities or about 20 percent of the study-identified fatalities; in aggregate, pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 66% of the study-identified fatalities. In that same study, the number of serious maimings by a "pit bull terrier" was 778; the number of serious maimings by a Rottweiller was 244. The number of attributed fatalities to the German Shepherd dog was 9. The number of serious maimings by a German Shepherd was 50.[4]

Mr. Clifton concluded that

"Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."[4]


******************

Are any of you folks old enough to remember the Ford Pinto? Remember the furor it caused when everyone learned that they had a tendency to burst into flames in accidents? People were up in arms about it.

There were 27 deaths due to fires in Ford Pintos.

I guess pits are more dangerous than exploding cars! ;)

Something to keep in mind with research is that it can be easily skewed in the favor of what the researcher wants the results to be. I'm not saying that his study is not valid by any means but that should be considered.

Also, the definitions used in that are somewhat vague. An animal control expert may just think a dog looks like a pit bull and therefore labels it that way. And I would also be interested in knowing what "evident expertise" means because that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

jmverdugo
03-03-2011, 12:12 PM
Maybe we need some more actual facts. We should start by dismissing the theory that the bad rap of pits is due to people confusing them with other dogs:

**********

Clifton report (2009)

Mr. Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People News,[3] has compiled from press reports a log of dog attack deaths and severe bites in the United States and Canada from September 1982 through December 22, 2009. The study methodology counted attacks "by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, [that] have been kept as pets." Mr. Clifton acknowledges that the log "is by no means a complete list of fatal or otherwise serious dog attacks" since it excludes "dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, ...attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight..."[4]

The study found reports of 345 people killed by dogs over the 27-year period, of which "pit bull terrier", or mixes thereof, were reportedly responsible for killing 159, or about 46 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 70 fatalities or about 20 percent of the study-identified fatalities; in aggregate, pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 66% of the study-identified fatalities. In that same study, the number of serious maimings by a "pit bull terrier" was 778; the number of serious maimings by a Rottweiller was 244. The number of attributed fatalities to the German Shepherd dog was 9. The number of serious maimings by a German Shepherd was 50.[4]

Mr. Clifton concluded that

"Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."[4]


******************

Are any of you folks old enough to remember the Ford Pinto? Remember the furor it caused when everyone learned that they had a tendency to burst into flames in accidents? People were up in arms about it.

There were 27 deaths due to fires in Ford Pintos.

I guess pits are more dangerous than exploding cars! ;)

Ok fine, we can dismiss it, no problem... it will not change anything, I still think that if a Pitbull Terrier is raised the same way as any other dog there shouldn't be any problem at all, same with any other breed.

Cindysphinx
03-03-2011, 12:14 PM
So you didnt repeatedly call someone you know who has a Rottie a moron? Please explain what you really meant.



You said:

2. Cindy thinks anyone who owns a pitbull or a rottie is a moron.

I did not say that anyone who owns a pit or a rottie is a moron.

I said any moron can buy a pit. (This is beyond dispute, right?) I also said that my particular family member was a moron on this subject.

That is quite different from saying everyone who has a pit is a moron.

Cindysphinx
03-03-2011, 12:28 PM
I hope this chart reproduces, as I'm not sure of the formatting. I thought this made for interesting reading. Really puts a human face on all these boring numbers and dry statistics:

****************

Fatalities reported in 2010
Date↓ Breed↓ Victim's name↓ Victim's age↓ Circumstances↓
January 13 Pit bull-type Makayla Woodard 5 years Killed by neighbor's two pit bulls[156]
January 9 Pit bull-type Omar Martinez 3 years Killed by his family's dog[157]
January 17 Pit bull-type Johnny Wilson 56 years Killed by his daughter's four dogs[158]
February 12 Pit bull-type Anastasia Bingham 6 years Killed while walking to a friend's home[159]
February 18 Siberian Husky Robert D. Hocker 11 days Killed by his family's dog[160]
February 20 Pit bull-type Christine Stabb 38 years Killed by her mother's dog[161]
February 20 American Bulldog Violet Serenity Haaker 3 years Killed by one of her mother's dogs[162]
February 22 Pit bull-type "Jane Doe" 5 days Killed by her family's dog[163]
March 1 Rottweiler Ashlynn Anderson 4 years Killed by her stepfather's dog[164]
March 4 Pit bull-type Ethel Horton 65 years Killed while defending her husband against an attack by her nephew's dog[165]
March 8 Rottweiler Justin Lopez 8 months Killed by his family's two new dogs[166]
April 14 Pit bull-mix Thomas Carter, Jr. 7 days Killed by his family's dog[167]
May 20 Mixed-breed dog Krystal Brink 3 years Killed when she wandered into her neighbor's sled dog yard[168]
May 28 Pit bull-type Nathan Aguirre 2 years Killed by his family's dog[169]
June 3 Pit bull-type Savannah Gragg 9 years Killed in her home while opening the door to let the dog outside[170]
June 15 Bullmastiff-mix

Pit bull-Boxer mix
Rottweiler-mix
Michael Winters 30 years Killed by his nine dogs (5 Bullmastiff, 3 Pit bull-Boxer-mix, 1 Rottweiler-mix)[171]
July 12 Labrador Retriever-mix

German Shepherd Dog-Husky-mix
Kyle Holland 5 years Killed by the dogs of his mother's live-in boyfriend[172]
July 20 Pit bull-type William Parker 71 years Suffered a fatal heart attack when attacked by two of his neighbor's dogs[173]
July 22 Pit bull-type Jacob Bisbee 2 years Killed by three of his step-grandfather's dogs[174]. The dogs had decapitated the family's pet Akita and killed the family's pet Chihuahua and parrot within the past year.[175]
July 31 German Shepherd Dog-mix Aaron Carlson 2 years Killed by his family's dog[176]
August 19 Pit bull-type Tracey Payne 46 years Killed by a pack of pit bull-type dogs that had been abandoned by their owner.[177]
August 22 Pit bull-type Jerry Yates 69 years Killed by 2 pit bulls a tenant was keeping on his land.[178]
August 25 Pit bull-type

Mixed-breed dog
Jason Walter 7 years Killed by a neighbor's three pit bull-type dogs and a mixed breed dog while staying at the neighbor's residence.[179]
August 26 Boxer Taylor Becker 4 years Killed by her family's dog.[180]
September 4 Pit bull-type Mattie Daugherty 85 years Killed by her daughter's 9-year-old dog.[181]
October 13 Pit bull-type Rev. John Reynolds sr. 84 years Killed by his son's pack of 17 dogs.[182]
October 14 Pit bull-type Edward Mitchell 67 years Died of complications of his injuries inflicted by his family's dog.[183]
October 24 Pit bull-type Justin Valentin[184] 3 days Killed by his family's dog[185]
November 2 Pit bull-Weimaraner-mix Christina Casey 53 years Killed in her own yard by her neighbor's two dogs[186]
November 10 Pit bull-type Kaden Muckleroy 2 years Killed by his grandfather's dog[187][188]
November 15 Mixed-breed dog Cason Bryant 5 years Killed in his own yard by five of his neighbor's dogs[189]
November 15 German Shepherd Dog Shirley Lou Bird 79 years Killed by her own dog[190]
November 16 Pit bull-type Justin Lane 25 years Killed by his family's dog[191]
[edit]

HunterST
03-03-2011, 12:38 PM
Maybe we need some more actual facts. We should start by dismissing the theory that the bad rap of pits is due to people confusing them with other dogs:

**********

Clifton report (2009)

Mr. Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People News,[3] has compiled from press reports a log of dog attack deaths and severe bites in the United States and Canada from September 1982 through December 22, 2009. The study methodology counted attacks "by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, [that] have been kept as pets." Mr. Clifton acknowledges that the log "is by no means a complete list of fatal or otherwise serious dog attacks" since it excludes "dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, ...attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight..."[4]

The study found reports of 345 people killed by dogs over the 27-year period, of which "pit bull terrier", or mixes thereof, were reportedly responsible for killing 159, or about 46 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 70 fatalities or about 20 percent of the study-identified fatalities; in aggregate, pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 66% of the study-identified fatalities. In that same study, the number of serious maimings by a "pit bull terrier" was 778; the number of serious maimings by a Rottweiller was 244. The number of attributed fatalities to the German Shepherd dog was 9. The number of serious maimings by a German Shepherd was 50.[4]

Mr. Clifton concluded that

"Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."[4]


******************

Are any of you folks old enough to remember the Ford Pinto? Remember the furor it caused when everyone learned that they had a tendency to burst into flames in accidents? People were up in arms about it.

There were 27 deaths due to fires in Ford Pintos.

I guess pits are more dangerous than exploding cars! ;)

I've seen the site where you got that information and it is extremely unreliable and/or biased.

For example, they subscribe to the "dog bite epidemic theory" which is a myth.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/

jmverdugo
03-03-2011, 12:40 PM
^^ It really brings very little to the discussion.

1. It doesn't say anything about how those dogs were raised.

2. It doesn't say anything about what actually happened. For instance, I know a family that used to own a Grand Danes, the dog was playing with their daughter and by accident the dog cut the kid aorta and the kid died. Basically: March 16 Grand Danes type Lilly Doe 5 years old killed by the family dog.

Those are just more numbers.

HunterST
03-03-2011, 12:51 PM
I really wonder what Cindy is trying to prove. Everyone knows that pitbulls are abused at a higher rate than other breeds and, therefore, that very small percentage of them are prone to violence. But what does she want to see happen?

Pitbulls are already the most euthenized breed in America. In fact, most animal control centers don't even give pitbulls a chance to be adopted anymore. They are killed the moment they are caught. I can't imagine that is what you want to see, Cindy. More innocent dogs killed because of abuse by humans. So what is it? I think every pitbull owner would love it if there was a background check done on pitbull owners. Maybe that would ensure they weren't being forced to fight to the death and live in terrible conditions.

So what are you statements and statistic trying to prove? That those of us who have pitbulls and know the joy they bring into our lives shouldn't love our dogs?

hollywood9826
03-03-2011, 12:52 PM
Lol. That made me laugh. But it is apparently and sadly too true.

Re breed confusion, there are a lot of breeds that look like pits and can easily be mistaken from them. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself. See how many tries it takes you to find the Pit Bull.

Find the Pit Bull (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html)

Good link.

I was watching somehting about dog fighting and they mentions Presa Canario's as a breed these people are using to replace pit bulls in the fight ring.

mightyrick
03-03-2011, 01:29 PM
Very good point. However, when I say predisposed, I mean before they are born. Some people carry the false belief that there is something in the DNA of pitbulls that makes them likely to attack people.


Many dog breeds are aggressive. Some are more aggressive than others. The pit bull is not the most aggressive. It also is not the least aggressive. There are ankle-biter breeds that are more aggressive than pit bulls. There are breeds that are much more docile than pit bulls.

The big difference is that ankle-biters don't kill people when they have a bout of territoriality.


What is needed is to ensure that abusive people are not getting dogs. Obviously pitbulls are at a higher risk of being sought out by abusers, but I think all dogs should be protected from neglectful or abusive owners.

So I agree. Not for all dogs. But just breeds that are significantly more dangerous than others.

Now the question is how you do that. What would be done to implement such a plan? What would be required?

My first draft of such a plan for owners of potentially dangerous dogs would be:

1) The dog must undergo a psychological evaluation to determine if it is fit for placement into a home.
2) Before the dog is allowed into the new owners home, the dog must be sent away to a certified dog training camp for education or reeducation. This should be funded by the prospective owner.
3) The certified dog trainer must certify that the dog is fit for placement into a home.
4) The prospective owner must acquire a rigorious dog handling certification. This certification must be renewed every two years.

If #1, #2, or #3 fails, then the dog should be euthanized.

If #4 fails, then the dog should not be sold to the owner. If the dog is already in the owner's home, then the dog should be removed from the home.

