Bob Wire Has a Point (It's Under His Cowboy Hat)
It’s Time to Show Pit Bulls the Doggie Door
By Bob Wire, 10-13-10
 |
|
 | |
| You'd be pissed too, if somebody did this to your ears. | |
|
How many kids have to die? How many family pets have to be savagely attacked? How many people have to have their limbs chewed off or their faces gnawed to mush before we say enough already with the pit bulls?
Last week, right here in western Montana, a bloodthirsty pit bull burst out of the darkness in a campground to attack several mushroom pickers and their German shepherd, who were provoking the pit bull by aggressively sitting around a campfire, relaxing and drinking beer. By the time Mineral County sheriffs arrived on the scene, the wandering pit bull had injured the campers’ dog and chewed on a guy’s face. It took several choke holds by Larry Evans, a mycologist with a black belt in judo, to subdue the beast. Law enforcement officials returned the dog to its owner, and administered a severe wag of the finger. Meanwhile, the attack victim was taken to a Missoula hospital where his face was stitched back together like a needlepoint throw pillow.
Why isn’t it clear enough that these animals should be banned? After a recent pit bull attack in Austin, police are telling homeowners that they can protect themselves and their pets against pit bull attacks by installing a double layer fence, which will be harder for the pits to chew through. Oh, and don’t forget to provide your pets an escape route for when the pit bulls come for them. A few days before an attack where four pit bulls chewed through a fence in order to get to the pair of scared-shitless blue healers in a backyard, a pack of the killer dogs were seen trotting through the neighborhood, one with a dead poodle hanging from its mouth. Nice doggie.
Say what now? I’m sorry, but isn’t the tail wagging the dog there? People need to wake up to the fact that the solution to the problem is not more protection from pit bulls; the solution is to get rid of the pit bulls. In fact, I know of a nice, new, secure facility where you could send them all. Hint: it’s near Hardin.
Pit bulls aren’t the only type of dog that has attacked people and pets, of course. They’re just by far the most common. The pro-pit argument casts them as loveable, disciplined dogs that are great with children and would never hurt a flea. Yeah, that’s what they said about Son of Sam. The problem with pits is that vicious characteristics have been bred into them by dogfighters for dozens of generations. With jaw muscles that can snap a human leg bone like a strand of uncooked fettuccine, and the single-minded aggression of Mike Tyson on a PCP bender, these animals are deadly weapons walking around with spiked collars and blood on their minds. They’re like those people in Jersey Shore—you just know they’ll never be productive members of society.
The popularity of pit bulls can largely be blamed on the tasteful, always-thoughtful culture of hip-hop, the people who gave us auto-tune abuse and facial gang tattoos. For a rapper, a pit bull is an accessory, a symbol of wealth and success like a Bentley or one of the girls from TLC. Why do you think so many pro athletes and other hip-hop wannabes own them? Sure, they could go down to the animal shelter and adopt any one of a nearly unlimited variety of worthy dogs, but that ain’t what Yung Joc did, yo! So what if Yung Joc’s pit bulls have repeatedly attacked his neighbor’s pets? Yung Joc said he was sorry, didn’t he? “It is my pleasure and honor to announce my affiliation and new partnership with Polo Grounds Music/RCA Music Group and Battery/Jive Records,” he said. See? He’s all tore up!
It’s an emotionally-charged issue, and one that’s not getting resolved easily. Still, a lot of people are fed up. There are currently 415 municipalities in this country that have adopted an outright ban the ownership of pit bulls, in response to the collective outrage of their pissed-off, pit-bit citizenry. “Pit bull” is an inclusive term that includes the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the American Pit Bull Terrier. Of the 144 people killed in the U.S. by dogs from 2005 to 2009, more than half were killed by pit bulls. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, pits were responsible for more than a third of all deaths caused by purebred dogs between 1979-1998. But do pits make up half the dog population? Far from it. According to the latest AKC figures, they’re not even in the top ten.
Oh, I’m sure there are many gentle, mild-tempered pits out there. Loving, adorable family pit bulls that will wag their tail and smile right up to the moment they’re removing your larynx. Hey, a child molester might be a great dancer too, but I’m not going to invite one to my next house party. The problem is also one of human nature. Otherwise reasonable people pass up the opportunity to provide a rescued animal with a good home, in order to lay down several hundred dollars for a purebred pit bull because they think it makes them look badass or gives them some street cred, or they want to do some backyard breeding. These people are acting like morons. And morons do not make responsible pet owners. They don’t bother to train their dogs, or they actually train those dogs to attack. But there are consequences. California civil code states that, if any of these trained attack dogs bites a human, he can be euthanized. The dog, not the human.
I can hear it already: “But, Bob, if your dog was a pit bull, you would see things differently. You wouldn’t want someone to take your dog away.” Well, I wouldn’t consider owning a pit bull, anymore than I’d host a barbecue next to a fireworks factory. A pit bull is a potential problem, a potential threat, a potential lawsuit, a potential death. I’d like to see you defend these sharks on legs after your 7-year-old daughter was torn apart by a neighbor’s “friendly” pit bull. The odds of a pit bull doing some damage to people and other dogs are astronomically higher than those of other canines, even the second-ranked attacker, the Rottweiler. And Rotts are well-known minions of Satan! What does that say about pit bulls?
You wouldn’t use a chain saw to butter your toast, would you? Why put your neighbors, your friends, your children and other pets at risk by bringing one of these unpredictable dogs into your life? Yes, it’s your right, but that doesn’t make it right. Really, there’s no reasonable excuse. There’s only the selfish idea that somehow, owning a pit bull can promote a certain image in the eyes of your friends and contemporaries. I guess that’s true, to a point, but it’s probably not the image you’re hoping for. Take a pass on the pit, get a safer dog.
Bob’s Maximum Honky Tonk Website
Join the Bob Wire Appreciation Society
Stumble It!
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Kinda like bloodthirst wolves, coyotes, etc., eh bob?
A lot of Pit bull owners lack empathy and guilt, are egocentric and impulsive, and do not conform to social, moral, and legal norms. Pit bull owners often follow a distinct set of rules which they have created for themselves rather than following social norms set in place by society and refers to people who differ from their thinking as uneducated. This is part of the reason why whole countries and cities have banned these canine sharks. If a pit bull owner could go through the horror and helpless feeling that one goes through while being attack by one of these demons and has to live with it the rest of their life, they would also be anti pit bull.
There needs to be laws put in place to regulate ALL dogs that are deemed dangerous and put restriction on the ownership and the containment of them.
Good article.
Jed-- When was the last wolf or coyote attack on a person in Montana?
If a person wants a dog, get a breed that will not kill you.
2010 USA DOG-RELATED FATALITIES
26. September 4, 2010-AGE: 85-PIT BULL.
Mattie Daugherty, McMinn County, TN.
25. August 25, 2010--Age: 7- PIT BULLS (3), mixed breed (1).
Jason Walter, Varna Ill.
24. AUG. 25, 2010--AGE: 4-Boxer
Taylor Becker, Hustisford, Wis.
23. AUG. 22, 2010--AGE: 69-PIT BULLS (2).
Jerry Yates, Mountain Ranch, CA.
22. AUG 19, 2010--AGE: 46-PIT BULLS (pack).
Tracey Payne, Macon, GA.
21. August 02, 2010--AGE: 2-German shepherd mix
Aaron Carlson, San Diego, Ca.
20. July 22, 2010--AGE: 2-PIT BULLS (3).
Jacob Brisbee, Concord, Contra Costa County, CA.
19. July 20, 2010--AGE: 71-PIT BULLS (2).
William Parker, Memphis, TN.
18. July 12, 2010----AGE: 5- shepherd/wolf hybrid or Lab. mix (?).
Kyle Holland, Lincoln Park, Michigan.
17. June 16, 2010--AGE: 30-PIT BULL/Boxer Mix (3) Rott.Mix (1), Bullmastiff Mix (5).
Michael Winters, Henrietta Township, OH.
16. June 3, 2010--AGE: 33-Rottweiler.
Eddie Lin, Oceanside, CA.
15. June 3, 2010--AGE: 9-PIT BULL.
Savannah Gragg, Kokomo, Ind.
14. May 28, 10--AGE: 2-PIT BULL.
Nathan Aguirre, San Bernardino, CA.
13. May 20, 2010--AGE: 3- Sled Dog.
Krystal Brink, Napaskiak, AK.
12. April 14, 2010--AGE: 7 Days-PIT BULL.
Thomas Carter Jr., New Port Richey, Florida.
11. March 08, 2010--AGE: 9 Months-Rottweiler (2).
Justin Lopez, Perkins, Oklahoma.
10. March 04, 2010--AGE: 65-PIT BULL.
Ethel Horton, Lee County, SC.
9. February 28, 2010--AGE: 4-Rottweiler.
Ashlynn Anderson, Astoria, Oregon.
8. February 18, 2010--AGE: 10 Days-PIT BULL (attacked at 5 days old).
Javari Garret (sp?), Conyers, GA.
7. February 20, 2010--AGE: 3-American Bulldog.
Violet Haaker, Ocala, FL.
6. February 19, 2010--AGE: 37-PIT BULLS (6).
Christine Staab, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
5. February 18, 2010--AGE: 11 Days-Siberian husky.
Robert Hocker, Independence, MN.
4. February 12, 2010--AGE: 6-PIT BULL.
Anastasia Bingham, Terry, MS.
3. February 07, 2010--AGE: 63-Rottweiler mix.
Carolyn Baker, Cleveland Heights, OH.
2. January 17, 2010--AGE: 56-PIT BULLS (4-6).
Johnny Wilson, Chicago, IL.
1. January 09, 2010--AGE: 3-PIT BULL.
Omar Martinez, Apple Valley, CA.
March 8, 2010--AGE-- 32- Wolves (2-4)
Candice Berner, Chignik Lake, Alaska
Half the time they are gang banger wannabes and the other half the time they are facially pierced vagrant youth who look they can barely buy food for themselves much less train a dangerous dog.
That's not in itself justification for banning them (that would be their bred insensitivity to pain, aggression, and destructive power), but it sure doesn't help their case.
Martin-- I really hope a pit attacks someone you love. Really.
The truth is that then, as now, people who think that watching dogs rip each other to shreds is great entertainment tend not to be people to whom to entrust a breed of dog. They tend to both train for dangerousness and breed for dangerousness. And a hundred years of breeding pit bulls for dangerousness certainly has consequences for pit bull temperament which is why pit bulls are so much more likely to kill than any other dog.
Before him it was widely believed that learned abilities were passed on through to the next generations.
Bob seems to think that viciousness is passed from one generation to another.
I doubt that is true. Not at least to the degree one would presume from reading Mr. Wire's abstract.
There are echoes of the good ol' boys' hatred for wolves, coyotes, etc. lingering in Bob Wires' thought processes it would appear...
Yes, because dogs bred for centuries for fighting and killing other dogs is the same as country singers. Sure. It's those kinds of statements that prove the people who own/like pit bulls don't have the capacity for having a pet rock let alone a pit bull.
By the way, I'm conservative. In my experience its the bleeding heart liberals I know that think the world is a Disney movie and all we have to do is treat the pit bull nice and unicorns and rainbows will shoot out of its ass. Conservatives are for personal responsibility, as in its not a responsible choice of a pet to own a pit bull and put your neighbors at risk. I'm logical, I read, I research, and I make informed decisions. Its these traits that lead me to the opinion that pit bulls need BSL because their owners have proven themselves too inept at owning such a dog without a rigid framework to keep the rest of us (including pit bulls) safe. I'm know there are some conservative people that love pits - that nutty GOP candidate for NY governor for one, and clearly he's a bully so there you go - just like there are liberals that are in favor of BSL. This isn't a political issue - its a common sense/education issue. If you truly understand pit bulls and dog in general, you are for BSL. If you have been brainwashed by pro-pit web sites and choose to believe feel-good lies instead of the cold hard truth, then you think pit bulls are "only how you raise them" - and all it takes is a little thought to know that idea can't possibly be true. Being a nutter is a choice, a willfully self-deluding choice, and not due to an honest review of the facts no matter what your political leanings are.
It is strange. PIt bull people are constantly saying that the reason pit bulls are a mess and kill so many more people than any other kind of dog is becasue pit bull owners are so awful, feed them gunpowder, abuse them, etc. Yet it can't have escaped these peoples' notice that many of these same horrible pit bull owners are also pit bull breeders. And do you think that a pit bull owner who feeds his dog gunpowder in the (minstaken, by the way) belief that that will make the dog meaner is going to be searching out a stable, people and dog-friendly stud dog when he decides to breed his pit bull? Or will he, just maybe, be looking for the nastiest, meanest, most dangeorus stud dog he can find?
And with all that breeding FOR dangeousness, how is it that pit bull temperament wouldn't be affected? Are they somehow exempt from the laws of genetics?
I would hardly consider myself a drug dealer or low life. I am a retired Naval Officer and have had the same civilian job for over 15 years.. when I retire I plan on rescuing more pit bulls.
Go ahead an ban pit bulls. The low lifes will then start using Canary Island Fighting Dogs or Dogo Argentino. My point is that people need to focus on the people that are bad dog owners or irresponsible because these people will just get another dog and make it mean or not take care of it.
"A lot of Pit bull owners lack empathy and guilt, are egocentric and impulsive, and do not conform to social, moral, and legal norms. Pit bull owners often follow a distinct set of rules which they have created for themselves rather than following social norms set in place by society and refers to people who differ from their thinking as uneducated. This is part of the reason why whole countries and cities have banned these canine sharks."
No doubt you are talking about Italy which repealed all its BSL .
They had over 90 dogs on the list..including Corgi's. Funny the rate of dog bites did not go down.. Did you forget to include this little fact ? Also it sounds like you get your info from Dogbite.org.
Would you like to know about Dogbite.org. It is run by a web developer Coleen Lynn.. she doesnt even own a dog. She claims to have been bitten by a pit bull type dog... considering that breed rescues mis identify most dogs... when compared to DNA analsysis I doubt if she knows what kind of dog bite her.
You would have believed all the proprogana were you in Germany in the 40's. McCarthyism in the 50's and probably would have wore a white robe for decades had you lived in the deep south. People like you are a disgrace to the human race.
My bet is you couldn't pick one out in a line up if your life depended on it.
As a Christian, people like you break my heart.
I own a 3 year old female pit bull and I am a very responsible and knowledgeable pit bull owner. For those of you that say that this breed should be banned have not gotten your facts straight. How many times do you see a news report targeting the pit bull? All the time. On how many occasions have you heard about the dog attack that was not a pit bull? Rarely, although it happens and probably happens just as much as pit bull attacks happen but the news doesn't care about a poodle attacking it's owner. Boxers, huskies, Rottweilers, Chows, German shepherds, Dobermans, and any other dog breed can and will attack without warning. I have seen more small, ankle bitter dogs try to pick a fight with my pit bull than I have ever seen her try to start. She does not fight; however, she will defend her territory and defend me. My pit bull was raised in a good environment and taught any basic manner and skill that any one else with a dog would teach. She has been socialized to play with other dogs but the bottom line is, just like people, not all dogs like one another and they're animals with animal instinct. They don't talk or throw punches, they use what was given to them and that's their mouth.
For the idiot that said that this breed is owned by "gang banging wannabes and facially pierced people that can't buy food for themselves much less train a dog" needs to go kick rocks and is one of the most ignorant and close-minded people I've ever come across. How stereotypical. Think for yourself and stop taking the news, media stories and other people's false input to make up your own incredibly false opinion. Do some research and interact with the breed before you come up with some dumb ass conclusion like that.
Bottom line is, the combination of owner and bloodline plays into the temperament of these dogs. A responsible owner, and breeder, knows what they are doing and prevents the breed from continuing to walk around with that stigma. They are some of the most intelligent and loving dogs I have ever met. I will own a pit bull for the remainder of my life (I'm 24) and will be proud to do it. I will educate stupid people like the above about what this breed is about. I plan to rescue pit bulls and other bully breeds in the near future so that they will live on....long past you and me.
Here, Terry Gross interviews a dog trainer tasked with rehabilitating Michael Vick's fighting pit bulls.
It is not the breed, it's the owners and our culture. Eliminating the breed is not the answer.
And rotts about 1/6, sheperds about 1/6, etc. Not exactly "astronomically higher", especially when you consider that the actual numbers are about 4 people per year in the US from pit bulls, 2 from rotts, 2 from sheperds, etc. Now this is according to the CDC, not the dog-hater blog you got the other statistics from.
I hope I don't have to tell you how small that number is, and how trivial it is compared to any number of other things like second-hand smoke, automobiles, hunting accidents, choking on taffy, etc. Your fear-mongering and reactionism could be better spent elsewhere I think.
The 1978-1998 numbers are not too compelling since it's been in the last 12 years that popularity of these killing machines has boomed thanks to hip hop and drug stash guard dog culture.
Pit Lover: I am glad YOUR pit bull has never killed or maimed anyone.
Can one of you toolbags saying "all dogs are equal" please show me the data on deaths by golden lab or poodle? Good luck.
Please.
By this logic, lions and crocodiles should be legalized.
BTW, I am a conservative and I legally concealed-carry. If a dog wants to hurt me or my family, it will not succeed. Odds of me being forced to protect myself one of your selfish, ridiculous drug guard dogs is way higher than against a person.
If you are forced into pulling a pit bull off of one of your children, do not approach the face. Grab its legs from behind and swing it hard against a tree or car. Fire hydrant is even better. Keep swinging until you can't anymore.
If you can, grab your children and get up on top of a car before the attack. Dogs have a hard time on the slick paintjob of a car.You have a better chance of kicking it back down.
Lastly, the Human Society recommends you double-reinforce your fence if you are unfortunate enough to live near Pit Bulls or similar. Especially when in packs, they have been known to actually destroy a fence enough to enter yards and kill dogs or toddlers. Pit lovers can deny this, but it can happen.
Wait, I thought all dogs were equally dangerous? Isn't that what you pit lovers think?
Anyone ever hear of a bird dog pack destroying a fence and killing the neighbor's kid?
Not one.
"second-hand smoke, automobiles, hunting accidents, choking on taffy"
... all have in common?
They are ways stupid people kill themselves or people stupid enough to hang out with them.
Pit bulls are a way stupid people can kill people unfortunate enough to live near them.
I admit, looking at the 2010 stats presents a scary picture, but an incomplete one. When I was a boy, people who wanted dogs that could make them feel more virulent or thought attack dogs are cool, or were scared of the world and wanted a dog to protect them or their property bought dobermans. I remember being terrified when I'd see one in someone's yard, even if it was behind a fence. Before dobermans, the dog of choice for such people was probably german shepherds or rots. These kinds of people are actually attracted to the reputation of these dogs as killers. When you take someone like that and mix them with a dog that, yes, has the potential to do such damage to humans, you've got a BIG problem. Point is, if we eliminate the pit bull breed, they'll just find another dog with a similar potential to kill. Then, we eliminate that "en vogue killer" and they find another one, and so on and so forth.
(Sounds kinda like the bumper sticker on your pickup: "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns")
Before you draw conclusions based on one year's data set of 25 fatalities, you'd better look back through the records a bit more. What breed was most represented in 1990? 1980? 1970? 1960? I'm guessing it was not a pit bull in all of these years. Why?
Final point: all though tempting, you simply cannot not draw the conclusion that pit bulls are lions and german shepherds are gerbils from one year's data set of 25.
Final, final point: I agree with you, no dog breed is worth the death of one child. But the solution for our society is more complex than to eliminate all potential killer breeds, just like the solution to eliminating gun related deaths of children is more complex than eliminating the "most dangerous" breed of gun: that pistol you've got strapped to your belt.
However, I have known a lot of pit bulls on a personal level. In fact, my dog is a pit bull mix. There are two kinds of pit bulls: those owned by people that I can describe as no better than trash, and those with responsible owners. If you are trash, your dog is going to act like trash. Banning a breed that in fact IS a very loyal family dog is not the answer. My "vicious" pit bull competes in agility and I have talked to our trainer about my worry of the social stigma related to the breed. She worked as a vet for many years and said she's more scared of Labs attacking her than the pit bulls, which she called "little babies."
People need to be held accountable for their dogs. If you have a "dangerous" dog, you should be held accountable for that dog's actions, obviously. That gives you no reason to criticize a breed however. This article looks like nothing more to me than uninformed scape-goating.
Got ya thinking huh?
Assuming all are uncut, male, and about 80% percentile in their breed for size/strength, which would you rather have attack you:
1) Pit Bull
2) Doberman
3) German Sheperd
Any of them could kill you, but stories of the Pit's intolerance to pain and deterination are legendary. Nobody in their right mind would pick number 1. Point is, blow smoke all you want, Pits are as different to Dobermans as Dobermans are to Labs. Do breeds not vary in destructive power? Is that your point?
Tina: Sigh. Why do all those news stories about Pits killing a toddler in the family end with the sad owner saying, "we never expected this. He was such a sweet dog."
Man, they are animals. You think you know them until some instinctive switch gets flipped by some random neuronal firing, then they do another thing.
"Pit bulls are not the most likely dog to attack"
Okay true.
They are just the most likely to tear out your larynx successfully.
Like those complete scum up at Fish Creek who let their Pit run into someone else's camp and attack a man sitting happily by his own fire.
That owner should be locked up for 5-10 years. That dog should be put down.
I would get behind massive increases in consequences for the people before the breed ban, though both sound awesome to me.
If your gun kills a toddler in your hand or your dog kills a toddler ought to be equivalent crimes in my mind.
Man, what are you smoking Bob Wire? Where did you get this from? That crazy dogs.bite.org site? From the woman who runs that blog and single-handedly decides which dogs involved in fatal attacks are pits (hint, hint, she wants they all to be pits because she hates pits because she was bit by one.)
Oh, and the same woman (Colleen Lynn) who lists "people killed by pits" in which the coroner absolutely says they were not killed by a dog attack?
Just like that phony list posted by "mut" in which some of those people where NOT killed by dogs and most of those dogs listed as "pits" where later identified by animal control to NOT be a pit bull.
Ah, the Internet, full of junk lists and people who love to write trash.
Here is dogsbite.org's list of citations:
http://dogsbite.org/bite-statistics-bibliographies.htm
They source their claims. Do you?
This is my favorite sort: "I have a lovely Pit Bull who never killed anybody therefore Pit Bulls are harmless."
http://dogsbite.org/bite-fatalities-2009.htm#milburn
Multiply sourced, careful, systematic.
Seriously people.
That's the stupidest thing yet argued on this comment thread.
So, ability to kill a person is the same between a cocker spaniel and a pit bull? You believe that?
So, interest in killing once aggressive is the same between a lab and a pit bull?
You are just trolling. Unless you are a total scumbag, you don't even believe your own spewing.
Ronnie makes a valid argument "there are way too many kids in the world".
Pit bulls are just one solution to human overpopulation.
There is a lot of controversy surrounding the “bully breeds” (usually collectively referred to as Pit Bulls) these days because of some highly publicized incidents in recent years. Unfortunately, these negative stories and rare incidents can tarnish the reputations of an overall friendly, stable, loyal, and amazing breed of dog. There are many myths surrounding Pit Bulls and other related breeds so I want to clear some of them up for you.
I know I have already written about some of these pit bull myths before but I think it is a very important topic, so I wanted to talk about a few more false assumptions as well as some truths about this wonderful breed.
Here are 10 things you may not know about Pit Bulls that are either true or false…
1) Pit Bulls Often Serve as Therapy and Service Dogs.
This is true.
Pit Bulls have long served as therapy dogs for people in need. In fact, Helen Keller had a Pit Bull for her canine helper. Organizations such as the Chako Rescue Association have Pit Bull therapy dogs all across the country.
2) American Pit Bull Terriers Can Lock Their Jaws.
This is false.
Expert scientific studies prove that the jaws of Pit Bulls are no different than any other breed of dog. There is no evidence that any kind of locking mechanism exists in the American Pit Bull Terrier or any other related dog breed.
3) Pit Bulls Brains Swell and Never Stop Growing Until they Go Crazy.
This is false.
This is a myth that began a long time ago with the Doberman Pinscher and has now grown to include many game-bred dog breeds. The assumption of a dog’s brain continuing to grow or swell until they become violent is a complete myth.
4) Many Well-Known Celebrities Own Pit Bulls.
This is true.
Here are just some of the known celebrities who own or have owned at least one pit bull…
Madonna, Brad Pitt, Humphrey Bogart, Pink, Jessica Biel, Jon Stewart, Ken Howard, Alicia Silverstone, Adam Brody, Jamie Foxx, Rachael Ray, Joey Porter, Jessica Alba, President Theodore Roosevelt, President Woodrow Wilson, Kevin Federline, Ira Glass, Fred Astaire, General George Patton, Michael J. Fox, Jan Michael Vincent, Jack Dempsy, Thomas Edison, Bernadette Peters, Sinbad, Linda Blair, Usher, Mel Brooks, Ann Bancroft, Jan Michael Vincent, Eliza Dushku, Kelli Williams, and Rachel Bilson.
