# Pitbull mauls its owner during family argument



## Katmandu (Dec 17, 2008)

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...mily-argument-1316826.html?cxntnid=dlh-012312


> Pitbull mauls its owner during family argument
> Dayton woman seriously injured, another hurt; dog is quarantined.
> 
> Updated 9:13 AM Monday, January 23, 2012
> ...


 So why did this dog do so much damage ?

What did the owner of this dog do wrong ?


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Who knows? We know nothing, based on that, about the dog's true breed*, history, temperament or training. We have no idea how the owners treated it, how much they exercised it, if they ever abused it, or what was involved during the fight. 

Literally, we know nothing, so we can say nothing.


*People are notoriously bad about calling dogs that bite pit bulls, and at identifying pit bull breeds in general. That could have been anything.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I like that the police officer said that _any dog_ can get ramped up in the middle of an argument with people yelling and gesturing. There aren't enough details about what happened, though, to know what anyone did "wrong" (how loud were they being? Did the argument turn violent? Did anyone hit or kick at the dog itself? Stuff like that). I hope this doesn't turn into another "evil pit" story.


----------



## Canaqua (Sep 27, 2011)

Yeah, I'm very curious as to whether there was any physical altercation involved. Our ACD mix would most certainly get involved herself if there were any hitting, pushing or physical threatening going on in our household. Fortunately, no one argues that way! She even gets upset when boys are play wrestling, they are not allowe to play fight in front of the dog, she will go after who ever she considers to be the aggressor, even when it involves two members of her own family.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Yeah, that's why I wondered if it had turned violent. My last dog was very protective in that way, too. Once I was walking with my brother and Scout, and my brother playfully shoved me. Scout got between us and kind of pushed him back (no biting and no playing, just a, "Hey, don't do that" sort of thing). He would always get between me and "scary" people and bare his teeth, as well (like the two drugged up kids who tried to pat him one night, or the very drunk man who was harassing him). He never bit anyone in his life, but he was a confident dog and I know he would have reacted with force if anyone had ever struck me.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Once, just playing around, my husband playfully "punched" me in the face and I yelled "ouch". Muggsy went berserk, barking, jumping and crying. And that was just a playful moment, not preceded by an actual fight. And Muggsy was devoted to both of us and a remarkably gentle dog with humans.

Plus, I love this:

_"This could have very quickly (become) a fatal bite if it was a little bit deeper,” said Sgt. Donald Burden, of the Dayton police. “It could have possibly opened up an artery and (the victim) could have bled to death very quickly.”_

That's right, were it a completely different bite in a different place, it would have had different results. Amazing! Nothing like a pit bull panic first thing Monday morning.


----------



## Canaqua (Sep 27, 2011)

Yep, and it's highly unlikely that Sgt. Burden is also a physician who examined the woman and determined exactly how close the bite was to a major artery.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Shoot Izze almost bit fiancée yesterday bc he was playing wih Jo, with a stick, twirling it around so she could chase it, Izze thought (I guess) that he was hurting her so she went after him.

Any dog can get excited & make a mistake, I mean they are only animals of course, we aren't perfect why should we expect our animals to be? Poor dog thought (if I had to make a guess, given the lack of info) he was doing a good thing & will prolly be euthed for it .


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Also, since they said they kept the dog "for protection', they may have trained him to attack in certain situations. Shug's owner taught her to attack anyone attacking her, but Shug gets confused and "attacks" (so far she hasn't gone past barking and tugging on the person's pants leg) whoever is closest. We can't play wrestle around her because it gets herr going.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Pretty common if you ask me, dogs often will think they need to protect someone even if it is protecting one of it's owners from the other.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Since we are all getting so confessional about past dogs behavior I will throw in that I had a dog many years ago that was naturally very protective of me. He must have thought me a wimp or something. He out weighed me by 30 pounds so maybe that was it but he was also very obedient and was a registered therapy dog. He pulled kids around in the sleigh or wagon, would lay on his belly while the infant crawled all over him, and would let puppies tear at his ears and bounce all over him. In other words, he was a very very gentle, well socialized dog. My ex (wasn't ex at the time) came in and startled me by giving me a huge tight hug which caused me to say "Ouch!" and in a second that big Rottie boy was across the room, in between my ex and I and I and had given a warning nip right in his private region. It was just a nip or the privates might have been gone. My point being, any dog can react like that. In my case it wasn't domestic violence as it sounds like might have been the case in the story above. Dogs can get very very revved up in those cases especially where alcohol is involved.



> Stroud said the dog had never acted like it did on Sunday.
> “It bit her all over, tore her up from head to toe,” Stroud said while in tears. “We’ve had that dog since he was a puppy. We always wanted to keep him in the house for protection.”


 That statement from a family member just reads funny to me. Does that mean we didn't keep the dog in the house, but wanted to? Who knows, it might have been a very nice dog. I know that when violence is happening to a person, dogs can react badly. Also there is transferred aggression, if owner was holding the dog back while there was violence happening? Long story short is the article gives very little detail as to why something happened.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I once dated a man who thought my lab liked him more than he liked me. To "prove" it, he shoved me once without warning me in advance. I went flying and my lab bit him in the butt hard enough to leave double punctures. Who's to say that he wouldn't have done the same to me if the situation had been reversed.


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

Many years ago , yes I protection trained my Doberman, myself ... because I was in an abusive marriage. Needless to say the husband began a drunken altercation with me ... and the pup literally tore the shirt off his back. I kept my Doberman ... I got rid of the Husband.


----------



## Gigit (Dec 30, 2011)

I have to be honest here, this isn't for a bite issue, it was a severe mauling. I won't lie when I say I see a definate trend in bites vs maulings for this breed. I wouldn't have a pit, no offense to anyone, but when they bite they can do so with a viciousness like no other breed. I know this will get comments, probably negative, but this is a discussion forum and I'm discussing in an honest way.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

You're uninformed on this topic, and you're fairly new here, so you may not know that we've discussed all of this in-depth many times. You should do a forum search and read the many other threads on this topic so we don't have to rehash the main points again. Or just read this and save everyone some time: http://www.realpitbull.com/myths.html 

A couple of the main myths:



> *“Pit Bulls attack more people than any other breed.”*
> 
> Bite statistics are difficult to obtain accurately. Dogs that are referred to as “pit bulls” in
> statistical reports actually are a variety of breeds and mixes all lumped
> ...





> *“Pit Bulls have more bite pressure per square inch (PSI) than any
> other breed.” *
> 
> This is absolutely false.
> ...





> *"Dogs that are aggressive towards other dogs are aggressive
> towards people."*
> 
> Human aggression in dogs is entirely different than
> ...


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

Gigit-

The reason for the passion is this: I own two great pit bull mixes and I do fun and amazing things with them. They are fabulous dogs. I probably wouldn't want to own your dog either, too much hair, but that has nothing to do with anything. 

However, it hurts me to think that you see my two dogs as being somehow the same as the ones that maul. Mine haven't. Mine won't. But it sounds like, in your eyes, my cherished pets are killers because some others are. 

And you're a dog lover. 

The world is full of people who want my dogs to die because some other short coated, snub nose dog mauled someone.

Makes my heart break. That's where the passion and defensiveness comes from.


----------



## Gigit (Dec 30, 2011)

It's not about biting more often, it's about the viciousness of the attacks when they do bite. These aren't poodle bites were are talking about here. 

And I can understand the passion, I like Staffordshire Terriers, I think they are beautiful dogs. I'm just being honest when I say this breed tosses up major red flags for me. You can show me facts for your side of the argument and I'm sure I can show facts for mine. I don't want to go there and turn this into a hot debate or offend anyone, I'm just saying that this isn't about a bite it's about a mauling of a woman


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

Which Staffordshire terrier do you love? The American staffordshire terrier or the staffordshire bull terrier? Do you consider both to be the same? Do you consider them pit bulls?

This leads to some of the confusion. The breeds are really pretty different, the am-staff and the staffybull. And the American pit bull terrier people, by and large, do not see either breed as being pit bulls. But the public sees them as the same.

I have one AKC registered staffordshire bull terrier and an AKC American Staffordshire terrier.

This is some of the complexity.

We so agree that this sounds incident sounds more like a mauling than a bite. I would still be interested is seeing the dog though to see what it is. Tragic, no matter what.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Gigit said:


> And I can understand the passion, I like Staffordshire Terriers, I think they are beautiful dogs. I'm just being honest when I say this breed tosses up major red flags for me. You can show me facts for your side of the argument and I'm sure I can show facts for mine.


I would love to see these facts.


----------



## NewfoundlandOwner (Dec 22, 2011)

Amaryllis said:


> Once, just playing around, my husband playfully "punched" me in the face and I yelled "ouch". Muggsy went berserk, barking, jumping and crying. And that was just a playful moment, not preceded by an actual fight. And Muggsy was devoted to both of us and a remarkably gentle dog with humans.
> 
> Plus, I love this:
> 
> ...


Sir, if he'd shot you in the chest instead of in the leg, it could have been fatal and would have proven that semi-automatic handguns are dangerous!

I remember reading about a Pekingese that killed an infant she was left alone with, and other reports of small dogs doing grave damage. Of course, it only stands to reason that larger dogs are capable of more mayhem than smaller ones - getting jumped on by one of my Aussies is a lot different than a Chihuahua, for instance. ANY dog, no matter the breed, can be very dangerous if not raised properly. They are walking around with lots of very sharp teeth they choose not to use on us. Every time I get upset at something my dog does, I take a moment to remind myself of this, and try for more patience. If dogs can show so much restraint around humans that don't always deserve it, I can, too. Articles like the one quoted above are media sensationalism at its worst. And the bite statistics? Unless physical custody of each dog in these bite statistic studies has been obtained, the stats are way off. Any dog with a squarish head becomes a Pit Bull after an attack to most people. I just met a Pit Bull that had been rescued at Petsmart last night while walking my Newfie around. Powerful? Check. Energetic? Check. Aggressive and vicious? Not even close. She was great with my little Ozzy (OK, he's not that little).


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

Gigit said:


> It's not about biting more often, it's about the viciousness of the attacks when they do bite. These aren't poodle bites were are talking about here.


ANY dog can do damage. Did you hear about the POMERANIAN who KILLED a 6 week old baby? http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/09/local/me-34015 
How about the Lab that attacked a 2 year old child? http://www.katu.com/news/97847224.html
What about the Husky that attacked a 3 month old? http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/39344322.html

If you need more stories of other breeds attacking, feel free to spend a few hours reading through it all. http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/AllDogsBite.htm

Judging an entire group of dogs based on the actions of a few individuals is akin to racism.


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> I would love to see these facts.


As would I. And if you quote dogsbite.org, we will laugh in your face.
http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/03/the-truth-behind-dogsbiteorg.html


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> I would love to see these facts.


You and me both.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

In all fairness, the larger and stronger the dog, the more important the ownership. If irresponsible/wretched people are going to own dogs, I would like them to love 1/2 pound, toothless, legless wonders. Better yet, stuffed ones!

The bigger, stronger, and faster the dog, the greater need for decent ownership.

But the fact that some idiot failed with their dog doesn't mean that I will fail with mine. And it doesn't mean that a breed needs to be eradicated. Idiots will always find ways to be destructive. 

I just wish that the morons would move on to something that isn't a living being.


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

trainingjunkie said:


> In all fairness, the larger and stronger the dog, the more important the ownership. If irresponsible/wretched people are going to own dogs, I would like them to love 1/2 pound, toothless, legless wonders. Better yet, stuffed ones!
> 
> The bigger, stronger, and faster the dog, the greater need for decent ownership.
> 
> ...



Good post. I agree.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

A mauling is a mauling. Repeated bites are a mauling..but this has nothing to do with the breed of dog involved. What I want to know is where they got the dog, how young, how it was trained, how it was housed, whether it had health issues and what the exact situation that triggered the attack was...that is what makes or breaks a dog when it comes to aggression (aside from idiopathic/genetic aggression, which would have shown MUCH earlier in this dog's life). Without the facts of how this dog was raised, we cannot logically judge this as a breed thing. People who do look at this as a breed thing are dog ignorant. The woman who had her face bitten off and later had a transplant..it was a chocolate labrador retriever that did it..and yes, her own dog. 

Breedism is ignorance. Yes, you need to understand the makeup of breeds, their uses and their tendencies towards certain types of behaviours..but aggression is very very rarely genetic or breed based.


----------



## Jare (Aug 12, 2009)

Gigit said:


> It's not about biting more often, it's about the viciousness of the attacks when they do bite. *These aren't poodle bites were are talking about here.*
> 
> And I can understand the passion, I like Staffordshire Terriers, I think they are beautiful dogs. I'm just being honest when I say this breed tosses up major red flags for me. You can show me facts for your side of the argument and I'm sure I can show facts for mine. I don't want to go there and turn this into a hot debate or offend anyone, I'm just saying that this isn't about a bite it's about a mauling of a woman


lol wut? Poodle bites? A poodle can do just as much damage as many many other dog. I have literally never seen someone who has their view points based on the media as much as this. "Pit bulls maul people and poodles are foofy are nice!" Are you kidding me right now?

You said that pit bulls maul more than other breeds? Please show me this. And please don't link me to random headline attacks, most of the dogs you would pull up aren't even pit bulls.


----------



## Alasse (Jan 20, 2007)

I wouldnt own a pit (not that i could anyway, banned where i live) but then i wouldnt own a daschund either, or a few other breeds.

Regardless of the how, whys etc (seeing as no one here knows the full story *L*)
This dog needs to die, a dog that has mauled a human being, and its owner at that, is a dog that should not be around for the chance to ever do it again.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Alasse said:


> This dog needs to die, a dog that has mauled a human being, and its owner at that, is a dog that should not be around for the chance to ever do it again.


I don't see why, under certain circumstances. If a guy beats up another guy who was threatening his girlfriend/wife, should he get the death penalty? The dog should be evaluated by someone qualified before fatal decisions are made.


----------



## Goldens&Labs4Me (Jan 18, 2012)

Alasse said:


> Regardless of the how, whys etc (seeing as no one here knows the full story *L*)
> This dog needs to die, a dog that has mauled a human being, and its owner at that, is a dog that should not be around for the chance to ever do it again.


I tend to agree with this, at least in a lot of cases. And I would feel this way regardless of pitbull, labrador, poodle or husky. 

When the owner or family member is the one that was seriously injured, it complicates it in my eyes. It's one thing if the dog is protecting--but it's another thing to maul a person--especially the owner.

I have a friend whose 3 year old niece was killed by the family dog when she fell and cried. So I'm not one for taking many chances--especially where known aggressiveness (causing injury) is more prone.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Gigit said:


> It's not about biting more often, it's about the viciousness of the attacks when they do bite. These aren't poodle bites were are talking about here.
> 
> And I can understand the passion, I like Staffordshire Terriers, I think they are beautiful dogs. I'm just being honest when I say this breed tosses up major red flags for me. You can show me facts for your side of the argument and I'm sure I can show facts for mine. I don't want to go there and turn this into a hot debate or offend anyone, I'm just saying that this isn't about a bite it's about a mauling of a woman


But what if we WERE talking about Poodle bites here? Would that change your opinion of Poodles? A Standard Poodle could injure/kill a human being just the same. 

Doesn't matter what breed is involved here because a dog attack is a dog attack. Dogs don't attack people because they're inclined to attack people. I'd like to know what happened to the dog through out his life and what the exact circumstances of this attack were. I'd prefer to read "Dog bites person" than "(specific breed of dog) bites person." because when it comes down to it, it isn't a big factor.


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

We dont know much at all about this story. so to pass judgement on it IMO is wrong. No idea why the dog turned on its owner. it could have been its owner, but lived with others, and thought of the others as its owner. we dont know the story, its very very vauge 


Gigit said:


> It's not about biting more often, it's about the viciousness of the attacks when they do bite. These aren't poodle bites were are talking about here.
> 
> And I can understand the passion, I like Staffordshire Terriers, I think they are beautiful dogs. I'm just being honest when I say this breed tosses up major red flags for me. You can show me facts for your side of the argument and I'm sure I can show facts for mine. I don't want to go there and turn this into a hot debate or offend anyone, I'm just saying that this isn't about a bite it's about a mauling of a woman


poodle attack
http://www.wboc.com/global/story.asp?S=10769319

lab
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html

Astralian shepherd,
http://www.dogclinic.net/faq/how-care/aggression/1154.htm


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Jare said:


> lol wut? Poodle bites? A poodle can do just as much damage as many many other dog. I have literally never seen someone who has their view points based on the media as much as this. "Pit bulls maul people and poodles are foofy are nice!" Are you kidding me right now?
> 
> You said that pit bulls maul more than other breeds? Please show me this. And please don't link me to random headline attacks, most of the dogs you would pull up aren't even pit bulls.


I don't think they bite more than other breeds, maybe even less, but I do believe that once they decide to bite they tend to be stubborn and intense. Less bite and release as most dogs who have bitten me do, and more bite and hold and do more damage kind of bite. More of a propensity to want to take you down, rather than run you off as many of not most other dogs do. Different style of attack I suppose.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

TxRider said:


> I don't think they bite more than other breeds, maybe even less, but I do believe that once they decide to bite they tend to be stubborn and intense. Less bite and release as most dogs who have bitten me do, and more bite and hold and do more damage kind of bite. More of a propensity to want to take you down, rather than run you off as many of not most other dogs do. Different style of attack I suppose.


What are you basing this on?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

This is a sad thing. This very reason is why having a trained dog is helpful. A dog with natural protective tendencies really doesn't know how to act in this situation. I have seen owners certain their dogs would protect them, and they either run or bite whoever is near. This scenario is played out, along with many others, and the dogs learn what to do. Like a person that can't swim, they panic and drown if out in the water. Learn to swim they do fair. But train like a navy seal, and they are prepared!


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

APBTs don't even have the strongest bite, far from it. And I too want to see these stats that state pitties bite more. What people don't get is this breed isn't always the culprit, people misidentify, yet it stays in the stats as an APBT when its not lots of the time. 

Are there bad examples of this breed? Yes right much many of them are, but that's not the breeds fault. Its bad breeding and bad upbringing, which is human error, not the dogs. 

The breed was meant to be/and should still be human friendly, they were the nanny dogs. They were America's breed, they were a symbol. They deserve to get that respect back, this is a lovely breed, that has been maligned by human greed and stupidity.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

sassafras said:


> What are you basing this on?


Having had several dogs bite me, and seeing the breeds in action in fights and such over the decades, herding dogs generally act like herding dogs, retrievers geerally act like retrievers, hounds generally act like hounds and terriers generally act like terriers.. 

They were bred for certain behaviors... prey drives modified for certain reasons and purposes. 

Or if you like, the words of pitbull rescue central..

"The majority of breeds will snap erratically at their opponent, biting and releasing repeatedly. As terriers, pit bulls will usually bite and hold. Contrary to popular myth, this is not some kind of special pit bull behavior; it is merely terrier behavior. As its name suggests, a break stick is designed to break this determined terrier hold. "

http://www.pbrc.net/breaksticks.html


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tankstar said:


> Astralian shepherd,
> http://www.dogclinic.net/faq/how-care/aggression/1154.htm


Note that this was not an Australian (I'm guessing that's what you meant) shepherd but a mixed breed.


----------



## hounddawg (Jan 10, 2012)

All the instances cited for "other breeds do it, too" are of CHILDREN and BABIES. Pits are killing full-grown adults. There's a difference!


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

hounddawg said:


> All the instances cited for "other breeds do it, too" are of CHILDREN and BABIES. Pits are killing full-grown adults. There's a difference!


Really? http://www.wavy.com/dpp/video/Dog-bite-caused-womans-death 49 year old woman killed by Alaskan Malamute.

And what, babies and children aren't people? It only matters if it's an adult?


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

hounddawg said:


> All the instances cited for "other breeds do it, too" are of CHILDREN and BABIES. Pits are killing full-grown adults. There's a difference!


Yeah, what's the difference? You know a Lab could kill you right? Or any other number of dog breeds. It also sounds unintentionally dismissive of the seriousness of a dog killing a child vs. an adult.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Yeah, what's the difference? You know a Lab could kill you right? Or any other number of dog breeds. It also sounds unintentionally dismissive of the seriousness of a dog killing a child vs. an adult.


Dunno, maybe when I'm 70. Haven't met the dog that could take me yet.. 

I don't mind pits, some of my younger neices and nephews own them. One of my nieces is pretty impressive and totally ball obsessed, not friendly to strangers, but whip out a tennis ball and he's your buddy for life.  Total obsession and 100% drive till he drops kinda dog, just a ball of tight muscle with 5 kids throwing a ball to him every day.. But then I had a BC/lab mix that was just the same. BC's are a typically intense breed as well, it's just usually expressed a little different. Mix in a little lab and your all set for a certified ball obsession go till ya drop dog.

The danger IMO with kids is prey drive. All dogs have it to one degree or another but some breeds typically more than others, Mal's would be on the high side of it I would say. Hope has a very high prey drive. I don't think she would drift to kids, but other dogs aren't out of the question. I've seen enough small signs that I am very careful what dogs I allow her to play with and rehomed Kaya to my elderly parents mainly because I saw signs of it and didn't want it to escalate.


----------



## hounddawg (Jan 10, 2012)

Thanks for proving my point. There's a reason Alaskan Malamutes are also on "dangerous breeds" lists, especially for insurance companies. They have been known to kill grown human beings. 

Of course babies and children are people. That question is just stupid, as is the one following it. 

The problem is the complete logical fallacy. Using statistics for children and babies being killed by a pom as proof that pits aren't as dangerous as many believe is known as "False Analogy." The point is that pit bulls (and yes, malamutes and other "dangerous breeds") are MORE LIKELY to kill ADULTS. An adult has awareness, size, and strength to fend off a pom, and I'm sure poms are not killing many adults, if any at all. But pit bulls (and other similar dogs) ARE killing grown human beings as a rate FAR exceeding most breeds. 

When these breeds are killing healthy 20-some people, saying, "Oh look! A toy sized dog killed a defenseless two month old baby who can't even walk!" is the epitome of bad logic.


