Pit Bulls. Again and Again and Again......

The BBQ Pit
181

[QUOTE=Caridwen]
Most dog bites or attacks still don’t make the paper. I’d say a small percentage do and only the most horrible ones. I’m in the park daily and witness them all the time.

Take a look at the link I posted

“There is a dog bite epidemic in the United States. There are almost 5 million victims annually – about 2% of the entire population. 800,000 need medical attention. 1,000 per day need treatment in hospital emergency rooms. Between 15 and 20 die per year. **Most of the victims who receive medical attention are children, half of whom are bitten in the face. **Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year, with over $300 million paid by insurance”

[/QUOTE]
Here is my take on the part I bolded. Unless the dogs have been properly socialized and trained, they view children as competitors for pack status. What is highly physically traumatic to a child (a bite in the face) would be deflected, or evaded by another dog. This is why I insist that dogs need to be taught their position in the pack. It would also help if owners familiarized themselves with the warning signals that a dog gives off before he attacks. Rarely does a dog attack without waring, and those that do are so difficult to rehabilitate that they are usually put down.

One of my Jacks is a male who was given up to Rescue because he bit a two year old child. Thedescription of the event went somerthing like this –

Child approached dog. Dog growled. Child kept on coming. Dog bit child.

Now Rex is just about the sweetest little guy you will ever meet. Everyone, and I mean everyone who meets him loves him. And the bite was more of a nip – no broken skin. Another dog would have heeded the warning, but the child was clueless, and was either unsupervised, or the parents did not recognize what was happening.

For the first few times he was around kids, I worried, but he has displayed no aggression whatsoever. None. He is the world’s biggest affection hound.

I don’t fault the family for giving him up. They had cared for him, but obviously were not prepared to deal with this problem. And I got a great little dog in the bargain.

182

[QUOTE=redtail23]
Fifty years ago, you probably wouldn’t have heard about the guy in San Francisco killed by his landlord’s dogs (which were NOT pits, by the way) unless you lived there. Thirty years ago, it was considered reasonable to consider it the kid’s fault if he got snapped at because he was tormenting a dog. Things have changed, making it difficult to compare “killer dog attack” reports from today and the past.
[/QUOTE]

I think if they are fatalities, they’d be reported. From what limited statistics I can find, the rate of dog fatalities hasn’t kept up with the population–either of humans or dogs.

That could be medical advances, or it could be fewer extreme attacks. That I don’t know.

183

magellan01, according to this site, Doberman Watch, I have the most vicious of breeds and they should be banned right quick.

I mean, read some of the misinformation in it. Makes Pitbulls and Rotties, tame by comparison:

Holy crap! Now I’m afraid to go pet my own Dobie – who, incidentally has her head resting on my leg as I type this.
:::::shudder:::: :rolleyes:

184

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Well, if you qualify it with “the same size and build” that pretty much merans it’s a pit bull. Mabe a smallish Rottweiler. But to answer your question: more mayhem than almost any other dog. If you were alone in and alley and a viscious 70 pound dog was about top attack you, would you prefer that dog be a pit bull or a golden retreiver?
[/QUOTE]

I own a purebred American Pit Bull Terrier. Registerd with the ADBA. I have shown him in ADBA

185

[QUOTE=RedFury]
magellan01, according to this site, Doberman Watch, I have the most vicious of breeds and they should be banned right quick.

I mean, read some of the misinformation in it. Makes Pitbulls and Rotties, tame by comparison:
[/QUOTE]
Chuck Norris’s son once paralyzed a Doberman by blowing a kiss at it.

186

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Here is my take on the part I bolded. Unless the dogs have been properly socialized and trained, they view children as competitors for pack status. What is highly physically traumatic to a child (a bite in the face) would be deflected, or evaded by another dog. This is why I insist that dogs need to be taught their position in the pack. It would also help if owners familiarized themselves with the warning signals that a dog gives off before he attacks. Rarely does a dog attack without waring, and those that do are so difficult to rehabilitate that they are usually put down.

One of my Jacks is a male who was given up to Rescue because he bit a two year old child. Thedescription of the event went somerthing like this –

Child approached dog. Dog growled. Child kept on coming. Dog bit child.

