I'm amazed at how many people have the wrong idea...

[saint]

It's all good stuff. Stop logging off.

[Ed_McCarron]

It's all good stuff. Stop logging off.

Oh, and while your at it, click a few advertiser links.  Saint needs a couple more drywall screws for his gameroom.

[SithMaster]

It's all good stuff. Stop logging off.

Oh, and while your at it, click a few advertiser links.  Saint needs a couple more drywall screws for his gameroom.

I thought he gets paid for just having the ads.  Saint shed some light on this please.

[CCM]

http://www.ksat.com/news/14413827/detail.html

[SithMaster]

http://www.ksat.com/news/14413827/detail.html

People shouldnt be allowed to have a pet (any pet including children) if they dont take care of them as they should.

[Dartful Dodger]

Pitbulls aren't pets.  If a person can't train a Pitbull to properly bite off the head of another Pitbull they shouldn't be allowed to own them.

[SithMaster]

Pitbulls aren't pets.  If a person can't train a Pitbull to properly bite off the head of another Pitbull they shouldn't be allowed to own them.

That sounds like something a dog fighter would say.  It all makes sense now.

[shardian]

Did tommy get banned from this thread or something?

[CCM]

hmmm,  a family's 'friendly' pit bull bites baby...

article


Interesting quote from the above article: 


"I was always one that said pits are fine and they're only mean if you train them to be that way," Garrison said. "This thing made a liar out of me."

[missioncontrol]

From the article:

"I was always one that said pits are fine and they're only mean if you train them to be that way," Garrison said. "This thing made a liar out of me."

[Ed_McCarron]

Did tommy get banned from this thread or something?

No.  We think he was eaten by pit bulls.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

And apparently, based on Mission's avatar...they pissed a LOT of blood afterward. There must have been something bad in that Tommy sandwich.

[SithMaster]

Did tommy get banned from this thread or something?

No.  We think he was eaten by pit bulls.

Or the other way around.  Dun Dun Dun.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

OK. These damn dogs are just BEGGING to be killed.

Pit bulls kill miniature horse given to cancer-stricken child
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102507dntexhorsekilled.1a103aedb.html


Now that's just BAD marketing right there. Pit Bulls need to hire some better advertising people. Whatever their new campaign is, they'd better make it REALLY HAPPY!

[tommy]

Thanks for not sending this thread to post hell, saint. Even though i may get a bit out of control and take thing too serious i think some of my ideas and posts were worth saving on the subject of pit bulls and how many of us feel about them, wrong or right.

Hopefully people can just keep their minds open and not always think they know it all, including me. 

[saint]

Cheers  

[tommy]

Did tommy get banned from this thread or something?

I'm not banned. I think i said all i can to convice the people who think pit bulls are all horrible nasty dog and nothing will ever change your minds. I'm even fine with that. I'd be a fool to not agree with people who don't want their family near ANYTHING that has a slight possibility of hurting anyone in any family.

My last word on this is after bringing up my pit bull as best i can and after 5 years have never, ever had to even think about this dog doing anything that would ever hurt me or anyone this dog comes in contact with and not so much as growled or shown any negative aggressive act, EVER, as so many of the stories I've heard about these dogs leads me to believe that they are killer dogs. Either I am the greatest dog trainer/behaviour fixer that ever lived, or i somehow got one of the greatest dogs ever born by some all powerfull force of nature, or, when you treat these dogs with kindness and care and give them everything they need including food, shelter, stability, leadership and many other things these dogs can be great to have around.

[tommy]

I'm curious to hear Saints take on pit bulls if he cares to respond as well.

[saint]

I think pitbulls have been bred to be aggressive and don't belong anywhere near children or the public.

[Bones]

I think a lot of the problem is you never see one of those pretty pink bows on a Pitbull.

It looks down, sees a studded collar and feels forced into savagely mauling children and the elderly.

[patrickl]

after bringing up my pit bull as best i can and after 5 years have never, ever had to even think about this dog doing anything that would ever hurt me or anyone this dog comes in contact with

you know what "our" problem is? That's almost the exact same thing all owners of pitbulls say when questioned by the police after their pitbull has just mauled someone.