5) Pit Bulls are Mean and Violent.
This is false.
According to the American Temperament Test Society (ATTS), Pit Bulls pass their test with flying colors. In fact, the Pit Bull scores a little over 85% which is better than many dog breeds that people consider to be friendly or nice.
To put that score into perspective, it is better than the Beagle, Cocker Spaniel, Collie, Golden Retriever, Pointer, Pomeranian, Poodle, Shih Tzu, Vizsla, and most other dog breeds actually. The average score of the general dog breed population is only around 77% so the Pit Bull scores much better than the average.
The ATTS test focuses on and measures different aspects of temperament such as stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness as well as the dog’s instinct for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat. The success of Pit Bulls in this series of tests proves they are not naturally mean or violent.
6) America’s First War Dog Was a Pit Bull.
This is true.
The first official war dog in the United States was a Pit Bull named Stubby. He served in World War I and was honored with medals and even got to visit the White House. He then went on to inspire the United States Military K-9 Corp.
7) You Shouldn’t Adopt a Pit Bull from a Shelter.
This is false.
When looking to adopt a dog, you definitely should not exclude the Pit Bull. Reputable shelters and animal rescues will not adopt out any dog that shows signs of aggression. It’s always a good idea to bring your entire family to the shelter when considering adopting a dog of any breed. Talk to the rescue organization about your concerns and ask questions before adopting any dog. Most Pit Bull adoptions are very successful. An adoptable Pit Bull will make a wonderful pet and companion for you and your family.
8) Pit Bulls Have Made Many TV, Movie and Print Appearances.
This is true.
The faithful dog on the TV show “The Little Rascals” was a Pit Bull named Petey. He spent countless hours with children day after day on the set of the show. It has been said that he was one of the most intelligent dogs in Hollywood. Pit Bulls have also been in many other television shows, movies, and music videos over the years.
Also, the Pit Bull was so respected in the early 1900′s that the military chose an image of a dignified pit bull to represent the country on WWI propaganda posters.
The pit bull is also the only dog breed to have graced the cover of Life Magazine three different times.
9) Treadmills are Only Used to Train Pit Bulls for Dog Fighting.
This is false.
Many responsible dog owners, especially those in cities, use treadmills to help exercise their dogs, regardless of breed. Pit Bulls are naturally athletic dogs and responsible use of a pet treadmill is a great option for having a happy and healthy dog.
10) Banning Pit Bulls Will Cure the World of Dog Biting Incidents.
This is false.
The United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990′s and afterward a study showed that the number of dog bite cases remained the same even though the number of pit bulls in the country had steeply declined.
11) A Pit Bull named Weela saved 30 people, several dogs, horses and a cat during a flood in Southern California.
This is true.
After a dam broke on the Tijuana River stranding several dogs and a cat on an island, Weela crossed the river to take food to them for an entire month until they could be rescued. She also led a rescue team to a bunch of stranded horses and ran back and forth barking to warn a group of 30 people of the deep water they were attempting to cross. For her bravery, Weela was award the Ken-L-Ration Dog Hero of the Year in 1993.
12) Here are a few more facts about some various Pit Bulls that you might want to know:
* A pit bull named Dakota is a search and rescue dog that searched for the remains of the astronauts who lost their lives in explosion of the space shuttle Columbia.
* A pit bull named Popsicle, who police found in a freezer during a drug raid, is now famous for sniffing out drugs for the DEA.
* A rescued pit bull in South Los Angeles was County Fire Station 14′s mascot for years.
So, as you can see, pit bulls are not the evil beasts they have been portrayed as being in recent years. If you ask any dog expert or knowledgeable dog breeder they will tell you that the American Pit Bull Terrier is a wonderful dog breed that does not deserve the bad reputation it has been given.
Based on the stories that you reference re: pit bulls, I'd "choose" the doberman. Yes, based on all the stories about pit bulls, most of us assume that they are physically more capable fighting machines, thus, if neglected, abused or trained to engage in such behavior they may be more lethal than other breeds. So yes, I agree that breeds vary in destructive power, but I think many, many breeds have the destructive power to do the damage we are all so concerned about.
My point is that the cultural assumed characteristics that accompany the pit bull breed (tough, killers, indestructible, fear inducing, erratic) make them repulsive to you (understandably) and attractive to people that think they need those characteristics to protect or better themselves. THAT is the problem we should concern ourselves with. And THAT is the lethal combination. If our culture ascribed those characteristics to another breed that is perfectly capable of killing humans, that breed would then be attractive to these people and we'd have a very similar problem on our hands.
An analogy would be take two of your pistols, one bigger and more powerful than the other. Decide to wipe the bigger, more powerful one off the face of the planet. Have you eliminated the problem of unintentional shootings by handguns? No.
The solution? Quit demonizing the pit bull. Demonize the owners of neglected, aggressive dogs or dogs trained to attack and fight. There should be zero tolerance for ANY dog committing an act of aggression. Those animals should be removed from the home and dealt with by the proper authorities. If you suspect a neighbor's or neighborhood dog to be in the above category, report it. Of course, someone at animal control is going to need the legal authority to test these dogs for aggression. I'm guessing most animal control agencies do not have this authority. Lets give it to them.
Listen to that podcast I posted a link to earlier, let me know what you think.
I have fostered former racing greyhounds for close to 10 years now, and never once did I have to break up a fight between any dogs. Having dogs fight is a serious problem yet pit bull owners think this is normal. IT IS NOT NORMAL DOG BEHAVIOR. Pit bulls have been bred to act differently than all other dogs. That's why no matter how you slice it, it is the breed. Nutters will say irresponsible people are drawn to this breed - that is because of breed. They will tell you they need a special owner - that is because of breed. They will tell you they need more training and more socialization - that is because of breed. They will tell you abuse will cause a pit bull to be aggressive - that is because of breed. Racing greyhounds are not bred right, not trained right, not socialized at all and they cause very few problems because they are naturally dog social, and mellow with humans. That is because of breed too. Its the breed first, ownership second. Yes, there are some nice pits, and there are some nice pits with good owners that have killed those owners too. And even the nicest human loving pit will kill one of my greyhounds in 2 seconds. That is not normal and not acceptable, so sorry they have to go.
common criteria:
resident dogs
used as guard dog
used for fighting
used for breeding
constantly chained
not spayed/neutered
multiple dogs (35 %)
used for status
intimidation
unsupervised with children
all not humanely kept. all human failure. dogs are innocent.
*********************
dog bites are on the decline so it’s not a public safety issue. do we really need a law? a bad law is far worse than no law at all. We need to address the reason why dogs bite. We need to require that owners take responsibility. Oregon is a good model.
there are 20 breeds that look like pit bulls.
1989 is when breed bans have taken effect. They had their chance and it hasn’t brought down the dog bite numbers.
bsl has been proposed but failed. need to show up at hearings. just look at the facts, the science, and knowing that dogs react to their environment. if you want safer dogs you need humane training. educate.
hold the media accountable. email back and ask if information is accurate?
dogs bite out of fear. they do not have intellectual morality. for those who say they have are not playing with a full deck. dogs see the world as safe or unsafe. we need to allow them respect as people where they are innocent until proved guilty. they are the only animal that willingly allowed us to bond with them.
people who don’t want to take an extra 20 mins to get the facts is a crime.
Roundabout way of saying, you have a constitutional right to own a gun, but not a dog, and as a member of a democracy I support laws the reduce the number of dangerous dogs. That's my right and I respect your disagreement, even though I totally disagree.
I guess I just don't get people who "love" animals with destructive power. I have loved dogs (and still do) and I love my son, but they are not the same category. Dogs are
To the nitwits who make troll comments equating dogs and kids, I hope you're just being provocative.
I certainly hope someone spays or neuters you before you have children.
Re: your first paragraph: hilarious:)
Yea, I think we're circling pretty close to agreement. I just think breed banning equates to "feel good" and not a real solution to the problem of dog related attacks and fatalities.
Thanks for the healthy debate. TT
You're more likely to be struck by lightning or attacked by a shark than to have "your face ripped off" by a "pit bull type" dog (which is ANY dog that attacks someone now-a-days). And tell me this-- how many pictures of those attacking dogs actually have their image printed with the articles so that you know that they are "pit bulls"? Oh, and what about the DNA test to go with that. It baffles me just how GULLIBLE people are if it's on a tv or in a newspaper (which, by the way, it has been proven that most newspapers won't even publish any other types of dog attacks).
And about the Montana incident (and most incidents which involve anyone being injured), very little attention was paid to JUST HOW IRRESPONSIBLE the owner was. 98% of "pit bull" attacks are direct cause of owner irresponsibility-- "OH, he was such a sweet dog, we never thought he would do that"... well, where were you when it happened? It could have JUST as easily (in fact, more easily) have been your kid sticking their finger in an electrical outlet, choking on something, whatever-- point is, you're a crap parent if you are leaving your toddler unattended, ANYTHING can happen, and most times it won't make the news (unless they can put "pit bull" in the title.) Exploitation at it's finest: exploitative of the animal AND those who are dumb enough to believe that it is black and white.
Believe you me, NOTHING makes me more enraged than seeing an idiot with a pit bull, because it gives us ALL a bad reputation. But this is not to say that the bunch of people "sitting around the fire sitting around a campfire, relaxing and drinking beer" are not to blame either. Have you ever seen and heard drunk people? Do YOU know just how intoxicated these people were? Before people even know the facts, before they even use their own brains, they will believe what the media wants them to believe. I don't feel that this is a "pit bull problem", I think it's a problem with intelligence of our country. Sad, really.
1) Anything could happen to your kid at anytime, like a lightning strike or sticking their finger in an electric socket, so anyone who wants to pass laws to curb proliferation of a known danger should just shut up!
By this logic we would legalize drunk driving. You can't prevent everything so don't even try!
2) The people who got attacked might have been really drunk and loud when that dog burst into their camp and attacked them, so they are partly to blame.
Holy cow. No wonder people don't like Pit Bull owners. They're kind of nuts.
Pit bull people always say that Italy had "over 90" breeds on some "list" that implies that they were banned. They weren't and aren't. Please tell us exactly what laws Italy (allegedly) had that limited corgi ownership.
In fact, Italy has (had? I really don't know and don't care) laws that required that some breeds:
l. Not be owned by criminals
2. Not be owned by children (i.e. have an adult owner).
Sounds pretty good to me. Those are two very minimal conditions that any responsible breeder would require of any puppy buyer anyway, right? So why do you all keep harping about the supposed "repeal" of those conditions as (I guess) a good thing?
Yes, many pit bull owners are also morons, who try to make their dogs dangerous. But these are exactly the same people who are BREEDING pit bulls and breeding for dangerousness. Sadly for pit bulls, all this breeding for dangerous temperaments has a huge effect.
You forgot to address K's argument that the pit bulls who attack and kill people are probably not pit bulls, because "the media" supposedly has a vendetta against pit bulls (hmm...is this the same "media" that is constantly running stories about the supposedly rehabilitated Vick pit bulls and currently has at least two television shows per week PROMOTING pit bulls?) and calls everything that kills a pit bull.
Of course, that argument ignores the fact that in the case of fatal attacks on human beings (where pit bulls are so incredibly disproportionately involved) the media typically gets its information from homicide investigators who are trained to get the facts right.
The truth is that while many factors influence how much media attention a given dog attack gets, in the case of a fatal attack by a pit bull, the media is likely to yawn and give it a few paragraphs and quickly forget about it, especially if the victim is (as is so often the case) a child and related to the owner of the dog. "Stranger" dog attacks tend to generate a lot more fear and a lot more interest, just as stranger rapes generate more media attention than do date rapes. In contrast, the media STILL talks about the single pomeranian mix that killed an infant TEN YEARS AGO.
These dogs pretty universally lived horrible, desperate, brutal lives before ending up waiting to die in the shelter. Many of them were bred for dangerousness, but that isn't their fault. It is the fault of pit bull breeders, the VAST majority of whom are grossly, grossly irresponsible.
The solution? Breed specific legislation mandating the microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes and the spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs. Nobody can say how such legislation would hurt even a single responsible (or even borderline responsible) pit bull owner. It would HELP pit bulls and would make pit bulls rare which means that fewer children would die.
Yet pit bull people almost universally oppose this breed specific legislation (without saying precisely why, except that it is "unfair," by which they apparently mean unfair to irresponsible people who want to profit off breeding the pit bulls who glut shelters after living lives of suffering).
What is YOUR proposal for dealing with the pit bull crisis?
You write "there are 20 breeds that look like pit bulls." Uh...no.
Pit bull people love to say stuff like this (sometimes they say "50 breeds" look like pit bulls or are "frequently mistaken" for pit bulls), but if you challenge them to come up with the 20 (or 50) breeds, they either list breeds that NO person who knows dogs would ever mistake for a pit bull (vizsla, boxer, rhodesian ridgeback, lab) or dogs that are ridiculously rare, or breeds that ARE pit bulls but just another name (American Staffordshire terrier, "American Bully.")
Please tell us exactly which "20 breeds" you claim "look like pit bulls."
You ask which breed killed people in 1990. In fact, 4 pit bulls did. Four more of the 25 total fatalities involved pit bull mixes. Otherwise it was a bad year for "huskies" (four killed people) and the rest were the usual conglomeration of wolf/dog mixes, chows, a shepherd, a doberman and an akita.
While dog bites probably aren't increasing, very serious and fatal attacks seem to be. This is probably because while fewer dogs are being irresponsibly bred generally (i.e. fewer randombred mutts) the breeds where owners and breeders commonly value dangerousness (primarily pit bulls, since they are the most readily available of such breeds) have gotten more dangerous as more generations of dogs bred for dangerousness are produced.
What is interesting in 1990, as in every other year, is the absence of people dying in the jaws of say, labradors. Why not? If it is "all in how you raise them" as pit bull people love to claim, and if pit bull dangerousness is all the function of bad owners, are you saying that labrador owners are universally responsible? Or is it true that while there are many, many irresponsible lab owners and breeders there NO lab breeders who are breeding for dangerousness? Thus, the irresponsibly bred and owned lab is likely to be incredibly obnoxious, but he isn't likely to kill a toddler.
You might be right that pit bulls might not be "the dog most likely to attack." (Although the "numerous reports" you claim to have read should be taken with a grain of salt, since no good statistics exist on which dog breed is 'most likely to attack.") What pit bulls are, however, is the dog breed most likely to kill.
This isn't surprising when you remember what pit bulls were originally (and often still are) bred to do, which is race across a pit, attack another dog with no provocation whatsoever and keep up the attack until the other dog is dead. The quality of NOT STOPPING AN ATTACK is what pit bull breeders refer to as "gameness," and it is a quality that they tend to value above all others.
A chow or a doberman or even a standard poodle might snark at a person and bite him once. He hasn't been bred for "gameness," however and for not stopping once he is aroused and has started the attack. Pit bulls (alas for them and especially for their victims) have been bred for this quality.
Hence the numbers that more than half the people killed by dogs in this country this year have been killed by pit bulls.
Glad to hear you rescure greyhounds. They need help also just like pit bull type dogs. God did not create pit bulls or greyhounds, man intevened to breed dogs with certain characterics. My point is all dogs are Gods creations and there are certain members of mankind that are cruel to these creations and some that want to help them.
I would be more than happy to see the number of pit bull type dogs reduced in the world.. in fact I feel this way about all dogs, cats and humans. Not that I hate them but there is a limited amount of resources on this Earth..
For example at the shelter I vol at we have always about 15 to 20 pit bull type dogs... about 40 percent of the dogs in the shelter. There are only a limited amount of people we will trust to adopt a pit bull and only a limited amount of people that will consider a pit bull type dog.
So I know dogcentric will come up with her solution which is not bad. However cities like Denver have made pit bull type dog owners very scared of any government intervention. Just because I own pit bull type dogs does not mean that I dont love them and am some kind of monster. I take very good care of my dogs and certain realize what kind of dog I own.
As far as dog fights... well my little doxie when I grew up got into one of the worst dog fights I can remember..
Also as far as BSL so we get down to nothing but cockpoos.. forget that... what scares me more is that dogs like a Canary Island Fighting dog becomes popular... 140 lb dog that is built like a pit bull type dog and is about as tall as some Great Danes.
In your list of things that you claim are factors that influence which dogs bite, you forgot breed.
In fact, the only case controlled study that I am aware of ("Which Dogs Bite--A Case Control Study," by Gershman, Sacks, et al) found BREED and gender (male dogs are more likely to bite than female) to be the two most important factors. This study took place in Denver (where pit bulls are completely banned) so pit bulls were not a factor, but breed was found to be far more predictive of which dogs bit children badly enough to warrant an ED visit than, for example, lack of training or even chaining. In fact, even previous incidents of aggression were found to be less predictive of dangerousness than breed.
Hey, it surprised me, but that is what the research shows.
1. Exercise your dog at least once a day. Especially if you have a Pit Bull you should give him 10-15 minute walk or you can play a fetch game in the backyard because these dogs are highly energetic and need to burn off the pinned up energy. If you do not do that they may have behavior problems.
2. Do not leave pit bulls with other dogs alone (or what ever any other animal). Pit Bulls have a lot of aggression and something might happen nevertheless the dog has already spent 99.9% of the time with other creatures, so never trust him.
3. Always walk your dog on a leash in public places. Almost everywhere there are leash laws which have to be obeyed.This way your dog won’t be hit by passing cars and other people will see your dog in a positive way.
4. Always be with your dogs and do not allow them to roam free. There is a risk for both sides as often cruel people hurt loose dogs and if you do not want accidents to happen,you should know where your dog all the time.
5. Do not leave your dog with small children. This is a rule because often small children are hurt and injured by dogs not because of aggression, just dogs can step on them or scratch them.
6. Neuter or Spay your dog. This stops roaming males from getting loose and reduces accidental breeding so it is a good advice your dog to be spayed or neutered.
7. Train your dog. Hire a private trainer or take your Pit Bull dog to obedience classes. This is very important because if you are not able to control your dog bad things can happen. Your dog should be trained as soon as possible.
8. Avoid dog parks. When your Pit Bull is a puppy you can take him to a dog park to socialize. But, when the dog gets older stop going there.
Pit Bull is not always the main reason for bad accidents. There are other dogs and owners who are not responsible and their dogs run around unsupervised which can cause a battle between your dog and the other.
9. Socialize your dog. Take your dog to a lot of safe places and meet new people and other dogs while he is young .
10. Confine your dog properly. Pit Bulls are great escape artists. Be sure that you have your dog properly confined in your yard. You can install a six foot privacy fence.
Thank you for acknowledging that my proposal to solve the pit bull crisis (mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes/mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs) is "not bad." Your only concern is that you think that passing such a law to meaningfully address the pit bull crisis will somehow lead to a completely different law banning pit bulls entirely.
Actually, the opposite is true. Failure to address the crisis is what leads to absolute bans. You are probably right that presa canarios are more dangerous, on average, than are pit bulls. So are filas. But the difference is that they are RARE. This means two things: First, presas are not easily and readily available to every moron who suddenly decides he wants a dog to use as a weapon. Pit bulls are. If presa breeders have any brains and any conscience (maybe they do, maybe they don't) they will keep it that way and will screen the heck out of all potential puppy buyers and will sell ONLY to extremely careful and responsible people. If they don't do this, yes, trouble looms. Secondly, because presas are rare, a long time goes by between serious presa attacks and they are therefore somewhat below the radar screen (although the most publicized dog attack in US history BY FAR involved presas, not pit bulls).
But what would be the actual effect of passing pit bull breed specific legislation on presa breeders and presa dangerousness? Assuming that presa breeders don't want breeder restrictions imposed on THEIR breed, knowing that pit bull breeders have suffered that fate would (presumably) make them redouble their efforts to keep their breed rare, screen puppy buyers and stay off the front page. So imposing breeder restrictions on pit bull breeders is actually a nice little object lesson to the breeders of other muscle breeds that there will be CONSEQUENCES (other than maimed and dead children, of course) if they don't police themselves.
Hey, maybe it will even help.
And for those of you who like to point out that the UK has banned certain breeds:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100808/GJCOMMUNITY_01/708089962/-1/FOSLIFESTYLES
here is a good article for you to read.
Most dogs who really fight are not "just having fun." You might be mistaking dog playing for fighting. They can look similar to people who don't know dogs, but there is a huge, huge difference.
If your dog and your mom's dog are ACTUALLY fighting "all the time," then why aren't you doing something to prevent it? Allowing dogs to continuously fight is grossly irresponsible at best, and possibly even criminal.
How old is your "pittie mix?" What is he mixed with?
You are wrong about all dogs fighting. Dogs fight for a number of reasons but, except for dogs bred to fight, most dogs try fairly desperately to AVOID fighting. They put on a display to convince the other dog that he shouldn't fight, including putting up their hackles ("see how big I am") baring their teeth ("see what big teeth I have") and growling ("hear how scary I am").
In constrast, many pit bulls don't do any of these things because all this posturing is aimed at avoiding a fight, and pit bulls are bred to LIKE to fight. (Remember, in the pit, they have to want to fight enough to cross the line and attack the other dog with no provocation whatsoever....a pit bull who won't cross the line to attack the other dog is eliminated because he won't "scratch")
Moreover, pit bulls are selectively bred to not understand the submission signals that other dogs give that prompts the "winner" to stop fighting. Wolves snark at each other in the pack all the time, but their fights are mostly about show and posturing, are quickly resolved and don't usually result in injuries. This is because a wolf who kills or seriously injures his packmates quickly becomes a Dead Wolf because the strength of the wolf is in the pack. In constrast, a pit bull who stops fighting is labelled for any reason as "not game" and not bred.
Have you ever read anything about dog fighters? One thing the keep track of is how long pit bull fights go on and they talk about fights that literally last for hours. This isn't about a quick snark in the dog park over a frisbee, it is about dogs who are not going to stop fighting until their quarry is dead.
If "all dogs bite," why haven't any labradors killed any people yet this year? Why do YOU think lab stats are so completely different from pit bull stats?
Uh...no. You aren't more likely to win the lottery than to be attacked by a dog. You may be more likely to win the lottery than to be KILLED by a dog but half the kids in this country have been bitten by dogs before they turn 18. It is a significant problem.
I'll bet you know lots of people who have been bitten by dogs and few, if any, people who have won the lottery, so you probably knew that wasn't true even when you wrote it.
According to the AVMA journal, the rate of hospitalization for dog attacks is roughly equivalent to the rate of hospitalization for injuries suffered in All terrain vehicle accidents. We haven't outright banned ATVs, but we certainly REGULATE them. For example, manufacturers cannot sell three wheeled ATVs anymore because they were found to be disproportionately dangerous.
This doesn't mean that people can't ride 3 wheeled ATVs for years without getting hurt. (Hey, I did). And, obviously, one decreases one's chances of getting hurt on any ATV if one is always completely responsible. And if one is lucky. Yet we still BANNED three wheeled ones. Why is that?
Similarly, one can decrease ones chances of having one's pit bit bull hurt somebody by being extremely responsible and by getting lucky. But they are still disproportionately dangerous.
As long as you keep it tightly confined, always on a leash, and avoid dog parks everything will be okay?
You could say the same about a tiger for crying out loud.
Yes Pit Bulls CAN be owned and managed safely--especially if they are kept in kennel 24/7 and never exposed to people. But slip ups with labradors don't lead to deaths.
I think the disconnect in this thread is the underlying value system--for some ridiculous reason you Pit Bull lovers adore this breed so much you are willing to ignore the obvious absurdity in this list of precautions.
They are just animals for chrissake. Why do you have to love the dangerous ones? It's just shallow and absurd.
I doubt more than 5% of these Pit Bull lovers have kids. (Yes there are no doubt dimwitted exceptions.) Once you have a kid, assuming you are intellectually and emotionally intact, the idea of loving a Pit Bull will seem as silly, distant, and pointless a drug habit or tattoos.
Also, I would like to point out that commenter Dogcentric has by far the most insight into dog temperament and the most realistic outlook.
The "gameness" attribute is particularly interesting and explains why the Pit attacks so often end deeply tragically. They don't stop. Good luck stopping an activated one.
To the people who argue the media is always reporting attacks as pit bull attacks without DNA testing, for god sake, are you willing to engage in any contortion mentally to absolve this breed of the very characteristics that have been bred into it?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a ... wait--- if it attacks and kills like a Pit Bull, it is a Pit Bull. Fear aggression in a Dobie or Shepard (unless trained otherwise) yields a bite or two. Fear aggression in a Pit always seems to end up with a dead toddler or protracted struggle the get the thing to quit fighting.
