Tiny terrier saved kids from pit bulls

[Beantown Bronco]

The only way to truly deal with this problem would be expensive (too expensive most likely to ever reach fruition in the real world), but would be worth it.

Breeders of all dog breeds should be made to go through some type of registration and annual license renewal process with both the govt and the regional "breed club". A DSS type agency should be set up to do regular home visits and check vet records of dogs on the premises, etc.

Training should be made mandatory by all who purchase dogs from breeders. And not just the one hour stop in at the local Petco, etc.

Spaying/neutering dogs should be made mandatory by all casual (non-breeder) buyers.

Local licensing and leash laws need to be enforced and/or made more punitive as well. Right now, the system is a joke and really needs to be reworked.

[BroncoInSkinland]

Yea, well... we're doing a world of good for them now, huh? Pounds full of these dogs waiting to die... people being attacked, the breed being over-bred, used as temporary tough-guy fixtures, then crapped on.

Last I checked, Pit Bulls and PB mixes were among the most euthanized dog breeds. That's doing the breed a world of good, right?

Then there's this little issue of people being killed, kids being attacked, etc.

Yea, doing nothing about the problem is just working wonders for the breed. If they could talk, I'm sure they'd thank us.

http://www.freewebs.com/tlpbr/cagedog.jpg

You are absolutely right, the situation with them is horrible right now. What I am saying is that the solution has nothing to do with a ban on the breed, the situation will only be solved by addressing the issue with the negligent and abusive owners. A whole different argument stems from how to deal with them. Personally I think harsher penalties for animal abuse and neglect couple with more effective enforcement of the laws currently on the books is the way to go. As it stands currently, I have seen owners who have been convicted of animal abuse register new dogs within the week. I am of the opinion that if you are convicted of animal abuse you rights to own animals should be revoked at least for a few years if not permanently. I am unclear, what exactly are you proposing as a solution?

If you are looking at banning the breed, be very careful. From an unemotional standpoint, pits make a very good "tough guy" breed. For starters, they are naturally disposed to not bite humans. While they were originally bred for aggresive traits, it was animal aggression they were going for, and loyalty to owners and humans in general was a high priority as well. Additionally they are one of the smaller breeds currently used in fighting. Banning the breed may reduce the number of maiming headlines, but only to replace maimed with killed. I shudder when I think what would happen if 200+ pound english mastiffs became the new tough guy dog of choice.

I have no doubts regarding your love for animals, and that you are attempting to find a solution to an unnacceptable situation. I think you are a little misguided as to what the possible solution may be. If you have any thoughts I would love to hear them. I got out of the animal control field primarily for money, but I would be lying if I said the topics under discussion here didn't have some impact on my descision to find a new line of work.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You are absolutely right, the situation with them is horrible right now. What I am saying is that the solution has nothing to do with a ban on the breed, the situation will only be solved by addressing the issue with the negligent and abusive owners. A whole different argument stems from how to deal with them. Personally I think harsher penalties for animal abuse and neglect couple with more effective enforcement of the laws currently on the books is the way to go. As it stands currently, I have seen owners who have been convicted of animal abuse register new dogs within the week. I am of the opinion that if you are convicted of animal abuse you rights to own animals should be revoked at least for a few years if not permanently. I am unclear, what exactly are you proposing as a solution?

If you are looking at banning the breed, be very careful. From an unemotional standpoint, pits make a very good "tough guy" breed. For starters, they are naturally disposed to not bite humans. While they were originally bred for aggresive traits, it was animal aggression they were going for, and loyalty to owners and humans in general was a high priority as well. Additionally they are one of the smaller breeds currently used in fighting. Banning the breed may reduce the number of maiming headlines, but only to replace maimed with killed. I shudder when I think what would happen if 200+ pound english mastiffs became the new tough guy dog of choice.

I have no doubts regarding your love for animals, and that you are attempting to find a solution to an unnacceptable situation. I think you are a little misguided as to what the possible solution may be. If you have any thoughts I would love to hear them. I got out of the animal control field primarily for money, but I would be lying if I said the topics under discussion here didn't have some impact on my descision to find a new line of work.
Which means nothing to the criminals and thugs who are using and abusing these dogs.

It's much like cigarettes in a way. Stupid laws because of stupid people are the only solution at times for protecting people.

[Popps]

I have no doubts regarding your love for animals, and that you are attempting to find a solution to an unnacceptable situation. I think you are a little misguided as to what the possible solution may be. If you have any thoughts I would love to hear them.


Either a temporary ban or extreme limitations on ownership and breeding. You'd have to allow (to an extent) for those who already own the breed, but for future owners... much, much tighter regulations.

Your average schmuck who buys a Pitbull puppy from a crappy breeder so he looks like a tough-guy could likely be deterred by requiring him to register as an owner, take classes, fill out paperwork, etc.

Overall, we don't need this many fighting dogs. Yes, I fully understand how wonderful this breed can be. I also understand how awful it can be. Limit the number bred, bought and sold.

Dogs are night a right, they're a privilege. We don't NEED Pitbulls in society. They're a luxury, like any pet. You're not allowed to keep an alligator in your living room, and if we can't get the fighting dog situation under control, there's no societal NEED for them.... and claiming to "love" the breed is no excuse.

If you love the breed, you'd rather see 10 Pitbulls being treated well than millions being **** on.

[BroncoInSkinland]

Well, it is obvious you either don't understand, didn't read, or don't agree with my points regarding another breed filling the void. As you are a courteous and generally well informed poster I am going to guess it is that you don't agree, and thus I will agree to disagree. If your ban/limitations on ownership goes through I will discuss the next fighting breed with you at that point and maybe you will come around. Here is to hoping we are discussing fighting chihuahua's next time and not mastiffs.

[Popps]

Well, it is obvious you either don't understand, didn't read, or don't agree with my points regarding another breed filling the void. .

Sure I did. I was around when Dobbies were the tough breed of choice, and they didn't kill near this many people.

I also don't particularly care what happened 20 years ago. I'm concerned with the Pitbull two doors down that lunges at my dog and kid when we walk by. (Among others) I'm concerned with the rash of attacks.

In short, I'm concerned with the reality of the problem, not the hypothetical and theoretical.

I also understand that you don't think a ban will work. I actually think it would help deter a lot of these problems. Apparently a lot of cities agree, as ordinances are being enacted all over the planet.

[Meck77]

You know I've defended the little critters in the past but I've recently changed my stance. Friend of mine brought their pit up for a visit and it was nothing but a vicious animal. They assured me over and over how sweet the animal was. I've heard the same from other pit owners here. It's not fare to stereo type the entire breed but I've had no less than a dozen other dogs visit my place this summer without incident until that damn pit showed up. Sorry Jake and other pit owners but I'm just not a believer in how sweet they are. Pits are banned from my property from now on.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You know I've defended the little critters in the past but I've recently changed my stance. Friend of mine brought their pit up for a visit and it was nothing but a vicious animal. They assured me over and over how sweet the animal was. I've heard the same from other pit owners here. It's not fare to stereo type the entire breed but I've had no less than a dozen other dogs visit my place this summer without incident until that damn pit showed up. Sorry Jake and other pit owners but I'm just not a believer in how sweet they are. Pits are banned from my property from now on.Ah, one bad apple and the whole basket is rotten eh?

[BroncoInSkinland]

Sure I did. I was around when Dobbies were the tough breed of choice, and they didn't kill near this many people.

I also don't particularly care what happened 20 years ago. I'm concerned with the Pitbull two doors down that lunges at my dog and kid when we walk by. (Among others) I'm concerned with the rash of attacks.

In short, I'm concerned with the reality of the problem, not the hypothetical and theoretical.

I also understand that you don't think a ban will work. I actually think it would help deter a lot of these problems. Apparently a lot of cities agree, as ordinances are being enacted all over the planet.

Regarding dobbies, I put the lower number of incidents down to the overall cultural slide we have experienced since that point in time. The situations in our urban centers have degenerated considerably since then, increased gang activity, violent crimes, and the list goes on.

As to your neighbor, I would approach the situation by trying to talk to him, perhaps giving him the number for a local dog trainer. If that fails talking to animal control would be my next step. That course will probably take quite some time as with our current system literally dozens of complaints must be made before any action is taken, at least that was the situation in my area. Keep pursuing it though and eventually you will probably get the situation resolved in some fashion, hopefully one that is satisfactory to you. You've probably already done some of this, if you hit me with PM's fully detailing the situation I would be glad to discuss the specifics if you think it would help.

As to the reality of the problem, go catch one of the aggressive ones with a pole and a loop of rope. That is about as far as you can get from hypothetical. I appreciate that you think I am talking about a "larger" issue here, but I dealt with this first hand on a daily basis and can assure you that I am not just armchair quarterbacking this.

As to the bans, occassionally in very localized areas they can work. Check with some of the surrounding areas though. You will find that for any decrease in activity, there is an increase in the surrounding areas. That will continue until there is no more room for the problem to expand to. I know because one of the counties I worked next to enacted a ban and we slowly watched the rate of pitbull activity in our area grow over the course of nearly a decade. But it all begs the question what happens when there is no room for the problem to expand to?

This is where the line of though must become hypothetical. The majority at the shelter I worked at believe that the breed will quickly be replaced by another breed. The new breed in all probability will be worse than the current as the dogs will have to be able to hold thier own against any holdout pits. The neighboring county that enacted the ban has already seen a vast increase in the number of Rhodesian Ridgebacks, still a small number of the total dog population there, but growing exponentially. We can argue it in circles all day, and will probably never see eye to eye on it. Again I will simply agree to disagree and hope that either a ban won't happen, or that if it does I am wrong about the results.

[BroncoInSkinland]

Which means nothing to the criminals and thugs who are using and abusing these dogs.

It's much like cigarettes in a way. Stupid laws because of stupid people are the only solution at times for protecting people.

Cigarettes are a great example. The problem here is you are talking about banning only Marlboros. People will just go out and buy Camels.

[orange 4 life]

Jake, they have pictures of the dogs in this case. One happened on video. Now, unless you're saying they went to the pound.... randomly grabbed some pit bulls and planted them to create these "fake" stories, I'd say there might be a little validity, here.

So, please don't tell me that "I don't get it," Jake. I absolutely LOVE dogs, and love the pit bulls I've come into contact. I'm also not going to pull the covers over my face and pretend that there isn't a problem, here. It reminds me a lot of the fans who assume that all of these athlete thugs are innocent every time they're arrested. Sometimes where there's enough smoke there's fire.

Oh, and yea... I want to "kill your dogs," Jake. That was a pretty smart thing for you to say.

dont misunderstand me my friend. i didnt say "dont GET it", i said "dont SEE it".

a subtle difference i admit, but dont SEE it infers that you dont AGREE with it (even though its obvious....sorry, couldnt resist :P ) as opposed to dont UNDERSTAND it.

didnt mean to insult you, and of course the "...do you want to kill my dogs" was just an over the top statement meant to say "what DO you want to do?",
"why are you posting these stories?"

can it be possible that my friend and fellow animal lover actually wants breed specific legislation?
...and if you DO, then you must know that that sort of legislation WOULD mean my dogs being taken and killed (over my dead body, but thats what the law would say)

as for the issue at hand, you must see that i acknowledge that there is a BIG problem.
ive said many times that while MANY of the stories are filled with misleading information, there are of course also SOME cases where an APBT does indeed bite someone.
that said, the REASON that happens is NOT because the breed is aggressive by nature, but instead because by and large they are mistreated. too many tough guys, and theyre the breed of choice right now.
i would also say that while the APBT isnt the killer its made out to be and is often confused with other breeds (or mixes), that doesnt change that we so indeed have a situation in this country that needs to be addressed.

what im saying is that i think its blatantly RIDICULOUS to propose breed specific bans to solve the problem.
some have called it a "bandaid" solution, but honestly i dont even think its a bandaid.
in great britain the number of dog bites stayed the same (and actually went UP although a statistically insignificant amount) after pits were outlawed.
they had issues identifying dogs (obviously), and of course the tough guys over there are the same as the ones here. they just got a different large strong breed of dog.

im also saying that the solution to the problem is breed specific education (for Gods sake lets stop killing innocent dogs many of which are puppies) and more importantly EXTREMELY severe punishments for the HUMANS that abuse and neglect these animals.

....and again, i just honestly cant even fathom how you could possibly disagree with that.

your pal,

jake

[orange 4 life]

You are absolutely right, the situation with them is horrible right now. What I am saying is that the solution has nothing to do with a ban on the breed, the situation will only be solved by addressing the issue with the negligent and abusive owners. A whole different argument stems from how to deal with them. Personally I think harsher penalties for animal abuse and neglect couple with more effective enforcement of the laws currently on the books is the way to go. As it stands currently, I have seen owners who have been convicted of animal abuse register new dogs within the week. I am of the opinion that if you are convicted of animal abuse you rights to own animals should be revoked at least for a few years if not permanently. I am unclear, what exactly are you proposing as a solution?

If you are looking at banning the breed, be very careful. From an unemotional standpoint, pits make a very good "tough guy" breed. For starters, they are naturally disposed to not bite humans. While they were originally bred for aggresive traits, it was animal aggression they were going for, and loyalty to owners and humans in general was a high priority as well. Additionally they are one of the smaller breeds currently used in fighting. Banning the breed may reduce the number of maiming headlines, but only to replace maimed with killed. I shudder when I think what would happen if 200+ pound english mastiffs became the new tough guy dog of choice.

I have no doubts regarding your love for animals, and that you are attempting to find a solution to an unnacceptable situation. I think you are a little misguided as to what the possible solution may be. If you have any thoughts I would love to hear them. I got out of the animal control field primarily for money, but I would be lying if I said the topics under discussion here didn't have some impact on my descision to find a new line of work.

my sentiments exactly, and i think its EXTREMELY important to reiterate your point about "i shudder to think what would happen if 200+ lb. mastiffs became the new 'tough guy' dog of choice."

i do too, and since popps is knowledgeable when it comes to dogs (and understandably ALSO concerned as a new parent) im sure he TOO would have that concern.

popps,
you have FRIENDS that are pitbulls. its AWFUL that so many of these dogs are euthanized in shelters, removed from homes, neglected, abused, and even fought in back alleys, isnt that safer for humans than the plethora of other breeds that could be used instead?

..and yes, pits are overbred right now, but ban them and youll get a NEW "tough guy" dog AND a bunch of backyard turds breeding pits illegally.

can you really not agree with the stance skinland and i are taking?
can you really believe that breed specific legislation will fix the problem?

[Popps]

Again I will simply agree to disagree and hope that either a ban won't happen, or that if it does I am wrong about the results.

You're a bright guy and you make your points well. You're right, some people might just see things differently.

[Popps]

"why are you posting these stories?"



I was actually looking for info on the attack that happened here, locally and couldn't believe how many attacks there have been in the last month alone.
We've had a continue discourse on this thread, so I felt it post-worthy.

can it be possible that my friend and fellow animal lover actually wants breed specific legislation?

Yea, but I think people should have to have a license to have children, too... so maybe that's just me.

Breed-specific? Only if particular breeds seem to be particularly dangerous, and while I DO believe the media loves these stories... I also believe at a certain point, there's some cause for serious concern. Right now, PBs and PB mixes are making a horrible name for themselves and you can't blame people for wanting them out of their neighborhoods.

Again, my personal experience is that they are wonderful dogs... but we've also seen too many examples of the flip-side. Dogs are NOT a right, and a society that can't handle them needs them taken away.

[orange 4 life]

extreme limitations on ownership and breeding. You'd have to allow (to an extent) for those who already own the breed, but for future owners... much, much tighter regulations.

Your average schmuck who buys a Pitbull puppy from a crappy breeder so he looks like a tough-guy could likely be deterred by requiring him to register as an owner, take classes, fill out paperwork, etc.

Overall, we don't need this many fighting dogs. Yes, I fully understand how wonderful this breed can be. I also understand how awful it can be. Limit the number bred, bought and sold.

Dogs are night a right, they're a privilege. We don't NEED Pitbulls in society. They're a luxury, like any pet. You're not allowed to keep an alligator in your living room, and if we can't get the fighting dog situation under control, there's no societal NEED for them.... and claiming to "love" the breed is no excuse.

If you love the breed, you'd rather see 10 Pitbulls being treated well than millions being **** on.

after the 1st sentence (i quoted everything after that) i cant really argue with anything youre saying, other than to clarify your comments on dog fighting.
also, i should say that i think your proposal does more to protect the dogs than people.
again, tough guys will just go get a different breed.

as for the fighting, remember that not all fights are pitbulls (though of course many/most are pits or pitbull type breeds), and regardless of breed REGULATING laws, people will still breed dogs to fight until we punish them severely. there are plenty of other dogs that can entertain these a-holes if they cant get pits.

heck, in new mexico most fighting dogs are mixes already. theyre rhodesian ridgeback and pitbull, shepherd/pit, mastiff/shepherd, etc.
my eldest pit (we're 95% sure he's at least 1/4 ridgeback which is a good mix for fighters because that mix gives a larger frame and snout) was plucked off the highway (main street in rio rancho) before he was 2 months old.
they either dump the runts in the street or attach electrodes to their tongue and testicles and electrocute them. sick stuff, so i can get with legislation to ensure that the breed ends up in good homes, but i find it sick that people want to pass laws that essentially say "kill 'em all".

[orange 4 life]

Apparently a lot of cities agree, as ordinances are being enacted all over the planet.

oh for Gods sake popps, now youre gonna tell me that because its being passed into legislation that its right?

isnt oral sex still illegal in half the states?

[El Minion]

February 6, 2006
A Critic At Large (http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_06_a_pitbull.html)

What pit bulls can teach us about profiling.

1.

One afternoon last February, Guy Clairoux picked up his two-and-a half-year-old son, Jayden, from day care and walked him back to their house in the west end of Ottawa, Ontario. They were almost home. Jayden was straggling behind, and, as his father's back was turned, a pit bull jumped over a back-yard fence and lunged at Jayden. "The dog had his head in its mouth and started to do this shake," Clairoux's wife, JoAnn Hartley, said later. As she watched in horror, two more pit bulls jumped over the fence, joining in the assault. She and Clairoux came running, and he punched the first of the dogs in the head, until it dropped Jayden, and then he threw the boy toward his mother. Hartley fell on her son, protecting him with her body. "JoAnn!" Clairoux cried out, as all three dogs descended on his wife. "Cover your neck, cover your neck." A neighbor, sitting by her window, screamed for help. Her partner and a friend, Mario Gauthier, ran outside. A neighborhood boy grabbed his hockey stick and threw it to Gauthier. He began hitting one of the dogs over the head, until the stick broke. "They wouldn't stop," Gauthier said. "As soon as you'd stop, they'd attack again. I've never seen a dog go so crazy. They were like Tasmanian devils." The police came. The dogs were pulled away, and the Clairouxes and one of the rescuers were taken to the hospital. Five days later, the Ontario legislature banned the ownership of pit bulls. "Just as we wouldn't let a great white shark in a swimming pool," the province's attorney general, Michael Bryant, had said, "maybe we shouldn't have these animals on the civilized streets."

Pit bulls, descendants of the bulldogs used in the nineteenth century for bull baiting and dogfighting, have been bred for "gameness," and thus a lowered inhibition to aggression. Most dogs fight as a last resort, when staring and growling fail. A pit bull is willing to fight with little or no provocation. Pit bulls seem to have a high tolerance for pain, making it possible for them to fight to the point of exhaustion. Whereas guard dogs like German shepherds usually attempt to restrain those they perceive to be threats by biting and holding, pit bulls try to inflict the maximum amount of damage on an opponent. They bite, hold, shake, and tear. They don't growl or assume an aggressive facial expression as warning. They just attack. "They are often insensitive to behaviors that usually stop aggression," one scientific review of the breed states. "For example, dogs not bred for fighting usually display defeat in combat by rolling over and exposing a light underside. On several occasions, pit bulls have been reported to disembowel dogs offering this signal of submission." In epidemiological studies of dog bites, the pit bull is overrepresented among dogs known to have seriously injured or killed human beings, and, as a result, pit bulls have been banned or restricted in several Western European countries, China, and numerous cities and municipalities across North America. Pit bulls are dangerous.

Of course, not all pit bulls are dangerous. Most don't bite anyone. Meanwhile, Dobermans and Great Danes and German shepherds and Rottweilers are frequent biters as well, and the dog that recently mauled a Frenchwoman so badly that she was given the world's first face transplant was, of all things, a Labrador retriever. When we say that pit bulls are dangerous, we are making a generalization, just as insurance companies use generalizations when they charge young men more for car insurance than the rest of us (even though many young men are perfectly good drivers), and doctors use generalizations when they tell overweight middle-aged men to get their cholesterol checked (even though many overweight middle-aged men won't experience heart trouble). Because we don't know which dog will bite someone or who will have a heart attack or which drivers will get in an accident, we can make predictions only by generalizing. As the legal scholar Frederick Schauer has observed, "painting with a broad brush" is "an often inevitable and frequently desirable dimension of our decision-making lives."

Another word for generalization, though, is "stereotype," and stereotypes are usually not considered desirable dimensions of our decision-making lives. The process of moving from the specific to the general is both necessary and perilous. A doctor could, with some statistical support, generalize about men of a certain age and weight. But what if generalizing from other traits—such as high blood pressure, family history, and smoking—saved more lives? Behind each generalization is a choice of what factors to leave in and what factors to leave out, and those choices can prove surprisingly complicated. After the attack on Jayden Clairoux, the Ontario government chose to make a generalization about pit bulls. But it could also have chosen to generalize about powerful dogs, or about the kinds of people who own powerful dogs, or about small children, or about back-yard fences—or, indeed, about any number of other things to do with dogs and people and places. How do we know when we've made the right generalization?

2.

