PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Pitbulls should be banned?



Pages : [1] 2

Tina
October 18th, 2004, 10:53 PM
Here in Ontario there are people who are trying to have Pitbulls banned, due to the recent number of Pitbull attacks. I don't know much about these dogs, & I really don't know what to think about banning them either. Just wondering what you guys think.

Goddess Rhiannon
October 18th, 2004, 10:57 PM
No, I dont think they should be banned......I do however feel that owners should know how to control their animals before they are allowed to get them.

Acid Halo
October 18th, 2004, 10:57 PM
Here in Ontario there are people who are trying to have Pitbulls banned, due to the recent number of Pitbull attacks. I don't know much about these dogs, & I really don't know what to think about banning them either. Just wondering what you guys think.


its not the dog. its the owner that should treats their pets bad that make them that way.. pitbulls are very nice docile pets, like any other animal. if you treat them bad they become very mean, and pitbulls are very strong animals. if a pitbull bites you their jaw locks and they will just keep ripping you apart.. i think people should have to go thru application process to get a pet, and not some little form to fill out, i think they should have a background check, someone should talk to their family all that stuff..

Shanti
October 18th, 2004, 11:00 PM
My pit objects to banning!!!
Blame the owner not the dog!!!

MoonKnight
October 18th, 2004, 11:01 PM
People are far more dangerous. Let's ban them instead.

Tina
October 18th, 2004, 11:03 PM
People are far more dangerous. Let's ban them instead.
I agree!

Smiley Girl
October 18th, 2004, 11:06 PM
The Michigan Humane Scoiety is supposed to put down all the pit bulls it recieves, I think... Because of breed background.

halfwaynowhere
October 18th, 2004, 11:06 PM
yeah, we should definitely ban people before we ban dogs. I mean, isn't that whole thing being "racist"? or, shall i say, "breedist"? Isn't it like saying "Mexicans get in more fights so they can't live here" or "Samoans are big so they can do more damage if they get into a fight, so we don't want them"?

Tina
October 18th, 2004, 11:07 PM
I kind of think that all the attacks lately are just to make Pitbulls look bad. It seems weird that there are so many attacks happening lately. I think someone is trying to get them banned, not sure why but that is how it seems to me.

Acid Halo
October 18th, 2004, 11:14 PM
i think that is a tad paranoid to say there is a conspiracy to ban pitbulls

Pandoras
October 18th, 2004, 11:18 PM
Where I live, it is against the law to own pitbulls and rottweilers. The news is always reporting an attack by one of these dogs; the attack is usually on the owner. I agree with folks that say the problem is the owner, not the animal. My father has a dog, a mix between a pitbull and a rottweiler, and she's very sweet. He never trained her to be a mean attack dog. The most she'll do is lick you to death. And if you're carrying pizza, well then you really better watch out.

Raven Reed
October 18th, 2004, 11:24 PM
Many states in the US are working on banning pit bulls. I agree. The breed has been subject to irresponsible breeders trying to make the breed more ferocious and viscious and people don't check out where they get their pets before buying... Plus add irresponsible owners. Until there are less attacks by pit bulls, less damaging attacks, I think the breed should be banned.

I know there are plenty of nice pit bulls out there, but I don't want to take the chance with my family or my dog when I am walking down the street.

Morr
October 18th, 2004, 11:28 PM
they are banned in ISrael after there were like 3 seperate attacks by a pittbul on three little kids (ages 2-3).

now to own one here you have to have a special license & approval dealio.

Romani Vixen
October 18th, 2004, 11:30 PM
Very few animals are just nuts. A few breeds tend to be more agressive, like Jack Russel Terriers. Most attacks are from people training them to fight (bad people!!!) or children unintentionally telling the dog to bite them. Kids don't understand that you shouldn't stare down a dog, they're telling the dog to 'bring it'! (bad parents for not researching and educating their children)!!!

I had a put bull boxer mix when i was a kid. Great dog!!!

~BEBZ~
October 18th, 2004, 11:35 PM
I love Pits, I think they are beautiful dogs, unfortunately they have been bread for fighting too long. You can breed characteristics into animals. That is how humans domesticated cats and why we have so many different types of dogs. Yes they should be banned, they are inherently vicious. It's not their fault, it's ours.

And I know there will be a bevy of people who will reply; "But my so and so had one and it was the sweetest dog" Yeah, I've had lots of people tell me that. The last one's were breeders. They had several. Mean little bastards they were. "But they would never harm the children!" That is no comfort to their daughter who's face one of em took of when she was in her teens. Was around this dog every day of her life. Then one day, for no reason it turned on her. They refused to put the dog down. They valued their dogs above their children. Eventually the Sheriff's dept. heard about it, and combined with reports from more than one person that got bit on their property, they put all their dogs down.

Another little boy just got attacked here in Colorado night before last. Friend brought their Pit to his house, and they are illegal in the Denver area. They all need to be taken away, and a re-breeding program instated. In 15 to 20 years when most of the fighting instinct is out of them then they can be loosed on the public. They are just too dangerous as is to be in the general population. Once they bite, your not getting them off. That thing about them locking their jaws is not fiction.

WingedTigerChild
October 19th, 2004, 12:05 AM
I don't think they should be banned...and that's saying a lot because I don't particularly like big dogs. Most of the attacks I've read about happned because a) someone wandered into a yard and b) the dog was running around loose. Granted, I won't come within 10 feet of a pitbull, but I think it's a bit much to ban them altogether. How about we ban people, as someone else suggested? I think it's funny that the US would ban pitbulls, as (last time I checked) you can buy handguns at the local store in many states.

Serendipity
October 19th, 2004, 02:06 AM
I don't think they should be banned. I saw a video of this woman who had her pitbull attack an officer (the woman was screaming commands at the dog). The dog tore the officers arm to shreds. They put the dog down. Man I was pissed. It was the damn owner - not the dog.

Moriquenya
October 19th, 2004, 02:13 AM
No. Their owners should be held 100% responsible. That means both financial compensation AND criminal charges if applicable. There are simply too many cruel, stupid and incompetent pitt bull owners out there. Maybe increased licensing of dangerous breeds would be a better remedy than outright banning the entire breed.

Flaire-FireStar
October 19th, 2004, 02:21 AM
I doubt they'll be able to control it if it does happen...which I doubt it will.

Muireannach
October 19th, 2004, 02:33 AM
I was at work one day and was leaving the store to get into my car and drive home. From cross the street ran two stray pitbulls. They were randomly lunging and looking rather aggressive. Luckily, I got into my car in time. There was this dog tied up outside the store waiting for it's owner and they lunged. The little black dog was mamed so badly it ended up bleeding to death right before it's owner's eyes.

Is it the pitbulls fault? no, but the blame lies on the irresponsible breeders who have bred them to be agressive, the other half of the blame lies with the owners who do not take note of aggressive behaviours and take appropriate steps to control their dogs.

In this case, since it is very hard to make people responsible over a breed that has been proven aggressive it is an easier route to simply ban the breed all together. The risk of having a law of "all pitbulls must be kept in a yard" or such would not work as guess what, someone would get careless and as a result there could be a death or injury.

It is unfortunate, but I opt more for personal safety.

Sequoia
October 19th, 2004, 03:14 AM
If you're going to ban all "high-strung" or "vicious" dogs, you're going to have to ban more than Pitts. A lot of small dog owners would be mighty angry. But many of the smaller breeds are a LOT more aggressive and vicious than the larger breeds. Only difference is that they're physically smaller.

I've only known sweet pittbulls. I understand that they're often trained to fight and attack, and it's sad that those dogs have been so conditioned that they must be put down. But putting down an entire breed is stupid. You wouldn't be able to completely do so. And what about mixes? What about existing sweet family pets?

Besides. They'd just start using another breed. Blame the owner, not the dog.

*Rain*
October 19th, 2004, 03:36 AM
They had this big debate in the UK in 1991, regarding both Pitbulls and Rottweilers after a few small children were attacked. The result was something called the dangerous dogs act which detailed that all dogs deemed dangerous had to be muzzled in public and kept on a lead (along with a lot more rules). If the police deem anyone to be an irresponsible owner they can have the dog seized. They included dogs that were specifically trained for fighting as well like Japanese Tosas. I haven't heard of that many attacks since, although i'm sure some will have happened. It has stopped idiots buying and training them as macho accessories.

MoonKnight
October 19th, 2004, 03:43 AM
The Michigan Humane Scoiety is supposed to put down all the pit bulls it recieves, I think... Because of breed background.
They do. Dog fighting is a huge problem here as I'm sure many of you have seen on Animal Cops Detroit on Animal Planet.

Twig
October 19th, 2004, 04:53 AM
:thumbsdow
In light of the investigation in Quintel Woods here in Portland I would say it's either the vicious dog owners (you know who you are!) or the Trailblazers that should be banned.

Peace,
Twig
:elf:

Sequoia
October 19th, 2004, 04:54 AM
They do. Dog fighting is a huge problem here as I'm sure many of you have seen on Animal Cops Detroit on Animal Planet.

Sadly, it's the only "discovery channel" type channel we have here... can't afford real cable. :p

Memory's Flame
October 19th, 2004, 04:55 AM
Dog theft and Dog Fighting is a HUGE thing here as well (I'm in Southern Colorado) in fact my neighbors GSD was stolen not long ago; they found it in a cage in a room with a lot of fighting dogs :(

I personally think this is stupid, you can't ban one type of dog without banning all of them. My sister was 3 years old and "attacked" by our neighbors dog (It was some small cutesy type dog, I don't remember what!) She spent 3 days in the hospital after getting numerous stitches... the neighbors just neglected the poor dog and human contact drove it nuts.

I have a rather large German Shepherd Pup (and plan on getting a rotty to give her some company) and she is the most gentle of dogs, however she can also be a pretty mean little girl! (I was on a walk the other day and she was not fond of the high school kids hanging out in the bushes!) Luckily she is well trained... that's the problem with most of these "mean" breeds anymore... also that sometimes people just get it in their heads that only a certain breed attacks...I've heard of collies being called pitbulls after an attack (by a police officer no less!)

savannahrose44
October 19th, 2004, 06:33 AM
Absolutely not! It's the owners behind the animals that are the monsters no t the dogs. :smileroll

willow_pheonix
October 19th, 2004, 10:09 AM
any dog has the ability to be dangerous, it's only the bull breeds who ever get reported, a jack russell or yorkshire terrier is more likely to attack you, but because of the severity of wounds bully's get reported where as smaller or toy breeds don't, i have put a link on my post love em ot laothe em, so take a moment to watch it aee what you think afterwards

Sequoia
October 19th, 2004, 10:21 AM
i have put a link on my post love em ot laothe em, so take a moment to watch it aee what you think afterwards

... who-what? :eyebrow:

willow_pheonix
October 19th, 2004, 10:25 AM
... who-what? :eyebrow:

hi in a seperate thread called pits love em or hate em is a short movie clip about pit bulls

http://www.deviantart.com/view/11454716/

HorseCrow
October 19th, 2004, 10:31 AM
99% of the time, I say, blame the owner, not the dog. But there are cases where breeders have done a lousy job (in-breeding etc) where the dogs really are aggressive.

So, for me there are two sides to it; a) lousy owners that ruin perfectly lovable dogs and b) lousy breeders that breed dogs that are in fact aggressive.

SilverMaiden
October 19th, 2004, 10:34 AM
I totally agree with HorseCrow.

I'd rather see a ban on bad dog owners. That at least addresses the cause rather than the result. Even if Pitbulls are banned, the bad owners will just ruin life for another breed.

diamondtiger
October 19th, 2004, 11:24 AM
All this talk about pits having jaws that “lock” is bull hinkie. These dogs are no more capable of locking their jaws than a poodle. There's no 'enzyme', no special mechanism that would make a pitbull's jaws 'lock'. They do have a lot of jaw-strength, however. Wide jaws are a trait that comes from the bulldog ancestors of the breed. Jaw strength was needed in order for a dog to be proficient at bullbaiting, in which the dog would grab the bull by the nose and hang on until the enraged animal was subdued. Many bull breeds show an inbred desire to grasp and hold -- a leftover trait from the days when they worked on farms and used as 'Butcher's Dogs' to grab onto the noses of bulls (i.e. "Take the bull by the nose"). They are the most versatile and obedient canine in the history of man and dogs. Pitbull's are highly intelligent and extremely eager to please. My pit loves to play tug-o-war. She knows what “Drop it!” means, and we've never had a problem getting anything from her, including food or things she's not supposed to have.

As of December 2003 -
In a study of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society (ATT), pit bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9%. That's as good or better than beagles ... 78.2%.

I'm looking for results for 2004 to support this. I keep reading that now (2004), 95 percent of the Pit Bulls that took its temperament test passed, compared to a 77 percent passing rate for all breeds on average. Pit Bulls had a passing rate that was the fourth highest of the 122 breeds tested.

Or how about telling a few good stories about pits? Who all knows that:
Pit Bulls serve as therapy/service dogs. The Chako Rescue Association has Pit Bull therapy dogs in Texas, Utah and California. Helen Keller had a Pit Bull as her canine companion and helper. Cheyenne and Dakota are a team of hard-working Search-and-Rescue Pit Bulls in Sacramento, California. They play an important role in their community by locating missing people in conjunction with the local Sheriff. In their off-duty hours, they do charity work as therapy dogs.

Petey, the faithful dog on the TV show, The Little Rascals, was a Pit Bull. He spent countless hours with children day after day and never hurt anyone. He was one of the most intelligent Hollywood dogs of all time.

America's first war dog was a Pit Bull named Stubby. He earned several medals during World War I and was honored at the White House. The Ken-L-Ration dog hero of 1993 was a Pit Bull named Weela. She saved 30 people, 29 dogs, 13 horses and a cat during a flood in Southern California. A Pit Bull named Bogart saved a four-year-old child from drowning in a swimming pool in Florida. Dixie, the Pit Bull, was inducted into the Georgia Animal Hall of Fame after she saved some children from a Cottonmouth snake.

I don't suppose I need to tell anyone where I stand on this issue. I absolutely agree; it's not the dog, it's the people. Not only are there irresponsible breeders and owners who give these babies a bad name; there are way to many uneducated and misinformed people who contribute to these myths and horror stories, out of fear of what the media has told them. Not to mention those who don't even know what a pit looks like, but will report a “vicious” pitbull on the loose at the sight of any “mean looking” stray. If they are gonna ban pits, I say “DOWN WITH CHIHUAHUA'S!!!” too.

Sequoia
October 19th, 2004, 12:04 PM
Pittbulls are usually sweet dogs. I love all the examples you gave, diamondtiger.

Heck, I know situations where a pitt SHOULD have bitten the person, but didn't. Let's just say a greasy cassanova drunk aquaintence at a party decided it would be hilarious to go kiss the pittbull... dog should've bitten his drunken face off, but instead it just licked his tongue {eww, french kissing a dog} and crawled on top of him.

If a really irritating drunken college student can french kiss a pittbull, I'm pretty sure that they're sweet dogs by nature. I'd like to see someone try that with a toy dog. (Eww, not ACTUALLY see it. Once was scarring enough!)

Old Witch
October 19th, 2004, 12:40 PM
But....big BUT here.........what the hell is a Pit Bull? An Am Staff? A Staffordshire Terrier? Any of the recognized "bull" breeds? Geez...."pit bull" can cover an awful lot of dogs....I was watching one of the "animal police" shows on AP and one of the cops called a dog a Rottweiler...It looked like a Black and Tan Coonhound to me.............Some of the Detroit and NY cops don't know their butt from a hole in the ground.....

Sequoia
October 19th, 2004, 12:54 PM
And are only Pittbulls evil? What about plain Bulldogs?

Amethyst Rose
October 19th, 2004, 01:46 PM
Both of my dogs are "dangerous breeds" crosses.... Ozy is a Pit Bull / Roostererspaniel cross (we call him a "Roosterpit", and max is a Rottie crossed with something. They are both really sweet dogs, max expecially is a big marshmallow. Ozy loves to play tug of war, and he's scared of the baby (runs away from him), but he's definately not a threat.
It really is the owners, not the dogs. It's all in how you train your dog.

Edit: my mom has often said that between my dogs and her peekinese, (sp?), her dog can be the meanest (she has to wear thick gloves to take away things that he should have, like a bone).

Kalika
October 19th, 2004, 02:39 PM
I was thinking about this the other day... because its been an issue around CO too - attacks I mean.

Is it really the DOGS, or is it the environment that they were raised in that causes them to be agressive at times?

Rather than banning the dogs, should the owners be required to post a warning sign?

Old Witch
October 19th, 2004, 03:00 PM
And are only Pittbulls evil? What about plain Bulldogs?

That's what I mean, could English Bulldogs be considered an "evil" breed? Personally
I think one would probably have a heart attack before they could do much damage, but if you take these laws to their max....who knows....

Old Witch
October 19th, 2004, 03:02 PM
Both of my dogs are "dangerous breeds" crosses.... Ozy is a Pit Bull / Roostererspaniel cross (we call him a "Roosterpit", and max is a Rottie crossed with something. They are both really sweet dogs, max expecially is a big marshmallow. Ozy loves to play tug of war, and he's scared of the baby (runs away from him), but he's definately not a threat.
It really is the owners, not the dogs. It's all in how you train your dog.

Edit: my mom has often said that between my dogs and her peekinese, (sp?), her dog can be the meanest (she has to wear thick gloves to take away things that he should have, like a bone).


This word editor is getting damn ridiculous...Roosterspaniel...I'm not laughing....

Old Witch
October 19th, 2004, 03:05 PM
Both of my dogs are "dangerous breeds" crosses.... Ozy is a Pit Bull / Roostererspaniel cross (we call him a "Roosterpit", and max is a Rottie crossed with something. They are both really sweet dogs, max expecially is a big marshmallow. Ozy loves to play tug of war, and he's scared of the baby (runs away from him), but he's definately not a threat.
It really is the owners, not the dogs. It's all in how you train your dog.

Edit: my mom has often said that between my dogs and her peekinese, (sp?), her dog can be the meanest (she has to wear thick gloves to take away things that he should have, like a bone).

I had 2 rescued Pekes....When I had Dax and them out together, people would ignore sweetie Dax and go to pet Chin and Chang...bad, bad, choice!!!

Tarbh Nathroch
October 19th, 2004, 04:22 PM
I don’t think any animal should be band. If you want a dog or a rattle snake you should be aloud to have one. You should also expect full punishment from the law if that animal hurts someone. Maybe people with infamous dog breads should be required to enroll the puppy in obedience classes as part of the dog licensing. Banning them now will only brake apart existing families.

Amethyst Rose
October 19th, 2004, 05:34 PM
This word editor is getting damn ridiculous...Roosterspaniel...I'm not laughing....


Hehe....well I found it funny. :D

Threase
October 19th, 2004, 05:46 PM
I had this talk with my mom and she thinks that even if the owners of a pitbull are good owners and all that, the dogs would still be violent. I SO disagree with that!! I believe that any dog has the opertunity to be good natured, if it recieves enough attention and proper training.

Tarbh Nathroch
October 19th, 2004, 06:18 PM
A friend of mine back in Mass can’t get home owners insurance because of their dogs. Where he lives pit-bulls, ruttwilers, chows, akitas, and dalmatians are just a few of the dogs on the list of undesirables. I’ve never met a dalmatian but the others I’ve met have been sweet hearts.

LadyAutumnCat
October 19th, 2004, 06:57 PM
No!! It's not the dog it's the owner!

diamondtiger
October 19th, 2004, 10:34 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many of you would be afraid to brush a pit's teeth?

MoonKnight
October 19th, 2004, 10:50 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many of you would be afraid to brush a pit's teeth?
Not me. I have two of them.

WolfMoon
October 19th, 2004, 11:37 PM
A friend of mine back in Mass can’t get home owners insurance because of their dogs. Where he lives pit-bulls, ruttwilers, chows, akitas, and dalmatians are just a few of the dogs on the list of undesirables. I’ve never met a dalmatian but the others I’ve met have been sweet hearts.

Add pure bred German shepards to that list. We can't have pure-bred shepards, pit bulls or rottweilers and get homeowners insurance.

We do have a fluffy keeshound mix tho. :)

There has been a lot of problems involving pit bulls in Mass, especially in this area! They're the 'dog of choice' for drug dealers. While it's certainly not the dog's fault, they are bred for aggression (at least out here they are). You can get a real sweetie pit in the area, but they are very sadly few and far between.

MockingbirdOxygen
October 20th, 2004, 12:20 AM
I voted just not sure, because, well, I'm just not sure...
First of all, I would agree that it's not the dog's fault. They are just doing what they were bred forever to do.
Second of all, I would agree that it's the owners' faults, when pit bulls go bad.
Third, I'm sure that most pit bull lovers'/owners' immediate reaction to this poll was a defensive one, and they don't like to see their "babies" portrayed in a negative light; I know I wouldn't, if I had one.
Fourth, I'm not so sure a ban would help, because the people who let their dogs become killers would probably just find another breed to ruin, as someone previously said.
Fifth, Who says that a ban would be a bad thing for a pit bull, though? Assuming banning could be done in some humane way. If the really vicous ones are put down, they might be going on to a better place and away from the nasty humans who raised them to be that way. Sad to thing about. But maybe more humane than living a life as a living weapon. Or, in my fantasyland of a mind, I'd like to think of a nice big island where they could all go and live freely as they wished, with an unlimited supply of dog chow and water. I guess that's silly thinking! But my point is, that if pit bulls are getting such a bad rap, maybe it would be kinder not to breed them anymore. Because somewhere a sweet pit bull is getting accused of being a killer and get put down, because somewhere a stupid person is training his pit to attack cops, because somewhere...you get the picture. So maybe if they quit breeding them for awhile, and if another breed just replaces them as "the killer lockjaw dog"...that might be what it takes for the rest of America to admit that it is the people who are responsible. Or at least, maybe the breed could be altered, maybe breed in some sweet little chihuahua in the mix :hehehehe: Yup I'm jokin' Although I am the proud owner of the sweetest, docile chihuahua in the world, the rest of the little suckers I've met scare me to death. Which brings me to my next question, and I'm not trying to be smart-alec about it:
How many of you who are extreme pit bull devotees and 100% against a ban can say that if you were walking down the street alone one day and somehow found yourself in the path of a strange pit bull, there wouldn't be the slightest hesitation, the slightest increase in heartbeat, the slightest uncertainty...that maybe-I'll-just-cross-the road-and-not-take-any-chances-thought in your mind? You don't have to answer me, I'd just like to have people put themselves mentally in that position, and then multiply that by 1000, and there's where you get why so many people are against pitbulls. Try not to take it too personally. People who have never had the pleasure of encountering a sweet pit bull only have the horror stories they hear in the news to go by. It's just like Anything Else. Hey, that's a Woody Allen movie. But alas, that's another forum, and I've already rambled enough. :smile:

MockingbirdOxygen
October 20th, 2004, 12:23 AM
Oh Yeah, another thing...


I think we should BAN Roll-on!
:yayah:

Sorry couldn't resist. Do that still make that antiperspirant?

ObsidianSunrise
October 20th, 2004, 02:53 AM
AuntBoo, your question about crossing paths with a strange pitbull is a good question. I have a friend who will walk right up to any dog, aggressive or non aggressive and within seconds be its best friend. Unlike her, I don't have the special touch to calm animals. But it isn't just a strange pitbull that I would hesitate over, it is any dog that I don't know or doesn't know me. I almost lost my thumb to a Boston Terrier that I came across one time and thought was cute so I tried to pet it. I won't make that mistake again. While I am not afraid of dogs, I am leary of strange or stray dogs. Kind of that once bitten, twice shy thing. It isn't just the big dogs that can inflict damage.

I don't think pitbulls or rots or any other so called dangerous breed dog should be banned. I think there should be stricter laws regulating how they are to be contained in some instances such as guard animals. It tears me up to see dogs put down that were so abused that they became unmanageable. The people that made them that way should be the ones put away. And city/state/federal lawmakers that want to ban these dogs should educate themselves before they pass judgement on a whole breed of dogs.

MorningDove030202
October 20th, 2004, 10:12 AM
Maybe there should be a law that all male pit bulls be fixed at the age of 1 1/2 or maybe at 2 years of age. It would cut down on the number of puppies and thus number of people who own them and make the ones who are owned better pets.

Dove

Epona44
October 20th, 2004, 10:23 AM
My mother wound up with a pit bull, dumped at her country house by someone who didn't want it. The dog is completely people safe. No worries.

But it tried to kill my mother's Akita, and it killed her basenji.

I have suggested that she shouldn't keep it, but she says it's the nature of the beast. I would, myself, have a hard time being that accepting.

Perhaps that means I have more growth to accomplish.

:dontknow:

arctic splash
October 20th, 2004, 10:25 AM
I love pitbulls! If I ever get a puppy I'd definitely consider a pitbull. The pitbulls I know are some of the most lovable animals in the world. I've never had so much fun with a dog in my life as with my uncle's pitbull August. No non-human has made me laugh so much as a pitbull! Although they do have strong jaws, they're smart animals, and they know not to hurt anyone, even when you're playing rough. :) Unless, of course, they're trained to do that...... So of course I'd put my hand in a pitbull's mouth and let him bit me and pull at me! Just like any dog, though, you want to get to know it better before you do that.

