I don’t blame the dog. I blame the people who deliberately inbreed them to make them aggressive. I blame the people who train them to be vicious. I blame the scumbag who gets his sick twisted jollies off by putting two dogs in a pit to tear themselves apart, or use them as a weapon.
My cousin when he was alive, used to raise prize winning bull terriers. These little guys have a reputation for being fighters and killers. Those dogs were sweethearts, and never went after anyone.
A friend had a gigantic (for the breed) Pit whose favorite pastime was to sit in my lap while I scratched her ears.
A friend has a Staffordshire, another supposedly dangerous breed. She’s just a giant cuddle bunny.
Growing up, a friend had a Rottie. The only dangerous thing was his farts when he let one rip.
I’ve been around “dangerous” breeds all my life, and the only danger was that I might get licked and slobbered to death.
That said, killing all pits, or Rots, or Shepherds is not the answer. The answer is to clamp down on the asshole humans who make them go bad.
No, jsgoddess. No, it simply is not equivalent.
First of all, there is no moral equivalence. People are people, no matter what race they are. The rights and dignity of an individual human are of paramount importance and are the first priority in how we structure our society, irrespective of whatever the crime statistics tell you. Dogs do not have rights; the manner in which they are handled should be essentially whatever is best for human beings, though of course we have an ethical obligation to be kind and caring to animals under our control.
Secondly, there’s simply no scientific equivalence at all. Chihuahuas and pit bulls are not the same sort of animal; they may be dogs, but they are physically and behaviourally VASTLY different, as are shih-tzus and rottweilers, or cocker spanials and chows. Black people and white people have no intrinsic behavioural differences of any importance, and very few physical differences aside from the colour of their skin and some superficial facial structure differences. The “dramatic” differences in dog breeds are exactly the point here.
jsgoddess, I hate repeating myself, so if you will kindly go back and read my posts you will note that I keep saying, again, again and still again that you can’t blame dogs for anything. Dogs aren’t people; they cannot be held to be at “fault” for anything. This entire issue is not about “blaming dogs.” It’s about how best to control dogs, because they can kill people. I’m not trying to assign blame to pit bulls for attacking people; the pit bull doesn’t know any better. I also don’t assign blame to cars to causing accidents. It would be insane to assign fault to a machine. But I still think funnycar drag racers shouldn’t be allowed on the highways.
I have cats AND dogs. I love 'em both. Gotta have cats and dogs.
Sure the dramatic difference is the point. How did those differences come into being? Because people decided to create the differences instead of sticking with wolves. The breeds didn’t start out with any dramatic differences. The differences are created. And the differences will be recreated. It’s easy to do and very fast.
All of the differences in dog breeds are a result of human beings deciding to create them.
I think an argument could even be made that keeping pits legal is safer, in that people might be able to recognize and avoid the breed while feeling “safe” in their golden not being tampered with by some idiot. The argument has some problems, obviously, but I think we would all agree that the situation would be even worse if rogue breeders were attempting to fly under the radar and individually picked different breeds to corrupt.
I don’t believe I attributed anything to you. If you’ll kindly go back and read my post, you will note that I said “we” not “you.”
So any constructive ideas on how we “clamp down on bad owners” without any official recognition of breed differences?
The dramatic differences make all the difference. Racism isn’t wrong by some intrinsic rightness. It honestly doesn’t make sense based on the distributtion of traits amongst humans. Regardless, humans are qualitatively different then dogs and the relationships being “akin” is not good enough for this argument.
Really. You think dog breeding is easy. Someone could easily develop and market another line of fighter dogs easily recognizable for “bad owners” to buy. I think you’re wrong. A ban could at least temporarily make it harder for morons to easily get their shotgun substitute.
What is it about dogs? I mean, a subject that most people have SOME familiarity with, right? Very, very few people are WHOLLY ignorant of dogs, right? BUt for some reason, there is more ignorance about dogs actively being passed around than just about any subject I can think of. How is that something that so many people have direct experience with is still largely dominated by mythology and ignorance? An interesting thing to contemplate I think. I guess this is another aspect in which it shares something with bigotry and racism; on both issues, seemingly intelligent people will allow themselves to be convinced by mythology over logic and science. And it’s one of the subjects that seemingly intelligent people will prove themselves utterly science-proof in defense of their mythology. Astounding to me.
How do you clamp down on the people? Go after them. Arrest them. Give them long prison sentences. You go after the people who fight their dogs, and you go after the breeders that are selectively breeding for aggressiveness and supplying the dog fights. You let the police KNOW you will back them when they bring in these people, because they are probably just as disgusted by this as we are. They probably already know who is involved too. You don’t leave it on the “back burner” like it has always been. You get rid of the old notion of “Aw shucks, thems jist good ole boys having fun”. If they cross state lines to do their dirty business, you bring in the FBI. A ban would not work because it won’t stop the fighters and breeders. How can you ban an animal that any puppy mill can keep churning out at will? The owner won’t care about a ban, but you can sure shut down that mill and lock him up.