----------



## hounddawg (Jan 10, 2012)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Yeah, what's the difference? You know a Lab could kill you right? Or any other number of dog breeds. It also sounds unintentionally dismissive of the seriousness of a dog killing a child vs. an adult.


That would only work if I said a lab would not kill a human. Nothing I said can be construed to say that it is less or more serious killing a child or an adult. What I did say was that it is entirely disingenuous to suggest that a toy dog killing a baby is the same as a dog killing an adult. It takes a LOT more for a dog to kill an adult, so the two are not comparable for the sake of that argument. Labs aren't going around killing adults at the rate pits and other "dangerous breeds" are. This is simple statistics and logic.


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

hounddawg said:


> Thanks for proving my point. There's a reason Alaskan Malamutes are also on "dangerous breeds" lists, especially for insurance companies. They have been known to kill grown human beings.
> 
> Of course babies and children are people. That question is just stupid, as is the one following it.
> 
> ...


So once again, adults being killed are far more important and notable than children and babies being killed. Nice.

Want to know some other things more likely to kill you than a Pit Bull? 5 gallon water pails, cribs, coconuts, bathtubs, and parents. Are these things all dangerous too?

1.) About 40 people (children) per year die by drowning in 5-gallon water pails. A person, during their lifetime, is 16 times more likely to drown in a 5-gallon water pail than to be killed by a Pit Bull.

2.) Approximately 50 children in the US are killed every year by their cribs - 25 times the number of children and adults killed by Pit Bulls.

3.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a Pit Bull.

4.) Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a Pit Bull.

5) Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more than 800 times more likely to be killed by their caretaker than by a Pit Bull.

I'm honestly curious, how much actual hands on experience do you have with Pit Bulls?


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I, as a 25 year old adult, generally waver between 95-100 lbs. There are a good range of dogs that are more than half my weight. I had my business wrecked by a Lab a couple months ago and I was in an enclosed kennel with him. Had I not been bundled up in heavy clothes or able to get the door open and basically fall out of his kennel he could have easily seriously injured me. As tough as I like to think I am, I don't think I could do much about a dog attacking me.

Of note, every day for the past 5 months I have been exposed to upwards of between 30-50 dogs including my own. I have never been seriously attacked, or even seriously bitten, by any dog let alone a Pit in that time frame and I'd say my odds are quite a bit higher than most to be on the receiving end of a bite. I spend 6 hours a day in my house with an unsocialized Pit mix that was deemed feral and slated to be euthanized. I remain mauling free.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

hounddawg said:


> That would only work if I said a lab would not kill a human. Nothing I said can be construed to say that it is less or more serious killing a child or an adult. What I did say was that it is entirely disingenuous to suggest that a toy dog killing a baby is the same as a dog killing an adult. It takes a LOT more for a dog to kill an adult, so the two are not comparable for the sake of that argument. Labs aren't going around killing adults at the rate pits and other "dangerous breeds" are. This is simple statistics and logic.


Sisterfriend, nothing you have said is logical. Who gives a rip what dog it was if it killed someone? So far you're saying that a Pomeranian could not kill an adult but merely a baby but, SHOCKER, a larger dog could kill an adult. O RLY? I'm also interested in your statistics. Do you know how many people are involved in fatal dog attacks every year? Between 10-20. Do you know how many people die in their bathtubs? Roughly 350 each year. There is your logical fallacy.



Pibble said:


> So once again, adults being killed are far more important and notable than children and babies being killed. Nice.
> 
> Want to know some other things more likely to kill you than a Pit Bull? 5 gallon water pails, cribs, coconuts, bathtubs, and parents. Are these things all dangerous too?
> 
> ...


Stop beating me to my points!1!!!1


----------



## hounddawg (Jan 10, 2012)

Pibble said:


> So once again, adults being killed are far more important and notable than children and babies being killed. Nice.
> 
> Want to know some other things more likely to kill you than a Pit Bull? 5 gallon water pails, cribs, coconuts, bathtubs, and parents. Are these things all dangerous too?
> 
> ...


Those are lovely talking points, but they're red herrings and strawmen. Again, a logical fallacy. 

Nobody is suggesting that it is more dangerous to take a bath than to live next door to a pit bull. What IS being suggested is indisputable, which is, of course, why nobody disputes it: pit bulls are MORE LIKELY to kill -- adults AND children -- than, say, a beagle. 

And again, it is not to say that somehow children are worth less than adults. How posters are inferring that is beyond me. If the lab breed kills 1 child a year and 0 adults, and a pit kills 3 children and 6 adults (sourced wikipedia, not the best, but I'm slim on time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2011), which is more dangerous? This is not to say that labs never kill or that pits can't be wonderful pets. Have you even seen me argue that pits should be put down or banned? NO. I am, however, honest about the STATS on these dogs. It is a simple fact that it is harder to kill an adult than a child, and though a pom may be able to maul a child to death, it's not killing adults at the rate a pit, which can and has killed grown humans, is. 

Some breeds are just more likely to kill than others. That is a fact of life. To dispute it is ridiculous.


----------



## hounddawg (Jan 10, 2012)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Sisterfriend, nothing you have said is logical. Who gives a rip what dog it was if it killed someone? So far you're saying that a Pomeranian could not kill an adult but merely a baby but, SHOCKER, a larger dog could kill an adult. O RLY? I'm also interested in your statistics. Do you know how many people are involved in fatal dog attacks every year? Between 10-20. Do you know how many people die in their bathtubs? Roughly 350 each year. There is your logical fallacy.


The insurance companies care, for one. Apartment complexes and HOAs care. Families care when picking a pet. Lots of people care to know which breeds are more likely to kill a human. Apparently the truth hurts.

Let's bring up other lovely large dogs who also have a lower rate of kills than pit bulls, rotts, etc. Golden retrievers, great danes, Newfoundlands, etc. It has something to do with size, but also temperament, strength, and other factors. To ignore that pits are MORE LIKELY to kill is to ignore reality.

And again, the bath tub statistics are red herrings. They have nothing to do with the argument that pits are more likely to kill and are more dangerous because they aren't limited to defenseless babies; they can kill adults if and when they want. THAT is the difference. Not rocket science here.



> Stop beating me to my points!1!!!1


----------



## Alasse (Jan 20, 2007)

Willowy said:


> I don't see why, under certain circumstances. If a guy beats up another guy who was threatening his girlfriend/wife, should he get the death penalty? The dog should be evaluated by someone qualified before fatal decisions are made.


Sorry but my stance is a dog that mauls is a dead dog, and the circumstances surrounding it dont really matter. A dog that bites once and leaves it at that, that is to me different, but mauling is biting again and again and again, and in this case its owner! This dog is not under effective control, more out of control, its proven it can and will maul and should never get that opportunity again. Plain and simple


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Alasse said:


> *Sorry but my stance is a dog that mauls is a dead dog, and the circumstances surrounding it dont really matter.* A dog that bites once and leaves it at that, that is to me different, but mauling is biting again and again and again, and in this case its owner! This dog is not under effective control, more out of control, its proven it can and will maul and should never get that opportunity again. Plain and simple


This. With people living in high density areas with multiple pets of all species, I don't have much of a choice but to have a high standard for what I can accept. Luckily at the moment I live in a very rural area, so if Winnie were to do something I have the luxury of being able to get a behaviouralist and not worry that she might hurt me/someone again because I can contain her. However when my OH and I move to the city (where he already lives) I won't have a choice but to be significantly more vigilant in what I can tolerate. It's not fair, but I have to have high expectations of my dogs behaviour because I can't rely on people not to be idiots.


----------



## Canaqua (Sep 27, 2011)

I'm not a Pit Bull person, so I, literally, have no dog in this fight . I've had mostly mid-sized herding mutts. My experience with Pits, however, has never been anything but positive. The bigger and stronger the dog, the more damage it can do when something does happen, but I'm not convinced that Pits are more likely to attack humans than other breeds. Some of the nastiest dogs I've ever met are little toy dogs, but they don't usually make headlines because their bites don't do as much damage. Pit Bulls make headlines, the media loves to report every Pit incident, with glaring headlines and "film at 11pm"!! I think that that is why they get such a bad rap. 

My ACD mix is far scarier than any of the Pits in the neighborhood, SHE is fear aggressive and requires careful management. The dog I trust the most, of all I currently know, is actually my neighbor's intact male Pit. He is 75 pounds of nothing but muscle, a very strong dog. But, he is just plain sweet, the most tolerant dog on the planet. Kids can climb all over him, he's had two babies raised in the house with him, he plays nice with kittens, he lets my 9 month old BC mix jump on him and knock him over (he lets her "win"), never a growl or even a pissed off look. If he's had enough, he just gets up and walks away.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

hounddawg said:


> Let's bring up other lovely large dogs who also have a lower rate of kills than pit bulls, rotts, etc. Golden retrievers, great danes, Newfoundlands, etc. It has something to do with size, but also temperament, strength, and other factors. To ignore that pits are MORE LIKELY to kill is to ignore reality.


I'd suggest you read this carefully. Nearly half the "Pitbull" deaths in this report are either unsubstatiated or proven NOT to be PItts at all.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/2010%20DBRF%20Report%20FINAL_1.pdf

The media often hypes an attack yelling Pitt Bull and then when it's shown the dogs wasn't a Pitt they fail to retract the statements or make any correction. 

The biggest thing I noticed about this report is that many of the attacks on children (especailly infants) the child was UNSUPERVISED with the dog. Also many of the dogs that killed people were "resident dogs" that lived on the premisses but were kept outside (often chained) and had no socialization or were stays/feral dogs.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Alasse said:


> Sorry but my stance is a dog that mauls is a dead dog, and the circumstances surrounding it dont really matter. A dog that bites once and leaves it at that, that is to me different, but mauling is biting again and again and again, and in this case its owner! This dog is not under effective control, more out of control, its proven it can and will maul and should never get that opportunity again. Plain and simple


There was a mauling in Chicago last week. 2 dogs spent 20 minutes of mauling before police got there and the attacked Jogger lost leg from knee down. Both dogs were killed.



> Dunno, maybe when I'm 70. Haven't met the dog that could take me yet..


Well I'm 75 and will make same statement (if armed with axe handle/club/etc) adjustments as you age help.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Some dogs have more of a tendency to bite, and some have a more damaging grip. Even within each breed. You can look at lines of malinois, some bite and have a full mouth more than others naturally. Even within the same litters, some are moreso than other pups. Take a breed that has been selectively bred for this trait, and you have a dog that is more likely to do damage.
I feel dogs that are specifically bred to guard people are more likely to be human aggressive, but when you take a pit bull type dog, that is bred for full bites and fight drive, even though that was for game, it is built to do damage. When that dog does attack a person, the same fight drive kicks in. Then add in some types of people who have these dogs, and train them to be aggressive, ,they are not the type to jump in and just nip.
If breeds didn't matter, why are they certain ones we choose for protection dogs?


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Alasse said:


> Sorry but my stance is a dog that mauls is a dead dog, and the circumstances surrounding it dont really matter. A dog that bites once and leaves it at that, that is to me different, but mauling is biting again and again and again, and in this case its owner! This dog is not under effective control, more out of control, its proven it can and will maul and should never get that opportunity again. Plain and simple


Not me, if a guy broke into my house at 2am and attacked me and Hope tore him up good, last thing I would be doing is putting her down. Circumstances do matter.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

TxRider said:


> Not me, if a guy broke into my house at 2am and attacked me and Hope tore him up good, last thing I would be doing is putting her down. Circumstances do matter.


I think she meant because the dog attacked the owner.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

TxRider said:


> Having had several dogs bite me, and seeing the breeds in action in fights and such over the decades, herding dogs generally act like herding dogs, retrievers geerally act like retrievers, hounds generally act like hounds and terriers generally act like terriers..
> 
> They were bred for certain behaviors... prey drives modified for certain reasons and purposes.
> 
> ...


How does "bite and hold" translate to "having a propensity to take you down" exactly? And by this logic we should fear ALL terriers because of their bite and hold propensity to take us down...?



TxRider said:


> Dunno, maybe when I'm 70. Haven't met the dog that could take me yet..


Then I don't think you have met a dog that seriously tried to take you. Most people wouldn't stand a chance against most dogs, if they were actually seriously trying to hurt someone.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

well Happy, my border collie is the sweetest gentilist dog ever, she takes great pains to ensure she never so much an accidently bites anyone..but when my brother had a GF over and she playful attacked him? Happy went flying accross the room, and hurled herself accross my brothers lap snarling and snapping at her in full on fury, my brother has never had anything to do with Happy, he doesnt even live here. ANY larger dog can do serious damage if ramped up enough, had that not been playful and had the girl not backed ioff in a hurry, Happy could easily have done serious damage, simpley because she is large enough to do it.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

Yeah.... my dog is just under 50# and I'm just under 150#. He'd have no trouble taking me down if he wanted to do so. Am I afraid of him? Not at all.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Edited: Long post, please excuse the errors in it. It was written before my cup of coffee.

These threads always irritate me. So many closed minded people who refuse to even think "maybe I could be wrong" and even open their minds up to listen to other sides of the argument. The "media" that you trust so much lies all the time. They are out there to get views and will only report the most radical stories they can. Just a few months ago here in Michigan out near Detroit there was an attack involving 2 dogs. Both dogs were reported as "Pit Bulls" then a few days later it was found out that they were actually American Bulldogs (totally different breed which are bred for guardianship), yet some news stations even after this truth came out STILL reported them as Pit Bulls and the damage had already been done. People started calling for the ban of breeds that weren't even involved in an attack!

There are a LOT of misconceptions about the breed and I face those misconceptions EVERY DAY. Do you know what it's like to be standing there having a conversation with really respected breeder of Goldens about her dogs and yours, and when you mention the breed you own all of a sudden you are a monster? I actually laughed at the misconceptions she had:
_"The issue with the breed is that they are a guardian breed" _ NOPE WRONG! They may protect you and they may not. Do you know why Pit Bulls aren't used for Police k-9's and the only time you heard of a Pit Bull being a K-9 cop is for drug sniffing work? It's because PIT BULLS HATE TO BITE HUMANS! They aren't aggressive enough and lack the temperament (Human aggression) for that type of work. They are also too small of a dog to take down a grown human. It's rarer to find Pit Bulls in Schutzund because of the reason they can't see the difference between biting a sleeve and biting a human, *all they see is they are to bite something on a human and they just can't bring themselves to do it.* Had to bold that so people actually read the whole thing not just the first half of the sentence.

_"Their jaw strength is just so powerful" _ Less powerful then a German Shepherd, Malinois, Rottweilers, and other powerful breeds. Yes even I say that I wouldn't want to be bitten by a Pit Bull, but heck I wouldn't want to be bit by ANY dog. 

_"But they were bred for fighting"_ Yes you are correct. The breed was first bred for *BULL* baiting, then for *DOG *fighting. The breed has a stronger prey drive where they see other dogs as prey also known as dog aggression (DA for short). It's VERY VERY COMMON in the breed which is why PIT BULLS SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED IN DOG PARKS OR RUNNING LOOSE! Even a Pit that has never shown signs of DA can "turn on" at any time and start seeing other dogs as Prey. That being said, the one thing the breed was *NOT *bred for is human aggression (HA). Even back in the day when dog fighting was legal and very common, people stood in the pit WITH the dogs fighting, and had to stick their hands in between two dogs fighting to get them away from each other. Man biters were normally put down (Not all, there are some famous fighters that were very HA, but they weren't bred for their HA, they were bred because of their fighting skills. They had to be the perfect fighter for an HA dog to be bred). I mean how many other breeds can you stick your hand in to a fight and know that likeliness of you being bit is very small? I myself would rather break up a Pit Bull fight then a Golden fight. Goldens are dirty fighters while Pits are just straight to the point. Their history is what makes them the top dog in the country, most wanted dog in the county. They are great pets, wonderful companions, and great workers. 

Look, I'm not asking you to love my dogs. What I am asking you to do is open your mind and understand that maybe a lot of the things you "know" may not be correct. I could talk Pit Bulls all day long. I personally have dealt with a dog that was dangerous. He was a Boxer/Lab mix who had so many issues it's not even funny. HUMANS caused his issues, he was tossed to 6 different homes and spent over 1 year of him 4years of life in a shelter. He was abused, starved, teased. He was a mess. I ended up putting him down because of his separation issues and because of the fact he bit me one day when I tried to pull him away from a cat. Luckily I was wearing my heavy coat because it could have done some massive damage. 

It really isn't the dog, it's us. We are the one's that don't give the dogs what they need. Pit Bulls are Terriers, which means overall as a whole, they are HYPER ACTIVE dogs. My Trainers own Border Collies, and while standing in a room of 8 dogs, 4 being Pits mixes had this conversation with the class:
Her: "I think I now realize why there are so many issues with Pit Bulls in society. I have an honest question for everyone, did you expect your Pits to be so hyper active?"
Class: "No" 
me: "Yes"
Her: "Every Pit Bull I've met has the energy that makes my Border Collies look like logs. I don't think people realize how much training and mental work these dogs need to be truly happy"

And she is right. These dogs aren't meany to be couch potatoes, they aren't meant to be tied out back as a lawn statue, they aren't meant to be dogs that lay around all day. When they get bored, it's not fun. My dog Peanut has figured out ways to climb cupboards to get to treats beside doors, open locked doors, climb fences, and so many other things. All because of boredom (it's my fault, I've been lazy this winter and haven't been doing much work with her). She's being trained as a Search and Rescue dog because of how smart she is. My dog Nubs in his younger days would outsmart me like no other dog I've met. Tied up and tossed outside, these dogs would go crazy. They LOVE children and even with being worked they are overly hyper to say hello to them, tied up and left alone all the time when this breed NEEDS their humans, man the over joy they would feel to see a human, would make them seem like they are going mad, which would amp them up, when amped up they start panicking, and then, that's how a bite happens.

This breed is the most abused breed out there. You don't think so? What other breed of dog does man choose to do it's dirty work for pleasure of watching it kill another? STARE AT THIS PHOTO AND SEE WHAT WE HUMANS DO TO THESE DOGS:









We are the monster. We are the ones that cause dogs to do what they do. It's not the dogs, its US.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I hate that picture of Patrick. It makes me weepy.



hounddawg said:


> The insurance companies care, for one. Apartment complexes and HOAs care. Families care when picking a pet. Lots of people care to know which breeds are more likely to kill a human. Apparently the truth hurts.
> 
> Let's bring up other lovely large dogs who also have a lower rate of kills than pit bulls, rotts, etc. Golden retrievers, great danes, Newfoundlands, etc. It has something to do with size, but also temperament, strength, and other factors. To ignore that pits are MORE LIKELY to kill is to ignore reality.
> 
> And again, the bath tub statistics are red herrings. They have nothing to do with the argument that pits are more likely to kill and are more dangerous because they aren't limited to defenseless babies; they can kill adults if and when they want. THAT is the difference. Not rocket science here.


No more breeds are likely to kill a human. You're batting 1000 in the not knowing jack about dogs game. The bath tub statistic is not a red herring you just lack any sort of logical reasoning or ability to understand arguments (So why you're in one is beyond me, but I digress..) The point of the bathtub comparison is that 10-20 deaths a year, by dogs, is such an insanely small number compared to regularly things you do every day that are a much higher risk. Your odds of being killed by a dog- any dog- is minuscule. Idiots that like to throw around that Pits (Wish I could ask you on the street to identify a Pit for me.. I imagine you can't.) just lying in wait to kill people don't seem to understand that in the grand scheme of things, very few dog fatalities are happening. How you read 10-20 deaths in a population of billions of people and imagine roaming death squads- let alone a specific type of dog behind them- is beyond me. 




Canaqua said:


> I'm not a Pit Bull person, so I, literally, have no dog in this fight


Never owned a Pit in my life. When they get bored with or eventually do win and kill all the Pits a dog I do own could be next. People like hounddawg prove that yes, there really are people so ignorant and insane that they believe a type of dog is dangerous and they will eventually target more.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

After what Darkmoon said, I can't add much. 

OP, please get educated on the truth about Pit Bulls. don't believe all the media hype. The fact of the matter is (as the officer in the story said) any breed could have done this. I don't know why this dog went off the way it did but there MUST have been extenuating circumstances.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Cracker said:


> A mauling is a mauling. Repeated bites are a mauling..but this has nothing to do with the breed of dog involved. What I want to know is where they got the dog, how young, how it was trained, how it was housed, whether it had health issues and what the exact situation that triggered the attack was...that is what makes or breaks a dog when it comes to aggression (aside from idiopathic/genetic aggression, which would have shown MUCH earlier in this dog's life). Without the facts of how this dog was raised, we cannot logically judge this as a breed thing. People who do look at this as a breed thing are dog ignorant. The woman who had her face bitten off and later had a transplant..it was a chocolate labrador retriever that did it..and yes, her own dog.
> 
> Breedism is ignorance. Yes, you need to understand the makeup of breeds, their uses and their tendencies towards certain types of behaviours..but aggression is very very rarely genetic or breed based.


I agree, the article was quite vague & didn't give much info to the reader .... Tho that's the angle I'm afraid , a dog bites someone & ppl are ready to pick up their torches angry mob style & demand the dogs head like it was Frankenstien or something. 

Common, ppl .... Dogs are ANIMALS & WILL & have a RIGHT to act as such, no matter how Big or small, "trained" or not, socialized or not, they are ANIMALS.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Goldens&Labs4Me said:


> I tend to agree with this, at least in a lot of cases. And I would feel this way regardless of pitbull, labrador, poodle or husky.
> 
> When the owner or family member is the one that was seriously injured, it complicates it in my eyes. It's one thing if the dog is protecting--but it's another thing to maul a person--especially the owner.
> 
> I have a friend whose 3 year old niece was killed by the family dog when she fell and cried. So I'm not one for taking many chances--especially where known aggressiveness (causing injury) is more prone.


Why is that the dogs fault? If a dog isn't reliable with kids or certain ppl then the OWNERS should have managed the dog, why blame the dog when it is only an animal who know not what it does?

I get so tired of this attitude, I'm sorry to say. My Izze isnt a "friendly" dog by many standards (as in if someone acts threatening or "not right" she will bite, that's just her nature) should she have to die?


