A lot of the problem with these statistics is that a lot of people (maybe most) don’t really know what a pit-bull is, and if a bite victim says that the dog was a pit-bull that’s what’s going on the report, no matter what breed the dog really is. For a lot of people, any thick-muzzled short-haired stocky dog is a pit-bull, especially if it seems like a mean dog. Be especially skeptical of reports of people bit by pit-bulls that were more than 50 lbs. - pit-bull terriers are NOT large dogs, and rarely get much bigger than 35 lbs. or so.
BTW, I see that grienspace is still citing the same highly questionable statistics he did in the other pit-bull thread. I strongly suggest that those involved in this thread who haven’t read that one do so now (especially my posts, I think I made a lot of good points 
).
Sigh. I’ve stayed out of this thread, having said my say in the other.
Remember: There are no bad dogs. Only bad owners.
A responsible owner, who has an uncontrollably vicious dog, will have the dog put down, or get it away from people (this is a very rare occurrence, but does occasionally happen. Dogs, like people, have different personalities). An owner who wants his dog as a status symbol that he’s the meanest mofo in town will not only not have the dog put down, he’ll encourage the vicious behaviour.
Also, the whole “locking jaws” thing was debunked in the other thread:
Not all pit bulls even exhibit this particular behaviour. And, IIRC, English Bulldogs exhibit the same tenacity - they were originally bred to grab a bull’s nose and hang on no matter what the bull did. So can we please stop spreading this particular bit of ignorance?
There are no bad dogs. Only bad owners.
I just got redirected over here from a link in GQ. After reading through most of what’s up here, I don’t think this was mentioned: Are there not laws regulating other kinds of dangerous animals such as big cats and alligators and such? I’m sure if you asked their licensed owners (I saw Tommy Morrison on TV with a cage full of cougers at his home), I’m pretty sure they’d say these animals are practically harmless; perfect pets if you know how to handle them… well anyways… I saw from above in some places they require you to have fences and muzzles for pitbulls - which seems to be about on-par with other dangerous animals. That should probly be everywhere. They already have strict laws regarding these other animals; how hard would it be to add pitbulls to the list? (And sorry, but I don’t beleive a dog selectively bred for killing other dogs in a ring would ever be a good thing to have around kids, regardless of how lovey-dovey you raise them; same reason you don’t leave a cat with a pet bird… it might work out but you just can’t trust their nature)
I don’t know if any links were posted on what legal action the owners of mauling dogs face(come on, did you see the LENGTH of this thread?), but just off the top of my head I’d say that for dangerous breeds (like the one of topic here) they ought to be prosecuted for assault as though the owners themselves had done the mauling; including a record and possible jail time… that may be far-fetched but pitbull owners are very willing to bring this type of dog into the community knowing their potential nasty disposition, and it seems that everyone agrees it’s the owners who should be held accountable; so I’ll leave it at that.
I kind of liken keeping pitbulls to having a guillotine or broadsword in the house… perfectly useless as far as what they were made/bred for THESE DAYS, but interesting to some none the less, and, well, sort of collector’s items… but you’d better be damned sure nobody gets hurt while looking at or playing with your dangerous possesions.
mangeorge
You’re absolutely right. Putting a life preserver on the kid will save him from drowning, so let’s make sure he’s wearing it 24/7 – you never know when he’ll stumble near a pool.
Making the kid a vegetarian will help him avoid salmonella.
Having him wear his bullett-proof vest will protect him from drive-by’s
Keeping him out of the ocean will save him from having his arm bitten off by a shark.
Why not keep the kid in a sterile bubble, fed intravenously, until he turns 20? That way, you’re almost garaunteed to keep him safe and warm.
Almost like being back in the womb.
And hey, I’m thinking about the children here. So if you disagree, at least do me the courtesy of having some reasonable ideas.
I apologize for my previous post, it was the result of a bad attitude coupled with a spasm of the patella.
mangeorge, the comparison is valid because one statistically insignificant event which results in the maiming or death of a child is being compared to another. The “extreme” solution given is being compared to “extreme” solutions to these other problems.
If “Dog attacks child” = “ban dogs”, “child drowns” = “ban pools” seems an accurate comparison to me. I’m not attempting to dilute the events importance. I’m attempting to demonstrate that the event is not important, or rather not important enough to warrant more legislation than that which currently exists.
You can not protect every single child from every single conceivable mishap.
