Pitting Dog Owner

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@Mosier

That is really, really silly.

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

Have you never seen “The Little Rascals?” Petey the dog was a pit bull.

[cowgirl]

@Cartooniverse

You need everyone to agree with your point of view instead of being allowed to speak their minds about Pit Bulls.

Pitiful.

Nope. What I said was

@me

Please can we leave the breed out of the discussion before this turns into another pit bull thread? The common thread seems to be irresponsible owners, a question upon which I think we can all agree.

I was going by the thread title:

Pitting Dog Owner

which in my apparent naivety I figured might be related to the topic of the thread. I was trying to prevent a hijack, from a “bad dog owner” thread (which is what almost all of the comments up to then had been about) to a pit bull thread. There is no need to insult me.

[cowgirl]

@Foxy40

I feel the same. People that love this breed will seek anyway to discredit warnings of it. I posted a link on an earlier thread that more than a third of the animals in my local animal shelter are pits. It is very sad but they are put down more often than not because they rarely get adopted.

And yet when someone who has rescued pit bulls from the shelter come and tell you that they’re calm, predictable, and have been the victim of attacks more often than the perpetrator, we are dismissed? That’s not fair.

The point was no one wants that breed because they are unpredictable and tend to be aggressive. They don’t just have a bad rap. Many of us have had experiences with the breed.

Many of US have had experiences with the breed too! Why doesn’t mine count? Because it’s not consistent with your “unpredictable and aggressive” experience?

[Foxy40]

@cowgirl

Many of US have had experiences with the breed too! Why doesn’t mine count? Because it’s not consistent with your “unpredictable and aggressive” experience?

Sorry, but the two neighbor pits that tried to attack my affen in my own front yard trumps your nice experience with two that didn’t. That’s why.

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@Foxy40

Sorry, but the two neighbor pits that tried to attack my affen in my own front yard trumps your nice experience with two that didn’t. That’s why.

That makes a lot of sense…

[elbows]

Last time I was at the dog park I saw a guy come in and bring his toddler and food from MacDonalds! Talk about a genius. People are idiots and, in the end, that’s what the problem really is.
You can’t legislate common sense.

[cowgirl]

@Foxy40

Sorry, but the two neighbor pits that tried to attack my affen in my own front yard trumps your nice experience with two that didn’t. That’s why.

That’s fine, just don’t pretend that I’m the one who’s trying to shut down discussion on the subject.

[miamouse]

Since we’re getting all anecdotal here anyway…

Dogs I have owned in my life and their temperament:

German Shepard Heidi (from breeder) - My parents had read books and taken training classes with the dog. Would patrol mine and my brother’s rooms at night. Wouldn’t let the mailman on the porch of one of us children were in the crib on said porch. Twice (!!) jumped through a closed glass window when she saw him on the porch. She was sweet gentle and obedient with all of us, but my parents realized she was a dog which is an animal that has instincts. Also it only seemed to be this one carrier.

Mixed breed Gypsy (rescued from side of highway) - sweet mushy 40 pound dog.

Mixed breed Becky (rescued from busy street) - sweet mushy 40 pound dog.

Red Nosed Pit Bull Duchess (Breeder) - sweet mushy 60 pound dog.

English Fox Hound Snoopy (North Shore Animal League) - mushy loud 60-70 pound dog with an I’m-better-than-you attitude. He could be a cat.

Mixed breed Chloe (New Rochelle Animal Selter) - 40 pound dog somewhat of a loner and unpredictable towards strangers. Would attempt to bite if they were on the other side of the fence. In the house/yard you’re golden. We made sure that if guests were around she was locked in the room or bathroom, or if in the yard/on leash was wearing a muzzle. She must have been abused by previous owners.

Beagle (found wandering street) – seemingly sweet until he ate the head off of one of our cockatiels. We stopped looking for a home for him and called the ASPCA to pick him up.
Every dog I have ever had was sweet and relatively unaggresive, save for 2 I didn’t raise from puppyhood (chloe, beagle).

I guess what I’m trying to say here is this: Dogs are animals. Some dogs have been bred for certain characteristics. This does not mean that animals not bred for a characteristic stops being an ANIMAL. It that still has some of those characteristics. Some people are irresponsible owners and haven’t done their research/ taken steps to get to know their dog AND take action based on that. This does not stop them from being ASSHOLES.

[gonzomax]

Truth is you buy a dog for the characteristics you want. Hunting birds get a beagle. Watchdog get a Doberman. Yappy little lap dog get a peke. You pretty much can predict the attitude ,size and general characteristics of a breed. That would indicate ,if you buy a Pit Bull you are aware of what it entails. So keep them on leashes or in a secure yard. Once they get started ,they are difficult to stop. Some dogs might snap at you . Pits will keep at it even under screaming and hitting.

[Mosier]

@Labrador Deceiver

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.

My post was referring to the expansive Mass Media Conspiracy to demonize a dog breed because they (whoever the fuck “they” are) didn’t have any REAL news to sell. That’s just goofy.