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I have to admit, if one of my dogs "mauled" someone, I would have them put to sleep immediately. Nobody would have to ask me or order me to do so as it would already by done. If my dog bit someone who broke into my house with intent to harm me, I would not put my dog to sleep. If my dog went after a child or postman or something like that and bit them, the dog would be destroyed. I would NOT have a dog that was vicious or untrustworthy (at least less trustworthy then any other well socialized dog) 

I think the word "maul" is way over used. I mean Maul? Really? It seems to me that when ever there is a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or any breed resembling either of those two breeds any articles written use the words Maul or attack or vicious etc... It is never Nip or bite or under socialized. 

Darkmoon is very right, the amount of damage the human race has done to Pit Bulls is so much more then any Pit Bull has ever done to humans. People (though that isn't the best term) train these dogs to purposely fight, they abuse, neglect and even murder these dogs for pleasure. When one of these dogs act out individuals are ready to kill all Pit Bulls but where are those people when human beings are abusing and killing the Pit Bulls? Why are they not standing up shouting against that? What do they think that the sadists who enjoy hurting these animals will do when they have banned their recreational breed?


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

> The problem is the complete logical fallacy. Using statistics for children and babies being killed by a pom as proof that pits aren't as dangerous as many believe is known as "False Analogy." The point is that pit bulls (and yes, malamutes and other "dangerous breeds") are MORE LIKELY to kill ADULTS. An adult has awareness, size, and strength to fend off a pom, and I'm sure poms are not killing many adults, if any at all. But pit bulls (and other similar dogs) ARE killing grown human beings as a rate FAR exceeding most breeds.


If you were to come to my house and ask me which of the 3 dogs living here you should worry about the most, it would be the littlest one. She is 45 pounds, usually very quiet and well behaved but she would take you out in a heartbeat if you tried anything funny. Oh, and although she is a mix breed, it is pretty clear there is no bully mix in there. Next I would say be careful around my biggest dog. He is 95 pounds and will let me know you are coming from a mile away. He will lunge, bark and growl until you back off and if you don't, well it sucks to be you then. He is clearly a hound mix of some sort, with no bully mixed in either. Last on the scale of 'dangerousness' would be the Pit bull. He is 75 pounds and solid, but he'd probably wag his tail and try to lick you, whereas the other two would assume the worst of you first. 

Most friendly, stable and trustworthy dog in the house? The Pit bull. 

And yet, if I walk a mile in the wrong direction with him I am breaking the law and risk having him seized and euthanized. 

Where is the logic in that?


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

Exactly what Inga said - ... In my own words and IMO ... When the recreational breed is finally banned ... it is just on to the next innocent breed to be ruined by the same sadists .............


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Inga said:


> I think the word "maul" is way over used. I mean Maul? Really? It seems to me that when ever there is a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or any breed resembling either of those two breeds any articles written use the words Maul or attack or vicious etc... It is never Nip or bite or under socialized.


That's because "maul" is in the eye of the beholder, it doesn't have a very specific meaning. You and I could look at the same bites and I could see "bites" and you could see "mauling". Words like "maul" have no business in an article or police report. It's too emotionally charged and subjective.

The fact of the matter is, dogs are dangerous, like many things people own, such as guns, cars and ovens. Some dogs may be a higher risk, in the same way that a sports car is riskier than a station wagon, but so much of that is dependent on the owner and the situation that it's ludicrous to act like an entire breed is more dangerous overall. 

Risks exist. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents EVERY SINGLE YEAR. I don't see anyone calling for an end to driving or an end to cars that go fast or are under a certain size/weight. Try to think logically, people.


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

I'd still like to know how much real hands on experience these people who are demonizing Pit Bulls actually have. Wanna take a guess?


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

Inga said:


> I have to admit, if one of my dogs "mauled" someone, I would have them put to sleep immediately. Nobody would have to ask me or order me to do so as it would already by done.


Agreed. HA would not be tolerated with my two. If either one were to show HA, they would face a dirt nap. Period.


----------



## JamesBrown (Jan 31, 2011)

Amaryllis said:


> That's because "maul" is in the eye of the beholder, it doesn't have a very specific meaning. You and I could look at the same bites and I could see "bites" and you could see "mauling". Words like "maul" have no business in an article or police report. It's too emotionally charged and subjective.


I agree with your sentiment but disagree with your statement. Maul actually has a very specific meaning, to maul is to Wound (a person or animal) by scratching and tearing. Mauling is distinct from biting and should infact be used in police reports. There isn't much subjective about it, if the attack involved scratching, or the dog pit and tore flesh then it was a mauling. If the dog just bit a human then it was a bite. Many people in here are not using in properly, more than once in this thread it was described as repeated biting, this isn't mauling, it is just multiple bites. Mauling means their was tearing and scratching (presumably not inadvertant scratching but scratching to do damage). Dogs do not attack but mauling with their paws (the way a Bear or large cat would), so the only part of the term that is relavent is the tearing. I would guess that in the majority of cases where the term maul is used their is no actual mauling but I know I have seen wild animals that were mauled by dogs and I know dogs are capable of mauling.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

It really does depend on the circumstances. Marlin and Charlotte under normal circumstances would NEVER bite or attack a human. They both really love and respect people. Marlin however, does NOT like violence _at all_. He has bitten my husband and I a few times (but has never drawn blood) while we were horsing around and wrestling. He loves people, but if someone came up to myself or my husband with the intent to do harm, physical or otherwise...I'd actually feel sorry for them! LOL! He would rip them apart! Should he be put to sleep under those circumstances? Absolutely not.

Charlotte on the other hand is the total opposite from Marlin in that regards. She's a dog that knows human behavior very well and can tell the difference between just goofing off and real genuine violence and danger. And her love for people is to a fault. If I ever were being seriously attacked by a human, she would be totally aware of what was going on, but unlike Marlin, she'd probably hide behind me. It's possible she might bristle and growl, but that's where it would end. She'd rip another dog apart in a heart beat if it came at us threateningly, but would NEVER hurt a person.

I don't know all the details to this story, but given what details there are, it sounds to me like there's probably more to the story then what's being said.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

JamesBrown said:


> I agree with your sentiment but disagree with your statement. Maul actually has a very specific meaning, to maul is to Wound (a person or animal) by scratching and tearing. Mauling is distinct from biting and should infact be used in police reports. There isn't much subjective about it, if the attack involved scratching, or the dog pit and tore flesh then it was a mauling. If the dog just bit a human then it was a bite. Many people in here are not using in properly, more than once in this thread it was described as repeated biting, this isn't mauling, it is just multiple bites. Mauling means their was tearing and scratching (presumably not inadvertant scratching but scratching to do damage). *Dogs do not attack but mauling with their paws (the way a Bear or large cat would), so the only part of the term that is relavent is the tearing*. I would guess that in the majority of cases where the term maul is used their is no actual mauling but I know I have seen wild animals that were mauled by dogs and I know dogs are capable of mauling.


By that definition, dogs don't even really maul ever, certainly not like a bear or mountain lion. (We get that where I live.) "Maul" is a bad term to use, and almost exclusively gets used for certain breeds. You never hear about labs mauling, though labs do bite on a regular basis, but "maul" is the verb of choice for certain other breeds. Papers use language that sells. Bites are interesting, but maulings really move copy.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Gigit said:


> You can show me facts for your side of the argument and I'm sure I can show facts for mine. I don't want to go there and turn this into a hot debate or offend anyone


How'd that work out for you?  You also didn't come back with any facts! I was looking forward to refuting those.



hounddawg said:


> Nobody is suggesting that it is more dangerous to take a bath than to live next door to a pit bull. What IS being suggested is indisputable, which is, of course, why nobody disputes it: pit bulls are MORE LIKELY to kill -- adults AND children -- than, say, a beagle.


Well sure. A German Shepherd or a Rottweiler or a Doberman or a Siberian Husky or a Golden Retriever is more likely to kill a person than a beagle is, too, because every one of those breeds is larger than a beagle. I don't think anyone's arguing that a larger dog can do more damage to an adult than a smaller one. Similarly, a 16-30lb bobcat is going to do more damage to an adult than an 8-11lb housecat would. That's just common sense.

Now, what I think you're trying to say is that pit bulls are more likely than any other breed to attack (and kill) a person. And that is highly disputable. First of all, "pit bull" is a term the general public uses to describe a fairly large number of dog breeds (including the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, and several other breeds with similar characteristics). This means that there are a LOT of "pit bulls" out there (by some estimates, if you consider all of these breeds "pit bulls," then pits are the most popular "breed" in the US). Of course if there are more of a certain breed in existence, you are going to hear about more "problem dogs" of that breed. 

Around here, labrador retrievers (including lab mixes) are the most popular medium/large dog breed. I have been charged by several off-leash labs, one of which was quite intent on attacking my small dogs. In fact, almost all of the dogs that have charged me in my 10 years of living here have been labs. Do I think this proves that labs in general are dangerous? No. I'm not surprised that I've been charged by more labs than I have, say, border collies, because there are a lot more labs in town than there are border collies. So if (hypothetically) 10% of labs are "bad"* and 10% of BCs are "bad," but there are 1000 labs in my town and only 100 BCs, I'm more likely to run into one of those 100 "bad" labs than I am the 10 "bad" BCs. You see?

(*It's really the _owners_ that are bad, but you know what I mean.)

This site puts it more succinctly:



> Viewing older statistical reports for the Center of Disease Control, one
> will see that trends in breed popularity reflect in the number of bites
> attributed to a specific breed during a specific period of time.


Secondly, most people have no idea what a true pit bull looks like. A lot of dog attacks are mistakenly attributed to pits when in reality the involved dogs are often not pits at all (boxers, American Bulldogs, mastiffs, and even lab mixes are some of the breeds commonly misidentified as pits). This site keeps track of some of these cases of mistaken identity. You can subtract all of those attacks (and likely many more) from whatever mental tally you have of "pit bull" attacks.

Third, this. All of this. One quote:



> after 1998, the CDC stopped tracking which breeds of dogs are involved in fatal attacks; according to a CDC spokesperson, that information is no longer considered to be of discernable value


So how do you even "know" that pit bulls account for more fatalities than any other breed? The media? As I said above, the media's not great at dog breed identification. And I say that as a trained journalist. A lot of my peers couldn't pick a pit bull out of a lineup. (Can you?)

You can go on believing whatever you want; I'm not actually trying to convince you. You've clearly made up your mind. I just hope that lurkers with open minds and the ability to think critically will read this thread and hopefully learn something. Many of the people who posted before me are so much more educated about pits than the rest of us, and are definitely worth listening to.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I thought American bulldogs were bred as game dogs for hogs


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

JamesBrown said:


> I agree with your sentiment but disagree with your statement. Maul actually has a very specific meaning, to maul is to Wound (a person or animal) by scratching and tearing. Mauling is distinct from biting and should infact be used in police reports. There isn't much subjective about it, if the attack involved scratching, or the dog pit and tore flesh then it was a mauling. If the dog just bit a human then it was a bite. Many people in here are not using in properly, more than once in this thread it was described as repeated biting, this isn't mauling, it is just multiple bites. Mauling means their was tearing and scratching (presumably not inadvertant scratching but scratching to do damage). Dogs do not attack but mauling with their paws (the way a Bear or large cat would), so the only part of the term that is relavent is the tearing. I would guess that in the majority of cases where the term maul is used their is no actual mauling but I know I have seen wild animals that were mauled by dogs and I know dogs are capable of mauling.


So this is a mauling then:









No joke, that is what an "attack" was here a few years back. Someone's "Pit" dashed out the door through the owners leg and "attacked" the girl. It took them about 5 mins to make it to the dog who was "attacking" the girl and then a few mins to remove the dog from the girl. The Pit was put down for "attacking" the girl. That is the ONLY wound that girl had and it made the news and a dog lost it's life. THIS is what the media applies as an attack and what is recorded in those "stats" that people stand behind. If this was a Golden or a Lab even an GSD it would have NEVER even made the news (nor would it make any stats). This wasn't even "news" it wasn't even an attack. A dog got loose, knocked a girl over, girl panics, screams bloody murder while the dog is playing with the girl. I get worse scratches then that by going to work and I'm a Bank Teller (and very accident prone).


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

juliemule said:


> I thought American bulldogs were bred as game dogs for hogs


Actually they were bred for Bull Baiting, then moved to hogs. Now of days Pits are perfered as hog dogs because they are smaller and more agile then American Bulldogs.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

my dangerous pitbull RIP


by far the most trustworthy dog I have had. that includes poodles, labs and a pekingese


----------



## MusherChic (Nov 6, 2010)

What I'm wondering is when are we going to blame the humans who don't properly socialize their dogs, put them in situations they can't handle, don't keep them contained properly when they're known to be aggressive, don't seek out trainers/behaviorists for aggression problems, don't exercise them?

Do we blame the gun or the knife that kills somebody? No, we apparently have enough common sense to decide that it's the humans fault in that sort of situation but not enough to come to the same conclusion in the dogs' case.

To me, saying Pit Bulls are a dangerous breed after hearing a story about how they "attacked" someone is like saying sled dog racing is cruel because you hear that a musher hit their dog. Hearing one story from the media doesn't give you all the knowledge you need to know to be able to form an educated opinion on something.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Darkmoon said:


> Actually they were bred for Bull Baiting, then moved to hogs. Now of days Pits are perfered as hog dogs because they are smaller and more agile then American Bulldogs.


 So not for human aggression or protection? I don't have much knowledge on bully breeds, though I see more people now specifically wanting them for protection sports. I haven't seen many working, but the ones I have don't seem near as biddable as the shepherd type dogs.


----------



## MusherChic (Nov 6, 2010)

Darkmoon said:


> This breed is the most abused breed out there. You don't think so? What other breed of dog does man choose to do it's dirty work for pleasure of watching it kill another? STARE AT THIS PHOTO AND SEE WHAT WE HUMANS DO TO THESE DOGS:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 You mean that dog survived?!


----------



## Deathmetal (Dec 8, 2010)

You need a behaviorist to look at the situation. However I've always been under the impression that a dog gets involved in a fight because it does not have a proper understanding of where he stands in the pack. I'm not talking alpha.. but if I was in a physical confrontation with another 'pack member' the dog would catch hell for getting involved. You do NOT ask your dog to protect or help you unless you are 100% positive you cannot deal with it yourself.

I am always amazed - truly amazed that people attack the pit bulls left right and center. However the bigger dog breeds like the big mastiffs, wolfhounds and other large breeds are never in the news. Never argued about.

It is because a larger majority of the mastiff, wolfhound etc societies care about how their dogs are viewed. They train, they socialize, and would never allow a dog with a questionable temperament in a situation where it would act/react.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

RCloud said:


> It really does depend on the circumstances. Marlin and Charlotte under normal circumstances would NEVER bite or attack a human. They both really love and respect people. Marlin however, does NOT like violence _at all_. He has bitten my husband and I a few times (but has never drawn blood) while we were horsing around and wrestling. He loves people, but if someone came up to myself or my husband with the intent to do harm, physical or otherwise...I'd actually feel sorry for them! LOL! He would rip them apart! Should he be put to sleep under those circumstances? Absolutely not.
> 
> Charlotte on the other hand is the total opposite from Marlin in that regards. She's a dog that knows human behavior veKry well and can tell the difference between just goofing off and real genuine violence and danger. And her love for people is to a fault. If I ever were being seriously attacked by a human, she would be totally aware of what was going on, but unlike Marlin, she'd probably hide behind me. It's possible she might bristle and growl, but that's where it would end. She'd rip another dog apart in a heart beat if it came at us threateningly, but would NEVER hurt a person.
> 
> I don't know all the details to this story, but given what details there are, it sounds to me like there's probably more to the story then what's being said.


Lol ditto, must be a heeler thing . Izze went after fiancée when he was playing with Josefina (tug or war) & he was getting I guess what she saw as a little "too" rough & she ran up behind him & bit him like a cow lol lol, she didn't break the skin, only a bruise was the result. But according to some she should be put down now, right?  

Remember these comments are coming from HUMANS, the most violent species IMHO.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Deathmetal said:


> You need a behaviorist to look at the situation. However I've always been under the impression that a dog gets involved in a fight because it does not have a proper understanding of where he stands in the pack. I'm not talking alpha.. but if I was in a physical confrontation with another 'pack member' the dog would catch hell for getting involved. You do NOT ask your dog to protect or help you unless you are 100% positive you cannot deal with it yourself.


My pitbull mix is very dog aggressive, but it's more towards dogs that approach with a threatening menace to them, be it out of fear, territorial, or aggression themselves. And she can pick up on that much better then we can. That's what triggers it with her. If the other dog is polite, gentle, and good natured with absolutely no ill intentions, she's just fine. I've come to believe a lot of it is out of mistrust, protection, and perhaps a little fear. And a combination of the fighting dog in her. She was a street dog in Nashville, TN for probably the better half of her life, and judging by all the scars on her body, she more then likely had to fight other dogs in order to survive. Therefore, she had a very different social upbringing with other dogs that's different then dogs you see at the everyday dog park. Kind of like a kid growing up on the streets of Chicago or Detroit. Despite all this however, she does enjoy the company of our other dog, Marlin, and has grown protective of him in the same manner she's grown protective of us with other dogs.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Lol ditto, must be a heeler thing . Izze went after fiancée when he was playing with Josefina (tug or war) & he was getting I guess what she saw as a little "too" rough & she ran up behind him & bit him like a cow lol lol, she didn't break the skin, only a bruise was the result. But according to some she should be put down now, right?
> 
> Remember these comments are coming from HUMANS, the most violent species IMHO.


I think it's a herding dog thing in general. When I was a kid, my best friend's grandfather had a Sheltie that was exactly like that. I've heard of other breeds doing this as well, but more often then not, I see it in herding dogs. I think it's a combination of herding instincts and protective instincts.


----------



## hounddawg (Jan 10, 2012)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> No more breeds are likely to kill a human.


Wow... Really? Is that meant to say there's no difference between breeds at all? That's just starting the whole discussion off with irrational thought. 




> You're batting 1000 in the not knowing jack about dogs game. The bath tub statistic is not a red herring you just lack any sort of logical reasoning or ability to understand arguments (So why you're in one is beyond me, but I digress..) The point of the bathtub comparison is that 10-20 deaths a year, by dogs, is such an insanely small number compared to regularly things you do every day that are a much higher risk. Your odds of being killed by a dog- any dog- is minuscule. Idiots that like to throw around that Pits (Wish I could ask you on the street to identify a Pit for me.. I imagine you can't.) just lying in wait to kill people don't seem to understand that in the grand scheme of things, very few dog fatalities are happening. How you read 10-20 deaths in a population of billions of people and imagine roaming death squads- let alone a specific type of dog behind them- is beyond me.


Of course, your odds of being killed by any dog is minuscule. Where have I argued otherwise? Are you not reading what I'm writing, or are you just inventing your own strawmen here?? It IS a red herring because the stupid bathtub crap has NOTHING to do with disproving that pit bulls kill at a HIGHER RATE than, say, a beagle. I've only argued the FACT that pit bulls are MORE LIKELY to. You know why they're seen as more dangerous? Because their 'prey' doesn't stop at defenseless babies. Poodles aren't killing strong, healthy adults at the same RATE pit bulls are killing. That's a FACT. Deal with it. 

If you're actually going to argue that all breeds of dogs are the same when it comes to rates of human kills, then there is just no point in attempting to have a rational conversation.


----------



## hounddawg (Jan 10, 2012)

Amaryllis said:


> That's because "maul" is in the eye of the beholder, it doesn't have a very specific meaning. You and I could look at the same bites and I could see "bites" and you could see "mauling". Words like "maul" have no business in an article or police report. It's too emotionally charged and subjective.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, dogs are dangerous, like many things people own, such as guns, cars and ovens. Some dogs may be a higher risk, in the same way that a sports car is riskier than a station wagon, but so much of that is dependent on the owner and the situation that it's ludicrous to act like an entire breed is more dangerous overall.
> 
> Risks exist. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents EVERY SINGLE YEAR. I don't see anyone calling for an end to driving or an end to cars that go fast or are under a certain size/weight. Try to think logically, people.


Excellent analogy with the cars.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Katmandu;1127559
So why did this dog do so much damage ?
What did the owner of this dog do wrong ?[/QUOTE said:


> What did Lady Gagas parents do wrong?
> She says.. "I was born that way...."
> 
> Its very important to socialize your pets and children when they are young.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

juliemule said:


> So not for human aggression or protection? I don't have much knowledge on bully breeds, though I see more people now specifically wanting them for protection sports. I haven't seen many working, but the ones I have don't seem near as biddable as the shepherd type dogs.


They aren't as biddable as Shepherds. Training styles have to be different between bulldogs and shepherd dogs. You almost have to reason with a bulldog while shepherds seem more then pleased to do what you want. There's a reason why Bulldog type dogs (Pit Bulls, American Bulldogs, Bull Terriers) are called "bullheaded" breeds. They LOVE to work, they LOVE to please you but they are so bullheaded about it that sometimes you just want to beat the living daylights out of them lol.


----------



## hounddawg (Jan 10, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> How'd that work out for you?  You also didn't come back with any facts! I was looking forward to refuting those.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I appreciate your post. I can see a legitimate argument in debating the statistics themselves, in saying that pits are mislabeled in reports or that population skews the stats. I looked up the stats last summer when someone was trying to convince me of the same thing. I'll see if I can find it later. 

The image test was interesting, and I did get it correct. 

And no, I don't get my info from the media. I'm one of those people who sees bias in every damned news story. (I once majored in journalism, too....Disgusting bias out there.) I am friends with quite a few people who graduated from one of the top vet schools in the country, and they all agree that small dogs are MORE LIKELY to bite. However, pits and similar breeds are MORE LIKELY to kill. Now, I know plenty just pretend vets don't know as much as Cesar Milan or whatever, but it's proven to be true in every research I've found. (And I have access to the scholarly journal type stuff, which I unfortunately can't link here, but I'll try to find the quotes.)


----------



## hounddawg (Jan 10, 2012)

A little outdated, but I'm looking through bookmarks right now.