In July of last year, following the transit bombings in London, the New York City Police Department announced that it would send officers into the subways to conduct random searches of passengers' bags. On the face of it, doing random searches in the hunt for terrorists—as opposed to being guided by generalizations—seems like a silly idea. As a columnist in New York wrote at the time, "Not just 'most' but nearly every jihadi who has attacked a Western European or American target is a young Arab or Pakistani man. In other words, you can predict with a fair degree of certainty what an Al Qaeda terrorist looks like. Just as we have always known what Mafiosi look like—even as we understand that only an infinitesimal fraction of Italian-Americans are members of the mob."

But wait: do we really know what mafiosi look like? In "The Godfather," where most of us get our knowledge of the Mafia, the male members of the Corleone family were played by Marlon Brando, who was of Irish and French ancestry, James Caan, who is Jewish, and two Italian-Americans, Al Pacino and John Cazale. To go by "The Godfather," mafiosi look like white men of European descent, which, as generalizations go, isn't terribly helpful. Figuring out what an Islamic terrorist looks like isn't any easier. Muslims are not like the Amish: they don't come dressed in identifiable costumes. And they don't look like basketball players; they don't come in predictable shapes and sizes. Islam is a religion that spans the globe.

"We have a policy against racial profiling," Raymond Kelly, New York City's police commissioner, told me. "I put it in here in March of the first year I was here. It's the wrong thing to do, and it's also ineffective. If you look at the London bombings, you have three British citizens of Pakistani descent. You have Germaine Lindsay, who is Jamaican. You have the next crew, on July 21st, who are East African. You have a Chechen woman in Moscow in early 2004 who blows herself up in the subway station. So whom do you profile? Look at New York City. Forty per cent of New Yorkers are born outside the country. Look at the diversity here. Who am I supposed to profile?"

Kelly was pointing out what might be called profiling's "category problem." Generalizations involve matching a category of people to a behavior or trait—overweight middle-aged men to heart-attack risk, young men to bad driving. But, for that process to work, you have to be able both to define and to identify the category you are generalizing about. "You think that terrorists aren't aware of how easy it is to be characterized by ethnicity?" Kelly went on. "Look at the 9/11 hijackers. They came here. They shaved. They went to topless bars. They wanted to blend in. They wanted to look like they were part of the American dream. These are not dumb people. Could a terrorist dress up as a Hasidic Jew and walk into the subway, and not be profiled? Yes. I think profiling is just nuts."

3.

Pit-bull bans involve a category problem, too, because pit bulls, as it happens, aren't a single breed. The name refers to dogs belonging to a number of related breeds, such as the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and the American pit bull terrier—all of which share a square and muscular body, a short snout, and a sleek, short-haired coat. Thus the Ontario ban prohibits not only these three breeds but any "dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar" to theirs; the term of art is "pit bull-type" dogs. But what does that mean? Is a cross between an American pit bull terrier and a golden retriever a pit bull-type dog or a golden retriever-type dog? If thinking about muscular terriers as pit bulls is a generalization, then thinking about dangerous dogs as anything substantially similar to a pit bull is a generalization about a generalization. "The way a lot of these laws are written, pit bulls are whatever they say they are," Lora Brashears, a kennel manager in Pennsylvania, says. "And for most people it just means big, nasty, scary dog that bites."

The goal of pit-bull bans, obviously, isn't to prohibit dogs that look like pit bulls. The pit-bull appearance is a proxy for the pit-bull temperament—for some trait that these dogs share. But "pit bullness" turns out to be elusive as well. The supposedly troublesome characteristics of the pit-bull type—its gameness, its determination, its insensitivity to pain—are chiefly directed toward other dogs. Pit bulls were not bred to fight humans. On the contrary: a dog that went after spectators, or its handler, or the trainer, or any of the other people involved in making a dogfighting dog a good dogfighter was usually put down. (The rule in the pit-bull world was "Man-eaters die.")

A Georgia-based group called the American Temperament Test Society has put twenty-five thousand dogs through a ten-part standardized drill designed to assess a dog's stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness in the company of people. A handler takes a dog on a six-foot lead and judges its reaction to stimuli such as gunshots, an umbrella opening, and a weirdly dressed stranger approaching in a threatening way. Eighty-four per cent of the pit bulls that have been given the test have passed, which ranks pit bulls ahead of beagles, Airedales, bearded collies, and all but one variety of dachshund. "We have tested somewhere around a thousand pit-bull-type dogs," Carl Herkstroeter, the president of the A.T.T.S., says. "I've tested half of them. And of the number I've tested I have disqualified one pit bull because of aggressive tendencies. They have done extremely well. They have a good temperament. They are very good with children." It can even be argued that the same traits that make the pit bull so aggressive toward other dogs are what make it so nice to humans. "There are a lot of pit bulls these days who are licensed therapy dogs," the writer Vicki Hearne points out. "Their stability and resoluteness make them excellent for work with people who might not like a more bouncy, flibbertigibbet sort of dog. When pit bulls set out to provide comfort, they are as resolute as they are when they fight, but what they are resolute about is being gentle. And, because they are fearless, they can be gentle with anybody."

Then which are the pit bulls that get into trouble? "The ones that the legislation is geared toward have aggressive tendencies that are either bred in by the breeder, trained in by the trainer, or reinforced in by the owner," Herkstroeter says. A mean pit bull is a dog that has been turned mean, by selective breeding, by being cross-bred with a bigger, human-aggressive breed like German shepherds or Rottweilers, or by being conditioned in such a way that it begins to express hostility to human beings. A pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not to the extent that it expresses its essential pit bullness but to the extent that it deviates from it. A pit-bull ban is a generalization about a generalization about a trait that is not, in fact, general. That's a category problem.

[El Minion]

4.

One of the puzzling things about New York City is that, after the enormous and well-publicized reductions in crime in the mid-nineteen-nineties, the crime rate has continued to fall. In the past two years, for instance, murder in New York has declined by almost ten per cent, rape by twelve per cent, and burglary by more than eighteen per cent. Just in the last year, auto theft went down 11.8 per cent. On a list of two hundred and forty cities in the United States with a population of a hundred thousand or more, New York City now ranks two hundred-and-twenty-second in crime, down near the bottom with Fontana, California, and Port St. Lucie, Florida. In the nineteen-nineties, the crime decrease was attributed to big obvious changes in city life and government—the decline of the drug trade, the gentrification of Brooklyn, the successful implementation of "broken windows" policing. But all those big changes happened a decade ago. Why is crime still falling?

The explanation may have to do with a shift in police tactics. The N.Y.P.D. has a computerized map showing, in real time, precisely where serious crimes are being reported, and at any moment the map typically shows a few dozen constantly shifting high-crime hot spots, some as small as two or three blocks square. What the N.Y.P.D. has done, under Commissioner Kelly, is to use the map to establish "impact zones," and to direct newly graduated officers—who used to be distributed proportionally to precincts across the city—to these zones, in some cases doubling the number of officers in the immediate neighborhood. "We took two-thirds of our graduating class and linked them with experienced officers, and focussed on those areas," Kelly said. "Well, what has happened is that over time we have averaged about a thirty-five-per-cent crime reduction in impact zones."

For years, experts have maintained that the incidence of violent crime is "inelastic" relative to police presence—that people commit serious crimes because of poverty and psychopathology and cultural dysfunction, along with spontaneous motives and opportunities. The presence of a few extra officers down the block, it was thought, wouldn't make much difference. But the N.Y.P.D. experience suggests otherwise. More police means that some crimes are prevented, others are more easily solved, and still others are displaced—pushed out of the troubled neighborhood—which Kelly says is a good thing, because it disrupts the patterns and practices and social networks that serve as the basis for lawbreaking. In other words, the relation between New York City (a category) and criminality (a trait) is unstable, and this kind of instability is another way in which our generalizations can be derailed.

Why, for instance, is it a useful rule of thumb that Kenyans are good distance runners? It's not just that it's statistically supportable today. It's that it has been true for almost half a century, and that in Kenya the tradition of distance running is sufficiently rooted that something cataclysmic would have to happen to dislodge it. By contrast, the generalization that New York City is a crime-ridden place was once true and now, manifestly, isn't. People who moved to sunny retirement communities like Port St. Lucie because they thought they were much safer than New York are suddenly in the position of having made the wrong bet.

The instability issue is a problem for profiling in law enforcement as well. The law professor David Cole once tallied up some of the traits that Drug Enforcement Administration agents have used over the years in making generalizations about suspected smugglers. Here is a sample:

Arrived late at night; arrived early in the morning; arrived in afternoon; one of the first to deplane; one of the last to deplane; deplaned in the middle; purchased ticket at the airport; made reservation on short notice; bought coach ticket; bought first-class ticket; used one-way ticket; used round-trip ticket; paid for ticket with cash; paid for ticket with small denomination currency; paid for ticket with large denomination currency; made local telephone calls after deplaning; made long distance telephone call after deplaning; pretended to make telephone call; traveled from New York to Los Angeles; traveled to Houston; carried no luggage; carried brand-new luggage; carried a small bag; carried a medium-sized bag; carried two bulky garment bags; carried two heavy suitcases; carried four pieces of luggage; overly protective of luggage; disassociated self from luggage; traveled alone; traveled with a companion; acted too nervous; acted too calm; made eye contact with officer; avoided making eye contact with officer; wore expensive clothing and jewelry; dressed casually; went to restroom after deplaning; walked rapidly through airport; walked slowly through airport; walked aimlessly through airport; left airport by taxi; left airport by limousine; left airport by private car; left airport by hotel courtesy van.

Some of these reasons for suspicion are plainly absurd, suggesting that there's no particular rationale to the generalizations used by D.E.A. agents in stopping suspected drug smugglers. A way of making sense of the list, though, is to think of it as a catalogue of unstable traits. Smugglers may once have tended to buy one-way tickets in cash and carry two bulky suitcases. But they don't have to. They can easily switch to round-trip tickets bought with a credit card, or a single carry-on bag, without losing their capacity to smuggle. There's a second kind of instability here as well. Maybe the reason some of them switched from one-way tickets and two bulky suitcases was that law enforcement got wise to those habits, so the smugglers did the equivalent of what the jihadis seemed to have done in London, when they switched to East Africans because the scrutiny of young Arab and Pakistani men grew too intense. It doesn't work to generalize about a relationship between a category and a trait when that relationship isn't stable—or when the act of generalizing may itself change the basis of the generalization.

Before Kelly became the New York police commissioner, he served as the head of the U.S. Customs Service, and while he was there he overhauled the criteria that border-control officers use to identify and search suspected smugglers. There had been a list of forty-three suspicious traits. He replaced it with a list of six broad criteria. Is there something suspicious about their physical appearance? Are they nervous? Is there specific intelligence targeting this person? Does the drug-sniffing dog raise an alarm? Is there something amiss in their paperwork or explanations? Has contraband been found that implicates this person?

You'll find nothing here about race or gender or ethnicity, and nothing here about expensive jewelry or deplaning at the middle or the end, or walking briskly or walking aimlessly. Kelly removed all the unstable generalizations, forcing customs officers to make generalizations about things that don't change from one day or one month to the next. Some percentage of smugglers will always be nervous, will always get their story wrong, and will always be caught by the dogs. That's why those kinds of inferences are more reliable than the ones based on whether smugglers are white or black, or carry one bag or two. After Kelly's reforms, the number of searches conducted by the Customs Service dropped by about seventy-five per cent, but the number of successful seizures improved by twenty-five per cent. The officers went from making fairly lousy decisions about smugglers to making pretty good ones. "We made them more efficient and more effective at what they were doing," Kelly said.

5.

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

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

There is no shortage of more stable generalizations about dangerous dogs, though. A 1991 study in Denver, for example, compared a hundred and seventy-eight dogs with a history of biting people with a random sample of a hundred and seventy-eight dogs with no history of biting. The breeds were scattered: German shepherds, Akitas, and Chow Chows were among those most heavily represented. (There were no pit bulls among the biting dogs in the study, because Denver banned pit bulls in 1989.) But a number of other, more stable factors stand out. The biters were 6.2 times as likely to be male than female, and 2.6 times as likely to be intact than neutered. The Denver study also found that biters were 2.8 times as likely to be chained as unchained. "About twenty per cent of the dogs involved in fatalities were chained at the time, and had a history of long-term chaining," Lockwood said. "Now, are they chained because they are aggressive or aggressive because they are chained? It's a bit of both. These are animals that have not had an opportunity to become socialized to people. They don't necessarily even know that children are small human beings. They tend to see them as prey."

In many cases, vicious dogs are hungry or in need of medical attention. Often, the dogs had a history of aggressive incidents, and, overwhelmingly, dog-bite victims were children (particularly small boys) who were physically vulnerable to attack and may also have unwittingly done things to provoke the dog, like teasing it, or bothering it while it was eating. The strongest connection of all, though, is between the trait of dog viciousness and certain kinds of dog owners. In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog. The junk-yard German shepherd—which looks as if it would rip your throat out—and the German-shepherd guide dog are the same breed. But they are not the same dog, because they have owners with different intentions.

"A fatal dog attack is not just a dog bite by a big or aggressive dog," Lockwood went on. "It is usually a perfect storm of bad human-canine interactions—the wrong dog, the wrong background, the wrong history in the hands of the wrong person in the wrong environmental situation. I've been involved in many legal cases involving fatal dog attacks, and, certainly, it's my impression that these are generally cases where everyone is to blame. You've got the unsupervised three-year-old child wandering in the neighborhood killed by a starved, abused dog owned by the dogfighting boyfriend of some woman who doesn't know where her child is. It's not old Shep sleeping by the fire who suddenly goes bonkers. Usually there are all kinds of other warning signs."

6.

Jayden Clairoux was attacked by Jada, a pit-bull terrier, and her two pit-bull–bullmastiff puppies, Agua and Akasha. The dogs were owned by a twenty-one-year-old man named Shridev Café, who worked in construction and did odd jobs. Five weeks before the Clairoux attack, Café's three dogs got loose and attacked a sixteen-year-old boy and his four-year-old half brother while they were ice skating. The boys beat back the animals with a snow shovel and escaped into a neighbor's house. Café was fined, and he moved the dogs to his seventeen-year-old girlfriend's house. This was not the first time that he ran into trouble last year; a few months later, he was charged with domestic assault, and, in another incident, involving a street brawl, with aggravated assault. "Shridev has personal issues," Cheryl Smith, a canine-behavior specialist who consulted on the case, says. "He's certainly not a very mature person." Agua and Akasha were now about seven months old. The court order in the wake of the first attack required that they be muzzled when they were outside the home and kept in an enclosed yard. But Café did not muzzle them, because, he said later, he couldn't afford muzzles, and apparently no one from the city ever came by to force him to comply. A few times, he talked about taking his dogs to obedience classes, but never did. The subject of neutering them also came up—particularly Agua, the male—but neutering cost a hundred dollars, which he evidently thought was too much money, and when the city temporarily confiscated his animals after the first attack it did not neuter them, either, because Ottawa does not have a policy of preëmptively neutering dogs that bite people.

On the day of the second attack, according to some accounts, a visitor came by the house of Café's girlfriend, and the dogs got wound up. They were put outside, where the snowbanks were high enough so that the back-yard fence could be readily jumped. Jayden Clairoux stopped and stared at the dogs, saying, "Puppies, puppies." His mother called out to his father. His father came running, which is the kind of thing that will rile up an aggressive dog. The dogs jumped the fence, and Agua took Jayden's head in his mouth and started to shake. It was a textbook dog-biting case: unneutered, ill-trained, charged-up dogs, with a history of aggression and an irresponsible owner, somehow get loose, and set upon a small child. The dogs had already passed through the animal bureaucracy of Ottawa, and the city could easily have prevented the second attack with the right kind of generalization—a generalization based not on breed but on the known and meaningful connection between dangerous dogs and negligent owners. But that would have required someone to track down Shridev Café, and check to see whether he had bought muzzles, and someone to send the dogs to be neutered after the first attack, and an animal-control law that insured that those whose dogs attack small children forfeit their right to have a dog. It would have required, that is, a more exacting set of generalizations to be more exactingly applied. It's always easier just to ban the breed.

[orange 4 life]

You know I've defended the little critters in the past but I've recently changed my stance. Friend of mine brought their pit up for a visit and it was nothing but a vicious animal. They assured me over and over how sweet the animal was. I've heard the same from other pit owners here. It's not fare to stereo type the entire breed but I've had no less than a dozen other dogs visit my place this summer without incident until that damn pit showed up. Sorry Jake and other pit owners but I'm just not a believer in how sweet they are. Pits are banned from my property from now on.

youre entitled to protect your property as you see fit, but let me ask/say this.

was the dog aggressive towards humans or other animals?
if he was aggressive towards other animals and the owner didnt understand and/or EXPECT that, then i would say he's probably not a very knowledgeable pitbull owner, and even though he MAY well be a good person, its the uneducated as well as the abusers that cause the problem.

see, a pitbull by nature is EXTREMELY aggressive towards other animals, must be socialized with other animals at a VERY young age, and even THEN should be watched ALL THE TIME when around other animals.
if your friend knew this, he shouldve talked to you before bringing the dog over.

hopefully you dont blame the dogs. youve seen mine. they wouldnt hurt you in a million years........but my elder pit (they younger is afraid of his own shadow) might tear your dog apart if i left them alone.
pits are very docile with children and strangers, and very aggressive with other animals.
they also require ALOT of love, attention, and time, and people should know that before bringing one (or two :D ) into the family.

jake

[DenverFanMan6]

<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on" width="100%"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">My dog Got attacked about two weeks ago by 3 pits and took on all three of them till they all attacked at once my dogis a blue heeler german shepard mix the dogs do not quit i started hitting them with a bat and they wouldn't quit so i hit one of them in the head and later that dog died but the other two still live up the street.
</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[BroncoInSkinland]

February 6, 2006
A Critic At Large (http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_06_a_pitbull.html)

What pit bulls can teach us about profiling.

1.

One afternoon last February, Guy Clairoux picked up his two-and-a half-year-old son, Jayden, from day care and walked him back to their house in the west end of Ottawa, Ontario etc...

Long, but well worth the read. Rep.

[Popps]

What pit bulls can teach us about profiling.

Profiling? That's awfully sensational.

How about just using discretion. I'd likely leave my child with a hamster before I left her with a python. Does that mean I'm "profiling," or just using some simple logic.

Let's not confuse issues, here. We're not talking about black people being pulled over by the police without cause. We're talking about pitbulls mauling people, many of which were PHOTOGRAPHED afterwards and a few caught right on tape.

[Popps]

oh for Gods sake popps, now youre gonna tell me that because its being passed into legislation that its right?

isnt oral sex still illegal in half the states?

Sure, Jake... and conversely, I'm sure you'd agree that many ordinances are legitimate, right? Should children be allowed to play with guns? No? Good, there's laws against it.

So, I think we can try to compare apples to apples when we're talking about 2 year olds being mauled to death, and a couple engaging in consensual sex. Just a bit different.

Personally, I'd be more interested in legislation that went right after the breeders, but a temporary ban wouldn't bug me, either... provided that those who already own the breed have a way to register and get an exemption.

[orange 4 life]

What pit bulls can teach us about profiling.

Profiling? That's awfully sensational.

How about just using discretion. I'd likely leave my child with a hamster before I left her with a python. Does that mean I'm "profiling," or just using some simple logic.

Let's not confuse issues, here. We're not talking about black people being pulled over by the police without cause. We're talking about pitbulls mauling people, many of which were PHOTOGRAPHED afterwards and a few caught right on tape.

I didnt use the word profiling because i KNEW you and others would say its sensational, and to a degree, it is.

that said, i must admit that every time this discussion comes up racial profiling is EXACTLY what goes through my mind, and even horrible effects of profiling and/or discrimination like the holocaust.
yes, its sensational, and no, a dog isnt a human, but for me they ARE members of our family, and they are WONDERFULLY sweet dogs that are safer than any other dogs ive ever met or ever had myself, and ive been around alot (we fostered dogs for a long time) and adopted alot including the 3 we have now.

it angers me when people propose legislation that leads to thousands of animals (again, many just puppies) being slaughtered simply because a select FEW amongst that breed have caused trouble.
it angers me even more when closer examination (this long case study above is another great example) reveals that in most of those select few cases the animal was abused and/or neglected.

popps, you proposed some strict laws (similar to gun control advocacy legislation) that could help prevent bad owners from getting their hands on these animals.
i wouldnt fight that at all, but i would still say the problem at large wouldnt be solved, and i dont believe that will happen until we get strong with the humans at fault, and all the proposed breed specific legislation just covers up the real issue which is that the people (like mr mexico) giving these animals a bad name arent dealt with in the manner they should be, and i include your neighbor (and MAYBE mecks friend) in that group.

[orange 4 life]

Sure, Jake... and conversely, I'm sure you'd agree that many ordinances are legitimate, right? Should children be allowed to play with guns? No? Good, there's laws against it.

So, I think we can try to compare apples to apples when we're talking about 2 year olds being mauled to death, and a couple engaging in consensual sex. Just a bit different.

Personally, I'd be more interested in legislation that went right after the breeders, but a temporary ban wouldn't bug me, either... provided that those who already own the breed have a way to register and get an exemption.

kudos my friend.
my point was just that because its been made law in some places in of itself doesnt make it right, and im sure you would agree.

i would also of course agree 100% with (and would campaign for) legislation that targets backyard breeders AND these tough guy owners who think big dog equals big weiner.
i would reluctantly (as a compromise) go along with legislation that makes it extremely difficult to adopt a pitbull, and i would encourage anyone who wants to adopt ANY animal to learn about the characteristics of that animal or breed.

still, ANY form of breed specific ban i find archaic and unconscionable.

