# APBT Myths



## Mach1girl (Apr 17, 2006)

In a recent study, 122 dog breeds by the American Temperment Testing Society Pitbulls received a passing rate of 83.9%, that is better then beagles 78.2% and Goldens 83.2%.

Check out your breed at ATTS.org


Here, Ill let you read for yourself if there are any questionable people out there that dont like the breed due to myths and crap
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/img/rubykiss.jpg


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

While I 100% agree with your viewpoint on pits, that picture doesn't really hold any water as supporting evidence.































Just saying...


----------



## blunder (Sep 2, 2008)

If you wish to argue the point, take it off line. I will be more than happy to oblige.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

Group hug!


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

trumpetjock said:


>


Great pics Trumpet,im gona use this as my avatar


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

This doesn't change my mind about pit bulls, but it is an interesting test. I am certain all of my dogs would fail simply because of the gunshot test. I wouldn't even attempt to put them through it.


----------



## mylittlebecky (May 27, 2008)

that lion picture is hilarious! 

i think he's saying "i love you so much i want to eat you!"
and the woman is saying "holy toledo this thing is going to eat me!"


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

mylittlebecky said:


> that lion picture is hilarious!
> 
> i think he's saying "i love you so much i want to eat you!"
> and the woman is saying "holy toledo this thing is going to eat me!"


It's actually a really touching story. She found this lion as a cub and raised it for like 10 years. She got sick or something and when someone came to help her they found this lion. She had to give it to the zoo.

edit -- here's the actual story http://www.local6.com/news/10726779/detail.html


----------



## mylittlebecky (May 27, 2008)

aww that's so cool. so does she visit him in the zoo? and this is like a reunion picture?


----------



## Falkon (Aug 21, 2008)

I've seen stats that say Labradors are more likely to attack people than pitbulls. I usually trust my own presence around pitbulls more so than say chow chows.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Falkon said:


> I've seen stats that say Labradors are more likely to attack people than pitbulls. I usually trust my own presence around pitbulls more so than say chow chows.


For the breeds that scare me the most, chows and shibas get my vote handsdown. I haven't met a single one in either breed that wasn't just NASTY. I know there are plenty of good ones out there, but man... they are just tough dogs to own.


----------



## DogGoneGood (Jun 22, 2008)

Personally I don't hold much weight on those stats... the reason? There isn't fair numbers for the tests.

For example, right off their breed stats:

For the American Foxhound only two dogs were tested... they both passed which gives them a score of 100.0%. The likelihood of this 100% dropping if they'd tested, say, 100 dogs is pretty high. Even if they still got a passing score, I doubt it'd be 100%.

I'm not saying the test isn't valuable, but you can't really hold much weight to these scores with such uneven amount of dogs being tested. Linkin and I (along with all my class mates) did the exact same test last year and Linkin failed. His reason for failing? Loud noises and sudden outburst kind of things scare him. His reaction to these things? He hid behind me. As for meeting new people in two different senarios (one where the person ignores the dog and the other where they ignore the person and focus on the dog) he passed with flying colours.
So even though he failed, he's still a really good dog. That being said, he was also only 8 months old (with no previous training) when he took this test, and odds are if he took it now that he's over a year his results would probably be different because he's had more time exposure to the 'big scary things'.

So the results also depend on individual dog rather than based by breed. You could take two dogs from the same breed with completely different life experiences, different ages, and they'd get different results. Life experience holds a lot of weight on a dogs temperment, and has little to do with it's breed.

That being said, I love the APBT and am a huge advocate  My point is simply that these scores don't hold a lot of value to me.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

DogGoneGood said:


> That being said, I love the APBT and am a huge advocate  My point is simply that these scores don't hold a lot of value to me.


Same. I agree 100%


----------



## DogGoneGood (Jun 22, 2008)

Since this is what the topic is about, here's some actual "myths"...

*They have locking jaws! Bullets bounce right off them! And other Bunk about Pit Bulls...*

*MYTH: All Pit Bulls are mean and vicious. *

It is reported on temperament tests conducted by the American Temperament Test Society that Pit Bulls had a passing rate of 82% or better -- compared to only 77% of the general dog population. 

These temperament tests consist of putting a dog through a series of unexpected situations, some involving strangers. 

Any signs of unprovoked aggression or panic in these situations result in failure of the test. The achievement of Pit Bulls in this study disproves that they are inherently aggressive to people. (Please visit ATTS.org) 

*MYTH: A Pit Bull that shows aggression towards an animal will go for people next. *

"Many working breeds have antipathy towards other animals - coonhounds go mad at the sight of a raccoon, foxhounds will not hesitate to tear a dog-like fox to shreds, greyhounds live to chase and maul rabbits and even dog-like coyotes. Even the ever-friendly beagle will slaughter a rabbit, given the chance. 

And yet the greyhound, **** and foxhound and beagle are among the friendliest of breeds towards humans. And it is the same with the pit bulldog. His work through the years has been control of other animals - never humans. A correct pit bull is more often than not submissive toward all humans, and adores children. 

A pit bull that snarls, lunges or growls at non-threatening humans is NOT typical of the breed." (Written by Diane Jessup)
Pit bulls that do show aggressive behavior towards humans are not typical of the breed and should be humanely euthanized.

*MYTH: If a Pit Bull was never trained to fight, it will be safe with other dogs.* 

Pit Bulls can live peacefully with other dogs and animals. However, the Pit Bull has historically been bred to take down large animals. Early and continual socialization can help a Pit Bull be more animal friendly. Genetics, however, play an important role in how the dog will respond to other dogs and animals. 

A Pit Bull that will fight another dog if unattended is a normal Pit Bull. Even if a Pit Bull does not start the fight, it has the potential to seriously injure or kill a dog once in the fight. 

The Pit Bull has been bred to not back down and withstand pain until the goal is met. This quality does not carry true in all Pit Bulls, but it is safe to assume it is a potential in any Pit Bull in order to avoid unnecessary problems. 
Pit Bulls have a late maturity, and a Pit Bull that was dog friendly at 7 months old may suddenly show signs of intolerance of unfamiliar dogs around two years old. Spaying and neutering the dog may help to prevent "turning on" the genetic urge to fight another dog. 

All dog fights are preventable, however. Socialize a Pit Bull slowly with new dogs, and never let them play unattended. Remove items such as toys and food bowls to avoid stress.
Pit Bulls can live happily with other pets; if not left unattended. Even the "best of friends" can fight, and the outcome may be tragic. This can be true for dogs that have been together for years. Often, after the first serious fight, relations between the dogs are never the same.
Keeping that first fight from happening is a great way to ensure peaceful relations for the long run. If there is a multiple-dog household, it is important to separate the dogs when there is no one home. 

Many people use crates for short times, put dogs into separate rooms, use kennels, or have outdoor areas set up for separation that are safe and secure. Pit Bulls can get along wonderfully with animals like cats, rabbits, and ferrets, but for safety's sake, never leave them alone together.

*MYTH: American Pit Bull Terriers have 1600 P.S.I. in jaw pressure *

Dr. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. 

There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of "pounds per square inch" can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data." 

*MYTH: American Pit Bull Terriers lock their jaws. *

Dr. Brisbin: "The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any breed of dog. 

There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of "locking mechanism" unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier. 

*MYTH: Treadmills are only used to get dogs ready to fight. *

Many responsible owners utilize treadmills to help exercise their dogs. This is useful in places where weather prevents outdoor exercise, or in situations where off-leash exercise in not an option. 

The treadmill is used by people that show their Pit Bulls, and do sporting activities like weight pull and agility to help keep their dogs in shape. Because Pit Bulls are athletic animals, responsibly using a treadmill can help them be healthier and happier. 

*MYTH: Pit Bulls brains swell/never stop growing. *

This rumor started with the Doberman, and has since been said about game-bred dogs in general. The concept of an animal's brain swelling or growing too large and somehow causing the animal to "go crazy" is not based in truth in any way. 

Their brains grow at the same rate as any other dog, and the only time that a Pit Bull's brain is going to swell is if it receives a serious injury. If an animal's brain were to grow too big for its head, the animal would die. 

*MYTH: It is unsafe to get a Pit Bull from a rescue or shelter because their past/genetics are unknown. *

Under the best of circumstances, it is great to know the history of a dog, the history and health of its parents, and what that line of dogs were bred for. 

If a person is buying a Pit Bull from a breeder, this information should be of top importance. However, in most shelter/rescue cases this information is not available. The Pit Bull at the shelter will often be a wonderful pet. It is important to know the general behavior of the dog. 

Has it shown any aggression towards humans? Most Pit Bull rescues will not accept or adopt out Pit Bulls with any level of aggression or excessive shyness towards humans. How does this dog do with other dogs? Has it shown any undesirable behavior or habits? 

It is suggested that a potential adopter of a Pit Bull bring the whole family to meet the dog. Often, shelters and rescues will allow you to take the dog for a home visit to see how they respond to the new surroundings. Most adoptions of a Pit Bull are amazing successes, and the adopter is not only receiving a pet, but they are also saving a life! 

*MYTH: It is best to get a puppy so that you can make it behave how you want it to. *

Many people feel if they get a Pit Bull as a puppy they can train it to not be aggressive towards other dogs and increase the likelihood that the dog will have no undesirable behavior qualities. 

Puppies can be a lot of fun and very rewarding, but with a new puppy there is no way of knowing how that dog will act as an adult. 

One benefit of adopting a young adult or full grown Pit Bull is the ability to avoid the uncomfortable puppy behavior stage. This includes constant destructive chewing, house breaking, excessive and uncontrollable energy, teething and puppy biting, possible whining, howling, and barking for attention at night, and the time and effort it takes to begin teaching general manners and obedience. 
Another benefit is that an adopter can know how an adult Pit Bull will do with other dogs, cats, children, car rides, and other certain situations. Bringing a puppy up in the most loving and social environment can only alter its predetermined genetic urges so much. 

In other words, having a dog since puppyhood does not necessarily mean it will have all of the qualities desired in a pet. It may end up having some traits that are undesirable. An adult Pit Bull, however, will have more of an established personality, and an adopter can know what to expect with the dog. 


*source:* http://www.pitbulllovers.com/american-pit-bull-terrier-myths.html


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

Those results are also achieved using what they call a 'self selected' sample. As in, the people who had their dogs tested chose to do so, and they probably expected their dogs to pass. Giving this test across the board to dogs who's owners did not choose to test them, like picking random dogs at the park or going door to door through a neighborhood, would produce more accurate results as to temperment within a breed.



DogGoneGood said:


> A Pit Bull that will fight another dog if unattended is a normal Pit Bull. Even if a Pit Bull does not start the fight, it has the potential to seriously injure or kill a dog once in the fight.


This statement alone is really all I need to know about pit bulls. That is not what I consider to be 'normal dog behavior', and owning a dog like that would never be acceptable in our family. That is very scary.


----------



## French Ring (Mar 29, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> This doesn't change my mind about pit bulls, but it is an interesting test.
> .


 I am wondering what is your opinion on pit bulls? I'm not interested to start a controversy. Just curious in general.



BarclaysMom said:


> Giving this test across the board to dogs who's owners did not choose to test them, like picking random dogs at the park or going door to door through a neighborhood, would produce more accurate results as to temperment within a breed.


 Many untrained/unprepared dogs will fail the test regardless of the breed. I'm guessing the worst TT test ranked might be chihuahua and chihuahua mix out of all. I don't have anything to back up my statement, but I'm speaking from my experience. No offend to owners who love small breed dogs, but I have met more aggressive small dogs than large dogs. Small dog owners tend to let their small dogs get away with their bad behavior.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> Those results are also achieved using what they call a 'self selected' sample. As in, the people who had their dogs tested chose to do so, and they probably expected their dogs to pass. Giving this test across the board to dogs who's owners did not choose to test them, like picking random dogs at the park or going door to door through a neighborhood, would produce more accurate results as to temperment within a breed.
> 
> 
> 
> This statement alone is really all I need to know about pit bulls. That is not what I consider to be 'normal dog behavior', and owning a dog like that would never be acceptable in our family. That is very scary.



why would you not consider this normal dog behavior?....My god mother has 5 GSD and would never leave them all out together untended because they will get into fights.....some breeds are just more DA then others

,,,,but it is true that APBT are not for every family....of course not because they are going to eat you or your children...but because they do require more out of there owners then some other breeds...


----------



## kellytoonces (Sep 5, 2008)

certainly not all Pits are bad the great ones are great I have owned several ...but the fact remains most serious and fatal dog attacks are by pit bulls ...the bad ones are lethal the level of ferocity and strength they have makes them more dangerous http://www.youtube.com/user/zupf



DogGoneGood said:


> Since this is what the topic is about, here's some actual "myths"...
> 
> *They have locking jaws! Bullets bounce right off them! And other Bunk about Pit Bulls...*
> 
> ...


 pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs not take down game and there are studies about jaw pressure on dogs and head size determines jaw pressure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZm037jPNgc


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

pugmom said:


> why would you not consider this normal dog behavior?....My god mother has 5 GSD and would never leave them all out together untended because they will get into fights.....some breeds are just more DA then others.


I'm not in favor of BSL or anything crazy like that. I just think dogs that are naturally DA are not for me. What you consider normal, having 5 dogs that cannot be trusted loose together, is extremely abnormal to me. We have always had multiple dogs, they all live together, and we've never had anything more serious than an occasional snarling match. 

A few years ago we were trying to adopt from a rescue and they placed a dalmatian with us who turned out to be VERY aggressive due to abuse he had suffered. It was very scary for us while he was here and we were working with a behaviorist, and he did attack a dog at the park that wandered up to us while he was on leash (the other dog shouldn't have been off leash, and his owner ignored me when I told her to call him back). Luckily no one got seriously hurt before he went back to the rescue, but shortly after that he nearly killed one of their dogs, and ultimately had to be put to sleep. Aggressive dogs are definitly not something I want to deal with. Frankly, I can't understand why anyone would, especially with all the non aggressive dogs to choose from.

But I'm not saying people shouldn't have the right to have those kinds of dogs, as long as they are responsible and treat them right, it's just not for me.


----------



## Orange County Ca (Apr 6, 2007)

*What!!!!*



DogGoneGood said:


> ...For the American Foxhound only two dogs were tested... they both passed which gives them a score of 100.0%...


*What did you just say? * They tested two dogs and published a list. 

What if they tested Hitler and Mao? Or Ghandi and Mother Teresa?

Like the guy said above 100 is more like it - minimum in my opinion.


----------



## Criosphynx (May 15, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> I'm not in favor of BSL or anything crazy like that. I just think dogs that are naturally DA are not for me. What you consider normal, having 5 dogs that cannot be trusted loose together, is extremely abnormal to me. We have always had multiple dogs, they all live together, and we've never had anything more serious than an occasional snarling match.
> 
> A few years ago we were trying to adopt from a rescue and they placed a dalmatian with us who turned out to be VERY aggressive due to abuse he had suffered. It was very scary for us while he was here and we were working with a behaviorist, and he did attack a dog at the park that wandered up to us while he was on leash (the other dog shouldn't have been off leash, and his owner ignored me when I told her to call him back). Luckily no one got seriously hurt before he went back to the rescue, but shortly after that he nearly killed one of their dogs, and ultimately had to be put to sleep. *Aggressive dogs are definitly not something I want to deal with. Frankly, I can't understand why anyone would, especially with all the non aggressive dogs to choose from*.
> ]*But I'm not saying people shouldn't have the right to have those kinds of dogs, as long as they are responsible and treat them right, it's just not for me*.



this is my feeling as well. Kudos to those that want to deal with that. 

I personally don't want to.


----------



## Orange County Ca (Apr 6, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> ...the bad ones are lethal the level of ferocity and strength they have makes them more dangerous...


My complaint all along. That 2 pound yipping "pure" bred may bite more often but I'll leave with everything intact.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> I'm not in favor of BSL or anything crazy like that. I just think dogs that are naturally DA are not for me. What you consider normal, having 5 dogs that cannot be trusted loose together, is extremely abnormal to me. We have always had multiple dogs, they all live together, and we've never had anything more serious than an occasional snarling match.
> 
> A few years ago we were trying to adopt from a rescue and they placed a dalmatian with us who turned out to be VERY aggressive due to abuse he had suffered. It was very scary for us while he was here and we were working with a behaviorist, and he did attack a dog at the park that wandered up to us while he was on leash (the other dog shouldn't have been off leash, and his owner ignored me when I told her to call him back). Luckily no one got seriously hurt before he went back to the rescue, but shortly after that he nearly killed one of their dogs, and ultimately had to be put to sleep. Aggressive dogs are definitly not something I want to deal with. Frankly, I can't understand why anyone would, especially with all the non aggressive dogs to choose from.
> 
> But I'm not saying people shouldn't have the right to have those kinds of dogs, as long as they are responsible and treat them right, it's just not for me.



I totally understand you side of this and commend you for not tying to put a dog in your household that would not fit.....but I would like to make a few things clear from my post

Not every pit is DA.....but due toe this breeds history they are much more prone to be....we own a APBT along w/two other dogs and have never had a problem...

also w/regards to having 5 dogs that cant be trusted together....they CAN be out and around each other..I'm saying she would not leave them unsupervised because they can have issues if no one is there to correct them.

I cant say why every one who choose a bully type dog dose but here are some reasons I have been told and mine own reasons...

1. loyalty to their human and family
2. Athletic ability
2. Intelligence
3. A dog that is easy to groom/keep clean
4. wonderful snuggler
5. Total goof balls
...just think of the reasons you like the breed you do and I'm sure we would have many of the same reasons in common ......most pit people take the good w/the bad..because the good normally out weighs the bad 10 to 1


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> Aggressive dogs are definitly not something I want to deal with. Frankly, I can't understand why anyone would, especially with all the non aggressive dogs to choose from.
> 
> But I'm not saying people shouldn't have the right to have those kinds of dogs, as long as they are responsible and treat them right, it's just not for me.


See Barclays mum this is one of the things that always gets me scratching my head.

