You keep claiming that pit bulls are a ‘genetic mistake’, I think some kind of an impartial cite would be appreciated about now. Most of the people in this thread who seem to have more than a layman’s grasp of genetics seem to be of the opinion that this kind of behavior is NOT genetic, or if it is it’s a genetic defect that is not possessed by most pit bulls. If you can show that all pit bulls and dogs that look like pit bulls have some kind of genetic defect that causes them to attack spontaneously and viciously, then you might have some ground to stand on. Otherwise, you are just relying on singular stastical correlations, and we know that you can prove nearly anything that way - white people are statistically proven to be more likely to become serial killers, young black males are statistically proven to be several times more likely to murder each other, Hispanics more likely to drop out of high school, Native Americans more likely to work at tax-free cigarette shops…
Maybe it wasn’t answered because it’s a meaningless comparison. Humans apply different ethical standards to animals than they do to themselves.
We can and do treat animals differently based on their species or breeds, lavishing affection on some, and slaughtering others. The criteria for how we treat them is ultimately human preference, and does not take into account the desires of the animal.
If you want me to take your ethical analogy of pit bulls to certain races of humans seriously, you will have to start with addressing the ethical justification for killing all cows while keeping dogs as pets. Remember, I said ethical, not practical, because you’re making an ethical analogy.
As long as it’s OK to kill cows for food, it’s OK to kill a whole breed of dogs if we feel like they pose a threat to us.
You might say we should first carefully consider whether or not ending the pit bull breed would be effective in reducing the danger from dog bites/attacks based on the facts about pit bull genetics or behavior, but to that, I say, so what?
We kill cows for beef because we like to eat it, not because it’s good for us, or it’s an efficient use of resources, or because cows want us to. Saying that humans are omnivores and it’s natural also doesn’t work, because humans suppress or ignore a lot of “natural” behaviors our bodies are designed for on a daily basis if it makes life easier.
Do you get it? We kill animals when we feel like it, and usually not for logical or practical reasons. This behavior does not suddenly become unacceptable when we apply it to dogs. It’s unacceptable to treat any animal that way. If you don’t like that, welcome to the world of animal rights.
Your analogy is, in truth, backwards.
-fh
Damn, you got to the idea a few minutes before me! Basically, there’s always going tobe some breed at the top of the “most aggressive” or “most likely to bite” list Do away with Pit Bulls, and Filas rise to the top. Ban Filas, and you’ve got Rottweilers in the lead. Get rid of Rotties, and then it’s German Shepherds, then Dobermans, then Dogo Argentinos, Chow Chows, American Cocker Spaniels, unsocialized Toy Poodles, and so on down the line. You would essentially be left with Bearded Collies, Basset Hounds and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. Call me cruel, but I’m fascinated with the idea of da’ boyz in the 'hood thwowing money on the ground, wagering on two drooling Basset Hounds.
I think a
Yes, we treat animals differently than people. Many are property. What is being proposed is killing other people’s property with no good reason. There is nothing genetic about pit bulls that makes them more likely to get violent, the only contribution their genes make is that they are more likely to cause more damage if they DO become violent than many other breeds because of their physical traits…but that’s no good reason to kill them, because there are many animals that are just as or more dangerous because of their size and strength.
The comparison to races is good because the fact that race is not clearly defined or even a valid classification genetically, and the same thing is true about dogs getting classified as ‘pit bulls’. It’s more of a social classification in both cases, as even the AKC registered dogs are a genetically diverse group, and a lot of these dogs don’t even have their bloodline documented, they get called pit bulls because they look like what society has classified as a ‘pit bull’. When you get your way and start confiscating people’s property to destroy it, how the hell are you going to determine that it’s a pit bull and not some kind of boxer mix or generic mutt that just happens to look something like a true pit bull? You are going to have to, you think people would fight if we tried to confiscate guns? Imagine what they will do when the property in question is a beloved family pet. It would be an unenforceable law even if it was ethical.
But for the sake of argument, let’s ignore the fact that pit bulls are living creatures. Let’s gloss over the fact that there is no test you can perform to determine whether a dog is a pit bull or not. Let’s just treat them as a potentially dangerous form of property, one that is safe most of the time, though more dangerous if used improperly or in cases of certain defects. Let’s compare them to cars.
Cars have always been legal to own. Cars can be useful for their owners. Cars can on occasion be dangerous, if you use one improperly there is a chance you can hurt yourself or others. A degree of caution should always be used when interacting with a car. Children should not be allowed to operate cars until they have proven themselves responsible and mature enough to handle one. If you fail to maintain your car properly, you greatly increase the chance of a blowout, brake failure, or some other problem that can hurt yourself or others. But even if you are a perfectly safe and responsible car owner, some are defective and you could have it blow up when you go to start it, or somebody not as responsible might run into you with theirs or create a situation where you can’t avoid hurting yourself or others with your car.
Because of this, would you take away people’s cars? What about certain kinds of cars? How about SUVs, they can be more dangerous than most cars to other people, and some people would say that people who own SUVs are more likely to misuse them. Should we confiscate everyone’s SUV? Some people will point out that they know full-well how to drive a SUV properly, someone might point out that theirs isn’t really an SUV, it’s more like a station wagon with 4WD.
Are you seeing a problem yet? If we compare these dogs to inanimate possessions, there are still serious ethical problems with destroying them all because of the problems of a few.
BTW, we don’t just exterminate an entire kind of animal because it is harming humans anymore. If pit bulls were wild animals and were killing people in substantial numbers (though they probably wouldn’t, once they went feral they would probably avoid humans) nobody would try to exterminate them…they would take measures to keep them from humans, trapping and relocating them, maybe killing ones that are moving into inhabited areas, definitely hunting down ones responsible for attacks - but not exterminate them.
Quite a few posters have acknowledged the role breeders have played in developing the Pit Bull breed. In fact one of the arguments against banning pit bulls is that breeders will focus on another breed to develop aggressive tendancies. Breeding is the poor man’s way to manipulate genes.
Well, I can’t show that** all** Pit Bulls possess a genetic defect, just one in sixteen will attack a human being in a manner that is unique to the breed as previously discussed.The trouble is, we haven’t identified what or which gene or genes are responsible. So it a crap shoot with the** odds 1 to 15 in favour of a mauling**. That statistic was provided earlier in this thread (along with reference site) by myself along with the next breed most likely to put someone in the hospital. That is the German Shepherd, and it takes over 150 of them to put some in the hospital with just a shallow bite.
That is not entirely true. Australia has tried to exterminate several feral species in order to protect native species which are so vulnerable. I can’t remember specifics, and I’m not sure if the government was successfull. The province of Alberta has successfully exterminated all Norway rats and even have a border patrol for that purpose.
On second thought, you may be right. I live in Canada, where ** handguns are banned **(or at least severely restricted according to gun lovers) and I don’t think I’ve met anyone with a gunshot wound. Since most dopers live in the States, I may be wrong on guns.
I don’t expect anyone to roll over and change there opinion right away.Every one of us is going to articulate our original position . I’ve been pursuaded many times to change my view, but on my time when I’m good and ready, after I have taken my time to review the pros and cons. As a parent, I never get immediate positive response to my exhortations and advice, but I often see those results down the line. No one said fighting ignorance was going to be easy.
For one thing, that cite is from a retired physics professor (not a biologist) who is a member of an organization that get’s subsidies for neutering animals, as any ban on pit bulls would probably NOT result in all pit bulls being destroyed but instead require them to be sterilized, he will benefit personally from any bans. His statistics do not say that 1 in 16 pit bulls have a genetic defect that makes them attack, but that he estimates the total number of pit bulls to be 16 times the number of hospitalizations from pit bull bites. This in no way proves that pit bulls are naturally more dangerous. For one thing, as stated in this thread in a number of areas an animal is NOT routinely euthanized after attacking someone, so the same few dogs can be responsible for multiple attacks. Secondly, I can find no footnotes indicating where he got his numbers for his calculations - I’m assuming that he used hospital records to find out the numbers and types of bites, and got the animal populations from AKC records. If this is the case, there are going to be some serious inaccuracies. Many dogs that are called pit bulls have little or no relation to the breed recognized and counted by the AKC, and because of the popularity of pit bulls among guys who want a ‘mean’ dog, there are thousands of backyard breeders who are churning out dogs that don’t have papers, but are going to be called pit bulls on the hospital report. I don’t know of any other type of dog other than pit bulls that can command $200 for a pup without any papers.
Finally, even if those stats ARE correct (which I highly doubt), all they prove is that a pit bulls are more likely to hospitalize a person than other breeds, and we are right back where we started, this was never in dispute. Everybody I have ever known to own a pit bull has been a person who wants a mean, scary dog, and they did not train the dogs to be well-behaved and not aggressive towards humans. And if all dogs were equally likely to bite, pit bulls would still lead in the number of hospitalizations because of their powerful jaws and large teeth.
You want to destroy a breed because some of them are dangerous. There is no evidence that the breed is in fact more vicious, we have only anecdotal evidence and seriously flawed statistics (no wonder I can’t find anything published by Professor Plumb except articles on animal control). You want to create an unenforceable law to deprive people of their property for irrational emotional reasons. That’s just wrong.
