# Ohio Laws...... Pit Bull vs Tiger Ownership....



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Originally Posted by SouthFloridaAngler 
What are the laws in Ohio regarding tiger and pit bull ownership?
Ohio State Law...
By State Law all Pit Bull type dogs are automatically termed to be "vicious dogs". It doesn't matter if the dog is a service dog, guide dog, therapy dog etc. If it resembles a Pit Bull it is vicious by default. As an owner of a "vicious dog" you are subjected to specific laws regarding liability insurance and how your dog must be confined.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confining Pit Bull Dogs 
(Ohio Revised Code Section 955.22D)
Dogs that are a “breed of dog commonly known as a Pit Bull” are automatically considered to be vicious under Ohio law. They must be confined on the owner’s property by means of a locked fenced yard, a locked dog pen that has a top, or some other locked enclosure (such as a house). This law applies not only to purebred American Pit Bull dogs, but also to other pure bred and mixed breed dogs that have similar physical and behavioral characteristics. Animal Control Officers make the determination as to whether or not a dog is a “breed of dog commonly known as a Pit Bull.” The maximum penalty for a violation of this section on a first offense is a $1,000 fine and up to six months imprisonment. If the dog seriously injures a person, or this is a second offense of this section, the charge may be filed as a felony.
Insuring Pit Bull Dogs
(Ohio Revised Code Section 955.22E)
Dogs that are a “breed of dog commonly known as a Pit Bull” are automatically considered to be vicious under Ohio law. Owners of these dogs must maintain at least $100,000 of liability insurance coverage on these animals. The maximum penalty for a violation of this section is a $1,000 fine and up to six months imprisonment. If you have any questions regarding these laws, please contact a Field Supervisor at the Franklin County Department of Animal Control’s Enforcement Division at 614-462-3400. 
Confining, restraining, debarking dogs.

(Ohio Revised Code Section 955.22E)
(C) Except when a dog is lawfully engaged in hunting and accompanied by the owner, keeper, harborer, or handler of the dog, no owner, keeper, or harborer of any dog shall fail at any time to do either of the following:
(1) Keep the dog physically confined or restrained upon the premises of the owner, keeper, or harborer by a leash, tether, adequate fence, supervision, or secure enclosure to prevent escape;
(2) Keep the dog under the reasonable control of some person.
(D) Except when a dangerous or vicious dog is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of hunting and is accompanied by the owner, keeper, harborer, or handler of the dog, no owner, keeper, or harborer of a dangerous or vicious dog shall fail to do either of the following:
(1) While that dog is on the premises of the owner, keeper, or harborer, securely confine it at all times in a locked pen that has a top, locked fenced yard, or other locked enclosure that has a top, except that a dangerous dog may, in the alternative, be tied with a leash or tether so that the dog is adequately restrained;
(2) While that dog is off the premises of the owner, keeper, or harborer, keep that dog on a chain-link leash or tether that is not more than six feet in length and additionally do at least one of the following:
(a) Keep that dog in a locked pen that has a top, locked fenced yard, or other locked enclosure that has a top;
(b) Have the leash or tether controlled by a person who is of suitable age and discretion or securely attach, tie, or affix the leash or tether to the ground or a stationary object or fixture so that the dog is adequately restrained and station such a person in close enough proximity to that dog so as to prevent it from causing injury to any person;
(c) Muzzle that dog.
(E) No owner, keeper, or harborer of a vicious dog shall fail to obtain liability insurance with an insurer authorized to write liability insurance in this state providing coverage in each occurrence, subject to a limit, exclusive of interest and costs, of not less than one hundred thousand dollars because of damage or bodily injury to or death of a person caused by the vicious dog.





Local ordinances on top of state law....


Red-Breed Ban in effect
Blue -BSL Proposed
Green - BSL passed/no ban but additional restrictions beyond that of State law
**Note-State Law regarding Pit Bulls applies in all counties

1) Akron, Ohio (Summit County) Akron Pit Bull and other Breed Ordinances
2) Bay Village, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull Ordinance
3) Greenhills, Ohio (Hamilton County) Pit Bulls Banned effective 11/07
4) Cincinnati, Ohio (Hamilton County) Pit Bulls banned/Grandfather clause
5) Painesville, Ohio (Lake County) Pit Bull Ordinance
6) Youngstown, Ohio (Mahoning County) Pit Bulls Banned/effective 9/15/07/Grandfather Clause
7) Bexley, Ohio (Franklin County) Pit Bulls Banned
8) Defiance, Ohio waiting for clarification
9) Fairfield, Ohio (Butler County) Pit Bulls Banned
10) Golf Manor, (Hamilton County) Pit Bulls Banned
11) Mansfield, Ohio (Richland County) Pit Bulls Banned
12) Warren, Ohio (Trumbull County) Pit Bull Ordinance
13) Mentor on the Lake, (Lake County) Pit Bull Ordinance
14) Reynoldsburg, Ohio (Franklin County) Pit Bulls Banned
15) Silver Lake, Ohio (Summit County) Pit Bulls Banned
16) Celina, Ohio (Mercer County) Pit Bull Ordinance
17) Cleveland, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull Ordinance
18) Highland Heights, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull Ordinance**
19) Napoleon, Ohio (Henry County) Pit Bull Ordinance
20) Richmond Heights, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull Ordinance**
21) Springboro, Ohio (Warren County) Pit Bulls Banned - See Exemptions
22) St. Mary's, Ohio (Auglaize County) Pit Bull Ordinance
23) Wooster, Ohio (Wayne County) Pit Bulls Banned
24) Shaker Heights, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull Ordinance
25) Warrensville Heights, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bulls Banned
26) Canton, Ohio (Stark County) Pit Bull Ordinance
27) Wauseon, Ohio (Fulton County) Pit Bulls Banned/exemptions/registrations
28) Tiffin, Ohio (Seneca County) Pit Bull Ordinance
29) Stow Ohio (Summit County) Pit Bull & Presa Canario Ordinance
30) Rossford, Ohio (Wood County) Pit Bull Ordinance
31) Oakwood, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull Ordinance
32) Norwalk, Ohio (Huron County) Pit Bull Ordinance
33) Mentor, Ohio (Lake County) Vicious Dog Ordinance/not breed specific
34) Massillon, Ohio (Stark County) Pit Bull Ordinance
35) Macedonia, Ohio (Summit County) Pit Bulls Banned
36) Lyndhurst, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull Ordinance
37) Lakewood, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull & Presa Canario Banned 7/2008
38) Glen Willow, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull Ordinance
39) Gahanna, Ohio (Franklin County) in accordance with state law
40) Delaware, Ohio (Delaware County) Pit Bull Ordinance/in accordance with state law
41) Conneaut, Ohio (Ashtabula County) Pit Bull & Presa Canario & Am Bulldog Ordinance
42) Cleveland Heights, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull Ordinance
43) Chillicothe, Ohio (Ross County) Pit Bull Ordinance
44) Canal Winchester, Ohio (Franklin County) Pit Bull Ordinance
45) Bedford Heights, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull Ordinance
46) Toledo, Ohio (Lucas County) Pit Bull Ordinance
47) Lorain, Ohio (Lorain County) Pit Bull Ordinance Proposed Motion FAILED 12/07
48) Sandusky, Ohio (Sandusky County) Pit Bull Ordinance Proposed Motion FAILED
49) Canfield, Ohio (Mahoning County) Pit Bull Ban Proposed
50) Garfield Heights, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bulls Banned effective 10/24/07 No Grandfather clause
51) Amberley Village, Ohio (Hamilton County) Pit Bulls Banned
52) Maple Heights, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bull Ordinance
53) Girard, Ohio (Trumbull County) Pit Bulls Banned No Grandfather Clause
54) Athens, Ohio (Athens County) ALERT - BSL proposed for consideration/dropped
55) Parma, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Pit Bulls Banned
56) Lima, Ohio (Allen County) Pit Bull Ordinance
57) St. Paris, Ohio (Champaign County) Pit Bull Ordinance
58) Barberton, Ohio (Summit County) Pit Bulls Banned/exemptions/registrations 2/1/08
59) Clayton Ohio (Montgomery County) Pit Bull & Presa Canario & American BulldogOrdinance 1/2008
60) Washington Courthouse, Ohio (Fayette County) Pit Bulls Banned 2004
61) Whitehall, Ohio (Franklin County) Pit Bull/Presa Canario Ban Proposed 2/08 Motion FAILED 6/3/08
62) Springfield Ohio (Clark County) Considering extensive Pit Bull restrictions 2/08
63) Sylvania Ohio (Lucas County) Considering Pit Bull restrictions 3/08/Decided against BSL 4/2008
64) Woodmere Village, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Considering Pit Bull, Am. Bulldog, Rottweiler BAN 3/08
65) Lebanon, Ohio (Warren County) Pit Bulls Banned /1986
66) Ravenna, Ohio (Portage County) Decided against BSL 8/2008
67) Reading, Ohio (Hamilton County) Pit Bull Ordinance 9/08
68) Mt. Healthy, Ohio (Hamilton County) Pit Bulls Banned 1990
69) Avon Lake, Ohio (Lorain County) Considering Pit Bull Ban 11/08
70) Jackson Twp, Ohio (Stark County) Opting for breed neutral DDO 11/08
71) Gallipolis, Ohio (Gallia County) Pit Bulls Banned 2/2009 No Grandfather Clause


Ohio is the most restrictive state overall for dog ownership.

Ohio

Category: NB (until April 6, 2011)
Summary of Law: No person may bring into the state a non-domestic animal unless the possessor: obtains an entry permit; health certificate certifying the animal is free of infectious diseases; and a certificate of veterinary inspection. Persons in the state possessing non-domestic animals do not need to obtain a permit.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, and you can buy a tiger cub for less than the price of a well-bred puppy. The regulations on exotic animal ownership are far too lax in most states. I think rules about the enclosure are necessary, at the very least. That's just crazy that they outline what kind of enclosure you need for a 50-pound dog, but not for a 500-pound tiger.


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

I imagine you have heard about the person in Zanesville who let all his exotic animlals loose before he killed himself? I think it is a crock that this sort of thing can happen and yet we cannot have Pit Bulls without restrictions here. Only 35 to 40 minutes from my house there is another exotic animal owner(S) and the man whom killed himself called them for help prior to this incident a couple days ago. When I go grocery shopping I am about ten minutes from that place. That is just another catastrophe waiting to happen IMO. My little town does not seem to have BSL yet-Malvern/Brown Townhip/ Carroll County, Ohio. At least the last time I looked it up I did not see it on the list.

EDIT: I have to agree with it being outlandish as a 300 lb tiger vs a 100 pound domesticated dog..........and the Tiger wins the right to reside with only a cage and a 6ft to 8ft fence guarding it " IF " it should happen to get loose.


----------



## marsha=whitie (Dec 29, 2008)

As a resident of Cincinnati, I can definitely say that the BSL is not enforced. There just isn't enough funding/cops to crack down on everyone walking/owning a Pit-type dog. The only time they seem to notice is when they bust a dog fighting ring...

Now, if someone was walking a tiger down the street, I'm sure it'd be a LITTLE different... it would get attention, but they really couldn't do anything (unless it was in city limits). Even then they'd just be sited and fined, and could go on their way.

Ohio really is a ridiculous state to live in.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm going to guess, though, that most towns/cities have ordinances concerning what type of animals can be kept within city limits. Usually they allow cats and dogs and small caged critters. Everything else is banned. So I'm sure that if you listed every individual local ordinance concerning the keeping of exotics in town, it would be longer than the pit bull list.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

I'm sorry but I fully support laws against vicious breeds of dogs. Not that they should be banned, but they should all be fitted with muzzles while outside of a person's fenced in residence.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Shaun_ said:


> I'm sorry but I fully support laws against vicious breeds of dogs. Not that they should be banned, but they should all be fitted with muzzles while outside of a person's fenced in residence.


There's no such thing as a "vicious breed". Some individual dogs are vicious, but that's not breed specific. I agree that any dog that has shown aggressive tendencies needs to be handled carefully (including muzzling in public), but penalizing a perfectly nice dog because it happens to be of a certain breed is just plain wrong.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> I'm sorry but I fully support laws against vicious breeds of dogs. Not that they should be banned, but they should all be fitted with muzzles while outside of a person's fenced in residence.


What breed are you talking about? Because it is not pit bulls.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Shaun_ said:


> I'm sorry but I fully support laws against vicious breeds of dogs. Not that they should be banned, but they should all be fitted with muzzles while outside of a person's fenced in residence.


Yeah, what's a vicious breed?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Yeah, what's a vicious breed?



I guess that poster is referring to those Vick dogs..... The ones with the CGCs, that are certified therapy dogs, etc.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Yeah, what's a vicious breed?


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I guess that poster is referring to those Vick dogs..... The ones with the CGCs, that are certified therapy dogs, etc.


Ohhh that's right. Never trust a therapy dog is what I always say.



Niraya said:


>


Guy makes me afraid for my.. toes?


