Dangerous Dog Act

[ginnyderk]

there are alot of people where i live that own pits for that reason and they are usually irresponsible with how they are trained, but i've been around alot of families that own them and have children and they claim that these are some of the best animals they have ever owned.if a dog is raised in the correct manner it will not be a threat period

 

[JM]

80% owner
20% breed

imo

 

[8tttttD~~~]

You're being very cavalier in your assertions regarding "anyone in their right mind". Clearly, considering the number of responsible people who own any one of the pit bull breeds (pits or staffordshires), you're speaking from a position of ignorance. Once again, you're presuming generalizations that are simply misinformed regarding "People". It's impossible to be wrong when you invent your own premises, in this case regarding many thousands of people's intent and motivation.

Different breeds present different challenges, but if the issue is human aggression, pit bulls are actually much less prone to human aggression than many other types of dogs. The real danger with pitbulls, as with many other breeds such as the Great Pyranees (one of my favorite breeds), is dog aggression. There are organizations, such as the American Temperament Test Society (www.atts.org), who do studies on breed specific temperament, and the American Pit Bull, as well as the Staffordshire terriers, do very well. Statistically, they are far less likely to bite a human being than many other breeds, and are calmer and more stable on the whole.

Of course, there are problems with breeders that should be addressed, but unfortunately, breed specific legislation such as is the current fad fails to address this fundamental issue, which is backyard breeders failing to breed for the betterment of the species, and a lack of accountability in sales and ownership. The focus is on the dog.

 

[Arden]

I would have gone with a 90/10 split, but 80/20 is reasonable, sarge.

As the owner of a "problem breed" mix, (Chow mixes) I know full well that what I did to raise the dogs fully effected their outcome. Some people think the same of Chows as what is being said here of pits. Do you know how many times I have had people try to get my dogs taken away and put to sleep for no reason other then the fact that they have black spots on their tongues and have the chow body type. They are displaying the same ignorance and knee jerk sillyness that is being displayed here. Just because a dog comes from a particular breed does not mean that the dog will start killing people for funsies.

 

[MelasterBunny]

i really agree that environment is key... that said tho, i'm really torn on pits. they have been bred(and inbred) for so long to be vicious, that much genetic predisposition is really hard to overcome. i'm not saying it can't be, just... really hard. dunno, like i said, i'm torn. personally, i'd never own one - i'd go for a good personality, and a pit is just not what comes to mind for that.

 

[EM1]

Look! Here's a vicious Pitbull frightening a poor kitty so much that it wants to fall asleep.

 

[RishiS]

really? Looks dead to me.

 

[ILuvMarkWahlberg]

No, a dog will start not killing people for funsies. In fact ownership is a huge deal. Unfortunately Pits have a bad reputation and a lot of the wrong people want to own them because of it or breed the wrong characteristics into them. A dog may be predisposed for aggressive behavior if that behavior trait is bred into it. A dog may also be an immensely powerful attacking animal if those physical traits are bred into it as well. You combine that with an owner who does not properly train or contain such a dog and you have a problem.

Yes Peisistratos, a Pit Bull may be less predisposed to bite a human than other breeds but look what happens when they do. That's something you're being quite cavalier with. Who would choose to get bit by a Pit Bull over a nasty Chihuahau?

As Wrydolphin pointed out, people have made assumption about her Chows being dangerous. Owning a Pit Bull will also come with a set of assumptions. There will be heavy duty training, fencing, and possibly additional regulatory requirements and possible higher insurance costs. Who in their right mind would want to go through the extra expenses when a Boxer or some other breed would also make an excellent pet. Is that a position of ignorance? Most of the people posting here who like dogs say they wouldn't want to own a Pit Bull but would pick something else. They ignorant? Think not.

 

[tiger_scourges]

Or a collie, or a german shepherd, or a great pyranees, or a chow chow.

Two things: First, many other large breeds are comparable to pitbulls in both strength, size and temperament. The difference is largely a matter of reputation and irresponsible ownership and abuse.

Second: yes, chihuahuas are notorious fear biters, like many small dogs. These dogs are responsible for more trauma to children than pitbulls, because they are MUCH more likely to attack a child. You're suggesting that the owner of an unstable chihuahua is in some way less culpable for the abuse of that dog and the assault on a human than the owner of a pittbull who does the same. I disagree.

To answer your question, I'd rather not get bit at all. Thank you very much.

For the record, Boxers score no better than pittbulls in temperament testing. They just have a better reputation, and aren't as often abused. I'll reiterate my assertion that you're speaking from a position of ignorance that relies upon completely made up ideas about a group of people's motivations and intent.

 

[pinky208317]

That's just it, they are not really any more or less aggressive then any other breeds. They are very powerful and very energetic and make poor pets for people who have a sedentary nature and for those that are on the meek side.

The one thing I've noticed is that the breed will test you more then others as far as being the pack leader, however, once you establish your position with them, you'll have very few if any problems with handling them.