Hmmm. They are bred for this trait. Why should we be surprised?
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_2b03ef08-d816-11df-b96d-001cc4c03286.html
I would disagree here completely. Many people realize that 'pit bulls' ARE great family pets. I would even argue better than most dogs. They are very loyal and obedient. And given the right training and socialization they are great around people of all shapes and sizes.
Also did you read about my dog Meg.. she lived with me for ten years, and died of bone cancer last August. She never hurt anyone and loved my dog sitters grand kids. You probably missed the headlines. "Faithful Pit Bull Dies at age 11". The reason you missed the headlines is that they were never published. Most pit bulls in families live out there lives with no incidence and are good pets.
James you are nothing but a closed minded donkey behind.. I would not recommend you owning a pit bull because it takes a good pack leader... only certain people should own pit bulls.
And as for the narrow minded person that menitioned tattoe's what is wrong with that.. I have all my dogs tattoed on me.
I do not think pit bulls like to fight... I watch my dog Jack around other dogs and he seems to want to avoid most of them.
He gave my other dog Petunia a big warning last night by growling and showing his teeth... I am not sure what she was doing I did not see her since she was behind me... knowing Petunia though she was probably showing her teeth also... probably my fault since I feed my dogs off my plate every once and a while. Plus it the weather was nastly last night so I did not get a chance to walk Jack and drain his energy.
I know I will step on someone's toes here but Cesar Milan has a saying about power breeds "as the level of the power breed increases so does the level of responsiblity".
It defintely takes a different kind of owner to own a pit bull type dog than a poodle ( my sister was bitten in the face by a poodle).
I sure some moron will say yea you gotta be crazy to own a pit bull.. no just responsible and know how to read a dogs body language.
If anyone really wants know more about pit bulls read The Working Pit Bull by Diane Jessup... she says a pit bull type dog should be more correctly named "bull dog"
Wait, I thought "all dogs fight" and "Pit Bulls are no more dangerous than other dogs?"
Your whole argument is contradictory. Which is it, are they a special breed and need an especially committed owner? Or are they just another dog?
You want to feel like a badass alpha male who is worthy of a powerful dangerous dog and yet at the same time you also want us to all accept that it is not a fundamentally different breed.
I vote for a ban. And whenever possible I keep my children away from dudes who tattoo their drug guard dogs on themselves.
Chuck -- Do you have kids?
If they are a great family pet, why do the pro Pit Bull folks (on this very thread) recommend not leaving them alone with young children?
http://media.freep.com/pitbulls/index.html
If there was enough evidence out there that these dogs really are that 'evil' they would have been gone long before now. dogcentric likes to point out the fact that 3-wheeled ATVs are no longer sold (not banned by the way just not able to be sold commercially) because of their dangerousness. Why hasn't the government stepped in and made 'pit bulls' illegal? Because there are not enough facts to pull it off. Here's a quote from a local dog trainer here in the New England area:
"I have been training for over thirty years and am a fan of Pit bull dogs. Often times they attract the wrong type of owner because of their fighting reputation and muscular body, but usually they have good temperament, and make good family dogs. Because of their genetic penchant for dog fighting, you have to social them at an early age. They can integrate in to a family environment and have canine friends that they enjoy playing with, no problem whatsoever"
Maybe we just have a different kind of pit bull up here...But wait mine is a rescue from South Carolina, guess that can't be true then...
Here's an anecdote that in part explains my point of view:
One day (I think in 2005, it was springtime), while walking with my two kids at Blue Mountain (3 and 5), I watched a Pit probably kill some little lap dog (at least render unconscious and get carried away by a scared and weeping owner--it might have survived). The Pit was on a leash. The owner, a small guy, was not strong enough to pull the Pit off for a long time. There was lots of yelling and rage all around of course.
Lap dog's owner was smart enough to not intervene except yelling from about 10 feet away. In that case, best plan is to let your dog die.
If I see a Pit or something that looks like it, I pick my kids up and leave the area. Period.
I bet even you Pit owners thinks that is a wise policy.
I've seen a lot of "dog fights" to establish dominance among breeds--usually a quick exchange leading to submission by the weaker. I've only that once seen a dog hold another dog down with the odd shake, by the throat, until it stopped struggling (though I've seen it done to birds a gazillion times).
Can any of the Pit Bull apologists on this thread really with a straight face claim this isn't a behavioral characteristic they are bred for?
This little story is anecodotal, so it's really not "proof" of anything either way--I think the dog fatality stats and overwhelming picture painted by the situations underlying them make the case.
A gun or car has to be operated by a person to get you. Dogs are animals. They can go do it on their own if they get out of the yard.
Leave a child unsupervised with a Golden Lab.
Leave a child unsupervised with a Pit Bull.
You don't have to answer.
Degrees of difference really really matter sometimes. This is one of those times.
Uh. No. You should not assume the borderdoodle (you mean mutt, right? Nothing wrong with that, but calling mixed breed dogs "doodles" just encourages people to breed more of them which is a bad idea...) is the better "fighter" because it is on top when THERE ISN'T A FIGHT. In fact, if your dog is really a pit mix, the odds are good that if a real fight should break out, the pit will do substantial damage to the mixed breed. Fighting (and winning) is what pit bulls are bred to do.
And, since I have not advocated banning pit bulls, I am not sure who you are talking to. Your pit bull mix is already neutered, right? And is (or easily could be) microchipped. Right? So why would you whine about a law mandating pit bull owners (except the few who have dogs that at least arguably might be responsibly bred) to do these things when doing them only HELPS pit bulls?
Pit bull experts disagree with you when you claim that pit bulls don't like to fight. Here is a quote from page 47 of "Bully Breeds--All About America's Favorite Dogs":
"When fighting the dog is often wagging its tail. For a bully breed, to fight another dog is what they have been bred to do historically, so it is a self-rewarding activity for them."
--Jane Hustace Walker
As far as James I would defintely stay away from you... I dont consider my dogs guard dogs... Jack just came from the vet. and he got behind me because he was scared...
Bully Breeds is that a magazine ?
I doubt any dog is going to wag its tail when its getting its hide ripped apart... have you ever seen a pit bull fight ? I have and I can assure you there was no wagging tails. And no it wasnt a fight in a pit... it was at a shelter. Also the movie to hell and back about MV's dogs showed a pit bull fight... no wagging tails there.
Why would you want to stay away from me?
"ave you ever seen a pit bull fight ? I have and I can assure you there was no wagging tails."
AGAIN! The Pit Bull lovers proving our own points. You cannot in the same breath brag about how awesomely aggressive and strong Pits are and then how wonderfully normal they are without seeming a bit deluded.
I LOVE MY PIT BULL HE IS A SWEET DOG, BUT DON'T WALK TOO CLOSE TO MY FENCE BECAUSE HE SO STRONG HE WILL DESTROY YOU! RARGH! I AM DRUG DOG GUY! RARGGHL!
Sheesh.
The point about wagging tails referred to normal dominance assertion and aggressive play in non-psychotic breeds.
Answer me this:
Let's say "pit bulls" kill 20 people a year (oh, and BTW, they DON'T).
Let's say there are 1 million "pit bulls" in this country (BTW, there are probably millions more).
OK, you all talk the the traits, the behavior of the pit bull using these 20 dogs as your "evidence" of their "viciousness."
Would any sane person use the behavior of 20 dogs to define the behavior of 1,000,000 other dogs that absolutely DO NOT exhibit the same behavior (i.e., killing a human)?
How insane is that? Seriously?
Because if one single ounce of your rantings is true - then with 1 or 2-5 million pit bulls in this country, and with all your claims of the "inherent viciousness" of pit bulls - it WOULD HAVE TO BE that they would be killing people in massive numbers and that the bodies would be piling up in the streets and they could not be picking them up fast enough.
And please, do not insult my intelligence by saying fatal attacks have increased - They have not. In the 1970s, about 24 people a year were killed by dogs (of which less than 2% were "pit bulls or Rottweilers". - In the past decade, 2000-2009, an average of 25 people were killed by dogs.
So much for all these "vicious pit bulls." Everything is still the same as 30 years ago when German Shepherds were doing most of the killing.
Geesh.. and you people talk about "pit bull nutters."
I think you should go to a shelter and meet some pit bulls then you would understand what bull dog owners talk about and why we love our dogs.
The reason I would stay away from you is you mentioned you have small children... I always cross the street when I see a small child never know what a child is going to do to my dog. They are dangerous little varmits
Leave a child unsupervised with a Golden Lab.
Leave a child unsupervised with a Pit Bull.
You don't have to answer.
Well I will:
To leave a small child unsupervised with ANY dog is equally moronic. I know it was a couple years ago but did you know that a pomeranian killed a baby? Guess we're not safe from even little lap dogs...
dogcentric, you really do not pay attention do you. I stated that it is a mutt...As is my dog.
Kkinda funny how any mix of dog you like to refer to as a mutt as long as there is no 'pit bull' then it's a pit mix...Huh...
I'm not saying that your 'plan' wouldn't work. I think it is a great idea to make spay/neuter and microchipping mandatory. But to single out "pit bulls" (emcompasses multiple dog breeds by the way) is ludacris and doesn't work. It has been proven, and while you are content with just spay/neuter/microchipping, where would it stop. "Give me an inch and I'll take a mile" seems to be the mantra of most politicians.
And speaking of Denver, the US Department of Justice has recently declared Denver's pit bull ban to be in violation of the ADA. They ruled that Denver cannot ban service dogs of any breed. On October 25 the Denver City Council is voting on their new law which includes exceptions not only for service dogs, but for any pit bull type dog that has taken obedience training. So much for an outright ban.
One more thing about Denver's ban: the "research" touted by you and others done in that case has been proven incorrect. They used an article from Sports Illustrated wherein the SPORTSWRITER likened a pit bull to a shark - ah yes, far more scientific and authoritative than the thousands written by veterinarians, dog behavioralists, people who have studied animals for years, professionals, and organizations such as the CDC, AKC, etc. The "evidence" was flawed and procedurally incorrect as well. Read the case. At this moment, there are three lawsuits going on (that are likely to win) that could result in the total repeal of this ban. By that time however, it will be a moot point, due to the DOJ ruling. Aurora, a neighboring suburb, has already modified their ban on pit-bull type dogs. They had banned 12 breeds, as well as any dog that even looked like one of those 12. And they were not even all pit bull types, either. Once again, let's talk facts. REAL, true, verifiable facts, researched from reputable sources, rather than some individual with an axe to grind.
Gee, if you knew of a way to save just ONE child's life without seriously inconveniencing responsible people, wouldn't you do it? Did you REALLY mean to say that the children whose lives could be saved by breed specific legislation and who will die as a result of failing to pass breed specific legislation are "not important?"
Mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes and mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs will save some children's lives each year, will alleviate HUGE amounts of pit bull suffering and won't even inconvenience responsible pit bull owners.
It is a win for everybody.
Sorry, but I am dubious. Where, beyond "Colorado" (it is a big state) did the supposed fatal attack by the "black labrador" take place? What is the name of the victim? Circumstances?
Please provide details.
One of the reasons I am dubious is that if a labrador even hurts a person anywhere in the country, it is splashed all over pit bull bulletin boards and on the rare occasions when labradors DO kill people (yes, it has happened...rarely but it has happened), pit bull people talk about it for months because (and I apologize for this, but it seems to be true) pit bull people are thrilled when the dog involved in any serious attack is anything other than a pit bull.
I don't recall hearing anything about any recent stories about any labrador killing a seven year old. Please provide details and links to even local stories.
And, by the way, pit bulls aren't banned in all of Colorado. Just some places.
Of course, if non-disabled pit bull owners in Denver are willing to lie and claim that they suffer from a disability and that their pit bulls are "service dogs," there is a pretty good chance that they may get away with it under the currenly law. But lots of people will catch on and pit bull people manipulating the system (at the expense of legitimate disabled people with legitimate service dogs) will be seen as the parasites they are.
So pit bull folks should be stringently arguing AGAINST such a gross misuse of the ADA.
What makes a "good pitbull owner"? If I own a pet store and am selling or adopting out a pitbull to someone, how do I know that they are going to take the time to teach it to not follow its natural aggressive instincts? You may argue that the same could go with any dog......but thats not necessarity true. Pits just have the natural instinct to attack, just like a Lab has a natural instinct to retreive.
Have you ever noticed that on any given day there are NUMEROUS pitbulls available for adoption at the animal shelters? I love dogs and take a look at the Humane Socierty and Animal Control websites quite often. One day last week when I checked, almost half of the dogs were pitbulls or pitbull crosses. Why do you think this is? I know....they are just such loving dogs that they demanded too much attention and time from the owners? I bet it is more likely that they are just too hard for the average family to control and train....again, those natural aggresive instincts they have come into the picture.
I also noticed that one of the out of town shelters (Bitterroot or Polson, maybe?) will only adopt pitbulls to families with no children. hmmm... maybe they know something about animals?
I personally don't think that pitbulls should be adoptable from shelters unless it is a rescue shelter who trains and works with each individual dog and with the prospective family.....but even then I am not totally sold on the idea.
There are just way too many other great family dogs out there.....why choose a pitbull and take any chances?
I would say it depends on the 20 year old if he would train the dog. Also the chances of a 7 year old pit bull getting adopted are pretty slim...even though it does happen.
Most pit bull type dogs that are in shelter are young.. less than 2 years old. The main reason seems that they are picked up as a stray. No identification.
I think that we could have stricter regulations without destroying a whole breed of animal.
You can cry racism and make all the "by association" accusations that you want, but you can't deny that pit bulls are a big status symbol and lifestyle accessory in hip-hop fashion.
Not black. Hip-hop.
I don't see kids and athletes falling all over themselves to emulate drug dealers or hillbilly dogfight trainers. That's why I mentioned hip-hop. It's pretty much the most popular style of music out there, and the artists have a lot of influence. I wish that didn't include pit bulls.
If you feel that impugning one aspect of hip-hop culture and imagery automatically makes a person racist, that's your problem. I apologize if you were offended, but the piece was about dogs, not race.
You are a pit bull kennel (by which I assume you mean pit bull breeder) and you don't even know how to spell pit bull? You ARE the problem.
Please tell us exactly what attributes you require in a pit bull before you breed one? Be specific about what health screens you do. (You almost certainly won't answer this--you probably don't even know what health screens are recommended before pit bulls are bred and you certainly don't do them).
By the way, if you truly are leaving an infant "guarded" by a pit bull, that is wrong and dangerous on several levels.
Punctuation is your friend. Use it.
People talk a lot about how dogs in shelters are "strays," but "stray" implies that the dog just strayed away from a home that is probably looking for him. In fact, a whole lot of the pit bulls in most shelters are more accurately classified as "dumps," since nobody wants them back.
Mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes would be a great way to start cutting down on shelter pit bull populations, including "strays." If people who dump pit bulls when they get tired of them know that there is an easy way for the dog to be traced back to them, they are less likely to do it. Of course, the dog will still not have a good, responsible home, which is why breed specific mandatory spay/neuter is necessary to make pit bulls rare as well.
Then there's this lovely list that can't be ignore:
1) Pit Bulls Often Serve as Therapy and Service Dogs - pit bulls rarely serve as such dogs because reputable agencies will not use them as they are not suited for such work. Anyone can say their dog is a therapy of service animal, and in the case of pit bulls they often do in order to get around regulation or as part of an agenda that pit bulls are just like all other dogs. Therapy pits do exist, and they have caused incidents just like regular pits. Helen Keller's dog was not a pit bull.
2) American Pit Bull Terriers Can Lock Their Jaws - No, but no one ever meant it that way. Pit bull do bite and hold, and hold and hold - gameness - it is what they were bred for - and this is what "locking jaws" means, it was never meant literally. Nutters pretend it is so they can attempt to make people that disagree with them look like idiots, its what you do when you don't have facts on your side, you attempt to destroy the credibility of the side that does have facts.
3) Pit Bulls Brains Swell and Never Stop Growing Until they Go Crazy - No, but research has shown that they do have different brain chemistry than other dogs and aggressive genes have been located in other animals, including humans. In the next few years, there will be a scientifically proven reason for banning pit bulls and a way to prove which dogs need to be banned.
4) Many Well-Known Celebrities Own Pit Bulls - I fail to see why this matters. If Michael J. Fox jumped off a bridge would you do it too? Does the fact that Jessica Biel has only 2 pits now because they killed off the third matter as well?
6) America’s First War Dog Was a Pit Bull - Sgt Stubby was not a pit bull nor was he officially part of the armed services. Again, a little research as opposed to cut and paste helps in this regard. Pit bulls are generally not used for the armed service or police work as their traits make them unsuitable for the job and a liability. Pit bulls have been banned from all Marine housing bases. The only reason they were used on war posters is because of their traits - fighting without giving up - was good propaganda. These traits hardly translate into a good family pet.
7) You Shouldn’t Adopt a Pit Bull from a Shelter - possibly. Keep in mind that some shelters/rescues adopt out pit bulls they know or believe have been used/bred for dog fighting. Some pits have been taken to shelters due to aggression that the shelter may or may not know about, and wouldn't tell you even if they knew - its been documented. Pits often behave wonderfully in a shelter environment (and pass temperament tests) and only begin to show their true selves after adoption when they regain their confidence. Getting a pit from a puppy doesn't mean it won't be aggressive either, but spending tons of a money getting a puppy from a breeder who breeds for safe temperament would be a safer way to go. If those breeders even exist. Safest decision: choose another dog.
8) Pit Bulls Have Made Many TV, Movie and Print Appearances - and every year they have Shark Week too. One "Petey" from the Little Rascals was so nasty to the people working on the set that he was poisoned. Again, WWI posters featured pits for their fighting traits, not cuddly nature.
9) Treadmills are Only Used to Train Pit Bulls for Dog Fighting - not always, but the use of treadmills and spring poles stems from dog fighting, which would cause me to question the desire to own such a dog.
10) Banning Pit Bulls Will Cure the World of Dog Biting Incidents - of course not, and no one ever said it would. But where BSL is enacted it does reduce the severe attacks and bites done by pit bulls, as well as reduce the number of pit bulls born and then euthanized in shelters.
11) A Pit Bull named Weela saved 30 people, several dogs, horses and a cat during a flood in Southern California - That's great! Too bad you don't keep track when other breeds do this, or when pit bulls maul and kill people, dogs, cats, and full grown horses. One individual says nothing about a breed.
Pit bulls are not "evil beasts". They are fighting dogs and have the traits of fighting dogs. These traits cannot be trained or socialized out of the dog. And it is those traits that make fighting dogs candidates for regulation.
adbadog.com/uploads/pdf forms/DowdAPBTbehaviormanuscriptV4.pdf
The Marine Corp had banned all pit bulls, if the dog passed a temperament test the dog could stay. The rest of this story is; the waivers expired Sept. 30, 2012. After that date, Marines can move off base with their dogs or give them up. If a soldier whose dog had passed the waiver is transferred to another base, that animal will not be allowed in according the order. This essentially means that by the time the waiver period ends in 2012, there will be no pit bulls or Rottweilers on military installations anywhere in the world. The Marines Pit Bull Owners at Parrish Island used the ASPCA and the SAFER test on the pits there. The problem with the ASPSA running the test is that ASPCA is opposed to breed bans. The test was supposed to test for “aggressive tendencies”. The SAFER test (now known as the MYM Safer Test) states, “The assessment does not measure the dog’s temperament or internal character”. There were approximately 80-85 dogs tested of the 130 pits registered on the base. That leaves 45 pits that the owners felt would fail and removed them before the required testing.
Although I haven't really check the ages of the pit bulls or other breeds involved in the fatal attacks, it seems to stick out in my mind that a lot of the pits are in the 2-3 year old range. Does anybody have statistics on the average age of pits in shelters? If the 2-3 yr. attack range is correct, that may be the reason people are dumping them.
Good comments.
"3) Pit Bulls Brains Swell and Never Stop Growing Until they Go Crazy - No, but research has shown that they do have different brain chemistry than other dogs and aggressive genes have been located in other animals, including humans. In the next few years, there will be a scientifically proven reason for banning pit bulls and a way to prove which dogs need to be banned. "
Please show me a link to read about this.. presently I think you are full of it.. but I am willing to read something.. as long its not from something like dogbite.org.
I am sure there are millions of dollars being put into this research.. baloney.
Joker Town Pit Bull... no doubt you are a Havard graduate or Yale.
I don't know much about "brain chemistry," but where does "gameness" (which is the trait of starting an attack and never stopping until the animal is dead, which is specifically bred for in pit bulls) come from except from the brain? Pit bull breeders will absolutely tell you that pit bulls differ from other dogs because of their "gameness." I kind of doubt that pit bull brain STRUCTURE is different from that of other dogs, so what else is left except pit bull brain CHEMISTRY to explain why pit bulls are so easily aroused to fight and so hard to get to stop fighting?
"The pit bull's unusual breeding history has produced some bizarre behavioral traits, de- scribed by The Economist's science editor in an article published a few years ago, at the peak of a heated British controversy over dangerous dogs that saw the pit bull banned in England. First, the pit bull is quicker to anger than most dogs, probably due to the breed's unusually high level of the neurotransmitter L-tyrosine. Second, pit bulls are frighteningly tenacious; their attacks frequently last for 15 minutes or longer, and nothing—hoses, violent blows or kicks—can easily stop them. That's because of the third behavioral anomaly: the breed's remarkable insensitivity to pain. Most dogs beaten in a fight will submit the next time they see the victor. Not a defeated pit bull, who will tear into his onetime vanquisher. This, too, has to do with brain chemistry. The body releases endorphins as a natural painkiller. Pit bulls seem extra-sensitive to endorphins and may generate higher levels of the chemical than other dogs. Endorphins are also addictive: "The dogs may be junkies, seeking pain so they can get the endorphin buzz they crave," The Economist suggests."
This article was written in 1999. Also note that a more recent study was done that showed dogs with smooshed in faces, such as bulldogs, actually had different brain shapes to account for the physical face changes, and this has limited their smelling abilities. I can get you links to this study as well as other aggression studies (including those that I found on pro-pit sites) when I have a little more time. Please note that I do research on pro-pit sites and don't disreagrd the whole thing unlike pit nutters who refuse any information from a site like dogsbite but will cut and paste from Delise's site, no agenda there :)
As for pit bull age issues, pit bulls generally mature between the ages of 1-3 years old, the age most likely to be found in shelters. Clearly there is a reason for that. I forget the exact statistic that came from a pro-pit site, but I think its only 1 in 600 pit bulls lives a full life in a home after the age of two years old. While some are victims of abuse of dog fighting, the majority are put to sleep in shelters due to a combination of not enough homes and aggression issues. Pit bulls are the most frequent dog to be euthanized for aggression, however they are also the most frequent euthanized in total. Yet it stands to reason that the two biggest issues facing pits are inborn aggression and overpopulation.
I wonder what the study would conclude with Canary Island Fighting Dog.. or Fila.
Also I wonder why most pit bull aggression is toward dogs or other animals.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/oct/19/pastor-found-mauled-in-sons-pit-bull-pen/
Authorities in eastern Missouri’s Callaway County are investigating the death of an 84-year-old pastor found mauled "IN" a pen where his son was raising pit bulls.
St. Louis’ KSDK-TV reports that John Reynolds was found dead last week in the pen near Williamsburg and that his injuries were consistent with an animal attack.
Reynolds’ son, John Reynolds, doesn’t believe any of his 17 pit bulls killed his father, and he describes those animals as his dad’s “best buddies.” The son believes that stray dogs or perhaps even a mountain lion might have been responsible for the attack.
The sheriff’s department says no charges are expected and that the dogs won’t be seized because the county doesn’t have the resources to handle so many dogs.
This has the result of being kind of a bait and switch. Naive people reading general dog boards believe that pit bulls are just golden retrievers with smooth coats and if they are raised with love, the pit bull will love kittens and puppies and butterflies and will never hurt a soul. Then when the pit bull puppy they get (determined to show everybody that "it's all in how you raise 'em") grows up and DOES hurt or kill another dog (remember, the UKC American pit bull terrier standard admits that most pit bulls are dog aggressive), the poor novice owner is told by the pit bull community that they should have known about this genetic proclivity before they got a pit bull.
Pit bull community: Be honest with prospective pit bull owners. Tell them that most pit bulls are dog aggressive regardless of how you raise them and that this trait makes any dog much less fun to own. Particularly with high drive/high energy dogs, it is problematic since owners have to figure out how to give the dog enough exercise without taking him to dog parks or letting him off leash. This can be a huge, huge challenge, and even if the owner is up to that, there is the stress of knowing that your dog may seriously hurt or kill another dog if he accidentally gets loose or if that dog runs up to your dog. (Sure, if your dog is on leash and the other dog is loose it will probably be the other dog owner's fault but do you really want to relive that dog's dying screams in your head for the rest of your life?)