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

You asked for a vicious breed of dog! (Be careful..he enjoys taking the smallest toes first!)

I think fluffball is an excellent specimen!


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Ohhh that's right. Never trust a therapy dog is what I always say.


Amen!
They'll penetrate you with those soulfull eyes until you can't help but smile.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Tofu_pup said:


> Amen!
> They'll penetrate you with those soulfull eyes until you can't help but smile.


God I hate smiling. Muzzle them sum bitches.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

This is a list of fatal dog attacks in 2011. 




January 4	*Pit bull* Linda Leal Castillo	51 years	Killed by her own dog in her own backyard.[210]
January 12* Pit-bull-type* Makayla Woodard	5 years	Killed by her neighbor's two dogs in their backyard. The dogs also attacked her grandmother. A neighbor reported that the dogs had been abused by their owner.[211][212]
February 17	Rottweiler	Sirlinda Hayes	66 years	Killed by her neighbor's two dogs in her own backyard. The dogs also attacked their owner when he tried to come to her aid.[213]
February 19	Mixed breed	Darius Tillman	15 days	Killed by family's dog[214]
March 7	Rottweiler	Vanessa Husmann	3 years	Killed by family's two dogs[215]
April 24	*Pit bull-type* Margaret Salcedo	48 years	Killed by four dogs when she was out walking in her neighborhood.[216]
May 27	Cane Corso	Jayelin Graham	4 years	Killed by family's dog while playing with brothers in a bedroom.[217]
June 15	*Pit bull-type* Roy McSweeney	74 years	Mauled by neighbors' two pit bulls while walking on his property.[218]
August 30	*Pit bull-type*, bulldog, Alaskan malamute, German shepherd and German shepherd-bulldog mix.[219]	Addyson Paige Camerino	9 days	Mauled to death by 5 dogs in the kitchen of the family's home.[220]
September 4	Labrador-mix	Brayden McCollen	Two weeks	Killed by family dog.[221]











I think there might be a trend there.....


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Oh thank dog, a list that proves... something.. of some sort.. not related to.. any thing. 

Are you saying that a vicious dog is a dog that kills someone, so therefore it should wear a muzzle in public?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Shaun_ said:


> I'm sorry but I fully support laws against vicious breeds of dogs. Not that they should be banned, but they should all be fitted with muzzles while outside of a person's fenced in residence.


There are no "vicious breeds" of dogs.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Oh, you edited. So you mean Pits. You're wrong, not worth arguing. 

Also, Darius Tillman was killed in my city. Did that site tell you that our local police department involuntary manslaughter charges against the mother?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> This is a list of fatal dog attacks in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sigh..... You read it on the internet so it must be true...... Right????

Did you know that all of those lists are just compilations of news articles.... It is not fact.... Not scientific..... The News is about selling advertising...... "pit bull" is much like "assault rifle", "terrorist", "home invasion" etc.... Nothing more than a word used to strike emotion in gullable people. Emotion causes people to read......

Who determines what breed of dog in the attack?
The police? Show me a police acadamy in North America that has dog breed identification as part of their curriculum....

Oh it must be Animal Control.... Well again..... Show me an animal control training course that offers dog breed identification as part of their curriculum.......

Often it is the reporter that "determines" breed..... In fact they often change it....

The old man that was killed by two dogs in Hawthorne FL earlier this year..... The police report said two large dogs..... A reporter with the Palatka Paper was the first to mention pit bull. I have been unable to obtain photos as of yet because they have become part of a criminal case. I have however spoken with someone from the Animal control division of Putnam County Sheriffs Office that stated both dogs weighed about a hundred pounds each. There is no such thing as a hundred pound pit bull.

The baby that was killed Near Houston a couple months back. The police report stated te dog was a 100 pound Lab Mix. The first couple of articles said the same thing....... But then the "breed" magically turned into "pit bull" and the story went out on AP wires. 

Are you aware the print news reporters are most often graded by their employers heavily on how many of their stories go out on the AP, Reuters, or other wires and are picked up by other papers? 

Those reporters are going to do everything they can to get their story out on the wire. the term "pit bull" is a guarantee of a story going on the wires AND getting picked up.....


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

And hell, if FIVE (yet to be determined) Pit type dogs caused five deaths then what does that even mean in the GRAND scheme of things? There are more than 5 Pits in US. There are also way more than 5 deaths a year in the US NOT related to dogs. I'm more likely to be killed by my hair dryer than any Pit I ever met.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> And hell, if FIVE (yet to be determined) Pit type dogs caused five deaths then what does that even mean in the GRAND scheme of things? There are more than 5 Pits in US. There are also way more than 5 deaths a year in the US NOT related to dogs. I'm more likely to be killed by my hair dryer than any Pit I ever met.


Careful what you say..... Those wagging tails are dangerous... Might break a kneecap... Then you fall over and bust your noggin....


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Careful what you say..... Those wagging tails are dangerous... Might break a kneecap... Then you fall over and bust your noggin....


A massive 15 lbs Pit Bull puppy at work did manage to pull out one of my nose rings with his flailing paws because he was so damn happy to see me, so I can see this posters concern of their danger.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> A massive 15 lbs Pit Bull puppy at work did manage to pull out one of my nose rings with his flailing paws because he was so damn happy to see me, so I can see this posters concern of their danger.



A few weekends back I was dog sitting for a Pit named Dash. One of Merlin's favorite play buddies... They got into some rough horse play right at my feet. Dash tried to pounce on Merlin but he is just so dang quick and agile, he ducked away... Dash's big ole biscuit head went right into well.... My man parts.... I ended up on the ground. Not a pretty sight..... Then I had a Pit and an ACD climbing all over me.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> A few weekends back I was dog sitting for a Pit named Dash. One of Merlin's favorite play buddies... They got into some rough horse play right at my feet. Dash tried to pounce on Merlin but he is just so dang quick and agile, he ducked away... Dash's big ole biscuit head went right into well.... My man parts.... I ended up on the ground. Not a pretty sight..... Then I had a Pit and an ACD climbing all over me.


I may or may not have a video I was taking of Pit puppies playing in the yard at work when I got nailed in my.. not man parts by one. Definitely did not feel good. I did not have the option of going down as they would have been on me in a second and I would have never been able to get up again.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> And hell, if FIVE (yet to be determined) Pit type dogs caused five deaths then what does that even mean in the GRAND scheme of things? There are more than 5 Pits in US. There are also way more than 5 deaths a year in the US NOT related to dogs. I'm more likely to be killed by my hair dryer than any Pit I ever met.



Well, let me know when you get attacked and mauled by a stray hair dryer when you go out in the morning to check your mail. I'm not sure if there have been studies on the aggressiveness of hair dryers..... I'm willing to bet that in the vast majority of hair dryer accidents, human error was at fault and it wasnt the hair dryers personal aggressiveness or feelings against the person using it. Your argument is completely irrelevant. 

And are you really saying that the media has it out for pitbulls? LOL. Look, I know that any type of dog is capable if attacking anyone. But to ignore statistics based on your love of dogs is just ignorant. State laws are sometimes unjustified, but passing legislation after SEVERAL fatal/life changing maulings is a reaction to an obvious problem. Besides, I said that I would support a law that required pit's to wear a muzzle while in public places.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....*[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." *(Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Here is a useful chart that breaks down the statistics by breed. I'm sure you'll be surprised at which dog seems to be more aggressive.....

http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

> Dogs are not born bad they are made that way - it's nurture vs nature!


Quoted from that site. Yet you still believe there is an inherit problem with the breed(s) themselves? And you said people here were being ignorant because we're dog lovers but maybe it is you who is being ignorant.

My mother's Maltese have caused more injury and harm than our Pit Bull. Now if we're talking licking attacks then she has the top spot followed closely by my Siberian.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Did you look at the numbers? What does your mothers Maltese have to do with anything? Are you disputing the number of recorded pit bull attacks?


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

...Nevermind. It went a little over your head.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

You went over my head? How so? I posted factual statistics and you started yapping about your mother. Elaborate please.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

It* and it* was a little joke about fearing little dogs more than a Pit Bull. You should take a breath and relax a bit, sounds like you're a bit high strung. So yes, it went WAY over your head.

Yapping, huh? Attitude much? 

I'm out either way.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Well, I sensed condescension in your post, so I replied accordingly. In fact, this entire thread is full of sarcasm pointed in my direction. I apologize if I come off as having any kind of negative attitude.
And no, it did not "go over my head", I knew precisely what you were getting at. I also know that it had nothing to do with anything. 

I'm out on this topic as well. I completely understand your arguments, but unfortunately, your personal experiences have nothing to do with the legislation. The only experiences that matter are the attacks which lead to it. So, let me say this again: I am not for pit bull bans. However, I do support laws (muzzle and such) that would be in place solely for the protection of innocent victims. It's the same with gun control, they shouldn't be illegal, but THEY SHOULD be controlled by regulations. Guns aren't regulated because YOU are irresponsible with them, but because others have been.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> I'm willing to bet that in the vast majority of hair dryer accidents, human error was at fault and it wasnt the hair dryers personal aggressiveness or feelings against the person using it.


Human error is at fault in 99.99999999999% of dog bite fatalities. 

This sh*t gets old.
Welcome to the forum Shaun_.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Tofu_pup said:


> Human error is at fault in 99.99999999999% of dog bite fatalities.
> 
> This sh*t gets old.
> Welcome to the forum Shaun_.


99.99999999999% huh? I would love to see the investigations that reached that conclusion.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Really, do you think dog bites happens when a dog would be muzzled? Like, a well-behaved pet on leash with a responsible owner is just going to start mauling people? No, bites happen when a dog wouldn't be muzzled. When an irresponsible owner lets their dog run loose. When an irresponsible parent leaves their child alone with a dog. Do you really think those irresponsible people are going to obey the law and keep their dog muzzled? Yeah, right.

The reasons pit bulls are overrepresented in bite statistics:
1.) There are a LOT of pit bulls in this country. Pretty sure they outnumber all other dogs (although there's no way to know for sure since most aren't registered). What's more, there are several breeds that are commonly identified as "pit bulls", so that jacks the numbers up even higher. The more dogs there are, the more bites there will be. No matter which breed.

2.) Pit bulls are loser magnets, unfortunately. For some reason scumbags seem to prefer pit bulls. I suspect it's because pitties are so tolerant. Scumbags are generally not going to win any "responsible dog owner of the year" awards. Irresponsible owners are the cause of dog attacks. . .see the pattern?

3.) The media do have a bias against pit bulls. Sometimes they'll even have a picture right there in the article of a dog that is clearly NOT a pit bull (even to those who aren't experts at identifying breeds), but they'll have the dog labeled as a pit bull anyway. A pit bull attack makes headlines. A sort-of-houndish Lab mix looking dog attack doesn't. Headlines make money. They have no incentive to correctly identify the dogs. And most people can't tell the difference between an actual American Pit Bull Terrier and any other vaguely bully-ish looking breed. There are "identify the pit bull" tests ut there, I'll try to find one. They're harder than you'd think.

It just all comes down to this: irresponsible owners are the cause of dog attacks. Even if a dog is aggressive, if the owners are responsible the dog will never be in a position to hurt someone. Crack down on irresponsible owners, don't pick on responsible owners and their well-behaved dogs just because their dogs are a certain breed.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Shaun_ said:


> 99.99999999999% huh? I would love to see the investigations that reached that conclusion.


I doubt there are investigations. But yes, that's true. If an owner is responsible, his/her dog is not going to be put in a position where they could hurt somebody. Period.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Really, do you think dog bites happens when a dog would be muzzled? Like, a well-behaved pet on leash with a responsible owner is just going to start mauling people? No, bites happen when a dog wouldn't be muzzled. When an irresponsible owner lets their dog run loose. When an irresponsible parent leaves their child alone with a dog. Do you really think those irresponsible people are going to obey the law and keep their dog muzzled? Yeah, right.
> 
> The reasons pit bulls are overrepresented in bite statistics:
> 1.) There are a LOT of pit bulls in this country. Pretty sure they outnumber all other dogs (although there's no way to know for sure since most aren't registered). What's more, there are several breeds that are commonly identified as "pit bulls", so that jacks the numbers up even higher. The more dogs there are, the more bites there will be. No matter which breed.
> ...



Replies in green.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Let me just ask this of you ladies/gentlemen: What percentage of the United States do you think may actually know the proper way to raise a powerful/territorial dog such as the Pit Bull. Be honest. I'm talking about the average person on the street here. Do you think the average person knows as much about their dog as you do yours? Do you think they research the temperament of a breed before they commit to buying one? Could they adequately calm their dog down if another dog was a bit aggressive? 

Maybe this will make you understand my point. I know that you are all responsible owners, you dedicate much more time to understanding your dogs than most do, but 'responsible' pet owners are not the reason that laws will be placed, it'll be because of the irresponsible ones. As unfair as it may be, something needs to be done. Unfortunately this may come at the expense of loving pet owners.


