Support NeoGAF

[Nameless]

Pitbulls have always been unfairly attacked. Their perception dangerous, out of countrol dogs make their incidents an easy story when they occur. You don't hear of german shepard attacks, or Rot attacks when they occur. My first dog was an all white pitbull puppy named "snapper" who I got when I was 3 years old. He never so much as left a scratch on me or anyone else.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Pitbulls have always been unfairly attacked. Their perception dangerous, out of countrol dogs make their incidents an easy story when they occur. You don't hear of german shepard attacks, or Rot attacks when they occur. My first dog was an all white pitbull puppy named "snapper" who I got when I was 3 years old. He never so much as left a scratch on me or anyone else.

oh please, don't pull the "breed card".

 

[TheOMan]

A few months ago, Ontario passed a bill to ban pit bulls. It'll be interesting to see if other provinces or even states follow the same given the severity of pit bull attacks.

They've been banned in Manitoba for quite some time if I remember right.

Article on Ontario Ban

From the article:

Bans on the sale or possession of pit bulls and other reputed fighting breeds have been in effect in the Netherlands, France, Britain, and Germany for as long as 20 years, as well as in China and several other Asian nations. Ordinances of similar intent have been adopted by many individual U.S. and Canadian cities, but the Ontario ban is the first in either the U.S. or Canada to extend beyond the limits of a single city or county.

The Ontario legislation is modeled after the city statutes enacted earlier by Kitchener-Waterloo and Windsor, and by Winnipeg, Manitoba, where the last licensed pit bull died in 2004, 14 years after the breed ban took effect.

“The experience in Winnipeg and Kitchener was that you began to see a drop in pit bull bites, even after the first couple of years,” Bryant told Greg Bonnell of Canadian Press. “We should immediately have better protection of the public.”

Winnipeg animal services chief Tim Dack affirmed to Canadian Press that pit bull attacks in Winnipeg have dropped from a peak of 29 in 1989 to zero in recent years.

Ah, I guess it's just the city of Winnipeg.

Oh, and the mother's story doesn't add up at all. Really a crappy way to die for the kid

 

[MC Safety]

Pitbulls have always been unfairly attacked. Their perception dangerous, out of countrol dogs make their incidents an easy story when they occur. You don't hear of german shepard attacks, or Rot attacks when they occur. My first dog was an all white pitbull puppy named "snapper" who I got when I was 3 years old. He never so much as left a scratch on me or anyone else.

Yeah, but anecdotal information doesn't for a very strong argument.

 

[Lil' Dice]

More children die from alcohol related incidents, so when do we ban alcohol?

 

[demon]

More children die from alcohol related incidents, so when do we ban alcohol?

More children die from old age after growing up, so when do we ban living?

 

[Xenon]

No charges have been filed.

WTF.

I'm sick of hearing these "kid gets mauled/killed by pitbull" stories. I think any owner of a pitbull should be prosecuted as if they committed the act themselves, deliberately. They should go for murder-one against this dumb bitch. Prob wont stop anything, but fuck this shit pisses me off.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Kind of offtopic, but it's dog related.

My grandparents used to take care of my uncle's golden retriever named Kai. (He [the dog, not my uncle] died before I was born.)

I wish I was able to meet him, because he sounds like he was an AWESOME dog (and, according to pretty much everyone in my family, incredibly smart for a dog).

Just a few facts/stories about Kai that I've heard:

1. Never barked, ever. :O
2. This happened the first time my mom came over to my grandparents' house ( my dad's parents, that is.) and met Kai for the first time. She played with him a bit during the visit. At some point, she thought he had to go out to go to the bathroom, so she asked him, "Do you want to go outside?"

You NEVER say that to Kai. My dad told my mom, "Oh, now you have to talk him out for a walk around the block!" as Kai came up to her with his leesh in his mouth, and continued to nudge her hands until she took him out for a walk (Kai always did that if you left him waiting for his walk.) Now, this was in the middle of winter, here in Minnesota, and on that particular day, there was a huge snowstorm. So my mom had to walk Kai through like 10 inches of snow, subzero degree temperatures, and like 20 mph winds, just because she didn't know that "Do you want to go outside?" was used when you wanted to take Kai out for a walk. :lol

3. After my dad and mom got married (but before my mom got pregant), they lived in a condominium. Of course, there were no pets allowed. But one night, my grandparents went out to dinner, and my dad didn't feel like leaving Kai all alone at their house. So my dad went to the house, took Kai and one of my grandfather's coats and hats, and drove to the condominium. He put the coat and hat on Kai, and took him into the condominium. They didn't get caught. (I have a picture of Kai with the coat and hat on. :lol )

4. My grandparents and parents went out to lunch one day. When they came back, the back door's glass covering was shattered, and Kai was standing outside next to a pile of his vomit. Apparently, he didn't want to get the carpet dirty, so he jumped through the door. (he wasn't injured.)