About a two months ago here, a young boy was killed by a pack of dogs. That is how it was reported. A week after that, another boy was seriously hurt when he was attacked by a dog. That is how it was reported. A few weeks ago, an off duty cop was walking his dog when a pit bull viciously attacked his dog and had to be shot. That is how that was reported. Seems that when a pit bull attacks, it is national news creating outcry against the breed. When another breed of dog attacks, it’s just a dog, breed not worth mentioning and comparatively little public outcry.
Aha:
Then why are you singling out pit bulls? They’re not the only dogs that have killed people. If they are banned, another breed will eventually become the new public enemy #1. Would you then demand that we ban that one as well?
If we follow the logic of people like you, there would eventually be nothing left but farty dogs. Is that what you want, or are you willing to settle for a more reasonable solution, such as:
-
Enforce leash laws. It shouldn’t be any harder than enforcing an all-out ban on any specific breed.
-
Crack down hard on dog fighting.
-
Severely punish the sociopaths who train their dogs to be vicious snarling monsters.
You’re probably mistaking a Staffordshire Bull Terrier with an American Pit Bull Terrier. They resemble each other but an ABPT can range from 30-50 pounds for females and 35-60 pounds for males. A Staffordshire Bull Terrier can be registered as an APBT but not the other way around (there is no AKC recognition of the APBT for what that’s worth).
From this CDC source comes the following stats on dog related fatalities collected from 1979 - 1996.
[ul]
[li] “Pit Bull” --> 60[/li][li] Rottweiler --> 29[/li][li] German Shepherd --> 19[/li][li] “Husky” --> 14[/li][li] Alaskan Malamute --> 12[/li][li] Doberman Pinscher --> 8[/li][li] Chow Chow --> 8[/li][li] Great Dane --> 5[/li][li] St. Bernard --> 4[/li][li] Akita --> 4[/li][/ul]
Clearly the “Pit Bull” pulls far ahead of the rest of the pack (pun intended) in regards to fatal dog attacks and it is this that gets people so uptight about the breed.
Still, it is wrong to suggest that destroying the breed is the answer to the problem. If you did you’d just see Rottweiler’s as the next target and so on till we are left with Cavalier Spaniels (or some other equally innocuous breed) as our only choice for a dog.
I maintain this because I do not feel it is entirely the APBT breed’s fault. Certainly the dogs were bred to be fighters. One look at them can tell you that if nothing else. As a result think of some (certainly not all or even most) of the people likely to get this breed. People who want a fighting dog. People who revel in having the meanest SOB on the block. These people DO exist.
Where I live in Chicago I am not very far away (about two or three blocks) from heavy gang territory. Apparently dog fighting has become a favorite recreational event for some of these gangs. I see a LOT of Pit Bulls being led around by teenagers and it is clear, to me, that these guys have no business possessing an animal like that. (FTR I can be very wrong about this as well. I was talking to one guy in a park who I had pegged as a gang member. Standing next to him was a Pit Bull and I immediately despised the guy. After talking awhile I found he rescues Pit Bull dogs from the fighting rings and tries to find some way to save the animals. Just goes to show it doesn’t pay to jump to conclusions.)
So lets say the people who want to destroy the Pit Bull breed get their way. Do you suppose the people who keep fighting dogs or train viscious killers will go away? Nope…they’ll probably just move back to Rottweilers or some other breed and go from there. I suspect you’d see a jump in the mauling stats of that breed if such a thing were to happen.
Pit Bulls are certainly more prone to viciousness than most other breeds. When breeding fighting dogs you aren’t merely trying for a body type (although that’s important) you are also looking for an attitude to go along with it. That fighting attitude can’t be entirely separated from the Pit Bull breed (indeed, Terriers of all types possess a “don’t screw with me” attitude to greater or lesser degrees).
Still, with proper handling and socialization Pit Bulls can be fine dogs. I have met some like this and they were complete babies and wouldn’t harm a fly.
I see no reason to punish the breed for the owner’s mistakes. Humans whose parent’s physically abused them as children are more disposed to violence as adults. Humans who have alcoholic parents are more likely to be alcoholics themselves. In either case, however, it is not a foregone conclusion that these children will grow to be bad adults or alcoholics. Neither is it a foregone conclusion that all Pit Bulls will grow to be vicious animals.
The proper response, in my mind, is not breed specific legislation but legislation aimed at making those who own dogs (any dog) more responsible for their charges. Both civilly and criminally. Let’s see how fast the guy who loses his house and spends a few years in jail returns to training killer dogs.
I realized that in my previous post I was singling out the people who get Pit Bulls (or similar dogs) for the purpose of training a fighting dog.