----------



## Dingeryote (Jun 20, 2011)

Prior to the the glorification of Dirtbags and dopers in popular culture, driving the back alley breeding and fighting of Pitts, and the need for the "Gangsta" image of a Big viscious Pit to guard the stash of dope and dope money in the crib, the hyper reactionary and ignorant fools that are now bleating like sheep over pits didn't exist.

Instead, they were bleating non stop about German Shepherds, and before that Dobermans, but not as loudly, nor as often.
These sorts have a psychological NEED to snivel about anything more dangerous than a twinkie, and tend to double check the closet before sleeping with half a dozen night lights. They will not be satisfied by logic, reason, math, chemistry, or medication. Kill all the Pits, and then they will want the Rotties gone, and then on down the line untill somebody breeds a toothless narcoleptic yorkie, just to have a dog around.

The problem IS people. Irresponsible people, and the Criminal element that have bred some pits for negative traits, as well as all of us for "Accepting and recognizing" the "Thug culture" as accepted and valid in our society. The scum have multiplied and they have bred more dogs, and keep generating these statistics that the sheep keep bleating about.
Responsibly bred Pits that are owned by responsible people, are NOT the problem and never have been.

Heck, back in the 70's and 80's pits were somewhat rare. 
Now every other dog in the pound is a Pit. 

Every time some "Macho" dog is featured in a movie or the news, I cringe, as that breed might join the APBT as another "Canine of mass destruction" in the resulting hype.
People suck.

Rant mode off.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Dingeryote said:


> Prior to the the glorification of Dirtbags and dopers in popular culture, driving the back alley breeding and fighting of Pitts, and the need for the "Gangsta" image of a Big viscious Pit to guard the stash of dope and dope money in the crib, the hyper reactionary and ignorant fools that are now bleating like sheep over pits didn't exist.
> 
> Instead, they were bleating non stop about German Shepherds, and before that Dobermans, but not as loudly, nor as often.
> These sorts have a psychological NEED to snivel about anything more dangerous than a twinkie, and tend to double check the closet before sleeping with half a dozen night lights. They will not be satisfied by logic, reason, math, chemistry, or medication. Kill all the Pits, and then they will want the Rotties gone, and then on down the line untill somebody breeds a toothless narcoleptic yorkie, just to have a dog around.
> ...


According to the CDC there were 37 deaths caused by Pit maulings in the 80's alone. No matter how much people want to defend Pits, they don't have a good track record. Same with Rottweilers. No other dog comes close. 

I dont understand how people can deny that Pits aren't overly aggressive, they were bred to fight.


----------



## Binkalette (Dec 16, 2008)

Oh Shaun_, thank you for my morning LOL. If someone like you walked into the shelter looking to adopt a dog and said any of the things you have said here, their application would be in the trash with in moments of their departure. You are clearly demonstrating your lack of knowledge on this subject, but I wouldn't expect you to know, after all you are likely the "average joe" you speak of. I do sincerely hope you stick around the forum and become more involved with dogs in your area to help you learn what's true and what's media hype. I too once fell for the nonsense the media spews and wondered at why all pits hadn't been banned. I am now shamefully embarrassed to know I had been so naive. 

Also, please tell me which one is the pit bull: http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html No cheating now!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Shaun_ said:


> I dont understand how people can deny that Pits aren't overly aggressive, they were bred to fight.


They were bred to fight other dogs. They aren't supposed to show any human aggression at all. Dog fighters get IN the pit with the fighting dogs, and any dog who turns on the handlers is killed.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> According to the CDC there were 37 deaths caused by Pit maulings in the 80's alone. No matter how much people want to defend Pits, they don't have a good track record. Same with Rottweilers. No other dog comes close.
> 
> I dont understand how people can deny that Pits aren't overly aggressive, they were bred to fight.



The CDC report, like every other report is just a compilation of media and emergency room reports. They took whatever breed was listed. IF you read the entire report the CDC states that you should not put too much stock in their data when it comes to breed.

If you knew anything about the breed other than what you read in the papers, you would know that the breed was purpose bred towards aggression towards other dogs while at the same time, purpose bred away from human aggression.

IF you know anything about dogs, you know that human aggression and dog aggression are two completely different things.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> And are you really saying that the media has it out for pitbulls? LOL. .


The media has a thing for money.... And Pit Bulls are MONEY to the media..... Both of those incidents I mentioned in the previous post, the original stories did not mention pit bulls. Those stories did not go out on the AP wires. Once some reporter wrote pit bull into their article, the stories hit the AP and went nationwide. 

This happens on a regular basis and is it well documented that "pit bull" incidents are over reported.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> "Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....*[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." *(Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)



Yet another report that is nothing more than a compilation of media reports......

Show me something scientific..... Problem is that you cannot... Because it does not exist.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

Dingeryote said:


> ....a toothless narcoleptic yorkie....


I SO want one of these.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

That comment did make me laugh. So did the comments about Pits being a vicious breed.

The fact that Rottweilers are listed as a "Pit Bull type dog" is enough to make me discount the "information". Just....no, lol. You know what breed of dog bit my sister in the face? A Dachshund. You know what breed of dog bit our great TWAB in the face? A Dachshund. You know what breed of dog has attacked my German Shepherd most frequently? The Golden Retriever.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

I'm sorry, but I will NEVER forget reading a news story about a dog that killed a baby outside of Houston, TX. Reading the story in the morning, the dog was the family's Lab, but then reading the SAME STORY in the evening, the dog was suddenly a "Pit mix." 

How many other stories do you think have been changed in the past? I would bet lots more than the one I happened to stumble upon.

Heck, if people insist that my dogs are part fox, and can think that Huskies and Malamutes are part wolf, how can you (general you) trust breed judgements made by random people/police officers?


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Binkalette said:


> Oh Shaun_, thank you for my morning LOL. If someone like you walked into the shelter looking to adopt a dog and said any of the things you have said here, their application would be in the trash with in moments of their departure. You are clearly demonstrating your lack of knowledge on this subject, but I wouldn't expect you to know, after all you are likely the "average joe" you speak of. I do sincerely hope you stick around the forum and become more involved with dogs in your area to help you learn what's true and what's media hype. I too once fell for the nonsense the media spews and wondered at why all pits hadn't been banned. I am now shamefully embarrassed to know I had been so naive.
> 
> Also, please tell me which one is the pit bull: http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html No cheating now!


So you would deny my application based on my questions of safety which were based on studies by the CDC? And i'm naive? There are maybe 3-4 dogs on that link that could be mistaken as a Pit. Jack Russel's and Rotty's are mistaken as Pit's? Boxers? Labs? LOL.
You are making your statements based on personal experiences, i'm basing mine on statistics, it appears you are still 'naive'.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Yet another report that is nothing more than a compilation of media reports......
> 
> Show me something scientific..... Problem is that you cannot... Because it does not exist.


Define a 'scientific' study, please. The CDC writes reports based on media coverage? REALLY?
So it's still acceptable for a Pit to attack and kill another person's dog, because they are 'dog aggressive?
Do you also believe that the moon landing was fake? What are your views on the Holocaust? Sounds silly doesn't it? Your claim that the media has a personal vendetta against Pit's sounds just as silly.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

*head explody*


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

for once i wish one of these pro bsl parrots would actually produce corresponding population statistics. because statistically speaking Shaun...your numbers don't mean catpoo without them. 

your "evidence" also neglects what we know scientifically about what causes domesticated social canines to react in aggressive manner.

none of which are related to breed.

a bite incident can come from many factors...health, gender, socialization, training etc. a bite can be the result of one, more or all of those factors. breeds are not carbon cut mass produced models. you are making a scientifically unsound generalization that breed is the paramount factor in reducing dog bites....

like my kid..when he was at his aunt's house, had his ear partially detached from his head by a retired track greyhound named Freddie. So tell me how banning pit bulls is a preventative measure for incidents like what happened to my son?


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

Niraya said:


>


The timing and placement of this was so perfect... I actually just LOL'd at work!!


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> for once i wish one of these pro bsl parrots would actually produce corresponding population statistics. because statistically speaking Shaun...your numbers don't mean catpoo without them.
> 
> your "evidence" also neglects what we know scientifically about what causes domesticated social canines to react in aggressive manner.
> 
> ...


When did I ever support the banning of Pits? It helps if you read the thread......


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> for once i wish one of these pro bsl parrots would actually produce corresponding population statistics. because statistically speaking Shaun...your numbers don't mean catpoo without them.


zim beat me to it. Raw numbers mean nothing.

For example, let's make up some numbers and say there were... 

10 dog bites in 2010 by Irish Setters and there are 1000 Irish Setters in the US
100 dog bites in 2010 by Pit Bulls and there are 100,000 Pit Bulls in the US

Then which breed APPEARS more "dangerous" based on the number of bites? Which breed IS more dangerous based on their respective populations?

So tired of raw bite numbers without corresponding population data. Worse than useless, actually harmful and misleading. *bangs head*


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> When did I ever support the banning of Pits? It helps if you read the thread......


there is no difference ideologically between a ban and muzzles.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

Shaun_ said:


> Define a 'scientific' study, please. The CDC writes reports based on media coverage? REALLY?
> So it's still acceptable for a Pit to attack and kill another person's dog, because they are 'dog aggressive?
> Do you also believe that the moon landing was fake? What are your views on the Holocaust? Sounds silly doesn't it? Your claim that the media has a personal vendetta against Pit's sounds just as silly.


Who ever suggested that its acceptable for any dog to attack and kill another dog? 

And the CDC writes reports based on the information they have. The problem is that the people making the breed determination (and providing the information for the CDC) are often not trained and as has been stated, have alternative motives. And you may chuckle at the thought of having a Lab mistaken for a Pit bull, but it happens all the time. 

Walk into any pound in a BSL legislated county and you will find runs filled with Lab mixes. And if one of those Lab mixes bites someone, it becomes a Pit bull.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

sassafras said:


> zim beat me to it. Raw numbers mean nothing.
> 
> For example, let's make up some numbers and say there were...
> 
> ...


Let me know when Setters fatally attack upwards of 90 people in a decade......


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Shaun_ said:


> Let me know when Setters fatally attack upwards of 90 people in a decade......


Congratulations, you've entirely missed the point! Your prizes... willful ignorance and counterproductive solutions, yay you!


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

+two said:


> Who ever suggested that its acceptable for any dog to attack and kill another dog?
> 
> And the CDC writes reports based on the information they have. The problem is that the people making the breed determination (and providing the information for the CDC) are often not trained and as has been stated, have alternative motives. And you may chuckle at the thought of having a Lab mistaken for a Pit bull, but it happens all the time.
> 
> Walk into any pound in a BSL legislated county and you will find runs filled with Lab mixes. And if one of those Lab mixes bites someone, it becomes a Pit bull.


Hmmm..... Labs are widely known for their good temperament, Pits were trained to fight. I wonder which gene is responsible for a mix being overly aggressive..
And one of the posters mentioned that Pits were bred to fight other dogs, not attack humans.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Congratulations, you've entirely missed the point! Your prizes... willful ignorance and counterproductive solutions, yay you!


You were speaking of ratios, right?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Let me know when Setters fatally attack upwards of 90 people in a decade......


Let me know when foolish thinking finally does anybody any favors.

Not long ago, German Shepherd Dogs were in negative spotlight as being a terrible breed to own. Not the fault of the breed, it's the fault of idiot owners and crappy breeders.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> there is no difference ideologically between a ban and muzzles.


Well, if you feel that a muzzle law constitutes a ban you have a skewed way of looking at things.


----------



## Twinney (Nov 4, 2007)

How does it not? You are still targetting one breed.
BTW I own a pit bull who was bred by pot heads. He and I share a bed. Sometimes he farts and I have to sleep on a couch or kick him out. Got any ideas for that one, Shaun?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

BSL is the epitome of knee-jerk, easy answer, blame game legislation that lacks critical thought or any method or logic OR any positive outcomes. I'm so tired of it. So. Tired.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Twinney said:


> How does it not? You are still targetting one breed.
> *BTW I own a pit bull who was bred by pot heads. He and I share a bed. Sometimes he farts and I have to sleep on a couch or kick him out. Got any ideas for that one, Shaun?*


Dude, WTF are you rambling about?



Of course it's targeting one breed, Herp. Ask me why....


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Dude, WTF are you rambling about?


I think a lot of us are thinking the same thing in regards to your "statistics", lol


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Hello Shaun!

First of all may I just say, It's OK to be wrong, that's why we are here, to teach people. Take a step back, breathe, then forget all the biasness you've thought you learned. Most everything you think you know about Pit Bulls are myths. Bite stats are incorrect, no matter where you get them from. Even the CDC says that they don't have the correct information to really come to any sort of conclusion on dog bites. Also did you know that "Pit Bulls" include 3 different breeds, many different look alike breeds, and all mixes including most lab mixes? So yes, there may have been a lot of people harmed by "pits" but there are so many different breeds that fall under that grouping, when they actually are singled out by breed, they are no more dangerous then any other beed.