[shakenbake]

youre entitled to protect your property as you see fit, but let me ask/say this.

was the dog aggressive towards humans or other animals?
if he was aggressive towards other animals and the owner didnt understand and/or EXPECT that, then i would say he's probably not a very knowledgeable pitbull owner, and even though he MAY well be a good person, its the uneducated as well as the abusers that cause the problem.

see, a pitbull by nature is EXTREMELY aggressive towards other animals, must be socialized with other animals at a VERY young age, and even THEN should be watched ALL THE TIME when around other animals.
if your friend knew this, he shouldve talked to you before bringing the dog over.

hopefully you dont blame the dogs. youve seen mine. they wouldnt hurt you in a million years........but my elder pit (they younger is afraid of his own shadow) might tear your dog apart if i left them alone.
pits are very docile with children and strangers, and very aggressive with other animals.
they also require ALOT of love, attention, and time, and people should know that before bringing one (or two :D ) into the family.

jake

This has been one of my complaints about pit bulls, the natural aggression toward other dogs. What happens to the guy who is walking his dog down the street only to see a pit bull come up and attack it. His natural reaction is going to be to try to protect his dog, and therefore he is putting himself at risk. Some (most) people are very close to their pets and would most likely try to save their dog even if they get injured in the process.

[El Minion]

What pit bulls can teach us about profiling.

Profiling? That's awfully sensational.

How about just using discretion. I'd likely leave my child with a hamster before I left her with a python. Does that mean I'm "profiling," or just using some simple logic.

Let's not confuse issues, here. We're not talking about black people being pulled over by the police without cause. We're talking about pitbulls mauling people, many of which were PHOTOGRAPHED afterwards and a few caught right on tape.

Did you even read the article? Talk about profiling, stereotyping an article by it's headline.

[orange 4 life]

This has been one of my complaints about pit bulls, the natural aggression toward other dogs. What happens to the guy who is walking his dog down the street only to see a pit bull come up and attack it. His natural reaction is going to be to try to protect his dog, and therefore he is putting himself at risk. Some (most) people are very close to their pets and would most likely try to save their dog even if they get injured in the process.

fair thought and fair question, though notice i said "if i left them alone."

both my pits (the elder is 1/4 rhodesian ridgeback) are fantastic around other dogs, but ive also been VERY patient, encouraging, loving, and strong handed in disciplining them, because im aware of their natural tendencies.
theyre rated amongst the very BEST in reliability with strangers and children, but amongst the WORST in reliability with other animals.

that said, if socialized from a young age, they are very smart and can thus be taught to be tolerant of other dogs.
heck, my dogs were afraid of my sisters (very aggressive) spaniel!!
still though, the smart thing to do is to not ever leave them alone with strange animals since not having daddy (okay, so im lame and say "daddys little boys" to my dogs Ha! ) around could bring out the fight in them.

also, while i understand that many other people DONT properly teach their pets, you should remember that unless neglected or abused (and really even then) its EXTREMELY unlikely that a pitbull would hurt a human EVEN if attacking another dog.
he (or she) might unknowingly hurt a human in the process, but it would be unintentional and almost surely minor if anything.
its against their very nature to hurt a human.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Cigarettes are a great example. The problem here is you are talking about banning only Marlboros. People will just go out and buy Camels.Your analogy doesn't apply since many breeds are no threat to kill other dogs and people and the others that are, rarely, if ever do.

[Popps]

Today's attack...

http://blog.silive.com/advanceupdate/2007/06/cops_offduty_officer_shoots_fa.html

You can almost just sit and refresh your browser and get a new attack story.

This time a cop shot his own dog.

[BroncoInSkinland]

Your analogy doesn't apply since many breeds are no threat to kill other dogs and people and the others that are, rarely, if ever do.

Many of the attacks attributed to pit bulls are actually from other breeds, witness O4L's multiple posts and the link to the website he provided. Further if a ban is passed on pits, and say Canarios become the new tough guy breed of choice I guarantee you will be seeing new headlines with different names.

[v2micca]

Your analogy doesn't apply since many breeds are no threat to kill other dogs and people and the others that are, rarely, if ever do.

Actually, I think the analogy still works to a degree there have been several documented cases of Pit Bull owners attempting and successfully registering or listing the animals as similar looking breeds, such as the Argentine Dogo to specifically get around the banning laws. This of course has caused anger among Argentine Dogo owners who fear that it could eventually lead to their breed being banned as well.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Many of the attacks attributed to pit bulls are actually from other breeds, witness O4L's multiple posts and the link to the website he provided. Further if a ban is passed on pits, and say Canarios become the new tough guy breed of choice I guarantee you will be seeing new headlines with different names.I posted the most detailed stats available unless you have something that disproves those stats?


------------------------------------------------------------------

The dogs that are most responsible (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html)

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% 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. Clifton states:

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.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "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."

One of the most detailed studies of dog attacks in the USA is Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006.

(http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf)

[orange 4 life]

slug,

ive posted a WEALTH of information about those figures, including a prelude that cautions AGAINST using them to deduce that breed specific legislation is the way to go.
they admit that "pitbull" encompasses many different breeds, AND they admit that theyre dependant on the way the case was reported (and ive shown many of those errors already also) to determine the breed in the 1st place.
i also posted information from a comprehensive study (and book) that USED those stats and then studied the INDIVIDUAL cases that resulted in death.

EVERYTHING points to those stats being misleading, and even if they WERE accurate i'd still be rather impressed considering how many of these dogs are neglected and abused.

we have someone here that sees these animals every day telling us he
d be terrified to see what the next "tough guy" dog would be if pits werent around, yet some apparently still see breed specific legislation as an answer.
like skinland suggested, breed specific legislation would likely cause a GREATER problem.

[orange 4 life]

all the info and a few links are posted earlier on this thread.

[orange 4 life]

Today's attack...

http://blog.silive.com/advanceupdate/2007/06/cops_offduty_officer_shoots_fa.html

You can almost just sit and refresh your browser and get a new attack story.

This time a cop shot his own dog.

pit/mastiff
scary combo, and anyone familiar will tell you that a mastiff would be MUCH worse as the "tough guy" dog.
in fact, i think skinland used that example on this thread, though i could be wrong.

anyway, you can absolutely find a new case everyday. we DO have a problem.
its just not the problem many think it is.
the problem is with our CULTURE. the problem is with the PEOPLE.
just like its easy for simple minded football fans to blame ALL the problems of a team on its qb (we saw how that worked here last season), its easy for people here to blame the problem on one breed.

as a matter of fact, many of these stories are sensationalized. many are misreported.
lets stop looking at one breed as the scapegoat and START calling for tougher laws against the humans causing the problem.

[orange 4 life]

by the way, great pic popps.

nothing cuter than a dog loving the children. i was gonna pm you and ask how that was going for you, but the pic answers that question. good to see bella cuddling with her newest family member!!

[BroncoInSkinland]

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study etc...

pit/mastiff
scary combo, and anyone familiar will tell you that a mastiff would be MUCH worse as the "tough guy" dog.
in fact, i think skinland used that example on this thread, though i could be wrong.

Actually that makes 2 for 2 on breeds that I mentioned cited in articles. Sadly enough I'm batting 1.000. I would like to thank them for helping support my argument though, maybe if they keep posting articles I won't have to keep saying all this stuff.

The dogs that are most responsible (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html)

Clifton manages to get a lot wrong, but right here in the tittle is his biggest mistake. In almost every case the dog isn't responsible, the abusive/neglectful owner is. Why target the breed and get, according to him, 70% of those "responsible", when we can target the owners instead and get 99.9% with a lot less collateral damage?

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings.

Two points to address here.

1. I wonder why he included Canarios? Probably because even though they are one of the lowest represented breeds as far as numbers go, they still figure very high in incidents of attacks, and they also nicely skew his data set to push the death and maiming %'s higher. I cant wait to have tens of thousands of these on the streets after owners beat the hell out of them and starve them for a little while.

2. 74% of all attacks, but only 65% and 68% of the deaths and maimings? Sounds like there may be some dogs out there that are more likely to kill and maim than those listed. I wonder what the next tough guy breed will be. Maybe we can launch an ad campaign to make Yorkshire terriers seem macho.

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.

Thanks for the opinion there Mr. Clifton, but the numbers you cited in the paragraph above just don't support this. Good job jumping on the media bandwagon though, just a couple more and I am sure the wheels will fall off. That is the same media bandwagon thats creating that actuarial risk you mentioned, not the statistical data that you so masterfully misrepresented. Speaking of bandwagons I hear the Chargers are going to win a superbowl soon, why don't you try your hand at sportswritter. I am fairly certain you couldn't do any worse with that.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Clifton manages to get a lot wrong, but right here in the tittle is his biggest mistake. In almost every case the dog isn't responsible, the abusive/neglectful owner is. Why target the breed and get, according to him, 70% of those "responsible", when we can target the owners instead and get 99.9% with a lot less collateral damage? I already addressed this but you didn't respond. Criminals don't care about laws in particular. But they know if they possess something in the open that is against the law that will bring the heat down on them. Also, over 65% attacks were by animals that people said had NEVER exhibited that type of behavior before.


Two points to address here.

1. I wonder why he included Canarios? Probably because even though they are one of the lowest represented breeds as far as numbers go, they still figure very high in incidents of attacks, and they also nicely skew his data set to push the death and maiming %'s higher. I cant wait to have tens of thousands of these on the streets after owners beat the hell out of them and starve them for a little while. Uh, exactly how do they skew the numbers? (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf) Did you read them?

2. 74% of all attacks, but only 65% and 68% of the deaths and maimings? Sounds like there may be some dogs out there that are more likely to kill and maim than those listed. I wonder what the next tough guy breed will be. Maybe we can launch an ad campaign to make Yorkshire terriers seem macho. Please do tell?

Thanks for the opinion there Mr. Clifton, but the numbers you cited in the paragraph above just don't support this. The numbers absolutely do support that opinion.

In Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them, it has been pointed out that the dog bite epidemic as a whole involves all dogs and all dog owners, not just the breeds most likely to kill.

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

* Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.

* An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).

* Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

To learn more about dog attacks, see Why dogs bite people To learn about how to take some of the bite out of the dog bite epidemic, see Attorney Kenneth Phillips' 10-point plan for Preventing Dog Bites.

[BroncoInSkinland]

I already addressed this but you didn't respond. Criminals don't care about laws in particular. But they know if they possess something in the open that is against the law that will bring the heat down on them. Also, over 65% attacks were by animals that people said had NEVER exhibited that type of behavior before.

Had the local Animal Control agencies been notified of the neglect/abusive conditions these animals were living in? Unfortunately, without a lot of research you won't be able to answer that. In my experience the answer is yes in most of the cases, these dogs had some sort of negative contact with Animal Control that was an indicator of a problem. The problem is that Animal neglect/abuse isn't seen as a true crime by prosecutors. It is almost impossible to remove a dog from an abussive home. The dog is considered that owners property, and he/she can do with it as they please in the eyes of many lawyers, even if it is going to set up a future maiming/killing.

Uh, exactly how do they skew the numbers? (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf) Did you read them?

Actually I didn't reread them this time. I read them when you originally posted them a month or so ago (I think thats roughly the time frame, though my memory on it is a little hazy). At your prompting I went back and reread them and fully analyzed them.

After looking over them, it is true that Pitbulls have more bites than any other breed, perhaps the fact that pitbulls are the most commonly abused and neglected dogs has something to do with that. Despite all the other footnotes the author includes, that particular sad fact is not taken into account in his report.

What I find more interesting however is the percentage of fatal and maiming incidents when compared to the number of bite incidents for particular breeds. You were right, Canarios do not pull up the figures on maimings, which suprised me. They do however pull up the numbers on fatalities. While under 10% of all pitbull and pitbull mix attacks were fatal, exactly 20% of Canario attacks were. That is what I mean by skewing the numbers.

When I looked at the overall percentages I was a bit suprised, I knew there were some breeds out there more dangerous than Pits, but I didn't know it was that many. I looked only at samples I thought had large enough pools of information to be useful and discovered that if you are attacked by Chows (12.3%), Mastiffs (25%), German Shepherds (14.3%), Huskies (33.3%), and Dobbermans (27.3%) you were more likely to be killed than if you were attacked by a Pitbull (9.3%). If you were attacked by Akitas (82.1%), Chows (66.6%), Mastiffs (56.2%), German Shepherds (60.2%), Dobbermans (63.6%), and Labradors (79.5%) you were more likely to be maimed than if attacked by a Pitbull (54.7%).

They didn't have a large enough sample on some of the more exotic breeds like Thai Ridgebacks and I pray they never do. If you start extrapolating these numbers to fit the larger population of "tough guy" dogs, and the inherant rise in the chances of bites if these animals are neglected and abused, as they most likely will be if they become the "cool" dog to have, you realize the number of bites will rise drastically and so of course will the number of maimings and fatalities.

Please do tell?

See above.

The numbers absolutely do support that opinion.

See above.

Look, I know you don't believe me on this issue. Further I know I won't be able to convince you even with my personal experience. I have had this argument far to many times to be that naive. It is like arguing abortion with some one, wether they are pro-choice or pro-life, they already have thier minds made up and nothing short of a life changing personal experience with the subject at hand is likely to change thier view. Knowing this, I will once again simply agree to disagree and move on.

[orange 4 life]

again slug,

i already cited numerous sources that show how COMPLETELY misleading those numbers are. read it all and then tell me what you think.
bottom line is clifton counts all breeds separate EXCEPT pitbulls which are are listed as pitbull TYPE breeds.
further, they admit that theyre dependant on (flawed) information from newspapers and other reporting agencies to determine which breed was involved in the attack.

bottom line is those stats are extremely misleading in many ways.

[orange 4 life]

in multiple threads youve continued to throw out stats from one study.

come on slug. go do some real research and youll see a very different picture.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Actually I didn't reread them this time. I read them when you originally posted them a month or so ago (I think thats roughly the time frame, though my memory on it is a little hazy). At your prompting I went back and reread them and fully analyzed them.

After looking over them, it is true that Pitbulls have more bites than any other breed, perhaps the fact that pitbulls are the most commonly abused and neglected dogs has something to do with that. Despite all the other footnotes the author includes, that particular sad fact is not taken into account in his report.

What I find more interesting however is the percentage of fatal and maiming incidents when compared to the number of bite incidents for particular breeds. You were right, Canarios do not pull up the figures on maimings, which suprised me. They do however pull up the numbers on fatalities. While under 10% of all pitbull and pitbull mix attacks were fatal, exactly 20% of Canario attacks were. That is what I mean by skewing the numbers.

When I looked at the overall percentages I was a bit suprised, I knew there were some breeds out there more dangerous than Pits, but I didn't know it was that many. I looked only at samples I thought had large enough pools of information to be useful and discovered that if you are attacked by Chows (12.3%), Mastiffs (25%), German Shepherds (14.3%), Huskies (33.3%), and Dobbermans (27.3%) you were more likely to be killed than if you were attacked by a Pitbull (9.3%). If you were attacked by Akitas (82.1%), Chows (66.6%), Mastiffs (56.2%), German Shepherds (60.2%), Dobbermans (63.6%), and Labradors (79.5%) you were more likely to be maimed than if attacked by a Pitbull (54.7%).

They didn't have a large enough sample on some of the more exotic breeds like Thai Ridgebacks and I pray they never do. If you start extrapolating these numbers to fit the larger population of "tough guy" dogs, and the inherant rise in the chances of bites if these animals are neglected and abused, as they most likely will be if they become the "cool" dog to have, you realize the number of bites will rise drastically and so of course will the number of maimings and fatalities.
You can't spin the bottom line and that is this... Pit Bulls kill more humans (and probably more animals) than any other breed. That is the problem that has to be addressed. I know that cities and counties that have banned them don't have that problem anymore.
This is the only thing that presently controls them. Enacting laws to punish owners hasn't worked.

[BroncoInSkinland]

You can't spin the bottom line and that is this... Pit Bulls kill more humans (and probably more animals) than any other breed. That is the problem that has to be addressed. I know that cities and counties that have banned them don't have that problem anymore.
This is the only thing that presently controls them. Enacting laws to punish owners hasn't worked.

Ok, one more then I'll let it rest. You can't spin the bottom line and that is this... If you ban Pitbulls another breed will become the tough guy dog of choice and they are much more likely to kill many more humans than Pits do currently. That is what happens if you address the problem in the manner you are suggesting. The cities and counties that have currently banned them have made the situation worse in the surrounding areas and are currently undergoing the evolution to the next step where it will be worse for them as well. Your control is smoke and mirrors pushing the true problem under the rug. Enforcing laws to punish owners is what will control them in the end when people stop sticking thier heads in the sand.

[orange 4 life]

You can't spin the bottom line and that is this... Pit Bulls kill more humans (and probably more animals) than any other breed. That is the problem that has to be addressed. I know that cities and counties that have banned them don't have that problem anymore.
This is the only thing that presently controls them. Enacting laws to punish owners hasn't worked.

actually, the bans havent really worked ANYWHERE.

in england (obviously largescale) dog attacks went UP in the years following the ban (all be it statistically about the same), and like we've been speculating would happen here, the english "tough guys" just went out and got OTHER tough guy dogs, and of course those breeds are less reliable than pits when put in abuse/neglect situations.

in many localized areas in this country, youre seeing HIGHLY increased problems in surrounding areas, and again, like skinland was saying earlier, if those surrounding areas follow suit, then youll see an increase in canarios, mastiffs, etc. which would likely mean MORE problems as those dogs by nature are less reliable towards humans.

breed specific legislation is a horrible attempt at solving a problem the needs a REAL solution. a solution that targets the humans instead of slaughtering thousands of innocent dogs along with the few that have caused problems.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

actually, the bans havent really worked ANYWHERE.
Uh, you want to provide some facts on that?
Ok, one more then I'll let it rest. You can't spin the bottom line and that is this... If you ban Pitbulls another breed will become the tough guy dog of choice and they are much more likely to kill many more humans than Pits do currently. That is what happens if you address the problem in the manner you are suggesting. The cities and counties that have currently banned them have made the situation worse in the surrounding areas and are currently undergoing the evolution to the next step where it will be worse for them as well. Your control is smoke and mirrors pushing the true problem under the rug. Enforcing laws to punish owners is what will control them in the end when people stop sticking thier heads in the sand.Highly, highly unlikely! There are only a few breeds of dogs that kill with any regularity (Pits, Rotts, etc..).

And as far as pushing the problem away from the areas that banned them....Bingo! That's exactly the point. Theses kind of dogs really don't have a place in family communities. If you want to live in a rural situation where they aren't a danger to others then I doubt you'll have to worry about bans.

BTW, as this country continues to overpopulate, more and more stupid laws for stupid people will be the norm.

[orange 4 life]

Ok, one more then I'll let it rest. You can't spin the bottom line and that is this... If you ban Pitbulls another breed will become the tough guy dog of choice and they are much more likely to kill many more humans than Pits do currently. That is what happens if you address the problem in the manner you are suggesting. The cities and counties that have currently banned them have made the situation worse in the surrounding areas and are currently undergoing the evolution to the next step where it will be worse for them as well. Your control is smoke and mirrors pushing the true problem under the rug. Enforcing laws to punish owners is what will control them in the end when people stop sticking thier heads in the sand.

didnt see this as i typed mine, but youre obviously saying the same thing, and while some people (maybe new parents like popps who IS a big dog lover) will be comforted knowing a "pitbull" ban exists, it of course wont solve the problem, and could potentially make the problem worse in the longterm.

again, instead of taking the easy way out and blaming the breed, lets collectively accept that we have a problem AND campaign for legislation that would put these people (the root of the problem) behind bars.

[orange 4 life]

Uh, you want to provide some facts on that?
Highly, highly unlikely! There are only a few breeds of dogs that kill with any regularity (Pits, Rotts, etc..).

BTW, as this country continues to overpopulate, more and more stupid laws for stupid people will be the norm.

actually, its already happened.

as for the "stupid laws for stupid people", i completely agree.
that said, breed specific legislation isnt for PEOPLE!!!

it punishes multiple breeds of dogs for a few stupid PEOPLES actions.
a "stupid law for stupid people" would actually be a law that punishes the PEOPLE.
slaughtering thousands of dogs isnt the answer. its sickening.

[orange 4 life]

here in denver, weve had hundreds of dogs killed, and many are just puppies.
when the laws were first passed (and thank God theyre going back to legislation and will hopefully be overturned) i called the aurora dumb friends league and asked if i could pick up a litter of pitbull puppies to take them to the boulder humane society (boulder, where there ARENT attacks being reported, pitbulls are legal. go figure) so they could be adopted out.

the answer was no.
they couldnt be released, even if just to be transported to a neighboring city where they could be placed with loving families.
instead, they killed them.

they also took dogs out of peoples homes (including people who had all their neighbors there to testify that the dog(s) wasnt a problem) and killed them too.

its not a solution, its abusing our power as human beings.

[Popps]

slaughtering thousands of dogs isnt the answer. its sickening.

How about just not breeding them? Let's start with that. Why does this country NEED Pitbulls?

We don't. That's the bottom line. Dogs are a luxury. Domestic pets are a luxury.

This society has absolutely no NEED for Pitbulls. We may WANT them, but people want prostitution and that's illegal.

How about just getting control over the breeding? The problem is... any schmuck can get their hands on one of these dogs and turn it into a killer in a matter of a couple of years. I can go on any local classified page right now and buy a few Pitbull puppies and train them to be killers.

How about we address that?

Just stop breeding them for a while... and if some dog replaces them as the tough-guy dog, then we'll deal with that. There's no need to "slaughter" dogs that haven't hurt anyone. But, getting control on this situation is a must.

I just don't buy into the "tell people to just be nice" line of reasoning. I live in a fairly upscale Los Angeles neighborhood and the doofs around here can't even keep their dogs in their yard. Imagine bad areas, rural areas where there's not as much community pressure to keep your animals in check.

People are just tired of dealing with it, Jake. It's not ALL Pitbulls... but they do represent a good chunk of the problem. I have a 1 year old girl and live a few doors down from a large, aggressive Pitbull that I have no doubt will attack us if the owner didn't have his eye on him. (Keep in mind, this is coming from a guy who loves the breed.... see my dog pics.)

But, I don't love the breed enough to put up with this ****, and most people feel the same. We've got kids playing all over this neighborhood, and I don't want one of them to be mauled (or worse) so we can prove some kind of theoretical point or make some kind of dog-moral stance.

YES... it's the people's fault, and YES.... I still want the dogs out of my neighborhood.

