Took my 3 doggies (a mini doxie and two chihuahuas) to the dog park this afternoon for their 4th of July celebration. Was there for about an hour with all of the dogs (about 30 of them, big and small) having a great time. Then the pitbulls started coming. One pit came in through the gate with his owner, saw me and started running. He sped about 100 yards to me, jumped on me and knocked me over. The stupid owner was yelling for the dog, but obviously had no control. Over the course of the next half an hour, about 10 more pits came to the park. Out of all the pit owners there, I would say that only 3 of them had any control over their pitbulls at all, and dogfights were erupting right and left.
I have nothing against pitbulls (although quite frankly, they terrify me), but these owners are just nuts. We know pits are very strong animals, so why don't they have some measures in place to ensure that only people who know how to handle them can own them?
My older sister was viciously attacked by a pitbull that she had dogsat since it was a puppy. Without provocation he attacked her when she was calling him in to eat. She almost lost her leg. Certain breeds of dogs have different temperaments. I am frightened of pitbulls, too.
And the reason the one ran to you, and knocked you over? The smell of fear....
Pitbulls, like any dog, big or small, reacts to that smell...Pitbulls themselves are not a dangerous spieces....It's the owners who should be put to the blame (As you state)....
If they're treated with love, and kindness....They in turn will be loving, kind, and will be big soft-hearted babies....But if they are treated mean, trained to attack, and kill (You know, dog fights), they'll pass that trait on to humans as well...
They are of a big, dog breed, and therefore, should not be let loose in a dog park....Or anywhere else, but their own territory (yards)....The owner was wrong there....
You're soooo right about the fear thing, Ellie. It was either that or the 4lb chihuahua I was holding at the time! I think I heard the pit mumble "lunch" or something like that as he was running!
You know, I know exactly where you're coming from...It was but a few days ago, that a 2 Pitbulls were on the loose...They escaped from their yard, ran across the street, and attacked a small dog...2 Young children had just come ont to walk their dog, which was on a leash....Their father was standing on the poarch, watching them, but he was too late in getting there....The owner of the Pittbulls was cited, and my understanding is, is that it's not the first time where those 2 dogs are concerned....Those dogs were not being well-treated, in my opinion...
I think that those who don't like dogs in general would say the same of all dog owners, pitbull or not.
I previously worked with an autistic guy that was terrified of all dogs, but he liked to go for walks on the beach. The amount of times he'd be scared senseless when somebody's dog came bounding over while it's owner (several hundred meters back) stood waving and smiling, and calling out to a dog they blatantly had no control over.
Personally I love dogs, but I was been bitten by one when I was a child, by exactly the sort of dog that owners allow to run up to small children, whilst they say 'oh don't worry, he doesn't bite!'
Very much agreed. And so sad for the autistic fellow.
But there would be a world of difference between my 4 lb. teacup chihuahua biting someone and a fully grown pitbull.
No actually thats not true for me, I do like dogs alot and I do not say that about every breed.
I have owned dogs.
But the American Pitbull Terrier is on the banned list of dogs not allowed to be imported in New Zealand,and I am sure that is not the only dog nor the only country.
The Pitbulls already there are not allowed to be bred.
They just have had too many incidences where they mamed children or were a risk to the public.(despite having good owners)
They are favoured by gangs because of their aggressive natures, and natural strength.
So imagine how much more dangerous they become defending their patch, once trained.
Yep like they should not be allowed to breed ,like in some other countries!
This is half and half, Pit bulls have a split personality, one minute they can be all loving, then next thing you know they will be chewing on someone's throat. One of my friends had a pit bull years ago in UK, The dog was the most loved dogs, taken for walks all the time, given hugs and kisses, then one day out of the blue, it snapped, went for my throat, I grabbed its neck and pushed it back, my friend grabbed her collar and locked her in the garden. this dog was later put to rest under the dangerous dogs act. The problem is, that when these dogs get annoyed they will snap at anyone. What gets these dogs annoyed, well it could be anything from not being able to catch a fly, to a smell that it does not like, you have to remember these dogs are as dumb as they come.
However bad owners can make a pit bull get annoyed very quickly. which results in a very dangerous mix. These dogs should 100% be muzzled when outside and around children. Never trust it as it does not respect you or anyone, especially when it sees red. To be honest I feel that this breed of dog should be banned world wide as it is in the UK especially after the ellie lawrenson case.
Now I am a dog lover, I currently own a rottweiler. Which is another breed that also receives bad publicity. I now how some dogs have a freaky nature, hell the rottweiler is one of them. but this only causes a problem when the owner can not control the dog. So I am not bias in any way as to my comments. However when I choose a dog, I go for a dog with brains, A pit bull is one of the dumbest dogs out there. So i say ban them all.
From past experiences I have learned that the dog owners usually determine how the dogs behave. I was always too scared to go anywhere with too many dogs because my Siberian Husky used to pull on the lead too hard in those situations. Personally I would just take my dogs for a walk and avoid the dog parks, or try to go at times of day when there are less people.
I have a blue/red nose pitbull and she is a beauty she has never bit anyone and gets along great with other animals and dogs.
Best of all she LOVES people the only biting she does is her own ass.
She is babied and loved and she is a baby and loves.
2 years old.
Some people swear by them, but I think they are a very bad choice in pet.
Pets are a reflection of their owners. Any dog whether large, small, purebred or mixed, can be a nuisance if it has not had the proper training from the beginnings as a puppy. I breed Rottweilers and have never had any problems with my dogs simply because I train them to be obedient to me, without any excuses. I am alpha. Period.
Any dog breed and size can become aggressive, dangerous, disobedient and unruly if the owner is not willing to learn how to be the alpha dog, whether through self education or obedience classes. I have had run ins with small dogs who are more dangerous than large breed dogs.
It is not the breed or the dog that causes the problem. It is the responsibility of the owner and it is his fault if he has a disobedient dog.
The only law that should be enforced is that with every puppy/dog purchased, the owner MUST attend obedience classes with their pet and pass the grade.
It's both, but the fact is that some breeds are more capable and likely to harm humans. That is an important distinction no matter how it is argued.
How true. I have to admit that if I was about to be attacked by a dog, I would rather it be a Rottie or Shephard than a Pitbull. At least I would know I had a chance.
They are more capable because the chosen traits of agression and size has been bred into them. We also have to remember the roots of the dog: they are descendents of wild wolves that humans have tamed. Therefore, they are genetically speaking, going to retain the wildness in them no matter how we tame, treat, or teach them. This leads to the question of whether or not wild animals can be domesticated to extent that they are harmless to humans.
While I completely disagree about the obediance class, because I am a do-it-yourselfer, the rest I find to be true.
This bit of wisdom also aplies to children.
Dogs and humans have had a cooperative relationship with each other for tens of thousands of years. That's why there is a unique type and degree of communication between the species. We have 'evolved' together - if you will. Now, animals are animals, and it is pretty obvious that humans are the more violent, aggressive, and unpredictable of the two, but the fact remains that some breeds of dog are more potentially dangerous to humans than others. There is no reason a human gets a dog as a pet that cannot be better and more safely met with another breed than pitbull. Dogs do nothing inherently 'wrong' by following their nature, but humans very often do.
Very well put, TK. Most of the time when folks are looking to get a dog, they research the different breeds and pick the one best suited for their lifestyle. Like I would love to own a border collie, but it needs more exercise than I would be able to give it. Or if I lived on a farm, I probably wouldn't own an Akita. Bottom line, what is it that makes people want to go out and get a pitbull???
Some people love the breed, some want to look 'tough' (one of the worse reasons for doing anything), some fight them for 'fun' and profit (a special place in hell for them), and some are literally guarding a drug business. Very little good can come from any of them.
Why does responsibility have to depend on breed? If your dog is disruptive and hurts others, then you should be held responsible. If your dog is well-behaved, then taking it out in public should be okay.
For the same reason there are laws controlling automatic weapons and not pointy sticks.
I don't support such laws. If you get killed by a pointy stick, are you an less dead?
I think the point is that it is much, much easier to kill you with the automatic weapon.
