# Pit Bulls, is there an answer??



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

We have had 4 Pit Bull attacks in the nearby city of Spokane in the last week, 6 in the last week and a half. The worst was an eight year old girl, attacked in her neighborhood by two loose Pit Bulls. Several men came to her rescue and they were bitten as well, but they did manage to get the dogs off the little girl. I believe she is still in the hospital, but will recover.

Then a police dog was attacked when a Pit Bull tied to a fence pulled loose. The officer had to shoot the Pit Bull to stop it. The police dog had a pretty badly bitten leg, but should recover. The suspect he was chasing got away, but not for long. Pit Bull and suspect did not know each other.

A Pit Bull attacked his owner, owner's mother and several others at the apartment complex they lived in. Police had to shoot it, it would not stop attacking.

The others were Pit Bulls attacking other dogs that were being walked. Owners got bitten trying to break it up.

None of the Pit Bulls were licensed or had shot records, which tells you something about their owners. Other than the dog tied to the fence, none of the dogs were contained. 

Now I think the problem is more the owners than the dogs, but what can you do? Does anyone have any idea? I have nothing against Pits, the ones I have known have been good dogs, but this has got to stop.


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

If there were no such breed as pitt bulls there still would be this problem. Think about it...

Its the owners.... there has been extremely aggressive breeds for as long as there have been dogs.... its just that pitts are extremely adaptable and easily kept in not so great environments thats why not so great owners can have them....


----------



## anahatalotus (Oct 25, 2012)

Hmm, I would like to say its the owners not the dogs. My potty w wonderful with kids and all animals but dogs. She would snuggle with the house bunnies and play with goats and sheep but nevere hurt them. However she would try to kill any dog she came into contact with. My ex let his dog out and forgot my dog was loose in the house and ended up shooting her because she was fighting with his dog. I miss her more than anything except perhaps my pet cow that he sold because the cow was more practical...
So no it's not just the owners, I am a great dog owner. I took her to classes, dog parks, socialized her but the dog aggressive drive was just something I could not break in her. She was very obedient and followed commands both on and off leash. The only times she actually harmed other dogs was if a loose dog found their way up to her while we were walking and she would often do a sit stay until the dog got close enough for herr to grab then she would manage to bite and maul it without getting up. Or if another dog got into my yard or in her last scenario if someone else was stupid enough to let another dog it he house with her. If your reading this sorry for calling you stupid. 
When someone's loose dog would run up to her and get attacked while she was doing. Sit stay on leash I would plainly tell the owner how they are liable for any harm caused by either dog because mine was on leash and under control and their fu fu must was basically dumb enou to jump into my pit bulls mouth. Usually my dog would drop it once I made eye contact with her and told her watch me and leave it. If I could not make eyecontact she would only drop other dogs once they went limp, which was fortunately always just a act of submission of the other dog and not due to death. Over her six years these type of attacks only happened several times.
And on a side note I do not plan on ever owning a pit bull again. Perhaps because I still love and miss my last one so much despite her dog aggression. why do I now feel like I am going to be flamed.....


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CAjerseychick said:


> If there were no such breed as pitt bulls there still would be this problem. Think about it...
> 
> Its the owners.... there has been extremely aggressive breeds for as long as there have been dogs.... its just that pitts are extremely adaptable and easily kept in not so great environments thats why not so great owners can have them....



It does seem that a certain type of person does consistently pick a certain type of dog. Ultimately, because of their own temperament and lack of training skills, the dogs often end up poorly socialized, partly trained and generally dangerous , which leads to the breed earning a bad reputation. 

In my opinion the problem is caused by breeders who don't screen potential owners, owners who lack training skills and the media for believing every square headed dog is a pit bull. 

I've owned a few pits in my life and all but one were fantastic. The one that I felt wasn't displayed traits that I felt were quite undesirable and potentially dangerous resulted in me decide that because his behaviour could not be consistently corrected, he was not safe to be rehomed so I made the decision to put him down in order to protect the integrity of the breed and others around me.


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

Google human deaths by dogs in the us and you will be stunned. What is not clear on my mind is how much is due to the increase in popularity of a breed bred to fight other dogs and protect.


----------



## akane (Jul 19, 2011)

I wish we could make an obedience class a requirement of owning a dog and possibly weed out the lazy or unknowledgable owners but there are so many problems with that right now. They can barely keep track of dogs well enough to have them all rabies vaccinated and licensed when in city limits. Aside from making sure people go agreeing on what should be in a class and monitoring that they make a certain quality is well beyond current capabilities.


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

There are plenty of dog breeds more than willing to kill another dog or randomly attack them. Its just that pits are more easily containable and kept in poor housing and in cities-

Filas, Kangals, the pair of Presa canarios that killed a lady in front of her apartment -- more than easily dog aggressive and bred to attack and love fighting--
Not judging just saying-- 
their are plenty of breeds that are bred to fight and kill.

these others are waay harder to keep and contain and hence are not very popular-- so, you dont hear as much about them.

Pits are a problem cause there are soooo many of them being bred and perpetuated by people who dont know better or how to manage them...


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

notwyse said:


> Google human deaths by dogs in the us and you will be stunned. What is not clear on my mind is how much is due to the increase in popularity of a breed bred to fight other dogs and protect.


 you mean stunned by how few there really are?


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

I like the obedience class requirement. Every person owning a dog has to show they have been to a class in the last 10years ....that should help (and trainers could be the eyes and ears for future problem dogs)...

Not sure how they would catch all the owner of unliscenced dogs though... some way to track who buys dog food?... Kinda big brother-ish I know...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Pops2 said:


> you mean stunned by how few there really are?



I my opinion, even one is far too many.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Two dogs recently attacked my goats, killing one and wounding the others. They had minutes before killed the two alpacas in the next field.
One was a pitbull and the other a wolf mixture. 
When I screamed at them , the wolf mix left the shed fast. The pitbull stayed and was coming at me. Finally the other dog leaped the second fence over and that is when the pit finally followed.
And there is a major difference- one was willing to stand and the other chose to go. 
People love the idea of a powerful, aggressive dog that is willing to hurt others but remain loyal to them. Makes them feel powerful themselves. 
And too many people who are pleased with that are unwilling to do the work to control it. That is not as easy as buying the dog.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

The problem with pit bulls is two-fold:

1) the thugs/"gangstas"/bad guys have been deliberately breeding certain temperaments into their pits for decades. They have developed a dog that is unquestioningly loyal to their owner, and a complete menace to everyone else.

2) the thugs then take this dog, with it's genetic predisposition to be a jerk, and they train it to be an even bigger jerk.

I've owned and been around AmStaffs, which is what the AKC registered pits are called (you can dual-register an AmStaff with the UKC as an American Pit Bull Terrier). AmStaffs were by and large bred to be "show dogs", and the breeders have deliberately bred out a lot of the snark and bred in a greater tolerance for other animals and overall better temperaments. 

There is a WORLD of difference between a street-bred pit and a show-bred AmStaff. Same breed, theoretically, but totally different temperaments.

When I worked at the animal shelter, one of our employees was big into street-bred pits. He had a pit puppy that he had to pick up at 5 weeks of age from the breeder, because the dam had already attacked and killed several of his littermates. My coworker said "happens all the time" and shrugged it off as normal. That dog thought his owner walked on water, was great with his kids and his girlfriend, but would glare and rumble at everyone else....to which my co-worker would  and say "He's got attitude!". That kind of thing was encouraged .

So you take a dog who already has a poor genetic temperament, put him with someone who encourages that "tough-guy" attitude, and then you wonder why they attack people/small animals?

That said, if you ban pit bulls, the thugs will move on to Rottweilers or Dobermans or Filas or Cane Corsos or one of the other breeds of dogs who can be turned into jerks. In a few generations, they'll be producing ill-tempered dogs of the next breed, and you'll be right back where you started with the pits :shrug:

The problem is not the dog - it's not his fault that he was poorly bred and praised for being a jerk. The problem is the owner, who sought out that poorly bred dog and taught him to be a jerk. As long as there are bad owners, there will be people who breed dogs for them to buy, and there will be dogs (of whatever breed) bred to be jerks.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Then why not jail the owners for harboring the animals? It seems that the typical thing is to not blame the dog because they are only doing what the owners allow but the the owners are not held responsible in any real way for something so likely to happen that it can not be considered an accident.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

where I want to said:


> Then why not jail the owners for harboring the animals? It seems that the typical thing is to not blame the dog because they are only doing what the owners allow but the the owners are not held responsible in any real way for something so likely to happen that it can not be considered an accident.



Are you asking for penalties for dogs that ultimately attack a human or dogs of specific type or temperament?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> Are you asking for penalties for dogs that ultimately attack a human or dogs of specific type or temperament?


For dogs that attack and kill. And I'm not sure what the requirements should be but it seems like it should be similar to criminal negligence.


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

where I want to said:


> Then why not jail the owners for harboring the animals? It seems that the typical thing is to not blame the dog because they are only doing what the owners allow but the the owners are not held responsible in any real way for something so likely to happen that it can not be considered an accident.


Yes the dogs that killed the lady in front of her apartment (inside in the building) were PTS and the owners went to jail on manslaughter charges... the mother that left 2 pits loose in the house and left her mentally impaired child in the basement in a room (he left the room and was killed) didnt go to jail, but well, she lost her child.... I think the family left the state....


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

I don't know the answer. My last visit to a shelter I was struck by how few breeds were represented. Most were pit or pit crosses. I find many dog owners are at a loss when it comes to handling their pets or discipline. Some just are not pits. The first DPG related fatality I was aware of was a golden retriever vs child. My son was attacked by a Australian Shepherd and only missed his jugular....


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

Oh my....I can't figure out how to edit my post. Horrible spelling...


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

wr said:


> I my opinion, even one is far too many.


 careful there, that is the battle cry of zealots. on the surface most people would agree. what i take isssue with is that the couple of dozen deaths by ALL dogs pales in comparison to, well pretty much ALL other causes of death. people fail to have perspective, for example any given year 2-4 times as many people die from lightning strikes as "pit bulls". unfortunately it's hard to whip up drama over lightning. the reality is that there will ALWAYS be a certain element in society that does their best to turn the breed of the moment into holy terrors and a segment of society that simply has no desire to be rsponsible for their children.
the various legal proposals, from breed bans to proof of owner responsibility to outrageous liability insurance, only serve to encumber the liberty of the responsible without in anyway preventing the irresponsible form being irresponsible.
about the only proposal I will get behind is, to prohibit anyone that is legally prohibited from owning a gun based on criminal record from owning, cohabitating with or possessing ANY dog 20# or larger on the basis of their potential to be used as a weapon.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Pops2 said:


> careful there, that is the battle cry of zealots. on the surface most people would agree. what i take isssue with is that the couple of dozen deaths by ALL dogs pales in comparison to, well pretty much ALL other causes of death. people fail to have perspective, for example any given year 2-4 times as many people die from lightning strikes as "pit bulls". unfortunately it's hard to whip up drama over lightning. the reality is that there will ALWAYS be a certain element in society that does their best to turn the breed of the moment into holy terrors and a segment of society that simply has no desire to be rsponsible for their children.
> the various legal proposals, from breed bans to proof of owner responsibility to outrageous liability insurance, only serve to encumber the liberty of the responsible without in anyway preventing the irresponsible form being irresponsible.
> about the only proposal I will get behind is, to prohibit anyone that is legally prohibited from owning a gun based on criminal record from owning, cohabitating with or possessing ANY dog 20# or larger on the basis of their potential to be used as a weapon.



I do not advocate banning any breed nor do I feel that the results would change anything but I am a very strong advocate of proper socialization and training for both dogs and people.

There is no reason for someone to be bit or attacked by a dog if any size, if people do right by their dog and train it properly.


----------



## Stonybrook (Sep 22, 2007)

I don't really blame the dogs. I blame dog owners, and not necessarily the pit bull's owner either. If someone cannot control their dog around other animals, or other people, then they should not have the dog. Anahatalotus, IMO, would not be at fault for her dog, which was on leash, being aggressive to a dog that was off leash getting in her dog's space. The one at fault there would be the person whose dog was off leash. They were not in control of their dog.

Similarly, some dogs are just dominant by nature. If they don't have an owner who knows their dog and is in control of their dog, the problem is, again, the owner. If the owner cannot manage their dog then it can be dangerous for them to have the dog. Other dogs are dominant and very loyal to their person. That is a bad combination. Even then, though, it is the owners job to do what they can to "fix" the problem through training their dog and themselves. If they can't do it or can't fix it even if they try, then they need to try and find the dog a more appropriate home or put it to sleep. It is the responsibility of the owner to see to it that their dog is safe and well cared for and others are safe. They exception is if someone breaks into the onwer's house or someone attacks the owner. Then I think the dog gets a pass.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

One of the issues with dogs that attack people is that even people that are otherwise responsible, caring, informed pet owners tend to be blind to their own dogs and their problems. 

Our neighbor has a dog that is very well trained and very well behaved IF his people are right there. However, he is protective of their property when they are not around. He got out one day and was threatening us in our front yard, which he wanted to claim as his own. I believe he meant business if either of us had made a move that set him off. Fortunately we are experienced around dogs and were able to calmly back into our home and call his owners. 

Later we explained that he was not a safe dog and, although he belongs to their teenage son and we would be very sad to do so, if he threatened us again in our property, we would have to protect ourselves. He is a good sized dog and one I consider unstable and dangerous. 