In short, there are lots of good reasons why responsible dog owners avoid getting pit bulls.
I have told everyone that I can when adopting a pit bull from our shelter watch your dog around other dogs.. and no dog parks.
I do not find it a challenge to exercise my dog Jack. (Petunia is 14 so exercise is not a huge problem). Jack gets a good 30 to 45 minute walk every night... plus 2 car rides a day which he loves. If he gets into one of his to much energy moods... I take him out and play with his spring pole for 10 minutes or the "flying squirrel".
I have consulted Bad Rap and a local professional dog behavorist about owning multiple pit bull type dogs. I used to have 3 and if it were not for a lot of personal stuff going on right now would have 3 to 5 pit bull type dogs. I also volunteer at a shelter... where I picked up my nickname bullybob... something about the breed I just naturally like. I have been told not be a bully to my pit bulls.. I guess its something about my demenor or body size.
I am curious as to what, exactly, you like about pit bulls that you don't believe you could find in other breeds of dog who don't tend to have the huge temperament flaw of dog aggression. Pit bull people always say that pit bulls are uniquely 'loyal' or "loving" but what that tells me is that they probably have very limited experience with other loyal, loving breeds of dog (and there are many of them).
Pit bulls are low maintenance as far are grooming, true, but they are hardly unique in that way. So, bullybob, since you admit that pit bulls are genetically inclined to want to kill other dogs, exactly why would you prefer them to dogs who DON'T have this temperament flaw?
Otherwise, pass on the pit bull unless you fancy visiting fenced tennis courts at midnight to give him the exercise he needs.
Not to mention a spring pole.. Spring pole does not necessarly train the dog to fight.. they are gripping dogs to begin with and they seem to love to pull on a springy rope.
Interesting you mentioned a tennis court.. my first dog trainer recommneded that.. then me and the school high school athletic director got into because he does not want any dogs on school property.
I would be glad to see the number of pit bulls reduced.. its just how most governments go about it. Be fine with me to cut off the spiket but what about the dogs that are pets now ? What usually happens is some ridiculous regulation that people cannot afford.. then people just go under ground.. dont register there dogs etc. Fortunately for me I live in a state where BSL is not allowed by state law.
You wrote: "But do pits make up half the dog population? Far from it. According to the latest AKC figures, they’re not even in the top ten."
AKC does NOT register American Pit Bull Terriers.
AKC registers American Staffordshire Terriers. There are about 1200 American Staffordshire Terriers registered each year (AKC does publish their registration figures for each breed they register and you can get them if you contact AKC). Yes, Am Stafs are one of those breeds that fall under the "pit bull" grouping, BUT they are registered differently than the breed called American Pit Bull Terrier. There are different registries for the American Pit Bull Terrier.
The United Kennel Club and the American Dog Breeders Association register American Pit Bull Terriers. THEY do not publish their registration figures. But it is commonly accepted that there are tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of American Pit Bull Terriers registered with UKC and ADBA each year. American Pit Bull Terriers are the second most popular dog registered with UKC and they register hundreds of breeds (UKC will give you the RANKING of the breeds they register, but not the numbers).
Liz
I doubt if DNA studies are done on many of the bite cases to determine what breed it actually is.
DNA is NO answer. These tests have been slickly marketed, but really cannot define breed accurately. DNA is good for determining PARENTAGE and some breeds' specific disease status. There are many instances of KNOWN pure-bred dogs that aren't identified as such with these tests. These tests appeal to those that have mixed breeds and want some kind of answer to what breeds THEIR mix might be; and because it IS a mix, the tests can't really be "wrong"! Owner gets an answer and feels better and thinks the DNA is accurate in identifying the breeds in his dog! But, it cannot be proven the DNA is wrong -- because it is a MIXED breed!
Show me a controlled, scientific experiment where these DNA tests have identified several PUREBRED dogs (all kinds of breeds) accurately hundreds of times!
Veterinarians, animal control, shelters and rescues are also held up as experts in breed identification and they are not and I don't expect them to be.
Many breeders, trainers and all-breed dog show judges are much more accurate in identifying breeds than vets, animal control, shelters, rescues AND DNA.
Liz
But, "Pit Bull" has been bastardized by the media to mean any dog that "looks" like the APBT breed and when used THAT way is just "pit bull".
Liz
ANY dog can be mean.
Pit Bulls = <3
The problem with intact pit bulls isn't that pit bull owners "can't afford" to spay/neuter them. It is that they don't WANT to spay/neuter their dogs. Why else would breed specific pit bull spay/neuter programs often offer to PAY pit bull owners (and only pit bull owners--these are BREED SPECIFIC programs) to spay/neuter their dogs?
Even if some pit bull owners are poor and they live in one of the few places where subsidized spay/neuter isn't available, we are talking priorities. I lived on a subsistence salary and always kept my animals up to date on vet care, even without spay/neuter subsidies. If you don't want to spay/neuter your dog, don't get a pit bull who shouldn't be bred. Why would anybody who cares about pit bulls be against that?
Since UKC American Pit Bull Terriers are often cross registered as AmStaffs (i.e. the very same dog can be an AKC champion AmStaff and a UKC champion APBT) you are flat wrong in your assertion that "AKC does not register pit bulls."
And, isn't it funny how pit bull people claim that UKC and ADBA register perhaps "hundreds of thousands" (compared to the tiny number you agree AKC registers) of pit bulls every year yet every time there is a pit bull breed ban proposed, it is AKC that sends its lobbyists to oppose it. Where are UKC and (especially) ADBA? Why do pit bull people who register their dogs with ADBA not DEMAND that some of that money they turn over for registration fees go to these fights?
Personally, I am in favor of some breed specific legislation, so I am glad that ADBA is ripping off pit bull owners and not giving them anything back in the way of advocacy, but it sure is strange that you all are such suckers as to send money to an organization who gives you nothing.
Show me a scientific experiment that proves all the dogmen wrong and that dog aggression is a learned trait. Show me the scientific basis for the statements "pit bulls are taught to fight" and "they are like all other dogs". Every time I turn around pit nutters are demanding studies, and these studies have to be done a certain way and by certain people and listed on certain web sites or they are allowed to disregard the study and call it wrong without even reading it. Yet the things they believe without a study that contradicts common sense is amazing.
"Veterinarians, animal control, shelters and rescues are also held up as experts in breed identification and they are not and I don't expect them to be. Many breeders, trainers and all-breed dog show judges are much more accurate in identifying breeds than vets, animal control, shelters, rescues AND DNA." Are you kidding me?! The backyard breeder of cockapoos and the dog lover claiming to be a trainer is a better judge of breed than vets and animal control. You actually believe that? It seems like one of the traits of being a pit bul owner is the ability to delude yourself into believing whatever helps your argument at the moment.
And then there's BullyBob and his spring pole - encouraging his pit bulls to bite and hold while increasing their jaw strength. How I feel for your neighbors.
And I agree with dogcentric, we exercise our hounds (real athletic dogs) far more than BullyBob does his dogs. I also don't consider driving dogs around in a car as exercise. We choose our dogs because of their size, short coat, ability to do long hikes and such with us, intelligence, and their gentleness and social skills with both people and other dogs. They are a joy to live with because while we are careful with them, they don't have the extra baggage of being aggressive dogs. I can get house insurance, I don't worry about pending legislation, no one crosses the street to avoid them when we are out for a walk. Pit bulls have so many negatives that they out weigh the positives, that is if you understand the dog and care for them properly. I'm not impressed by BullyBob's boastings; he seems like another macho, misinformed, attention-loving pit owner who thinks driving around with his pit bull and using spring poles is cool, assumes he is the most responsible pit advocate in the world, and is really just another accident waiting to happen. And he is one of thousands. You need look no further to figure out why pit bulls are such a problem and why BSL is needed.
"Since UKC American Pit Bull Terriers are often cross registered as AmStaffs (i.e. the very same dog can be an AKC champion AmStaff and a UKC champion APBT) you are flat wrong in your assertion that "AKC does not register pit bulls." "
You probably realize by now you got it backwards. For a long time, UKC would register AKC American Staffordshire Terriers as American Pit Bull Terriers. So, yes, there are many Am Stafs that are also champions in UKC as American Pit Bull Terriers. AKC does not register American Pit Bull Terriers as American Staffordshire Terriers.
Just this Spring, UKC did stop registering Am Stafs as Pit Bulls.
Liz
"Many breeders, trainers and all-breed dog show judges are much more accurate in identifying breeds than vets, animal control, shelters, rescues AND DNA.""
with:
"Are you kidding me?!"
I said MANY not all! Of course, included in MY many are legitimate breeders of a lot of breeds that have been active in training and showing for years, not just some "back-yard" breeder! Many trainers who have trained and competed for years in disciplines in which many breeds participate are often good at breed ID -- not anyone that calls themselves a "trainer"! And many all-breed dog show judges that have been around a while are quite good.
In general, my experience is that vets, shelter and rescue workers and most animal control people have a much worse record for breed ID. I would not go them first to identify breeds.
And DNA? I know of more than one AKC registered pure bred dog that got identified with one of these tests as a combination of more than one breed and none of the breeds was the actual breed the dog WAS!
Liz
Dogs need mental stimulation as well as physical stimulation. My dog Jack loves going around the neighborhood looking out the window. Ever see Cesar Milan and his pack of rotties driving around in a convertable ?
As far as a spring pole.. Ever hear of Diane Jessup.. she wrote the Working Pit Bull.. she advocates the use of a spring pole to drain energy. As far as trying to increase jaw strength my dogs jaws are already so strong I dont see any point in not maintaining the strengh.. it what he does naturally
As far as hound dogs.. ever hear one of those dogs bark at 2 am in the morning.. we have one in our neighborhood.
As far as BSL.. it diminishing thanks to the fact bites and attacks by dogs did not go down enough to warrant the expense.
The ASPCA is helping to create a DNA database of fighting dogs. What does this mean? It means that pit bulls will have their DNA studied and categorized more so than any other breed, and that DNA tests will be more accurate for pit bulls than any other breed. It will make pit bull identification fool proof and pit bull regulation cheap and easy. Do you see the writing on the wall? Dogs are not like people, they can be judged by their breed for aggression just like we judge them on herding and hunting abilities.
The well-respected animal behaviorist Alexandra Semyonova had this to say about the article:
"Humans have had success for centuries, probably millennia, in breeding specialized animals simply by selecting the best performers at some task we’d thought up for them -- be it dogfighting, racing, or just producing more meat for each pound of total live animal. Aside from the fact that Secretariat and Northern Dancer did indeed sire entire lines of winners, all that’s happening now is that we’re starting to identify the specific genotypes that we previously selected by trial and error.
It’s no wonder that the pit bull community chose the horse as a way of diverting attention from the fact we’ve all known for centuries -- that selective animal breeding most certainly does produce hereditary physical and behavioral characteristics. After all, we already knew that a specific genotype is a good predictor of success in racing whippets, not a thing the pit bull fans would want to draw attention to. It’s ironic that the horse they chose as their red herring has now turned out to have identifiable genotypes that do indeed predict performance at complex behavioral tasks. Denying the relevance of heredity and genetics is becoming more and more ridiculous in this day and age."
Pit nutters should end their tactic of asking for scientific studies. It is going to bite them in the rear. And then what will they demand?
And so what if my dog can kick your dogs behind ? As long as I do not sic my dog on another dog..I am not breaking any law. In fact the ACO officer who I know personally owns 2 pit bull type dogs herself and is always showing me the new pit bull she brought into the shelter.
As far as it bothering me if my dog killed another dog.. yes it would. However it would make me madder that the other dog was loose and ran into mine and forced me to witness this. I have already had a shepard get loose and run into my 2 female pit bulls when they were both young. Guess what the shepard owner was a policeman and he apologized for letting his dog loose.
The shepard got beat up really bad but he bite my dog first.
You wrote:
"Denying the relevance of heredity and genetics is becoming more and more ridiculous in this day and age.""
I don't think anyone denies that heredity and genetics have a lot to do with each other, but what does it have to do with these DNA tests being able to accurately identify many different BREEDS of dogs? Not the make-up of mixed breeds, but pure-breds?
Liz
It has been proven that the words "pit bull" will appear in the title of the story nearly 90% of the time if the dog is similar in appearance to what most people consider a "pit bull" looks like, yet when it is another breed the percentage drops significantly to around 20%. Most people can not properly identify the American Pit Bull Terrier, anything with a block shaped head, short fur and muscular build can be considered by most to be a "pit bull".
While it is terrible when anyone is attacked or killed by a dog of any breed, the "pit bull" has become a dog that people are terrified of . How did a dog that once was The all american dog become a monster in the eyes of so many?
Owners are constantly considered thugs, drug dealers or lack self esteem, because they choose this breed, but this is not the case the American Pit Bull Terrier is owned by people from all walks of life. Bottom line they are just dogs and they are what you put in to them, there not the Boogy Man....
"And so what if my dog can kick your dogs behind ? As long as I do not sic my dog on another dog..I am not breaking any law...As far as it bothering me if my dog killed another dog.. yes it would. However it would make me madder that the other dog was loose and ran into mine and forced me to witness this."
It's all about him and having a bad-ass dog, and the rest of us should just suck it up and stay out of his way.
Yeah, I've heard of Diane Jessup - she tried training pit bulls for law enforcement and what a flop that was. She also states pit bulls are born dog aggression. BSL is being demanded and enacted in more and more places because it has been proven to work. People in Calgary want it, and I'm sure you know all about Calgary, heaven on earth. Most people know the pit bull BSL will not impact bites for all dogs, so BSL does not fail if all dogs bites don't drop. Come on, you're smarter than that. I won't watch the entertainer Cesar Milan until he does his show live, instead of just showing what he wants you to see. And I expect dog owners to pay for their own DNA tests if they want to prove a pit bull is not a pit bull. Just like I know most vets and shelters know very well what a pit bull is, and that is why they call it a boxer mix to get it adopted.
PitGarrett - stop the copy and paste of things that make no sense
BullyBob - "As far as hound dogs.. ever hear one of those dogs bark at 2 am in the morning.. we have one in our neighborhood." No, I have not, nor would it bother me if a hound or any other kind of dog barked at any time. It's sad that you are irratated by this minor disturbance but have no qualms with owning dogs you gleefully admit can and will kill your neighbors' dogs.
Have you ever had your dogs attacked while out for a walk? Have you ever been attacked by a dog while gardening in your own fenced yard? Has a dog ever jumped your fence to attack your dog? Has your dog ever been attacked so badly by another dog that it had to stay at the vets for days with draining tubes sticking out of her? Have you had to call Animal Control to get a dog owner to close their front door because their aggressive dog tried to throw itself through the storm door at your kids walking to the bus stop? And that dog owner (who was completely in the wrong) then threaten you and damaged your property? And only stopped when the dog they were "defending" tried to eat their grandchild and had to be put down? Have you had to tell your child he couldn't go nextdoor to play anymore because of a dog? Because all of these things and more have happened in my neighborhood and every single one of them was due to a different pit bull over a series of 10 years. None of the hounds caused a problem in that time. Well, other than the occasional howl or bark.
Like I stated previously there are millions that dont hurt anything or anyone that live amongst us. Yet they are all lumped together because of the action of a few.
Have you ever been attacked by a dog while gardening in your own fenced yard? Loose dog (owner's fault)
Has a dog ever jumped your fence to attack your dog?
Again loose dog (owner's fault)
Has your dog ever been attacked so badly by another dog that it had to stay at the vets for days with draining tubes sticking out of her?
another loose dog... (owner's fault)
Have you had to call Animal Control to get a dog owner to close their front door because their aggressive dog tried to throw itself through the storm door at your kids walking to the bus stop?
Did the dog break the door? Did those kids get attacked? This one is just complaining...
Have you had to tell your child he couldn't go nextdoor to play anymore because of a dog? This is a personal choice. And either way IF the child was in danger then it is up to the owner to keep the dog confined.
So I guess thanks for making our point for us.
Oh and by the way two alsatians jumped their 7+ foot fence and attacked my mother-in-law's shelti mix. Should we ban/regulate shepherds? Did I mention: That incident wasn't reported in even our local newspaper...?
Steven B. Dittrich
Northstar Pitbulls
Dittrich's Doggy Den
"my pitbull is smarter than your honor student"
If you can take a break from finding reasons to kill my family long enough to read the article, Steven, you'll see that nowhere do I say I want to kill any pit bulls.
Seriously, dude, all the foaming at the mouth and talking about fuckin' killin' people is not helping your side of the discussion.
I guess you dont have an ACO in your neighborhood.. however if your dog was loose when it was attacked guess what its your fault.
Personally I have taken a few bites from other peoples dog that was off leash so they would not try to fight with one of my dogs. I am not even sure they would fight.. but what the heck I just a moron pit bull owner according to you..
As far as a dog barking in the middle of the night yes that is a major disturbance.. you seem to think that as long as the dog owner doesnt have a pit bull they can be as irresponsible as they want.. like barking, running loose and crapping all over the place.
I have heard that before... oh I dont have to be responsible my dog isnt a pit bull.... or dont worry my dog is friendly he can come up to your dog and try to hump him. Or I can use a flexy leash because my dog isnt from a shelter..
Right?
Or the lady who has 3 doxies... " I wont be mad if your dog kills one of them.. if they get to close"... yea right like I want to see that... how about putting your dog on a leash like the law says to.
Then when I tell them the law they think I am some kind of tyrant.
Most towns counties etc are lucky to get twenty five per cent of all dogs registered. Do you honestly think people are going to do that. Any way one thing about dog owners... they vote and no politician wants to make dog owners mad and I guarantee you every where BSL has been talked about people show up in droves to protest it.
Besides the Department of Justice has indicated that most BSL are to broad and violate many rights.. especially for disabled...
So tough dog turd.. turkey
You may be right that "pit bulls" (i.e. dogs bred and sold by people claiming to breed "pit bulls" to people who think that they are buying a "pit bull") rank second only to labs in terms of population. Nobody knows, but it is certainly possible.
You ask why there aren't more pit bulls killing people. Why, instead, are there so many MORE pit bulls killing people than labs? Why are 80% of the dogs killed in NYC shelters pit bulls and not labs?
In all honesty, these two statistics are probably related. If so many pit bulls were not dumped by owners (who are either irresponsible or overwhelmed) before or during adolescence, we would probably have even MORE pit bulls killing people since pit bulls tend to get more dangerous as they mature and a huge number of them are dumped by their owners before they mature. . But with over half the people who are the victims of dog bite related fatalities being killed by pit bulls, pit bull dangerousness is quite well enough established.
The problem is that almost no dog owners are 100% responsible, 100% of the time. I am certainly far more responsible than the average owner and I am not 100% responsible, 100% of the time. Accidents happen. If one of my (non-dog aggressive) dogs bolts out of my front door and my neighbors' dogs are in their yard, there might be some barking back and forth. If a dog aggressive pit bull gets loose in the neighborhood, somebody's dog might end up dead.
In fact, just a few weeks ago my neighbor's completely non-aggressive dog WAS killed in her own backyard by two loose pit bulls. I am sure that in the mind of the pit bull owners, this was just an "accident."
Yes, pit bull owners are disproportionately irresponsible, compared to owners of other types of dog. The tricky thing is that pit bull people have to admit this, when they are claiming that the reason pit bulls kill so many more people is that so many pit bulls are owned by irresponsible, horrible people.
So we agree on that, right?
So who do you think is BREEDING pit bulls? It is the same people who (you all claim, when you are saying that pit bull dangerousness is all the result of how they are raised) are feeding their dogs gunpowder in the (erroneous, by the way) belief it will make the dogs more dangerous. Do you think that a person who WANTS a dangerous dog is going to search out a nice stable, friendly, stud dog when it comes time to breed his female pit bull? Or is he, just possibly, going to look for the nastiest, meanest, most psychotic stud dog he can find?
Hence, pit bull temperaments continue to get worse and worse and more and more children die in pit bull jaws.
One cool thing about pit bulls is that their testicles are pretty evident--if they are there. So if a municipality passes mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls, (except, possibly, AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs) it is really easy for anybody to see whether at least half the pit bull owners out there are in compliance.
And since "responsible" pit bull people always CLAIM that they wish that there was some way to control irresponsible pit bull breeders, all those "responsible" pit bull people you believe are out there will finally have a way to stop irresponsible breeders if such breed specific legislation is the law. How cool is that?
Or do you really not want to be able to stop irresponsible pit bull breeders?
"Re AKC Amstaffs and UKC APBTs both being pit bull breeds, I didn't "get it backwards." It is, uh, transitive, so there is no way to get it backwards. Many APBTs are registered as Amstaffs and many Amstaffs are registered as APBTs and if double registered dogs are bred together, I assume that the offspring will still be registerable with both AKC and UKC. So, since the very same DOG can be registered as both a UKC American Pit bull terrier and an AKC dog, it is kind of silly to keep claiming that AKC doesn't register pit bulls.
The Am Staf and APBT are both considered "pit bull breeds" under BSL, BUT the American Pit Bull Terrier registered purebred is NOT cross-registerable with the AKC. Only the American Staffordshire Terrier was cross-registerable with UKC/ADBA as am American Pit Bull Terrier. It does not work both ways. As I said, after many, many years, UKC recently DID stop registering the AKC Am Staf as an APBT.
IF an AKC Am Staf is registered as an APBT and is BRED to a non AKC-registerable APBT, the progeny would be registerable ONLY with the UKC/ADBA as APBTs. To put it another way, BOTH parents MUST be AKC registered for the progeny to be AKC registered as Am Stafs.
Again, it's all moot now because UKC NO LONGER registers Am Stafs as Pit Bulls.
Liz
"Welcome to Northstar PitBull Kennel. We take pride in ourselves and our dogs by ensuring a pure bred top of the line APBT. Our bulldogs are a Boudreaux/Carver (75%/25%) mix, and soon going to add some of the GATOR bloodline. Our dogs are better than most. All of the dogs we breed are registered with the ADBA. Our pitbulls range from 35lbs to 65lbs, but most are 40-45 pounds. The colors vary from black-brindle, red-brindle, red, black, solid white, and the occasional blues and albinos. 95% of our dogs are nauturally aggressive towards any other animals and people the same, so usually not the best around real small children, but with proper training will make great family pets. THESE ARE NOT YOUR ORDiNARY PITS....FOR SERIOUS PIT PEOPLE. No dogs sold for illegal purposes or to people with illegal intentions that violate the Animal Welfare Act of '76"
Now, this may not be our guy (above) who thinks he is helping the pit bull cause by flinging around the f word and threatening to kill peoples' families, but I want to ask all you "responsible" pit bull people EXACTLY what you propose to do to stop this person who brags that he is breeding "nauturally (sic) aggressive" pit bulls from lines known ONLY as dog fighting lines. Do you think you can "educate" this person? You can't even educate Steven B. Dittrick (above) enough to get him to stop threatening to kill people.
Oh yes my dog is chipped and clipped... all the dogs from our shelter are altered.
I also support s&n;but off all dogs unless they are some kind of hot shot champion. Be surprised how many dogs in a shelter are beautiful handsome dogs.. from hounds, to GSD, Chows and pit bull type dogs.
I think Turkey should volunteer at a shelter... might make it a little less cranky
I rescue pit bulls and have taken in dogs that were locked in sheds with no access to food or water, left behind when people moved on chains you name it. I have yet to be bitten by any of these dogs, I have however been bitten by smaller breed dogs. Not once in 24 years have I been bitten by an aggressive "pit bull". I sit here now with 7 in my living room sleeping soundly after a long day of exercise, training and socialization.
Breed a duel registered (AKC and UKC) amstaff/APBT to another duel registered dog and you will get puppies who CONTINUE to be registerable in both registries. So since the same darn dog can be registered in AKC that is also registered as an American pit bull terrier in UKC (indeed can finish championships in both registries) you are flat wrong when you say that AKC doesn't register pit bulls.
Not that it makes any difference, since "pit bull" is a generic term and (as you note) encompasses AKC dogs, UKC dogs, and lots of dogs registered with other registries and even more dogs not registered at all.
She is also mentioned frequently in Working Pit Bull and Dog Fancy used her as a source when they wrote up the APBT.
Since your dogs ALREADY are neutered and microchipped, why would you have to pay for DNA testing under this proposal? I wouldn't have to pay for DNA testing, either since my dogs are already spayed/neutered and microchippped. But I had an intact dog for about six years before I decided not to breed her, and I ALSO wouldn't have had to pay for DNA testing for her (even when she was intact) because the reason she was intact is that she WAS a dog who could be ethically bred and therefore I have all kinds of proof that she is the breed she purports to be, which is not a pit bull (I.e. registration papers, puppy purchase agreement, pedigree, both performance and conformation title certificates, show photos, multiple health testing certificates).