Dog Bite Fatalities by Breed 1979-1998

Breed

1979-1980	1981-1982	1983-1984	1985-1986	1987-1988	1989-1990	1991-1992	1993-1994	1995-1996	1997-1998	Total
Purebred 
Pit Bull	2	5	10	9	11	8	6	5	4	6	66
Rottweiler	0	0	1	1	3	1	3	10	10	10	39
German Shep.	2	1	4	1	1	4	2	0	2	0	17
Husky	2	1	2	2	0	2	2	1	2	1	15
Malamute	2	0	3	1	0	2	3	1	0	0	12
Doberman	0	1	0	2	2	2	1	0	0	1	9
Chow Chow	0	1	0	0	0	2	3	0	2	0	8
Great Dane	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	7
St. Bernard	1	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	7
Crossbred 
Wolf X	0	1	1	2	1	4	1	2	2	0	14
Mixed	0	3	1	2	1	2	0	1	1	1	12
German Shep	0	2	0	2	2	2	9	1	1	1	11
Pit Bull	0	1	0	3	2	3	1	1	0	0	11
Husky	0	1	1	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	6
Rottweiler	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	2	6
Malamute	0	0	0	0	0	2	1	0	0	0	3
Chow Chow	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	3
Doberman	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	2
St. Bernard	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Great Dane	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Yearly Totals	10	20	26	24	22	34	24	25	26	27	242

Table is adapted from Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab G, Lockwood R. 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.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

I can't speak on the article. The dog could be poorly bred, thought it was doing the right thing in a panic or was improperly trained, ect Could have been a number of factors. 

Yes American Bulldogs are used to catch hogs. But they have also been bred as guardians. It depends on the breeder. Some use them on hogs and other as personal protection dogs. 

Stats mean little because it doesn't mean they are APBT therefore a number of breeds are getting lumped together and one breed takes the blame. It could be a pit mix or completely different breed.

Looking at this scenario if it became a serious fight I believe my APBTs would get involved lastly but the others would be more likely to. I also think that at 100+lbs they could do more damage. 

To say Pits are more likely to attack and certainly to kill a person isn't based on fact or I should be dead. I've been around APBT since I was a child. I've been around 100s of Pits and I've never been attacked or mauled. I'd say they are one of the least likely to harm someone. 
I know a 50lbs APBT could take me down, they are almost half my weight, can hit hard and have teeth. But can and will are two different things. They don't have any interest in attacking people. 
Watch the difference in Pits and protection breeds. Pits are not a guard or protection breed. A defense driven human aggressive dog want the MAN, if the dog gets the sleeve off the decoy they will drop it and continue to go for the decoy. If its a Pit and this happens they will take the sleeve and be happy. It's a game and they got the toy. They are not wanting to attack the person. 

And since when have they been bred for full bite? 

Obviously sometimes real Pit Bulls bite but its not as common as people think. It certainly isn't always as serious like a mauling. It might be a minor bite.

To say other breeds don't have the strength or won't commit vicious attacks is ridiculous. The attack on Diane Whipple was very serious, I'd say vicious. A large breed dog can severally mail and can take down a human easier. Once your down its more likely to be fatal.

Pit Bulls are one of the most popular breeds, if they were truly dangerous overall we'd be in real trouble.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

i have those moments with the mals too lol. Really though, today I had to teach one markers. I used old roof shingles spread about to do directionals. Greta knows "touch" already. I took her to each one, said touch, then sit, and no joke in five minutes she would go to any I pointed to, jump on it and sit. This is a SAR test she must pass.

One of the SAR handlers nearby has an awesome pit bull he uses for cadaver. Great dog.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

hounddawg said:


> Wow... Really? Is that meant to say there's no difference between breeds at all? That's just starting the whole discussion off with irrational thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Alright, let's talk about that for a minute then. It is a fact that Pit Bulls have killed more people then Beagles. At least, that have been recorded and I would venture that, that statement IS a fact. There are however, other things to think about. How many Beagles are there over all Vs. Pit Bulls? How many Beagles are in the same horrid homes? How many are being forced to fight each other or being bred to do so? How many thugs have Beagles to keep the cops away? There are many factors involved in the "fatal bite" statistics. The largest of which is the incorrect identification of breeds. If you have a Beagle Pit bull mix and it attacks and kills someone, which breed is to blame? Surely it was the Pit Bull half that was the instigator in that attack, yes? It is true that Beagles over all are friendly tail waggin fools but then... so are Pit Bulls, in the right homes. 

The point folks here are trying to make is that in the right home, a Pit Bull is no more dangerous then a Beagle or any other breed. In the wrong home, any dog CAN be dangerous. Any dog CAN kill. If you read the actual fatal bite reports, I think you would be horrified at the majority of them. The majority of them are "child left alone in the room with dog" or "dog chained in back yard when visiting person rough houses in the yard and gets bit by dog" etc... They are down right ridiculous and more importantly, preventable. They could all have been prevented by proper socializing and management of said dog. They could all have been prevented without banning any breed of dog.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Darkmoon said:


> They aren't as biddable as Shepherds. Training styles have to be different between bulldogs and shepherd dogs. You almost have to reason with a bulldog while shepherds seem more then pleased to do what you want. There's a reason why Bulldog type dogs (Pit Bulls, American Bulldogs, Bull Terriers) are called "bullheaded" breeds. They LOVE to work, they LOVE to please you but they are so bullheaded about it that sometimes you just want to beat the living daylights out of them lol.


Wow really. I've always considered my APBT to be highly biddable. I'm not saying all bully breed are and that certain dogs/lines within the APBT may not be but as far as that being the norm? I've used reward when training but usually if they understand what I want they do it for a good boy, good girl. They are a pleasure to train. I trained a young dog basic stuff in a few days. Now Cane Corso that's a different story. I had to learn some because I was used to dogs that did what I wanted when I wanted.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Spicy1_VV said:


> A large breed dog can severally mail and can take down a human easier. .


My Rottie has a huge tongue...she could lick the glue off a stamp and very large envelopes.
We dont allow her near the mail .


----------



## hounddawg (Jan 10, 2012)

Inga said:


> Alright, let's talk about that for a minute then. It is a fact that Pit Bulls have killed more people then Beagles. At least, that have been recorded and I would venture that, that statement IS a fact. There are however, other things to think about. How many Beagles are there over all Vs. Pit Bulls? How many Beagles are in the same horrid homes? How many are being forced to fight each other or being bred to do so? How many thugs have Beagles to keep the cops away? There are many factors involved in the "fatal bite" statistics. The largest of which is the incorrect identification of breeds. If you have a Beagle Pit bull mix and it attacks and kills someone, which breed is to blame? Surely it was the Pit Bull half that was the instigator in that attack, yes? It is true that Beagles over all are friendly tail waggin fools but then... so are Pit Bulls, in the right homes.
> 
> The point folks here are trying to make is that in the right home, a Pit Bull is no more dangerous then a Beagle or any other breed. In the wrong home, any dog CAN be dangerous. Any dog CAN kill. If you read the actual fatal bite reports, I think you would be horrified at the majority of them. The majority of them are "child left alone in the room with dog" or "dog chained in back yard when visiting person rough houses in the yard and gets bit by dog" etc... They are down right ridiculous and more importantly, preventable. They could all have been prevented by proper socializing and management of said dog. They could all have been prevented without banning any breed of dog.


There's a reason that criminals and dog fighters choose pit bulls and not chihuahuas, even though chis are more likely to bite. It is reasonable to suggest that pits are higher in bite/death stats because they're more often trained to attack and are poorly kept by cruel, idiot owners, and NOT because they just "naturally" are born to be aggressive. And I'm not even saying they should be banned. But it's hard for an insurance company, apartment complex, HOA, etc., to look at the stats and not take it quite seriously. There are severe implications to the idea that, for whatever reason, people are continually breeding pits and pit-mixes to be aggressive. Then you look at @#%*(&W(*ER& like Michael Vick and they get away with it and continue the problem. (A year later he said he wanted another dog for his [email protected]#($*&@#($*&!!!!!)


----------



## hounddawg (Jan 10, 2012)

Roloni said:


> My Rottie has a huge tongue...she could lick the glue off a stamp and very large envelopes.
> We dont allow her near the mail .


Bwahaha. Nice.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

hounddawg said:


> There's a reason that criminals and dog fighters choose pit bulls and not chihuahuas, even though chis are more likely to bite. It is reasonable to suggest that pits are higher in bite/death stats because they're more often trained to attack and are poorly kept by cruel, idiot owners, and NOT because they just "naturally" are born to be aggressive. And I'm not even saying they should be banned. But it's hard for an insurance company, apartment complex, HOA, etc., to look at the stats and not take it quite seriously. There are severe implications to the idea that, for whatever reason, people are continually breeding pits and pit-mixes to be aggressive. Then you look at @#%*(&W(*ER& like Michael Vick and they get away with it and continue the problem. (A year later he said he wanted another dog for his [email protected]#($*&@#($*&!!!!!)


Yes, in large part the reason they get these dogs for protection is because people are afraid of them. People are afraid of them in large part because the media works so hard at brainwashing people into believing they are dangerous. Movies, videos show them pulling down steel poles while they are tethered to them. They need logging chains to hold them back because they are so fierce they can break a normal chain. All of that is bull crap. There too a large percentage of the dogs they are posing as Pit Bulls are mixes or other breeds all together. You may have picked out the correct dog in that "pick the pit bull" test but what percentage of people would if you asked them to? Seriously, I am talking about average Joe, not dogforum folks who dedicate their lives to their dogs. 

My argument is simply that Pit Bulls are not any more likely to bite then any other breed and the statistics are skewed. They LOOK like Pit Bulls are more dangerous but when you actually look, they are not comparing apples to apples. When you truly dig deep and weed through all the media garbage, you might find that they are a breed LESS likely to be vicious. It is sad that the poor examples of the breed or the dogs that were in such horrid situations or owned by less than stellar owners are the ones that receive all the attention. How would the statistics look if the media gave equal attention to all of the Pit Bulls that are service dogs, therapy dogs, search and rescue dogs or drug detection dogs working for the police? There are a lot of numbers to compare, not just fatalities.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

hounddawg said:


> There's a reason that criminals and dog fighters choose pit bulls and not chihuahuas, even though chis are more likely to bite.


That's size and "scariness factor" (in looks) moreso than anything having to do with temperament, though. Honestly, there are many breeds that would make much better guard/attack dogs than pits -- pits tend toward dog aggression, not human. It's just that many of those breeds are rare, more expensive, and harder to get (I'm thinking of the Caucasian Ovcharka, Tosa Inu, breeds like that -- in abusive hands, they'd be ten times worse than a pit). Criminals choose pits because pits are tough, game, and easy for them to get their hands on, not because pits are somehow more inherently human-aggressive than the other breeds these criminals could use.



hounddawg said:


> I appreciate your post. I can see a legitimate argument in debating the statistics themselves, in saying that pits are mislabeled in reports or that population skews the stats. I looked up the stats last summer when someone was trying to convince me of the same thing. I'll see if I can find it later.


I see that you found stats, which were by your admission outdated. I already covered that, though:



> Considering only bites that resulted in fatalities, because they are more easily ascertained than nonfatal bites, the numerator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires a complete accounting of human DBRF as well as an accurate determination of the breeds involved. Numerator data may be biased for 4 reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are likely underestimated; prior work suggests the approach we used identifies only 74% of actual cases.1,2 Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy
> than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to be counted more than once. (CDC Special Report on breeds involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, September 2000)
> 
> (after 1998, the CDC stopped tracking which breeds of dogs are involved in fatal attacks; according to a CDC spokesperson, that information is no longer considered to be of discernable value) (Pit Bulls in the City, Indy Tails July 2005)
> ...


From here.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Roloni said:


> My Rottie has a huge tongue...she could lick the glue off a stamp and very large envelopes.
> We dont allow her near the mail .


 Got to love auto correcting phones lol


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

hounddawg said:


> There's a reason that criminals and dog fighters choose pit bulls and not chihuahuas, even though chis are more likely to bite. It is reasonable to suggest that pits are higher in bite/death stats because they're more often trained to attack and are poorly kept by cruel, idiot owners, and NOT because they just "naturally" are born to be aggressive. And I'm not even saying they should be banned. But it's hard for an insurance company, apartment complex, HOA, etc., to look at the stats and not take it quite seriously. There are severe implications to the idea that, for whatever reason, people are continually breeding pits and pit-mixes to be aggressive. Then you look at @#%*(&W(*ER& like Michael Vick and they get away with it and continue the problem. (A year later he said he wanted another dog for his [email protected]#($*&@#($*&!!!!!)


Pit Bulls are used to fight because they have been selectively bred for fighting. Yet this background is why we have human friendly stable temperament. I don't condone it in this day and age, we can still keep the traits without game testing. I just don't see the relevance. Dog fighting doesn't mean a breed is more likely to kill imo. People need to stop breeding unstable Pits. We can't make that happen but that. where it starts.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

hounddawg said:


> Of course, your odds of being killed by any dog is minuscule. Where have I argued otherwise? Are you not reading what I'm writing, or are you just inventing your own strawmen here?? It IS a red herring because the stupid bathtub crap has NOTHING to do with disproving that pit bulls kill at a HIGHER RATE than, say, a beagle. I've only argued the FACT that pit bulls are MORE LIKELY to. You know why they're seen as more dangerous? Because their 'prey' doesn't stop at defenseless babies. Poodles aren't killing strong, healthy adults at the same RATE pit bulls are killing. That's a FACT. Deal with it.
> 
> If you're actually going to argue that all breeds of dogs are the same when it comes to rates of human kills, then there is just no point in attempting to have a rational conversation.


Actually you cannot say as a FACT that pit bulls kill humans at a higher RATE, because to express dog bites as a RATE you need to know the populations of the breeds involved. Dog bite statistics are typically reported as the NUMBER of bites, which is NOT A RATE. RATES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. This is what renders dog bite statistics practically useless (well, ONE thing that makes it practically useless - there are many things including breed misidentification and the tendency of people not to report their own dogs, to name just a few).

For example, let's say (using totally made up but math-friendly numbers)...
Breed Y killed 100 people in the US 2011
Breed Z killed 1000 people in the US 2011

Breed Z is looking pretty dangerous right now, isn't it?
But what if you knew that...
There were 1000 of Breed Y registered in the US in 2011
There were 100,000 of Breed Z registered in the US in 2011

That's a different story, because (I'll even do the math)...
100/1000 = .1 or 10%
1000/100,000 = .01 or 1%

Which means that while Breed Z caused MORE deaths, the RATE of deaths caused per population was 10x higher for Breed Y.

A few years ago I actually sat down with reported bites, dug up registered breed data, and actually figured out the rates. Oh, how I wish I'd saved that in Excel somewhere, but I didn't and I'm too lazy to do it again. The bottom line was that all breeds pretty much had the same RATE per population - and that's just including registered population. 

Anyway, here ends your statistics lesson.

ETA ps Just to really drive the point home and nip misunderstanding in the bud... if the RATES are the same, it means you are NO MORE LIKELY to be bitten/mauled/killed/ whatever by any particular breed than any other particular breed for which data exists. And THAT is how RATES work.


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Actually you cannot say as a FACT that pit bulls kill humans at a higher RATE, because to express dog bites as a RATE you need to know the populations of the breeds involved. Dog bite statistics are typically reported as the NUMBER of bites, which is NOT A RATE. RATES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. This is what renders dog bite statistics practically useless (well, ONE thing that makes it practically useless - there are many things including breed misidentification and the tendency of people not to report their own dogs, to name just a few).
> 
> For example, let's say (using totally made up but math-friendly numbers)...
> Breed Y killed 100 people in the US 2011
> ...


we have a winner


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Wow really. I've always considered my APBT to be highly biddable. I'm not saying all bully breed are and that certain dogs/lines within the APBT may not be but as far as that being the norm? I've used reward when training but usually if they understand what I want they do it for a good boy, good girl. They are a pleasure to train. I trained a young dog basic stuff in a few days. Now Cane Corso that's a different story. I had to learn some because I was used to dogs that did what I wanted when I wanted.


A mentor and I were just having this conversation not too long ago about the difference between training Shepherds and training Bulldogs. Mine are very willing to do things for me, easy to train new things and pick them up, it's getting them to DO what you want when you want it to be the hard part. Peanut for example learned to turn to the right in about 3 mins, yet wouldn't do it on command for a month until one day she decided she would. She knew what I was asking, you could see her start to do it, then stop and say "Nope!" It wasn't an "unsure" it was a "Nah, not feeling it today" and that has been my experience with all Bulldog type breeds(unless treats are involved or something else they want). They are smart as heck, but bullheaded.


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

sassafras said:


> Actually you cannot say as a FACT that pit bulls kill humans at a higher RATE, because to express dog bites as a RATE you need to know the populations of the breeds involved. Dog bite statistics are typically reported as the NUMBER of bites, which is NOT A RATE. RATES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. This is what renders dog bite statistics practically useless (well, ONE thing that makes it practically useless - there are many things including breed misidentification and the tendency of people not to report their own dogs, to name just a few).
> 
> For example, let's say (using totally made up but math-friendly numbers)...
> Breed Y killed 100 people in the US 2011
> ...


Great post.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Sassafrass! Most awesome post and very clear.

I also want to add that a *CAPABILITY* of killing/severe injury is NOT the same thing as a *PROPENSITY* to do so. Many of us humans have the capability (due to size, strength, training or weaponry) to kill another human adult, but most of us do not have the propensity to do so. To say that one breed of dog is more likely to kill a human is an error. Again, genetics (ie not breeding for temperament), training, socialization and husbandry is where things go awry. A well bred and raised Pit is no more likely to kill a human than I am. Count yourselves lucky folks..


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Darkmoon said:


> A mentor and I were just having this conversation not too long ago about the difference between training Shepherds and training Bulldogs. Mine are very willing to do things for me, easy to train new things and pick them up, it's getting them to DO what you want when you want it to be the hard part. Peanut for example learned to turn to the right in about 3 mins, yet wouldn't do it on command for a month until one day she decided she would. She knew what I was asking, you could see her start to do it, then stop and say "Nope!" It wasn't an "unsure" it was a "Nah, not feeling it today" and that has been my experience with all Bulldog type breeds(unless treats are involved or something else they want). They are smart as heck, but bullheaded.


Dang that would be frustrating!!! 

I should clarify learned quickly and obedient. I've had a couple who sometimes had a moment of defiance but nothing like ignoring a command for an extended period of time. What do you do in a situation like that? Just curious from a training perspective because what I'd learned that if they keep ignoring it sets it up a pattern that they will know they don't really have to do what you ask. That is just one trainers view.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Got to love auto correcting phones lol


Totally! I have many an embarrassing moment on forums due to auto correct 

Exactly, in fact (I know this is going to be sad, but it is a fact) many fight organizers "require" that a dog be handle able even in the midst of the fight. If a pit has HA, then it's bc they are: poorly bred, poorly socialized animals (& this could go for ANY breed.


----------



## Goldens&Labs4Me (Jan 18, 2012)

dogdragoness said:


> Why is that the dogs fault? If a dog isn't reliable with kids or certain ppl then the OWNERS should have managed the dog, why blame the dog when it is only an animal who know not what it does?
> 
> I get so tired of this attitude, I'm sorry to say. My Izze isnt a "friendly" dog by many standards (as in if someone acts threatening or "not right" she will bite, that's just her nature) should she have to die?


So you know this about your dog--do you allow your dog to roam free? Let her loose at a dog park to possibly attack a young child? I would bet no. I would imagine, knowing your dog is a biter, you do everything in your power to prevent it--or I sure hope so so that you are never in a legal situation because of it. I am going to imagine that this dog had never 'attacked' anyone before and this was the first time, so they were unaware that the dog has potential. 

I will agree that people are probably to blame a lot of the time. But, I will also say, not every dog owner is like you (or me or anyone else that has a better understanding and a little more common sense about it). So who becomes responsible for the dog that has attacked? These owners? They didn't prevent it one time--and what if next time, a small child is killed? Are *you* going to open your home and take in the dog that mauled his previous owner--even if the owner was an idiot and she caused it (for whatever reason)? Are you willing to risk yourself, your dogs, your family?

If YOUR dog attacked and mauled you....can you honestly say you would still feel all warm and fuzzy and it was all your fault? I personally believe dogs are pretty forgiving animals --and for a dog to attack and maul his own owner--I believe it's a dangerous situation--and one that could carry very high risks for the owner of that dog. I don't believe most dogs are wired that way, as a general rule. (and I'm not talking protecting here--I'm talking mauling/attacking a family member--not the robber that has just broken in your house to cause you harm). 

I just personally could not/would not have a potentially dangerous dog around my child--or nephews or heck, parents. It's not worth it. I love dogs and my dogs are part of my family--but if one of mine attacked any of us, there wouldn't be second chances. And I truly believe if it will happen once, it will happen again.

I'm sorry my attitude offended you--it's just my opinion and one that I stand by and don't mean any harm to anyone or any breed.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

dogdragoness said:


> Totally! I have many an embarrassing moment on forums due to auto correct
> 
> Exactly, in fact (I know this is going to be sad, but it is a fact) many fight organizers "require" that a dog be handle able even in the midst of the fight. If a pit has HA, then it's bc they are: poorly bred, poorly socialized animals (& this could go for ANY breed.


Lol yup I've had embarrassing one too. 

I'm not really sure why it is sad? I mean dog fighting itself yes because the dogs get hurt. But wanting a dog who isn't HA (unless it was showing aggression in truly warrented protective situation) is a good thing imo. A frightened dog redirects or bites out at anything in a fight. An unstable dog redirects in a fight or when they want to fight or go after a prey animal, ect. I could never trust a dog like that and I'm glad the environment fostered such a temperament and that most dogmen didn't allow it. 

I'm going to say poorly bred being the main factor or those trained for HA. More so than socialization. I've met plenty under or unsocialized Pits. Mostly they are very friendly, a few are shy but more often then not they are very human friendly. Maybe untrained but they want to lick you, rub against you, jump on you. The worse they do is scratch you. You have to consider their background also created this such temperament in such situation as well.


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

dogdragoness said:


> Exactly, in fact (I know this is going to be sad, but it is a fact) many fight organizers "require" that a dog be handle able even in the midst of the fight. If a pit has HA, then it's bc they are: poorly bred, poorly socialized animals (& this could go for ANY breed.