If we had those laws in place, I'd feel much more comfortable.

user92626
03-03-2011, 01:49 PM
My first draft of such a plan for owners of potentially dangerous dogs would be:

1) The dog must undergo a psychological evaluation to determine if it is fit for placement into a home.
2) Before the dog is allowed into the new owners home, the dog must be sent away to a certified dog training camp for education or reeducation. This should be funded by the prospective owner.
3) The certified dog trainer must certify that the dog is fit for placement into a home.
4) The prospective owner must acquire a rigorious dog handling certification. This certification must be renewed every two years.

If #1, #2, or #3 fails, then the dog should be euthanized.

If #4 fails, then the dog should not be sold to the owner. If the dog is already in the owner's home, then the dog should be removed from the home.

If we had those laws in place, I'd feel much more comfortable.

Agreed. Let's see if pitbull lovers like HunterST love the species enough to call for such laws thus save them dogs from being unnecessarily abused, euthanized, etc.

For me I'm not gonna hold my breath. I'll join the group that calls for a complete ban on this breed. You can blame the morons who don't know how to handle this dog.

Cindysphinx
03-03-2011, 02:58 PM
I really wonder what Cindy is trying to prove. Everyone knows that pitbulls are abused at a higher rate than other breeds and, therefore, that very small percentage of them are prone to violence. But what does she want to see happen?

What am I trying to prove? Mostly that you're wrong! :)

Seriously. What I am trying to prove is that every pit owner who says the standard line ("My dog wouldn't hurt a fly, 'cause I raised him right") is no different from the owners of these dogs. These were not fighting dogs. They were somebody's widdle baby.

Pitbulls are already the most euthenized breed in America. In fact, most animal control centers don't even give pitbulls a chance to be adopted anymore. They are killed the moment they are caught. I can't imagine that is what you want to see, Cindy. More innocent dogs killed because of abuse by humans. So what is it? I think every pitbull owner would love it if there was a background check done on pitbull owners. Maybe that would ensure they weren't being forced to fight to the death and live in terrible conditions.

Easy.

If I were in charge, pit bull breeding/ownership would be illegal. Poof. Just like that. Just like Canada. Ownership of a pit bull would require special licensing and permission and fencing/training requirements that would be so burdensome that most folks wouldn't bother.

Existing pits would be grandfathered in if and only if the owner went and registered the dog (no charge). That way we could know for the future who was in compliance with the law and who wasn't. Existing pit owners would have to post a bond against injury their dogs cause. Don't register your dog? Then you will be at the government's mercy if you are caught owning the dog, and you might lose it. (And don't think your neighbors wouldn't turn you in.)

That's off the top of my head, but I think that would be a good start. Same rules for Rots, BTW.

OldButGame
03-03-2011, 03:15 PM
whether the dog (pit) is dangerous by makeup, whether its dangerous due to its owners, or wheter its some of both,....bottom line is 'its dangerous'.
And Cindy raised a great point regarding holding 'owners' responsible.
theres a reason that they are not commonly kept as 'family dogs'. Probably the same reason the people that DO have them keep them. And to the people that report all the 'fond memories' of pits they've known and resent people thinking badly of pits, You can blame the feelings in this thread on those that keep pits for more nefarious reasons.

user92626
03-03-2011, 03:33 PM
Speaking of rottie's...

My wife's sister's family owns two huge rotties which stand as tall as an adult kneeling down but they call them "babies". They sent us photos and bragged about how cute they are. !!!!

Just this afternoon they invited my wife and our little daughter over for dinner, and my wife planned to go cuz I'll not be home afterwork ...(ahem important recreational bizness :)) But I just begged my wife not to go, because the dogs are just kept loosely in the backyard and my little daughter is truly uncontrollable. Now my wife is upset and wants me to cancel my plan, too, if she's gonna stay home!

HunterST
03-03-2011, 03:58 PM
What am I trying to prove? Mostly that you're wrong! :)

Seriously. What I am trying to prove is that every pit owner who says the standard line ("My dog wouldn't hurt a fly, 'cause I raised him right") is no different from the owners of these dogs. These were not fighting dogs. They were somebody's widdle baby.



Easy.

If I were in charge, pit bull breeding/ownership would be illegal. Poof. Just like that. Just like Canada. Ownership of a pit bull would require special licensing and permission and fencing/training requirements that would be so burdensome that most folks wouldn't bother.

Existing pits would be grandfathered in if and only if the owner went and registered the dog (no charge). That way we could know for the future who was in compliance with the law and who wasn't. Existing pit owners would have to post a bond against injury their dogs cause. Don't register your dog? Then you will be at the government's mercy if you are caught owning the dog, and you might lose it. (And don't think your neighbors wouldn't turn you in.)

That's off the top of my head, but I think that would be a good start. Same rules for Rots, BTW.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/ncrc-publications/

You need to give that a read. It goes over how pretty much every reason for banning pitbulls is flawed.

For one, of the 32 fatal dog attacks in canada, only one was from a pitbull.

Your desired laws are so disproportionate to the problem that it's ridiculous. You're saying that, because a tiny percentage of pitbulls have bitten people, that ownership should be completely outlawed.

You have no reason to say that pitbulls who attacked "were someone's widdle baby" and then went bezerk. You don't know their backgrounds, you don't know if they were abused, you don't know if they were provoked, you just know that you have a personal vendetta against them.

Quite frankly, if I could sum up your position, it would be that you lack compassion. You don't care that the dogs are abused and killed at a higher rate than any other dog? You don't care that a pitbull found on the street is killed as soon as animal control takes it in?

You need to consider the fact that everyone who owns a pitbull raves about their lovingness. Listen to them rather than brushing them off as silly. If you're going to go research these things, look for information that will provide insight into the topic rather than hunting for statistic to prove yourself right.

HunterST
03-03-2011, 04:00 PM
whether the dog (pit) is dangerous by makeup, whether its dangerous due to its owners, or wheter its some of both,....bottom line is 'its dangerous'.
And Cindy raised a great point regarding holding 'owners' responsible.
theres a reason that they are not commonly kept as 'family dogs'. Probably the same reason the people that DO have them keep them. And to the people that report all the 'fond memories' of pits they've known and resent people thinking badly of pits, You can blame the feelings in this thread on those that keep pits for more nefarious reasons.

They are very common family dogs. The vast majority of pitbulls never commit a single violent act against humans. I know at least 6 families that have had pitbulls and none of them have ever had a single issue.

Kobble
03-03-2011, 05:15 PM
What am I trying to prove? Mostly that you're wrong! :)

Seriously. What I am trying to prove is that every pit owner who says the standard line ("My dog wouldn't hurt a fly, 'cause I raised him right") is no different from the owners of these dogs. These were not fighting dogs. They were somebody's widdle baby.



Easy.

If I were in charge, pit bull breeding/ownership would be illegal. Poof. Just like that. Just like Canada. Ownership of a pit bull would require special licensing and permission and fencing/training requirements that would be so burdensome that most folks wouldn't bother.

Existing pits would be grandfathered in if and only if the owner went and registered the dog (no charge). That way we could know for the future who was in compliance with the law and who wasn't. Existing pit owners would have to post a bond against injury their dogs cause. Don't register your dog? Then you will be at the government's mercy if you are caught owning the dog, and you might lose it. (And don't think your neighbors wouldn't turn you in.)

That's off the top of my head, but I think that would be a good start. Same rules for Rots, BTW.
That will not stop dog fighting. If you ever lived or worked in a rural area you would know that most people don't even know their neighbors. Guys will keep illegal dogs on their property like Mexicans. It will help prevent some suburban attacks, but dog fighting isn't a public event. The only way to stop it is undercover police.

I worked in a rural area. I delivered products to horse breeders, rabbits, birds, and other small animals. Never dogs. Hmmm? Maybe someone doesn't want any outsiders seeing the grounds.

I would simply make huge sentences for fighting, and jail time for brutal dog attacks. Everyone knows dogs bite.

OldButGame
03-03-2011, 05:59 PM
They are very common family dogs. The vast majority of pitbulls never commit a single violent act against humans. I know at least 6 families that have had pitbulls and none of them have ever had a single issue.
Read the paper. Watch the news. Listen to the radio news.

OldButGame
03-03-2011, 06:06 PM
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/ncrc-publications/

You need to give that a read. It goes over how pretty much every reason for banning pitbulls is flawed.

For one, of the 32 fatal dog attacks in canada, only one was from a pitbull.

Your desired laws are so disproportionate to the problem that it's ridiculous. You're saying that, because a tiny percentage of pitbulls have bitten people, that ownership should be completely outlawed.

You have no reason to say that pitbulls who attacked "were someone's widdle baby" and then went bezerk. You don't know their backgrounds, you don't know if they were abused, you don't know if they were provoked, you just know that you have a personal vendetta against them.

Quite frankly, if I could sum up your position, it would be that you lack compassion. You don't care that the dogs are abused and killed at a higher rate than any other dog? You don't care that a pitbull found on the street is killed as soon as animal control takes it in?

You need to consider the fact that everyone who owns a pitbull raves about their lovingness. Listen to them rather than brushing them off as silly. If you're going to go research these things, look for information that will provide insight into the topic rather than hunting for statistic to prove yourself right.
When You can punch in 'Pitbull' and get all that kind of information,...thats not 'hunting for statistics',...thats discovering what is associated with that topic (pitbull),..funny how loving pets, and great family dogs dont seem to come up much with that word.

Cindysphinx
03-03-2011, 06:08 PM
Speaking of rottie's...

My wife's sister's family owns two huge rotties which stand as tall as an adult kneeling down but they call them "babies". They sent us photos and bragged about how cute they are. !!!!

Just this afternoon they invited my wife and our little daughter over for dinner, and my wife planned to go cuz I'll not be home afterwork ...(ahem important recreational bizness :)) But I just begged my wife not to go, because the dogs are just kept loosely in the backyard and my little daughter is truly uncontrollable. Now my wife is upset and wants me to cancel my plan, too, if she's gonna stay home!

Three words: Stand. Your. Ground.

You will have to go through the same things when learn you kid is having playdates in homes with unsecured guns.

You will have to go through the same things when your kid is old enough to ride around in cars with kids who just got your license.

When your kid's safety is involved, stand your ground. Every time.

Cindysphinx
03-03-2011, 06:21 PM
That will not stop dog fighting. If you ever lived or worked in a rural area you would know that most people don't even know their neighbors. Guys will keep illegal dogs on their property like Mexicans. It will help prevent some suburban attacks, but dog fighting isn't a public event. The only way to stop it is undercover police.

I worked in a rural area. I delivered products to horse breeders, rabbits, birds, and other small animals. Never dogs. Hmmm? Maybe someone doesn't want any outsiders seeing the grounds.

I would simply make huge sentences for fighting, and jail time for brutal dog attacks. Everyone knows dogs bite.

Like I said, my ideas would be a good start. Maybe additional laws would be needed for your situation. Fine by me.

You know, I live in a fairly affluent area. I have lived in this house for 17 years. Do you know how many times I have seen a pitbull anywhere in my area? Not once. You see a lot of people walking a lot of dogs, but folks in affluent areas don't own pits.

Why is that? Why is that pits are so common in low-income areas? Is it that wealthy people don't want lovable pets?

Hunter, as for you statements about my lack of compassion for pits . . . I'm not the one who filled the animal rescue facility with pits and pit mixes. You crack down on ownership of these dogs and their numbers will decline over time. I say it is the so-called pit bull lovers who are causing the situation we have where we have too many of these dogs, far more than folks are willing to adopt because they keep perpetuating the falsehood that pits are no more dangerous than other breeds despite the stone cold facts to the contrary.

I looked at the link you provided. It seems to be an official-looking web site by one lady. She doesn't seem to be doing any real research, just tossing out criticisms of research done by others. She convinced me of nothing.