BTW, I know several people who have been injured by firearms (friend shot in head with birdshot, upstairs neighbor shot in the vagina when playing with an ‘unloaded gun’, great-uncle shot in the head, another friend shot in the leg and stomach with a .25) but none who have been mauled by dogs, and for most of the last 15 years I lived in a town where people fight dogs, chickens, whatever, and pit bulls are a common sight in certain neighborhoods.
** Badtz Maru** , Did they film Deliverence in your neck of the woods? 
Nah, it was a ways off, the town I’m talking about is about 50 miles east of Dallas, Deliverance was shot at Lake Jocasee in South Carolina, and in Rabun County, GA.
I own 2 pit bulls and I know from may years of experience with the breed that they are generally people lovers.
I have no fears whatsoever that my dogs will ever attack a person. I’m not even sure if they would protect my house if someone broke in. And surely if my dogs already know you, then you can walk right into my house and take anything you want. One of my dogs is 75 lbs. and the other is about 85 lbs. They look scary enough where a stranger surely won’t try them. But the sad fact is, they just aren’t very good watchdogs because they love people. This is a typical pit bull trait. The main reason for their bond with people is because they were specifiaclly bred to be that way. if you aren’t familiar with pit fighting then let me give you a brief scenario:
2 men and 2 dogs enter the ring (and a ref), one handler for each dog. The rules governing pit fights are every bit as extensive as rules governing prize fighting. The dogs face each other and then the handlers release their dogs. They don’t keep a distance from the dogs either they are quite close to them in case they have to grab their dog. If a “turn” is made and called then both handlers grab their respective dog and if they are locked on to each other (a term that should not be taken literally, pit bulls jaws DO NOT lock), then they use their breaking sticks to seperate them. Whatever dog the turn was called on has to “scratch”. What that means is that his handler releases him to attack the other dog while the other handler holds on to his dog UNTIL the other dog has made it across the halfway mark of the pit. The dog has to prove he still wants to fight by crossing that line and going for the other dog. If he doesn’t complete his scratch in a specified time then the fight is over. Bear in mind people mean dogs did appear but the were culled out and euthanized. What we ended up with was a tough, rugged fighting dog par excellence AND also a great family animal in that he could be trusted with people and children. I promise you, if you walked into apit fight with a dog you knew bites people, your ass would be in hot water and you can bet the other people there will kill your man biter. Remember Petey from The Little Rascals? All of those dogs that played Petey were Pit Bulls. At that time in our country it was not known as a “child eater” because it was too well known that the pit bull was a child lover and good family dog. Even the best fighting dogs were also family pets. My dogs are not unique in their disposition towards people. Although one of them loves other dogs and likes to play, the other one will kill anything his size or bigger (he never seems impressed with small dogs, although he loves to eat cats. but who needs cats anyway?) But when it comes to people they are both big babies. For someone to just make a blanket statement about banning any breed of dogs only shows their ignorance in dog breeding. I think the answer is that more resposibility should be placed on the owner. Anyone who takes a dog like a pit bull or a rott and intentionally makes it mean is not playing with a full deck, or is just plain stupid. And they should be prosecuted severly if their dog EVER hurts someone.
I’m not for banning breeds of dogs. But I must admit, I understand the mentality that would say to do it. There are a lot of stupid people out there doing a lot of stupid things with dogs. But don’t punish me by taking away something in my life that brings me great joy… American Pit Bull Terriers. IMHO, the best breed of dog there is.
A FAQ on Pit Bulls: http://www.nyx.net/~mbur/apbt.html
Well, I’m just about done with this thread, it’s making my head hurt, but I’m glad I did come back to see this from a Pit Bull owner. At least you understand people’s fear and reasoning behind banning these dogs, even if you don’t support it. And for the record, I don’t think anyone supports actually removing dogs from peoples’ homes and destroying them (unless they’ve hurt someone).
I’m finding my posts are becoming repetitive and Badtz Maru seems to be having a nice time on his/her own making bizarre comparisons to races. BM’s later post pigeonholing a variety of races seems like it’s just there to cause trouble. There are other posts about race around, perhaps these generalizations would be better suited for one of those.
Can you really insult someone for not debating a silly point the way you want them to? I guess you can, but things sort of fall apart from there. Let me just say that Hello Kitty would be dissapointed in you.
Anyhoo, I think everyone is pretty much stuck to their position, no minds are being changed and it’s ceased being productive, so I’m outta here.