5. My family members would often play tug o' war with Kai, who would always growl while playing tug of war. My dad in particular loved to play with Kai. Kai would have one end of the blanket in his mouth, and my dad would put the other end of the blanket in his own mouth, and they'd both give out little playful growls while pulling. (Of course, Kai held back against everyone, because he could have easily beaten them all.)

Anyways, Kai was always very gentle with my brother when he played with him (Kai died around the time my brother was 3 and a half). My brother wasn't exactly careful with Kai. He would, according to my dad and mom, crawl all over Kai and everything when playing with him. But Kai never did anything. Unlike when he played tug o' war with anyone else, Kai never growled when playing tug o' war with Phil (my brother). In fact, he never growled at all around Phil, according to my parents.

6. Kai didn't like baths. (Or maybe it was all a game to him) My dad would tell him it's time for a bath, and then have trouble getting him outside. He'd have to grab him and drag him out, usually. And then, my dad would scrub him down and TRY to rinse him off with the hose, but Kai would run around dodging the hose as my dad ran after him. (Of course, my dad always found a way to catch Kai. He thought of ways to outsmart him and always get him with the hose) After the bath was over, no matter where my dad was, Kai would run after him and shake himself off right next to my dad. And he wouldn't shake until he got next to my dad. If my dad ran away, Kai chased after him, even into the house, until he could get next to my dad to shake himself dry. :lol


I wish I was around when Kai was.

</Kai Appreciation post>

 

[Fragamemnon]

WTF.

I'm sick of hearing these "kid gets mauled/killed by pitbull" stories. I think any owner of a pitbull should be prosecuted as if they committed the act themselves, deliberately. They should go for murder-one against this dumb bitch. Prob wont stop anything, but fuck this shit pisses me off.

Hell yes. Parents often can shake off any serious willful infanticide/manslaughter/murder charges from judges and juries by making the claim that they have "suffered enough" because they've lost their precioussss little hellspawn. I mean, are there really so many parents that:

- Lock their kid in a hot car and leave them for hours on end. (the aforementioned "Li'l Sizzler")
- Let their young child play near the pool and have them drown accidentally (affectionately known as the "bobbler")

Hell no. These are parents that don't want their kids, are batshit crazy because they weren't mentally stable before they had their widdle precious, and the massive stress of parenting through them over the deep end and cornered their lives completely.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Yeah, but anecdotal information doesn't for a very strong argument.

No, but the fact that the average Pit Bull has a better temperament than the general dog (95% pass temperament testing compared to the overall 77% average) and the number of dog organizations that acknowledge the Pit Bull as a safe family dog (when properly trained - duh - any poorly trained dog is dangerous) does make for a strong argument in the Pit Bulls favour.

But hey! Let's just ban the breed! That'll get rid of the problem, right? All dog owners need to be held accountable for the actions of their animal. Societies decision to place the blame on the animal, rather than the negligent, ignorant, or abusive owner is why problems like these occur. Did you know the majority of dog attacks occur when the owner hasn't leashed the dog? In my province of Canada, leashing dogs is the law at all times. Picking up their crap is also a law. The penatlies in place for people who break leash laws aren't harsh enough in my opinion, but they're a start. I couldn't tell you what the penalty is for owners whose dogs go on a bloody rampage, but I'm almost certain they aren't enough.

Like another person's already said: owning a dog is a privilege not a right. Let's actually solve the problem by holding people accountable for their animals actions. If you're not willing to accept jail time if your AMerican Staffordshire Terrier goes haywire because you either a) abused it or b) encouraged violent behaviour, then don't get it.

Let's find a permanent solution to the problem of dog attacks, not a band aid one that'll last 10 or so years.

WTF.

I'm sick of hearing these "kid gets mauled/killed by pitbull" stories. I think any owner of a pitbull should be prosecuted as if they committed the act themselves, deliberately. They should go for murder-one against this dumb bitch. Prob wont stop anything, but fuck this shit pisses me off.

Thank you. That women killed her child and her animals. She deserves some hard time to think about her actions and send a message to other shitty pet owners than this kind of behaviour won't be tolerated.

 

[MC Safety]

I'm not sure where that figure comes from, but I'm inclined to believe it's not altogether true.