I say the pit bull advocates need to get busy and start combing the newspapers for reports of all the people taken down and killed/maimed by spaniels, mastiffs, poodles and dalmations.

pug
03-03-2011, 06:47 PM
Didn't have to look too hard to find these from the last couple of days.


http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/03/03/pit-bulls-attack-kill-des-moines-couples-dog/

http://www.thereporter.com/rss/ci_17527700?source=rss

http://www.wthr.com/story/14172979/state-police-employee-shoots-dog-at-indianapolis-airport

http://www.wjactv.com/news/27067595/detail.html

jmverdugo
03-03-2011, 07:11 PM
Ok, so we ban the pitbull and erase them from the earth, what then? would this stop the dog fighting? would this make people smarter? . They will just pick another dog and train it to fight, and again we would kill that one too?...

ryushen21
03-04-2011, 04:02 AM
My first draft of such a plan for owners of potentially dangerous dogs would be:

1) The dog must undergo a psychological evaluation to determine if it is fit for placement into a home.
2) Before the dog is allowed into the new owners home, the dog must be sent away to a certified dog training camp for education or reeducation. This should be funded by the prospective owner.
3) The certified dog trainer must certify that the dog is fit for placement into a home.
4) The prospective owner must acquire a rigorious dog handling certification. This certification must be renewed every two years.

If #1, #2, or #3 fails, then the dog should be euthanized.

If #4 fails, then the dog should not be sold to the owner. If the dog is already in the owner's home, then the dog should be removed from the home.

If we had those laws in place, I'd feel much more comfortable.

You may be surprised, but I actually agree with you on most of this and would be in favor of it. If it's an older dog and not a puppy, then the psych evaluation would be invaluable especially in terms of finding out general temperament and if the dog has any dangerous triggers.

I think training is absolutely essential in the ownership of any dog and should be required for ownership of any breed of dog and the trainer will definitely have the best idea for how that dog will be. However, I do think the owner needs to present during some of the training so that the dog can learn to recognize them as their owner and authority.

I also think that there should be a home visit by a local or state authority (SPCA, etc) to assure that the home environment is fit for the animal to live in and that random inspections should be a part of ownership as well.

With the certification bit, I think that if you apply it to one kind of dog, you should apply it to all dogs and hold everyone to the same standard.

So look at that. We seem to agree on this.

The only part that I would vehemently oppose is the part about euthanasia. If a dog were unable to pass those steps, I would not move immediately to putting the dog down. The dog should be remanded to a no kill shelter so that rehabilitation/training can be continued.

chrischris
03-04-2011, 04:19 AM
Limbaugh reminds me of a pitbull thats on the less clever end.

mightyrick
03-04-2011, 05:07 AM
With the certification bit, I think that if you apply it to one kind of dog, you should apply it to all dogs and hold everyone to the same standard.

So look at that. We seem to agree on this.

The only part that I would vehemently oppose is the part about euthanasia. If a dog were unable to pass those steps, I would not move immediately to putting the dog down. The dog should be remanded to a no kill shelter so that rehabilitation/training can be continued.

We agree on some, but not all. I don't think you need to go through these steps for basically harmless breeds. The reason for dog handling certification is merely to reduce the chance of serious injury or fatalities to people or other dogs. It is silly to require someone with a pug to go through that.

We'll agree to disagree on euthanasia. I'd rather euthanize a dog after trying to save its life in order to spend the money on saving another dog that never had the same chance.

We don't have an endless amount of money. So let's spend the little money we do have on the homeless dogs that never had any previous chances. Rather than trying to save a dog that has already failed the litmus test.

ryushen21
03-04-2011, 05:42 AM
We agree on some, but not all. I don't think you need to go through these steps for basically harmless breeds. The reason for dog handling certification is merely to reduce the chance of serious injury or fatalities to people or other dogs. It is silly to require someone with a pug to go through that.

We'll agree to disagree on euthanasia. I'd rather euthanize a dog after trying to save its life in order to spend the money on saving another dog that never had the same chance.

We don't have an endless amount of money. So let's spend the little money we do have on the homeless dogs that never had any previous chances. Rather than trying to save a dog that has already failed the litmus test.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here but "basically harmless" is pretty vague. Any dog has the potential to bite and cause "harm." So no animal is "harmless." Now, different breeds definitely have higher potential to cause serious injury or fatality due to size or bite force. I guess I would be in favor of categorizing breeds and then determining what the appropriate requirements would for each breed. I think we can all agree that there are some people out there who aren't fit to own fish let alone any breed of dog.

I don't know if you've looked into it or not but there is a surprising number of privately funded no-kill shelter/rehab facilities that are very often willing to take on "hard case" animals rather than see them be euthanized. There were quite a few that took on the most difficult of the dogs confiscated from Michael Vick.

VashTheStampede
03-04-2011, 07:37 AM
There were quite a few that took on the most difficult of the dogs confiscated from Michael Vick.

Yes. I saw the video (http://video.pbs.org/video/1757336290) of the lost pit bulls of Michael Vick on Dave Gibbons' twitter. Many of them were saved from death row and are now loving family pets.

ryushen21
03-04-2011, 07:52 AM
Yes. I saw the video (http://video.pbs.org/video/1757336290) of the lost pit bulls of Michael Vick on Dave Gibbons' twitter. Many of them were saved from death row and are now loving family pets.

And sadly, it's this side of the breed that people never get to see. They only get to see the absolute worst of what can happen when the dogs are in the hands of absolute scum. But when they are in the hands of a caring and loving family and are great dogs, no one ever sees or raves about that.

Great username BTW. That is one of my all-time favorite series.

LuckyR
03-04-2011, 08:32 AM
Simple question for those who would seek "regulation" of pitbulls: what is the definition of "pitbull" in your "regulation"? That is, exactly which dogs would be subject to the regulation?

Gimmick
03-04-2011, 09:18 AM
SAUGERTIES, N.Y. – A 9-year-old boy and a Time Warner cable employee have been honored for their quick actions after a pit bull attacked a 3-month-old baby inside an upstate New York home last month.

The Saugerties (SAW'-ger-teez) Town Board on Wednesday presented awards to Skyler Sprague and 33-year-old Dave Dargan for their bravery during the attack at the home of the woman babysitting Jordan Bonelli.

A pit bull belonging to the babysitter's son attacked the babysitter as she held the infant just as Dargan arrived for a routine call. Dargan jumped on the dog and held it down while Skyler called 911.

Police soon arrived and fatally shot the dog.

Jordan was hospitalized for serious bite wounds, but his mother told the Daily Freeman of Kingston that her son is expected to make a full recovery.

tennismonkey
03-04-2011, 09:30 AM
Simple question for those who would seek "regulation" of pitbulls: what is the definition of "pitbull" in your "regulation"? That is, exactly which dogs would be subject to the regulation?

simple question for you. a known sex offender has just moved into your neighborhood. do you care what race/ethnicity he is?

i get it. the term pitbull is largely used (right or wrong) by many people as a catch-all for dogs that were purpose bred for physical strength and often aggressiveness. there are probably dozens of known breeds that fall into this category. and then there are mutts with characteristics of these breeds.

doesn't change the fact that in the wrong hands these dogs can be dangerous. and when it comes to me and my family, i don't want to have to hope that the pitbull next door to me is owned by a loving and caring owner like say hunterST and not some schmuck who neglects the dog or hasn't trained it.

you need a license to own a gun because they are lethal. you should need a license to own a "pitbull" too because they are also potentially lethal.

LuckyR
03-04-2011, 09:36 AM
simple question for you. a known sex offender has just moved into your neighborhood. do you care what race/ethnicity he is?

i get it. the term pitbull is largely used (right or wrong) by many people as a catch-all for dogs that were purpose bred for physical strength and often aggressiveness. there are probably dozens of known breeds that fall into this category. and then there are mutts with characteristics of these breeds.

doesn't change the fact that in the wrong hands these dogs can be dangerous. and when it comes to me and my family, i don't want to have to hope that the pitbull next door to me is owned by a loving and caring owner like say hunterST and not some schmuck who neglects the dog or hasn't trained it.

you need a license to own a gun because they are lethal. you should need a license to own a "pitbull" too because they are also potentially lethal.


Happy to help you get the point I apparantly failed to communicate. No one disputes what the defintion of a sex offender is, similarly everyone knows what a gun is. What exactly is a "pitbull" (for the purposes of regulation).

tennismonkey
03-04-2011, 09:56 AM
Happy to help you get the point I apparantly failed to communicate. No one disputes what the defintion of a sex offender is, similarly everyone knows what a gun is. What exactly is a "pitbull" (for the purposes of regulation).

i like analogies. i'm your neighbor. each day you see me toiling in my backyard carrying bags and bags of fertilizer and other chemicals. then one day you see in my backyard a large cylinder shaped object looking like a big metal tylenol capsule. it has a clock device that you can clearly see. the clock is counting time but backwards. i guess you will want to define what exactly the device in my backyard is. you know for regulation purposes or so you know what to complain to the homeowners association about and not look foolish.

me? i'd call the cops and err on the side of caution. let them come over and tell me whether it's safe or not.

funny how neighbors of people who own "pitbulls" don't get to call the cops and say, "i think my neighbor has something really dangerous in his backyard. i don't know what it is, but it looks really dangerous and i'm afraid for myself and my family. could you please come check it out."

LuckyR
03-04-2011, 10:02 AM
What is so difficult to grasp about the legal issue of stating in a regulation that you need to fill out form X if you have a "pitbull" and someone with a mutt with cropped ears and a short muzzle (which has absolutely no genetic material from the Staffordshire terrier at all), correctly not filling out the form and some ****** down the street calling 911 when he walks his dog down the street?

BTW I agree you like analogies, actually answering simple direct questions: not so much...

Cindysphinx
03-04-2011, 10:17 AM
Canada was able to figure out what a pit bull is. Methinks we can figure it out.

HunterST
03-04-2011, 10:26 AM
Organizations against Breed Specific Legislation:

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
The American Kennel Club (AKC)
The United Kennel Club (UKC)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS)
National Animal Control Association (NACA)
Maryland Veterinary Medicine Association
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
American Canine Foundation (ACF)

There's a reason that these well known, neutral organizations are against breed specific legislation: it doesn't work.

As countless pitbull owners have said on this thread and throughout the world, they are sweet, loving, gentle dogs.

People who support breed specific legislation almost always say "well that's only one case, you have to look at the entire breed." You know, I think that's an absolutely brilliant idea. There are aproximately 5 million dogs that would be classified as pitbulls in the US. When you look at pitbull attacks as a percentage of that number, pitbulls come in towards the bottom.

Reported Attacks
Breed
% vs Population

Chow Chow .005%

German Shepherd .008375%

Rottweiler .00729%

Great Dane .01416%

Doberman .012288%

St. Bernard .0139%

Pit Bulls .0012%

Furthermore, "pitbull" is not a breed of dog. In fact, when dog bite statistics are recorded, the term "pitbull type dogs" includes 20-35 breeds of dogs. Obviously there will appear to be more bites from a breed if it is actually comprised of 20 different types.

I cannot understand why anyone would want the government dictating which type of dog one can own. It's flat out unconstitutional.

The 14th amendment contains the Equal Protection Clause. Because any dog can inflict injury, breed-specific legislation does not provide equal protection to all dog owners.

user92626
03-04-2011, 10:30 AM
I love using analogies, too. Methinks Tennismonkey is very articulate and reasonable, and LuckyR would make a good lawyer!

Without perspective everything is infinite!

My HOA has no problem banning big dogs in the condo community. They don't allow dogs above certain lbs to be in the area, and no one is complaining. People aren't that unreasonable.

tennismonkey
03-04-2011, 10:33 AM
i don't even know if you are a pitbull owner. i've been a dog owner and dog lover since i was a kid. but i thought this topic was interesting on a friday afternoon.

i agree completely that it would be very difficult to regulate or enforce any laws concerning pitbulls or other dogs bred for fighting. i'd prefer there were more laws passed that put the onus on owners to care for and train their dogs -- including fines/jailtime/removal of animal for offenders.

as with anything, it's always the actions of a few that ruin it for the rest of us. this topic is a non-issue if people owned pets responsibly.