I have 3 dogs that are all deemed "dangerous" yet in 8 years i havnt owned a crate guess what? not one dead dog (fingers crossed),they are brilliant with children and all round a complete pleasure to own.

I know im not one in a million and i'd love to know the percentage of "dangerous" dogs that have remained "not dangerous" throughout thier whole life time.

The media and internet statistics play a huge role in scaring people like yourself but if the peolple i know and thier dogs are anything to go by then ownship means everything.
They may have the potential to do harm but you practically have to be michael Vick to make them be as agressive as people make them out to be,that goes for alot of so called "dangerous dogs"


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

pugmom said:


> Not every pit is DA.....but due toe this breeds history they are much more prone to be....we own a APBT along w/two other dogs and have never had a problem...


And I've known some pit bulls that were wonderful dogs and their owners would have nothing else. They adored them! But I also see a lot of pit bulls in the hands of people who shouldn't have any dogs, and it's very sad for the breed. The shelters are full of them, the rescues are full of them. It's very unfortunate. And sometimes I see them and think, that is the cutest face I've ever seen! I would love to take one home. But I have to put the safety of my other dogs first, and knowing that I am uncomfortable with dealing with aggression, I know they are not for me. My heart goes out to the ones I see at the shelter though.


----------



## Orange County Ca (Apr 6, 2007)

Mr Pooch said:


> ...I have 3 dogs that are all deemed "dangerous" yet in 8 years i havnt owned a crate guess what? not one dead dog (fingers crossed),...


I'm not sure what you're leaving to luck here.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Well, I don't own Pitbulls but I do own Rottweilers. Also deemed "dangerous breeds" of dog. I have had them for 29 years now. Have NOT been attacked or bitten by any of them. They have not attacked anyone else or even attempted a bite. They have all been great with kids, decent around other dogs, cats, horses, cows. They are GREAT snugglers, affectionate with family, easy care (for the right person). I have choses Rottweilers time and time again for all the same reasons that anyone gets their favorite breeds. I suspect the same for all the great Pitbull owners out there. The breed works for them.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

Orange County Ca said:


> I'm not sure what you're leaving to luck here.


LOL,Orange county the "fingers crossed" as im sure you are aware of is sarcasm.(the English type )
I trust them 100%,yes 100% to not kill eachother or cause serious injury when alone.

Contrary to belief dogs can form longterm bonds and love eachother.
I believe mine do,now i would never tell anyone to do what i do but nobody can compare my dogs to a statistic as they are MY dogs and they would prove alot of these preconceptions to be wrong.

Thing is i dont want them to,im ust happy they are the way they are.
Im not painting a picture of divine perfection because my dogs will fight other dogs if provoked and will defend my house if must be,just these situations dont occur because i try my upmost to prevent them.(well not the breaking into my house part if someone wants to do that all power to em.LOL)


----------



## DogGoneGood (Jun 22, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> certainly not all Pits are bad the great ones are great I have owned several ...but the fact remains most serious and fatal dog attacks are by pit bulls ...the bad ones are lethal the level of ferocity and strength they have makes them more dangerous http://www.youtube.com/user/zupf
> 
> pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs not take down game and there are studies about jaw pressure on dogs and head size determines jaw pressure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZm037jPNgc


Why do you think all Bully breeds have "bull" in their names? Because they're ORIGINAL purpose was bull baiting... it wasn't until after this that they started being pitted against eachother and used for that purpose.

If your vidoes show pit bull attacks, I won't bother watching it. I don't need to watch a horrible video on it to know it's out there.

My take on it is this; YES they CAN be dangerous (just like any breed of dog), and yes they can even be argued to be MORE dangerous simply because of their tenacious attitude, never surrender, block out all pain mentality. I get that, I truly do. I also understand, and totally respect one's opinion not to own one because they feel they can't handle these special traits (and tribulations) that come with owning a pit bull. I think I would rather hear people saying that the Pit Bull is not for them and therefore they would never own one, than have them try to take it on anyway and then disaster happens!

Too many idiots own this breed, and it is those idiots that are ruining it. (By idiots I mean people who can't handle them and/or are breeding FOR these bad traits).

Personally I'd love to see dog agression bred out of the APBT, but have been in many debates about that subject. Some people feel it would take away from the breed, but I feel there won't be any breed LEFT if there aren't some changes made.

These can be such wonderful dogs with the right genetics and in the right home. They can truly be a wonderful family dog, it's really sad that they're going down hill. The APBT was once known as "The American Family Dog"... it's sad that most people run in the other direction when they see one now.

I have no problem with someone not wanting to own one, I DO have problems with people who think that the breed is a "dangerous breed", especially if they think it should be outlawed.

Any breed of dog is capable of being dangerous, some far more than others. There are a lot of breeds I would consider to be capable of being dangerous, and would never even dream of owning due to the fact it's too much dog for me, but I'm not going to condem them. There's both good and bad to all breeds, even the "dangerous" ones. If there was no good people wouldn't own them (good, decent people anyway).

I don't believe in breed discrimination, but I do believe in respecting dogs, especially those of a higher caliber than others. I would never make a stupid move around ANY dog but would make sure not to do it around a breed known for higher drive than others.

One problem I have is the government making so many rediculous laws about things they know nothing about for 'our safety'. The way I see it (and yes, I am a naturally paranoid person when it comes to the government), if we let them ban breeds like the APBT, who's to say they'll stop there? A person should have a right to choose what breed they own, and if they foul up in the slightest they should NOT be able to own that breed again, if any. Make stricter laws to punish those who are involved with dog fighting, abuse animals, and bad breeders like Puppy Mills. Don't let anyone get away with owning a known biter. But don't punish an entire breed based on the bad ones... We don't do this with humans, so why would we do it with dogs?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

I own 2 pit bulls. One of whom is very intensely dog aggressive. 

All this means is that they need a little bit more supervision then other dogs.

That's all. With the right training and attitude, dog aggression is a negligible issue.


----------



## 4dogs3cats (Dec 21, 2007)

BarclaysMom said:


> Those results are also achieved using what they call a 'self selected' sample. As in, the people who had their dogs tested chose to do so, and they probably expected their dogs to pass. Giving this test across the board to dogs who's owners did not choose to test them, like picking random dogs at the park or going door to door through a neighborhood, would produce more accurate results as to temperment within a breed.
> 
> 
> 
> This statement alone is really all I need to know about pit bulls. That is not what I consider to be 'normal dog behavior', *and owning a dog like that would never be acceptable in our family*. That is very scary.


Good. You know that saying.. if you say you can't.. you're probably right?

I am not putting you down I promise.

I would not own a pitbull either. I believe to own a pitbull you should be 100% confidant that you can provide everything this breed needs to succeed. I am not its not just the bad guys giving this breed a bad name, but also the WELL MEANING owners who are in over their heads.

I LOVE looking at pits, when spicy posts a picture thread, or pooch, I LOVE seeing the pics.

No I would not own one. I know the facts, and I probably could own one someday in life.. but beagles are more my style.. with the occasional GSD thrown into the mix. Plus.. Chance is a handful enough.. and he is not in the least bit DA. I would worry too much about the POTENTAIL that it woulnt be fair to me or the dog.

I think the best thing I can do for pits is love the breed, always speak highly of them, and NOT own one. I'm just not the right person to.


----------



## jbray01 (Dec 26, 2007)

Mr Pooch said:


> LOL,Orange county the "fingers crossed" as im sure you are aware of is sarcasm.(the English type )



this comment just made me smile


----------



## Criosphynx (May 15, 2008)

the video is a news story showing a mother the *day after* her pit killed her son. So she's obviously still distressed

Its a few minutes of her ranting about what a stupid dog it is. And how she will never own one again..

redundant IMO


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

LOL,Jbray im glad,if i make someone smille in a day then i feel all the better for it.(normally i make people cry.HA HA...j/k)


----------



## DogGoneGood (Jun 22, 2008)

Criosphynx said:


> the video is a news story showing a mother the *day after* her pit killed her son. So she's obviously still distressed
> 
> Its a few minutes of her ranting about what a stupid dog it is. And how she will never own one again..
> 
> redundant IMO


Oh, well I don't really need to see that either then lol
I know attacks happen... it's sad and it's horrible for everyone involved. Humans are capable of horrible things too, they kill eachother and torture and unimaginable things... but those individuals need to be punished, the whole human race doesn't.

I just don't see the point in breed discrimination... have respect for them, understand what they are capable, do your homework and don't own one if you're uncapable to provide the extra mile of care for them. It's just that easy.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

Watched the vid.
I feel you have to be extra vigilant when bringing adult dogs into a family home with young kids.
Bringing an APBT into your home with small kids having not known its prior history(temperment/agression level etc) is madness IMO.


----------



## Criosphynx (May 15, 2008)

Mr Pooch said:


> Watched the vid.
> I feel you have to be extra vigilant when bringing adult dogs into a family home with young kids.
> Bringing an APBT into your home with small kids having not known its prior history(temperment/agression level etc) is madness IMO.


all i could think about while watching that vid was...

was the dog altered? Was the dog exercised? Were there warnings that got missed? What was the kid _really_ doing?


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

4dogs3cats said:


> Good. You know that saying.. if you say you can't.. you're probably right?
> 
> I am not putting you down I promise.


Believe me, I'm almost 40 years old, and if I've learned anything it's to know where my weaknesses are and play to my strengths


----------



## Mach1girl (Apr 17, 2006)

I didnt watch the video-all to many out there and have seen them before-because of course when a pitbull does something like this-it makes media-when a different breed does this-it doesnt. The parents should always be at fault when a dog attacks a child or anybody else in the household because the parent should never leave dogs unattended with children too small to handle them. No matter the breed, if the child is smaller or simpy just cannot handle the dog, the parent is responsible for crating the dog when leaving the room for no matter how short of time.

There is video and news articles about a 9 week old pitbull puppy that was left in a room with a week old baby on the floor-WEEK OLD BABY. The parents went off to do something and when they came back the dog had killed the baby. One single fatal bite to the soft spot on the head. A couple fingers were chewed as well. Do you know they labaled that dog as a killer-a murdering dog because it was a PITBULL! It was 9 weeks old-you tell me WHOS FAULT IS THAT??????If ANY of yall say it is the dogs fault-............................

I was watching tv one night and all of a sudden it came across the tv that 2 pitbulls killed a child. The news announcer cut in and started a story. Then, the animal control officer came on and showed the dogs which were strays, and one was clearly a GSD and the other some kind of collie mix and even stated they were not pitbulls-and all during the rest of the news that evening, the banner along the bottem never changed its wording and they kept a small box in the corner of the screen with two pitbulls fighting for everyone to see.

How much crap is that???

Some more links with stats.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...named-as-most-aggressive-dog-115875-20634549/

http://www.atts.org/statistics.html

and what about reading lawdogs.com

And back to the part where the APBT is always DA. The original purpose for the APBT was indeed bull baiting. It wasn't until later on that people thought of facing off the dogs against each other. The dog was bred for bull baiting and as family companions.
DA is NOT from breeding, it happens to be a genetic traite that many dogs just happen to have. If you could bottle aggressiveness, and breed it, there would be many more problems besides aggressiveness. The aggres would be so out of control you would have human biters verses dog biters.And NO ONE not even BY tough ass thugs want human biters. Many dogs have DA it is not a pitbull thing. I have 6 dogs in my home. They all live happily together. I have had a multiple pitbull home since the early 80's and have never had ANYTHING serious happen. As a matter of fact the biggest problem I have ever had happened about a year ago with my cripple dog. She needed to learn to fend for herself to a point because of her disability and bit her mother when she tried to take a cookie from her. Dixie cowered and ran and got into her cage. If that was real DA Daizy would have seriously damaged her mother and Dixie would have fought back.

My dogs are labeled DA by me, but it is selective DA. Your dog comes into my yard, my dogs territory yes, they will probably wind up seriously hurt. But if I bring your dog into my house, within 5 minutes they would be rolling and playing on the floo. (Just not sharing Daizys cookies)

The APBT is NOT for everyone. I am against BSL however I would love to see owners of the breed have to obtain licenses to own them.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Sausage dog named as most aggressive dog
7/07/2008 

Forget pit bulls and Rottweilers - it's the tiny sausage dog that's the most aggressive breed.

One in 12 dachshunds have tried to bit their owner, a study found. And 20 per cent have snapped at strangers or attacked other dogs.

Chihuahuas, an even smaller breed, were the second most nasty.

Advertisement - article continues below »


But the pit bull - notorious for its aggressive nature - was ranked six in the Top 10 list of aggressive dogs.

The study published in Applied Animal Behavior Science quizzed 6,000 owners.

Top 10 aggressive dogs: 1 Dachshund 2 Chihuahua 3 Jack Russell terrier 4 Akita 5 Australian cattle dog 6 Pit bull 7 Beagle 8 English springer spaniel 9 Border collie 10 German shepherd.

Well Mach1 Accurate or NOT accurate, I am glad that for once, my breed is NOT on the top ten list. 

ROTTWEILER 4902 4,050 852 82.6% That does NOT surprise me that they pass with an 82.6% pass rate.


----------



## LeRoymydog (Feb 25, 2007)

DogGoneGood said:


> Why do you think all Bully breeds have "bull" in their names? Because they're ORIGINAL purpose was bull baiting... it wasn't until after this that they started being pitted against eachother and used for that purpose.
> 
> If your vidoes show pit bull attacks, I won't bother watching it. I don't need to watch a horrible video on it to know it's out there.
> 
> ...


Very well said.

Owning a Bully Breed, I have to agree with this 100% It's not for everyone. Toy Breeds aren't for me, but I don't want a whole thread about it.


----------



## Chupa Cabras (Aug 31, 2007)

Falkon said:


> I've seen stats that say Labradors are more likely to attack people than pitbulls. I usually trust my own presence around pitbulls more so than say chow chows.


Where have you seen these 'stats'? You've obviously read some very wrong 'stats'. http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog Attacks 1982 to 2006 Clifton.pdf

Oh, and just for the record...actual statistics... 

http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/dogbite-statistics.html 

http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html

I love all dogs, but please have some common sense when dealing with ANY animal.


----------



## DogGoneGood (Jun 22, 2008)

LeRoymydog said:


> Very well said.
> 
> Owning a Bully Breed, I have to agree with this 100% It's not for everyone. Toy Breeds aren't for me, but I don't want a whole thread about it.


Thank you LeRoymydog... actually, I think I WOULD like to see a whole thread about toy breeds and what special things they aquire to be taken care of, like the APBT, from their owners. I've seen more than my share of 15 or more page long threads battling about statistics, numbers, percentages, showing picture after picture of a pit bull licking a childs face, rattling off "facts" etc. I think it's important for people to know what's false and what's the truth, but after a while battling about this makes my head spin!

I think I WOULD like to see a simular thread about toy breeds, just to see if the same reactions come about, as I've heard countless times "little fifi dogs are more likely to bite than a pit bull" but have never actually seen any "broo ha ha" over it...


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Chupa Cabras said:


> Where have you seen these 'stats'? Just wondering...
> 
> Oh, and just for the record...actual statistics... http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/dogbite-statistics.html
> 
> Rumors and misinformation are a dangerous thing. Get the facts. http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html



I really don't want to sound rude because I feel like you were offended by the post about labs and I don't necessarily agree w/that post ether.....but just because its on the internet doesn't make it a true fact....and I'm even less likely to pay attention to something listed on a web site that wants you to use their services....some people will say anything to get you to pay them money.....


----------



## Chupa Cabras (Aug 31, 2007)

No, not offended at all, it's just that people shouldn't repeat 'stats' or 'facts' without evidence. 

The website is a legal one, which means people reported the incidents to some authority. It's your perogative if you want to dismiss any information because it's on the internet. 

Not sure about Merritt Clifton...I just did a search and found that there are people who feel his research is not complete nor accurate and certainly not backed by actual reports. I'll leave the link up only because it's interesting (not necessarily truthful)

There are just as many truths as myths about APBT. But I think it's safe to say that certain breeds have gotten a reputation for being aggressive for a reason.

*edited to add*
CDC stats show that more than half of all dog attack fatalities were caused by pit bull and rotteilers type dogs.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Chupa Cabras said:


> No, not offended at all, it's just that people shouldn't repeat 'stats' or 'facts' without evidence.
> 
> The website is a legal one, which means people reported the incidents to some authority. It's your perogative if you want to dismiss any information because it's on the internet.
> 
> ...


..I see this as a big problem regarding bite statistics....how many incidents go unreported? every day....

also I do believe that a majority of fatal dog bites are by the bully/rottie/dobe type dogs...because unfortunately these breeds have become a fad to own by people that have no business having them....


----------



## Chupa Cabras (Aug 31, 2007)

pugmom, you're absolutely right. The reason for the bad reputation is that irresponsible people breed and own 'status symbols'. It used to be Dobermans and GSD. Big tough dogs that guys would 'sic' on people like thugs use guns. 

Now it's pit bulls and rotties, and more and more are being bred/trained to be aggressive and owned by irresponsible people.

There are many unreported bites, that's why the only real statistics are the ones that are reported by the police, humane societies and other authorities. What many of these reports don't say is the true cause of the attack or bite.

(oops, meant to read "half of all fatalities")


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

this is interesting... 
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/video-fox.html

Also: not arguing that Rotties haven't killed anyone as I have seen and cried over the statistics myself already. I wonder if instead of taking 20 years you just looked at say, 2007 how would it read? I am hoping progress is being made as the numbers of Rotties in going down. Thank God. I am hopeful of being able to wait out their over popularity and they will become the forgotten muscle dog as the thugs move on to a different breed.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

this thread is making me cry...the dismissive attitudes here are breaking my heart. I feel lost. there are SOO many GOOD pit bull owners....god I am shaking.


..........


----------



## TeddieXRuxpin (Sep 11, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this thread is making me cry...the dismissive attitudes here are breaking my heart. I feel lost. there are SOO many GOOD pit bull owners....god I am shaking.
> 
> 
> ..........