DrkCrystalWhtDragon
October 20th, 2004, 10:34 AM
I have never been afriad of a large breed of dog. Call me what you but I have been known to get in between dog fights like a bouncer in a bar.

for those of you who say that they are bred to be nasty that way did you ever think about what the breader did to the dog in their first 4 weeks. granted jaw strengh size have been bred in but thats more like selective evelution.

diamondtiger
October 20th, 2004, 11:20 AM
In response to AuntBoo

I voted just not sure, because, well, I'm just not sure...
First of all, I would agree that it's not the dog's fault. They are just doing what they were bred forever to do. The problem in this is that they weren't bred for human aggression. Bull baiting was the job of the bull dog. If a bull got away from the hunter, the bull dog would go after the bull and hold it down by it's nose until the hunters arrived for the bull. From this history, the bull dog started to hold the animals for the butcher. This where these dogs derived from. When the breed was developed, it was for work and for sport. When bull-baiting and bear-baiting became outlawed in England in 1835, dogmen began breeding bulldogs specifically for pit fighting. The breed was then “hard-wired” for dog-aggression (a properly socialized and controlled pit will not be aggressive with them), through hundreds of years of selective breeding. During which time, any human-aggressive dog was culled, thus creating human-friendly dogs. No dogman would want to have a human-aggressive dog in the pit fighting ring, and then have to handle the dog. I do under stand your point though. That people made the dog this way.

Second of all, I would agree that it's the owners' faults, when pit bulls go bad. To a certain extent. Much responsibility lies with the breeders. It's their duty to make sure that these aggressive traits are bred out of these dogs. We've been talking about finding a stud for Sugar. If and when we do, we intend to be VERY selective and find a male whose personality matches her own.

Third, I'm sure that most pit bull lovers'/owners' immediate reaction to this poll was a defensive one, and they don't like to see their "babies" portrayed in a negative light; I know I wouldn't, if I had one. You're right, I don't want Sugar to be judged by her breed. It's just not right. However, life isn't always fair, which is why I keep stating these facts and examples about pits. They can't fight their own battles, so as a pit owner and animal lover, I'll happily do it for them. :)

Fifth, Who says that a ban would be a bad thing for a pit bull, though? Assuming banning could be done in some humane way. If the really vicous ones are put down, they might be going on to a better place and away from the nasty humans who raised them to be that way. Sad to thing about. But maybe more humane than living a life as a living weapon. Or, in my fantasyland of a mind, I'd like to think of a nice big island where they could all go and live freely as they wished, with an unlimited supply of dog chow and water. if another breed just replaces them as "the killer lockjaw dog"...that might be what it takes for the rest of America to admit that it is the people who are responsible. It'd be nice if it really worked this way. Unfortunately, I don't believe it would. IMO education is the best way to redeem the pits status among the ranks of “family pets”. There are so many ppl who debate gun bans, so think of pits in this way if you will. Like a gun, pits don't kill. The ppl who use the gun, or in this case carelessly breed or condition the dogs kill. I support tougher gun laws, in which the offender is punished to the fullest extent of the law. I would support tougher animal control laws as well. I won't argue that, as with any breed, some need to be put down. Not an entire breed though, because there are more than a lot of responsibly bred and owned pits out there who in fact make wonderful companions.

Here's something to think about. If someone decided to rob us while we were away, my bet would be that Sugar would follow the intruder through the house wanting her head scratched. On the other hand, if our lives were being threatened, I'm confident she'd die trying to defend us. I don't think anyone would fault a dog for that.

How many of you who are extreme pit bull devotees and 100% against a ban can say that if you were walking down the street alone one day and somehow found yourself in the path of a strange pit bull, there wouldn't be the slightest hesitation, the slightest increase in heartbeat, the slightest uncertainty...that maybe-I'll-just-cross-the road-and-not-take-any-chances-thought in your mind? I'd be hesitant and slightly nervous about any strange dog, be it pit or pug. You never know about strange dogs, one's just as capable as biting as the other.

More pitbull facts:
Did “you” know that bull dogs were actually mastiffs? When bulbating was banned, dogmen used the bull dog, mixed in some terrier blood, and produced the Bull and Terrier dog? Bull and Terrier dogs came to the US in the early 1800s as all-around farm dogs and frontier guardians. The United Kennel Club recognized the Bull and Terrier Dog as the American Pit Bull Terrier in 1898. Buster Brown shoes put its mascot in every shoe with the image of Tige, an American Pit Bull Terrier, to enhance its image as a sturdy, dependable shoe. RCA used Nipper, a pit bull of unknown ancestry, to illustrate the clarity of sound emanating from its phonograph. The breed was used to illustrate American neutrality without fear in 1914, the toughness of Levi jeans, and as a"defender of Old Glory."

Black RiverWolf
October 20th, 2004, 11:23 AM
The shelters her are supposed to put them down as well cause they are dangerous dogs. Yeah right tell that to ye olde couch potato skye and her son Whistler and daughter Persephone. I also agree that there are some pits that are very aggressive. My friend has three. one is a pup that i gave them. their male i trust he jumped in my lap and did the doggie hi thing. But the female that they have even they don't trust to have around thier kids.

If we had told the insurence people what kind of dogs we have we would not have been able ot get homeowners insurence. Thank god we had labs and said that they were lab mixes. but with my Akita/Saint Bernard, 2 Rott/German shep, Pitt, Pitt/Shepard/Rott, Lab/Rott/Shepard we are screwed. all are on the biteing list. they would not allow us to have it either if we said that we did horse lessons. but that a diff topic sorry admins. I do think that there should be a better way for obtaining pitts then just going to a random breeder and picking a dog. around here most are bred for fighting what ones they don't want are then sold as 'good family dogs'.

djmixon
October 20th, 2004, 11:29 AM
No, I dont think they should be banned......I do however feel that owners should know how to control their animals before they are allowed to get them.
Well said. Pit Bulls (or Staffordshire Terriers) as well as any number of other dogs labeled as "dangerous" are only that way because they are trained to be that way. . .either through the neglegence of the owners or through the willful acts of the owners. Said owners should be the ones "put down" - or at least never allowed to own animals.

djmixon
October 20th, 2004, 11:33 AM
Just out of curiosity, how many of you would be afraid to brush a pit's teeth?
If I know the dog and it knows me and it is familiar with the teeth brushing thing. . .no matter what the breed. . .I would not be afraid at all.

However, if I don't know the dog, or it is unfamiliar with the teeth brushing thing. . .no matter what the breed, I would not go near it.

When I was young, I was bitten by a Pekingnese. . .nasty little dog. . .to this day, I don't care for them and don't trust them. Chihuahuas are in the same boat, but that is because they look too much like rats. . .and I HATE rats. . .

Haerfest Leah
October 20th, 2004, 11:42 AM
IMO in order for any dog of this nature to be purchased the owner must sign paperwork from animal control and the police dept that this animal will go thru obedience school with the owner within 30 days time for example. The the owner should understand how dogs of this nature can behave and know what their getting themselves into. Someone can be put in a job that tracks the care and training of these animals and if the rules are not being followed then the owner is fined and the animal taken away. The rules should be very strict.

~BEBZ~
October 20th, 2004, 12:02 PM
First off: Smaller breeds might be more aggressive dogs, but I've yet to hear of a Chihuahua killing someone.

Second: Try telling a 6 year old that has no eye left that it wasn't the dogs fault!

Third: Every week here in CO, we have another attack from a Pit Bull. One woman was killed last year! I really doubt that their are that many people out there that are such horrible dog owners, when they have other dogs that are completely fine and show no aggression.

To put everything on the owners is ridiculous. This is a completely different issue, but victims in some situations have responsibility to. To put everything on an owner is saying that if someone climbs your fence and gets bit in your yard by your dog that it is perfectly OK for them to sue you. That's just stupid.

And; there are already laws for dogs. Leash laws, dog running at large laws, laws on posting warning signs where aggressive dogs are. We have laws that are meant to try to control the instance of attack. And yes, if someone just lets their dog roam around and it bites someone they should get in trouble. But if they are just casually walking their dog, who has never shown aggression before, was not raised in an aggressive environment, and all of the sudden it bites someone, then who's fault is it?

Maybe the words shouldn't be "Ban all aggressive breeds" maybe it should be "Ban all dangerous breeds" I know small breeds can be a lot more aggressive, but their not anywhere near as dangerous!

LadyAutumnCat
October 20th, 2004, 04:05 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many of you would be afraid to brush a pit's teeth?

Not me! I would brush a pit's teeth in a heartbeat.

Faeawyn
October 20th, 2004, 04:31 PM
Here in florida we hear about animal attacks all the time.....and every single time some child or something is mauled...it's a pit bull. Absolutely every time! I think that aggression is in their nature, and unless they are properly trained, people should not own them.
And I think fighting them is the most horrid thing I've ever heard of :G

MoonKnight
October 20th, 2004, 04:41 PM
"Pit bull" is not a breed, but a "type" that encompasses several registered breeds and crossbreeds. Therefore, statistics that claim "Pit bulls" are responsible for some percentage of attacks are lumping many separate breeds together, then comparing that to other dogs that are counted as individual breeds.

Breed identification is left up to victim and witness testimony, and is often wrong. Due to negative press, biting dogs of almost ANY breed have been called "Pit bulls". Try this little quiz for fun: Find the Pit Bull (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html). See how many people you know can pick out a pit bull from pictures, let alone in the middle of an attack.

Search the Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/) site. Even the CDC supports the position that irresponsible owners, not breed, are the chief cause of dog bites. They have done studies that indicate that the most "dangerous breed" of dog changes with popularity and reputation.

Search the American Temperament Test Society (http://www.atts.org/). Pit bulls have an average score that beats even the "ultimate family dog", the Golden Retriever.

Clearly the message is lets stop targeting the dogs! Pit Bulls are not more dangerous than any other strong and large dog. They just happen to attract more irresponsible and abusive owners than any other breed right now... Ironically, by portraying them in a negative way, the media and breed legislators only make these dogs irresistibly attractive to individuals with bad intentions. Do Pit Bull haters really think that after banning the breed all the criminals who use these dogs as weapons will own Basset Hounds instead? And if they did, how long do you think it would take before Basset Hounds start making the news?

A breed ban will only remove Pit Bulls from good people's home and leave them in the hands of animal abusers who couldn't care less about the law... Better think twice before supporting such measure...

Taken from:http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.html

LadyAutumnCat
October 20th, 2004, 04:49 PM
"Pit bull" is not a breed, but a "type" that encompasses several registered breeds and crossbreeds. Therefore, statistics that claim "Pit bulls" are responsible for some percentage of attacks are lumping many separate breeds together, then comparing that to other dogs that are counted as individual breeds.

Breed identification is left up to victim and witness testimony, and is often wrong. Due to negative press, biting dogs of almost ANY breed have been called "Pit bulls". Try this little quiz for fun: Find the Pit Bull (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html). See how many people you know can pick out a pit bull from pictures, let alone in the middle of an attack.

Search the Center for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/) site. Even the CDC supports the position that irresponsible owners, not breed, are the chief cause of dog bites. They have done studies that indicate that the most "dangerous breed" of dog changes with popularity and reputation.

Search the American Temperament Test Society (http://www.atts.org/). Pit bulls have an average score that beats even the "ultimate family dog", the Golden Retriever.

Clearly the message is lets stop targeting the dogs! Pit Bulls are not more dangerous than any other strong and large dog. They just happen to attract more irresponsible and abusive owners than any other breed right now... Ironically, by portraying them in a negative way, the media and breed legislators only make these dogs irresistibly attractive to individuals with bad intentions. Do Pit Bull haters really think that after banning the breed all the criminals who use these dogs as weapons will own Basset Hounds instead? And if they did, how long do you think it would take before Basset Hounds start making the news?

A breed ban will only remove Pit Bulls from good people's home and leave them in the hands of animal abusers who couldn't care less about the law... Better think twice before supporting such measure...

Taken from:http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.html

I agree wholeheartedly!!! Wonderful post!!!

savannahrose44
October 20th, 2004, 05:52 PM
hi in a seperate thread called pits love em or hate em is a short movie clip about pit bulls

http://www.deviantart.com/view/11454716/

Thank you for that. So few are wiling to look at both sides of the coin and realize that the real thing to be feared are the monsters who own and create the beast. :)

savannahrose44
October 20th, 2004, 05:56 PM
But....big BUT here.........what the hell is a Pit Bull? An Am Staff? A Staffordshire Terrier? Any of the recognized "bull" breeds? Geez...."pit bull" can cover an awful lot of dogs....I was watching one of the "animal police" shows on AP and one of the cops called a dog a Rottweiler...It looked like a Black and Tan Coonhound to me.............Some of the Detroit and NY cops don't know their butt from a hole in the ground.....

Very true:D

savannahrose44
October 20th, 2004, 06:01 PM
I had this talk with my mom and she thinks that even if the owners of a pitbull are good owners and all that, the dogs would still be violent. I SO disagree with that!! I believe that any dog has the opertunity to be good natured, if it recieves enough attention and proper training.

That is right. Dogs are no different than humans in their need for love and affection. Statistically speaking more murderers, rapists and gang bangers come from homes where they had a lack in such areas in their youth. It is no different with animals. Treat them with love and respect and they will return it 10 fold. Mistreat them and their natural instinct to defend and protect their own live kicks in no different than humans. :bigblue:

LadyAutumnCat
October 20th, 2004, 06:03 PM
That is right. Dogs are no different than humans in their need for love and affection. Statistically speaking more murderers, rapists and gang bangers come from homes where they had a lack in such areas in their youth. It is no different with animals. Treat them with love and respect and they will return it 10 fold. Mistreat them and their natural instinct to defend and protect their own live kicks in no different than humans. :bigblue:

I completely agree with you. I think that the reason people blame the dogs is because we don't want to acknowledge the fact that we are truly evil. Any animal raised with love will be loving, any animal that is TRAINED and ABUSED into fighting, will do just that, fight, because all they know is fear, pain, and anger.

savannahrose44
October 20th, 2004, 06:04 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many of you would be afraid to brush a pit's teeth?

Not at all I have done it many many times as a matter of fact and it was not my dog. I worked in a veterinary office where it was my job to educate clients on the propper care of their pets. I can honestly say the only pit I ever had snap at me came in with wounds that could only have come from dog fighting. Something the animal itself did not make the choice to do. :G

savannahrose44
October 20th, 2004, 06:10 PM
Maybe there should be a law that all male pit bulls be fixed at the age of 1 1/2 or maybe at 2 years of age. It would cut down on the number of puppies and thus number of people who own them and make the ones who are owned better pets.

Dove

Idealy and humanely they would be fixed long before their first birthday. You see once these dogs testicles drop the testosterone is already in thier system and often times removing them at a later age in life can only serve to make them more agressive as they already know the feeling of agression. And they feel more threatend for the lack of it in their bodies. If a dog is to be neutered at all it should be done around 5- 6 months of age this is why vets recommend it.

savannahrose44
October 20th, 2004, 06:13 PM
IMO in order for any dog of this nature to be purchased the owner must sign paperwork from animal control and the police dept that this animal will go thru obedience school with the owner within 30 days time for example. The the owner should understand how dogs of this nature can behave and know what their getting themselves into. Someone can be put in a job that tracks the care and training of these animals and if the rules are not being followed then the owner is fined and the animal taken away. The rules should be very strict.

There is one problem with this theory. Not everyone can afford to take their pets through obedience school and so many train at home. Placing this kind of stipulation on owning a pit makes them a luxury item that only those with the means can afford to have. That is not fair to Joe schmoe who has had several pits in the past all perfectly well behaved and trained at home with love and devotion. Just my opinion. _travolta_

savannahrose44
October 20th, 2004, 06:18 PM
First off: Smaller breeds might be more aggressive dogs, but I've yet to hear of a Chihuahua killing someone.



You've never heard of it because generally these dogs are too small to overpower a full grown human being...howver put them up against a small child and the result could be a lot different. I have seen the kind of damage they can do and if you think that just because they are smaller they are not as big a threat you are unbelieveably naieve. My co-worker when I was working in the clinic had to get 300 stitches due to a little dog such as these. It also severed the artery and three of her fingers are now useless because of the damage done. :geez:

savannahrose44
October 20th, 2004, 06:22 PM
Here in florida we hear about animal attacks all the time.....and every single time some child or something is mauled...it's a pit bull. Absolutely every time! I think that aggression is in their nature, and unless they are properly trained, people should not own them.
And I think fighting them is the most horrid thing I've ever heard of :G

This is what you hear because it's what the media presents to the public. In the state of Oregon there is a one bite rule...in other words the dog only gets to bite someone once and I can tell you I worked in that clinic for a long time and we never had to put a pit down for biting. It was usually either a dalmation (5), Lhasa Apso (9), or a toy poodle (3) and those are just the ones I was there to witness and keep count of. :foh:

lovemy1dane
October 20th, 2004, 07:51 PM
No! They should not ban any dog. I have seen sweet pit bulls and my DH cousin has 2 of te sweetest Rotties in the world. It is all on how you raise the dogs. I have seen a mean lab(how can you abuse a lab to the point of making it mean? they are soo good natured) Just because people like to give this breed a bad rep does not make the dogs bad.

Breathless Falcon
October 21st, 2004, 03:59 AM
I think it depends on HOW they are trained or treated when they are young. My ex's daughter had one. If you were afraid of him he barked more, if he knew you or they were home you were ok. I could be with him and he would lick me to death( in a good way, not for dinner) and happy to see me. :hmmmmm: He was very protective of his home and the people in it.

Just use common sense with any dog.

Falcon

Doodlebug
October 21st, 2004, 05:47 AM
No of course they shouldn't be banned! Just because a few Pit Bulls have been known to be dangerous doesn't mean they all are. In fact, I think I read on a website somewhere that Pit Bulls that are dangerous were 99% of the time abused as a puppy. Actually I don't remember what the percentage was or if there even was a percentage but I think you get my point. If a Pit Bull is raised well and is not abused as a puppy (or anytime for that matter!) then they're likely to make good pets. I've never really been around a Pit bull before but that's what I've heard about them.

AuroraSilvermist
October 21st, 2004, 09:27 AM
Absolutely NOT! :bangyourh

Viscious dog legislation, yes. Breed specific laws, no, no, NO! Do we really want our local government, or perhaps even state and, maybe someday if it gets really out of hand, federal government telling us what kind of dog we should own?

Ever met an American Staffordshire terrier? They're one of the breeds often classified as "pit bulls." And you know what? I've never met one (and I've met quite a few as I've been in the dog business for 18 years) that wasn't a complete love bug. It's not the BREED that's bad, it's the breeders...and the owners. I've seen spaniels that were worse biters than any "pit bull" I've ever met. I saw a cute little schnauzer practically take a woman's hand off.

Okay, I'm done. *pant! pant! pant!*

EDIT: The naughty word bot changed c-o-c-k-e-r spaniel to "roosterer" spaniel! :foopsies: :lol:

AuroraSilvermist
October 21st, 2004, 09:31 AM
If a Pit Bull is raised well and is not abused as a puppy (or anytime for that matter!) then they're likely to make good pets. I've never really been around a Pit bull before but that's what I've heard about them.

It isn't just how they're raised--it's how they are bred. A lot of irresponsible breeders will breed dogs that are known to have questionable temperaments, and temperament is transferred genetically. And this happens in ALL breeds.

The thing that gets people up in the air about pit bull-type breeds is that once they DO bite, they bite in a BIG way. They have powerful jaws, and they tend to clamp on and not let go, all while causing a lot of physical damage. So...when a pit bull bites, it tends to be bad. But they shouldn't HAVE to bite.

Myzttycal
October 21st, 2004, 10:17 AM
I have and raise Pitbulls and they are wonderful dogs IF treated correctly! They should not be let alone in the yard on a chain. They need to be reminded at times who is boss and need to be raised by people who are responseble with there animals!
My 2 babies (3 & 1) are the best dogs I have ever had! They are just big teddy bears BUT are very protective of the family, they know if we let someone in the house to sit down and just watch them and usually will ignore them after sniffing and licking them. If someone were to try to hurt anyone in this house I do feel sorry for them.
They are super smart and think (at least mine do) that they are one of the kids.
They are really GREAT dogs they just need to be trained from an early age and need to be reminded once in awhile. I think anyone who owns ANY dogs Pitbull or not should make sure they spend time with their doggies and train them.
Myzttycal

diamondtiger
October 21st, 2004, 11:47 AM
Breed identification is left up to victim and witness testimony, and is often wrong. Due to negative press, biting dogs of almost ANY breed have been called "Pit bulls". Try this little quiz for fun: Find the Pit Bull (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html). See how many people you know can pick out a pit bull from pictures, let alone in the middle of an attack.
MoonKnight, I really appreciate this test being in your post, because it's so true. I'm curious to know how many of us picked the right dog the very first time. Be honest ppl, it's nothing to be ashamed of if we didn't. Many of these dogs do look like pits. Though I got it right the first time, I'll admit that it took me longer than I thought it would to recognize the pit. If I were being attacked by any one of these dogs, I couldn't honestly tell you it was a pit (or what else it might be for that matter).

It isn't just how they're raised--it's how they are bred. A lot of irresponsible breeders will breed dogs that are known to have questionable temperaments, and temperament is transferred genetically. And this happens in ALL breeds. Aurora, thank you. I think you said it better than I did.


Myzttycal- They need to be reminded at times who is boss and need to be raised by people who are responseble with there animals! I think anyone who owns ANY dogs Pitbull or not should make sure they spend time with their doggies and train them.I agree. Isis (my dad's Basenji) is a totally out of control, spoiled rotten little “twit”. She is the master of his house, and she's not afraid to let anyone know it. I worry more about her than any of my “dangerous” breeds. Isis is crazy to say the least. The dog kills copperheads, so there's no doubt in my mind that if she wanted to, she could inflict serious injuries to a person. I've seen her challenge my 4 dogs at one time, and she holds her own pretty well. The only dog I've ever seen “take her down” was my Venus (dane/weimaraner) mix. My rott couldn't beat this dog!

So yeah, all breeds need to learn their place in the “pack order”, and occasionally be reminded. Also, to those who believe that smaller dogs don't/can't do as much damage as a pit or other large breed, think of this little lion hunter. (To any basenji owners here, this in no way an “attack” on your babies. I am simply stating my experience with the “BRAT”. I say “BRAT” very lovingly btw. We shared our home with Bovu, Isis' son, until he was tragically killed last year after being hit by a car. He was my baby and my daughters best friend.:ggrief: )

Valnorran
October 21st, 2004, 12:55 PM
I voted yes. As I understand it, pit bulls were originally bred for aggression. It's built in to them, and it seems to emerge for no particular reason. I agree people should be held responsible, but having an animal that is endowed with aggression and power and no ability to choose just seems like a recipe for disaster to me. The fact that smaller dogs are more aggressive is also irrelevant. Exactly how much damage can a ticked off rat terrier do? Probably no more than a neurotic siamese cat. But a ticked off pit bull will probably leave you maimed for life (if it doesn't kill you). Many attacks are "provoked" by people going in the animal's yard, but many times the dog will leave its yard and come after someone who did absolutely nothing. From what I gather one often has to exercise a greater degree of control over a pit bull than most other breeds, constantly reminding them who the alfa male is, and that they get more difficult with age. I'm sure not all pit bulls are like this, but it seems like enough of them are to constitute a problem. Not all bears are aggressive either, but do we think they'd make good pets? Gaboon vipers are generally quite placid, but I certainly wouldn't want one around. Why? Because if it ever does decide to bite you, you're in deep, deep trouble. Same goes for pit bulls. If a dachsund bites your kid, the kid's hurt but will probably be all right. If a pit bull bites you kid, say good-bye to the kid's face.

AnimeObsession
October 21st, 2004, 01:41 PM
My sister's friend has a Pitt and she's a nice little girl, hyper but nice.

Its not the dogs fault, its the owner's. Dogs aren't born mean or vicious, Its the people who raise them badly that make them so.

I say NO on the Ban.

OriginalWacky
October 21st, 2004, 02:20 PM
I'm firmly on the side that specific breeds should not be banned. I do believe there should be stronger laws to deal with the consequences when ANY dog attacks a human (or other animal) unprovoked.

I've known examples of great pits, and a few that weren't so great. The ones who weren't were invariably mistreated at some point, and some of the great ones had been but came out of it alright. I'd trust a pit over most terrier breeds, and over a lot of other supposedly better dogs. Of course, that doesn't mean I just walk up to any strange dog and figure it's okay.

Just for some recent experience, the kennel I work at has quite a few breeds come through that are considered aggressive breeds. I can list off 14 Pitts, 17 Rotties, 6 German Shepherds, 13 Dobermans, 5 Chows, and 4 Akitas that come in regularly. Not one of these has ever bitten anybody, or even acted as if they were going to.

We've had 7 dogs come in who are known biters (have actually bitten somebody in the past), and here is a rundown of their breeds: 1 Springer Spaniel, 2 Welsh Terriers, 1 Beagle, 1 Lab, 1 Lhasa Apso, and 1 Golden Retriever mix. None of those are what most people consider dangerous, but at least one of them has done serious damage to a person.

Going further back, my vet has only been bitten badly by one dog, and it was a Chow. He bred them, and never had a problem with his, but this was a patient, not one of his. The dog nailed him in the face, and left a fair scar.

And just because I want to show off my babies, I'm adding a picture of the two dogs I had before I moved out of SD. Neither dog has ever shown any aggression, though both were rescues from abusive situations.