But the real question is: does the owner of the automatic weapon want to kill you? Because if someone wants to do it, a pointy stick will do. If they don't wan to, and they are behaving responsibly, then it's not anyone's business what kind of weapon they own.
That's fine, but by that thinking we either allow the private ownership of nuclear weapons, or outlaw spoons.
why punish all owners of the breed when you had one bad encounter? if you want to put restrictions on owners of one breed, restrictions should be placed on all breeds. that's a b/s quick fix.
was the dog running to play or runnin and bearing all teeth and growling? there's a big difference. if the dog was aggressive or domininant, i highly doubt the owner would let it offleash.
It was only one of many encounters with out-of-control pitbulls at dog parks. The owner spent two hours at the park with his dog running around after him, trying to break up fights, etc. The dog wouldn't listen to him for diddly-squat. Whether the dog at that particular moment was aggressive or dominant or bearing its teeth is, to me, completely irrelevant.
I completely agree with everything TK has said. If a German Shephard or Labrador or Collie attacked me, I would get hurt. If an out-of-control pitbull attacked me, I could very well be killed.
Tell my Pit Bull that. Tell her that she's going to attack and kill another dog or child. I'd like to see her do it because she doesn't have a bone in her body to hurt a person. She can't even defend herself with another dog. She was attacked by my mother's St.Bernard/Collie the other day and who had the wound? It wasn't the mix.
Have you done any research on dog bites and attacks? Did you know that German Shepherds were once top on fatal dog attacks? Labs and Collies have also had many reports on the fatal attack list?
My hub about dog attacks may shed some light on other dog breeds who have throughout time been apart of these reports, as well as a new light about how media portrays the worst in these dogs. Not all reports are accurate. Most are actually innacurate and guessed.
Did you know that APBTs where bred for dog aggression NOT human aggression. Even fighting dogs were bred to be people friendly. Those that showed any sign of aggression to people were not allowed to breed again. They did not want their dogs to be a potential threat to people or children.
Don't punish everyone because you've encountered a few bad individuals in the breed.
If you really think you can survive an attack from a German Shepherd, you really need a reality check. The breed can make great pets but can be wonderful attack dogs. Tell my boyfriend's mom who was in the middle of 3 of them with a bichon in her arms. Tell my boyfriend and three other large men to include the owner of the dogs who had to fight them off. Tell them that German Shepherd are easy to break away from. She and the dog would not have made if if no one had her screaming. All that and she still doesn't fault the breed because of those three individuals. That's a true animal lover who can look past the individual dogs who did cause problems and not blame the breed or the owner, as the owner was responsible. The dogs slipped out of the fence and he didn't know it. The dogs were trained police dogs used for breeding purposes for producing more police dogs.
Whitney, I'm glad you made these points.
Discrimination against a particular breed is very much akin to racism. It's prejudging a whole genetic grouping based on some preconceptions concerning specific individuals. (And in many cases, without understanding the circumstances that led those individuals to act as they did.)
Why did I know you'd come to rescue? You go girl!
People, why don't we ban kitchen knives? They can be used to kill!
I'm sure that will be a comforting fact to my 4lb and 10lb chihuahuas and my 8lb mini doxie. All the more reason why an out-of-control pitbull should NOT have been allowed to run free at the dog park.
I have not punished any breed or individual dog. Reread my original post. I'm not "anti" pitbulls (although they do personally frighten me). I am totally and thoroughly against irresponsible pitbull owners.
I can say this: pitbulls are nasty creatures for the most part. I once saw one latch on to a smaller dog's butt and dragged the poor thing in circles while his owner still had him attached to his lead.
The small dog survived, but he was half the dog he used to be (most of his butt was gone).
In certain parts of Cape Town, owners, usually tik addicts, play games with their pitbulls. They let them loose and they attack and kill other dogs and children.
Everyone here has valid points. However, I still believe that it is up to the owner of any breed to be held responsible for the behavior of the dog as they are the teachers for the animal. I have seen pit bulls that have been raised with love and care. These dogs have no aggression in them and play on a daily basis with children and run freely in the park. I have also seen rotties that are complete opposites to mine -- aggressive, disobedient and unruly.
Genetically, dogs are wild animals. Genetically, we as humans have bred them for certain traits. These traits can be good or bad, depending on what you want to use the dog for. I have dealt with German shepherds that will kill upon sight but on the other hand, have dealt with others that think they are lap dogs. I have had my children bitten by dashunds and licked to death by bull mastiffs.
The bottom line for me is the animal reflects how the owner treats, trains, and brings out the best in the dog. Restricting a certain breed does not eliminate or contain a problem. It only points fingers at a breed, not at a problem that is widespread amongst any and all breeds. The problem requires a solution that acts as a blanket without targetting specific breeds.
I agree, it is up to the owner to control their dog. I think it should not be restricted to pit bulls. All dog owners should be held responable for thier dog, no matter the breed (my sister was once bit by a poodle.) I do think, some breeds, are more likely to be agressive, and a person should have to prove they have appropriate knowledge of how to control the dog before getting it. For example, in my state, you need specific liscenses to get a dog that is more then 40% wolf. NOT becuase the dog is bad, but becuase it needs more attention to training, and is naturally more agressive then, a Shi Tzu. I had afriend who had 2 pit bulls, they were the sweetest, nicest dogs you coudl ever meet. Raised with tons of love, but no rel training. They did not listen to thier owner AT ALL. Now, this person did nothing wrong, the dogs were not mean at all, but Pit Bulls are husge, strong, and because of the terrier in them, will not ever let something go. Every time I went to this house, the dogs would knock me over, take my soes, and ruin them. All dogs need training. Some are more destructive without it then others.
I couldn't agree more. We can take this a step further, and look at issues with children. For example, it is the parents who are responsible for the behavior of their children. It is not up to schools to teach them or society to train them. Yet, this type of thinking is happening.
Parents (whether of kids or animals) must be responsible for their children (human or pet).
This is very true, but when a parent cannot control their child, he/she grows up to be a menace, then the law must step in.
But in the end, it is still the parents who are responsible. The "parents" can end up being the whole "society" of where that person came from. But ultimately, there is a higher person/group who ends up being responsible for these people. We pay through tax money to keep law, order and justice in place. Through these actions, we are the parents.
Even prisoners are educated in their wrongful behaviors and are given tools to either change or remain where they are. Again, education is the key.
I agree in theory, not necessarily in practice. Education only works on those who care to be educated. How many millions and millions of dollars have been spent on educating America on the issues of drug abuse, smoking and alcohol abuse. And yet, the problems still exist.
True. It's very sad, but the type of treatments for addiction are unsuccessful for several reasons. First, the person must want to change. Second, addictions is a disease, not something that is psychological. Third, proactive measures should be taken. Fourth, and last, follow up care is a must. Also, the addiction is made available to the public through illegal means. This is no different than for purchasers of aggressive dogs, regardless of the breed.
As for dogs and breeders, they need to understand the impact of breeding for specific traits. These traits can be aggression, size, intelligence, markings, coloration and so forth, but if the overall picture is not understood, then the potential of catastrophes can occur. The dots on the map have to be connected for these people.
There are obviously different instincts at work in different breeds of dogs. While I like the bigger, more aggressive dogs, I know there is no lack of problems involved with them.
My dog has been attacked repeatedly, by pit-bulls, rottweilers and 'Walt Disney huskies' (sorry, can't remember what their actual breed name is). It is aggravating, and we try to keep her away from places where there is likely to be many other dogs, because she is very protective of the family and guards us with her life. When attacked, she has always sent the other dog fleeing, even after 20 mile runs, but that doesn't make it okay that there is a dog on the loose, out of control. This last time she got injured for the first time. I dread the day when it will be a fight to the death.
We already require dog owners to license them. When we adopt animals from the pound (and possibly other places too, like pet stores) we have to get them spayed.
In other words, dog ownership is already regulated to some degree.
Maybe my logic is spurious, but I see a parallel with driving a car. Before you can legally get behind the wheel of a car -- which we know is potentially a lethal weapon -- you have to pass a test.