Zim I am glad that you stuck around because we really do need more bully lovers. 

However you HAVE to remember these are people from all walks of life and some people you just will not change their minds. I love to come on and talk to everyone, but when it comes to threads like these I take everything with a grain of salt. When I first joined and one of these threads were made; a fire was lit under my butt. Now it's not a waste of time. If people want to listen, by all means let them read these posts. 

But we don't need thread after thread about pitbulls. I admire and love the breed (Most of you already know that) but these _new_ members can go back and read hundreds of threads that are just like this one.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this thread is making me cry...the dismissive attitudes here are breaking my heart. I feel lost. there are SOO many GOOD pit bull owners....god I am shaking.
> 
> 
> ..........


I'm not really sure I understand this reaction. Yes there have been people on this thread that admitted to not being a fan of APBTs - but you'll noticed they ALSO are not supporters of BSL. I personally don't really care if someone does or doesn't like bully breeds (there are certainly breeds that I don't care for after all) provided they don't hinder my ability to own them.

I haven't really seen anyone being dismissive. Just sharing and discussing...a rather tame APBT thread actually. It's nice to have one of those given our past history with the topic.

ETA: And I'm not meaning to insult you Zim. As a bully lover I can understand having a hard time with all the bad press out there - I just don't understand that reaction to THIS particular thread.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

What the saying? There are three types of lies...lies, damned lies, and statistics.


----------



## sw_df27 (Feb 22, 2008)

Good Post! This is rather calm compared to others!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

it is just....well...I get sick to my stomach reading these threads where the words 'irresponsible pit bull owners' get repeated over and over....think of all the people googling pit bulls because they don't know about them and seeing threads like these....rather than sit around lamely discussing the problem be a part of the solution!

post the stories where you met sweet happy and well cared for pitties...nobody seems to ever discuss the good things....and I feel like my babies are in danger because of even well meaning talk like this...I have to go wash my face and calm down...


----------



## Chupa Cabras (Aug 31, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> it is just....well...I get sick to my stomach reading these threads where the words 'irresponsible pit bull owners' get repeated over and over....think of all the people googling pit bulls because they don't know about them and seeing threads like these....rather than sit around lamely discussing the problem be a part of the solution!
> 
> post the stories where you met sweet happy and well cared for pitties...nobody seems to ever discuss the good things....and I feel like my babies are in danger because of even well meaning talk like this...I have to go wash my face and calm down...


So are you upset because YOU are being critisized as an owner, or because pit bulls and rotties have gotten a bad reputation because of "irresponsible" owners? I think that's the point of the whole thread...that there are many friendly and lovable pit bulls and many responsible owners, but the breeds are getting a bad rap. And that's too bad. I've met lots of friendly dogs and responsible owners, but also the opposite.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Chupa Cabras said:


> So are you upset because YOU are being critisized as an owner, or because pit bulls and rotties have gotten a bad reputation because of "irresponsible" owners? I think that's the point of the whole thread...that there are many friendly and lovable pit bulls and many responsible owners, but the breeds are getting a bad rap. And that's too bad. I've met lots of friendly dogs and responsible owners, but also the opposite.



no...neither...I am upset at the repitious negativity...sitting around on an internet forum and discussing irresponsible owners to death does NOTHING to change things...I think it even has the potential to do more harm than good....teddie is right...


"But we don't need thread after thread about pitbulls. I admire and love the breed (Most of you already know that) but these new members can go back and read hundreds of threads that are just like this one."

but it goes farther than that....to make real change....if you actually care......hold the good owners up to the light...let them be an example for those who may be struggling...for those who are not understanding what responsible bull breed ownership entails...all this "irresponsible owner" talk fuels the fire of bsl and glamorizes pit bulls to those who want them for all the wrong reasons...im not saying dismiss the issue..but be positive and proactive about it.

I love my girls. I muck out the kennels at my vets in exchange for the expensive surgery bolo keeps requiring...I dogwalk and dog sit for the extra to money to feed raw because my girls do the best eating raw... I SPEND HOURS training and socializing and taking them exciting places....I break my back for my babies...the negativity burns....


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

Hi,

I was recently on another forum "discussing" the Pit Bull topic. As many of you know, I have been very vocal about my feeling on Pit Bulls.

But just to recap in case someone missed it: I love all dogs, as individuals. But as a breed, I don't believe the Pit Bull belongs in the average american home. It should only belong to specialist who understand and appreciate the true potential and danger the dog can be.
- My concern about Pit Bulls isn't even as much about it's aggression towards humans but it's aggression towards other dogs. The continued insistence I'm privy to of owners who feel their dogs are okay to be off leash in multi dog environments and wearing spiked collars, only makes the matter worse.

But let me get back on point.
1) Many Pit Bull owners claim that a lot of attacks attributed towards Pit Bulls are not in fact, Pit Bulls, but other mixed breeds
2) Lots of Pit Bull owners claim that there is a mass hysteria and only Pit Bull attacks are reported in the news
3) Lots of Pit Bull owners claim that other breeds like Labs, Poodles, etc. are responsible for an equal or greater amount of attacks than Pit Bulls
4) Lots of Pit Bull owners claim, that expert animal behaviorists agree that a Pit Bull is a great family pet and fine for multi dog environments.

Here is an interesting report: (The author does not support BSL)
For the sake of editing and because this is a Pit Bull topic, I am only including Pit Bull information. The actual report is 7 pages and deals with many breeds:

Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada 
September 1982 to November 13, 2006 
– Merritt Clifton -- 
Reports are logged as received, and the current log is printed out as 
requested. Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts 
since 1982, this table covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified 
breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others 
with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets. Due to the exclusion 
of dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, this is by no means a complete 
list of fatal and otherwise serious dog attacks. Attacks by police dogs, 
guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight are also excluded. 
"Attacks doing bodily harm" includes all fatalities, maimings, and other 
injuries requiring extensive hospital treatment. "Maimings" includes 
permanent disfigurement or loss of a limb. Where there is an asterisk (*), 
please see footnotes. If there are more "attacks" than "victims," it means 
that there were multiple dogs involved in some attacks. If the numbers of 
"victims" does not equal the numbers of "deaths" and "maimings," it means 
that some of the victims -- in attacks in which some people were killed or 
maimed -- were not killed or maimed. 
*Breed Attacks doing bodily harm* _Child victims_ *Adult victims* _Deaths_ *Maimings* Notes 

[dogs X victims] [--------Individuals---------] 
Akita 48 32 14 1 39 
Akita mix (inspecific) 1 1 0 0 1 
Akita/Chow mix 3 3 0 0 3 
Akita/Lab mix 1 1 0 0 1 
Akita/terrier mix 2 1 0 0 1 
Airedale/boxer 1 1 0 1 0 # 
Airedale 1 1 0 1 0 
Australian blue heeler 3 1 1 0 2 
Australian cattle dog 1 1 0 0 1 
Australian shepherd 6 4 0 0 1 
Basset/GSD mix 1 1 0 1 0 
Beagle 2 2 0 1 1 # 
Belgian shepherd 4 1 3 0 1 
Blue heeler 2 0 1 0 1 
Border collie 1 0 1 1 1 # 
Briard 2 0 1 1 0 
Brittany spaniel 4 1 0 0 1 
Bulldog (American 4 0 3 2 2 
Bulldog (English) 16 8 3 1 9 
Bull mastiff (Presa Canario) 30 10 13 6 16 
Bull mastiff/German shepherd 2 1 0 1 0 
Buff mastiff/Rottweiler 1 1 0 0 1 
Boxer 31 6 12 2 12 # 
Boxer mix 1 1 0 1 0 
Cane Corso 4 1 2 1 3 
Catahoula 3 0 1 0 1 
Chow 49 34 12 6 32 
Chow/husky mix 2 2 0 1 1 
Chow/Labrador mix 4 4 0 0 3 
Chox mix (other) 2 2 0 0 2 
Cocker spaniel 1 1 0 0 1 
Collie 3 3 0 0 3 
Collie/retriever mix 1 1 0 0 1 
Coonhound 1 1 0 0 0
Dalmatian 3 3 0 0 3 
Dalmatian/Akita mix 1 1 0 0 1 
Dauschund 2 1 1 1 2 # 
Doberman 11 7 4 3 7 # 
Doge de Bordeaux 2 1 0 0 1 
East Highland terrier 1 0 1 1 0 # 
Fila Brasiero 1 1 0 0 1 
German shepherd 63 42 17 7 38 
German shepherd mix 31 21 7 6 19 # 
German shepherd/husky mix 4 3 1 1 2 
Golden retriever 6 6 0 1 4 # 
Great Dane 24 5 4 2 9 
Great Pyranees 1 0 1 1 0 
Greyhound 1 1 0 0 1 
Husky 39 23 4 13 8 
Husky/Malamute mix 2 2 0 0 2 
Husky/Labrador mix 1 0 1 0 1 
Jack Russell terrier 2 1 1 1 0 # 
Labrador 26 18 9 2 20 # 
Labrador mix 10 9 1 0 9 # 
Labrador/boxer mix 1 0 1 0 0 
Lab-Doberman 1 1 0 0 1 
Lab-St. Bernard 1 1 0 0 1 
Malamute 8 7 1 3 3 
Mastiff 16 11 4 4 9 
Norwegian elkhound 1 0 1 0 1 # 
*Pit bull terrier 1110 495 397 104 608 * # 
Pit bull boxer mix 5 1 2 0 2 
Pit bull/chow mix 5 2 3 1 3 
Pit bull/Doberman/GSD/Lab 2 2 0 0 2 
Pit bull/GSD mix 1 1 0 0 1 
Pit bull/Lab mix 15 10 4 3 8 # 
Pit bull/Rott. mix 39 7 3 2 8 
Pit bull/Sheltie mix 1 1 0 0 1 
Pit bull/Weimaraner mix 1 0 1 0 1 
Pit mix unknown 3 2 0 0 2 
Pointer mix 1 0 1 0 0 # 
Pomeranian 1 1 0 1 0 
Poodle 2 1 1 0 2 # 
Pug 1 1 0 0 1 
Pug/Rottweiler mix 2 1 0 1 0 
Queensland heeler 3 0 1 0 1 
Rottweiler 409 231 109 58 223 # 
Rottweiler/chow mix 1 1 0 0 1 
Rottweiler/GSD mix 13 7 5 2 10 
Rottweiler/Labrador 7 6 1 0 7 
Russian terrier 1 0 1 0 1 
Saint Bernard 6 3 0 1 1 
Sharpei  4 4 0 0 4 
Sharpei/Rottweiler 2 1 0 0 1 
Sharpei/unknown mix 1 1 0 0 1 
Sharpei/Labrador 1 1 0 0 1 
Springer spaniel 3 4 0 0 4 
Tosa 1 1 0 0 1 
Weimaeaner 1 1 0 0 1 
Wheaten terrier 2 1 0 0 1 
Wolf hybrid 71 65 3 18 43 # 
Total: 2209 1142 658 264 1323

*Pit bulls*, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios, and their mixes: 
1638 776 537 172 893 
* 74%* 68% 82% 65% 68% 
Pit, Rott, Wolf hybrid 1590 793 510 181 875 
*72%* 69% 78% 69% 66%


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

Analysis 
The tallies of attacks, attacks on children, attacks on adults, 
fatalities, and maimings on the above data sheet must be evaluated in three 
different contexts. The first pertains to breed-specific characteristic 
behavior, the second to bite frequency as opposed to the frequency of 
severe injuries, and the third to degree of relative risk. 
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: children are 
normally at greatest risk from dogbite because they play with dogs more 
often, have less experience in reading dog behavior, are more likely to 
engage in activity that alarms or stimulates a dog, and are less able to 
defend themselves when a dog becomes aggressive. 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.

BSL opinion:
What all this may mean relative to legislation is problematic. 
Historically, breed-specific legislation has proved very difficult to 
enforce because of the problems inherent in defining animals for whom there 
may be no breed standards, or conflicting standards. Both pit bull 
terriers and wolf hybrids tend to elude easy legal definition; neither can 
they be recognized by genetic testing.


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

Still, of the 150 or so breeds in the US, only 2 breeds are responsible for almost 70% of attacks and bites.


Care to guess which 2 breeds?


www.dogsbite.org


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Would you please locate and post the corresponding population statistics for each breed? As well as population concentration specifics. 

If you are going to use stats to back up what you say...please post complete statistics. 

I would also like to see the source of this information. Statistics is a science. You must have *verifiable* information for it to be considered.

without that information and knowing your opinions I would be inclined to say I suspect you of attempting to "start fires". As is I withold further comment until the information requested has been presented. I hope you can appreciate my candor with maturity.


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

And although I have heard many Pit Bull owners state:

"Animal Behaviorists collectively agree that Pit Bulls make great family pets.."

I found information that directly challenges that idea:

"_Is it 'natural instinct' that causes these dogs to snap? Katherine Houpt, animal behaviorist at Cornell University's School of Veterinary Medicine told The Leader that this breed of dog was not meant to be a family pet.
“Their primary function is to kill other dogs and other rapidly fleeing animals, like cats.”
She went on to say that they are most aggressive over food, though._"



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Would you please locate and post the corresponding population statistics for each breed? As well as population concentration specifics.


You suggest that there is a corresponding population statistic. If I had that information, I would post it. The numbers I posted were not in regards to population percentage, only attack percentages.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> If you are going to use stats to back up what you say...please post complete statistics.


If I did post "complete" statistics, I have no doubt the reply would be, "It's the owners, not the breed." The statistics posted have no relevance on population numbers, only attack numbers. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I would also like to see the source of this information. Statistics is a science. You must have *verifiable* information for it to be considered.


Please don't mistake the information above as being MY research. Quite the contrary. I will tell you this though, the author while strongly suggesting some of the potential problems that exist in harboring a Wolf Hybrid or Pit Bull, etc. also is very against BSL regardless of numbers.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> without that information and knowing your opinions I would be inclined to say I suspect you of attempting to "start fires". As is I withold further comment until the information requested has been presented. I hope you can appreciate my candor with maturity.


I don't hide my opinions. I love all dogs. But I feel that Pit Bulls do not belong in the hands of the avg. dog owner. They should be handled by specialist only.
-- And I wasn't looking to start fires. I agree there are a lot of myths about APBT's out there. I laugh when I hear some of them also. But that doesn't mean they can't be a risk.

If you're interested in reading more of the report I quoted, enjoy:
(I actually thought that despite the grim statistics, it was fairly objective.)
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog Attacks 1982 to 2006 Clifton.pdf


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

the lack of corresponding population statistics nullifies the information presented....


You need the percentages of the existing population. 

a hypothetical example:

in a population of 360 dogs

30% of 180 green dogs bit in this year 

15% of 180 red dogs bit this year


making the green dogs statistically more prone to attacks. 


but even that is flawed because statistics themselves are flawed. How many green dog attacks were *truly* unprovoked? 

not to mention the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, especially during a traumatic event. 

there is too much that is unverifiable with such a large group and no controlled and monitored population to compare it to. Without all this, the report is just vague numbers.

I should add that with this particular subject matter I don't feel like any stats at all would be 100% reliable. I suppose the only way to reliably determine which breeds are actually prone to biting might be along the lines of taking a large cross section of each breed in question and A. putting them in a situation of extreme comfort and recording their reaction to a cat, a dog, a child and whatever else and then exposing the dog to the same stimuli in different settings with different stressors in place. those numbers might be worth a second glance....I'll ask my tutor in trig and calculus about it tomorrow....


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

So what you are saying is, because the statistics that I posted don't support your opinion on the breed, that all the information therein should be completely discredited..

You don't need to know the United States and Canada population of Bull breeds to know the amount of reported attacks that occurred. You only need the population of Bull and other breeds to give an accurate assessment of the percentage based on quantity.

But even without statistics of how many particular types of dogs live in said areas, anyone with reasonable intelligence can summarize that Bull breeds do not vastly outnumber other popular dog breeds such as Labs, Poodles, Boxers, Chi's, etc.

I do understand what you are saying, if there are 1000 dogs, and 100 bites, and 900 of the said, 1000 dogs are Pit Bulls, than statistically the research is flawed because of the weighted proportion of Bull Breeds.

But, if 78% of reported attacks (reported by CDC, Animal Control, etc) who do know how to qualify the breed, your debunking of this argument can only exist if it were also proven that there are 78% more bully breeds than any other breed.

And while you do make a point that the information could be considered incomplete because of a lack of breed numbers, that does not mean that the amount of attacks are any less accurate.

Furthermore, nobody knows how many dogs of which breed exist. Not even the AKC. That is an impossible number to obtain.

But we all have eyes. We all know that Bull Breeds exist in large number, but not so vastly more so than any other popular breed.

it's common sense.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

actually I disagree.

the leaving out of data in a set of statistics makes the statistics incomplete and therefore biased.

and when considering such a subject bias is detrimental. You seem to have some sort of mission to convince everyone that pit bulls are inherantly dangerous. Presenting biased statistics in favor of your position makes you appear manipulative and fanatical.

I shed my fanatical stance. I don't deny that pits can be dangerous. My problem is with the statement that all pits are more dangerous than any other dog because there are far too many important factors that aren't being taken into consideration

if you wish for people like me to listen to you and consider your stance without writing you off as a fanatical biased individual you are going to have to do way better than that.


but talking with you feels like talking to a brick wall. I don't plan on doing it anymore...


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> What the saying? There are three types of lies...lies, damned lies, and statistics.


LOL......x2


----------



## JDub (Apr 8, 2008)

Another PB thread gone bad? Noooooo....what a surprise.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

B-Line said:


> But let me get back on point.
> 1) Many Pit Bull owners claim that a lot of attacks attributed towards Pit Bulls are not in fact, Pit Bulls, but other mixed breeds
> 
> *ALL THE ATTACKS ON MY PITS HAVE BEEN BY OTHER BULLYBREEDS,ANY OTHER ATTACKS I WOULD NOT DEEM TO BE SIGNIFICANT*
> ...