His owner, a woman that works in the prison system, an Iraqi vet, a member of the National Guard, told us that she would not have a dangerous dog, she would put a dangerous dog down. However, you can tell she doesn't see this dog's instability, because he is fine as long as she is around. She just can't see that her pet is not safe. 

This isn't a training issue, its a temperament issue - he's high strung and territorial. Also he's getting old and has joint pain that I'm sure contributes to crankiness. 

Since that happened she's been very careful to keep him in her yard and not let him where he can get out at all. That's fine with me, I don't want to be a difficult neighbor, but I don't want to get chewed up either, or my grandchildren that come to visit at times. 

I don't know any good answers really, except to protect myself and my family and work with my own dogs so they are good citizens. I personally wouldn't want to own a pit bull type breed. I'm no longer young, not the least bit athletic and wouldn't be a good owner for a dog needing a lot of exercise or training. My Collie is busy enough at 45 lbs she's a go getter. Fortunately she LOVES to retrieve.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

wr said:


> I do not advocate banning any breed nor do I feel that the results would change anything but I am a very strong advocate of proper socialization and training for both dogs and people.
> 
> *There is no reason for someone to be bit or attacked by a dog if any size, if people do right by their dog and train it properly*.


 uhm, brain tumor or simply a defect in brain chemistry
dogs are living things, no matter what you do you will never eliminate 100% of bites. i'm all for mitigating but not at the expense of people's freedom and an increase in govt control over people's lives. criminals who have already shown their inability to function normally in society are the only people whose liberty i'm willing to infringe on.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Pops2 said:


> uhm, brain tumor or simply a defect in brain chemistry
> dogs are living things, no matter what you do you will never eliminate 100% of bites. i'm all for mitigating but not at the expense of people's freedom and an increase in govt control over people's lives. criminals who have already shown their inability to function normally in society are the only people whose liberty i'm willing to infringe on.



I was going to mention culling for temperament as well but you're right that nothing will ever take dog bites to none but I still believe that there is plenty that can be done without having to trample on anybody's freedoms


----------



## PasturedPork (Jan 22, 2014)

Regardless of upbringing which is safer:
1) angus bull
2) jersey bull

People need to wake up and realize it isn't upbringing that makes certain breeds dangerous, it is their nature.

I kill every pit bull I see. I don't take chances with my family's safety.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

All the Pit Bulls I've meet have been good dogs, but they are not city dogs and their owners know dogs. Our neighbors Pit Bull is bossed around by their small poodle. He's good with their kids. Another neighbor had a Pit Bull jump into his truck when he was cutting wood. She didn't want to get out, there were no people or houses around and she was thin so he brought her home. She is devoted to her family and has a great disposition.

I wish there was some way to protect the dogs from bad owners.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

It's owners, and whatever is popular in an area. Here, pits aren't popular. Pyrs are, and I've had two cats killed in my own yard, my own dog attacked not 50 feet from the house, 4 goats attacked and one killed. All Pyrs and Pyr crosses, the fatal attack was 2 pyr mixes, a pointer and a smaller dog we didn't get a good look at - yet many, _many_ people will tell me that Pyrs won't pack up with other dogs, or tolerate other breeds (how anyone can say that with so many Pyr-mix puppies around, I don't know). Pyr/chow crosses, for whatever reason, are popular and are killers.

But it's still the owners. Here, Pyrs are excused for behaving aggressively to everything because "it's their job". I had one person look me in the eye and with a straight face explain to me that it was ok that her Pyrs killed one of the sheep that they were supposed to be tending because "It must have been sick and not acting right so they were protecting the health of the whole herd." 
How many people on this very forum have wonderful, wonderful Pyrs? So is it the breed or is it ignorant people who know squat about dogs? Or who get a power trip off of having a large, aggressive dog?

You can't ban breeds - it doesn't work. There will _always_ be another breed. Go back before the bully breeds were popular - Dobermans were "Devil dogs", stone cold killers only owned by people who wanted man-eaters.
German Shepherds - here's a good one, my Sunni has yellow eyes, which is banned by the standard. Know why? Because they were trying to make the dogs less scary and wolfy looking, as they already had a reputation as "wolf-like killers". You don't see a lot of grey GSDs around anymore either. So even the breed club got into trying to better the GSD's rep.

There will ALWAYS be another breed. Aussies and cattle dogs can be really sharp, I was nearly killed by a Lab once - how many other breeds have folks mentioned just on this thread? If you want to help, all you can do is try to get the penalties increased on the owners. Bitty lap dogs kill more babies every year than Pits. Look it up. Owning an aggressive, dangerous dog of any breed or size should be criminal.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Otter said:


> It's owners. Bitty lap dogs kill more babies every year than Pits. Look it up. Owning an aggressive, dangerous dog of any breed or size should be criminal.


Any reference at all on that one? I couldn't find any. 

I admit that Chihuahuas can be nasty little biters but a person would have to be attacked by a mob of them to get killed. One pit can do it all by himself. 

But it would not matterz. There should be no 'free' killing with a dog.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

I'm sorry, I am unable to be afraid of a bitty lap dog killing me. I might get my hands bit up, but all I have to do is grab the thing and hold it in the air, or stand up where my ankles might get nipped. The power to do a ton of damage just isn't there in little teeth and jaws and the ability to get to my more vulnerable areas is pretty easily dealt with. 

Also, 40 years of breeding dogs tells me that they are born with a certain temperament and even careful breeding won't eliminate problems there. However, I figure in the end it is about the owners and breeders, as a good breeder will breed to improve temperament and raise them to be well socialized and pick the buyer carefully. A good breeder will put down dogs that fail to have an appropriate temperament for the breed. A good owner will socialize and train their dog appropriately of any breed and put down any that are unsafe. 

On the other hand, there are dogs that are not safe by their basic nature. There are dogs that are fearful and can't be changed. These things are hereditary and even a good breeder can't eliminate them. Also, some breeds of dogs have been bred to be aggressive. It was appropriate for their usage. In today's society, that is problematic. Many of the wrong people will seek out these dogs, regardless of breed. They won't be looking for a "killer" lap dog either, they want them large and tough. There are people that can handle that sort of dog and do it well, but there are many more that can't or that will misuse, neglect or outright abuse the dogs. 

Fix the people (fat chance of that!) and the dog problem will be minimal. Breed restrictions aren't going to do much for the problems of our society that are reflected in the dogs bred, owned and how they are handled. Definitely consequences for the owners of dogs that are vicious are in order, but you are not going to stop bites or even deaths from dogs, no matter how much I would like that to happen. Dog bite deaths are a lot more preventable than lightening strikes, btw.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> I admit that Chihuahuas can be nasty little biters


Boy, that's the truth! I have one & whenever someone is here she is kenneled & put in my bedroom.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

We accept that dogs bred to do some serious hunting or herding don't always make good family pets because of their high drive and energy level. For some reason we don't accept that pit bulls don't necessarily make good pets because of their strong instinct to fight along with the strength to do some serious damage. There are exceptions in all breeds of course. I suspect pit bulls are bred primarily by gang bangers, pit fighters, and backyard breeders who want a tough dog. They are bred to be an aggressive fighter, so temperament probably isn't high on the list either. With the latest trend defending pit bulls, claiming they are only bad because of how they are treated, I think more are going into homes that aren't prepared to handle a dog that intense and potentially dangerous.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Mt daughters riding instructor had a pit (keeping it for her daughter)and it was the most incredibly sweet dog....loved my daughter to death and was just a great big goofball. She went to a horse show with the whole crew and my daughter had her on a leash while her owner was riding and two little boys walked by. The dog lunged at them, snarling and luckily I was close and grabbed the leash to hold her back. The lunge was completely unprovoked and was scary. She was a sweet dog but was solid muscle and could do a lot of damage. 
She'd been owned by this family since puppyhood and had a wonderful life...these were not what I think of as typical pit bull owners.
She went back to the daughter who lives in the city and they've recently been looking (with great reluctance) to rehome her as she attacked another dog in the park and growled at their newborn son.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Mt daughters riding instructor had a pit (keeping it for her daughter)and it was the most incredibly sweet dog....loved my daughter to death and was just a great big goofball. She went to a horse show with the whole crew and my daughter had her on a leash while her owner was riding and two little boys walked by. The dog lunged at them, snarling and luckily I was close and grabbed the leash to hold her back. The lunge was completely unprovoked and was scary. She was a sweet dog but was solid muscle and could do a lot of damage.
> She'd been owned by this family since puppyhood and had a wonderful life...these were not what I think of as typical pit bull owners.
> She went back to the daughter who lives in the city and they've recently been looking (with great reluctance) to rehome her as she attacked another dog in the park and growled at their newborn son.


I agree. It is strange that people can see that breeding an animal for docility as in domesticated live stock works while not accepting that breeding for aggression works too.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

Pit bulls have been embraced by the socially inept who can't take responsibility for their own actions let alone their dogs. It absouletly blows my mind when a pit attacks or kills something how millions of these people come out of the woodwork to save the dog. Just last month a Phoenix judge spared the life of a pitbull that mauled a child and left him with a broken eye socket, jaw and disfigured face because of backlash from pit supporters. WHY?? When a officer shoots a pit that is about to attack, pit fanatics and animal rights activists loose their minds and start sending death threats to the officers and want the cop fired. There is more outcry now for killing a dog then harming a child or another human. This save the pitbull campaign has reached ridiculous levels and while I do not support breed bans, I do think that pit fanatics are the breeds worsts enemy yet.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Mt daughters riding instructor had a pit (keeping it for her daughter)and it was the most incredibly sweet dog....loved my daughter to death and was just a great big goofball. She went to a horse show with the whole crew and my daughter had her on a leash while her owner was riding and two little boys walked by. The dog lunged at them, snarling and luckily I was close and grabbed the leash to hold her back. The lunge was completely unprovoked and was scary. She was a sweet dog but was solid muscle and could do a lot of damage.
> She'd been owned by this family since puppyhood and had a wonderful life...these were not what I think of as typical pit bull owners.
> She went back to the daughter who lives in the city and they've recently been looking (with great reluctance) to rehome her as she attacked another dog in the park and growled at their newborn son.


That really isn't that uncommon dog behavior in any breed, the dog has weak nerves. Instead of re-homing it, they should be euthanizing it.


----------



## swamp man (Dec 25, 2005)

bluemoonluck said:


> The problem with pit bulls is two-fold:
> 
> 1) the thugs/"gangstas"/bad guys have been deliberately breeding certain temperaments into their pits for decades. They have developed a dog that is unquestioningly loyal to their owner, and a complete menace to everyone else.
> 
> ...


That's a beautiful Blue in the picture!

I think your diagnosis is spot-on. I'd also add...
3)- When an ill-raised/ill-bred pitbull DOES bite, it's just a really capable and powerful animal. I like capable, powerful dogs, but in the case of one who bites because the owner is a moron, it adds to the stigma against the breed.

4)- Pitbull bites get media attention, when in many cases, had it been a different breed, it wouldn't have even made the back page of the paper.

My pitt came from a friend who's several generations deep into breeding a line from red nosed, Budreaux, and Gatormouth. His clientele base is mostly hog hunters, not thugs who want a thuggish dog, and it shows. Kano snuggles with the cats, is absolutely disinterested in the chickens and ducks one way or the other, and always makes doggy friends at the dog park. There has never been an incident. If a large male dog tries to dominate him, yep, there will be a problem, but that ain't a "pitbull thing", it's a "dog thing".


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

where I want to said:


> Any reference at all on that one? I couldn't find any.


Always darling, I _always_ have references. 
Start here, read all the links; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

On the chart linked to in that article, terriers, spaniels, dachshunds, poodles, pekinese, schnauzers, beagles, shihtzus and maltese are all on there. Mutts top the list. Either they counted pits as mutts or they're just not on there.

Children 2 years old are the most likely to be bitten, over 50% of the time, it is by the family dog, regardless of what breed the family dog is. When babies a year old or less are killed, a small dog manages it just as easily as a bigger one. So when we start thinking about banning dogs to save children, we need to keep that in mind.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/09/local/me-34015
It doesn't take much dog to hurt or kill a child. It's still not the breed, it's the owners. Owners of vicious dogs need to be criminally prosecuted. There is no breed-legislation that would do it.


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

wow just looked at the dog death stats for 2013. Sobering (has pics of the victims).
All I can say is every single owner - even the ones who lost a family member- should have gone to jail on manslaughter charges. There needs to be no Tolerance. Its still not a "pit bull " issue. (I would hate see Filas become popular, and I kinda want a Fila, but I know that with my living circumstances and personality this would not be a responsible choice)....

heres the link:
www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2013.php


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JasoninMN said:


> That really isn't that uncommon dog behavior in any breed, the dog has weak nerves. Instead of re-homing it, they should be euthanizing it.


I agree. But there is a lot more biting power in a pit bull then in poodle. I'd never been around one before ans it is amazing how much power and muscle is packed into a medium sized dog body and head


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

I also agree that any dog with the power and capability of a pit bull that attacks unprovoked really shouldn't have another chance. Too dangerous. I'm not fond of even little dogs that attack without good cause. I really wish people were less forgiving and tougher on their dogs. 