 

[Shellyx]

Not the least suggesting culpability of an owner unstable chihuahua over a Pit Bull or any other thing. Culpability is the same. You were asserting that other breeds are more like to bite than a Pit. This may be true but Pits are more likely to do more damage which was the point you failed to comprehend.

You're also talking temperament testing under presumably laboratory conditions and not real life experience in the street.

 

[JanineS]

/me offers hand up

C'mon man, your fear of heights up on that stoop is making you sound like an ass. Take my hand and step down. You don't have to be so condecending you know, "you failed to comprehend" and "real life experience in the street." . . . . . .. You know, labratory testing, although may not apply to everything in the world in the way we would like it . . . uses "real life things" (can you believe that!) to test other "real life things." Which gets you (there are acceptions) "real life" results. What experience do you have with dogs that makes you such a qualified person to speak on this subject? That is a serious question and needs a serious answer, it was not sarcastic in the least.

 

[Airforcekid]

I have watched what they do for temperment testing on dogs. It is all real life behaviors which include things like sticking a fake hand out and pulling a food bowl away to test for food aggression, emitting loud noises to watch for fear aggression and exposing dogs to other dogs to check for dog aggression. Doesn't sound very artificial at all. These tests are quite common to a lot of the humane societies and rescue societies who are good about determining adoptability of the dogs who come to them.

And why would "normal" dog lovers adopt a pit or pit mix? Because they know that with the proper care and training, they make wonderful and loving pets. It was the same reason I adopted my chow mixes. Even though a dog is labeled a "problem" that does not mean that they actually are. I can label things anything I want, it does not mean that label will by definition, reflect reality. Yes, larger dogs require more precautions. Yes, some of them will test you and some breeds have been bred to be more independent. It just means that it is the owner's responsibility to ensure that they pick out a dog that reflects themselves better. If my mother's dogs were larger, they would be a menace, but because they are small, she thinks their bad behavior is cute.

All bites are bad, though in truth I will take a dog bite over a cat bite any day. And it is hard to slough off a chihuahua's bite when faced with a small child who has been blinded or perminately scared by one.

 

[jcroce77]

I'm sorry if I have been condescending and have not wished to offend anyone. Yes I have had some personal experience with this breed. I know a person who was attacked and maimed. I have seen several go after a child and thanked the powers that be that someone with an SUV driving down the street drove them off. Had one go after me as well but nothing was more frightening than seeing them go after a six year old kid. The child screams and runs which is natural for a six year old but not the best reaction for this situation. You certainly don't have time to think about temperament testing results in a situation like that. Time slows down and all you can think is "Oh my god, no" as you know you can't move fast enough to stop it.

My point has consistently been that the negatives of owning such an animal outweigh the positives. I do not propose banning an entire breed but wouldn't lose much sleep if someone banned this one. In response, others have stated this breed is not any more dangerous than most others and have completely blamed all Pit Bull problems on poor ownership. Never denied ownership was not a factor either but certainly disagreed on the point that breed is not an issue. I am quite certain there are responsible owners of this breed but I still contend you can find any number of breeds that have all the qualities of this one with less of the negative characteristics. It apparently has been difficult in making this point.

Apologies again for coming off as condescending.

 

[aaakid90]

This just simply isn't true. A pom (we're talking about 10 lbs or less) killed a 6 week old baby in California a few years back. Chihuahuas and other small dogs (poodles are also prone to fear biting) have been responsible for many trips to the ER and lots of stitches. Tell me that a child wouldn't be traumatized if fifi the rat dog attacked her. Tell me that a child is safer somehow should an abused St. Bernard attack than should a pit bull.

If you were even passingly familiar with newfoundlands, bull mastiffs, great pyranees, great danes, german shepherds, dobermans or many other breeds, you'd realize that the idea of an american pit bull or a staffordshire being able to do "more damage" is myth. My great dane mix chews tennis balls for hours, and my pyranees mixes favorite toy is a fireplace log about 2 feet long and 5 inches in diameter. He throws that thing around like a rope. They are powerful dogs with powerful jaws (and big pointy teeth, too). They also happen to be big teddybears, too, primarily because they're well socialized, content, stable animals.

Once again, the primary difference between the pitbull breeds and many other breeds is one of reputation, abuse and irresponsible breeding. Addressing the last two will address the first, and breed specific legislation addresses neither.

 

[Kram]

Ular Sawa, we have discussed this before and I'm pretty sure you're coming from a good place, but I think a lot of the reason that you're having a hard time with some people is that you come off a wee bit fanatical on the subject and, from the other side of this debate your attitude can seem rather offensive.

What I think some people hear you say is, "Only sicko's, scumbags, and irresponsible people would want to own a Pit Bull. Therefor if you say you like them and have had good experiences with them or you have read or conducted scientific experiments demonstrating that they are no more dangerous than similarly large, strong dogs, I can't take you seriously because you are obviously one of those sick, crazy people who like Pit Bulls."