NO, it's not the DOG'S FAUT.... and YES, I still don't give a ****.

People are tired of playing games with this stuff. There's too much at risk.

[orange 4 life]

ll fair points popps, and again, i dont have any problem with legislation targets the breeders. id LOVE to see the breeding stopped for awhile. there are shelters FULL of pits all over the place, so as someone that loves the breed i of course want the backyard breeders stopped. i also wouldnt object to the professional breeders being stopped as well (for awhile) so we can try to get a handle on this.
yes, i have no doubt that another tough guy breed will pop up, but if we combine your idea with more legislation to SEVERELY punish those people that neglect and/or abuse their dogs (whatever breed they may be) then we might just be able to get a handle on things.

as long as the laws dont include taking my dogs (and many other dogs in loving homes that wouldnt hurt a soul) away, then im right there with you.
as long as those laws dont include killing puppies that have already been born (or are unfortunately born illegally and seized), then im right there with you.
make sure the people adopting them are qualified loving owners as well.

all of these things are fine by me. its unfortunate that we've come to that because of course its a wonderful breed, but the breed has just taken a beating lately because of a small percentage of scumbag humans. hopefully we can get rid of said scumbags.

[Popps]

Pitbull mauling of the day....

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2007/06/25/0626pitbull.html

Definitely a negligent owner, but I wonder if the elderly woman's family cares if it was the dog's or the owner's fault? (Police video showed the dog, definitely a Pitbull, before we get into any conjecture about mistaken identity.)

One interesting point that continues to arise in our almost daily pitbull mailing stories is... we're seeing a lot of these attacks broken up by neighbors with guns. I suppose depending where you live, this might be one more reason to be inclined to arm yourself.

[orange 4 life]

thanks popps. that was really necessary, and now we all get it, where we didnt before. :thumbsup:

lets just ban all the pitbull type dogs, and then you can post daily presa canario attacks....or dobermans, or rotties, or mastiffs, etc.

"tough guy" dogs wont go away, so if youre sick of it, please spend some time trying to help pass legislation that puts the PEOPLE behind bars.....for a long time.

ps- 99.9% of people cant tell the different between an APBT and an amstaff, let alone a mix with another breed, so even a video could be misleading.
ive seen many "pitbull" videos that were amstaff/mastiff mixes but reported (erroneously) as a "pitbull".

[orange 4 life]

.....and i would hope the womans family understands its the human thats at fault.

.....and i hope she takes 'em for everything theyre worth.
.....and i hope the owners end up behind bars.
.....and i hope EVERY town in america puts forth AGGRESSIVE legislation to punish those with obviously abused and neglected dogs as well as defines those "vicious dogs" by their actions and not their breed.

[Popps]

"tough guy" dogs wont go away, so if youre sick of it, please spend some time trying to help pass legislation that puts the PEOPLE behind bars.....for a long time.

Unfortunately, we can't stop the breeding of these people. So, you'll forgive some of us if we consider restrictions on breeding the dogs, instead.

[orange 4 life]

if you outlaw one breed those people will find another one, so forgive the rest of us for looking for real solutions as opposed to legislation that does nothing except kill alot of innocent dogs and help the uneducated populous sleep better........until they start reading about the next bad boy breed gone wild.

you cant stop breeding those people, but you CAN focus your attention on punishing them. probably a better idea than going third reich on anything that looks kinda like a pitbull, though if joseph mccarthy was around im sure he'd love the idea. :sunshine:

hope youre having a good day my friend. talk to you soon,

jake

[orange 4 life]

ps- also, remember that while YOU are reasonable (usually :D ) and advocate restrictions on ownership and breeding, the breed specific legislation currently in effect in most places flat kills the dogs w/ no questions asked....even the puppies and dogs like mine that have been in loving homes for years.

[vancejohnson82]

it makes me sick to my stomach that people think its the dog breed that is the problem....it's the people, plain and simple.....

for over 4 years i worked as a foster parent for abused pitbulls, or stray pits from the local pound....these dogs were either a)not tough enough for their owners b) not big enough to fight or c) losers from previous fights

many were aggressive at first, and rightfully so...many had to be put down and rightfully so....but the fact that i turned around probably 7 out of 10 goes to show that it isn't the breed, its the environment and the people

so Popps, lets ban dogs over 45 lbs then....right???

BTW: don't know if that is a boxer but i have bite marks still visible in my wrists from an attack by a boxer....perhaps i should post that story and claim it is the "boxer attack of the day"

PS: not a personal attack, just trying to make a point in a riled up state

[cutthemdown]

I guess this thread will be popping up everytime a pitbull attacks. Poor pitbulls getting a bad rap IMO. It's almost always the pitbull owners fault. How come none of my friends pit bulls ever bite anyone?

[Popps]

it makes me sick to my stomach that people think its the dog breed that is the problem

No, you're getting it wrong. People don't care. They just want it to stop. Chocolate Labs aren't mauling people on a daily basis. Pitbulls (and PB mixes) are.

So, I don't think we need the 400th explanation that it's the human, not the animal. We can't stop breeding humans. We CAN stop breeding fighting dogs, which are not a "right," they're a luxury that our society continues to prove we can't handle.

for over 4 years i worked as a foster parent for abused pitbulls

Great. I personally rescued a stray Pitbull and found a home for the dog. (See my pics in the dog thread.) You'll also find me to be a big fan of the breed, as a breed. (Again, see my pics.)

My feelings about the breed (like yours) are really irrelevant to what is happening with regards to their high attack rate.

so Popps, lets ban dogs over 45 lbs then....right???

Great Danes are massive, yet rarely attack... almost never. I'm sure plenty of dip****s own Great Danes. I'm sure plenty of dip****s own Pugs. I saw a woman chasing some mean little yip dog up and down our street yesterday. (It had gotten out.)

The difference is, that little yip dog, like a Great Dane... wasn't bread to DESTROY anything that opposes it. It's simply not as easy to turn a Collie into a killer as it is a Pitbull, and even once you do... the potential damage one can do compared to the other isn't even comparable.

BTW: don't know if that is a boxer but i have bite marks still visible in my wrists from an attack by a boxer....perhaps i should post that story and claim it is the "boxer attack of the day"

Boxers are the best breed of dog on earth. But, rest assured... if they become the next thug dog, attack dog, fighting dog, and they're attacking elderly people on a daily basis, I'll be ALL IN FAVOR of discontinuing the breed until we prove we're capable of handling them. In fact, I think it's much more humane to restrict breeding on dogs like Pitbulls that are abused to such an extent.

But, Boxer's are not doing this... so it's a moot point.


See, the mistake you make (like most who defend the actions of these dogs) is that you assume people who oppose these attacks are just dummies who have no background on the breed. Well, I'd be willing to bet I know as much about the breed as you do, and I'd be willing to bet I enjoy the breed as much as you. You're not talking to someone who doesn't know dogs, here.

I also understand reality.

The reality is that our "feelings" about the breed are irrelevant. What's HAPPENING is what's relevant... and I don't care if it's the dog or the human.

We have a problem. We've got hicks and jackoffs abusing this breed. YES, fine... go after the hicks and jackoffs. But, remove the breed as an option, or severely limit it as an option... and you solve the problem.

If they move on to another dog, we'll deal with that when it happens. (That's the usual argument.) Which, in itself is just silly.
It's basically saying... well, criminals are going to be criminals.
Well, if that's the case... why create "stiffer punishments" for abusers? They're just going to keep doing it, right?

Stop breeding the things until this is under control. It's that simple.

[Popps]

I guess this thread will be popping up everytime a pitbull attacks.

Not really, or it would have to pop up almost hourly, it seems....

"They were attacking her like she was a piece of steak,"
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-te.ci.attack27jun27,0,2464268.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

It's almost always the pitbull owners fault.

That's nice. I'm sure that's comforting to the victims and their families.

[BroncoInSkinland]

We have a problem. We've got hicks and jackoffs abusing this breed. YES, fine... go after the hicks and jackoffs. But, remove the breed as an option, or severely limit it as an option... and you solve the problem.

If they move on to another dog, we'll deal with that when it happens. (That's the usual argument.) Which, in itself is just silly.
It's basically saying... well, criminals are going to be criminals.
Well, if that's the case... why create "stiffer punishments" for abusers? They're just going to keep doing it, right?

Stop breeding the things until this is under control. It's that simple.

Just to clarify, I think stiffer punishments are a good idea, but the real solution is to get the courts to prosecute the punishments that currently exist. You would be amazed at the crimes that people commit, get caught for, and then walk on the charges just because some prosecutor thinks "it is only an animal". Dropping it again, I am only going to chime in when your opinions regard the "usual argument" need slight clarifications.

[vancejohnson82]

well, i completely respect your opinion about the dogs becasue you seem knowledgable and you are a dog owner....i think what the whole issue needs is an open discourse between knowledgable people, not alarmists who want to wipe out a breed

so, when do we draw the line as to what is a pitbull and what is not??? PITBULLS are very rarely pure and almost always are a mixed breed of something....how do we control this problem...do we ban mixes of rots/pits, labs/pits, pugs/pits,.....its an exaggeration but banning the breed doesnt make sense becasue the breed doesnt exist

and BTW, i have heard plenty of stories about Great Danes attacking children it just doesnt get the press the pittie attacks do (again, arguing semantics and feelings)

but putting feelings aside, how exactly do we decide what is a pitbull because the breed does not exist in pure form anymore (for the most part) most are mastiff mixes, mutts, and other things being passed off as pits


BTW, I LOVE boxers....i had two but both passed away very early from different diseases so i figured my luck was bad with them and went toward pound dogs

[vancejohnson82]

"A neighbor said that shortly before Pulley was attacked, children were seen throwing rocks and sticks at the dogs, who were often kept in Palmer's backyard."

Throw a stick or a rock at a Great Dane or a boxer and see how it reacts

Plus, this idiot had 7 dogs in his house...

"Tyrone Ayers, 48, of Baltimore, said he was getting into his car when he saw Pulley standing by Palmer's backyard. He said Pulley has a medical condition that requires her to use a catheter and that one of the dogs grabbed the bag and carried it away.

Pulley often talked to herself, Ayers said. He said Pulley took a screwdriver out of her handbag and threatened the dogs. He said he left before the woman was attacked."

Ok, so kids are throwing rocks at them...then a crazy woman with a screwdriver has an interaction....doesnt sound like a safe situation, nor one that the dogs could be trained for...

Not saying that this should happen but given those circumstances, it almost sounds inevitable

[vancejohnson82]

and if someone tried to take my pit mixes away in Aurora they would have to worry about shooting me more than the dogs

i had actually planned on moving out there and becoming a decent part of society with my dogs (4 and 8 respectively) but saw that people "like me" who have pits aren't accepted so i changed my mind (you can rest easy popps)

[Popps]

i had actually planned on moving out there and becoming a decent part of society with my dogs (4 and 8 respectively) but saw that people "like me" who have pits aren't accepted so i changed my mind (you can rest easy popps)

There are tons of PBs out here. Tons. Some good, mostly good. But, we also have our share of problems with the breed.... and why not? Any moron can go buy a few of them from a backyard breeder, or snatch up a few from any pound with no problem.

They're over-bred, and there's no restrictions on who owns these powerful, potentially lethal dogs.

I won't "rest easy" that you're not moving out. Again, I love the breed. But, I've separated my love for the breed for an understanding of the reality of the situation.

[BroncoInSkinland]

or snatch up a few from any pound with no problem.

Many pounds (particularly in urban areas where the problems are more prevalent) have almost insurmountable restrictions on adopting pits or pit mixes.

[Popps]

Many pounds (particularly in urban areas where the problems are more prevalent) have almost insurmountable restrictions on adopting pits or pit mixes.

Really? I hadn't heard that, but if so... it's a great step forward. Hate to say it, but I'd rather see the animals humanely put down than to end up attacking someone, or being used for fighting, neglected, etc.

That, in combination with severe restrictions on breeding/ownership is a great place to start.

[mosca]

Boxers are the best breed of dog on earth. But, rest assured... if they become the next thug dog, attack dog, fighting dog, and they're attacking elderly people on a daily basis, I'll be ALL IN FAVOR of discontinuing the breed until we prove we're capable of handling them. In fact, I think it's much more humane to restrict breeding on dogs like Pitbulls that are abused to such an extent.

Pit bull attacks may be in the news often these days, but attacking old folks on a daily basis? This is an exaggeration.

But, Boxer's are not doing this... so it's a moot point.
Maybe not on a daily basis, or as often as pit bulls, for example. But I did a quick Google search on "dog boxer attacks" and found all sorts of instances. Every dog breed out there has some documented attack histories. If, based upon this evidence of a history of attacking people, would you willingly surrender your nonviolent boxer dog to a government agency that wanted to round up and exterminate all dogs of the breed?

[Rigs11]

Pitbull mauling of the day....

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2007/06/25/0626pitbull.html

Definitely a negligent owner, but I wonder if the elderly woman's family cares if it was the dog's or the owner's fault? (Police video showed the dog, definitely a Pitbull, before we get into any conjecture about mistaken identity.)

One interesting point that continues to arise in our almost daily pitbull mailing stories is... we're seeing a lot of these attacks broken up by neighbors with guns. I suppose depending where you live, this might be one more reason to be inclined to arm yourself.

Letting a 12 year old girl walk a 60 pound pit bull. God people are so stupid. I see this shet all the time were I live.Kids getting dragged down the street trying to walk pits. Then they take them to the park and tie them up.

[Rigs11]

It all comes down to agressiveness and strength. Unfortunately for pits they have both.Are they all agressive? No?IS the majority of them? I would assume so by the number of attacks that happen. It's always them being friendly and then just snapping one day.Do all dog breeds bite? Yes. Do all dog breeds cause as much damage as pits? No.I say if you want to own a pit, you have to register yourself and your dog. Attend mandatory dog training classes, and provide proof of a well enclosed yard, with absolutely no chaining allowed.These dogs are so powerful, that in a way they are a weapon in the wrong hands.

[Popps]

It all comes down to agressiveness and strength. Unfortunately for pits they have both.Are they all agressive? No?IS the majority of them? I would assume so by the number of attacks that happen. It's always them being friendly and then just snapping one day.Do all dog breeds bite? Yes. Do all dog breeds cause as much damage as pits? No.I say if you want to own a pit, you have to register yourself and your dog. Attend mandatory dog training classes, and provide proof of a well enclosed yard, with absolutely no chaining allowed.These dogs are so powerful, that in a way they are a weapon in the wrong hands.

Exactly.

I like firing guns, but I wouldn't recommend handing them out to people, or leaving them laying in back yards, in streets... etc.

People have to separate themselves from their feelings about the breed to look at this properly.

I absolutely love the breed, always have... but we've got a problem and the kinds of things you mentioned are (also) great places to start.

[BroncoInSkinland]

Really? I hadn't heard that, but if so... it's a great step forward. Hate to say it, but I'd rather see the animals humanely put down than to end up attacking someone, or being used for fighting, neglected, etc.

That, in combination with severe restrictions on breeding/ownership is a great place to start.

At the shelter I worked at it eliminated bad owners getting thier hands on pits. It also prevented pits that had been mistrained from being released. The unfortunate part is that the restrictions were so harsh, often good people that were trying to adopt good dogs got discouraged and the dogs were eventually put down. I agree with the adoption policies we had in place, but I wonder if you were the one who got to walk the happy, healthy dog to the euthanasia room and hold it while it was killed for no reason, would still have the same views you have now? Anyway, glad I could give you at least one point you agree with.

[vancejohnson82]

Popps,

YOu still have not answered my question.....

Pit pure breds are EXTREMELY RARE...what happens to the mixes (which are everywhere)?

Basically, if a mastiff or any dog that looks like a pit attacks, it is documented as a pit attack, not a labrador attack or boxer attack

So do we put all the mutts into the gas chamber??

[kamakazi_kal]

well, i completely respect your opinion about the dogs becasue you seem knowledgable and you are a dog owner....i think what the whole issue needs is an open discourse between knowledgable people, not alarmists who want to wipe out a breed

so, when do we draw the line as to what is a pitbull and what is not??? PITBULLS are very rarely pure and almost always are a mixed breed of something....how do we control this problem...do we ban mixes of rots/pits, labs/pits, pugs/pits,.....its an exaggeration but banning the breed doesnt make sense becasue the breed doesnt exist

and BTW, i have heard plenty of stories about Great Danes attacking children it just doesnt get the press the pittie attacks do (again, arguing semantics and feelings)

but putting feelings aside, how exactly do we decide what is a pitbull because the breed does not exist in pure form anymore (for the most part) most are mastiff mixes, mutts, and other things being passed off as pits


BTW, I LOVE boxers....i had two but both passed away very early from different diseases so i figured my luck was bad with them and went toward pound dogs

how dare you stand up for the hounds of hell on earth.......... rep.

you wont change anyones mind sadly, great danes attacking makes for a bad news report.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

how dare you stand up for the hounds of hell on earth.......... rep.
you wont change anyones mind sadly, great danes attacking makes for a bad news report.I'm pretty sure the media isn't conspiring to hide reports of Great Dane attacks or any other breed attacks.

Almost all other breeds don't kill people and other animals when they attack. Pit Bulls have an earned reputation of fatal attacks, regardless of whose fault that is.

[kamakazi_kal]

I'm pretty sure the media isn't conspiring to hide reports of Great Dane attacks or any other breed attacks.

Almost all other breeds don't kill people and other animals when they attack. Pit Bulls have an earned reputation of fatal attacks, regardless of whose fault that is.

and that reputation comes from glorification by the media.....never had a problem with any of the 6 pitbulls i have owned throughout my life killing or attacking anyone, if anything i find other dogs (mostly unleashed) causing problems with my dog as i walk by.......... now let me ask you, if that dog bites my dog and in turn my dog defends itself and causes injury to the other dog REGARDLESS of breed, it will be the pitbulls fault, guilty by breed not action.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

and that reputation comes from glorification by the media.....never had a problem with any of the 6 pitbulls i have owned throughout my life killing or attacking anyone, if anything i find other dogs (mostly unleashed) causing problems with my dog as i walk by.......... now let me ask you, if that dog bites my dog and in turn my dog defends itself and causes injury to the other dog REGARDLESS of breed, it will be the pitbulls fault, guilty by breed not action.That's not true according to the PDF of bite studies I posted here in this thread. And I'm not saying it's happening just because it's the breed only.

[Popps]

and that reputation comes from glorification by the media.

Yea, and the fact that they're actually attacking people at a higher clip than other dogs.

[Popps]

if that dog bites my dog and in turn my dog defends itself

Let's not confuse your hypothetical scenario with the reality of what's happening with these animals. Last I checked, we didn't have a problem with Pitbulls being attacked.

[Beantown Bronco]

Popps,

YOu still have not answered my question.....

Pit pure breds are EXTREMELY RARE...what happens to the mixes (which are everywhere)?

Basically, if a mastiff or any dog that looks like a pit attacks, it is documented as a pit attack, not a labrador attack or boxer attack

So do we put all the mutts into the gas chamber??

To answer on behalf of Popps....if you eliminate pits, then by default all pit mixes (once this generation or the next dies off) will also be eliminated or at least watered-down so much that the percentage of "pit" will be minimal at best.

[orange 4 life]

.
We have a problem. We've got hicks and jackoffs abusing this breed. YES, fine... go after the hicks and jackoffs. But, remove the breed as an option, or severely limit it as an option... and you solve the problem.

If they move on to another dog, we'll deal with that when it happens. (That's the usual argument.) Which, in itself is just silly.
It's basically saying... well, criminals are going to be criminals.
Well, if that's the case... why create "stiffer punishments" for abusers? They're just going to keep doing it, right?

Stop breeding the things until this is under control. It's that simple.

I skipped the beginning, because of course i know that youre coming from a standpoint of knowledge. thats the reason im shocked at your views, but youre entitled.

"severely limit" is fine with me, but "remove the breed as an option" means someone comes to my house and tries to take my dogs away. not happening.
furthermore, since neither of my 2 pits have ever even SNAPPED at anyone i dont think anyone should be able to tell me to pick a different breed.
"severely limit" is a GOOD thing for the animals (less pibulls, less ABUSED pitbulls!!) but "remove" is the doggie form of nazi concentration camps. unacceptable.

WHEN these people move to another dog, why dont we be PREPARED and have stiffer penalties in effect?
you say "go after the jagoffs" in passing, but then go on to focus the rest of your post on the animals, as if a breed specific ban will fix the problem. as a kid, we had two dangerous dogs on our block. the neighbor had two dobermans, complete with the studded collars and chains/post. they went after anything that moved. the guy that owned them fit the exact picture of the "tough guy" we keep referring to, and not shockingly was eventually removed from the house for abusing his wife (and maybe son). you think this guy would have dobeys now? me neither. it was the 70's, and those were the tough guy dogs of the day. people talked about banning them just like they do with pitbulls now.

....and why would you think these people will keep doing it if penalties were severe?
they arent now, and they never have been. as a result, people arent afraid to breed dogs to fight, let alone be afraid to own a single dog to feel tough.

it IS simple, but your solution is ludicrous. the simple solution is to get aggressive with legislation that covers two areas.
1) restrict breeding, and put laws in place to swiftly punish the many backyard breeders. cut down the total number of pitbull type dogs out there.
2) SEVERELY punish the people who abuse and neglect their dogs.

if a dog was considered a lethal weapon, and the person holding the leash (or lack of one in many cases) was responsible and stood to spend 20+ years in prison if that lethal weapon hurt someone, im guessing people wouldnt rush out and get a pitbull (or whatever the next tough guy breed is) to compensate for their lack of penis size.