I had a lovely English Setter show dog that nipped my young son - provoked. I put the dog down, as I wasn't happy with his temperament overall to start with. I neutered and sold his lovely, sweet as pie son too. As a breeder I won't have fearful or nasty dogs and want to be responsible to the breed as well as to the owners of the dogs. As a professional, if I have trouble with a dog, I figure it is irresponsible to rehome it.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

CAjerseychick said:


> wow just looked at the dog death stats for 2013. Sobering (has pics of the victims).
> 
> 
> heres the link:
> www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2013.php



Very sad storied on that page. 
I was a little surprised where huskies rated on that page too.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> We have had 4 Pit Bull attacks in the nearby city of Spokane in the last week, 6 in the last week and a half. The worst was an eight year old girl, attacked in her neighborhood by two loose Pit Bulls. Several men came to her rescue and they were bitten as well, but they did manage to get the dogs off the little girl. I believe she is still in the hospital, but will recover.
> 
> Then a police dog was attacked when a Pit Bull tied to a fence pulled loose. The officer had to shoot the Pit Bull to stop it. The police dog had a pretty badly bitten leg, but should recover. The suspect he was chasing got away, but not for long. Pit Bull and suspect did not know each other.
> 
> ...


In answer (since my daughter lives in Spokane and I've been thinking more about it) I believe that all non-aggressive pits should require mandatory neutering/spaying and the breed should be phased out. Let the good dogs live out their lives and stiff penalties for those with unneutered Pits. 
It may well be the owners faults but the dogs are capable of too much damage to be in the hands of naive or bad owners


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

swamp man said:


> That's a beautiful Blue in the picture!
> 
> I think your diagnosis is spot-on. I'd also add...
> 3)- When an ill-raised/ill-bred pitbull DOES bite, it's just a really capable and powerful animal. I like capable, powerful dogs, but in the case of one who bites because the owner is a moron, it adds to the stigma against the breed.
> ...


My AmStaff was great with other animals - dogs, cats, rodents, etc - plus he was an angel with my kids. But I made sure I got a pup from show lines who was bred for good temperament, and I socalized the living daylights out of him from the second I got him at 8 weeks of age. 

You're very correct in that Pit bull attacks get lots of media attention, while other breeds are pretty much ignored. When I was working in the animal shelter and in vet clinics in the late 90's, we had more trouble with Cocker Spaniels than Pit Bulls. A 40-pound Cocker can easily kill or severely maul a child. A few weeks ago on my FaceBook feed, a friend had shared an article about a Border Collie that had mauled a child. ANY breed of dog, bred improperly and raised poorly, CAN and WILL bite.



LisaInN.Idaho said:


> In answer (since my daughter lives in Spokane and I've been thinking more about it) I believe that all non-aggressive pits should require mandatory neutering/spaying and the breed should be phased out. Let the good dogs live out their lives and stiff penalties for those with unneutered Pits. It may well be the owners faults but the dogs are capable of too much damage to be in the hands of naive or bad owners


So you eliminate all the Pit Bulls....and the thugs will move on to Dobermans. Will you then mandate that all Dobermans are fixed so that breed can be phased out as well? And when the thugs then move on to Rottweilers, and Cane Corsos, and Filas, and Boerboels, and all the other large-breed dogs out there, will you mandate that they all be phased out one breed at a time?

The issue is that it's not the dogs, it's the owners. As long as there are thug owners out there, they WILL find a breed to fixate on. If you eliminate all the large breed dogs, they'll take Beagles and breed them as big as possible and as nasty as possible until those, too, will have to be phased out.

In the meantime, the responsible owners of these breeds are being penalized because they happen to love a breed that is the "bad-grits dog of the moment" for all the thug gangstas. 

I'll share a quick story with you: My DH knows how much I loved my AmStaff. I had that dog from the day he turned 8 weeks old until he died in his sleep a few days after his 12th birthday. I still cry over losing him, he was my "once-in-a-lifetime" dog. So DH was at Animal Control a few months back (DH is a cop) getting a report, and he saw a very pretty female pit bull. Sent me a pic of her and the next day when we were running errands with our boys (who are 9 months and 2 years) DH surprised me by taking me by the shelter to meet this dog. 

DH was certain that she was a great dog, the shelter staff said she was a sweetheart, and he was thinking that maybe we'd take her home. I humored him and met with the dog, and played with her, and said we'd think about it and left.

In the car I told DH:
1) This dog is a stray with no history.
2) She's probably 1-2 years of age, and we have no idea how she was raised.
3) Nobody is looking for her....if she were a great family dog, wouldn't her prior owners be searching?
4) I'm not bringing a 65-70 pound pit bull of unknown breeding and unknown history into my household. If I had no children in the house, that'd be one thing....but no way am I going to put my kids at risk this way.

Needless to say, that dog did NOT come home with us. 

But I'm not against finding another nice, well-bred AmStaff puppy with known bloodlines to bring into my family :shrug:

Here are more pics of Cosmic: Playing with my first MiniBull, Rufus (who was an intact male) and doing what he did best - keeping an eye on my girls. Cosmic used to climb up on the couch next to the girls when they were napping and sleep next to them, or lay on the couch and watch TV with them. Not a mean bone in his body!


----------



## swamp man (Dec 25, 2005)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> In answer (since my daughter lives in Spokane and I've been thinking more about it) I believe that all non-aggressive pits should require mandatory neutering/spaying and the breed should be phased out. Let the good dogs live out their lives and stiff penalties for those with unneutered Pits.
> It may well be the owners faults but the dogs are capable of too much damage to be in the hands of naive or bad owners


How weak and docile should a dog need to be to stay legal?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

bluemoonluck said:


> So you eliminate all the Pit Bulls....and the thugs will move on to Dobermans. Will you then mandate that all Dobermans are fixed so that breed can be phased out as well? And when the thugs then move on to Rottweilers, and Cane Corsos, and Filas, and Boerboels, and all the other large-breed dogs out there, will you mandate that ......!


Yes, or at the very least special licensing for breeders of pits with the license requiring checks into buyers of pits. I would hate to see someone lose a wonderful pet and this wouldn't ban them but but I don't see any other way to lose the poorly bred and aggressive lines and keep them out of the hands of thugs or naive or irresponsible owners. Same with any of the breeds that are potentially lethal because of what they were bred for and the sheer power of their bite and unstable temperaments.

I don't expect you to agree but it's my opinion.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

swamp man said:


> How weak and docile should a dog need to be to stay legal?


Obviously you disagree but I think unprovoked human or animal aggression might be a deciding factor.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Otter said:


> Always darling, I _always_ have references.
> Start here, read all the links; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
> 
> On the chart linked to in that article, terriers, spaniels, dachshunds, poodles, pekinese, schnauzers, beagles, shihtzus and maltese are all on there. Mutts top the list. Either they counted pits as mutts or they're just not on there.
> ...


The first reference is from Austria. Not too many pitbulls there. In fact I suspect that they are extremnely rare there.
The second one is seems to be story much repeated by pitbull supporters. I could only find the original story and nothing else. I did read one that suggested the pomeranian was 18 lbs and too big to be a purebred but nothing further to know if there was any confirmation of the original story or not. 
On the other hand, while doing a quick google search, I found one infant killed by a lab and a dozen or more killed by pitbulls. I quit looking on the second page.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The question that doesn't seem to ever get asked is why pitbulls in the first place? I can tell you why I have loved my labs- always cheerfull and full of fun. Very loyal without being aggressive to others. Cooperative and easy to train (well maybe that should be so motivated by food they will do anything for a treat.)
But what qualities make a pitbull more desirable than other breeds?


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

At least clip their ear so they can be identified at a distance.

Moron dog owners, that is. Not the poor dog (of any breed) saddled with them.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Maybe have some kind of licensing for breeders that allows them to raise a specified breed including Pit Bulls. You need a kennel license now in Spokane county if you have more than 4 or 5 dogs. Of course one of the problems with bad owners is that many of them do not bother with the law.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I pity the poor pit bulls. Any time I walk in a shelter around here or in Spokane, it appears that 9 out of 10 of the dogs in there are Pits or Pit crosses.


----------



## swamp man (Dec 25, 2005)

where I want to said:


> The question that doesn't seem to ever get asked is why pitbulls in the first place? I can tell you why I have loved my labs- always cheerfull and full of fun. Very loyal without being aggressive to others. Cooperative and easy to train (well maybe that should be so motivated by food they will do anything for a treat.)
> But what qualities make a pitbull more desirable than other breeds?


 The term "pitbull" is used so loosely, that's a hard question to answer...and who knows why anybody else does anything? I can only answer for myself and my dog. Kano possesses all the qualities you just listed, but doesn't have the hyperactivity problems that lots of other breeds do; He'd rather be layin' around with the people and napping than anything else. For most of the people who get his particular bloodline, they want a dog that can be trained to bite a wild hog and hold it without getting gutted. In all fairness, breeding lines vary with most any breed, labs being an example. A lab from a true sporting bloodline is a completely different animal than the bouncy family pet kind of lab. Even the shape of the body is different.
There are plenty of legitimate, good reasons to want a pit, and definitely, lots of scumbags get them for bad reasons. Those same scumbags WILL find ways to be a danger to the public, pitbull or no pitbuill.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

where I want to said:


> The first reference is from Austria. Not too many pitbulls there. In fact I suspect that they are extremnely rare there.
> The second one is seems to be story much repeated by pitbull supporters. I could only find the original story and nothing else.


 For those who don't click the links;
The first one is a link to an article of a study, published by the National Center For Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine.

The second is a newspaper article from the L.A. Times.

Umm, sorry there was just one newspaper article for that attack. How many do you expect there to be per dog attack?
If you really want to "find" something else, you can contact the county and request a copy of the police report. Public record, but more digging than I feel like doing for you. But I'll bet you a dollar that it says the dog was a 6 lb Pom 

You can discredit those sources if you want, but if you discredit _those, _you'd likely discredit it if God parted the clouds and shouted it down. The fact remains that banning pitbulls (or any breed) won't make children safer.


----------



## bassmaster17327 (Apr 6, 2011)

CAjerseychick said:


> I like the obedience class requirement. Every person owning a dog has to show they have been to a class in the last 10years ....that should help (and trainers could be the eyes and ears for future problem dogs)...
> 
> Not sure how they would catch all the owner of unliscenced dogs though... some way to track who buys dog food?... Kinda big brother-ish I know...


Just what me need, another government agency to tell us what we can and can not do. So much for land of the free


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

Molly Mckee said:


> Maybe have some kind of licensing for breeders that allows them to raise a specified breed including Pit Bulls. You need a kennel license now in Spokane county if you have more than 4 or 5 dogs. Of course one of the problems with bad owners is that many of them do not bother with the law.


So who gets to decide what those breeds are and what the criteria are for raising them? This is a list of the 75 most banned or restricted breeds of dogs. http://www.dogpolitics.com/my_weblog/2007/05/list_of_banned_.html "The information here comes from the Responsible Dog Owners of The Western States which has just updated the list of breeds that have been banned or restricted in the U.S. All you dog lovers out there may just be in for a shock. BSL - or breed-specific legislation and breed discrimination- isn't just for pitbulls or Rottweilers anymore." Besides the usual offenders, this list also includes the Boston Terrier, English Springer Spaniel, Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, and the Pug. Yup, real dangerous dogs there :facepalm:

Besides that, as you mentioned, laws are followed only by those who care about not breaking them. If it becomes a law that, say, anyone breeding any breed of dog must be inspected and licensed, only law-abiding citizens will apply for a license. The thugs who breed street pits aren't going to obey the law.

About 10 years ago, the state of Virginia, in their infinite wisdom, decided that it was tired of people dodging local licensing requirements and they made it a law that all vet clinics must report every single rabies shot that they give to the locality that the owner of the dog resides in. So I take my dog to the vet and get his rabies shot done, and the vet is required to send my name, address, phone number, name of the dog, dog's breed/age/color/gender, whether the dog is altered or not, etc to the county I reside in. The county then sends me a letter saying that I have to get the dog a license, if they have no record of me already going down to the county office to get one.

So guess what happens now? Thugs no longer get their dogs vaccinated against rabies, that's what. They don't want the county to know that they've got 15 pit bulls, so they just don't take their dogs to the vets. I've talked to a number of vets over the years who all say that the backyard pits they used to at least get the chance to do the basics on are no longer brought into them.

So now you've got thugs with street pits who haven't had their rabies shots......not an improvement at all :hammer:




where I want to said:


> The question that doesn't seem to ever get asked is why pitbulls in the first place? I can tell you why I have loved my labs- always cheerfull and full of fun. Very loyal without being aggressive to others. Cooperative and easy to train (well maybe that should be so motivated by food they will do anything for a treat.)
> But what qualities make a pitbull more desirable than other breeds?


I've met Labs that were downright poorly tempered, same for all sorts of dogs with a reputation for being "great family dogs". ANY breed of dog can have a crappy temperament. And all you have to do is find a dog of that breed with the temperament you want, breed it, keep the offspring that have the same temperament and breed them back to their parent/to each other, and BAM! You've now started a line of Labs/Beagles/Whatevers that have that temperament. It's really not hard, unfortunately.

Pit bulls are muscular dogs, they're easy keepers (don't have a lot of problem gaining and keeping weight even on low-quality food), and they are fiercely loyal to their owners. Of course, that can be said of a LOT of dog breeds.... it's just that at some point along the line, the thugs decided that pit bulls were the "toughest" dogs on the block that they could easily get their hands on, so they went with them. It could just as easily have been any number of other breeds, and in the near future it WILL be one of those other breeds as the regulations surrounding pit bulls continue to tighten. In fact, based on my observations, the American Bully and the American Bulldog may be next, both of which are 75+ pounds. Most street-bred pits are in the 40-pound range. The thugs are upsizing :runforhills:


----------



## Nathanaf8388 (Oct 25, 2013)

Show people how to identify I purebred an staff pitbull instead of crosses and alot of it would disintegrate restrict breeding of the ignorant people who dont socialize or train their dogs and breed anything with anything some of these crosses are extremely dangerous... like mixing fire and gasoline


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Otter said:


> For those who don't click the links;
> 
> The first one is a link to an article of a study, published by the National Center For Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine.
> 
> ...