Right. HA in these dogs was not bred for, because the handlers had to be in the pit with the dogs, during matching. They had to be in there, and the dogs not redirect on them. HA should not be a trait among these dogs, and if the dog is a manbiter, it should face a dirt nap. There should be no tolerance of it.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

And its not just Pits. What would happen if a coonhound tree'd the quarry and turned on the hunter. Do you believe they would hesitate to put the down? You can't have dogs that redirect or turn on you. Who even wants that in a house hold pet setting? It's not safe.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

hounddawg said:


> Wow... Really? Is that meant to say there's no difference between breeds at all? That's just starting the whole discussion off with irrational thought.
> 
> 
> Of course, your odds of being killed by any dog is minuscule. Where have I argued otherwise? Are you not reading what I'm writing, or are you just inventing your own strawmen here?? It IS a red herring because the stupid bathtub crap has NOTHING to do with disproving that pit bulls kill at a HIGHER RATE than, say, a beagle. I've only argued the FACT that pit bulls are MORE LIKELY to. You know why they're seen as more dangerous? Because their 'prey' doesn't stop at defenseless babies. Poodles aren't killing strong, healthy adults at the same RATE pit bulls are killing. That's a FACT. Deal with it.
> ...


Not sure if for real. Don't wanna live on this planet any more. 

You took my first post out of context on purpose. For what purpose I'm not sure, but I can clarify for you even though I feel that is a useless venture. My Elkhound is no more inclined to kill someone because he's an Elkhound any more than my Pit mix foster is inclined to kill you because she has Pit in her. Understand now? The same stuff I've been saying this entire time? 

Sass covered every thing nicely. There is no point in having a conversation with you on this topic involving rational at all and the fact you're claiming any one but you here is irrational is magical.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

hounddawg said:


> Wow... Really? Is that meant to say there's no difference between breeds at all? That's just starting the whole discussion off with irrational thought.
> 
> 
> Of course, your odds of being killed by any dog is minuscule. Where have I argued otherwise? Are you not reading what I'm writing, or are you just inventing your own strawmen here?? It IS a red herring because the stupid bathtub crap has NOTHING to do with disproving that pit bulls kill at a HIGHER RATE than, say, a beagle. I've only argued the FACT that pit bulls are MORE LIKELY to. You know why they're seen as more dangerous? Because their 'prey' doesn't stop at defenseless babies. Poodles aren't killing strong, healthy adults at the same RATE pit bulls are killing. That's a FACT. Deal with it.
> ...


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Dark moon>> yes I do manage her, she isn't an aggressive dog by any means, she will try to avoid ppl or "warn" (posture/ bark at them to stay away) & the only time she has "gone after" someone was when some guy apparently tried to break into my truck at the time & she came out the window (half way) at him but all she got was his hat. That's why I left my other job, cuz my ex boss didn't respect my animals.


----------



## jenz (Aug 20, 2010)

I feel VERY bad for people who own Pit Bulls. I was hiking with my two dogs a couple months ago and was accosted by a woman who thought Lela was a Pit Bull. The threats and insinuations she lambasted me with left me almost in tears. I can't imagine what bully owners must face on a daily basis!! 

Jen


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

jenz said:


> I feel VERY bad for people who own Pit Bulls. I was hiking with my two dogs a couple months ago and was accosted by a woman who thought Lela was a Pit Bull. The threats and insinuations she lambasted me with left me almost in tears. I can't imagine what bully owners must face on a daily basis!!
> 
> Jen


That's terrible


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

What percentage of pit bulls ever kill a human? Doesn't matter if it's 3, or 5, or 12, the percentage is so small, it's a rounding error. There's what, 5 million in the US, give or take? If 12 kill a human, that makes the kill rate 0.00024%. Or, as I like to call it, "nothing. No chance." You'd have to encounter nearly half a million pit bulls to find a killer. How many pit bulls will the average person encounter over a lifetime? So, no matter how low any other breed's kill rate is, you're never going to be killed by a pit bull. Aren't 87.3% of all statistics made up on the spot anyway? 

But reading all those accounts of dog attacks got me thinking, how does a dog suddenly and unexpectedly bite a baby? 
Did you ever get right up next to your dog's face and make a mouth noise he never heard before, just any silly sputtering sound. Did he perk up and give you a funny surprised look? The 2nd time he might even direct a playful nip toward your face. Depending on the dog he might or might not make contact with his nose or closed mouth. If he's really excited you might even feel his teeth. Babies make some real funny noises. If the dog reacts they might even give a high-pitch squeak. Ever see a terrier with a squeaky toy? I know, it's not just terriers but they seem to provide the best example. Even a normally mild mannered pet can lose control of his senses given just the right stimulus at the wrong time. It's just a thought.


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

jenz said:


> I feel VERY bad for people who own Pit Bulls. I was hiking with my two dogs a couple months ago and was accosted by a woman who thought Lela was a Pit Bull. The threats and insinuations she lambasted me with left me almost in tears. I can't imagine what bully owners must face on a daily basis!!
> 
> Jen


People like that disgust me.

I'm glad most people around here are accepting of mine. I don't know what I'd do if put in a situation like yours.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

DustyCrockett said:


> But reading all those accounts of dog attacks got me thinking, how does a dog suddenly and unexpectedly bite a baby?
> Did you ever get right up next to your dog's face and make a mouth noise he never heard before, just any silly sputtering sound. Did he perk up and give you a funny surprised look? The 2nd time he might even direct a playful nip toward your face. Depending on the dog he might or might not make contact with his nose or closed mouth. If he's really excited you might even feel his teeth. Babies make some real funny noises. If the dog reacts they might even give a high-pitch squeak. Ever see a terrier with a squeaky toy? I know, it's not just terriers but they seem to provide the best example. Even a normally mild mannered pet can lose control of his senses given just the right stimulus at the wrong time. It's just a thought.


A little story, 

When I was young my Mom had Dobes, one of her females would NOT allow me to lie on the ground, she would try to pick me up like one of her pups. I was 5 or 6 years old when this dog was in the house, but you could see how a maternal instinct such as this could turn traigic easily. I thought i was funny and gota few holes in my clothes for trying to get the dog to do this, one of the neighbors witnessed it and RAN to our house yelling that the dog was 'attacking' me (she wasn't in fact she was very gentle and made sure she NEVER touched my skin). My Mom calmed the nieghbor ane they watched the game. But again, had I been an infant when this was going on a gentle,loving dog might have gotten put down for accidentally injuring (or killing) me.


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

This reminded me of a story that was a complete surprise to us all ...

My Rough Collie ... a gentle gentle dog ... One day my Mom was not paying attention to my two year old Sister and my Sister crawled over to the dogs bowl of food as my dog was eating ... My dog put my Sister's whole head in her mouth ... held it there for a moment but never clamped down. To this day my Sister never goes near a dog who is eating.

Anything can happen with any dog at any time. It is not just the breed of dog.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

jenz said:


> I feel VERY bad for people who own Pit Bulls. I was hiking with my two dogs a couple months ago and was accosted by a woman who thought Lela was a Pit Bull. The threats and insinuations she lambasted me with left me almost in tears. I can't imagine what bully owners must face on a daily basis!!
> 
> Jen


I haven't gotten any nasty comments really but so many random people think Jubel is a pit bull or mix (some insist to me he's pit completely). Brindle, deep chest, and stocky just HAS to be a pit to some people. I'll admit Jubel is very much a mutt and it's possible there is SOME bully breed in there some where but I really don't think he's a pit. 

The worst comment I've heard and it wasn't even TO me was a parent calling their excited to see a doggie children away from us as we walked in the park. "Get back here, that's a pit!" In some ways I'm glad to hear a parent being responsible about keeping their children from running up to a strange dog but sad that it was more about the scary pit than just unknown dog.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

jenz said:


> I feel VERY bad for people who own Pit Bulls. I was hiking with my two dogs a couple months ago and was accosted by a woman who thought Lela was a Pit Bull. The threats and insinuations she lambasted me with left me almost in tears. I can't imagine what bully owners must face on a daily basis!!
> 
> Jen


You get use to it. I've had some NASTY comments, most I just laugh at because they are so absurd that you can't help but laugh. There are some that leave me fuming. 

Funniest:
Had a conversation with a guy who was very VERY anti-Pit Bull. I was countering every argument he had with facts and he was getting pissed. Finally just before he left, he turned to me and said "I'm not a liberal, I wouldn't even call myself a Democrat but do you know what? It's people like you that will make me turn Republican." and he turned and marched out of the bank. Never have I laughed so hard in my life. 

The worst one:
I had Nubs for just over 3 months. There was then 2 mile long trial right next to a river and at the end there was a boat launch, a park, and a playground. It was wonderful. I walked it on a Saturday and the playground was packed. I took Nubs over to the Boat Launch which was a good 200ft away from the playground and some guy was walking up to go fishing. Nubs turned around and looked at the guy, his nub wagging a mile a second and the guy starts swearing LOUDLY at me about having such a dangerous dog near all those kids and I need to leave before he called Animal Control to have my "nasty, dangerous *bleeping* dog" killed. I took out my phone and asked if he's like to to call Animal Control personally and also the cops for harassment. He shut up quickly at that point, but still the worst thing I had.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

This thread is really just pointless in my opinions.

Dogs are not people. Sometimes they attack because we provoke them, an sometimes they attack for reasons we don't understand because we're not dogs. 

A dog is a dog is a dog. Who cares if it's a pitbull or a lab? It's a DOG.

Oh, and there is a really simple solution for those who hate pitbulls. Don't own one.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I got at least two bottle baby Pits coming to me tomorrow. I will let you all know if I survive.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I got at least two bottle baby Pits coming to me tomorrow. I will let you all know if I survive.


So noble, risking your life for theirs.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

I've only ever gotten one nasty remark in terms of Charlotte being a Pitbull, and it actually had nothing to do with fear of her hurting people, but fear of hurting another dog. Which is a legitimate thing to be concerned about, especially with her being DA to an extent, but the circumstances it was done in was very uncalled for. We were walking through a park, Charlotte was on a leash, and another lady was walking towards us with her lab. I took Charlotte, stood off to the side with way more then enough room for them to pass and had Charlotte sit. The lady just stood there with her dog staring at us. I told her to go ahead and pass and she replied "Not with that dog in the way. I can already tell it wants to rip my dog apart!". At this point, Charlotte was looking at the other dog, but she was calm, reserved and completely in control. Probably more concerned with the lady's negative energy then the other dog. Some words were exchanged for a few seconds, and she ended up leading her dog way around us off the path and through some thick brush. I just shrugged and went on my way with Charlotte.


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

Looks like all the Pit owners are having a love fest here at the end of the Thread. Nobody can predict what I'm going to do next and obviously nobody can predict with certainity what any size or breed of dog is going to do next. But inescapable are two facts: Pits were bred to kill and unlike many other dogs they are physically capable of killing humans and seem to be doing so with regularity. 

Go to LiveLeak.com and check out yesterdays videos for the Pit that killed its caretaker. 

I had a link posted but apparently it was removed.

I'll be interested in your thoughts after seeing the animal hanging on while the guy dies.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Almost any dog is physically capable of killing humans, and pits are not doing so "with regularity". But if you choose to be willfully ignorant and/or intentionally spread misinformation, so be it.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

JohnTruthman said:


> Looks like all the Pit owners are having a love fest here at the end of the Thread. Nobody can predict what I'm going to do next and obviously nobody can predict with certainity what any size or breed of dog is going to do next. But inescapable are two facts: Pits were bred to kill and unlike many other dogs they are physically capable of killing humans and seem to be doing so with regularity.
> 
> Go to LiveLeak.com and check out yesterdays videos for the Pit that killed its caretaker.
> 
> ...


My thoughts: a sample size of one is meaningless.

"With regularity" is vague. Are you asserting a fact?

[disclaimer: I do not now nor have I ever owned a pit bull or pit bull mix]


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The video was removed due to the violence in it. 

As far as Pits being bred to kill, they were NOT, they were bred to fight OTHER DOGS and OTHER ANIMALS. They were bred to NEVER bite a human (dogs that bit humans during a fight were killed). Poor breeding, abuse and HUMANS allowing aggression are why you see pits biting people. Also if you READ the report I posted you'd see that nearly 3/4 of the reported 'pit' bites were in fact misidentified. 

My English Mastiff (you'll find pics of him if you search Max with my name as the poster) was misidentified as a Pit on NUMEROUS occasions. I've been asked if my PUG was a baby pit. I've seen CLEAR (poorly bred) labs misidentified as Pits in shelters and know someone who had their BOXERS seized in Canada as pits (the dogs were Euthinized before the owner could get the paperwork showing they were, in fact purebred show Boxers). 

With that kind of misindenification RAMPANT do you think I or anyone knowlegable of the breed believes a newspaper report?

Two years ago there was a woman killed in Chula Vista CA, the news reported the dog that did it as a Pit, it was in fact a BULLMASTIFF (that had known aggression problems and got loose). There was never a retraction by any of the news organizations in the area. I found out because I knew some of the people that worked the AC investigation.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

My trainer had an APBT in last year for protection training. The owner had him since he was 12 weeks, was not abusive or ignorant. 
The dog was 3, and was being kept for his week of evaluation..
No bite training had been done, and this dog supposedly showed no aggression prior. Randall let him out to clean kennels, into the fenced yard. The dog circled him,lunged and bit, almost in a playful way, but he knows dogs well enough he could tell the body language. Before he could get the dog back into the kennel, he attacked, crushing his hand. A neighbor was out and heard him, came to watch, as normal. Neighbor saw this was not a training, and it took them both to get the dog off, over 15 minutes.

Using a catch pole, he was put into the kennel. When his owner came, the dog lunged at the door and nipped her finger. She took him out and he attacked her, though he did stop. He was euthanized that day, blood panel and exam were normal, and he tried to attack the vet.

Was this a pit bull problem? No. I think this was more likely to happen with one of the malinois or shepherds. Although I have not seen one seriously turn on its owner, handler bites happen.

My point is, this could have been much worse, and a toy breed would jot have done this much damage to a competent adult. I have dealt with many bully types, and find them less likely, as a whole, to bite. When they do, as any large powerful breed, they are dangerous.


----------



## The Feather Duster (Apr 14, 2010)

I have no experience with Pit Bulls. I've never met or interacted with one. That being said, they are good looking dogs with impressive musculature. And if people say they are great and loving with humans and humans with young children, I am willing to take their word for it.

Do you hear me, Darkmoon??


----------



## Thracian (Dec 24, 2008)

> I'll be interested in your thoughts after seeing the animal hanging on while the guy dies.


I am more interested in knowing why someone is calmly filming the entire scene instead of helping the victim.

Sincerely,
Owner of 0 (Zero) Pit Bulls


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

JohnTruthman said:


> Looks like all the Pit owners are having a love fest here at the end of the Thread. Nobody can predict what I'm going to do next and obviously nobody can predict with certainity what any size or breed of dog is going to do next. But inescapable are two facts: Pits were bred to kill and unlike many other dogs they are physically capable of killing humans and seem to be doing so with regularity.
> 
> Go to LiveLeak.com and check out yesterdays videos for the Pit that killed its caretaker.
> 
> ...


That was a very strange video for so many reasons. For one, there is a huge crowd just sitting there watching the dog biting the guys arm? The guy himself seemed either in shock or drugged or something. Then I have to say that I am so glad I am not in that country depending on that rescue crew. It took how long for anyone to go in to help at all, longer for them to think to put pressure on the wounds then they loosely wrap giant towels around the arms. 

I am not sure what you want in response to such a video. Should that dog have been shot? Yes! Why did it attack? Who knows. Do all Pit Bulls do things like that? Absolutely not. Should they all be banned because of far out situations like the video? No 

One other thing that was odd in the video I noticed when people finally started to go in to give him help, one person walked in then out again and there was another dog there. They left the gate open and the dog thankfully didn't get itself involved in anything. The whole thing was weird right down to the creep sound thing.


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

JohnTruthman said:


> Looks like all the Pit owners are having a love fest here at the end of the Thread. Nobody can predict what I'm going to do next and obviously nobody can predict with certainity what any size or breed of dog is going to do next. But inescapable are two facts: Pits were bred to kill and unlike many other dogs they are physically capable of killing humans and seem to be doing so with regularity.
> 
> Go to LiveLeak.com and check out yesterdays videos for the Pit that killed its caretaker.
> 
> ...


It was rightfully removed.

Other posters have made strong points here, so I won't say much, but I will reiterate what I said in that thread before it was deleted.

Can we confirm that this dog was actually a Pitbull? I didn't watch much of the video, but I clicked forward a couple times, and I never really got a good view of the dog. Someone in the comments said it was a Rhodesian Ridgeback. As others have pointed out, many dogs are misidentified as Pits, and this could easily be one of them.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Maybe there was some street justice goin' on.


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

Avery said:


> Can we confirm that this dog was actually a Pitbull? I didn't watch much of the video, but I clicked forward a couple times, and I never really got a good view of the dog. Someone in the comments said it was a Rhodesian Ridgeback. As others have pointed out, many dogs are misidentified as Pits, and this could easily be one of them.


Everything with a short coat and muscular body is a Pit Bull nowadays. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

Tainted said:


> Everything with a short coat and muscular body is a Pit Bull nowadays. It's ridiculous.


True. I didn't know they came in this color:


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

That's why I stick to hairy pit bulls.


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

Avery said:


> True. I didn't know they came in this color:


LOL. What a lovely Pit Bull.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

Avery said:


> True. I didn't know they came in this color:


You didn't know? You have to be REALLY careful with those pits. They'll attack people like it's nothing. They don't even have to be there! They can be in a different town!


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Tainted said:


> Everything with a short coat and muscular body is a Pit Bull nowadays. It's ridiculous.


It isn't even just the coat. Do you know how many times my dogs have been mistaken for Pit Bulls? Mine are purebred dogs, and nothing like Pit Bulls.


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

Inga said:


> It isn't even just the coat. Do you know how many times my dogs have been mistaken for Pit Bulls? Mine are purebred dogs, and nothing like Pit Bulls.


I believe ya. Like I said, it's ridiculous!


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Heh, nobody has mistaken Hope for pit bull.. But they still grab up their kids and pick up their little dogs and pass on the other side of the street when I walk her anyway. I guess she does have a bit of a "junk yard dog" look to her with the cauliflowered ears and mostly black blanket pattern coat and all though.. 

Nobody seems to want to come near Hope and most folks are visibly afraid of her. And Hope is a hyper friendly goofy love bug that kids could ride on, pull her tail and ears, and all they would get was sloppy tongue in the face. No fear, great attitude, tolerant, doesn't even nip if a kid hurts her, and loves everyone..

Now Kaya on the other hand, she is so cute, a really beautiful dog in person, and everyone wants to run right up to her and pet her, hug her, or get kisses from her, and she was so fearful when I first got her she would bite you no problem if you came right up to her and stuck a hand out at her. There were a couple close calls with people before I got socialized and desensitized enough not to be a real bite risk.

I managed it by always pulling Kaya's leash shorter and closer to me, and letting Hope go out an the end of her leash to keep the women and kids at bay from running up to Kaya and getting bit. At least until I could explain that they really wanted to pet the bigger scary looking black dog, because the little cute pretty dog bites.

I could mistake some other bully breeds for pit, to be honest I don't pay that much attention other than bully type terrier, but mistaking a Rottie? LOL..


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Inga said:


> It isn't even just the coat. Do you know how many times my dogs have been mistaken for Pit Bulls? Mine are purebred dogs, and nothing like Pit Bulls.


Are you saying that Carsten and Oliver were mistaken for Pitt Bulls, oh my, if you get the "on head assault" again what a marvelous attack Story/Pics that would surely follow.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

People have called Moose (also a Rott) a pit bull a few times. I don't think it's so much that they mistake a Rott for a pit, but that they don't know breeds and just lump them all together into the category of "dogs you should be scared of".


----------



## Thracian (Dec 24, 2008)

Does this guy qualify as a pit bull? He's got some muscle and look how short his hair is here.


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

Maybe a mixed breed. Still, you can see the killer instinct a mile away on that one.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

JohnTruthman said:


> Looks like all the Pit owners are having a love fest here at the end of the Thread. Nobody can predict what I'm going to do next and obviously nobody can predict with certainity what any size or breed of dog is going to do next. But inescapable are two facts: Pits were bred to kill and unlike many other dogs they are physically capable of killing humans and seem to be doing so with regularity.
> 
> Go to LiveLeak.com and check out yesterdays videos for the Pit that killed its caretaker.
> 
> ...


I once saw my neighbor's German Shepherd do the exact same thing when I was a kid. Video of one individual dog says nothing.


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

Thracian said:


> Does this guy qualify as a pit bull? He's got some muscle and look how short his hair is here.


I glanced at it, and thought it was a lamb at first. Then I seen your signature, lol.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Well I'm doomed..My chihuahua/pitbull cross is brindle and short coated!


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Are you saying that Carsten and Oliver were mistaken for Pitt Bulls, oh my, if you get the "on head assault" again what a marvelous attack Story/Pics that would surely follow.


Yeah well you know that they all fall into the "dangerous dog" catagory. One way or another Carsten seems to be trying to kill me. Remember the thread about Carsten needing swimming lessons. Repeatedly jumping onto my head while I was in the pool and then riding me to the edge like a turtle on a log. The log (me) struggling under the panic stricken turtle. The funny thing is that on a day to day basis, he is rather brave but once and a while he just needs some "mommy time" and extra encouragement that it is alright. lol

No pictures as I couldn't move. My head was smashed down into the pillow, I wasn't thinking about finding a camera so much as concentrating on being able to breath under his weight.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> No pictures as I couldn't move. My head was smashed down into the pillow, I wasn't thinking about finding a camera so much as concentrating on being able to breath under his weight.


The old pillow attack, a surrogate bully breed sneak attack, they're the worst.


----------



## Thracian (Dec 24, 2008)

> Maybe a mixed breed. Still, you can see the killer instinct a mile away on that one.


Oh yeah, he's scary.










Need I say more?



> I glanced at it, and thought it was a lamb at first. Then I seen your signature, lol.


He does look especially lamblike in that photo. I think the poor guy was mortified about his haircut (new groomer that I won't use again).