[orange 4 life]

Really? I hadn't heard that, but if so... it's a great step forward. Hate to say it, but I'd rather see the animals humanely put down than to end up attacking someone, or being used for fighting, neglected, etc.

at the facility where its LEAST difficult to adopt a pitbull type breed here in colorado (boulder), you still have to pass an interview given by one of the shelter managers. its their discretion whether they adopt out the dog, but they err on the side of caution. with us, the pit we were adopting (purebread APBT) had been neglected and was only a few months old. he also had parvo. there were other adorable pit/mastiff puppies that were smaller and healthier (we figured they had a better chance) so the fact that we picked this one in of itself said alot. from there, they saw a family of three who spoke passionately about our love of animals and our work with the no-kill shelter in new mexico. we took the dog home, and buddy has been our baby since.

at the more difficult shelters (and sadly, there are only a few, as most just kill them. they dont even have the decency to transport the puppies to boulder or littleton where they can be adopted) you have to prove that you have privacy fences, insurance that allows for the breed, and proof of residence that satisfies them that you dont live in a city where theyre banned. THEN you have to pass an interview.

the rest of the country should follow suit, and that would certainly help.
still, the only thing thats really gonna fix the problem is swift and severe punishments for backyard breeders and bad owners.

[orange 4 life]

I'm pretty sure the media isn't conspiring to hide reports of Great Dane attacks or any other breed attacks.


they dont hide them, but they dont report them either. its not a story.
furthermore, MOST of the "pitbull" attacks you here about arent pitbulls at all.

the last one reported here in colorado the media neglected to say that the mother of the child attacked was booked for child AND animal abuse. they also reported it as a "pitbull" when in reality the dog was an amstaff/mastiff mix.

[orange 4 life]

That's not true according to the PDF of bite studies I posted here in this thread. And I'm not saying it's happening just because it's the breed only.

yeah, we covered those misleading stats already.

[orange 4 life]

okay, my work here is done. i keep telling myself to let it go, but every day i go home to two wonderful dogs that would be dead if many here had their way, so letting it go just isnt an option. ill keep trying till the day i die.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

yeah, we covered those misleading stats already.Uh, why are they misleading? I haven't seen anything that shows they are not valid.

[mosca]

Popps -

If, based upon the history (of which all dog breeds have to some degree) of boxers attacking people, would you willingly surrender your nonviolent boxer dog to a government agency that wanted to round up and exterminate all dogs of the breed?

[kamakazi_kal]

Uh, why are they misleading? I haven't seen anything that shows they are not valid.

those are about as reliable as bob's articles.................

[Rigs11]

Popps -

If, based upon the history (of which all dog breeds have to some degree) of boxers attacking people, would you willingly surrender your nonviolent boxer dog to a government agency that wanted to round up and exterminate all dogs of the breed?

What kind of damage did these boxers due when they attacked? And is the number of attacks anywhere near the number of Pit ones?

[kamakazi_kal]

if you dont think that pitbulls are the most abused and mistreated breed of dogs try watching that show animal cops on animal planet......... every single show at least one mistreated pit shows up.

they are also the most popular breed of dog if you count all the mutts alive and you do................

[Bronco_Beerslug]

those are about as reliable as bob's articles.................Want to provide some facts that back your statement?

[kamakazi_kal]

Want to provide some facts that back your statement?

would you like me to type some number into a text file ........... thats about all you provided

[Bronco_Beerslug]

would you like me to type some number into a text file ........... thats about all you providedI provided a site with statistics that have never been proved erroneous as far as I know. Now, the way this is done is if you know those numbers to be wrong, show it.

[mosca]

What kind of damage did these boxers due when they attacked? And is the number of attacks anywhere near the number of Pit ones?
Some have caused fatalities. The number of reported attacks is not near the amount of pit bull ones.

Nevertheless, I'd like to know if boxer owners (or owners of any other breed known to attack with the potential to kill or maim) would willingly surrender their nonviolent dogs to a government agency willing to exterminate them. Not a rhetorical question, just curious as to other's mindsets.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Some have caused fatalities. The number of reported attacks is not near the amount of pit bull ones.

Nevertheless, I'd like to know if boxer owners (or owners of any other breed known to attack with the potential to kill or maim) would willingly surrender their nonviolent dogs to a government agency willing to exterminate them. Not a rhetorical question, just curious as to other's mindsets.Well, I don't think that's what's happening. Cities and counties are banning them because it's the only way to control them. I know since Northglenn banned them (mid 90s) there haven't been any more deaths there as far as I've heard.

[Rigs11]

Some have caused fatalities. The number of reported attacks is not near the amount of pit bull ones.

Nevertheless, I'd like to know if boxer owners (or owners of any other breed known to attack with the potential to kill or maim) would willingly surrender their nonviolent dogs to a government agency willing to exterminate them. Not a rhetorical question, just curious as to other's mindsets.

Some? If you don't have numbers to post then it is a loaded question with no backing.IF boxers had the amount of attacks and the extent of damage as pits then i think Popps would feel differently.also the laws take time to pass and you can always move to a place that does not ban pits if you want to keep them. Is it fair?No.Is it necessary when you own a tough guy glorified animal with so much power to inflict damage? Yes.

[orange 4 life]

Uh, why are they misleading? I haven't seen anything that shows they are not valid.

go back and read my posts on the matter. theyre beyond misleading. theyre admittedly misleading.

[orange 4 life]

Want to provide some facts that back your statement?

already did. :thumbs:

[mosca]

Some? If you don't have numbers to post then it is a loaded question with no backing.IF boxers had the amount of attacks and the extent of damage as pits then i think Popps would feel differently.also the laws take time to pass and you can always move to a place that does not ban pits if you want to keep them. Is it fair?No.Is it necessary when you own a tough guy glorified animal with so much power to inflict damage? Yes.
You asked for numbers, so here (http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAttacks/dogbreeds.pdf) you are: Between 1979 - 1998, 3 deaths were attributed to boxers (4 purebreds and 1 cross-breed dog were involved in these attacks). Do a simple Google search if you want to find more instances of attacks done by this breed.

I do agree that pit bulls and rottweilers are documented with far more attacks, but what I want to know is - where do you draw the line as to what breed is "officially" dangerous and what isn't? In the study I mentioned, Pits were responsible for 66 deaths, Rotts 39, German Shepherds 17, Huskies 15, Malamutes 12, the list goes on. I personally can live with the neighborhood ordinances and laws prohibiting you from owning a pit bull in certain areas, allowing you to move elsewhere, but I am 100% against the idea of exterminating the entire breed, including the already living dogs. I know that position is the extreme one, but I have heard it voiced more than a few times, including on this forum.

Again, I repeat my question to anyone willing to answer: Would you be willing to surrender your nonviolent dog to a government intent on exterminating them? Not trying to steer the discussion to this idea only... I'd just like to know what people think about this.

[orange 4 life]

Well, I don't think that's what's happening. Cities and counties are banning them because it's the only way to control them. I know since Northglenn banned them (mid 90s) there haven't been any more deaths there as far as I've heard.

uh huh, and how many were there before?

theyre legal in douglas county. how many pitbull attacks (forget the fact that many are misreported) have you heard of there?

theyre legal in boulder. how many attacks there?

nice try

[orange 4 life]

mosca,

please also keep in mind a couple things.
1) in those studies, they admit to having misleading information as "pitbull" is defined as any pitbull TYPE breed, which includes amtaffs, staffordshire terriers, APBT's (my dogs, though one is mixed with ridgeback), bull terriers, etc., and
2) of all the pitbull attacks that resulted in death, not ONE was found to have come from a normal loving home and "snapped" as many people say theyre prone to do.

no, i wont give up my dogs because of bad legislation and bad education, and i wouldnt expect anyone else to either.
swift and severe punishments to the human offenders would effectively stop this problem, and it would likely stop it in a hurry.
its not a "feel good" (good for the blind masses anyway) bandaid like breed specific legislation. its a real solution.

[Rigs11]

You asked for numbers, so here (http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAttacks/dogbreeds.pdf) you are: Between 1979 - 1998, 3 deaths were attributed to boxers (4 purebreds and 1 cross-breed dog were involved in these attacks). Do a simple Google search if you want to find more instances of attacks done by this breed.

I do agree that pit bulls and rottweilers are documented with far more attacks, but what I want to know is - where do you draw the line as to what breed is "officially" dangerous and what isn't? In the study I mentioned, Pits were responsible for 66 deaths, Rotts 39, German Shepherds 17, Huskies 15, Malamutes 12, the list goes on. I personally can live with the neighborhood ordinances and laws prohibiting you from owning a pit bull in certain areas, allowing you to move elsewhere, but I am 100% against the idea of exterminating the entire breed, including the already living dogs. I know that position is the extreme one, but I have heard it voiced more than a few times, including on this forum.

Again, I repeat my question to anyone willing to answer: Would you be willing to surrender your nonviolent dog to a government intent on exterminating them? Not trying to steer the discussion to this idea only... I'd just like to know what people think about this.
I don't think they should be exterminated.But I do believe that people who own them should follow certain guidelines, training, registration etc. And no I would not surrender my dog for extermination.

[orange 4 life]

ps- douglas county law defines a dangerous dog correctly IMO. their explanation is obviously a bit wordy, but essentially it just says that a dangerous animal is to be determined strictly by the actions and not by the breed.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

uh huh, and how many were there before? At least one death of a little girl.

theyre legal in douglas county. how many pitbull attacks (forget the fact that many are misreported) have you heard of there? I don't know, do you have the numbers?

theyre legal in boulder. how many attacks there? see above

nice try At what? I just pointed out that no more kids have been killed in Northglenn by them since they banned them there.
I don't think they should be exterminated.But I do believe that people who own them should follow certain guidelines, training, registration etc. And no I would not surrender my dog for extermination.That would would work for people who live within the law.

[orange 4 life]

I don't think they should be exterminated.But I do believe that people who own them should follow certain guidelines, training, registration etc. And no I would not surrender my dog for extermination.

i WOULD submit to some form of registration, training (though theyre already trained and i could train new pups myself), etc. for the sake of the many abused and neglected dogs out there.
while MY family doesnt need the education or the help in training, many others do, and still more will be deterred from owning the breed (the people that SHOULD be deterred) because of the stricter guidelines.

i'd be annoyed at having to do that since i know my neighbors shepherd or rot mix is MUCH more aggressive (admittedly) than my pits could ever be, but i'd do it if it would help get these dogs in good homes and/or stop people who will do nothing but ignore the animal from adopting it in the 1st place.

that said, thats just a bandaid also.
the real solution is to define a vicious animal by its actions and not its breed, and then to consider a "vicious" animal a deadly weapon and punish the humans that abuse and neglect these animals and then are careless around others.

[BroncoInSkinland]

Again, I repeat my question to anyone willing to answer: Would you be willing to surrender your nonviolent dog to a government intent on exterminating them?

I'll answer, it is simple. No. I recently had to put my dog down due to hip displaysia that was causing him pain every waking moment of his life. He was a 17 year old Black lab/Border collie mix. However, if Border Collies were banned, and animal control had come to my house to get my dog, they would have needed some serious police backup and I would have been doing time after all was said and done.

[orange 4 life]

At least one death of a little girl.
I don't know, do you have the numbers?
see above
At what? I just pointed out that no more kids have been killed in Northglenn by them since they banned them there.
That would would work for people who live within the law.

you took it one at a time to say that? nothing?

"at least one"

okay, so we have one before, and none after. think that might just be coincidence? unbelievable.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

you took it one at a time to say that? nothing?

"at least one"

okay, so we have one before, and none after. think that might just be coincidence? unbelievable.You missed my point. I'm not saying it's the dogs fault in every case.

This story is more what I'm talking about (communities not being able to control the situation).

------------------------------------------------------
Pit bull attack revives enforcement issues (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-te.ci.attack27jun27,0,2464268.story?coll=bal-home-headlines)

By Lynn Anderson
Sun reporter
Originally published June 27, 2007
Neighbors often saw Ruby Pulley walking in her East Baltimore neighborhood, even lingering to eat berries from a mulberry tree. And it was there that she was mauled by two pit bulls Monday, according to witnesses who spoke with The Sun yesterday.

"They were attacking her like she was a piece of steak," said Lakisha Barnes, 30, a cousin of Pulley's whose backyard faces the yard where the dogs were kept.

Pulley, 53, of the 1000 block of Billie Holiday Court, was listed in fair condition yesterday after surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, a spokesman said.

The attack follows recent debate at City Hall over the number of animal enforcement officers needed to control animal breeding and prevent fights and maulings in Baltimore. A 2000 evaluation by the Humane Society of the United States found that the city needed 41 full-time officers, including at least 28 on the street, to handle calls.

Baltimore has 11 animal enforcement officers. Officials are rushing to fill two vacancies as well as two new positions that will be created July 1 with the start of the new fiscal year. When those positions are filled, the city will have 15 officers, less than half the recommended number.

CONT.

[Popps]

I'll answer, it is simple. No. I recently had to put my dog down due to hip displaysia that was causing him pain every waking moment of his life. He was a 17 year old Black lab/Border collie mix. However, if Border Collies were banned, and animal control had come to my house to get my dog, they would have needed some serious police backup and I would have been doing time after all was said and done.

No one is talking about police busting into homes and talking away well behaved animals. We all love our dogs. That's not really the topic.

[mosca]

No one is talking about police busting into homes and talking away well behaved animals. We all love our dogs. That's not really the topic.
Ok... good. Just wanted to make sure. There was another thread a while back about pit-bulls and someone on there was advocating that.

Thank you for the reply.

[BroncoInSkinland]

No one is talking about police busting into homes and talking away well behaved animals. We all love our dogs. That's not really the topic.

Actually Mosca asked the question three times, I was just responding to that. Several of the proposed bans will come very close to this though. Let me give you an example from my shelter.

A dog is barking, and the neighbors call animal control. AC responds, finds a young, seemingly well cared for Pit in an enclosed backyard, but the gate to the fenced yard is open. Technically this makes it a dog at large call, and animal control is required to take the animal. Because it is a pit there are restrictions on releasing the animal.

The owner comes to the shelter to pick the dog up, and despite the fact that he is doing everything right, rabies vaccinations taken care of, dog registered, animal in good condition and even well tempered, because it is a pit he can't get the dog. This is a good dog, with a good owner, in a county where there isn't even a fullout ban, and he can't get his dog.

So here we have a guy whose dog is at the pound because his 12 year old son let the dog outside and forget to bring it back in before he left for school. The owner was a 6'4"ish 270 lb monster, probably could have helped our d-line. He did exactly what I would have done. He left the shelter, and about 2 hours later came back, walked straight to the kennel, pulled a pair of bolt cutters from out of his jacket, snipped the lock and walked out with his dog trotting behind him smiling. None of the minimum wage shelter employees seemed inclined to stop him considering his size, the fact that he had a pit trailing behind him, and the fact that he was a good owner.

The best part of the story is that Animal control tried to prosecute him for theft. The judge dismissed the case saying that he couldn't be prosecuted for theft when the only thing he took was his own dog, which was his property to begin with. Moral of the story is that even in a county without a full ban these are the kind of things you see. With a full on ban it would be worse. Keep it in mind.

[Popps]

AC responds, finds a young, seemingly well cared for Pit in an enclosed backyard, but the gate to the fenced yard is open. Technically this makes it a dog at large call, and animal control is required to take the animal. Because it is a pit there are restrictions on releasing the animal.

The owner comes to the shelter to pick the dog up, and despite the fact that he is doing everything right

See, the story took a turn for me, there. He certainly wasn't "doing everything right." Dogs are not meant to be left out in a back yard, PARTICULARLY pit bulls. Locking a dog in the back yard leads to aggression. The fact that the gate was open just makes it off-the-charts unacceptable.

walked straight to the kennel, pulled a pair of bolt cutters from out of his jacket, snipped the lock and walked out with his dog trotting behind him smiling.

So, he used force to break the law because he was irresponsible with his potentially dangerous dog. Great.

We should celebrate him. I really don't think our society celebrates violent bullies quite enough.


Moral of the story is that even in a county without a full ban these are the kind of things you see.

Let's recap...

1. He left a 12 year old to handle a Pit Bull. (We saw how that worked out in Thursdays "attack of the day."

2. He leaves his dog in the back yard. (A classic recipe for dog aggression.)

3. He owns more than one Pit Bull. (Not an intelligent decision for most people.)

4. His back gate was unsecured. (If you have a ****ing Pit Bull, Rottie, GS, etc... you'd better have that area secured like a prison, because those are powerful, athletic dogs and they WILL get out.)

[Popps]

Well, looks like the Friday "Attack of the Day" ended tragically...

Pit bull kills woman, injures owner during Deltona attack

A pit bull so docile it shared a bed with its owners viciously attacked and killed a 63-year-old woman Friday, almost tearing off the thumb of one of its owners as she tried to get the dog off her sister.

It wasn't until a deputy sheriff shot the dog with a stun gun that it released its grip on the victim. By that time, it has almost pulled off the woman's scalp and bitten her severely about the face.

Mary J. Bernal died at Halifax Medical Center in Daytona Beach, where she was airlifted after the 9 a.m. attack in the backyard of her sister's home on Roble Lane.

"The dog wouldn't turn my wife loose," Rudy Bernal said. "She had bites all over her face."

The first officer to arrive, a Volusia County deputy sheriff, reached over the fence and shot the dog with a Taser, Bernal said.

Everything had been fine Friday morning, until Mary Bernal went into the backyard to pick up the couple's pet dachshund, Bernal said. That's when the pit bull attacked, he said.

Estela Macias, who tried to get the dog away from her sister, was in stable condition Friday at Central Florida Regional Hospital in Sanford.

"My sister-in-law is dead," said a distraught Eliasar Macias as he wiped away tears. "I don't know what happened."

His dog, named Tas, was like a member of the family, Macias said.

"It's a good dog," he said. "This morning I put him in bed with my wife. He always slept with us."

[Popps]

And once again... a neighbor with a firearm saves someone from a Pit bull attack...

http://newsok.com/article/3073405

MIDWEST CITY — A meter reader was attacked and seriously injured by a pit bull terrier Friday, Police Chief Brandon Clabes said.

A neighbor who heard the man scream killed the dog with a shotgun, Clabes said.

Jason Fish, 25, a meter reader for Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co., was working when he was attacked about 10:20 a.m., Clabes said.

He said Fish hopped the fence at 214 E Jacobs and was approached by a gentle dog. As he worked, a second dog attacked him, the police chief said.

Fish was taken to a local hospital with serious injuries, Clabes said.

He said the neighbor who came to Fish's rescue will not be cited.

"We're grateful for his action because he prevented the meter reader from being injured more than he already was,” Clabes said.

The dog's owner, Terry Almon, was cited for harboring a vicious animal, the police chief said.

[mosca]

Moral of the story is that even in a county without a full ban these are the kind of things you see. With a full on ban it would be worse. Keep it in mind.
This is what I am worried about ... when they start banning certain breeds, at what point do they decide to ban other breeds? Say ten deaths a year per breed are unacceptable, but is one death a year alright? One every five years? Maybe I'm just being looney, but with the way government intrusion into our personal lives has expanded in the last few decades, I can see that happening. I share the opinion of this man:

"It's a slippery slope," said Gary Gibson, a canine behavioural expert. "Once you ban one breed, then the next breed becomes the issue, then another becomes the issue."

Ontario announces plan to ban pit bulls (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1097835451453_93244651/?hub=TopStories)

[Popps]

"It's a slippery slope," said Gary Gibson, a canine behavioural expert. "Once you ban one breed, then the next breed becomes the issue, then another becomes the issue." [/URL]

Yea, that's just not really accurate. Anyone who understand a little bit about the history of dog breeds understands that there are a tiny few breeds of dogs that have the sort of potential Pit Bulls have with regards to doing damage. I don't just mean size, (they're not particularly large dogs)... I'm talking about the history of the breed.

Your average GS or Rott wasn't bred to fight to the DEATH, as several Terrier breeds were. Hence, while an abused dog of any breed will have a propensity to distrust people and eventually bite... even a large dog like a Great Dane doesn't have it in his blood to want to "finish the job" the way a PB does.

Get it?

This is a breed-specific TRAIT.

Most other breeds either never had the trait, or had it bred out of them. It's the reason you hear about so many seemingly "nice" PBs killing people, just as it happened yesterday. They have a switch that can be flipped. An Irish Setter does not.

Slippery slope arguments are almost always garbage, but in this case... it's particularly inaccurate. Plus, if there DOES turn out to be a breed that becomes as troublesome as PBs have become, then sure... we may have to deal with them, as well.

Dogs are not a right, folks. They're a privilege... one that our society is proving more and more we can't handle.

[Popps]

Great stuff. This is exactly what needs to happen...


Ontario announces plan to ban pit bulls
Updated Sat. Oct. 16 2004 6:56 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Calling pit bulls "inherently dangerous animals" that should not be walking the streets, Ontario's Attorney General Michael Bryant has announced a plan to rid his province of the dogs.

"We are banning pit bulls in the province of Ontario," Bryant told a news conference Friday. "I am convinced that pit bulls are ticking time bombs. I am convinced that they are inherently dangerous animals."

Bryant will introduce legislation that, if passed, would prevent anyone from buying or bringing pit bulls into Ontario.

Current pit bull owners wouldn't have to hand over their dogs, but they would face restrictions, including:

using leashes and muzzles on pit bulls in public places
mandatory neutering and spaying of existing pit bulls
fines of up to $10,000 for owners of pit bulls that attack or harm someone. That doubles the current fine under the province's Dog Owners' Liability Act
jail sentences of up to six months for convictions of irresponsible dog ownership
As well, the courts will be given the right to put "menacing" dogs down, "so that we get to them before they attack," Bryant said.

And animal control officials and police will be allowed to obtain a warrant to enter premises where a dangerous dog has been reported.

Bryant has been holding consultations with victims of pit bull attacks, as well as pit bull owners, and police, following a series of attacks in Ontario. He says he received thousands of emails from people on the issue -- and the majority have been urging him to ban the dogs.

Bryant says that "for every family that tells me that their pit bull is a pussycat," there are families who thought their dogs were safe, only to find their dogs attacked strangers and cause serioius or life-threatening injuries.

"Enough is enough. We cannot have these animals walking the streets, the fields, or the family rooms of Ontario."

Postal worker Darlene Wagner supports the ban. She lost an ear after being attacked by a pit bull while she was delivering mail.