AuroraSilvermist
October 21st, 2004, 02:45 PM
I voted yes. As I understand it, pit bulls were originally bred for aggression. It's built in to them, and it seems to emerge for no particular reason. I agree people should be held responsible, but having an animal that is endowed with aggression and power and no ability to choose just seems like a recipe for disaster to me. The fact that smaller dogs are more aggressive is also irrelevant. Exactly how much damage can a ticked off rat terrier do? Probably no more than a neurotic siamese cat. But a ticked off pit bull will probably leave you maimed for life (if it doesn't kill you). Many attacks are "provoked" by people going in the animal's yard, but many times the dog will leave its yard and come after someone who did absolutely nothing. From what I gather one often has to exercise a greater degree of control over a pit bull than most other breeds, constantly reminding them who the alfa male is, and that they get more difficult with age. I'm sure not all pit bulls are like this, but it seems like enough of them are to constitute a problem. Not all bears are aggressive either, but do we think they'd make good pets? Gaboon vipers are generally quite placid, but I certainly wouldn't want one around. Why? Because if it ever does decide to bite you, you're in deep, deep trouble. Same goes for pit bulls. If a dachsund bites your kid, the kid's hurt but will probably be all right. If a pit bull bites you kid, say good-bye to the kid's face.

I wish I could find pictures of what a golden retriever did to my brother's face. The entire left side of his face was black from the bruise the dog left, and his eye was swollen shut. ANY dog can do some pretty serious damage. So can a Siamese cat, for that matter.

Again, don't blame the dog. Pits, just like all terriers, are bred with an innate desire to "spar," which is to say, react aggressively to other dogs. So yes, aggression IS part of their make-up. The problem lies not with the breed, but with irresponsible breeders and owners.

So, what happens if we ban one breed, such as the pit bull? What comes next? Do we start eliminating other breeds, as well? Take a look at that BREED RECOGNITION TEST (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html) Moonknight posted. Did YOU pick the right dog? So, what should become of all those beautiful breeds? Do we eliminate boxers and bull terriers because they have that "pit bull look?"

I believe there should be harsh penalties for anyone who behaves irresponsibly in the training and keeping of their dogs. If a dog is left unattended, or is not under its owner's control, and it bites...it's the owner's fault, and they should be dealt with severely. I'm not opposed to euthanizing dogs that violently attack people--it's sad, and it's not the animal's fault, but sometimes it needs to be done.

And wouldn't dog breeders think twice about the dogs they bred and sold if they were made to register each litter of puppies they produce and sell; and if they, too, could be held liable for problem dogs? It'll never happen, because it would be too hard to regulate and too difficult to determine whether the fault was with the breeder and genetic wiring or the owner's handling of the dog, but think about it. It frustrates me to no end to see the number of people who will breed and sell animals indescriminately in the name of making a buck.

Anyhow, I've ranted long enough. I'm just very passionate about this subject. _whistle_

diamondtiger
October 21st, 2004, 02:47 PM
I voted yes. As I understand it, pit bulls were originally bred for aggression. It's built in to them, and it seems to emerge for no particular reason. I agree people should be held responsible, but having an animal that is endowed with aggression and power and no ability to choose just seems like a recipe for disaster to me. The fact that smaller dogs are more aggressive is also irrelevant. Exactly how much damage can a ticked off rat terrier do? Probably no more than a neurotic siamese cat. But a ticked off pit bull will probably leave you maimed for life (if it doesn't kill you). Many attacks are "provoked" by people going in the animal's yard, but many times the dog will leave its yard and come after someone who did absolutely nothing. From what I gather one often has to exercise a greater degree of control over a pit bull than most other breeds, constantly reminding them who the alfa male is, and that they get more difficult with age. I'm sure not all pit bulls are like this, but it seems like enough of them are to constitute a problem. Not all bears are aggressive either, but do we think they'd make good pets? Gaboon vipers are generally quite placid, but I certainly wouldn't want one around. Why? Because if it ever does decide to bite you, you're in deep, deep trouble. Same goes for pit bulls. If a dachsund bites your kid, the kid's hurt but will probably be all right. If a pit bull bites you kid, say good-bye to the kid's face.
It's “funny” that you mention Siamese cats here. I had a beautiful male Siamese when I was a kid. Rajha was his name. Now the thing about Rajha was that he was the “best watch dog” any one could have. He was totally loyal to our family and our home, nobody got past this cat. One year our neighbor agreed to feed our animals while we were away on vacation. We put Rajha in my parents room with more than enough food and water to sustain him until we got home. We told our neighbor not to open the bedroom door, because he was in there (she already knew of his temperament). When we arrived home the following week, she met us outside and told us that our animals were starving. She said that a couple of days before we got home, she felt sorry for Rajha and let him out for some attention. She told us that he “stood up like a bear and ran towards her hissing”. The cat climbed her leg and upon to her shoulder, he was going for her face. She got him off of her, but not before he had scratched her badly and bitten her a couple of times. She made it outside and managed not to let him out, but she couldn't get back in after that to feed the animals anymore. She wasn't upset with us, because she said we warned her. To this day she's got the scars that tell the tail of Rajha.


The fact that smaller dogs are more aggressive is also irrelevant.
Tell this to both my sister and my cousin, who were attacked by the same chihuahua. Both times he went for the face. My cousin had 23 (or so)stitches, and now displays the scar on her eye that this “cute and harmless” dog gave her. My sister bears scars on her cheek and mouth from Poncho. BTW, my sis is the proud “mother” of a very sweet pit/lab/chow mix.

zakzekezedd
October 21st, 2004, 03:10 PM
The Pit Bulls aren't the problem, the irresponsible idiots who own them and don't socialize or train them properly are the problem. I've known some very sweet, genuinely good natured pit bulls....I've also witnessed what happens when the dogs aren't socialized or trained properly. Unfortunately, it is much easier to ban a breed of dog than to ban irresponsible or abusive owners.

Valnorran
October 21st, 2004, 04:38 PM
I wish I could find pictures of what a golden retriever did to my brother's face. The entire left side of his face was black from the bruise the dog left, and his eye was swollen shut.
If his attacker had been a pit bull, he probably wouldn't have a face. Pits don't just bite and let go. They keep biting and tearing.
What I don't understand is how we can say

Again, don't blame the dog. Pits, just like all terriers, are bred with an innate desire to "spar," which is to say, react aggressively to other dogs. So yes, aggression IS part of their make-up.
then say

The problem lies not with the breed, but with irresponsible breeders and owners.
If aggression is part of their make-up, then I'd say there's a problem with the breed. Also with owners, but with the breed, too. Sure there are nice pit bulls. I've also read about pit bulls that were docile for years before deciding to relieve someone of excess body mass.

AuroraSilvermist
October 21st, 2004, 04:44 PM
If aggression is part of their make-up, then I'd say there's a problem with the breed. Also with owners, but with the breed, too. Sure there are nice pit bulls. I've also read about pit bulls that were docile for years before deciding to relieve someone of excess body mass.

They were bred to spar against other dogs, which is what I said. They were not bred for aggressiveness toward humans. Any breed that is considered a guard dog will behave aggressively when it's people are threatened--rottwielers, dobermans, German shepherds, etc. That does not mean that aggressiveness in the absence of any sort of threat is the norm, nor that it is acceptable. NO BREED was ever created for the sole purpose of attacking humans without being provoked, but ALL DOGS can and will react aggressively in the presence of a threat.

Pit bulls that bite or attack indescriminately are not NORMAL pit bulls. They are dogs that have been improperly bred and/or raised.

Valnorran
October 21st, 2004, 04:52 PM
It's “funny” that you mention Siamese cats here. I had a beautiful male Siamese when I was a kid. Rajha was his name. Now the thing about Rajha was that he was the “best watch dog” any one could have. He was totally loyal to our family and our home, nobody got past this cat. One year our neighbor agreed to feed our animals while we were away on vacation. We put Rajha in my parents room with more than enough food and water to sustain him until we got home. We told our neighbor not to open the bedroom door, because he was in there (she already knew of his temperament). When we arrived home the following week, she met us outside and told us that our animals were starving. She said that a couple of days before we got home, she felt sorry for Rajha and let him out for some attention. She told us that he “stood up like a bear and ran towards her hissing”. The cat climbed her leg and upon to her shoulder, he was going for her face. She got him off of her, but not before he had scratched her badly and bitten her a couple of times. She made it outside and managed not to let him out, but she couldn't get back in after that to feed the animals anymore. She wasn't upset with us, because she said we warned her. To this day she's got the scars that tell the tail of Rajha.


Tell this to both my sister and my cousin, who were attacked by the same chihuahua. Both times he went for the face. My cousin had 23 (or so)stitches, and now displays the scar on her eye that this “cute and harmless” dog gave her. My sister bears scars on her cheek and mouth from Poncho. BTW, my sis is the proud “mother” of a very sweet pit/lab/chow mix.
Neither a chihuahua nor a siamese cat, even with flaming cases of rabies, is going to do anywhere near the damage a pit bull will. It's like comparing a pirhana to a great white. Nasty? Yes, but it takes several pirhanas to pose a serious threat, but even a juvenile great white is enough to ruin a person's day. Yes, small dogs can do damage, but when was the last time a small dog ripped away an entire muscle group from a person? When was the last time a small dog killed a person? One of the few good sentiments to come out of Jurrasic Park:
"Every park has problems. When Disneyworld opened, nothing worked."
"Yes, John, but when the Pirates of the Carribean break down, the pirates don't eat the tourists."
Every dog can do damage.
Yes, but not every dog removes a few pounds of your anatomy when they bite.
Most dog attacks involve the dog biting and letting go. Pit bulls don't stop. They continue the attack. They usually don't do you the courtesy of growling or snarling. They just come for you. I don't understand why, out of all the dog breeds out there (to say nothing of the countless mutts), anyone would want to own one with such a well-established reputation for aggression. What purpose does it serve? What need does it satisfy? It just looks to me like the same mentality of people who own large or venomous snakes.

AuroraSilvermist
October 21st, 2004, 04:56 PM
So, in your opinion, Valnorran...should pit bulls be eliminated to extinction?

Valnorran
October 21st, 2004, 05:52 PM
So, in your opinion, Valnorran...should pit bulls be eliminated to extinction?
*shrugs* Fine by me. I live in a rural area. If I see one of those or a rotweiller and it's not with anybody, I'll shoot it on sight. I value my children more than somebody's dog, and I'm not gambling their well-being on whatever genetic instincts should bob to the surface of the dog.

DraconisArcanus
October 21st, 2004, 05:52 PM
Neither a chihuahua nor a siamese cat, even with flaming cases of rabies, is going to do anywhere near the damage a pit bull will. It's like comparing a pirhana to a great white. Nasty? Yes, but it takes several pirhanas to pose a serious threat, but even a juvenile great white is enough to ruin a person's day. Yes, small dogs can do damage, but when was the last time a small dog ripped away an entire muscle group from a person? When was the last time a small dog killed a person? One of the few good sentiments to come out of Jurrasic Park:
"Every park has problems. When Disneyworld opened, nothing worked."
"Yes, John, but when the Pirates of the Carribean break down, the pirates don't eat the tourists."
Every dog can do damage.
Yes, but not every dog removes a few pounds of your anatomy when they bite.
Most dog attacks involve the dog biting and letting go. Pit bulls don't stop. They continue the attack. They usually don't do you the courtesy of growling or snarling. They just come for you. I don't understand why, out of all the dog breeds out there (to say nothing of the countless mutts), anyone would want to own one with such a well-established reputation for aggression. What purpose does it serve? What need does it satisfy? It just looks to me like the same mentality of people who own large or venomous snakes.


Then if I use your line of thinking then anything that is aggresive shuld be destroyed to extinction? Several leaders of countries have used that thought to justify wars and genocide to thier own people. I understand this extreme but as has been previously stated it is not the dogs fault but the owners and breeders. I have known several pit bulls who are as gentle as you could wish for. I've known a German Shepard mean as all get out and was malled and bit by one. I certainly would not advocate destroying the breed because of one bad dog. If we start banning breeds of animals what's next? I don't even want to speculate because there are enough extremists that will take anything I say and twist it. Please take that into consideration.....Not all humans or pit bulls are bad.

Peace!

Ravens_Tears
October 21st, 2004, 06:07 PM
The simple fact remains that there are known, documented predispositions that make pitbulls very aggressive and unpredictable thus making them a danger, especially to children and other animals. They banned pitbulls in Winnipeg, MB years ago. I agree with it. Once you've seen someone who has been attacked by a Pitbull, you would understand...

Valnorran
October 21st, 2004, 06:16 PM
From 1979 - 1998, pit bulls and rotweillers have been responsible for over half of the fatal dog attacks in the U.S. If the problem is with owners and breeders, why are these two breeds so well represented in these statistics? There's a reason why spaniels and basset hounds aren't on the list. The top attackers were all from what were called working dogs. It looks to me like working dogs in general are more violence prone than other breeds, and pit and rotts even more than other working breeds. Everything I've read says they require "extra attention" or (my favorite) "a firm hand" or "have an independent mind." In other words, they need to be constantly reminded not to shred other critters. Sure, any animal can be aggressive, but it looks like these breeds are aggressive way out of proportion compared to others. Blame it on breeders, but temperament is often genetically passed on, so once the trait gets into the gene pool, it's in there. Maybe it was the breeders' fault, but now that the trait is there we all have to deal with it. Sure, there are calm pit bulls (apparently if you constantly discipline them) and there are aggressive pomeranians, but when a pit bull goes aggressive it is a far worse problem than the nastiest pomeranian ever born. That just looks like a lot of potential problems with little or no potential reward to me.

DraconisArcanus
October 21st, 2004, 06:21 PM
The simple fact remains that there are known, documented predispositions that make pitbulls very aggressive and unpredictable thus making them a danger, especially to children and other animals. They banned pitbulls in Winnipeg, MB years ago. I agree with it. Once you've seen someone who has been attacked by a Pitbull, you would understand...

I can understand your point quite well. I grew up with my grandparents having a pet shop and dog grooming center. I've seen all sorts of bad behavior by many breeds. And seen my grandmother bit by other large breed dogs where many stiches were needed. In most cases the breeders were at fault or the owners but a dog is not born evil just as humans are not born evil.

My concern is where do you draw the line? Do we do away with anything aggressive or presumed aggressive? Should we eliminate all large breeds? Ever see a St Bernard bite? It's not pretty. Once you start there is no turning back and that scares me to death.

Peace.

Valnorran
October 21st, 2004, 06:40 PM
Eliminating some breeds does not automatically mean eliminating all of them.

docdoo
October 21st, 2004, 06:45 PM
First off: Smaller breeds might be more aggressive dogs, but I've yet to hear of a Chihuahua killing someone.

Maybe not, but people DO die each year from cat scratches and bites. Why don't we just ban cats too while we're at it?



Second: Try telling a 6 year old that has no eye left that it wasn't the dogs fault!

Actually, I've trained dogs for the better part of 12 years, What I'd tell the kid is that its her PARENTS fault!


Third: Every week here in CO, we have another attack from a Pit Bull. One woman was killed last year! I really doubt that their are that many people out there that are such horrible dog owners, when they have other dogs that are completely fine and show no aggression.

Here you are 100% wrong. In my years of training dogs I have NEVER run into a dog that just 'attacked for no reason'. Upon closer inspection of the incident I inevitably find that aggression in some form was ALWAYS present. There is NO SUCH THING as an 'attack out of nowhere'

There ARE 'that many people' who are horrible dog owners. NOT because they're cruel or unthinking just because they're selfish and don't see the point in training Fluffy NOT to growl over food. Because they didn't do the research before getting a dog.


To put everything on the owners is ridiculous. This is a completely different issue, but victims in some situations have responsibility to. To put everything on an owner is saying that if someone climbs your fence and gets bit in your yard by your dog that it is perfectly OK for them to sue you. That's just stupid.

Actually, no, making owners accountable for their own laziness in NOT wanting to actually read books or make an effort to train a dog is NOT ridiculous. Certainly someone who climbs your privacy fence is a totally different story than Billy-Joe-Bob down the street who has 5 big dogs that he refuses to train or keep in his yard. We're talking apples and oranges here.


And; there are already laws for dogs. Leash laws, dog running at large laws, laws on posting warning signs where aggressive dogs are. We have laws that are meant to try to control the instance of attack. And yes, if someone just lets their dog roam around and it bites someone they should get in trouble. But if they are just casually walking their dog, who has never shown aggression before, was not raised in an aggressive environment, and all of the sudden it bites someone, then who's fault is it?

Let me say it again. When a dog bites (UNLESS it's because he's defending his home) It is always, always, always the owners fault. They have failed that animal. There is never an incident of a TRULY well trained dog biting.

I have a Great Dane trained in Shutzhund (which is police dog work), I have spent years training dogs for others and getting paid for doing it. There is NEVER an excuse for an owner to NOT train their dogs. As an owner of a dog you should have 100% control 100% of the time...no if's and's or butt's about it.



Maybe the words shouldn't be "Ban all aggressive breeds" maybe it should be "Ban all dangerous breeds" I know small breeds can be a lot more aggressive, but their not anywhere near as dangerous!

How about we just ban all animals that are dangerous? You know...like the children each year that lose limbs because the family kitty-cat decided to scratch her and it got infected? Or the kid who wears an eye patch now because the neighbors cat took out her eye?

Yes, dogs do damage humans, they hurt them, maim them and in some cases even kill them. Lets go after the owners of these animals not the animals themselves, and while you're at it lets not forget that cats are also responsible for injuries, hospital visits and miscarried and/or deformed children.

docdoo
October 21st, 2004, 06:47 PM
There is one problem with this theory. Not everyone can afford to take their pets through obedience school and so many train at home. Placing this kind of stipulation on owning a pit makes them a luxury item that only those with the means can afford to have. That is not fair to Joe schmoe who has had several pits in the past all perfectly well behaved and trained at home with love and devotion. Just my opinion. _travolta_


I disagree entirely. If I can't have electricity in my house because I won't or can't pay for it then why the hell should I be allowed to have a dog? Pets of any sort are not a right, no matter HOW you slice it they're a luxury item. As such I think that people should absolutely have to go to obedience school or show the trainers that they do in fact have the ability to train a dog responsibly and properly.

Ravens_Tears
October 21st, 2004, 06:50 PM
I can understand your point quite well. I grew up with my grandparents having a pet shop and dog grooming center. I've seen all sorts of bad behavior by many breeds. And seen my grandmother bit by other large breed dogs where many stiches were needed. In most cases the breeders were at fault or the owners but a dog is not born evil just as humans are not born evil.

My concern is where do you draw the line? Do we do away with anything aggressive or presumed aggressive? Should we eliminate all large breeds? Ever see a St Bernard bite? It's not pretty. Once you start there is no turning back and that scares me to death.

Peace.
Yes I have actually seen a St Bernard bite. I know how nasty it can be. I am not remotely implying that these animals are born "evil". Any responsible verternarian and/or educated breeder can tell you that animals (particularly pure breds) that are along bull, rotweiler, akita and/or doberman lines have a genetic predisposition to aggression. They are also known to have small craniums and that, especially when they get older, pressure on their brains because their craniums are too small for them can cause them to snap and be unpredictacle and highly aggressive. Also, breeds like Bull, Rottis and Dobermans that more commonly have their ears cropped can be made more aggressive by cropping their ears too short, which makes their hearing ultra-sensitive.

Irresponsible/uneducated dog owners are definately an issue, but breeding is the basis and these potentials are always there. I personally feel that a part of it also is that, like everything else in this world, better nutrition etc has contributed to dogs having longer lives than they would have even just 25 years ago.. and alot of these tendencies are associated with older dogs. They simply weren't living long enough to have this happening as often. That's just my personal perception.

Valnorran
October 21st, 2004, 06:56 PM
Here you are 100% wrong. In my years of training dogs I have NEVER run into a dog that just 'attacked for no reason'. Upon closer inspection of the incident I inevitably find that aggression in some form was ALWAYS present. There is NO SUCH THING as an 'attack out of nowhere'
I saw on a documentary a story about an elderly woman who was attacked by 2 pit bulls that came into her home. They were not her dogs. Either a door was open or only a screen door was there, I don't remember, but 2 dogs she had no connection with came into her home and mauled her.

Valnorran
October 21st, 2004, 06:59 PM
Any responsible verternarian and/or educated breeder can tell you that animals (particularly pure breds) that are along bull, rotweiler, akita and/or doberman lines have a genetic predisposition to aggression.
That's it in a nutshell.

Ravens_Tears
October 21st, 2004, 07:04 PM
Here you are 100% wrong. In my years of training dogs I have NEVER run into a dog that just 'attacked for no reason'. Upon closer inspection of the incident I inevitably find that aggression in some form was ALWAYS present. There is NO SUCH THING as an 'attack out of nowhere'

.......
Let me say it again. When a dog bites (UNLESS it's because he's defending his home) It is always, always, always the owners fault. They have failed that animal. There is never an incident of a TRULY well trained dog biting.


Oftentimes that reason for aggression is a physical/chemical abnormality; one that is no one's fault but it doesn't give a small child back their face or their life. And regardless of why an animal has become dangerous, it is still dangerous and needs to be dealt with accordingly. It is irresponsible of breeders/trainers to put the onus on owners ALL the time. Breeders destroy puppies with cleft pallete's etc because they are undesirable traits. They also neuter papered dogs known to pass along those traits because they are undesirable and problematic. Why should aggression be treated any differently?

DraconisArcanus
October 21st, 2004, 07:04 PM
Yes I have actually seen a St Bernard bite. I know how nasty it can be. I am not remotely implying that these animals are born "evil". Any responsible verternarian and/or educated breeder can tell you that animals (particularly pure breds) that are along bull, rotweiler, akita and/or doberman lines have a genetic predisposition to aggression. They are also known to have small craniums and that, especially when they get older, pressure on their brains because their craniums are too small for them can cause them to snap and be unpredictacle and highly aggressive. Also, breeds like Bull, Rottis and Dobermans that more commonly have their ears cropped can be made more aggressive by cropping their ears too short, which makes their hearing ultra-sensitive.

Irresponsible/uneducated dog owners are definately an issue, but breeding is the basis and these potentials are always there. I personally feel that a part of it also is that, like everything else in this world, better nutrition etc has contributed to dogs having longer lives than they would have even just 25 years ago.. and alot of these tendencies are associated with older dogs. They simply weren't living long enough to have this happening as often. That's just my personal perception.


I could not agree with you more. Owners and breeders as well as nutrition all play into it. I just cannot agree with destroying a breed. Some sort of control laws maybe but outright banning is not the answer. Going after puppy mill breeders, bad owners ,etc are the ones to go after not the dogs.

I may not always agree with you but I will defend anyone's right to speak. If I gave you the impression you were saying they were evil I apologize. Thaty was not my intent.

Peace!

Ravens_Tears
October 21st, 2004, 07:13 PM
I could not agree with you more. Owners and breeders as well as nutrition all play into it. I just cannot agree with destroying a breed. Some sort of control laws maybe but outright banning is not the answer. Going after puppy mill breeders, bad owners ,etc are the ones to go after not the dogs.

I may not always agree with you but I will defend anyone's right to speak. If I gave you the impression you were saying they were evil I apologize. Thaty was not my intent.

Peace!
No, that was not the impression I got, I was just using reflective speech, to clarify what I thought you perceived. :)

The problem with pure breds in general is that the gene pool is very narrow within breeds and there is inbreeding to a certain point in any bloodline, leading to genetic abnormalities. Cracking down on puppy mills and things can help with that. As inbreeding is common in those situations. But as long as people want a pure bred over a "mutt" there will always be issues like this. And over time the health of pure breds declines on the whole as genetic defects/issues increase over generations.

MorningDove030202
October 21st, 2004, 07:29 PM
No, that was not the impression I got, I was just using reflective speech, to clarify what I thought you perceived. :)

The problem with pure breds in general is that the gene pool is very narrow within breeds and there is inbreeding to a certain point in any bloodline, leading to genetic abnormalities. Cracking down on puppy mills and things can help with that. As inbreeding is common in those situations. But as long as people want a pure bred over a "mutt" there will always be issues like this. And over time the health of pure breds declines on the whole as genetic defects/issues increase over generations.


I have a pure bread husky and I got him before I realized how inbread they are... I think the ideal for me is a half and half mix, if you can find them. The bad thing about total mutts is that you can't predict their personality at all. With breeds you can select for certian traits that you want or don't want. (just don't mix a chow with a dalmation, I met one at work once....not a good idea, trust me!)

Dove

AuroraSilvermist
October 21st, 2004, 07:46 PM
Eliminating some breeds does not automatically mean eliminating all of them.

Really? What world do you live in?

Sorry, not trying to be a b*tch (if you'll pardon the pun), but if whatever powers that be find that they're successful in eliminating one dog breed, I can't even begin to imagine where that power trip might lead. Hey, we have a run on bite cases by labrador retrievers--let's get rid of 'em all!

The fact of the matter is, all domestic dog breeds are HUMAN creations. They didn't get to be the way they are by accident, but through very careful, selective breeding. That means THEY ARE OUR RESPONSIBILITY. Destroy the ones that are violent or agressive--yes, but then breed selectively for temperament and promote responsible ownership. I would even be in favor of licensing both owners and breeders of specific breeds--making people accountable if they wish to own or breed that specific type of dog. But destroying all dogs of a certain breed is foolish, reckless, and wrong.

Ravens_Tears
October 21st, 2004, 07:54 PM
I can imagine that the chow/dalmation was an interesting looking dog as well! ** chuckles **

I agree though, usually half and half results in puppies with better health and temperment. :)

I also realized I forgot to mention that I think bans/restrictions are basically needed as a result of lack of common sense or thoughtlessness. A main factor in reducing a dog's aggressiveness is the dog having enough territory. They tend to have more problems in cities than in rural areas with aggressive dogs because the animals are in close quarters or lack any territory to call their own. People need to think about their situation and what they can offer a pet before they bring it into their home. Some breeders around here actually interview you now before they will let you have one of their animals. Even some of the human society/animal shelters have stared making home assessments before allowing people to adopt a pet now.