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

JohnTruthman said:


> Looks like all the Pit owners are having a love fest here at the end of the Thread. Nobody can predict what I'm going to do next and obviously nobody can predict with certainity what any size or breed of dog is going to do next. But inescapable are two facts: Pits were bred to kill and unlike many other dogs they are physically capable of killing humans and seem to be doing so with regularity.


I don't own a pit and probably never will, because they're a little bigger and more energetic than I like (I'd rather a dog under 30lbs that's good with one hour-long walk a day), and I tend to prefer breeds with a longer coat. The pits I've met have all been friendlier than I'd like, too; I prefer a more aloof, one-person dog. I defend them not because I love the breed, but because I have actually taken the time to learn about them and separate pit bull fact from fiction. I know that your two "inescapable facts" are crap, because I know that pits were never bred to kill humans (in fact, quite the opposite; man-biters were undesirable, and dog aggression is separate from human aggression, so claiming that a dog bred to fight other dogs automatically makes them a danger to humans is ridiculous) and that pits do not kill humans "with regularity" (as sassafras explained extremely well in her post about rates -- post 104 on this thread, if you somehow missed it).


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I've said it before, and probably in this thread, but if somehow your likelihood of being killed by a Pit is SO HIGH I'm clearly either a deity or somehow defying these fabled odds. I work 6-7 days a week at a shelter. I handle Pits each one of those days. Every one in the free world seems to think my 80 lbs mutty mutt is somehow a Pit because he's brindle. I used to groom dogs as well. Look at me, alive and never even had a Pit type dog even attempt to bite me.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

Well, I think the clear moral to this story is:

Families who own pitbulls must never ever argue with each other.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I've said it before, and probably in this thread, but if somehow your likelihood of being killed by a Pit is SO HIGH I'm clearly either a deity or somehow defying these fabled odds. I work 6-7 days a week at a shelter. I handle Pits each one of those days. Every one in the free world seems to think my 80 lbs mutty mutt is somehow a Pit because he's brindle. I used to groom dogs as well. Look at me, alive and never even had a Pit type dog even attempt to bite me.


Never had one I encountered try to bite me either. Never owned one though.. I've only encountered other people's bully breeds when working at their homes. I have met a few intimidating ones though that appeared to be thinking about biting me, but no more than other breeds some of which have bitten me.

I don't have any use for a terrier type dog, well maybe a rat terrier or a Jack Russel to kill rats.  I have had use for a retriever back when I hunted more, and use for a herding type now and in the future, so a herding breed will likely be in my future pretty exclusively.


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

My neighbor was injured by a (confirmed) pit bull trying to attack and presumably kill his small (15#) dog. The neighbor had picked it up and the pit took off a piece of his arm. Having completely recovered he sued only for medical expenses but the owner was a local renter and simply moved. Gee what a surprise.

Soon thereafter the incident the same dog was taken for a walk in the park and was barely held by its owner when it lunged at me and my 30# dog. Pit bull owners admit that their animals were bred to fight and kill other dogs. Not one person has ever answered my question in the past so I'll try it here. Why own a dog bred to kill? Don't give me its you're right or 'mine is so cuddly" baloney. The dog was bred to kill. Why own one where there are so many other breeds to choose from?

The only reason I've been able to figure out since I'm lacking any reasonable responses so far is 'my dog has bigger balls than yours'. Can anyone tell me why a pit is the only possible dog that will fit your situation (unless you own a junk yard of course)?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Why own a terrier of any type? They were all bred to kill SOMETHING, be it fighting Bulls (the original use for the Bull-Terrier which is considered a pit dog) rats, foxes or other game. Why own a Molossor (which includes every Bully and Mastiff), they were, after all, bred to take out *humans* in the Roman Coliseum. Why Own a Pyranese, they were bred to KILL wild animals to protect flocks. WHy own a Doberman? They wer after all bred as COMBAT dogs (literally dogs of war). 

Look at the history of nearly EVERY breed of dog, they (or their ancestors) were bred to kill SOMETHING. HEll dogs in general were DOMESTICATED to help us HUNT animals. 

Are there Dog aggressive PIts? Certainly and if they are handled by irresponsible HUMANS they cause problems (as in the case you describe). I happen to have a dog REACTIVE doberman, I keep her under control. If I didn't know what I was doing there might well have already been a bite to another dog or possibly to a human (she's also fearful of children). When Angel os woth us, she's a loving dog, she trusts us, which helps us manage her fearfulness and keep her safely. Hell, we're living in a HOTEL right now, with people in and out constantly. She looks to us for guidance on how to act/react in tense situations. 

It doesn't matter the breed, if a dog is fearful, reactive or outright aggressive it must be handled and managed properly or a bite WILL result. You ran into a PERSON who didn't properly manage their DOG (aka irresponsible owner).


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

JohnTruthman said:


> My neighbor was injured by a (confirmed) pit bull trying to attack and presumably kill his small (15#) dog. The neighbor had picked it up and the pit took off a piece of his arm. Having completely recovered he sued only for medical expenses but the owner was a local renter and simply moved. Gee what a surprise.
> 
> Soon thereafter the incident the same dog was taken for a walk in the park and was barely held by its owner when it lunged at me and my 30# dog. Pit bull owners admit that their animals were bred to fight and kill other dogs. Not one person has ever answered my question in the past so I'll try it here. Why own a dog bred to kill? Don't give me its you're right or 'mine is so cuddly" baloney. The dog was bred to kill. Why own one where there are so many other breeds to choose from?
> 
> The only reason I've been able to figure out since I'm lacking any reasonable responses so far is 'my dog has bigger balls than yours'. Can anyone tell me why a pit is the only possible dog that will fit your situation (unless you own a junk yard of course)?


cshellenberger covered everything I was going to say to this.

Honestly, until you've been loved by a Pit Bull, you just won't understand.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Some of the reasons why I own an APBT

1.	Athletic
2.	Sweet 
3.	Good size 
4.	Goofy 
5.	Loving ….and very willing to please 
6.	Physically appealing ( I think they are beautiful )
7.	Low maintenance coat
8.	Lots of Drive 
9.	Generally rough and tumble dogs….enjoy rough housing 
10.	Very versatile breed…can be used as therapy dogs, drug dogs, SAR dogs, Sporting, hunting, house pet…etc etc 

APBT were bred to fight other dogs not peopole ....DA is very manageable and is not a deal breaker for me as long as I am getting everything else I want in a dog


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I am so sorry to hear about JohnTruthman's bad experiences. I can see how they could really impact your emotional response to a breed. I wish that these bad things hadn't happened.

In answer to the question Why a Pit Bull: I worked at a shelter. Long Story Short-- I was asked to take a "pit bull" home after a surgery. She had been a long term resident at the shelter. She was perhaps the most amazing dog on the planet. Sweet, low energy, animal passive, obedient, happy, GENTLE. She stole my heart.

Then, from the same shelter, I took in a hard-luck pitty male. He is the most hard-working, biddable, intense, happy, fun, human loving dog ever. I compete in dog sports, and this dog will drill an exercise 50 times in a row with joy and fire. He never bores, never tires. He just smiles and drills and works. SO HARD. And in competition, he is so focused on the work. Competing with him is such a joy.

These two dogs have both been attacked. My female had an ear torn to ribbons by a mixed breed mutt and was jumped and repeatedly bitten by a cocker. She did not retaliate in either incident. My male was jumped from behind in a class by a golden retriever during a recall exercise and didn't even slow down or turn. He just finished the exercise. I have nice dogs. They would't hurt anyone's pets and I am a very responsible owner.

I have owned 3 dogs for 5 years and have never, for one moment, not known where a single one of them was. Ditto for 25 foster dogs. No escapes, no off-leash adventures, and no one and no dog has ever been impacted by my choices.

I wish all pit bull people were good owners. I wish ALL DOG OWNERS were good owners.

They aren't. Again, I am sorry about JohnTruthman's bad experiences.


----------



## Vicky88 (Jan 29, 2012)

Pit bulls aren't allowed in UK, unless the owner sticks by strict rules, if they don't then the dogs are put to sleep, the UK has a breed called the Staffy too, there are loads in rescue because they are getting bad press, and if they look like a pit bull, they are held and sometimes put to sleep aswell, my cousin has a Staffy, the dog loves kids, lives with two, and the dog loves other dogs too, when i was younger i remember the dog sitting on my lap when i was round there, it did not move the whole time i was there.


----------



## Adventure (Apr 4, 2011)

Some people just need something to hate. I am so thankful for living in a pit bull friendly area. Instead of getting shouted at that our dogs need to die, we get told how beautiful they are. I haven't considered asking our potential neighbors how they feel about pit bulls when we move, but will now be doing that. It would be hell living next to someone that thinks my dogs should die.

We love our two boys and could not imagine not having at least one APBT in our lives. You know how people say dogs look like their owners? My husband and the boys all have very square looking faces with prominent jaw lines, its cute. I guess I just love that face! The boys could keep up with anything we wanted them to do. From a day to the beach, to hooking them up in their harness to pull downed tree limbs across the yard after Irene. I love the short coat, medium-sized, the muscles, the blocky head, the intelligence, the work ethic in these dogs. Our dogs could go all day or be cuddled up next to me on the couch all day, they can rough house with my husband or they climb unto my lap for a nap and ear rub.

Dog aggression can be managed. Our dogs do fine rotated around the house from each other. We don't need dog social dogs even though it would be easier.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

Ok here's something I been wondering about. I hear people say they were bred to kill dogs. I'm very skeptical that a dog's genes contain instructions to go after a specific prey. I know there are examples of this in the animal kingdom, but aren't those all insects, birds, maybe fish? I mean, an insect that feeds only on a particular species of insect to the exclusion of all others. Are there any mammals that come out the womb with murderous intent for a specific animal?

Sure, you can selectively breed only those individuals who excel at killing dogs, but does that make the offspring automatically imprint on dogs as prey? Or does it just result in particular physical and mental attributes, and can't those be used for good instead of evil?

Furthermore, the population of pitbulls is huge; they can't all be confirmed dog killers. If these dogs are all being bred to kill other dogs, where are the genes coming from?

I'm speaking from a position of ignorance. Don't make fun of me -- enlighten me.





_ok go ahead, but only if it's really funny_


----------



## Tainted (Jan 23, 2012)

I will just keep my mouth shut on this one..


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Why own a terrier of any type? They were all bred to kill SOMETHING, be it fighting Bulls (the original use for the Bull-Terrier which is considered a pit dog) rats, foxes or other game. Why own a Molossor (which includes every Bully and Mastiff), they were, after all, bred to take out *humans* in the Roman Coliseum. Why Own a Pyranese, they were bred to KILL wild animals to protect flocks. WHy own a Doberman? They wer after all bred as COMBAT dogs (literally dogs of war).
> 
> Look at the history of nearly EVERY breed of dog, they (or their ancestors) were bred to kill SOMETHING. HEll dogs in general were DOMESTICATED to help us HUNT animals.
> 
> ...



Agreed. People will think nothing of owning a Dachshund or West Highland white Terrier or Fox Terrier but they were bred to hunt and kill vermin (as were other terriers) Heck, Doxies were used to hunt and kill Badger and if anyone has ever seen one of those in action they would realize what a tough and determined dog a Doxie must have been to do that. Most of the smaller terriers were bred to go to gound and face off with nasty critters in their homes. What it takes to do that is determination and drive. Pit Bulls have that determination and drive. If it is directed in the right direction (sports) it is amazing. These are fantastic working dogs and in
the right homes can be some of the best family dogs around. Again, It isn't the breed of dog, it is the person who owns them that will determine the outcome.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

Inga said:


> Heck, Doxies were used to hunt and kill Badger and if anyone has ever seen one of those in action they would realize what a tough and determined dog a Doxie must have been to do that.


must have been? Don't sell 'em short. 

Dachshunds are still dogs!


----------



## jenz (Aug 20, 2010)

> Not one person has ever answered my question in the past so I'll try it here. Why own a dog bred to kill? Don't give me its you're right or 'mine is so cuddly" baloney. The dog was bred to kill. Why own one where there are so many other breeds to choose from?


I agree with CShellenberger. don't think it's a big leap to go from "why own a dog bred to kill other *dogs*" to, "why own a dog bred to kill other *animals*." An animal is an animal is an animal. And many breeds have been bred to hunt, kill, immobilize, or maim other animals - I mean, you're talking most of the scenthounds, sighthounds, northern breeds, laika, terrier group, etc. Maybe toy breeds and a few Non-Sporting dogs have lily-white histories BUT really, I mean, the majority of dog breeds were bred to get 'down and dirty.'

-Jen


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

DustyCrockett said:


> must have been? Don't sell 'em short.
> 
> Dachshunds are still dogs!


LOL That is what I mean, they are still tough little dogs. They can be wonderful pets too, in the right homes. 

Since the question was posed "Why own a breed bred to kill?" My answer was that there are so many breeds bred to kill and that was a small part of the dog itself. How that is directed makes the difference. People own Doxies that never go after a rodent and certainly not a Badger just like some own Pit Bulls that never consider fighting with another dog. Not to mention being bred to fight another dog doesn't mean much when it comes to interactions with humans.


----------



## LuvMyAngels (May 24, 2009)

Just because one dog does something does not mean every dog of that breed will behave the same way. 

My daughters and I met a Pit/Dalmatian mix this afternoon. Two strikes against him, right? While he was very high energy (what 5 month old puppy isnt?), he never mouthed, nipped, bit or jumped on my girls. The whole encounter this little (my boy makes every dog look little) guy was a perfect gentleman. He has all the potential in the world to be someones best friend...just like all of our dogs do.

Some of the sweetest, happiest dogs Ive met have been Pit Bulls and Pit mixes.

For the record I do not and have not owned a Pit or Pit mix. Im not high energy enough for one!


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

"Why own a terrier of any type? They were all bred to kill SOMETHING" = A terrier can't knock me down and reach my throat.

"Some of the reasons why I own an APBT" = the question is not why you owe one but why not another breed? Surely other dogs fit your description.

"I am so sorry to hear about JohnTruthman's bad experiences". = Thank you. But your story doesn't tell me why another breed won't do for you.

"skeptical that a dog's genes contain instructions to go after a specific prey" = I agree since they occasionally kill and eat people.

"Pit bulls aren't allowed in UK" = Australia also. New Zealand I think and its been suggested in Canada and several states. Maybe they know something we should consider.

"Dachshunds are still dogs"! = and can't reach above my knee.

"Mr. Truthman who is a coward who posts lies, heresy, & outlandish claims just to twist ppl's giblets". = I did not make the story up - in fact I provided a link. I resent your statement and you owe me an apology or proof that I (a Vietnam Vet) am a coward, lie, misquote or am any landish at all set aside outlandish.


So I still don't have an answer as to why one has to (repeat has to) own a pit over aother breed that can do everything a pit can do. Look I don't hate any animal. Fear some of them? Of course and I try to respect them, appreciate that animals do what they do because they're animals and one has to respect their boundaries. The problem is when they get off the leash.

Should rotties be banned? I don't know - but what I do know is what I read. And so far its only been pits that have killed people by themselves (I.e. not a pack attack) or with another dog usually another pit. The record remains - no one has explained why only a pit will fit the bill. But look - you don't have to explain - I didn't make the post with the intention of any of you explaining anything. In fact I barely commented on the news item. It speaks for itself. You can let this Thread die right here. I have no intention of provoking anyone set aside pit owners but if I see another video of a dog being rescued or a pit killing someone I'll bring it over or for that matter a mastiff licking a kittens fur. They're all dog stories and all you have to do is not open the Thread.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Take away the pits, bad people would just ruin another breed. Take those away, and they'd ruin another breed. Pretty soon there wouldn't be any dogs left.

Maybe you could provide a link to a story about any dog eating somebody? Because I'm pretty sure I've never seen that (unless the owner died and the dog was starving).


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

JohnTruthman said:


> "Why own a terrier of any type? They were all bred to kill SOMETHING" = A terrier can't knock me down and reach my throat.
> 
> "Some of the reasons why I own an APBT" = the question is not why you owe one but why not another breed? Surely other dogs fit your description.
> 
> ...


Why are you spewing off false information about dogs that you clearly know nothing about and have zero experience with?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But would you post any positive videos of pit bulls? One licking a kitten's fur? One snuggling a baby? Probably not. Your bias is showing.

And how big do you think pit bulls are? There are lots of other terrier breeds as large or larger.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

JohnTruthman said:


> "Why own a terrier of any type? They were all bred to kill SOMETHING" = A terrier can't knock me down and reach my throat.
> 
> "Some of the reasons why I own an APBT" = the question is not why you owe one but why not another breed? Surely other dogs fit your description.
> 
> ...


As a vet (& I should know as my own father is one) you surely don't conduct yourself in a becoming way for a former officer... But that's a whole nuther thread.

About PB's , I don't know what kind of bad experience you had with PB's to make you have such a hatred for them. Also there are as many POSITIVE stories about PB's as there are negative stories. Also majority of the "PB's" so called in the news are "supposed" PB's are due to the medias idea of "well it attacked a human, so it must be a PB".

I don't like some breeds, but I don't slander heir good names in the manner that I have seen you do.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

JohnTruthman said:


> ...
> So I still don't have an answer as to why one has to (repeat has to) own a pit over aother breed that can do everything a pit can do.
> ...


This is a meaningless question. It's faulty. It contains an implied assumption that one "has to" own a pit, when in fact no one "has to" own a pit.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DustyCrockett said:


> This is a meaningless question. It's faulty. It contains an implied assumption that one "has to" own a pit, when in fact no one "has to" own a pit.


+1. Because nobody "has to" own a dog at all. You don't "have to" own a Golden Retriever. You don't "have to" own a Maltese.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

JohnTruthman said:


> " I resent your statement and you owe me an apology or proof that I (a Vietnam Vet) am a coward, lie, misquote or am any landish at all set aside outlandish.
> 
> 
> So I still don't have an answer as to why one has to (repeat has to) own a pit over aother breed that can do everything a pit can do. .


I see you were a soldier...Trained to kill people.
How we be sure that you wont start killing peolple at random?

Perhaps its because much like a Pitt Bull or a Rottie , You are not violent by nature.
However under the wrong leadership.. you and any animal can be made violent and have the potential to draw blood.


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

"Maybe you could provide a link" = they're as close as your keyboard. Pit eats babies toes, pulls off grandmas face, eats owner while owner is OD'ed. Try Google.

"a vet (& I should know as my own father is one) you surely don't conduct yourself in a becoming way for a former officer"= I never said I was an officer. All I did was post a news item. You guys got all riled up.

'I see you were a soldier...Trained to kill people. How we be sure that you wont start killing peolple at random" = you don't. Which proves my point. Nobody knows what that pit is going to do next either and they have a track record - unlike me.

I was in the U.S. Air Force inspecting mess halls for unsaninitary conditions and interviewing sexually transmitted disease carriers. Same things your local Department of Public Health does today. Trained killer? Your bias towards and ignorance of the military is showing.

Yes if I see a video of a pit bull licking a kitten I'll post it. Oh here's one now but you'll probably tell me it isn't even a pit. Well I just went by the title: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM_HPJ3L6iA

*All I did was post the news items folks. Don't attack me - attack the problem.*


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JohnTruthman said:


> *All I did was post the news items folks. Don't attack me - attack the problem.*


You ARE the problem.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

People are the problem, humans made the PB & similar breeds what they are, just like we made herding dogs, working dogs & such.

Someone has to take responsibility for the actions of others & god bless the kind souls & rescuers who do.Also some dumb "breeders" breed for human aggression also, it's not the falt of the dog.


----------



## Thracian (Dec 24, 2008)

OK, let's get rid of all the pit bulls . . .

http://www.wdrb.com/global/story.asp?s=11578951
Oh, wait. That bulldog is evil; let's get rid of all the bulldogs.

http://www.cape-coral-daily-breeze.com/page/content.detail/id/513662.html?nav=5011
That weimaraner is vicious--we'd better get rid of weims.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/woman-who-died-after-dog-bite-norfolk-identified
Whoops. Better eliminate the malamutes.

And . . .
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080728_11_Anin531451
So much for labs and pugs.

Do you see where I'm going with this? I could keep on linking stories, and they will reveal this: *any breed can kill.* But luckily we live in a world where (in most cases) the actions of a few dogs do not mean an entire breed is destroyed. So owners can have their beloved pit bulls, poodles, and bichon/beagle mixes.

It is more than clear that you don't understand why some people own pit bulls. The good news is: you don't have to own one and *you don't have to understand*. But you're fooling yourself if you think your breed of dog has never harmed another animal or dog.

If you want to crusade against pit bulls and their owners, that's your choice. A more worthy crusade is against someone who wants to regulate what breed of dog I can have.


----------



## Thracian (Dec 24, 2008)

My lab/pug link isn't working in the previous post: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080728_11_Anin531451


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Thracian said:


> OK, let's get rid of all the pit bulls . . .
> 
> http://www.wdrb.com/global/story.asp?s=11578951
> Oh, wait. That bulldog is evil; let's get rid of all the bulldogs.
> ...


Agreed! My Izze is a "killer" she killed two coyotes on 2 different occasions that got too close to my horse on the trails I was riding, I don't know iF they would have attacked us but luckily she didn't give them s chance, she has not EVER killed another dog or any other demes tic animal, not even a cat even tho she doesn't like them. Most cattle dogs are like this, :headdesk: well oh no I guess we have to ad ACDs to that list now :/


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> You ARE the problem.


I actually laughed out loud. I want to marry you right now.

And even though John "Truthman" doesn't deserve a response (btw, what the crap does your being a Vietnam veteran have to do with anything?), I'll give one.

I don't own a Pit Bull. I own German Shepherd Dogs.

My breed was bred to have HUMAN aggression. They are not just meant for herding. They are an all purpose utilitarian breed, and it SHOULD BE in their genetic makeup to BITE a human if there is a threat present. My breed was bred for the purpose of HARMING PEOPLE when necessary.

You know why I own GSDs and not a Golden Retriever? Because I like a serious dog.

You know why I own GSDs, and not a terrier? Because I like a LARGE dog.

You know why I own GSDs, and not a Giant Schnauzer? Because I love their biddability.