By the way, despite my feelings on their potential hidden personalities, I really do think Pit Bull and Rottweilers are cute.
Jalepeno:
This is almost word for word what my neighbor told me about his dog, which later attacked my son.
The dog that attacked my son was also a “big baby” that never gave any indication of viciousness. He had played with children since he was a puppy.
I agree. And the man whose dog attacked my son was a responsible owner who did nothing to encourage the dog to be mean. It was a friendly, companion animal.
It’s a little frightening to me that a dog would “love to eat cats”, etc. You may not like cats, but I’d be pretty upset if your dog ate mine. (This is why I keep my cat inside.) Tell me, if your dog accidentally got away from you- say you were walking him and for some reason the leash snapped- would your dog attack mine? Incidentally, the dog that attacked my son had never attacked an animal before, either.
No, I’m not in favor of legislation that would take your dogs away from you. But if, heaven forbid, your dog ever injured a person, I would hope that you would be held responsible. (This goes for any breed of dog, whether it be a pit bull or a rott or a Scottish terrier.)
If owners are held criminally responsible for the actions of vicious pets, I believe they’ll at least think twice before encouraging them to be mean.
Several people have already described severe maulings from Pit Bulls that were raised well. What would be illuminating is to see if there are stories out there of similar unexpected severe maulings from other breeds of dogs that were raised well. Or they could be attempted maulings. It’s doubtful that a toy poodle could maul you, but I’d be interested to see if any have tried.
I’m not sure, but I’m guessing Pit Bulls are a small minority of total pet dogs. But if no one can post a similar counter example from a different breed, well… it would look bad for the Pit Bulls.
Okay, I know I said I was going to stay out of this thread.
However, it has been drawn to my attention on Fathom that the dogs in question in the OP were not Pit Bulls, but were “Canary Dogs” - a breed I have not heard of, FWIW - from the Canary Islands. And dogs bred by prison inmates as guard dogs. (Don’t ask me, I haven’t read the full article yet.)
Article is still available at: http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20010131/t000009095.html
But read it quick, the LA Times doesn’t leave things up long.
I never thought mankind could come up with anything scarier than the Pit Bull for a dog. These are actually English Mastiff/Canary crosses, weighing in at 120 lbs compared to a Pit Bull generally topping out at 70 lbs. To be fair, the OP never misstated any facts in this case.
At this point, 33 separate individuals have responded to this thread. Although as recently pointed out,the OP was prompted by Mastiff/Canary crosses, his concern was with the prevalence and severety of Pit Bull attacks, suggesting the banning solution, and soliciting opinion for or otherwise. I have divided the responses in 4 different categories rated in order of most severity towards the Pit Bull breed at one end,banning, and singularly opting for responsive selective retribution towards Pit Bull owners at the other end. In addition, 1/3 of the posters,11, could not or would not provide a solution or did not see a serious enough problem at all.
Summary:
Banning 32% Sterilization of existing Pit Bulls till the breed disappears
**Breeder Legislation 9%**State contol of the breed character
Selective Euthanasia 45% Put down clearly dangerous dogs
Selective Owner Prosecution Only 14% Actively pursue bad dog owners.
Poster Allocation
Banning
Avumede
grienspace
Deskmonkey
curious george
Adventurous82
Zoggie
Wildest Bill
Breeder Legislation
dublos
Dinsdale
**Selective Euthanasia **
Tamerlane
EJsGirl
Scylla
Lemur866
mrvisible
Demise
hazel-rah
MGibson
Badtz maru
Holly
Selective Owner Prosecution Only
dogsbody
evilbeth
justwannano
*I did the best I could to pidgeon hole every one into one of the categories above. Several had selected more than one type of solution so I allocated that person as far to the top category (the most severe) as I could. If I misrepresented anyone, I apologize. *
Thank you for the summary, grienspace. I’m not quite ready to let the topic rest, though. To quote from the newspaper article (italics mine):
It would be more effective, in my opinion, if dog owners could be criminally charged even if their dogs showed no previous propensity for violence. (Analogy: if I were to suddenly freak out and brutally kill someone, I should be charged with murder even though I’ve never committed a violent act before.) If the dog has a history of violence, the charges should be steeper.
This sounds to me eerily like Jalepeno’s dog. As a loose and admittedly poor analogy, it’s akin to a serial killer who used to enjoy killing and dismembering animals before he moved on to murdering people, although we should keep in mind that hunting is pretty natural dog behavior. Still, some dogs seem to enjoy the killing a little too much (my opinion), such as Jalepeno’s dog which “loves to eat cats”. Are dogs with histories of killing other animals more likely to attack humans? I haven’t seen any statistics on this.