Now Rex is just about the sweetest little guy you will ever meet. Everyone, and I mean everyone who meets him loves him. And the bite was more of a nip – no broken skin. Another dog would have heeded the warning, but the child was clueless, and was either unsupervised, or the parents did not recognize what was happening.

For the first few times he was around kids, I worried, but he has displayed no aggression whatsoever. None. He is the world’s biggest affection hound.

I don’t fault the family for giving him up. They had cared for him, but obviously were not prepared to deal with this problem. And I got a great little dog in the bargain.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you. I do think though that certain breeds are harder to handle and without proper training have to potential to be more dangerous. I’m pretty much of the opinion too that it’s almost never the dog, but the person. But until we can do something about that, maybe some restrictions should be placed on the breed if only to help better the breed. Over breeding, inbreeding or irresponsible breeding affect a dogs temperament. How many of these deadly dogs we see are a product of two pin heads talking over the fence and decide to breed their dogs because they’re both tough or good fighters?

Years ago there were problems with Cocker Spaniels. Due to trends at the time only cockers with huge woolly coats were winning dog shows. Groups of breeders got together to breed their dogs. Whether it was due to inbreeding or coincidence lots of the cockers had bad temperaments, and for a while the breed was pretty well known for this. I think the AKC got the dogs back on track and they’re now known as pretty great dogs.

WhyNot, I know what your saying but I think it’s less than 1% of dog bites are from goldens and according to the CDC zero deaths caused by a golden. All dogs bite and in the first link the kid fell on the dog and he bit. Well, duh! I would too.
But I’m trying to think of a way to protect the dog as well as people. I hate seeing pit bulls destroyed or ending up in shelters.

Since dogs are pretty much bred for our pleasure, I think we owe it to dogs
to somehow regulate certain breeds so they don’t end up abandoned or destroyed.

187

“This Dog paralyzed a PitBull just by barking at it.”

That is the funniest thing I have read in 2007.

188

[QUOTE=Caridwen]
WhyNot, I know what your saying but I think it’s less than 1% of dog bites are from goldens and according to the CDC zero deaths caused by a golden.
[/QUOTE]
She was responding to Magellan’s request for “all those headlines about Goldens,” as if such a thing did not exist.

189

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Well, if you qualify it with “the same size and build” that pretty much merans it’s a pit bull. Mabe a smallish Rottweiler. But to answer your question: more mayhem than almost any other dog. If you were alone in and alley and a viscious 70 pound dog was about top attack you, would you prefer that dog be a pit bull or a golden retreiver?
[/QUOTE]

If a viscous dog were to adhere to me, I would find the correct solvent and remove it.

I own a purebred American Pit Bull Terrier. I got him as a 9 week old puppy & he’s currently 8 years old. Registerd with the ADBA. I have shown him in ADBA sanctioned shows. I think this makes me somewhat knowlegable about the breed.

I raised my thoughtfully to be gentle. He was born game and stubborn and I don’t think it is possible to remove those traits from my dog. He’s always been a velcro dog, highly trainable and very eager to please; but not independently intelligent like a rotty, poodle or border collie. That said, when he was young and in his physical prime there is no way I would have left him unattended with a small child or a large dog. He might have played too rough and hurt a child, and he definitely would have attacked another large dog. The breed requires more responsibility than most. You absolutely must have a 6 foot or higher chainlink fence around their yard, lots of time with people and training.

They are attractive to skinheads, gangsters and other young tough idiots because of their looks and strength. Just like German Shepherds were in the 50s, ditto Dobermans in the 70’s and Rottweillers in the 80s. One of the reasons I quit showing my dog is the morons at the ADBA shows. I am of the opinion that banning the breed will just result in young trailer trash & ghetto thugs choosing another breed take its place as the new ‘devil dog’. Argentine dogo, Presa Canario, maybe even chow or sharpei.

It’s the owner more than the breed.

190

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Chuck Norris’s son once paralyzed a Doberman by blowing a kiss at it.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the anecdote. Just tried the same stunt on mine and got my face Dobie-washed. Too many kisses for one session.