Pitbulls are high risk dogs and an accident can never be prevented entirely. Maybe when you are around it will always behave, but when a kid startles it while the dog is in a bad mood, there is always a chance it will attack. This might go fine for years (maybe even it's entire life), but it still puts others at risk. Some kid in the future might be maimed for ever. Why? For what?

[shardian]

hmmm,  a family's 'friendly' pit bull bites baby...

article


Interesting quote from the above article: 


"I was always one that said pits are fine and they're only mean if you train them to be that way," Garrison said. "This thing made a liar out of me."

The scary thing about that story is the fact that the guy was an avid pit fan, having had 4 previous pits. Yet when the dog snapped he was powerless to control it, eventually having to sneak out the door after being mauled himself, and the cops come in later and taser the animal into submission. Any other dog breed would have whimpered and quit after a swift boot to the head. In that dog, once the switch was thrown, there was no going back. THAT is the scariest thing about pits.

[Ed_McCarron]

once the switch was thrown, there was no going back. THAT is the scariest thing about pits.

The silicon chip inside her head gets switched to overload...

[CCM]

This is an older article, but very relevant....

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/news/californian/23_29_184_10_04.txt

Excerpt from the above article:

An official with the Humane Society of the United States said Friday that breeds are selectively bred to accentuate specific characteristics. In the case of some retrievers, for example, the dogs were bred over the years to leap into the water at a moment's notice, retrieve downed birds and carry them softly in their mouths back to hunters.

Pit bulls, however, were bred to fight other dogs in closed environments such as pits or arenas, said Eric Sakach, director of the West Coast regional office of the Humane Society of the United States.

"They were selectively bred to cause maximum damage, which includes grabbing, holding and shaking, which causes tearing," Sakach said.

Breeders also gradually eliminated from the animals some of the typical signals of coming aggression, like barking, growling or raising the hair on the back of their necks, he added.

"These animals offer little or no indication that an attack is imminent," he said.

[tommy]

you know what "our" problem is? That's almost the exact same thing all owners of pitbulls say when questioned by the police after their pitbull has just mauled someone.

That's not evidence or even worth repeating. Who said that? How do you know all the circumstances are the same and how do you know the dog was trained? The dog could have been acting nice at one point and not have been trained, then was said to have thought to have been a "nice" dog that snapped. It's not credable. It's all worthless information not heard first hand and not from a person who knows anything about anything. No facts, no background, just what went on at that point in time and that's not enough to prove anything.

[patrickl]

It's more evidence than your claim that *your* pitbul is never going to maul someone. Just read any newsarticle about a dog maiming a person where the owner is interviewed and you will see the "my dog was the sweetest ever" type response.

But sure, if you want some facts:
Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada September 1982 to November 13, 2006

Pit bulls and their mixes are responsible for 1182 (54%) of attacks that were included in the study, 521 (46%) of the attacks upon children, 410 (62%) of the attacks upon adults, 110 (42%) of the deaths, and 636 (48%) of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. The next most dangerous dog is the Rottweiler with about a 20% share of all the dog attacks. Indeed all dogs can be dangerous. Other breeds of dogs are also involved in attacks, but all of them together are only responsible for less than 30% of all attacks.

In other words, Pit bulls (and Rottweilers) are disproportionally dangerous and usually show no sign of being aggressive before their damaging attack.

Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity to be listed, pit bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern: children are normally at greatest risk from dogbite because they play with dogs more often, have less experience in reading dog behavior, are more likely to engage in activity that alarms or stimulates a dog, and are less able to defend themselves when a dog becomes aggressive. Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are. They are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog.

The traditional approach to dangerous dog legislation is to allow "one free bite," at which point the owner is warned. On second bite, the dog is killed. The traditional approach, however, patently does not apply in addressing the threats from pit bull terriers, Rottweilers, and wolf hybrids. In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Children and elderly people were almost always the victims.