Yes a study on the NHI that was done in Austria. They generally publish from all over the world. And that is why no pitbulls made the list- there are no pitbull there to bite anyone. The source was listed on the expanded report.

And on the second, there was nothing further than the short original report. No follow up, or more info or confirmation. No details. Even if true, that makes Pomeranians - one, pitbulls- a thousand.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Want a Pit? Come to Detroit, the Animal Shelters are full of them.


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

bassmaster17327 said:


> Just what me need, another government agency to tell us what we can and can not do. So much for land of the free


I dont really think we are "free" here, does anyone...?
I did look up the Austria requirement- you actually have to show you have your dog under control in a "city environment".. for the specified breeds....
Interesting....


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

Story for you. 

Walked the kids to the park tonight while DH mowed. I never bring the dog, but I was digging in the hall closet for the blanket I spread on the grass for the baby, he saw his leash, and I couldn't say no to him then.

Dog, FTR, is a five lb. Chihuahua. My first tiny dog. He was the best fit for us, we got him two years ago from the city pound. Sweet thing, loves my kids and indulges the baby, who is four times his weight and fascinated by him. Not the stereotypical ankle biter by any means. 

On the way, a gsd thought he was a snack. GSD owner got him off the path and was scolding him, and laughed with me about my "squeaky toy". LOL. I know my pup is ridiculous, but we love him and he is a great friend.

A collie met him too. Glanced, wagged tail, the end. Her rottie friend glanced, got excited, was corrected and her owner moved her away. 

But then. Later, at the park, I was standing by the sand box, telling the kindergartener it was time to go, when I heard whining. I turned, and there was a pitt, straining on the leash, looking at my dog like you would expect a bulldog to look at a small, strange animal. His grinning owner kept coming, just saying "Oh, he's a nice dog, don't worry." Scooped up my own dog and told the owner "Maybe, but he seems to want to eat mine."

And I like pits. I do. One of my dog's best canine friends is a fifteen year old pit-bull named Sammie. This one? No. 

Moral of the story: People who allow crap behavior from their dogs should be ashamed. If my dog was a yippy, house peeing, territorial snot, that would be my fault and I would fix it. 

Said dog is now asleep beside me, my baby is asleep in my lap. 

He loves to go out, but I almost never bring him because of crud like this. He's a bit of fun to bad dog owners, and with my kids... not okay.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

What is "under control"? I bet 99% of people who have pits have no idea how to break up a fight or get them to release their grip. The difference between pits and other dogs is they will keep fighting when they are losing and hurt. Kicking, punching, throwing water at them and all the "recommended techniques" will not work, heck sometimes even shooting them doesn't stop them from fighting. The dog can have the best leash manners ever but when grandmas little poodle runs up to say "hi" and gets bit chances are the owner will have no idea how to get the dog to release. Pretty soon you have a group of people kicking and hitting the dog on the street corner and its not letting go of fluffy. Yeah fluffy should have been on a leash but at this point it doesn't matter, the damage has been done.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

JasoninMN said:


> What is "under control"? I bet 99% of people who have pits have no idea how to break up a fight or get them to release their grip. The difference between pits and other dogs is they will keep fighting when they are losing and hurt. Kicking, punching, throwing water at them and all the "recommended techniques" will not work, heck sometimes even shooting them doesn't stop them from fighting.


The worst bite I got was from my ex-husband's Chow/Hound mix, who was fighting with a hound/German Shepherd mix over a chew toy. Nothing would get them to let go of each other, despite their injuries, and I know how to break up dogs fights (thanks to years of working in vet clinics and at an animal shelter). I finally had the hose over their heads essentially trying to get them to panic over drowning hoping they would let go. The Chow mix let go long enough to about tear my hand in half, then they were back at it :shrug: 

I ended up walking away from the still-fighting dogs to go to the ER for my hand, and telling my ex that he needed to deal with his dogs. They had to lasso both dogs and manually haul them apart.

If two dogs are just squabbling, they'll separate fairly easily. If two dogs of any breed are really fighting over something they deem important, they aren't gonna stop until they're done or you make them stop. That's not unique to Pit Bulls by any means.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

As much as I personally don't care for pits, Amstaffs or any of the bully breeds, it is a mistake to ban them. The bad ones should be euthanized as soon as they reveal that side of their nature, and people who own them and let them harm people or other animals should be prosecuted. And pay some hefty fines. No money? Do time instead. When your dog can be a deadly weapon, there has to be serious consequences to mismanaging that dog.

Part of the equation is over-aggressive dogs, and the other side is people who don't have a clue about dog behavior and think they are all cartoon dogs or lovey-dovey lap dogs. They don't recognize aggression until it's too late. They don't teach their kids how to act with a strange dog because they don't know themselves.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

Neither dog thought it was losing yet or hurting, thats why they were still fighting. If pitbulls weren't different, people would be fighting any old breed of dog. Also if pit bulls weren't different they wouldn't come up from the bottom of a fight with a dog that weighs twice as much as it does and beat it. They don't fight for dominance like other dogs. Maybe if people who want to own them quit thinking they are like any other ole dog they wouldn't be making the news daily. I'll say it again, 99% owners have no idea how to get them to release their grip and would shun at the idea of a breaker stick.They stand their in complete shock when the dog bites something and have no idea how to stop it. It would take 2 seconds to use a breaker stick and no one would get hurt instead they stand on the corner kicking and hitting the dog which does nothing but encourage it to fight harder mean while fluffy is dieing.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

JasoninMN said:


> Neither dog thought it was losing yet or hurting, thats why they were still fighting. If pitbulls weren't different, people would be fighting any old breed of dog. Also if pit bulls weren't different they wouldn't come up from the bottom of a fight with a dog that weighs twice as much as it does and beat it. They don't fight for dominance like other dogs. Maybe if people who want to own them quit thinking they weren't like any other ole dog they wouldn't be making the news daily. I'll say it again, 99% owners have no idea how to get them to release their grip and would shun at the idea of a breaker stick.They stand their in complete shock when the dog bites something and have no idea how to stop it. It would take 2 seconds to use a breaker stick and no one would get hurt instead they stand on the corner kicking and hitting the dog which does nothing but encourage it to fight harder mean while fluffy is dieing.


Oh absolutely, Pits are good at dog fighting. It's what they were bred to do! But lots of other breeds of dogs are the same way, and any two dogs who are really going at it are the same way too IME.

Most dog owners of any breed don't know how to break apart two dogs who are fighting, unfortunately. I got a PM on FB a while back from someone who knows me asking me how to break up a dogfight. I answered her back that I sincerely hoped that she wasn't PMing me while the fight was in progress!! She wasn't, but her two dogs had just gone at it hard and she was in the waiting room in the emergency vets. 

I think anyone who owns a dog of any breed should know how to break up a dog fight...... Even if you only own one dog, you never know when a strange dog will jump your fence and scrap with your dog, or when you'll have your own dog on a leash and another dog will charge your dog, etc. It's a heck of a lot easier to break up fights indoors than outdoors, IMO, but it's still a good thing to know.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

wendle said:


> we accept that dogs bred to do some serious hunting or herding don't always make good family pets because of their high drive and energy level. For some reason we don't accept that pit bulls don't necessarily make good pets because of their strong instinct to fight along with the strength to do some serious damage. There are exceptions in all breeds of course. I suspect pit bulls are bred primarily by gang bangers, pit fighters, and backyard breeders who want a tough dog. They are bred to be an aggressive fighter, so temperament probably isn't high on the list either. With the latest trend defending pit bulls, claiming they are only bad because of how they are treated, *i think more are going into homes that aren't prepared to handle a dog that intense and potentially dangerous*.


 bingo


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Pops2 said:


> bingo


And everyone who has one thinks they are doing just fine.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

CAjerseychick said:


> wow just looked at the dog death stats for 2013. Sobering (has pics of the victims).
> All I can say is every single owner - even the ones who lost a family member- should have gone to jail on manslaughter charges. There needs to be no Tolerance. Its still not a "pit bull " issue. (I would hate see Filas become popular, and I kinda want a Fila, but I know that with my living circumstances and personality this would not be a responsible choice)....
> 
> heres the link:
> www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2013.php


 they are a breed banning site run by ambulance chasers. the stats they present have been shown to be falsified several times. go straight to CDC or similar governmental or health organization sites for more accurate info.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> I agree. But there is a lot more biting power in a pit bull then in poodle. I'd never been around one before ans it is amazing how much power and muscle is packed into a medium sized dog body and head


 depends on the poodle
seriously square mouthed dogs DO NOT HAVE the strongest bites & that includes the various dogs ID as "pit bulls" wedge head dogs like belgian Malinois and dutch sheperd have significantly more powerful bites. what bulldogs have is hang time. they don't let go plus they have more powerful neck and shoulders so when they shake they do more damage.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

GrannyCarol said:


> I also agree that any dog with the power and capability of a pit bull that attacks unprovoked really shouldn't have another chance. Too dangerous. I'm not fond of even little dogs that attack without good cause. I really wish people were less forgiving and tougher on their dogs.
> 
> I had a lovely English Setter show dog that nipped my young son - provoked. I put the dog down, as I wasn't happy with his temperament overall to start with. I neutered and sold his lovely, sweet as pie son too. As a breeder I won't have fearful or nasty dogs and want to be responsible to the breed as well as to the owners of the dogs. As a professional, if I have trouble with a dog, I figure it is irresponsible to rehome it.


 god love it, I wish more people were like you on this issue


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

where I want to said:


> The first reference is from Austria. Not too many pitbulls there. In fact I suspect that they are extremnely rare there.
> The second one is seems to be story much repeated by pitbull supporters. I could only find the original story and nothing else. I did read one that suggested the pomeranian was 18 lbs and too big to be a purebred but nothing further to know if there was any confirmation of the original story or not.
> On the other hand, while doing a quick google search, I found one infant killed by a lab and a dozen or more killed by pitbulls. I quit looking on the second page.


 when they were first admited in the AKC poms could still be had up to 30#. although bred down for size, throwbacks still occur so an 18# COULD still be purebred.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Molly Mckee said:


> Maybe have some kind of licensing for breeders that allows them to raise a specified breed including Pit Bulls. You need a kennel license now in Spokane county if you have more than 4 or 5 dogs. *Of course one of the problems with bad owners is that many of them do not bother with the law*.


 pow! another spot on call.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

bluemoonluck said:


> Oh absolutely, Pits are good at dog fighting. It's what they were bred to do! *But lots of other breeds of dogs are the same way, and any two dogs who are really going at it are the same way too *IME.
> 
> Most dog owners of any breed don't know how to break apart two dogs who are fighting, unfortunately. I got a PM on FB a while back from someone who knows me asking me how to break up a dogfight. I answered her back that I sincerely hoped that she wasn't PMing me while the fight was in progress!! She wasn't, but her two dogs had just gone at it hard and she was in the waiting room in the emergency vets.
> 
> I think anyone who owns a dog of any breed should know how to break up a dog fight...... Even if you only own one dog, you never know when a strange dog will jump your fence and scrap with your dog, or when you'll have your own dog on a leash and another dog will charge your dog, etc. It's a heck of a lot easier to break up fights indoors than outdoors, IMO, but it's still a good thing to know.


 no other BREEDS are NOT like pit bulldogs. if they were, there never would have been a pit bulldog bred. SOME breeds have SIMILAR qualities and plenty of individual dogs have the same qualities and even a few breeds USED to have the same qualities, but pit bulldogs exist BECAUSE they are a uniquely CONSISTANT concentration of the qualities that make a good fighting dog in the specific way Americans, Brits and Irish liked them to fight.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I realize this is a pretty hot topic but please keep things respectful.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

where I want to said:


> And that is why no pitbulls made the list- there are no pitbull there to bite anyone.


I'm not sure why you keep insisting there are no pitbulls in Austria, or why you think it matters (the point being all the other breeds on the list - pits are not the only dogs that bite). They are known there the same way they are known by the breed club here - Staffordshire bullterriers.
Here's a link to the Austrian breed club
http://oesbc.heimat.eu/

Besides Google, people should also study history. There have been MANY breeds thoughout history that have been bred to fight dogs, and nearly as many that have been bred to fight men. Banning any breed doesn't make people any safer - the sort of folks who get off on that just move to the next breed.
You have to criminally prosecute the owners of vicious dogs.
Through history, that has been the ONLY thing proven to help.


----------



## swamp man (Dec 25, 2005)

where I want to said:


> And everyone who has one thinks they are doing just fine.


 That's because we're doing just fine, at least my dog and I are, and we're the only ones I get to be in charge of. Your statement sounds a whole lot like you're condemning good dogs and responsible owners for something that hasn't happened and likely never will.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

swamp man said:


> That's because we're doing just fine, at least my dog and I are, and we're the only ones I get to be in charge of. Your statement sounds a whole lot like you're condemning good dogs and responsible owners for something that hasn't happened and likely never will.


But that is never going to be a preventative for the killing. I mentioned the dog attack that killed one goat, injured two others and killed two alpacas. Those dogs were owed by people who were responsible, at least in terms of training and keeping their dogs. They worked hard at securely fencing and spent hours training their dogs, took them for daily runs. But someone accidently left the gate open and within a couple of hours, those dogs owned by responsible people had killed my beloved pet and shredded the ears and legs of the ones that survived. And only luck kept me from joining them. It was a horrible thing to witness.