Be back after I shower :slight_smile:

191

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Here is my take on the part I bolded. Unless the dogs have been properly socialized and trained, they view children as competitors for pack status. What is highly physically traumatic to a child (a bite in the face) would be deflected, or evaded by another dog. This is why I insist that dogs need to be taught their position in the pack. It would also help if owners familiarized themselves with the warning signals that a dog gives off before he attacks. Rarely does a dog attack without waring, and those that do are so difficult to rehabilitate that they are usually put down.

One of my Jacks is a male who was given up to Rescue because he bit a two year old child. Thedescription of the event went somerthing like this –

Child approached dog. Dog growled. Child kept on coming. Dog bit child.

Now Rex is just about the sweetest little guy you will ever meet. Everyone, and I mean everyone who meets him loves him. And the bite was more of a nip – no broken skin. Another dog would have heeded the warning, but the child was clueless, and was either unsupervised, or the parents did not recognize what was happening.

For the first few times he was around kids, I worried, but he has displayed no aggression whatsoever. None. He is the world’s biggest affection hound.

I don’t fault the family for giving him up. They had cared for him, but obviously were not prepared to deal with this problem. And I got a great little dog in the bargain.
[/QUOTE]

All your posts in this thread seem to be pointing to a need for Owner training and licensing. Is this what you are ultimately advocating?

What percentage of dog owners have had any training in handling dogs? I had two dogs before I got any training and I think I am fairly normal in this respect. Of course I looked for dogs that were known for not biting and not being dangerous.

Do you at least concede a Pit Bull is more dangerous on average than other dog breeds of similar size? I get the impression you do not.

Jim

192

[QUOTE=Caridwen]
I agree with you. I do think though that certain breeds are harder to handle and without proper training have to potential to be more dangerous. I’m pretty much of the opinion too that it’s almost never the dog, but the person. But until we can do something about that, maybe some restrictions should be placed on the breed if only to help better the breed. Over breeding, inbreeding or irresponsible breeding affect a dogs temperament. How many of these deadly dogs we see are a product of two pin heads talking over the fence and decide to breed their dogs because they’re both tough or good fighters?

Years ago there were problems with Cocker Spaniels. Due to trends at the time only cockers with huge woolly coats were winning dog shows. Groups of breeders got together to breed their dogs. Whether it was due to inbreeding or coincidence lots of the cockers had bad temperaments, and for a while the breed was pretty well known for this. I think the AKC got the dogs back on track and they’re now known as pretty great dogs.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with your entire first paragraph except for this "But until we can do something about that, maybe some restrictions should be placed on the breed if only to help better the breed. ". If I thought that legal restrictions could improve dog breeds, I’d be all for it, but I don’t think it’ll work. And there are too many practical problems with trying to identify dogs of a particular breed.

Many breeds have been near-ruined by becoming popular. Temperament problems become rampant, and health problems increase. German Shepherds, Irish Setters, Collies, Cockers, and pretty much all of the toy/tiny breeds, are the ones I can think of off the top of my head; I know there are more. IMO, the AKC is to blame.

If they’d put some restrictions on how many litters and how many breeds a kennel or breeder could produce a year, they could put a huge dent in the puppy mill business. If they’d require a testing/apprenticeship program and register breeders (only allowing approved breeders to register dogs), they could come close to ending the backyard bozos (whom I detest with a burning passion, due to spouse’s years as an emergency vet tech).

The nonsense about show fashions is the same - if local show champions aren’t meeting breed standards, then don’t accredit the points. (I knew a Boxer breeder whose dogs won nearly every show they entered - as long as she went out of the region, to where shows used breed standards. The local shows had gone for some trendy crap and consequently crap dogs were winning and therefore being bred.)

But I think the AKC as an organization (not necessarily the individual members) are much more concerned with making money and promoting themselves than they are with improving breeds and conditions for dogs.

[/hop off soapbox]
Really, don’t get me started on the AKC, and on dog breeders, and on regulating dogs. :slight_smile:

I’m working through the link you posted and will try to get back to you on that. (I’m going to have to actually get some work done this afternoon!)

193

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
All your posts in this thread seem to be pointing to a need for Owner training and licensing. Is this what you are ultimately advocating?
[/QUOTE]
What does Owner training mean? I think mandatory licensing would be a good thing. I imagine enforcing it would be difficult.