Any law strong enough and directed enough to prevent the majority of life-threatening dog attacks must discriminate heavily against pit bulls, Rottweilers, wolf hybrids, and perhaps Akitas and chows, who are not common breeds but do seem to be involved in disproportionate numbers of life-threatening attacks. Such discrimination will never be popular with the owners of these breeds, especially those who believe their dogs are neither dangerous nor likely to turn dangerous without strong provocation. Neither will breed discrimination ever be acceptable to those who hold out for an interpretation of animal rights philosophy which holds that all breeds are created equal. One might hope that educating the public against the acquisition of dangerous dogs would help; but the very traits that make certain breeds dangerous also appeal to a certain class of dog owner. Thus publicizing their potentially hazardous nature has tended to increase these breeds' popularity.

The humane community does not try to encourage the adoption of pumas in the same manner that we encourage the adoption of felis catus, because even though a puma can also be box-trained and otherwise exhibits much the same indoor behavior, it is clearly understood that accidents with a puma are frequently fatal.

For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances.

Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all.

[MikeQ]

you know what "our" problem is? That's almost the exact same thing all owners of pitbulls say when questioned by the police after their pitbull has just mauled someone.

That's not evidence or even worth repeating. Who said that? How do you know all the circumstances are the same and how do you know the dog was trained? The dog could have been acting nice at one point and not have been trained, then was said to have thought to have been a "nice" dog that snapped. It's not credable. It's all worthless information not heard first hand and not from a person who knows anything about anything. No facts, no background, just what went on at that point in time and that's not enough to prove anything.

That is exactly what the detective in this case said:

"This was a responsible owner. These animals never had any history of any type of aggression," said Animal Crimes Detective Annie Henderson.

"They were house pets, and they literally slept with her when he wasn't home. She would take them out and put them in their pen and walk them and stuff," he said.

Middleburg Woman Killed By Her Pit Bulls
http://www.news4jax.com/news/14250768/detail.html

[shmokes]

No facts, no background, just what went on at that point in time and that's not enough to prove anything.

Tommy, what did I tell you?  You cannot win the facts argument.  The facts aren't on your side.  Pit bulls are more dangerous than other types of dogs.  Deep down you know this is true.  In fact, it's why you like them.  It's why, when you want to tell someone how to protect their house, you tell them to get a pit bull.

Regardless, though, you can't win the facts argument.  Stop wasting your time.  The only chance you have is the policy argument.

[tommy]

Shmokes, try making a case for what you believe in instead of telling me to give up on what i believe, you say you agree with me then lets hear what you got. Make a case for pit bulls and stop laying down for the majority here that have the wrong idea about these dogs. You might even learn something that could help you on your way towards your goal if you can present a decent enough case. 

I challenge shmokes to pretend this is his first case and i want to see what he has learned thus far and how you would go about making a jury or board members here see things your way.

Start with an opening statement. I'm sure many people here would read what you have to say and consider you more credible than i come across at times.

[jbox]

Uh, what thread have you been reading?

How does:
  (a) pit bulls are more dangerous then other dogs; however
  (b) banning something must always be done with caution
somehow equate to "pit bulls are snuggly-wuggly-floofy-bears that just love children so much they want to eat them"? 

We ban people from having their own fireworks factory without the proper licensing and auditing even though we (in many places) let them buy and set-off other people's fireworks. Same principle here.

[CheffoJeffo]

I'm sure many people here would read what you have to say and consider you more credible than i come across at times.

This one just twists me ...

[FrizzleFried]

I am not going to bother wasting my time trying to convince anyone of anything...but to say a specific breed of dog is "bad" is like saying a specific race of human is "bad".  Complete and utter ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow--- based on fears planted by (in this case) the media.

[saint]

We don't as a rule breed people for certain characteristics. We do dogs. Any human, with proper training, could perform various physical tasks such as weight-lifting, martial arts, whatever. As a species we are all by and large similarly capable. Dogs are a result of selective breeding however. They've been bred for tasks for generations and generations. Huskies pull dog sleds. Chihuahuas and poodles would do poorly in that task. Some dogs were bred for physical attributes, some mental attributes (guarding, shepherding, tracking).