Welcome back Bline,i see you jumped right back in at the deep end.
Its good to have an openly conflicting view,it shows we dont all live in wonderland.

(sorry about my capital replys,i dont know how to change font )


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

Mr Pooch said:


> Welcome back Bline,i see you jumped right back in at the deep end.


Thanks Pooch, it feels nice to know my presence or a lack-there-of was missed.

As far as jumping back into the deep end, what can I say, a good argument makes the slow days seem shorter. Besides, I didn't know there was a shallow "kiddy pool"... 

However, I will try to refrain from using any arguments in the form of sarcasm. All of my future arguments will come in the form of direct, research driven, nonemotional fact only  Maybe with an occasional anecdote..

thanks for keeping this place in tip top shape while I was gone. I'll try not to step on too many land mines... lol..


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

LOL BLine.
Thats just the thing i much prefer people who mix thier own knowledge and anecdotes with factual info/stats,to me that makes for a more personal reply weather i like it or not.

Yeah i try to avoid landmines myself too nowdays.HA HA.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Mr Pooch said:


> LOL BLine.
> Thats just the thing i much prefer people who mix thier own knowledge and anecdotes with factual info/stats,to me that makes for a more personal reply weather i like it or not.
> 
> Yeah i try to avoid landmines myself too nowdays.HA HA.



I feel both sides of the debate need to take a realistic stance on the matter. I see confirmation bias on all sides and personally I refuse to fall for confirmation bias anymore. I really think both sides need to put away the emotions behind the heated words and actually *work together* to come to a solution this is beneficial for *all*.

my two cents.


----------



## JDub (Apr 8, 2008)

A solution that is beneficial for all??? What solution? What is the problem? Is the problem all of the attacks by pits/mixes, or the reporting of them? Or are "we" simply trying to correct the stereotype? Hard to work on a solution when the "problem" is unclear.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

Zim i couldnt agree more.
Lets be honest here we are on a dog forum and everyone gets defensive about thier breed/type of choice.
I sometimes see alliances have been needed,EG; your part of my bully team and likewise.

However nobody here is ever going to like any 1 breed and it just so happens we have breeds that a majority (not here but in general) dislike.

What we all should realise is there are many people who dont like dogs period and to me that makes us all have something very important in common,we love dogs alot and its why i like it here so much.

Your view is always one ive admired Zim,its the passion you have for the breed and its awesome.

On that note i dont want to hit *post 4000* so im going to observe instead of talk for a while.LOL

ETA: i thought i was on 3999.lol



JDub said:


> A solution that is beneficial for all??? What solution? What is the problem? Is the problem all of the attacks by pits/mixes, or the reporting of them? Or are "we" simply trying to correct the stereotype? Hard to work on a solution when the "problem" is unclear.


JDub an alternative to BSL perhaps,one which Pit owners and non Pit owners are happy with.

A solution whereby the Pit regains a rep that all owners can be proud of,yes something like this would take a lot of thought and a long time to impliment but hopefully one day it will happen.


----------



## JDub (Apr 8, 2008)

Mr Pooch said:


> JDub an alternative to BSL perhaps,one which Pit owners and non Pit owners are happy with.
> 
> A solution whereby the Pit regains a rep that all owners can be proud of,yes something like this would take a lot of thought and a long time to impliment but hopefully one day it will happen.



Reputations, and thus legislation, is something that I think we can both agree is largely driven by perception of breeds. True?

If so, and if you are trying to change perceptions so that some day everyone can agree on a position of PB's, then I find it a bit...well....ironic I guess...that you have this in your signature line:










Now maybe the message there is "look at how white my dogs teeth are...thanks Crest!", but it comes across as "look at how scary my dogs teeth are".

Not starting a fight here....seriously. Just pointing out something I found kind of ironic, and a bit amusing at the same time.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

LOL,JDub true,prconceptions are a must to squash in order to help the bad rep of the Pits.

However let me ask you a question from what you know of me here(aside from some volatile posts) do you really think because i have my dogs teeth in my sig im some kind of thug???

They are also the teeth of my Bullmastiff not my SBT but should it matter??

That JDub is preconcieving me before you even know me and in a way i do like it.
I love posh people looking at me maybe persuming im a thug with "trophy dogs" by my side,people can think what they want of me but i know what im all about hopefully others here do too.

I dont look like your typical upperclassed dude im not a scrawny looking dude either which doesnt help me i dont walk around in crocodile skin shoes and a $500 suitcase but i can vouch on everything that is dear to me that i love dogs regardless of breed more than most things in life,dogs make me happy.

I like Aslans teeth,they are shiney and white and i think the sig looks cool,its not supposed to come across as intimidating in the slightest.

Also i must point out ive see alot of Pit owners being critisised for posting cozy pics of kids and Pits or just Pits being dolcile in general.

I kinda like to avoid the norm and go with what you "might think" of me.


----------



## JDub (Apr 8, 2008)

Actually, I've made no judgement of you at all, and why should I? I dont know the first thing about you...other than, if I am thinking of the right guy, you have a dog that is about the size of my car.  I was simply pointing out the irony of a discussion about changing perceptions, while posting that sort of picture. Given that most people's perceptions are that of aggressive and dangerous dogs, a better picture would be one with a dog licking a small child, or Vicks dog working in its new therapy role, etc.

Just saying.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

I completly understand where you are coming from JDub,however many people that really do carry out obsene acts with thier Pits use the cover of "look at this cute Pit and Kid together" guise.

My dog (that is as big as your car.ha ha,that made me lmao) is a big dufus and i guess my sig may portray me as michael Vicks best buddy,its a good job im completly the opposite to that in every imaginable way.

I know you were not passing judgment and it is ironic and can easily come across negative,i do see that.
Thats the thing books can be all too easily judged by thier covers.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

But that is *exactly* my point.


The problem is deeper than what statistics can show. That is why we need cold hard analytical facts on the table before we can even begin to address the possibility of a real solution. 

I am looking into it. And out of respect for EVERYONE concerned, you should do the same. When you wish to discuss things on a logical platform of addressing first things first, by all means I will participate....and now gentlemen if you'll excuse me it is time for me to walk my dogs...


----------



## Donovan (Aug 24, 2007)

The problem with "stats" is that very few folks truly understand the methods behind them: where did the numbers actually come from?; what type of analysis was used to reach the conclusions?; etc etc etc.. Statistics are easy manipulated, yet for some reason everybody wants to use them to make their case - whatever it may be.


It's as simple as this folks:

there are millions of dogs in Western countries, most live their entire lives as faithful companions that didn't lay a tooth on anyone, yet there are thousands of bites every year (of varying severity) and an almost predictable number of deaths (caused by dogs). At the other end of these stories are irresponsible people. Irresponsible for several reasons: no clue how to manage the dog they brought home or just flat-out reckless with the manner in which they conducted their affairs; and there are those that are unwilling to euthanize an unsound and dangerous animal (which too me is also reckless.)

A mis-managed dog of any breed is in a bad situation, yet not all will make the headlines - where most folks allow their generalizations to form. I find it sad that so many grown folks have so little ability to reason themselves through the world. So it goes, I'm not perfect either - and I got $100 that says while I may be well informed on dogs issues, I'm dropping the ball on something else. 

Sadly, "the tough guy dog" du-jour seem to attract the less stellar owners and I believe this has always been the case, and it isn't limited to pit bull or rotties. More so, it isn't an issue that has come about in the last 20 years - dogs are likely to have always been plagued by this cycle. But don't think for one second that dogs of all persuasion aren't represented in the bites that take place...and just cause Nancy Grace didn't give a "dog attack" air-time doesn't mean it didn't happen.


----------



## KcCrystal (Sep 12, 2008)

A Neighbor of ours has 2 pit bulls. One is a little 3 legged female, and the other is a blocky white & brindle male full of fire. Both of them are sweet as the day is long. I've never encountered a agressive pit yet. I've donated money to the local pit bull rescue groups.. I'm a major supporter of doing away with BSL. What's stopping my chosen breeds being added to the "Dangerous list? When BSL wipes out pits like they want to, what's the next DEVIL dog? Will it be the GSD? The Shar-pei? WHo's next..


----------



## Donovan (Aug 24, 2007)

B-Line said:


> And although I have heard many Pit Bull owners state:
> 
> "Animal Behaviorists collectively agree that Pit Bulls make great family pets.."
> 
> ...


Wow. I'm dissapointed but not surprised in this statement...just goes to show that a lack of understanding exists even in the Ivory Towers of Academia. My point, the pit bull has never been bred to kill other animals - gasp! EVERY SINGLE BOOK ON Dog fighting and the APBT has always stated that dog fighters seek to produce dogs that won't quite (ie gameness), yet a lack of knowledge allows for folks to make statements that all dog fights end in the death of one dog. Sadly mistaken, as it is often reported (from the dog fighters themselves) that both dogs often die in the hours after a fight. More so, dog fights are over when one or both dog quits (or when the owner stops the fight). 

As for the food thing, well, she didn't even qualify her terms - "over food." What does that mean? Around other dogs? From people? Anyone on this forum could take food from either of my pit bulls...no questions asked, and neither of them would bat an eye. They also do well being treated next to each other and are civil at feedings. And yes, this is only one anecdotal tale, but my two aren't the only two that fit the bill.




> I don't hide my opinions. I love all dogs. But I feel that Pit Bulls do not belong in the hands of the avg. dog owner. They should be handled by specialist only.


I agree, these aren't the dogs for everyone, but I am not sure what a pit bull specialist would comprise of? Personally, I think anyone willing to go the extra mile to learn about dog behavior and breed generalizations will make a great pit bull owner. My first dog was a pit bull, and I've done just fine...and I didn't know JACK about dogs but I did my homework and was willing for a lot of on the job training. Sadly, many folks that are attracted to pit bulls these days aren't in the dogs for companionship and fun...posturing and other nonsense.

The Grand Old Breed is not in its hayday.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Donovan said:


> The Grand Old Breed is not in its hayday.


sad but true.

I wonder...

What might be the effect of focusing on a particular set of broad generalizations concerning the breed? 

on the naysayers side you find a lot of focus on dog bites and dogfighting. A lot of people sounding out the call of "vicious man biting pit bulls" I wonder how much this actually contributes to the problem. I have seen much evidence of people wishing for an effective scary guard dog. I wonder how many people hear that call of "vicious man biting pit bull" and it sounds like "effective scary guard dog"?

on the pitbullcentric side you find a lot of people denying completely the *tendancy* towards dog aggression and the need to pay attention and be knowledgeable about the matter. I wonder how many well meaning people buy into that denial and end up with problem dogs?

......


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Donovan said:


> I agree, these aren't the dogs for everyone, but I am not sure what a pit bull specialist would comprise of? Personally, I think anyone willing to go the extra mile to learn about dog behavior and breed generalizations will make a great pit bull owner. My first dog was a pit bull, and I've done just fine...and I didn't know JACK about dogs but I did my homework and was willing for a lot of on the job training. Sadly, many folks that are attracted to pit bulls these days aren't in the dogs for companionship and fun...posturing and other nonsense.
> 
> The Grand Old Breed is not in its hayday.


My thoughts exactly. I really don't see any 'specialist program' or idea that otherwise restricts ownership to a small hand selected group of owners a plausible long term (if even short term) solution.

What I think a lot of people STILL don't understand, is even if one of these programs were worked out and APBT owners had to be licensed before obtaining a dog - in all likelihood it would NOT cut back on the irresponsible owners. Those behind attacks and mauling and dog fighting are _already_ neglecting to do many things that the responsible dog owner think of as second nature. They don't take the time to properly socialize their dogs, train the dogs, often times the dogs aren't even licensed. You think they are going to take the time to go an extra step and get _themselves_ authorized? Probably not. You think there is a shortage of puppy mills that would be more then willing to supply dogs to owners without doing background checks? Again, we all know that's not true. 

So what I'd really like to see is not MORE laws put into place, but better enforcement of the ones we have. Bottom line is, if someone wants a dog bad enough they can easily get it. Making it harder for the responsible owners to get the dogs they love is not going to make any difference to those shady people that were already skirting the laws.


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> on the pitbullcentric side you find a lot of people denying completely the *tendancy* towards dog aggression and the need to pay attention and be knowledgeable about the matter. I wonder how many well meaning people buy into that denial and end up with problem dogs?
> 
> ......


Zim, 

This is where I 100% completely agree with you. And that is one of the main reasons I tend to be vocal about my position. I feel that most of the owners I know deny tendency towards dog aggression in bull breeds.

And to expand on your thought, I think that denial is than projected and sold to other potential owners as if the tendency did not exist at all.

This sort of acknowledgment goes a long way towards trying to correct the problem.. Unfortunately, in my experience though, the denial far outweighs the acknowledgment.

I admit, freely, that not all Pits are going to hurt, maim, harm, a human being or another dog. Just as not every motorcycle driver is going to recklessly speed and end up an organ donor.

I only wish the parks I visit have gotten safer, but in reality their worse. Dog on dog violence is worse than I have ever seen it and I wish that weren't the case.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

B-Line said:


> Zim,
> 
> This is where I 100% completely agree with you. And that is one of the main reasons I tend to be vocal about my position. I feel that most of the owners I know deny tendency towards dog aggression in bull breeds.
> 
> ...


address the other half of my post and we may be able to start a dialogue. I will not engage in a discussion without balance.


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> address the other half of my post and we may be able to start a dialogue. I will not engage in a discussion without balance.


Zim, don't take this the wrong way, but I really didn't understand your first paragraph. 

I didn't include it because I didn't understand the text or subtext of what you were trying to say.
Maybe it's because of the context.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

B-Line said:


> Zim, don't take this the wrong way, but I really didn't understand your first paragraph.
> 
> I didn't include it because I didn't understand the text or subtext of what you were trying to say.
> Maybe it's because of the context.


the general thrust of the statement is as follows:

One of the problems the breed faces is the matter of perception. the perception of the super strong lock jawed aggressive dog. there are..and always have been, people who choose to own large powerful breeds because they desire a scary guard dog. if all you hear about a certain breed is how vicious and relentlessly aggressive the breed is and you happen to be one of those people who wishes to have a dog like that, then logically you would seek out that breed. Thus, calling attention to individual incidents with inflammatory emotional outrage might actually be *contributing* to the issue.


----------



## Donovan (Aug 24, 2007)

Dakota, good post on the law stuff...although, I disagree with all we need is enforcement. I think we need to clean-up some of this stuff that is on the books...perfect example, "dog fighting paraphernalia." Those type of laws are often very vague and try to align anyone with a springpole, treadmill, etc with dogfighting, and its only because (in my opinion) the powers that be are truly uneducated on dogfighting, and aren't able to truly put resources into real investigations. So this is what we end up with...and in my town, I'm just waiting for the day I get cited. My springpole sticks out like a swore thumb...there gonna have to see me in court on this one.

*Zim, B-Line,*

SOOOOOO TRRRRRUUUUEEEE! Man, the folks that are in denial that their dogs may mature into dog aggressive dogs are THE WORST! Flat-out ignorant, and not helping the situation. I would rank these folks with those that allow their dogs to roam.

A few months ago, I tried to "work" with a pit bull owner that truly believed if she raised her dog with love, it wouldn't "turn-on" to dog aggression. I was polite, respectful, and only trying to be helpful. She ended up going off on tangents and eventually stoped posting at the webiste. At the end of one her rants, she accused me (my mentality) of being the source of the pit bull's poor reputation. Thanks for nothing lady.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Donovan said:


> Dakota, good post on the law stuff...although, I disagree with all we need is enforcement. I think we need to clean-up some of this stuff that is on the books...perfect example, "dog fighting paraphernalia." Those type of laws are often very vague and try to align anyone with a springpole, treadmill, etc with dogfighting, and its only because (in my opinion) the powers that be are truly uneducated on dogfighting, and aren't able to truly put resources into real investigations. So this is what we end up with...and in my town, I'm just waiting for the day I get cited. My springpole sticks out like a swore thumb...there gonna have to see me in court on this one.
> 
> *Zim, B-Line,*
> 
> ...



I agree that is is naive to think that bully breeds are not prone to DA and to not be prepared for it...but just like any other breed you should research you dog and know what comes w/it . I also believe that some people people confuse DA with HA or that being DA will lead to a dog being HA.


----------



## AkiraleShiba (Dec 9, 2007)

trumpetjock said:


> For the breeds that scare me the most, chows and shibas get my vote handsdown. I haven't met a single one in either breed that wasn't just NASTY. I know there are plenty of good ones out there, but man... they are just tough dogs to own.


Come on  there are plenty of nice shibas and nice chows just like there are many nice pitts.

We tend to forget that dogs are individuals and their character is not only set by their breed, just like humans some are full or love and other are murderers and both can be brothers. I've been bitten by many dogs yet I don't think it's that easy to throw the rock at one breed. Most dogs I encounter are really nice, and maybe 20% are neurotic with an important proportion of toy/companion breeds. 

I have a shiba that ADORE other dogs because we took the time to make him meet other nice dogs since he was 8 weeks old, many other shiba owner do just that to avoid dog aggression and it's working pretty well. I am pretty sure the same can be said of pitt bulls.

I have never met a mean pitt so for me they're one of the nicest breed around and I think it makes a good family dog.

By the way, children need to be taught how to approach dogs because they do provoke aggression unwillingly ! IT's done in school in Belgium and I wish it would be done for children every where.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

AkiraleShiba said:


> By the way, children need to be taught how to approach dogs because they do provoke aggression unwillingly ! IT's done in school in Belgium and I wish it would be done for children every where.


Oh Yeah High Five AkiraleShiba!

this is a major part of the solution.

teach dog saftey to the litte ones and in the higher grades offer electives about dog care/training etc. How many kids to you think would jump for the opportunity to work with dogs in schools? hire behaviorists to teach the classes so the kids get a solid understanding of all types of dog behavior..

I don't know if anyone noticed how I keep throwing that word proactive around....