You know why I own GSDs, and not a Poodle? Because I don't like curly hair.

You know why I own GSDs, and not any other breed? Because it is my CHOICE to do so, and I love them. There is no other breed for me.

For others, there is no other breed for them but a Pit or a Staffy. What the hell do you care?

You don't like Pits, we get it. But you do not come off as an intelligently educated person who simply dislikes the breed. You come off as somebody who is clueless that has done a lot of reading, but has had no actual interaction with the breed.

Pits are known war heroes, you know. It's documented. They have saved many a life.

Huh...go fig.

I leave you with Sharky and Max-Arthur:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf9wHkkNGUU


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Ok here's mine lol (Xeph, I love you right now) this list is formed with NO OFFENCE INTENDED to any breed enthusiast
I own ACDs & not goldens BC- I like a dog with "balls" that can "take a hit" (metaphorically or course) & doesn't crack under pressure .

Why I own ACDs & not a Nortic breed? bc I like their biddability also 

Why do I own ACDs & not mastiffs or any other giant breed? BC I don't have room 

Why do I have ACDs & not any other breed? They are my "heart" breed, til you have had one I guess you can't understand lol

I guess PB owners say the same.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm glad Dachshunds were mentioned, and I'm always inclined the post of the hit I took to the face from my 11 lbs of Dachshund. Had it been lower dude would have blinded me in my left eye.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

There are hundreds, if not thousands of pitbull type dogs working as therapy and service dogs. There are hundreds if not thousands of completely non aggressive pitbull type dogs that are terribly abused, neglected and used as bait dogs in illegal dogfighting because they WON'T attack or even defend themselves. These are the ones that you denigrate when you call them killers. Lumping any breed like that is unfair and unethical. 

You, Mr. John Truthman, are biased and ignorant and are simply hatemongering.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> You, Mr. John Truthman, are biased and ignorant and are simply hatemongering.


But he's a war veteran! That's not possible!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

JohnTruthman said:


> "Why own a terrier of any type? They were all bred to kill SOMETHING" = A terrier can't knock me down and reach my throat.


American Pit Bull Terriers ARE terriers. (shock there lol)

Airedales are also terriers and are not a small dog. 

Bull Terriers

Kerry Blue Terriers... do I need to go on?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnTruthman said:


> " I resent your statement and you owe me an apology or proof that I (a Vietnam Vet) am a coward, lie, misquote or am any landish at all set aside outlandish.
> 
> 
> So I still don't have an answer as to why one has to (repeat has to) own a pit over aother breed that can do everything a pit can do. .


Hmm, since you brought up being a vet why don't you ask THESE VETS why a Pit Bull http://pitbulls4patriots.org/ 




JohnTruthman said:


> "Maybe you could provide a link" = they're as close as your keyboard. Pit eats babies toes, pulls off grandmas face, eats owner while owner is OD'ed. Try Google.
> 
> "a vet (& I should know as my own father is one) you surely don't conduct yourself in a becoming way for a former officer"= I never said I was an officer. All I did was post a news item. You guys got all riled up.
> 
> ...


 
The Pit that 'chewed the baby's toes" was a 6 week old pup that was attempting to NURSE.

The Pit that chewed the Grandmother, the woman DIED of natural causes, the dog, with no other food, scavenged her remains. The dog that 'ate' his ower when the owner OD'd was a similar story. If you're going to criticize and post stories, at least make sure you know (and post) the WHOLE story.

As far as you being a veteren, so was my Ex, he was also a drunken, wife abusing POS that also evaded child support, does that make every veteren the same? NO. 

A FEW pits that have bitten/killed ect do NOT make a whole breed bad. 

The fact is there's a lot more good than bad about Pits (much like our Vets)



JohnTruthman said:


> "Why own a terrier of any type? They were all bred to kill SOMETHING" = A terrier can't knock me down and reach my throat.


And here your ignorance TRULY shows, Pit Bulls are TERRIERS. The are not a specific breed, they are the BULL TERRIERS (American Staffordshire TERRIER, Staffordshire TERRIER, Bull TERRIER)

Dobermans are TERRIERS (bred from the Manchester)

Black Russian Terriers are in fact used as POLICE DOGS 

Terriers rance in size from 5 lbs (Yorkie) to 125 lbs, ALL bred to kill SOMETHING.

Oh, and Yorkies have KILLED three people in 10 years, lets ban them too!


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Oh wanted to add, my current husband has 20 years AD and is an LDO. I speak about vets as a Military WIFE, the daughter and Granddaughter of vets and the SIL to a vet. My Great-Uncle was one of the FIRST LDO's made during WWII. Right now in my family I have LIVING vets of Korea, Vietnam and BOTH Gulf wars (Husband, Nephew and DAUGHTER).


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

These statistics should speak for themselves and have ample references:

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

JohnTruthman said:


> These statistics should speak for themselves and have ample references:
> 
> http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php


It's actually quite humorous that you linked to that website.

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/03/the-truth-behind-dogsbiteorg.html

Again, why are you spewing off false information about dogs you have zero experience with?


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm gonna type up my own website and post the same breeds have 0% of bites. 

And do we really have to go through the whole number of breeds in a population vs. population itself and how few bites/fatalities actually are?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I ain't typing up all that stuff again.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Pibble said:


> It's actually quite humorous that you linked to that website.
> 
> http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/03/the-truth-behind-dogsbiteorg.html
> 
> Again, why are you spewing off false information about dogs you have zero experience with?


This always strikes me as the most interesting. I have zero opinion on breeds I've never handled because, well, I've never handled them. I also find it bizarre because even before I came immersed in the dog world I have ZERO idea there were breeds crucified for trivial reasons. A dog was a dog to me.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnTruthman said:


> These statistics should speak for themselves and have ample references:
> 
> http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php


Really bad choice of website, a 30 second search would show nearly 30 sites that have debunked dogsbite.org INCLUDING the ASPCA.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

JohnTruthman said:


> These statistics should speak for themselves and have ample references:
> 
> http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php


I LOVE it when anti-pit people link to dogbites. I always see it as a last ditch effort to "prove" they are right. Too bad that site is known for it's bad stats, and for falsifying information 

I've never asked anyone to LOVE my dog or my breed. All I ask is for people to open their minds and listen to my side with out judgement. 

Why do I own this breed? It's a LONG story.
5 years ago I adopted my first dog ever, Carter a Boxer/lab mix (He the one pictured in my avatar). He had a LOT of issues. He suffered from dog aggression, leash aggression, human aggression and the worst was his separation anxiety. He was a mess. At one point someone had said "With all those issues, I bet he's a Pit Bull!" So I decided to do some research on the breed. Can I tell you all the information I read on the breed was PERFECT for me? I mean loyal, human friendly, willing to please, protective but not really, driven, and so much more. Their only major down side was the fact they are known for their dog aggression and that was nothing to me. I ended up putting Carter down after he redirected his aggression on me and attempted to kill himself with his separation anxiety with in 24 hours (after months of working with trainers and research).

5 days later I found Nubs. I didn't want a Pit Bull since I had a taste of the issues with the general population's views on the breed and I didn't want the drama. After 5mins with Nubs I knew he was mine. I adopted him the next day and he has been the perfect dog. Next Peanut came into my life and while she's a freaking Terrier Terror, She's an excellent dog with the drive I've wanted. She's training to be a search and rescue dog. She's on a team already and learning how to track.

Don't judge my dogs because of their breed, it's not the breed that defines them. Their actions are what define them, and my dogs are only dangerous to the food left on the table. Learn the other side of the story because I hate to say it but you'll find that all that you know, maybe incorrect!


----------



## MusherChic (Nov 6, 2010)

JohnTruthman said:


> "Why own a terrier of any type? They were all bred to kill SOMETHING" = A terrier can't knock me down and reach my throat.
> 
> "Some of the reasons why I own an APBT" = the question is not why you owe one but why not another breed? Surely other dogs fit your description.
> 
> ...


In answer to your question saying why would anyone want to own a pitbull: why NOT? 
ANY dog is capable of killing another animal...you might as well be asking "why would anyone want to own a dog?".

"the problem is when they get off the leash."
Isn't that the HUMAN'S fault? 
You're condemning a breed for the Irresponsibility of their owners. Pitbulls are not born thirsting for blood. WE make them what they are by doing what we're not supposed to do or NOT doing what we're supposed to do. 

You can't form an educated opinion on pitbulls by reading stories in the media. After all, I believe the media is a just a fancy way to gossip. Would you appreciate it if we all formed an opinion on you by listening to gossip? Probably not, you would want to tell us the truth about who you are. Pitbulls can't do that because they can't talk. The people who love them are their voice and unfortunately they're not often listened to.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

MusherChic said:


> You can't form an educated opinion on pitbulls by reading stories in the media. After all, I believe the media is a just a fancy way to gossip. Would you appreciate it if we all formed an opinion on you by listening to gossip? Probably not, you would want to tell us the truth about who you are. Pitbulls can't do that because they can't talk. The people who love them are their voice and unfortunately they're not often listened to.


Hell, I can't beleive a Vietnam vet would believe ANYTHING the media would say about Pits, after all according to the media in the '60s and '70s our American soldiers in Vietnam were babykillers and rapists. It was the media that caused people to hate not only the war but our SOLDIERS so much they SPAT on them!


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Yes I remember my father mentioning that (only once , as he doesn't like talking about anything regarding the war  ) but according to family members Vets were spat on, refused service at establishments & had bottles thrown at them. That is why I was also surprised about the readiness to believe hearsay.

That original article doesn't even say who the dog actually bit really, everyone was saying it was the wife but I think (at least this is how I inturpted it) as it was the SISTER of the one of the spouses.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

While I would like to express my respect and admiration for veterans, could I just say that military service alone does not bestow credibility upon a person.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

MusherChic said:


> In answer to your question saying why would anyone want to own a pitbull: why NOT?


Because the breed type isn't what I want in a dog. I wouldn't own a toy poodle or maltese or a husky or an English bulldog either..

The only two types that serve my purpose are retrieving and herding types, they have been selectively bred for the traits I want in a companion dog. Simple really.

If I lived in Alaska and had use for a sled I would likely own huskies or mals, if I had something I wanted a terrier for I would have a terrier type..

I wouldn't want a terrier for sled pulling or duck retrieving, I wouldn't want a husky for hunting or herding.. Dogs were bred for purposes, I respect that and choose accordingly and pits were bred for a purpose I simply have no use for.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

While I was volunteering at the local shelter, I tried to force myself to work with dogs that I absolutely would NOT adopt. This would make it easier for me, I thought. I would come in the morning very early, check the "euthanasia basket" which was a basket that held the dogs slotted for that day if they didn't get a name (potential adopter) on their profile. I would teach them a basic "sit" and don't pull on the leash. I saved hundreds of dogs by doing that. I would start individually campaigning them throughout the day to show people how "good they were." and get them to consider an adoption. 

The breed that often broke my heart was the Pit Bulls. They were smart and wanted to please. They were sweet and didn't go "cage crazy" like many of the other breeds that spent any time in that shelter. That showed how easy going and adaptable they were. I decided I could no longer work with those dogs because even though I could easily teach them to sit, stay, come, heel, down, kiss, shake, high five, roll over, sit up and beg and even play dead, people would over look them. I can't tell you how many times I would be showing off one of my dogs (the Pits I had trained) and a small crowd would be oohing and aahing over the dog and be all ready to sign up when they found out it was a Pit Bull. Then, they would take their name off the list because they heard that something COULD happen with that type of dog. 

I had to take that horrible walk to the back with too many dogs that I fell in love with for our final meeting. No dog should die alone but each one took a little of me with them and I couldn't do it anymore. These are not vicious killers, they are misunderstood, misidentified, misused, mistreated dogs. You might wonder why I didn't adopt them? The answer is simple. I couldn't afford to take any more dogs home. I was already way over the limit of dogs and then... where do you draw the line? I told myself that a Pit Bull was not the dog for me but I found out that there were at least 12 of them that could have been. I guess that is what happens when you open your mind and your heart.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

JohnTruthman said:


> 'I see you were a soldier...Trained to kill people. How we be sure that you wont start killing peolple at random" = you don't. Which proves my point. Nobody knows what that pit is going to do next either and they have a track record - unlike me.
> 
> I was in the U.S. Air Force inspecting mess halls for unsaninitary conditions and interviewing sexually transmitted disease carriers. Same things your local Department of Public Health does today. Trained killer? Your bias towards and ignorance of the military is showing.
> 
> ]


Your bias and ignorance towards certain breeds...Is interesting.

You proved the point that not all military people go to war and kill .
Some work in the kitchen...because thats what they are trained to do.

What makes you different from the other soldiers that go to war?...nothing but training.
You have the same potential to be agressive and violent .


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Yes, I think that most humans conveniently forget that they to are animals & behave as such at times & we are "smart" enough to know the difference. We have domesticated the dog so much that we forget that it still is an animal who doesn't rationalize it just uses its inctincts (which can be breed specific of course) & reacts.

On the topic of aggression: herding dogs *can* have aggression twds humans if they attempt to herd them, herding is nothing but modified hunting/killing behavior, the way BCs round up sheep is strikingly similar to the way a wolf pack will surround a herd of animals. & single out the weak. The actual ACT of killing was phased out.


----------



## MusherChic (Nov 6, 2010)

> Because the breed type isn't what I want in a dog. I wouldn't own a toy poodle or maltese or a husky or an English bulldog either..
> 
> The only two types that serve my purpose are retrieving and herding types, they have been selectively bred for the traits I want in a companion dog. Simple really.
> 
> ...


My post was directed at John Truthman. :wink:

I understand that people don't want to own Pitbulls for specific reasons but to ask why anyone would want to own one because they are "known for being aggressive" is like asking why anyone would want to own _any_ kind of dog--they're all capable of being aggressive if they aren't raised properly.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Yes, I think that most humans conveniently forget that they to are animals & behave as such at times & we are "smart" enough to know the difference.


Humans can be trained to be extremely destructive..They can be trained to highjack airplanes and fly them into buildings.

So are all humans bad ? 

Are certain breeds of humans more dangerous than others?




Nope...its all about training.


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

JohnTruthman said:


> "Why own a terrier of any type? They were all bred to kill SOMETHING" = A terrier can't knock me down and reach my throat.


I had a feeling you would go in that direction.

So what about the Irish Wolfhound? Or the Scottish Deerhound? Norwegian Elkhound? All bred to kill large, and sometimes vicious animals, and more than capable of knocking you down.


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

Pibble said:


> It's actually quite humorous that you linked to that website...QUOTE]
> 
> Thank you for the new link - it always good to have an opposing view however it often just leaves you in the dark once again as there is no way I can know if the KC site isn't run by a pit breeder. But I welcome the new source of information.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

A journalist can only quote what they're told. A great deal of the time, attacks are attributed to pit bulls in the media when the dog in question was not a pit at all. Journalists are not experts in identifying breeds, nor are the people they quote in their stories. I linked to a site earlier that collects some of these cases of mistaken identity. Here it is again.

(And I _am_ a journalist. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Most of my peers couldn't pick a pit bull out of a lineup. It's also a fun experiment to give a group of journalists some raw statistics and get them to write a story about it. No two will interpret the stats the same way (and most of them get different percentages when they do the math, too; math tends not to be our strong suit ). You really have to view anything you see in the media with a critical eye. Newspapers are especially untrustworthy, as unlike magazines, they don't employ fact-checkers. I worked as a fact-checker at a magazine and I was not allowed to use newspapers as sources when checking facts for our articles; they're considered about as trustworthy as Wikipedia. )


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Also, with regard to using the media to form your opinions, I'd take a look at this link. It's a couple of years old, but an excellent example of media bias against Pits.

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/01/2009-dog-bite-fatalities-final-report.html


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnTruthman said:


> Pibble said:
> 
> 
> > It's actually quite humorous that you linked to that website...QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

JohnTruthman said:


> Pibble said:
> 
> 
> > It's actually quite humorous that you linked to that website...QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JohnTruthman said:


> As for knowledge about pits I only know what I read. My father taught me to never believe anything that I read...


 But you believe dogsbite.org? How surprising.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

sassafras said:


> But you believe dogsbite.org? How surprising.


Almost as contradictory as the words (in this case) Truth Man It's definitely at the very least another online puzzlement.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I had to post this video for John Truthman as he claims he is looking for "truth"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=6CcM8wcspmM In the face of pain, emotional and physical torment this dog showed his true colors. What more could a dog do to prove his gentle nature then to wag his tail and look for love during such a horrid time?


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

*My latest rant:*

Have you see my latest Thread? Talk about rants you gotta watch this:

http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/107605-dog-fasssssst.html


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

*Re: My latest rant:*

^^You actually can't call him that word, Pibble :-/ It's in the rules.

That said, I wanna steal Bruschi.


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

*Re: My latest rant:*



Xeph said:


> ^^You actually can't call him that word, Pibble :-/ It's in the rules.
> 
> That said, I wanna steal Bruschi.


:doh: Oops.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

*Re: My latest rant:*

Also.....can I hazard a guess as to how his name is pronounced? I wanna say it's a clever way to say Brewski, lol


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

*Re: My latest rant:*



Xeph said:


> Also.....can I hazard a guess as to how his name is pronounced? I wanna say it's a clever way to say Brewski, lol


 Like Tedy Bruschi! Former Linebacker for the New England Patriots! Pronounced as such (the way Xeph typed it). Maybe? :O If so. You're my favorite!


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

*Re: My latest rant:*



Niraya said:


> Like Tedy Bruschi! Former Linebacker for the New England Patriots! Pronounced as such. Maybe? :O If so. You're my favorite!


Precisely.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

*Re: My latest rant:*



Pibble said:


> Precisely.


That's AMAZING! I jokingly said my next puppy will be named something patriot related - call name Brady. I got a pretty dirty look from my family (they're steelers fans X_X) Sorry - took the thread off track.


----------



## Pibble (Jan 22, 2012)

*Re: My latest rant:*



Niraya said:


> That's AMAZING! I jokingly said my next puppy will be named something patriot related - call name Brady. I got a pretty dirty look from my family (they're steelers fans X_X) Sorry - took the thread off track.


We originally wanted to name Paisley "Bella" (Belichick) but we had a foster named Bella 2 years ago and I didn't feel like the name fit Paisley, so we stuck with the name the shelter gave her. LOL


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

*Re: My latest rant:*

Um, truthfully I skipped reading the other 11 pages of comments, but I do still wanna put my ten cents in even if I'm repeating others.
But I hate the headline "Pit Bull attacks". I will NEVER understand why this is the only breed that makes it to the news. How many dogs injure or kill people a year for not obvious reason? How many of them HAVE a reason that just gets ignored? I know the media loves a good story, even if they have to twist it to make it interesting, but I think they need to move on. 
Getting riled up because a family is arguing is not breed specific. My aunt's poodle actually got riled up because she patted her son on the back. My mother's boyfriend had a cocker spaniel who knew no strangers. I have literally never met a more loving, friendly, well behaved dog. But if you dared hit another person, or raise your voice to them, he would go off on you. 

And above I saw the mention of dogsbite.org. That's such horsepocky. I cannot believe people actually believe everything on that site. Makes me violently angry.

I have been threatened (attack is a strong word) by chihuahuas, poodles, puggles (I'm aware that's not a breed, but for arguments sake...) Akitas, -this dog actually attacked my cousin's chihuahua while we were camping. Though he survived, Rowdy suffered serious injuries to his neck and back. Later this same dog attacked a child. A golden retriever attacked by chihuahua. At this time, I also had a retriever. She protected both me and my chihuahua. I've been threatened by a collie before, by a JRT, a boxer attempted to jump my Sibe after he went after a judge. I've been growled at by a great dane (which was RATHER frightening), every day I'm chased by a Shi'Tzu and others. Yet, I have NEVER, not EVER have a APBT or any similar breed, well bred or not, threaten me or my pets. 
But I don't see any of these breeds on the news. Why? Because attacks are not breed specific. -_-'


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

*Re: My latest rant:*



HollowHeaven said:


> ...I will NEVER understand why this is the only breed that makes it to the news. ...


reporters got self-reinforcing behaviors, too


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

> Ok here's something I been wondering about. I hear people say they were bred to kill dogs.


I just finished reading _The Lost Dogs_ about the Michael Vick pits. A high percentage of his dogs - around 80% - had no interest at all in fighting, despite the stress they were subjected to, and were consequently destroyed by Vick and his buddies - often in wildly sadistic ways. 

Even the survivors were not terribly successful in the pit. Most (48 out of 49) dogs confiscated by the feds showed no particular tendency toward human or dog aggression and were eligible for fostering or sanctuary rehab. The ones who went to sanctuaries were placed there because the had emotionally shut down - not because they were aggressive - and needed more extensive rehab. 

After reading the whole story, the single word that comes to mind to describe those dogs is "resilient."


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

This is fallacious. Wheres your population statistics? Maybe someone has already addressed it since this is a long as hell thread but you can go by body count alone. And dont give me any garbage cuz i haz teh journal access too buddy..


hounddawg said:


> A little outdated, but I'm looking through bookmarks right now.
> 
> Dog Bite Fatalities by Breed 1979-1998
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

*Population kills*

Pit Bull 2 5 10 9 11 8 6 5 4 6 66

So the pit leads the pack with 66 human kills in a twenty year period and the rott second at 39. Am I reading that correctly? These statistics always leave me wondering as do any statistics about deaths and 'just' injured. How many people have been left 'alive' in a coma - perhaps from the initial loss of blood? Maimed - lamed - or otherwise injured and miss work - maybe permanently. I'll guarantee you 100% are mentally scarred.

It doesn't address the per dog population question but my impression of that is that pits are not a popular breed. Therefore the number of kills per dog capita would be large.

I just read that because of their reputation they flood the shelters I presume abandoned by owners who get spooked by them after they grow up. Most are then killed because they're almost impossible to adopt out. I lost track of the link to this so feel free to poo poo this paragraph (as if you need my permission lol).:behindsofa:


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

*Re: Population kills*

Pit bulls are EXTREMELY popular in much of the country. Probably right up there with labs as one of the most popular dogs in the US. Now that's not even taking into account that a lot of the reported 'pit bulls' are not actually pit bulls at all.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

*Re: Population kills*

I have not read all 11 pages and not been around in a while.... 