What you are saying is that nothing has happened yet. Nothing more.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Otter said:


> I'm not sure why you keep insisting there are no pitbulls in Austria, or why you think it matters (the point being all the other breeds on the list - pits are not the only dogs that bite). They are known there the same way they are known by the breed club here - Staffordshire bullterriers.
> Here's a link to the Austrian breed club
> http://oesbc.heimat.eu/
> 
> ...


I agree with the prosecution.

I don't have enough German to read the site you gave- just enough to know it was established in 1995 and I seriously doubt there are many and those that are there are subject to strict rules for breeding and control.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

We had a neighbors dog, a shepherd mix, that was normally chained get loose and kill some of our sheep years ago. Our town constable and another neighbor, a deputy sheriff came to help. They shot the dog. The neighbor wanted us to pay for their dog, they were completely clueless, it wasn't their dog even tho two law enforcement saw part of the attack as well as our family. The damage to the sheep was devastating.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

At some point we have to accept the fact that life comes with a certain element of danger. We can never legislate enough to change that, and at a certain point over-legislation becomes the danger.

IMO, ANY dog owner, regardless of breed, should be legally responsible for any damage the dog does. Other than that, I really don't see what can be done about it unless you want to eliminate the entire canine species.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Twobottom said:


> At some point we have to accept the fact that life comes with a certain element of danger. We can never legislate enough to change that, and at a certain point over-legislation becomes the danger.
> 
> IMO, ANY dog owner, regardless of breed, should be legally responsible for any damage the dog does. Other than that, I really don't see what can be done about it unless you want to eliminate the entire canine species.


I think the liability and jail time should be related. If you chose to have a breed that is bred to be aggressive and strong, you have an extra level of responsibility to prevent it from harming.

And not every danger is an act of God- too often it's an act of idiot.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Otter said:


> I'm not sure why you keep insisting there are no pitbulls in Austria, or why you think it matters (the point being all the other breeds on the list - pits are not the only dogs that bite). They are known there the same way they are known by the breed club here - Staffordshire bullterriers.
> Here's a link to the Austrian breed club
> http://oesbc.heimat.eu/
> 
> ...


 the netherlands eventually repealed their ban as they found their overall bite rate & fatalities didn't change, only the breeds involved.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

Otter said:


> Bitty lap dogs kill more babies every year than Pits. Look it up.


Still haven't seen the reference that said lap dogs *kill* more babies, children, or anything. Bite maybe? Sure. But I didn't see in the link you posted where more children were killed by bitty lap dogs.

This debate was going on COTH for some time and it got tiresome; pit bull "lovers/proponents" or whatever continually keep saying that breed bans don't work. Agreed.

Other types of breed specific legislation could be used - to breed any of the top rated "dangerous dogs" could require a special license, or it could be deemed illegal to sell puppies in general, or even specific breeds online (or both, in my opinion). Pet owners that don't spay or neuter will need to pay a much larger licensing fee for "dangerous dogs", but licensing revenue could be used to offer low cost spay/neuter clinics. 

Good breeders should do fine and not be affected, good owners would get low cost spay/neuter and low cost licensing, and bad breeders will ignore the laws...but could be fined, have their dogs confiscated or PTS if caught. And maybe if breeding becomes such a hassle and expense, some of the crap breeders will just give up and there will be fewer poor dogs in the shelters that no one wants.

It should not be necessary to wait and see if the dogs are actually aggressive before we can do anything. Bad breeding, selection and selling are the problems here - not the good owners. 

If you don't like the idea of having to jump through these hoops -- don't own one of the identified breeds. But unless you're one of the idiot breeders contributing to the problem, it would seem that proponents would support legislation like this. 

The biggest issue would be implementation and enforcement, but could potentially be handled by law enforcement rather than animal control if laws are implemented.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

where I want to said:


> But that is never going to be a preventative for the killing. I mentioned the dog attack that killed one goat, injured two others and killed two alpacas. Those dogs were owed by people who were responsible, at least in terms of training and keeping their dogs. They worked hard at securely fencing and spent hours training their dogs, took them for daily runs. But someone accidently left the gate open and within a couple of hours, those dogs owned by responsible people had killed my beloved pet and shredded the ears and legs of the ones that survived. And only luck kept me from joining them. It was a horrible thing to witness.
> 
> What you are saying is that nothing has happened yet. Nothing more.


 would they be less dead if the dogs were a collie and a lab?


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

Having a dog, any breed, with a disposition to attack, is like leaving a loaded weapon laying around with the safety off. 

If I had a dog with such a disposition, it would be disposed of quickly (and legally). And if such a dog owned by someone else should come on to my land and threatened me, my family members, or my pets, I will immediately dial up my sheriff and tell him to bring a citation book and bullets. And if their dog attacks and causes injury, the owner will be looking for a lawyer.

A friendly dog of my neighbors is a different story. I will work with the neighbor to get it back where it belongs. I have even brought them back myself or have my kids bring them back. Don't much like it, but also don't want to go calling the law and costing them money.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

After WW2 German shepherds were thought to be uncontrollable by many if not most in this country. Reports and rumors from camps in Germany during the war we're had the vast majority of folks in fear of a breed as crazy as they were.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Pops2 said:


> would they be less dead if the dogs were a collie and a lab?


A lab and a collie did not show up- so yes.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I had a pit cross. We led a pretty restricted life because, unlike the other dogs I owned, she could not be reliably called off. So she had a muzzle for trips away from home and a very good fence at home. 
That along with contacts with pit bulls over the years lead me to never want another. And to be wary of any I see.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.livescience.com/27145-are-pit-bulls-dangerous.html

"A five-year review of dog-bite injuries from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, published in 2009 in the journalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, found that almost 51 percent of the attacks were from pit bulls, almost 9 percent were from Rottweilers and 6 percent were from mixes of those two breeds.

In other words, a whopping two-thirds of the hospital's dog-attack injuries involved just two breeds, pit bulls and Rottweilers.

Other studies confirm these statistics: A 15-year study published in 2009 in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology revealed that pit bulls, Rottweilers and German shepherds were responsible for the majority of fatal dog attacks in the state of Kentucky"


lt's always the same response. 
All those reports in the media about the dog attacks? It's only an exaggeration- no one reports on other dogs that kill people. Sure.
The reason for all the attacks that never happen? Bad owners- as if only pit bulls have bad owners.
And the proof of the foolishness of the pitbull myth? A photo of children sitting with their arms around a pit bull. Who frankly looks irritated with the whole thing.


----------



## kareninaustria (Dec 22, 2008)

where I want to said:


> I agree with the prosecution.
> 
> I don't have enough German to read the site you gave- just enough to know it was established in 1995 and I seriously doubt there are many and those that are there are subject to strict rules for breeding and control.



I live in Austria and "Staffies" are extremely popular here. Just as in many places in the States, a large proportion of the shelter dogs are pitbull or pitbull crosses (probably for the same reasons).

They are not subjected to more control with respect to breeding than other dogs, but some areas (Vienna included) require "Kampfhund" owners to take a course to receive a special "dog drivers license." There is a list of breeds that have this requirement. The course is pretty basic and probably doesn't go nearly far enough teaching people what they need to know, but at least it's something.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

where I want to said:


> http://www.livescience.com/27145-are-pit-bulls-dangerous.html
> 
> "A five-year review of dog-bite injuries from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, published in 2009 in the journalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, found that almost 51 percent of the attacks were from pit bulls, almost 9 percent were from Rottweilers and 6 percent were from mixes of those two breeds.
> 
> ...



WHO is in charge of identifying the dogs in these attacks? I've seen pictures of dogs under the caption "Vicious pit bull attacks child" with a picture of a lab mix being hauled off on a catch pole 

http://stopbsl.org/bsloverview/impossibleid/

http://stubbydog.org/2013/10/study-shows-difficulty-in-identifying-a-pit-bull/



> The authors concluded that shelter staff assigned the âpit bullâ label based on physical appearance to twice as many dogs as could be confirmed to have the pit bull type breeds (American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier) in their DNA analyses. Also, 20% of the dogs that were actually genetically identified as pit bull type dogs were missed by shelter staff and labeled as other breeds. Additionally, there was a lack of consistency among shelter staff in breed assignments, which further suggests the unreliability of visual identifications.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

The recent attacks here were definitely Pits or part Pit. Pictures have been on TV and the net.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

bluemoonluck said:


> WHO is in charge of identifying the dogs in these attacks? I've seen pictures of dogs under the caption "Vicious pit bull attacks child" with a picture of a lab mix being hauled off on a catch pole
> 
> http://stopbsl.org/bsloverview/impossibleid/
> 
> http://stubbydog.org/2013/10/study-shows-difficulty-in-identifying-a-pit-bull/


Yeah- a lab mixed with what. If you question the pit bull designation of every case, you are blaming people for doing the same thing you are doing. If you disallow half the identifications, pit bulls still out kill every other breed.


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

Incidentally, my neighborhood is now freaking out over a pair of "pit bulls" who ran up onto someone's porch and ended their cat. The dogs were far from home, wearing pinch collars (so, turned out into the yard wearing them) and their owner at first was apologetic and offered to pay restitution for the dying/euthanized cat. Now he wants to pay half and blahblahblah. Come to find out dude is new and had tons of issues with AC in his previous county.

Except the photos of the dogs? They aren't pitts by any means. Cane Corsos, I suspect, but one is a bit tall and may be one of those mastiif/dane mixes people think are such a great idea to create. 

This I am not thrilled about.

And you know dude bought a house by one of the schools.

New county (mine) is, at least, moving and assessing what went on in his last one, and is supposedly going to quarantine the dogs for awhile. Here's hoping their owner won't pay the fine involved. He lives where my kindergartener and I ride our bikes.

I know it isn't pc. But some dogs do not generally do well in neighborhood/community situations. I'd like to see breeds with a propensity for difficulty banned unless they can pass a CGC/ their owner has knowledge of the breed.

Seriously. Cane Corsos in suburbia. People out here can't even manage their Golden Retrievers half the time....


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

where I want to said:


> http://www.livescience.com/27145-are-pit-bulls-dangerous.html
> 
> "A five-year review of dog-bite injuries from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, published in 2009 in the journalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, found that almost 51 percent of the attacks were from pit bulls, almost 9 percent were from Rottweilers and 6 percent were from mixes of those two breeds.
> 
> ...


 have those studies been peer reviewed? probably not because they generally fail peer review. why because they fail to use a POSITIVE ID of the breed involved. I have personally witnessed the TV news ID a dog a block from me that attacked a kid as a pit bull when in fact it was a border collie type dog with no known bulldog blood so screw the media. the same media we get mad at for less than honest political reports is no more honest on this issue because circulationa and ratings are what matters.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

jen74145 said:


> Incidentally, my neighborhood is now freaking out over a pair of "pit bulls" who ran up onto someone's porch and ended their cat. The dogs were far from home, wearing pinch collars (so, turned out into the yard wearing them) and their owner at first was apologetic and offered to pay restitution for the dying/euthanized cat. Now he wants to pay half and blahblahblah. Come to find out dude is new and had tons of issues with AC in his previous county.
> 
> Except the photos of the dogs? They aren't pitts by any means. Cane Corsos, I suspect, but one is a bit tall and may be one of those mastiif/dane mixes people think are such a great idea to create.
> 
> ...


 which goes back to what has been said over and over, it's not a BREED problem its a moronic PEOPLE problem


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

where I want to said:


> Yeah- a lab mixed with what. If you question the pit bull designation of every case, you are blaming people for doing the same thing you are doing. If you disallow half the identifications, pit bulls still out kill every other breed.


the problem is that you can't ID based on looks which is how everyone does ID, because looks are misleading.
here try your hand, which one is the pitbull?


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> have those studies been peer reviewed? probably not because they generally fail peer review. why because they fail to use a POSITIVE ID of the breed involved. I have personally witnessed the TV news ID a dog a block from me that attacked a kid as a pit bull when in fact it was a border collie type dog with no known bulldog blood so screw the media. the same media we get mad at for less than honest political reports is no more honest on this issue because circulationa and ratings are what matters.


Most of the time, it is impossible for there it be a positive ID of the dog breed because the dog is not registered and does not have a certified pedigree. So, we can complain all day long about possible misidentification, however, more "pit bulls" and "bully types" are responsible for fatalities and maulings than any other breed or type. Some might be misidentified, mixed breeds, or just very bad specimens of the reported breed (e.g. oversized pit bulls). Some of the dogs in question are identified as pit bulls by their owners. 

Does it really matter though? The problem will not be solved by identifying the dogs AFTER they fatally maul someone. 

Since it's unrealistic to make people take a class or get a license simply to own a dog (much as we would like to), we have to consider other methods of controlling the bad breeders that produce dangerous dogs. 

Make breeders get a license, even for mixed breeds. Of course someone will argue that their "lab mix" really isn't a "pit bull mix"....but...with good BSL, if owners get it spayed or neutered it might not matter. Maybe give extra discounts for people who take their puppies/dogs to obedience classes. 