You can make all the claims you want about how a properly trained pit bull is no danger, but it does not change the fact the dogs were originally bred for aggression. Now an individual dog's behavior may be fine, but there's still the breeding, not to mention the sheer jaw strength and tenacity that make the animal a risk.

I think there's a genuine problem when people choose aggressive dogs. And for my mind, it's better to restrict such animals as opposed to, say, having a wholly responsible and accountable set of dilligent dog owners and still having some poor child killed because an animal with no prior incidents just snapped.

Accountability is great. But it assumes that even the most responsible dog owner can prevent an attack when his pet decides to act on its own free will.

No, but the fact that the average Pit Bull has a better temperament than the general dog (95% pass temperament testing compared to the overall 77% average) and the number of dog organizations that acknowledge the Pit Bull as a safe family dog (when properly trained - duh - any poorly trained dog is dangerous) does make for a strong argument in the Pit Bulls favour.

But hey! Let's just ban the breed! That'll get rid of the problem, right? All dog owners need to be held accountable for the actions of their animal. Societies decision to place the blame on the animal, rather than the negligent, ignorant, or abusive owner is why problems like these occur. Did you know the majority of dog attacks occur when the owner hasn't leashed the dog? In my province of Canada, leashing dogs is the law at all times. Picking up their crap is also a law. The penatlies in place for people who break leash laws aren't harsh enough in my opinion, but they're a start. I couldn't tell you what the penalty is for owners whose dogs go on a bloody rampage, but I'm almost certain they aren't enough.

Like another person's already said: owning a dog is a privilege not a right. Let's actually solve the problem by holding people accountable for their animals actions. If you're not willing to accept jail time if your AMerican Staffordshire Terrier goes haywire because you either a) abused it or b) encouraged violent behaviour, then don't get it.

Let's find a permanent solution to the problem of dog attacks, not a band aid one that'll last 10 or so years.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

I'm not sure where that figure comes from, but I'm inclined to believe it's not altogether true.

You can make all the claims you want about how a properly trained pit bull is no danger, but it does not change the fact the dogs were originally bred for aggression. Now an individual dog's behavior may be fine, but there's still the breeding, not to mention the sheer jaw strength and tenacity that make the animal a risk.

I think there's a genuine problem when people choose aggressive dogs. And for my mind, it's better to restrict such animals as opposed to, say, having a wholly responsible and accountable set of dilligent dog owners and still having some poor child killed because an animal with no prior incidents just snapped.

Accountability is great. But it assumes that even the most responsible dog owner can prevent an attack when his pet decides to act on its own free will.

http://www.google.com/search?q=+Ame...eid=firefox&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

We're getting into murky waters when you bring up aggression because it requires knowledge of biology that I'm lacking (perhaps an educated individual in that field can help us out). Pit Bulls were bred to be vicious fighters in the ring, but safe, loving human companions outside of it; Pit Bulls who bit their owners were culled.

Accountability is great. But it assumes that even the most responsible dog owner can prevent an attack when his pet decides to act on its own free will.

Leash, fence, proper training. When you buy a dog, check to see whether the breeder breeds dogs for aggression or to make good pets. Ask the breeder lots of question, most notably, what the dog rates on a scale of 1 - 10. A 1's a submissive dog that'll eliminate on sight of something strange. A 10's a dominate dog that'll think on its own nearly all the time. A 5's what most people should have -- confidence in itself, and brimming with personality, but easily calmed and controlled. There are many, many actions owners can take to prevent their dog will ever become human/dog aggressive, and there are many, many measures owners can take to prevent their aggressive dog from unleashing that fury and causing suffering. be wiped out. Including the Pomeranian, which killed an infant several weeks ago

We will never eliminate all dog, cat, or wild animal attacks, but some ways of limiting and preventing them are better than others. Banning one breed of dog isn't the answer, and won't have any foreseeable long term impact because the PIt Bull is only part of the problem, and can easily be replaced by other powerful dogs with the propensity to violence when poorly trained.

Sad thing is, there always will be owners who abuse, neglect, and encourage aggressive behaviour knowingly or unknowingly. Getting rid of the Pit Bull won't stop these people from getting other dogs, nor will it stop future dog attacks. Holding these people accountible might make others think twice before buying a breed of dog with the potential for extreme destruction, and that's the most effective form of curtailing dog attacks besides getting rid of all large breeds who can potentially become aggressive.

 

[Shinobi]

oh please, don't pull the "breed card".

:lol

More children die from alcohol related incidents, so when do we ban alcohol?

Wouldn't bother me either...I'd sooner see that banned then cigarettes. Don't hear many stories of people being killed due to smoking and driving.

