Pitting Dog Owner

The BBQ Pit
81

First, let me turn it back to you. What are you going to do when the thugs switch to any one of the other few dozen breeds of large, aggressive dogs because you’ve banned pit bulls? When more people get hurt, because some of those breeds ARE people-aggressive, unlike most pits? And then you ban that breed, and they switch again. And again. And again.

People will always be able to find or breed large and aggressive dogs. How far are you willing to go? Ban all dogs? Ban all dogs over 5 pounds? 10 pounds? 20 pounds? No Labs, no Collies, no Goldens, no Huskies, no Shepherds, no birddogs, no Boxers, no Bassets, no SharPeis, no Aussies, no Bulldogs, no Corgis, no Terriers to speak of…how far do you go?

Are you aware of the history of breed-bans? Do you realize that the “most dangerous breed EVAR!!1111!!!” changes about every decade or so?

Now to answer your question - it’s called law enforcement. If we have the time and money to go around finding, impounding, and killing supposed pit bulls (because many are not really pits), why can’t that time and effort be spent instead enforcing the leash laws, licensing laws, etc.?

Change the licensing laws so that pets MUST be fixed unless you’re a registered breeder - and make it extremely difficult to be listed as a registered breeder. (IMNSHO, the AKC has a huge responsibility for the puppy mills and backyard breeders and should be collectively bitch-slapped, but that’s another rant entirely.)

Up the fines for off-lead dogs, unlicensed dogs, etc. Include loss of all animals for repeat offenders and then don’t let them license more. Make it PAINFUL for people to ignore these laws - and then enforce them!

Hell, require dogs to pass obedience classes by a certain age to maintain the license. That will help at least some people, who are ignorant rather than intentionally idiotic. Obedience classes are about training the owners not the dogs anyway, so at least a few more people would get their animals under control.

Put some teeth into animal cruelty and neglect laws and enforce those.

Yeah, you’ll still get the idjits out in the country who won’t be affected by any city ordinances (although I think most cruelty/neglect laws are state level), but y’know what? Most rural folks around here have guns. If that Lab I mentioned above had been around when I lived in the boonies, it would have been dead long before it bit someone.

82

I don’t necessarily disagree. I own a larger breed dog, a Boxer, and he’s every bit of 80lbs of sheer muscle and still a 9-month old pup. But Boxers are identified as a family-friendly breed that is patient with kids, which I have…but I still don’t leave them alone in the room with him because they are young and so is the dog.

I think that what you say sounds great…until your child or dog is a victim and the “after the fact” prosecution is somehow hollow.

I don’t think that bans on Pits in certain urban areas is a knee-jerk reaction at all, but more a move out of necessity as to the unreliability of the breed coupled with the propensity of certain types of people to own them that are irresponsible, ergo, there are stats that back this up.

I don’t ultimately know what the best solution is, but my experiences and what I’ve read about Pits and their history tends to point me in the direction that they are a breed that necessitates a high level of owner control and interaction, which they do not often receive.

83

Where I live, as a result of numerous tragedies - all involving pits & rotties, pits & rotties must be muzzled, even on a leash. Call it knee jerk if you like, but if it was your child maimed or killed you’d feel differently I believe.

Yes, other dogs do attack and bite people. But these breeds were the ones killing children and seriously maiming people. All dogs can bite you, a very few limited breeds have the potential to kill you.

Where I live the law passed because the statistics overwhelmingly supported that these two breeds presented a danger to innocent people in the community. In addition the law requires owners of these breeds to carry extensive liability insurance.

There was a fair bit of hew and cry at the time the legislation was being introduced. And then, almost on cue, a toddler was killed. In his own back yard. By the family dog. A pit.

The weeping parents, of course, made the news, staring wide eyed into the camera to declare, “But he’d never ever done anything like this before!”

84

From Wikipedia:

Also from Wiki:

Bolding mine.