There are lots of things that could be considered, but the "pit proponents" are so against any type of "breed profiling" that they are turning a blind eye to solutions that could support the good owners out there.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

offthegrid said:


> Most of the time, it is impossible for there it be a positive ID of the dog breed because the dog is not registered and does not have a certified pedigree. So, we can complain all day long about possible misidentification, however, more "pit bulls" and "bully types" are responsible for fatalities and maulings than any other breed or type. Some might be misidentified, mixed breeds, or just very bad specimens of the reported breed (e.g. oversized pit bulls). Some of the dogs in question are identified as pit bulls by their owners.
> 
> Does it really matter though? The problem will not be solved by identifying the dogs AFTER they fatally maul someone.
> 
> ...


you're still missing the point if bans and special rules worked, we'd have no drugs, prostitution, murder or rape. it is the nature of the irresponsible to simply ignore the law. meanwhile the law strangle the responsible. and laws based on YOUR FEAR DO NOT TRUMP MY RIGHT TO LIBERTY
the ONLY thing you can do without being a burden to law abiding respnsible citizens is punish the irresponsible after the fact. the problem is we DON"T


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> you're still missing the point if bans and special rules worked, we'd have no drugs, prostitution, murder or rape. it is the nature of the irresponsible to simply ignore the law. meanwhile the law strangle the responsible. and laws based on YOUR FEAR DO NOT TRUMP MY RIGHT TO LIBERTY
> the ONLY thing you can do without being a burden to law abiding respnsible citizens is punish the irresponsible after the fact. the problem is we DON"T


Owning a dog is not a right.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

They dogs could be DNA tested to see if they are Pit Bulls when they are impounded. Let the owner pay for the test. That will only happen after the fact. I'd like to see them stopped before they hurt someone, or something.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

offthegrid said:


> Owning a dog is not a right.


Of course it is, how silly.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Molly Mckee said:


> They dogs could be DNA tested to see if they are Pit Bulls when they are impounded. Let the owner pay for the test. That will only happen after the fact. I'd like to see them stopped before they hurt someone, or something.


So you basically want any dog with staffordshire genes to be destroyed, whether or not they have ever harmed anyone or anything? Sounds very extreme. Unlikely that too many reasonable people will ever go along with that.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

offthegrid said:


> Owning a dog is not a right.


 sure it is, just like owning a gun, SUV or a house. you have a natural (god diven if you prefer) right to own what ever you choose to spend you labors on. what you don't have a right to is expecting your neighbors to give up their right to safety because you choose to be irresponsible. OTH you don't have a right to use the excuse of "safety" to force your neighbor to accommodate your irrational fear.
bear in mind the pit bull issue is exactly that, it is an irrational fear used to distract from legitimate issues.
on average about 20-30 people a year are killed by ALL dog attacks (worst year ever reached nearly 70) 2/3-2/4 are children
by comparison over 700 children a year die from drowning
interestingly enough BOTH are highly preventable.
in a more frightening comparison, more than 50,000 children a year from the US alone are trafficed, primarily for sex


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I didn't say I wanted the Pit Bulls killed, unless they have attacked without being provoked. The Pit Bulls I personally know are good dogs, there is no reason to eliminate them.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

What I would prefer.......
In my life I have been threatened by a dog seriously 4 times- once as a kid by a Miniature Schnauzer, the other three times by dogs who looked like pit bulls, the only animal I've ever owned that killed a cat was 1/2 pit bull, and the only dogs that ever bit a friend was a pit bull. One of the two who just killed my goat was a pit bull ( or as the woman who owned them kept correcting me - a Staffordshire.) 

I do not care whether they were registered or not or if they have other breeds in them- dogs that look like pit bulls are bad news. And the people who seem to own them do not seem the least interested in the damage they do. I do not care whether how wonderful their owners think they are because even the woman who owned the dogs that killed my goat never ever once asked me about my animals. She came crying to my house the same day to tell me she was sending the dogs away and she was crying because she was"losing her babies too." Yeah right- that makes everything equal. I get to watch my first goat get killed and my others get the legs and ears shedded and have her dog stand there and threaten me and this poor dear is crying over sending her dogs away because she has a baby and no longer trusted the dogs. Never a thought as to these dogs ending up in someone else's home.

And there is why I can't make myself care about these dog's owners. Never once has any pit bull advocate in any of these postings expressed concern for other people being damaged by these dogs. To them it's all about their dogs.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Molly Mckee said:


> They dogs could be DNA tested to see if they are Pit Bulls when they are impounded. Let the owner pay for the test. That will only happen after the fact. I'd like to see them stopped before they hurt someone, or something.


 the breed ID won't stand up in court. most first year colleg students can tear it apart. in simple terms all the databases in the USA combined are currently insufficient to truly offer a positive ID. further some breeds are so closely related they can never truly be DNA IDed even with a larger sample for comparison. for example ALL bullmastiffs and nearly all english mastiffs trace back to a single stud named Thorneywood's Terror. because of this and the small number of samples in the existing databases, a purebred mastiff could be IDed as a purebred bullmastiff or vice versa. similar relationships exist between several breeds with DRAMATICALLY different personalities and temperaments. (sidenote: Terror once downed and held 5 men armed with sticks in a demonstration, WHILE MUZZLED.)


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

This is an observation on my part only. Some of the persons that I know who got rotts or pits or mastiffs or German Shepherd s just wanted a dog that would look intimidating and protect. They were not dog savvy enough to know that any dog that loves will protect and they hardly had to go to extremes to get that trait. But lack of knowledge makes for bad dogs. And if you pick a breed that is bred as a fight dog it is really bad news.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> sure it is, just like owning a gun, SUV or a house. you have a natural (god diven if you prefer) right to own what ever you choose to spend you labors on. what you don't have a right to is expecting your neighbors to give up their right to safety because you choose to be irresponsible. OTH you don't have a right to use the excuse of "safety" to force your neighbor to accommodate your irrational fear.
> bear in mind the pit bull issue is exactly that, it is an irrational fear used to distract from legitimate issues.
> on average about 20-30 people a year are killed by ALL dog attacks (worst year ever reached nearly 70) 2/3-2/4 are children
> by comparison over 700 children a year die from drowning
> ...


 Do you have a right to own a tiger? Does your state restrict exotic animals? What about a cobra? Can anyone own one? Can you legally own a wolf where you live? What about a horse in the middle of a city? Is that ok? Can you own a pistol without a license? 

The reality is that there are restrictions all over in our country about what you can, and cannot own. There is no legal reason that certain types of domesticated dogs cannot also be restricted.

Comparing children that die by BEING KILLED by someone's pet to children that die in accidents is ridiculous.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

where I want to said:


> What I would prefer.......
> In my life I have been threatened by a dog seriously 4 times- once as a kid by a Miniature Schnauzer, the other three times by dogs who looked like pit bulls, the only animal I've ever owned that killed a cat was 1/2 pit bull, and the only dogs that ever bit a friend was a pit bull. One of the two who just killed my goat was a pit bull ( or as the woman who owned them kept correcting me - a Staffordshire.)
> 
> I do not care whether they were registered or not or if they have other breeds in them- dogs that look like pit bulls are bad news. And the people who seem to own them do not seem the least interested in the damage they do. I do not care whether how wonderful their owners think they are because even the woman who owned the dogs that killed my goat never ever once asked me about my animals. She came crying to my house the same day to tell me she was sending the dogs away and she was crying because she was"losing her babies too." Yeah right- that makes everything equal. I get to watch my first goat get killed and my others get the legs and ears shedded and have her dog stand there and threaten me and this poor dear is crying over sending her dogs away because she has a baby and no longer trusted the dogs. Never a thought as to these dogs ending up in someone else's home.
> ...


 that's because we're too busy trying to counter your emotional desire to run our lives. it's hard to be sympathetic to someone who doesn't know you and you've never harmed that wants to use the threat of govt to dictate our life to us. I am sorry for your loss, truly. 
with that said *I* didn't kill your goat NOR *did the dogs I have owned.* BUT you have clearly stated that you are perfectly happy to dictate *MY LIFE* to me, to limit *MY LIBERTY *in order to make you *FEEL *safer even though statistical history has shown that NOTHING will change. that is simply not acceptable to me. YOUR FEELINGS DO NOT TRUMP MY RIGHTS.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> the problem is that you can't ID based on looks which is how everyone does ID, because looks are misleading.
> here try your hand, which one is the pitbull?


Just because a dog is registered doesn't make it a GOOD specimen of the breed. And just because a dog can't be identified doesn't make it NOT a pit bull.

In my opinion, neither of these dogs meet the breed standard of AKC Staffordshire Bull Terrier or UKC American Pit Bull Terrier. It doesn't mean they aren't purebred - but that they are bred without regard to the standard. 

And the ***** on the bottom needs some serious nail trimming.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

offthegrid said:


> Do you have a right to own a tiger? Does your state restrict exotic animals? What about a cobra? Can anyone own one? Can you legally own a wolf where you live? What about a horse in the middle of a city? Is that ok? Can you own a pistol without a license?
> 
> The reality is that there are restrictions all over in our country about what you can, and cannot own. There is no legal reason that certain types of domesticated dogs cannot also be restricted.
> 
> Comparing children that die by BEING KILLED by someone's pet to children that die in accidents is ridiculous.


yes. no, but it will punish me if i am irresponsible. yes. yes. yes. yes, yes. yes.

it is a fair comparison as BOTH are highly preventable. in almost all cases children are killed because the parents left them unsupervised with the dogs or around the water. the argument you make is one of safety. it makes absolutely no sense to put a bandaid on a paper cut while you have a knife in your heart. when "pit bulls" are the single largest cause of death in the USA, i'll reconsider my stance.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

offthegrid said:


> Just because a dog is registered doesn't make it a GOOD specimen of the breed. And just because a dog can't be identified doesn't make it NOT a pit bull.
> 
> In my opinion, neither of these dogs meet the breed standard of AKC Staffordshire Bull Terrier or UKC American Pit Bull Terrier. It doesn't mean they aren't purebred - but that they are bred without regard to the standard.
> 
> And the ***** on the bottom needs some serious nail trimming.


 actually yes they do MEET the UKC standard, there is A LOT more leeway in it than you think. but only one is actually a UKC APBT.
what's funny is you just contradicted yourself to an extent. the standard is a VISUAL representation and to date the primary almost exclusive method of IDing a "pit bull" for BSL purposes is VISUAL. so in that context yes not IDing it does make it not a pitbull. in the other context VISUALLY iding a dog as a pitbull also does not in point of fact make it a "pit bull." thank you for making my point.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Pops2 said:


> that's because we're too busy trying to counter your emotional desire to run our lives. it's hard to be sympathetic to someone who doesn't know you and you've never harmed that wants to use the threat of govt to dictate our life to us. I am sorry for your loss, truly.
> with that said *I* didn't kill your goat NOR *did the dogs I have owned.* BUT you have clearly stated that you are perfectly happy to dictate *MY LIFE* to me, to limit *MY LIBERTY *in order to make you *FEEL *safer even though statistical history has shown that NOTHING will change. that is simply not acceptable to me. YOUR FEELINGS DO NOT TRUMP MY RIGHTS.


And the beat goes on. It is not all about you and your emotional response to people distrusting your choice of dog. If you (and I mean all such advocates) expressed concern for what others go through, there would not even be this whole debate. Because, if you understood and respected other's pain who have suffered because of this, you would also then see to take action to minimize the chances of others getting hurt in the future.
The fact that you don't, only confirms that, like the woman whose dogs just killed my animals, it means that when dog shopping again, the interests of those around you will not cross your mind.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> yes. no, but it will punish me if i am irresponsible. yes. yes. yes. yes, yes. yes.
> 
> it is a fair comparison as BOTH are highly preventable. in almost all cases children are killed because the parents left them unsupervised with the dogs or around the water. the argument you make is one of safety. it makes absolutely no sense to put a bandaid on a paper cut while you have a knife in your heart. when "pit bulls" are the single largest cause of death in the USA, i'll reconsider my stance.


Can't keep track of which you are saying yes to or not. In many states, mine included the answer is no, no, no, maybe, no, and no.

Zoning regulations prevent horses in cities; exotic pet licenses prevent the unpermitted ownership of exotic animals; pretty sure wolf is absolutely no in NY; must have a pistol permit to own a pistol. 

There is no reason that certain domesticated breeds can't be restricted.

Your attitude, however, is a perfect example of the problem with pit bulls (in my opinion). If you are a good owner, and are not breeding, why would you care if pit bull breeders had to have a license? I would think YOU, of all people, would want the crap breeders weeded out, so that you and your dog didn't have to face the constant breed bias that has been created by bad breeding.

Of course there will always be dog bites, and there will always be thug owners that want big, scary-looking, and possibly aggressive dogs. But making it harder to breed and sell these (for fighting, to protect illegal businesses, just to be a bad...) would seem to be something most pit bull owners would also desire.

The majority of pit bulls I have ever met were wonderful. But the majority of people fatally mauled are mauled by pit bulls (or crosses). They are immensely powerful animals, and a poorly bred, aggressive one is a lethal weapon. When you add that to the idiot owner (sadly, they very often go together)....it's a tragedy waiting to happen.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

also i noticed where i want to didn't take the challenge


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

where I want to said:


> And the beat goes on. It is not all about you and your emotional response to *people distrusting your choice of dog.* If you (and I mean all such advocates) expressed concern for what others go through, there would not even be this whole debate. Because, if you understood and respected other's pain who have suffered because of this, you would also then see to take action to minimize the chances of others getting hurt in the future.
> The fact that you don't, only confirms that, like the woman whose dogs just killed my animals, it* means that when dog shopping again, the interests of those around you will not cross your mind*.


 it is NOT my job to make not afraid when your fear is not rational.
i also don't ask my neighbor for permission to buy the kind of car or truck i want. DO YOU?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Pops2 said:


> also i noticed where i want to didn't take the challenge


It doesn't interest me because it's not to the point. But unless they are both very young dogs, neither look like any pit bull I've seen.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Pops2 said:


> it is NOT my job to make not afraid when your fear is not rational.
> i also don't ask my neighbor for permission to buy the kind of car or truck i want. DO YOU?