"I'm happy this is happening," she says. "It's been a long time coming. It will make me feel safer out on the streets when I'm out there and for everybody else too."

Toronto mayor David Miller and Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino also both support the ban.

"This problem is not exclusive to any single municipality, it is a province-wide issue and therefore the best solution is a province-wide strategy to keep Ontarians safe from dangerous dogs," Miller said in a statement.

Liz White of the animal protection group Animal Alliance of Canada is adamantly against the ban. She believes that pit bulls can make wonderful family pets and doesn't believe they are naturally dangerous.

"I think that is absolutely not the case," she told Canada AM Friday. "Look at the German shepherd. It can be made into an attack dog, a police dog, a seeing eye dog, a companion animal -- all in one breed. The same as for any dog. It all depends on how you train it and how you care for it.

"I think that Michael Bryant is going to cause the deaths of many, many animals that are absolutely wonderful," White adds.

"And I hope he goes down to the shelter and sticks the needle in the six-month old pit bull puppy that has done nothing to anybody but that is going to die because of his legislation."

If the bill is passed, Ontario would become the first province to specifically target the breed. Many municipalities across the country have chosen to either ban pit bulls or enact strict restrictions, such as muzzling. Windsor, Ont. brought in new rules just last month.

After the city of Kitchener banned pit bulls and enacted fines of up to $5,000, dog attacks have dropped dramatically in the Kitchener-Waterloo area.

However, Winnipeg enacted a similar ban and found that attacks by Rottweilers jumped after the pit bull ban came in.

Saskatchewan has been the only province to pass "dangerous-dog" legislation with penalties that include fines of up to $10,000 or six months in jail or both.

"It's a slippery slope," said Gary Gibson, a canine behavioural expert. "Once you ban one breed, then the next breed becomes the issue, then another becomes the issue."

White doesn't think the bans in Kitchener and other place will last long. She says the problem is that "pit bull" is not a breed, but an umbrella term for American Pit Bull terriers, American Staffordshires, Staffordshire Bull terriers, or any mix involving those breeds.

"In the U.S., where they've had a much longer history of banning specific breeds of animals, there have been court challenges and the legislation has fallen because they can't actually define what a pit bull is. There are just so many variations."

The Canada Safety Council says Canada has no national data on dog-related deaths and injuries, or which breeds cause the most harm.

[Popps]

"And I hope he goes down to the shelter and sticks the needle in the six-month old pit bull puppy that has done nothing to anybody but that is going to die because of his legislation."

Yea, how about we just don't breed the puppy?

Amazing how the common sense just flees people's arguments.

[Bronx33]

"And I hope he goes down to the shelter and sticks the needle in the six-month old pit bull puppy that has done nothing to anybody but that is going to die because of his legislation."

Yea, how about we just don't breed the puppy?

Amazing how the common sense just flees people's arguments.


Iam sure in alot of cases folks have well mannered pits but the fact remains backed by numerous stories printed weekly the pit has a trait (breed into it) by humans. Not the dogs fault but it's a problem that has to be addressed and it is never popular as we can all see. I lived next to 3 pits that were gental as lambs butttttttt one of them put it's head through my basement window trying to get my cat and also chasing people that walked by and one that i just didn't trust (they got rid of that one)

[vancejohnson82]

Popps,

Still no answer to my question.

These dogs are described as "pitbulls" but they could be mutts with several different backgrounds.

It's just easier to write pitbull into the article and put it up in the stat sheet

And as for common sense, I think there has been plenty of "common sense" on both sides of this argument...maybe the way you read people's arguments is a bit askew

[Popps]

Popps,

Still no answer to my question.

These dogs are described as "pitbulls"

I've answered the question many, many times.

Yes, there are mixes. If you stop breeding PBs... then we stop the mixes, too... right? At least a large portion of them.

As for the attacks, they're almost always accompanied by pictures, and I can't recall a time I saw one that clearly wasn't a PB, or predominantly PB.
As for the grey areas, we'd simply train someone in AC to diagnose which dogs are which.

Popps,
maybe the way you read people's arguments is a bit askew

Could be, but I just read someone's argument who claimed opponents wanted to "stick a needle in a 6 month old puppy," so forgive me if I reacted poorly.... but that's just idiotic.

Otherwise, I'm simply deflecting what I consider to be poor arguments... the idea that because it might be a little difficult, we shouldn't do it. I don't buy that.

[mosca]

Slippery slope arguments are almost always garbage, but in this case... it's particularly inaccurate. Plus, if there DOES turn out to be a breed that becomes as troublesome as PBs have become, then sure... we may have to deal with them, as well.

The thing is, other dog breeds of all types ARE troublesome. This page (http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/AllDogsBite.htm) lists around 15-20 news reports a month documenting severe attacks by various breeds - golden retrievers, great danes, labradors, chows, boxers, collies, etc. There's even one instance of greyhounds that killed their owner. These are recent events, not freak occurances that happened once, 5-10 years ago. Yes, it is a pit bull advocacy site, but it is up-to-date documentation of frequent serious dog attacks by various breeds, most requiring hospitalization and sometimes causing death. Check it out.

[Bronx33]

In the United States, pit bulls make up one to three per cent of the overall dog population and cause more than 50 per cent of serious attacks.

From 1979 to 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these incidences.

http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20Bite%20Statistics/DogBiteStatistics.html

[Bronx33]

Iam going to guess owners had alot to do with the attacks do too improper containment and shear stupidity just based on the fact of who the owners are and why they got them in the first place. Most have no clue on how to handle specific breeds and which situations they should never be allowed in.

[mosca]

In the United States, pit bulls make up one to three per cent of the overall dog population and cause more than 50 per cent of serious attacks.

From 1979 to 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these incidences.

http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20Bite%20Statistics/DogBiteStatistics.html
So even if Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were banned, this only will account for somewhat more than 50% of the problem. The dog breeds responsible for the remaining 40-something percent of deaths are not addressed. If the solution to this problem is banning the dogs themselves, then all dogs should be banned, not just some.

[Bronx33]

So even if Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were banned, this only will account for somewhat more than 50% of the problem. The dog breeds responsible for the remaining 40-something percent of deaths are not addressed. If the solution to this problem is banning the dogs themselves, then all dogs should be banned, not just some.


Iam simply posting some info i found but 50% is a huge number and yes i understand numbers can be scewed and probably are but i never saw a pomerainian attack ever reported so banning all breeds is a bit ridiculas*

[mosca]

Iam simply posting some info i found but 50% is a huge number and yes i understand numbers can be scewed and probably are but i never saw a pomerainian attack ever reported so banning all breeds is a bit ridiculas*
I went to the site you linked to... some of the data was a little old, but it was a good site, lots of good info.

Fine then... not all dog breeds. Just ban anything larger than a lap dog. We'll be safe then. Er...maybe not, I just read this report ;D :

"A Houston mother told police that the family Dachshund bit off her 5-week-old son's genitals while she was sleeping, but investigators said they are skeptical of the mother's claims."

http://www.wnbc.com/news/11261924/detail.html

[Popps]

Iam going to guess owners had alot to do with the attacks do too improper containment and shear stupidity just based on the fact of who the owners are and why they got them in the first place. Most have no clue on how to handle specific breeds and which situations they should never be allowed in.

Absolutely the owners deserve some liability, here.

But, a "mishandled" Cocker Spaniel won't kill someone. The mishandling leads to different results with different breeds. THAT is the issue.

Everyone understands that people are ultimately responsible. What matters is the end result.

[Bronx33]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW0dhh_Aj6A

An example of one whom shouldn't own pitbulls, iam not sure what the big deal among these guys but one thing is for sure (it's gay) and a attempt at being cool to all the wrong people.

[orange 4 life]

Great stuff.


not really.


However, Winnipeg enacted a similar ban and found that attacks by Rottweilers jumped after the pit bull ban came in.


what a surprise!!

here is the boxer attack of the day:

SOUTH BEND -- As a mother and daughter continue to heal from injuries suffered during a vicious dog attack, the owner of the animals recently offered his apologies to the family.

"I feel terrible for what happened, and I accept responsibility for it," Andrew Silvernail said.

Adena Moore and her 4-year-old daughter, Hannah Connell, were attacked June 17 by two large boxer mixed-breeds while walking near their home in the 800 block of Forest Avenue. The dogs have since been put down.

*************

so, should south bend ban boxers?

this all sucks.

popps, you say pitbulls were bred to attack to the death?
sure, its calles "gameness", and in SOME cases its still bred into the dog.
that said, a BIG part of it is also NOT having the dog be a threat to humans.
there is no "switch" that goes off, and the evidence backs that up.
im sure you can find all kinds of pitbull attack stories, and im sure there are very few that arent sentationalized.
of all the "pitbull" (we all agree thats a vague term in of itself) attacks that have resulted in a death, not ONE was found to have come from a nice loving home and then "snapped" as you and so many others put it.

you think my dogs have a "switch" that could someday magically go off for no reason?
that theyll turn into vicious killers out of the blue and without warning?
please, thats laughable.
there's no more a chance of that happening than there is your boxer attacking your daughter right after that cute picture was snapped.
enough already. punish the people.

[orange 4 life]

......and what about when my dogs pass on?
im supposed to choose a new breed according to that law? no thanks.

vets, shelter employees, and groomers own APBT's at such a high rate because they know that in a good home theyre NOT a threat to humans.

[Beantown Bronco]

Adena Moore and her 4-year-old daughter, Hannah Connell, were attacked June 17 by two large boxer mixed-breeds while walking near their home in the 800 block of Forest Avenue. The dogs have since been put down.

They were probably 75% pit, 25% boxer.....at best.

[Rigs11]

not really.



what a surprise!!

here is the boxer attack of the day:

SOUTH BEND -- As a mother and daughter continue to heal from injuries suffered during a vicious dog attack, the owner of the animals recently offered his apologies to the family.

"I feel terrible for what happened, and I accept responsibility for it," Andrew Silvernail said.

Adena Moore and her 4-year-old daughter, Hannah Connell, were attacked June 17 by two large boxer mixed-breeds while walking near their home in the 800 block of Forest Avenue. The dogs have since been put down.

*************

so, should south bend ban boxers?

this all sucks.

popps, you say pitbulls were bred to attack to the death?
sure, its calles "gameness", and in SOME cases its still bred into the dog.
that said, a BIG part of it is also NOT having the dog be a threat to humans.
there is no "switch" that goes off, and the evidence backs that up.
im sure you can find all kinds of pitbull attack stories, and im sure there are very few that arent sentationalized.
of all the "pitbull" (we all agree thats a vague term in of itself) attacks that have resulted in a death, not ONE was found to have come from a nice loving home and then "snapped" as you and so many others put it.

you think my dogs have a "switch" that could someday magically go off for no reason?
that theyll turn into vicious killers out of the blue and without warning?
please, thats laughable.
there's no more a chance of that happening than there is your boxer attacking your daughter right after that cute picture was snapped.
enough already. punish the people.

Actually there have been many attacks where the family pit that has not been tied up, or abused has snapped. Google 'pit attacks' and you will find these stories where the first attack by a pit has been the deadly one.Many owners have been completley surprised that their sweet dog suddenly attacked.I think you are fooling yourself into thinking that the 'switch' will not go off on your pits. It might or it might not, but to sit here and say that there is no way your dogs would ever attack is laughable. All dogs have the tendency to attack, they are animals, when a pit attacks they cause so much more damage then other breeds. Why you can't understand this after pages and pages of posts proves your stubborness.

[bendog]

It was a good day when my neighbors got rid of their pit. Ironically, it was just days after their adopted child arrived. I guess they didn't think it was a danger to my child. Dog barked at me all the time. I really wanted to shoot it.

[mosca]

All dogs have the tendency to attack, they are animals, when a pit attacks they cause so much more damage then other breeds.
Not true - there are numerous reports of other large dog breeds inflicting similar amounts of damage... german sheperds, boxers, dobermans, mastiffs, etc. People seem to want to ignore all these other breeds of dog and focus only on pit bulls for some reason. It's selective thinking at its best.

[Popps]

here is the boxer attack of the day:
.

First off, it was a mix.

Second, the kid wasn't killed, as the grown woman was on Friday who's owner basically admitted that the dog's switch flipped....

A pit bull so docile it shared a bed with its owners viciously attacked and killed a 63-year-old woman Friday, almost tearing off the thumb of one of its owners as she tried to get the dog off her sister.

It wasn't until a deputy sheriff shot the dog with a stun gun that it released its grip on the victim. By that time, it has almost pulled off the woman's scalp and bitten her severely about the face.

"My sister-in-law is dead," said a distraught Eliasar Macias as he wiped away tears. "I don't know what happened."

His dog, named Tas, was like a member of the family, Macias said.


It would be one thing if I hadn't heard that story a million times. Conversely, I've never heard about a boxer attacking-killing its owners, much less a Collie, Retriever, etc.

So, you don't have to like the facts, Jake... but they are what they are. We can "punish the people," all we want... but society doesn't need to suffer so some sect of people who like a particular dog breed can prove a point.

"Punish the people" is fine, but removing the problem is also fine.

I'm positive that a certain segment of our society could handle mountain lions as pets. I'm sure of it. But, just because it may be "the human's fault" that their mountain lion ate the neighbor doesn't really make it any easier to accept.

Pit bulls and related terriers don't make society a better place. They're not a privilege. They're a luxury that we're proving incapable of handling.

You love the dogs, Jake. So do I. The VAST majority of the world couldn't give a **** who's fault it is when a little girl gets killed. They just want the problem stopped.

[kamakazi_kal]

......and what about when my dogs pass on?
im supposed to choose a new breed according to that law? no thanks.

vets, shelter employees, and groomers own APBT's at such a high rate because they know that in a good home theyre NOT a threat to humans.


orange I hate to say it but everyone has already decided how they feel about the breed you will never get through to them it's like trying to argue stats with boob, and from that I have learned numbers and ideas can be twisted to fit any senario. I have a 10mo old and dont worry about my dog at all she pulls, twists and tugs on parts that cant feel good and he takes it like the good boy he was raised to be...........wish I knew how to post pictures here.

but all that to say................

your wasting your time...........sorry

[orange 4 life]

rigs,

i KNOW my dogs dont have a "switch", and i know this from doing DOZENS of hours of research.
that breed in particular is one of the LEAST likely to become violent towards humans, and the reason you see so many stories in the media has been posted repeatedly, which just proves your stubborness. :~ohyah!:

there are more pits than ever, there are more abused and neglected pits than any other breed, and there are an enormous number of news stories that mistakenly identify a dog in an attack as a "pitbull" when in reality its not even a pitbull mix.

again, the APBT was ORIGINALLY bred for only 2 things. one was to be a fighting dog, and the second was to be a companion. in either case it was VITAL that the dog exibited no aggressiveness towards humans. it takes ALOT for an APBT to get aggressive.

that said, they want constant attention and affection and they ARE very aggressive towards other animals. this combined with the fact that they ARE very powerful and can cause alot of damage when they bite (this thread started with a sentationalized story as those pits never intended to hurt the kids but they DID destroy the smaller dog) makes them a WONDERFUL family pet for the family with the time and love (as well as discipline) to give. theyre a wonderful pet for families with small children as they are very sensitive, intelligent, and tolerant to pain. they are NOT a good pet for the PLETHORA of people who get them so they can feel tough. its those people causing the problems. ive NEVER seen a pitbull from a good home even SNAP at anyone, and im guessing none of you have either, yet we see story after story. strange?

[BroncoInSkinland]

See, the story took a turn for me, there. He certainly wasn't "doing everything right." Dogs are not meant to be left out in a back yard, PARTICULARLY pit bulls. Locking a dog in the back yard leads to aggression. The fact that the gate was open just makes it off-the-charts unacceptable.



So, he used force to break the law because he was irresponsible with his potentially dangerous dog. Great.

We should celebrate him. I really don't think our society celebrates violent bullies quite enough.




Let's recap...

1. He left a 12 year old to handle a Pit Bull. (We saw how that worked out in Thursdays "attack of the day."

2. He leaves his dog in the back yard. (A classic recipe for dog aggression.)

3. He owns more than one Pit Bull. (Not an intelligent decision for most people.)

4. His back gate was unsecured. (If you have a ****ing Pit Bull, Rottie, GS, etc... you'd better have that area secured like a prison, because those are powerful, athletic dogs and they WILL get out.)

The dog was not "left out" in the backyard. The owner went to work, the 12 year old was getting ready for school, the indoor dog had to go to the bathroom, the 12 year old let it out into the 6' fence enclosed backyard, forgot it was outside, and went to school. The calm, well trained dog didn't leave the yard even though the gate was open, but merely sat at the back door barking to be let back in. Also, he only owned one pit bull, not sure where you got the impression he owned more than one. Also, the violent bully left work in the middle of the day to come deal with the pet that he loved and cared for, then was red taped by a system that focuses on the breed, not on the specifics of the problem. Sorry I wasn't clear enough in the original post, hope this helps.

Edit: PS, the story didn't take a turn for you anywhere, your mind was made up about the matter before you read it. That is why I am again agreeing to disagree and stepping away from this one. I apologize for return as often as I have, but it a subject of some passion for me.

[Rigs11]

Not true - there are numerous reports of other large dog breeds inflicting similar amounts of damage... german sheperds, boxers, dobermans, mastiffs, etc. People seem to want to ignore all these other breeds of dog and focus only on pit bulls for some reason. It's selective thinking at its best.

great, here we go again. Why then is it that pits have the most reported attacks, and the most deaths?Why is it that dog fighters use pits?No one is ignoring the other dogs, as I stated in my post all dogs can bite,but the pit has both agression and brute strength.

[orange 4 life]

orange I hate to say it but everyone has already decided how they feel about the breed you will never get through to them it's like trying to argue stats with boob, and from that I have learned numbers and ideas can be twisted to fit any senario. I have a 10mo old and dont worry about my dog at all she pulls, twists and tugs on parts that cant feel good and he takes it like the good boy he was raised to be...........wish I knew how to post pictures here.

but all that to say................

your wasting your time...........sorry

i think youre probably right, but like ive said before, everytime i hear stuff about bans i just think of my dogs cute faces looking up at me with complete love and trust, and i cant imagine the THOUSANDS of good dogs that have been killed because of unjust breed specific legislation, so i guess i feel like i have to try.

....and i wish i knew how to post pics also. popps saw a pic from back in late '05 (when our younger pit was just a pup), but other than that no one here has any idea what my dogs look like either.

[Popps]

Girl recovering after attack by family pitbull

http://KESQ.images.worldnow.com/images/6682136_BG1.jpg
http://KESQ.images.worldnow.com/images/6682136_BG2.jpg
http://KESQ.images.worldnow.com/images/6682136_BG3.jpg

By Elizabeth Beaubien
NewsChannel 3

From a distance, Elizabeth Arjona looks like any other 12-year-old girl -- enjoying her summer break, showing off her artwork on her bedroom wall.

But at a closer look, visible scars are still healing on her face. The scars came from a Memorial Day attack from her family's pitbull.

"I was sitting on the couch," Elizabeth says. "The dog was like two feet from me. He was eating chocolate, and I said ‘no chocolate!'

"He dropped the chocolate and growled and jumped on me and started biting."

Elizabeth's family rushed her to the emergency room where plastic surgeon Dr. Mark Sofonio soon saw her.

"This cut went from here to here," Dr. Sofonio points out at a large cut on Elizabeth's face. "I put my fingers in her mouth all open. When I opened the lip, her gums pulled off her lower lip, her mandible."

Even with those deep wounds, Dr. Sofonio says Elizabeth was lucky the dog let go after the bite.

Had the dog not let go, according to Dr. Sofonio, he would have taken a good portion of her face completely off including her lips.

Dr. Sofonio cleaned Elizabeth's cuts, stitched them up, and reattached part of the lips back to her gums.

Two and a half weeks later, he says she's healing well. And as more time passes, the scars will be less noticeable.

As for the pitbull, the family says they were going to put it to sleep, but Elizabeth decided she didn't want that for the pet.

Instead, they're looking for a new home for it.

Dr. Sofonio says the attack is a good reminder for parents to think about what kind of dog they have around their children.

"It just shows you that any time animals can lash out. Certain breeds are better than others."


Same old story. The trusted family pit bull flips out. Telling that's not a switch in that dog's head?

Please.

[BroncoInSkinland]

great, here we go again. Why then is it that pits have the most reported attacks, and the most deaths?Why is it that dog fighters use pits?No one is ignoring the other dogs, as I stated in my post all dogs can bite,but the pit has both agression and brute strength.

I will tell you this, if I heard about an agressive Pit I would grab my catch pole and go after it. If I hear about an agressive Mastiff, nothing short of a shotgun will get me involved.

[Popps]

Edit: PS, the story didn't take a turn for you anywhere, your mind was made up about the matter before you read it. .

It really wasn't, man. I know good owners exist. I've seen them. I've taken my dog to play with their (Pit bull) dogs. But, the story sounded a little fishy to me. Nothing personal, it just sounded like this dog wasn't getting the kind of watchful eye a dog of that capacity needs.

[Popps]

but other than that no one here has any idea what my dogs look like either.

I've seen your dogs. They're cute as hell.

I've seen PB pups, too. Not much on this earth cuter. Stopped to play with one at the park yesterday. Little chocolate colored dude about 4 months old.
Looked like a little stuffed animal.

But, how cute they are or how much I like them isn't really the issue.

Again, the simple comparison is to guns. I love shooting guns as much as the next guy. But, if I could make them all vanish from our society, I probably would. We just can't handle them. That doesn't make me anti-gun..... I'm not.

It's not about what I like, per se. It's about what I think our society is capable of being responsible with.

[kamakazi_kal]

from the ASPCA, not a blog, not some story hungry news service, not some gangster with a computer, not some I'll get my shotgun a$$hole but an actual government funded agency that gains nothing from posting information.