Dude, you’ve got a pit bull!

Well, according to some folks.

The American Pit Bull Terrier is also considered family-friendly and patient with kids, and has been so considered since at least the 1800s, right up until modern mass media needed to demonize something to sell stories.

Of course, they’re smaller than 80 pounds.

Sailboat

85

Even pit bulls are safe if leashed or in a yard. As I have pointed out,all my problems were due to guys figuring they had them under control without a leash. Before pits came along German Shepherds were the most dangerous dogs. Pis deserve their reps. They should never be allowed to run free. How often have we seen TV news with mail carriers hurt by pits. Pits have earned their demonization. Perhaps the kind of person most likely drawn to them have problems. Don;'t know , don’t care. keep them under control.

86

I don’t have any problems with the stats and info on the pitbulllovers.com site. From what I can see, none of it is obviously wrong.

Keep in mind that it’s drawing conclusions from the American Temperament Test Society, which used a test which doesn’t even pretend to actually predict whether a dog is likely to ever bite a person or attack another dog.

The key here is that 2/3 of dog bites are caused by dogs that showed no prior signs of dangerous aggression. The test used in the studies on pitbulllovers.com can’t (and doesn’t even try) to explain or account for that factor. The temperament measurement they use bears no resemblence to the conclusions that the site draws.

For example, the test they used showed that miniature poodles have a worse temperament than pit bulls. In some respects, that’s absolutely true. The site then goes on to claim that this study “proves” that pit bulls are not more dangerous than other dogs, but how in the world could any reasonable person say that the test actually showed that? Are pit bulls REALLY less dangerous than mini-poodles? Are more people hospitalized for poodle bites than pit bull ones? Are stray/loose mini poodles more likely than pit bulls to attack your dogs while you’re walking them in the park? The test was not designed to predict or conclude which dogs are the most dangerous.

There are a lot of myths about pit bulls, but the fact that they are dangerous and more likely to hurt you than any other dog is not one of them.

87

That is really, really silly.

Can you tell us what really happened at Roswell, too?

88

A poodle will nip you. A pit bull can kill you. Big difference.

89

Give me a fucking break.
Please.
Nell Carter is begging you from the depths of her ample bosom.

90

A poodle wont even TRY to kill you, or your dogs.

91

By that logic, you should outlaw cars, bicycles, guns, bleach and all the other things that will maim or kill a free ranging toddler. :rolleyes:

It is exactly because we cannot legislate stupidity or morals that we should not be banning “pits” or any other breed of dog. The APBT is unlucky that they share a name with the dogs that ball-less men crossbreed, mistreat and teach to fight/bite, but “pits” are not the first and won’t be the last “breed” this happens to. Apparently most folks here are too young to remember that Dobermans, Chows and others have had their time of being “killer dogs” that the general public were afraid of on sight and thought should be banned off the face of the earth. What should be nuked off the face of the earth are quite a few humans, but I digress…

“Pits” are not really a breed per se, they are a loose collection of dogs bred to fight. The problem is not the dog it is the owners and breeders. Calling for bans of “pits” and spreading misinformation is as useful to the overall problem as would be banning cars because they run over people.

K

92

Really? curlcoat, I think your analogy would be more precise if we said that after the association between drink and dangerous driving was discovered, we banned drunk drivers.

93

But any driver has the potential to drink – that breed is unpredictable.

Sailboat

94

What are you talking about here? ARen’t you aware that public hysteria has targeted other breeds in the past, sometimes even leading to killings of pet German Shepherds, Dachshunds, Dobermans, Chows, Akitas, and Bulldogs? Since the hysteria is illogical, don’t you think it’s possible that Boxers, already considered “pit bull types” by some people, could fall victim some day?