Shaun_ said:


> Hmmm..... Labs are widely known for their good temperament, Pits were trained to fight. I wonder which gene is responsible for a mix being overly aggressive..
> And one of the posters mentioned that Pits were bred to fight other dogs, not attack humans.


Um, Labs have been so overbred, a lot DON'T have the best temperaments anymore. Guess how many Pits I've been attacked by in my life? None. Guess how many Pits I've been around in my life? Hundreds. Guess how many Labs my dogs or I have been attacked by? 3. Guess how many labs I've been around? 5. Guess how many dogs I've been personally bitten by? 2. Guess what breeds they were? An ACD mix and a Jack Russel mix. 

I've been around hundreds of Pits, I own two Pits, both rescues. One is currently being trained to be a Search and Rescue dog and a Therapy dog. One has his CGC, the puppy will be getting hers in about 5 weeks. Actually I could get it for her today if she was tested for it, hands down. 

Have you ever heard of the Mike Vick Pit Bulls? Many of those ex fighters are now loving pets, Therapy dogs, and most of them get along just fine now with other dogs. What you think you know about the breed, is not the truth. It's made up stuff that the media wants you to believe. It's one reason why I don't trust the media for my news anymore. Everything is sensationalized. The scarier the better.


----------



## Twinney (Nov 4, 2007)

Essentially my point. He's rambling on about idiotic stats. I'll ramble about my pit bull who's only dangerous part comes out of his butt. Can't muzzle that either.

+1, Darkmoon


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

Clearly, the only logical solution to the problem is to have laws in place that require all dogs to be muzzled 24/7 from the age of 6 weeks on.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Once again, people basing their personal experiences/opinions as factual studies. The legislation, unfortunately, isn't based off of your experiences. It's based off of attacks which have already occurred.


----------



## Polywoggy (Mar 7, 2011)

Beat me to it Xeph!
BTW I have a JRT who has been mistaken for a APBT, and a Golden (always super-friendly breed right?) who wants to scrap every new dog she meets.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

But Shaun... there have been whole country's that have enacted sweeping breed bans and the evidence clearly shows that it has had no effect on fatal dog bites. 

Decades of evidence shows that BSL does not work.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Shaun_ said:


> Once again, people basing their personal experiences/opinions as factual studies. The legislation, unfortunately, isn't based off of your experiences. It's based off of attacks which have already occurred.


Ok, maybe I can put it in terms you can understand:
*THE "FACTS" ARE LIES!*

Remember the saying "75.37463% of stats are made up?" It's because it's the truth. Anyone can make up a stat and claim for it to be true. Anything that bites now of days is a "Pit Bull". I really wish I saved the photo of the "Pit Bull" that attacked a cop car a few years ago. The photo was a bit blurry but it was a photo of a German Shepherd. That Bite stat is STILL labeled under "Pit Bulls" because someone said it was. 

Most people can't even tell you want a Pit Bull is. My red male is to most people a Boxer because of his docked tail, and my little female puppy is a Lab because she's black. They are Pits. You "think" you can hide behind "facts" but the truth is, the "facts" are only as correct as the people giving them to you, and guess what? Most people can't tell you black from white.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Shaun_ said:


> Once again, people basing their personal experiences/opinions as factual studies. The legislation, unfortunately, isn't based off of your experiences. It's based off of attacks which have already occurred.


LOL it's based on OTHER people's experiences.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

sassafras said:


> LOL it's based on OTHER people's experiences.


I wish I could like this.... so much the truth.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Breed bans and muzzle laws do NOTHING to reduce bites, what works is laws that target AGRESSIVE DOGS of any breed and HOLDS THIER OWNERS RESPONSIBLE. One of the best examples of misinformation is an incdent in San Diego (Lemon Grove area) where a woman was killed by a neighbors dog, the initial reports by the local news was it was a Pit, the truth came out and the dog was a Mastiff/Lab mix. The 'eyewitnesses' had misidentified the dog grossly (the dog was 150lbs and 30" at the shoulder, Pits rarely get over 50lbs and 20" at the shoulder).


----------



## Max and Me (Aug 19, 2011)

Pity that we can't put a ban on stupid people owning dogs. That might solve many of the problems.


----------



## Twinney (Nov 4, 2007)

That WOULD solve many of the problems.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Shaun_ said:


> Well, let me know when you get attacked and mauled by a stray hair dryer when you go out in the morning to check your mail. I'm not sure if there have been studies on the aggressiveness of hair dryers..... I'm willing to bet that in the vast majority of hair dryer accidents, human error was at fault and it wasnt the hair dryers personal aggressiveness or feelings against the person using it. Your argument is completely irrelevant.
> 
> And are you really saying that the media has it out for pitbulls? LOL. Look, I know that any type of dog is capable if attacking anyone. But to ignore statistics based on your love of dogs is just ignorant. State laws are sometimes unjustified, but passing legislation after SEVERAL fatal/life changing maulings is a reaction to an obvious problem. Besides, I said that I would support a law that required pit's to wear a muzzle while in public places.


You're argument is asinine. So if my argument was actually irrelevant, it would still trump asinine. You have much greater fears riding in a car or getting murdered walking out to your mail box. Why don't you look up how many people are killed in car accidents or by fellow man every year. And as a shelter employee, I'm exposed to Pit Bulls every day. Even at my friend's houses! Haven't been maimed or killed yet, but according to you they will get me at some point. I also used to be a dog groomer. I've never been so much as been snarled at by a Pit. Funny you should bring up human error. It's HUMAN error if we are killed by machines, but not by dogs? Dogs that WE raise, teach and contain? Do you see what I mean by asinine? 

I'm gonna wager a bet you're a random media bandwagon follower since you clearly don't realize the media has done this same nonsense to GSDs, Rottweilers, Dobermans, etc. Did you not understand where I was going with your "statistics" ? Because I could break it down for you, but I'm pretty sure you still won't understand. FIVE deaths a year by dogs, or considering all the dogs on that list making it 11, is NOTHING in the grand scheme of things that kill people every year. And even if the breeds are correctly identified, there are a handful of other breeds on that list. Are they magically not dangerous, though by your standards even 5 "Pit" attacks is enough to warrant a banning of all Pits. 

But I'm ignorant. You ever hear that saying about people in glass houses? Why don't you keep your crap off other people's dogs?


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Xeph said:


> You know what breed of dog bit our great TWAB in the face? A Dachshund.


And I'd like to point out that the fellow who bit me in the face, giving me two swollen eyes and a head wound that had to be repeatedly drained and glued shut, and now a permanent scar, is still the love of my life. I was practically BEGGING him to bite me in the face and I got what I was asking for.


----------



## ladyshadowhollyjc (Oct 28, 2008)

I do not ever discount any breed to be nonaggressive. All dogs have teeth and can bite. To generalize that any single breed or type of dog is ALWAYS of a particular personality type, is completely ignorant. If you have a mindset like that, then you obviously have not been around very many dogs.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

ladyshadowhollyjc said:


> I do not ever discount any breed to be nonaggressive. All dogs have teeth and can bite. To generalize that any single breed or type of dog is ALWAYS of a particular personality type, is completely ignorant. If you have a mindset like that, then you obviously have not been around very many dogs.


Perhaps he has confused dogs with hippos? Hippos can be pretty nasty.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> Define a 'scientific' study, please. The CDC writes reports based on media coverage? REALLY?
> So it's still acceptable for a Pit to attack and kill another person's dog, because they are 'dog aggressive?
> Do you also believe that the moon landing was fake? What are your views on the Holocaust? Sounds silly doesn't it? Your claim that the media has a personal vendetta against Pit's sounds just as silly.


I said nothing about it being okay for a pit to attack another persons dog. I simply said they were bred toward dog aggression....

You posted data from the CDC report.... But all you did is read the highlights.... Read the study..... All it is.... Is a compilation of media and ER reports. There was NO back study to verify what breed was involved. The CDC knows their data is suspect. That is why they have never made a recommendation based on this study.....

Next time you post something as an argument, you might want to be familiar with what is actually in the material you post.....


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Hmm, 110 people murdered in New Orleans alone last year vs 32 deaths by dog in the entire US. Frankly I'm more scared of humans than I am of dogs.


----------



## Meshkenet (Oct 2, 2009)

Interesting fact: more people are killed by domestic appliances than by dogs. For example, as you can see here, in an average of 50 people by year died because of domestic appliances, compared to 14 because of dogs (all breeds). Maybe we should be a bit more weary of our toasters than our neighbors' pit bulls?

Horses and cattle kill more people than dogs. So do sports, cars and other motor vehicles.

It is simply a case of what sells more: a picture of a "dangerous pit bull" on page one of the daily paper, or a picture of a washing machine. I'll let you guess which one scares most people.

it is the same thing with sharks (22 deaths between 1959-2003), all because of the success of the movie Jaws and the animal's appearance. 

Did you know that in the US and Canada, 40 people are killed each year by pigs? That is more than the number killed by dogs, for a much smaller population and a lot fewer humans in contact with the animals.

The truth is, based on statistics recounting the full number of death by dogs, your chances are much higher of winning the lottery, drowning in your bathtub, being hit by lightning or being crushed a falling vending machine than being killed by a dog, yet alone a pit bull.

Life is a gamble. BSL is ineffective: look at the results in England where, despite having BSL in place for ten years, the number of dog bites has augmented.

How about being rational: what about enforcing the laws against animal cruelty, preventing known offenders from owning more animals, restricting the freedom of dogs who have individually proven to be dangerous by biting, and overall judging dogs not on their appearance but on their behavior? 

BSL is as logical as human segregation: proportionally, there are more black people than white people in prison in the US. Is that because black people are inherently more violent and dangerous? Saying yes is the same as saying all pit bulls are violent beasts: environment plays a great part in behavior, in humans as much as other animals. Here is an interesting read, if you would like to know more about media bias regarding dog attacks.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

LOL. All of you people keep posting stories about hair dryers, murders, appliances, auto accidents etc...
Think a minute about these awful comparisons for a minute..... Have you? There are laws and regulations TO ALL OF THESE!!! There are speed limits and hundreds of laws protecting motorists/pedestrians, appliances need to meet safety inspections to be sold, they must be IAW electrical safety regulations to be used. There are laws against violent crimes, why shouldnt there be safety regulations enforced for a breed of dog with a track record? I don't get why people would get all butthurt over a law that is meant to protect innocent people. You remind me of ignorant pistol waving right wing nut-jobs who think you should be able to carry a gun anywhere they want to, just because it's a constitutional right to own a firearm. 

Spare me these stories: "Well, I have a pitbull, and fluffy has never hurt anyone...." What does that have to do with anything? I own several guns, but I have never shot anyone. Therefor, I should be able to take it everywhere, right? Thats the same logic thats being tossed around here, yet my arguments are 'asinine'. LOL, learn what these words mean before you choose to fit them into your posts.

The only difference between a gun and a Pitbull is that guns don't have the ability to use themselves.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> Breed bans and muzzle laws do NOTHING to reduce bites, what works is laws that target AGRESSIVE DOGS of any breed and HOLDS THIER OWNERS RESPONSIBLE. One of the best examples of misinformation is an incdent in San Diego (Lemon Grove area) where a woman was killed by a neighbors dog, the initial reports by the local news was it was a Pit, the truth came out and the dog was a Mastiff/Lab mix. The 'eyewitnesses' had misidentified the dog grossly (the dog was 150lbs and 30" at the shoulder, Pits rarely get over 50lbs and 20" at the shoulder).


A dog with a fitted muzzle still bites people? Houdini!


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Statistically speaking, Pits have bitten more kids in Ohio than tigers have.....


Argue that.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

So...... Since 'A' kills more than 'B', 'B' should be completely ignored altogether. You sir, are brilliant.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Therefor, I should be able to take it everywhere, right?


Well, constitutionally speaking, yeah.

Heck, by your logic, I should be able to kick you in the nuts (or ovaries), because you MIGHT rape me if we ever met.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> LOL. All of you people keep posting stories about hair dryers, murders, appliances, auto accidents etc...
> Think a minute about these awful comparisons for a minute..... Have you? There are laws and regulations TO ALL OF THESE!!! There are speed limits and hundreds of laws protecting motorists/pedestrians, appliances need to meet safety inspections to be sold, they must be IAW electrical safety regulations to be used. There are laws against violent crimes, why shouldnt there be safety regulations enforced for a breed of dog with a track record? I don't get why people would get all butthurt over a law that is meant to protect innocent people. You remind me of ignorant pistol waving right wing nut-jobs who think you should be able to carry a gun anywhere they want to, just because it's a constitutional right to own a firearm.
> 
> Spare me these stories: "Well, I have a pitbull, and fluffy has never hurt anyone...." What does that have to do with anything? I own several guns, but I have never shot anyone. Therefor, I should be able to take it everywhere, right? Thats the same logic thats being tossed around here, yet my arguments are 'asinine'. LOL, learn what these words mean before you choose to fit them into your posts.
> ...



What you are failing to grasp here...... 

Pit bulls are not the problem.... Far from it. The problem is irresponsible owners....

