Ban on pit bulls

The BBQ Pit
181

Oh no, not the “In my day, young man…” argument. This is not just another “bad” breed, I wish it was. Pitbulls were bred for violence, they were bred to kill one another. I’m sure you know that. Comparing them to any other bred that MAY be aggressive is dishonest and fails the slippery slope test…as pitbulls are supposed to be aggressive. Secondly, I’m not advocating anything, but let’s be honest here; Pitbulls are unique and should be treated such. They are not just aggressive because they are “trained” or abused , they are born that way.

We ban specific species of animals all time if they are dangerous. Most dogs are not bred to be dangerous, some dogs can be trained to be dangerous. Pitbulls must be trained not to be dangerous, fortunately they are usually only aggressive to other dogs.

I agree that the “hype” over what a dangerous dogs is shifts depending of what dog is current, and if pitbulls were the same as any other “aggressive” dog, I would agree even more. HOWEVER, pitbulls are not like any other aggressive dog and to treat them as such is a recipe for disaster. Even established breeders will tell you that.

Untrue. Pitbulls are unique. Not just because of their aggression, but because of their “heart”, their ability to take abuse, their ability to continue to fight even when they are mortally wounded. Their physique, their “gameness”, you name it and that breed has it. You don’t breed that in 5 years, into one of any hundred of other breeds. Have a look into the history of the pitbull and see what they did to create it…I don’t see these guys doing it.

[quote]

What sort of knuckle-head do you think breeds fighting pits today?..Do you think it takes some great intellect to toss an in-heat bitch and a stud in a pen together? Almost everyone understands the idea of “breed game dogs to get game dogs and dump the ones that aren’t what you want”.

[quote]

One of your arguments against banning, is that they will just change to another breed. My point is it’s not that simple. Sure any fool can toss an agressive rottie and dobbie in pen and create something. So what? Let’s say this guy somehow manages to create an aggressive dog. It fights and lays down and dies, because despite it’s aggression, it’s not built to survive in the pit. If breeding game dogs was that simple, there wouldn’t be any profit in the ‘sport’. Clearly it requires some skill. Truth is this isn’t even about those ‘skilled’ breeders, they have enough sense to keep a low profile. What this is about is their castoffs, dogs not aggressive to win a fight, but too aggressive to function in society and they sell them to mr. knuckle-head.

You really believe this person in FIVE years will create a breed that is able to replace the pitbull? Again the pitbull is a unique creation, aggression is only a part of it’s appeal.

These knuckle-heads aren’t going to shift to hundreds of other breeds, because tossing a bitch in heat in a pen won’t create what they want. Remember the sport has to be EXCITING, that means quick dogs. It has to last, that means dogs that don’t bleed out quicky or will continue to fight even as they die. Right off the bat that rules out most breeds that ‘we’ are familar with. Unless intensive breeding is done and that doesn’t happen in 5 years.

So while I agree that banning isn’t the answer…I don’t think your reasons are any better than those advocating banning.

182

Hey guys, I think we must be winning; they’ve had to start on the ad hominems.

CarnalK, it’s very gracious of you to determine that something that isn’t going to affect you negatively in any manner isn’t particularly harmful. Tell that to the people that lose their dogs.

You are correct - very few people own fighting dogs, the majority of pitbull owners included. Most pitbull owners are neither mental patients nor professional dogfighters, thank you very much, they are simply people who prefer a particular breed of dog, for a variety of reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with fighting it. And, quite obviously, huge numbers of people feel they simply MUST have a specific breed, or they wouldn’t be willing to pay hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for registered dogs.

OK, so you want to ban dogs bred and physically adapted to fighting/killing. Still waiting for the answer to that question that’s been floating around for several pages now: which dogs are those?

183

Yup, still repeating all the same, old, tired arguments that have been used for at least the last 40 years. Let us know when you find something to say that hasn’t been trotted out for every “bad breed” fad. You’re right, though, I shouldn’t have asked about your age. I should have asked if you’d read any of this thread, where the repetitive dog-ban syndrome has been brought up repeatedly.

Wrong. No dog breed needs training to be dangerous, all they need is the right set of circumstances. It is true, however, that pitbulls are generally dog-aggressive rather than people-aggressive.

Ah, so you admit that you’re rehashing the same, old, tired lines - but this is different! THIS time it’s REAL! Yeah, right. That’s what all those chain emails tell me too.

Oh, please.  You treat them *exactly* like any other "aggressive" breed - socialize them thoroughly from an early age, establish and maintain dominance, and treat them decently.  No magic wand, just some work.

OK, I’ll bite. Exactly what is the history of the pitbull? Details, please. What magic was performed that no one currently living can pull off?

But we’re not talking about the people fighting dogs - that’s a completely separate topic. We’re talking about Mr. Knucklehead, who buys the current “scary dog of the week”. Are you trying to tell me that pitbulls weren’t available to Mr. Knucklehead until the mid 1990s, when they suddenly became popular? They bought Shepherds and Dobies and Rotts because pitbulls only came into existence 15 years ago? That kinda crosses up your argument that it takes hundreds of years to breed 'em, doncha think?

Ok, you agree that banning isn’t the answer, but you’re arguing for it. I must confess I’m a tad confused. However, I would be interested in hearing what you think the answer should be.

And I’ll ask you too, although I will restrict the question since you say you’re opposed to banning and just seem to have some beef about pitbulls - please explain exactly how you define “pitbull”. Also, please see post post 166 and answer the two questions about crossbreds and unregistereds: how much is too much, and who and how determines what a “pitbull” is?

184

As seems to be the regular case, any ban would be grandfathered in. People won’t have to put down dogs they already own.
P.S.
hint: wait until I insult you before you cry “ad hominem”. You look less like a moron that way.
(there you go :wink: )

185

“Dog bite” is not politically correct. When a person is attached by a dangerous dog, one is supposed to use the term “ad hominem”.

186

Of course any random dog can be dangerous, however we have taken great measures to reduce that; even creating specific "friendly’ breeds. That doesn’t mean that extra measures shouldn’t be taken when dealing with a known danger.

Look at like this, any food can be “dangerous” under the right circumstances, however we strive to reduce that risk. That “potential” risk, is not the same; nor should be treated the same as clugging down a bottle of poison, which is more of certainly.

I don’t believe i am and it is different.

All aggressive breeds have been bred to attack other dogs? You wouldn’t make any modifications in how you treat a Mastiff and Pitbull or Great Dane or Jack Russell? You wouldn’t adjust your training to each breed’s strong and weak points…they’re all the same?

You gave a timeline of FIVE years. FIVE years to do this.this

Where do you think mr. knuckle-head is getting his dogs from? A breeder? No, they are the runts of the litter from the dog fighters. THAT’s the problem! The pool of dogs is corrupted by the cast offs of fighting dogs. Of course there’s going to be problem with overbreeding of any breed and that will increase problems with any breed. BUT those other breeds were starting from a different place.

Your argument has been that if Pits were banned, “they” would switch to another breed. Which would be true if the people who were choosing Pits, were doing so because they like the way the dog looked and NOT performed. There is an industry built around dog-fighting, there is a lifestyle that spins off of that. You can not ignore that. While the dobbie 15, 20 years ago was part of a similar “image”, the dogs weren’t being fought or considered money making property; like the Pit is. Those other breeds were status symbols and like all status symbols shift…

The Pit has transcended that. Not only do they convey status, they generate income. They allow a segment of society, the illusion of importance. In order to replace that, you would have to replace the Pit with a breed that can replace it in the pit. Because that’s where the popularity of the Pit started. It didn’t start in movie or a tv show, like most fad dogs do, this started on the streets and that’s were it’s going to end. You can’t breed that in FIVE years.

I’m not arguing for banning. What I would do is quite simple, create a set of rules for ALL dog owners regardless of breed. Period. The rules would be the same for a Lab or a Mastiff. Dog breaks rules, owner pays the price.

This is a thread about Pits, I don’t see why discussing reasons why people who are advocating banning may have some valid points, means I have a beef with Pits. I don’t. You can ask Captain Biggles, he’ll tell you.

And that’s the reason why a ban wouldn’t work. Any system of enforcement that relies heavy on, " I know one, when I see one…" is destined to fail. Further the last thing we need is to make the Pit more taboo, more exciting by banning it.

187

Read post 45 & 52 again. I say “again” as you claim to have read the whole thread- I’m seeing little evidence of that however.

188

The only things I saw mentioned in posts 48 and 52 were Pit Bulls and Rotties.

First of all, Rottweilers weren’t bred as fighting dogs. The Rottweiler breed was originally bred for herding work and pulling carts. Now, they are descended (as best we can tell) from Roman Fighting Dogs, but that heritage covers a great many breeds, including Mastiffs and Bulldogs.

As for pit bulls. There is no breed just called “pit bulls”. What people call pit bulls include the American Pit Bull Terrier, the English Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the English Staffordshire Bull Terrier. This doesn’t include the many cross-breeds that have some form of pit in them.

Chinese Shar-Peis, (which were originally bred as fighting dogs) as well as Shar-Pei crossbreeds can also bear similar looks to a pit, and are often confused for such, as many of them grow out of the disctintive wrinkles of puppyhood.

Tosa Inus, Chow Chows and Akitas also fall under the heading of “dogs that were bred to fight”.

Then you have Mastiffs and their various sub-breeds, bred as guard dogs used to catch and hold poachers. These include Mastiffs, Neopolitan Mastiffs (also called Italian Mastiffs), the Dogue de Bordeaux and the larger Doguin de Bordeaux (French Mastiffs), the Fila Brasilario (Brazilian Mastiff), the Dogo Argentina (Argentinian Mastiff), the Presa Canario (Canary Island Dog), and the Cane Corso.

ALL of these dogs were bred for either guard work or fighting other animals/hunting large prey.

So again…are you, CarnalK, saying should all these dogs be banned? Keeping in mind of course, that the breeds responsible for 66% of fatal dog attacks, as listed in an earlier cite of mine by the CDC, are such dogs as Labs, Retrievers, etc.

This is entirely discounting the fact that criminals who keep such dogs for nefarious purposes aren’t known for adhering to laws in the first place, and will most likely simply ignore any ban of their particular breed and move on to another “dangerous breed”, and the people who will be most harmed by such bans will be the responsible owners who register their dogs.

189

No I’m calling for a temp ban on Pit bulls and Rotweillers like I said in those posts.
How many times you guys gonna ask me the same question immediately after reading my answer?

190

Ah, CarnalK, ya got me. That wasn’t a strict adhom - you didn’t attack me, personally, just the group I’m associated with in this thread (i.e., pitbull owners). I believe that’s technically still an adhom, but whatever. I shoulda stuck with my first thought and just said “namecalling”. Either way, when that’s the best means of argument you can find, you’re in trouble, neh?

In post 36, you posted cites that included pitbulls, rottweilers, german shepherds, huskies, malamutes, dobermans, chows, great danes, st bernards and akitas. In posts 45, 52, 61 and 62 you talked about pits and rotties. In 45, 52, 57, and 98, you talked about various graduated restrictions, including size, weight, and level of dangerousness.

In post 61, you noted that the CDC statistics showed pitbull problems dropping and rottweiler problems increasing, and said that you thought that “the popularity of pits outside the fight world is leading to a breeding out of some of the aggressiveness”.

In post 55, you admitted that “Defining the breeds would also be tricky, particularly with the hybrid(I mean all of them) pitbulls” and pawned off the problem of breed identification with this charming bon mot: “those expert dog breeders/enthusiasts are fascist lunatics- I’m sure they could develop a system of breed defintion”. In post 98, you admitted that “the breed specs would have to be continually updated” and that "I fear dog fashions will continue to change as you say.”

So it’s not like you’ve exactly made clear what dogs you want to ban, nor how you think a ban could reasonably be implemented given the identification problems repeatedly brought up. To the contrary, you’ve been all over the map about which dogs you mean, have admitted that identifying dogs as a particular breed would be problematic, and that a ban wouldn’t work because of breed-switching.
MelCthefirst has listed several dog breeds in his postings, including rottweilers, pitbulls, “staffies” (Staffordshire Bull Terriers, I think), and some type of “Japanese fighting dog” (Tosa would be my guess). Muffin has been fairly consistent, sticking with pitbulls and rottweilers, although he seems to possibly have some confusion as to which is which. mks57 has also stuck to pits and rotts as named breeds.

I’d think they, at least, would be able to answer the question “which breeds to ban”, but it certainly doesn’t sound like they’re just talking about pitbulls.

None of you have answered the questions about crossbreds, percentage of ancestry, unregistered dogs, or who would make final determinations in individual cases.

191

Whups, didn’t see you’d posted in while I was writing, sorry. So it’s not just pitbulls you want to ban, but also Rottweilers. Thank you.

Now you just have to explain exactly what a pitbull is, and we’ll be getting somewhere. Can you do that, please?

That will, of course, still leave these questions:

192

I’m not gonig to keep repeating myself. Just read the first 2 pages if you want anymore answers outta me.

193

Sorry for just now getting around to this, had to pull the info together.

Hey, CarnalK, I pulled these from YOUR cites:
AnimalAdvocates.com and the CDC:

So it seems that it would be much more effective, and most certainly easier to implement, to advocate banning all male dogs. Why aren’t you arguing for that?

Gosh, that’s exactly what we’ve been saying.