If your breed of choice (e.g., pitbull) is known to be dangerous and has been documented to kill animals and people, why should you not have to submit to an owner-readiness test?
If you don't like that idea, get another breed of dog.
I have a cousin who had a pitbull and it was the sweetest dog ever - very lazy and laid back.
I also have a friend who owns a black lab/pitbull who is a very laid back dog and is a sweetheart.
That being said, I have never been and never will be comfortable around those dogs because of their breed.
There was an incident in my aunt's state where a pitbull got off his leash, got over the neighbor's fence and killed the neighbors two smaller puppies (a adorable little toy breed). He then DRAGGED them in front of their own home's door step! He didn't just kill them, he dragged them. It almost makes me cry to think about that. The poor owner had to find them on the door step.
That's so frightening. It makes me shiver. What if it had been a little child, dragged back to his home?
There are so many breeds out there. I don't know why someone would want to own a dog that can turn so quickly. Sure it's up to the owner to train them, but it's been scientifically proven that some nasty behaviors in pitbulls are hereditary and can only be reduced so much.
Same with raising a baby tiger cub...you can train them to be as gentle as possible, but they obviously have wild instincts that not even the best cat trainer on the planet could overcome.
So, I do know that some pitbulls can be sweet and some can be downright evil. The legal risks of owning one would NOT be worth it to me. Owners need to realize that owning a pitbull is like owning a time bomb, imo. A law suit waiting to happen.
The key is "hereditary". Unregistered breeders (the backyard type) will breed dogs with certain genetics that they like. For the larger breeds, it's generally size, aggression, and markings. They do not care about the overall genetics of the breed -- conformation, health, temperment, diversity of genes. The inbreeding with these breeders is high -- a recipe for disaster and potential for destroying the breed. It doesn't take many generations of breeding before you have the large, aggressive type dog. This happens in numerous breeds, but pit bulls are a definite target of backyard breeders simply because of their genetic history. It's a real shame, but it is still up to the owner to be aware of the dog's background and train accordingly.
In the UK there are specific laws relating to the ownership of pitbulls. It also relates to pitbull types, ie crossbreeds etc.
Pitbull Ownership UK
Maybe something like that would do the job. But then again - it is down to the owner as to whether they are responsible. And does the law work in practice - I'm unsure as I don't have any stats to hand.
All animals, including humans, have the potential of becoming dangerous. Just look at the prisons around the world, the history of mankind with war and torture.
Understanding what you have, educating yourself with the facts, and being open to solutions to resolve the problem is what is needed.
Banning is a short term solution, with no resolution for long term gain.
I agree that banning is the wrong way to go. When you make something illegal or illicit, it only makes certain people want it more. It drives it underground. The last thing we need is people breeding, selling and raising pitbulls on the down low.
What is wrong with requiring pet owners to obedience train their animal(s)? If they want to do it at home, fine. If they want to do it through a trainer, fine. But is it in fact a personal rights issue?
Do we have some Constitutional or God-given right to own dangerous pets? I think not.
How are you going to enforce that? Are we gonna open up a new branch of the Dept of Ed? Raise some more taxes to pay for it? Send out an army of pet evaluators to everyone's home to 'test' their pets?
Yes, tksensei. I know we do. I don't think we are talking about responsible pet owners or breeders here. We are talking about the complete morons who think owning a pit bull is cool and have absolutely no idea how to handle one.
I could make a comment about this same type of person having children and not being fit to be a parent, but as I am in no position to cast stones like that (not being anywhere near a perfect parent) I will refrain.
Suffice to say, I am a strong proponent of EDUCATION. If you are going to take on a responsibility -- be it driving a car, owning a pet, or being a parent -- take courses, read, or otherwise expand your knowledge. As none of these comes completely naturally to anybody!!
Yes. More government spending and bureaucracy. Hooray for government spending and bureaucracy!
The fact is, there already are "laws" pertaining to dog ownership. At least where I live, dog owners walking their dogs in public are required to scoop up and dispose of their dog's poop behind them.
Dogs and cats are required to be innoculated against rabies.
In certain places dogs must be on leashes.
If you own a dog that causes bodily harm to another dog or a person at a dog park, don't you think you should be held accountable for that? I certainly do.
But what do I know. My cats are indoor. They are only trained to attack people who don't agree with their Mom:-). MM
Yes. More government spending and bureaucracy. Hooray for government spending and bureaucracy!
The fact is, there already are "laws" pertaining to dog ownership. At least where I live, dog owners walking their dogs in public are required to scoop up and dispose of their dog's poop behind them.
Dogs and cats are required to be innoculated against rabies.
In certain places dogs must be on leashes.
If you own a dog that causes bodily harm to another dog or a person at a dog park, don't you think you should be held accountable for that? I certainly do.
But what do I know. My cats are indoor. They are only trained to attack people who don't agree with their Mom:-). MM
I think the 'one strike laws' that exist in some states is a step in the right direction. If you own a pet and it kills or attacks someone, at least you'll have that dog taken away from you that you were unable to control. But, of course someone had to get injured or killed, so it doesn't fix any of those imminent dangers.
There are some very educated pitbull owners out there who have wonderful, lovable dogs. Unfortunately, there are also owners who have no clue what they're dealing with. Not a good situation.
Luckily, we're pretty safe with owning indoor cats, LOL. My cat Lily will growl at people as they walk by the window, but that is about as viscious as she gets. It's pretty cute, actually. The other day she growled at thunder. She's a little sweetheart, too, so growling is REALLY weird to hear from that cat.
All dog owners should be responsible for their own dog. That doesn't mean specify or point out one breed over another. Any big dog can harm your small dog. It's your responsibility to watch your dog and other dogs around to make sure that your dogs are safe. It is the owner's responsibility, and no dog or breed should have any stricter regulations than another.
By the way I do have a 7 pound dog living and co-habitating with my APBT.
If you want to have stricter regulations on APBTs, you might as well include any other large breed dog that may hurt your small pup and anyone else's.
Those dogs at the park just need more training, and should not be at the park until fully trained. It doesn't necessarily mean that the dogs are mean and nasty beasts that want to kill all the other dogs. It just means that someone needs to talk to the owner and let him/her know about training classes that may be going on in your area. It doesn't mean that the owner is irresponsible, it may be that the owner doesn't know any better.
I agree completely, Whitney. Perhaps a plausible solution could be training classes at a 'donation suggested' cost by local humane societies? I wonder if people would utilize them that typically wouldn't have their dogs trained? Even if it reduced attacks by 1/3, it could be worth it.
Although, I think there may be a group of dog owners out there that simply don't understand what it takes to be a pitbull owner and would probably snicker at the idea of training...
But we are not talking about dogs with behavorial problems ,some PB's are specifically bred for fighting.
You wont train the gene outta those ones.
this seemed an informative site http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/thoughts.html
its not putting the dogs down , more so humans (my opinion)
I couldn't agree more, Eagle. It's the owners.
As most any canine authority would tell you, if a pitbull is in the hands of a responsible owner, they can make the most loving pets imaginable.
During my dog park visit that instigated this post, there were also two Rotties there and several German Shephards (and a host of other large dogs). All of the shephards were fine and you could tell they were in the care of responsible owners. Out of the two Rotties, one of them was just a huge teddy bear who made instant friends with an English Spaniel named Ruby. The other was a bit more aggressive and didn't quite get along with most of the other dogs. But he wasn't out there looking for trouble. The Pits were.
I think Wikipedia says it the best, and I totally agree: "Pit Bulls are said to be popular with irresponsible owners, who see these dogs as a symbol of status or machismo."
You're not giong to find those Pit Bulls at the dog park. If you're breeding to fight other dogs, why would you take the dog to a dog park? Dog fighting is illegal and if you take a fighting dog to the park with dogs off leash the fighting dog will fight to which a potential lawsuit and serious prison time. Common sense here... Seriously. A person who breeds fighting dogs isn't going to take the dog(s) to the dog park. That's wide and visible that he's into criminal activity. He'd be telling on himself, which is not what a criminal would do on purpose.