Your entire arguement is that pit bulls are somehow inherently more aggressive or dangerous than other breeds of dog. 

The thing is..... There is real data that proves different.

You have to look no farther thanthe Michael Vick dogs to see evidence. Many of the Vick dogs are in family homes. Some (all the ones that came through Bad Rap) got their CGC. Some went on to become Therapy Dogs. NONE have harmed a single person....
This year the Governor of my state signed a bill that states dogs confiscated from dog fighting busts do not have to be automatically euthanized. 

Then take the situation in the UK.... Pit Bulls were effectively banned in 1991 with the Dangerous Dog Act.... Since 1991 the government has strengthened the act several times over the years. In the years since the ban serious dog bites (requiring emergency room treatment or more) have well past doubled. 
Currently the lawmakers in the UK are working to scrap the act and create a new law that focuses on penalties for owners of dogs that bite people.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

BTW.... Virginia has a concealed carry law and is an open carry state. So there are VERY VERY few places you cannot carry a gun.... 

You really should stop using arguments that do not support your position or that you know nothing about......


----------



## Mdawn (Mar 3, 2007)

Just one comment to Shaun: PLEASE stop highlighting some of your responses in green. It's impossible to see. As a matter of fact, I pretty much skipped over it because I'd rather not have a headache straining my eyes to try and read it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

This is a re post from a thread on pit bulls I made a few weeks back. It has Relavence here.


_
The folks that want breed restrictions or dog owner restrictions seem to think once that happens rose petals will fall from the sky and rabbits will dance in the street....

But it won't....... You could wipe every pit off the face of the Earth, take Rottweilers, Dobes, etc with them..... Things would not get any better.... In fact it would possibly get worse.
If you think a Pit Bull in the hands of an irresponsible owner is bad news.... What about a Presa, Boerboel, or even an Irish Wolfhound? How would a bigger, stronger, more tenacious dog be in the hands of someone that is irresponsible.......

Specifically looking at children, if you look at attacks..... The child is NEARLY ALWAYS left alone with the dog. The baby in Houston.... Alone with the Dog.... The baby in the Carolinas the other day..... Alone with the dog..... It is a common demoninator......

Adults are a separate issue....... But if owners kept their dogs contained, under control, and trained, there would be few issues.

The fact is Breed bans do not work..... The UK enacted theirs in 1991.... Take a look what happened there....

This is not from a Media source.... This is from Hospital Records and not breed specific.

The UK's dangerous dog act was enacted in 1991.

UK dog bites requiring medical treatment have risen significantly since the ban was enacted. More than doubled in fact.... Dog bites requiring medical care went up 62 percent in the UK between 1997 and 2007 alone. From 2915 in 1997 to 4699 in 2007.
Source:
http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/ser...categoryID=864

BTW that is a government site that collects data on medical care and the reason people seek treatment. _


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Shaun_ said:


> The only difference between a gun and a Pitbull is that guns don't have the ability to use themselves.


Wow. That is quite offensive, thank you. My dogs are NOT guns. You are correct, Guns by themselves are not dangerous, Neither are Pit Bulls. It's the HUMAN element that makes them dangerous. HUMANS pull the trigger on a gun, HUMANS choose to beat, starve, and tease dogs. WE are the problem, not the tools we use. 



> A dog with a fitted muzzle still bites people? Houdini!


Actually it is more common then you would think. There is some parts of schutzhund where you must have your dog muzzled for the work, and bites do still occur while even being muzzled. Using a muzzle is a tool, but it doesn't fix any problems. 



> Statistically speaking, Pits have bitten more kids in Ohio than tigers have.....


Statistically speaking people have killed more people in one year in Ohio then Pits have in record keeping time. 

By your logic we should ban humans. Sounds great to me. I can think of one of the first ones I'd like to see picked off...


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Well, constitutionally speaking, yeah.
> 
> Heck, by your logic, I should be able to kick you in the nuts (or ovaries), because you MIGHT rape me if we ever met.


What an absolute moronic thing to say.
Are you really comparing a dogs cognitive ability to a humans?


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Darkmoon said:


> Wow. That is quite offensive, thank you. My dogs are NOT guns. You are correct, Guns by themselves are not dangerous, Neither are Pit Bulls. It's the HUMAN element that makes them dangerous. HUMANS pull the trigger on a gun, HUMANS choose to beat, starve, and tease dogs. WE are the problem, not the tools we use.
> 
> 
> Actually it is more common then you would think. There is some parts of schutzhund where you must have your dog muzzled for the work, and bites do still occur while even being muzzled. Using a muzzle is a tool, but it doesn't fix any problems.
> ...


Once again, comparing apples to oranges.
So Pits are in no way dangerous? LOL. The only time they would attack anything it would be a humans fault? 
You sound agitated, I hope your dogs don't get angry as you do..... Wait a second.. .


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Shaun_ said:


> What an absolute moronic thing to say.
> Are you really comparing a dogs cognitive ability to a humans?


I would definitely compare it to at least one.

I've been patting myself on the back because I have stayed out of this but I just had to jump on that one.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> What an absolute moronic thing to say.


Pot calling kettle! Pot calling kettle!



> Are you really comparing a dogs cognitive ability to a humans?


No, I'm just doing what you're doing! "Pits will maim/kill people just because they're Pits" is the same as (using your logic) "A human will rape people simply because they're human"!

It's totally comparable (and hilariously ridiculous).


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

To attain a concealed weapons permit you must complete safety courses and pay fees. There are places that you can't take them, and there are actually few situations where you can brandish a firearm.
That actually sounds like a good plan for Pits, come to think of it.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> A dog with a fitted muzzle still bites people? Houdini!


My own GSD managed to whip her head around so fast that her muzzle came right off. 

You're basically saying that these dogs should be muzzled 24/7 because it's not the dog on a leash that's going to attack somebody; it's the dog left to rot in a backyard with a delapidated fence.



Shaun_ said:


> Statistically speaking, Pits have bitten more kids in Ohio than tigers have.....


So how many tigers are there in Ohio?...



JohnnyBandit said:


> What you are failing to grasp here......
> 
> Pit bulls are not the problem.... Far from it. The problem is irresponsible owners....


Shaun_ has already acknowledged that the dogs themselves aren't the problem but we should punish them anyway.


Yes, there are laws in place concerning cars, guns, etc. There are laws in place concerning dogs; they're just not the right ones or they aren't being enforced well enough(if at all). There are municipalities that have already shown that laws that come down hard on crappy dog owners are much more effective than breed specific legislation.

And yes, requiring a muzzle, four foot leash, special enclosure, etc for a particular type of dog is still breed specific legislation.
At the end of the day, all this does is punish the responsible owners.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

This went from a discussion concerning state law to you making personal attacks at me.
...Pat yourself on the back for that one. I hope you don't own a Pit.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> So Pits are in no way dangerous?


Any dog can be dangerous, for any number of reasons. Poor breeding, crappy handling, just a plain size difference between the dog and the human involved (a Newfie with good bite inhibition that bites a 3 year old kid in the face is still more likely to do damage than a Shih Tzu with the same level of bite inhibition, simply due to size difference).

The reality is that German Shepherds (who have been and are bred to STOP perpetrators, and doing so through biting) are more likely to bite somebody than a Pit Bull....a breed that has been bred for generations to be DOG aggressive, but not want to lay a tooth on a human.

Does that mean that GSDs (who protect the public by biting bad guys) should be banned?



> To attain a concealed weapons permit you must complete safety courses and pay fees.


Yeah...concealed. But not open carry (not here in PA).

Amending above statement: In Pennsylvania, you don't have to complete any safety courses, or pay any fee outside of the application fee. You send in your paper work, background check is done, if you pass, voila, you have your concealed carry permit.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Shaun_ said:


> Once again, comparing apples to oranges.
> So Pits are in no way dangerous? LOL. The only time they would attack anything it would be a humans fault?
> You sound agitated, I hope your dogs don't get angry as you do..... Wait a second.. .


ROFL... Actually except for a few attacks where there was a medical reason behind the attack, it was the HUMAN that at fault for the attack. Don't don't just "attack" for no reason, more so with Pits because even in breed standard, they should be STRANGER FRIENDLY. They aren't bred to be guard dogs, they are a higher prey driven dog. By default, Pit Bulls should see every stranger as a long lost friend. HUMANS choose for them to no longer be like that, either be scaring and scarring puppies and dogs for life, or beating them and starving them. A lot of "attacks" I've witnessed was due to recklessness on the humans part. A infant left alone with dog, dogs not socialized, Dogs beaten into submission, and dogs running loose. 

Your more then welcome to stop by and meet my "nasty" dogs at any time. Thankfully they are MUCH NICER then their owner. I'm the one that bites first ask questions later while all they want is a belly scratch and a cuddle.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> To attain a concealed weapons permit you must complete safety courses and pay fees. There are places that you can't take them, and there are actually few situations where you can brandish a firearm.
> That actually sounds like a good plan for Pits, come to think of it.


You don't know any more about the firearms laws in the state you live in than you do about pit bulls. 
The State of Virginia has NO law outlawing or regulating the open carry of a firearm.....


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Of all the babble in this thread, there still has not been one good argument against muzzles for Pits in public places. Well, other than "sometimes they're defective".
I'm over this, a Pit could eat a baby right in front of you and you try to blame anything else except the dogs nature. I've provided SEVERAL reasons why they should be muzzled and in return I get the same played out "dogs don't hurt people" routine. 

You ignore the just concern for public safety, you ignore statistics from government organizations that prove Pits are involved in more attacks than any other dog, you ignore that Pits were bred to be aggressive. It's like you're all deaf to logic. Do you deny the negative effects of smoking too? Whats your opinion of global warming? Has man landed on the moon? Was human civilization seeded by aliens?


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

Darkmoon said:


> Statistically speaking people have killed more people in one year in Ohio then Pits have in record keeping time.
> 
> By your logic we should ban humans. Sounds great to me. I can think of one of the first ones I'd like to see picked off...


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

You have yet to prove that BSL actually accomplishes anything, and have ignored evidence to the contrary. But carry on with your bad self.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Of all the babble in this thread, there still has not been one good argument against muzzles for Pits in public places.


Most of the "babble" has come from you, in the form of hugely skewed statistics and opinions that are yours to have, but are exactly that...opinions.



> you ignore statistics from government organizations that prove Pits are involved in more attacks than any other dog


They don't prove anything except that people will automatically blame a Pit Bull (or say a dog is a Pit Mix) if somebody is bitten.

My neighbor was bitten by a Golden Retriever...the same Golden Retriever that attacked my German Shepherd TWICE. The dog was reported, but nothing came of it because it was a Golden...they're NEVER dangerous (HA!).

My neighbor across the street (who has since passed away) had his dog removed from his home, because the dog was a menace to the neighborhood (even treed a kid!). Guess what breed the dog was?

A Labrador Retriever. 



> It's like you're all deaf to logic.


I actually LOL'd



> you ignore that Pits were bred to be aggressive


Uh, YOU seem to be the one ignoring the fact that they were bred to be *dog* aggressive. That is NOT the same as being *human* aggressive, and they are not transferable.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You don't know any more about the firearms laws in the state you live in than you do about pit bulls.
> The State of Virginia has NO law outlawing or regulating the open carry of a firearm.....


I'm talking about pointing them at someone. Don't be stupid. And there are several places where you can't carry guns-period.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

Shaun_ said:


> Of all the babble in this thread, there still has not been one good argument against muzzles for Pits in public places. Well, other than "sometimes they're defective".
> I'm over this, a Pit could eat a baby right in front of you and you try to blame anything else except the dogs nature. I've provided SEVERAL reasons why they should be muzzled and in return I get the same played out "dogs don't hurt people" routine.
> 
> You ignore the just concern for public safety, you ignore statistics from government organizations that prove Pits are involved in more attacks than any other dog, you ignore that Pits were bred to be aggressive. It's like you're all deaf to logic. Do you deny the negative effects of smoking too? Whats your opinion of global warming? Has man landed on the moon? Was human civilization seeded by aliens?


Why would you leave a baby (or any young child for that matter) in front of ANY dog? 

And as for your other questions:


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> And there are several places where you can't carry guns-period.


There are several places you can't take ANY dogs either. Period.

Point?

Finkie_Mom, I can't wait to see you in Philly xD


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> Of all the babble in this thread, there still has not been one good argument against muzzles for Pits in public places. Well, other than "sometimes they're defective".
> I'm over this, a Pit could eat a baby right in front of you and you try to blame anything else except the dogs nature. I've provided SEVERAL reasons why they should be muzzled and in return I get the same played out "dogs don't hurt people" routine.
> 
> You ignore the just concern for public safety, you ignore statistics from government organizations that prove Pits are involved in more attacks than any other dog, you ignore that Pits were bred to be aggressive. It's like you're all deaf to logic. Do you deny the negative effects of smoking too? Whats your opinion of global warming? Has man landed on the moon? Was human civilization seeded by aliens?


You are the one doing most of the babbling. You are clearly uneducated on the subject. 