There are good, honest breeders out there, and they would never breed for aggressiveness, they try to breed it out. There are good honest dog owners out there. Why punish them?
I stepped back in here, and wow.
I think I’ve said all I can say on this topic, so if nobody minds, instead of sounding stupid, I’ll bow out. Peace to you all, no matter what side you argue.
Bigotry and racism have a logic of their own and can be useful, even if they are not “scientific”. Let’s say that I live in a small village, and every time a group of Mongols comes through the area, they steal our food, rape our women, and torch the buildings. It wouldn’t be irrational for me to fear and hate the Mongols. You may have scientific evidence that the Mongols are biologically identical to other humans, and that most Mongols never rape, loot and pillage. So what, I don’t care about your “scientific evidence”. It isn’t going to help the survival of my family and village.
One doesn’t often get the Mongol hordes raping and pillaging here in southern Ontario.
I’m bailing out of this. There is no counter to the Dreaded Mongol gambit. Or is that the “I’m sticking my fingers in my ears and singing loudly because I don’t want to listen” defense? Either way I’m not going to waste my time anymore.
The idea that someone/thing is being “punished” by regulating what animals are owned and bred in Ontario seems pretty entrenched so I guess I might as well bow out too.
On a scale of 1 to 10:
My concern about pit bull attacks: 1
My concern about human attacks: 10
My convinction that obedience classes would solve the problem:
10 for the pit bulls
1 for the human race
Dear lissener,
You have said exactly what I was thinking, but much more eloquently than I could have achieved. I was composing a post to this effect but now I don’t need to. 
Pits are dogs, as any other dogs. They are largish terriers, with all the tenacity, drive, strength and activity level that goes with being a terrier. They don’t have thicker skulls, locking jaws or more of propensity for psychosis than any other dog. What they do have is an unfortunate tendency to attract hysterical attention on one hand and dickhead owners on the other.
While there are dogs who are so over-whelmingly aggressive they are naturally dangerous, this propensity is not all that common and not confined to pits. In fact the last dogs I encountered who were like this were a litter of Jack Russell X puppies.
If you’re ignorant and foolish enough, or criminal enough to believe that having a scary dog makes you a bigger person, it’s hard to believe that you have the necessary discipline and patience to embark on a selective breeding program which will produce “super pits” which can defy speeding bullets.
It is not at all hard to believe that such a person will either actively ill-treat or ignorantly fail to provide a dog with training, socialization and care. Nor hard to believe that such a person will encourage acts of aggression in a dog. All of these things will make a normal dogs into a dangerous dog, without any need to fiddle with their genetic code.
There are any number of other dogs who, in the absence of pits, could and are being used by the idiots who have given pits a bad name. I own a Neapolitan Mastiff, historically bred as guard dogs, fighting dogs and man-stoppers. My own Neo is a kind, stable, sweetheart of a dog, but he is big, strong, active and wilful. He’s also twice the size of your average pit, and there is some evidence that in the US Neos are becoming popular with criminals who want an intimidating dog.
In Washington, which has had a ban on pits since 1997, the people who would have bought pits are turning to other dogs, such as Cane Corsos and Presa Canarios, also much bigger dogs than a pit (https://secure.washingtoncitypaper.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=q:\DocRoot/2004/040409/mastif&search=presa&SearchString=presa&next.x=100&next.y=18&AuthorLastName=&IssueDate=mm%2Fdd%2Fyyyy&SelectYear=All I think you might have to pay for the article now). Then there are Filas, which unlike pits, have very little tolerance at all for humans outside their immediate family.
There is little evidence anywhere that banning particular breeds of dog decreases the number of dog bite incidents. What does appear to decrease the incidence of dog bites is strenuous enforcement of existing dangerous dog legislation.
How about mandatory licensing, tagging and temperament testing? Something like what some groups already do with abandoned and stray dogs before they are declared to be eligible for adoption.
I have a problem with laws that are only enforced after a dog has already killed or seriously injured a human being or another animal.
Sorry to get back in this thread so late, but I wanted to address this. This statement was made in response to my post about my well-trained, VERY well socialized, and demonstrably loving Rottweiler.
The quoted statement is absolutely true, and one you do often hear after an animal bites. However, it doesn’t only apply to “aggressive” breed owners. I’ve heard the same statements made by Golden owners, Cocker Spaniel owners, and one very repentant Lab owner. All three of these breed of dogs at one time bit my Rottie, in the case of the Lab, hard enough that she needed stitches. (My Rott’s only response to all 3 attacks, btw, was retreat. She made zero retalitory gestures of aggression).
The point that has been made here by responsible owners, even those of so-called “dangerous” breeds, is that the biggest problem and cause of aggressive dogs who attack humans is the owners themselves.
As CrazyCatLady said, ANY dog over 60 pounds can kill you, and depending on the attack’s victim, it doesn’t have to even be a big dog.
I read a story about a 3 pound Yorkshire Terrier that mauled a newborn to death, but who should get the blame for that? The Yorkshire breed (which if improperly socialized can be very fearful and snap at people), or the idiot who left a newborn alone on a bed with ANY dog unsupervised?