Valnorran
October 21st, 2004, 08:34 PM
Really? What world do you live in?

Sorry, not trying to be a b*tch (if you'll pardon the pun), but if whatever powers that be find that they're successful in eliminating one dog breed, I can't even begin to imagine where that power trip might lead. Hey, we have a run on bite cases by labrador retrievers--let's get rid of 'em all!
This argument is called the Slippery Slope. Sometimes it's true and sometimes it isn't. There are some weapons citizens aren't allowed to own, but that doesn't mean all weapons are banned. There are some activities that we are not allowed to do, but that doesn't mean all activities have been banned. And as I pointed out earlier, the instances of aggression from pits and rotts is out of all proportion when compared to other breeds. It was not labs that killed 76 people in the U.S. in under 10 years. It was pit bulls. Owning pit bulls just seems a little like stocking your pool with crocodiles. Keep them regularly fed and they shouldn't bite you, but I'm sure not getting in that pool.

AuroraSilvermist
October 21st, 2004, 08:35 PM
Oftentimes that reason for aggression is a physical/chemical abnormality; one that is no one's fault but it doesn't give a small child back their face or their life. And regardless of why an animal has become dangerous, it is still dangerous and needs to be dealt with accordingly. It is irresponsible of breeders/trainers to put the onus on owners ALL the time. Breeders destroy puppies with cleft pallete's etc because they are undesirable traits. They also neuter papered dogs known to pass along those traits because they are undesirable and problematic. Why should aggression be treated any differently?

I'm going to use your comments to make a point here, Ravens_Tears...and not because I disagree with you. I agree that there are just as many irresponsible breeders out there as there are owners.

You said:


Oftentimes that reason for aggression is a physical/chemical abnormality; one that is no one's fault but it doesn't give a small child back their face or their life.

Exactly. Chemical/physical abnormalities ARE most often the reason for unprovoked attacks. Humans become aggressive for many of the same reasons. And while this tendency exists in humans, you don't see anyone suggesting we should all be put to sleep. (Okay, well...maybe a few MW people have suggested that. :p )

The thing with pits and rotties and dobermans and any of the other breeds bred for protection (not all of the breeds that fit into the AKC Working class fit this description, btw...although I think Valnorrn suggested they did a few posts back) is that they tend to be powerful, with powerful jaws. We bred them that way, folks. And so, if they're going to inflict damage, it's more likely to be devestating. And because these breeds are media targets, we're far more likely to hear about it.

Responsible breeding. Responsible ownership. That's the key.

OriginalWacky
October 21st, 2004, 11:26 PM
Neither a chihuahua nor a siamese cat, even with flaming cases of rabies, is going to do anywhere near the damage a pit bull will. It's like comparing a pirhana to a great white. Nasty? Yes, but it takes several pirhanas to pose a serious threat, but even a juvenile great white is enough to ruin a person's day. Yes, small dogs can do damage, but when was the last time a small dog ripped away an entire muscle group from a person? When was the last time a small dog killed a person? .
Okay, this is a small dog that killed a person.
"the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"

Granted, the uncle shouldn't have left the dog on the bed with the baby, but still, a Pomeranian is very much a small dog. I'm sure I can find more examples if I must.


One of the few good sentiments to come out of Jurrasic Park:
"Every park has problems. When Disneyworld opened, nothing worked."
"Yes, John, but when the Pirates of the Carribean break down, the pirates don't eat the tourists."
Every dog can do damage.
Yes, but not every dog removes a few pounds of your anatomy when they bite.
Most dog attacks involve the dog biting and letting go. Pit bulls don't stop. They continue the attack. They usually don't do you the courtesy of growling or snarling. They just come for you. I don't understand why, out of all the dog breeds out there (to say nothing of the countless mutts), anyone would want to own one with such a well-established reputation for aggression. What purpose does it serve? What need does it satisfy? It just looks to me like the same mentality of people who own large or venomous snakes.
Why would I want to own a pit? Well, for starters, a well bred pit surpasses most other dogs on temperament tests. They are loyal, steadfast, calm, and easy going. They are generally easy to work with, provided one trains them properly, not with chains and hitting. Here is one link among many that discuss pros and cons of owning pits: http://www.badrap.org./rescue/

Pits are awesome at Agility training, and very athletic dogs. They are strong willed and highly intelligent. They have nice short hair and are a breeze to groom. They are versatile, and kid friendly. True, the pit does have more of a rep for dog aggression than some other breeds. But the drawbacks are so much slighter for someone like me than the benefits.

While I'm here... this is the link to the temperament testing page, so you can see for yourself how well they have placed. http://www.atts.org/

AzuraWillow
October 22nd, 2004, 12:55 AM
I feel so bad for a lot of the animals that get stuck with the idiots in this world. Really, a dog is a reflection of the owner, if we train a dog to attack, it gets in trouble even though it thinks its done the right thing. You get where I'm coming from? I think people should have to pass a course before they have animals... nevermind children, but i wont get st arted on that.

Valnorran
October 22nd, 2004, 09:31 AM
Okay, this is a small dog that killed a person.
"the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"
And a 6 week old baby is a very small person, so small that just about any animal poses a threat to them. The man shouldn't have put the kid on the bed. He shouldn't have left the dog with it. When was the last time you heard of a pomeranian leaving its house and yard to run down the street and chew someone up?


Why would I want to own a pit? Well, for starters, a well bred pit surpasses most other dogs on temperament tests. They are loyal, steadfast, calm, and easy going. They are generally easy to work with, provided one trains them properly, not with chains and hitting. Here is one link among many that discuss pros and cons of owning pits: http://www.badrap.org./rescue/
But the key phrases here are "well bred" and "trains them properly." What happens when you get one that isn't well bred? What if it has an aggressive fighting dog somewhere in its lineage that no one know about? This isn't a problem with something like a beagle. What is well trained? What if I did something that wasn't precisely what is considered well trained?

They are strong willed and highly intelligent.
Sounds like a bad combination to me. When they decide to go postal they'll be that much more difficult to stop. Lots of other breeds of dogs have good tempraments and are loyal and easy going and don't come from a violence prone gene pool.
At http://igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/ there is an archive of news stories relating to animal attacks. The overwhelming majority of those about dogs involve pitts or rottweilers. Many of them involve people who were merely passing by getting attacked, sometimes by a dog they had a friendly aquaintance with. For some reason this phenomenon doesn't seem to be a problem with, say, rat terriers, basset hounds, dachsunds, and the like.

diamondtiger
October 22nd, 2004, 12:05 PM
Valnorran
The fact that smaller dogs are more aggressive is also irrelevant. I believe my example was in response to this. Go on and tell these ppl that their bites are “irrelevant” because the dog was so tiny. I'm sure they would appreciate that.
Valnorran
Yes, small dogs can do damage, but when was the last time a small dog ripped away an entire muscle group from a person? When was the last time a small dog killed a person? The question would be more of: When was the last time a poodle bite helped to give the media a spike in ratings? Believe it or not, a well bred pit bull is actually more even tempered than a Beagle.
Valnorran
They usually don't do you the courtesy of growling or snarling. We share our home with an adorably sweet, even tempered pit. Sugar greets people she meets with a smile. She doesn't move about quietly. She's very vocal and “talks” to everyone. When something upsets her or gets her hackles up (which doesn't happen often), she growls then barks like crazy.
Valnorran
I don't understand why, out of all the dog breeds out there (to say nothing of the countless mutts), anyone would want to own one with such a well-established reputation for aggression. That the media and myth have created. This doesn't make it the TRUE nature of the dog.
Valnorran
What purpose does it serve? What need does it satisfy? It just looks to me like the same mentality of people who own large or venomous snakes.

Originally Posted by AuroraSilvermist
So, in your opinion, Valnorran...should pit bulls be eliminated to extinction?
*shrugs* Fine by me. Which would be what? This, IMO, is like saying that any weapon that can kill should be destroyed, due to the number of the crazy, gun toting maniacs. If “they” told you to turn in your guns, because they are scary and dangerous, would you do it? There are quiet a few responsible dog owners, who do take care not to let their pets become a menace.

Valnorran
Blame it on breeders, but temperament is often genetically passed on, so once the trait gets into the gene pool, it's in there. Your statement is true of any breed. A sound pitbull “is a supremely athletic, highly versatile, adaptive, gushingly affectionate, eager-to-please, all-around family dog. From the old-time breeders' point of view, the gentle qualities were an absolutely indispensable safety precaution to be bred into a fighting dog, since no dog could be fought if it couldn't be safely handled by its owner during a pit contest. A well-bred pit bull is so reliable in this respect that even if he is badly hurt in an automobile accident and is in extreme pain, he won't snap at his owner who tries to pick him up--unlike most dogs in that situation.” http://www.homestead.com/mccoypitbulls/Temperment.html

Valnorran
Sure, there are calm pit bulls (apparently if you constantly discipline them) We don't have to discipline Sugar any more than our other dogs.

diamondtiger
October 22nd, 2004, 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by ~BEBZ~
Second: Try telling a 6 year old that has no eye left that it wasn't the dogs fault!
docdoo
Actually, I've trained dogs for the better part of 12 years, What I'd tell the kid is that its her PARENTS fault! Thank you. That's where I was going next. Most dog bites are a result of the person trying to run away from the dog. Dogs are predators, and when a person (or animal) runs, the dogs natural instinct “kicks in”. People need to educate themselves and their children about dogs in general Not everyone may own a dog, but they are bound at some point to cross paths with a lose pet or stray. I've always told my kids that if they see a strange dog, don't call it or try to pet it. Instead, I want them to CAMLY stop what they are doing, and slowly walk away. I've also made a point of telling them never to look at the dogs eyes, because dogs will think they “want to fight”. I've told them this goes for dogs they know too. I think it would be wise to teach this in schools too, it goes right up there with “stranger danger”.

docdoo
because they're selfish and don't see the point in training Fluffy NOT to growl over food.This is the FIRST thing we do with our dogs when we bring them home. We also flip them onto their backs and hold them until they submit. We still take food, treats, bones etc.. and flip them from time to time, even though they've been with us for so long. Our dogs are totally submissive. lol, Kimmi (the rott) pees when return home.


Valnorran
And a 6 week old baby is a very small person, so small that just about any animal poses a threat to them. The man shouldn't have put the kid on the bed. He shouldn't have left the dog with it. When was the last time you heard of a pomeranian leaving its house and yard to run down the street and chew someone up? So it's “okay” to discount this attack, this LIFE, because the child was merely an infant, or because the dog was so small (not a “nasty” pit or rott)? The point is that small breeds are aggressive and are capable of killing, as this tragic story shows. My landlord's gf has a “pack” of Chihuahuas that she keeps in the house at all times. Why? Because they are mean. These dogs will stay together and gang up on ppl. For this reason, she has to go outside to talk to anyone. This woman can't let a new friend or acquaintance in her home, because her Chihuahuas will attack.

docdoo
October 22nd, 2004, 12:17 PM
I saw on a documentary a story about an elderly woman who was attacked by 2 pit bulls that came into her home. They were not her dogs. Either a door was open or only a screen door was there, I don't remember, but 2 dogs she had no connection with came into her home and mauled her.


I thought about not even answering this but decided to give the benefit of the doubt and do so anyway. When I said that there is no such thing as an 'attack out of nowhere' What I was referring to was the fact that a good dog NEVER bites without some indication that his temperment was heading in that direction long before he ever actually bit anyone.

Example...I had a family come in with a Cocker Spaniel. The dog had bitten the youngest child 'out of nowhere'. Upon further questioning I found that the dog displayed food agression and toy aggression as well as displays of dominance. IMO it is the OWNERS responsibility to ensure that they are well educated in doggy-speak BEFORE getting a dog.

does that clear things up a bit?

zakzekezedd
October 22nd, 2004, 12:25 PM
I had a Doberman for many years. He was a sweet and gentle dog, but I also knew that if anyone ever tried to hurt me, well, they'd regret it. Breeds like Dobermans in the working group are bred to protect livestock, or property. Pit Bulls are terriers, which as a group were traditionally bred to hunt and kill vermin. Terriers as a whole are more "aggressive" than working breeds. The fierce tenacity that makes a dog willing to go down a burrow and take on a cornered rat is not the same protective instinct that makes a dog a trustworthy guardian of your sheep or cattle, or your home. What makes a pit bull attack so devastating is they do not let go once they get a grip on whoever or whatever, this is a basic terrier instinct bred and refined through generations of fighting dogs unfortunately. My neighbor had two pitbulls--a male and a female. The male attacked and killed the female. The ONLY sounds that morning were the neighbor yelling "Oh my God no!"......no barking, no growling..no sound from either dog! Both dogs were kept chained in the backyard with little or no human contact--no socialization, no training, no attention...just food and water.
While a Chihuahua or Dacshund may be more inclined to bite, the truth is that a Rott or Doberman that can exert 1100 PSI of bite preassure will do significantly more damage. For the record, the only dog I've ever been bitten by was a miniature Schnauzer that was attacking my Doberman (who was in fact hiding behind me...) Irresponsible owners who do not socialize or properly train their dogs are probably the biggest factor in dog bites or attacks. Irresponsible breeders who are more interested in making a buck than in making sure they are producing animals that are sound physically and have a good temperment are another big factor in the problem. Regrettably, it is much easier to pass legislation that simply bans a breed or breeds than to address the real underlying problem. What if every dog owner was required to take their dog to a certified obedience class and present a certificate of completion in order to get their dog licensed. All unlicensed dogs would be subject to confiscation and destruction. What if all breeders had to be licensed, and be able to prove that they were only breeding dogs that were physically sound, and tempermentally stable. Both of these measures would help significantly reduce dog bites by all breeds, and the risk of catastrophic dog attacks by larger breeds. But! the easiest course of action is simply to call for the ban of certain breeds, so that is what gets proposed, and written into law.

LadyAutumnCat
October 22nd, 2004, 12:56 PM
I understand everyone's viewpoint here, those who wish to ban and those who don't. I personally do not want pitbulls banned, I don't believe it to be necessary! I have worked all breeds and varieties of mutts, and can honestly say that the one's I'm most worried about are the smaller breeds, they tend not to warn you, just nip or worse. The large dogs that I've worked with will growl and let you know that they are unhappy with what you are doing, or the situation at hand. I've worked with "aggressive" dobermans, german shepherds, wolf hybrids, rottweilers, pit bulls, and belgian malinois, and found that they are quite even tempered and not difficult to handle.

I believe the problem does not lie in the dogs, it lies in the humans that have these dogs in their possession! Any puppy can be trained and loved in a manner that will allow them to develop into a healthy and well adjusted adult dog. This is the same for human beings, if we are denied love and care we too will be aggressive, depressed, or worse. I definitely believe that breeders should be responsible for ensuring that their dogs go to stable and loving homes, not morons who are looking to make a quick buck fighting their dogs. Of course, regulatory measures need to be taken to ensure that breeders are investigated, interviewed, supervised, and ultimately licensed. As things are right now ANYONE can become a breeder, whether or not they know anything about the dog's breed, history, health, or temperament! Until this is stopped, even with a ban on pitbulls, people will continue to breed them, only this time it will go underground and regulation will be damn near impossible!

I don't know what the ultimate solution will be, but I do know that banning pit bulls is merely a salve to the problem, not a solution. And, no one is going to tell me that I can't have my dog or any other dog. I have an "aggressive" dog, a German Shepherd, she's my world, my protector, my best friend, and my family. She's also trained, spayed, and a rescue from someone who deemed her so unimportant that they dumped her on the street as a tiny pup. Is she to blame for being born a supposedly "aggressive" breed?

diamondtiger
October 22nd, 2004, 01:10 PM
I thought about not even answering this but decided to give the benefit of the doubt and do so anyway. When I said that there is no such thing as an 'attack out of nowhere' What I was referring to was the fact that a good dog NEVER bites without some indication that his temperment was heading in that direction long before he ever actually bit anyone.

Example...I had a family come in with a Roosterer Spaniel. The dog had bitten the youngest child 'out of nowhere'. Upon further questioning I found that the dog displayed food agression and toy aggression as well as displays of dominance. IMO it is the OWNERS responsibility to ensure that they are well educated in doggy-speak BEFORE getting a dog.

does that clear things up a bit?I just posted this, or so I thought.. I don't see it though, so I'll post again.
In my original post I said that I am glad you said this. Food and toy aggression are definitely signs of dominance, or a challenge for dominance. I also added that parents need to teach children to NEVER get below any dogs head (ie. lay down and allow the dog to stand over them). The nature of the beast dictates this as a sign of submission, and the dog sees its self as being above the submissive “creature” in the order of the pack.

My original post contained more than this, but I don't have time to retype it all now. I'll finish up later with the rest of what I have to say.

AnimeObsession
October 22nd, 2004, 01:28 PM
I was attacked by a German Shepperd when I was a baby, you can still see the scars on my head, but I hold no distain nor fear towards them. In fact to this day the German Shepperd remain one of my favoite dogs, even though i've never owned one. Some day maybe. So many dogs so little time.

Valnorran
October 22nd, 2004, 02:47 PM
I believe my example was in response to this. Go on and tell these ppl that their bites are “irrelevant” because the dog was so tiny. I'm sure they would appreciate that.
Once again, I ask: show me where these small breeds leave their territory and attack people. Yes, dogs bite, but those bred for aggression are far more prone to it.

Believe it or not, a well bred pit bull is actually more even tempered than a Beagle.
Yes. Well bred. What happens when one isn't well bred? The entire neighborhood isn't in danger when someone's dachsund isn't well bred. However, if someone's pit bull isn't well bred, that's another thing entirely.

We share our home with an adorably sweet, even tempered pit. Sugar greets people she meets with a smile. She doesn't move about quietly. She's very vocal and “talks” to everyone. When something upsets her or gets her hackles up (which doesn't happen often), she growls then barks like crazy.
That's great, but your dog is not a representative of the entire breed.

This, IMO, is like saying that any weapon that can kill should be destroyed, due to the number of the crazy, gun toting maniacs. If “they” told you to turn in your guns, because they are scary and dangerous, would you do it?
There's one huge difference: a gun doesn't have a will of its own. There is no possibility whatsoever of a gun leaving it's container, loading itself, then hopping down the street and shooting someone. A gun is a tool, a mechanical contrivance. It will do nothing until it's "told" to do it. If something is wrong with it, it is easily diagnosed and fixed. A pit bull has a will of its own.Numerous are the accounts of them leaving their houses and yards to rome about, attacking both pets and owners. If there is some genetic breeding flaw, it might not be particularly obvious until it rips a few pounds of flesh of someone.

We don't have to discipline Sugar any more than our other dogs.
Great. What about all the other pit bulls running around?

Valnorran
October 22nd, 2004, 03:04 PM
So it's “okay” to discount this attack, this LIFE, because the child was merely an infant, or because the dog was so small (not a “nasty” pit or rott)? The point is that small breeds are aggressive and are capable of killing, as this tragic story shows. My landlord's gf has a “pack” of Chihuahuas that she keeps in the house at all times. Why? Because they are mean. These dogs will stay together and gang up on ppl. For this reason, she has to go outside to talk to anyone. This woman can't let a new friend or acquaintance in her home, because her Chihuahuas will attack.
All right. I'm going to try and explain this again. Compare the number of pomeranian attacks on people that resulted in severe injury or death to the number of pit bull attacks that resulted in the same. In this instance just about any animal could have done the same damage. As I pointed out, damn near any animal can kill a 6 week old infant. Merely leaving the infant on the bed was a bad move, without even bothering with the dog. And comparing the bite of a chihuahua, even several of them, to the bite of a pit bull is just plain silly. What's a pack of chihuahua's going to do to me, fray my shoelaces? You're comparing that to an animal that can remove an entire muscle group? That's like comparing garter snakes to black mambas. Sure, both can and will bite, but a bite from a mamba is far, far worse than anything any garter snake could do at its absolute worst. When was the last time a chihuahua ripped somebody's tricep off? Yes, they can damage small children. So can rabbits and gerbils. But the potential for carnage just doesn't compare to what a pit bull can do.

Semele
October 22nd, 2004, 03:36 PM
I think this little lady would object, as would my entire family.

AuroraSilvermist
October 22nd, 2004, 03:37 PM
Thank you. That's where I was going next. Most dog bites are a result of the person trying to run away from the dog. Dogs are predators, and when a person (or animal) runs, the dogs natural instinct “kicks in”. People need to educate themselves and their children about dogs in general Not everyone may own a dog, but they are bound at some point to cross paths with a lose pet or stray. I've always told my kids that if they see a strange dog, don't call it or try to pet it. Instead, I want them to CAMLY stop what they are doing, and slowly walk away. I've also made a point of telling them never to look at the dogs eyes, because dogs will think they “want to fight”. I've told them this goes for dogs they know too. I think it would be wise to teach this in schools too, it goes right up there with “stranger danger.”

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that children and adults should be educated about how to behave in the presence of an aggressive dog. Our former neighbors owned a psychotic black lab, and they were hugely irresponsilbe about caring for it. It was constantly running around off-leash, and whenever somebody passed by on the road--jogging, biking, whatever--it would charge at them with hackles raised, growling and moving as if to strike. I do know that the police showed up at our neighbor's house more than once, and I'm certain it was because of that dog.

One day, my daughter (4 years old at the time) was out in our front yard. The mailman had just come, and she wanted to go wave at him. Fortunately, I was watching from the house, because Sarah, the lab, came flying into our yard growling with her hackles up, ready to tear my little girl to shreds. (May I point out that this was a BLACK LAB, and NOT a pit bull?) I had always taught my kids how to deal with stray or aggressive dogs, and I'm grateful for that training. Still, I yelled to my daughter, "DO NOT RUN!" She didn't, and Sarah did not attack. I'm 100% convinced that if my daughter had turned and ran, the dog would've had her on the ground in seconds flat. It was the scariest thing I've ever witnessed. What I did next was probably not the brightest of things, but my adrenaline was pumping--I charged out the door waving and screaming, "YOU GET THE F--K OUT OF MY YARD!" Fortunately, the dog was so startled, and I guess I looked so menacing, that she did exactly that. I am the alpha b-tch, after all. ;)

BUT...I do have to disagree with doc doo when she says that all dog bite cases are the parents' fault. I would say that MANY of them certainly are, but definitely not all. (Certainly, had Sarah attacked my daughter, it wouldn't have been our fault!) Is it good to educate children about how to react if they're confronted by an aggressive dog, and how to act around dogs in general, particularly the family pet? YES! But there are going to be incidences where even the most well-behaved child with the most well-trained dog will result in a bite. Why? Who knows--nature just works that way. LIFE just works that way. I'm 100% in favor of promoting informed and responsible pet ownership, but I think that to say it's always everyone's fault but the dog's makes us dog lovers sound like wild extremists. Sometimes it IS because of the dog. Sometimes something just goes WRONG in its wiring--chemically, physically, genetically...whatever. That doesn't mean all dogs need to be destroyed, or that a certain breed should be eliminated (I think I was pretty clear on where I stand on THAT issue :p ), but it does mean that we have to admit that, just as people can snap, so can animals.

AuroraSilvermist
October 22nd, 2004, 03:38 PM
I think this little lady would object, as would my entire family.

Semele! Aaaaw! Gorgeous family; gorgeous family pet. :D

AuroraSilvermist
October 22nd, 2004, 03:45 PM
Once again, I ask: show me where these small breeds leave their territory and attack people. Yes, dogs bite, but those bred for aggression are far more prone to it.

My dog, Lady, the family mutt I grew up with and loved dearly, was attacked and killed by a pack of dogs. The pack included a golden retriever, a mixed breed, and a poodle.

Read my story above about a black lab leaving its territory to attack.

The family of my daughter's friend, down the road from us, owns a lab mix that left their yard and attacked a woman on a bike. The result was a lawsuit that cost them $40,000. The dog has bitten other people outside the yard, although none of the other bites resulted in lawsuits. Personally, I would have had the dog euthanized, since it obviously has serious behavioral problems. But it's a LAB MIX, not a pit bull. It leaves its territory to attack.

Hmmm. Looks like a rash of labrador bite cases. Better kill all the labs, now, too.

Erebus
October 22nd, 2004, 04:06 PM
I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that a Republican is calling for Dog Control.

misschief
October 22nd, 2004, 04:08 PM
NO!!! they should not be. every pit bull is not a vicious killer. i've had many of them as family pets and they were great.

misschief
October 22nd, 2004, 04:09 PM
I think this little lady would object, as would my entire family.that is a goooowwwwwwwwwgeous doggie!!!

MoonKnight
October 22nd, 2004, 04:13 PM
I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that a Republican is calling for Dog Control.
:lol:

Valnorran
October 22nd, 2004, 05:46 PM
My dog, Lady, the family mutt I grew up with and loved dearly, was attacked and killed by a pack of dogs. The pack included a golden retriever, a mixed breed, and a poodle.

Read my story above about a black lab leaving its territory to attack.

The family of my daughter's friend, down the road from us, owns a lab mix that left their yard and attacked a woman on a bike. The result was a lawsuit that cost them $40,000. The dog has bitten other people outside the yard, although none of the other bites resulted in lawsuits. Personally, I would have had the dog euthanized, since it obviously has serious behavioral problems. But it's a LAB MIX, not a pit bull. It leaves its territory to attack.