Is this all people are gonna come back with? WELL KITES ARE LEGAL AND IT ALMOST STRANGLED CHARLIE BROWN ONE TIME, DO WE BAN THEM TOO???? Go the fuck ahead, I've never used a damn kite anyway. When a ban affects something I actually give a shit about, then I'll make a fuss. That's the way this world is now, selfish as all fuck, look at for number one. Well I've got no time for pit bulls and do not want to come across the day when my 8 year old neice is turned into chopped liver by a couple of pit bulls that got out of their backyard (like half the attacks up here seem to go), only to hear the owners say they were responsible and the dogs never did anything like this before blah blah yada yada. I'm simply not interested in dealing with such a possibility. Nobody needs to own a pit bull anyway, so fuck 'em.

BTW, what makes anyone think I don't wanna see the owners get theirs? I hate them far more then the dogs.

 

[Instigator]

Anyone living in a country with winters can probably develop a better hatred for dogs. There are some parks and streets dog owners love to go to. They let their dogs do their business, without a care in the world, and all that dog crap is preserved and even hidden with a new blanket of snow every storm. Then comes spring and those areas are bursting with streams of urine and liquified feces going everywhere. Absolutely disgusting.

I've never been attacked by a dog per se (there were some close calls when I was younger though), but I can definitely say I hate dogs and their dog owners for what they let their animals get away with.

 

[jett]

It's about time Kim Jong Il lets loose his nuclear arsenal. I weep for humanity.

 

[MC Safety]

"The pit bull's unusual breeding history has produced some bizarre behavioral traits, de- scribed by The Economist's science editor in an article published a few years ago, at the peak of a heated British controversy over dangerous dogs that saw the pit bull banned in England. First, the pit bull is quicker to anger than most dogs, probably due to the breed's unusually high level of the neurotransmitter L-tyrosine. Second, pit bulls are frighteningly tenacious; their attacks frequently last for 15 minutes or longer, and nothing—hoses, violent blows or kicks—can easily stop them. That's because of the third behavioral anomaly: the breed's remarkable insensitivity to pain. Most dogs beaten in a fight will submit the next time they see the victor. Not a defeated pit bull, who will tear into his onetime vanquisher. This, too, has to do with brain chemistry. The body releases endorphins as a natural painkiller. Pit bulls seem extra-sensitive to endorphins and may generate higher levels of the chemical than other dogs. Endorphins are also addictive: "The dogs may be junkies, seeking pain so they can get the endorphin buzz they crave," The Economist suggests.

Finally, most dogs warn you before they attack, growling or barking to tell you how angry they are—"so they don't have to fight," ASPCA advisor and animal geneticist Stephen Zawistowski stresses. Not the pit bull, which attacks without warning. Most dogs, too, will bow to signal that they want to frolic. Again, not the pit bull, which may follow an apparently playful bow with a lethal assault. In short, contrary to the writings of Vicki Hearne, a well-known essayist on animals who—in a bizarre but emotionally charged confusion—equates breed-specific laws against pit bulls as a kind of "racist propaganda," the pit bull is a breed apart."

-- Taken from the City Journal, Spring 1999

"Between 1979 and 1998, dog attacks killed more than 300 Americans.

Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of the deaths." -- Associated Press, June 4

 

[AB 101]

No, but the fact that the average Pit Bull has a better temperament than the general dog (95% pass temperament testing compared to the overall 77% average)

If 95% pass temperment testing, why do they kill then?

 

[Bishman]

Wow. Scared to death of pit bulls.

What pisses me off are owners who let their dogs loose or with no leash and tell you they are friendly but the dog is looking like it wants to rip you apart.

"The pit bull's unusual breeding history has produced some bizarre behavioral traits, de- scribed by The Economist's science editor in an article published a few years ago, at the peak of a heated British controversy over dangerous dogs that saw the pit bull banned in England. First, the pit bull is quicker to anger than most dogs, probably due to the breed's unusually high level of the neurotransmitter L-tyrosine. Second, pit bulls are frighteningly tenacious; their attacks frequently last for 15 minutes or longer, and nothing—hoses, violent blows or kicks—can easily stop them. That's because of the third behavioral anomaly: the breed's remarkable insensitivity to pain. Most dogs beaten in a fight will submit the next time they see the victor. Not a defeated pit bull, who will tear into his onetime vanquisher. This, too, has to do with brain chemistry. The body releases endorphins as a natural painkiller. Pit bulls seem extra-sensitive to endorphins and may generate higher levels of the chemical than other dogs. Endorphins are also addictive: "The dogs may be junkies, seeking pain so they can get the endorphin buzz they crave," The Economist suggests.