Cindysphinx
03-04-2011, 10:43 AM
Organizations against Breed Specific Legislation:

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
The American Kennel Club (AKC)
The United Kennel Club (UKC)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS)
National Animal Control Association (NACA)
Maryland Veterinary Medicine Association
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
American Canine Foundation (ACF)

There's a reason that these well known, neutral organizations are against breed specific legislation: it doesn't work.

As countless pitbull owners have said on this thread and throughout the world, they are sweet, loving, gentle dogs.

People who support breed specific legislation almost always say "well that's only one case, you have to look at the entire breed." You know, I think that's an absolutely brilliant idea. There are aproximately 5 million dogs that would be classified as pitbulls in the US. When you look at pitbull attacks as a percentage of that number, pitbulls come in towards the bottom.

Reported Attacks
Breed
% vs Population

Chow Chow .005%

German Shepherd .008375%

Rottweiler .00729%

Great Dane .01416%

Doberman .012288%

St. Bernard .0139%

Pit Bulls .0012%

Furthermore, "pitbull" is not a breed of dog. In fact, when dog bite statistics are recorded, the term "pitbull type dogs" includes 20-35 breeds of dogs. Obviously there will appear to be more bites from a breed if it is actually comprised of 20 different types.

I cannot understand why anyone would want the government dictating which type of dog one can own. It's flat out unconstitutional.

The 14th amendment contains the Equal Protection Clause. Because any dog can inflict injury, breed-specific legislation does not provide equal protection to all dog owners.

I'd love to see where you are getting those numbers.

Anyway, let's roll with this.

We've established that pit bulls are responsible for a large percentage of fatal attacks.

The analysis Hunter is providing sounds to my ears like this:

Cop killer bullets are no different from other bullets. Cop killer bullets are a very small percentage of the bullets that exist in the U.S. If you look at the odds that any particular cop killer bullet will kill someone, the odds are very very small. We shouldn't ban cop killer bullets because the real problem is the person who owns the bullet. The bullet itself wouldn't harm a fly.

Um. Yeah. And the reason we ban cop killer bullets is because **when the bullet strikes someone, it does much more damage than a regular bullet.**

Pit bulls = cop killer bullets.

ryushen21
03-04-2011, 11:04 AM
I love using analogies, too. Methinks Tennismonkey is very articulate and reasonable, and LuckyR would make a good lawyer!

Without perspective everything is infinite!

My HOA has no problem banning big dogs in the condo community. They don't allow dogs above certain lbs to be in the area, and no one is complaining. People aren't that unreasonable.

That's different though. It's not saying a specific breed. It's just establishing a weight limit.

HunterST
03-04-2011, 11:06 AM
I'd love to see where you are getting those numbers.

Anyway, let's roll with this.

We've established that pit bulls are responsible for a large percentage of fatal attacks.

The analysis Hunter is providing sounds to my ears like this:

Cop killer bullets are no different from other bullets. Cop killer bullets are a very small percentage of the bullets that exist in the U.S. If you look at the odds that any particular cop killer bullet will kill someone, the odds are very very small. We shouldn't ban cop killer bullets because the real problem is the person who owns the bullet. The bullet itself wouldn't harm a fly.

Um. Yeah. And the reason we ban cop killer bullets is because **when the bullet strikes someone, it does much more damage than a regular bullet.**

Pit bulls = cop killer bullets.

Well your argument sounds, to me, like this:

Black people are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. Almost half of all people in prison are African American. Why should we allow these dangerous individuals to walk free on our streets? Sure, you may know some decent African Americans, but I bet someone thought all of those criminals were nice too and look at what they are capable of!

You're discriminating against a (loosely defined) breed based on the actions of a tiny, tiny fraction of them. You think the peaceful 99 percent of pitbulls should be outlawed based on the actions of an abused, unstable one percent? The fallacy in that position is self evident.

The fact is, Cindy, all of those organizations that are against breed specific legislation know the issue much better than you or I. Any breed of dog is capable of injury, and many are capable of fatal attacks. Pitbulls have no special anatomy that makes them more dangerous, nor do they have DNA that predisposes them to attacks. Did you know that in the 70s German Shepherds were the "tough guy" dog? Guess what, back then, Germans were responsible for more attacks than any other dog. Same is true the Doberman later in history and the Rottweiler in the 90s.

The problem is irresponsible owners. Outlawing the dog will do nothing to solve the problem. It will just lead to more inhumanity perpetrated against these loving dogs.

813wilson
03-04-2011, 11:34 AM
As a dog owner - two Labrador retrievers, I'm reading all of this with a lot of interest.

My feeling is this: Pit bulls(broad statement) are responsible for a disproportionate number of serious incidents on people - not just a bite, but "mauling"/etc. However, banning the breed won't change anything.

This information:
However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.) However, there are serious deficiencies in how dog bites are studied, making it difficult to know for certain whether a pit bull ban would reduce dog bites in general. (See Dangerous and Vicious Dogs: the Problem With Statistics.)

was taken from this site

www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

I guess my point is - take Pits out of the equation and the "morons" spoken of earlier will find other status symbols....

ryushen21
03-04-2011, 11:41 AM
As a dog owner - two Labrador retrievers, I'm reading all of this with a lot of interest.

My feeling is this: Pit bulls(broad statement) are responsible for a disproportionate number of serious incidents on people - not just a bite, but "mauling"/etc. However, banning the breed won't change anything.

This information:
However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.) However, there are serious deficiencies in how dog bites are studied, making it difficult to know for certain whether a pit bull ban would reduce dog bites in general. (See Dangerous and Vicious Dogs: the Problem With Statistics.)

was taken from this site

www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

I guess my point is - take Pits out of the equation and the "morons" spoken of earlier will find other status symbols....

Could not have stated it better myself. This is the real source of the problem.

LuckyR
03-04-2011, 01:30 PM
I'd love to see where you are getting those numbers.

Anyway, let's roll with this.

We've established that pit bulls are responsible for a large percentage of fatal attacks.

The analysis Hunter is providing sounds to my ears like this:

Cop killer bullets are no different from other bullets. Cop killer bullets are a very small percentage of the bullets that exist in the U.S. If you look at the odds that any particular cop killer bullet will kill someone, the odds are very very small. We shouldn't ban cop killer bullets because the real problem is the person who owns the bullet. The bullet itself wouldn't harm a fly.

Um. Yeah. And the reason we ban cop killer bullets is because **when the bullet strikes someone, it does much more damage than a regular bullet.**

Pit bulls = cop killer bullets.


I get what you are trying to say (from pretty far out on a limb, I might add but that is besides the point), but cop killer bullets aren't the right analogy. CKB do less damage than a typical bullet, they have that name because they can go through bullet-proof vests.

user92626
03-04-2011, 02:02 PM
The problem is irresponsible owners. Outlawing the dog will do nothing to solve the problem. It will just lead to more inhumanity perpetrated against these loving dogs.

There will be NO irresponsible owners if there are no pitbulls to own (or virtually impossible to own). Thus, the problem is solved.

Your problem is you keep thinking that once these dogs are banned they'll be euthanized. No! I don't support that either. Just let existing dogs die out naturally and don't breed anymore. It's not possible to love something that is non-existent. So, it won't hurt any dog-loving people.

If you still wanna love animals for some reason there are countless animals out there to love.

LuckyR
03-04-2011, 02:07 PM
There will be NO irresponsible owners if there are no pitbulls to own (or virtually impossible to own). Thus, the problem is solved.

Your problem is you keep thinking that once these dogs are banned they'll be euthanized. No! I don't support that either. Just let existing dogs die out naturally and don't breed anymore. It's not possible to love something that is non-existent. So, it won't hurt any dog-loving people.

If you still wanna love animals for some reason there are countless animals out there to love.

You are correct there are countless Chows, Rottweilers, Dobermans and German Shepherds for the current jerky pitbull owners to turn into attack dogs. Same problem different dog.

OldButGame
03-04-2011, 02:11 PM
You are correct there are countless Chows, Rottweilers, Dobermans and German Shepherds for the current jerky pitbull owners to turn into attack dogs. Same problem different dog.
And yet,...they have chosen the 'pit bull'.....:-|

angharad
03-04-2011, 02:14 PM
There will be NO irresponsible owners if there are no pitbulls to own (or virtually impossible to own). Thus, the problem is solved.


Irresponsible owners will move on to another breed of dog and do the exact same thing. Irresponsible ownership breeds irresponsible (or downright dangerous) dogs. For example, poorly handled dalmatians can be overly aggressive - in fact, the only dog bite victim I've known was attacked by one.

The onus is on the owner to be responsible. The laws made should be looking at the owner, not the breed, as the issue.

HunterST
03-04-2011, 02:40 PM
And yet,...they have chosen the 'pit bull'.....:-|

As I pointed out in an earlier post, in the 70s German Shepherds were considered the "macho, tough guy dog." Not surprisingly, German Shepherds were responsible for most dog attacks. In the 80s, it was the same case with Dobermans. Further, many people pushed for breed-specific legislation against these dogs at the time.

Be careful about saying "just love another dog." Several countries have banned many breeds of dogs. Italy, for example, has banned 92 breeds including the border collie.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Rhythm Man
03-04-2011, 02:51 PM
Not only were shepherds and dobes the feared dog back then but the pit bull was thought to have been too people friendly to use as a protection dog. There was never a doubt about their dog aggressiveness and their desire to fight, but this cannot be confused with aggressiveness toward humans. These dogs have been fought since bullbaiting was outlawed in the 1500s. The only criteria for breeding was how well the dog performed in the pit and that it would not attack a handler in the pit. Dogs that showed aggression towards humans generally did not perform well in the pit anyway, but any that did were killed so they weren't bred. Eventually these dogs worked their way to the states where they were used as farm/gripping dogs, family protectors, and as fighting dogs too. It wasnt until the 80s when pits actually became a problem. What happened?

Before I give my reasoning I want to say that in no way do I support dogfighting and I would never participate in this activity, but...

The dogfighter of old is what created this incredible breed. The problem is that the rules of dogfighting have changed and as a result the breeding has changed. The most important quality of a pit bull to an old time fighter was its gameness, its willingness to continue in a fight (or any activity, but for them fighting) despite the odds against it. They didn't really call it dogfighting either, it was "game testing", but they thought a dogfight was the best way to test this. The dogs were rarely over 40 lbs pit weight and seldom over 50 lbs chain weight. The goal was to see which dog would outlast the other. Fights could go on for hours because the dogs were incredibly durable and at around 40lbs they couldnt really hurt each other like 80 lb dogs can. They followed the same rules and breeding practices that had always been in this activity. This is what gave us the pit bull we had up until the 80s.

Then a couple of different guys wrote a couple of different books and introduced the mainstream population to these dogs and told of their incredible abilities and courage. I dont know if i thank them or blame them but after that it has not been good for the pit bull.

In the 80s the rules of the fight changed a bit because of who was fighting the dogs and where they were being fought. It became a big money gambling operation and fights had to be over quickly to avoid getting caught by authorities. True deep gameness(an old time fighter would call it 'dead game') was not a necessary trait for this type of fight, but size and aggressiveness was. Now this 40-50 lb family dog/fighter became an 80 lb aggressive beast by selecting for those traits in breeding rather than selecting by gameness. Old time pit men knew there was a link between how game a dog was and how human friendly it was, more game meant more human friendly. So the new rules of the dogfight bred this desired trait out of the dogs and traded it for aggressiveness.

Now thats not to say by any means that all pits are aggressive. The # of dogs that were actually fought is very small from both types of fighters. Most were kept as farm dogs and they bred their dogs too! The problem is that the genes in the current pool of fighting dogs can get mixed in with the non-fighters who probably have the best genes for breeding. There is far too many amateur breeders out there who breed dogs just because they have one and their neighbor, who got one from his brother's friend's cousin, has one too. Neither owner truly knows what type of breeding their dog actually came from and what type of genes will be passed on to their pups. You might get 7 great dogs and 1 problem.