Ah if only the dogs only killed and maimed on their owners property, you might have a point. As it is, it's just insults.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

where I want to said:


> It doesn't interest me because it's not to the point. But unless they are both very young dogs, neither look like any pit bull I've seen.


 actually one is a blackmouth cur, the other however is an APBT with an okay pedigree from the modern standpoint. nothing game up close.
is this more what you were thinking?








funny thing is that even though this dog is registered, it is actually a glorified mutt that has a man aggressive breed of mastiff in the breeding.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> actually yes they do MEET the UKC standard, there is A LOT more leeway in it than you think. but only one is actually a UKC APBT.
> what's funny is you just contradicted yourself to an extent. the standard is a VISUAL representation and to date the primary almost exclusive method of IDing a "pit bull" for BSL purposes is VISUAL. so in that context yes not IDing it does make it not a pitbull. in the other context VISUALLY iding a dog as a pitbull also does not in point of fact make it a "pit bull." thank you for making my point.


Define "meet" the standard. In my opinion, neither one would win in a conformation show but I will admit my knowledge of the UKC standard is lacking. To me, they both look far too leggy to meet the standard. Certainly neither could win in an AKC show.

There is no way to truly ID any breed - except by DNA but even DNA databases like the AKC database doesn't accurately identify breed -- it identifies parentage, and is therefore only as good as the specimens submitted. 

I can accurately identify my dog by breed because a) I have his pedigree; b) he meets the breed standard; and c) his DNA is in the AKC database. But simply being "purebred" or even registered doesn't guarantee what a dog LOOKS like. My other pedigreed purebred that is much larger than the breed standard, so people might question his breed. It's really only my word that can prove that he is the dog listed on the pedigree. 

So...what to do about the dogs that "look like" a pit bull? In my opinion, if you're not breeding them - who cares? Neuter them, and keep them under control, and that might be all that matters.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

where I want to said:


> Ah if only the dogs only killed and maimed on their owners property, you might have a point. As it is, it's just insults.


 ah if only people only let their own children drown.
yes it is absolutely horrible that other people suffer from some morons stupid irresponsible conduct, but ultimately the only way to curb that is punish severely and watch carefully.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> you're still missing the point if bans and special rules worked, we'd have no drugs, prostitution, murder or rape. it is the nature of the irresponsible to simply ignore the law. meanwhile the law strangle the responsible. and laws based on YOUR FEAR DO NOT TRUMP MY RIGHT TO LIBERTY
> the ONLY thing you can do without being a burden to law abiding respnsible citizens is punish the irresponsible after the fact. the problem is we DON"T


Even though I am not a fan of dogs bred for fighting, I do see that people use these dogs for catching hogs and some dog sports. It wouldn't be fair to those law abiding citizens to ban their dogs any more than it would be to ban the cocker spaniel, or (name your favorite breed). We want to get rid of the bad dogs, sort of like we want to get rid of puppy mills. In the meantime we are punishing those people(and dogs) who aren't bad. Just recently I read an article about border collies and why they aren't for everyone. It would be great if somebody did that about pitbulls. http://www.planethund.com/eng/border-collie-problem-dog-1809.html


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

offthegrid said:


> Define "meet" the standard. In my opinion, neither one would win in a conformation show but I will admit my knowledge of the UKC standard is lacking. To me, they both look far too leggy to meet the standard. Certainly neither could win in an AKC show.
> 
> There is no way to truly ID any breed - except by DNA but even DNA databases like the AKC database doesn't accurately identify breed -- it identifies parentage, and is therefore only as good as the specimens submitted.
> 
> ...


this in a nutshell. rather than try to tell me what i can and can not own, hold me (and everyone else of course) to this standard. and if the law is insufficient to deter me from being irresponsible, get your lawmakers to increase the penalty for my irresponsibility WITHOUT creating a burden on my responsible neighbor. that is all I am saying needs to be done.
and no neither would win at any AKC or UKC show, but then very few AKC or UKC dogs would have done well in the box back when it wasn't illegal.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

wendle said:


> Even though I am not a fan of dogs bred for fighting, I do see that people use these dogs for catching hogs and some dog sports. It wouldn't be fair to those law abiding citizens to ban their dogs any more than it would be to ban the cocker spaniel, or (name your favorite breed). We want to get rid of the bad dogs, sort of like we want to get rid of puppy mills. In the meantime we are punishing those people(and dogs) who aren't bad. Just recently I read an article about border collies and why they aren't for everyone. It would be great if somebody did that about pitbulls. http://www.planethund.com/eng/border-collie-problem-dog-1809.html


unfortunately the most problematic owners of "pit bulls" struggle with the concept of reading
i honestly think most people that own "pit bull" type dogs shouldn't own a goldfish. most are woefully unprepared. i even ticked off a Marine that used to work for me by telling him he wasn't prepared and what he needed to do to be more prepared. but i won't enshrine that in law because it's not my place to dictate to my neighbor how to live his life.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> this in a nutshell. rather than try to tell me what i can and can not own, hold me (and everyone else of course) to this standard. and if the law is insufficient to deter me from being irresponsible, get your lawmakers to increase the penalty for my irresponsibility WITHOUT creating a burden on my responsible neighbor. that is all I am saying needs to be done.
> and no neither would win at any AKC or UKC show, but then very few AKC or UKC dogs would have done well in the box back when it wasn't illegal.


Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I see no reason why good owners of good dogs (of any breed) should be burdened by any BSL. But I do think that breeders -- in general, over a certain size - e.g. puppy mills, and of certain breeds or crosses should be restricted or licensed. My hairdresser has to have a license...for pete's sake. Why can any idiot with a potentially lethal breed of dog be allowed to sell puppies indiscriminately to anyone who shows up with cash?

As for whether an AKC AmStaff would win a dog fight...that's not my point. If you are talking about "visual characteristics" of a dog, you have to assume that the *breeders* (and I use that term lightly) are intentionally trying to mirror the written standard crafted by the AKC or UKC. Since we KNOW that is not happening....we can only guess as to the *actual* breed for most of the "bully breeds" that are so often implicated in maulings or fatalities. 

If a person isn't a breeder or broker, however, I am personally willing to allow the dog's own reputation speak for itself. And, thankfully, for most of the pits and pit crosses out there - it does. They can be fantastic pets.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> you're still missing the point if bans and special rules worked, we'd have no drugs, prostitution, murder or rape. it is the nature of the irresponsible to simply ignore the law. meanwhile the law strangle the responsible. and laws based on YOUR FEAR DO NOT TRUMP MY RIGHT TO LIBERTY
> the ONLY thing you can do without being a burden to law abiding respnsible citizens is punish the irresponsible after the fact. the problem is we DON"T


Your right to do what you want ends where my property begins. Your liberty ends when you think it includes the right for your dogs to run loose, no matter how they got loose, and attack my stock or children---or anyone. Dogs that main or kill are not ok and having them is not the right of anyone. People have the right to be safe in their own homes and communities.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

Hmmm maybe population has something to do with this. Pitbull types far outnumber any other type of dog in the country. Detroit alone has an estimated million and half pit bulls. Lots of dogs in close contact with lots of people is going to mean more attacks, doesn't matter what breed it is.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

JasoninMN said:


> Hmmm maybe population has something to do with this. Pitbull types far outnumber any other type of dog in the country. Detroit alone has an estimated million and half pit bulls. Lots of dogs in close contact with lots of people is going to mean more attacks, doesn't matter what breed it is.


 First of all, that's just such a sad statistic because so many of these dogs are not bred with any health checks, toward any standard, or with any sort of selection process at all. Ugh. And that's also why the shelters are bursting with pit bulls and pit crosses. 

Secondly, if we were simply talking about dog bites, I would agree that the breed wouldn't matter. However, most other breeds are just not capable of inflicting the sort of damage that a pit bull or pit cross can inflict. If there were a million and a half dachshunds in Detroit, there would probably be as many dog bites (maybe more), but far fewer serious injuries and probably zero fatalities. Pound for pound, a 40lb pit bull can cause much greater injuries than most other 40lb dogs.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

JasoninMN said:


> Hmmm maybe population has something to do with this. Pitbull types far outnumber any other type of dog in the country. Detroit alone has an estimated million and half pit bulls. Lots of dogs in close contact with lots of people is going to mean more attacks, doesn't matter what breed it is.


Pitbulls haven't always outnumbered all the other breeds(if they even do now). It would be interesting to see fatal attack statistics on other breeds when they were very popular.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

There sure is a trend of increasing dog attack fatalities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_1936


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

wendle said:


> There sure is a trend of increasing dog attack fatalities.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_1936


I think there is more reporting now, than say 1887.

And probably more dogs, in close proximity to people too.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

CAjerseychick said:


> I think there is more reporting now, than say 1887.
> 
> And probably more dogs, in close proximity to people too.


There were lots of dogs and people in the 1980's. There seems to be a change around the middle 1990's. 

I know labs, goldens, dalmations, cocker spaniels, collies, yorkies, and poodles have all had their share of popularity in some of the years mentioned.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

offthegrid said:


> First of all, that's just such a sad statistic because so many of these dogs are not bred with any health checks, toward any standard, or with any sort of selection process at all. Ugh. And that's also why the shelters are bursting with pit bulls and pit crosses.
> 
> Secondly, if we were simply talking about dog bites, I would agree that the breed wouldn't matter. However, most other breeds are just not capable of inflicting the sort of damage that a pit bull or pit cross can inflict. If there were a million and a half dachshunds in Detroit, there would probably be as many dog bites (maybe more), but far fewer serious injuries and probably zero fatalities. Pound for pound, a 40lb pit bull can cause much greater injuries than most other 40lb dogs.


Well first of all, I did not post a statistic, its even sadder you do not know what a statistic is.

I am not sure what health checks have to do anything with fatalities but your right the majority of these dogs are not bred to any standard or screened for health and yet the fatalities remain low when you look at their population vs attacks. If they were inherently bad dogs ready to kill everyone there would be far more attacks and fatalities then there really are. You honestly don't believe that population of a breed doesn't have an effect on the number of fatal attacks? That is just silly. So if there were 1.5 million German Shepherd in Detroit owned by the same people currently owning the pitbulls today and 10,000 pitbull types dogs living in homes as pets you still think that pitbulls would be on the top? Doubtful. 

Its funny you mention dachshunds, even the dachshund has been guility of killing people in recent years. 



> Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I see no reason why good owners of good dogs (of any breed) should be burdened by any BSL.* But I do think that breeders -- in general, over a certain size - e.g. puppy mills, and of certain breeds or crosses should be restricted or licensed. My hairdresser has to have a license...for pete's sake. Why can any idiot with a potentially lethal breed of dog be allowed to sell puppies indiscriminately to anyone who shows up with cash?*


You claim to be against B.S.L but then you think certain breeds should be governed. Okay that makes sense, that is B.S.L


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

wendle said:


> Pitbulls haven't always outnumbered all the other breeds(if they even do now). It would be interesting to see fatal attack statistics on other breeds when they were very popular.


I said "pit bull types" for a reason, because there is no positive way to ID dogs. If you looked at just register American pitbull terriers, no they would not be the most popular breed. The majority of "pitbulls" are dogs of unknown breed and ancestry, they just fit it no the classification of what B.S legislation and insurance companies call a pit bull. 

There is a interesting book out there about dog fatalities, it actually looks at the causes of the attacks and the breeds involved. There was not one instance of a APBT that was kept in the house as a pet and spayed/neutered causing a fatality. Many of the things people commonly believe lead to dog attacks such as pack mentality contribute to a small portion of the attacks. One of the biggest factors was unaltered animals interrupted while a female is in season. Now common sense would tell anyone with a bull, stallion, boar, or any other intact male animal to be careful but dogs get over looked.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

JasoninMN said:


> Well first of all, I did not post a statistic, its even sadder you do not know what a statistic is.


Geez. You STATEMENT that pit bulls outnumber other breeds is sad. Happy now? :hair



JasoninMN said:


> If they were inherently bad dogs ready to kill everyone there would be far more attacks and fatalities then there really are. You honestly don't believe that population of a breed doesn't have an effect on the number of fatal attacks? That is just silly.


You are right - if most pit bulls were inherently bad, we'd all be dead. And I never said that the population of a breed doesn't have an effect on the total number of attacks. Of course it does. Unfortunately, pit bulls have the triple whammy of often being poorly bred, overpopulated, and owned by idiots.



JasoninMN said:


> Its funny you mention dachshunds, even the dachshund has been guility of killing people in recent years.


I'm sure it's possible. It's certainly not common....if it has ever happened. "People?" or a person? However, most people do not fear being mauled to death by a dachshund. They are known to be more likely to bite than many other breeds.



JasoninMN said:


> You claim to be against B.S.L but then you think certain breeds should be governed. Okay that makes sense, that is B.S.L


You are quite mistaken - I am very much for BSL. However, I don't support a ban, which is only one form of BSL. I would heartily support breeder restrictions, and don't understand why most pit bull owners wouldn't also.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

I'm hearing alot of irrational fear misdirected at a breed of dog. Some of the way 'out there' posts are comparing staffordshire terriers to lions and tigers. The fact is that any dog can be dangerous, my car can be dangerous, my guns can be dangerous, the knives in my kitchen drawer can be dangerous. And certainly if you are harmed by my negligence or hostility, then you have every right in the world to seek legal recompense.

I agree that if a pitbull ( or any animal ) gets lose and harms anyone they should be put down immediately and the owners should be held financially and criminally responsible. If you are harmed by my car ( about 1000x more likely than by a dog ) you have the right to seek damages. 