Hmmm. Looks like a rash of labrador bite cases. Better kill all the labs, now, too.
From 1979 to 1998 pit bulls were responsible for 76 human deaths. How many labs were responsible for human deaths in that same period? None. I've acknowledged several times that other dogs occasionally do these things. My point (which I've also stated several times) is that pit bulls are more prone to it than other breeds. Bart the bear was a wonderful bear, but do you think that's a basis for people to have them in their homes? I've lost count of how many times I've read reports of attacks in which owners said the dog was nice, never showed signs of aggression, then just up and bit someone's face off.

Valnorran
October 22nd, 2004, 05:47 PM
I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that a Republican is calling for Dog Control.
Too bad I'm not a Republican. What relevance does my political affiliation have on this topic, anyway?

AuroraSilvermist
October 23rd, 2004, 12:46 AM
From 1979 to 1998 pit bulls were responsible for 76 human deaths. How many labs were responsible for human deaths in that same period? None. I've acknowledged several times that other dogs occasionally do these things. My point (which I've also stated several times) is that pit bulls are more prone to it than other breeds.

This comes directly from the US Center for Disease Control website, which, I believe, is the original source of much of your statistical information.


Three categories of strategies can be considered for preventing dog bites:

1. Owner and public education. Dog owners, through proper selection, socialization, training, care, and treatment of a dog, can reduce the likelihood of owning a dog that will eventually bite (7). Male and unspayed/unneutered dogs are more likely to bite than are female and spayed/neutered dogs (7). Educational and prevention efforts should be directed at parents and children. Veterinarians and pediatricians should address strategies for bite prevention, including the need for appropriate supervision of children. Other strategies include dissemination of information on preventing bites (see box(Table_B1)), school-based educational programs on bite prevention and canine behavior, and educational programs regarding responsible dog selection, ownership, and training.

2. Animal control at the community level. Animal-control programs should be supported, and laws for regulating dangerous or vicious dogs should be promulgated and enforced vigorously (8). For example, in this report, 30% of DBRFs resulted from groups of owned dogs that were free roaming off the owner's property. Some of these deaths might have been prevented through more stringent animal-control laws and enforcement. Although some breeds were disproportionately represented in the fatal attacks described in this report, the representation of breeds changes over time (Table_1). As a result, targeting a specific breed may be unproductive; a more effective approach may be to target chronically irresponsible dog owners (9).

3. Bite reporting. Evaluation of prevention efforts requires improved surveillance for dog bites. Dog bites should be reported as required by local or state ordinances, and reports of such incidents should include information about the circumstances of the bite; ownership, breed, sex, age, spay/neuter status, and history of prior aggression of the animal; and the nature of restraint before the bite incident.

Dogs provide many health and social benefits (10). Most of the approximately 55 million dogs in the United States never bite or kill humans. However, the findings in this report indicate that DBRFs continue to occur and that most are preventable. HSUS and the U.S. Postal Service have designated June 9-13, 1997, as National Dog Bite Prevention Week. Additional information about preventing dog bites is available from HSUS, 100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037; telephone (202) 452-1100; or on the World-Wide Web at http//:www.hsus.org.

That's all I've been saying. Ever stop to consider that some of the owners of breeds used for protection tend to be more irresponsible than the owners of other breeds, and that the owners who love their pits and rotties and dobies are the ones who take the time to research whether the breed is appropriate for them, and to learn how to properly train and socialize an animal? Have you checked statistics regarding the reproductive status of dogs involved in fatal bite cases? Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved were unaltered males. That smacks of irresponsibility right there--you have Joe or Jane Schmoe deciding not to have Butch neutered because it'll "change him" and he won't have the same attitude. Well, DUH. No, he will NOT have the same attitude...he'll be less prone to aggression!

For the last time...
(yeah, you can all breathe a sigh of relief now _handclapp )

I'm going to say that this is NOT a problem related specifically to the breed, but to the mentality of some of the owners and breeders of that breed.

Valnorran
October 23rd, 2004, 10:10 AM
This comes directly from the US Center for Disease Control website, which, I believe, is the original source of much of your statistical information.
Yep.

Have you checked statistics regarding the reproductive status of dogs involved in fatal bite cases? Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved were unaltered males. That smacks of irresponsibility right there--you have Joe or Jane Schmoe deciding not to have Butch neutered because it'll "change him" and he won't have the same attitude. Well, DUH. No, he will NOT have the same attitude...he'll be less prone to aggression!
I didn't know the CDC broke the stats down like that. I typed in "dog bites" in their search and got the list of fatal attacks and that was all. However, I still maintain that a breed like a pit or a rot involve a higher degree of risk. If they do have a bad day, the damage they inflict will probably be greater than the damage inflicted by most other breeds. The risk just doesn't seem worthwhile to me.

Yvonne Belisle
October 23rd, 2004, 11:19 AM
If his attacker had been a pit bull, he probably wouldn't have a face. Pits don't just bite and let go. They keep biting and tearing.
What I don't understand is how we can say

then say

If aggression is part of their make-up, then I'd say there's a problem with the breed. Also with owners, but with the breed, too. Sure there are nice pit bulls. I've also read about pit bulls that were docile for years before deciding to relieve someone of excess body mass.


The boy that was beating my son up in my yard got bit by my pit. He got two punctures because dispite what you have been led to believe they don't just bite and tear. She bit his arm and released two punctures and that was it. Animal control also sided with me. The animal control person stated had the dog been agressive and not defending her charge he would have needed stitches. Also the only reason my youngest doesn't have scars from a chahauhau attack is he was six months old and on my lap when the dog attacked. Due to me the dog went flying about ten feet. My son had never been in the house or near that dog before so there was no way to claim that my son had been teasing or any other agressive baiting behavior to the dog. He had never been off my lap.

Yvonne Belisle
October 23rd, 2004, 11:55 AM
The following site is wonderful for educating people about the history of the pit bull breed.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/petaletter.html


Here is an article on how the dog breed that attacked a little girl changed due to faulty reporting into a pit bull
http://www.edba.org.au/emmavan.html

Some good information here as well.

http://www.edba.org.au/media.html


This is from a branch of the CDC which states Pitt bull type breeds. It does not say pitt bulls were responsible but breeds like them showing that more than one breed has been lumped in there. It reminds me of the propaganda on why segregation should have remained legal. Just like that propaganda this is just BS.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/14_Dog_Bite_Injuries.htm

More good food for thought
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/aruslweiss2001.htm
http://www.staffords.co.uk/kcliaison/time_to_protect.htm
http://www.pitbullpress.com/ARTICLES/BSL.ACTION.KIT.html

diamondtiger
October 23rd, 2004, 02:54 PM
Originally Posted by Valnorran
“From 1979 to 1998 pit bulls were responsible for 76 human deaths.”“These statistics are almost always misused, distorted, and misunderstood. The limitations of this data are such that they are generally quite useless, especially when determining the relative danger of any one breed versus other breeds. “Pit bull” is an extremely vague term that could include several breeds. The American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the American Bulldog all share similar appearance and history. Some people also consider the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier, and even English Bulldogs “pit bulls”. If these breeds are all thrown together as “pit bull-type”, you are suddenly increasing the odds that a “pit bull-type” dog will be involved in a fatal attack.” - http://pitbulls.jentown.com/dogattacks.htm

What is overlooked is where the attacks occur. For example.. in 1997-1998, 78% of fatal attacks were committed by dogs (of any breed) on their own property. Compared with the 19% that were committed by loose dogs. Also that 70% of non-fatal bites occur on the dog’s property. And lets not forget breed population. There's no way to determine which breed is more likely to attack, because there is no data regarding total breed population.

I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong in feeling that a pit is not the right dog for your family. Please don't tell me that Sugar is wrong for mine. I'm very curious to know how well you did with this Find The Pit (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html) test. Were you able to choose the right picture at a quick glance? Or did you, as myself and I'm sure many others did, take some time to examine the features of different dogs? How many pics did you maybe go through before finding the dog that is actually recgonized as the "real American PitBull Terrier"?
Originally Posted by Valnorran
Compare the number of pomeranian attacks on people that resulted in severe injury or death to the number of pit bull attacks that resulted in the same. Again I'll refer to the above information. “Pit bull” is an extremely vague term that could include several breeds.” Compare the number of misidentified pomeranians to the number of misidentified pibulls. Babies & small children are victims of bites from ALL sizes and breeds of dogs. Any dog can be dangerous if not properly trained and socialized. Size is relative to the victim and the circumstances.
Originally Posted by Valnorran
Yes. Well bred. What happens when one isn't well bred? The entire neighborhood isn't in danger when someone's dachsund isn't well bred. However, if someone's pit bull isn't well bred, that's another thing entirely. “Dachshund: Curious and mischievous, they are very clever and may attempt to train the owner rather than allow the opposite. All are slightly difficult to train. They are best with older, considerate children and are moderately protective. They are generally okay with other pets, however, they can be jealous, irritable, obstinate and very quick to bite. Sometimes they will refuse to be handled.” - http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/dachshund.htm

According to this, even a well bred dachshund is more of a threat/ danger than a pitbull. I'm not talking about the size of the bite. As stated, size is relative to the victim. The majority of dog bite victims are children, therefore these dogs (as well as other small breeds) totaly fit into the equation.

Valnorran
October 23rd, 2004, 04:50 PM
The boy that was beating my son up in my yard got bit by my pit. He got two punctures because dispite what you have been led to believe they don't just bite and tear. She bit his arm and released two punctures and that was it. Animal control also sided with me.
Great. Your dog doesn't do that, but plenty of others do.

Yvonne Belisle
October 23rd, 2004, 05:03 PM
I have scars from a dachshund I do not condem the whole breed. Loose ferrel dogs of any breed are a danger. Besides it is just as easy to say all murders or whatever crime you want to list is commited by people of x color. Does that mean to stop the killings we ban people of that color? Yes we are talking dogs not people however the same principle applies. Banning one breed just means someone will use another and turn it mean. It is irrisponsible people that cause the problem by allowing an animal that is agressive to breed. Pits are not people agressive when they are raised properly and the bloodlines are not doubled back over and over as many back yard breeders do. You will find that as it gets harder to own large breed dogs that the little yappers are then bred to be meaner than they already are. Don't condem an entire breed for the behavior of a few bad apples. Yes I said a few because compaired to the number of pit bull types out there the bites are not that numerous. You need to look at it in context with all the dog bites not just the ones that put people in a position to need stitches.

Valnorran
October 23rd, 2004, 05:18 PM
“What is overlooked is where the attacks occur. For example.. in 1997-1998, 78% of fatal attacks were committed by dogs (of any breed) on their own property. Compared with the 19% that were committed by loose dogs. Also that 70% of non-fatal bites occur on the dog’s property.
So what? That doesn't mean the attacks were justified or even excusable. That also includes attacks on delivery peopl. I've read several accounts of them attacking people they regularly played with.

I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong in feeling that a pit is not the right dog for your family. Please don't tell me that Sugar is wrong for mine.
I'm not telling you what dog is right for you. Nor am I on an anti pitbull crusade. If a ban were enacted I'd have no problem with it. I really don't care if they're banned or not, but I know what my response is if a dog I don't like the looks of shows up on my place.

I'm very curious to know how well you did with this Find The Pit (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html) test. Were you able to choose the right picture at a quick glance? Or did you, as myself and I'm sure many others did, take some time to examine the features of different dogs? How many pics did you maybe go through before finding the dog that is actually recgonized as the "real American PitBull Terrier"?
I didn't take it. If a dog shows up on my place and it is A) unsupervised and B) I don't like the looks of it, I shoot. The welfare of my children trumps everything else, and I'm not gambling it on the whims of a strange dog.

Size is relative to the victim and the circumstances.
It's also relative to the size of the dog. There's a reason why chihuahuas don't attack horses.

“[I]Dachshund: Curious and mischievous, they are very clever and may attempt to train the owner rather than allow the opposite. All are slightly difficult to train. They are best with older, considerate children and are moderately protective. They are generally okay with other pets, however, they can be jealous, irritable, obstinate and very quick to bite. Sometimes they will refuse to be handled.” - http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/dachshund.htm

According to this, even a well bred dachshund is more of a threat/ danger than a pitbull.
I'm sorry, but that's just not realistic. Why aren't dachsunds trained as fighting dogs or guard dogs? The nastiest dachsund out there isn't going to rip the entire quadracep off the mailman because it's physically incapable of it. Pit bulls, on the other hand, are very capable of inflicting such damage.

I'm not talking about the size of the bite.
I am, because at a certain point, it doesn't matter if the victim is a small child or large adult. A small child will be damaged, often severely, by just about any animal that can bite. Adults can handle aggressive dogs if they aren't too large or powerful. A small, aggressive dog is annoying to the rest of the neighborhood. A large or powerful aggressive dog is a threat to the rest of the neighborhood. Siamese fighting fish can bite. Based on that, do you think your kid would be safe around sharks? Small lizards can bite. So can alligators, but which one would you rather share close quaters with? Domestic cats bite all the time. So do lions. Which one inflicts greater damage regardless of the size of the victime?

The majority of dog bite victims are children, therefore these dogs (as well as other small breeds) totaly fit into the equation.
Anything with a mouth will bite under the right circumstances. However, I'd much rather face a hostile chihuahua than a moderately peeved pit bull. Small aggressive dogs are a threat to small children. Large aggressive dogs are a threat to everyone.

lovemy1dane
October 23rd, 2004, 05:23 PM
One of my friends owns a dashund and his daughter who was 16 at the time was holding the dog and her best friend who was over every day for years was teasing the dog. His daugter told her freind repeatedly to stop, herfriend kept teasing even though the dashund started snapping at her.(she thought it was cute) Finally the poor dog made contact and bit the friend. The friend's father sued the dog's owner for over $100,000 AND WON!!! Even though the girl admitted in court that she was teasing the dog and was told to stop and the dog warned her by growling and snapping (not really trying to make contact) they won and the poor dog was put to sleep. :grrrrr: My friend also lost his home insurance because of owning a "vicious" dog. The girl was against any of this because she knew she was wrong and derserved to be bitten.
We do not allow any of my kid's freinds over unless we are home 100% of the time just for that reason. A great dane can do alot of damage and not even know it. Alothough I cannot imagine mine ever hurting anyone, it is still not a chance I want to take.

Valnorran
October 23rd, 2004, 05:44 PM
I have scars from a dachshund
How much or your anatomy did you lose? I have scars from a cat scratch, but I don't want to ban cats. Still, just because all cats scratch doesn't mean owning a cougar is a good idea.

Besides it is just as easy to say all murders or whatever crime you want to list is commited by people of x color. Does that mean to stop the killings we ban people of that color? Yes we are talking dogs not people however the same principle applies.
I'm not sure it does.

Banning one breed just means someone will use another and turn it mean. It is irrisponsible people that cause the problem by allowing an animal that is agressive to breed. Pits are not people agressive when they are raised properly and the bloodlines are not doubled back over and over as many back yard breeders do.
So how do you know if some of these traits have found their way into your dog's bloodline? (And I'm using "you" in the general sense) It might be just fine until certain stimuli are present and then it reverts to aggression.

Don't condem an entire breed for the behavior of a few bad apples. Yes I said a few because compaired to the number of pit bull types out there the bites are not that numerous. You need to look at it in context with all the dog bites not just the ones that put people in a position to need stitches.
Why? The ones requiring medical attention are the only ones worth worrying about. I maintain that when an animal like a pit bull does lose it the likelihood for carnage is much greater than it is with most other breeds. People have successfully kept bears and large cats. Does that mean they make good pets? People keep venomous snakes, and all snakes can bite. But which one is going to inflict greater trauma with its bite (regardless of the size or age of the victim), the poisonous snake or the nonpoisonous snake? The house cat or the tiger?

fun2bwif
October 23rd, 2004, 06:32 PM
I found this thread and to all that said they should be banned they are full of ignorance a dog learns what you teAch him PITS do NOT BITE KILL OR ATTACK my dogs were raised around very small children my female has had litters and every kid in the neighborhood comes and pet the puppies and they have never been attacked, they been around other animals and have never acted crazy, you have to remember people buy these dogs they treat them like crap and what do you get back... exactly what you ask for and poor dog.
and that's with otherbreeds too if you treat a dog bad he will turn if you teach a dog to attack they will too. that goes for all other breeds even the toys yes even those dogs who are suposed to be house dogs think read and learn before you make any injust decision thinking like this is whats lead other people to make injustfull decisions

Fun2bwif----->>
HTTP://WWW.LIBERTYBELLKENNELS.COM
if you need to know more about the breed
BE loyal to your breed
PUNISH THE DEED NOT THE BREED!!!!!!!!!!

Magicfuzzies
October 23rd, 2004, 06:54 PM
All breeds have their good and challenging characteristics. Pits have very strong personalities and as terriers, they don't back down. It's not a slam against Pits, it's just fact for all terrier breeds.

Terriers make wonderful pets, but they need someone who's as strong and smart as they are.

It's up to potential owners to know what they're getting into and to PROPERLY care for and train their animals and it's up to breeders to screen potential owners to make sure they're up to the task.

My heart goes out to the responsible people for having to pay for those who are not.

diamondtiger
October 23rd, 2004, 09:17 PM
I just wanted every one to see this “nasty” pit bull. This is Sugar and our “dog like” cat Apache. Sugar became ill last evening and passed away just a little over an hour ago. I can't stop crying so I'm going now. She was a sweet heart and forever will be missed.
http://img87.exs.cx/img87/6205/sugpat.jpg

MoonKnight
October 23rd, 2004, 09:30 PM
I just wanted every one to see this “nasty” pit bull. This is Sugar and our “dog like” cat Apache. Sugar became ill last evening and passed away just a little over an hour ago. I can't stop crying so I'm going now. She was a sweet heart and forever will be missed.
I'm sorry to hear that, you have my sympathy. She was a cutie.

fun2bwif
October 23rd, 2004, 09:47 PM
PUPPY AND KITTY LOOK SO CUTE iRIS

enchancea
October 24th, 2004, 05:01 AM
No I dont think they should be banned. I had one and they can be wonderful pets. But I do think there should be stricter rules or guidelines for the people who own them. Any dog breed can be viscious just pittbulls get more attention. Ive seen more viscious Chows and Dalmations than I have pittbulls.

diamondtiger
October 24th, 2004, 01:53 PM
I found this thread and to all that said they should be banned they are full of ignorance a dog learns what you teAch him PITS do NOT BITE KILL OR ATTACK my dogs were raised around very small children my female has had litters and every kid in the neighborhood comes and pet the puppies and they have never been attacked, they been around other animals and have never acted crazy, you have to remember people buy these dogs they treat them like crap and what do you get back... exactly what you ask for and poor dog.
and that's with otherbreeds too if you treat a dog bad he will turn if you teach a dog to attack they will too. that goes for all other breeds even the toys yes even those dogs who are suposed to be house dogs think read and learn before you make any injust decision thinking like this is whats lead other people to make injustfull decisions

Fun2bwif----->>
HTTP://WWW.LIBERTYBELLKENNELS.COM
if you need to know more about the breed
BE loyal to your breed
PUNISH THE DEED NOT THE BREED!!!!!!!!!!
I absolutely t-totally 100% agree with you. It's sad that so many people are afraid of these dogs because the media tells them to be afraid. It's disgusting to me that people are willing to make judgments and place labels on these dogs, simply because they don't want to take the time to try to learn about and understand the breed(s). I also find it completely appalling that so many fools will buy ANY dog for the soul purpose of making it an "attack" dog. It's cruel and in humane and these idiots are the ones who should be banned. Not the breed, any breed. To those of you who think pits or any other "vicious" breed should be banned, do your "homework" before deciding that these dogs are dangerous. Learn about the breed and WHY they become this way. It's not "IN THEM" to attack humans, or even be aggressive towards humans. Why would any person breed a dog with the intention of it being human aggressive? Please explain your thinking to me, because I just think it's ridiculous that any person would do this or for that matter believe that a person would do this. People don't want dogs that will turn on them. Think about it.

djmixon
October 25th, 2004, 03:01 PM
Too bad I'm not a Republican. What relevance does my political affiliation have on this topic, anyway?
He said that like it was an insult, too. . .kind of sad. . .

skye*
December 12th, 2004, 02:55 PM
Pits are the sweetest dogs ive ever had the pleasure of owning. Lexus was by far the most
intellegent and loyal dog. Its these breeders and irresponsible pet owners that are making these dogs mean, or letting them run lose!
They should never be chained up, or free to raom. Its our responsiblity to keep these dogs and the people around them safe. So i hate the fact that these dogs are now branded as EVIL and are being banned all throughout the country. Its so sad because they are the ones getting put to sleep, when there bad owners get a slap on the wrist.

Its just wrong!!!


lexus on halloween...such a cutie!

wakywitch
December 12th, 2004, 04:03 PM
I voted no.
Any dog will behave on how they are raised.

Old Witch
December 15th, 2004, 03:48 PM
People can't tell American Staffordshire terriers from Staffordshire terriers from Pit Bulls, These dogs are lumped into Pit Bull Types...It's faulty reporting.........

Old Witch
December 15th, 2004, 03:53 PM
And as an aside......They use dog packs to hunt hogs and deer at SRS....The hounds and bull dogs out there are not the ones that the dog catchers fear...(by dog catchers, I don't mean the government minions, I mean the hunters who go out and catch the hunting dogs) They fear the mean little Beagles.......they are the ones who bite them....

Lilith Morgaine
December 30th, 2004, 10:40 PM
*ANY* animal is mean if *TRAINED* to be... how I hate some people....

awyrdone
December 30th, 2004, 11:35 PM
NO!!!!!
Pitties are the sweetest, most loyal dogs...and that is why they will kill to defend.
What should be banned is people who treat such a Dog like a weapon, abuse it, not give it enough att. and screw it up in the head!

squerrik
December 31st, 2004, 01:41 AM
People can't tell American Staffordshire terriers from Staffordshire terriers from Pit Bulls, These dogs are lumped into Pit Bull Types...It's faulty reporting.........
I have been around dogs (all kinds, parents raised and showed dogs) and I have know some really neat "Pit Bulls"
Don't ban the dogs, ban the idiots mistreating them
I agree that people don't know what a "pitt Bull" is, I had a Lab that was very big boned (what they refer to as a "field Lab") and waas told by animal control that he was a "Pitt Bull" when I had papers to the contrary (I was running a large boarding kennel at the time)

diamondtiger
December 31st, 2004, 02:20 PM
We went to the shelters yesterday looking for another dog.. while at one shelter a lady noticed that I was looking a Pit, reaching in and petting the dog.. She approached me and began telling me about another Pit, and that she is the reason the dog was there. Her neighbors had the dog tethered with no shelter, so she called animal control and they went and got him. She and her hubby were there yesterday, with the intention of adopting him when she saw my interest. She gave me a brief history and literally begged me to save his life, as he was scheduled to be euthanized today. I felt sooo bad when we couldn't take him, he was a people friendly dog. I don't know if they took him, they were pretty serious about him and she was almost in tears while talking to me. We found a puppy, 5 months old, sweet as can be... she did nothing but lick us and seemed to want to cuddle. When I asked about her, the officer told me that they don't know anything about her, as far as her health goes, because Pits don't get handled when they come in. Not even babies!!

I think it's sad that people will stereo type an animal because of its breed. It disgusted me to hear her say that about that sweet baby girl in kennel No.5. She'll be available for adoption at 10 AM Tuesday morning, and guess who's gonna be there to take her home. :D

Carickah
December 31st, 2004, 11:04 PM
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. -- Judge Aaron Satie


So it is with any law that denies something, especially something that has been denied for less than logical reasons. I could just as easily say "Christianity kills people" and back it up with the Crusades as my proof. I could just as easily say that "Alchohol kills people" and give the school bus crash in Kentucky many years ago as my proof. I could just as easily say that "Electricity kills people" and back it up with all the coal mining accidents that have caused numerous deaths or the black lung that miners develop just to keep the lights on.

The fact of the matter is that humans are the base instigator of all these events. As far as animals are concerned, domesticated dogs are only as dangerous as the humans who have handled them let them be. Wild animals are a whole different story. But keep in mind that even those who handle wild animals and even get attacked by them DON'T BLAME THE ANIMAL.


One thing to remember, wrangling wildlife should be left to the professionals ONLY. I've spent my whole life with wildlife and I'm still learning. If I ever get bitten, stomped, chewed, lacerated, trampled, kicked, gouged, stung, or peed on - it's my fault, never the animals.

American farmers and ranchers are responsible for the near extinction of many breads of animals who, in all actuallity caused much less destruction than they were actually capable of for much of the same reasons that we are debating here. Because it is sensational news and humans tend to act on sensational news.

I think that MW probably has more people here that understand how to handle animals than many other gatherings of people. But most groups of people, cities towns, states and the like, have really gotten away from cooperating with and fellowshipping with our fellow inhabitants of this planet. This is just one more sign of that.


**wonders just where that soapbox came from**



k

semi
January 1st, 2005, 12:23 AM
I haven't read through the first 15 pages of this thread, but I'd like to toss my opinion in here. Pit bulls should not be banned. The people that teach animals to be viscious should be banned. I hang out with a Pit sometimes and he's one of the sweetest dogs I've ever seen. He's also very gentle and loving with children and the other animals. Great dog. My little white football-sized fluffball dog was more viscious than this Pit.