Finally, most dogs warn you before they attack, growling or barking to tell you how angry they are—"so they don't have to fight," ASPCA advisor and animal geneticist Stephen Zawistowski stresses. Not the pit bull, which attacks without warning. Most dogs, too, will bow to signal that they want to frolic. Again, not the pit bull, which may follow an apparently playful bow with a lethal assault. In short, contrary to the writings of Vicki Hearne, a well-known essayist on animals who—in a bizarre but emotionally charged confusion—equates breed-specific laws against pit bulls as a kind of "racist propaganda," the pit bull is a breed apart."

-- Taken from the City Journal, Spring 1999

"Between 1979 and 1998, dog attacks killed more than 300 Americans.

Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of the deaths." -- Associated Press, June 4

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Finally, most dogs warn you before they attack, growling or barking to tell you how angry they are—"so they don't have to fight," ASPCA advisor and animal geneticist Stephen Zawistowski stresses. Not the pit bull, which attacks without warning. Most dogs, too, will bow to signal that they want to frolic. Again, not the pit bull, which may follow an apparently playful bow with a lethal assault. In short, contrary to the writings of Vicki Hearne, a well-known essayist on animals who—in a bizarre but emotionally charged confusion—equates breed-specific laws against pit bulls as a kind of "racist propaganda," the pit bull is a breed apart."

Rottweiler's don't either.

"Between 1979 and 1998, dog attacks killed more than 300 Americans.

Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of the deaths." -- Associated Press, June 4

Emphasis added.

Thanks for telling us what we already know, Stu: Pit Bulls have been bred to win fights. Nice that you glossed over all the other information this thread has to offer.

If 95% pass temperment testing, why do they kill then?

....

OK, take a few minutes to think this one through, I'm sure you'll figure it out .

You guys disappoint me.

 

[maynerd]

Lions are trainable does that mean everyone should be able to have them as pets?

Dogs that have the tendencies and abilities to be extremely dangerous should not be available to the general public. Perhaps a special license to obtain these dogs?

No one NEEDS a dog like this. There are certainly many other alternate choices that are safer and less risky to everyone. How many people need to be mauled by the breed before action is taken?

 

[Instigator]

Small dogs are annoying as hell, but they don't kill.

 

[MC Safety]

Thanks for telling us what we already know, Stu: Pit Bulls have been bred to win fights. Nice that you glossed over all the other information this thread has to offer.
OK, take a few minutes to think this one through, I'm sure you'll figure it out .

You guys disappoint me.

I passed over that information because it flies in the face of other, more credible evidence. Just as you glossed over specific evidence of pit bulls' (and yes, I know that pit bulls is not a specific term, but rather an umbrella that applies to many varieties of animals) physiology that indicates they're inclined to violence and dangerous.

Here's from a report posted on The Center for Disease Control and Prevention Web site about fatal dog attacks in the United States -- feel free to ignore this, too:

"During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths. Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55 (24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off their owners’ property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained dogs on their owners’ property, 38 (17%) involved restrained dogs on their owners’ property, and 1 (<1%) involved a restrained dog off its owner’s property."

Now you claim what you will -- I'm not invested in the issue that I'll argue the matter further -- but those numbers say two things:

1) Two specific types of aggressive dogs were responsible for the majority of dog bite deaths in the United States over the past 20 years.
2) Thirty-nine of the deaths reported occurred when the animals in question were restrained.

You can argue all you want about some magical temprament index that "proves" pit bulls are docile and friendly. I don't buy it. Hundreds of years of breeding and plenty of statistics say otherwise.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Lions are trainable does that mean everyone should be able to have them as pets?

Dogs that have the tendencies and abilities to be extremely dangerous should not be available to the general public. Perhaps a special license to obtain these dogs?

No one NEEDS a dog like this. There are certainly many other alternate choices that are safer and less risky to everyone. How many people need to be mauled by the breed before action is taken?

No one NEEDS any dog--it's a privilege, not a right.

Yes, perhaps a special license should be required for Pit Bulls and other breeds of dogs that have the power to easily kill. You might be surprised how many breeds would be included in this license, but perhaps that'd be a good thing. If I had it my way, all dogs would require a special license and training, because all dogs are capable of carrying out effective attacks (Pomeranians have killed babies before, yet they weigh 3 - 8 lbs) against humans.

I have never said that action doesn't need to be taken. I have said that I want the action we take to actually make a positive difference. Banning one breed of dog will have no foreseeable long term effect for reasons I've gone over and over and over again. Toughening up regulations, adding stiffer legal consequences, perhaps requisite training, and forcing owners to neutor their dogs if they aren't registered breeders, will all do far more than banning a single breed of dog capable of destruction.