It starts with the breeding and we need strict laws on breeding dogs because there are far too many dogs of any breed out there. Outlawing one breed does no good. My pit mix is a boxer mix if anyone asks, and they have no idea. No one could prove otherwise anyway. Outlawing a breed type would be even more difficult. How do you decide what breeds to outlaw? Bully breeds in general? Rotties and mastiffs are not bully. A boxer? its bully but i dont think anyone would consider them dangerous. Just big dogs that look mean? Where do you draw the line? There definitely needs to be consequences for irresponsible dog ownership, and i would not be opposed to requiring owners of dogs over a certain weight to take a certification class and show that certification to license their dog.

We need BREEDING restrictions, not breed restrictions.

user92626
03-04-2011, 03:01 PM
You are correct there are countless Chows, Rottweilers, Dobermans and German Shepherds for the current jerky pitbull owners to turn into attack dogs. Same problem different dog.

luckyR and ang,

That's a typical knee-jerk response. You can't argue against established facts (pitbull kills) by coming up with theories that do not prove or disprove anything. 1) How would you know jerky pitbull ownwers would even like other breeds? 2) Is there established statistics that other breeds with abusive, irresponsible owners would likely turn killers?

I for one vote for banning all dogs over a certain size and/or have traits of aggression. What would happen to neighborhoods if these dogs vannished completely? Would you miss their craps, their barking?

mightyrick
03-04-2011, 03:14 PM
It is obvious why this problem persists. I'm sorry, but I am flipping the bozo switch on all "pit bull" owners now. All of them are hypocrites.

On one hand, you cry the woes of your breed. How it is misunderstood. How it is abused by owners due to its physiology. How it is mishandled. How there needs to be remediation.

Then, when legislation is proposed to protect the breed (and other potentially dangerous breeds) from abusive owners.... pitbull owners suddenly want to extend that to all breeds. They want "equal rights".

Well, forget all of you pitbull owners now. I call BS on your entire argument.

If you pitbull owners were sensible, you'd take the breed-specific legislation as-is and realize that it will AT LEAST HELP the problem and save dogs' lives and save human lives. Instead, you want it virtually extended to all breeds. Or you want to sit here and haggle over semantics of what *dangerous* means or *vicious* means... or you want to argue over what "pitbull" means and whether or not there is a real "pitbull" breed.

Meanwhile, pitbulls all across the country still suffer while you sit on your hands and argue against breed-specific legislation.

Forget all of you. You aren't interested in saving dog's lives. You're interested in only one thing: being left alone to your own devices.

Rhythm Man
03-04-2011, 03:20 PM
I dont think the problem is jerky pit bull owners turning them into attack dogs. There is an unpredictability factor here, its not always from this type owner that an attack occurs. It can be from someone who raised their dog well and never expected it. There are 2 factors, environment AND genetics. The pit bull lovers want to say its only environment and pit bull haters want to say its a genetic trait. I love pits but am willing to admit its probably a little of both. Maybe if breeders needed some sort of license or certification you would get more responsible breeders and eventually given enough time the bad genes could be bred out.

OldButGame
03-04-2011, 03:21 PM
Not only were shepherds and dobes the feared dog back then but the pit bull was thought to have been too people friendly to use as a protection dog. There was never a doubt about their dog aggressiveness and their desire to fight, but this cannot be confused with aggressiveness toward humans. These dogs have been fought since bullbaiting was outlawed in the 1500s. The only criteria for breeding was how well the dog performed in the pit and that it would not attack a handler in the pit. Dogs that showed aggression towards humans generally did not perform well in the pit anyway, but any that did were killed so they weren't bred. Eventually these dogs worked their way to the states where they were used as farm/gripping dogs, family protectors, and as fighting dogs too. It wasnt until the 80s when pits actually became a problem. What happened?

Before I give my reasoning I want to say that in no way do I support dogfighting and I would never participate in this activity, but...

The dogfighter of old is what created this incredible breed. The problem is that the rules of dogfighting have changed and as a result the breeding has changed. The most important quality of a pit bull to an old time fighter was its gameness, its willingness to continue in a fight (or any activity, but for them fighting) despite the odds against it. They didn't really call it dogfighting either, it was "game testing", but they thought a dogfight was the best way to test this. The dogs were rarely over 40 lbs pit weight and seldom over 50 lbs chain weight. The goal was to see which dog would outlast the other. Fights could go on for hours because the dogs were incredibly durable and at around 40lbs they couldnt really hurt each other like 80 lb dogs can. They followed the same rules and breeding practices that had always been in this activity. This is what gave us the pit bull we had up until the 80s.

Then a couple of different guys wrote a couple of different books and introduced the mainstream population to these dogs and told of their incredible abilities and courage. I dont know if i thank them or blame them but after that it has not been good for the pit bull.

In the 80s the rules of the fight changed a bit because of who was fighting the dogs and where they were being fought. It became a big money gambling operation and fights had to be over quickly to avoid getting caught by authorities. True deep gameness(an old time fighter would call it 'dead game') was not a necessary trait for this type of fight, but size and aggressiveness was. Now this 40-50 lb family dog/fighter became an 80 lb aggressive beast by selecting for those traits in breeding rather than selecting by gameness. Old time pit men knew there was a link between how game a dog was and how human friendly it was, more game meant more human friendly. So the new rules of the dogfight bred this desired trait out of the dogs and traded it for aggressiveness.

Now thats not to say by any means that all pits are aggressive. The # of dogs that were actually fought is very small from both types of fighters. Most were kept as farm dogs and they bred their dogs too! The problem is that the genes in the current pool of fighting dogs can get mixed in with the non-fighters who probably have the best genes for breeding. There is far too many amateur breeders out there who breed dogs just because they have one and their neighbor, who got one from his brother's friend's cousin, has one too. Neither owner truly knows what type of breeding their dog actually came from and what type of genes will be passed on to their pups. You might get 7 great dogs and 1 problem.

It starts with the breeding and we need strict laws on breeding dogs because there are far too many dogs of any breed out there. Outlawing one breed does no good. My pit mix is a boxer mix if anyone asks, and they have no idea. No one could prove otherwise anyway. Outlawing a breed type would be even more difficult. How do you decide what breeds to outlaw? Bully breeds in general? Rotties and mastiffs are not bully. A boxer? its bully but i dont think anyone would consider them dangerous. Just big dogs that look mean? Where do you draw the line? There definitely needs to be consequences for irresponsible dog ownership, and i would not be opposed to requiring owners of dogs over a certain weight to take a certification class and show that certification to license their dog.

We need BREEDING restrictions, not breed restrictions.
Assuming this is all true, and I dont doubt the validity of it, it still implies the breed has been changed on a genetic level, in other words the dog has become more aggressive (and dangerous) by its 'nature'(genes).
And yes, this may not be the dogs fault, but regardless, it is now a genetic trait built(bred) into the dog.

VashTheStampede
03-04-2011, 03:30 PM
1) How would you know jerky pitbull ownwers would even like other breeds?

2) Is there established statistics that other breeds with abusive, irresponsible owners would likely turn killers?


1. We don't, but we do know that any dog that is mistreated and not properly socialized is most likely to end up becoming an aggressive dog.

2. In my parents' country of origin( at least at the time when they grew up, hopefully it's changed), all the dogs often spent their lives chained up to something. As a result, most of the dogs were super aggressive and dangerous, despite being whatever breed they were.

Rhythm Man
03-04-2011, 03:36 PM
yes thats exaclty what this pit bull lover is saying. I'm sick of all this "its how they're raised" talk because thats only half of it. The genetic factor can NOT be ignored by the pit bull lover if we want to solve this problem. Its a possible genetic problem that has been bred into this dog and its a genetic problem that could be bred out of this dog (i hope) with well educated breeders. Obviously not all pits are like this, its a small percentage so i think its possible. But not if the pit bull lovers just brush this off and say "its how they're raised". Its up to the pit bull lover to fix this because the anti-pit people definitely wont.

Rhythm Man
03-04-2011, 03:37 PM
I was reffering to your post, oldbutgame

Rhythm Man
03-04-2011, 03:38 PM
Assuming this is all true, and I dont doubt the validity of it, it still implies the breed has been changed on a genetic level, in other words the dog has become more aggressive (and dangerous) by its 'nature'(genes).
And yes, this may not be the dogs fault, but regardless, it is now a genetic trait built(bred) into the dog.

sorry, my post was in response to this, forgot to quote

mctennis
03-04-2011, 08:26 PM
They are bred for one thing. You just have to have the right "on" switch flipped to get them to do what they have been bred to do. I've seen it so many times it is sad that people continue to buy them and expect to have a lap dog.

LuckyR
03-04-2011, 08:31 PM
And yet,...they have chosen the 'pit bull'.....:-|

They have now. These other dogs were the attack dogs of previous eras. They once were responsible for far more serious attacks than Staffies. What happened? Did the dogs change? Nope. The fashion changed from Dobermans to Rotties to the current (for now) favorite: pitbulls. Wait a couple of years it'll be something else...

LuckyR
03-04-2011, 08:33 PM
luckyR and ang,

That's a typical knee-jerk response. You can't argue against established facts (pitbull kills) by coming up with theories that do not prove or disprove anything. 1) How would you know jerky pitbull ownwers would even like other breeds? 2) Is there established statistics that other breeds with abusive, irresponsible owners would likely turn killers?

I for one vote for banning all dogs over a certain size and/or have traits of aggression. What would happen to neighborhoods if these dogs vannished completely? Would you miss their craps, their barking?

Well, one vote counts for... well you know what it counts for. Good luck with your campaign.

jmverdugo
03-05-2011, 08:17 AM
I would like to include on this thread the story of the Bulldog, this breed was one of the first specifically used for dog fighting and bull bating, after the ban of dog fighting everything changed for this breed and they became what are today. Obviously things are different these days but something like this should be done instead of just banning a breed.

Wikipedia - Bulldog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldog)

I also would like to point out that it was just recently the the Pitbull became the breed of preference of dog fighters, it used to be the Bull Terrier. My point is that things change, breed change too if you ban the Pitbulls the stupid people willl find another breed for sure, so the bst thing to do is to create more regulation for the owners.

Also where do the American Stafford Terrier fits in this discussion? Is this breed also included as Pitbull?

VashTheStampede
03-05-2011, 10:38 AM
I for one vote for banning all dogs over a certain size and/or have traits of aggression.

Banning dogs based on size rather than breed wouldn't solve the problem. Pitbulls are very very far from being the largest dogs, falling under the medium-size category. Many of the giant-sized breeds are especially noted for their gentleness. If there was a banning all dogs as big or bigger than pitbulls, we'd have to say goodbye to most of the police dogs, therapy dogs and guide dogs for the blind.

HunterST
03-05-2011, 10:50 AM
They are bred for one thing. You just have to have the right "on" switch flipped to get them to do what they have been bred to do. I've seen it so many times it is sad that people continue to buy them and expect to have a lap dog.

I doubt that you "have seen it so many times." More likely, you've heard about it on TV and have been told that it happened to a friend of your uncle's neighbor.

I've had countless visitors come into my house with an initial fear of my pitbull. By the time they leave, they always tell me that my dog has changed the way they think about the breed. They're amazed at how loving and gentle he is. I say, with the utmost seriousness and not even a touch of exaggeration, he is the most loving dog I have ever met.

Now someone will again say "that's just one dog!" To which I will once again respond, over 99% of pitbulls never commit an attack. It is those who are against the breed that want to legislate based on exceptions.

El Diablo
03-05-2011, 11:04 AM
Wondering if there is a typical pitbull owner is like wondering if there is a typical Lamborghini owner. Of course there is, though not EVERY owner will be entirely typical. We make choices for reasons, and these reasons are not always very obscure. You don't buy a Lamborghini if your priorities are trunkspace and comfort on lousy roads, and you don't choose a pitbull if your priorities are docility and gentleness.

Rhythm Man
03-05-2011, 12:44 PM
I would like to include on this thread the story of the Bulldog, this breed was one of the first specifically used for dog fighting and bull bating, after the ban of dog fighting everything changed for this breed and they became what are today. Obviously things are different these days but something like this should be done instead of just banning a breed.