KiNoRonin
January 1st, 2005, 04:10 PM
I voted Yes, and this is the reason why:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1104259556549_99668756/?hub=Canada


The more stories I hear about Dog Attacks, the more I love my Feline Familiar Twowhitesocks.

Ki No Ronin

diamondtiger
January 1st, 2005, 05:16 PM
I voted Yes, and this is the reason why:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1104259556549_99668756/?hub=Canada


The more stories I hear about Dog Attacks, the more I love my Feline Familiar Twowhitesocks.

Ki No Ronin
Interesting article indeed. Thank you for posting the link.

First I want to be sure that every one understands that I DO feel for the families of these, and all, victims of dog attacks. It's terrible that anyone should have to experience such things.

However, as this article CLEARLY points out, Pits are not the only dogs that “go bad” and attack people. One out of SIX dogs mentioned in this article falls under the “Pit Bull” classification.. the Staffordshire Terrier. Now WHY would the government introduce a ban on Pit Bulls, when this article indicates that Pits are LESS likely to attack than other breeds, or one could say that other breeds are just as likely to attack. Either way, it shows that Pits are no different than any other dog when it comes to human aggression. No?

K-9's mentioned in this article:
3 Rottweilers, a Collie, a Bull Mastiff and a Staffordshire Terrier; yet the ban is on Pits... Just seems stupid if ya ask me.

“The dogs were being kept in a closed-off basement, but it appears they escaped and attacked the child. Three other children from the home are now staying with family while officials look into whether "there was anything negligent or criminal to blame in this tragic death," according to an RCMP statement.” Um.. yeah, there was negligence and criminal offense. People should not “lock dogs up” like that.. it's abuse. Furthermore.. why were the dogs able to get to the child? Was the child left unsupervised? Where were the responsible adults of the home? I'd say that's negligent of the parents in it's self. Boy, I've got a lot to say about this one...

Okay, first of all... if a person can't handle a large breed, they do NOT need to own one, PERIOD, regardless of the breed. By reading that these dogs were kept in a basement, I can only assume that these people were unable to handle them. It is NOT the dogs fault, it's the careless owners who subject the dogs to this type of environment who are at fault. Why even have the dogs if they're going to be locked away? It just doesn't make sense to me??? Can someone please explain? Don't even tell me that they had them for protection. Any responsible parent/dog owner knows that the FIRST thing one should do, especially, when acquiring a large breed for protection is to TRAIN the dog. Training should be a given, whether the dog's purpose is to protect/guard or not. Duh! Common sense should tell a person that if you don't want your dog to control you, you have to be able to control the dog. It's obvious that these people did nothing to teach these dogs who was boss... or had they been in the room with the child, they could have stopped the attack, and more likely than not, it wouldn't have even occurred.

We have 4 large dogs... a lab/chow mix, a black lab, a hound mix and a golden retriever. We're going to pick up a Pit baby on Tuesday, hopefully. If our dogs wanted to hurt us, theoretically they could. There are 4 of them and 2 of us. They are BIG, our lab is 8 months old and weighs almost as much as I do. Our dogs know who's boss and they won't think of biting us, much less growling at us. We KNOW how to handle them. Sampson, the lab/chow mix snapped at my daughter when he was a baby (about 10 weeks old), we put a stop to it right then and there. He knows that WE are his masters. I lay down on that dog and mess with him all the time. He HATES it, but he knows not to even growl at me, so he tolerates it. I do that with all of our dogs, to show them their order in the pack.

My questions to these parents would be... 1) Where were you when the attack took place? 2) What provoked the attack? 3) Was the child playing and did something that frightened one of the dogs? 4) Did the child pull on one of the dogs tail or ears, poke it's eye?

Some people might argue that that shouldn't matter. I'll say it... THEY ARE WRONG. It totally matters, because a dogs first instinct is to protect it's self. If the child or anyone else does something that frightens the dog, it's going act to protect its self. Now, when you have that many dogs in a pack, and one is being “attacked”, they will all join in to protect their pack mate. Does that make sense? So, if the kid scared even ONE dog, they are ALL going to protect the frightened dog.

KiNoRonin
January 2nd, 2005, 12:23 PM
Actually, there has been a news update on the subject.

It seems the Mother of the child is a convicted Meth Drug Dealer and B&E Thief. So this dog attack was the final straw for Social Services and they have taken into protective care the Mother's three other remaining Children.

And since she is a Criminal Drug Dealer, then it now makes perfect sense why she had the Dogs to begin with. She needed the Dogs in order to have protection from other Drug Dealers or Criminals who would be into breaking into her place and ripping off all her Drugs or any other Contriband she may have in her possession.

And while I have heard plenty of Dog Attack stories concerning the Attack Breeds such as Pitbulls, Wraughtwilers, German Shepherds, or even Doberman Pinchers, I have never ever heard of a vicious dog attack with Labrador Retrievers.

Labs are the only large breed dog that I no fear of at all. They are even known to be very gentle and relaxed around Children all the time.

But as for the Breeds that have been deliberately breed to be Big and Vicious, I am allllll for making them extinct just as deliberately from which they came.

Ki No Ronin

Old Witch
January 2nd, 2005, 08:45 PM
Actually, there has been a news update on the subject.

It seems the Mother of the child is a convicted Meth Drug Dealer and B&E Thief. So this dog attack was the final straw for Social Services and they have taken into protective care the Mother's three other remaining Children.

And since she is a Criminal Drug Dealer, then it now makes perfect sense why she had the Dogs to begin with. She needed the Dogs in order to have protection from other Drug Dealers or Criminals who would be into breaking into her place and ripping off all her Drugs or any other Contriband she may have in her possession.

And while I have heard plenty of Dog Attack stories concerning the Attack Breeds such as Pitbulls, Wraughtwilers, German Shepherds, or even Doberman Pinchers, I have never ever heard of a vicious dog attack with Labrador Retrievers.

Labs are the only large breed dog that I no fear of at all. They are even known to be very gentle and relaxed around Children all the time.

But as for the Breeds that have been deliberately breed to be Big and Vicious, I am allllll for making them extinct just as deliberately from which they came.

Ki No Ronin


http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/979984/posts

I could find a whole lot more if you like...and some stats too probably to prove how wrong you are... Only a fool would leave a baby or small child alone and unattended with any medium or large dog, no matter what the breed....The breeds you mentioned were bred to herd and protect...the owners made them mean and viscious.....

Old Witch
January 2nd, 2005, 08:55 PM
More....http://www.responsiblewildlifemanagement.org/vicki_hearne.htm

http://www.goodpooch.com/BSL/openlettertomichaelbryant.htm

http://www.goodpooch.com/bsl.htm#banlabshttp://www.thedogplace.com/library/articles160.htm

http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/inside.php?sid=2971http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Content/POL/ask/animal/bits.asp


I could go on and on....but reading the same thing over and over is boring me....

diamondtiger
January 3rd, 2005, 12:02 PM
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/979984/posts

I could find a whole lot more if you like...and some stats too probably to prove how wrong you are... Only a fool would leave a baby or small child alone and unattended with any medium or large dog, no matter what the breed....The breeds you mentioned were bred to herd and protect...the owners made them mean and viscious.....Thank you for that. KISS and keep it blunt. :smile: I couldn't have said it better myself. And I'm so glad you backed it up. Can't argue with what's in print... [sarcasm on]well not where pits are concerned anyway.[/sarcasm off] Oh, and just to let those fooled by the innocent look and stereo type of some dogs know... the last dog we shot because it was EXTREMELY vicious and terrorized the town, was a Golden Retriever. Funny thing.. there was also a Pit that roamed the town. He'd come into the yard and attack alright; with gallons of slobber and big wet kisses.

flying_panda
January 6th, 2005, 05:17 PM
lets ban them and every other "mean" dog then. Such as the rottie, doberman, and so on. I dont get it. It's NOT the dog its the owner...they need to not focus on the breed its not the breed all dogs are different! _firedevil

~SleepyWillow~
January 6th, 2005, 05:37 PM
I voted Yes, and this is the reason why:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1104259556549_99668756/?hub=Canada


The more stories I hear about Dog Attacks, the more I love my Feline Familiar Twowhitesocks.

Ki No Ronin

Not to be rude but where in that story was a pit bull mentioned?

Two of the dogs, a Rottweiler and a collie, belonged to the three-year-old boy's family. The other two dogs, both Rottweilers, were being taken care of by the family while their owner had been away.

I have owned these dogs myself. Im pretty sure there was another thread similar to this not long ago but I'm going to say here what I said there. YES the bite of a pit bull is dangerouse..it's 2800 pounds of pressure. A bite like that can do A LOT of damage. People need to be aware that a Pit Bull does NOT have lock Jaw it is a learned reaction. The owner would have to teach the dog with a rope toy for instance. YES pitbulls are agrressive but not in a mean way unless taught as well. These dogs are terriers and therefore require a lot of excersise because all terriers naturally have tons of energy. I think people misunderstand these dogs...I think if we ban them here in toronto then it opens the door to ban all kinds of breeds. It's not that these dogs bite more often it's that they get more media coverage. Instead of telling people they can't own them the Government should be educating dog owners. How about recognizing the Pit Bull as a breed for one, Making it illegal to purchase one except from a breeder that would require the owner to learn about the dog and participate in obediance classes. My heart goes out to any person who has been attacked by ANY dog..not just a pit, my heart also goes out to these beautiful loving animals who are mistreated, neglected, unloved and taught to be mean.

chrestomancie
January 8th, 2005, 09:01 PM
Not to be rude but where in that story was a pit bull mentioned?

Two of the dogs, a Rottweiler and a collie, belonged to the three-year-old boy's family. The other two dogs, both Rottweilers, were being taken care of by the family while their owner had been away.

I have owned these dogs myself. Im pretty sure there was another thread similar to this not long ago but I'm going to say here what I said there. YES the bite of a pit bull is dangerouse..it's 2800 pounds of pressure. A bite like that can do A LOT of damage. People need to be aware that a Pit Bull does NOT have lock Jaw it is a learned reaction. The owner would have to teach the dog with a rope toy for instance. YES pitbulls are agrressive but not in a mean way unless taught as well. These dogs are terriers and therefore require a lot of excersise because all terriers naturally have tons of energy. I think people misunderstand these dogs...I think if we ban them here in toronto then it opens the door to ban all kinds of breeds. It's not that these dogs bite more often it's that they get more media coverage. Instead of telling people they can't own them the Government should be educating dog owners. How about recognizing the Pit Bull as a breed for one, Making it illegal to purchase one except from a breeder that would require the owner to learn about the dog and participate in obediance classes. My heart goes out to any person who has been attacked by ANY dog..not just a pit, my heart also goes out to these beautiful loving animals who are mistreated, neglected, unloved and taught to be mean.

Ditto!!!

Yvonne Belisle
January 8th, 2005, 09:50 PM
I have three wonderful pits and love them dearly. My youngest is very protective of me in that if a stranger is near me she will bark like mad. She makes sure I know where they are at all times and that they know she is there. Like a jack russell terrier she bounces about and is a ball of energy. They are dangerous when playing not for fear of a bite but for fear of being rolled over while they are wrestling lol. They are incredibly smart and loyal as well. Max my male can untie knots in blankets that are used to play with him. They also learned how to open door knobs on the easier doors. We are fencing the whole yard next month but in the meantime use the deadbolts. It is the owner and environment that makes most dogs mean not a breed. There are exceptions where a dog is psycotic but you find that in people too. To be honest if you read enough crime sites you begin to realize that humans are the most dangerous and vicious species of animal on the planet dogs just don't rate that high after all I have read.

boerbabe
January 8th, 2005, 09:51 PM
Dogs have to be taught to be mean. I have known a lot more Dalmations, Cocker Spaniels and other breeds people consider to be fantastic and harmless to be aggressive then I have ever known Pits.

Actually, every Dal I have met has been aggressive, and almost all Cockers... I've never met an even slightly aggresive Pit before and know several people that breed them.

WitchJezebel
January 9th, 2005, 12:47 AM
its not the dog. its the owner that should treats their pets bad that make them that way.. pitbulls are very nice docile pets, like any other animal. if you treat them bad they become very mean, and pitbulls are very strong animals. if a pitbull bites you their jaw locks and they will just keep ripping you apart.. i think people should have to go thru application process to get a pet, and not some little form to fill out, i think they should have a background check, someone should talk to their family all that stuff..

I agree completely. The problem is also that alot times pitbulls are bred to be aggressive and an owner loses control of them and they go bonkers. It's sad because I've met a few who were sweetie pies (my stepmom has one whos sweet but seriously hyper). Then I've met few that are absolutely terrifying. I can't walk my dog on the next block because there's a pit that will hurt himself trying to get out of his yard after my dog.

Yvonne Belisle
January 9th, 2005, 07:02 PM
A lot of that agression is due to poor training when pups. Pit bulls have been bred to be dog agressive not people agressive. Without good socialization and training they will revert to that behavior. My Max is one of the most gentle dogs around but when he was a pup he was abused. They tried to make him mean and couldn't succeed. Pit bull fighting is a problem in Allentown PA people will sometimes steal other peoples dogs to bait their pits or fight. When we first moved there we were warned that if we got a dog we didn't want to leave it outside because of that. I thought they were exagerating till I had lived there for a while and spoke to many people who had their animals stolen. We have kept one of my dogs pups and we are working on socialization with her now. She is five months and a sweetie but will not tolerate strange men near me. She barks and growls and her hackles raise. I am now walking her around on her leash and keeping dog treats in my pocket when she doesn't behave that way she gets a treat when she does I have her sit and tell her no while petting her. I also tell her I know they are there it is slowly helping.

FaeFollower
January 15th, 2005, 05:51 PM
No. Negligent and incapable owners should be banned.

rottencandy7
January 15th, 2005, 07:30 PM
my best friend has a pit bull and she is SUCH a sweetheart. she can be a little hellion like young dogs are but the only time she shows any kind of aggression, is when i play with her. even then, its playful. its depends mostly on the owner. some dogs are bred to be agressive like the pit bulls, but proper training and even the owner could use training, then there shouldn't be a problem.

Rowenna
January 17th, 2005, 01:17 PM
Well-bred and well-socialized pit bulls are a joy to be around as far as I'm concerned. The problem comes in when people either don't do their research on what breed of dog is appropriate for them, or when people think its "cool" to have an agressive mean dog and breed for that purpose. Those are what should be banned..grr....Personally I've never owned (or been owned by *smile*) a pit bull, but every one I've been around have been wonderful dogs. I've actually had people tell me that I shouldn't keep my German Shepherd around my kids because she'll "turn". RIGHHHHHHHHT. Lick 'em to death maybe. I recently adopted a neglected and possibly abused Saint Bernard from a rescue group and people automatically think Cujo when they see him (or sometimes Beethoven *smile*). I also have a Lab who is a sweet little thing, but personally I think a person is more likely to be bitten by a Lab than a Pit. I'm around a lot of different dogs, and I've come closer to being bitten by Labs, Chows, and my parents little Min-Pin mix (if I believed in the devil I'd swear their dog is the DEVIL incarnate) than anything even remotely resembling one of the pit breeds. Ban irresponsible owners and irresponsible breeders, and we wouldn't have these kinds of problems. Sorry about the rambling rant, this issue is something I feel strongly about.

butterflydreams
January 26th, 2005, 04:45 AM
I'm not sure whether it's the dog or the owners that should be banned but there have been a handful of people that have been killed by pit bulls around here in the past year or two. Something needs to change. I personally have never been around a Pit Bull so I don't have any personal experience to go by. I do know that they are not the only kind of dogs that can attack and do damage. When I was about 7 months pregnant I was attacked by a German Shephard. The dog just got protective of my friends baby (the dog didn't even know the baby for even an hour and had attacked others for other reasons I guess). I went to give the baby a bottle when she was crying and the next thing I knew I was being attacked. So maybe picking out one type of dog and banning it is not exactly the best answer. I don't have anything against German Shepards specifically after that either. My family used to have one that was a sweetheart.

PoisonIvy
January 26th, 2005, 09:47 AM
I don't think that any dog should be banned,but there are some owners who should be banned from having a dog!

Valerie
January 27th, 2005, 02:08 PM
I don't think that any dog should be banned,but there are some owners who should be banned from having a dog!

Exactly. Pitbulls, rotweillers, mastiffs, etc. are notorious for being fighting dogs because that's what they're trained for. It's not the dogs, it's the people that are creating the behavior. If you see a pitbull that was not raised to fight, they are one of the sweetest breeds around. :)

It's so sad too, because when you go to animal shelters, the majority of the dogs will be pitbulls - and they're all wagging their tales and just waiting for someone to pick them up. Hopefully I'll be getting one in the next year. :)

Hairball
January 27th, 2005, 08:23 PM
Sounds as though pitbulls shouldn't be banned, but the owners should be shown to be responsible owners. Maybe they need a special licence like you do for buying a gun or something . The people that I see with big dangerous looking dogs seem always to be young macho type guys who I certainly wouldn't trust. I live in a low rent area complete with a lot of lowlifes. These guys seem to buy these German shephers, dobermans and pitbulls just to show off how tough and masculine they are. I'm not saying that all pitbull owners are like that, but in my area thats what I see.

moonmorgan
January 27th, 2005, 10:52 PM
Absolutely not! My boyfriend and I own a wonderful pitbull who like someone else said, would only lick you to death. She is happy to see a stranger! Anyone who could possible pet her is fine with her. They are banned in our city now and if Ontario bans them, we're doomed. When my boyfriend and I have enough money and both have license's and working vehicles, we want to move to the county where it's currently not illegal to own a pitbull. But that won't work if Ontario bans them.

This ban is ridiculous!

Kaija
January 28th, 2005, 12:03 AM
Okay, I have never owned a pit bull, but I do know that while there are agressive dog breeds, it is mainly about being responsible.
http://www.sanfranciscodogmauling.com/HomePageLinks/PresaCanario/Presacanario.html

This is another agressive breed, and they are huge, but there are relatively few cases of them attacking.. because the people that do own them are primarily responsible.. (due to the rarity of the breed itself)

On the other hand I was raised with Schnauzers, not considered a terribly agressive breed, but they can be. One of my mothers current ones had a history of agression towards children.. When my nephew was born we started teaching them both to deal with each other.. my nephew is now 5 and not only has there never been a problem between them, the dog loves being right with him all the time.. It was a matter of noticing the potential problem and dealing with it...

I think agressive breeds should need specialized adoption requirements, but they shouldn't be banned.

SilverClaw
January 28th, 2005, 08:14 AM
I am just scared of the darn dogs cause of one taking my cousins head off her shoulders. I do not know what to think about banning them though to me all dogs have a potential to eb aggresive.

Sins_Under_The_Halo
January 28th, 2005, 08:25 AM
Nope, dogs are dogs and should be trained by applicable owners

PhoenixFire
February 2nd, 2005, 11:53 PM
its not the dog. its the owner that should treats their pets bad that make them that way.. pitbulls are very nice docile pets, like any other animal. if you treat them bad they become very mean, and pitbulls are very strong animals. if a pitbull bites you their jaw locks and they will just keep ripping you apart.. i think people should have to go thru application process to get a pet, and not some little form to fill out, i think they should have a background check, someone should talk to their family all that stuff..

My sister's friend has a pit named Texes, she is a very sweat happy dog. Hyper, but sweat. I agree with Halo on the whole background check for any future owners of any animal/s.

fahawk
February 22nd, 2005, 01:31 PM
I do not think an application process would be a terrible thing..only because too many people get dogs and never bother to train them or work with them as it is...then just anyone getting a pit-bull, who will not take the time or be bothered to train them properly, not to mention the few who use them to be aggressive..
my only experience is that I worked at a horse farm where the owner had a pit-bull, sometimes the dog would be fine..and other times not..it seemed you always had to be watching out the corner of your eye- finally one day, a lady came to look at a horse, and the manager ( a lady also) needed to restrain the pit-bull, and when she went to get his collar he clamped down on her arm and would not let go- not pretty after..
so??

fun2bwif
February 22nd, 2005, 01:40 PM
I totatlly understand what your saying and thats because they didnt put a stop to it from the beginning and like you said discipline is very important from the very beginning you must show the dog specially the pitbull who is boss and another thing people fail to look at is how the dog was bred some people have no clue on how to breed and automatically they breed it to anythinng and therefore these dogs have many issues. I do agree that an apllicattion should be processed so that the dog falls into the right hands and not people who do the wrong thing with them.
Iris

Liberty bell kennels
home of the red- rednose
http://www.libertybellkennels.com
american pit bull terrier breeders

Asrai
February 23rd, 2005, 04:03 AM
I have 2 pitbulls and they are great with my 3 kids. I love my babies I could not live without them. _travolta_

teh_fae
February 23rd, 2005, 05:03 AM
No they shouldn't be banned. Pit bulls are very sweet dogs, it's the owners fault if something goes wrong. Just like a video said that I just watched from another thread here...People would rather blame the dog and not blame the owner. Pit bulls are great, I had one for about 7 years of my life and I still love her to this day. They shouldn't be banned or anything else that's bad.

fun2bwif
February 23rd, 2005, 01:46 PM
They are big lap babies I have four kids they all grew up around them and I never had a problem with them they are so adorable. :)

Ravens_Tears
February 26th, 2005, 05:16 PM
I have stated earlier in this thread my reasoning and beliefs in regards to banning/destroying "dangerous" dogs (meaning dogs that have proven themselves to be dangerous) and banning/controlling breeds with a proven genetic propensity to viciousness. I am just posting a few links in support of this reasoning and also in regards to legislation that exists in Canada as well as current legislation that is being put on the table.
'Dangerous dog' bylaws across Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/dangerousdogs/bylaws.html)
CITY OF VANCOUVER - Dangerous Dogs: Protection Strategy (http://www.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20050217/pe2.htm)
Girl attacked by pit bull as ban talk grows - CTV News Jan 10, 2005 (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1094839231697_90248431?s_name=&no_ads=)
Heated debate opens Ont. hearing on pit bull ban - CTV News Mon. Jan. 24 2005 (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1106587551072_101996751?s_name=&no_ads=)
Three pit bulls attack two-year-old Ottawa boy CTV News Sat. Feb. 26 2005 (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109385717199_46/?hub=Canada)

fun2bwif
February 26th, 2005, 05:48 PM
banning dogs that are vicious is one thing.. but what about the people who train the dog to be this way... who breed them wrongfully......and dont get me wrong even a pit that is not full bred is good to a human being..... I really don't care for what legislation puts out there... no dog is vicious unless taught otherwise and as far as legislation goes I can care less for their actions because half of the time they don't even know what they are banning a reporter in canada did a interview with one of the members of legislation and he didnt even know what a pit bull was he couldn't describe it so banning a breed is not going to stop people from treating or raising malicious dogs, if not the pit bull they will pick another breed as long they can fight them and win bets, what they need to do is register breeders and when a person purchase a pup they need to follow up with a license to keep track of who gets their hands on them and that they don't do the wrong things them..........punish the deed and not the breed , legislation only does what
is covenient to them and brings them media hype ..they dont give a horses fart about any breed all you hear is the negative of the pit bull but never of the postive qualities and traits... that is injustice did they tell you that it was pit bull that discover lacy petersons body in an a search and rescue effort and that the media wouldnt give the dog the recognition it deserve afraid a bunch of stupid people would run out and buy a pit? and give the recognition as other dogs
did they tell you that many of the search and rescue dogs from 911 were mostly pit bulls but the ones the media had in view were the german shepards I am friend with a sars (search and rescue organization and they will stand by what im telling you and is ignorant people who will back up low minded people who not of the breed and have them banned. so becareful what efforts you supoort you may just be banning a dog that can make a diference in others lifes...
next thing you know they may ban chihuahas and poodles they are nasty little things i own them

Iris
Liberty Bell Kennels

Ravens_Tears
February 26th, 2005, 06:04 PM
** said without prejudice **
I suggest you read the entirety of this thread, quite a bit of what you are bringing forward has already been brought forward in discussion.

I have had personal experiences in regards to dangerous dogs as well as conducted my own research, my personal opinions are not based upon media hype or hear say.

In would also venture to say, in my humble opinion, that an animal being utilized for the purpose it was breed for in the hands of a proper trainer/handler would be properly controlled and cared for and therefore an asset. This is not, however the usual situation for most dogs proven to be dangerous. An owner may have nothing but the best intentions, may be the most loving, concientious dog owner around but it doesn't change the predisposition of an animal to violence and aggression. Domesticated dogs are all dangerous in any given stressful situation because they have no innate fear of humans like wild canines (such as wolves) do. But most people have the sense not to go running up to a wolf or coyote to try and pet or hug them because they know it's "wild" that there's always a chance the animal could turn on them. Many of these dangerous breeds were bred specifically to be aggressive, so yes, it is people/s own fault in general. And they are that much more dangerous because people forget that even a "tame" animal has the potential to snap and domesticity/familiarity brings a false sense of security.

fun2bwif
February 26th, 2005, 06:40 PM
I have read the entirety of this thread and I express myself as do others and I agree if you know somethings agressive don't pet it or make it an animal of your own, but they were not bred for that purpose and to punish for other dogs for the action of one dog trained to be agressive by it's owner no dog is born that way. it's just like saying one person of one specific race brutually raped someone lets punish that whole race because there criminals the same is with dogs we can not punish all pits because of one dog turned bad i think you are the only person that has a problem with me standing by the breed and there for this is the wrong forum for it...... this is a tarot room not a pitbull forum and everyone is open to post their opinions and no one should be bashed or banned for experessing their beliefs from the very beginning you took a negative to everything I have posted, It makes no diference to me i deal with this everyday and I will continue to defend the breed I'm a writer and have plans of publishing my book on the hate and discrimination of the breed you will see me on tv and everywhere to ensure that everyone knows whats right and wrong pertaining to this breed and the injustice brought against them because of the misdeed of others and the very little knowledge they have of them I love my dogs all raised around children and many of the neighborhood kids paly with them and have never had a problem with them...