I’m not contending the fact that Pit Bulls are known for their tolerance toward children. They deserve that reputation, because it’s true. They also go for years without hurting another dog or person, and then suddenly and unexpectedly rip someone (or their dog) to shreds. They deserve THAT reputation, too.

How can you reasonably argue this? Every dog bite statistic available to us says that Pit Bulls are responsible for more bites than any other type of dog, greatly disproportionate to their numbers. You’re countering my argument of “Pit Bulls are known for their aggression” with “nuh uh! Pit Bulls are known for being a nanny dog!” except my side of the argument has all of the facts. What does your side have? A vast and laughable mass media conspiracy. A bunch of anecdotes (my dog would NEVER EVER do that! Neither would anyone else’s that I know!).

Other than that, there’s nothing. Who’s the one unable to post rationally when presented with information that contradicts their world view, again?

[gonzomax]

@Eyebrows 0f Doom

Have you never seen “The Little Rascals?” Petey the dog was a pit bull.

He ate Buckwheat.

[cowgirl]

@Mosier

How can you reasonably argue this? Every dog bite statistic available to us says that Pit Bulls are responsible for more bites than any other type of dog, greatly disproportionate to their numbers.

We must not be reading the same statistics. In fact I challenge you to provide a single statistic from a reliable source saying that pit bulls are responsible for more bites than any other type of dog, disproportionate to their numbers.

In response I can re-post the earlier notes from the CDC saying specifically that their data does NOT support breed bans, that it’s impossible to know what is “disproportionate to their numbers” since it is impossible to know what numbers of what breeds are represented in the population, and that it is impossible to know how many dog bites there are in total because so many aren’t reported.

Or I could post this article by Malcolm Gladwell, which says stuff like

Between the late nineteen-seventies and the late nineteen-nineties, more than twenty-five breeds were involved in fatal attacks in the United States. Pit-bull breeds led the pack, but the variability from year to year is considerable. For instance, in the period from 1981 to 1982 fatalities were caused by five pit bulls, three mixed breeds, two St. Bernards, two German-shepherd mixes, a pure-bred German shepherd, a husky type, a Doberman, a Chow Chow, a Great Dane, a wolf-dog hybrid, a husky mix, and a pit-bull mix—but no Rottweilers. In 1995 and 1996, the list included ten Rottweilers, four pit bulls, two German shepherds, two huskies, two Chow Chows, two wolf-dog hybrids, two shepherd mixes, a Rottweiler mix, a mixed breed, a Chow Chow mix, and a Great Dane. The kinds of dogs that kill people change over time, because the popularity of certain breeds changes over time. The one thing that doesn’t change is the total number of the people killed by dogs. When we have more problems with pit bulls, it’s not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.

@Mosier

You’re countering my argument of “Pit Bulls are known for their aggression” with “nuh uh! Pit Bulls are known for being a nanny dog!”

Among experts, pit bulls are known for their dog aggression and known for being not human aggressive at all. It would be easier to understand each other if we were all clear about keeping these two facts distinct.

I still do not understand why a breed that is known for dog aggression and not human aggression is demonized for being dangerous to humans, while others who are known for human aggression (e.g. watchdog breeds) are not.

What does your side have?

Have you read the thread? Are you deliberately ignoring the facts that have been posted by **Sailboat **and others?

It is particularly frustrating when folks suggest that we pit bull owners are being disingenuous, when our good faith arguments, based on documented fact, are presented again and again and again, and ignored.

A vast and laughable mass media conspiracy. A bunch of anecdotes (my dog would NEVER EVER do that! Neither would anyone else’s that I know!).

@a dog bite expert quoted in the Gladwell article

“I’ve seen virtually every breed involved in fatalities, including Pomeranians and everything else, except a beagle or a basset hound,” Randall Lockwood, a senior vice-president of the A.S.P.C.A. and one of the country’s leading dogbite experts, told me. “And there’s always one or two deaths attributable to malamutes or huskies, although you never hear people clamoring for a ban on those breeds. When I first started looking at fatal dog attacks, they largely involved dogs like German shepherds and shepherd mixes and St. Bernards—which is probably why Stephen King chose to make Cujo a St. Bernard, not a pit bull. I haven’t seen a fatality involving a Doberman for decades, whereas in the nineteen-seventies they were quite common. If you wanted a mean dog, back then, you got a Doberman. I don’t think I even saw my first pit-bull case until the middle to late nineteen-eighties, and I didn’t start seeing Rottweilers until I’d already looked at a few hundred fatal dog attacks. Now those dogs make up the preponderance of fatalities. The point is that it changes over time. It’s a reflection of what the dog of choice is among people who want to own an aggressive dog.”

Other than that, there’s nothing. Who’s the one unable to post rationally when presented with information that contradicts their world view, again?

Please repeat your question, addressing how mine and Sailboat’s posts (which support pit bulls) are irrational; how the CDC and Malcolm Gladwell (not to mention the AKC/CKC, humane societies, medical associations, etc, who have all come out against breed bans) amount to “nothing”; and include cites to support the assertions you have presented (e.g. about pit bull bites disproportionate to their numbers, about any experts agreeing with you and not with us, etc). I am particularly looking for rational information based in reason that contradicts my world view, because all I’m getting is stuff like

Sorry, but the two neighbor pits that tried to attack my affen in my own front yard trumps your nice experience with two that didn’t. That’s why.

