Possibility, rather.
Wondering if the next “disinterested observer” will tell us how common 700lb pitbulls are in his neighborhood…
I’m not insisting on it, that’s what you’re citing to: the UKC pit bull breed standard used for judging at UKC events, i.e. dog shows. It’s a list of desirable characteristics and faults to judge a dog on, and disqualifications from competition. It’s a description of what they’re looking for in an ideal specimen, not a generalized description of the breed for public information. The breeding standard includes things that have nothing to do with genetics, like “bobbed tail” as a disqualification. That’s a disqualification from competition; they’re not claiming that if the dog’s tail is bobbed it ceases to be a pit bull. The section on “weight” reads:
35 to 60 pounds is the desirable weight when a evaluating a dog in competition, not the lower and upper limits of possibility.
Like I said, there’s a very good chance that a pit that size has some mastiff in him, but very large purebreds are possible:
While I’m thnking about it:
Poodles. Toys around 6-8 pounds, standards up to 70 pounds.
In another example of life imitating art, a pit bull attacked a neighbor’s dog in my building’s elevator yesterday, delivering a nontrivial puncture wound to the smaller dog’s neck. When a neighbor tried to intervene, the pit bull let go of the other dog and bit the hell out of her hand. A police report was filed by law when she was treated at the hospital, so now the city authorities are involved.
I am on the co-op board in my building. We may have no choice but to insist that our friend and neighbor have his pit bull put down. He is an excellent dog owner, but the dog he adopted had a history of abuse and he had invested a great deal of time and energy trying to socialize it. This is not a conversation I am looking forward to.
WRONG!
The UKC is the first and original founding registry to register American Pit Bull Terriers.
In 1898, Chauncy Bennet formed the UKC, a breed registry aimed solely at the registration and acceptance of pitbulls. The AKC had wanted nothing to do with pitbulls, so Bennet sought to create an organization that would represent the breed as performance dogs. Mr. Bennet added “American” and initially dropped “Pit” from the APBT’s name but public outcry let to “Pit” being added back to the name - thus the American Pit Bull Terrier.
For a pitbull to be accepted into the UKC the dog had to have won three fights - a requirement that was later dropped. Another registry that was started solely for APBT’s, the American Dog Breeders Association was born in 1909. The ADBA was started by Guy McCord who was a close friend of one of the founding fathers of the modern APBT, John P. Colby. The ADBA was created to test the performance quality of a APBT without actual pit fighting; the ADBA’s main focus was on weight pulling competitions with a spattering of conformation shows.
In 1936 the AKC decided to register Pit Bulls but under a different name - the Staffordshire Terrier, which was later changed to the American Staffordshire Terrier in 1972, or AST. Up until 1936, Pit Bulls and AST’s were physically identical. After 1936, AST’s were bred solely for conformation and their breed requirements became much more stringent. APBT’s were being bred for both performance (fighting) as well as conformation shows and the breed’s standard became much more lenient. The AST’s, phenotypically, became “flashier” with blockier heads, larger chests and a thicker jaw while the APBT’s varied phenotypically from lanky to stocky. Although the phenotypic expression varied in the APBT, relative weight, size and proportion remained constant and dogs over 60lbs were rarely seen. Both AST’s and APBT’s were bred to be exceptionally sturdy and extremely human friendly, not to mention athletic, courageous, and tenacious.
“The ADBA created the American Staffordshire Terrier breed for Pete…”
THE ADBA DID NOT CREATE THE AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER aka AmStaff.
IT WAS THE AKC, AND NOT FOR PETE!
Well that’s two breeds, now isn’t it? But if you think that a Toy Poodle can weigh 70 pounds, I suppose anything can weigh just about anything.
Can’t you simply insist that he rid himself of the dog. Or will only a corpse satisfy you?
Back up, read what I actually, said, and watch your fucking tone.
Personally, I would prefer neither outcome. I have no small children, and I fail to see the clear and present danger this dog allegedly presents to them. I think that as responsibile dog owners, they should be given the chance to continue to rehabilitate this dog. He should wear a muzzle at all times in the building, and certainly other corrective measures can be taken to ensure that the other dogs in my building are safe.
The problem is that once a police report was filed, the dog’s fate is in the hands of the local authorities, not the board. In order to comply with the city, we may have no choice but to have the dog put down. I fervently hope it does not come to this.
Nope, one breed, two varieties. The AKC poodle breed standard lists standard, miniature, and toy poodles as three varieties of one breed. Toy poodles aren’t the result of cross-breeding with smaller breeds, they were bred down from the standard poodle by breeders selecting for diminutiveness.
I have been to many AKC dog shows. My neighbor had a pit bull. I know what they look like and every bad incident I have had in the park has been pit bulls.