Valkie
February 26th, 2005, 07:00 PM
First of all, no, I don't think that they should be banned... expecially since I'm getting one or two next week.

As far as the dogs being bred to be aggressive... this is not entirely true. Most of the dogs that are on a 'dangerous breed' list were not originally bred to be aggressive. They were bred as work dogs, to protect family, home and property, including cattle and livestock. Some of those work dogs include mastiffs, rotties, pits and dobies.

They got the 'aggressive' title from poor breeders and worse owners and were labled as dangerous afterwards because of the the people's incompitence.

Personally, I'm more cautious going near a badly socialized cat or poodle than I am a well socialized pit.

Ravens_Tears
February 26th, 2005, 07:20 PM
I have read the entirety of this thread and I express myself as do others and I agree if you know somethings agressive don't pet it or make it an animal of your own, but they were not bred for that purpose and to punish for other dogs for the action of one dog trained to be agressive by it's owner no dog is born that way.

It is my understanding that many of these "dangerous" breeds were bred to "protect", protection requires aggression.


it's just like saying one person of one specific race brutually raped someone lets punish that whole race because there criminals the same is with dogs we can not punish all pits because of one dog turned bad

It's not like saying that at all, people are people, animals are animals. I personally don't believe in punishment in general. "Punishment" has never solved anything.


i think you are the only person that has a problem with me standing by the breed and there for this is the wrong forum for it...... this is a tarot room not a pitbull forum and everyone is open to post their opinions and no one should be bashed or banned for experessing their beliefs from the very beginning you took a negative to everything I have posted,

I have no problem with you, I was simply stating my views on this, I thought I had as much a right to do that as anyone else. I haven't bashed anyone. I haven't taken a "negative" to everything you have posted, I don't even know who you are, except a fellow MW member.
Also this is Critter Chat, not the Tarot forum, so I believe I am expressing my views in the proper place...

fun2bwif
February 27th, 2005, 12:56 AM
thank you valerie finally someone with real knowledge people are mislead only to believe what they see on the news or media i only feel bad for the dog the owners should be punished for raising them and treating them they way they do...
Iris

Semele
February 27th, 2005, 10:55 AM
An owner may have nothing but the best intentions, may be the most loving, concientious dog owner around but it doesn't change the predisposition of an animal to violence and aggression.
I can't believe a dog would have a predisposition to aggression, nor would a human. We are products of our environments.

The whole alpha male training method is designed around the dogs natural pack instinct and it is very effective.

Ravens_Tears
February 27th, 2005, 11:51 AM
I believe that this a perfect example of preference for what philosophy of evolution and development one prefers, the debate over Nature vs Nurture. In my humble opinion, both nature (genetic predisposition) and nurture (environment) contribute to how anyone or anything developes.


from PetPlace.com
Aggression in dogs is defined as a threatening or harmful behavior directed toward another living creature. This includes snarling, growling, snapping, nipping, biting and lunging. Dogs that show such behavior are not abnormal; they are merely exhibiting normal species-typical behavior that is incompatible with human lifestyle (and safety). There are many reasons why a dog will act aggressively toward strangers or even his owner.

This is indicative of the Nature. It is completely natural for a dog to be aggressive, it is part of their nature.


from VetMedCenter.com
How is aggression diagnosed?

Aggression is a complex, multi-factorial disorder that is influenced by breed disposition, genetic predisposition, sex, age, early experiences, learning, and external stimuli (the environment). Environmental conditions, such as frustration from being tied up, dog fighting, and abuse, can predispose dogs to various types of aggression. A thorough evaluation must first be done by your veterinarian to rule out any underlying medical conditions. This includes a detailed history, physical exam, and laboratory testing (blood tests, thyroid tests, a urinalysis, radiographs (X-rays), and electrocardiograms). Aggression is classified into many categories and is typically diagnosed by the age, sex, history, environmental aspects, and behavioral descriptions of the dog's actions.
The medical community acknowledges both genetic predisposition and environment as factors in aggression. This is also re-enforced in the following quote as well...


from PetPlace.com
Aggression is influenced by several factors, including: genetic predisposition, early experience, maturation, sex, age, size, hormonal status, physiological state and external stimuli. Behaviorists use a classification system based on patterns of behavior and the circumstances in which they occur. This is done to determine the dog’s motivation and the cause of the behavior.


Referenced from:
Aggression in Dogs - PetPlace.com (http://petplace.netscape.com/articles/artShow.asp?artID=2644)
Aggression in Dogs - VetMedCenter.com (http://consumer.vetmedcenter.com/consumer/display.asp?fn=P-MR-M-Be_5-aggressionK91XX.xml&dt=K)

Valkie
February 27th, 2005, 01:01 PM
your facts are the same for every species of animal on the planet, and if we were talking about people instead of dogs, you would be called a racist and a bigot. It runs along the same idea that black people are more dangerous than white because more robberies are commited by black people. I don't see anyone running around trying to get blacks banned from their community or saying that 'they can't help it, they're born that way'. It's a closed minded point of view.

Silverwings
February 27th, 2005, 04:10 PM
Terries bred for aggression?
absolutely, between my direct family we've got about 8 terriers they are playful things and will be very fiesty dogs and nip occasionally. Hey even the jack russel just holds my hand in it's mouth like a toy when we play, but no one has ever been attacked by any of them.

Why?
I think it's because we did work at training our dogs and we did make sure they were well bred. The same thing applies for pit bulls, yes they can be "fiesty" but not to the point of agression unless agression was put into their training.

I'd ban poodles before pit bulls, monster of a toy poodle went to town on my achielles tendon when I was younger. I did recover but that was because I was lucky enough to be half a block away from the hospital and got it cleaned before I got an infection.

It seems unfair to say "let's ban this dog because it MIGHT attack someone" that's like saying "let's arrest this man with depression because he MIGHT commit suicide" Has both of these happened? Of course, but does that mean they should banned because of a few bad apples? I should say not.

Just thought I'd throw in my repetative 2 cents :D

xarimae
February 27th, 2005, 04:25 PM
I think sometimes it just instinct. Like keeping a tiger cub. If you it as a cub, it may grow up to be a wonderful and loving pet. But you never know when it could snap and lunge at you. It has instincts, like everything does, and I don't know if just surroundings can change that. So I'm hesitant of pit bulls because they are known to be aggressive, but I'm also just as scared of dalmations!! They are known to be very loving but once they reach middle age, come can change personalities and become aggressive/violent, so if an animal is known for being a certain way, I'd think that there would be some truth behind its reputation besides how people raise it.

Ravens_Tears
February 27th, 2005, 04:34 PM
your facts are the same for every species of animal on the planet, and if we were talking about people instead of dogs, you would be called a racist and a bigot. It runs along the same idea that black people are more dangerous than white because more robberies are commited by black people. I don't see anyone running around trying to get blacks banned from their community or saying that 'they can't help it, they're born that way'. It's a closed minded point of view.

Yes, the facts ARE the same for every species of dog. I support legislation for controlling dangerous animals. I live in Canada for Pete's sake. I have lived far enough up North where it is not uncommon to have bears in your back yard! I have respect for animals and what ANY animal is capable of. I have made a point of not getting "personal" about this issue, though others seem to be doing so. I reiterate that it does not follow along the same lines as people because animals simply are NOT people. I am not making anything remotely akin to racist/bigotted statements. And at no time, unless an animal is being abused by a person, will I take an animal's side over human safety. That's my priorities and I stand behind that. I have simply stated my humble opinions and presented proof in support of those. I don't believe personal denigrations are neccessary or warrented.

treefae
February 27th, 2005, 06:28 PM
having had a pit bull for 10 years i can say there are pros and cons to owning such a strong animal.do they have killer insticts towards other dogs yes.are they loving loyal animals toward people yes.people should know exactly what they have on their hands when they own one,pit bulls can be killing machines.don't tell me different i've heard the death cries they make when they are trying to kill.if they weren't trained to pit fight they still know how to kill.it's their instinct,i don't think they are safe around other dogs if they are challenged,trained or not.i would definitely not go for a family walk with a pit bull,because of other owners of aggressive dogs.i wouldn't want my kids traumatized.should they be banned no,but are they public friendly no.neither are alot of other breeds.i loved my dog she was wonderful.not for the weak of heart or arms lol.

Semele
February 28th, 2005, 12:09 PM
from PetPlace.com
Aggression in dogs is defined as a threatening or harmful behavior directed toward another living creature. This includes snarling, growling, snapping, nipping, biting and lunging. Dogs that show such behavior are not abnormal; they are merely exhibiting normal species-typical behavior that is incompatible with human lifestyle (and safety).
Um, the dogs that I think of as nipping, snarling, and growling are little terriers and poodles and the likes. I have yet to meet a yippy snippy pit bull! Although the image is cracking me up and I am so gonna try to train Patches now!:abadpoker

As far as being incompatible, I think they should check the facts...look up a word or something because that is quackery.


from PetPlace.com
There are many reasons why a dog will act aggressively toward strangers or even his owner.
Right and they usually result due to the animal feeling threatened or ill. As a nurse I assure you, this is the same with humans. We are not superior because we talk. We are all animals and all respond with the same general demeanor. One dog/person is never going to be the same as another dog/person born to the same parents and raised the same way. We cannot predict human behavior any more then animal behavior. But..that is another thread another time.


Quote:
from VetMedCenter.com
How is aggression diagnosed?

Aggression is a complex, multi-factorial disorder that is influenced by breed disposition, genetic predisposition, sex, age, early experiences, learning, and external stimuli (the environment). Environmental conditions, such as frustration from being tied up, dog fighting, and abuse, can predispose dogs to various types of aggression.
Well, let me go into a bit of detail on Breed disposition and genetic predisposition. First off...specific blood lines of so called fighting dogs are studied and on the other side of town other specific bloodlines of collies are studied and they compare the results. Pit Bulls are not seen in the akc dog shows much eh? They are not cluing in to the fact that the genetic lines they are studying are recycled into fighting circles because they breed them and sale them to other fighters...yes that bloodline will continue to be aggressive, likely due in part to abuse encountered in the womb. Emotional responses in the brain inutero can and do cause imprints in the psyche. Damn, got distracted again...lol! Only on Monday.



This is indicative of the Nature. It is completely natural for a dog to be aggressive, it is part of their nature

Just as it is part of our nature.

Myself, I think the key with any of us, two legs and four, is to have a positive environment that exposes us to small challenges early in life so that when we face the big ones we don't freak out and attack each other.

Valkie
February 28th, 2005, 10:05 PM
Yes, the facts ARE the same for every species of dog. I support legislation for controlling dangerous animals. I live in Canada for Pete's sake. I have lived far enough up North where it is not uncommon to have bears in your back yard! I have respect for animals and what ANY animal is capable of. I have made a point of not getting "personal" about this issue, though others seem to be doing so. I reiterate that it does not follow along the same lines as people because animals simply are NOT people. I am not making anything remotely akin to racist/bigotted statements. And at no time, unless an animal is being abused by a person, will I take an animal's side over human safety. That's my priorities and I stand behind that. I have simply stated my humble opinions and presented proof in support of those. I don't believe personal denigrations are neccessary or warrented.

I didn't think I was saying anything that could be seen as a 'personal' attack. I was making a statement.
your facts are the same for every species of animal on the planet What you're pulling up as 'facts' are not solely for dogs and can be applied to human behavior as well.

and if we were talking about people instead of dogs, you would be called a racist and a bigot. I don't see how selecting out sub-species of dog and selecting out a sub-species of human is different.

Tecumseh
March 2nd, 2005, 07:45 PM
** said without prejudice **
I suggest you read the entirety of this thread, quite a bit of what you are bringing forward has already been brought forward in discussion.

I have had personal experiences in regards to dangerous dogs as well as conducted my own research, my personal opinions are not based upon media hype or hear say.

In would also venture to say, in my humble opinion, that an animal being utilized for the purpose it was breed for in the hands of a proper trainer/handler would be properly controlled and cared for and therefore an asset. This is not, however the usual situation for most dogs proven to be dangerous. An owner may have nothing but the best intentions, may be the most loving, concientious dog owner around but it doesn't change the predisposition of an animal to violence and aggression. Domesticated dogs are all dangerous in any given stressful situation because they have no innate fear of humans like wild canines (such as wolves) do. But most people have the sense not to go running up to a wolf or coyote to try and pet or hug them because they know it's "wild" that there's always a chance the animal could turn on them. Many of these dangerous breeds were bred specifically to be aggressive, so yes, it is people/s own fault in general. And they are that much more dangerous because people forget that even a "tame" animal has the potential to snap and domesticity/familiarity brings a false sense of security.
Remember pavlok`s dog?? Condition and response. What you are saying is similar to(hypothetically) If Lissy Borden, & Charles Manson were able to have kids they would automatically have a violent dissposition. No matter if they were raised in a loving ADOPTIVE home or not. And don`t drag my comment down with the "dogs are dogs, people are people" BS either. What you are speaking of when you say "predisposition" is "instinct" in an animal, and we, as people have instinct too. It is no different. Because of the environment we live in we are taught that killing people just cause they are a$$holes is wrong---Condition, and response, the same damn thing! You can take a peaceful, meek man, and put him in a situation, and he will fight, even kill for his life....that is just a fact, human nature, "instinct"! No difference.
Now, with that said I own a pit named Copper, & I will agree that these animals do have a predisposition toward aggresion, BUT so do toy poodles, miniture collies, even cats, so, that is a non-issue, it is a gimmie. If an animal is socialised and INDIVIDUALLY understood by it`s owner, there should be no problem. When I got my pit, the guy told me that if I was getting her for protection, don`t let her around anyone but family, that`s all! Instinct would do the rest. And I will admit, I can`t just yell "come in!" when someone knock on the door. Point being I know my dog, and I don`t give her the chance. When I am not home, I don`t leave her chained outside, I don`t give her the chance to mess-up (Not that I think she would) I just choose to avoid the potential for it.....I am responsible for her. I don`t let young children play with her unsuppervised either, kids have a habit of pulling ears, and other things that I wouldn`t particularly like either. That`s called responsibility.You ever go to a petting zoo? Maybe we should ban the hump-nosed goose cause it chased my kid down and bit him in the a$$. Is it the pencils fault that people can`t spell? Do cars cause drunk driving? Does a gun jump into a persons hand and randomly shoot somebody? Did spoons make Rosie O`Donnell fat? Sounds stupid huh? Well that`s the same type of thinking that would ban an entire breed over some OVERPUBLICISED attacks. By the way, for unprovoked attacks, the dalmation is in the lead. The pits are just more widely publicised. I`m glad the judicial system don`t think that way,..OMFG!! We`d all be toast! The owner must be held responsible for these animals, that would send the message to the people that these dogs aren`t a trophy, they are an important responsibility. There needs to be some laws, but banning is stupid. People will still have them, they`ll just have to sneak around, thus making the problem worst cause of having to hide them, & no socialisation for the dogs. Maybe making owners take mandatory obedience classes w/ thier pet.

Valerie
March 5th, 2005, 02:25 AM
I've read some pretty good points here - those that I agree with (especially along the lines of what Tecumseh said), and others that I don't. Now it's my turn. Some of what I wrote has already been mentioned and some hasn't. I will post my message as a whole because we seem to be having the same discussion on another forum.

I have nothing against Pits. In fact, I love them. I love the breed and I love their temperament - when raised properly. I do not, in any way, believe that agression is bred into them. Natural agression comes from an enlarged part of the brain called the medulla oblongata. You will see this trait in Gators, as an example - not pit bulls. Another thing to note is that "Pit Bull" is NOT an actual breed. It's a generic term often used to describe all dogs with similar traits and characteristics often known by the public as "Pit Bulls".

Why are these dogs chosen for fighting? Their outstanding athletic ability and their physical power. This is why Pit Bulls need a knowledeable owner - one who understands their needs, is able to give them the exercise that they require, and teach them appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. Can't this be said for many more breeds? Don't rottweilers, dobermans, labs, border collies, hounds and german shepherds require the same kind of training? Many of these breeds are fast, large, powerful dogs - they need proper care - everything from nutrition to exercise of the mind and body. Hell, even if you own a border collie, a sheltie, or an australian shepherd and don't exercise them at least once a day for an hour (and that's the bare minimum), you will come home to a destroyed house and an incredibly irritable dog. You have to understand what you're getting into with each breed that you choose. You. The owner.

Another thing that has come to my attention is that people judge the breed as a whole, because of the isolated instances of a few. Funny though, how we don't judge humans the same. A pit bull mauls a little girl - so the whole breed is agressive and deadly now? How about when a rapist tortures and kills women and little kids - is the entire human race corrupt because of those assholes that are doing these things out of their own free will? Animals are trained to behave in the ways they do - we do so freely. Which is worse? What if an African American walks up to a clerk and shoots him on the spot? We've all seen those cases on T.V. - are all black people agressive now? Are they lesser than everybody else? Are we back in the 1950's? Certainly not! Why the double standard with Pit Bulls?

It's also interesting that all anyone hears about are the yearly cases of Pit Bull attacks. They fail to mention other breeds like labs and spaniels. Why? Because Pits are newsworthy and will get people in a huffle. Labs are the #1 breed prone to bite or attack, and yet they are also the #1 family dog in america, for about 10 years running now. :hmmmmm:

I will also note that everyone is quick to point out the "bad cases" of pit bull behaviour. No one ever mentions the work and contributions that pits have made in today's society. Anything from service dogs to search and rescue dogs - a pit is one of the best for the job. When that space shuttle crashed a few years back, they had to gather an elite team of the best search and rescue dogs in the country for that operation. Guess what? Pits were among the dogs they chose. They are dedicated workers and loyal companions - it's what you choose to do with these qualities that will determine your dog's behaviour.

And for the record, I've been looking into this for quite some time now - my next dog (I have 2) will be a pit.

I could go on and on about this subject because it's one I feel very strongly about, but I think I'll leave it at that for now.

Tecumseh
March 9th, 2005, 04:49 PM
My "pit bull" Is actually known as a Staffordshire terrier, they are the dogs used to make the breed commonly known as Pitbulls, game american bulldogs, Later the AKC, at the "suggestion" of England Added American to the naME making the breed known as American Stafforshire Terrier. They came from England (of course) were they were used for hunting large game, and cattle farming ("bull" dogs) then eventually guard, and security, and they also have made themselves especially usefull in search, and rescue. An article I read said that their aggression, and tenacity is what makes them so good at that. So that just goes to show that aggression, when used in a possitive way, can be an atribute. I know my Amstaf would jump in a fire for me or my son. She is a terrific, well behaved dog, but she is VERY protective. (Mess with the bull, you get the horn.)

Valkie
March 14th, 2005, 08:56 PM
Not to pull this thread back from the dead, but I just found this and think it fits perfectly here. The "Pit Bull Problem" (http://www.deviantart.com/view/11454716/) .

Warning: very graphic and disturbing, but truth usually is.

Tecumseh
March 17th, 2005, 08:26 PM
That was excellent!! I fits perfectly in this thread....thank you.

Mau
April 2nd, 2005, 11:17 PM
I haven't read many of the replies...but I will post anyways :D

What some people fail to realize is that Pit Bull is NOT a breed of dog. It is a type. Line up a Pit Bull, Cane Corso, Alano Espanol, Dogo Argentino, Presa Canario,Boxer, American Bulldog, Am Staff, Bull Mastiff, and a crap load of other molosser breeds and see just how many people can ACTUALLY pick out the pit bull of the group on the first try. Here..I'll give you a link, see if you can do it out of a group of 25 dogs

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

Banning pit bulls is a BAD thing. It leaves so many breeds up for grabs. And I don't think the government has ANY business telling anyone what kind of dogs they are or aren't allowed to own. Stricter punishment for the crappy people who RUIN perfectly good dogs IS a good idea though, whether it be bad breeders, or bad owners.

WylieRoze
August 6th, 2005, 09:47 PM
No such thing as a bad dog...blame the owner.....dogs are truly victims of their environment.....they are only what they are taught
teach any dog with love and understanding not to mention patience...good dog
treat it cruelly, make hate, make it aggressive ...bad person POOR dog

SacredWithin
August 6th, 2005, 09:52 PM
This pitbull banning thing is dumb, in my opinion. It really depends on how one raises their dog.

Choro's Mom
August 7th, 2005, 12:10 AM
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has stats from ‘79 until 1996. For “Pit Bulls” there were two fatalies from 79–80, five in 80–81 and ten from 83–84: 17 in total.

For Rottweilers there was one in that time period.
For German Shepherds, eight.
For “Huskies” and “Malamutes,” five.
For St. Bernards, four.

Currently, Rottweilers are the number one breed for dog bite related fatalities. Are they more aggressive now than they were then? No, they’re more popular now than they were then; they are more commonly found in the wrong hands now than then, etc.

The same holds true for “Pit Bulls.”
From 1991–1996, there were 14 fatalities involving “Pit Bull type” dogs (despite the increase in numbers of dogs, the number of fatalities is currently less than what it was 20 years ago, interesting consider the amazing press that these dogs get NOW compared with 20 years ago—media darlings that they are these days), 23 involving Rottweilers, 4 involving GSD, 5 involving “huskies,” 4 involving Alaskan Malamutes (if combined, as the “Pit Bull types” are, this makes 11 for “husky type dogs”), 1 involving a Doberman, 5 involving a Chow, 2 involving Great Danes, 3 involving Akitas, 5 involving “wolf hybrids,” 3 involving “GSD mixes,” 2 involving “Pit Bull mixes,” 1 involving an Al. Malamute mix, 2 Rottweiler mixes, and 2 involving Chow mixes.

Compare that to the previous period in time from ‘85–90. “Pit Bull” types were involved in 29 incidents, Rottweilers in 4, GSDs in 7, “Husky/Malamutes” in 7, Dobermans in 6, Chows in 2, Akitas in 1, wolf hybrids in 7, GSD mixes in 6, “Pit Bull mixes” in 8, Husky/MalamuteX in 6, RottweilerX in 2, ChowX in 1.

The “Pit Bull” types have shown a marked decline in fatalities, despite the fact that they have grown in popularity especially among the “bad element” and their use for illegal purposes has grown. Considering the rise in numbers of these breeds (Pit Bull “types”), there has not been an increase, but rather a DECLINE. We did not see the media hype 20 years ago that we see today. Considering that the popularity of these dogs has increased dramatically, one has to assume that the actual incidence of fatalities involving Pit Bulls has decreased—they are less likely to bite today than they were 20 years ago. Yet they capture headline after headline.

Another point of interest: of the represented breeds and mixes, the majority came from the working group. The GSD while classified as a “herding” dog, is as much a “working” dog as any other. Perhaps we should just ban “working” dogs while we are at it, because dogs from that group are over represented in the statistics, as are dogs from the non sporting group.

The CDC also adds: Although some breeds were disproportionately represented in the fatal attacks described in this report, the representation of breeds changes over time. As a result, targeting a specific breed may be unproductive; a more effective approach may be to target chronically irresponsible dog owners.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) says, regarding dog bite prevention: Can a law that bans or restricts ownership of specific breeds of dogs—called a breed specific law—protect the members of your community from dog attacks? According to experts, the answer is no. Why? Popular breeds come and go. When ownership of one breed of dog is outlawed, those who want a dangerous dog simply turn to another breed. The Doberman, known as the dangerous dog breed of the 1970s, was replaced in popularity by the Pit Bull in the 80s and the Rottweiler in the 90s. Breed specific laws require that someone be able to prove that a specific dog is a member, or a mix, of that breed—not always an easy task. Boxers and bulldogs, for instance, may be mistaken for Pit Bulls. Any medium large sized black and tan dog with a long tail may be mistakenly labeled as a German Shepherd.

And further, from HSUS: What exactly is a Pit Bull? Defining it has proved to be a formidable legal hurdle because the Pit Bull is not a specific breed. Rather, it is a kind of dog, a generic catchall like hound or retriever. The breeds most commonly referred to as Pit Bulls are the American Staffordshire terrier, which is the term used by the American Kennel Club, and the American Pit Bull Terrier, the term used by the United Kennel Club. The men who match Pit Bulls in fights today do not bother with such formalities; they refer to their animals as bulldogs—a nickname which should not confuse Pit Bulls—with the pug faced and bowlegged English bulldog, a distant relative, or the Bull Terrier, another relation whose bloodline was softened long ago by crossbreeding with the English Terrier.

How many dogs that DO maul someone do so on their very first show of aggressive behavior? Or was the dog known to be unstable, unpredictable, out of control for some time before it finally did maul someone?

Punish PEOPLE whose dogs show vicious behavior. Don’t ban a whole BREED because some moron trained his Zambonian Zuglhund to chew up the neighborhood.

The corollary to that is NOT punishing dogs for LEGIT bites. If someone breaks into my home, I should NOT be punished (nor should my dog) if my dog bites him in my defense. (Or, for that matter, if he slips on the dog’s tennis ball and breaks a leg.) Anyone who gets hurt as a result of his own criminal misbehavior (or unmitigated stupidity) should have no right to demand compensation for damages.

Dogs of ALL breeds have bitten. The prevalence (not exclusivity) of bites from certain breeds is not because breeds themselves are a problem, it’s because AT PRESENT, the criminal element tends to acquire those breeds.