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

when I was much younger my God mother did SAR, she came to my elementary school and did a whole presentation on SAR and Dog etiquette  it was sooooo fun!


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Donovan said:


> Dakota, good post on the law stuff...although, I disagree with all we need is enforcement. I think we need to clean-up some of this stuff that is on the books...perfect example, "dog fighting paraphernalia." Those type of laws are often very vague and try to align anyone with a springpole, treadmill, etc with dogfighting, and its only because (in my opinion) the powers that be are truly uneducated on dogfighting, and aren't able to truly put resources into real investigations. So this is what we end up with...and in my town, I'm just waiting for the day I get cited. My springpole sticks out like a swore thumb...there gonna have to see me in court on this one.


Oh definitely! There are a ton of laws I would like to see cleaned up as well and I guess that should happen before stricter enforcement really occurs. Good catch


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> on the pitbullcentric side you find a lot of people denying completely the *tendancy* towards dog aggression and the need to pay attention and be knowledgeable about the matter. I wonder how many well meaning people buy into that denial and end up with problem dogs?
> 
> ......


This is my main concern. I know of some dog loving people who are convinced that pit bulls are the greatest dogs ever and can't wait to get one, without fully understanding that tendency towards DA. Obviously not all pit bulls are bad, and luckily a lot of them have really great owners who deal with it even if they have issues. 

I just wish there was a way to talk more openly about these dogs so that people could be aware that they can be great dogs, but there are things to watch out for also. It would be nice if we could talk openly about the breed without inflaming passions. 

I prefer Am Eskimos. They have a reputation for being 'snappy' and 'one person' dogs. A lot has to do with how they're raised and socialized, and a lot has to do with how they are bred and how high strung they are. Mine are calm and well socialized, and they think they deserve to be loved on by everyone they come into contact with. I have had to deal with a vet who didn't want to take her on as a patient because he didn't like the breed, and another vet who insisted on muzzling her before an exam, even though she is well socialized and has never snapped at anyone, even after the month of daily shots for her cancer treatments - and what dog wouldn't have been fed up after that! So I kind of understand where some of the frustration comes from when you have to deal with a stigma attached to the breed that your dog did nothing to earn. 

I think this has been a very interesting conversation. I think it has changed the way I think about pit bulls. I still will most likely never own one, but I feel like I need to rethink the way I think about them and how we generalize about individuals based on what we think of the group.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> This is my main concern. I know of some dog loving people who are convinced that pit bulls are the greatest dogs ever and can't wait to get one, without fully understanding that tendency towards DA. Obviously not all pit bulls are bad, and luckily a lot of them have really great owners who deal with it even if they have issues.
> 
> I just wish there was a way to talk more openly about these dogs so that people could be aware that they can be great dogs, but there are things to watch out for also. It would be nice if we could talk openly about the breed without inflaming passions.
> 
> ...


just to note the flipside, that being that many who don't own pits and also many who do have no real grasp of what dog aggression and human aggression are, what each trait looks like when it is being expressed by the dog and so on. They haven't had to learn to identify those types of behaviors and generally unknowns are scary. but as scary as it looks believe or not many people own dog aggressive pit bulls in homes with other dogs, myself included, with zero issues. all it takes is knowing your dog well and being able to recognize factors like when Bolo grunts and comes and sits by me I know that she needs a break from Vivi's presence because she knows I do not want them to fight and desires to abide by my wishes. Da is not something a dog really has control over. Ha I firmly believe any HA pit bull should be put down. It goes against the nature and purpose of a pit to be human aggressive, DA does not.


that said,

I am attempting to point out possible factors that contribute to the negative stigma concerning the breed. I think there are many factors that are being perpetrated by those on both sides of the fence.


----------



## sw_df27 (Feb 22, 2008)

> I think this has been a very interesting conversation. I think it has changed the way I think about pit bulls. I still will most likely never own one, but I feel like I need to rethink the way I think about them and how we generalize about individuals based on what we think of the group.



You know I have more respect for open minded people like yourself that can admit that the APBT isn't for them and they would never own one without condeming the whole breed! I am so very glad you have rethought your position on this breed and I'm glad you have learned something from this thread. yeah Zim another another person more educated because of this thread then they were before!!!!!!!! that's great!


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> just to note the flipside, that being that many who don't own pits and also many who do have no real grasp of what dog aggression and human aggression are, what each trait looks like when it is being expressed by the dog and so on.


I think this is what leads to many of the stories of 'the dog just snapped and went nuts'. Whenever I read that I think there were probably lots of signs, though maybe subtle ones, that no one ever noticed or took any account of.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> I think this is what leads to many of the stories of 'the dog just snapped and went nuts'. Whenever I read that I think there were probably lots of signs, though maybe subtle ones, that no one ever noticed or took any account of.



I agree w/you BarclaysMom....!


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

BarclaysMom said:


> I think this is what leads to many of the stories of 'the dog just snapped and went nuts'. Whenever I read that I think there were probably lots of signs, though maybe subtle ones, that no one ever noticed or took any account of.


Undoubtedly, there are. This goes for all attacks though, and not just those spurred through DA or HA tendencies. Dogs do not often 'snap' without any sign as to their intentions. The problem is, so many owners are grossly ignorant/ill informed when it comes to canine body language that they do not know how to read there dog and therefor do not remove the animal in time to prevent an attack. Were typical owners more informed and diligent many things could be prevented across the board.

ETA: I forgot, I wanted to mention how nice it is to have your input Barclay. I like hearing thoughts and feelings from the other team (as in, those who don't own/want to own bullies) sometimes and it's great to be able to do that with someone so open minded.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> I think this is what leads to many of the stories of 'the dog just snapped and went nuts'. Whenever I read that I think there were probably lots of signs, though maybe subtle ones, that no one ever noticed or took any account of.


I completely agree. and a big problem with that is different dogs have different specific triggers though in my experience there are some generalized signals with pit bulls. And the most misleading signal is the tail wagging. When Bolo is about to go into her "mode" she wags her tail. I have seen many who do this as well...the difference between happy tail wag and fightin tail wag is fighting tail wag is stiff and upright. Most people wouldn't know to make that distinction. I recently had a convo with a young man who had no clue that dogs have the ability to learn.  I was shocked. he told me he always thought that dogs were just forced into doing what people want. Take someone like that and set them in front of a dog with a wagging tail...well you get the idea....

Education needs to be part of how people address this issue. that is my firm belief. I have already suggested a possible route but after more consideration, putting in programs in schools is something that should probably be built up to...


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the general thrust of the statement is as follows:
> 
> One of the problems the breed faces is the matter of perception. the perception of the super strong lock jawed aggressive dog. there are..and always have been, people who choose to own large powerful breeds because they desire a scary guard dog. if all you hear about a certain breed is how vicious and relentlessly aggressive the breed is and you happen to be one of those people who wishes to have a dog like that, then logically you would seek out that breed. Thus, calling attention to individual incidents with inflammatory emotional outrage might actually be *contributing* to the issue.


Zim,

The funny thing is, you and I actually both agree on a lot of the same topics more than either of us would care to admit.

I do believe what you are saying above, 100% also. The funny thing is, in my research, I've also come to understand that Pit Bulls make horrible guard dogs, that they are generally too friendly. So the idea that certain people get them with that intention is quite amusing.

I think where we most differ in opinion is on goals. I think you have an idealistic approach with a desire to change the image of the breed by advocating and educating.

I think my approach is a little more from the realistic side in that I think, the flood doors are already open. The problem is not just from the thugs but from the massive amounts of owners who refuse to acknowledge the breeds aggressiveness towards other dogs and the potential damage the breed can do if it goes primal, even for a short stint. 
- And while I would like to believe that education and advocating is the way to overcome the problems, I don't think it has or will.
- I think the way to overcome the problem is to impose and enforce restrictions that would allow someone such as yourself to have and home a Bull breed but would keep the denial and thug people away.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

B-Line said:


> - I think the way to overcome the problem is to impose and enforce restrictions that would allow someone such as yourself to have and home a Bull breed but would keep the denial and thug people away.


But that is a problem Bline

If *ANY* restrictions were imposed I would not be able to keep my dogs. period. We are a low income family. I work at the vet, not for money, but in exchange for my animals health care. Any more fees, and I will be forced to give up my animals. I am not the only one. 

Also. 

consider taking a look at animal related laws and cases across the country. The current laws are ridiculously underenforced and underfunded. How do you propose to instigate and enforce *even more laws* with such a lack concerning the already existing ones.

a couple of questions for you to consider as well


how long have drugs been illegal?

What about assault weapons as you so succinctly put it?

Have people stopped obtaining these things illegally just because of laws?

Do you really think pit bulls will be any different?

Even if you were to kill every pit on the planet, these behaviors would not stop. I have been around these types of folks. I was a serious drug addict and theif for a large chunk of my life. Prison is nothing to these people. 

the thing that turned me around was learning. Learning there was more ways than the path that I took. 


just give it a good think ok?


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

Dakota Spirit said:


> ETA: I forgot, I wanted to mention how nice it is to have your input Barclay. I like hearing thoughts and feelings from the other team (as in, those who don't own/want to own bullies) sometimes and it's great to be able to do that with someone so open minded.


Thank you, I try to be open minded and learn new things as much as I can. I love all dogs, even the ones that aren't my cup of tea, and I'd like to see them all live a better life. 

I think I fall on the side of education being key. Here's my problem with new laws - only the law abiding obey them. For example, dogs aren't allowed on the trails at National Parks. Go to the park and what do you see? Dogs on the trail. But the people who take their dogs on the trail are either ignorant of or ignoring the law. Law abiding folks leave their dogs home. It's like that everywhere. The end result is those who ignore the laws are the ones out getting the most exposure and causing folks to say 'oh, I hate running into dogs on the trail, they're off leash and chasing wildlife and making a mess, they should do something about that', meanwhile law abiding folks who might have gone hiking with their well behaved dogs at their side are nowhere to be seen. So dogs overall end up getting a bad rap.

It seems to me like it's always like that, they make a new law, the law abiding end up changing what they do, when they were never the problem to begin with, while the law breaking continue having their fun. The law abiding folks are the ones who end up suffering.


----------



## sw_df27 (Feb 22, 2008)

that is absolutly 100% correct...... In the city my family lives in they passed a Dangerous breed law the only has APBT's labeled in it. The law is you have to pay $150.00 yr to register them plus $10.00 a yr to get thier city license, they have to be microchipped and Fixed and you can only own 2. I can understand the microchipping and the fixing part but the money part and the limet I think is a bit much. We had a set deadline to have all this done or they threated to go neighborhood to neighborhood taking peoples dogs so what does my family do of course being the law ob. people they are they complied with all the demands while everyone else in the city let there APBT's run loose cause they couldn't afford to keep them. Now here it is months later and not one ACO or cop has come to the neighborhood taking anyone's dogs. It just kills me to see my family being punished for being responsable owners it's crazy I tell you just crazy. I myself have 4 we had to move the ACO that I spoke with concerning the matter of owning more then 2 APBT's before the law went into affect he told me to pick the 2 I liked most and have the others put down or give them away that was my only option..............


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

sw_df27 said:


> that is absolutly 100% correct...... In the city my family lives in they passed a Dangerous breed law the only has APBT's labeled in it. The law is you have to pay $150.00 yr to register them plus $10.00 a yr to get thier city license, they have to be microchipped and Fixed and you can only own 2. I can understand the microchipping and the fixing part but the money part and the limet I think is a bit much. We had a set deadline to have all this done or they threated to go neighborhood to neighborhood taking peoples dogs so what does my family do of course being the law ob. people they are they complied with all the demands while everyone else in the city let there APBT's run loose cause they couldn't afford to keep them. Now here it is months later and not one ACO or cop has come to the neighborhood taking anyone's dogs. It just kills me to see my family being punished for being responsable owners it's crazy I tell you just crazy. I myself have 4 we had to move the ACO that I spoke with concerning the matter of owning more then 2 APBT's before the law went into affect he told me to pick the 2 I liked most and have the others put down or give them away that was my only option..............


That just turns my stomach! And on top of all that, your dogs were probably fixed and chipped to begin with, and never would have been a problem to anybody! A perfect example of how laws like that only hurt good people and good dogs.


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> But that is a problem Bline
> 
> If *ANY* restrictions were imposed I would not be able to keep my dogs. period. We are a low income family. I work at the vet, not for money, but in exchange for my animals health care. Any more fees, and I will be forced to give up my animals. I am not the only one.
> 
> ...


I don't really have a decent response to your first paragraph. While I don't wish I was heartless enough to say and mean something like, "life isn't fair". Truth is, I do care and would not want to see people's pets taken away.
But like most issues in life, there are large areas of grey and people who get caught in the sh*t storm.

- I think a response to this issue could be a grandfather clause. Register your dog(s) now, for free. But by a certain date if you haven't done so, you have to pay. Again the idea is not to punish the owner but to dissuade newcomers from further expansion of the breed.
-- Don't take away peoples rights to have the dog breed, just make the conditions much more strict. And yes, some people will have to decide between their wallet and their pet. But that is an issue that all dog owners are faced at some point, be it feeding, spaying, training, etc.

In terms of animal related laws, the majority are reactive, not proactive. I don't want to sue someone or take someone to court because their un-neutered, aggressive male dog attacks and kills my puppy. By then it's too late and I am seeking punishment. I would like to see a law that places restrictions and licensing.

Yes, there will always be those that go around the law, but there is a big difference between a civil trial and a criminal trial. And if I were thinking about a pet, I might decide it's smarter for me to go to school, get a certificate, get a dog and be registered, than it would be to get charged for felony possession/assault by dog, etc.

Zim, I wish I had the answer. One that could settle all these problems but I don't. I only know, from my eyes, my perspective, my city, my parks, that there was an epidemic that started about a decade ago and is getting worse.

In Los Angeles, in the last few months I haven't heard or seen any brutal attacks that weren't at the hands of Pit Bulls. It's all been dog on dog violence. 

But the good owners are being far outweighed by those that just don't give a crap about other peoples dogs, etc.

The dog that attacked my dog on Sunday was wearing a pronged collar and the owner managed to rip her back before she got a good bite. But I just read a story about a Pit Bull that attacked another dog and had to be shot with a .45 and it still wouldn't let go. The Pit actually walked away.. Then died later from the gunshot wound.

Man those are some tough dogs that you guys have and I don't want to ever have to worry about how I'm going to get someone else's Pit to let go of my dog in the park.

The best way in my opinion to protect BULL breeds, APBT, Bull Terriers, etc. is to stop suggesting to people that they should get them as family pets. More Pit Bulls is going to equal more problems. Stop the mass breeding, stop the back yard breeding. 

In order to help and protect the breed, the best thing that can be done, in my opinion, is to only have them in homes that can provide that right environment... And in my opinion, you do that, by making people take a class, or registering, or getting certified, etc.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

B-Line said:


> Yes, there will always be those that go around the law, but there is a big difference between a civil trial and a criminal trial. And if I were thinking about a pet, *I might decide it's smarter for me to go to school, get a certificate, get a dog and be registered, than it would be to get charged for felony possession/assault by dog, etc.*
> 
> The best way in my opinion to protect BULL breeds, APBT, Bull Terriers, etc. is to stop suggesting to people that they should get them as family pets. More Pit Bulls is going to equal more problems. Stop the mass breeding, stop the back yard breeding.
> 
> In order to help and protect the breed, the best thing that can be done, in my opinion, is to only have them in homes that can provide that right environment... And in my opinion, you do that, by making people take a class, or registering, or getting certified, etc.


Still, my question is - what makes you think that adding NEW restrictions will make any difference to those already being irresponsible? YOU may decided to take the crap and get in gear with all the new regulations because you are already a diligent owner. The people who are making a bad rap for these dogs are NOT and they sure as hell are not going to change their ways because a new mass of registration laws were put into place. They will continue doing what they are doing, ignoring the law. Plain and simple. These laws will not fix any problems, they will only serve to punish those whom were already following the rules to begin with.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

B-Line said:


> - I think a response to this issue could be a grandfather clause. Register your dog(s) now, for free. But by a certain date if you haven't done so, you have to pay. Again the idea is not to punish the owner but to dissuade newcomers from further expansion of the breed.
> -- Don't take away peoples rights to have the dog breed, just make the conditions much more strict. And yes, some people will have to decide between their wallet and their pet. But that is an issue that all dog owners are faced at some point, be it feeding, spaying, training, etc.
> 
> 
> The best way in my opinion to protect BULL breeds, APBT, Bull Terriers, etc. is to stop suggesting to people that they should get them as family pets. More Pit Bulls is going to equal more problems. Stop the mass breeding, stop the back yard breeding.


The registration of the breed could work BLine or it could drive the "badguys" further underground and the further underground they go the worse the breed will become.

As for suggesting the breeds as family pets aside from thier Pit fighting days they were and still are regarded as "nanny dogs".

Over here APBT are illegal(doesnt stop thousands being here though) and one of many familys 1st choice of breed is the SBT(i have 2) which is basically the same dog and the one which the APBT derived from.
I would and have suggested SBT to many 1st time owners and many have taken that advice and got themselves one.

We too get the "terror" storys from time to time on the front pages of tabloids etc but "only" when it is that breed or another "deemed dangerous" dog.

There has to be another way to eliminate the bad owners,what?i dont know yet but something other than money motivated laws.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Dakota Spirit said:


> Still, my question is - what makes you that thinking adding NEW restrictions will make any difference to those already being irresponsible? YOU may decided to take the crap and get in gear with all the new regulations because you are already a diligent owner. The people who are making a bad rap for these dogs are NOT and they sure as hell are not going to change their ways because a new mass of registration laws were put into place. They will continue doing what they are doing, ignoring the law. Plain and simple. These laws will not fix any problems, they will only serve to pushing those whom were already following the rules to begin with.


x100000000000


that, B-line, is why I feel a proactive stance is called for.

Let me give you a little anecdote from the annals of my experience.