The mystique of the breed ,that it is a vicious killer and can not be stopped once started, appeals to some sickos. They get them for the wrong reasons.
In Detroit they train their pits to fight. They even toss in smaller dogs and rabbits to get them used to tearing something living apart. If a pit in Detroit gets loose ,it is serious and much bad press results.
I feel if I had a pit from puppyhood ,it would not be like that. I would not raise it that way. But many do.
Great post, blackhobyah. Thanks for the info.
P.S. redtail23, I poured a little whiskey at the crossroads for **Gaudere
** in your name. 
Thanks, it was the AKC. That was mostly a typo due to posting from work. I haven’t read on the history of the breed since I did research before I got my dog, so I didn’t include dates. My main focus in the whole pitbull debate is to give the perspective of someone who actually lives with a pit bull. Sometimes I make mistakes when I post from work.
Oh, and BTW, YOU DONT HAVE TO TYPE LIKE AN AOL LUSER. It’s not going to make you any friends on this board.
I’ll do you one better. I’ll quote it for you.
*I am on the co-op board in my building. We may have no choice but to insist that our friend and neighbor have his pit bull put down.
*
Now unless you are talking about the toy poodle in your pocket, “We” must refer to the co-op board. Right?
Well, which is it, the board or the police? Is the board an arm of the police? Where are these police lurking in your other post?
Shove your tone up your ass.
Man, you really are an asshole. YOU made the distinction. I was simply asking what you thought the distinction was before proceeding.
And you think these headlines with Goldens proves what exactly? That any dog can flip out? Great, now just show me where I claimed the opposite. And although someone was able to search and find a total of 7 headlines which go back to 2000, did you notice what that they didn’t mention? Come on, think now. It may hurt, but give it a go. Give up? Okay, what’s missing is them KILLING anyone. Or attempting to rip their throats out. Never mind that one incident happned after a four-year-old jumped on the dog. That tends to support (not prove) my assertion that Pits have a differetn baseline tempermant and often get more viscious than dogs like goldens.
Regarding the bite force of pit bulls, I searched the web and the numbers are all over the place. One article went as far as to pu the bite of a Pit Bull at over 2000psi, with a a Bull Terrier at 1200psi, and a Rottweiler’s bite coming in at wimpy 800psi. The one thing that most every site did agree on is that bite force is very difficult to ascertain.
You think my position is untenable? Let’s review, yet again. My position is and has been that it is the fault of the owner AND the dog. Yours is that it is the owner, NOT the dog. Do you still stand by that assertion? If so, you are in the minority, even in this thread.
Also, pravnik corrected you for making the same error I corrected you on: namely, that you keep confusing formal designations from official sanctioning bodies with the real world. Hopefully two different people pointing this out to you will disabuse you of this ignorant, if not dishonest, practice.
Finally, I’ll just weigh in on this because it’s so blatant. Your “corpse” line to Maeglin was way out of line. It seems that you misread his post, which you are wont to do and as is evidenced from the other Pit thread entitled “Tamerlane”. Then, when called on it you turn into an even bigger ass, intimating some inconsistency in his reponses when there is none. Maybe it’s your poor reading again. Maybe it’s just that you’re a dick.
Maybe both.
Show me, in his post, where options other than euthanization were considered.
Sorry, hit the wrong button. Magellan, I will try to explain this to you once more, and then wash my hands of you. Regardless of any physiological, phsychological, temperamental, or what-have-you characteristics of any breed of dog, the responsibility for good canine behavior lies with the owner. Totally. Dogs exist outside the real of blame. Nothing is ever the fault of the dog. I have outlined what constitutes proper dog ownership. I noted four rules. And if an owner is to much of a slack-ass to handle that, following rule #4 is sufficient to insure that** no dog ever attacks a human being.**
Bias against a particular breed of dog, based on the behavior of the owner, is ignorant. Continued bias, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is stupid. Pick your poison.
First, his original claim. The one that spurred the dickish response from you:
Notice the word “may”. I highlighted it for you. It does not list what those other option might be, only that there is some other possible outcome. And look at the totality of this paragraph. In context, which you left out of your last post about this, do you think that the extra words makes him appear more blood thirsty or less?
And then his clarifying response to you:
Look for the same word. He even put it in italics. You know, as in “this is one possible outcome, but there are others”. It’s really quite mind boggling how after you jumped his shit about the first quote—which I found perfectly clear—and he explained it to you fully and politely, that you responded the way you did. And again, look at the context, which, again, you conveniently left out when quoting him. Does it not make his position perfectly clear? Does it not expand on his original statment, providing more information for the readiing comprehension challenged?
Not that you would be the best person to make that determination.