Unfortunately there is another type of owner to beware of. It’s the nimrod who has no clue what he or she is buying and gets a dog based on its looks or as some sort of status symbol or because they were impressed with its antics in a movie (101 Dalmations anyone?). It may sound silly but go to any animal shelter and ask why this or that dog is there and you’ll find it a surprisingly (and sadly) common refrain. “The owner didn’t realize what the dog would become when it grew-up.”
At least the people who bring their dog back to the shelter have realized that they can’t handle the animal they got. It’s the people who hang on to the Pit Bull or Rott or German Shepherd and lose all control of it that are a problem.
It’d probably never work but I wish there was some mandated test regarding a breed you are about to buy that shows you understand what that breed is about before taking poochy home.
I never understand buying a dog for looks. Research the various breeds and choose one that fits your circumstances and needs. It doesn’t matter what you want, a guard dog, a lap dog, a herder, a runner, a swimmer, a house dog, an outdoor dog, big, small, etc., there is some breed out there somewhere that will meet your requirements. I guarantee if you choose on this basis, regardless of what the breed looks like (and what you think of those looks), you will fall madly in love with that animal and think it’s one of the greatest things on earth.
Such heated and reactionary rhetoric. Clearly the cogency of any given poster’s argument is inversely proportional to the level of passion therein.
To argue that a dog’s aggressiveness (or lack thereof) has more to do with its genetics than with its upbringing requires a level of nescience that cannot be accomplished without willfully effecting it. It is self-evident that a pit bull terrier is likely to emerge victorous from mortal combat with another domestic mammal (including humans). Unlike humans, however, the likelihood of a dog entering such a contest is not informed by any self-awareness of its abilities. That such a distinction is lost on so many of you folks makes me embarassed for you.
The likelihood of any dog to exhibit aggression is fueled purely by its owner’s disposition toward it. Certainly, a pit bull that has been raised to be combative is physically able do greater damage than a toy poodle that has been raised in the same manner. The fact remains immutable that the combative disposition is created by the owner.
Pedestrians are maimed and killed by motor vehicles every day. Of course, the responsibilty does not lie in the vehicle, but in the driver. This is well-understood despite the fact that certain motor vehicles–e.g., the Ford Excursion–are more likely to inflict grave damage to a pedestrian that are other motor vehicles–e.g., the Volkswagen Beetle.
What may be confounding some of my fellow posters is the fact that a dog, once trained by a thoughtless owner, is largely an autonomous weapon, while a motor vehicle is a weapon only under under the operation of a thoughless driver. Such a distinction holds power only over one whose intellect limits him to his immediate surroundings; such a person would be baffled if a driver were to strike and kill a pedestrian, abandon his car, and flee the scene on foot.
It is obvious that there are those who should not be allowed ownership of pit bulls, just as there are those who should not be allowed to operate a sport-utility vehicle. However, there is nothing intrinsically murderous about either until a thoughless human caretaker gains the helm; that is the reason that there is no way to deny citizens of this country ownership of either without robbing the whole of our society (which, despite indications to the contrary, still encompasses people who are not thoughless) of certain civil liberties.
There are certain people with antisocial motivations who take to flag-burning. That doesn’t mean private ownership of Old Glory should be banned (in many other countries, the nation’s flag is to be flown only over state properties–official residences, war vessels, etc.). Though (normally) made of flammable materials, there is nothing intrinsically inflammatory about a flag until a human effects its ignition. Certainly I do not suggest that training aggression into pit bulls should be Constitutionally protected speech; rather, I am simply pointing out how horrifyingly ignorant some of the proposals posted to this forum are. To wit: indiscriminate shooting of pit bulls would be like randomly shooting flags, Wildest Bill–you would create damage where there was none to start with, and you would inflict violence where none existed previous to your contribution.
Here’s my question:
say that pit bulls are to be banned.
how exactly is “pit bull” to be defined?
Is it strictly the american pit bull terrier?
what about staffordshire terriers?
I also heard of a mix called Mexican Pit bulls.
I have a boston terrier. Granted, he is not a ‘pitbull’, but some where down the line, I am certain that this breed is part stafordshire terrier. He is a sweet dog, with a great disposition, but he does have a horrid bite. (I’ve seen what he does to his toys). His jaws ‘lock’ too. He was bred originally to kill rats, after all.
and so my point is, how would they be regulated?
if a pit bull is cross-bred with a chow, is it still a pit bull? Wouldn’t people be able to dodge the law by saying “technically, my dog is not a pit bull”.