Little projects kids often see me walking my dogs and come to ask me questions. Usually the questions fall along the lines of "that pit is pretty tough huh?" and ex cetera. One little boy I often ran into would make often blatent dogfighting references to the effect of "She could whoop a dog's a** and make you some big chedda." Him and his little brother frankly were in awe of Bolo.(this is before I got my second dog)

Anyways, I started to take a little time out of our walks to sit there and talk with these two kids. Eventually I started to pick up on where they were getting their dogfighting references, that being their older brother. I invited them to come with me to a friend's house to meet his pit, a rescued pit dog. Rollo has one eye and half of his face missing and is covered in scars. He is kind of hard to look at. So we spent the day at my friend's house. they heard Rollo's story and began to understand the reality of matching dogs....

a few weeks later I showed up at their house to find cops all over the place. They had turned their brother in for arranging street matches. 

they come by pretty regularly. I have been teaching them about positive reinforcement in training dogs. They have put in an app with the permission of their mother for a dog at the local shelter, a JRT. I am going to help them train their pup to weight pull.

A little time and effort and there are *three* less dogfighters abusing these animals.



Get'm while they are young and I believe we can seriously cut back on these problems.

What do you think of the situation in the Netherlands B-line?

they repealed their breed specific laws because they had zero effect on the number of dog bites.

and personally(this is not meant to offend I just don't know how else to put it.) I think you are being narrow minded. If dog bites are such a concern...

shouldn't the victims of attacks by other breeds be taken into account?


----------



## JDub (Apr 8, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> from the annals of my experience.


EWWWWWW!!!!!





Oh....wait.... annals...2 N's. Oops....sorry. Never mind.


----------



## Donovan (Aug 24, 2007)

I don't see why there is a need to limit strict regulations/penalties to pit bulls or their owner's...I say that any owner of an animal that is allowed to tear up people or other dogs ought to be held accountable. But I like to keep things simple...Think about it: it's the result of reckless ownership that get all of us that care in a huff...I couldn't care less what breed the individual or group of dogs belonged to.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Donovan said:


> I don't see why there is a need to limit strict regulations/penalties to pit bulls or their owner's...I say that any owner of an animal that is allowed to tear up people or other dogs ought to be held accountable. But I like to keep things simple...Think about it: it's the result of reckless ownership that get all of us that care in a huff...I couldn't care less what breed the individual or group of dogs belonged to.


good post.

I think maybe a two pronged approach would be a great start.

1. stricter, better enforced non breed specific laws to counteract *all* irresponsible ownership.

2. Some form of education concerning dog ownership to cut back on irresponsible owners before they ever get a dog.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Don't have anything to add right now...just wanted to mention how much I've enjoyed this thread, especially now that it's settled down some. Believe it or not, I rather like discussing these things. It's nice to be able to do it civilly for a change. 

Kudos to all the participants


----------



## Donovan (Aug 24, 2007)

Dakota Spirit said:


> It's nice to be able to do it civilly for a change.


Don't hold your breath there, Dakota, we're one Nancy Grace show away from getting back to the old routine. 



> Kudos to all the participants


Agreed. Especially those willing to come with an open mind and fair attitude - regardless of their position on the issues.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

Donovan said:


> Don't hold your breath there, Dakota, we're one Nancy Grace show away from getting back to the old routine.


Ahah, I know . I keep waiting for someone new to spot the thread and think it to be another APBT bashing topic. We would be back at square one in moments.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Dakota Spirit said:


> Ahah, I know . I keep waiting for someone new to spot the thread and think it to be another APBT bashing topic. We would be back at square one in moments.



that's why you tell them to play nice, discuss maturely or be ignored and stick with it. 

And it is nice to lay the real stuff on the table and get mature and well thought out balanced feedback.


----------



## Donovan (Aug 24, 2007)

Donovan said:


> Don't hold your breath there, Dakota, we're one Nancy Grace show away from getting back to the old routine.


Which surprises me that ol NG hasn't jumped on the last few headlines...guess there was a bad one in WA state where a woman had her ears torn-up by what looked to be American Bulldogs that were reported to be - WAIT FOR IT - you guessed it, pit bulls.

Plus there's that loon with the group (that I REFUSE to mention) in that area...I'm sure, she's gonna land herself on some shock-jock crap before the end of next week.


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

Can we clear something up..

I know the difference between a APBT and a Bull Terrier and a SPBT and an American BullDog..

I don't differentiate between those breeds though. As far as I'm concerned, they were all designed for bull baiting and Pit fighting. Hence the moniker, PIT BULL.

An American Bulldog may not be an "AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER" but it is still a "PIT BULL" Just as Cavalier King Charles is still a SPANIEL..

I know that this:









Is not the same as this:









Which is not the same as this:









But it's a semantic argument. They are all PIT BULLS..

But just because the breed name doesn't have "PIT BULL" in it doesn't not make it a Pit Bull.

As you all know, I have a Portuguese Water Dog, but that doesn't mean a LABRADOR isn't a "Water Dog" simply because it isn't called a LABRADOR WATER DOG RETRIEVER..


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> 2. Some form of education concerning dog ownership to cut back on irresponsible owners before they ever get a dog.


This is the number one thing we need in this country, before anything else. Spay and Neuter campaigns might have helped, but look at all the animals at the pound and in rescue, they aren't the result of unwanted litters (well, the kittens are) but most of them are just the result of people getting a cute puppy who didn't have a clue what to do with it after they brought it home! Even if they had the best intentions, taking a pup too early and skipping out on important socialization with it's mom and litter, then bringing it home and not socializing it, then getting frustrated and locking it up or throwing it out - then you have another ruined dog at the shelter, 10 months old, never been trained, doesn't even have a clue about living in a normal family. You see them on petfinder by the hundreds - no dogs, no cats, no kids, been outdoors on a tie out it's whole life. It takes really special people step in and rehabilitate an animal like that. 

IMO The most important challenge we face in animal welfare right now is teaching people to prevent that whole process. It has nothing to do with the breed, but it has everything to do with how dogs need to be socialized and trained - all dogs. 

But how do good dog owners help get that education to the general public?


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

B-Line said:


> But it's a semantic argument. They are all PIT BULLS..
> 
> But just because the breed name doesn't have "PIT BULL" in it doesn't not make it a Pit Bull.
> 
> As you all know, I have a Portuguese Water Dog, but that doesn't mean a LABRADOR isn't a "Water Dog" simply because it isn't called a LABRADOR WATER DOG RETRIEVER..


Yes, but that's not how it's handled with these stories. The dogs are not called "Pit Bulls" simply as an abbreviation or something similar...they are called Pit Bulls (in the media) because generally _they_ don't know the difference between the breeds. With them, anything stocky, muscled, or strong is a Pit Bull. It's a misconception and a term that a lot of APBT/Bully people DON'T use for their dogs because of all the misunderstanding around it. When the media uses the term Pit Bull to describe ONE dog - they take a hit on ALL of the bully breeds. THAT is the problem. Because of that term's use MANY dogs and breeds are suffering. It all comes back to hype and ignorance.

Besides, when a Lab attacks, they are not called "Water Dogs" they are called Labs. They are called by their BREED and not their GROUP. That should be the case with all breeds, unless it's a mix and then they can just say mix. Make sense?

ETA: I forgot to reiterate that this is one of the reasons Pit Bull statistics are so high...because so many breeds fall under that category. If all the toy breeds were bundled under a "Lap Dog" category for example, I guarantee there would be a similar result.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Dakota Spirit said:


> Yes, but that's not how it's handled with these stories. The dogs are not called "Pit Bulls" simply as an abbreviation or something similar...they are called Pit Bulls (in the media) because generally _they_ don't know the difference between the breeds. With them, anything stocky, muscled, or strong is a Pit Bull. It's a misconception and a term that a lot of APBT/Bully people DON'T use for their dogs because of all the misunderstanding around it. When the media uses the term Pit Bull to describe ONE dog - they take a hit on ALL of the bully breeds. THAT is the problem. Because of that term's use MANY dogs and breeds are suffering. It all comes back to hype and ignorance.
> 
> Besides, when a Lab attacks, they are not called "Water Dogs" they are called Labs. They are called by their BREED and not their GROUP. That should be the case with all breeds, unless it's a mix and then they can just say mix. Make sense?
> 
> ETA: I forgot to reiterate that this is one of the reasons Pit Bull statistics are so high...because so many breeds fall under that category. If all the toy breeds were bundled under a "Lap Dog" category for example, I guarantee there would be a similar result.


and not just bully breeds....anything short coated and muscular I have seen, read and heard of described as a pit bull.

breeds from JRT's to Mastiffs have been mistaken as pit bulls.

I will see if I can find the article for you about the labrador mix in Ontario that was seized when the ban was put into place because it was thought to be a pit bull.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

Excelent post Dakota.

BLine just a note the SBT doesnt have a *p* in its breed title.(not sarcasm just thought i'd let you know its just Staffordshire Bull terrier without the word Pit,although they were also Pit fighting dogs too at one point)



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> breeds from JRT's to Mastiffs have been mistaken as pit bulls.


Glad you posted that Zim because i was just thinking if my 3 were envolved in an attack Aslan couldnt be put into the Pit category(well only by someone who really didnt know thier breeds at all)


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

Dakota Spirit said:


> Yes, but that's not how it's handled with these stories. The dogs are not called "Pit Bulls" simply as an abbreviation or something similar...they are called Pit Bulls (in the media) because generally _they_ don't know the difference between the breeds. With them, anything stocky, muscled, or strong is a Pit Bull. It's a misconception and a term that a lot of APBT/Bully people DON'T use for their dogs because of all the misunderstanding around it. When the media uses the term Pit Bull to describe ONE dog - they take a hit on ALL of the bully breeds. THAT is the problem. Because of that term's use MANY dogs and breeds are suffering. It all comes back to hype and ignorance.
> 
> Besides, when a Lab attacks, they are not called "Water Dogs" they are called Labs. They are called by their BREED and not their GROUP. That should be the case with all breeds, unless it's a mix and then they can just say mix. Make sense?
> 
> ETA: I forgot to reiterate that this is one of the reasons Pit Bull statistics are so high...because so many breeds fall under that category. If all the toy breeds were bundled under a "Lap Dog" category for example, I guarantee there would be a similar result.


I understand what you are saying but allow me to counterpoint.

1) Not ALL or even MOST reports of Pit Bull attacks are misconceptions of the media. Most of them are confirmed, either purebreed or mixbreed Bully dogs.
- I will admit that there are probably a few mistakes that have been made about breed. The news media is certainly not perfect. But I have found in my research that Bull attacks are always verified by owners, animal control, etc. Not every journalist is a misreporting, hysterical, BSL supporter.

2) People such as myself don't debate one breed vs. another. It is our opinion that the ENTIRE GROUP is problematic. Yes, some of the breeds are more popular and as a result, higher levels of incident will exist, but just about all bull breeds have dog aggression, bites that "don't let go" (notice I didn't say locking) and a very powerful body, etc.

3) Hype and ignorance is a term that is used a lot on the Pro Pit Bull side. Yet I read, have conversations, attend a forum, have friends with Pit Bulls, etc. I am neither hyped or ignorant, I just have a different yet educated, point of view, that I too can support with evidence. It's not ignorance, I've read the arguments. I just don't buy into it. I think bull breeds have the inherent ability to do great damage to humans and other animals.

4) I don't think Pit Bulls are grouped because of their name. They are grouped because of their obvious strength and muscular disposition. You are right in that they are grouped largely by appearance but also because of their design and intended function. There is also a disproportionate number of attacks that do come from dogs in the BULLY group.

IMO, all three of the breeds I have posted above are PIT BULLS, are inherently able to do massive amounts of damage to people and other animals and have an extremely high threshold for pain.



Mr Pooch said:


> BLine just a note the SBT doesnt have a *p* in its breed title.(not sarcasm just thought i'd let you know its just Staffordshire Bull terrier without the word Pit,although they were also Pit fighting dogs too at one point)


Thank you for the clarification. I think I knew that too. My typing and writing skills are much better than my editing skills..
LOL.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

http://wagthedog.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/9/25/3253427.html


I was wrong. it was pure lab.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

Zim thats just plain crazy!!!!!


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

B-Line said:


> Can we clear something up..
> 
> I know the difference between a APBT and a Bull Terrier and a SPBT and an American BullDog..
> 
> ...



Following this logic you would also have to lump in.....English bulldogs, Boston Terriers, and Old Boston bulldogge


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

pugmom said:


> Following this logic you would also have to lump in.....English bulldogs, Boston Terriers, and Old Boston bulldogge


And mini schnauzers...after all they are considered terriers too.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

lol,true Curb,also whatever Terrier it was that went into the creation of the SBT,TBH i dont remember what it was but was more cairn terrier looking that combined with the English Bulldog produced the SBT which later went across shore to become the APBT.

I do know that the EBT was bred by crossing the bulldog and the white terrier which is now extinct.
(sorry folks for that pointless bit of history.lol)


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> But how do good dog owners help get that education to the general public?


That is a question that has been plaguing me for quite a while. that and...

Who is best qualified to teach these things?

What would need to be taught exactly?

And where? Electives in schools? Some sort of sponsered dog ed center in major cities where you could get free puppy classes?


any ideas anyone?


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

Ive had this discussion on a UK forum many a time with other UK bully owners.
Its was agreed that the first step was to educate children as young as possible about the respect ALL dogs should have.
Once that is established they can go on to learn more about breeds and their different requirements etc.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Mr Pooch said:


> Ive had this discussion on a UK forum many a time with other UK bully owners.
> Its was agreed that the first step was to educate children as young as possible about the respect ALL dogs should have.
> Once that is established they can go on to learn more about breeds and their different requirements etc.


I know there are some in america who teach this stuff but I think it needs to be made a mandatory part of grade school ed. Some sort of animal safety curriculum that covers how to approach a dog, how to read dog body language, basic dog care, what to do if faced with a scary dog as well as how to react in the event of a wild animal being near..


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

B-Line said:


> I understand what you are saying but allow me to counterpoint.
> 
> 1) Not ALL or even MOST reports of Pit Bull attacks are misconceptions of the media. Most of them are confirmed, either purebreed or mixbreed Bully dogs.
> - I will admit that there are probably a few mistakes that have been made about breed. The news media is certainly not perfect. But I have found in my research that Bull attacks are always verified by owners, animal control, etc. Not every journalist is a misreporting, hysterical, BSL supporter.


I'll buy the owner bits - only because I think it's safe to say most owners will not knowingly mislabel their dog once it is facing death row. As for the AC? Sorry, but no. Most AC officers are just that. They pick up dogs, catch strays, etc. They are NOT automatic breed specialists and they too are responsible for many mislabels. Zim's article is a perfect example of that. Hell take a visit to your local shelter and see how many dogs are mislabeled as Pit Bulls (even when using the general 'bully' definition). It's not uncommon at all.

Let me also say that I in no way believe journalists to be the entire/main problem. For the most part they are reporting what they are given...I simply wish "Pit Bull" was not such a catch word in the general media. I think maybe that can at least be understood on a dog-lover level if nothing else. It just plain sucks to see your breed constantly spotlighted like that - especially with the mistakes that are made.



> 2) People such as myself don't debate one breed vs. another. It is our opinion that the ENTIRE GROUP is problematic. Yes, some of the breeds are more popular and as a result, higher levels of incident will exist, but just about all bull breeds have dog aggression, bites that "don't let go" (notice I didn't say locking) and a very powerful body, etc.


This to me, is very problematic. Worse even then condemning an entire breed. You are operating on some very general characteristics...characteristics that are present in MANY breeds. Most (if not all) large dogs have a powerful body. Any tenacious dog can bite and 'not let go'. And there are dozens of other breeds out there with a tendency toward DA. Akitas and Chows for example. DA is a trait common in many Spitz breeds. Do you think they should be regulated too? 

I don't deny what an APBT or any other bully is...I only object to the way they are put up as some enigma in the dog world. People need to realized that their prized loyal GSD is just as capable as an APBT is.



> 3) Hype and ignorance is a term that is used a lot on the Pro Pit Bull side. Yet I read, have conversations, attend a forum, have friends with Pit Bulls, etc. I am neither hyped or ignorant, I just have a different yet educated, point of view, that I too can support with evidence. It's not ignorance, I've read the arguments. I just don't buy into it. I think bull breeds have the inherent ability to do great damage to humans and other animals.


Let me qualify this. First of all, when I use the word ignorance I am refering to it's direct definition. That is a state of "lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc." It's not an insult (at least not out of my mouth) but an observation. If someone is going off only what they read in the paper, they are ignorant. If someone is spewing known myths, they are ignorant. It's not always a bad thing - sometimes it just means you don't know any better.

I do not call someone ignorant because of a difference of opinion. If I use the word it's because they are sharing facts I know to be false. That does not necessarily mean you, B-Line. I am only clarifying my statements.



> 4) I don't think Pit Bulls are grouped because of their name. They are grouped because of their obvious strength and muscular disposition. You are right in that they are grouped largely by appearance but also because of their design and intended function. There is also a disproportionate number of attacks that do come from dogs in the BULLY group.


I didn't say they were grouped due to their name. In fact, I agree that it is the characteristics that group dogs together. This is the same for any group be it Herding, Working, etc. However, I do not feel that it is fair to compare a group statistic (if statistics can be relied on at all) like bites within the Bully group with statistics based on a single breed. It's like stacking the odds. Of course the single breed is going to win out - that only makes sense.


---

As for education, I too agree that targeting children is the key. Parents/teachers/etc. need to show their kids that this thug, gangster, fighter image is NOT cool. Kids are curious and interested...and they WILL listen. If a little more time was spent teaching children to respect and care for their animals I think a big difference would be made.


----------



## BarclaysMom (Aug 24, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> That is a question that has been plaguing me for quite a while. that and...
> 
> Who is best qualified to teach these things?
> 
> ...


I think anyone teaching anything would be better than what some people start out with, which is nothing. Classes could be offered in community centers, after school, things like that.