But what you do not have the right to do, is restrict my rights based upon your fear of what "MIGHT" happen. If we are going to live in a world where people have liberties then you have to get used to the idea that a percentage of people are going to abuse them. If you want perfect safety you can lock yourself in a rubber room with a helmet on...but if you are going to join us in the world you're just going to have to get used to the idea that with freedom comes an element of danger. But I promise it beats the alternative


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

JasoninMN said:


> I said "pit bull types" for a reason, because there is no positive way to ID dogs. If you looked at just register American pitbull terriers, no they would not be the most popular breed.
> 
> One of the biggest factors was unaltered animals interrupted while a female is in season. Now common sense would tell anyone with a bull, stallion, boar, or any other intact male animal to be careful but dogs get over looked.


I know I said pitbull, but I will include type. If you go with that then you can also say lab type. How many lab types are there out there. Lots, It seemed like for a while you would at least see a few in any shelter, maybe still do. For a while Dobermans were commonly used for guarding property or as a bad looking dog, then the Rottweiler took their place. We didn't see a large increase in fatalities with the doberman, collie, lab or golden. 
I don't know that I would use intact or not as a reason for the increase in fatalities either. Maybe some dogs could get more aggressive? I suspect it has more to do with overall temperament and training though, if the dog is so aggressive that the owner is in danger of his life. I have kept a few intact males who also were used for occasional breeding to outside dogs and my own. I have never ever been worried about getting hurt, let along killed.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

BTW I do not nor have I ever owned a pitbull. I do raise sheep and my neighbor has a PB and other neighbors have other big dogs. My policy is this; They have every right in the world to own whatever dog they want...until it tries to harm my sheep or chickens then my right to own a firearm and protect my property takes over. I will not hesitate to put a dog in the ground, and afterwards I will STILL support their right to own a dog.


----------



## Stonybrook (Sep 22, 2007)

People will never agree on this issue.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

Twobottom said:


> I'm hearing alot of irrational fear misdirected at a breed of dog. Some of the way 'out there' posts are comparing staffordshire terriers to lions and tigers. The fact is that any dog can be dangerous, my car can be dangerous, my guns can be dangerous, the knives in my kitchen drawer can be dangerous. And certainly if you are harmed by my negligence or hostility, then you have every right in the world to seek legal recompense.
> 
> I agree that if a pitbull ( or any animal ) gets lose and harms anyone they should be put down immediately and the owners should be held financially and criminally responsible. If you are harmed by my car ( about 1000x more likely than by a dog ) you have the right to seek damages.
> 
> But what you do not have the right to do, is restrict my rights based upon your fear of what "MIGHT" happen. If we are going to live in a world where people have liberties then you have to get used to the idea that a percentage of people are going to abuse them. If you want perfect safety you can lock yourself in a rubber room with a helmet on...but if you are going to join us in the world you're just going to have to get used to the idea that with freedom comes an element of danger. But I promise it beats the alternative


If you're referring to my post about tigers - the point is not that pit bulls are like tigers, but that people do not have a right (God-given or other) to own any type of animal they want, wherever they want. Certainly not in many states. Zoning and licensing are two types of government imposed regulations that control which animals you may own, and where.

Comparing a dog to a car is a great example - you need to have a drivers' license to drive that car off your own property. You also need to have insurance. It's not an "irrational fear" - but it's a powerful vehicle that requires people to follow government established rules in order to use it in public.

Guns are another great example. In many states the type of gun and/or ammunition you buy is restricted by the government, as are many types of hunting, which may require a license after taking a class and passing a test.

I see no reason why we should have to wait for intentionally aggressive dogs, or simply poorly trained, or unstable dogs to maul or kill someone before any action is taken. Reasonable breed specific legislation could make breeding "dangerous dog" more difficult, and weed out some of the bad breeders who are contributing to the population. Requiring breeders to obtain a license is one option.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

offthegrid said:


> Geez. You STATEMENT that pit bulls outnumber other breeds is sad. Happy now? :hair


Honestly the first time I read your post I interpreted it totally different then I did when I went back and read it now. I may have peed in my cheerios.



> I see no reason why we should have to wait for intentionally aggressive dogs, or simply poorly trained, or unstable dogs to maul or kill someone before any action is taken. Reasonable breed specific legislation could make breeding "dangerous dog" more difficult, and weed out some of the bad breeders who are contributing to the population. Requiring breeders to obtain a license is one option.


The majority of these dogs who get to the fatal attack level have prior histories of attacks on people and other animals. In most states and cities there are laws that would prevent the majority of these deaths but dog crimes are not a big priority so they get swept under the rug and forgotten until a tragedy occurs. Almost all cities require dogs to be licensed but the participation is still low because unless the dog gets in trouble its not enforced. I think it would be the same with breeders. When I worked at our shelter our ACO deemed quite a few dogs in our city as potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs because of previous behaviors/complaints they had to respond too. If the owners did not comply with the restrictions on them then dog got taken away. Well as soon as the ACO quit, all those dogs were lost in the system and I am sure none of their owners are still complying. I know the county and state do NOT check up on them in most cases even though its required to register the dog each time they move. The owners rarely do. There are a few dogs I remember who I would not be surprised if they mauled someone still out there. The laws are already there, they just aren't enforced. When you look at fatal dog attacks there is a pattern, almost all the dogs have prior complaints about aggression and nothing was done. I wonder why no one holds the city, county and state, who ever over sees the dangerous dog laws, responsible for not enforcing the laws when someones loved one gets mauled or killed.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

offthegrid said:


> Reasonable breed specific legislation could make breeding "dangerous dog" more difficult, and weed out some of the bad breeders who are contributing to the population. Requiring breeders to obtain a license is one option.


What breeds would be considered "dangerous dogs" ? How about cats? A cat can kill a baby too. I can see government making quite a bit of money off this if enough people support it in the name of safety.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

JasoninMN said:


> Honestly the first time I read your post I interpreted it totally different then I did when I went back and read it now. I may have peed in my cheerios.


 Fair enough. 




JasoninMN said:


> The laws are already there, they just aren't enforced. When you look at fatal dog attacks there is a pattern, almost all the dogs have prior complaints about aggression and nothing was done. I wonder why no one holds the city, county and state, who ever over sees the dangerous dog laws, responsible for not enforcing the laws when someones loved one gets mauled or killed.


I agree with this. That should be the reasonable first step, although there are obviously problems with enforcement. I'm not sure why - our AC seems very quick to pick up on loose dogs but needs a paddock of dead horses to actually set foot on the property. But, I think there is only 1 or 2 people for our town, which is not a lot. No AC on duty over the weekend, for example. So you are out of luck if you need one.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

wendle said:


> What breeds would be considered "dangerous dogs" ? How about cats? A cat can kill a baby too. I can see government making quite a bit of money off this if enough people support it in the name of safety.


I think you can get a list of the top 10 breeds most implicated in fatalities right from Google. But clearly, it would depend on the municipality. Different areas have different problems. Some areas have no needs for BSL, others do. Apparently cities like Houston have problems with pit bulls because they have had several maulings in the past few weeks alone.

The issue about the cat is silly. If babies were being killed by cats, maybe this would enter the conversation.

However, I lived in a city once and had my dog in a public park (off lead, as was allowed) and we encountered a person with a 40lb serval cat on a leash - like this:









The owner told me to call my dog, because her cat would kill it. So...is that ok? Is it ok to have a serval cat in a public park?


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

OK. So now that everyone has an opinion....if you get the chance get Malcolm Gladwell book what the dog saw....and read the chapter about the dog whisperer. See what you think then. I love Malcolm.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

This Pit Bull thing sure seems to be an emotional issue for a lot of people. I am not sure why? There does not seem to be a rational argument that they are so dangerous that they should be banned, yet in some places they are. Now before someone ask, no I do not have one. I have family that do and they are all different dogs, from family pets and kids playing with them, to Hog dogs used for hunting. There are no doubt people that miss use and abuse them, just as people miss use and abuse many things. 
I would just ask everyone to step back and take a rational look at why this is such an important issue for them (As in YOU personally) what makes you have such a fear of them, or an interest in them? What makes YOU think it is such a problem?? Is it the high number of deaths caused by them?? Are you looking at it as a public safety issue??
I did have a pit bull once as a kid, it was used for fighting before I got it, but it never showed any aggression to me and I was just a kid. Fact is, it was nothing special just a dog!! It stood in the yard and barked at stuff like any dog, but had no real talent. 
I would ask one question to the people who may think they are just to dangerous and something must be done. The rational person would base this on the actual threat to life?? So thinking rationally, do you also lobby to ban other things that cause large numbers of deaths each year?? 
I will add some statistical information to the discussion. Based on the information I found the estimate was 25 deaths in 2013 attributed to Pit Bulls. Quite a few I will admit. According to another site the pediatrics associations said an estimated 77 children were killed by hot dogs in 2013, I was surprised to learn that. Another study showed over 24,000 were killed in automobile crashes in 2013. The rational mind would say lets start with the leading cause of death and work our way down, not start at the least and work our way up. Right?? But as I said this is not a discussion based on rational thought, but based on emotion. I just hope people do not let there emotions cause them to have hard feelings toward someone who has a different opinion on the subject.


----------



## CAjerseychick (Aug 11, 2013)

Thanx Muleman for the reality orientation!
I do love Hotdogs, aint never giving them up! 
(my fave is a SF special- duck-fig slathered in beanless beef chili- Yummm)....


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Molly Mckee said:


> Your right to do what you want ends where my property begins. Your liberty ends when you think it includes the right for your dogs to run loose, no matter how they got loose, and attack my stock or children---or anyone. Dogs that main or kill are not ok and having them is not the right of anyone. People have the right to be safe in their own homes and communities.


 you are absolutely right. in the last neighborhood i lived in that meant shetland sheepdogs and labs.
SO USE EVERY ASPECT OF THE LAW TO PUNISH THE IRRESPONSIBLE REGARDLESS OF BREED


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

offthegrid said:


> First of all, that's just such a sad statistic because so many of these dogs are not bred with any health checks, toward any standard, or with any sort of selection process at all. Ugh. And that's also why the shelters are bursting with pit bulls and pit crosses.
> 
> Secondly, if we were simply talking about dog bites, I would agree that the breed wouldn't matter. However, most other breeds are just not capable of inflicting the sort of damage that a pit bull or pit cross can inflict. If there were a million and a half dachshunds in Detroit, there would probably be as many dog bites (maybe more), but far fewer serious injuries and probably zero fatalities. *Pound for pound, a 40lb pit bull can cause much greater injuries than most other 40lb dogs*.


 although there is A LOT of truth to that statement, you clearly have never seen a good Belgian Mal or Queensland Heeler in that size doing manwork.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

wendle said:


> There were lots of dogs and people in the 1980's. There seems to be a change around the middle 1990's.
> 
> I know labs, goldens, dalmations, cocker spaniels, collies, yorkies, and poodles have all had their share of popularity in some of the years mentioned.


 it isn't just popularity, but popularity with a certain kind of irresponsible overcompensating jerk. the problem is that pit bull dogs are actually more stable as a breed than most. so when you decide to ban them AND enforce it, those jerks shift to other "tough" breeds. then you have what the netherlands had, an INCREASE in attack and no significant change in fatalities. which is why they repealed their ban.


----------



## Breezy833 (Jun 17, 2013)

Im sure its been mentioned before, but here it is agian. Its not alway popularity, sometimes its that this breed of dog is overly available , and cheap to attain. I dont support bsl like i dont support gun control.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

offthegrid said:


> I think you can get a list of the top 10 breeds most implicated in fatalities right from Google. But clearly, it would depend on the municipality. Different areas have different problems. Some areas have no needs for BSL, others do. Apparently cities like Houston have problems with pit bulls because they have had several maulings in the past few weeks alone.
> 
> The issue about the cat is silly. If babies were being killed by cats, maybe this would enter the conversation.
> 
> ...


 YES! her animal was on a leash and under her control. what she couldn't control was YOUR DOG. so she politely warned you of the risk to YOUR UNCONTROLLED DOG so that you could take appropriate action to control your dog or not as you saw fit with the knowledge of the potential consequences.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

Pops2 said:


> YES! her animal was on a leash and under her control. what she couldn't control was YOUR DOG. so she politely warned you of the risk to YOUR UNCONTROLLED DOG so that you could take appropriate action to control your dog or not as you saw fit with the knowledge of the potential consequences.


Well, we will never agree on any part of this topic, then, if you feel this way.

In a public park - you can't control ANYTHING. Not the kid on the skateboard that can't stop, running toddler, screeching infant, loose dog, person walking with a python around their neck, carriage horses...nothing. If your animal is not safe around ALL those things, you need to keep it behind a fence on your own property. You have no business bringing it out into a public environment that you can't control, ESPECIALLY knowing it can and will kill.

For what it was worth, my dog was very much under my control, despite being off leash. But considering the fact that I doubt the woman could have controlled her cat (on a leash or not) should it decide to attack something (my dog, a child, baby in a stroller....) I decided we should stay very far away from it.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Breezy833 said:


> I dont support bsl like i dont support gun control.


I don't agree with bsl or higher regulation on owning dogs. I suspect it will eventually be one or the other if fatalities continue to increase. Just like gun control, a few jerks make it miserable for all the responsible people.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

wendle said:


> I don't agree with bsl or higher regulation on owning dogs. I suspect it will eventually be one or the other if fatalities continue to increase. Just like gun control, a few jerks make it miserable for all the responsible people.


And just like gun control nobody will comply


----------