[Sailboat]

@Mosier

My post was referring to the expansive Mass Media Conspiracy to demonize a dog breed because they (whoever the fuck “they” are) didn’t have any REAL news to sell. That’s just goofy.

Never said that. I said that pit bull fearmongering sells well. It does. There’s plenty of other news to report, and no conspiracy; but that doesn’t change the fact that if I run a teaser that says “Pit bull ramapages through nursing home” lots of people will tune in at 11:00 to see it. Even if it’s a story about a visit from a therapy dog.

Did you READ the article about the Jack Russell? Anything stirke you about that article? Like, for example, the authorities seized the family pit bull even though he had been outside in the yard during the INDOOR killing and could not possibly have participated, a fact acknowledged by the family and the police? Yet off he goes to Animal Control, when the Jack Russell killed.

@Mosier

Every dog bite statistic available to us

There aren’t any reliable ones available to us. The CDC and several scientists quoted above agree on that.

Sailboat

[gonzomax]

http://pit-bulls.christianfunfair.org/attacks.htm Heres a couple incidents with pits.

[redtail23]

Here’s a few more “incidents” with pits.

Search and Rescue pits, Therapy Dog pits, Service Dog pits.

Pits who saved people from fires, snakes, and other dogs.

Shall we continue to trade anecdotes, or get back to the facts, experts, and statistics that have been shown, repeatedly, in this very thread, to invalidate the concept of breed bans?
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/dixie.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/petunia.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/sarpits.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/buddy.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/weela.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/thomson.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/alaska.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/leap.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/panda.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/taylor.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/sunni.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/shelby.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/rca.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/spike.html

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/popsicle.html

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/extraordinary_animals/89234

[miamouse]

@Mosier

They also go for years without hurting another dog or person, and then suddenly and unexpectedly rip someone (or their dog) to shreds.

I’m having trouble believeing that the family dog just ‘turns’ one day barring distemper. Do you have any stats that back up that pits (or really pit-type since people confuse anything short-haired with pits) are more likely than another dog to do this?

Also: no one said Mass Media Conspiracy. They said Slow News Day.

[gonzomax]

They usually don’t do DNA on a dog attack. But everybody knows a pit when they see it.

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@gonzomax

He ate Buckwheat.

With a side helping of Alfalfa.

[Sweetums]

Honestly I don’t know why I would want to get involved in this discussion, but I’m feeling like a good fight.

 Pit bulls are suffering gfrom being the "asshole dog of choice". Why do I know that, because I have lived with two dobermans. When I got Madchen, my first, I was constantly regaled with tales of how dobes will turn on their owners, attack with little to no provocation, eat children and basically everything that people are now saying about pit bulls. 

 Looking into the topic I found out that many of the people who the dogs had "turned on" had abused the animals. Basically abusing a dog will eventually put it on the defensive, and these dog a very good at defending themselves. Even with other people, the abuser has taught the dog that humans are aggressive creatures that have to be dealt with in an aggressive manner. 

 Pit bulls suffer from this. The people who used to get dobes or rottweilers and abused the animals  to prove their manhood, have now discovered pit bulls. Remove pits from the equation, and they will find another breed.

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@Mosier

They also go for years without hurting another dog or person, and then suddenly and unexpectedly rip someone (or their dog) to shreds.

Myth. For the 2nd or 3rd time, the CDC found that the vast majority of violent incidences that resulted in an injury were preceded by demonstably violent behavior in the dog.

They deserve THAT reputation, too.

No they don’t.

How can you reasonably argue this?

I believe I just demonstrated how.

Every dog bite statistic available to us says that Pit Bulls are responsible for more bites than any other type of dog, greatly disproportionate to their numbers. You’re countering my argument of “Pit Bulls are known for their aggression” with “nuh uh! Pit Bulls are known for being a nanny dog!” except my side of the argument has all of the facts.

Yes, but you haven’t shown that pit bulls are predisposed to violence towards people. Nobody ever has. Ever. I would be willing to bet that pit bulls are blamed for a percentage more bites than they are responsable for, simply due to the stupidity & inability of the witnesses to identify a dog breed. On top of that, stupid people tend to seek out pit bull breeds b/c they are perceived to be bad-ass dogs. If a large number of people who liked to train their dogs to be mean decided to start buying golden retreivers, then there is a good chance that those dogs would be responsable for a lot more bites than they currently are.

Point is, you have no facts to back up your claim of causality here. Nobody does.

What does your side have? A vast and laughable mass media conspiracy. A bunch of anecdotes (my dog would NEVER EVER do that! Neither would anyone else’s that I know!).

I suggest you read through this thread more carefully if that is all you’ve perceived thus far.

Who’s the one unable to post rationally when presented with information that contradicts their world view, again?

I’m sticking with my original answer to this question.