I have no idea. I had no training in handling dogs before I got mine. All I have advocated is basic obedience training, which is usually very available and fairly cheap. You can teach yourself as well.

The short answer is No. But I do not think that any dog is dangerous if neutered, properly socialized, trained, and controlled. Most posters in this thread have passed over that last quaification. Your animal should be under your control at all times. To control the dog means, as well as leashing it when walking, securely confining it when it is not leashed, and controlling the environment. My dogs are great with kids, when handled properly, but I would not let them loose on a kindergarten playground. If a kid pulled a tail too hard, or poked a dog in the eye, or picked one up by his hind legs, that kid might get bitten.

194

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
My dogs are great with kids, when handled properly, but I would not let them loose on a kindergarten playground. If a kid pulled a tail too hard, or poked a dog in the eye, or picked one up by his hind legs, that kid might get bitten.
[/QUOTE]

That’s the thing about my pitbull. since he’s very even-tempered I never worried about him nipping at a child, even though if he did it could seriously injure said child. My concern was more about him knocking a child down by running over him, wrestling/licking/pushing on him too hard or scratching a child with his toenails.

195

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
What does Owner training mean? I think mandatory licensing would be a good thing. I imagine enforcing it would be difficult.
[/quote]

Well most people do not instinctively know how to train dogs, so much like driver training, it sounds like from your posts that we need dog owners to get some minimal training. I have done this on my own, going to classes at Pet Smart, but most people have never had any training in how to train and handle a dog.

It is great that you do such a great job with dogs, but Caridwen’s many cites would seem to point out that many, far too many people cannot handle their dogs or know what to do with them.

I know I was clueless when I got my first pup and we lost her to a car because of it. I thought if we gave a dog plenty of exercise in a huge pen and bring her in to be with the humans all evening and night that the dog would thrive and be our best buddy for years. Well she was a happy, friendly and healthy dog. She was great with the neighbor kids. But, she was also a digger and she dug her way out of the corral to go visit the dog across the street. On one snowy day, she was hit by a speeding car. If I had known she would dig out and go play, I might have looked into an invisible fence. We put one in for our Border Collie and we will put one in our new home for our new dog in the spring.

My long and rambling point is far too many dog owners do not know anywhere near enough about dogs and probably have no clue that there is so much more to know. Pit Bulls have been bred for their ferociousness, tenaciousness and strength. They are more likely to be dangerous than most other breeds.

Jim

196

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
What does Owner training mean? I think mandatory licensing would be a good thing. I imagine enforcing it would be difficult.
[/QUOTE]
It could easily work like this: All dogs must be registered and registration is strictly enforced (ie you have enforcement officers wandering around looking for unregistered dogs, confiscating them and charging the owners an increasing amount to retrieve them.)

In order to register your dog you have to meet qualifications. Two obvious ones that occur to me are having your dog spayed or neutered; and passing a standardized obedience test like Canine Good Neighbour.

Anecdote: I know a woman with a Rottie mix, a delightful pooch in every way. Once I came upon them in an enclosed backyard, sitting next to a drum circle. The dog was tied to a pole, beside her owner who was reading. The dog was clearly unhappy with the drum circle but put up with it due to the proximity of her person. Soon the drum circle drowned out her reading (!!!) so she moved elsewhere, leaving that poor dog tied up beside a bunch of drummers and surrounded by strangers. Unsurprisingly, the dog became anxious and barked and snapped at anyone who passed by. If she had chomped on anyone, she would have been labelled “dangerous” and quite possibly put down - and all because her owner was being a clear and present MORON and putting everyone in that place at risk. Such people should not be permitted to own dogs, and measures must be taken to ensure that this kind of stuff doesn’t happen.

Ideally there would also be rules prohibiting tethering them up and rules prohibiting humans from teasing restrained or enclosed dogs. And since we’ve entered the land of the fantastical, let’s throw in anti-puppy-mill legislation that harshly punishes assholes who breed irresponsibly.

I say this as an owner of a 70-lb pit bull that is ALWAYS leashed and muzzled when out in public (in accordance with the law of the land), and who has never shown a shred of aggression towards either animals or humans. He has now been attacked twice in the space of two months by unleashed (and, in one case, unsupervised) dogs; in both cases blood was drawn and scars remain, because he was unable to defend himself from these attacks.