Now you are claiming that "most" pit bulls are mutts. So why would you object to a law requiring that they be spayed/neutered? Again, NO DNA TESTING WOULD BE REQUIRED OF OWNERS WHO DO WHAT RESPONSIBLE OWNERS OF MUTTS ALREADY DO--spay and neuter and microchip.
Yes, but I am not talking about the "generic" "pit bull".
YES, a dog that is BOTH AKC/UKC bred to another AKC/UKC can have puppies that can be registered both ways, BUT a dog that is ONLY UKC can NOT be registered with AKC.
For example, I have a purebred, UKC registered APBT that can NEVER, under any circumstances, be registered with AKC as an American Staffordshire Terrier. If I bred her to an AKC Am Staf OR a dual-registered Am Staf/APBT, the pups could ONLY be UKC registered and would be APBTs.
You originally wrote that "Since UKC American Pit Bull Terriers are often cross registered as AmStaffs..." and it is THAT part I take issue with. When you say "UKC American Pit Bull Terrier, I take it that that dog does NOT have both parents that are Am Stafs.
Again, for those others reading, the UKC no longer registers AKC dogs as APBTs.
Liz
Maybe you can tell us how you propose to stop "North Star Pit Bulls" from breeding dogs, 95% of which are "naturally aggressive" to both humans and other animals. BullyBob uses the excuse that he is "not his brothers keeper" (i.e. he is not a responsible steward of the breed he claims to love and is unwilling to do what is necessary to protect it).
Of course, BullyBob continues to recommend "York Pit bulls" as the paragon of pit bull breeding even though they don't do necessary health screens, right? Do you agree that they are responsible pit bull breeders? BullyBob seems to think that being mentioned in Dog Fancy makes up for breeding dogs who almost certainly have congenital defects such as hip dysplasia. Do you agree with that?
(By the way, BullyBob mentioned York Kennels in a previous discussion on a previous board and several people pointed out why they are NOT responsible breeders--including the lack of health screening. I am wondering why BullyBob chose to ignore this information...)
I don't know how many children are bitten by the family golden retriever. I DO know how many children have been killed by the family golden retriever in the past year (that would be zero).
How many children have been killed by pit bulls in the past year?
I don't share your obsession with how amstaffs and APBTs are registered so this will be my last post on the subject, but when I said that APBTs are often registered as AmStaffs, I wasn't talking about dogs who were not AKC to begin with but about the LARGE number of dogs that come from duel registered litters, who are individually registerable with the AKC.
Hence, you are flat wrong when you claimed that AKC doesn't register American Pit Bull Terriers. It doesn't register them AS "American Pit Bull Terriers," but there are dogs that are identifiable (and identified) as APBTs who are AKC registered (but as AmStaffs).
And this is all silly because (as you note) both Amstaffs and Staffordshire bull terriers are (and should be) defined as "pit bulls" under breed specific legislation regulating pit bulls. In fact, I would urge putting American Bulldogs into the definition as well, both because American Bulldogs have killed more people than their numbers would warrant (not surprising when you look at the kinds of people who are breeding them) and because failure to regulate them will just mean that many pit bull breeders will suddenly claim to be breeding, uh, American Bulldogs.
I would be interested to know this..Dogcentric.
Mut considering your shelter is not the entire pit bull population and you indicate in the US that 9 children have been killed I dont see the correlation. If you look at how many pit bull type dogs are killed accross the United States the number would be sickening.
The shelter I volunteer at has PTS exaclty 6 dogs this year...10 years ago it was over 200.
However I am sure a shelter like LA county must put down hundreds of dogs a month.. incidently LA now has manadatory S&N;.
So you are saying you don't even know how to tell if a particular breeder does health screens? So why would you tout (repeatedly, even after the problems have been explicitly pointed out to you) York Kennels as responsible pit bull breeders? Do you even know what health screens pit bull breeders should do before breeding if they want to be even minimally responsible?
Sorry, but your claims to know anything about pit bulls pretty much went out the window when you admit that you haven't educated yourself about what it takes to be a responsible breeder.
Since as you well know all the dogs I have are shelter dogs and that is where I will continue to get my dogs from.
Just because York kennels does not explicity say on the web site that there are not health screens does not mean she does not do this or would not discuss this with a perspective buyer of one of her dogs.
I will say one thing about you and turkey you are very opinanated and some how think your opinion of me .. matters to me.
Unless you have volunteered at a shelter and work with shelter dogs (which you never have mentioned) I really do not think you know about the pit bull type dogs that are PTS or need homes. In fact you pretty much discourage ownership of these dogs without even have meet with them.
You have TWICE touted York Pit Bulls as being responsibly bred. You do it on this board after the problems (including breeding dogs without health screens) were EXPLICITLY explained to you on a previous board.
Your suggestion that York Kennels might be doing health screens on its breeding dogs but just fails to mention it on its extensive website shows how little you know about dog breeding. What information do you think is more important than the health of the dogs that this breeder is breeding? Plus, responsible breeders not only DO health screens, but they TELL people that they do health screens, because they not only want to attract educated, responsible puppy buyers (who, unlike you, know the signs as to whether a breeder is responsible) but because they want to EDUCATE even naive puppy buyers about what a responsible breeder does. They do this to protect the breed (and pit bulls could certainly use a little protection, not that they get it from people who whine that they are against laws regulating irresponsible pit bull breeding but they can't do anything about it because they are "not my brother's keeper.") from irresponsible breeders who have too many dogs, breed dogs without health screens or titles, and impress people who haven't educated themselves by saying that they have been featured in "Dog Fancy."
And even if your ridiculous supposition that maybe the owner of York Kennels is just, um, modest, and doesn't mention the extensive health screens she does on her dogs (none of which appear to have any titles, either, by the way) were possible, we know that she doesn't do health screens because we can check the dogs she breeds against the OFA website. Go and check out the dam of her latest litter--PR Yorks Cookie--and tell us exactly what health screens she has.
you are a dumbass man. you cannot sum up a whole breed of dog by the accidents that have occured with that breed. if so the human race would be hated. how many people have killed other people? raped? been drug addicts? commited and crime at all? maybe we should just kill off the entire human race while we try to kill all th pit bulls. i learn something new everyday and i have just learned that you are the most ignorant person that i have heard of in quite some time sir.
Oh pray tell, great and all knowing dogcentric, how do you KNOW that this will fail? Or is this just an opinion that you base on nothing other than the fact that it is not geared towards "pit bulls".
Seems to me it would be a much easier regulation to enforce if it encompassed all dogs. For instance:
ACO/cop notices a citizen walking their dog(s), he notices that they are medium sized, short haired, muscular dogs. He also notices that the dog(s) still has/have testicles. He approaches the citizen in regards to this fact.
In your breed specific solution it would be on the burden of the official (or city/county) to prove that the dog(s) are/were "pit bulls"
In an "all dogs" solution all the officer would need to do is ask for paper work as to why the dog(s) are not s/n.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me...
I know that she certainly isnt a fan of York Kennels.. which I am now divided on... York wants someone to take 2 of her dogs, breed them and then give the pups back to her.. I have gotten into some pretty heated arguements with someone on CL doing this very thing...
I can say one thing though it will always be a shelter dog for me.. they are the ones that know what it is like to be homeless and seem so grateful.
A bit of a story here. My sister's dog is a pit bull boxer mix. Big strong dog, black and holds water in his cornea's so he looks blind. My Mom recently had a severe stroke and is now living with my sister. I talked to my sister last night.. her big pit bull mix had his head in my Mom's lap. Yet this dog is unbeleivably protective of my sister.. if I had not helped him twice in the shelter he would have been PTS... stories like this make it all worth while to me .. going to the shelter after work and standing up for the underdog.
I've got a question for you. I too volunteer at my local shelter, SPCA actually but anyway, they have me working with cats and the other small animals. Now don't get me wrong, I love all animals, but I'm a dog person. I would say that I even love dogs (all dogs, not just 'pit bulls') more than many humans I know. My queston is:
Is the shelter you work a dog shelter or an animal shelter in general? If the latter how did you get your foot in the door to work with the dogs? I KNOW that any help that we give our shelters (animal or otherwise) is more than appreciated, and I do not want to demand to work with dogs, becasue I know that the shelter is utilizing my efforts the best way they see fit. But when I hear the dogs starting to get excited and bark, it's almost a tease. Thanks in advance!
Well things have changed at my shetler.. we now have volunteer orientation and safe dog handling class.. then there is a mentoring period. We have green, yellow and blue dot dogs and you work yourself up to the blue dots.
If I were you I would just tell the volunteer coordinator that you want to work with dogs. They should be more than happy and especially if you say you have an interest in pit bulls.
Even our shelter now days are leary about vol handling pit bulls and rotties.. except for a handful of the old timers.. to many people trying to talk on their cell phones while trying to get a pitty out.. you know or hey lets see if these dogs are dog friendly.
The only way AKC "registers" (as you put it, and that IS misleading) APBTs is because of a very unusual situation that UKC has (now had) in place for many years. I do understand that is has been hard to prove that Am Stafs and APBTs are different breeds because of UKC's policy. It is/was a very unusual, unique situation in the history of breeds and registries and I just didn't want people to go away from this believing that AKC registers a breed called American Pit Bull Terrier.
Also, the APBTs that were never AKC to begin with is very significant.
The breed registered as American Staffordshire Terrier with the AKC is quite rare -- projections are for right around 1000 for this year, down from the 1500-1600 registered per year earlier in the decade.
Sorry, but I find this stuff kind of interesting!
Liz
Dogcentric: This is the statement made by Mr. Wire in his article that is VERY misleading and that got me going...
Liz
fuck you bob.
love,
someone who hates you.
I am not exactly crazy about you either.. but I know you are just another pit bull hater blowing hot air and probably got paid to write..
Interesting though that me and Josh feel the same about our dogs. There is no doubt in my mind that my dogs would protect me.. and me them.
Regardless of what the specifics are, your original statement is correct. The AKC does not register the American Pit Bull Terrier. You refuted a point that the AKC does not even list the American Pit Bull Terrier as top 10 among pets...
Well of cousre they don't, because they do not register them. They register AmStaffs, now if you had said they do not register AmStaffs then dogcentric would have an argument. If I recall... the AKC will not register a UKC APBT as an AmStaff, it must be done the other way for duel registration. First registered as an AmStaff with AKC then as APBT with UKC. So again the AKC does not register APBTs, the UKC and ADBA (and other not so widely known ones I'm sure) do. My point if they do not recognize the dogs, then you will not find them on their lists...
And yeah, it's outrageous that people get paid to write! wtf.
Thanks for clearing up the issue about the lack of pit bulls (the three breeds identified in the article) on the AKC's registry. I was a little mystified that they didn't appear at all. I assumed that the largest dog organization would have the best stats. Mea culpa.
Do you know where I can find any reliable statistics on the proportional number of pits owned in the U.S.?
As was stated earlier: Neither the UKC or ADBA publish their numbers. I bet if you greased the right wheels at either club you may be able to get some sort of info but there would not be anything to substanciate it, plus I'm sure "off the record" would be a very common phrase you hear while looking into it. Not really sure why, but that is usually the case when it comes to figures and facts that are not published.
AKC DOES register the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier -- 2 of the breeds, in addition to the American Pit Bull Terrier -- that fall under the generic term, "pit bull".
The numbers for those two breeds are quite low -- about 1000 a year for the Am Staf and around that many for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. You can get the numbers for every breed AKC registers and it might even be on the website, but I find that site not too user friendly! I have called AKC and gotten the complete list before.
I am pretty darn sure that the numbers for the American Pit Bull Terriers registered by UKC and ADBA are in the tens of thousands , if not more. They are the SECOND most popular breed registered by UKC (as of last year) and that says a lot when you consider the popularity of the hunting hounds registered with UKC and it is only one of those hounds whose numbers are greater than the APBT.
And YES, those UKC numbers will include Am Stafs registered as APBTs with them and many Am Staf/APBT "crosses" that can only be registered as APBTs.
Liz
Liz
~Bob "Scum of the Earth" Wire
You might not out and out say "kill pit bulls" but banning is just about the same if people like the Denver politicans have anything to do with it.
Incidentenly Denver has faced a number of lawsuits over this. Mainly killings dogs that were not pit bulls. Also the Department of Justice has now sd. that the BSL's are way to broad and they infringe on the Americans with Diasablities right to own them as therapy dogs. Also they ruled that ACO's can only ask what the disablity is and how the dog helps. I personally know of a pit bull type dog that was adopted from our shelter (pretty tough case) he went to a home with young children. One of the children was prone to seizures..guess what "Larry" can detect when one of the seizures is coming on.
The problem with pit bull haters they want to make this issue black and white. If your dog looks a certain way .. get rid of it.
I have known to many pit bull type dogs that are great family pets. My sisters pit bull mix is now watching my 84 year old mother who just had a stroke.. I was a bit worried but my sister told me Mookie knows.. last night I called Mookie was resting his head in my Mom's lap..
Why wouldnt pit bull owners get upset when people advocate getting rid of a member of their family ?
Bob,
I do have to ask:
Why do you quote a report from the CDC that they themselves said was not a great study becasue it is primarily made up of media reports and newspaper articles? They have even publicly said that this study should not be used as evidence by a city/county for BSL. There is not currently a true system in place that tracks attacks by breed...
Like I mentioned before...My mother-in-law's (leashed) shelti mix was attacked by two alsatians (german shepherd) that jumped their 7+ foot fence. This incident wasn't even in our local paper. Yet there are many instances of 'Pit Bull' attacks (both on humans and other animals) that make nationwide headlines in multiple venues...Why do you think that is?
Bob,
Have you checked this out yet?
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
I would assume from the picture that you picked that you have not. I have to admit that it did take me two tries, but try for yourself. It may not be as easy as you think.
If anyone is interested we do have a long timer that is very similiar in apperance to the dog pictured... he is human and animal friendly.. but food aggressive.
Have you tried hand feeding the dog? Many times this will make them understand that they are not entitled to the food (even though they are, really) and that it is your (humans) decision to allow them the meal. I'm sure it has been done, but figured I'd ask.
Another question, what "breed" are you (the shelter) advertising this dog as? Mix/Mutt I'm sure.
Excuse me Bob Wire.. just a plug here..
Voorhees Animal Orphanage, Voorhees, NJ..
Yea I live in New Jersey..however I grew up in the southwest so I am not a complete jerk.. just part jerk.... but hey maybe someone on this board wants a good pit bull type dog..
Also Bob Wire .. food aggression is a major problem if the family has small children.. dont want a 3 year old and a pit bull going for a piece of steak on the floor.. the dog usually looses because he is PTS when he bites the 3 year old over the food.
Another thing why do we usually only get parts of the story when there is an incident? If I were a reporter I would want to know what led up to the events of an attack. Why was the dog loose? where were the owners? Was the dog wearing any tags? All questions that are of relevance in my opinion, yet most of the time they arent included. How often is a dog labeled a "pit bull" in a news story and then found not to be one?
As owners and advocates for the breed we must also be cognoscente of how we defend the breed on forums like this. Cussing and swearing really only reaffirms what the "haters" already portray us as, crazy. Pit bull owners come from all walks of life and have different reasons that they decide to own the breed.
At the risk of offending someone I would also like to add that saying a particular breed of dog is bad is not much different than saying a particular race is more prone to commit crimes, its nonsense.
It is at least 100,000 times more likely that a pit bull will be killed by a human, than the other way around.
If you would like to read a great article about the media and "pit bulls" check this one out.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/pets/detail?entry_id=70485>a=commentform&plckItemsPerPage=10&plckSort=TimeStampAscending&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:28879eda-9827-46a1-9558-f5b7814f5017#commentform
I would love to take in another dog. But at this time it is not something that is possible. I'd like to have a little more room for the one that I have now, luckily we are an active family so he get's plenty of excercise, but I wish I had a 100 acre farm for him, oh well. One day I will and I will have many of these wonderful dogs. Guess what, I could have 20 of them and I would still have less issues than MOST (not all, I KNOW that I'm not the only responsible owner) that have any dog. People with smaller(or 'less' aggressive) dogs seem to be complacent, with training and socialization just because they're not 'pit bulls', or they 'trust' their dogs. Well I trust my dog too...I trust him to be a dog.
So you are saying that pit bull owners (who, you claim, can't distinguish between pit bull laws that involve killing pit bulls and pit bull laws that alleviate huge amounts of pit bull suffering) are really, really dumb? You keep saying that pit bull owners can't tell the difference between Denver's absolute breed ban and a law that would only require microchipping and spaying/neutering most pit bulls. Why not? Do you REALLY believe that pit bull people are that dense?
Yes its my dream to have a bunch of land and a small house with dogs all over the place.
I just lost a dog in Aug to bone cancer.. I still see her and hear her..its strange I was at church 2 weeks ago and it was like she was right there with me...well enough sd. I love my dogs and am offended by anyone that would want them harmed just because of the way they look.
I guess protecting the right of Northstar kennels to breed pit bulls who are closely related to dog fighting dogs (but have no other claim to fame) and who are both human and animal aggressive is more important to the pit bull people on this board than protecting pit bulls is.
Remember, here is what NorthStar Pit bulls says about the pit bulls they breed:
Welcome to Northstar PitBull Kennel. We take pride in ourselves and our dogs by ensuring a pure bred top of the line APBT. Our bulldogs are a Boudreaux/Carver (75%/25%) mix, and soon going to add some of the GATOR bloodline. Our dogs are better than most. All of the dogs we breed are registered with the ADBA. Our pitbulls range from 35lbs to 65lbs, but most are 40-45 pounds. The colors vary from black-brindle, red-brindle, red, black, solid white, and the occasional blues and albinos. 95% of our dogs are nauturally aggressive towards any other animals and people the same, so usually not the best around real small children, but with proper training will make great family pets. THESE ARE NOT YOUR ORDiNARY PITS....FOR SERIOUS PIT PEOPLE. No dogs sold for illegal purposes or to people with illegal intentions that violate the Animal Welfare Act of '76
I would support you 100 per cent if I knew that was how the law was going to be enacted and enforced but I have a huge distrust of government officals..
Also I tried contacting the guy from North Star to let him know he wasnt doing anyone any good... his email address is no good.
well I am sure we will be debating this again on another website.
All the dogs here are S/N and chipped, but it wasnt because I was forced to do it, I did it for the protection of my dogs and to stop any unwanted pregnancies. While I agree it is a responsible thing to do I dont agree with it being forced on a community. After all if ALL " pit bull" type dogs are spayed and neutered for the next say 5 years, would that not mean an end to the breed eventually?
I know this probably does meet your standards... but all I hear from you is your law... what have you done to get it passed other than complaining.
You ask if my proposal wouldn't mean "the end to the breed."
Please don't tell me you can't read, either. The law I propose requires mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes EXCEPT AKC AND UKC-PR REGISTERED SHOW DOGS. This would mean that pit bulls could continue to be bred by people, provided that the breeders have demonstrated just a TEENY bit of ability to be responsible. So, no, it wouldn't mean "the end of the breed." It would mean the end of a huge amount of pit bull suffering, however.
What is YOUR proposal for stopping NorthStar Kennels? Prayer?
Why is it that you demand answers to your questions when you don't answer ones asked of you? And mine was a simple one.
Here I'll repost it so you don't even have to look for it:
"LA's mandatory spay/neuter is breed general. It will, predictably, fail. What is needed is BREED SPECIFIC mandatory spay/neuter addressing the bully breed problem."
Oh pray tell, great and all knowing dogcentric, how do you KNOW that this will fail? Or is this just an opinion that you base on nothing other than the fact that it is not geared towards "pit bulls".
Seems to me it would be a much easier regulation to enforce if it encompassed all dogs. For instance:
ACO/cop notices a citizen walking their dog(s), he notices that they are medium sized, short haired, muscular dogs. He also notices that the dog(s) still has/have testicles. He approaches the citizen in regards to this fact.
In your breed specific solution it would be on the burden of the official (or city/county) to prove that the dog(s) are/were "pit bulls"
In an "all dogs" solution all the officer would need to do is ask for paper work as to why the dog(s) are not s/n.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me...
OOOH. I am sure the owner of Northstar Kennels would have been way impressed if you HAD been able to tell him that "he wasn't doing anyone any good." Alas, he is doing himself good by making a profit off breeding pit bulls (and that is all he cares about) ...so he knows you are wrong.
Since you are meeting Shorty Rossi this weekend, why don't you ask him why HE (even followed by camera/production crews from Animal Planet with the attendant attention and pressure) acknowledged from the outset that he wasn't able to stop irresponsible pit bull breeders in a recent episode. Shorty (our hero) wanted to get this breeder to stop using a teenager he knows as an intermediary to sell dogs to probable dog fighters. Shorty said from the outset that he wouldn't be able to get the breeder to STOP the irresponsible breeding/sale of pit bulls and also that the irresponsible breeder would just find some other teenager to sell the puppies.
But it was presented as a huge victory that the breeder agreed not to use THIS teenager (Shorty's friend) to sell his irresponsibly bred puppies. Nobody asked about who is protecting the dogs or the next teenager from getting involved with breeding fighting dogs for profit. I suppose, like you, Shorty could just have said "I'm not my brother's keeper."
Personally, I'd like to stop the irresponsible breeder from breeding pit bulls entirely. The law I propose would do that with no muss/no fuss.
Warning to readers: This is kind of boring and off topic. I am writing it just because PitGarrett says I won't answer his question about breed general mandatory spay/neuter.
Anyway:
The reason that breed general mandatory spay/neuter will always fail is that it spreads enforcement resources way too thin and nobody really cares (for good reason) if your Aunt Mabel wants to breed her toy poodle. Mabel may not be a responsible breeder by my standards, but the dogs she breeds aren't killing toddlers or
glutting shelters so NOBODY WANTS TO ENFORCE THIS.
Even if breed general mandatory spay/neuter were enforced, it accomplishes nothing except to make dogs more expensive, since it always involves a fee for breeders, but real quality control (which would be impossible--even responsible breeders argue forever about which dogs should be bred and which dogs shouldn't be bred--this is not a chore you want to turn over to the government and some huge, expensive bureaucracy).
Breed general mandatory spay/neuter is a boon to puppy millers who import puppies from areas without such laws and can undersell the price of responsible (or even irresponsible) hobby breeders because of their extra expenses for licensing.
Indeed, to the extent that breed general msn is enforced less than 100%,(and no law is enforced 100%),it will make the average dog MORE dangerous because the more irresponsible and lawless a dog breeder is, the more likely he is breeding dangerous dogs. An interesting study tracked the criminal histories of pit bull owners versus other dog owners and found that pit bull owners were far more likely to have criminal records. So, since any law depends somewhat on voluntary compliance, you will put lots of responsible and borderline responsible breeders of labs and goldens out of business and the percentage of irresponsibly bred pit bulls will go up.
I know that you will argue that the law I propose also depends on voluntary compliance, and it does, to an extent. However, under the law I propose, the WORST offenders (say, NorthStar Kennels) can be brought to the attention of authorities and compliance with mandatory spay/neuter can be forced on them. Under my law, poor BullyBob wouldn't be reduced to impotently hoping to tell that irresponsible pit bull breeder that "he's not helping anyone" and hoping (although even he surely knows that his hope is absurd) that this irresponsible pit bull breeder will change his ways. Instead, he can drop a dime and call law enforcement when he sees an irresponsible pit bull breeder with a bunch of intact pit bulls.
How cool is that?
So while some pit bulls with testicles may slip through the net, doing anything meaningful with those testicles will become much less profitiable and therefore much less desirable to the irresponsible pit bull breeder.
As to the AC person who stops the owner of the pit bull with testicles, he gives out a ticket based on his perception that the dog is a pit bull (just as the cop can give you a ticket based his his perception that you were speeding or driving drunk) and if the pit bull owner wants to fight it, he can. While the burden is on the state, they will meet that burden by the testimony of the AC officer saying htat the dog looked like a pit bull. (Just as, before the days of breathalyzers, cops routinely prevailed by saying you looked drunk to them) If owner wants to claim that the dog is really a bulgarian downsnout, the judge will surely hope to see some kind of evidence to support that. Without evidence, the judge will make a determination based on what has been presented to him.
Since most mutt owners aren't really THAT obsessed with keeping their dogs intact, and most pit bull owners know that they will lose in front of a judge when they try the bulgarian downsnout defense (and some aren't quite willing to commit perjury, in any case), lots of dog owners will just bite the bullet and neuter their dogs.
A win for everybody!