Education is the key. Controls would help, but you can't put controls on ONE breed and one breed alone. Liek I said before small dogs are at risk of being hurt by any dog bigger than he is.
It's your responsibility to watch your dog.
The owner of the dog you spoke of went running around stopping fights; was he not watching his dog and stopping the fights? Did he let his dog viciously kill another dog? Was he watchful and alert? It sounds like it to me. The dog doesn't sound like he was trained to fight as if he where he would have. If he was going to attack he would have. The owner prevented any potential problems, and that's what the owner was there to do- be watchful and alert of his dog and any problems that may happen. That is not being irresponsible if you ask me.
By the way.. Please explain to me how Vick's fighting dogs. bred and raised to fight- were retrained to be pet therapy dogs or live in homes with other dogs and children? If you cannot possible ever in anyone's lifetime retrain a dog that was bred and raised to fight to be anything other than a fighting dog, how is this possible?
Also, have you done any of the thigns that I have suggested? Ask the owner about training or anything like that? Or have you just sat, watched, and thought about how the dog should not be allowed to socialize because the owner has to follow it around all the time? Maybe you should take that step and try to help out another dog owner.
Criminals are generally not real clever. There ARE idiots who bring dangerous, out of control dogs to dog parks. Sad but true.
But, you do realize that so many other dogs can become aggressive and can bite and kill other dogs and people. Just because you haven't seen any people "control" a Pit Bull, doesn't mean that none can.
How would you changet he law after the dogs are completely banned? They would be no more except with criminals. So in that case there would be no chance for revival of reputation. These dogs used to be the best family dogs, and were sought after as such.
True, but seriously, have you ever seen a scarred, torn up dog that can't walk without growling at another dog or animal anywhere in public? I've seen a good number of domininant (NOT aggressive) bully breeds in public, and not one fighting material. You're really not going to find a fighting dog at the park.
I'd still like some explanation from anyone and all of you who believe that fighting dogs cannot be rehabilitated? It's been proven that they can be. I'd love to hear your reasonings as why they can't.
Education is the key, not bans or restrictions. Stop trying to find quick fixes and try to educate owners who you believe cannot control their dog (no matter what breed) about training. Offer suggestions about courses somewhere locally. Maybe YOU need to take the first step to the long-term solution not the quick fix. (Again lrohner you never responded to this and as to why this is not possible.)
And, like Misha said, anything that has the potential to harm should be banned or restricted by your logic, and that's just silly. So by this logic we're restricting, driving, walking down the street, cooking, going up and down stairs, curling irons, clothes irons, ropes, medications, needles, etc. Sounds like life would suck. We would all be living in cardboard boxes.. .Oh crap we can get cuts from cardboard. Dang guess we're just living on the streets with no materials or pets. Because by your logic dogs can kill, so we must put restrictions and have classes and such for labs, retrievers, pointers, poodles, yorkies, chihuahua, dachshunds, etc. I would say that as a responsible dog and pet owner, that's a lot of work, and most people wouldn't do it, meaning most people would have a dog without a class and would be against the law.
There are laws against driving with a seatbelt. GA and AL both have them. Not sure who else.
We need general education and training of dogs. This will help promote animal and people safety, as well as animal health and welfare. There is potential to reduce dogs in shelters if education was more of a priority.
As much as I hate to admit this, I SOMEWHAT agree. The Akita is a perfect example. They were bred to be hunters and will go after other animals if given the chance. That said, the Akita does not have the power, jaws or bite of a pitbull. An aggressive Akita MAY win. An aggressive pitbull WILL win. I would still rather go head to head with a Rottie, Shephard or Akita than a pitbull any day.
One of my dogs is a doxie, and owning one of those is much more work than owning, say, a chihuahua. I knew that going into it and was willing to put the work into her. Tk and Mighty Mom have both made very good points that pits are somewhat "fashionable" to some people. They don't put the research in before buying and they certainly don't put in the effort.
And what of the 4yr old boy out collecting snails ,and a Pitbull is on the loose looking for blood.
He can be so aggressive he will cross boundaries to stalk and eventually attack.
It would be quite another story to hear from someone who has actually been attacked, or mauled.
Yes its true they are not the only dogs to attack, but they have a bad reputation (with reason).
I am glad you take care of your dogs.
Personally I think there should be more controls at the point of purchase. I like MMs idea of education, but I think that education should be for all dog owners. All dogs - big and small need to be trained.
I was charged by a medium sized random dog in my neighborhood today. The $#@%# owner was on her phone and didn't even bother to get her dog. She just kept saying the dog's name which of course the dog ignored - DOH. I would like to ban that stupid dog owner. At the very least she should be fined and then not allowed to own any more dogs.
But even small dogs need proper training. There was another clueless owner of a small dog who let her off leash, and she came over to my dog and started growling at my dog. Now I am not afraid that she would hurt my dog, but my dog could certainly hurt her and if that happened my dog may have to pay the price.
Yes larger dogs have more potential for damage, but all dogs still need to be trained and properly managed. There needs to be more control at the point of purchase so that people who don't have the time for dogs should not be able to buy a dog.
I don't understand why puppy mills are not illegal everywhere. Get rid of that first and we will start to make some headway with the other issues.
Sweet! Am I classified as an irresponsible owner wanting to boost my ego bc the breed is my fav and I'll always have at least one in my home?
Akitas are pretty stubborn, can and will kill. It's all in the hands of the owner, which is why ALL dogs need more restrictions at the park, not just one breed.
lrohner, are you ignoring my plausible explanation? Or the idea that the owner was being responsible. That you probably didn't talk to the owner about training or handling the dog differently. That all large dogs can hurt small dogs and that all large dogs can easily kill a small dog. Why not put more restrictions on all dog breeds at the park? Why just the one? The one isn't the only one who can, will, and has been proven to fatall attack other animals and people
Whitney - Are you ignoring my posts? Every single darn one that said I'm not holding the breed responsible -- just the owners?
Every dog has their idiosyncrasies. Every owner SHOULD be aware of them and accept responsibility for them. What I have said ad nauseum in this thread is that in large part, pitbull owners don't accept the responsibility. Read back, my child, and you will see the light.
But the question is: should all pitbull owners be penalized because some == or even many === are irresponsible? How about we penalize only those who cause harm?
That answer is pretty simple. Because they would have to cause harm before we could penalize them. And I'm not talking about penalizing them. I'm just saying that they should be forced to prove that their dogs are trained, obedient and in control. And if that means all other breeds are held to the same standard, so be it.
So you're suggesting now that all people be required to pass a test, along with their dogs, before they can go out in public? Do you realize that this will require a new licensing bureau, public employees, license fees, and all the things that accompany that kind of bureaucracy?
Yea. Kinda silly if you ask me. I wouldn't want the job of sitting at the gate of the dog park testing all the dogs. I think someone is thinking way into the extreme, and for a person who initially claimed not to have a problem with the breed, she sure is condeming them.
Oh and she's saying ONLY Pit Bulls and mixes thereof should be tested, no other breed or dog. She's saying that this is the only dog breed that will attack and the only dog breed that will hurt other dogs, which is why they're the only one who needs to be tested and put restrictions on. She's saying that she can protect a dog or child against any other dog that's at a park except a Pit Bull.
Yes the breed is strong and strong willed, but the few Shepherd, Rotties, etc that she's seen have been well behaved so that means none of them could harm her toy dogs or any other dog at the park. That those dogs won't get pissed off enough to bite or hurt another dog when they've had enough.
Oh wait, now I see, she's saying she'll agree to the testing if all dogs are if that means that the Pits are tested. Still b/s. That would never get approved, unless she herself did it, and I could assume (could be wrong) she'd not let any Pit Bull in the park. But thing is that it's hard to identify a mix and most people can't identify a pit bull in a group of dogs.
Ummm....I never said any of that, chica. If getting the right regulations in place for pitbulls meant that all dog owners had to go through stricter testing, I'd be all for it. 100%. All in.