Wikipedia - Bulldog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldog)

I also would like to point out that it was just recently the the Pitbull became the breed of preference of dog fighters, it used to be the Bull Terrier. My point is that things change, breed change too if you ban the Pitbulls the stupid people willl find another breed for sure, so the bst thing to do is to create more regulation for the owners.

Also where do the American Stafford Terrier fits in this discussion? Is this breed also included as Pitbull?

The pit bull was always the dog of choice for dog fighters. They supposedly came from the cross of the bullbaiting bulldog and terriers. The terriers were quite different then than they are now. I'm not sure i believe this cross actually happened, but that's another story, another debate. For now we'll accept it as true because it doesnt really matter. The bull terrier came along a bit later. A guy named James Hinks (i think that's what his name was) specifically develpoed the bull terrier as the ultimate fighting dog, or so he thought. The bull terrier was really no match for the fighting bulldogs that were already in existence. It ended up being used in the rat pits, killing rats like the other terriers. The staffords came along around the early 1900s if i am not mistaken. They were basically pit bulls who were shown in the ring instead of being fought. The akc would not register fighting dogs so the non fighters had to seperate themselves. Eventually the staffs branched off into 2 groups, the amstaff being the larger and the staffy bull the smaller.

LuckyR, the dogs have changed. Look at pics of old pits and compare to what you see now. These new pits barely even fit the original breed standard for the pit bull. They used to be much smaller and more slender. 60 lbs was huge for a pit in the 70s. Now their heads are blockier and some of them look like they take steroids and growth hormone. Its not uncommon to find 90-100 lb pit bulls nowadays. This was because of the demand for a different type of fighting dog. Like i said before, they traded gameness for size and aggressiveness. Their gameness is what made these dogs what they were. Luckily only a small % of these larger pits were ever fought, but their genes still work their way into the mix thru careless breeding practices.

OldButGame
03-05-2011, 01:22 PM
Wondering if there is a typical pitbull owner is like wondering if there is a typical Lamborghini owner. Of course there is, though not EVERY owner will be entirely typical. We make choices for reasons, and these reasons are not always very obscure. You don't buy a Lamborghini if your priorities are trunkspace and comfort on lousy roads, and you don't choose a pitbull if your priorities are docility and gentleness.
Well said!!!!!http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

HunterST
03-05-2011, 04:16 PM
Wondering if there is a typical pitbull owner is like wondering if there is a typical Lamborghini owner. Of course there is, though not EVERY owner will be entirely typical. We make choices for reasons, and these reasons are not always very obscure. You don't buy a Lamborghini if your priorities are trunkspace and comfort on lousy roads, and you don't choose a pitbull if your priorities are docility and gentleness.

Really? How many pitbull owners do you know? For that matter, how many pitbulls have you interacted with? I'll guess not many on either account. I know several, and they all choose the breed for their loving, sweet qualities.

I guess you think Jon Stewart, Rachel Ray, Jamie Foxx, Jessica Alba, Brad Pitt, and Theodore Roosevelt are/were all pitbull owners because they're seeking vicious dogs. It's just silly.

It's so obvious that everyone supporting pitbulls on this thread has had legitimate contact with the dogs and everyone against them has based their opinions off of TV.

10ACE
03-05-2011, 04:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTptwotYGg


Have a look.

this is an extreme- defining the relative being of owner to that of the pitbull is contrived. I know females who are well educated and financially well off who own pitbulls and I know people who work out and love the "image" of their pitbull they keep their dog fit and treat them very well.

I do believe it's the owner that makes the dog.

OldButGame
03-05-2011, 04:47 PM
Really? How many pitbull owners do you know? For that matter, how many pitbulls have you interacted with? I'll guess not many on either account. I know several, and they all choose the breed for their loving, sweet qualities.

I guess you think Jon Stewart, Rachel Ray, Jamie Foxx, Jessica Alba, Brad Pitt, and Theodore Roosevelt are/were all pitbull owners because they're seeking vicious dogs. It's just silly.

It's so obvious that everyone supporting pitbulls on this thread has had legitimate contact with the dogs and everyone against them has based their opinions off of TV.

....and the news,...and the internet,...and magazines,....(frankly,...I think its one grand 'anti-pit' conspiracy!!!!)...and dont let the multitude of this information fool You!!!!...they're ALL biased !!!!:shock:

....after all we ALL know many 'families' that own 'pitbulls' to play with their kids and be a 'part of their family'.

maverick66
03-05-2011, 04:54 PM
Really? How many pitbull owners do you know? For that matter, how many pitbulls have you interacted with? I'll guess not many on either account. I know several, and they all choose the breed for their loving, sweet qualities.

I guess you think Jon Stewart, Rachel Ray, Jamie Foxx, Jessica Alba, Brad Pitt, and Theodore Roosevelt are/were all pitbull owners because they're seeking vicious dogs. It's just silly.

It's so obvious that everyone supporting pitbulls on this thread has had legitimate contact with the dogs and everyone against them has based their opinions off of TV.

I get that you are passionate but you are arguing with idiots. No matter what you say they will not back down from their stance that all pit bulls should be illegal and killed. It doesnt matter to them. They dont see a living animal they see something that they are told to be scarred of.

OldButGame
03-05-2011, 05:04 PM
First Maverick,...no one called You an idiot,..keep it respectful huh???

Second,..Please dont generalize with "all pit bulls should be illegal and killed',....I for one dont appreciate having words 'put in my mouth.'

Thirdly,...I was never 'told' to be scared of pits,...as a reasonably intelligent adult, I can infer obvious facts from a preponderance of evidence coming from a variety of sources with significant frequency.

We could also be talking about 'rabid dogs' here,...also dogs,..also living creatures,...YOU feel like embracing one??...wanna keep one as a pet???
No,...They're dangerous.

maverick66
03-05-2011, 05:15 PM
First Maverick,...no one called You an idiot,..keep it respectful huh???

You are telling people that their dogs that they love are viscous killers that should be banned. Respect went out a long time ago.

Second,..Please dont generalize with "all pit bulls should be illegal and killed',....I for one dont appreciate having words 'put in my mouth.'
Did I personally say you?
No but others have said it multiple times that they should be gotten rid of. How are you gonna get rid of them move them to happy land to live alone?

Thirdly,...I was never 'told' to be scared of pits,...as a reasonably intelligent adult, I can infer obvious facts from a preponderance of evidence coming from a variety of sources with significant frequency.

So when the media puts a pitbull story on the news every couple of months you are not being told to fear these animals? How many times do other dog breeds get put on the news when they put a kid in the hospital? You only hear about pitbulls.

We could also be talking about 'rabid dogs' here,...also dogs,..also living creatures,...YOU feel like embracing one??...wanna keep one as a pet???
No,...They're dangerous.
Really you are gonna say this?

OldButGame
03-05-2011, 05:31 PM
You are telling people that their dogs that they love are viscous killers that should be banned. Respect went out a long time ago.


Did I personally say you?
No but others have said it multiple times that they should be gotten rid of. How are you gonna get rid of them move them to happy land to live alone?



So when the media puts a pitbull story on the news every couple of months you are not being told to fear these animals? How many times do other dog breeds get put on the news when they put a kid in the hospital? You only hear about pitbulls.


Really you are gonna say this?
Do You realize what You did here??..You just did exactly what You acuse people here of,...YOU generalized,...included me because "others have said it",...NOW maybe You understand where peoples viewpoints regarding pitbulls came from,...they did...like You,...looked at a particular behavior and generalized it to all. But dont feel bad for having done the same thing,..because honestly??...thats part of being an intelligent human being....otherwise You 'stick Your hand in the fire' over and over again,..because 'maybe this time its not hot'.

(oh,...and regarding....."you only hear about pitbulls putting kids in hospitals",.......ummmm...."knock, knock"!!!!)

maverick66
03-05-2011, 05:51 PM
(oh,...and regarding....."you only hear about pitbulls putting kids in hospitals",.......ummmm...."knock, knock"!!!!)

You think nobody ever ends up in the hospital from other dog breeds or even other animals? You only hear about the Pitbulls because it sells.

It is the same reason you very rarely see shootings in inner city areas get any kind of media coverage. But if someone gets shot outside of the inner city the press makes it out to be a huge problem. It sells more to scare idiots.

HunterST
03-05-2011, 07:22 PM
....and the news,...and the internet,...and magazines,....(frankly,...I think its one grand 'anti-pit' conspiracy!!!!)...and dont let the multitude of this information fool You!!!!...they're ALL biased !!!!:shock:

....after all we ALL know many 'families' that own 'pitbulls' to play with their kids and be a 'part of their family'.

You really don't understand the media, do you? You think what you hear on the news, internet, and magazine is perfectly reliable? There's a reason no one takes you seriously if you cite a news report or magazine article in a critical paper: they slant the information!

If you want to be informed about the topic, you need to look at the actual data and research collected. That doesn't mean looking at a chart you found on a biased website. It means seeking out the actual study and reviewing it.

Just consider your opinion for a second. You truly believe that the 99% of pitbulls that never commit a single violent act should be banned based on the actions of less than 1% of them? How can you convince yourself that that is logical or moral?

Every single argument you've made would also apply if the position was to just ban all dogs. Dogs can injure and kill people, why don't you support banning all of them? Because it wouldn't be fair to the vast majority of dogs who never hurt anyone? Hmmm that's a very, very good point!!

El Diablo
03-05-2011, 08:18 PM
Ah yes, the data!! The dogsbite.org website notes that in the last 30 years three breeds (pit bull, rotweiller, presa canarios) accounted for 80% of harmful attacks on people, 70% of attacks on children, 83% of attacks on adults, 69% of fatal attacks, and 75% of maimings. From 2006-2008, pit bulls killed 52 Americans, comprising 59% of fatal attacks by dogs. This is a delightful breed! I've actually known a number of these dogs, and personally know 3 people who were rather visciously attacked while walking in parks by pit bulls that had ostensibly never been abused. One of these people can no longer use the left hand the dog maimed. He's a man in his 70s who was walking along a path around the park lake when the pit bull charged through some bushes and visciously attacked him.

mightyrick
03-06-2011, 07:16 AM
Ah yes, the data!! The dogsbite.org website notes that in the last 30 years three breeds (pit bull, rotweiller, presa canarios) accounted for 80% of harmful attacks on people, 70% of attacks on children, 83% of attacks on adults, 69% of fatal attacks, and 75% of maimings. From 2006-2008, pit bulls killed 52 Americans, comprising 59% of fatal attacks by dogs. This is a delightful breed! I've actually known a number of these dogs, and personally know 3 people who were rather visciously attacked while walking in parks by pit bulls that had ostensibly never been abused. One of these people can no longer use the left hand the dog maimed. He's a man in his 70s who was walking along a path around the park lake when the pit bull charged through some bushes and visciously attacked him.

Just for fun, let me assume the pitbull protagonist role and respond to your post:

1) Your data comes from a completely unreputable source. "Unreputable source" defined as any source which supports your argument.

2) "Pit bull" isn't a breed, so these statistics are fundamentally flawed.

3) This isn't the breed's fault. It is bad ownership.

4) You have never been a pit bull owner. You cannot create an informed opinion on the topic unless you've owned one.

5) This is all media hype. The other dog attacks merely go unreported, therefore they aren't officially counted. Therefore, this report is flawed.

I think I covered all of them.

Rhythm Man
03-06-2011, 08:54 AM
Ah yes, the data!! The dogsbite.org website notes that in the last 30 years three breeds (pit bull, rotweiller, presa canarios) accounted for 80% of harmful attacks on people, 70% of attacks on children, 83% of attacks on adults, 69% of fatal attacks, and 75% of maimings. From 2006-2008, pit bulls killed 52 Americans, comprising 59% of fatal attacks by dogs. This is a delightful breed! I've actually known a number of these dogs, and personally know 3 people who were rather visciously attacked while walking in parks by pit bulls that had ostensibly never been abused. One of these people can no longer use the left hand the dog maimed. He's a man in his 70s who was walking along a path around the park lake when the pit bull charged through some bushes and visciously attacked him.