I've said it before. I think that you're 'law, is one that would be good, but it will not get rid of the real issue of irresponsible ownership/breeding. Do you really think that someone who now doesn't: register their dogs (city/county registration not club registration), keep their dogs vaccinations up-to-date, keep them leashed, etc. now, will do it just because you add a new law?
Further, did you know African Americans are disproportionately represented in crime statistics? It turns out, African Americans hold the highest crime rates of any race. Let's not think about why this is (media bias, socioeconomic influences, skewed statistics / erroneous reporting, historical influences, educational system, etc.) or try to fix the issue... let's just do away with them before one of them gets us. Oh wait... that's completely asinine.
I think stopping armed robbery, dealing of serious drugs, rape and assualt not to mention traffic accidents and investigating dog attacks are a much higer priority and with limited resourches spay and nueter of dogs isnt going to be even addressed.
Ever hear of Camden NJ, its been named the most dangerous city in the US a number of times... do you think the breeders there are going to care about a s/n law.
I think that is what Shorty Rossi was trying to point out.. and dont forget that is a docudrama
SOME pit bull owners are just a manifitation of what is wrong with our society... no respect for others..then there are the others that try to clean up the mess and realize a pit bull is a dog first, then a pit bull.
Come to think about if you can keep your pit bull acting like a dog by exercise and training you dont have to worry about the pit bull characteric coming out.. Like Cesar says... Animal, Dog, Pit Bull in that order.
many other commentators here have made good and valid points. i'll just underscore a couple of things.
1. dogs that have been bred to fight, whatever their breed is called (there is actually no one breed known as a "pit bull"), are unpredictable dogs, even when in the best of hands. but usually they are perfectly safe with children. it is other animals that are at risk around a dog from dog fighting lines.
2. what we need to legislate is not what breeds people can own, but responsible dog ownership. that means if you own a breed that was bred to fight, you keep it leashed or securely fenced at all times. you are aware of the risk of owning such a dog and you keep it away from other animals.
3. ALL dogs are dangerous in the wrong circumstances. ANY breed can be made vicious. ANY breed can attack if it feels threatened or challenged. dog owners need to educate themselves on dog behavior and become alert, attentive, and aware dog owners to avoid those situations.
we really need a better program of dog ownership education in this country. maybe people should be required to take a course before they can have a dog license.
i constantly see bad situations waiting to happen all over missoula, with all kinds of breeds, because of dog owner STUPIDITY. this is why we have dog attacks, not because of a particular breed.
I do kinda have to agree, as well written as this piece is, the research behind it stinks. I really think that was the point BullyBob was trying to make when noting that you probably got paid to write this...If I were to make the gross mistake of under-researching (not a word I don't think) before I put together reports at my job...I would not be there very much longer...
From Wikipedia, here’s the Clifton Report: Mr. Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People News, has compiled from press reports a log of dog attack deaths and severe bites in the United States and Canada from September 1982 through December 22, 2009. The study methodology counted attacks "by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, [that] have been kept as pets." Mr. Clifton acknowledges that the log "is by no means a complete list of fatal or otherwise serious dog attacks" since it excludes "dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, ...attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight..."
The study found reports of 345 people killed by dogs over the 27-year period, of which "pit bull terrier", or mixes thereof, were reportedly responsible for killing 159, or about 46 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 70 fatalities or about 20 percent of the study-identified fatalities; in aggregate, pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 66% of the study-identified fatalities. In that same study, the number of serious maimings by a "pit bull terrier" was 778; the number of serious maimings by a Rottweiler was 244. The number of attributed fatalities to the German Shepherd Dog was 9. The number of serious maimings by a German Shepherd Dog was 50.
Mr. Clifton concluded that "Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."
And, as reported by news organizations, these are the numbers of dog attack deaths caused by pit bulls (not boxers, not mastiffs, not rottweilers, not French bulldogs…):
2005: 62%
2006: 52%
2007: 53%
2008: 65%
2009: 47%
Pit bull lovers, you can insult me or my writing all you like.
As the late Daniel Moynihan said, you’re entitled to your own opinion. But not your own facts.
Good day, sir.
"Feel free to dismiss my research. Not that I owe anyone an explanation. It’s solid. I checked several sources on the internet, including news stories, AKC listings, CDC site, and several others."
And then you go on to quote the Clifton report (again a study based entirely on media reports and refuted many times)
If your research is so solid why did you ask me, me just someone posting on your blog, for info regarding "pit bulls"? Or did you forget about that?
"@Chuck:
Thanks for clearing up the issue about the lack of pit bulls (the three breeds identified in the article) on the AKC's registry. I was a little mystified that they didn't appear at all. I assumed that the largest dog organization would have the best stats. Mea culpa.
Do you know where I can find any reliable statistics on the proportional number of pits owned in the U.S.?"
The fact that you searched a registry that does not recognize the APBT, for APBT shows me that you do not have "solid research"
Did you know that there was more than one dog registry? If not then that is bad research right there, if so why did you not bother to check them out? (Although it wouldn't have gotten the result that you wanted.)
"as reported by news organizations"
And you beleive that the media is a good research tool?
I understand that this is an opinion piece, but to claim that you have "solid research" when you obviously do not, seems a little asanine doesn't it?
basically, what you are telling us, is you relied on other people's reporting, hearsay, and hysteria to drawn your conclusions. that doesn't provide us with much of a public service.
a reporter has to be curious, ask thoughtful questions, do his own research, and be willing to think critically. your essay and your subsequent response reveals that you have done none of the above.
wikipedia? are you kidding me? you are basically spreading misinformation and hysteria based on internet research?
how about interviewing some people who are acknowledged experts in dog behavior and breeding and asking them some probing questions? how about being curious enough to find out how the reporters and the CDC can even be sure the dogs reported as "pit bulls" are actually ... ? well, what were they, actually? because "pit bull" is not a breed.
a trained journalist does not write an opinion piece based on getting all emotional about a photograph. he delves into the story behind the picture. you didn't do that.
i'm further disappointed that new west considers what you write worthy of publication.
Let me guess, Alice: you own a pit bull.
i don't own a pit bull. i've owned many, many breeds, all my life, but never a pit bull.
i think they are terrific dogs--athletic, smart, don't shed much, healthier than most dogs--really an ideal dog in many ways.
but i don't want the liability of their innate unpredictability around other animals. i also know that dogs are very powerfully affected by how human beings react to them. a puppy or young dog that is constantly encountering the fear of strangers is going to grow up to become fearful.
since i can't control the ignorant reactions of strangers, i won't own a dog that is going to be ruined by those encounters.
in other words, if the public understood and accepted pit bulls for the great dogs they often are, i'd happily own one--if i didn't have any other pets.
i'm less familiar with the american pit bull terrier and most of what is listed as "pit bull" at the shelters--who the hell knows what those dogs' genetic makeup really is?
bully breeds are just wonderful dogs. but i agree that anyone who wants to own one needs to have the right temperament and experience with dogs. they are not for inexperienced dog owners.
that's true of many, many, many breeds.
The Clifton Study... this has been pretty well laughed off the web so to speak:
Merritt Clifton
Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. and Canada, 1982 through 2007 (updated yearly)
Merritt Clifton’s study is a medley of newspaper articles that present a very biased and inaccurate overview of dog bites. It is more of an incomplete tally of severe bites than a study.
Media as only source of data
Clifton’s only source for his findings is the media, and he focuses on cases that required “extensive hospitalization.” This term is never defined in his article. It might mean stitches, or it might mean amputation.
Missing data
In the beginning of the study, Clifton states that attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, dogs trained to fight, and dogs whose breed may be uncertain are excluded. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume a good number of attacks are not included. This might leave the reader with the assumption that Clifton has included all other dog attacks.
The CDC reports in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that of the “333,700 patients treated for dog bites in emergency departments in 1994, approximately 6,000 were hospitalized.” (July 4, 2003 article at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm)
However, Clifton lists only 2,363 bites total—and that is over the 25 years that he has tallied media reports of attacks.
If approximately 6,000 people require hospitalization each year because of a dog attack, then over 25 years, there would have been 150,000 people hospitalized. Yet Clifton has apparently only found media reports for 1.6% of all these attacks.
Clifton’s report therefore implies that the remaining 98.4% of bites that required “extensive hospitalization” according to the CDC were by non-identifiable types of dogs or police, guard, or fighting animals. This is highly unlikely. Clifton’s data is so incomplete as to make it virtually useless for analyzing patterns related to severe dog attacks.
Miscategorization and misidentification
On Clifton’s list of all dog attacks and the dogs’ breed, he makes several mistakes.
He lists the Australian Blue Heeler, the Australian Cattle Dog, the Blue Heeler, and the Queensland Heeler as separate breeds. These are all different names for the same breed. Listing these attacks under separate breed names skewed the results of the study.
It should be noted that Clifton does not attempt to divide pit bull attacks into separate breed names. If he were to do so, it is not clear what his study results would show; “pit bull” is a generic term for at least three different breeds of dogs, and dozens of other breeds are often lumped into the “pit bull” category based on their similar appearance.
There are also 33 attacks that were supposedly done by “Bull Mastiff (Presa Canario).” Bull Mastiffs and Presa Canarios are distinctly different breeds, and if there is question about which breed the dog is, this attack should not be listed as a “clearly identified breed.”
The report also attempts to identify the predominant breed in dogs. Clifton gives no reason as to why he listed an attack as being done by an Akita/Chow mix instead of a Chow/Akita mix. How did he determine that Beagle was the predominant breed in the attack done by a Beagle/German Shepherd Dog?
Clifton makes several spelling mistakes throughout his report. Misidentified breeds listed as a “Chox mix,” “Dauschund,” “Doge De Bordeaux,” “Fila Brasiero,” “Buff Mastiff,” “Great Pyranees,” and “Weimaeaner” compromise Clifton’s credibility.
Inability to determine risk scientifically
In Clifton’s analysis, he attempts to evaluate dog behavior based on breed, bite frequency, and “degree of relative risk.”
Yet Clifton has shown numerous times in his report that he cannot identify a breed properly, or even spell breed names correctly.
Both bite frequency and degree of relative risk are impossible to calculate. No one knows how often breeds bite since hundreds of bites go unreported. And to attempt to determine a “degree of relative risk,” Clifton would have to know every factor that contributed to every dog bite.
Even the CDC concluded at the end of their own flawed study that there is no way to determine relative risk:
There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.
Merritt Clifton apparently does not understand the many factors that go into a reliable calculation of relative risk, nor does he wish to acknowledge that trained researchers realize that many, if not most, of those factors can never be known or calculated.
Misapplied and misinterpreted data
Clifton’s analysis section is full of faults and absurd assumptions.
He writes: "Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity to be listed, pit bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern . . . Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are."
As discussed, Clifton has tallied less than two percent of all severe dog attacks. He clearly has no idea how frequently pit bulls—or any other type of dog, for that matter—bite.
Furthermore, without knowing all bite factors, including the dog’s health, condition, sexual state, training, environment, and the behavior of the victim, there is no way Clifton could possibly conceive any possible pattern or difference as to who pit bulls attack.
Since Clifton is tallying media articles, his conclusion seems to be more telling of media coverage of dog bites. If one was to assume that the media is more likely to publish a pit bull attack than an attack by another type of dog, and more likely to publish an attack on a child than an attack on an adult, it stands to reason that while media-reported pit bull attacks include both adults and children, media reports about other types of dogs’ attacks may only be considered newsworthy when a child is involved. Thus, it may appear that pit bulls are overrepresented in attacks on adults.
Misunderstanding of dog behavior and ignorance about breed standards
Clifton reports: "They [pit bulls] are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls’ tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog."
All dogs exhibit warning signs. Pit bull expert Diane Jessup, a retired animal control officer and police dog trainer, stated in her book The Working Pit Bull, “all Pit Bulls do give some warning that they are going to attack.”
Studies have indicated that, generally, people do not understand dog body language. A person may not recognize that a dog standing very still, legs apart, tail waving slowly, is indicating an impending attack. When one cannot identify all possible threat behaviors, it might appear that a dog is attacking without warning. Clifton provides no evidence to show that victims are oblivious to impending attacks by pit bulls at a greater rate than impending attacks by other dogs.
Clifton’s statement that pit bulls’ tails are customarily docked demonstrates his lack of familiarity with the breed-type. A list of traditionally docked breeds can be found on the Council of Docked Breeds website (http://www.cdb.org/list.htm). None of the pit bull breeds, to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrer, can be found on this list. Nor can any of the breeds that are occasionally mistaken to be “pit bulls,” such as the American Bulldog, Bull Mastiff, and Bull Terrier. Tail docking has never been common or customary with any of the pit bull types. Docking the tail of an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier means immediate disqualification from the show ring.
To substantiate his assertions that 1) pit bulls customarily have their tails docked, and 2) tail docking results in an inability for people to read canine body language, Clifton would need to provide evidence that a disproportionate number of pit bulls or attacking dogs have had their tails docked, and further, that a dog’s tail is the primary predictor of an impending attack. He provides no such evidence.
There are over 50 different breeds of dogs, including the Cocker Spaniel, Airedale Terrier, German pointer, Jack Russell Terrier, Poodle, and Corgi, whose tails are traditionally docked. (Council of Docked Breeds) If tail docking inhibits the communication of impending aggression, why are tail-less breeds not disproportionately represented in any list of severe and fatal attacks?
Excuses for some breeds’ behavior
Clifton says: "Rottweilers . . . seem to show up disproportionately often in the mauling, killing, and maiming statistics simply because they are both quite popular and very powerful . . ."
Clifton excuses Rottweilers’ attacks due to the fact that they are both popular and powerful. Yet pit bulls, who are also popular and strong, are not given this same excuse.
He also writes: "In the German shepherd mauling, killing, and maiming cases I have recorded, there have almost always been circumstances of duress: the dog was deranged from being kept alone on a chain for prolonged periods without human contract, was starving, was otherwise severely abused, was protecting puppies, or was part of a pack including other dangerous dogs. None of the German shepherd attacks have involved predatory behavior on the part of an otherwise healthy dog. [sic]"
Here Clifton excuses German Shepherd attacks due to outside factors. This implies that no other type of dog in his study attacked because it was left neglected, abused, chained or left untrained and unsocialized. Yet he offers no proof to substantiate the idea that all other cases he recorded involved trained, socialized, beloved family pets.
Clifton says: "[I]t is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances."
Clifton implies that pit bulls and Rottweilers no longer behave like dogs under extra-ordinary circumstances. What those extra-ordinary circumstances are is unstated, and how pit bulls and Rottweilers suddenly become behaviorally different under those circumstances is not demonstrated in the report.
To imply that pit bulls and Rottweilers are not to be regarded as dogs even though they act like ordinary canines is absurd. Clifton’s agenda is quite clear—he badly wishes to portray pit bulls and Rottweilers as somehow unique—but his “study” is so flawed that he cannot prove any of his sweeping generalizations.
Clifton says: "Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk."
Here Clifton returns to the idea that, somehow, we can calculate the “riskiness” or “relative danger” of particular breeds or types of dogs. As demonstrated earlier in this article, it is not possible to do this.
Furthermore, it is totally bizarre to say that temperament is not an issue. Temperament plays a huge part in dog attacks, as any canine behaviorist or dog bite researcher would agree. A very large dog may be able to do a lot of damage if it bites someone, but if the dog is extremely placid by nature (temperament), there’s very little danger to the public. On the contrary, a smaller dog may do less damage if it attacks, but if it is extremely aggressive, it could maul or kill someone. To suggest that temperament isn’t even relevant is ridiculous.
Clifton writes: "If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."
Clifton’s own “study” disproves his assertions. His own tally of severe and fatal dog attacks includes over 50 different types and breeds of dogs. It seems clear that dogs of all types can have “bad moments” that result in severe injury.
Study conclusion
Clifton concludes in his article that he “[does] not know how an effective, fair, enforceable, humane dangerous dog law could be constructed.” He goes on to propose breed-specific legislation as the solution to dangerous dogs, yet provides no scientific evidence that BSL actually works.
Clifton's "study" is not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. It's an opinion piece supported by random numbers and wishful thinking. It's a real shame that he keeps getting cited in the news media as some sort of "expert." "
Still I see that you're willing to admit to the dogs' "innate unpredictability around other animals." Pretty much all dogs are affected by humans actions, moods, speech inflections, etc. My own dog, a stray, has abandonment issues and is very submissive. It's obvious he was mistreated as a pup.
Further, I'll agree that it is largely a problem of irresponsible and just plain misanthropic owners. And yes, I know there are pit bulls that are as mellow as other dogs and live safely with children. But why take the chance?
The point of the article is that pit bulls are by and large aggressive and dangerous, and I think people should choose other, less dangerous dogs to own. I wrote it an an over-the-top, humorous way, like I usually write everything in this column. I knew it would draw fire. But shooting down someone's research is a lot different than offering a refutation. "My mom's pit bull is really sweet" doesn't make it okay that pits have killed 20 people this year, or whatever the number is. People getting hung up on nitpicking are missing the overarching point: they're dangerous dogs and they should be banned or highly regulated.
That is the real problem right there...Even somone who knows that "pit bulls" are not really bad, doesn't consider owning one. Little background on my pittie mix...
He has numerous animal friends. Multiple dogs, (every dog he's encountered by the way, even other "pit bulls") at least 4 cats that could care less about his presence, and 2-3 that actually like to hang out with him, and chickens (although they are apprehensive when he runs through them, but it's the same with the other dogs and cats that like to watch them scatter when they get too close).
Dogs react to how they are brought up. Yes "pit bulls" have a reputation that they are mean, nasty animal haters. But that's a reputation, not a fact. Like BullyBob said in an earlier post, there are thousands (if not 10s of thousands) of family "pit bulls" that live out their entire lives without incident. Some try to dismiss that fact, (and they can because there is not a system in place that tracks...Dogs who don't attack. Regardless...There is not enough evidence to support a ban on these dogs (or it would have happened already). Government likes to stick their nose where it doesn't belong (prohibition for example, but that is another discussion) if they could really PROVE that these dogs are as big a threat as the media likes to portray, then we would not even be having this discussion.
bob wire, you just don't get it.
"But shooting down someone's research is a lot different than offering a refutation."
um, not really. shooting down someone's research is about as effective a refutation as there is.
your point is "they are just dangerous" is not backed up by the facts. it's an emotional statement that is not grounded in good research or reporting.
on what basis do you make such a statement?
it's okay for someone to express such opinions at a bar, or in the letters to the editor section.
it's quite another thing for someone writing a column to express such an opinion without grounding it in irrefutable fact. you didn't do your homework, bob.
i own a giant breed that is often feared by people who have little understanding of dogs. as a young dog, he was attacked without ANY provocation whatsoever by, in chronological order:
1. a golden retriever
2. a great dane
3. a coonhound
4. another golden retriever
he had to go to the hospital and get sewn up, in some cases.
miraculously, he did not become dog aggressive. that really is a miracle, if you understand anything about dog psychology. to this day, he adores other dogs.
and yet you say, "why take the chance?" on a pit bull?
well, you may as well say, why take the chance on owning ANY breed of dog. any breed of dog can go off and bite. it happens every day.
it just is rarely reported in the press.
NO. the irresponsible media, of which you are now a member, bob, goes around promulgating hysterical misinformation and stigmatizing one breed type without bothering to really understand anything about dogs.
this is a disgrace.
you're right, chuck. but think about it, why would someone take on the liability, knowing that the public has been whipped up into a media-induced hysteria about pit bull type dogs?
any dog can bite a child. but if my dog bite a child and happens to be a pit bull type, that's a whole other can of worms.
there are insurance issues, now, too. homeowner's insurance i believe excludes certain breeds. not sure if mine is among those insurers, but i have heard that pit bull types, german shepherds, and rotties may incur liabilities that other dogs don't.
i'm not asking you to agree with me on pit bulls. i'm asking you to do your homework if you are going to write a piece that demands reporting and critical thinking. you are reaching thousands, if not millions (considering this is the internet) of readers. you have a RESPONSIBILITY.
you could have done excellent and accurate research and we still might disagree. people are free to draw different conclusions from the same information.
but first you have to do your homework and educate yourself. then you get the bully pulpit. (pun intended.)
btw, i loved your piece on teenagers and sent it around to lots of friends. stick with your bailiwick and you are fine.
I was starting to think that you just needed to do a little more research and that you're not "the scum of the earth" (don't really think that anyway), but alice is right. How is refuting your research any different than refuting your point?
You came right out and said in a previous post that your research was biased to begin with.
"I did not bother looking at “Pit Bull Lovers Magazine” or any similar valentine factories."
Yet you quote the Clifton report, that with very minimal research you would have found out that your other sources (cdc primarily) can't even agree with.
I don't beleive that Alice (and I know that I not), is disapoited that you did take the other side of the story, I think that she/we are disapointed that more research and critical thinking didn't go into your piece.
As far as this being humorous...really? Keep telling yourself that, but from the First paragraph, I would not consider this funny at all, and with comments like "bloodthirsty" and "chewed on a guy’s face" and your last paragraph;
"There’s only the selfish idea that somehow, owning a pit bull can promote a certain image in the eyes of your friends and contemporaries. I guess that’s true, to a point, but it’s probably not the image you’re hoping for. Take a pass on the pit, get a safer dog"
I and many others do not find this "humorous".
Granted there are a lot of punks that think owning a pit bull makes them look cool or tough. Just a couple of months ago some punk asked to buy one of my dogs.. ( got him buried out back in a swamp...now that is humor)
Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2009 Apr;116(4):132-7.
[Assessment of a Bullterrier bloodline in the temperament test of Lower Saxony--comparison with six dog breeds affected by breed specific legislation and a control group of Golden Retrievers]
Ott S, Schalke E, Hirschfeld J, Hackbarth H.
Article 2:
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2010 May-Jun;123(5-6):192-7.
[Assessment of a Bull Terrier bloodline regarding possible hypertrophic aggressive behaviour in situations of dog-dog-contact of the temperament test of Lower Saxony]
Schalke E, Ott S, Hirschfeld J, Hackbarth H.
This research claims to have examined the aggressiveness of bull terriers and found little of note. Gleaning from the abstracts (I currently have the articles on order so forgive me for not having them in hand), the study designs are limited; however, the fact that this research exists suggests more studies are necessary before we can honestly say pit bulls are notably more aggressive/dangerous than other breeds... especially given the prevalence of breed specific legislation studies currently being done that are showing such laws to be ineffective.
Further, I would encourage proponents of breed-specific legislation (BSL) (as well as opponents) to look into the following two articles:
Article 3:
Can Vet J. 2005 Aug;46(8):735-43.
Breed specific legislation: considerations for evaluating its effectiveness and recommandations for alternatives.
Ledger RA, Orihel JS, Clarke N, Murphy S, Sedlbauer M.
Article 4:
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2010 Oct 1;237(7):788-92.
Use of a number-needed-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite-related injury.
Patronek GJ, Slater M, Marder A.
The response to your article, Bob, must lend you some indication of just how serious this issue can get. You're very correct in being entitled to your own voice; however, while I thoroughly enjoy your wit, you must understand a pitbull advocate will read this article as a personal attack, and will thus be on the defensive... particularly when you threaten their family member.
And yeah, I could have spent days or weeks researching pit bull attack statistics, or DNA studies or whatever, but I only dug deep enough to back up my own assertion. I'll admit my research wasn't the most thorough.
I'm not going to apologize for having an emotional response. And Alice, you are vastly overestimating my readership. ;-) Extra points, though, for being civil.
Finally (and I'm eager to move on from this subject), I'll say that no one wants their dog taken away. I get that, and I agree with that. But. This breed (yes, I know it includes several breeds) causes an inordinate amount of damage. Changes need to be made. An out and out ban is too problematic, but we can't keep allowing just anyone to adopt or buy or breed pit bulls without some kind of safeguards in place. I don't have the answer. The debate will go on, but not here.
Thanks for reading.
Best Friends ( you know the animal santuary in utah) calculated it costs the city of wilmington de over 350,000 a year to enforce bsl against pit bull type dogs..
Get out your check book.
Re your comparison of pit bulls to African Americans, that is not only offensive, it is stupid. Hint, Jennifer: Dogs aren't people. The reason we HAVE different dog breeds is that they are bred to predictably exhibit certain behaviors. "Sterotypes" in dogs are even written down in what we call breed standards. (The UKC American Pit bull Terrier standard admits that most of them are animal aggressive...).
Plus, responsible ownership of dogs demands that we do a lot of stuff to them that would be unthinkable if done to humans (involuntary sterilization, anyone?) precisely because dogs AREN'T humans.