I saw the local humane society had puppy classes available, then I saw they were $45 for a simple one day class! Anyone who's willing to spend $45 for a class about raising a puppy is probably not a problem owner to begin with - they are looking for information. The trick is to get the class out there free and available to people who don't even know they need it.



Dakota Spirit said:


> As for education, I too agree that targeting children is the key. Parents/teachers/etc. need to show their kids that this thug, gangster, fighter image is NOT cool. Kids are curious and interested...and they WILL listen. If a little more time was spent teaching children to respect and care for their animals I think a big difference would be made.


I would think this is something that should be supported as a public health issue. After all, a huge percentage of the population has dogs, and kids interact with those dogs out in public, at parks etc. At the very least they should learn to read and interact safely with our species most popular companion animal, plus some lessons in socialization and how it effects dogs. If kids could learn to respect dogs as intelligent emotional creatures, not just tools or props to look cool, it could make a real difference.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

BarclaysMom said:


> I think anyone teaching anything would be better than what some people start out with, which is nothing. Classes could be offered in community centers, after school, things like that.
> 
> I saw the local humane society had puppy classes available, then I saw they were $45 for a simple one day class! Anyone who's willing to spend $45 for a class about raising a puppy is probably not a problem owner to begin with - they are looking for information. The trick is to get the class out there free and available to people who don't even know they need it.
> 
> ...


What about this:

what if someone were to start a process to gather funding for classes that could be a part of local shelters and the shelter could *require* people to take the class as a stipulation of the adoption process?

pros? cons? How could someone( read: me ) bring something like that about?

actually I think I am taking this topic to a new thread....carry on...


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> http://wagthedog.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/9/25/3253427.html
> 
> 
> I was wrong. it was pure lab.


Wow, that's crazy!

But in the same breath, I've been a party to members of this forum that have made statements to the effect of:

I have a Pit Bull and want to move to an apt. complex that forbids the breed. Can I sneak my Pit in and call it a different breed? Or, My dog is only 1/2 Pit Pull 1/2 Lab, do you think it will get by the owners scrutiny?

My point is, there is a grey area. And it should be the owners responsibility to be able to prove what the dog is or is not as there are tests available. No the tests are not cheap but there are costs associated with having a dog, like it or not.. Rabies, registration, etc.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

B-Line said:


> My point is, there is a grey area. And it should be the owners responsibility to be able to prove what the dog is or is not as there are tests available. No the tests are not cheap but there are costs associated with having a dog, like it or not.. Rabies, registration, etc.


To my knowledge there is no test that yet recognizes the APBT (can't say for the other breeds). It could have changed since last I checked, though. I do know there are many many breeds that have not yet been recognized with those tests.

Those tests are also rather give or take. We've had members here that have taken the test and end up getting results that really do not match their dog at all. We're talking small/toy breeds matched to their medium/large dog. It _could_ be possible, but I don't want my dog's life resting on a maybe test.

Not only that, but someone should not have to prove what their dog is because an outside party (quite possibly someone who nothing of the bully breeds) deemed them 'Pit Bull'. You wanna know so bad? Then YOU can foot the bill for the test...

ETA: I feel like I am over clarifying - but I just want to make it clear again that I am not intending to attack or disregard anyone's opinion. I hope none of my words are coming off as such.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

B-Line said:


> Wow, that's crazy!
> 
> But in the same breath, I've been a party to members of this forum that have made statements to the effect of:
> 
> ...


I'm not sure how well the dna testing would hold up in a legal situation...now I'm not 100% sure but I have heard they are not 100% reliable....there is a woman on my other forum who did one for fun she even put the video of her doing it and showing the results....now she has a reg. SBT whom she shows ....and her test came back w/every thing but SBT....from what I remember it was mostly dalmation and BC....LOL 

LOL...Dakota ya beat me


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

B-Line said:


> But in the same breath, I've been a party to members of this forum that have made statements to the effect of:
> 
> I have a Pit Bull and want to move to an apt. complex that forbids the breed. Can I sneak my Pit in and call it a different breed? Or, My dog is only 1/2 Pit Pull 1/2 Lab, do you think it will get by the owners scrutiny?


I would like to know which forum you are referring to. I keep tabs on most of them and to the uninitiated, it is hard to distinguish which forums are which...would you mind pming me the name and url of the forum you are referring too?

And as for things like that, most of the time it is a panicked reaction.

http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa8.1/arluke.shtml 

now I am not claiming this article is nessecarily definitive, I do think it is worth consideration as far as trying to understand why pit owners attempt those kinds of things.....social stigma...


B-Line said:


> My point is, there is a grey area. And it should be the owners responsibility to be able to prove what the dog is or is not as there are tests available. No the tests are not cheap but there are costs associated with having a dog, like it or not.. Rabies, registration, etc.


I actually had one of those tests done on my brindle dog Bolo. She came back as a greyhoundxmastiff. I have known others who have had those tests done. the problem with that is they have only mapped a select number of breeds, not including any bully breeds except one I think can test for SBT.

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_06_a_pitbull.html


This is another interesting article on the topic. I am curious as to your thoughts.

eta: none of the articles I post are claimed to be anything one way or the other.

merely presented for consideration.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Well according to one of those DNA tests a 90+ lb black and white, shorthaired dog came back as almost all maltese. So..... accuracy is really not there yet. 

I don't understand your definition of 'pit bull',B-Line. Are you counting just the breeds used to fight other dogs? Or ones bred to bull bait? Or just ones with bully in the name? I'm just confused.


----------



## Donovan (Aug 24, 2007)

B-Line said:


> 1) Not ALL or even MOST reports of Pit Bull attacks are misconceptions of the media. Most of them are confirmed, either purebreed or mixbreed Bully dogs.
> - I will admit that there are probably a few mistakes that have been made about breed. The news media is certainly not perfect. But I have found in my research that Bull attacks are always verified by owners, animal control, etc. Not every journalist is a misreporting, hysterical, BSL supporter.


When you got a spare moment, you should take a look at www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com plenty of good reading on how these issues play out at the media.



> but just about all bull breeds have dog aggression, bites that "don't let go" (notice I didn't say locking) and a very powerful body, etc.


Let's not fool ourselves, MANY breeds are serving up a serious dose of dog aggression. The trait is far from limited to the bull breeds, and yes I understand that you haven't said that it is, but to call an entire group of dogs problematic based on pretty common traits is short-sided. 



> I am neither hyped or ignorant, I just have a different yet educated, point of view, that I too can support with evidence. It's not ignorance, I've read the arguments. I just don't buy into it. I think bull breeds have the inherent ability to do great damage to humans and other animals.


Sorry if I'm asking you to repeat yourself, but what is it that you don't buy - feel free to link examples instead of re-writing stuff you've written a hundred times before (I know that is annoying) LOL.



> 4) There is also a disproportionate number of attacks that do come from dogs in the BULLY group.


But how do we really know this to be true? What is the standard used for breed ID when incidents do occur? What is the training involved to educate ACO's/Police in breed ID? Is it standardized across the board? 

Again, take a look at the national canine research website.



> IMO, all three of the breeds I have posted above are PIT BULLS, are inherently able to do massive amounts of damage to people and other animals and have an extremely high threshold for pain.


Anything with teeth is inherently able to do massive amounts of damage to people and other animals...and the extremely high threshold for pain, well, how does one measure that exactly?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Donovan, you're asking for facts. What typically follows is pseudoscience. That's not fair.


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

It's a good question... What is a Pit Bull and what is a "dangerous dog" and what breed of Pit Bulls should be excluded and what should be included.

I don't have an exact answer. I think any dangerous dog law or breed specific legislation should be "living" in manner.

I know that throws a lot more controversy in the mix but I do think there is a lot of grey.

If I were legislating, I would want to have a committe of specialist that decide, impartially, if a particular dog is a "pit bull" or "dangerous".

I think the basic criteria I would start with is: 
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.. Unless proven otherwise.

I would like to see the decision made by intelligent people, and would hope there would be some benefit of doubt on the side of the dog.

But I also want to remind people, I think current dogs should be grandfathered in. The intent would be to decrease furture population booms of dog aggressive and potentially human aggressive dogs by licensing.

So not picking up and killing peoples dogs, but giving people time to register their dogs that grandfathered in. Then new dog restrictions or licensing.

And if other breeds start to become more popular and also start to become a more prolific problem, chow's, etc. then they could be included in the living document, but would also allow the chance to have current pets grandfathered in.

The responsible people can still get their dogs, they might just have to jump through a few hoops. And I don't buy the, "we can't enforce the dog laws that are on the books now" argument... If people can get J walking tickets in Los Angeles, surely they can enforce dog laws.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I would like to know which forum you are referring to. I keep tabs on most of them and to the uninitiated, it is hard to distinguish which forums are which...?


I didn't PM it because I don't encourage people misleading what there dogs are to gain residence. There are insurance reasons why many owners don't allow certain breeds and I don't think it's fair that an apt. owner unwittingly becomes liable because they were mislead...

Here is an example from this forum, about two months ago. But note it was from a new poster, not a reg.

http://www.dogforums.com/2-general-dog-forum/32979-question-about-breed-restrictions.html
From a guy who wanted a Dobermin Pinscher:
"So my question is, are there ways around this such as stating that my dog is a mix like a beauceron-coonhound or smething of the like? Do they require paperwork of any sort or is this based on a self-report?"

Response #1
"If you are friends/nice to your vet they might put "mix" on the paperwork. I have friends who had this done with their pitbulls for the same reason. If they ask to see your dog your pretty screwed tho. A doberman is a very recognizable breed.


There are more.. But this is the first one i could find..


----------



## Criosphynx (May 15, 2008)

wow way to make an example out of me. Thanks.
If you notice I commented on how he would not be able to get away with it. 


The problem is that tickets are handed out by the police.

The police DO NOT deal with animal issues. Trust me, i've tried. Animal control deals with the enforcement of animal laws and AC is *extremely busy and understaffed*.

They can hardly deal with the sheer number of strays let alone all the other issues.


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

Sorry Crio,

Didn't mean to throw you under the bus. 

And I understand your desire to help someone.. Trust me, I've told people how to beat speeding tickets, red light camera's, etc. I know you had good intentions but your response happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time  

The point was, that was only one of MANY threads I have read about how to disguise a breed that is not allowed.. How to make a Pit Bull look like a Lab or mixed breed, etc.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

B-Line said:


> It's a good question... What is a Pit Bull and what is a "dangerous dog" and what breed of Pit Bulls should be excluded and what should be included.
> 
> I don't have an exact answer. I think any dangerous dog law or breed specific legislation should be "living" in manner.
> 
> ...


http://www.animallaw.info/articles/aruslweiss2001.htm

...more to come...




B-Line said:


> I didn't PM it because I don't encourage people misleading what there dogs are to gain residence. There are insurance reasons why many owners don't allow certain breeds and I don't think it's fair that an apt. owner unwittingly becomes liable because they were mislead...
> 
> Here is an example from this forum, about two months ago. But note it was from a new poster, not a reg.
> 
> ...


the reason I asked is because there are certain forums geared towards dogfighters...but in a subtly way....I would like to know if your information is coming from those sources...if you don't know what you are looking for you would never guess..

on that note...why don't you check

www.thepitbull-place.com out?


----------



## Criosphynx (May 15, 2008)

B-Line said:


> *Sorry Crio,
> 
> Didn't mean to throw you under the bus*.
> 
> ...


Its Ok. I actually found it funny...i was like, wait, I said that one....


People do it. Not saying its right/wrong. But i know that in the case of apartment complexes they DO get caught. Virtually everytime. 

I know that i personally wouldn't even consider getting a "restricted breed" unless I owned my own home or was in very good with the landlord . Its not worth the hassle otherwise...just my opinion.


Fortunately/unfortunatly (depending on who you are) any laws restricting breeds are going to be impossible to enforce fairly. There is just no money or manpower to do it.

There was a mandatory spay/neuter passed in Los Angeles recently . They managed to get it changed to a "complaint only" basis... and i bet even that will not get enforced... 

Ferrets have been illegal for decades in CA. There are an estimated 1,000,000 ferrets in CA. 
Even if BSL passes, people are still going to own these dogs, and licencing compliance will drop.


----------



## DogGoneGood (Jun 22, 2008)

Okay, I have to admit I skipped the last page and a half, I do promise I'll go back and read it tomorrow... when it's not the wee hours of the morning 

I just wanted to share something...

This morning my dad showed me a letter in the PG newspaper we get every morning... There's a section where the public can write in their opinion about a particular article previously printed. I know because I once wrote in after the initial "Pit Bull Scare" hit PG. Anyway, this article was pro Pit Bull and was commenting on an article (that I'd missed) about a couple who was attacked.

The letter was good until one line "we all know pit bulls are strong dogs with locking jaws, but that doesn't mean they're all bad dogs"

I basically slapped my hand to my forehead and exclaimed "DOH!"

The person who wrote the letter obviously meant everything he said to support the breed, but is STILL obviously ill educated because, as any person actually educated on the breed knows, Pit Bulls do NOT have "locking jaws".

So I agree, that education is a huge step in trying to berid of a lot of the hype on these dogs...

With that said I'll go to bed... I promise I'll read what I missed and comment on that


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Hey B-line,

I suggest you do a little research into the topic of funding for animal control agencies. I have.....but I have a list of links containing years worth of research into this subject and it is going to take me a little while to figure out which links are dead and where the information has been relocated to...it is not really an issue to do it since I needed to refresh for my upcoming publication on the subject and I have enlisted aid to that effect but it is still going to take a while....sorry for the impending delay.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

DogGoneGood said:


> The letter was good until one line "we all know pit bulls are strong dogs with locking jaws, but that doesn't mean they're all bad dogs"
> 
> I basically slapped my hand to my forehead and exclaimed "DOH!"
> 
> ...


----------



## Donovan (Aug 24, 2007)

First, B line, I appreciate the respect and patience you're bringing to the table...it seems like we're all asking to "prove" a million things and you're keeping your cool - kudos to you. And this thread certainly has more impact on any happening on this conversation than all of us sitting around beating the "pit bulls are good drum."


Now back to business:



> And if other breeds start to become more popular and also start to become a more prolific problem, chow's, etc. then they could be included in the living document, but would also allow the chance to have current pets grandfathered in.


This is what I don't get about these types of approaches:

- AC does not have the resources to regulate, in any kind of reasonable manner, who has what dog...jay walking and checking dog tags are two different things. Police does one, Animal Control another; short of small, rural communities the Police get a (relatively) big budget while AC gets enough to keep the van running and the strays fed.

-Why the resistance to saying something along the lines of: your dog hurts another animal or person there is a serious penalty? Now here comes the hard part, many animals aren't registered in the first place and if it makes it on the news that the dog was responsible for a horrible act, well, I have a strong suspicion ain't nobody coming forward to claim the prize. 

I still don't understand how some folks honestly believe more laws are the answer...and that's not to be read with a belittling or jerky tone, I just truly don't understand that approach.


----------



## DogGoneGood (Jun 22, 2008)

Mr Pooch said:


> LOL,DogGoneGood that has to be one of the biggest myths of all and i cant believe people still believe it.


Yeah, I don't get it... isn't it like impossible for ANY mamal to lock it's jaw?
Even if it wasn't... it still sounds so rediculous it's hard to believe anyone still believes it.


I've thought for years how I'd love to go to Elm schools and educate about proper dog etiquette. I'd love to bring one of my own dogs as an example and talk to the kids about how to handle a strange dog approaching them, what to do and not to do when meeting a dog for the first time, and correct some widely known myths - specifically about Pit Bulls.
I thought one day "if I actually OWNED a Pit Bull who's proven in obdenience and passed the Canine Good Neighbor Program that would probably help set an example even more for these kids..."
But then my next thought in this train was of all the parents screaming and pulling their kid out of class once they found out a Pit Bull was coming to class 

Education is the key, I can garantee that, but people can't just trapse into schools and start teaching kids whatever they want. Even if you don't physically bring a dog into the class with you, I can garantee you'll still get a lot of parents POed that their kids are being taught this 'garbage' in schools. I'm sure there would probably equally be as many parents thinking it's a great idea too though.

So where do you go for that? Directly to the school board? To the parents? To the government? Where does one start this education ball rolling?

Sitting around a forum discussing it is good... but will only get you so far.


----------



## Donovan (Aug 24, 2007)

> If I were legislating, I would want to have a committe of specialist that decide, impartially, if a particular dog is a "pit bull" or "dangerous".
> 
> I think the basic criteria I would start with is:
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.. Unless proven otherwise.
> ...


For what its worth to yah, B Line, The AVMA formed a task force on such issues, which agreed that BSL of any sort will not curb dog bites or increase public safety. Sure, its only one group of professionals, and I doubt it would be difficult to find an equally qualified group that was opposed to these findings...yet, it truly remains to be seen - with ANY level of consistency - that legislation seeking to classify entire breeds as safe or unsafe is a reliable way to create a greater level of public safety.

--------------------------
*American Veterinary Medical Association*
Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions

"Concerns about "dangerous" dogs have caused many local governments to consider supplementing existing animal control laws with ordinances directed toward control of specific breeds or types of dogs. Members of the Task Force believe such ordinances are inappropriate and ineffective."

"It is frustrating for me personally because people who want to enact Breed Specific Legislation keep using the report to try and make a case against pit bulls. The whole point of our summary was to explain you can't do that." Dr Gail Golab
--------------------------------

The link below will take you to a link to the AVMA report, there are many to other links from major animal welfare organizations as well as animal professionals with similiar statements. For some reason, quite a few of the links aren't working from the AFF website...NTL, the info is out there.


http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/topic.php?topic=17


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

Okay, I want to answer two questions here. Please allow me to use a little humor to illustrate my point..

COME ON !!!! Are you guys SERIOUS??? What are you SMOKING??

The whole PIT BULL locking jaw argument is now and will always be SEMANTIC.
- It doesn't matter if a PIT BULL can technically LOCK it's jaw, every single person here, pro pit bull, anti pit bull, etc. ALL know that regardless if you use the term "LOCK" or some other word, PIT BULLS don't LET GO. So while their jaws are not designed by MASTERLOCK with a key and combo to get them open, you still need something like this:







to get them to let go. 