What kind of a break do you want? You’re the one telling people my pet is dangerous and yours isn’t, when they’re descended from the same stock (Molosser dogs, bully breeds). You’re the one hounding me and mine, telling people to restrict or ban, based on fearmongering stories you’ve read and for some reason believe, even though you pay to post on a site dedicated to skeptical inquiry into the truth. I’m just pointing out things that might make you uncomfortable.

Your dog IS considered a pit type by some people…not me personally. But it’s not me that’s going to take awaay anyone’s dog just because of it’s breed; it’s not me you have to worry about.

And do you have some kind of problem with physics? My dog is 35 pounds, yours is 80 pounds and growing. That appears to be factual; why does that make you say “Give me a fucking break”?

Sailboat

95

Um, because Boxers are known for their family-friendly temperament and Pits are known as a potentially dangerous breed, with many, many documented instances of aggresive behavior?

Just because they share a common ancestor doesn’t make them the same breed.

Look, I’ll back down from suggesting they be banned (even if many municipalities have in fact banned them, or put such egregious measures in place for ownership that it’s almost not worth having one). The only reason I even put that out there in the first place is because I couldn’t really think of another way to limit people and other dogs from getting attacked.

I truly believe that Pits can be good pets, provided they have a strong, Alpha owner that keeps them tightly leashed in public and securely fenced in or chained in private.

I also truly believe that Pits are one of the most dangerous breeds, not because they bite or are aggressive, plenty of dogs are like that, but because of the damage they inflict when they do bite (they don’t like to let go and have massive jaw strength), and whom they human victims are when they do attack humans (which I know is rarer than them attacking dogs)…which would be children and the elderly.

96

Bullshit. Every poodle I’ve met has been a snappish, ill-tempered, nasty piece of work.

And they’re plenty big enough to cause damage if they so choose.

97

Appeals to emotion are always well received on the Dope.
And this nonesense about certain dogs “never having acted this way before” is just that - nonsense. The CDC found that the vast majority of attacks were carried out by dogs who had clearly demonstrated aggressive behavior prior to the attack. They also determined that those behavioral tendencies were a much better predictor of a future attack than breed.

On top of that, I hardly ever trust anyone’s ability to identify a “pit bull”.

[No, I’m not now, nor have I ever been, the owner of a Pit Bull. I do have a Labrador, though (obviously).]

98

What dog shouldn’t be treated that way?

Cite?

99

Okay, thanks, but to reiterate a little bit:

Experienced dog handlers have agreed for hundreds of years that pit bulls are also known for family-friendly temperament.

Those same experienced people say that dog aggression and human aggression are very different things. Dog aggression is documented, and generally accepted to be present, in pit bulls. Human aggression is not. Alarmist news stories do not constitute “documented.” If you investigate the news stories with an open mind, you’ll start to see that the although some pit bulls have been abused or mistrained so that they do bite, pit bull stories are sensationalized, that lots of dogs are misidentified as pit bulls, and so on.

Science refutes this. While large-scale studies on dog bite force don’t seem to exist, dog bite force has been measured to be roughly the same among breeds of similar size, and is probably size-related.

I’m not saying pit bulls can’t bite or cause problems. I am saying that they do not do so to the degree we see in the news, which is exaggerated; I am saying that the humans are the main problem, and that the humans would turn other dogs into a problem if they could not get their grubby hands on pit bulls. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle when news reports make a breed sound scary, and young stupid tough guys go out and get that breed because they want a scary dog, then cut the dogs’ ears, put scary spiky collars on them, and abuse/neglect them until something bad happens, generating another news story.

If anyone’s interested in an “objective” citation, not from a pit bull board, here’s a lengthy paper on the dog bite problem from the American Veterinary Medical Association:

A community approach to dog bite prevention

Sailboat

100

Why the fuck else do you think they were given the nickname “Nanny Dog?”.

A lot of people in this thread seem to lose all ability to think & post rationally when presented with information that falls outside of their existing world view. If “gimmee a break” is the best argument you can think of, it may reflect better on you if you just abstain from posting that one time.