You have not provided a single shred of an argument to suggest that there is a remotely valid reason that pit bulls should be muzzled in public. 

Additionally you keep talking about statistics by government agencies that prove pits are more dangerous. Even though such statistics do not exist. The CDC's data is nothing more than a compilation of media and er reports. It even says it in the Study. You choose to ignore that. 

You also speak of pit bulls as being bred to be aggressive. But fail to grasp that dog aggression and human aggression are two completely different things....


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

Xeph said:


> Finkie_Mom, I can't wait to see you in Philly xD


Hahaha, I do what I can


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

If you are right Shaun, then why did BSL fail in Britain?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> I'm talking about pointing them at someone. Don't be stupid. And there are several places where you can't carry guns-period.


I am not being stupid.... 

You are changing your comments.
This is exactly what you said.


Shaun_ said:


> I own several guns, but I have never shot anyone. Therefor, I should be able to take it everywhere, right? Thats the same logic thats being tossed around here, yet my arguments are 'asinine'. The only difference between a gun and a Pitbull is that guns don't have the ability to use themselves.


When it came back on you, you changed your argument.

And you keep speaking of a lot of places you can't carry your gun... It is not many.....
Places Off-Limits While Carrying:
-ANY Courthouse
-ANY Federal Property
(Federal Offices/National Parks/Post Offices)
-Detention Facilities (Adult & Juvenile)
-Military Facilities (Unless Authorized)
-Bars or Restaurants Serving Alcoholic Beverages
(Open Carry is allowed)
-Air Carrier Airport Terminals
(Ticketed Passenger Baggage Exempt)
-Place of Worship During Religious Service §18.2-283 "Without
Good and Sufficient Reason" (Many churches have schools!)
-Private Property / Business When Prohibited by Owner or Posted
-Public/Private/Parochial School Buses
-Public/Private/Parochial School Functions
-Public/Private/Parochial School Property (CHP Holders INSIDE
Vehicles are Exempt, i.e. picking up or dropping off student)
-State Parks
(CHP holders CCW Permitted; Open Carry Not Allowed)
-Virginia Commonwealth University


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

+two said:


> If you are right Shaun, then why did BSL fail *everywhere*?


I fixed it for you.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Shaun_ said:


> This went from a discussion concerning state law to you making personal attacks at me.
> ...Pat yourself on the back for that one. I hope you don't own a Pit.


Wow, no one here has attacked you however you have attacked every Pit Bull owner on this board.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Well, to be fair, I've had more constructive discussions with Shambles and I've seen Shambles get his head stuck in the toilet seat.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

Coming in as someone new to this thread, I see a lot of sarcastic comments to each other. I can understand totally from where you are coming from, and I'm not a moderator here at all, but guys c'mon....let's be civil about this. There's no need to insult or be sarcastic, let's talk about why you all are disagreeing as adults. And please read what I have to say before you assume I'm either with or against this thread. With that being said...

Obviously Ohio had to go through a lot of complaints to get where they are now with all these PB laws against them. I will say this about PB's and my experience with them when I was a kennel employee. I got bit slightly by a Golden/Cocker mix, was growled at by a Golden/Spaniel mix. Never was I bitten by a PB or a PB mix; I have trusted only two PBs in my life so far and one was mixed with a Boxer. I understand they are a gentle breed with children, adults, and other pets. 

But the fact is that too many of these dogs have been bred to fight. I have heard too many stories of them attacking their owners and others. It's hard to walk around, see a Pit, and not think of its awesome jaw power that it could use against you, your loved one, or your dog. Personally, I am very cautious when I approach one and I'm a bit scared when Luke approaches one. And I'm sorry, but I don't 100% trust one. 

And I totally agree about how humans have ruined their reputation as a breed. These so called "breeders" should be in jail for much longer than a year, should get a hefty fine, and never ever own any type of animal, let alone a dog, again. 

True there other dogs that are labeled "dangerous" and we're more likely to get hit by a car, but no one knows how any breed could react. My father, the other day, walked by a St. Bernard who lunged at him. Thankfully he wasn't bitten. 

But I do agree that there should be some restrictions against dogs that are labeled dangerous or are more capable of turning against you. I wish our complex would do more, but they don't. 

But being banned? Wrong way to go. Laws, yes. Banned, no.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Shaun_ said:


> Of all the babble in this thread, there still has not been one good argument against muzzles for Pits in public places.


Because it's not needed, how about that? Someone should stick one on you, though.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> Wow, no one here has attacked you however you have attacked every Pit Bull owner on this board.


Oh really? How so?


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> Coming in as someone new to this thread, I see a lot of sarcastic comments to each other. I can understand totally from where you are coming from, and I'm not a moderator here at all, but guys c'mon....let's be civil about this. There's no need to insult or be sarcastic, let's talk about why you all are disagreeing as adults. And please read what I have to say before you assume I'm either with or against this thread. With that being said...
> 
> Obviously Ohio had to go through a lot of complaints to get where they are now with all these PB laws against them. I will say this about PB's and my experience with them when I was a kennel employee. I got bit slightly by a Golden/Cocker mix, was growled at by a Golden/Spaniel mix. Never was I bitten by a PB or a PB mix; I have trusted only two PBs in my life so far and one was mixed with a Boxer. I understand they are a gentle breed with children, adults, and other pets.
> 
> ...


Did you even read the thread(or the dozens of past pit bull threads)?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> Coming in as someone new to this thread, I see a lot of sarcastic comments to each other. I can understand totally from where you are coming from, and I'm not a moderator here at all, but guys c'mon....let's be civil about this. There's no need to insult or be sarcastic, let's talk about why you all are disagreeing as adults. And please read what I have to say before you assume I'm either with or against this thread. With that being said...
> 
> Obviously Ohio had to go through a lot of complaints to get where they are now with all these PB laws against them. I will say this about PB's and my experience with them when I was a kennel employee. I got bit slightly by a Golden/Cocker mix, was growled at by a Golden/Spaniel mix. Never was I bitten by a PB or a PB mix; I have trusted only two PBs in my life so far and one was mixed with a Boxer. I understand they are a gentle breed with children, adults, and other pets.
> 
> ...


Most of your fears or concerns are based on myth.... 

1) They were bred to fight dogs not people.... Two different things and two different drives controlling them.

2) The do not have awesome jaw power.... No locking ability or anything else you have heard. They bite no harder than any other dog in their size class. GSD, etc bite MUCH harder than a pit bull. Heck a Lab, though never tested to my knowledge, is most likely capable of biting harder.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

Yes, I have read all seven of these pages. No, I haven't read any other thread containing PBs. Could you give me some threads stating where they don't have that jaw power? Thank you.

I would reply later to other posts here, but it's time for me to eat dinner now. Have a good night all.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Finkie_Mom said:


> Why would you leave a baby (or any young child for that matter) in front of ANY dog?
> 
> And as for your other questions:



Out of all the points made in this thread, you're gonna drop the red herring routine on me. Talk about selective reading....


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

There are about 70 million dogs in the US ... and it is estimated that out of all our dogs nearly 25% are pit bull type dogs. It would be very strange if they didn't cause the most damage ... just as they apparently also stand for the most enjoyment people have with dogs.

If there was a muzzle law for all dogs, say over a certain weight or height, do anyone really think that the ones who chain dogs outside 24/7, or make an effort to poke, hit, and otherwise mistreat the dog to make it mean, would muzzle their dog? The only ones muzzling the dogs would be us ordinary people who have well behaved "good" dogs.
Several European countries introduced muzzle laws for certain breeds ... Just like with UK, it hasn't helped at all. Many of those countries have also revoked their laws.

Oh ... and about guns ... how many people leave a loaded gun with a toddler ... and how many leave their toddler alone with their "back yard" dog? Often a dog that never gets exercised or mentally stimulated, definitely no training ... yet they expect it to just know what is right and what is wrong ... by human standards.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> Yes, I have read all seven of these pages. No, I haven't read any other thread containing PBs. Could you give me some threads stating where they don't have that jaw power? Thank you.
> 
> I would reply later to other posts here, but it's time for me to eat dinner now. Have a good night all.


I can do better than that....

How about a video?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xiahmp_which-dog-has-the-biggest-bite_animals


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

She was attacked by a Pit. But its ok though, my cousin knows a guy who knows a guys cousin who was killed via electrocution while watching youtube on is laptop while dropping his morning dookers.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/child-attacked-by-pitbull-20110920

I'm sure the two year old girl in this Boston headline deserved to be bitten the stomach as she waited for a taxi with her Mother.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Im also sure that these 3 children got what was coming to them as well.... Because as we all know, Pits only attack other dogs..

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/04/third_new_orleans_child_attack.html


----------



## Mdawn (Mar 3, 2007)

If your going to go that route of showing pictures of dog attack victims...don't leave out the woman who had to have a face transplant because of a LAB. (search world's first face transplant recipient)

Or maybe TWAB can show a picture when her forehead was laid open basically by her Dachshund.

Or the time my boyfriend nearly had his throat ripped open by a Cocker Spaniel.....


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

If you want to have an intelligent debate, then lets have it, but your arguments have gotten absurd. Posting a picture of a mauled woman doesn't do anything to prove your point. I could just as easily post a picture of a person mauled by some other breed. 

The only way to know if BSL works is to try it. Several cities and countries have, and the evidence has come back. _It hasn't had any positive effect on preventing fatal dog attacks. _ What more evidence do people need than to see that over 10 years, it hasn't worked. 

*Please show me an example of where BSL was enacted and fatalities by dog bite have gone down. *


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't know where you're getting the idea that anybody thinks that people deserve to be attacked. Of course not. But dog attacks happen. It's part of keeping an animal in close contact with humans. But pit bulls are not proportionately more likely to attack humans. And muzzling laws will not prevent attacks. Irresponsible owners do not obey the laws.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

You guessed it, almost licked to death by a Pit....


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

I am practicing an immense amount of restraint out of respect for the people on this forum, most of the pictures from Pit attacks are absolutely horrifying.


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

+two said:


> If you want to have an intelligent debate, then lets have it, but your arguments have gotten absurd. Posting a picture of a mauled woman doesn't do anything to prove your point. I could just as easily post a picture of a person mauled by some other breed.
> 
> The only way to know if BSL works is to try it. Several cities and countries have, and the evidence has come back. _It hasn't had any positive effect on preventing fatal dog attacks. _ What more evidence do people need than to see that over 10 years, it hasn't worked.
> 
> *Please show me an example of where BSL was enacted and fatalities by dog bite have gone down. *


Do D.U.I charges and traffic stops prevent ALL drunk driving?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Here's a story about a Labrador Retriever that attacked a child:
http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=65161&catid=222



> I am practicing an immense amount of restraint out of respect for the people on this forum


Laughable.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Bit in the face by an 11 lbs miniature Dachshund. Taken TWO MONTHS after the bite occurred. My eyes were still swollen: 










What are we proving here? That some people have cameras and document dog bites?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Here's another one!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

Shaun_ said:


> Do D.U.I charges and traffic stops prevent ALL drunk driving?



I'm not sure what your point is? Please explain. 

DUI charges and traffic stops (I assume) have brought down the prevalence of driving under the influence. 

What effect has BSL had? (I am asking you Shaun)


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

Dogs dont attack people....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGUyMFPJRnU


----------



## Shaun_ (Oct 21, 2011)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Bit in the face by an 11 lbs miniature Dachshund. Taken TWO MONTHS after the bite occurred. My eyes were still swollen:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I assume you were abusing the dog, because dogs dont attack people....


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

*insert eyeroll here*

Not a single person has said dogs don't attack people. What HAS been said is that statistics are #1 a numbers game, and #2, Pits are no more dangerous than any other breed.

They do not have superior jaw strength, they are not bred/were not created to be human aggressive, and, with proper breeding and raising, they are no more harmless than any other dog.

Oh, and here's an article about a toddler that was sent to the hospital after being bitten by a Labrador Retriever (At this point, I think we need to ban Labs)
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/07/dog_attacks_injures_2-year-old.html


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Shaun_ said:


> I assume you were abusing the dog, because dogs dont attack people....


When you think about it, yes I was. He was from a glorified puppy mill at the age of three. He was severely shut down and terrified. Was I hitting or starving him? Nope. I was kissing him. Despite all the warning signs he was giving to me to stop, I did not stop, he could not get away, and so I rightfully received that bite and subsequent hospital trips and the scar I wear now.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Shuan has repeatedly ignored the facts, chosen to accept urban legend as gospel and when that failed resorted to posting pictures.....

It means you have no argument left. Whether you will admit it or not, you have accepted defeat.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

Shaun_ said:


> I am practicing an immense amount of restraint out of respect for the people on this forum, most of the pictures from Pit attacks are absolutely horrifying.


If about a fourth of all dogs in the US are Pits ... isn't it logic then that there also are more pit attacks than from other breeds?

Mostly what I'd like to know Shaun, is how all those children could be badly bit/mauled by the dog ... where were the parents? What did the child do at the time? Did the dog have any training?