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pets_pitbull

all the information you could ever want to know about those evil lap dogs of satan


Pit Bull Information What is a Pit Bull?
There is a great deal of confusion and fear associated with the term “pit bull.” This is a label commonly used for a type of short-coated large terrier, anywhere from 40-80 pounds, characterized by a wide skull, powerful jaws, and a muscular, stocky body. Some of the dogs so labeled are purebred—either the American Staffordshire Terrier or the American Pit Bull Terrier. Some of the dogs labeled “pit bulls” are mixed with other breeds.

What is NOT a Pit Bull?
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Bull Terrier are sometimes mistaken for pit bulls. Although they share a similar body type, they are substantially smaller dogs. American Bulldogs are also sometimes confused as pit bulls, but they, too, belong to a distinct breed.

The Pit Bull Heritage
The pit bull’s ancestors hail from England and were brought to North America by English immigrants. These descendants were bred from bulldogs, who were selectively bred to participate in an inhumane blood sport called baiting. In this “sport,” a dog was trained to attack a bull, bear or other large animal around the face and head, and had to hang on without releasing his grip until the animal became exhausted from fighting and from loss of blood. When animal baiting was banned in the early 1800s, people began to make their dogs fight against each other instead. As this sport gained popularity, enthusiasts developed a lighter, more athletic dog by breeding bulldogs with black and tan terriers. Known as “bull and terriers,” these dogs made their way to North America to become the forefathers of today’s pit bulls.

A Bit About What Makes a Breed
Every breed of dog was developed to perform a specific job--whether that is hunting rabbits, retrieving downed birds, herding livestock or sitting on people’s laps. When breeders develop a breed, they select only those dogs who perform the job best to reproduce the next generation. The dog should be built to perform the desired job and possess the behavioral tendencies to learn the job. But it’s important to understand that even though a breed may be characterized by a certain pattern of behaviors, individuals within a breed can vary tremendously. Some dogs will be courageous, others timid; some dogs will be stubborn, others easy-going; some dogs will be sociable, others aloof. So don’t be alarmed if your dog doesn’t fit exactly with his or her breed description.

Breed Characteristics of Pit Bulls
Pit bulls were genetically selected for their fighting prowess. What does this mean? What it doesn’t mean is that pit bulls can’t be around other dogs or that they are unpredictably aggressive, or that they will fight to the death. What it does mean is that pit bulls can easily be encouraged to be aggressive toward other dogs or, to put it another way, it takes less to arouse a pit bull than many other breeds to be aggressive toward other dogs.

It may help to understand how dogs learn to get along with other. Puppies of all breeds need to be socialized with other dogs in order to learn how to interact, how to play, and how to communicate with them. This early socialization acts to “inoculate” the puppy against future unpleasant experiences. Suppose the puppy is playing with another dog and the play escalates into a fight. Most well socialized puppies will bounce back after a fight and still want to play. Pit bull puppies need more than the average amount of socializing with other dogs--to ensure that they enjoy the company of dogs and to modify their natural play behavior, which is often rougher than that of other breeds. Even with extra socialization, a little squabble between friends could spark a pit bull to be testy with dogs—simply because the pit bull is genetically predisposed to react aggressively to dogs.

Dogfights between dogs of “average” breeds are usually “ritualized.” The objective is for one dog to walk away the victor with little or no bloodshed. The participants engage in plenty of preliminary behavior designed to intimidate their opponent, such as facial expressions, posturing, circling, growling, and snarling. Bites delivered during a fight are typically inhibited--the point is to cause pain, but not necessarily to inflict serious injuries. Pit bulls, however, have been selected to behave quite differently during fights. They rarely give any warning that they are about to act aggressively (some people call them “stone-faced”), and they seldom back down against an opponent. They are more often involved in fights that end in injury, suggesting that a pit bull’s aggression more closely resembles predatory behavior.

Even though pit bulls were bred to fight with each other, breeders took pride in producing dogs who were trustworthy and friendly to people. Handlers had to be in the pits with the dogs during fights, sometimes having to pull them apart to end a fight. Any dog who redirected their aggression to a person was culled. These “early” pit bulls typically lived in their owner’s homes and actually earned the nickname of “nursemaid’s dog” because they were so reliable with young children.

Like most terriers, pit bulls are extremely tenacious and stubborn. They easily become highly aroused and, when in such an agitated state, often have little control over their behavior if they have not been taught to inhibit their impulses. Hence, pit bulls have a reputation for being more “mouthy” and bite harder in play than other breeds. They are also relatively impervious to pain.

The Pit Bull’s Bad Reputation
Sadly, pit bulls have acquired a reputation as unpredictable, dangerous, and vicious. Their intimidating appearance has made them attractive to the wrong sorts of owner—people who are looking for a macho dog and end up encouraging aggressive behavior. In order to meet the growing demand for pit bulls, unscrupulous and uncaring breeders are producing puppies without maintaining the breed’s typical reliability with people. In fact, pit bulls are now notorious for redirecting aggression from a dog to any person who attempts to break up a fight. It is a shame what has happened to this loyal and affectionate breed.

Having said all that, we must tell you that a well-bred, well-socialized, and well-trained pit bull is one of the most delightful, intelligent, and gentle dogs imaginable. Some of the most famous dogs in American history were pit bulls: Stubby, the most decorated United States war dog; Petey, the beloved mascot from Little Rascals, and Helen Keller’s faithful companion. Additionally, many pit bulls were featured in well-known advertising campaigns, such as Buster Brown shoes and Levis. The majority of pit bulls are still ambassadors for their breed, serving as loving companions, family members, and therapy dogs, working in search and rescue, narcotics and explosives detection, and police and sentry duty. Unfortunately, we often hear more about the exceptions than the rule.

What Pit Bulls Need
If you have, or are thinking of adopting, a pit bull, please ensure that you can provide the following:
- Plenty of early socialization with dogs and with people, beginning as young as seven weeks of age and continuing into adulthood.
- Training, starting with Puppy Kindergarten and progressing through Basic and Advanced Obedience. We highly recommend continued guidance throughout the dog’s life.
- Neutering or spaying--there are already too many pit bulls and not enough homes for them.
- Lots of daily exercise! Pit bulls are high-energy athletes!
- Honest and constant attention to the behavior of the dog. Questionable behavior can never be excused, and must be addressed immediately through training/retraining, and/or management

Recommended Reading
The Working Pit Bull by Diane Jessup (TFH Publisher)
The Ultimate American Pit Bull Terrier by Jacqueline O’Neil (IDG Books Worldwide)

[Rigs11]

rigs,

i KNOW my dogs dont have a "switch", and i know this from doing DOZENS of hours of research.
that breed in particular is one of the LEAST likely to become violent towards humans, and the reason you see so many stories in the media has been posted repeatedly, which just proves your stubborness. :~ohyah!:

there are more pits than ever, there are more abused and neglected pits than any other breed, and there are an enormous number of news stories that mistakenly identify a dog in an attack as a "pitbull" when in reality its not even a pitbull mix.

again, the APBT was ORIGINALLY bred for only 2 things. one was to be a fighting dog, and the second was to be a companion. in either case it was VITAL that the dog exibited no aggressiveness towards humans. it takes ALOT for an APBT to get aggressive.

that said, they want constant attention and affection and they ARE very aggressive towards other animals. this combined with the fact that they ARE very powerful and can cause alot of damage when they bite (this thread started with a sentationalized story as those pits never intended to hurt the kids but they DID destroy the smaller dog) makes them a WONDERFUL family pet for the family with the time and love (as well as discipline) to give. theyre a wonderful pet for families with small children as they are very sensitive, intelligent, and tolerant to pain. they are NOT a good pet for the PLETHORA of people who get them so they can feel tough. its those people causing the problems. ive NEVER seen a pitbull from a good home even SNAP at anyone, and im guessing none of you have either, yet we see story after story. strange?

The statement you are making is asnine. No one can say that their dog won't ever bite. It's ludicrous. hell i can't say that about my Lab.Go tell the mother of the many toddlers and kids that have been attacked by the family pit that they make great family pets.Again, your pits might be friendly but the issue is are pits dangerous? And the answer is yes.You're trying to argue with us by offering your experience with your dogs and we are giving you actual evidence of horrific attacks. It's ridicoulous.

[kamakazi_kal]

also the ASPCA site

Dog Bite Prevention - Did you know that 50 percent of all children in the United States will be bitten by a dog before their 12th birthday? Did you know that 800,000 bites a year are severe enough to require medical treatment, while 1 to 2 milion go unreported?

The vast majority of dog bites are from a dog known to the child—his or her own pet, a neighbor's or friend's. You can help prevent this from happening to your child. Please discuss with him or her the appropriate way to behave around dogs. The following activity will help you and your child understand the difference between safe and potentially dangerous interactions with dogs.

[Popps]

also the ASPCA site

Dog Bite Prevention - Did you know that 50 percent of all children in the United States will be bitten by a dog before their 12th birthday?

I was bitten probably 4-5 times as a kid. Still loved dogs. (Still do.)

The difference? None of them was a Pit Bull attack. (See the photos above for the difference between having your hand snapped at and your face nearly torn off.)

Please discuss with him or her the appropriate way to behave around dogs.

That helps.

What also helps is not owning a family pet that can tear the face off of your kid at any minute, because the kid said "no" to it or something.

[mosca]

great, here we go again. Why then is it that pits have the most reported attacks, and the most deaths?Why is it that dog fighters use pits?No one is ignoring the other dogs, as I stated in my post all dogs can bite,but the pit has both agression and brute strength.
You're right - pits have the most reported attacks. They cause the most deaths, and are the dogs most often used in dog fights. That doesn't overshadow the similar damage done by other dog breeds.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/AllDogsBite.htm

The aggression and brute strength you mention are exhibited by many other dog breeds. Banning pit bulls will only account for somewhat over 50% of that problem. I don't see the logic behind that solution unless it is applied to the rest of the dog breeds responsible for the other 40-something % of attacks resulting in death, dismemberment, severe bite wounds, etc.

[mosca]

What also helps is not owning a family pet that can tear the face off of your kid at any minute, because the kid said "no" to it or something.
Not sure why you own a boxer, then - they definitely have the capability to do that.

[Popps]

Not sure why you own a boxer, then - they definitely have the capability to do that.

Capability and probability are two different things.

Great Danes have the "capability" to kill someone in minutes. Yet, they never do.

An abused Boxer might snap at you, like any other dog. But, if you understand the breed, you know they're no more of a threat than a Lab might be.

In other words, they won't sleep in your bed... then get up and kill your sister or tear the face off of your 9 year old girl.

There's a reason you don't hear about other dog breeds doing this stuff... and YOU DO hear about PBs doing it.

[Popps]

I don't see the logic behind that solution unless it is applied to the rest of the dog breeds responsible for the other 40-something % of attacks resulting in death, dismemberment, severe bite wounds, etc.

First off, solving 50% of any problem is a good place to start.

Secondly, if the slippery slope argument is coming, please save it. I've already dealt with that.

As far as I'm concerned, any breed that shows itself to be a regular nuisance should be under the microscope... and I absolutely love dogs. But, if society can't ****ing handle the responsibility, we can all just own hamsters or something. I don't have the time or patience to play games with kids being attacked and women being killed.

[orange 4 life]

great, here we go again. Why then is it that pits have the most reported attacks, and the most deaths?Why is it that dog fighters use pits?No one is ignoring the other dogs, as I stated in my post all dogs can bite,but the pit has both agression and brute strength.

great, here we go again.

1) because the MAJORITY of stories you hear about arent APBT's at all, and a large percentage arent even mixes, but it makes a better story. the last reported attack here in colorado was an amstaff/mastiff mix, yet the paper said "pitbull".

2) they use APBT's for fighting because they are strong, quick, and theyre NOT unpredictable. theyre NOT a danger to the humans (if you wanna call those fvggers "human") that are fighting them.

3) they do NOT have "aggression" as most APBT's (regardless of what theyve been bred for) are naturally EXTREMELY docile towards humans. aggression is extremely uncommon in the breed, and "brute strength" could be used to describe many large and midsized breeds. the "lock jaw" rumor has no basis in reality, and with that in mind staffy's, shepherds, mastiffs, dobermans, and many other breeds have just as much (or more) "brute strength".

[mosca]

Capability and probability are two different things.

Great Danes have the "capability" to kill someone in minutes. Yet, they never do.
Yes they do. Between 1979 - 1998 Great Danes were responsible for 7 deaths, according to Beerslug's earlier posted data (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf).

A more recent attack:
Great Dane attacks girl, 14 (http://www.townonline.com/braintree/news/x1063755055)

Fri May 18, 2007, 12:27 PM EDT

A three-legged Great Dane weighing about 200 pounds attacked a 14-year-old girl who was visiting her mother’s home, leaving what Fire Lt. Jim O’Brien described as “a gaping hole” in her scalp.

The mother had to pry the dog’s mouth open to release her daughter’s head.
(continued at link)

An abused Boxer might snap at you, like any other dog. But, if you understand the breed, you know they're no more of a threat than a Lab might be.

In other words, they won't sleep in your bed... then get up and kill your sister or tear the face off of your 9 year old girl.
Boxers have been responsible for 3 deaths between 1979-1998, according to the same data. Labradors, 5.

One particularly vicious recent boxer attack:

Dogs Viciously Attack Veterinarian (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/10520700/detail.html)

POSTED: 4:36 pm PST December 12, 2006
UPDATED: 5:07 pm PST December 12, 2006

(excerpt)
The attack left Nancy Matthews with more than 100 bite wounds over most of her body. According to Matthews, the attack took place while she was on a walk in Valley Center with her two young sons. She said the two boxers suddenly attacker her and mauled her for nearly 15 minutes.

"It went on for so long, I started losing blood and losing consciousness," Matthews told NBC 7/39. "At one point, I knew they were killing me."

Matthews said she was terrified the dogs would turn on her sons -- ages 9 and 11 -- and that she kept screaming for them to run away. During the attack, Matthews curled up into a ball. She said the dogs were literally tearing her flesh apart.

Photos taken about a week after the attack still show the severity of Matthew's wounds. She said she had hundreds of bites and still has 90 scars.
(continued at link)
There's a reason you don't hear about other dog breeds doing this stuff... and YOU DO hear about PBs doing it.
You only "hear" about PBs doing it because they're what the major media focuses on in this hysteria. Other dog breeds are doing it as well, they just don't get as much attention. It takes a little more digging to find out about these cases.

[Popps]

Jake, for the record... I haven't seen a single story that mis-reported the dog, and most include pics, including the little girl attack above. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'd suspect that it's nowhere near a "majority."

[orange 4 life]

The statement you are making is asnine. No one can say that their dog won't ever bite. It's ludicrous. hell i can't say that about my Lab.Go tell the mother of the many toddlers and kids that have been attacked by the family pit that they make great family pets.Again, your pits might be friendly but the issue is are pits dangerous? And the answer is yes.You're trying to argue with us by offering your experience with your dogs and we are giving you actual evidence of horrific attacks. It's ridicoulous.

notice i didnt say they COULDNT ever BITE.
i said there isnt any "switch" that magically goes off and turns my little babies into vicious killers.
my elder pitbull had a group of kids throwing rocks at him, and instead of barking and/or trying to attack, he whined until i came outside to see what happened. when i came out, he jumped in my lap and pee'd himself. he was a puppy then, but i found out within weeks that he couldve jumped over the fence if he had wanted to.
my younger pit is afraid of his own shadow.
they BOTH exibited some agrression towards other animals as puppies (especially with regards to food), but i made them eat out of the same bowl and every time i heard a growl i put my face in between them. growling immediately stopped, and not for a second did i fear for myself.
neither has ever even snapped at a human, yet theyve both had instances where many/most dogs wouldve.

my lab on the other hand snapped at my son, my father, and most recently got kicked out of the vets office for being aggressive. he's a good boy too, but not nearly as reliable around strangers and kids.

sure, its within the realm of possibility that one of my APBT's could bite, but its EXTREMELY unlikely, and the "switch" just isnt there.
as for other peoples dogs in these stories, i just cant say because i wasnt there.
what i can say is that in all my work with animals (which is extensive) ive NEVER seen a well loved/trained APBT bite anyone....ever.
further, no one i know that works with the breed ever has either.

[Popps]

Yes they do. Between 1979 - 1998 Great Danes were responsible for 7 deaths, according to Beerslug's earlier posted .

Fair enough. 7 in 20 years. I'd guess we could find that many pit bull killings in the last couple of weeks.

But, I stand corrected. I should have been more clear that Great Danes ALMOST NEVER kill, whereas pit bulls do it with regularity.

The other likelihood here is that the Great Dane related deaths likely had more to do with sheer size than temperament.

You only "hear" about PBs doing it .

Wait, so you just posted two news stories about other dog attacks.... then you turn around and say "they only report PB attacks?!?"

Which is it?

I have a suggestion... maybe they report PB attacks because they're the most common and the most brutal.

[orange 4 life]

What also helps is not owning a family pet that can tear the face off of your kid at any minute, because the kid said "no" to it or something.

come on my friend. if you really believed that happens with any degree of frequency there's no way you'd let your dog play with pits.
you know as well as i do that something sounds fishy with that story. a well loved well trained dog of ANY breed isnt likely to attack over being told "no", and in my extensive experience its bordering on the impossible for a pitbull to do so.
you'd have a better chance of being struck by lightning.....inside.

[Popps]

According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA.

Over 2/3rd of the kills from a breed that can't possibly even make up 10% of the dog population.

Yea... nothing to see there.

[mosca]

First off, solving 50% of any problem is a good place to start.
I don't see the logic in only addressing half of the problem, when the proposed solution of banning certain breeds can certainly be applied to many other attack-prone dog breeds.

As far as I'm concerned, any breed that shows itself to be a regular nuisance should be under the microscope... and I absolutely love dogs. But, if society can't ****ing handle the responsibility, we can all just own hamsters or something. I don't have the time or patience to play games with kids being attacked and women being killed.
Pit bulls are hardly at the top of the list of things that some members of society "can't handle the responsibility" to have. May as well ban automobiles and force everyone to ride bikes or trains, due to the huge amount of auto fatalities.

[Popps]

come on my friend. if you really believed that happens with any degree of frequency there's no way you'd let your dog play with pits.

Again, I don't think this issue/debate should be hinged on what you or I "feel" or even necessarily our own experiences. It's got to be judged on a broader pool of evidence.

I've had great experiences with them. That doesn't really mean anything in a broader sense.

[orange 4 life]

Jake, for the record... I haven't seen a single story that mis-reported the dog, and most include pics, including the little girl attack above. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'd suspect that it's nowhere near a "majority."

earlier in the thread i listed a number of misreports (one which was actually a boxer mix), and here in colorado we've had two that i know of.
further, when i contacted 9news and asked if they would correct their mistake, they led me through a bunch of red tape before basically just saying "no".

the one attack was the amstaff/mastiff mix and the other (many years ago) was a shepherd mix.

[Popps]

earlier in the thread i listed a number of misreports (one which was actually a boxer mix), and here in colorado we've had two that i know of.
further, when i contacted 9news and asked if they would correct their mistake, they led me through a bunch of red tape before basically just saying "no".

the one attack was the amstaff/mastiff mix and the other (many years ago) was a shepherd mix.

What would you say this is...

http://kesq.images.worldnow.com/images/6682136_BG3.jpg

[mosca]

Wait, so you just posted two news stories about other dog attacks.... then you turn around and say "they only report PB attacks?!?"

Which is it?

I have a suggestion... maybe they report PB attacks because they're the most common and the most brutal.
I had to search the web to find the stories on the other dog attacks. I found a compilation of them only when I stumbled onto a pit bull advocacy site. Most had been reported in local news outlets, and then seemingly swept under the rug. Pit bull stories, on the other hand, seem to be more widely reported by larger media outlets, often with a nationwide audience. Maybe it's because they're more common and brutal. I also think that it's part of a larger hype and hysteria centered selectively on that one breed.

[orange 4 life]

According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA.

Over 2/3rd of the kills from a breed that can't possibly even make up 10% of the dog population.

Yea... nothing to see there.

damnit man.
come on now. thats the ONLY info that keeps being trotted out, and its been torn apart pages ago.
the damn thing is ADMITTEDLY biased as it takes ALL pitbull TYPE breeds and lumps them into one.
further, if you look at the kills from specific times ('79-'85 for example) pitbulls (THEIR definition which includes about 10 different breeds) arent even tops on the list.

beyond that, read the book that analyzes the individual cases that resulted in death. not ONE found a well trained dog in a loving home.

there ISNT much to see there, other than the fact that any large dog does have the ability to kill, and should therefore be handled with caution (like we didnt already know that).

[orange 4 life]

What would you say this is...

http://kesq.images.worldnow.com/images/6682136_BG3.jpg

i meant to comment on that already.
i think that looks like an APBT. possibly a purebred.

all i can say is that something seems strange here.
can you imagine your dog doing that?

can you imagine MY dogs doing that based on what you know of them and me?

buddy, ive never heard of that happening.
also, you must admit that many/most of the pics on the net and/or television do NOT look like that dog or my dogs. they look like amstaff/mastiffs, canario/mastiffs, bull terrier/shepherd, etc.
lots of big bodies and ENORMOUS heads, which of course are NOT traits of APBT's
these stories are sentationalized all the time. sometimes its using "pitbull" when the attack was by another breed, and other times its just misleading the public (as was done here on the 1st post of the thread) as to how and why the attack happened.

"tiny terrier saves kids from...pitbull"
or perhaps the pits didnt want the kids in the 1st place? gimme a break

"family pet goes on the rampage"
or perhaps it was tied to a post in the backyard and starved and ignored for years. not really a family pet.

bottom line is that we in this country have a pitbull hysteria going on, and our news media will capitalize on that whenever possible. you cant actually doubt that can you?

[Popps]

I don't see the logic in only addressing half of the problem.

Would you rather I handed you $100 or $50.

What do you mean you don't see the logic? Improving anything by 50% or higher is a drastic amount.

Pit bulls are hardly at the top of the list of things that some members of society "can't handle the responsibility" to have. May as well ban automobiles and force everyone to ride bikes or trains, due to the huge amount of auto fatalities.