If my dog had eaten the Jindo that attacked him (the GSD was probably too big even for my guy’s enormous head), he would have been put down, even though the Jindo launched a completely unprovoked attack on him, and only let up after I grabbed my dog and stood as tall as I could and hollered, and his owner chased him around us ten or fifteen times. That dog was totally out of control but my dog paid the price.

If the German Shepherd had been in the mood to tussle (and who can tell about the motivations of a loose dog?), both my dog and I could easily have ended up dead.

So in the end, my dog is physically scarred (and so now, when he goes out with the muzzle, he looks even more tough and scary); I am contemplating getting pepper spray with which to defend my 70 lb pit bull (!!!); and I am anxious whenever there are off-leash dogs around, and I need to take great pains to ensure I don’t pass my anxiety on to him.

So it would be very difficult to convince me that there is any justification whatsoever for any breed-specific policy measures whatsoever.

197

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
My long and rambling point is far too many dog owners do not know anywhere near enough about dogs and probably have no clue that there is so much more to know. Pit Bulls have been bred for their ferociousness, tenaciousness and strength. They are more likely to be dangerous than most other breeds.
[/QUOTE]
I suppose the key words in that statement are “more” “most,” and “dangerous.”

For the fourth time, why is breeding for “ferociousness” cited, while breeding for “non-aggression towards humans” is conveniently ignored? If a dog is a slave to it’s genetics, you do not get to pick and choose just the ones that bolster your case.

To use someone else’s analogy, machine guns are more likely to be dangerous than pistols, but neither machine guns nor pistols are dangerous at all when properly handled.

There are plenty of breeds who are physically more capable of harming humans than pit bulls. When you add the fact that most of the attacks cited in this thread have been against children, you can cite just about any dog that weighs more than 20 lbs. or so at adulthood. There is no reason to single out pit bulls. None. Whatsoever.

[QUOTE=cowgirl]
It could easily work like this: All dogs must be registered and registration is strictly enforced (ie you have enforcement officers wandering around looking for unregistered dogs, confiscating them and charging the owners an increasing amount to retrieve them.)

In order to register your dog you have to meet qualifications. Two obvious ones that occur to me are having your dog spayed or neutered; and passing a standardized obedience test like Canine Good Neighbour.

                                       ****************

Ideally there would also be rules prohibiting tethering them up and rules prohibiting humans from teasing restrained or enclosed dogs. And since we’ve entered the land of the fantastical, let’s throw in anti-puppy-mill legislation that harshly punishes assholes who breed irresponsibly.
[/QUOTE]
Great ideas. IMO more likely to be ‘fantasy’ than ‘easily done’, but great ideas nonetheless.

198

Thank God, someone finally spelled it correctly.

199

There oughta be a law. lol

200

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Given that pit bulls are impossible to identify absent pedigrees, no statistics exist to prove them dangerous, either.
[/QUOTE]

This is just amazing, not to mention untrue: “impossible to identify”?!!! So I guess if I spent a week with you driving around LA and gave you $1,000 for every dog you could correctly identify (then actually check through papers and/or DNA) you’d wind up with $0. Okay. You’re confusing a formal designation from an authorizing body with reality.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
So now we are talking about how dangerous pits are who are trained to be vicious? What the fuck does that do with the topic at hand?
[/QUOTE]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and looking at the worst case scenario owner-wise. The point stands. You’re free to search for another reason to ignore it.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I thought this was about dogs killing children, not dogfighting. I have absolutely no thoughts on how successful goldens would be against pit bulls or any other similar breed. Is that the sound of goalposts moving I hear?
[/QUOTE]

No. It must be the sound of reality scratching at the lead-reinforced steel blinders you use. Let’s see, in a discussion examing the visciousness—or non-visciousness—of pit bulls I bring up an arena in which that visciousness is dialed to maximum. What was I thinking? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
You are equivocating here with your use of the phrase “bad owners.” I have defined responsible ownership for you. Anyone who fails one of the categories could be a bad owner. What do *you *mean when you say bad owner? You are also begging the question by assuming that pit bulls are “inclined to rip someone’s throat out.” You cannot prove that pit bulls are so inclined by asserting it. Logic 101.
[/QUOTE]

Debate 101: You cannot state that someone asserted something they did not assert. It is unhelpful to the discussion, not to mention dishonest, although I don’t think you did it intentionally.