So let's rehash. I don't think Pit Bulls have locking jaws. I don't think Pit Bulls have a stronger bite per square inch than any other dog. 
I do think that Pit Bulls have a genetic predisposition to "NOT LET GO." 

The term "locking jaw" while technically incorrect and misnamed is still not a fallacy in terms of people having a VERY difficult time getting the dog to let go of something.

Every time I hear this argument I laugh.. I've heard of people needing 10 minutes and tools to get a Pit Bull to let go. And while this may exist with other breeds, I've never heard of that trait. 
Here is a guy who had to shoot a Pit Bull attacking his dog with a .45 caliber pistol and the Pit Bull didn't even budge:
http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=282222

Second,
There are two sides to laws: PROACTIVE and REACTIVE.
The idea is to hopefully have the law be proactive as to reduce incidents. If that doesn't work, I'll take reactive.

Meaning: A BSL law might not keep the undesirables from getting a Pit Bull, but it sure can send them to jail or hold them financially accountable in the event their dog does do something bad. 
Again, I'd rather have a law be proactive. But I sure as hell would like a law on the books that gives me a civil and criminal legal leg to stand on, should I or my dogs ever fall victim to someone breaking a BSL law.

In other words, expanding the liability someone will have if they do have the dog.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

B-Line said:


> Okay, I want to answer two questions here. Please allow me to use a little humor to illustrate my point..
> 
> COME ON !!!! Are you guys SERIOUS??? What are you SMOKING??
> 
> ...


did you know that north carolina is the only state in the us with civil liability for animal law cases?

what do you think that means bline?

just think about it.



ps. I am about a third of the way through the list. hopefully will be done by tonight. lol I knew I should have categorized this stuff when I compiled it....


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Actually, there's no proof Pit Bulls or any other bully breed bite harder or longer than other breed. That too is misconception, and misleading. Anecdotes are also not proof or evidence that Pit Bulls are dogoids that require special legislation.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

B-Line said:


> Okay, I want to answer two questions here. Please allow me to use a little humor to illustrate my point..
> 
> COME ON !!!! Are you guys SERIOUS??? What are you SMOKING??
> 
> ...


So some dog owners will have a "legal leg up" on others?....


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

pugmom said:


> So some dog owners will have a "legal leg up" on others?....


Yes,

If your dog is LEGAL, registered, licensed, etc. Than there is a "legal leg up" over those that are ignoring the law.

Law abiding citizens will always have a legal leg up over those that choose to ignore the law, be it a dog case or any other type of legal action.

Just as a licensed driver will have a legal leg up in a civil trial against someone who is driving without a license.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

the purpose of a breakstick is to save your hands from being accidentally snapped on.

scenario:

your(general your not bline specifically) pit bull gets into it with another dog. you use your hands to pry him off. you run the risk of injuring your hand if your dog decides to regroup and attack again.


I can and have pried my dog's jaws off of a squirrel with one hand. the secret is that little space in their teeth. I prefer now the use of a breakstick because I enjoy playing my guitar and sewing. 

a breakstick is practicality

not nessecity. plain and simple


----------



## 8 (Apr 4, 2006)

I have to say I'm impressed by how well the poodle and the Jack russell Terrier scored...not surprised though....a lot of people don't like either breed and I have had poodles forever and they are wonderful dogs.....


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Actually, there's no proof Pit Bulls or any other bully breed bite harder or longer than other breed. That too is misconception, and misleading. Anecdotes are also not proof or evidence that Pit Bulls are dogoids that require special legislation.


CP,

You may be right. I don't have all the facts, evidence and proof. I do know though that I have read in several reliable places that I can' t bother to quote or foot note at this moment because I don't keep stuff like that on hand, THAT:

One of the traits that Bully Breeds were originally engineered for had to do with their veracity and their instinct to HOLD ON.. 

And while one case may not be evidence or proof, I think if you asked even the pro pit bull community honestly, that would quietly acknowledge that Pit's like to HOLD ON and even pain, injury to their privates, etc. does not curb them from continuing their attack.

I can't PROVE every thing. I'm not a veterinarian or animal scientist. But I have seen "holding on" first hand.. And i've never witnessed anything like that from any other breed to date.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> did you know that north carolina is the only state in the us with civil liability for animal law cases?
> what do you think that means bline?
> just think about it.


If I had to guess, I'm not an attorney, but I would say that North Carolina is the only state that recognizes "animal law" as a specific entity rather than what most other states do, which is consider animals as "property" rather than a separate entity.

If I had to guess why? WHo knows, maybe in 1914 some cow was tired of giving away all it's milk so hired a lawyer and got emancipated?

Seriously though, I would guess it's just legal jargon.. Probably some animal rights organization wanted to have separate rights and laws for animals because they found the term PROPERTY offensive. And no one cared enough to ever challenge that legal definition with the state or supreme court...

But again, I'm just guessing.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

B-Line said:


> Yes,
> 
> If your dog is LEGAL, registered, licensed, etc. Than there is a "legal leg up" over those that are ignoring the law.
> 
> ...


what I am trying to say is why not just go ahead and apply the law to every dog owner of any breed that way everyone can benefit from it....


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

I guess I'm so objective because I'm aware predatory creatures are aggressive and bite, and in most instances, aggression and bites are predictable. What's not predictable is the dog's nurture or triggers (no two dogs are the same). No laws can control the unpredictable.

As for the Pit community, they need to popularize specific traits [I hope] to educate owners of the dog's history, and not to promote a culture...I see this as a tactic - not necessarily the best one, but it may have some value. But you can not deduce that Pits are exceptions warranting breed specific legislation on a belief.


----------



## vonDrehle (Aug 17, 2008)

*Re: What!!!!*

I don't have a problem with pit bulls. I would never own one, but that is just because I prefer dogs with a bit more fur. My cousin actually recently adopted a Pit Bull from a shelter and it is a great dog.


----------



## ACampbell (Oct 7, 2007)

B-Line said:


> Meaning: A BSL law might not keep the undesirables from getting a Pit Bull, but it sure can send them to jail or hold them financially accountable in the event their dog does do something bad.
> Again, I'd rather have a law be proactive. But I sure as hell would like a law on the books that gives me a civil and criminal legal leg to stand on, should I or my dogs ever fall victim to someone breaking a BSL law.
> 
> In other words, expanding the liability someone will have if they do have the dog.


I've been staying out of this one, but while the INTENT of what you said is good...let's look at how likely that is to happen for a moment.

What good will it really do to have a law on the books to have a leg to stand on criminally?
Murderers, pedofiles, rapists, drug dealers, thieves, you name it...there's all laws against them, yet so many of them walk every day with a slap on the wrist or get out on parole. 
Oh yay, while you can sue the person for "wrongful death" after the fact, it doesn't make it any better that a criminal is on the street.
While it sounds good, really, do we have room in jails for anyone who's dog bites somebody, etc? Honestly, no we don't. Our criminal system is seriously flawed already, people get away with crimes all the time due to lack of evidence or technicalities...the problem I see is that this wouldn't be any different.
It won't stop people from having unlicensed aggressive dogs, criminals will be just that, these are people that don't care about laws. Honestly, I'd rather see a drug dealer or a murderer, or a sex offender filling that prison cell, wouldn't you? 

Now my suggestion would be this. In my local area (not on the base where we are subject to search etc at anytime, we don't have rights like civilians) they did a door to door knock and talk. Every house in the town was subject to this, and animal control went door to door and checked licensing on dogs. If the dog in the home wasn't licensed, they took it right then and there, fined the hell out of the people and kept the dog until it was properly licensed. I have no doubt that some dogs slipped through the cracks, but since it was pretty random and they just showed up in different neighborhoods without warning, it was a pretty slick idea. People volunteered to help with this, because our animal control is majorly understaffed. 

It wasn't breed specific, every dog was under scrutiny for this license check. I'm proud to say that they are at least making an effort to make sure these dogs are licensed and vaccinated, although it did irritate a lot of people, I think it was a positive way to enforce the law.


----------



## Sookie's mom (Jan 31, 2007)

I finally gave up reading this whole thread. It was starting to make me dizzy. Here are my simple suggestions to educate those uncomfortable with pit bulls and those owners that love them dearly:

1) For those uncomfortable..........When you see a pit bull on a leash with it's owner, walking happily toward you, you have two choices..........cross the street or keep on walking taking note that that sweet dog you just bravely passed really is OMG a pit bull! (yes, sarcasm)  If you see that dog and owner again, stop and ask questions. Maybe even get up the nerve to ask to pet it. Remember the moment. Also remember the times when you've passed by dogs of other breeds that made you equally nervous.

2)Owners............don't put spiked collars on your dog or any other "tough" looking items when you're walking your dog in public. In order to educate those that are leary, or down right scared, make your dog appear approachable. (Guys: it's okay, you don't have to put any pink foo-foo bows on them.) If your dog is comfortable, walk in crowded areas. Sit on a bench and let other people stop for a moment while your dog gives them a lick and one of those big smiles.

Maybe pit bull owners can do their part to show the world that the breed can be wonderful. Those of us that are not directly involved in the making of laws or regulations surrounding pits, just do what you can in your area to advertise a bit.

I own 3 large dogs. One is a 2yr old lab/pit that _absolutely adores people_. On the other hand, cats and some dogs have to watch out. We're working on that. She's a very fast learner and can overcome those flaws. A couple of weeks ago, we went to Woofstock (a sort of dog fair and concert). There were tons of dogs and she loved every single one of them. If you read a shelter's description of available dogs, some of them (any breed) will say "doesn't get along with dogs and/or cats". It can be common in any kind of dog.

IMO, right or wrong, you can't judge your individual dog based on stats. Just imagine if people of different races were judged this way.......


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Sookie's mom said:


> *2)Owners............don't put spiked collars on your dog or any other "tough" looking items when you're walking your dog in public. In order to educate those that are leary, or down right scared, make your dog appear approachable. (Guys: it's okay, you don't have to put any pink foo-foo bows on them.) If your dog is comfortable, walk in crowded areas. Sit on a bench and let other people stop for a moment while your dog gives them a lick and one of those big smiles.
> *
> Maybe pit bull owners can do their part to show the world that the breed can be wonderful. Those of us that are not directly involved in the making of laws or regulations surrounding pits, just do what you can in your area to advertise a bit.


Done, Done, and Done....almost every day


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

pugmom said:


> Done, Done, and Done....almost every day


Done,done,done here too,guess my dream of pink foo foo bows will never come true now


----------



## Yogi (Sep 20, 2008)

I have off and on come to this forum and viewed with great interest some of the posts here. As one who has been raised around many different breeds though electing to specialize in Zwergpinschers (Miniature Pinschers) for some 48 years it has not lessened my experience with the large breeds which includes Wolf hybrids, Mal-Wolf, Shep-Wolf as well as Rotts and Dobies. In all my years of dealing with dogs I have yet to come across one actual APBT that was in any way as described by some here with regards to their disposition in fact what I have actually seen as opposed to polls that say otherwise and are in my opinion never correct is a dog that at the turn of the century through WWII was one of the most beloved dogs in the US. It was by nature a protector of the family and devoted family pet. It has really only been a great issue over the past 20 some years where the legend of the "pit bull" attack has been overly dramatized by the media to the point of frenzy leading for the outcry of "banning" the breed. 
Unfortunately if a real poll was to be taken when it came to identifying a true Pit Bull from a breed that resembled it you would find like most that in fact majority of people crying " it was a Pit Bull" could not identify the true breed from a mix let alone a Boxer. I live in an area where there have been several reported mauling by alleged "pit bulls". In all but a couple of cases they were in fact not pit bulls but boxer and bull dog mixes. 
It is unfortunate that a breed is taking such a bad rap based on people with little to no knowledge of dog breeds and spurred on by bias media reporting.
Even in Denver the ban had been not allowed by the state legislature but the city council elected to ban the breed anyway. Local veterinarians came out in defense of the breed noting that not one had ever been bitten by any they had seen but in each case noted other breeds that they actual did have a fear of but would not state which ones they were in fear the council would ban them also. Are we next to look at the Pomeranian that mauled the infant to death some years back and consider them up for banning. 
The truth is and always will be, it is the owner not the breed. Michael Vick made the dogs aggressive it was not the dogs. Look at the follow up to his Pit Bulls and they are coming around and are actually being socialized and doing fine. Dogs are very much a reflection of their owner. The more abused the more abusive they will be and this makes no difference of breed. Eventually even a frightened dog will strike out. 
Growing up in the 50's and 60's the Pit Bull was never a dog to fear and I was around many and never had any problems. In fact the dog most feared was the Cocker Spaniel as for years more people in the US were bitten by this breed than any other. The question is what was done to the dog to cause the issue. I don't see this ever being addressed whether by the media or in forums when people commence discussing this breed or any breed responsible for biting someone. Let's go back and look before any hasty judgements are made. Just like the stats and polls I have seen here, in the end they mean nothing until evert dog bite is accounted for which not all are and each breed responsible is confirmed which we all know that will never happen so in fact we are left with speculation based on eye witness' who could not tell the difference as noted between a Boxer or a Bull Dog. 
Here are a few enlightening issues to read and view. It definitely puts a light on at least making us take time to think before acting. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73j-H...ead.php?t=6960

http://animal.discovery.com/tv/anima...uiz/index.html

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

last but not least, true story.

Tahoe was a therapy dog and often paid visits to a certain little boy in a
children's hospital who was fighting leukemia. Tahoe usually visited on certain
days of the week. One morning the little boy asked his nurse if he could see
Tahoe that day. She told him it wasn't the day for his regular visit. The little
boy said "I know, but I really want to see him today. Please call and ask if he
can come see me." The nurse called the owner and asked if she was busy. Said for some reason Tommy really wanted to see Tahoe today. The owner agreed and her and Tahoe went to see Tommy. Once there they walked into the room. Tahoe stopped and looked at Tommy who had tears in his eyes. Immediately Tahoe climbed up on the bed and gently laid down beside Tommy. Tommy wrapped his arms around Tahoe and hugged him as tightly as his weakened state could. Tahoe laid his head across Tommy's neck. A few moments later Tommy passed away with Tahoe in his arms. Tahoe was a pit bull terrier. When they left the hospital the owner with tears in her eyes and Tahoe with his tail down and looking very sad. A lady across the lot yelled.. "GET THAT MONSTER OUT OF HERE, THERE ARE KIDS HERE." The owner simply stopped, turned around and looked at the lady with tears in her eyes and said quietly. " I know, that is why we are here.


----------



## KcCrystal (Sep 12, 2008)

That story made my tear up..  When I visting my Grandpa in the hospital, there was a pit bull doing thearpy work  I told it's owner I was proud to see the breed being represented in such a wonderfull light. She just smiled. I respect all dogs, and I'd actually love to own a Pit Bull some day.


----------



## Donovan (Aug 24, 2007)

B-Line said:


> Okay, I want to answer two questions here:
> 
> So let's rehash. I don't think Pit Bulls have locking jaws. I don't think Pit Bulls have a stronger bite per square inch than any other dog.
> 
> ...


Absolutely correct. The breed we now call the American Pit bull terrier comes from a long line of dogs that were bred to grip other animals. So in your argument of semantics of pit bulls being Am. Bulldogs, Bull-Terriers, etc etc, (from an earlier post in which you provided pics) you were somewhat correct, except that you should've state that many of those breeds come from gripping dogs, not necessarily dogs that were pitted against one another, but I digress - another argument of semantics. 


Regardless of name or era, the main function of the pit bull and its ancestors was to grip and not let go: a trait forged when man hunted along side dogs to catch wild game (boars, etc); a trait perpetuated by butchers/ranchers hundreds of years ago to control powerful cattle; a trait manipulated for animal baiting and animal fighting. For those that own pit bulls and cannot except that they have the butcher's dog, well, you're not doign your dog any favors.

So, yes, a pit bull that gets another animal "in holds" is gonna take some work to seperate. Hence the break stick, or another similiar tool. It's a handy thing, along with tie-outs and collars. That said, not all pit bulls are going to have the desire to get into holds with other animals...and some will release with a sharp correction. Again, when we paint with the all mighty broad brush, we get ourselves into a situation in which our statements are not truly correct or responsible. 









> Meaning: A BSL law might not keep the undesirables from getting a Pit Bull, but it sure can send them to jail or hold them financially accountable in the event their dog does do something bad.


So you're okay with a graduated scale of accountability, not based on the incident, but based on the breed of the dog?


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

B-Line said:


> Meaning: A BSL law might not keep the undesirables from getting a Pit Bull, but it sure can send them to jail or hold them financially accountable in the event their dog does do something bad.
> Again, I'd rather have a law be proactive. But I sure as hell would like a law on the books that gives me a civil and criminal legal leg to stand on, should I or my dogs ever fall victim to someone breaking a BSL law.
> 
> In other words, expanding the liability someone will have if they do have the dog.


I just have a hard time understanding why rather then campaigning to have this applied to ALL breed, so much effort is put into targeting Bully breeds. I mean really, regardless of your opinion on the dogs it doesn't make sense to me. 

Most fully admit that any dog can cause damage, that any dog can bite, that there have been attacks from a wide array of breeds...and yet most only want the Bulls labeled and muzzled. And ya know...it's often the same argument as your's, B. The whole "When other breeds get bad we can look at them" idea. Which makes me think WHY in the world would you wait? Why make more work for yourself later? Why not make things better for ALL breeds by requiring more of their owners...why does it need to be breed specific?

My greatest hurdle in all this has never been understanding why someone may not like APBTs or why they may want to see stronger ownership laws, but why they don't want to see it for all breeds. It's always been kind of baffling to me, and I've yet to see a valid argument as to why people do this. Seems to me it would make more sense to make everything safe at once rather then wait for any particular breed to bite enough people to be deemed 'dangerous'.


----------