This may not be how you feel, but it's not an unreasonable interpretation of some of the things you've said.

--Michael

 

[MissPeOe]

No, I don't think the laws are strict enough. I think there should be some sort of testing and licensing done for ownership of the animal. I have two of these dogs now. (I had three until last year, my fifteen year old female died, cancer...) They can be hard to deal with if you let them run the show, they do tend to have dominant personalties. They can be very animal aggressive, as well as territorial. I don't think some people have the time or responsibility to train or take care of any number of the bully breeds. To take care of such a high energy type dog, it really does take effort. (I couldn't even begin to count the number of times I've met a bully breed owner, and they don't even know what a break stick is.)


Alot of people seem to think that their history means they are man eaters. Not true. Dog fighters did not breed them to be mean or aggressive torwards "humans", quite the opposite in fact. These dogs were meant to be submissive to their owners, after all, they had to handle these dogs in the middle of full on fights. Any dog that couldn't be handled for bitting or any other reason, was put down. They are not born aggressive towards people and or other dogs, it is a learned trait....

I would also like to say that bite statistics can be miss leading. They clump a large assortment of the bully breeds together. (Not to mention the cross of any one of those breeds.) I'm sure if they narrowed it down to a specific breed, insteed of clumping bully type dogs, the numbers would dwindle fast. Even more so, if the percentages were based on the number of existing dogs of those specific breeds


IMHO.......

 

[Aoqua]

"many other large breeds are comparable to pitbulls in both strength, size and temperament."

I disagree here. There are stronger breeds than pits (pits aren't bred to be strong per se just good at fighting each other), there are bigger breeds (pits tend to be small-medium sized afterall) but there isn't another breed on the planet that matches a game bred pitbull for qualities (good and bad) of temperament.
No breed has gone through the same kind of rigorous weeding out procedure (generations of the best fighters being bred from).
Pitbulls are the ultimate package of speed, athleticism, strength, aggression and gameness. No other breed mixes those qualities in quite the same way even though they might exceed the pit in any one area.

"That's just it, they are not really any more or less aggressive then any other breeds"

Yes they are. I've been to Crufts many times and I've also been to a couple of Ed Reids pitbull shows in the UK (weight pulling and whatnot). The level of aggresion between the two was very marked indeed. Now there could be something to be said for the pitbull owners allowing their dogs to indulge their aggression more than other owners but it still stands that the aggression on show by each group of dogs was different.

"you'd realize that the idea of an american pit bull or a staffordshire being able to do "more damage" is myth"

I don't think this is a myth (and believe me I've been around plenty of these dogs). The intent of a pitbull when it attacks is different from the motivation of most other breeds when they attack. Pitbulls has a single minded approach to fighting and attacking. Other breeds tend to attack for a reason (territory, defence, training etc) and once that reason is gone they can be persuaded to stop attacking (to some degree). Pitbulls are very hard to stop during an attack and so tend to go about causing as much damage as they can in a workmanlike manner.

"Any dog that couldn't be handled for bitting or any other reason, was put down."

Sorry that's not true either. There was a well known pitbull called "Bullyson" (I think in the late 60's-early 70's) that was an ace fighting dog AND aggressive to humans. When he fought the ring would have to caged in to stop him jumping the fence. He was still fought and bred from. He wasn't popular but such a good fighter that pitbull men still used him for all his faults.

 

[Peru]

If we're talking about the likelihood of a dog attacking a human being, there is a point where we can get away from discussing opinions about how deadly a particular breed is over another. The point isn't whether pitbulls are the deadliest breed, pound for pound. The point is, are they more or less likely to attack a human being, and if they do, will they do more or less damage to a human. The answer is, there are many breeds capable of killing or seriously injuring a human being. When you consider that the majority of dog attack victims are children, it opens the field up to an even wider range of breeds. And the weeding out process has also included rigorous breeding out of any semblance of human aggression, as has been mentioned already in this thread (notable exceptions aside, perhaps). Although this certainly doesn't excuse the abuse and intentional breeding issues that have beset this particular breed.

Once again, it comes down to regulating irresponsible breeders and holding irresponsible owners accountable. Again, neither of these things are addressed by BSL. Breed specific legislation places the blame on the dogs and not the humans involved.

 

[universaldorkette]

Sorry, but, just because you found there to be an exception to the rule, doesn't mean that my statement wasn't practiced more often than not. Like you just said, he wasn't a desired animal. Now the question is, if the pupps were taken care of properly, do they still turn out like him?

The fighting and aggressive nature that those fighting dogs displayed, was learned and encouraged. Take a wild dog/wolf for example. They are predators sure, but they are taught to kill by other dogs in the pack. Take a wolf out of the wild, feed it, never teach it to hunt, release it back to the wild, and it will die. Dogs are pack animals, when they become our pet's, it's up to us to be the pack leader. Teaching them how to act, is our responsibility, and if we fail in that responsibility, we should have consequences.




I tend to agree with the above quote.........
http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm