[QUOTE=OP]
“If they are properly trained, however, they’re no more likely to bite you than a Jack Russell.” "
[/QUOTE]
Let’s say this is 100% true. But the likelihood of biting is only half the equation. The other is what happens when they do bite. A corgi, dachsund, or golden retriever might get you a few stitches. A pit bull bite often turns into an all-out attack that all to often turns into a headline and funeral.
Well put.
After several incidents, where I live, legislation was passed, not easily and not without contest.
But it was always the same, tearful owner on evening news swearing, “He’s never done anything like this before, he’s always been such a loving animal”. And I believe them, especially the one’s whose dog just mauled their own grandchild. Of course dog owners are always, “Well, my dog would never do such a thing!” And, of course, no amount of demonstrating that the other owners in the news believed the same thing, with the same conviction, will ever get through to them. Yet a child is dead or maimed.
In the end, they made a couple of wise provisions in the law. If you want to own a potentially dangerous breed, (one demonstratively responsible for unprovoked, life threatening attacks in the past), then you will be obligated to purchase a large insurance policy, as society at large should not be responsible for managing the risk born of your choice. Secondly if you have a dog, so classified, and you want to take it out in public it must be muzzled.
Of course there was much contention when this legislation was coming up for a vote.
The very day it passed, a small child was brutally mauled by a neighbour’s pit bull, she was lucky to have survived, though seriously scarred. And, there were the owners, tearful, on the news, “But he’s never ever done anything like this before, he’s always been a wonderful and loving family pet.”
Myself, I’m glad they passed this legislation.
In Dearborn Hgts. ,you have to post a 500dollar bond if you want a pit bull. There must be a pool of some kind because 500 won’t cover the damage.
You’ll aceept that pit bulls were bred for dog fighting and claim that breeding out human aggression was neccessary to conduct this sport.
Why then why was it neccessary to rehabilitate the pit bulls under Mike Vick’s care? They were specifically used to fight dogs, were they not? He would have needed dogs that weren’t human agressive, right ? And even then, requiring screening for future owner’s ?
Or could it be that Vick’s dogs were mis- identified by the press as pit bulls?
Are you sure they were pit bulls ?
I have a pit bull (mix or full breed, unknown lineage) Rotweiller (probably full blooded, unknown lineage) and a pedigreed Jack Russell living in my house. The only danger they pose to humans is the possibility of being licked to death. Or possibly smothered, if you fall asleep on the bed and they all try get as close as they can to you.
This question brings to mind Twain’s comment on women and the sharpening of pencils thereby, but assuming that it is serious (i.e. you have no knowledge of what went on at Vick’s kennels) here’s the answer : They were tortured to the point of insanity and trained to fight other dogs. Rehabilitation seemed like a real good idea.
Prove that these were Pit Bulls. The public in general and the media especially do NOT know what a Pit Bull is. Any dog with any Boxer or Terrier look about it gets called a “Pit Bull.” This board is supposed to fight ignorance. Not spread it.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up either of those claims?
The Discovery channel had a show where they showed the rehabilitation of the Micheal Vick pitbulls through Best Friends Animal Sanctuary. I remember one that had human aggression issues but the majority were just mentally fubared from their experiences. Some would crawl and hide in a corner when anybody approached. A lot had trust and anxiety issues from their experiences. Others needed physical rehabilitation, some of them were missing all of their teeth to make breeding easier, or as planned use as a bait dog. At the same time Best Friends worked to help curb their dog aggression. Also they needed rehabilitation to learn commands and manners. These dogs were chained to truck axles outside full time. To say that the fact that these dogs needed rehabilitation and special care is a sign of human aggression is a very very large reach.
Umm, the owner’s of the animals identified them as such. As they were purebreds no one had issue with it.
Chip on your shoulder much?
I am fruitbat’s wife (and the trainer of the Rottweiler in question), and I want to clear up his confusion on some of the titles. Our Rottweiler is a Utility Dog (UD), and he is working towards his OTCh/UDX.
[QUOTE=Mr. Kobayshi]
What I meant was - are these breeds inherently dangerous or is it a result of their upbringing (not a tautology - the breed may be bread to be an attack dog in ages past, but the treatment of them in the here and now may well play an important part too). This would appear to speak against your point, though.
[/QUOTE]
No, pit bulls are not inherently dangerous. Compared to all other breeds, all things being equal, a well socialized and trained pit bull is just about the safest dog you can have around people.
Yes, Pit bulls can be made to be a danger if treated poorly. Compared to all other breeds, all things being equal, a pit bull is less likely to become a danger than all other breeds.
[QUOTE=Mr Kobayshi]
Yes, this is exactly what I was driving at. However, it doesn’t make sense that a dog which is ostensibly ‘people friendly’ would be chosen, or rather specifically targeted, to be bread as attack dogs and have aggression fostered in them.
[/QUOTE]
It does make sense. There are a lot of people who get these dogs because they believe the newspapers they read and the television reports they see.
You started this thread because you believe/ed Pit bulls were dangerous and were surprised that other people disagreed. Did any news reports influence your opinion? If I were looking to get a vicious dog, wouldn’t I get the dog the news tells me is vicious?
Go and ask a schutzhund, ring or protection trainer whether pit bulls make good attack dogs. You’ll be surprised by the answer. The people who know what makes a good attack dog don’t choose these dogs because they don’t have the drive needed to attack a human.
[QUOTE=Mr. Kobayashi]
I’m glad that story ended on a positive note, but over here dogs from that sort of environment would be invariably destroyed (as shown in the articles above), as the risk of attack is deemed too great.
[/QUOTE]
That happens here, as well. And it’s a shame. Pit bulls deserved the same chance (no matter how slight) as any other dog.
More to the point, of a group of 48 dogs (3 died), only one was euthanized because it was too vicious. Five others will remain at a sanctuary but the rest have new homes or will go into new homes.
Despite being tortured, 42 out of 48 have been deemed fit enough to go live in society. That’s an extraordinarly high percentage given the abuse they received.
I would bet anything that if you took any other breed of dog and subjected them to the same treatment these pit bulls received, you wouldn’t even come close a 50% rehabillitation rate. This is testimony to the stability of these dogs.
[QUOTE=Mr. Kobayshi]
I’ve been reading through the thread you linked, which isn’t easy going as emotions run high. And when emotions run high hyperbole and exaggeration run riot (on both sides). If I get a chance I’ll look into those books you recommended. The key thing seems to be what is symptomatic and what is in fact the root cause - the symptomatic is obvious; the reported attacks and statistics (possibly inflated/confused, granted). The cause seems (hate to use that word again) somewhat more nuanced.
[/QUOTE]
I realize that thread isn’t the easiest to read. That said, NajaNivea’s posts are 100% accurate.
As for what is symptomatic? Statistics and reports that are fatally flawed (in particular the Clifton report), shoddy journalism, people who believe everything they see on television, people who love to believe in urban legends, people who think any dog with a blocky head is a pit bull, people who think any dog that bites is a pit bull, people who don’t understand that often times you need a DNA test to determine what breeds make up a mixed-breed dog etc. etc. etc.
As for the root cause? A moral panic started by the HSUS in the late 1970’s. Hearne’s book explains this history very well (though she too is not the easiest of reads). And again, I’ll mention Cohen’s book here which explains how moral panics develop and spin out of control.
[QUOTE=Mr. Kobayashi]
I hope you’re not addressing me here, as the charge of deliberate trolling and spreading logical fallacies is a serious allegation even in GD. Back in IMHO (and in the OP) I explained that I may well be incorrect about my perceptions of dangerous dogs (specifically the Pit-Bull and Rottweiler) and consequently the fairness of legislation surrounding them.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t going to participate in this thread anymore but came back in because of the above. I want to make it clear that I wasn’t talking to you but other posters who have or will show up whenever the words “pit bull” are heard. I apologize if I didn’t make myself clear. And that said, now I think I am done.
Cool! I’m working on an OTCh right now as well, my third. It’s a long road - good luck to you.
Which claims are you questioning? That those other dogs will bite and it might turn into some stitches? Or that when a pit bull does bite it often turns into an all out attack that can often result in a death?
The main point of what I wrote is that while pits might not bite any more than any other dog, that when they do it often turns into a horrific situation. Do you actually dispute this?
I don’t dispute it as written here. I do dispute the utility of such a statement.
It is meaningless because “often” is a meaningless term in this context. Is “often” .00001% of attacks? 1%? 50%? Does often mean “usually” or “almost never”? And “horrific” is also meaningless. Does horrific mean “disturbing” or does it mean “requires major surgery”?
As worded, exactly the same statement could be applied to any medium or large sized breed.
So what is the point of such a statement? You could have replaced "pits " with “any medium size dog” and it would be just as true. You seem to have done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that pit bulls are less dangerous than any other breed of comparable size.
If you have some evidence that pit bull attacks are less likely to turn into a horrific situation then by all means present it. But absent such evidence the statement is both meaningless and baseless.
Here’s what looks to me like the issue is improperly revolving around. If a small dog goes nuts on you, it can’t kill you as easily as a big dog.
Chihuahua’s, at least ones I’ve known, are aggressive and angry all the time. But if it loses it, I’m not in any real danger. I essentially am in no threat from that dog, no matter how bad it’s termperment. However, a big dog like Rottweiler or Doberman can lose it once and kill me or injure me, so I think the fear and the laws are appropriate.
But the same is true of a Labrador retriever, which is the same size as a doberman. And labs have been known to attack people too. But there aren’t any laws restricting the ownership of labs. And much of that isn’t because a doberman is more dangerous than a lab, but because it’s perceived as more dangerous.
Perception can cloud how people react to a dog, which in turn may influence how the dog reacts. I’ve always heard that you should never run from a dog or show fear. Well, people are more likely to run from a Doberman or fear it than a Lab.
Specifically, I dispute the characterization that when a Golden bites it might turn into stitches, and when a pit bite it often is horrific. As **Blake **has pointed out, your terms are meaningless. Please define “might,” “often,” “horrific,” and please provide evidence for same.
Well, this report was brought up numberous times in the previous thread: by The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has some very detailed and even-handed report on dog-bite prevention. The basic conclusions were:
The paper also goes in to quite a bit of detail regarding difficulty in ensuring accurate breed identification, breed population, and controlling for level of responsibility etc. of the owner.
Those caveats aside, the data say that pit bull-type dogs accounted for around 25% of dog bite-related fatalities in the 20yr period, with 16% for rottweilers.
It seems fairly unlikely that pit bull-type dogs and rottweillers alone account for a combined 40% of the entire dog population. And even if we were to assume that half of the deaths attributed to pit-bull type and rottweillers were actually a mistake and were the fault of a completely different breed, these two breeds would still be the most common breeds involved in fatalities.
So, we probably have to assume one or more of the following:
I dunno. My advice would just be, go back to the last thread linked earlier and read **CannyDan’s **stuff; his posts made by far the most sense.