If someone gets a dog and don't exercise it, don't give it any mental stimulation and no training ... how is it the dogs fault if it doesn't know how to behave when it's left with the family's child?


----------



## ladyshadowhollyjc (Oct 28, 2008)

I'm not saying that it's not unfortunate that these people were attacked by dogs, and I'm certainly not downplaying their injuries, but honestly if those dogs really wanted to kill those people, then I am 100% sure those people would have been dead. 

All of those news articles are so vague. A mother and child were waiting for a taxi and out of no where a pit bull just walks up and bites this kid in the stomach? That just sounds so unbelievable. I really can't believe that is the entire story there. It's not like pit bulls break out of their yards specifically to hunt down children so they can kill them...


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

ladyshadowhollyjc said:


> I'm not saying that it's not unfortunate that these people were attacked by dogs, and I'm certainly not downplaying their injuries, but honestly if those dogs really wanted to kill those people, then I am 100% sure those people would have been dead.
> 
> All of those news articles are so vague. A mother and child were waiting for a taxi and out of no where a pit bull just walks up and bites this kid in the stomach? That just sounds so unbelievable. I really can't believe that is the entire story there. It's not like pit bulls break out of their yards specifically to hunt down children so they can kill them...


There was a good one from my city recently that I am very skeptical of. The dog attacked a 14 year old boy that was apart of a group of other teenagers. I'd eat my hat if they weren't messing with this dog in some way.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

I'm thinking of the dogs I meet IRL here and the ones that need a muzzle is the pomeranian, yellow lab mix and golden retriever. The two nicest dogs? A pit mix and chow chow, that lives most of his time outside.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> Do D.U.I charges and traffic stops prevent ALL drunk driving?


no but that's not the point being made.

the point being made..to incorporate your DUI example..is that we don't single out one particular aspect of people at random and make half assed attempts to correlate it with drunk driving numbers. 

dog bite prevention MUST apply to ALL breeds. that is the point. that is the contention and it's been pretty damn successfully argued because the places where they do have BSL and muzzling type laws...bites have not gone down. AND in places with non breed specific legislation..not only have bites gone waaaaaaaaaay down, adoption rates are hitting 90s in percentages due to the more efficient Animal Control structure. 

and we might want to look at the criteria used to classify dog bites as well when we look at the numbers. 

as for your attempt at shocking people, it's lame. it's been done before. i could post just as many stories of pits saving lives and not only being good dogs...but being outstanding dogs. I could also post horror stories of babies being mauled by pomerainians and people's fingers needing to be amputated after an attack by a golden retriever. it doesn't prove anything. except collectively...

...shows that all dogs bite. all breeds bite. all dogs of all breeds have the potential to cause significant harm. to ignore that fact is to do a seriously disrespectful ***k move on people who have been bitten. you're just being reactionary to be reactionary. take more than just a cursory, emotionally fueled glimpse at the information available. then you'll be worth listening to.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

While we all know Wiki isn't the best source for all info all the time, I happened to stumble across human fatalities caused by dogs.

The number of dogs that were listed as "Pit Bull type" tells you everything and nothing at the same time.

The American Pit Bull Terrier, aka the Pit Bull is a breed of dog....not a type of dog (not really). So those "Pit Type" dogs could have been anything from Boxers to Bull Terriers to Boston Terriers (yes, Bostons have been mistaken as Pits). That's a problem.

Another thing I noticed on the Wiki? A lot of the maulings/fatalities involved chained dogs and/or young children alone with dogs.

A couple were infants....5 days or 5 weeks old. A dog doesn't have to maul a baby to kill it. All they have to do is accidentally knock that child out of somebody's arms, the baby, with its tons of fontanelles (soft spots), hits the floor, and bam....kid dies. And the dog takes the rap for the death.

I would like to be VERY CLEAR that I understand that these infants could have been mauled, but a curious, over zealous large dog could just as easily be the issue (if not the more likely scenario) than a dog ripping a child from an adult's arms and going on a blood rage.


----------



## ladyshadowhollyjc (Oct 28, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> There was a good one from my city recently that I am very skeptical of. The dog attacked a 14 year old boy that was apart of a group of other teenagers. I'd eat my hat if they weren't messing with this dog in some way.


Yeah, a few weeks ago a local police officer said he was "charged" by a pit bull in his own neighborhood. So he shot the dog eight times. 

Turns out, he saw the dog running around the neighborhood. So he went to the owner's house to see it they were home, and magically the dog (that was roaming the neighborhood) was then on his owner's property on their front porch. Apparently that's when the dog ran up to him and the cop hit him a couple of times with his baton and then shot the dog 8 times until he feel over dead. 

And this guy is now a hero for treaspassing on someone's property and shooting the dog. Nice.


----------



## Mac'N'Roe (Feb 15, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> Hmmm..... Labs are widely known for their good temperament, Pits were trained to fight. I wonder which gene is responsible for a mix being overly aggressive..


who said the mix was a lab/pit mix? the point is, most of the dogs labeled pit-bull types are actually a lab mix (not necessarily a lab mixed with a pit). just a lab mix.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

Mac'N'Roe said:


> who said the mix was a lab/pit mix? the point is, most of the dogs labeled pit-bull types are actually a lab mix (not necessarily a lab mixed with a pit). just a lab mix.


Thank you! Someone actually understood the point I was trying to make. xD


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Mac'N'Roe said:


> who said the mix was a lab/pit mix? the point is, most of the dogs labeled pit-bull types are actually a lab mix (not necessarily a lab mixed with a pit). just a lab mix.


AND even if they were somehow all correctly identified (which they are by far NOT) there are a lot more APBT around than other breeds so in order to uncover any significant correlation between attacks and the breed you'd have to figure out an average number of bites for all breeds so that they could be compared logically, accounting for the various numbers of those dogs owned. For instance, if you're comparing pits and say, papillons, and let's say there are 500 dogs registered as APBT and only 50 registered as papillons, then if the APBT had overwhelmingly greater number of bites it wouldn't necessarily indicate anything about the breed beyond the fact that it's popular. In that case 50 bites by pits and 5 by papillons would actually be the same percentage of bites within the breed (10%), so it would indicate the same level of "aggressiveness" or "viciousness".

Can you see then how some of the statistics being thrown around in this thread might be a little off?


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

Shaun_ said:


> "... just because it's a constitutional right...."


I think we have the measure of Shaun_ now.

And the measure of his/her nanny state arguments for trying to legislate all danger away, even in the face of such underwhelming numbers. Not saying that bites aren't tragic, from any breed. But to suggest that millions of dogs should be muzzled at all times in public because a very small fraction bite or that only PBs should be muzzled when all breeds bite is just ridiculous.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

Shaun_ said:


> Out of all the points made in this thread, you're gonna drop the red herring routine on me. Talk about selective reading....


Wouldn't you do the same if Lance Armstrong went to Mars? What about if someone was about to throw a kitten off the top of a building? Wouldn't you drop the red herring card if a laser-equipped Shih Tzu was driving down the street, clearly intoxicated, with illegally acquired arms, firing at stop signs and pigeons? What then??


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> Yes, I have read all seven of these pages. No, I haven't read any other thread containing PBs. Could you give me some threads stating where they don't have that jaw power? Thank you.
> 
> I would reply later to other posts here, but it's time for me to eat dinner now. Have a good night all.


The jaw power issue is a myth, the are middle of the pack on jaw power falling behind the GSD and Rottweiler. 

_Pitbull pressure bite was 235 lbs 
German Shepherd bite was 238-850 lbs 
Bulldog bite was 305 lbs
Wild Dogs bite force was 317 lbs 
Rottweiler bite force was 328-350 lbs 
Wolf bite force was 406-1800 lbs_
_tosa inu was 556 lbs_
_Turkish Kangal was -350-714 lbs_
_dutch shepherd 235 lbs_
_karelian bear dog 245 lbs_
_belgian malinois 135 lbs 
_

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_dog_breed_has_the_strongest_bite_force#ixzz1baO6vYLM

Oh and here is the ASPCA's position on BSL, Mentioned is Winnipeg and Calgary's agressive dog laws, some of the most effective bite reducing laws in the world http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation-1.aspx

_Enhanced enforcement of dog license laws, with adequate fees to augment animal control budgets and surcharges on ownership of unaltered dogs to help fund low-cost pet sterilization programs in the communities in which the fees are collected. To ensure a high licensing rate, Calgary, Canada—its animal control program funded entirely by license fees and fines—imposes a $250 penalty for failure to license a dog over three months of age (Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw, 2006)._
_Laws that mandate the sterilization of shelter animals, ideally before adoption, and make low-cost sterilization services widely available. (See ASPCA Position Statement on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws, 2008[link]) _

_Enhanced enforcement of leash/dog-at-large laws, with adequate penalties to ensure that the laws are taken seriously and to augment animal control funding._
_Dangerous dog laws that are breed-neutral and focus on the behavior of the individual guardian and dog (taking care to ensure that common puppy behaviors such as jumping up, rough play and nipping are not deemed evidence of dangerousness). Graduated penalties should include mandated sterilization and microchipping (or other permanent identification) of dogs deemed dangerous, and options for mandating muzzling, confinement, adult supervision, training and owner education. In aggravated circumstances—such as where the dog seriously injures or kills a person, or a qualified behaviorist who has personally evaluated the dog determines that the dog poses a substantial risk of such behavior—euthanasia may be justified. In Multnomah County, Oregon, a breed-neutral ordinance imposing graduated penalties on dogs and guardians according to the seriousness of the dog’s behavior has reduced repeat injurious bites from 25 percent to seven percent (Bradley, 2006)._

_Laws that hold dog guardians financially accountable for a failure to adhere to animal control laws, as well as civilly and criminally liable for unjustified injuries or damage caused by their dogs. Calgary, Canada, has reduced reported incidents of aggression by 56 percent and its bite incidents by 21 percent by requiring guardians of dogs who have displayed aggression to dogs or to humans to pay fines ranging from $250 to $1500 (Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw, 2006)._

_Laws that prohibit chaining or tethering (taking care also to prohibit unreasonable confinement once a dog is removed from a chain), coupled with enhanced enforcement of animal cruelty and animal fighting laws. Lawrence, Kansas, significantly reduced dog fighting and cruelty complaints by enacting an ordinance prohibiting tethering a dog for more than one hour (Belt, 2006). _

_Further, the ASPCA supports *a community-based approach to resolving the reckless guardian/dangerous dog question whereby all stakeholders—animal control, animal shelters, medical and veterinary professionals, civic groups, teachers, public officials—collectively identify an appropriate dog bite prevention strategy.* Central to this model is an “advisory council or task force representing a wide spectrum of community concerns and perspectives” whose members review available dog bite data, current laws, and “sources of ineffectiveness” and recommend realistic and enforceable policy, coupled with outreach to the media and educational efforts directed at those in regular contact with “dog owners and potential victims” (e.g., medical and veterinary professionals, animal control/shelters, teachers) (AVMA, 2001). _

_In summary, the ASPCA advocates the implementation of a community dog bite prevention program encompassing media and educational outreach in conjunction with the enactment, and vigorous enforcement, *of breed-neutral laws that focus on the irresponsible and dangerous behavior of individual guardians and their dogs.* The ASPCA believes that this approach—promoting education in the appropriate care, training and supervision of dogs as well as state and local laws that address licensing, reproductive status, chaining/improper confinement, cruel treatment and at-large dogs; imposing civil and criminal liability on guardians for their negligent and reckless behavior; and targeting problematic dogs and guardians early with progressively escalating penalties—constitutes the most compassionate, fair, efficient and ultimately effective means of resolving concerns related to dangerous dogs in the community. _
_*References* _
_American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions, 2001. A community approach to dog bite prevention. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 218, 1732-1746. _
_Belt, M., 2006. “Dog fighting, animal cruelty cases on decline.” Lawrence Journal-World & News. 6 September 2006. Online at: __http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep/06/dog_fighting_animal_cruelty_cases_decline/__. _
_Bradley, J., 2006. Dog Bites: Problems and Solutions. Animals and Society Institute, 11. _
_Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw, 23M2006. Online at: __http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/cityclerks/23m2006.pdf__.
Capp, D., 2004. American Pit Bull Terriers: Fact or Fiction? The Truth Behind One of America’s Most Popular Breeds. Phoenix, Arizona: Doral Publishing, Inc. _
_Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) [Online]. (2009) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (producer). Available from: Online at: __www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars__. [accessed October 19, 2009]. _
_Collier, S., 2006. Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified? Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 1, 17-22._
_Council Bluffs, IA, Reported Bite Statistics, 2003-06. _
_Delise, K., 2007, National Canine Research Council Year-End Report on Fatal Dog Attacks. Online at: 
__http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/year-end-report-20071.pdf__._
_Gershman, K., Sacks, J., Wright, J., 1994. Which dogs bite: A case control study of risk factors. Pediatrics 93, 913-917. _
_Klaassen, B., Buckley, J.R., Esmail, A., 1996. Does the Dangerous Dogs Act protect against animal attacks: a prospective study of mammalian bites in the Accident and Emergency department. Injury 27, 89-91. _
_Lockwood, R. 1999. The ethology and epidemiology of canine aggression, The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People. Serpell, J. (ed), Cambridge University Press, 1995; republished in Favre, D., and Borchelt, PL (eds), Animal Law and Dog Behavior, Tucson, Arizona: Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company Inc., 132-134_
_Lord, L.K., Wittum, T.E., Ferketich, A.K., Funk, J.A., Rajala-Schultz, P., Kauffman, R.M., 2006. Demographic trends for animal care and control agencies in Ohio from 1996 to 2004. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 229, 48-54._
_Ott, S.A., Schalke, E., von Gaertner, A.M., Hackbarth, H., 2007. Is there a difference? Comparison of golden retrievers and dogs affected by breed specific legislation regarding aggressive behavior. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 2, 92. _
_Prince George’s County Vicious Animal Legislation Task Force, 2003. Online at: __http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Research/PGCMD/PGCMTOC1.htm__._
_Rosado, B., Garci’a-Belenguer, S., Leo’n, M., Palacio, J., 2007. Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications 2, 166-174. _
_Sacks, J., Sinclair, L., Gilchrist, J., Golab, G., Lockwood, R., 2000. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 217, 836-840. _
_Shuler, C.M., DeBess, E.E., Lapidus, J.A. Hedberg, K., 2008. Canine and human factors related to dog bite injuries. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 232, 542-546._
_Taylor, R., 2009. Personal communication with Debora M. Bresch._
_ Voith, V., Ingram, E., Mitsouras, K. and Irizarry, K., 2009. Comparison of adoption agency identification and DNA breed identification of dogs, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 12, 253-262._
_Wapner, M., Wilson, J., 2000. Are laws prohibiting ownership of pit bull-type dogs legally enforceable? Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 216, 1552-1554. _
_Wensley, Sean, 2008. Animal welfare and the human-animal bond: Considerations for veterinary faculty, students and practitioners. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 35, 532-539._
_Winnipeg, CA, Reported Bite Statistics, 1984-2003.
_