On the other hand, I know of many Rotties that have served or continue to serve as Therapy Dogs, and visit sick children and elderly people in the hospital, which has proven recorded medical benefits to the patients. These animals have been proven to positively affect patients’ mental states, which can have a medical benefit.
The Rottie Therapy Dogs I’ve met were and are amazing animals, would you see those “dangerous dogs” banned too? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater comes to mind.
I have met two Rotties I’d have considered dangerous in my long experience with the breed, and having met hundreds, quite literally. Both were owned by people I personally wouldn’t have allowed to own a pet rat, let alone a dog that can tear your throat out.
The solution lies not in banning “dangerous” breeds, because you’re not going to stop idiot aggressive owners from wanting aggressive, dangerous dogs, they’ll just switch to another breed.
As blackhobyah stated, Filas, Presas, Cane Corsos and Neopolitan Mastiffs are becoming much more popular in this country in the last few years, and if they eventually get recognized by the AKC (except the Neo, who already is), expect their popularity to grow further.
The first three of those breeds can be very dangerous dogs in the wrong hands, and if Rotties and Pits become widely banned, their popularity will grow far faster.
The “in” breed of aggressive dog rises and falls in trends, generally spanned by a decade. The 70’s brought you German Shepherds, the 80’s it was the Dobies were all the rage in home protection, and the 80’s the undisputable champion was the Rottweiler, who rose to the ranks of Top 5 Most Popular AKC breed several years running.
Each of these breeds had quite alot of genetic problems as their popularity grew, and breeders who didn’t care bred whatever lines to make a quick buck. Some of these were temperment problems. Towards the ends of their popularity surges, each of these breeds ended up in the news for attacking and killing humans. I can’t be the only one who remembers Dobie attacks widely publicized in the mid-to-late 80’s.
Again, I restate, the problem is faulty breeding in the minor, and faulty ownership in the main and majority.
As for the solution to the problem, I think Elenfair hit it dead on on the first page.
Make these the “Rules of Ownership for Dogs over 45 pounds”, and make the penalties for not following through on these guidelines for licensing stiff and heavy.
As someone who has owned large dogs of various breeds, some “aggressive” breeds, I’d advocate and back a bill like this wholeheartedly.
Any responsible owner of a big dog should be doing most, if not all, of those things anyways, and most local pet trainers offer CGC tests on a regular basis, for a fairly nominal fee.
Any owner of any size dog who does not do the first two on that list shouldn’t be considered responsible dog owners at all.
As a Seattleite, I must ask you to be more specific. The world is not as small as you think.
Prince George’s County, Maryland
It’s a suburb of Washington, D.C.
Well thank you Cerri for reminding me to also agree with Elenfair’s post that was just before my first one. A temporary ban on the sale of breeds deemed dangerous could give us time to draft and test legislation to that effect. Maybe we could see if a simple size categorization of training standards equalizes injury rates by breed. Useful info that would be.
The ban would have to have to be temporary and the breed specs would have to be continually updated. I fear dog fashions will continue to change as you say.
It’s inarguable they will. Ask any serious Dalmatian breeder how much they hated the live-action 101 Dalamatians movies.
Shelter administrators and rescue groups noticed a significant increase in Dal intake, starting about 6 months after the first live-action 101 Dalmatians movie was released.
You see, they were adorable dogs in the movies, so alot of people went out and bought one, obviously not having any clue what the breed is like. Then 6 months later, when people realize what they have, is breed of dog that tends to be neurotic-if-improperly-trained-and-socialized, slightly neurotic even when they are well trained and socialized, HIGHLY active, very destructive when bored and unattended breed with a need for a ton of exercise, running around, and stimulation for it to be happy.
Now put that dog in your typical “2-income parents, several active in extra-curricular activities kids, suburban family” with most people gone or in-and-out of the house for most of the day.
Whether you crate it or let it loose alone in the house for hours ata a stretch, you are going to end up with one seriously fucked-up Dalmatian, and so off they went to shelters by the hundreds.
Any breed that gets alot of positive publicity for whatever reason, usually experiences a surge in popularity, and there’s no shortage of (generally idiotic) people that want the “in” dog, even if it’s one totally inadvisable for their living environment, and against any recommendations of people who know better telling them different.
Luckily, any responsible breeder worth his or her salt will outright refuse to sell a pup to such a person. Sadly, it won’t stop people buying inferior dogs from backyard breeders and puppy mills, and then turning them into a shelter when they finally realize they’ve bought a dog that’s completely unsuitable for their living situation.
Or pet stores, though that’s largely the same thing, since backyard breeders and puppy mills are where the vast majority of pet store puppies come from.
Huh? Because all criminals are stupid?
Look. There’s big money to be made in dogfighting. You’re likelier to win if your dogs are psychotic. Certain forms of psychosis are heritable. Why do you have such a problem believing that some people successfully breed their dogs for psychoses?
This is kind of like denying that some people successfully breed their dogs for herding sheep. While breeding for fighting is certainly more reprehensible, it’s no more unlikely.
Daniel