Oh, and can we stop with this "lions are trainable" bullshit? Lions are wild animals, not domestic, so get another fucking analogy, please.

Bulldogs, Rottweilers, short haired Retrievers, Labradors, all the Mastiffs, and many Terriers can kill just as easily as a Pit Bull. Any powerful dog with a shitty master is a dangerous dog.

1) Two specific types of aggressive dogs were responsible for the majority of dog bite deaths in the United States over the past 20 years.
2) Thirty-nine of the deaths reported occurred when the animals in question were restrained.

You can argue all you want about some magical temprament index that "proves" pit bulls are docile and friendly. I don't buy it. Hundreds of years of breeding and plenty of statistics say otherwise.

"Pit Bull type" essentially means the dog identified by the victim appeared to have been a Pit Bull. Does that mean it was a Pit Bull, or does that mean it was a Mastiff, Rottweiler, Bulldog, etc?

I'd like to see more statistics proving the Pit Bull is an aggressive human killer by nature because I'm not buying it.

 

[BojTrek]

Every time I see this topic on the main page... I think of this...

 

[Instigator]

Dogs can revert pretty quickly to their wild past: see stray dogs.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Some quick reading:
http://dogs.about.com/cs/breedprofiles/a/apbt_bsl.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_Bull
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanstaffordshire.htm
http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/americanpitbullterrier.html
http://www.pbrc.net/breedinfo.html
http://www.rescueeverydog.org/pitbull_breed.html
http://www.nyx.net/~mbur/apbtfaqover.html
http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/americanpitbullterriers.html

 

[maynerd]

No one NEEDS any dog--it's a privilege, not a right.

- And this is why these deadly dogs should be banned or controlled more closely.

Yes, perhaps a special license should be required for Pit Bulls and other breeds of dogs that have the power to easily kill. You might be surprised how many breeds would be included in this license, but perhaps that'd be a good thing. If I had it my way, all dogs would require a special license and training, because all dogs are capable of carrying out effective attacks (Pomeranians have killed babies before, yet they weigh 3 - 8 lbs) against humans.

- You can not honestly be saying Pomeranians are as dangerous as Pit Bulls. If you are, you are insane. That's like saying a fork is as deadly as a gun. Sure you could kill someone with a fork but a gun is far more dangerous.

I have never said that action doesn't need to be taken. I have said that I want the action we take to actually make a positive difference. Banning one breed of dog will have no foreseeable long term effect for reasons I've gone over and over and over again. Toughening up regulations, adding stiffer legal consequences, perhaps requisite training, and forcing owners to neutor their dogs if they aren't registered breeders, will all do far more than banning a single breed of dog capable of destruction.

- Punishing the owner of a dog that hurts someone will potentially prevent that owner from causing harm again but I don't think it prevents the breed from harming again so again we are back at square one.

Oh, and can we stop with this "lions are trainable" bullshit? Lions are wild animals, not domestic, so get another fucking analogy, please.

- Apparently these deadly dogs aren't fully domesticated yet either or they wouldn't be as dangerous as they are.

I'd like to see more statistics proving the Pit Bull is an aggressive human killer by nature because I'm not buying it.

- I'm not so sure they are an agressive human killer by nature but they certainly are built to be a human killer if they feel like going off on someone.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

- And this is why these deadly dogs should be banned or controlled more closely.

Banned? Ok, how many breeds should we ban? Every one that physically equals or exceeds the Pit Bulls strength? Controlled more closely, sure, but banning all "deadly" dogs is absolutely stupid, because very few individual dogs are born dangerous; humans turn them that way.

- You can not honestly be saying Pomeranians are as dangerous as Pit Bulls. If you are, you are insane. That's like saying a fork is as deadly as a gun. Sure you could kill someone with a fork but a gun is far more dangerous.

:rollseyes
I'm not. I'm saying all dogs can be dangerous when poorly trained and left unattended. Oh wait, saying Pomeranians are as dangerous as PIt BUlls is almost as stupid as comparing Pit Bulls to lions, right?

- Punishing the owner of a dog that hurts someone will potentially prevent that owner from causing harm again but I don't think it prevents the breed from harming again so again we are back at square one.

Don't you think it acts as a deterrent to future dog owners? If you know the consequences of training your dog to be an aggressive, intimidating beast (or not training it at all, etc) will result in jail time if it kills someone, then perhaps you'll think twice before purchasing a dog.