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

I have seen the video and silly me forgot about how hard a Dutch Shepherd can bite. I saw that one show on Animal Planet, but you all must know that it is hard for people to hear these stories and not fear these dogs. They are built strongly, do have a bite power that can latch on otherwise people who breed them to fight wouldn't breed a Chihuahua. 

As much as I've seen the "could be a PB or PB mix", one still has to wonder what the other side of the story is. I will give an example: I love the environment and chose to believe in global warming, then I wasn't sure because this one website and magazine I got kept up the pressure of it, so I chose to see the other side...I found out I'm still on the fence about "climate change". 

As far as PBs are concerned, there are still two sides. People don't train these dogs right and look what happens...laws against them. I know they aren't blood thirsty killers waiting for a stray child to walk around and attack, that's just crazy! But I still will not trust them fully. The only two I did trust was a PB/Boxer mix who I really liked playing with at the kennel and one that's fearful near my dog...and my dog is a Coton!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> but you all must know that it is hard for people to hear these stories and not fear these dogs


What I know is that it's easier to be afraid than to educate yourself. If people are still afraid of the breed after being educated, fine, but happily burying themselves in ignorance to hold on to their fear is ludicrous.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> I have seen the video and silly me forgot about how hard a Dutch Shepherd can bite. I saw that one show on Animal Planet, but you all must know that it is hard for people to hear these stories and not fear these dogs. They are built strongly, do have a bite power that can latch on otherwise people who breed them to fight wouldn't breed a Chihuahua.
> 
> As much as I've seen the "could be a PB or PB mix", one still has to wonder what the other side of the story is. I will give an example: I love the environment and chose to believe in global warming, then I wasn't sure because this one website and magazine I got kept up the pressure of it, so I chose to see the other side...I found out I'm still on the fence about "climate change".
> 
> As far as PBs are concerned, there are still two sides. People don't train these dogs right and look what happens...laws against them. I know they aren't blood thirsty killers waiting for a stray child to walk around and attack, that's just crazy! But I still will not trust them fully. The only two I did trust was a PB/Boxer mix who I really liked playing with at the kennel and one that's fearful near my dog...and my dog is a Coton!



The other side of the situation...... Those same people that choose pit bulls, but neglect them, treat them badly, train them improperly, etc, will choose another type of dog. So nothing is solved and there is GREAT potential to make things worse.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> As far as PBs are concerned, there are still two sides. People don't train these dogs right and look what happens...laws against them. I know they aren't blood thirsty killers waiting for a stray child to walk around and attack, that's just crazy! *But I still will not trust them fully*. The only two I did trust was a PB/Boxer mix who I really liked playing with at the kennel and one that's fearful near my dog...and my dog is a Coton!


Here's what you seem to be missing, you shouldn't FULLY trust ANY dog you just met to be 100% safe and friendly. Breed doesn't matter. You should always be aware that any dog you encounter MIGHT be reactive or agressive. Every dog gets that respect from me and are judged by their actions not their breed.


----------



## Mac'N'Roe (Feb 15, 2008)

Xeph said:


> What I know is that it's easier to be afraid than to educate yourself. If people are still afraid of the breed after being educated, fine, but happily burying themselves in ignorance to hold on to their fear is ludicrous.


well said xeph.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> I have seen the video and silly me forgot about how hard a Dutch Shepherd can bite. I saw that one show on Animal Planet, but you all must know that it is hard for people to hear these stories and not fear these dogs. They are built strongly, do have a bite power that can latch on otherwise people who breed them to fight wouldn't breed a Chihuahua.
> 
> As much as I've seen the "could be a PB or PB mix", one still has to wonder what the other side of the story is. * I will give an example: I love the environment and chose to believe in global warming, then I wasn't sure because this one website and magazine I got kept up the pressure of it, so I chose to see the other side...I found out I'm still on the fence about "climate change".
> *
> As far as PBs are concerned, there are still two sides. People don't train these dogs right and look what happens...laws against them. I know they aren't blood thirsty killers waiting for a stray child to walk around and attack, that's just crazy! But I still will not trust them fully. The only two I did trust was a PB/Boxer mix who I really liked playing with at the kennel and one that's fearful near my dog...and my dog is a Coton!


lol, well in that case I'll find it hard to respect any of your opinions because you apparently evaluate sources which go against peer reviewed science with the same weight as those which ARE peer reviewed science. You can *believe* what you want about APBT and you can *believe* what you want about climate change but your *belief* based on inaccurate pseudo-science and myth IS simply that. An unfounded belief based on what you *want* to be true because it's more comforting or seems simpler. Then of course you evaluate all further information on the subject with a confirmation bias lending towards affirmation of your original BELIEF. Much evidence has been provided but you throw it all aside because it doesn't feel good to know that you can't trust every member of even your own breed of choice. It's more comforting to think climate change is simply a natural process and that banning one single breed can protect the world from dog aggression but sorry, the truth really isn't nearly that simple.

Jeez.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

dagwall said:


> Here's what you seem to be missing, you shouldn't FULLY trust ANY dog you just met to be 100% safe and friendly. Breed doesn't matter. You should always be aware that any dog you encounter MIGHT be reactive or agressive. Every dog gets that respect from me and are judged by their actions not their breed.


Exactly. ALL dogs have the potential to attack and seriously hurt someone. The thing most of these people seem to be missing however, is that Pit Bulls were actually bred to be very human friendly. They had to be human friendly, because humans were down in the pit with them while they were fighting. I'd trust a strange Pit Bull around my kids then a strange Lab any day.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

RCloud said:


> I'd trust a strange Pit Bull around my kids then a strange Lab any day.


This is kinda silly, the least of the reasons being that it would be extremely unwise to trust ANY strange dog around your kids -- pit bull, lab, or chihuahua. 

One thing I see a lot in these kinds of threads (not just here, but in the multitudes of dog-related discussion things that I am a part of -- seriously, it's a sickness) is an undercurrent of an argument being made of "look at all THESE OTHER VICIOUS BREEDS that are WAY WORSE THAN PITS!!!" and I don't think that's an argument that we, as dog lovers, want to be making. Usually it's the beloved Labs or Goldens that get the brunt of this defense, or some of the more notoriously fiery small breeds. 

I completely understand the reasoning behind it, and I strongly believe any sort of BSL is a moronic type of policy making, but think of how sometimes the arguments contradict. One argument (a GOOD argument) is that human aggression is independent of breed and has a lot more to do with the dog's direct bloodlines (for example, if it had parents or grandparents with a bite record) and with the corresponding environment (and largely the human influence, or lack of a human influence). Then, the other is that you're really more likely to get bit by a dachshund or a golden or a lab than a "pit bull type", so the legislation is completely unfair!

I just think that the best stance to take on this issue is that all breed-specific legislation is both unfounded and ineffective, not that there are other breeds of dogs that would be more appropriate targets for BSL. 

And I don't think ANYONE is really meaning to suggest that, or to say anything that inadvertently supports that! I just think, especially to people whose brains don't go "omg dogs", that those sorts of conclusions can easily be drawn. "I shouldn't just be afraid of pits, I should be afraid of ALL dogs! We should start restricting the ownership of ALL breeds! For the children!"

And I think that would be unfortunate.


----------



## luvsmymutt (Feb 22, 2010)

I've seen arguments of this nature before. Not Pitty vs the world like this one specifically, but Evolution vs Creationism (Intelligent Design AKA) The problem is this. One side is arguing from BELIEF and one side is arguing from FACT. The Belief side finds facts to support their belief. The fact side, makes a decision after the facts are heard. They cannot be reconciled. If someone believes the sky is green, no matter how much data and information you give them, they will still believe it's green. Some people are just wired that way.

It also becomes very difficult to not argue your BELIEF, so that while you be believe you are on the side of FACT you are just finding fact to support your belief. I try very hard to see this in myself and work to make sure I understand what I believe and WHY.

But from a political/law making point of view. It is very difficult to legislate peoples intelligence or intention. And with dogs it's about both. Some people do not know how to raise the type of dog they have (no matter the breed) and some have bad intentions while training.

A muzzle law won't stop it. People who are ignorant or criminally intent won't muzzle their pit. And do we really need those people in JAIL? sigh. or get fined? and not the fine.. seriously.

banning the breed makes for even more BYB's and badly bred ABPT's (to use it loosely) and things could actually get worse.

Education - as usual - is the key. Educate don't legislate. You want to reduce dog attacks? Get involved - like many here! - with training dogs and owners. Do NOT stand on a shakey soap box and preach. I really can't stand people whining from the sidelines.

and by the way.. *shaun*...did you join dog forums just to bitch about pit bulls?


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

CricketLoops said:


> This is kinda silly, the least of the reasons being that it would be extremely unwise to trust ANY strange dog around your kids -- pit bull, lab, or chihuahua.
> 
> One thing I see a lot in these kinds of threads (not just here, but in the multitudes of dog-related discussion things that I am a part of -- seriously, it's a sickness) is an undercurrent of an argument being made of "look at all THESE OTHER VICIOUS BREEDS that are WAY WORSE THAN PITS!!!" and I don't think that's an argument that we, as dog lovers, want to be making. Usually it's the beloved Labs or Goldens that get the brunt of this defense, or some of the more notoriously fiery small breeds.
> 
> ...


I think you missed my point. But that's okay.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

RCloud said:


> I think you missed my point. But that's okay.


I think you missed mine.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

CricketLoops said:


> I think you missed mine.


No, I'm pretty sure I didn't lol.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

To clear up my point.



> "look at all THESE OTHER VICIOUS BREEDS that are WAY WORSE THAN PITS!!!"


LOL this was not my point nor what I said xD I don't believe in "vicious breeds". Lab was used as an example, because labs are often said to be dogs that are gentle and non-aggressive. I could have used a Saint Bernard or a Collie if you would of rathered. Obvious common sense for anyone with kids and strange dogs is don't trust them alone. Any dog, period. However, Pit Bulls have an extra affection and love towards humans that have made them more gentle and patient towards them, more so then a lot of other dogs. This doesn't make other breeds "vicious", but it does mean a Pit Bull is more likely to tolerate a kid poking them or pulling on it's tail (which is also common sense not to allow a kid to do, but it happens). This is why Pit Bulls were number 1 dogs back in the day for families with small kids and were called "nanny dogs". It was bred into them to specifically to love people, because back in the days of breeding Pit Bulls for dog fighting, they needed a dog that wouldn't turn on the humans down in the fighting pits. But this has all been said over and over.

I don't trust any strange dog with my kids, but I'd be a lot more at ease with them around a Pit Bull then any other breed.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

RCloud said:


> To clear up my point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know what point you're trying to make but this is a poor argument. Individual dogs earn trust. 
Generalizations aren't going to help anybody.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Tofu_pup said:


> I know what point you're trying to make but this is a poor argument. Individual dogs earn trust.
> Generalizations aren't going to help anybody.


You can argue back and forth but the above reply is where it's at.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

It's not generalizing, but I'm not going to argue.


----------