Interestingly, I know a lawyer who owns an intact male pit bull. Nice dog, (so far, he is young yet) but unregistered, comes from completely unhealth screened, irresponsibly bred lines. Not a dog that anybody who knows dogs would say should be bred, especially since shelters are already glutted. I asked this guy if he planned to neuter the dog and got an equivacation. He "kind of" wants to breed him. Guess what? If the law said he had to neuter that dog, that dog would get neutered. Otherwise? Anybody want to take bets?
So if the law I propose were in place, folks who breed pit bulls who certainly aren't criminals but also aren't responsible breeders (that would be the vast majority of pit bull breeders, unless you pit bull people want to argue that the MAJORITY of pit bull breeders are actual criminals...) would get out of the pit bull breeding business with no "enforcement" whatsoever.
Well...good news. Addressing the problems of irresponsible pit bull breeding with breed specific legislation will actually save taxpayer money. You think that catching, caring for, killing and getting rid of the bodies of thousands of pit bulls every week is FREE? Address the pit bull issue adequately and 40% of New York City canine shelter runs will become empty and 80% less freezer space will be necessary to store dog corpses because, currently, 80% of the dogs killed in NYC shelters are pit bulls and this is a HUGE cost.
The resources that previously went to catching and killing pit bulls could go to enforcing laws against criminals who still try to breed them. I don't believe I have ever met an animal control officer who wouldn't prefer to spend her day enforcing laws against irresponsible breeders rather than killing scores of pit bulls every week.
No. Dogs "bred to fight" (which of course, would be pretty much exclusively pit bulls in this country) aren't "perfectly safe" with children. But, hey, I wouldn't say that golden retrievers are "perfectly safe" with children, either. Most dogs (of any breed) aren't overtly dangerous to children but there is a reason why all those dog books classify some breeds as "good with children" and other breeds as "not recommended for children."
Pit bulls tend to have high pain threshholds, so the average pit bull is probably LESS likely to nip at a child because the child hurts them (a common reason dogs bite children) than many other breeds. On the other hand, pit bulls are bred for "gameness," which is the trait of not stopping an attack once the dog is aroused. This is why pit bulls kill so many more children (and other people) every year than any other kind of dog.
Moreover, children (and others) are frequently bitten, sometimes severely because of pit bull dog aggression. Pit bulls sometimes redirect their aggression against other dogs toward human beings with serious or tragic results.
You make my point when you claim that Camden pit bull breeders won't "care" about a spay/neuter law? The reason we HAVE laws (rather than mere suggestions about how to behave responsibly) is that we know that certain people DON'T "care" enough to behave responsibly and have to be forced to behave responsibly.
If actual criminals (i.e. people who don't "care" about laws) are breeding such a high proportion of pit bulls, I would think that the "responsible" pit bull community would be SCREAMING for laws to protect pit bulls from these people.
Right now, you are POWERLESS to protect pit bulls from, say, North Star kennels, right? Why would you OPPOSE passing laws that would give law enforcement the power to shut them down?
The very fact that mixed breed "American bully" type dog is used here demonstrates why you are so completely totally wrong. The dogs that attack people are commonly misidentified. Only the dogs that people can call "pit bulls" appear in the media. Do you know many people were seriously bitten by dogs in Mineral County last month or year? I'll wait while you get those stats [tick tick tick]. How many different sorts of dogs were involved? I'll wait [tick tick tick]. Oh and you may NOT get your information from the newspapers, media or "Merritt Clifton", the insane pit bull hater who along with his friend Colleen Lynn.. probably one of the pseudonymous posters here.. gets HIS information from the media. While you're waiting, you can look at this link and try to contemplate achieving a higher degree of intellectual honesty. The AVMA SPECIFICALLY says that breed specific inferences should NOT BE DRAWN from the study you misuse:
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/avma-letter.pdf
And a new JAVMA study on breed statistics and breed banning:
http://gamedogguardian.com/education-and-resources/nnb-javma
The dog who allegedly caused the injuries described in such inflammatory language (sympathies to any of the parties ACTUALLY injured) may have been dangerous. Or maybe it charged into the campfire looking for fun or trouble and responded aggressively to the "choke hold" inflicted on it. Who knows? Certainly "Bob Wire" wasn't there, so he doesn't really know. Certainly the lawman who WAS there didn't think so, since he issued no fines and didn't confiscate the dog.
If the person was so seriously injured that he needed hospitalization, then he certainly has a case against the dog's owner, and maybe a complaint against the Sheriff.
BTW: for those of you who think enforcing a "breed ban" against "pit bulls" will somehow save a city money: you need to look at Denver. Not only are they facing 2 suits against their law now, they frequently have to spend money defending themselves... and losing... against owners who protest the seizing of innocent dogs that turn out to be boxers, or labs, or several other types of dogs Denver AC loves to seize so they can kill and "free up more shelter space".
Topeka, KS just rescinded its long standing breed ban, because they realized it doesn't protect public safety and wastes money. Toledo, OH just rescinded its breed ban. Almost every attempt (excepting some few small towns) to pass NEW BSL has failed, when legislators learn the FACTS about how to protect the public from dangerous dogs. I imagine this causes great pain among the knee jerk haters and ignorant hysteria mongers. But in the real world, sometimes the truth holds sway.
That's a FACT.
For example, you say that owners of breeds "bred to fight" must keep them securely fenced at all times.
Have YOU ever had a dog get loose, Alice? I ask because the vast majority of dog owners (no matter how responsible) have had a dog get loose at some point. Maybe you will say that you are the exception, but I sure am not and I am a pretty darn responsible dog owner.
You say pit bulls are "healthier than most dogs." You are joking, right? Pit bulls are a MESS of health problems, ranging from very common skin disease to a probable propensity to demodectic mange (likely related to crappy immune system), to congenital cardiac problems, to very high rates of hip dysplasia.
In what way, specifically, do you think that they are "healthier than most breeds?"
But, hey, all you people who think that American Bullys are not "really" pit bulls, just think how great it will be if the ONLY pit bulls who are allowed to be intact are AKC or UKC-PR registered show dogs. (Including, by the way, dogs who participate in obedience or agility). No more American Bullys or other dogs you think of as mutts messing up your statistics.
SAY WHAT, JAVMA? Do the veterinarians who reviewed this article REALLY think that chows are no more likely to bite than golden retrievers? NO dog trainer would say that. Do these veterinarians REALLY think that standard poodle jaw strenght is equal to that of pit bulls? Why, then, do pit bull people sometimes have "hang time" contests (where dogs grip pulls and are lifted off the ground and judged by how long hey can hang by their jaws) at their shows. Do you think you would see that at the Poodle Club of America? (Hint: Probably not).
The article is a mess. The JAVMA should be ashamed to have published it.
And even assuming you think my neighbor can collect, say, $10,000 for her dead dog, that wouldn't satisfy me if my dog was dead. Would it satisfy you?
And I also recently heard of a pit bull near my neighborhood who got loose and ripped a leg off a dog being walked. The owner of the injured dog sued for their vet bills and won, but the pit bull owners promptly moved out of state and disappeared. Good luck collecting that and your dog still has to live with only three legs.
Now, some pit bull people claim that dog aggression isn't really THAT common in pit bulls. If that is the case, it should be esay to breed away from it. A whole lot of OTHER pit bull people claim that dog aggression is "part of what makes a pit bull a pit bull." HUH? It is a temperament flaw that has NO PURPOSE (unless, of course, you are a felon) and results in plenty of dead pit bulls and some dead other dogs. That makes about as much sense as golden retriever breeders saying that hip dysplasia is acceptable in golden retrievers used for breeding because so many of them have it that "hip dysplasia is part of what makes a golden retriever a golden retriever."
And yes the authors of the JAVMA report, and the peer reviewers, stand by everything they wrote. You choose to believe nonsense, like the stupid "jaw strength" thing. Surely you know that there has been only one attempt at a scientific study of jaw bite strength.. and "pit bulls" didn't even come out on top.
But hey, as always, don't let the truth stand in the way of your hatemongering idiocy.
Ommiting info so that it only fits your agenda is something you seem well versed in...Future Politician maybe?
By the way Bob, thank you for admiting this was more of an emotionaly fueled piece (I understand emotion, believe me) that could (and probably should) have been better researched, than one based on hard facts and figures. Thank you.
Sorry, I am not Coleen. You aren't the first pit bull person to think I am, but pit bull people tend to believe what they want to believe, even when (as with your belief that I am Coleen) there is no evidence to support it.
And, forgive me, but YOU are the one who is advocating the deaths of thousands of pit bulls weekly by doing nothing meaningful to address the pit bull crisis. After all, thousands of pit bulls die every week because of the irresponsibility of pit bull breeders, but under the law I put forth (mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes, mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs, not a single pit bull would have to die, right? Admittedly, some MIGHT die, because their completely irresponsible owners would kill them because they could no longer use them for pumping out more puppies and profits, but how is protecting people who don't care whether they hurt pit bulls (your position) ultimately good for pit bulls?
You are right that there have been no good "scientific studies" about pit bull bite strength versus standard poodle bite strength. What you (and, apparently, the AVMA, lord help us) want us to take from that fact is that it is therefore just impossible for anybody to know whether standard poodles or pit bulls typically bite harder.
I guess you (and the AVMA) also think that it is a "myth" that labrador retrievers are typically better at retrieving than are bloodhounds or that border collies are typically better at herding than are borzoi. After all, where are the "scientific studies" to prove either of these things?
I can understand pit bull people spreading this kind of nonsense. It is what they have to do to defend the indefensible breeding practices that enable them to continue making money off the suffering of pit bulls and the occasional deaths of children. For the AVMA to do so, however, is just unconscionable.
So you are saying that the only reason pit bulls attack other dogs and don't stop attacking is because attacking other dogs is "what the owner wants them to do?" I guess then we need to arrest all pit bull owners whose dogs are dog aggressive, (that would be the majority, according to the UKC) because they apparently are secret dog fighters who want their pit bulls to attack other dogs.
Try posting THAT idea on any "responsible" pit bull bulletin board and you will get an earful from people who devoutly wish that their pit bulls did NOT want to attack and kill other dogs, have tried everything to get them to stop, and have been unsuccessful. Post it on a, um, less responsible pit bull board (say, "Pit Bull Community" and you will hear from people who say that they WANT their pit bulls to want to attack and kill other dogs. They will tell you that the drive to do that is what makes a pit bull a pit bull.
Pit bulls attack other dogs (and don't stop the attack) because fighting is self-rewarding behavior for them (as retrieving is for a labrador and herding is for a border collie) because they are bred to want to fight other dogs.
By the way, pit bulls aren't typically thought of as "great sports dogs" by people who do dog sports, particularly dog sports that require that they be off leash. Certainly they do fine in weight pulling (they are strong and like to pull) but I have talked to many pit bull owners who would love to have a dog to do agility or obedience with but who can't trust their pit bull off leash around other dogs. They are worried that their dog might attack other dogs.
"Pit bulls attack other dogs (and don't stop the attack) because fighting is self-rewarding behavior for them"
Really...didn't you post earlier that it is NOT something that they "like" to do? Maybe it wasn't you, but do you really believe that? The only place that I remember reading/hearing that "pit bulls" enjoy fighting (real fights not rough play) is from "dogmen". But again if it fits your agenda then it must be right.
Funny how you refute one point in my post that really cannot be argued because there is no evidence. Yet you completely disregard the ones that...well to put it bluntly show that you (like all us "pit bull" people, so you claim) are "spreading this kind of nonsense."
By the way "gameness" is a triait found in almost every terrier...
http://www.flyinsbt.com/lostfight.html
These dogs are Staffordshire Bull Terriers, one of the breeds commonly lumped as "pit bulls" in North American legislation. They share much of their history with the APBT and Amstaff. These photos were taken after they were attacked and mauled nearly to death by my neighbor's German Wirehair Pointer and 2 Lab mixes. My vet bill was roughly $1200, the black dog in the photos almost died, as she was being dragged around by her throat when I came out and discovered what was happening; her oxygen was cut off, if I hadn't intervened, she would have been strangled to death. I thought she was dead for awhile, she had gone completely limp by the time I was able to get to her. She still has scarring in her trachea, but is okay, and fortunately, is still fine with other dogs. (the other dog was fearful of strange dogs after the mauling, and had to be retired from agility and obedience competition)
So MY dogs need to be legislated against, and my neighbor's dogs are fine? The Wirehair is still trying to come through the fence to kill my dogs, 4 years later.
And far from being of "hip hop" culture, or obsessed with proving manliness, I am a middle-aged white woman, work in a blue collar job, pay my mortgage, and enjoy training & competing with my Staffordshire Bull Terriers in obedience and agility, where they have won many awards. The black dog in the photos also enjoys our annual visit to a local grade school with a group of other dog fanciers to entertain the kids and educate them in dog safety and responsible dog ownership. My little dog loves the part where a few hundred kids come by and pet her, after she's shown off her agility & obedience skills.
But, hey, I feel your pain re staffordshire bull terriers. Although SBTs have killed people in England, they haven't (to my knowledge) every killed anybody in the US. But don't responsible SBT breeders in the US already only breed titled (or at least being shown) dogs who are AKC registered? So if mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes (admittedly including SBTs) and mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes EXCEPT AKC AND UKC REGISTERED SHOW DOGS were the law, it wouldn't hurt you at ALL, would it? In fact, you would never dream of breeding a SBT unless it was showable and titled in something, right?
In fact, wouldn't you say that your personal standard is quite a bit HIGHER than merely being an AKC registered show dog (including showing in obedience and agility) before using a dog for breeding and would also include multigenerational health screens, actual titles, etc?
So what is your solution to the pit bull crisis? Just to hope that the breeders who don't share your high standards and who are instead breeding pit bulls for dangerous temperaments and glutting shelters with unwanted pit bulls (most of whom suffer horrifically before dying at the shelter) somehow , miraculously, decide to stop doing it?
How likely is that, do you think?
"The dogs got into the neighbor's yard. I don't know if my dogs pulled the wire out, or if their dogs pushed it back, and my dogs eeled through. I heard the noises, but it didn't sound like my dogs, so I didn't go to check for several minutes. Finally, I went outside (still in my nightgown and robe), looked through the fence... the neighbor's pit mix had Tully down, and the shrieky little dog noise I heard was Tully. Elmo was gimping around back there, too. I screamed for them. Elmo managed to get back into my yard, while I was frantically running out front, to try to figure out how to get back there. He was all tore up, but I was more worried about Tully, who was being dragged around by her throat. She wasn't moving. She looked dead.
I finally managed to break in their gate, and Ruby (the pit mix) let go and backed away. Tully blinked, so I knew she wasn't quite dead. I carried her out, and she started to revive. My dogs are at the vet now, Elmo will need sutures in some of those gashes. Tully may have to go to Dove Lewis (who I hate) overnight for oxygen. Her throat is swelling. They've both been given morphine for the pain.
How do people put their dogs through this deliberately?! This was the most terrifying thing that's ever happened to me! I'm still terrified for my babies.
BTW, for the gameness proponents... I still don't know if Tully's dead game, since she was mostly dead."
So it was really a PIT MIX who was still dragging poor Tully around by the throat even though she "looked dead." That kind of proves the point, doesn't it?
There is a "pit bull crisis" that involves too many dogs that people call pit bulls being killed for the crime of being called pit bulls.
The truth is that there are millions of genuine APBTs, ASTs and SBTs along with all the other dogs you want to call "pit bulls", who NEVER get into any trouble. Their law-abiding owners don't need your faux concern about a crisis. What we would like is for you to get off your lying hate-kick, STFU and leave us alone. Existing laws are perfectly capable of dealing with dangerous dogs and/or irresponsible owners, without uninforceable, draconian and unfair breed-specific additions.
Not that you will... you and BobWire get your kicks from promoting hatred. For BW, it's all about hit count. For you... well you're too creepy to speculate about.
oh p.s. :" What you (and, apparently, the AVMA, lord help us) want us to take from that fact is that it is therefore just impossible for anybody to know whether standard poodles or pit bulls typically bite harder." Yes, exactly. If there is no proof that "pit bulls" bite harder than poodles, it IS impossible to know which breed bites harder. Just because you WANT to believe pit bulls must bite harder doesn't mean that they do. When you can point to a scientific study of bite strength that demonstrates pit bulls bite harder, then you can gloat. Until then, you are just making yourself look stupid with your transparent sophistry.
Dogcentric: is it your position now that every mixed breed dog that people think has a pit bull breed in its make-up is a "pit bull"? How do you intend to identify "pit bulls" as part of your scheme? Surely not with DNA? I know you've seen the video of a purely-pure AST's DNA test coming back with border collie and boston terrier as the primary components.
Ask poor Tully if she needs "scientific evidence" to prove that pit bulls bite harder. And if they keep up the attack longer and with more tenacity. Here is another thing that flyinsbts said about the pit mix who tried to kill her smaller sbt (back when flyinsbts was admitting the attacking dog was a "pit mix," and before flyin's revision of history made her into a "lab mix"):
"Yes, if it had taken me a few minutes longer to get in there, Tully could have been dead. That was the obvious intention of the other dog, considering that Tully had completely stopped moving, and the other dog was still gripping the throat. "
let me clarify some points you raise and questions you asked me.
i agree that purebred dogs have certain breed specific traits. i agree that those breeds which were traditionally bred for dogfighting are unreliable around other animals. often this doesn't become apparent until the dog is mature--i.e. two or three years old or more. the very sweet dog who could be trusted around the family cat suddenly breaks another dog's legs out of nowhere.
this is a breed trait. people who own these breeds need to be aware of this and manage their dogs accordingly.
this does not mean that ALL such breeds will behave like this. dogs are individuals, too. though fighting breeds in general will attack other animals out of nowhere and kill them, once they are mature, there are certainly MANY THOUSANDS of examples of individuals within these breeds who never do this at all.
but, if you own such a breed, you need to be more alert to the possibility that your dog could exhibit this behavior as he or she gets older. you also--and this is very important--need to be an experienced dog owner who is yourself temperamentally suited to owning such a breed. that means you are a strong pack leader, and the dog will look to you for permission to do whatever he has in mind because you have demonstrated that it is you who is in charge, not him.
in other words, not many people in the general public are well suited to owning these fighting breeds. i believe this is the crux of the problem, and if people understood better what owning such a breed requires of them as a dog owner, and did a better job of self-assessment, they might choose a different breed.
having said that, it works the other way, too. IN GENERAL, for example, sporting dogs are not going to be aggressive to other dogs. but there can be exceptions, like the coonhound who attacked my puppy out of nowhere.
dogs are dogs. there are certain traits and potentials that ALL dogs have. ALL DOGS ARE UNPREDICTABLE.
i don't believe in BSL. i believe in educated and responsible dog owners.
someone asked if my dog had ever gotten out of his fenced yard unintentionally. yes, he has, a few times. we do not have a very secure gate in our fence because our dog mostly is not interested in getting out. however, if the paper boy leaves it wide open, he'll go out and explore. he's never left the block, just sniffs around the edge of our property, and comes immediately when i call.
if my dog was a roamer or a fighter, or if i ever left him outside when i wasn't home (i never ever do that), i would have a more secure gate, and i would not allow mail or newspapers to be delivered inside my fence.
if i owned a dog that could or wanted to clear my fence by jumping, i would only let him out into a covered run, and not have free run of the fenced yard.
dogs bred to fight are AS safe with children, if not moreso, than many other breeds. as i said above, there are exceptions within every breed, exceptions that go both ways.
as for the other points you make about "pit bulls"--those things are true of ALL DOGS. ALL DOGS will redirect their aggression to a person, if they can't get at the object of their aggression.
furthermore, MOST DOGS of all breeds, especially males, go through an adolescent period from 6 mos of age to about 2 years of age (depending on the size of the breed and how slowly they mature), in which they may exhibit aggression that is atypical of the breed. if this adolescent period isn't managed correctly, you may wind up with an aggressive or fearful dog for life (and a fearful dog is a dangerous dog).
all of which underscores the necessity of better educating dog owners about dogs. as a person who has been deeply immersed in the dog world for fifty years, i personally think cesar millan does a terrific job of this and a great public service with his show and books.
all of you who love and are interested in dogs should read them.
i meant to write:
this does not mean that ALL dogs within such breeds will behave like this.
Thank you for your post, much of which is thoughtful and correct. I disagree with some of it (more later) but some of it is right. For example, I think it is safe to say that we ALL "believe in educated and responsible dog owners." So EXACTLY how do you propose we educate pit bull breeders and help them see how to be responsible?
Take a crack at it. Go to the "Pit Bull Community" bulletin board and choose just ONE of the many pit bull breeders there who are bragging about breeding pit bulls whose ONLY claim to fame is being closely related to famous dog fighting dogs. No health screens, no titles, (unless you count "3xw"). Educate that person to the extent that they stop breeding pit bulls.
YOU CAN'T DO IT and neither can Bullybob, or Chuck or (bless her heart) even vitriolic Emily. In fact, the so-called "responsible" pit bull community doesn't even try. This is because if a pit bull person values dangerousness in his dog (and many do), "educating" him about how to make the dog less dangerous isn't going to change his behavior (except that he might do the opposite of what you suggest).
The VAST majority of pit bull breeders are grossly, grossly irresponsible and many of these people (as with most of the breeders on the "Pit Bull Community" bulletin board) are breeding FOR dangerousness, either to other dogs or to people or to both. "Responsible" pit bull owners often whine that the reason pit bulls kill more people every year than all other kinds of dog combined is because so many pit bull owners are so grossly abusive and irresponsible. This is true, but these are also the same people who are BREEDING pit bulls, for the most part. And guess what? A person who values dangerousness in the dog he raises also is going to value dangerousness in the dog he breeds and is going to select a dangerous stud dog when he picks who to breed his female to.
There are lots and lots of irresponsible lab breeders out there, but I think you will be hard pressed to find even a single one who is breeding FOR dangerousness. Hence the huge difference in the number of people killed by labs and the number killed by pit bulls.
Sorry, but Flyinsbts (who, at least, has had the decency not to come back here and try to defend herself after she intentionally lied to us about the kind of dog who attacked her dog and called a dog she knew to be a "pit mix" a "lab mix") identified the dog who tried to kill her smaller dog as a "pit mix." I know that you wish it were a generic "mutt," but pit mixes can inheret dangerousness from their pit bull parents just as purebred pit bulls can.
Note that flyin whines here that under "legislation" HER dogs would be regulated but not the dogs next door. Actually, given the facts we now know, the exact opposite is true under the plan I propose. Remember, I propose mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes and mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC registered show dogs. So if this plan had been in place and enforced before the dog who attacked Tully had been conceived, that dog would never have been born, because that dog (who, remember, intended to KILL poor Tully according to flyinsbt herself) had to have had at least one pit bull or pit bull mix parent. Had that dog not been intact, the vicious dog who attacked Tully would never have been born and poor flyinsbts would have been spared "the most terrifying thing" that ever happened to her.
Actually, the owner of the pit mix might have a pretty good reason to complain about HIS dog being blamed for this attack. Yes, flyin's sbts apparently got the worst of it, but she was not responsible enough to keep her dogs in her own yard, despite previous fence fighting by the dogs involved. Flyin's dogs went through the fence to the neighbors' yard (exhibiting more bravado than brains) and got into it with the pit mix, who evidently was the far better fighter. (Not surprising, given a pit mix versus some sbts bred for many generations to be show dogs). And, despite Emily's assurance that "existing laws are perfectly capable of dealing with dangerous dogs and/or irresponsible owners, without uninforceable, draconian and unfair breed-specific additions" flyin was announcing her intention right away to NOT pay the neighbor's vet bill (remember, flyin's dogs were outside her yard, in HIS yard)mostly because, um, she couldn't afford it.
I suppose the neighbor could have sued flyin, but who wants to sue one's next door neighbor? It is usually a better practice to just suck it up.
And, of course, I absolutely know that most responsible dog owners have had a dog get loose a time or two. Flyin is obviously no exception. But if your dog gets loose and somebody else's dog gets hurt as a result (even if your dog gets hurt, too), you should pay the vet bills, don't you guys think?
What SHOULD have happened to Flyin when her SBTs got into the neighbor's yard and injured his dog?
Some of what you say makes sense, some doesn't. As to the latter, you admit that pit bulls are more likely to be aggressive to other dogs than other kinds of dog are (true) but then you say that "ALL DOGS will redirect their aggression to a person, if they can't get at the object of their aggression." This second statement is not true, (indeed, there are many dogs that are so completely nonaggressive to man or beast that it is meaningless to talk about "aggression" when you talk about them) but if it were true, how then can your other statement that "dogs bred to fight are AS safe with children, if not moreso, than many other breeds" be true? Wouldn't your claim that dogs are universally going to redirect their aggression on people if they can't get to the object of their aggression make dogs who are bred to fight pretty darn dangerous, since other dogs (and thus the possibility of redirected aggression) are everywhere?
And a coonhound isn't a "sporting dog."