What about my other suggestions, requiring owners complete training courses with their dogs/complete tests to obtain special dog licenses?

"I'm not so sure they are an agressive human killer by nature"

In other words, it's human influence that fucks these dogs up, which is why humans should be held responsible for their animals' actions. I agree this alone won't be enough to stop dog attacks, but it'll certainly do more good than banning one breed (unless we ban all 'deadly' dogs).

- Apparently these deadly dogs aren't fully domesticated yet either or they wouldn't be as dangerous as they are.

Uh, any poorly trained/abused/neglected animal, domestic or otherwise, will be dangerous. Pomeranians killing babies is proof of that.

- I'm not so sure they are an agressive human killer by nature but they certainly are built to be a human killer if they feel like going off on someone.

Yes, they have the tools to get the job done, much like many, many other dogs.

 

[border]

How about if instead of banning the breed, they just make pit bulls wear a muzzle anytime they are outside of their owner's property?

"Pit Bull type" essentially means the dog identified by the victim appeared to have been a Pit Bull.

First, we are discussing FATAL dog attacks. The victim is not identifying anything because (s)he has been mauled to death by a pit bull.

Second, your only defense on these stats is to imply that the breed is somehow being misidentified......as if the dog becomes some kind of fugitive after it kills someone and it becomes impossible to properly ascertain the breed. C'mon. If they know that the attacks are taking place on the owner's property then they know the owner and thus can probably find out the breed from that owner. I'm not saying that there haven't been a few misidentifications, but do you seriously expect people to ignore the stats because of it?

I'm pretty sure that "put bull type dogs" means dogs that fall under the pit bull umbrella that Disco Stu already mentioned......the semantics shuffle is really not compelling here.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

How about if instead of banning the breed, they just make pit bulls wear a muzzle anytime they are outside of their owner's property?

Probably unfair if the dog's been properly trained, but...

-since the 80's, the Pit Bull's been asssociated with aggression, power, and violence. This attracts exactly the very person who shouldn't own a Pit Bull, large dog, or any dog for that matter to the breed. In this respect, the Pit Bull's reputation is self-fulfilling; unfair attention received from the media's fuels demand for the Pit Bull from inexperienced, ignorant, dog owners who want to use the Pit Bull as an extension of their dick, which in turn results in more dog attacks.

-muzzling Pit Bulls will make the public feel safer, and won't restrict many of the freedoms the dog otherwise would have. I'm for leash laws, and specific areas set aside for dogs to roam freely, because of the number of dogs capable of attacking for whatever reason. Muzzling, combined with mandatory leashing, will aid in restoring the Pit Bull's reputation, and possibly scare off potential owners who want to use their animal for intimidation.

Second, your only defense on these stats is to imply that the breed is somehow being misidentified......as if the dog becomes some kind of fugitive after it kills someone and it becomes impossible to properly ascertain the breed. C'mon. If they know that the attacks are taking place on the owner's property then they know the owner and thus can probably find out the breed from that owner. I'm not saying that there haven't been a few misidentifications, but do you seriously expect people to ignore the stats because of it?

I'm pretty sure that "put bull type dogs" means dogs that fall under the pit bull umbrella that Disco Stu already mentioned......the semantics shuffle is really not compelling here.

42% of fatal dog attacks occur off the owners property, and a large number of those occur when they're unrestrained. I'm referring to stories of people being attacked by dogs roaming in packs, away from human guidance. "Pit Bull type" dogs can mean a lot of things, since Pit Bull is a general term used to describe several breeds of dog. When I say "Pit BUll" I mean the American Pit BUll Terrier, or the Staffordshire Terrier, not the many Mastiffs out there, which resemble the Pit BUll, but are in fact much larger.

Statistics also don't tell the complete story behind the attacks. I firmly believe that people, not dogs, are the main reason why dog attacks in general occur. You can say Rottweiler's contribute to most dog attacks and then jump to the conclusion that they should be banned, or you can attempt to solve the underlying problem that occurs with the owner.

Hmm. You know, I think I'm actually wrong (to some extent) on the misidentification thing. I shouldn't have emphasized that to the point I did. My bad.

 

[cloudwalking]

One thing I've noticed that hasn't really been touched on in this thread is that many people train these sorts of dogs TO be aggressive.

When I was younger, I lived down the street from someone who owned a Rottweiler. This dog was a nasty, mean, fucked up son of a bitch... just like it's owner. This dude kept the dog chained out front of his house, while his entire yard was surrounded by chain-link fence, and plastered with about five "beware of dog" signs. I remember being just a little kid and thinking that dog could probably break the chain in half, jump right over the fence and grab me by the throat if he had the notion.