Now comes the logic test:
The criminal element tends to acquire X breeds.
Fido is X breed.
Fido belongs to a criminal.

BZZZZZZZZT! WRONG ANSWER. See the logic flaw?

Many criminals belong to X group.
John is a member of X group.
John is a criminal.

THAT is what breed-specific legislation does: it says that because criminals get X breeds, all dogs of X breeds must belong to criminals and should be banned.

Well, you ban X breeds, and criminals will get dogs of Y breeds. Ban them, and criminals will get dogs of Z breeds.

And then A, B, C, D, E, F… and no more dogs.

Breed-specific legislation is NOT the answer. Not to anyone who loves dogs and knows breeds.

Punish the deed, not the breed!

fun2bwif
August 7th, 2005, 01:18 AM
that is exactly how many people view it too and its probably the cause of so much
discrimanation against them


Iris
http://www.libertybellkennels.com (http://www.libertybellkennels.com)


The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has stats from ‘79 until 1996. For “Pit Bulls” there were two fatalies from 79–80, five in 80–81 and ten from 83–84: 17 in total.

For Rottweilers there was one in that time period.
For German Shepherds, eight.
For “Huskies” and “Malamutes,” five.
For St. Bernards, four.

Currently, Rottweilers are the number one breed for dog bite related fatalities. Are they more aggressive now than they were then? No, they’re more popular now than they were then; they are more commonly found in the wrong hands now than then, etc.

The same holds true for “Pit Bulls.”
From 1991–1996, there were 14 fatalities involving “Pit Bull type” dogs (despite the increase in numbers of dogs, the number of fatalities is currently less than what it was 20 years ago, interesting consider the amazing press that these dogs get NOW compared with 20 years ago—media darlings that they are these days), 23 involving Rottweilers, 4 involving GSD, 5 involving “huskies,” 4 involving Alaskan Malamutes (if combined, as the “Pit Bull types” are, this makes 11 for “husky type dogs”), 1 involving a Doberman, 5 involving a Chow, 2 involving Great Danes, 3 involving Akitas, 5 involving “wolf hybrids,” 3 involving “GSD mixes,” 2 involving “Pit Bull mixes,” 1 involving an Al. Malamute mix, 2 Rottweiler mixes, and 2 involving Chow mixes.

Compare that to the previous period in time from ‘85–90. “Pit Bull” types were involved in 29 incidents, Rottweilers in 4, GSDs in 7, “Husky/Malamutes” in 7, Dobermans in 6, Chows in 2, Akitas in 1, wolf hybrids in 7, GSD mixes in 6, “Pit Bull mixes” in 8, Husky/MalamuteX in 6, RottweilerX in 2, ChowX in 1.

The “Pit Bull” types have shown a marked decline in fatalities, despite the fact that they have grown in popularity especially among the “bad element” and their use for illegal purposes has grown. Considering the rise in numbers of these breeds (Pit Bull “types”), there has not been an increase, but rather a DECLINE. We did not see the media hype 20 years ago that we see today. Considering that the popularity of these dogs has increased dramatically, one has to assume that the actual incidence of fatalities involving Pit Bulls has decreased—they are less likely to bite today than they were 20 years ago. Yet they capture headline after headline.

Another point of interest: of the represented breeds and mixes, the majority came from the working group. The GSD while classified as a “herding” dog, is as much a “working” dog as any other. Perhaps we should just ban “working” dogs while we are at it, because dogs from that group are over represented in the statistics, as are dogs from the non sporting group.

The CDC also adds: Although some breeds were disproportionately represented in the fatal attacks described in this report, the representation of breeds changes over time. As a result, targeting a specific breed may be unproductive; a more effective approach may be to target chronically irresponsible dog owners.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) says, regarding dog bite prevention: Can a law that bans or restricts ownership of specific breeds of dogs—called a breed specific law—protect the members of your community from dog attacks? According to experts, the answer is no. Why? Popular breeds come and go. When ownership of one breed of dog is outlawed, those who want a dangerous dog simply turn to another breed. The Doberman, known as the dangerous dog breed of the 1970s, was replaced in popularity by the Pit Bull in the 80s and the Rottweiler in the 90s. Breed specific laws require that someone be able to prove that a specific dog is a member, or a mix, of that breed—not always an easy task. Boxers and bulldogs, for instance, may be mistaken for Pit Bulls. Any medium large sized black and tan dog with a long tail may be mistakenly labeled as a German Shepherd.

And further, from HSUS: What exactly is a Pit Bull? Defining it has proved to be a formidable legal hurdle because the Pit Bull is not a specific breed. Rather, it is a kind of dog, a generic catchall like hound or retriever. The breeds most commonly referred to as Pit Bulls are the American Staffordshire terrier, which is the term used by the American Kennel Club, and the American Pit Bull Terrier, the term used by the United Kennel Club. The men who match Pit Bulls in fights today do not bother with such formalities; they refer to their animals as bulldogs—a nickname which should not confuse Pit Bulls—with the pug faced and bowlegged English bulldog, a distant relative, or the Bull Terrier, another relation whose bloodline was softened long ago by crossbreeding with the English Terrier.

How many dogs that DO maul someone do so on their very first show of aggressive behavior? Or was the dog known to be unstable, unpredictable, out of control for some time before it finally did maul someone?

Punish PEOPLE whose dogs show vicious behavior. Don’t ban a whole BREED because some moron trained his Zambonian Zuglhund to chew up the neighborhood.

The corollary to that is NOT punishing dogs for LEGIT bites. If someone breaks into my home, I should NOT be punished (nor should my dog) if my dog bites him in my defense. (Or, for that matter, if he slips on the dog’s tennis ball and breaks a leg.) Anyone who gets hurt as a result of his own criminal misbehavior (or unmitigated stupidity) should have no right to demand compensation for damages.

Dogs of ALL breeds have bitten. The prevalence (not exclusivity) of bites from certain breeds is not because breeds themselves are a problem, it’s because AT PRESENT, the criminal element tends to acquire those breeds.

Now comes the logic test:
The criminal element tends to acquire X breeds.
Fido is X breed.
Fido belongs to a criminal.

BZZZZZZZZT! WRONG ANSWER. See the logic flaw?

Many criminals belong to X group.
John is a member of X group.
John is a criminal.

THAT is what breed-specific legislation does: it says that because criminals get X breeds, all dogs of X breeds must belong to criminals and should be banned.

Well, you ban X breeds, and criminals will get dogs of Y breeds. Ban them, and criminals will get dogs of Z breeds.

And then A, B, C, D, E, F… and no more dogs.

Breed-specific legislation is NOT the answer. Not to anyone who loves dogs and knows breeds.

Punish the deed, not the breed!

Bryony
August 7th, 2005, 12:45 PM
I don't think the dogs should be banned, but certain people shouldn't own the particular breed... or any breed...

wolfos3d
August 8th, 2005, 01:20 AM
Cattle dogs have the highest rating of biting here. You rarely get a pitbull attack. Most of the time it's a staffy anyway. I have to admit that the most vicious dog I have ever owned was a Chihuahua.

~White Owl~
August 8th, 2005, 01:53 AM
No, I do not think they should be banned. As a veterinary technician, I can say there are amazingly sweet pitbulls, Staffshire Terriers. Just as there are bad apples. Just like ANY breed. It is owners that should be banned.
Any unlicensed dogs, untrained dogs are the responsibility of the owners and guardians. Just like children, it is up to the adults to train and guide appropriately. Those who are not should be held accountible. Punish the deed, not the breed.

MoonDust
September 17th, 2005, 01:44 PM
I say no

Anyanka
September 17th, 2005, 11:09 PM
My dog is a cross between an American Pit Bull and a German Shepherd and she is just the sweetest thing! I know she's not a "full" Pit Bull, but I wouldn't like to see that breed get banned because some Pit Bulls have been attacking people. It's the owners who should train them, guide them and look after them properly and it's their responsibility to make sure that these things don't happen.
The owners choose to own Pit Bulls, so they should be held responsible if their dog attacks.

Pesha
September 18th, 2005, 01:39 AM
I have seen some really wonderful Pit Bulls in my time. Sweet, love kids and cats even. You cannot punish an entire breed for the sins of those who would take and corrupt the animal into something bad. Raise any thing with love and affection and you get a loving person or furperson in return.

BB
DS.

fangedeshana
September 18th, 2005, 08:04 AM
No, though some of the owners of some pitbulls should be banned, IMO. It's like people... dogs dont just attack for any reason (nothing does!), and it's usually the training (or lack of in some cases) that is the problem - and THAT is the owners fault!

Choro's Mom
September 18th, 2005, 08:35 AM
It's the owners who should train them, guide them and look after them properly and it's their responsibility to make sure that these things don't happen.
The owners choose to own [insert breed here], so they should be held responsible if their dog attacks.
That's the bottom line right there.

NO BREED IS INHERENTLY VICIOUS.

It's not about "pit bulls"; it's about irresponsible owners who openly and actively ENCOURAGE human aggression in their dogs, sometimes with extremely brutal techniques. Target INDIVIDUAL dogs which show INAPPROPRIATE aggression (yes, sometimes aggression is warranted!); punish owners who fail to control their aggressive dogs.

But don't start with the breed bans. Today it's Pits and Pit crosses. Tomorrow it's all "mastiff" type breeds. Then "wolfy" looking dogs (anything from German Shepherds to Akitas to husky-type dogs). Then anything over 70lbs.

Then no dogs at all.

Don't go down that slippery slope!

PhoenixFire
September 21st, 2005, 07:15 PM
That's the bottom line right there.

NO BREED IS INHERENTLY VICIOUS.

It's not about "pit bulls"; it's about irresponsible owners who openly and actively ENCOURAGE human aggression in their dogs, sometimes with extremely brutal techniques. Target INDIVIDUAL dogs which show INAPPROPRIATE aggression (yes, sometimes aggression is warranted!); punish owners who fail to control their aggressive dogs.

But don't start with the breed bans. Today it's Pits and Pit crosses. Tomorrow it's all "mastiff" type breeds. Then "wolfy" looking dogs (anything from German Shepherds to Akitas to husky-type dogs). Then anything over 70lbs.

Then no dogs at all.

Don't go down that slippery slope!


:thumbsup: _handclapp :hugz:

aluokaloo
September 21st, 2005, 07:56 PM
Pitbulls are bred to be fighting dogs, however it is also widely known that they make excellent family pets! Can ya believe a family pet! I have known many sweet and friendly pits and their commonly confused smaller cousins the staffordshire terriers. It's partially about the owner, for example a golden retriever is often documented as a good family pet, a loyal friend, and a highly trainable intelligent dog. Leave the animal to its own devices, or treat it mean, and you can easily have an out of control or dangerous animal. Just like any other breed.

aluokaloo
September 21st, 2005, 08:08 PM
Not to pull this thread back from the dead, but I just found this and think it fits perfectly here. The "Pit Bull Problem" (http://www.deviantart.com/view/11454716/) .

Warning: very graphic and disturbing, but truth usually is.



Thank you for sharing that it has a very valid truth to it. It brought to my eyes to see them in horrible conditions and then to see them in loving homes.

starfire
September 21st, 2005, 08:25 PM
MY parents had a American/ English stafford shire terrier mix (two different pit bull mixes). She was your basic brindle colored dog. She was great with people and only growled once win she thought someone was going to hurt a baby. She was great with my kids from the time they were born to the time she died. She was energetic and sweet. Didn't like other dogs to much, but was fine in dog class. She even liked the mailman and UPS people.

The dog we have now is a cross between a lab and a pit He loves people, I really mean loves them, just gets all shaking his whole body and smiling and happy. He has been great with other dogs, my daughter takes him to the beach and is able to let him run and have fun with the others. He thinks they are all his buddies and just wants to play. He also gets along with our cat who is 12 years old. The cat is the one we have to watch, he will swat the dog on the rump for no reason.

I don't think it is the breed, the Breeding does play part of it, if you breed for agressiveness, then that could be part of the problem. How people treat the dogs is significant to how the dog acts.

We do have some pits down the street that I see when we are walking. The are big dogs and I might worry about them, but their owners are responsible and don't leave them out alone, and also when we walk by with our dog, they tend theirs just in case, so I think people do need to be responsible.

Some of those people that I have seen on the TV dog police shows, where they have to put down the dogs for cruility, should have the owners put down too......No body or animal should be treated so badly.......

xstarE_nitex
September 29th, 2005, 09:33 PM
I say no

http://www.dogwatch.net/fight_ontario_ban/pit_bull_facts.html

CoolJ
September 30th, 2005, 12:43 AM
hmm...it's a dog... just like a child..... if we have a lot of crime because kids are going into gangs and things, is the solution to stop having kids?

If you're going to own a dog, be it a pitbull or pekingese, you need to have the responsibility to train your dog to behave well. If your dog has the potential to do someone harm it is your responsibility and obligation as it's owner to make sure it's on a leash, behind a fence, or otherwise unable to go out and attack random people.

As much as I personally dislike pitballs and think they're ugly, I doubt that banning them would do any help. You'd just make a criminal out of responsible dog owners.

Besides, would it be any better if people were attacked by chihuahuas?

Yvonne Belisle
September 30th, 2005, 06:31 AM
I still hate chihauhaus and have mental issues from trauma from the evil beasts. I wouldn't ban them though.

Xirian
October 1st, 2005, 08:32 AM
I say they shouldn't be put down either. Apparently, pitbulls in dog fights have an aversion to biting humans. The other trainer has to be able to wash the other trainers dog. I think breeding and training has much to do with the behaviour of this particular animal.

yarrow_elfglow
October 10th, 2005, 02:07 PM
i personally hate pit bulls, but i don't think they should be banned. its up to the owner to train them right. if a pit bull attacks a person, don't put the dog down, blame its owner. i think the owners should be held responsible for what their dog does

starfire
October 10th, 2005, 03:03 PM
I like staffordshire terriers, they are usually sweet and cute. Some do get a massive look to them. They however are like any dog, they can be trained, and bred to attack and be agressive.

This applies to all dogs. Any bread can be trained to attack and be agressive. Likewise they can be bread for certain qualities. The pit bull happens to have a massive jaw strength, yet the dogs are smal enough that trainer that fight them can get in and sepparate them using sticks or what ever. There are much larger dogs that I would fear before the pits, but then again I have owned two gentle loveing ones, and my friend had one that was also the type to get happy, lay on her back and wiggle so you can pet her tummy.

While some owners think it is cool to have a big old agressive dog for protection, so they buy or bread dogs for this. Then the dog attacts, and they don't understand. People need to buy the run of the mill dogs, they will on their own protect their owners and property because that is what they do. You don't need an agressive dog to have a good gaurd dog. People need to understand this.

In our area, I don't think (at least know of)any one fighting dogs or other animals. People caught doing this need longer jail time because they are the ones causing the problems. I agree if a dog comes into the shelter and demonstrates agressive behaviors so it is deemed unadoptalbe, then it should be (sadly) put down to reduce risk of humans and other animals. This statement applies to ALL animals that fall into the catagory, not specific to bread.

Those that have animals they know are agressive should also have to be responsible for their dogs actions.

As far as animals attacking other animals, that's a tough one, thats what they do, weather it is a cat, dog or what ever, some will attack the lesser animal unless it has been taught to live with one. If this is the case, then a dog that will attack other dogs, needs to be on a leash. People need to be responsible for theirselves, and their own actions, which applies to their animals

Lets see, if we took humans that attacked and killed other humans and put them down after 10 days, we sure wouldn't have the jail problems we have, not would other humans think it was cool to play with these agressive types.........but that would never fly either.

t

Chibi-Fallon
October 13th, 2005, 06:39 PM
I think Pitbulls should be taken out of commission for a while. Maybe you should have to have a special license to own them or something. Not have kids. It's just too easy for them to go bad. People should have to know what they could be getting themselves into before they own one.
Because while they can be nice dogs I'm sure, for a long time breeding has made sure they weren't. Maybe if we can have more selective breeding of them so they come out more docile that would be awesome. I'm sure they can be nice dogs. But right now that's not what they're programmed for.
They're sort of like sex offenders when they get out of jail. Yes technically they should have a new lease on life, but that's hard when you know their past, and that’s not something that’s easy to recover from.
It’s unfortunate.

purpleathame
October 13th, 2005, 06:51 PM
i think people should have to go thru application process to get a pet, and not some little form to fill out, i think they should have a background check, someone should talk to their family all that stuff..

Same with kids i think :heybaby:

starfire
October 14th, 2005, 02:25 AM
I think Pitbulls should be taken out of commission for a while. Maybe you should have to have a special license to own them or something. Not have kids. It's just too easy for them to go bad. People should have to know what they could be getting themselves into before they own one.
Because while they can be nice dogs I'm sure, for a long time breeding has made sure they weren't. Maybe if we can have more selective breeding of them so they come out more docile that would be awesome. I'm sure they can be nice dogs. But right now that's not what they're programmed for.
They're sort of like sex offenders when they get out of jail. Yes technically they should have a new lease on life, but that's hard when you know their past, and that’s not something that’s easy to recover from.
It’s unfortunate.



well just like not all men were sex offenders, not all stafforshire terriers were born to fight in a pit, or came from breeders who breed for that purpose. My parents dog was a cross between american and english stafford shire terrier. Both have been used in the pit, in some eastern states, there is even a bigger problem because that is what is happening.
here it is a toss up. Their dog didn't like other dogs and would bark at them, but was very good with babies and small children as mine were always around her. She never ever showed any agressiveness towards them or anyone else. The lady that bread these dogs also was breeding loving dogs, not domanent agressive ones.

People that breed agressive dogs, and breed them for fighting, and fight them should be locked up. Those are the ones who have ruined many of these dogs. It is no different than those other large breeds that are trained to attack. It someone does that, then they should be locked up, and yes if a dog badly attacks someone, they need to be put down.

Most shelters have the dogs fixed before they can go out, maybe thats the best thing for now. And like you said, for someone to breed them, maybe they need a special permit and have to be inspected for temperment.

kissesree
October 14th, 2005, 02:32 AM
thats silly! why punish a whole breed for some mishaps? That'd be like say banning siamese cats from being around other cats just because some of them are snots.

dragoncrone
October 14th, 2005, 09:55 AM
A Pit Bull Terrier is no different than any other breed of dog -- in that they can be inbred and mistreated so they will be fierce fighters. The a$$holes who do this are the same types who participate in cock-fighting -- which like dog fighting is ILLEGAL. Law enforcement hasn't been able to get a handle on arresting and prosecuting these people -- so the 'band-aid' solution of simply banning a breed is proposed.
More kids are killed by GUNS every year than by PBT's or any other breed of dog -- but our country can't seem to solve that problem either.
:rant:

enchancea
October 29th, 2005, 03:06 PM
A Pit Bull Terrier is no different than any other breed of dog -- in that they can be inbred and mistreated so they will be fierce fighters. The a$$holes who do this are the same types who participate in cock-fighting -- which like dog fighting is ILLEGAL. Law enforcement hasn't been able to get a handle on arresting and prosecuting these people -- so the 'band-aid' solution of simply banning a breed is proposed.
More kids are killed by GUNS every year than by PBT's or any other breed of dog -- but our country can't seem to solve that problem either.
:rant:
Well said

Salanthos
November 6th, 2005, 06:23 PM
banning any breed, especially one that is a type rather than a breed, is stupid. I say, punish the cause of the behavior(which may not be the owner).

I heard of someone with a very nice, loving dog, whose friend decided it would be fun to tease. the dog snapped at him(didn't bite, though) and the guy hit him. the dog bit(of course). the dog's owner, sadly, had to have him put down because he'd bit a human, even though it was the other guy's fault. sometimes the breeder is to blame, sometimes the owner, sometimes the person who got bit.

a vicious dog needs to be put down - of any breed. however, blaming the whole type for bad behavior of a few is WRONG. also, a lot of people will incorrectly label any agressive dog as a pit bull, even if it isn't. that skews the statistics every which way.

there were two dogs that ran around our old neighborhood - a black lab and a pit bull terrier. the one which terrorized my little brother (too big and too friendly for such a small kid) was not the pit - but if that dog had been mean rather than overfriendly, I bet the pit would have been blamed - even though he never came near us.

aluokaloo
November 6th, 2005, 06:42 PM
I haven't read many of the replies...but I will post anyways :D

What some people fail to realize is that Pit Bull is NOT a breed of dog. It is a type. Line up a Pit Bull, Cane Corso, Alano Espanol, Dogo Argentino, Presa Canario,Boxer, American Bulldog, Am Staff, Bull Mastiff, and a crap load of other molosser breeds and see just how many people can ACTUALLY pick out the pit bull of the group on the first try. Here..I'll give you a link, see if you can do it out of a group of 25 dogs

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

Banning pit bulls is a BAD thing. It leaves so many breeds up for grabs. And I don't think the government has ANY business telling anyone what kind of dogs they are or aren't allowed to own. Stricter punishment for the crappy people who RUIN perfectly good dogs IS a good idea though, whether it be bad breeders, or bad owners.



I took that test! Wow that was tricky! I picked number 13 and got it wrong! :lol:

starfire
November 6th, 2005, 06:55 PM
That was really interesting. Many people use the american bull terrier and the english bull terrior as fightting dogs hence pit bulls.

moon_lit _lynx
November 6th, 2005, 07:11 PM
If you train any dog right it will never attack unprovoked! Pitbulls should be pittied not banned, It is the owners responcibility to teach the dog right, wrong and who is Alpha, and If the dog thinks it's Alpha that the owners fault!
I used to raise Chows, one of the most feared dog in america, and it's all in the training. My Chow is the most protective dog I have EVER seen but unless fists are flying she will stay and bark. I personaly think there should be a screening for people to get pack mentality dogs but I don't write the laws...
what are you going to do? Outlaw every thing that could be dangerous??

I hope you like the Bus, cuse thats how we'd all get to work!!

aluokaloo
November 6th, 2005, 07:29 PM
Valnorran

That's great, but your dog is not a representative of the entire breed.


exactly! thats exactly what everyone has been trying to point out and you have just said so yourself! Diamond Tiger's dog Sugar does not represent the "entire breed" nor does "ANY" pittbull or dobie or rottie or golden or peke represent the entire breed! it represents the individual and unique animal in the individual situation good or bad. For example I was often attacked by a chiahaua who was a dog of a family friend, the little monster would constatntly attack my legs! and I didn't want to go over to there house, i also had another one nip me in the heel on the way home. I don't like chiauhaus period! However that doesn't mean i believe the little bug eyed creeps should be banned! i just would personally never take one into my home. another example dalmations often have a rep for going blind, or deaf or even in some cases both. However that doesn't mean that all dalmations are blind and/or deaf.

Valnorran
November 7th, 2005, 01:16 PM
exactly! thats exactly what everyone has been trying to point out and you have just said so yourself! Diamond Tiger's dog Sugar does not represent the "entire breed" nor does "ANY" pittbull or dobie or rottie or golden or peke represent the entire breed! it represents the individual and unique animal in the individual situation good or bad. For example I was often attacked by a chiahaua who was a dog of a family friend, the little monster would constatntly attack my legs! and I didn't want to go over to there house, i also had another one nip me in the heel on the way home. I don't like chiauhaus period! However that doesn't mean i believe the little bug eyed creeps should be banned!
Actually, neither do I. It's been a while since I popped into this thread, but I think I mentioned this earlier. I don't really support a ban. However, if a ban was enacted I wouldn't object to it, either.

Living in a rural area, I'm used to taking care of things myself. We get stray animals around here. For some reason stray dogs are comparatively rare. It's almost always stray cats. But the last time a stray dog showed up it was a pit bull. It growled at everyone who approached it. I required no government action to solve the problem.

starfire
November 7th, 2005, 07:08 PM
Actually, neither do I. It's been a while since I popped into this thread, but I think I mentioned this earlier. I don't really support a ban. However, if a ban was enacted I wouldn't object to it, either.

Living in a rural area, I'm used to taking care of things myself. We get stray animals around here. For some reason stray dogs are comparatively rare. It's almost always stray cats. But the last time a stray dog showed up it was a pit bull. It growled at everyone who approached it. I required no government action to solve the problem.

And even if it was a different breed, but doing the same thing, you would have still required no govenment action to solve the problem.

I use to get chases by a colley (sp), it would gang up with a smaller long haired dog, and chase me on my own block in front of my house. I called the animal control who came and delt with it. The sad thing is that they belonged to a neigbor who didn't think it was important to keep their dogs in.
Sure scared the crap out of me. Especially because at the time I rode the bus and had to walk pass where they were. You never hear about those dogs, but they can be just as bad as any other. Some breeders breed dogs that have an agressive nature for fighting dogs, these are the people we need to string up and deal with. The dogs that come from them if tested to be agressive then should be put down. Those that are not, should be adopted out. Hopefully people will adopt dogs for companionship and not security. Those dogs still have an instinct to protect when their owners are in harms way, but are not taught to be agressive. This goes for all breeds.

Valnorran
November 7th, 2005, 07:13 PM
And even if it was a different breed, but doing the same thing, you would have still required no govenment action to solve the problem.

Correct. So, ban or no ban, I got it covered.

Dusty
November 7th, 2005, 07:55 PM
Animals are loving creatures and are condemned because of the human race. Whether it be by eating meat or poultry, by hunting, breaking their spirit for circus side shows, training for fights, or any other method that man thinks is for his benefit or pleasure. Animals are for pleasure but not the kind of pleasure that brings harm or pain. This includes pitbulls, it is the people that give them a bad rep. Dusty