(Emphasis mine.) Hmmm, interesting, not one word supporting breed-bans, quite the opposite. They did suggest, however, owner education and animal control laws. Boy, that sounds strangely familiar, somehow.

Here’s a couple of links from blackhobyah: the CDC and AVMA.

So, the CDC and the American Veterinary Medicine Association both outright state that there are serious problems with breed bans. I could quote most of the article, which discusses at length the reason that breed bans are both ineffective and impractical, but I guess you know better than they do, huh?

Here’s another link from blackhobyah, the Washington City Paper:

Wow, where have you heard that before?

Now then, CK, who hasn’t bothered to read the thread? These points and more have been made repeatedly, by many different posters, with cites.

You really need to come up with a better argument than doing the “la la la I can’t hear you” schtick and repeating your calls for a breed ban.

194

Cross-posted again, I see. :slight_smile:

OK, I’ll accept that. You don’t have any answers, you don’t have any real arguments, you’re just going to stick by your guns in the face of all evidence and reason. Like I said, it’s the “la la la I can’t hear you” routine, repeated ad nauseum.

Whatever floats your boat, dude.

G’nite all, I’ve stayed up WAY too late playing here!

195

Look, you said you read the whole thread then claimed I refused to answer your already answered questions. If you are honestly so deluded that you think you’ve won this exchange by force of reason you’re a twit. If you think you’ve won this exchange because I can’t keep up with your mass re-typing skills and just tapped patience then you are correct (and an ass).

196

I don’t think we won because of those reasons. I think we won because we have scientific data, data from Animal Control experts, law enforecment officials, vetinarians, and the CDC backing up our argument, whereas all you’ve brought to the table is a knee-jerk reaction of “OMG! BAN PITS!”

Oh, and you want to include Rottweilers too…be sure to tell the owners of the thousands of Rottweilers that work as Therapy Dogs, Police dogs, and Search and Rescue Dogs how dangerous their animals are…never mind there were only 33 fatal Rottweiler attacks that occured between '91 and '98- several of those years in which the registered number of Rotts were in the Top 10 of AKC registrations.

To help you try and calculate the numbers for that, in 1999 alone, 41,776 Rottweilers were registered, in a year in which their AKC registration popularity declined from 4th place to 8th place. And that doesn’t count the “backyard breeders” dogs, that’s just AKC registered Rotts.

http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/Chirichigno1.htm

http://www.akc.org/breeds/regstats_pg2.cfm

Breed-specific legislation is nothing new. It has been tried in many cities, suburbs, and even other countries. The attacks have not stopped in spite of this, and they won’t, because you’re not fixing the root of the problem, which 95% of the time (I’ll grant you some dogs are capable of psychosis, no matter the breed) is irresponsible ownership.
Your solution is to destroy, and ban the hundreds of thousands of Rottweilers in this country, many of them trained for a job as they were bred to do, such as search/rescue, police work, guard dogs, and Therapy dogs, not to mention loving family pets, with the data of 33 fatal deaths attributable to Rotts in a seven year span as your backing.

It’s a ridiculous suggestion based on that, and as you’ve been told repeatedly, one that ultimately does not and will not work.

As for those who “know a pit bull when I see em”. Found an interesting test for you to take. (I wish and welcome dog lovers to take it too. grin)

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

[Only one of the pictures below features the real American PitBull Terrier. Take the test to see if you can find it. To find the breed of a dog, click on image. Note that there are no mixes or rescue dogs of unknown background who’s breed could be debated in the page. All dogs have been picked in breeder’s web sites and should be good representatives of their breed.

Breed misidentification is a scary thing in a time breed specific legislation is growing… Pit Bull dogs are often blamed for dog attacks that may very well have been caused by an another breed…](http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html)

197

I got it on the first try…problem is I didn’t think it was. I was trying to see how much “Pit” Captain Biggles had in him.

Who knew?

198

How embarrassing. I picked the Bull Terrier.

199

Um maybe not, Biggles has a longer coat, head looks about right…I may have to post a pic and let the audience decide.

Good link.

200

Well see, that is an actually useful point to bring up. I wouldn’t have thought Rottweilers were ever in the top ten of ownership so it makes their attack statisitics more reasonable when compared with other breeds. I think my point still holds for Pits. (BTW do you think mentioning about their use as police dogs strengthens your case?)

Plenty of cities have “defined the breed”, it may not be neat, pretty or “fair” but it gets done. If there is a little unfair pregidous towards similar looking animals I don’t really care. I don’t really worry about doggy racism.