I've had a good understanding of animals my entire life, and even then I knew that a dog doesn't just grow up to be a ruthless killing machine like that. Even wolves weren't as fucked up and aggressive as this dog. Sure enough, word got around the neighbourhood about what this guy had done to the dog to train it to be, essentially, a killer. When he got the dog as a puppy, he would chain it to a pole in his basement in the dark and throw things at it from all sides, yell at it, smack it around... just basically abuse the shit out of it. The dog never even got a taste of any kind of love or caring. Hell, this guy couldn't even bring the dog in the house -- probably because it would kill him.

Now put a dog that is percieved as a gentle, docile, family-friendly pet in the same situation, such as a Golden Retriever. Can you honestly say that the dog wouldn't turn out with similar results?

I do believe that a dog's instincts will show through from time to time... my mixed breed hound dog does instinctive things that we have never taught her, such as pointing, all the time. But training plays a huge, huge part in how a dog behaves. There are many ways to train a dog, and it seems like a lot of people go about it completely the wrong way.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

One thing I've noticed that hasn't really been touched on in this thread is that many people train these sorts of dogs TO be aggressive.

I know my irreverent posts, and references to robot sex can be annoying at times, but have I really pushed you to the point of using the messageboard's ignore feature on me :lol ? Haha, I've mentioned that a couple times already, but thanks for bringing it up again.

I've had a good understanding of animals my entire life, and even then I knew that a dog doesn't just grow up to be a ruthless killing machine like that. Even wolves weren't as fucked up and aggressive as this dog. Sure enough, word got around the neighbourhood about what this guy had done to the dog to train it to be, essentially, a killer. When he got the dog as a puppy, he would chain it to a pole in his basement in the dark and throw things at it from all sides, yell at it, smack it around... just basically abuse the shit out of it. The dog never even got a taste of any kind of love or caring. Hell, this guy couldn't even bring the dog in the house -- probably because it would kill him.

Now put a dog that is percieved as a gentle, docile, family-friendly pet in the same situation, such as a Golden Retriever. Can you honestly say that the dog wouldn't turn out with similar results?

I do believe that a dog's instincts will show through from time to time... my mixed breed hound dog does instinctive things that we have never taught her, such as pointing, all the time. But training plays a huge, huge part in how a dog behaves. There are many ways to train a dog, and it seems like a lot of people go about it completely the wrong way.

Quoted because people might listen to someone without 'cyborg' in their name.

This is why banning a specific breed won't work in the long run--other breeds can easily substitute the Pit Bull/Rottweiler as human aggressive attackers.

 

[Instigator]

If chihuahuas are trained to be agressive, it can still be kicked into submission by a 8-year-old.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

If chihuahuas are trained to be agressive, it can still be kicked into submission by a 8-year-old.

I'll be sure to train my baby kung fu while it's still in the womb to insure it's not fatally wounded by a toy dog while an infant.

Ban the Pit Bull/Rottweiler, and other breeds of dog will be abused like the Pit Bulls have been.

I'm currently raising a 3 month old Airedale Terrier, which will be 50 - 70 lbs once full grown. Like most terriers, Pit Bulls included, it's very energetic, friendly, intelligent, inquisitive, and -this is important- free thinking. Now, the Airedale Terrier won't have the same power as a Pit Bull, but it most definitely will be a dangerous dog, capable of killing, if improperly trained because all the ingredients are present. Despite the Airedale's physiological and temperamental similarities to the Pit Bull, you never hear about an Airedale attack in the media because the breed isn't:

a. popular amongst the mainstream and
b. popular among dog owners who'd like to mistreat it

However, if we ban the Pit Bull and Rottweiller, breeds not known for the violence, like the Airedale will be exploited, and there will continue to be fatal dog attacks. Let's address the real problem to curtail this string of violence isntead of putting it off so more deaths result.

 

[Instigator]

Ban them and limit access of ownership. All the better.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Ban them and limit access of ownership. All the better.

YOURS DOING GREAT! IM CONVINCED.

 

[Shinobi]

You can argue all you want about some magical temprament index that "proves" pit bulls are docile and friendly. I don't buy it. Hundreds of years of breeding and plenty of statistics say otherwise.

Agreed.

Quoted because people might listen to someone without 'cyborg' in their name.

It's got nothing to do with you. There are plenty of people who've made the same arguments you've made, and quite frankly yours isn't any less "right" or any less rational then mine. I simply don't agree with it.

 

[Deg]

They probably will the way things carrying on. If people cant handle this themselves then then the law will intervene with stricter rules and so on.