But having own multiple dogs my entire life, sometimes when I ran hounds for hogs and deer, I had a bunch, I will say this...

Dogs like order.... Rough play is fine but if a real fight breaks out, it upsets the entire group. And call it what you want, leader -alpha- boss - dominant- whatever...... Some dogs are self appointed hall monitors. No matter what group of dogs I have owned.... I have ALWAYS had a hall monitor. Currently Merlin is my hall monitor. 

A hall monitor restores order, If two dogs squabble the hall monitor does not take sides, he or see goes after both of them.

Example.... I had a minor squabble a while back. Buc and Gemma got into over something. I was about 25 feet away. Before I could get there, Merlin had slammed Buc against the wall and bit him on the butt, sending him down the hall, spun and slammed into Gemma, rolled her on her back and was standing over her, bearing his teeth. 

The dog in the article may well have been hall monitoring.


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

*Re: Population kills*



Laurelin said:


> Pit bulls are EXTREMELY popular in much of the country. Probably right up there with labs as one of the most popular dogs in the US. Now that's not even taking into account that a lot of the reported 'pit bulls' are not actually pit bulls at all.


This! I see are lots of pet Pit Bulls (or at least bully breeds, I'll admit I'm not the greatest at discerning between them) around here. Lots.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

*Re: Population kills*

"Pit bulls" (at least the kind of dog who would be identified as such in an incident) are extremely popular. In a lot of neighborhoods they're basically the only type of dog you see. Not many are registered so the population doesn't show up in any "official" count, but my guess is that pit bull types are the most common type of dogs in the U.S.

And, no, they don't end up in shelters because their owners "got spooked" (LOL, what does that mean anyway?) but for the same reason lots of Labs and other breeds end up in shelters--because of irresponsible breeding, because they're medium/large, active dogs who (gasp!) require training and exercise, because they chew and jump and do other dog things that people don't like. They're overpopulated and seem to be the breed of choice for bad owners (probably because they're so tolerant).


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

*Re: Population kills*

There are an estimated one MILLION pit bulls in animal controls, shelters, and rescues at any one time in this country. That is MORE dogs than exist in most breeds. Only one breed MIGHT be able to compare to Pit numbers. And that is the Labrador Retriever.


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

*Re: Population kills*



Laurelin said:


> Pit bulls are EXTREMELY popular in much of the country... ...Now that's not even taking into account that a lot of the reported 'pit bulls' are not actually pit bulls at all.


Well the statistics mention "crossbreed" as a separate category so its safe to assume that was taken into account. Plus the pit being popular in *some parts of the country doesn't help. Popular in Alaska or Wyoming isn't going to make much of a dent for instance. There is no Federal law that I am aware of leaving local towns, counties and states free to do what they consider best considering their circumstance. New York City might consider banning a good idea whereas Podunk Utah may ignore the issue without happenstance.

QUOTE Willowy"...In a lot of neighborhoods they're basically the only type of dog you see..." As a resident of a urban area they're mostly found in the poorer neighborhoods where I'm sure they make excellent guard dogs for the same reasons those of us who don't live there prefer to not have them around. In the rural areas I'm sure they would perform the same service.*


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

*Re: Population kills*

Oh my word this is frustrating. I swear you are only reading bits and pieces of what people are saying and then filling in the gaps with whatever nonsense you can come up with.

There are numerous incidents of dogs being reported as 'pit bulls' and being confiscated when they are in fact not pit bulls at all. I KNOW there have been some linked on previous pages. Here is one link again: http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm

Pit bulls are very popular in a lot of the country. Wyoming and Alaska are not much of the country... You can go almost anywhere and find lots of pit bulls on craigslist and petfinder for sale/adoption. When I worked at the shelter in TX about a third of the dogs coming in were pit bull types. We got more pit bulls than any other breed. I also saw a lot of pit bulls just around town. 

Pit bulls are not good guard dogs. I'm pretty sure this has been said before. A little anecdote. My cousin's pit bull was home loose when they got robbed. George (the pit) did absolutely nothing. They came home and George was happy as a clam, tail wagging and all their stuff was gone.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

*Re: Population kills*

Pit bulls make a decent _visual_ deterrent because a lot of people are uneducated about them and think they'll attack, and therefore stay away. But when it comes down to actually stopping a robber or an attacker, pits are not a great breed for that because they are so human-friendly. 

JohnTruthman, have you actually read this thread, or just skimmed it? Because everything you say has already been refuted more than once.


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

*Pits by the millions?*

There are numerous incidents of dogs being reported as 'pit bulls' *No doubt but the statistics quoted above make mention of crossbreeds so as I said apparently they took that into account. Its even more scary if you are right as apparently only a half or quarter breed pit is still dangerous.*

When I worked at the shelter in TX about a third of the dogs coming in were pit bull types. We got more pit bulls than any other breed. *I commented on that earlier. Are you saying pit bulls are the leading dog owned by dog owners. I don't think so. I think they're given up more than any other breed and its not hard to imagine why.*

JohnTruthman, have you actually read this thread, or just skimmed it? Because everything you say has already been refuted more than once. *But everything pit admirers say can be refuted also. We all have our opinions based on bias or what information is available. Think back to what started this thread and remember it wasn't me that started it.*


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*

Did you miss the post where I said I'm not a "pit admirer"? They're not my kind of dog. I'm just open to learning new things, and have actually done some reading and research, which is why I don't believe all of the untruths floating around about them. 

Like I said in an earlier post, if you lump all of the dogs commonly referred to as "pit bulls" into one group, they arguably ARE the most popular "breed" in the US. If you have more members of a dog breed out there, you're going to see more bites from that breed. You're also going to see more of that breed in shelters. That's just common sense. 



> Viewing older statistical reports for the Center of Disease Control, one
> will see that trends in breed popularity reflect in the number of bites
> attributed to a specific breed during a specific period of time.


That was from here. Also, from here:



> after 1998, the CDC stopped tracking which breeds of dogs are involved in fatal attacks; according to a CDC spokesperson, that information is no longer considered to be of discernable value





> "There are enormous difficulties in collecting dog bite data," Dr. Gilchrist said. She explained that no centralized reporting system for dog bites exists, and incidents are typically relayed to a number of entities, such as the police, veterinarians, animal control, and emergency rooms, making meaningful analysis nearly impossible.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*

People seem to confer some weird kind of mythical superdog status to pit bulls. They're just dogs. And there are many breeds that are more "dangerous" (as in, bred for human aggression). The reason pits are so popular with scumbags is because most of the other "scary" breeds won't tolerate abuse and will turn on their abuser. Pit bulls won't, usually. To their detriment.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*



JohnTruthman said:


> *No doubt but the statistics quoted above make mention of crossbreeds so as I said apparently they took that into account. Its even more scary if you are right as apparently only a half or quarter breed pit is still dangerous.*


This is Joy. 










Joy is a dog living in the kennel at my job. Just today a prospective adopter said "Says she's a Rottweiler mix, but she's definitely got Pit in there." 

This incidents happen on a daily basis. Makes me suspicious of who identifies these dogs. 



> *I commented on that earlier. Are you saying pit bulls are the leading dog owned by dog owners. I don't think so. I think they're given up more than any other breed and its not hard to imagine why.*


Or that there is a huge population and a good chunk of people suck at dog ownership. Labs are just as common at the shelters around here. Beagles are every where as well. 



> *But everything pit admirers say can be refuted also. We all have our opinions based on bias or what information is available. Think back to what started this thread and remember it wasn't me that started it.*


I don't own bully breeds. I have hounds and mutts. I have a Pit mix foster and she's the bees knees, but I will not be keeping her. Having a bit of knowledge and understanding of dogs in general is all I have- no bias.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*

Yeah I am not a 'pit admirer'. Never owned one, never wanted one, they're just not my kind of dog. That doesn't mean I believe everything bad I hear about them.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*

Not a Pit admirer either, however I've owned THREE breeds that the EXACT same things have been said about (Doberman, Rottweiler and German Shepherd).


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

*Re: Population kills*



JohnTruthman said:


> Well the statistics mention "crossbreed" as a separate category so its safe to assume that was taken into account. Plus the pit being popular in *some parts of the country doesn't help. Popular in Alaska or Wyoming isn't going to make much of a dent for instance. There is no Federal law that I am aware of leaving local towns, counties and states free to do what they consider best considering their circumstance. New York City might consider banning a good idea whereas Podunk Utah may ignore the issue without happenstance.
> 
> QUOTE Willowy"...In a lot of neighborhoods they're basically the only type of dog you see..." As a resident of a urban area they're mostly found in the poorer neighborhoods where I'm sure they make excellent guard dogs for the same reasons those of us who don't live there prefer to not have them around. In the rural areas I'm sure they would perform the same service.*


*



What you fail to realize..... Is the CDC report is not actually "statistics" . If you read past the charts and graphs.... You will see that all this is, is a report. A compilation of news accounts and emergency room reports. Ever see them take a dog to the emergency room with the victim? 

There is no crosschecking and no verification of breed involved.*


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

*Re: Population kills*

Here is one dog that was reported as a 'pit bull' when it attacked a kid.










And another:










And another:










Ridiculous.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

*Re: Population kills*



Willowy said:


> "And, no, they don't end up in shelters because their owners "got spooked" (LOL, what does that mean anyway?) but for the same reason lots of Labs and other breeds end up in shelters--because of irresponsible breeding, because they're medium/large, active dogs who (gasp!) require training and exercise, because they chew and jump and do other dog things that people don't like. They're overpopulated and seem to be the breed of choice for bad owners (probably because they're so tolerant).


Unless the breeders are the ones dumping them in the shelter, I'd be more apt to go with "irresponsible owner"


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*

Pits and pit look-alikes may be common where you live but in Southern California - a heavily urbanized area - they are a distinct minority if they exist at all within walking distance of my home. At least being walked on the street - there may be some in back yards of course.

Since killings by dogs are not kept separate by breeds I guess we'll just have to go with what's reported by the scare-mongering press and TV.

I think we've beat this dead dog to death and I'll not be back to this Thread.


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*

I know you've said you'll not return to this thread, but for the record I would like to say that I live in a small town. Not urban in the slightest. Bully breeds are pretty popular here.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*



JohnTruthman said:


> Since killings by dogs are not kept separate by breeds I guess we'll just have to go with what's reported by the scare-mongering press and TV.


Right. Because even though some of these dogs are obviously not pit bulls, we're just going count them as pit bulls anyways...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*



JohnTruthman said:


> Pits and pit look-alikes may be common where you live but in Southern California - a heavily urbanized area - they are a distinct minority if they exist at all within walking distance of my home. At least being walked on the street - there may be some in back yards of course.
> 
> Since killings by dogs are not kept separate by breeds I guess we'll just have to go with what's reported by the scare-mongering press and TV.
> 
> I think we've beat this dead dog to death and I'll not be back to this Thread.


Why would we do that?

Maybe not on topic.... But the current trend in the US and Europe is to repeal breed bans. Because they do not work. 

Right now in our state, their is a bill that looks like it is going to pass that will force the one city in our state with a breed ban, to repeal theirs.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*

WELL ANYWAY
When people stop being *ignorant gits*, and when people stop being *cruel POS*, and the _alleged_ death toll stays the same, and I'm attacked by a pit who went it's entire life without abuse or neglect, then I'll call them dangerous.
But like my last post said, I've been jumped by many many breeds throughout my life for no obvious reason, except pits and pit look-a-likes -as it seems society no longer cares whether or not they can identify a dog's breed. If it's aggressive, it's a pit. End of story.

This is racial profiling by dog standards. It truly is.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

*Re: Population kills*



Pawzk9 said:


> Unless the breeders are the ones dumping them in the shelter, I'd be more apt to go with "irresponsible owner"


If the breeder is selling the puppies at 5 weeks old to any yahoo willing to pay $50 in the Wal-Mart parking lot (or indulging in similarly irresponsible breeding practices), I'm going to say it's at least partially their fault if those pups end up in a shelter or on the streets. It's a breeder's responsiblity to do everything in their power to sell their pups to suitable homes. We can't just let the "suppliers" totally off the hook. And irresponsible ownership leads to irresponsible breeding. . .and so the cycle continues.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*



JohnTruthman said:


> As a resident of a urban area they're mostly found in the poorer neighborhoods where I'm sure they make excellent guard dogs for the same reasons those of us who don't live there prefer to not have them around. In the rural areas I'm sure they would perform the same service.


Wrong. Due to their often over friendly nature (including to strangers) they make poor guard dogs. Temperament has genetic factors, selective breeding leads to breeds having certain drives / traits or lack there of. APBT tend not to have a defense drive or territorial protective instinct. Obviously some breeds were bred to have such traits and other breeds were not. Due to APBT being bred to be tolerant, stable, non aggressive in high stress, high stimulating situations and in times of injury, ect they probably have a lower rate then even other non guardian breeds. 

If APBT could readily provide such a service, while I'd admire guardian breeds I'd not own them because I wouldn't have a use. If APBT were as you say I also don't believe they'd be so often and so easily stolen. Nor would breeders go to lengths to permit theft utilizing guard dogs (of other breeds), locked gates and kennels, cameras, auto lights, ect.

In "bad" areas certain people do own them to guard but that doesn't mean its truly a success. Maybe by reputation but law enforcement often finds these dogs as FRIENDLY when they raid a drug house, ect. I have heard this directly from officers and also seen it on national tv shows. These wonderful guard dogs wagging their tails and licking officers. Two officers in different states have said the samething. . . They believe them to be dangerous, hate them because they encounter them at bust (like its the dogs fault right). But their fellow officers didn't share this view and say most of them are not actually aggressive. One of the two officers after who believed them vicious after probably about 45mins of conversing finally showed some enlightenment you'd think after being around my dogs in the first 10mins they'd realize how non aggressive and friendly they are. But you got to talk common sense into some people. 



JohnTruthman said:


> There are numerous incidents of dogs being reported as 'pit bulls' *No doubt but the statistics quoted above make mention of crossbreeds so as I said apparently they took that into account. Its even more scary if you are right as apparently only a half or quarter breed pit is still dangerous.*


Interesting view, misguided indeed. 

I for one would trust a pure bred APBT more and before a half or quarter Pit. Of course they can be dangerous any dog can regardless of breed whether they are half pit or full lab. 

My point is though temperament shows a hereditary tendency and there is no guarantee how much if any of the APBT human friendly temperament will be passed on in mixed progeny. With some of these mixes that a very important consideration. There are many sage, stable bandogs. However there are plenty Byb crossing Pits with large guardian types Presa, Am. Bulldog, Bordeaux, Ect. These people have no clue about proper temperament and stability. They also just crossed large, territorial, protective type breed to a medium prey driven, determined, powerful breed. Then sell the pups to people who can't handle them or worse simply believe indiscriminate aggression makes their dog a good guard dog. Yup its very scary. 



> When I worked at the shelter in TX about a third of the dogs coming in were pit bull types. We got more pit bulls than any other breed. *I commented on that earlier. Are you saying pit bulls are the leading dog owned by dog owners. I don't think so. I think they're given up more than any other breed and its not hard to imagine why.*


Nope not hard to imagine at all. They require mental stimulation, are drivey, determined, destructive chewers when bored. The same reason so many lab and GSD are in shelters. Not to mention poor planning and reasons for giving them up. Since there are more of those breeds you will see more of them in shelters (along with other popular breeds).

Wrong again. They appear to be the most popular breed by number, the highest population. 

Registration numbers vary by year but usually stay fairly similar.

Labs 150,000 annual registrations (akc)
Pits 200,000 annual registration (adba) 

That means in 5yrs roughly a quarter million more Pits born.

This isn't including AKC Pits which are reg under a different name. AKC typically only registered about 10% as many AST as Labs but that still adds to Pit number. 

Then you have UKC. Pits usually upper top 10 like 2-3 and Labs in lower top 10 7-8. 

Clearly there are more registered APBT than registered Labs annually. 

There is probably just as many unregisterrd each year. 



> JohnTruthman, have you actually read this thread, or just skimmed it? Because everything you say has already been refuted more than once. *But everything pit admirers say can be refuted also. We all have our opinions based on bias or what information is available. Think back to what started this thread and remember it wasn't me that started it.*


I'm not biased. I'm honest. Its a diservice to a breed if you are biased in a blind manner. I've been acussed of giving a bad name to breeds for being open about negative traits. But I feel its far better for people to know. 

I do base on personal experience. But that's common sense. I've been around 100s of APBTs without being attacked. Um yeah how dangerous can they be? It's crazy how otherwise smart people are so scared of a breed of dog and so easily led to believe.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*



JohnTruthman said:


> I think we've beat this dead dog to death and I'll not be back to this Thread.


Promise???


----------



## Juniper's mom (Jun 13, 2009)

I read most of the thread. I think those educating the world about what pits really are like is doing something really important that hopefully ends up with more responsible dog ownership. 

I'm definitely a person who used to tense up around "pit" type dogs and never thought I'd consider adopting one. 

Here's what changed my mind: watching the Dogtown episode about the rehabbing of the Vick dogs at Best Friends Animal sanctuary. Completely opened my eyes. What I realized is that pits are mostly dog, and thus predisposed to please humans. Some humans (Vick) use that trait to get the dogs to fight. 

BSL baloney wants us to think that there are "dogs" and there are "crazy unpredictable monsters" (pits). But pits are dogs -- they have breed traits but they share with other dogs the loyalty and desire to please and are primarily what you make them. 

Second thing that changed my mind was actually owning a dog -- as soon as you decide to make blanket generalizations, life makes other plans for you. How simple it would be if we could just be like, oh, if I avoid pits I'll be fine. When Junie's been "attacked" it's been by two shepherd mixes and a JRT. If I judged the whole pit breed by the ones Junie plays with in our area, I would judge them to be playful, fun-loving cuddlebugs. That's partially because the owners around here have to strive to make their dogs model canine citizens, due to the bad rap the breed gets. 

I have a good-tempered dog so as a new dog owner of course I wanted to think that my dog is "good" and dogs with issues were "bad." But dogs are dogs, in the end. Anyone one of them can react to things we can't see -- even mine. My dog is my responsibility. 

Nowadays, I'm much more tolerant to varying dog's behavior and I always attempt to read the owner's behavior first -- in all the cases where Junie got into a scrap, looking back I could see that the owners were acting nervous.

Life and experience have taught me to blame the deed -- and more importantly, the owner. Sure life would be simple if the breed truly was to blame. But dogs are dogs -- even pits.


----------



## MusherChic (Nov 6, 2010)

> Here's what changed my mind: watching the Dogtown episode about the rehabbing of the Vick dogs at Best Friends Animal sanctuary.


I loved that episode! Although I loved and always wanted an APBT before, that episode really made me want to get one. My favorite was Cherry (at least I think his name was Cherry...the really shy one?)


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: Pits by the millions?*



Willowy said:


> People seem to confer some weird kind of mythical superdog status to pit bulls. They're just dogs. And there are many breeds that are more "dangerous" (as in, bred for human aggression). The reason pits are so popular with scumbags is because most of the other "scary" breeds won't tolerate abuse and will turn on their abuser. Pit bulls won't, usually. To their detriment.


I think this is true. If I treated Esther, who looks pretty benign, the way many pits are treated, she would surely have killed me by now.


----------



## lipzah (Aug 22, 2011)

This is a bit off topic, but since we are taking about protective dogs I thought I would mention my dogs story. A few weeks ago I was walking my dog, as I do every afternoon. I live in a one way street, so not many cars come down there so I always start my walk with my dog off leash. Now my neighbours own three dogs, a border collie, some sort of cattle dog cross, and a staffy. I am not the sort of person to blame aggression on the breed of dog (mainly because of my own dogs breed) but this staffy really has something wrong with it. My neighbours have always been really irresponsible with their dogs by hardly ever walking them and letting them roam around the street while no one is watching them. 

Now I was walking with Logan, my dog, and with my dad when suddenly bindy, the neighbours staffy come running out of no where and launches itself onto Logan. Now Logan is a bull arab and must have had at least 15 Kilos on bindy, but he immediately backed away submissively, even though she was trying to rip his throat out. Naturally I really don't want my dog to have his throat ripped out, so stupidly I get in between the two dogs. bindy grabbed onto my arm and I was terrified. I shook her and eventually managed to get her to let go of my arm. I could see that she was going to lunge again so I yelled at her. The owners of the dog heard me screaming and come out. They were trying to restrain her while she was still lunging at me and Logan.

My dad was lying unconscious of the road a few metres behind me. He was really embarrassed about this later but he had been walking through wet grass so his shoes were wet, when he had see bindy come running he had tried to get their as quickly as possible but had slipped and hit his head on the road knocking himself unconscious, it would have been very funny if the situation hadn't been so serious. Soon after the neighbours pulled the dog off me I collapsed on the road too. I was still terrified when my dog came over. Logan saw my arm and did the only thing he knew how to do and licked it. Then he lay his head on my stomach and whined softly. 

When the neighbours had finally managed to restrain their dog they came over to me. Instantly Logan hopped up and lowered his head slightly he stared at them when they tried to approach me. He didn't growl or bark or bare his teeth, he just stared like a border collie eyeing a sheep. I put my hand on Logan's back and told him it was Ok. It took a bit of coaxing but in the end Logan gave in and let them help. In the end we were all really lucky, Logan only had scratches on his legs and neck, my dad came around and only had a slight concussion, and I spent 2 weeks in hospital with them fixing my arm. 

Logan has not been permatley scared by the encounter. He still trusts people all though he is a bit more cautious around smaller dogs now. Bindy was not put to sleep because I said I didn't want her put down. Instead my neighbours have had to pay all of our medical and veteran expenses, including my dad's fall, they also now have a monthly visitor from the RSPCA to check they are taking care of their dogs properly, and are now required to attend dog training classes specialising on behavioural management. I think that this is the best outcome that I could have hoped for, because I don't believe that it is Bindy's fault that she was not trained properly or treated well enough. 

Just so you know I only got out of hospital a few days ago and I have been put on some very heavy pain meds for my arm, so I am sorry for any mistakes that I have made writing this because the meds make me feel very drowsy and make me lose my train of thought, hopefully it is not too hard to follow.


----------