Is there anyone who disagrees with that? That specific dog breeds were bred  for specific attributes?

(If you disagree with that quit reading now because I'm afraid we won't have anything to discuss. Good luck with your version of reality)

Based on the belief that attributes are bred into a breed, why is it hard to believe that a breed was bred to be aggressive fighters? 

American Pit Bull Registry - http://www.pitbullregistry.com/Pit%20Bull%20History.htm
PitBull411.com - http://www.pitbull411.com/history.html

So I'm sure that any particular member of a breed could be carefully trained for certain behaviors or to stifle behaviors, but as a breed they were designed to be aggressive attackers, and hence people's concerns about them being near the public and children seems valid to me. Not sure why this is a debatable item.

[shmokes]

I challenge shmokes to . . .

There's two problems with that challenge.  One, I already argued as much in your previous pit bull thread, going to far as laying out in detail a pragmatic solution that would mitigate the pit bull problems without banning the dogs altogether.  As I've already said, you can feel free to plagiarize from that thread all you want.  But that's the best you're gonna get, really, cos I mostly just don't give a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.  I don't even like dogs.  I think they're dumb and needy.  I prefer cats.  And even if I was going to get a dog, I've got a 1-year old little girl -- I sure as hell ain't getting a pit bull.

My knee-jerk reaction to a ban on pit bulls is to think that we've got irresponsible legislators who are legislating for the sake of legislating, solving problems with a sledge hammer that could have been taken care of with a screwdriver.  I don't like to see restrictions on peoples' behavior that go beyond what is absolutely necessary.  But I have neither the time, nor inclination (to quote a favorite movie) to make a go at some kind of eloquent essay on the virtues of pit bulls.  I don't think they're virtuous.  Plenty of dogs are smarter, prettier, and a helluva lot less volatile.  I think that the majority of people who buy pit bulls are ---uvulas---.  I don't mean that they are ---uvulas--- for buying the pit bull, but rather, pit bulls seem to appeal to people who are already ---uvulas---.   Why is that?  Why do redneck pieces of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- love to own pit bulls?  Who knows.  Interpret it however you like. 

My support for your side has nothing to do with liking pit bulls, but rather liking responsible policy and legislation.

[Ed_McCarron]

Huskies pull dog sleds. Chihuahuas and poodles would do poorly in that task.

But you gotta admit they'd look pretty effing funny trying...

Heres the solution to the pit problem:

The dog gets 1 free pass.  Thats not 1 free pass to bite someone - thats one free pass (off leash/out of yard).

Strike 2 - dog gets put down.  No appeal. 

A few folks will still get bitten, but the majority of owners will be a lot more vigilant.

[Daniel270]

We don't as a rule breed people for certain characteristics.

At least, not intentionally....

http://in.news.yahoo.com/071027/139/6mhu2.html

[crashwg]

I don't have the patience to read through all the gobble-d-gook in this thread nor will I post my opinion on pit-bulls and other dogs that are labeled as dangerous.  What I will say though is:

If anyone came in to my residence and tried to entice an argument out of me (which it is obviously what you're doing) I would tell them to get the fark out and then proceed to call their supervisor. 

First rule of any business:
The customer is your boss.  Without them, you don't have a job.

[shmokes]

In Tommy's case you would, apparently, be talking to him when you called.  But it doesn't change the dynamics.  No question it's bad bad business. 

[patrickl]

I am not going to bother wasting my time trying to convince anyone of anything...but to say a specific breed of dog is "bad" is like saying a specific race of human is "bad".  Complete and utter ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow--- based on fears planted by (in this case) the media.

The thing is that breeds of dogs actually do have completely different characteristics. With humans practically only the color of the skin is different. If you would compare all black haired poodles with all white haired poodle I guess you would also find identical behavior and skill set.

On the other hand, are you seriously going to claim that a Beagle and a Pitbull are almost indistinguishable in behavior and skill set? Pitbulls have the trait to have a devastating bite (and to hold that bite when they attack) bred into them. That makes them a dangerous breed as a whole.

[missioncontrol]