I'm 50 years old and I've been a dog owner for 40 years (yeah, I'm old). I've seen more than a "few" Shephards, Rotties and Pitbulls. I've owned my share of Shephards and other large dogs. Just lost one, in fact, in January -- a 50 lb Shephard/Lab/Pitbull mix. The first "toy" dog that I ever owned was a rescue that I got in Nov, 2002.
I'm at one of several dog parks almost every day, and have been for many, many years. I do see Collies, Labs, Shephards and other dogs start to get aggressive. I also see their owners step in. But the Pitbulls? Say what you want, but most of the Pitbull owners that I have seen have absolutely no control over their dogs.
Sounds like an owner problem, not a breed problem.
Exactly. And she claims an owner is irresponsible for preventing attacks from his dog onto the others just because the dog is a pit.
And RooBee is right, pit bull is different from APBT, as a pit bull is going to be your mix breed with general short hair, big head, and muscles but not guaranteed, well-bred Pit Bull.
Other countrys manage do achieve it , it depends on how important it is to a community ( my opinion)
The last city I lived in had reduced costs for 'responsible dog owners', but with the city footing the bill for so many abandoned cats and dogs , food and medical treatment doesn come cheap.
Owners who did not have their dog registered, lost ownership if impounded and required to pay for kennel fees.
Most owners want their dog registered, shows their shots and if animal is hurt able to be traced to owner.
They do not like the costs ,but that is another matter.
It goes pretty well with the current western legislation ideas. Just give it a thought - if you exceed an arbitrary set speed limit, you get fined or even jailed, even though you did not really harm anybody - just because some other people did.
So it goes way beyond just dogs or just cars for that matter
It does not mean I agree to that approach. In fact I am very much against it
Sigh....I should have known. Are you saying that we should forget the statistics and only step in after the damage has been done? Isn't that kind of like "Sorry ma'am. I know he's been stalking and harassing you. But I can't do anything until he's killed you."?
Yep, exactly. Based on what I saw during all my years on this earth - pretty much the same amount as yours, such an approach while attractive on the surface does more harm than good.
Stop outsourcing your safety, buy yourself a gun and shoot the stalker - if they really start to do a harm.
On a second thought, your example is not too good - harrasment is the harm already
Doesnt make any sense though , none
Misha I was meaning , some laws are meant to act as deterants.
like in NZ ,if youre caught without a seatbelt ,theres an instant fine of $150...which sucks ,but trust me hardly anyone gets fined for that anymore ,so although I dont agree , the moeny loss is a deterant
Misha, I'm all for your argument except that there is a fine line. I do understand why there is a law against drunk driving. It can kill someone else. I don't understand why there is a law against driving without a seatbelt -- doesn't hurt anyone but you. In the case we're talking about, it's definitely a hazard to others.
I draw a line at a different place - actual harm, not probable. As i said already in this thread, following your logic (well, not only yours, the prevailing attitude in Western culture) we should outlaw kitchen knives, cause they can be used for killing someone else.
Just because I'm not quoting you doesn't mean that I'm ignoring what you're saying. I'm replying to you just not quoting you. You still have not answered anything that I've suggested to you. You're set on putting restrictions to the one breed. That is not a solution by any means. ALL DOGS NEED THE RESTRICTIONS.
I am not your child and do not belittle me by calling me such.
I guess that I'm one of those owners who don't accept responsibility. You're constantly grouping all owners of the breed. You don't seem to understand that not all owners are like this, and the bulk actually aren't. You don't quite seem to see that dog fighting dogs won't be at the park, and you CAN retrain a fighting dog to be a therapy dog or whatever its calling is. You aren't quoting reputable sources; wikipedia is not a reputable source.
I don't think that it's fair that someone stand at the gates of the dog park to prove that all the Pit Bulls and mixes thereof are trained. Who's actually going to do that? If someone is standing at the gates to monitor one breed, they should ALL be monitored. Why can't you get that through your head? All dogs need restrictions, not just one, in order to go to a dog park. It's up to the dog parents to watch their dogs, but apparently only Pit Bull owners are the only ones who need to watch their dogs because no other dog can hurt another dog or person. Yea that makes so much more since... Ha whatever...
Whitney -- The fact of the matter is that not all people are the right owners for a particular breed. I've actually written a whole hub about why dachshunds are not for everyone. Yeah, little, bitty dachshunds.
I know that I'm not the proper owner for an Akita, Border Collie (although I would luv luv luv to own one), and many more breeds. And what is happening is that more and more folks are purchasing pitbulls for the wrong reasons -- status, machismo, etc. It's like the "grills" for people's teeth. They buy them and use them without regard for the damage they can cause to their teeth. Only in the case of pitbulls, they can damage and hurt others.
I accept your point that its not probable that fighting pitbulls would be at a park , but I was trying to see the bigger picture i.e breeding , dogs finding their way to bad owners etc..abuse , lack of control etc
But getting back to the original thread.
I agree that all dogs should be monitored strictly, but if one breed is a problem ,( whatever it is ) then get rid of them.
Sorry but ive seen what a vicious dog can do a little girls face ,and shes lucky to be alive though will be scared forever.
If it had been my dog I would have been the first one to shoot it.
Eaglekiwi it's different to do that in a community versus just a dog park.
Nyet, dahlink. You used the term "probably harm". When is the last time you heard of someone dying from a wound caused by a kitchen knife? Unless said kitchen knife was in the hands of an irresponsible owner?
Yep, that's a good example that perfectly fits your pitbull suggestion as I understood it - let's forcefully educate ALL kitchen knife owners about the dangers of owing a kitchen knife, and require a license for owning kitchen knives, again, for ALL owners
As for the last time - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl … 118998.stm
Jun 25th is pretty recent I would say
And how about a latest death by pitbull example? Confirmed by the court ruling please
There is more to dog education than just the danger to humans issue. I think that dog owners should show that they have to ability to take care of a dog before being allowed to own one. This takes care of the safety issue, but even more importantly, it will help with dog abuse and dog neglect.
This does not have to be centrally controlled by the government. All the government has to do is institute some dog breeding laws - currently there is essentially none. Alternatively there could be some controls placed on the sale of dogs.
I am still waiting for a recent confirmed death by pitbull example. Until you provide one, I stay by kitchen knives being more dangerous
And I agree to Aya on racism I think, this is the same line of thinking, rooted in the fear of different and unknown
http://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.ph … p;type=top
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 … dogs_N.htm
Both of these happened within the past month. In the first one, there were three dogs in the yard. A collie who was tied up and two pitbulls running loose.
As sad as they are, both are news reports and not court rulings. As Whitney pointed out many times already, pitbulls have a reputation, and many reporters do not bother with checking the breed at all and just assume that they were pibulls. Can you come up with court cases? Oh, and I did not see where it says that collie was on leash and pits were not...
Also as i just mentioned these are sightings and it's hard to identify a pit bull 100% by the average person. And without papers, can it be proven that these attacks really were pit bulls?
Misha, I'm trying here, but it seems like most people prefer to condemn a breed on mere false reports and media-inflicted beliefs than to spend time and learn the real facts and statistics. It's easier to quote the same info over and over again that has been proven false or even re-corrected years later. Don't you love how she hasn't said anything about her CDC stats that they even claim are incorrect. She won't go back on the incorrect stats. CDC says their previous statistics are not accurate and cannot be used in study or comparison.
It's not only about dogs Whitney. We are lazy thinkers and prefer to stereotype when possible, especially when fear is involved. It's easier this way.
Can you look at an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Cane Corso, and whatever dog I so choose and pick the APBT? Can you? Not many can. Even I have problems sometimes finding the APBT in the lists, and I've been around them and working with them for years.
Human is human. Dog is dog. That is not a good similarity comparison. You can look at a Chihuahua and tell its a dog, just like you can a Pit Bull. But can you look at a mixed child and say 100% what race its parents are? I can tell you my uncle looks 100% Mexican, yet there is no Mexican in his blood; he is half Korean and half Caucasian. Race and dog breed would be a better similarity.
Seriously, go to my hub (http://hubpages.com/hub/Dog-Attacks-and-Aggression) and find the links to the tests, can you really find the APBT? It's doubtful.
That's obvious. Stereotyping is so much easier than free-thinking and going with real facts and statistics that are actually accurate. Being one of the crowd is so much simpler than being an individual. I see that a lot with Pit Bull Haters.
I'm not a pitbull hater. I am afraid of them, yes. I'm also afraid of heights, drunk drivers, snakes and spiders. My 21 year old daughter is afraid of clowns (go figure). You're dangerously close in your arguments to the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit." since you continue to take the conversation into different directions.
Pitbulls have a reputation (whether true or not -- I have no idea) of being vicious, tenacious and unpredictable. There are a whole lot of folks out there who get pitbulls for that reason alone, whether or not they are well suited to be a pitbull owner. I don't condemn the breed, just the owners.
You've sure tried to prove that you don't like them because of stereotyping because it seems this started with Pit Bulls being the only dog breed that needed to be restricted at the park. To me that's a hater of something. Your fear is understandable from things that you do not know except media reports. There may be some people who get ANY dog for reputaion, but there are people who get them for genuine love of the breed. My entire family would be those people, as well as SO many people that I know. You can't say most because you don't know the statistics, and neither do I.
I'm not trying to baffle you with bullshit. I'm giving you facts and statistics, trying and hoping you'll see both sides. I've also covered comments on Vicks' dogs, home insurance, etc. all of which have been mentioned by others first in this thread.
Also, I meant to ask you. If you think that you can 100% identify each and every dog breed and mix please explain why my friend's dachsund/jack russell mix (100% that mix bc she got it from the person who has both breeds and it was an accidental breeding) looks about 90-95% minipin?
Personally, restrictions is a way to give the government more control over somthign that is not broken. The number of attacks is miniscule in comparison to how many people have dogs. Dogs are animals and they are not perfect.
I do see your side. I just don't personally agree with most of it and believe that you are the one twisting facts around to suit what you want. You are right about one thing -- "There may be some people who get ANY dog for reputation but there are people who get them for genuine love of the breed." Problem is, when that pitbull is approaching me, I don't know which family it has been raised by.
I don't need to see your birth certificate to know that you're a human being. Or do I....?
I had a Lab/Shep mix for many years. (Just lost him in January of this year. Rest In Peace, JD...) It was very clear just by looking at him that he was a mix of both breeds. You certainly didn't need to see any papers to know that he wasn't a poodle. So maybe he had a little bit of chihuahua or boxer in him. Is that really relevant? He was predominantly Lab and Shep and really displayed the traits of both.
He had been severely abused before we adopted him and had been wandering the streets of NYC for some time before Animal Control took him in. He was bounced from shelter to shelter in an attempt to keep him from being euthanized.
We went through thousands of dollars and years of training with him and a personal trainer. But JD was always a fear driven dog, and as such, I did not trust him around small children or other dogs that did not live in our house. Although my yard was fenced, I never let JD out in the yard when my neighbor's little daughter was outside playing. Didn't want to find out if he could jump the fence. Didn't want to use Leah as a guineau pig to see if he would tolerate little kids. And I certainly did not take him to the dog park.
JD was a loving dog and was a cherished member of our family. But if I didn't feel that I had total control over that 50lb dog 100% of the time, why in God's name would I risk another person or animal getting hurt?
Education is the only proactive way to prevent negative outcomes. Proactivity is the key to changing how society thinks. Reactive reasoning is too late--the damage is already done and all that results in is "putting out the fires" aftermath.
Being proactive, especially through education for owners, breeders, children, is a track that takes more time, but it is a great insurance of preventing the breeding of aggressive animals without any common sense. It also motivates owners to learn more about the dog, which promotes ownership and responsbility.
Being proactive in all aspects of society will lead to a more responsible society, whether it be in regards to animals, planet, or each other. Sweeping a problem under the rug doesn't solve it, it only delays the necessity of finding a solution.
Quote from the Clifton study of dog bites/attacks from 1982 to 2006:
"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. They 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."
And then he states:
"The traditional approach to dangerous dog legislation is to allow 'one free bite', at which point the owner is warned. On second bite, the dog is killed. The traditional approach, however, patently does not apply in addressing the threats from pit bull terriers, Rottweilers and wolf hybrids. In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question."
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks … lifton.pdf
During the time period of this study, Pit Bull Terriers were responsible for the most attacks out of any breed at all (almost triple any other breed), the most deaths (double that of Rottweilers, the next highest) and the most maimings (triple that of Rottweilers, the next highest).
This is Attorney Kenneth Phillips ten-point plan for preventing dog bites, and I have to say that I agree with each and every step:
1. Require dog safety education in schools
2. Force dog owners to have insurance that would compensate dog bit victims
3. Make pet stores give customers specific information about breeds
4. Enact laws that will take dangerous dogs off the streets
5. Criminalize the failure to stop a dog attack
6. Get rid of the one-bite law
7. Enact leash laws and dog-trespass laws
8. Enforce the laws that prohibit dog fighting
9. Keep certain high-risk breeds away from the wrong people, places and situations
10. Support further research about dog attacks
According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), in a 36-month period, pit bulls were directly responsible for sending over 500,000 Americans to emergency rooms for treatment. Between January 2006 and the summer of 2008, pit bulls killed 46 Americans.
No other breed has stats that even come close to these.
Many, many dogs are not pure bred. How can you rely on breed statistics when most dogs are a mix and their owners do not even know what goes into their bloodline?
And aren't you worried about racism? If people took this line of thought concerning ethnic groups and violence, wouldn't you find that abhorrent? I would!
I wouldn't be worried about canine rascism so much as I would worry about my child being mauled at a dog park. I have a lab mix and he was cornered in the dog park by a pit. I would never bring my child there, and that is sad because she would have a great time... if she wasn't being mauled.
The Clifton report statistics did not include those dogs where their breed could not be relied on as a certainty. Read the report.
And that's a pretty huge leap going from dogs to people and racism.
It's not at all a huge leap if you understand the reason racism isn't a good thing in the first place.
All forms of prejudice are based on pre-judgment. That's the etymology of prejudice, and that's what it means when put in action.
Yes, if you wait for an individual to do something bad, then it means that you can't take action against him until after something bad has already happened. Freedom for yourself means taking that risk with others.
One major difference between a free country and one that is not free is that in a free country you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You are not pre-judged.
Also according to the CDC you can't assume bites and attacks by breed. They have stopped predicting bites by breed because of the miniscule attacks in general. There's not enough data to prove anything. Also, did you know that the CDC will admit that those numbers that you reported are NOT accurate. They took some of those numbers from media reports which were later proven inaccurate but never corrected, as well as sightings that were not proven one breed or another. It's hard to ID a breed, especially this one.
I agree with all the points in the Attorney Kenneth Phillips ten-point plan except getting rid of the one bite law, as there are many incidents where the one bite the dog ever has was on accident or provoked versus from a truly aggressive dog who will be prone to more bites in the future.
Again, from a person who claims not to have a problem with the breed besides personal fear, you sure are condemning their lives. I suggest you reading some of my hubs about the breed, statistics, and attacks. Open your eyes to the false reports and to both sides of a truly wonderful dogs that this breed has the potential to be. By the way in one study the dachshund failed in all aspects of aggression, whereas the APBT did not averaging right with most of the other breeds.
Gosh, Whitney, you sure have an active imagination... As I have said from the get go, I have a problem with irresponsible owners. Repeat: Irresponsible owners. I am an educated, responsible dog owner who chooses not to own a pitbull for many reasons, not the least of which is that my homeowner's insurance would go skyhigh. If you ARE a responsible owner and choose to own a pitbull, more power to you. I've got nothing against you or your dog.
Am I afraid of pitbulls? Hell yeah. Just like if I were walking alone down a street at night and saw a bunch of youths walking towards me wearing gang colors, I'd also be afraid. They could be on their way to church for all I know, but I'd still be afraid. Call me prejudiced or whatever, but the fear would still be there.
Yes, I know all about the aggression tests with the doxies. You might want to read my hub about doxies where I stress that the breed is NOT for everyone, people should carefully research them first and spend some time around them before choosing to own one. That said, I'd STILL rather be attacked by a doxie than a pitbull.
Blood hounds search and find things.
Labs are water dogs.
Shepherds herd other animals.
Some other breeds are instinctually hunters and attackers.
I don't believe they should be banned, but I do believe they should be segregated, like the large dogs are segregated from the small dogs. It isn't canine racism, it is for our, and our family's, safety.
I agree that sometimes two dogs just don't get along. In that case, they should be kept separate. But it's not a matter of breeds. Two dogs of the same breed might not be compatible.
Everybody knows cats and dogs aren't supposed to get along. But some people keep cats and dogs in their home, and they get along just fine.
It requires common sense to judge these things on a case by case basis.
Dog breeds have distinct characteristics but there is a lot of variation within each breed. We have a Malamute. They are known to be hardheaded and difficult to train, and they fight with each other, but our particular Malamute is well-behaved and mellow and eager to please. That's just his unique personality. I've never had any trouble training him to do anything.
I walk him on a leash no matter what because I can't vouch for other people and their dogs. I don't know how their dog will act, so I keep mine trained at my heel. Even so, my dog gets charged by off-leash dogs all the time and I am blamed because "a dog on a leash invites aggression from other dogs."
Usually I tell these idiots that I keep my dog on a leash for THEIR protection, as he is from a breed that is huge, strong, and can kill their dog in a matter of minutes if challenged. That shuts them up, but it doesn't make me very popular. I don't care. There are too many irresponsible, selfish dog owners who think a dog is an accessory like a purse or a car.
I agree it's not the breed, it's the owner.
I know pit bulls that are loving, gentle animals. But if you don't bother to train them, of course nothing good will happen.
Well put Aya & pgrundy. As a child, my family raised several pit-bulls and American Terriers (not the same, please note). Never once was there even an iota of threatening behavior exhibited from any of these dogs.
Sadly, it is true that certain folks opt for one of these dogs to appear tough. It is following a similar thought-process that leads such a person to carry a gun, buy a large vehicle, and drive recklessly (among other things).
It's kind of like the gun law thing. Do we want criminals to be the only ones with access to them because they are the only ones willing to skirt the laws.
With all due respect to the intelligent folks posting in this thread, you are being very judgmental! I've run across plenty of dog-owners that could be categorized as "stupid" the way you've labeled all bull-breed owners. I've been bitten twice in my life. Once by a Chow-Chow & once by a little yappy dog. True, the yappers can't inflict much damage - but by that logic we should ban all SUV's and other such things that are scarier than their more compact counterparts.
Not trying to use the slippery slope argument here, but it is fitting in some ways. It is sad that some bad eggs ruin it for everyone, that much is for sure.
I understand Clifton's assertion that if this type of dog has a bad moment it's a whole other story from when a smaller breed has a bad moment. I'm still not sold, though, since there are all kinds of dangerous creatures out there that people keep as pets.
Maybe the owners of these breeds should be held to stricter standards, as its certain that some kind of change is in order. However, blanket legislation and mud-slinging aren't going to help.
When I worked in insurance, we had a list of breeds that bite and if a homeowner owned one and the insurance company got wind of it, they had to provide a certificate from the vet saying the dog had been through obedience training or their home policy would be cancelled. This is true of most insurance companies.
Anyway, you know what the most frequent biter was?????
True story. I guess they are touchy little bastards. Cute, but touchy.
Can't provide one because there hasn't been a confirmed 100% pit bull killing in a while. Same reason why she's has stood by the breed causing problems not the other breeds that can potentially cause problems. IE any large breed dog.
Irohner, I'm just saying you seem to want to condemn the breed. You aren't pulling any recent information, and what you are pulling from is wikipedia and old CDC. They no longer study breed causing attacks vs other factors. No dog is for everyone, but this breed should not be vilified bc of media caused fear. There are valid points to fear, but more than half of the media reported attacks are not accurate. Most assume the attack was pit and never post a retraction. Some state in the headline pit but within the article another breed.
You've still not commented on the proven retraining of fighting dogs. You swore fighting is in the genes and that's what they do. Why can true fighting dogs be retrained to be wonderful companions?
The only thing that you've seem to have seen is that you can't single out one breed at the park, and you've grudgingly said 'fine if you have to test them all just to test pits then do it.'
I just posted two articles about recent deaths. One was witnessed, so no question it was pitbulls. The other could be coincidental. The kid was in a yard with two pits running loose, but the dogbite injuries he died from were probably from the chihuahua next door.
I believe you have me confused with someone else. It wasn't me who "swore that fighting was in their genes", although I've read that statement on several occasions. I haven't commented on the retraining of fighting dogs because I have very little knowledge about it and would only be able to comment from my personal experience with the subject. If I did comment on my personal experience, however, you would not like what I had to say.
I am certain that there is a very good reason and justification for the many State Supreme and Appeals Courts, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court that have declared Breed-Specific Laws as constitutional.
I posted a link about the Vick dogs. Guess you didn't see it.
Sorry it was someone else who posted that you can't retrain fighting dogs. No offense, but I don't care what you have to say as it's been proven effective that you CAN train these dogs out of their previous past.
BSL has not been proven effective in any country or county that has had the legislations in effect for months or years.
As for the links, as Misha stated those were not trials or court cases. Just reports. Also as I've mentioned many times over the average person cannot identify a Pit Bull, so how can you 100% prove that is what it was? How can you prove that is what you saw in the park supposidly running after all the other dogs?
Sure and I'd rather have a slim gal throw a punch at me than a hefty woman, but we don't classify bigger folks as being worse because of their potential to inflict more harm. There's cause for the racism concern again. Any 'ism' no matter how well-justified it seems, leads to problems down the line.
Aww, Misha...thank you. A girl can never hear it too much. And the feeling is mutual, my friend!
Oh Misha... In your kitchen knife example, they prosecuted the person responsible for the murder. In the case of murdering pit bulls, they are euthanized -- not tried in court.
Another little girl in January of this year -- a 5 year old from Texas killed by her family's 3 loving pitbulls.
Umm, I am not too familiar with American criminal law in that area. At the first glance it seems reasonable to have every case of forced death to be investigated by a court...
I know what you mean. But unless the owners were aware of previous aggressive behavior, had been warned by animal control or other law enforcement officers, etc., they generally aren't held criminally liable. Usually they are just charged a fine for having the dog off-leash or something stupid like that.
I do know of one case where a father was charged with his son's death from his pitbull. The court let him off because the authorities in their town did not warn him that pitbulls could be dangerous. How stupid is that?
Ignorance should never be the excuse to be relieved of one's responsibilities. If this is an excuse, then the world would run amok.
Shouldn't it still be a court ruling to fine them? Even minor speeding tickets go to courts, and here we are talking murders?
Typical American, if you would ask me. The rest of the World ( even dreaded commies) usually assumes some basic level of intelligence and survival skills in people. This sounds pretty much like the old lady drying her cat in a microwave, don't know if this was for real...
I can't help but say that I'm a little shocked by most of the replies left here. Most of you seem like anything but dog lovers. I've known many dogs including pits in my life. Dogs are what their owners put into them. There are bad dogs in all breeds. Pits might be a little more dangerous because of their lock jaw factor but they are not all aggressive. The ones I have known are the sweetest dogs with huge hearts and even bigger smiles. Please re-direct your fingers to the bad owners. Pits are loyal and wonderful with children. They are the all American dog. Look back at some photos from the early 1900's and you will see pretty little pits as a common household dog. They were originally referred to as Nanny dogs because they were so nurturing to children. Any dog can be raised as a bad dog and if you think there should be restrictions on pit owners then rightfully there should be restrictions on ALL dog owners
That is exactly what I have been saying since the beginning of the thread. The pet reflects the capabilitis, or lack of, of the owner.
Which is exactly what I've been saying since the start of this thread! I just think that the consequences of a pitbull in the care of a bad, uneducated or incapable owner tend to be much more severe.
Contrary to popular belief, a pitbull's jaws don't "lock" any more than any other dog. Their skulls share the same anatomical structure as other dogs. They have the same propensity to please and want to be loved like any other dog.
However, just as it's in a Labrador's nature to love water or a Shephard to want to herd things, it is in a pitbull's nature to not give up a fight. I mean, there's a reason why people like Michael Vicks continue to choose the pitbull breed for dog fighting and not Shephards, Labs or Toy Poodles. Comparing a pitbull in fighting mode to another dog in fighting mode is like comparing firecrackers to hand grenades.
So in my book, a pitbull in the care of someone not educated and capable of controlling the dog is sitting on a ticking time bomb.
That seems to contradict my point about it's not the breed it's the owner, but I do think it's the owner not the dog.
I just wanted to point out that dogs that bite the most often are not the ones people think.
Maybe the reason is that cockers and other little dogs look 'cute' so owners don't think any training is necessary.
Also if you're pissed at some neighbor's pit bull and you wanted to be really nasty you could always rat them out their insurance company.
They'd be cancelled in a heartbeat.
Actually, there are a few home insurance companies who have no problem with any dog breed. Most only provide partial for certain blacklisted dogs, but State Farm does no charge extra or offer less protection if you have a certain dog breed, except in Ohio.
State Farm is great. They're #1 so they can afford to be great--or maybe they're number 1 because they are great.
The company I worked for is one of the top three insurers in the world and they required vet certs at their discretion using the breed list as an underwriting guideline. The breed list was not for public distribution, but it did exist and we all had access to it.
If a homeowner was insured with that company and underwriting got a call about a biting dog or a house with one of the listed breeds, they homeowners would be sent a letter requesting the vet cert, and when the vet cert didn't come they'd be cancelled. If they weren't cancelled over the cert underwriting would find another reason to cancel them.
So maybe I overstated it with the 'heartbeat' thing.
My point is, most insurance companies don't make money on homeowner's insurance and they don't like dogs. I'm aware of the controversy surrounding all that, especially when it comes to breed specific underwriting standards. What I'm saying I guess is, if you have a dog that bites or a breed that they fear will bite, the comapny will find a way to make you go away.
I can't speak for all insurance companies. I can speak for one of the top three.
Personally, I think it's fair. It's statistical, it's not capricious. If a certain breed bites more and results in more claims paid out on dog bites, then it hits underwriting as a risk. The company is required to insure based on risk. That's what insurance is.
Even small dogs can be mean and unruly, that is very true. When we were kids no on would walk past the one neighbor'ss house because their little Scotty dog would bite at your ankles.
Gosh pit bulls being allowed in public, next thing you know black people will be allowed to vote.
*editors note: previous sentence said in extremely sarcastic tone*
It actually all depends on the pit bull owner. If the owner doesn't have any control or training of the dog then they will not have any control in public. Much like our children why would a child behave if they knew the parent just gave a bunch of false promises about things.
The dog is not to blame, but the owners!
Truthfully, I think almost everyone is in agreement here, so I do not understand the continued controversy. It seems that we all agree that -
1. Education on dog care, proper dog management, and dog training is important for all dog owners.
2. Larger breeds can cause more damage than smaller breeds but all dogs should still be properly managed and trained.
3. There should be more controls/laws/education - something - anything - at the dog breeding level.
4. We all love Misha
Am I missing something?
You forgot 5. We all love shibashake, the wise and cute one
I guess the only part you might be missing is this: some of us want fewer laws, not more laws.
Some laws are necessary, I think. Currently, there are very few laws that protect the rights of dogs. 'Owners' leave their dogs unattended, neglected, and abused, and when caught they either claim ignorance or just pay a few hundred dollars in fines. There was this one case where these clueless people threw their puppies in the garbage because they were making too much noise. All they had to do was attend a class.
In a perfect world, everybody would be responsible and we wouldn't need these laws, but in our world I think we sorely need more protection for our animals, especially our pets.
In a perfect world those responsible people would make a responsible government. But in our world how can we expect governments to enact responsible laws and responsibly enforce them, when governments are made out those same irresponsible people?
How do you know? Have you seen a copy of their papers? Just because other governmental officials have acted irresponsibly in the past doesn't mean we should brand the whole lot of them going forward.
My new hub will be titled "Misha: From Pitbulls to Politicians in Five Easy Steps"
Just because other pitbull owners have acted irresponsibly in the past doesn't mean we should brand the whole lot of them going forward.
And thank you for the hub
No. Even now as you said this, I hardly can see how this could be sarcastic - it goes in line with what you said before pretty good, the whole thread is devoted to government fixing dog owners
You were talking about government and government officials as a whole and branding them, and then arguing against others "branding" the pitbull species as a whole. I actually thought you were joking there for a minute.
No, I was not "branding" them. I do believe (and I think I have all the reasons to believe this) that government consists of the same people like you and me and idiot pitbull owners. And they do what they are paid to do - be at the work place from 9 to 5, or whatever their exact hours are. They are not magicians, and they don't have any incentive to do more than just serving their hours. Some try to do, but those are rare and between, and usually got weeded out pretty soon. Relying on them to solve your problems, whatever those problems are, is - umm, how to put this in non-offensive way? - not a good bet.
Counting on the government to 'fix' ANYTHING is a great way to find yourself disappointed.
Well you are not going to get me to cheerlead our government but I believe that *even they* can get this partially right. And partial protection is better than no protection at all.
After all, there are many human laws that I am glad are there. Not saying that I agree with all the laws, but I am glad that mugging, murder, and such are against the law.
LOL! We are in the HP FORUMS! WE can't agree! It's against the law here or something. So I guess that's...
5. Agreement in the HP forums is strictly prohibited.
Shibashake, now you're bringing up suggested legislation on a completely different topic: dog abandonment.
But the laws people were talking about were to license owners before they're able to take dogs in public. Some wanted the laws to apply to only owners of a certain breed. Others, to all breeds.
Are you in favor of such laws?
Let me remind you that parenting classes is where a generation of parents learned that you must NEVER put your baby down on its stomach or it will die of SIDS. A whole generation of babies grew up with flat heads and poor coordination as a result of following such instructions!
Do we want mandatory classes to teach all dog owners -- even the good ones -- how to behave?
Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier comment. I thought you meant that more animal laws, in general, were undesirable. I think that there are many areas in animal protection where more laws are needed.
And no I am not in favor of mandatory dog education set by the government. I would not like the government to dictate how I should train my dogs.
However, I would like a lot more controls on dog breeders - for example we could only allow the sale of dogs by non-profit adoption agencies and accredited breeders that follow AKC guidelines. This would get rid of puppy mills.
There are already organizations out there that look out for the welfare of dogs, so we only need to utilize them more to give more protection to dogs.
by Charity Squid 11 years ago
The ban of owning a Pitbull DogSome states such as Maryland ban people from owning Pitbulls. Do you think banning of Pitbulls a good idea?
by ptosis 10 years ago
My dog bit me and drew blood - should I put it down?Today, the dog bit me. Hard. On the thumb, deep puncture wound and black and blue mark on the nail. I thoughtlessly took a big bone away from her without testing first how Jackie would react. Because it wasn't dog food that she gulped down in 3...
by Looney93 7 years ago
Who's the problem? The pit bull or the owner?Should it be illegal to ban all fighting dogs? It's in they're instinct to ravage and Mail anything smaller than them especially if it darts past their line of vision! Would you rather see behavioural therapy? Or training classes more available for both...
by Lyn.Stewart 12 years ago
Do you believe agression is the fault of the breed of dog or the owners of the dog?
by frantisek78 7 years ago
Despite the fact that many people claim that pit-bulls are given a bad reputation and that they are in fact loving dogs, the fact remains that they were bred specifically as fighters and to be aggressive. Just as golden retrievers are genetically very calm dogs, pit-bulls are genetically violent...
by Hoodala 12 years ago
7 year old Tanner Monk was killed by 2 pit bulls in Texas last week. Another sad tale in the long history of pit bulls. I just had to write a completely factual hub about pit bulls and their history. Tanners death is no joke, what is a joke is not having laws banning these menaces...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|