Logic 101, Chapter 2: Given A and B, stating that A is not C does not mean that B is C.

By bad owner I mean someone who abuses a dog or tries to draw out as much of the dogs visciousness as possible, whether directed to other dogs or humans.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
No dogs are “inclined to rip someone’s throat out.”
[/QUOTE]

I agree, but it is easier to for some dogs to do it than others. Or encouraged to do it. Physicality plays a large role, as does temperment of the breed. Tell me, do you think that breeds have the same baseline temperments? That a golden, other than the physical attributes, is identical to a pit bull, or that the temperment of a border collie is identical to a bull mastiff? If so, I think most dog books and authorities would disagree with that. I don’t think anyone would disagree that much of this hardwiring can be written over, so to speak, but that does not mean it is not there.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Specifically pit bulls, who, for the third time, are bred to be non-aggressive to humans.
[/QUOTE]

Kind of an overly sweeping statement, don’t you think? Then there’s all those headlines.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I could take that Golden and raise him in such a way as to be lethally dangerous to humans.
[/QUOTE]

Possibly. But you can not train him to be as much of a killing machiine as a pitbull similarly trained.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Then why your prejudice against the breed?
[/QUOTE]

I am prejudiced toward reality. The one that is expressed in the title of this thread. And my “bias” is not reserved for pitbulls alone. As I’ve stated. I think any dog that has shown itself to account for the number and severity of attacks that pitbulls have should be treated the same. I don’t particularly care the degree to which it is the fault of the breed or the fault of the owner—that’s almost impossible to determine—I offered a practical solution that ignores that unknowable. For whatever reason the combination of pitbulls and there owners have focused a spotlight on pitbulls. Let’s deal with that reality.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
More mayhem than what? Dogs who are less physicall imposing? So what? They are not as capable of mayhem as dogs who are more physically imposing. BFD. Their capacity for mayhem is a function of physicality, not temperament.
[/QUOTE]

It’s a combination of the two. There are, I gather, dogs that can be even more devasting. In San Francisco a few years ago two Presa Canarios/Mastiff hybrids killed a young woman in her hallway. If they are worse than pit bulls I don’t know. They appear to be, as they are one-and-a-half to twice the size. From what I remember reading about them—a mix of English Mastiff and some Canary Island breed—they are bred to be supreme fighting dogs. A mastiff is one of, if not THE, most muscular, powerful dogs there is. Yet, when someone is looking for a fighting dog, they look to add somnething to the Mastiff, while sacrificing size. What is that something else?

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Again witht the circular logic. Their baseline personality trait is “dog.”
[/QUOTE]

It doesn’t stop there. Again, not all breeds have the same baseline personality traits. If we disagree on this we should both just call it a day.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
nI also remind you that pit bulls are the dog of choice among knuckleheads who own them in order to project an air of toughness. They like it when their dogs are aggressive, and encourage the dogs to behave that way.
[/QUOTE]

But why do so many of these knuckleheads choose pitbulls? It’s because that after applying there idea of traiing they wind up with more of an intimidating killing machine than most other breeds.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Well, the dog in question killed a child in the home. From the stastics cited in this thread, how many of the dogs ID’d as pit bulls actuall were pit bulls? How many of them were procured as family pets? What’s that? There is no way to tell? Exactly.
[/QUOTE]

Precisely. But it seems that you are assuming that the behavior that is the point of this thread is the result of trainiing only. Where is the evidence of that? Right? It’s not there. So we agree that it is an unknown. So what are we left with? Headlines. “Again and Again and Again”. On the other side we have people who trot out the oh-so-helpful prescient insight “It’s not the dog, it’s the owner.”

Let’s try this again. You assert that “I’ts not the dog, it’s the owner”. I’ve asserted “It is the dog AND the owner”. You can still win that $10,000. Seventy-pound golden of your choice against the average 60-pound pit bull. This offer goes to dispell your claim that the breed of the dog has nothing to do with it’s abilty to inflict lethal damage, so no need to go trotting out your “we’re looking at dogs attacking people, not other dogs”.