From the examples you gave it does sound like irresponsible ownership was to blame. Why were these pit bulls left in a situation where they could attack someone walking in a park? Why were they not leashed and under control? While i don't argue with the statistics you present the likelyhood that all of these attacks were a result of the dog just being a pitbull is very slim. It is not the only factor involved.

A well bred dog of any breed, in the hands of an educated and responsible owner, will not be a problem. The problem is not everyone that owns a pitbull gets a well bred pit and not all of them are educated and responsible. Any of these large dominant breeds require the owner to be more educated and more responsible. If everyone that got a pit was like Cesar Milan, we wouldnt have a problem. I have seen too many times the wrong people getting this breed. One that comes to mind is a pill popping stripper, and no that is not a generalization, I know for a fact this person is a pill popping stripper.

Even if all pitbulls were well bred the anti pit group would still have the argument of when irresponsible people own these dogs then they are dangerous, so we need to ban the breed to prevent this.

To this I say, irresponsible people drink and drive, yet we never talk about outlawing drinking because responsible people should be allowed to make that choice themselves. I am sure drinking and driving injures or kills more people annually than pitbulls. How about texting and driving? Are we talking about making texting illegal because of some irresponsible people? No. They spend money on advertising campaigns to educate people on the dangers of these activities, have more severe punishments for these offenses, and enforce these laws more strictly.

This is the price we pay for our freedoms. Responsible people are allowed freedoms despite the fact that irresponsible people tend to abuse these freedoms. Its the same whether it be drinking, gun ownership, dog ownership or whatever, you pick, its all the same.

LuckyR
03-06-2011, 10:11 AM
LuckyR, the dogs have changed. Look at pics of old pits and compare to what you see now. These new pits barely even fit the original breed standard for the pit bull. They used to be much smaller and more slender. 60 lbs was huge for a pit in the 70s. Now their heads are blockier and some of them look like they take steroids and growth hormone. Its not uncommon to find 90-100 lb pit bulls nowadays. This was because of the demand for a different type of fighting dog. Like i said before, they traded gameness for size and aggressiveness. Their gameness is what made these dogs what they were. Luckily only a small % of these larger pits were ever fought, but their genes still work their way into the mix thru careless breeding practices.

What percentage of the dogs that would/have been covered under BSL are this type of dog? I would be suprised if it was more than 5% (a realistic number is likely 0-2%).

Rhythm Man
03-06-2011, 10:39 AM
What percentage of the dogs that would/have been covered under BSL are this type of dog? I would be suprised if it was more than 5% (a realistic number is likely 0-2%).

yeah i am sure its a very small %, but like i said with careless breeding practices those genes can spread. Even if its a small % they can be out there and you dont know where. I only think this is a contributing factor to the problem, not the whole problem. When someone who is irresponsible or uneducated in dog behavior gets one of these dogs it can be a problem. With someone who really knows what they are doing it wont be. Same dog, different owner, no problem. Is it possible to keep these dogs out of the hands of irresponsible people? Probably not. But we can breed safer to own pitbulls for these people, and they can still posess all of the good qualities of a good pitbull. Its a very small % of this breed that is a problem, and it was a human induced problem. These dogs by nature were not like this before.

I would like to know some stats on this subject from germany where they do have breeding restrictions (I am pretty sure I read this somewhere). From what i understand dogs there have to pass specific tests in order to be bred. If i wasnt so busy screwing around posting here maybe i'd look that up.

Rhythm Man
03-06-2011, 11:49 AM
Just for fun, let me assume the pitbull protagonist role and respond to your post:

1) Your data comes from a completely unreputable source. "Unreputable source" defined as any source which supports your argument.

2) "Pit bull" isn't a breed, so these statistics are fundamentally flawed.

3) This isn't the breed's fault. It is bad ownership.

4) You have never been a pit bull owner. You cannot create an informed opinion on the topic unless you've owned one.

5) This is all media hype. The other dog attacks merely go unreported, therefore they aren't officially counted. Therefore, this report is flawed.

I think I covered all of them.

Some of your points are not only the view of the pitbull protagonist but are also the view of the CDC.

This quote was taken from the ADBA website on BSL:
It seems, though, that the problem of "dangerous dogs" may not be remedied by the "quick fix" of breed-specific laws. Dealing with Dangerous Dogs in Your Community: There is little evidence that breed-specific law - which can be incredibly expensive and difficult to enforce: make communities safer for human families or for the companion animals that are a part of so many households. And it turns out such laws can also have negative and wholly unintended consequences. Moreover, in its study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) did not support the breed-specific approach, citing, among other things, the inaccuracy of dog-bite data; the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed breeds); and the probability that as certain breeds are regulated, those who exploit dogs by making them aggressive will merely turn to other, unregulated breeds.
For example, a task force formed in 2003 to study the effectiveness of the Prince George County, Maryland pit bull ban estimated that the county spends more man a quarter-million dollars each year to enforce the ban. Further, in a report to me County Council, the task force noted that "public safety is not improved as a result of (the ban)" and that "there is no transgression committed by owner or animal that is not covered by another, non-breed specific portion of the Animal Control Code (i.e., vicious animal, nuisance animal, leash laws)." The task force has recommended that Prince George County repeal the ban. Significantly, the CDC also noted how many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog's tendency coward aggression things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status and socialization and training.
These last two concerns seem well-founded given that more than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unaltered male dogs, and that an unaltered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than a neutered dog. In addition a chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog that is nor chained or tethered. Breed-specific laws also cause unintended hardship to responsible owners of entirely friendly, properly supervised and well-socialized dogs that happen to fall within the regulated breed category.

Rhythm Man
03-06-2011, 11:58 AM
And if anyone still cares:

Pit Bulls have always been bred more for attitude and
temperament rather than looks. Because of this reason,
there is lots of variation in appearance in the breed. Some
breeds are always easy to recognize. They share similar
colors and markings, and height, weight, and ear set are
uniform. The standards for such breeds call for this
uniformity. The Pit Bull standards, however, allow for more
variation.

Even though variation is permissible, the Pit Bull "standards"
(see below) specify certain physical requirements in the
breed. The standards have been written by people who
have spent many years with the breed, and understand
what the breed should look like. The standards have been
approved and adopted by national organizations. Standards
identify the "ideal" Pit Bull, and breeders look to the
standard when making decisions about which dogs to
breed. The goal of any ethical breeder is to produce the
"perfect dog". In the Pit Bull world, there is a huge problem
with unethical breeders who are breeding Pit Bulls with no
regard for the standards. They breed what they like, what
they think a Pit Bull should look like (big, or short, or stocky,
etc.), and what appeals to the general public (which seems
to believe bigger is always better). These dogs do not
conform to the standards.

This is from realpitbull.com
Sorry I am resorting to cutting and pasting quotes here but I thought this was a good quote to demonstrate how a breed can change over the years, and how this pitbull problem starts with breeding.

OldButGame
03-06-2011, 02:23 PM
Just for fun, let me assume the pitbull protagonist role and respond to your post:

1) Your data comes from a completely unreputable source. "Unreputable source" defined as any source which supports your argument.

Are You really suggesting he or anyone is supposed to use sources that DONT support there point???...and the fact that hes able to do that implies hes right,...

2) "Pit bull" isn't a breed, so these statistics are fundamentally flawed.

Semantics. The tool of 'those losing an argument'. OK,..there are 'variations' within the pitbull breed,...(as El Diablo mentioned some), and while we're 'splitting hairs,...its those variations that are responsible as well.

3) This isn't the breed's fault. It is bad ownership.

If I've read correctly, the issue hasnt been 'fault' as much as 'the dog is dangerous'. If/Whose fault it is becomes irelevant in the grand scheme of things, when You have an animal that may be as dangerous as the 'delusion that society seems to be under'.....(silly silly society,....caring for their kids welfare like that..). Also, the video that started this discussion exemplified an attempt to hold someone accountable for their pits actions.

4) You have never been a pit bull owner. You cannot create an informed opinion on the topic unless you've owned one.

THIS had to be Your best one!!!
I'd be interested if you,....
had an opinion on politics without being a politician?
had an opinion on how kids should behave before or without having kids?
have an opinion on healthcare with working in the healthcare industry?
have an opinion about a car(s) You dont own?

Obviously this could go on forever,..point being we/You all have opinions about things,...and its not always necessary to 'own' something to have that opinion.
(have You ever owned a rattlesnake?...plan on keeping one around the house?..why not?..If You've never owned one?

5) This is all media hype. The other dog attacks merely go unreported, therefore they aren't officially counted. Therefore, this report is flawed.

Wow. You really have to think these through before posting them.

If other dog attacks are 'unreported', how do You know they exist???:shock:
This represents at best, speculation and conjecture.

I think I covered all of them.

I think 'I' covered them all. :)

OldButGame
03-06-2011, 03:19 PM
Really? How many pitbull owners do you know? For that matter, how many pitbulls have you interacted with? I'll guess not many on either account. I know several, and they all choose the breed for their loving, sweet qualities.

I guess you think Jon Stewart, Rachel Ray, Jamie Foxx, Jessica Alba, Brad Pitt, and Theodore Roosevelt are/were all pitbull owners because they're seeking vicious dogs. It's just silly.

It's so obvious that everyone supporting pitbulls on this thread has had legitimate contact with the dogs and everyone against them has based their opinions off of TV.

I guess he's right,..Rachael Ray DOES own a pitbull!!!!!:shock:


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/rachael_rayging_pit_bull_ordeal_eWJO7IMFCfhpcmzige cKVM


http://wonderwall.msn.com/tv/rachael-ray-nightmare-pit-bull-may-have-to-be-put-to-sleep-1537776.story


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/pawprintpost/post/2010/02/rachel-rays-pitbull-attacks-a-dog/1

OldButGame
03-06-2011, 03:33 PM
Really? How many pitbull owners do you know? For that matter, how many pitbulls have you interacted with? I'll guess not many on either account. I know several, and they all choose the breed for their loving, sweet qualities.

I guess you think Jon Stewart, Rachel Ray, Jamie Foxx, Jessica Alba, Brad Pitt, and Theodore Roosevelt are/were all pitbull owners because they're seeking vicious dogs. It's just silly.

It's so obvious that everyone supporting pitbulls on this thread has had legitimate contact with the dogs and everyone against them has based their opinions off of TV.
I guess Brad Pitt does too,....oh,....wait a minute,.....:shock:
http://www.thecelebritytruth.com/pitbull-lies-no-dog-for-brad-pitt-angelina/00373

OldButGame
03-06-2011, 03:42 PM
Really? How many pitbull owners do you know? For that matter, how many pitbulls have you interacted with? I'll guess not many on either account. I know several, and they all choose the breed for their loving, sweet qualities.

I guess you think Jon Stewart, Rachel Ray, Jamie Foxx, Jessica Alba, Brad Pitt, and Theodore Roosevelt are/were all pitbull owners because they're seeking vicious dogs. It's just silly.

It's so obvious that everyone supporting pitbulls on this thread has had legitimate contact with the dogs and everyone against them has based their opinions off of TV.
...Yup...Theodore Roosevelt,...another pit owner,...:-|
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:uMhExZOltAIJ:animal.discovery.com/dog-guide/bully-breeds/famous-pit-lovers/index-10.html+Theodore+Roosevelt+pit+bull&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&sourc

mental midget
03-06-2011, 05:54 PM
assuming you can get the same level of love and companionship from any dog, why choose a breed that could harm you or another person if it decides to go bonkers one day?

fruitytennis1
03-06-2011, 06:09 PM
assuming you can get the same level of love and companionship from any dog, why choose a breed that could harm you or another person if it decides to go bonkers one day?