But these are relatively minor points. I really want to hear how you are going to educate the pit bull breeders on the "pit bull community" bulletin board. (And this isn't even an overt dog fighters board...think how much harder it would be to educate the folks who admit to being dog fighters...)
What's not to "work" about the law I propose? For example, remember the lawyer I know with the intact pit bull who is thinking about breeding him? If this law were passed, he would get that dog neutered and that dog wouldn't be bred. Voila! The law has worked to prevent at least one pit bull litter with NO ENFORCEMENT WHATSOEVER.
I am pretty sure that the lawyer I know isn't the ONLY prospective pit bull breeder who would choose not to keep his pit bull intact (and, thus, not to breed him) if doing so was against the law. If I am wrong about that and there is only one prospective pit bull breeder in the country who isn't an overt criminal (and I happen to know him!) then pit bulls are in worse shape than even I imagine. But I bet that there are others who would obey the law because they are, um, law abiding.
More irresponsibly bred pit bull litters avoided. The law works MORE.
Plus there are all those irresponsible pit bull breeders you guys claim to hate so much. Wouldn't you report them to law enforcement if there was something easy that could be done to STOP them from irresponsibly breeding pit bulls? Or would turning in an irresponsible pit bull breeder to protect pit bulls violate your pact of solidarity with other pit bull people, no matter how irresponsible they are and how many pit bulls they hurt?
So, since the proof problems here are relatively minor (for example, if you can prove that the breeder represented the puppies he has for sale as "pit bulls" and they aren't AKC or UKC-PR registered--bingo, he's nailed), and since you think that "responsible" pit bull people are so numerous, they can HELP enforce this law, right?
Plus this law provides and easy and cheap way to combat dog fighting. Rather than the current situation where law enforcement has to actually prove that the breeder is engaging in dog fighting (and maybe he isn't--maybe he is just not asking too many questions of the puppy buyers he sells his dogs who are closely linebred on Chinaman to) , all law enforcement would have to do is to wave a microchip scanner across the intact dogs and find out whether that dog is on record as being an AKC or UKC-PR registered show dog. (Or a spayed bitch). If not, the dog either gets spayed/neutered (and no dog fighter will spay/neuter his dog fighting dogs) at the owner's expense, or he forfeits the dogs. How cool is that?
not much you can do about the willfully ignorant or mentallly ill. but you find them among fanciers of just about every breed.
i'm talking about educating the general public about dog ownership, because the potential is there to have a dangerous problem with any breed due to mismanagement by ignorant but well intentioned people.
the fact is, any breed can be made vicious when in the wrong hands.
we don't need to legislate ownership of a particular breed, but rather to educate about sound breeding practices and dog handling practices.
we already have vicious dog laws on the books. there is no need for them to be breed-specific.
"pit bull" type dogs happen to be the dog the criminal and anti-social element have chosen to turn into weapons at this point in time. there are people who do that with dobermans, with german shepherds, and with a number of other breeds.
it's the handling practices of these dogs that is the problem, not the inherent nature of the breed itself.
many, many breeds are dog aggressive as a general rule--airedales come immediately to mind. bullmastiffs are another example. we don't call for a ban on those animals, but we do have laws governing vicious dogs of any breed.
Here is what you wrote:
"in other words, not many people in the general public are well suited to owning these fighting breeds. i believe this is the crux of the problem, and if people understood better what owning such a breed requires of them as a dog owner, and did a better job of self-assessment, they might choose a different breed."
You are right. But guess what? Exactly the same personality traits (which one generally be summed up as fearfulness and the desire to have a weapon, rather than a companion) that make pit bull owners not "well suited" to own pit bulls are the traits that attract them to pit bull ownership.
The "responsible" pit bull community also contributes to ignorance about pit bulls in a huge way. Look on this board, for example, and tell us where ANYBODY from the "responsible pit bull community" has told the truth about dog aggression and pit bulls. Here IS the truth:
1. Most pit bulls are dog aggressive.
2. Dog aggression is a temperament flaw that makes any dog much, much less fun to own, exposes the owner to liability, may cost the dog (or other dogs) his life, and makes the dog's life much less fun.
3. There is no significant movement in even the "responsible" pit bull community to breed away from this huge temperament flaw in pit bulls. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that most pit bull owners actually LIKE having a dog that is dangerous to other dogs.
Look up the word sterotype... please.
Now, wanting to own a fila shows a bit of a personality disorder, if you ask me. (Nobody has). But, hey, people own tigers as "pets" and some are able to do so reasonably safely, even if it isn't much fun for the tiger.
Re pit bull breeder stewardship of pit bulls: That horse has left the barn. There is NO HOPE that the so-called "responsible" pit bull community can regain control of pit bull breeding without government intervention. But rather than actually caring for and protecting the dogs by CALLING for government intervention (i.e. laws to protect pit bulls which also will protect pit bull victims), the so-called "responsible" pit bull community whines and points fingers everywhere but themselves ("the media" is to blame, they whine incessantly when they aren't saying "But PETEY was a pit bull") and roadblocks every reasonable chance to stop the incredible amounts of pit bull suffering and death.
Well, why do YOU think people who are not "well suited" to own pit bulls (and here, Alice and I were talking specifically about people who want to own pit bulls as weapons) own pit bulls? Please be specific.
i am talking about people who don't understand dogs, and who don't understand that if they don't take charge, some breeds will take charge for them. i'm talking about people who don't understand that with some breeds, turning yourself into a pack leader is absolutely essential.
i'm talking about your average pet owner. your average pet owner should NOT own a dog from a fighting background. they just don't have the experience or skills to handle those dogs.
and pitbulls are far from the only breeds that require a strong pack leader.
i agree that there are a lot of breeds that are much more dangerous than pitbulls, and sometimes pitbulls are crossed with these breeds to create real monster dogs. i'm a lot more alarmed by that than i am by pitbulls.
pitbulls are at least small enough that they can be picked up. when you have dogs that weigh in over 100 lbs and are aggressive, you have a serious problem.
fila brasilieros are definitely among those dogs. so are presa canarios.
then there are giant breeds that if poorly bred or poorly handled can become nightmares, even if generally they are a gentle breed.
you simply cannot address this problem with BSL. BSL completely misses the cause of the problem. the cause is not the pitbull breeds. the cause is people who don't understand dogs and own dogs they should not own. and that happens with lots of breeds, not just pitbulls. there are beginner owner dogs, and there are advanced owner dogs.
the criminal element or mentally unstable element who want a big tough dog as a fighter or because they want the dog to act out their own aggressions--you can wipe pit bulls off the face of the earth and those people will still find another breed to ruin. you can't stop them by getting rid of pitbulls.
get your hands on both of the dogs' rear legs and lift them off the ground. keep yourself behind the dog by turning away from it when it turns its head towards you. do not let go!
basically, you are holding on to the dog as if it were a wheelbarrow and its rear legs are in your hands and its front legs are on the ground. now pull the dogs apart.
the dog WILL try to redirect its aggression onto you, so you have to hang on and stay clear of its head until someone can get a noose or restraint around the dog's head.
a chokehold (as related in the original story) is a stupid and dangerous way to try to break up a dog fight.
The best way to deal with fights is to commit to prevention: Management, Management! But if something slips past you and a scuffle breaks out, it can help to shout a VERY loud,"NO!"
If that doesn't work, your dogs have gone too far and your next best move may be the hardest to accomplish: Take a deep breath and force yourself to count to five. This gives you time to think about your options rather than react impulsively. Some fights can be stopped quickly by grabbing the dogs' back legs and pulling them out (provided they don’t have a hold on each other), some will end with the use of the hose, in some cases you can throw a blanket over one of the dogs to surprise them into stopping. In cases where a dog has grabbed on and won’t let go, a break stick will end the fight quickly and with minimal injury to either pet. PBRC is a great resource for ordering a Break Stick. Be aware that break sticks should NOT be used on non-pits.
Dogcentric: my dogs are companions....period. I do not know one pit bull owner that uses their pit bull as a weapon. Quite lumping us all together... you only make yourself sound ignorant by doing so.
boxers
airedales
rottweilers
just to name a few, but i could go on and on.
this propensity for dog aggression could be developed into a serious problem by any breeder who wished to create a fighting dog out of that breed.
i wouldn't call it a "temperament flaw" it's just how a large number of breeds are wired.
personally, i try to avoid dog aggressive breeds because these dogs tend to be more headstrong and challenging to handle.
however, these same traits also make the dog very good for things like competitive obedience trials. they tend to have a higher drive and so make good working dogs.
they can be great family pets, but they need a more experienced owner. pitbull type breeds are only a few of the many breeds this is true of.
really? :ROTFLMAO:
Well, why do YOU think people who are not "well suited" to own pit bulls (and here, Alice and I were talking specifically about people who want to own pit bulls as weapons) own pit bulls? Please be specific."
This is easy, because they're one of the only dogs that will do whatever their master(s) say, unconditionally, and they are easy to train. With those two qualities, who wouldn't want these dogs for just about any reason? Some people use this, and the stigma around them, in ways that are dispicable. Many (many, many) others use this to enjoy the most loyal and loving companion.
Again...There are (probably) 10's of thousands of "pit bull" (pb/crosses/and mutts with some "pit bull" in them) that live out their lives without incident.
Shouting No seems to work for me...if it is at the very beginning.
For example the other day Jack growled at Petunia ( while I was eating) and showed his teeth... a loud No.. stopped it.
Once they both went for some food left in a bowl and started to get into it and this helped also.
I also keep martingale collars on my dogs at all times. They are great "handles" and can be twisted like a turniquet to shut off air to the dog.
I have used the grab the rear legs before in a fight at the shelter and it did not help at all... finally a bucket of cold water in the face of the dog that had grabbed the other one did.
For having multiple dogs ( pit bull types) for over 12 years now the occurence of dog fights is very low.. (3 with my dogs..1 at the shelter)
Please be specific.
Because if you can't stop irresponsible people from owning and breeding pit bulls, the pit bull crisis will just continue to worsen and more people and peoples' pets will be hurt and killed. Plus, of course, pit bulls themselves will continue to suffer and die in ever-increasing numbers.
In your words "Be Specific"
So you next say "your average pet owner should NOT own a dog with a fighting background" (i.e. pit bull). I agree with you. And if "your average pet owner" does own a pit bull, the chances are pretty good that somebody is going to get hurt, right? Either the average pet owner, or the pet owner's other pets or somebody else or somebody else's pets, right?
So when you say that these people should NOT own pit bulls when you admit (as you must) that the reason they shouldn't own pit bulls is that it is predictable that somebody will get hurt if they own pit bulls but when pit bulls are incredibly easily available to anybody who wants them (with no owner screening whatsoever) because of massive amounts of irresponsible pit bull breeding, are you just saying it is inevitable that pit bulls will hurt and kill people and other pets and that pit bulls will suffer and die in horrific numbers? You don't care enough to advocate to do something to stop this?
i'm not interested in preventing them from owning pitbull types.
i'm interested in preventing them from using dogs as weapons.
we already have the laws on the books for that. vicious dogs get seized and put down.
we have laws for lots of things that don't get enforced or aren't enforceable. creating new BSL isn't going to change that.
in other words, you can't solve all the problems in the world by passing laws against them.
and BSL legislation is particularly misguided, since it doesn't address the real problem.
wrong. again, these animals are DOG aggressive, not people aggressive.
they are not any more people aggressive than any other dog that has been badly handled or mistreated.
This makes sense when you think about how the average horrible pit bull owner gets his/her pit bull. It isn't like they do the necessary research and pay the amount necessary to get, say, a presa canario (if a presa breeder would sell to them anyway, which I devoutly hope they won't). Instead, they happen to have $50 in their pocket on the day that their buddy is selling six week old "pit" puppies and they decide, on impulse, that having a really mean dog would be way cool.
Of course you are right that pit bulls are not the only breed that is not for everybody. They aren't even the only breed that is not for everybody because of dangerousness. Breeds that are not for everybody are best regulated by having a responsible and committed cadre of breeders who breed very sparingly, screen potential puppy buyers to within an inch of their lives and
follow up with puppy buyers to make sure problems are averted. This is what happens with many breeds that are potentially problematic, and this is why those breeds AREN'T killing people and making headlines.
IT IS TOO LATE TO DO THIS WITH PIT BULLS BECAUSE PIT BULL BREEDERS ALREADY SCREWED UP SO BADLY and sold pit bulls to anybody, no matter how scuzzy, who had the money.
BSL doesn't work, and even if you start small (mandatory S/N and microchipping), when that doesn't work, what? More regulations, when they don't work...Eventually a ban. Then what when that doesn't work what do we do then? Criminals will find a way. They always do, look at the "War on Drugs", Billions (or more) each year go to a war that for almost 100 years (1971 officailly named it the "war on Drugs") has not worked, at all. Where does that money come from? Your pocket, your tax dollars go to to fund the DEA and other departments to fight a war that will never be won. Anyone (and I mean anyone) can find almost any drug they want in a very short amount of time. My point is no matter which BS law, is enacted it will not work. Look at England...1991 they banned "pit bulls" (among others by the way), almost 20 years later and guess what, they still have "pit bulls" in England. And they're not any safer from dangerous dogs than they were then, according to many articles I've read.
Pit bulls kill far more people per year now than German Shepherds ever did, even when German shepherds were the most popular breed in the country. And while there are lots of shelters in the country where the majority of dogs are apparently purebred pit bulls, there is NO shelter in the country where the majority of dogs are apparently purebred shepherds, chows or mastiffs. In fact, there is no shelter in the country where the majority of the dogs are all those three breeds combined.
But, much more basically, if one advocates for a law that effectively addresses the pit bull crisis, that doesn't mean one is saying "it's okay" to irresponsibly breed mastiffs. (Logic 101--saying one thing is wrong doesn't mean everything else is "okay") Just that the irresponsible mastiff breeding problem is much less critical in terms of both canine deaths and human deaths and also has very different solutions.
Let's try an analogy: I assume that you are in favor of laws that prohibit 50 year old men from having sex with 12 year old girls. Does that mean you necessarily think "it's okay" for 50 year old men to have sex with 16 year old girls, just it may be hard or impossible to pass a law against it? Would you OPPOSE a law prohibiting 50 year old men from having sex with 12 year old girls just because that law doesn't also adequately protect 16 year old girls?
Understand now?
How, exactly, would you envision that the law I propose (mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes, mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs) wouldn't "work?"
If such a law is enforced 100% (of course, no law is enforced 100%) then pit bulls will become extraodinarily rare. Even if the remaining pit bulls were all extremely aggressive, they would be in the situation of filas today. That is, they would be an aggressive breed but there would only be a few breeders and they could screen the heck out of potential puppy buyers.
And, of course, the remaining pit bulls WOULDN'T typically be the most aggressive pit bulls, because AKC and UKC-PR registered pit bulls have not been bred specifically FOR dangerousness (unlike many street bred pit bulls, for example the dogs bred by North Star Kennels) for many generations. And since any dog who is going to remain intact has to be a show dog, he has to be a dog who (at a minimum) is able to go to dog shows, tolerate being around a lot of other dogs, and tolerate being touched by strange people.
But, as I said (and as I am sure you are itching to point out) this law probably WOULDN'T be enforced 100%. So the effect will probably only be that pit bull attacks will go way down (depending on how well it is enforced), dog fighters will be put out of business immediately and far fewer pit bulls will die in shelters. All GOOD things, right?
Once pit bull attacks become rare (because the only people breeding pit bulls are not breeding for dangerousness, contrary to the current situation) the clamor for breed bans goes away. As pit bull people CONSTANTLY note, other breeds attack and even kill people too, without calls that they be banned. The difference is the frequency of serious pit bull attacks.
And since the few pit bulls who kill people almost certainly will be dogs who are NOT legal under this plan (i.e. dogs whose owners were not in compliance with the law and almost certainly dogs who were produced by breeders who were not in compliance with the law), if a pit bull DOES kill somebody after this law is passed, the pit bull community can point out that the failure was with law enforcement failing to enforce the law rigorously enough.
You guys CONSTANTLY whine about how you wish there was some way for you to stop irresponsible pit bull breeders. This is it. If you really don't want irresponsible pit bull breeders to continue to dictate where the future of pit bulls is going (currently: The toilet), you would support this.
Do you think that just because we still have drunk drivers despite laws against drunk driving, we should do away with those laws, too? How about laws against child abuse? Pedophilia?
Yes I would protest a law that does not protect anyone under the age of 18 from 50 year old men. Not really a good analogy since those laws are already in place...
The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reported an estimated 1,760 child fatalities in 2007, from abuse or neglect.
Guess we should ban parents huh. That number is far higher than fatalities caused by "pit bulls"...ever. This really is a non issue...There are plenty of other things that the government NEEDS to spend time and money on...Not to sound heartless, because I feel for dog attack victims, but 32 deaths a year is a drop in the bucket really...
I will give you credit though, you are very good at twisting others thoughts to fit your agenda.
Actually, in my state, (very possibly yours, too) it is perfectly legal for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old child. It is only a crime if he is her caretaker (for example, teacher) or if she is disabled.
Sure. Parents sometimes kill children. But in order for the species to survive, parents are kind of a necessity, so banning them isn't a good idea.
And, yeah, when you talk about only 32 people a year being killed by dogs, you do sound heartless. If you could stop just ONE murder of a child by his/her parents by passing a law that would help children generally and wouldn't even seriously inconvenience responsible parents, would you be all for it?
The law I propose (mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes and mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs) would help pit bulls generally, wouldn't inconvenience a single responsible pit bull owner and would SAVE LIVES. What's not to like?
2010 USA DOG-RELATED FATALITIES
28. Oct. 24, 2010-Age: 3 days old- PIT BULL.
New born, Arlington, Florida.
27. Oct. 13, 2010-Age: 84-PIT BULLS (17)
Rev. John Reynolds, Williamsburg, MO.
Also, of course (although it turns out pit bull people don't seem to care at all about this) far, far, fewer pit bulls suffering and dying.
The only time law makers seem concerned is if someone is killed by a dog.. however the one person killed in Philly no mention was made of a law to prevent pit bull breeding etc.
What does seem to upset people though is a pit bull type dog being tortured to death... which has happened in Philly.
Regardless it gets down to a people problem.. dogs basically do what their master tells them... I am sure Jack could be a mean dog if I encouraged it... however.. he is very easy going and certainly will try to avoid a fight with another dog.
nicely put bob wire
Could my dogs be "mean" if I "encouraged it?" Possibly. Could I train any of them to be "mean" enough to KILL an adult human being? Nope. Even though I am an adequate dog trainer, I have never owned a dog who, even if I made a huge effort, I could train to kill a person. The dogs I have owned just don't have it in them to do this, because they were not bred to do this.
I have spoken with other dog trainers who are much better trainers than I am and they are unanimous that they couldn't train their dogs to launch the kind of sustained attack on a human being necesary to kill an adult. This is for the same reason that the golden retriever owners know that they couldn't train their goldens to win a sheepdog trial. THey aren't bred to do it and even if the owners "tell them to do it" they won't do it because it isn't in them.
Extreme dog behavior (and killing humans is extreme dog behavior) usually comes both from genes and environment. The reason labradors so rarely kill people isn't because they are all owned by totally responsible dog owners. It is because while they may have deeply flawed owners, their genetic stability makes up for it. Pit bulls, alas, both appeal disproportionately to the worst kind of owners and tend to be bred for unstable and dangerous temperaments. They lose out on both nurture AND nature.
Dogcentric... please come up with something more original than the cut and paste that you used before. also concerning your dogs I bet I can name at least 30 breeds that I could train to kill a human if I wanted.. and that does not include a pit bull type dog. What I do though is to let my dogs be around as many people as possible but manage the situation..
For example a 3 year old is not going to come up and pet Jack when he is being walked... if your smart you wont allow your JR or poddle to meet a small child either..
I very much doubt you could train "at least 30 breeds" to launch the kind of sustained attack necessary to kill an adult human being. In fact, I very much doubt that you could train even ONE dog to do it, unless it was the right (well, wrong) dog. And you certainly couldn't do it, even if you had far more experience with dog training than I suspect you do, if it was not a breed bred for dangerousness and an individual dog of that breed who was carefully selected for dangerousness.
Have you ever trained any dog to do anything beyond average dog manners and maybe a few tricks? I've trained four different dogs through utility obedience and competed with four different dogs in excellent level agility. I have also gotten tracking titles on two dogs. The tracking, especially, does require some sustained commitment on the part of the dog, (as do parts of utility obedience, but probably to a lesser degree) but some dogs have that commitment more naturally than do others. Pit bulls are bred for "gameness," and many of them have a commitment to continue an attack (once the dog is aroused) until (or even after) the quarry is dead.
In cases where adults are killed by dogs, the autopsy findings often are explicit that the person had bites all over their body. In the recent case of Jerry Yates, killed in California by two pit bulls, the dogs kept attacking and mauling his body even AFTER he was dead. This level of drive to kill just isn't something you can train in most dogs, even breeds ostensibly used for guard work. For example, mastiffs are mostly big, lazy slugs. Very, very few of them compete in obedience and almost none compete very successfully because they just don't have any drive to do much of anything. And, of course, there is almost never any evidence that the pit bulls who kill were trained to do much of anything. They kill because THEY want to kill, not because some dog trainer trained them to kill.
But, hey, I'm curious. List your "at least 30 breeds" that you think you could train to kill. And tell us how you would do it.
I'm sure with training almost any dog over 50lbs could kill and adult.
My point with the correct trainer these dogs could kill.
One thing about you ...your not humble in your opinion of yourself I had not really asked for your resume of dog training experience.
also it would depend on the size of the adult and how good of shape the adult is.
where I work one person is about six five and weights about 300 lbs another person is about five feet and weighs 100 lbs.
this is a rather low life conversation as either you or I are not going to train a dog to kill just to prove a point. at least I am not.
I agree with Chuck almost any dog over 50 lbs has the potential to kill a small adult.. Considering the 300 pounder sitting 2 seats from me.... ex football player ... probably canary island fighting dog material.
The point is that there is almost never any evidence that the pit bulls who attack and kill people were trained to do much of anything prior to killing, much less that they had "the correct trainer."
These dogs kill mostly because of genetics, and breeding, not because of training.
Could they have been trained NOT to kill, if they had had extremely responsible and competent trainers? Possibly, possibly not. There are plenty of very responsible pit bull owners whose pit bulls still want to hurt or kill every other dog they see.
And by the way, no one has ever been killed by a falling coconut - studies have been done and you can look them up. So I will not go F myself, I will continue to push for responsible ownership of pit bulls, proper education by their advocates, and since both have failed to this point, regulation of pit bulls to protect the rest of society.
Annual gun-related deaths in the United States: 30,000
Yes, this whole dog-mauling thing is a high-priority issue, I tells ya.
And predictably, this article is filled with uninformed, oft-repeated myths about the pit bull breed...as all editorials of its type tend to be. Sensationalistic twaddle to pump up the fear factor, without scientific support of any kind...the mainstream U.S. "news" media would be proud to endorse this.
US deaths by dog bite - pit bulls - for 2010: 22
US deaths by guns that got up, chased people down and fired on their own for 2010: 0
I would think for any of those 33 people and their families, as well as the countless others who were mauled but did not die, it is a high priority issue. And its pretty easy to see where the problem is when you compare dogs to dogs.
Dogs are very similar to people, they are a product of their environment. I don't care who says otherwise, personal experiences have shown me more than any written word ever has. Dogs are not the issue, owners are...Period
You know as well as I do "pit bull" means type, not just APBTs. And you also know that it is not hard to tell what a "pit bull" is and that most dog attacks, especially deaths, are accurately reported. If the family dog kills the child and the owners say its a pit bull, I think its a pit bull. And please, spare me the loyalty nonsense - pit bulls are used for fighting because they were bred for the job and have a unique set of body and temperment traits to do the job better than any other kind of dog. Fighting has nothing to do with loyalty, obedience, or desire to please their masters - it has to do with instinct that no amount of training can undo. And before you go off and tell me human aggressive fighting dogs were culled, save your breath. It has been well documented that many champion fighting dogs were human aggressive and even man biters, that needed special handling both in and out of the pit. Looks like it might be helpful if you paid a bit more attention to the written word afterall, you might learn something. But that's right, you don't care, you're not interested in the truth. You just want to believe what you want. That's fine. Just don't expect me to be interested when your dog is banned because too many owners like yourself were not interested in educating yourselves about your own dogs.
Again, try educating yourself on the breed better before you want to kill them all off. I've been attacked by a dog before; a little breed. So what; we should just kill all dogs?
All this time on this post everyone's trying to psychoanalyze a fricken 'Dog'.
We're still the most dangerous animal on this planet by far. And the worse part is, we presume to know right from wrong 'Most Of The Time'.