Very very good point.

mightyrick
03-06-2011, 07:50 PM
I think 'I' covered them all. :)

You realize I was being facetious with my entire post, correct? :-)

OldButGame
03-06-2011, 09:00 PM
You realize I was being facetious with my entire post, correct? :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^^ Merriam-Webster

back·ped·al

verb \ˈbak-ˌpe-dəl\
Definition of BACKPEDAL

intransitive verb
: to retreat or move backward


:wink:

Mansewerz
03-06-2011, 09:28 PM
Question: Is it ok to get mad at your dog?

Not abuse, but give a stern talking to/put in timeout? (This sounds childish and odd from the way I put it, but I wonder).

Is it like raising a child in a way?

I ask because I'd someday like to own a dog. I do get mad at my sister and can get mad at others (a trait i'm trying to work on), but it's never violent and I never strike/hit or try to hurt others.

Rhythm Man
03-07-2011, 11:27 AM
Question: Is it ok to get mad at your dog?

Not abuse, but give a stern talking to/put in timeout? (This sounds childish and odd from the way I put it, but I wonder).

Is it like raising a child in a way?

I ask because I'd someday like to own a dog. I do get mad at my sister and can get mad at others (a trait i'm trying to work on), but it's never violent and I never strike/hit or try to hurt others.

Anger does not work with dogs. They require calm assertiveness and consistency. The goal is to keep them in a calm submissive state. You do this thru exercise, discipline, and affection, in that order. Do not praise them unless they are in a calm submissive state. Praising them in an excited state and humanizing them leads to problems like them owning you rather than you owning them. It makes them think they're in control, which could the reason for some of these pit bull attacks. You want them to look you in the eye on command.

My pit mix was attacked by a palm size yorkie one morning outside my apartment (the owner was out with it but did NOT have it leashed). The yorkie was jumping at his face and shoulders trying to bite him(it was actually quite funny, the yorkie just kept bouncing off my pit but kept trying). My dog could have swallowed him whole in one bite, but instead, my pit mix looked up at me for instruction. I gave him a pat, said good boy, picked up the yorkie with my one free hand (my other hand was holding the leash) and I handed it back to the owner!

One thing I do is when I feed him I make him sit nice and then look at me, making eye contact, and then hold it for a few seconds. Then I put the food down and he won't go for it until I say.

I strongly urge you to watch Dog Whisperer because Cesar Milan is an absolute genius with dogs and knows volumes more than I or anyone on this messageboard knows. Watch how he handles dogs and see if this is for you.

Rhythm Man
03-07-2011, 11:42 AM
assuming you can get the same level of love and companionship from any dog, why choose a breed that could harm you or another person if it decides to go bonkers one day?

I ask if you are going to get a large dog like a lab or retriever, why not consider something that is actually capable of protecting you and your family instead? I prefer a dog that will fight to the death for me rather than a dog than will hide behind me if the situation arises. It makes my wife feel safe at night. She sleeps better because of what we have. So yeah, its worth it. And I don't want a 150 lb dog, I like a medium size dog. We are responsible dog owners. One of my neighbors has a pointer that my dog likes to play with. She thinks I'm mean though because I only allow my dog to play with her dog in the fenced in dog area we have in our apt complex, I won't let him run loose. Mean? NO! Responsible? yes.

My other response to this is, does it matter? Why do people want anything they want that has potential threats? Why do people want swimming pools when someone could have an accident and drown? Why do people ride motorcycles, especially without helmets where laws allow? Its about our freedoms. Responsible people should not have freedoms taken away from them because of irresponsible people. That my friend is a slippery slope.

HunterST
03-08-2011, 12:30 PM
I guess Brad Pitt does too,....oh,....wait a minute,.....:shock:
http://www.thecelebritytruth.com/pitbull-lies-no-dog-for-brad-pitt-angelina/00373

Yeah, as if those were the most meaningful points I made. :?

The fact is, your opinion is widely disregarded by experts. There is no point continuing to argue with you. You're completely unwilling to listen to people who have had contact with the breed and you get all of your information from dogbites.com.

Once again, here's a list of organizations that oppose breed specific legislation.

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
The American Kennel Club (AKC)
The United Kennel Club (UKC)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS)
National Animal Control Association (NACA)
Maryland Veterinary Medicine Association
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
American Canine Foundation (ACF)


Why do these people oppose BSL? Because it's a biggoted, ineffective philosophy that reflects an inability to think critically.

mightyrick
03-08-2011, 02:50 PM
Why do these people oppose BSL? Because it's a biggoted, ineffective philosophy that reflects an inability to think critically.

Bigoted? Uhh.....

These are animals. Like fish. Like frogs. Like hamsters. They are animals. They have no concept of discrimination. They don't have human rights. Why? Because they aren't human.

Any kind of legislation will save lives and protect dogs. Why do you care which breeds are protected and which aren't? How about we start somewhere, and then expand over time?

It doesn't reflect an inability to think critically. If it protects 5% of dogs that weren't protected before, then we have accomplished something.

You have to start somewhere. Start with one or two breeds. See how it works. Then expand it to other breeds or possibly all breeds. But you have to start somewhere.

El Diablo
03-08-2011, 03:04 PM
As Colbert once said about biodiversity, "do we REALLY need both croccodiles and alligators??" Agreed. Each year thousands of species (much less breeds) become extinct, and likewise thousands of new species appear (excellent review of this topic in Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything."). The data on pit bulls is alarming, and I would have no objection to keeping a small number of them around in zoos and dioramas.

big bang
03-08-2011, 05:14 PM
A well trained socialized pitbull will never attack anyone. Its a great family dog that will protect you and your children no matter what happens, but it will never harm your children or pick a fight with you.
Pitbulls have been illegal for allmost 30 years where I live, but you will still see lots of them in the streets. I live in a rough neighbourhood and its one of the most common breeds here, ppl just have the registret as amstaff´s.
But still I have never had one bad episode with pits ever!, but I had with other dogs. I have had 2 bulldogs, both were attacked by German shepards, same goes for the Cane Corso I got now, she was attacked 3 times by German shepards that where running loose. They didnt harm her, but only because I pulled her back and kicked the hell out of ugly **** dogs. I hate shepards and would never let them near my children, its not a family dog, its a "pleaser" and becomes jaloux when the owner shows interest towards other ppl/animals. Around here the amstaff´s doesnt even make top 20 of bite incidents, but common dogs like German shepard, Golden retriever, Labrador and all the little creepy annoying dogs are to be found there.

To the ppl that dont understand why you wanna own a pitbull or a bulldog or mastiff for that matter. Its all about personal taste, some ppl wants a dog they can identify themselves with. Some ppl think muscles are beautyfull and wants a strong dog and not a little skinny one. Some girls wants a big strong man and not a whimpy one. Some guys wants a big car with lots of hp and not a small girly car. Its exactly the same!.
I want a big strong majestic dog with lots of confidense that will stay loyal forever and protect my home and family no matter what. Thats why I chose Cane Corso. Pits are lovely dogs but they got a bit too much energy for my taste.

CDestroyer
03-08-2011, 05:19 PM
A well trained socialized pitbull will never attack anyone. Its a great family dog that will protect you and your children no matter what happens, but it will never harm your children or pick a fight with you.
Pitbulls have been illegal for allmost 30 years where I live, but you will still see lots of them in the streets. I live in a rough neighbourhood and its one of the most common breeds here, ppl just have the registret as amstaff´s.
But still I have never had one bad episode with pits ever!, but I had with other dogs. I have had 2 bulldogs, both were attacked by German shepards, same goes for the Cane Corso I got now, she was attacked 3 times by German shepards that where running loose. They didnt harm her, but only because I pulled her back and kicked the hell out of ugly **** dogs. I hate shepards and would never let them near my children, its not a family dog, its a "pleaser" and becomes jaloux when the owner shows interest towards other ppl/animals. Around here the amstaff´s doesnt even make top 20 of bite incidents, but common dogs like German shepard, Golden retriever, Labrador and all the little creepy annoying dogs are to be found there.

To the ppl that dont understand why you wanna own a pitbull or a bulldog or mastiff for that matter. Its all about personal taste, some ppl wants a dog they can identify themselves with. Some ppl think muscles are beautyfull and wants a strong dog and not a little skinny one. Some girls wants a big strong man and not a whimpy one. Some guys wants a big car with lots of hp and not a small girly car. Its exactly the same!.
I want a big strong majestic dog with lots of confidense that will stay loyal forever and protect my home and family no matter what. Thats why I chose Cane Corso. Pits are lovely dogs but they got a bit too much energy for my taste.

Yeah you cant spell you don't make much sense and your logic about pit bulls is just dumb. I would definitely stay far away from your pit bull and you.

jmverdugo
03-08-2011, 05:27 PM
Yeah you cant spell you don't make much sense and your logic about pit bulls is just dumb. I would definitely stay far away from your pit bull and you.

yes, you teach him how to properly discuss and make a point...:confused:

VashTheStampede
03-08-2011, 06:54 PM
And sadly, it's this side of the breed that people never get to see. They only get to see the absolute worst of what can happen when the dogs are in the hands of absolute scum. But when they are in the hands of a caring and loving family and are great dogs, no one ever sees or raves about that.

Great username BTW. That is one of my all-time favorite series.

Thanks.:smile:

Yeah. I've never had a pitbull but spent a bit of time petting one at an animal shelter. Also, if you've ever watched the Dog Whisperer, Cesar Milan has two pitbulls. He even uses them to help train his clients' dogs.



Yeah you cant spell you don't make much sense and your logic about pit bulls is just dumb. I would definitely stay far away from your pit bull and you.

Actually, I don't think he has a pitbull judging from his post. Regarding German Shepherds though, they also have a bit of a bad reputation, but not as harsh as the pitbull. I think with proper training and socialization, they too can be great family dogs.

big bang
03-09-2011, 10:55 AM
Yeah you cant spell you don't make much sense and your logic about pit bulls is just dumb. I would definitely stay far away from your pit bull and you.
1. english is my third language, so my spelling might not be perfect.
2. I dont own a pitbull, thought I made that pretty clear.
3. You clearly dont know what you are talking about.
4. whos looking dumb now?

ollinger
06-15-2011, 02:52 PM
Story in the news today about a Virginia man apparently killed in the house by his own pit bull. Ah, such wonderful dogs.

r2473
06-15-2011, 02:55 PM
^^ Weak era

Fearsome Forehand
06-15-2011, 03:15 PM
Dogs will tend to do what they are bred to do. It is their genetic predisposition at work. Border Collies will try to herd you, Terriers will dig up your yard, Irish Setters will spaz out if kept indoors. They can't help themselves.

Pit bulls can be good dogs in theory, but they are bred to be fighting/guard dogs. So, when they rip someone's throat out it isn't so much of a shock.

I had my friend's Doberman (another psycho breed) draw down on me once. I was about a second away from being mauled. I called her name and she backed down. I was lucky.

Was minorly mauled by a neighbor's very vicious German Shepherd once as a toddler. German Shepherds are another breed that can go either way.

No one ever gets mauled by Labs or Goldens. :)

F-T-S
06-15-2011, 06:11 PM
I hate hearing, "My pit bull is loving and loyal and would never do that." Of course it is to you and people you know, but that doesn't mean you know how it will react to every stranger. Aggression can be genetic. I hate most of all people that leave their dogs loose in their front yard. Two of my family members have been nipped at by pit bulls.

mightyrick
06-15-2011, 08:05 PM
10,000 hours of deep training, any dog can become the best killer of all time.

Nextman916
06-15-2011, 11:14 PM
I've known 2 people in my life that have had a pitbull attack and maw their dogs. Both times the pit owners described their dog as being "completely out of character, and never done anything remotely hostile before". Both owners seemed like decent enough people...just adding my 2 cents.

ChipNCharge
06-16-2011, 07:07 AM
Both times the pit owners described their dog as being "completely out of character, and never done anything remotely hostile before".

That's what pitbull owners always say right after an attack.

max
06-16-2011, 08:39 AM
I'm not enamoured with the whole idea of gaining your toughness or masculinity vicariously. Some do this with pets.