Slippery slope nonsense... always where people run to hide when they can't directly engage a debate.

"Well... you can hurt yourself with a kitchen fork, too... should we ban those... HUH!??!??"

Great. Fantastic argument. You win.

[Popps]

bottom line is that we in this country have a pitbull hysteria going on, and our news media will capitalize on that whenever possible. you cant actually doubt that can you?

Jake, the easiest analogy I can think of is the behavior of NFL players. I used to get a ton of **** for suggesting that they needed to clean up their act.
Now days, it's almost unanimous around here that they do.

In other words, yes... media can run with stories at times, but at a certain point... those stories can actually take on validity. I don't think it's the breed's fault, but I think there's something to the idea that the breed (and potentially mixes of the breed) have become problematic.

[Popps]

I will concede this to you guys... other breeds might be getting a bit of a free ride due to the PBs being in the spotlight. I don't think people being killed by a dog is ever "swept under the rug," but maybe a simple dog-bite from a Collie won't get the same media play as one by a PB.

That STILL doesn't mean that the breed isn't a prime offender.

[mosca]

Would you rather I handed you $100 or $50.

What do you mean you don't see the logic? Improving anything by 50% or higher is a drastic amount.

Don't see the logic in banning only pit bulls as opposed to all large dog breeds who share the same attack histories.

Slippery slope nonsense... always where people run to hide when they can't directly engage a debate.

"Well... you can hurt yourself with a kitchen fork, too... should we ban those... HUH!??!??"

My point is that there are numerous things (many that inflict exponentially higher amounts of damage to society than pit bulls) that a select portion of society has proven not to be responsible enough to handle. That doesn't necessarily translate into prohibiting it altogether from the rest of society.

[Popps]

Don't see the logic in banning only pit bulls as opposed to all large dog breeds who share the same attack histories.


Well, there seems to be a problem with statistics, but most of what I've read/seen seems to put PBs (and similar terriers) near the top of the attack/kill list.

But, to answer your question... if any breed shows destructive aggression with regularity, then yes... I think they should be dealt with.

My point is that there are numerous things (many that inflict exponentially higher amounts of damage to society

Well, for the most part... if you're talking about drugs, etc. There's already efforts in place to deal with most of it.

[Rigs11]

You're right - pits have the most reported attacks. They cause the most deaths, and are the dogs most often used in dog fights. That doesn't overshadow the similar damage done by other dog breeds.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/AllDogsBite.htm

The aggression and brute strength you mention are exhibited by many other dog breeds. Banning pit bulls will only account for somewhat over 50% of that problem. I don't see the logic behind that solution unless it is applied to the rest of the dog breeds responsible for the other 40-something % of attacks resulting in death, dismemberment, severe bite wounds, etc.
And if you had been paying attention I never stated that banning the breed was the answer.

[Rigs11]

notice i didnt say they COULDNT ever BITE.
i said there isnt any "switch" that magically goes off and turns my little babies into vicious killers.
my elder pitbull had a group of kids throwing rocks at him, and instead of barking and/or trying to attack, he whined until i came outside to see what happened. when i came out, he jumped in my lap and pee'd himself. he was a puppy then, but i found out within weeks that he couldve jumped over the fence if he had wanted to.
my younger pit is afraid of his own shadow.
they BOTH exibited some agrression towards other animals as puppies (especially with regards to food), but i made them eat out of the same bowl and every time i heard a growl i put my face in between them. growling immediately stopped, and not for a second did i fear for myself.
neither has ever even snapped at a human, yet theyve both had instances where many/most dogs wouldve.

my lab on the other hand snapped at my son, my father, and most recently got kicked out of the vets office for being aggressive. he's a good boy too, but not nearly as reliable around strangers and kids.

sure, its within the realm of possibility that one of my APBT's could bite, but its EXTREMELY unlikely, and the "switch" just isnt there.
as for other peoples dogs in these stories, i just cant say because i wasnt there.
what i can say is that in all my work with animals (which is extensive) ive NEVER seen a well loved/trained APBT bite anyone....ever.
further, no one i know that works with the breed ever has either.


So let me get this straight. All the news reports are biased against pits. All the records on pit bull attacks are wrong.And pits are less aggressive than labs.All this based on your dogs? Hilarious! Again, do a google for pit bull attacks and read about the switch that you say doesn't exist.

[mosca]

And if you had been paying attention I never stated that banning the breed was the answer.
Good to hear. My remarks about banning the breed are directed at those who support that viewpoint.
I agree with you on what you said regarding owners guidelines, training, registration etc. But I'm not necessarily in favor of neighborhood ordinances prohibiting ownership of the dogs.

[Popps]

My bad. I said earlier we got through the weekend without a PB attack. I was wrong...

Houston boy gets more than 200 stitches after pit bull bite

By KEVIN MORAN
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

TOOLS
Email
Get section feed
Print
Subscribe NOW
Comments
Recommend (3)
A 6-year-old Houston boy spent three hours in surgery Sunday after being bitten in the face by a pit bull, his father said today.

"They stopped counting (stitches) at about 200," Brandon Palomo said, referring to repairs surgeons did on the face of his son, Logan Palomo, between noon and about 3 p.m. Sunday.

Logan was visiting his mother at her northwest Harris County home late Saturday when the dog bit him two or three times in the face, the father said.

The boy was listed in good condition at Memorial Hermann Hospital-The Medical Center today, a spokeswoman said.

The incident occurred in the 7300 block of Legacy Pines Drive off of Barker Cypress Road, said Sgt. Dana Wolfe of the Harris County Sheriff's Department.

Harris County Animal Control officials went to the residence after deputies responded to the call but did not take the dog into custody because it is not a stray, Wolfe said.

The dog belong's to a male roommate of the mother's boyfriend, Wolfe said. Because the man was not charged with any crime, Wolfe declined to release the dog owner's name.

The mother's account of the incident correlated with the father's, according to sheriff's reports.

Wolfe said the mother told deputies that the boy was playing with the dog when it bit him.

Logan's father said he understands the dog is to be checked for rabies.

Logan suffered one or more bites on the left side of his face and at least one on the right side at about 11:45 p.m. Saturday, his father said.

The left-side wound "looked like a puzzle piece missing" from his son's face, said Palomo, 26, a landscaping worker.

On the right side, the dog's teeth pierced Logan's face mainly above the eyebrow, narrowly missing a tear duct, the father said.

Although the wounds were "gorey" and required stitches in layers to repair, Logan was lucky, the father said.

"All these lacerations are around the eyes and nothing happened to the eyeballs," the father said.

There was little or no bone damage as well, he said.

Palomo said his son told him he was heading for bed and was trying to hug the dog good-night when it suddenly bit him.

The dog "rapidly chomped on him two or three times," Palomo said, his son told him. "It happened real fast."

He and his son live with Palomo's grandfather in the 1100 block of Louise in Houston's Heights area, the father said.

Palomo said he and Logan's mother are still married but have been separated for about three years.


No switch, though... right? Normal dogs rip the faces off of kids when they try to hug them.

[Popps]

Subsequent article, following attack... in favor of a ban.....



he Chronicle informs us of yet another child attacked by a pit bull (fortunately, unlike the other recently publicized attack, this child lived):

A 6-year-old Houston boy spent three hours in surgery Sunday after being bitten in the face by a pit bull, his father said today.

“They stopped counting (stitches) at about 200,” Brandon Palomo said, referring to repairs surgeons did on the face of his son, Logan Palomo, between noon and about 3 p.m. Sunday.

Knowing that this will infuriate the pit bull owners, is it time to ask the question: Should possession of these animals be banned?

What harm would come to society if these dogs no longer existed? Is there some organism on the food chain (other than 6 year old boys) which would propagate to unhealthy proportions without the culling skills of pit bulls?

I am not swayed by pit bull owners who say these dogs are just like other dogs, but are discriminated against. The problem with this argument is that it is false. Even the simplest of research reveals that studies consistently find that a single breed of dog is responsible for more attacks than any other. Guess what that breed is?

Studies show that pit bulls are the breed most responsible for incidents of dog bites, committing between 30% and 50% of all dog attacks. The studies also show that they commit twice to four times the attacks of the next most vicious dog breed. (Anecdotally, I spoke to a police officer who told me that, during his career, well over 90% of dog attacks he personally responded to involved pit bulls.)

So it is not just adverse publicity that makes it seem like pit bulls are more dangerous - it is the facts that show this to be true.

Neither am I impressed by the argument that pit bulls can be great pets, but they require more training, socialization and human interaction than most dogs. That is actually an argument in favor of getting rid of them. If they can’t be relied upon not to kill you without undergoing special training and treatment, why in the world would they be allowed to roam free?

With respect, pit bull owners are not the folks who should decide the fate of this breed. Dog owners, like parents, are protective of their “children.” They say, and truly believe, that there is nothing wrong with their animals, that it is the victim’s fault, or that it is a conspiracy by pit bull haters to paint their animals in a bad light. In fact, a government study suggested that pit bull owners frequently don’t tell the truth when asked about the history of their dogs. They often deny or minimize prior incidents which could be harbingers of future tragedies. In fact, the study suggests that neighbors and acquaintances are far better sources of accurate information about the dog’s behavior than the owners themselves.

On the other hand, some owners of pits involved in attacks can claim, with no evidence to the contrary, that their animals were always loving, gentle creatures who never before exhibited dangerous tendencies. If this is true, isn’t it all the more reason to ban or restrict this breed? After all, if the animal is so unpredictable and volatile that it could attack “out of the blue,” do we really want it chasing frisbees at the back yard barbeque?

A country neighbor of mine is a pit bull owner who trains his dogs to hunt and kill wild hogs. That pit has also been known to kill neighborhood pets. But my neighbor tells me the dog would never hurt a human. That’s what most pit bull owners say - including owners of dogs who attack people. (Though we are friendly, my neighbor is aware that his pits are subject to summary execution if found on my property.)

Rightly or wrongly, many countries and local governments have enacted legislation prohibiting the possession of these dogs. The UK banned the animals in 1991, under something called the Dangerous Dogs Act. Norway long ago banned most pit variants; France has restrictions on who can own them and requires them to be neutered. Harlem, Bronx and Yonkers, NY, instituted bans within the last year. Denver banned the dogs in 2005, as did Queens, NY. Bans have been proposed in the last year in such diverse places as New York City, Tupelo, MS and Richland, Washington.

Based on my personal experience and research on the issue, I have no qualms about any governing jurisdiction considering a ban on these animals in the interest of public safety. This is not because they occasionally bite people - every breed of dog has done this - but because they have proven to be the most dangerous, far and away ahead of any other type of dog. And, the wounds left from such an attack are more severe than those left by most dogs. (This is not just a matter of personal freedom. A man’s rights to do as he please end when his activities endanger others.)

So, you pit bull owners about to blow a gasket, your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to tell the rest of us: (1) Why you own a pit bull despite objective evidence showing them to be far more dangerous than other breeds of dog; (2) Why you could not do without a pit bull just fine; (3) Why you oppose a ban or severe restrictions on ownership of this breed of dog. As an alternative to a ban, would you support civil and criminal liability as to owners of pit bulls who injure others?


One thing this author didn't mention, is that restrictions on breeding is not "cruel." Dogs that were never born can never be fought, caged, or euthanized because they attacked a child.

[mosca]

quoted from article: "So, you pit bull owners about to blow a gasket, your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to tell the rest of us: (1) Why you own a pit bull despite objective evidence showing them to be far more dangerous than other breeds of dog; (2) Why you could not do without a pit bull just fine; (3) Why you oppose a ban or severe restrictions on ownership of this breed of dog. As an alternative to a ban, would you support civil and criminal liability as to owners of pit bulls who injure others?"
1)I don't own a pit bull or any dog currently - mainly because I don't have a house with a large enclosed backyard. If I were to own a dog, a pit bull would be near the top of my list. The "objective evidence" of them being far more dangerous presented here runs contrary to the personal experiences I have had with well-behaved pit bulls owned by friends and family. If I did own one (or another large breed) I'd be extra cautious if small children or very elderly people were in the household. I notice that many dog attacks are focused on those demographics.

2) I, or anyone, certainly can do without a pit bull just fine. Same could be said for any dog breed or household pet. They are companions, not a necessity.

3)My reasons for opposing a ban or severe restrictions I've already stated. I have no problem with the civil and criminal liability alternative, not only regarding pit bulls but all breeds.

[Beantown Bronco]

Boxers have been responsible for 3 deaths between 1979-1998, according to the same data. Labradors, 5.

You are proving Popps' point and you don't even realize it....3 deaths in 20 years at the hands of boxers. Friggin' dachshunds probably have more notches on their respective doghouses than that.

[kamakazi_kal]

I was bitten probably 4-5 times as a kid. Still loved dogs. (Still do.)

The difference? None of them was a Pit Bull attack. (See the photos above for the difference between having your hand snapped at and your face nearly torn off.)



That helps.

What also helps is not owning a family pet that can tear the face off of your kid at any minute, because the kid said "no" to it or something.


sorry to break it to ya but that dog in your avatar fits your discription.

[kamakazi_kal]

Capability and probability are two different things.

Great Danes have the "capability" to kill someone in minutes. Yet, they never do.

An abused Boxer might snap at you, like any other dog. But, if you understand the breed, you know they're no more of a threat than a Lab might be.

In other words, they won't sleep in your bed... then get up and kill your sister or tear the face off of your 9 year old girl.

There's a reason you don't hear about other dog breeds doing this stuff... and YOU DO hear about PBs doing it.

your an idiot

[kamakazi_kal]

Jake, for the record... I haven't seen a single story that mis-reported the dog, and most include pics, including the little girl attack above. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'd suspect that it's nowhere near a "majority."

thats cause when a story is mis-reported it gets a little "im sorry" paragraph in the back of the paper.

[orange 4 life]

So let me get this straight. All the news reports are biased against pits. All the records on pit bull attacks are wrong.And pits are less aggressive than labs.All this based on your dogs? Hilarious! Again, do a google for pit bull attacks and read about the switch that you say doesn't exist.

go back and read the rest of my posts. im not gonna go through it all again, and you dont have anything "straight".
actually, youre completely off base, but whatever floats your boat.

[orange 4 life]

No switch, though... right? Normal dogs rip the faces off of kids when they try to hug them.

sorry popps, but im fvvking sick of all these stories.
ive seen TONS of these stories before, and MOST of the time when i dig further some or all of it is bullsh!t.

no, there's no damn switch, and no one ive ever met has ever seen what youre posting happen.
never seen it, never knew anyone that saw it, and thats THOUSANDS of dogs we're talking about.
im not buying it.

you dont live here, but if you did, you wouldve posted the "pitbull viciously attacks child in his own backyard."

thats what was reported.
in reality, it was an amstaff/mastiff mix, it was abused and neglected, the boys mother is now in jail for animal and child abuse, and the boy took a nose dive on top of the dog when he jumped on it from top of a fence.
just a TAD different from the original story, yet you wouldnt know that from google, as the story was never amended.
they did at least report (many days later) that the mother was going down for child and animal abuse, but that doesnt cut it for me. how many people used that story just like youre using this one?

kaz is right, this is a useless fight. too many people are caught up in the hysteria, and nothing short of blood is gonna settle them down. most of them anyway.

[orange 4 life]

So, you pit bull owners about to blow a gasket, your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to tell the rest of us: (1) Why you own a pit bull despite objective evidence showing them to be far more dangerous than other breeds of dog; (2) Why you could not do without a pit bull just fine; (3) Why you oppose a ban or severe restrictions on ownership of this breed of dog. As an alternative to a ban, would you support civil and criminal liability as to owners of pit bulls who injure others?[/I]


1) because most of the evidence is complete hogwash, and through THOUSANDS of dogs (many directly, and some indirectly) that ive been associated with, ive NEVER seen or heard of an attack. not one.

2) because the look that my dogs give me could melt butter, and because i cant imagine living life knowing that no one (including me in he future) will have the pure joy of seeing that because the breed will be killed off. the APBT is by far the greatest breed of dog ive ever been around, and being that we worked with shelters and even fostered dogs, ive been around 'em all. theyre smart, loving, loyal, and theyre part of our family. i wouldnt be "just fine" without them because their love for us is completely unconditional, and that love deserves to be returned.

3) why would i oppose a ban? seriously? wow. okay, ill play. because it would kill off countless good dogs. would i support "civil and criminal liability"? abso-fvvkking-lutely. its what ive been talking about this whole time. swift and severe punishments to these backyard breeders and tough guy owners and theyll be scared enough to stop letting their 12 year old take the dog for a walk. theyll check that gate twice. theyll take the time to train the dog properly, or they will GO TO JAIL!! i would LOVE to see the laws ammended to take care of these a-holes that are responsible for killing off a breed of dog that at one time had a wonderful reputation in this country.

[Beantown Bronco]

1) because most of the evidence is complete hogwash, and through THOUSANDS of dogs (many directly, and some indirectly) that ive been associated with, ive NEVER seen or heard of an attack. not one.

I don't normally mind a little exaggeration here and there....but, c'mon....are you saying that you have been accociated with thousands of pits, or just thousands of dogs (not that I believe either number, but I'm curious). If you are saying thousands of dogs, and not pits, what exactly is your argument? That pits haven't attacked those thousands of dogs?

[orange 4 life]

I don't normally mind a little exaggeration here and there....but, c'mon....are you saying that you have been accociated with thousands of pits, or just thousands of dogs (not that I believe either number, but I'm curious). If you are saying thousands of dogs, and not pits, what exactly is your argument? That pits haven't attacked those thousands of dogs?

we've worked with animal shelters for years. we fostered dogs.
we've been trying to work almost exclusively with pits for the last 4 years.
why would you not believe that number?

also, in working with the other people at the shelters, you of course talk about your experiences hence the use of the word "indirectly". between my experiences and theirs, its at least hundreds, and probably 4 figures.

not ONCE did ANY of us see a pitbull attack. ever.

[Popps]

1) because most of the evidence is complete hogwash.

See, like the article said.. it's just hard for the general public to accept the word of one enthusiastic Pit bull owner over (literally) daily news stories.

Man, dog hurt escaping pit bull
July 3, 2007
Article Tools
E-mail
Print
Single page view
Reprints
Reader feedback
text size:

DELAND - -A DeLand man cut his leg and hands Sunday jumping a fence to escape a lunging pit bull that attacked his poodle.

The attack occurred two days after a Texas woman was fatally mauled by a pit bull while visiting family in Deltona.

Willie Williams, 58, said he was walking his poodle along South Florida Avenue about 11:30 a.m. when the bigger dog got free from behind a chain-link fence.




The pit bull snatched the poodle from Williams' hands and carried it off by the tail, Williams said Monday.

Williams said he chased the brown-and-white pit bull and freed his dog just before the pit bull turned on him.

Williams cut himself when he jumped a 4-foot-tall spiked gate surrounding a nearby retirement center, according to a DeLand Police Department report.

The report said the poodle suffered minor injuries.


We hear it every day, Jake. I showed you an article with a Pit bull THAT KILLED A WOMAN in their own home yesterday... WITH A PHOTO OF THE DOG, and you still say it's just bogus.

So, no offense, man... but at a certain point, people sort of start doubting the word of one Pit bull owner over a barrage of news stories.

[Popps]

not ONCE did ANY of us see a pitbull attack. ever.

Not saying I don't believe you, Jake... but let's just say that it sounds fishy.

I mean, I see dog fights almost every time I go to the dog park.

1000 of ANY breed, and you're going to have an occasional fight or attack.
You're saying that NONE of the dogs you've ever encountered were anything but perfect angels? C'mon, bro.

I rescued and fostered ONE Pit bull. It was a sweet dog, but it did attack a dog at the dog park pretty good and I had to pull it off of it or she probably would have done real damage.

One Pit bull.... one problem. You're saying that you've somehow lucked into ONE THOUSAND Pit bulls that not only defy their breed image, but defy DOG image, as well?

You have to understand why people are sort of scratching their head a little, here.

I suppose you just got very, very, very lucky and even with NORMAL dogs, those results are almost unheard of.

[Beantown Bronco]

we've worked with animal shelters for years. we fostered dogs.
we've been trying to work almost exclusively with pits for the last 4 years.
why would you not believe that number?

Easy. First, half this thread has been dedicated to the argument that the purebred pit is actually a somewhat rare breed (mixes on the other hand....). Now we have one person saying that they have been in contact with 1,000s of these rare dogs long enough to speak about their history and essentially "certify" that none of these thousands has ever attacked another person.

How is that NOT hard to believe. It's kind of like saying that you are a mechanic that has worked on 1,000s of rare cars and can say with absolute certainty that none of them had any problems prior to the time it was brought into your shop. I'm just not buying it.

not ONCE did ANY of us see a pitbull attack. ever.

Just because I have never personally witnessed a shooting doesn't mean they don't happen daily less than a mile or two from where I work every day.

[Popps]

Just because I have never personally witnessed a shooting doesn't mean they don't happen daily less than a mile or two from where I work every day.

More to the point, if the news reports that gang members shoot people every day in their neighborhoods... do we assume that the news media is fabricating the reports? Do we assume that it's "hysteria?"

I doubt it. Rather, we'd probably assume that gangs were a problem.

Yet, we should assume that countless daily reports of Pit bull attacks are all invalid?

There's a huge gap of reasoning going on there.

[kamakazi_kal]

Today’s media is filled with sensational headlines of dog attacks. Routinely quoted in these newspaper accounts are dated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control. The last CDC study released documented which breeds of dogs caused the most human fatalities from 1979 through 1998. While the CDC did an admirable job of studying fatal dog attacks, and went to great lengths to point out that irresponsible owners were the cause of most of these incidents, the media and lawmakers continue to use CDC statistics to substantiate claims that certain breeds of dogs are inherently more "vicious" than other breeds.

It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally rare event, yet many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20-25 human fatalities per year. Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed.

From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.

There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.

This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value, only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events. Only when we become more knowledgeable, humane and responsible in our treatment of dogs can we hope to prevent future tragedies

[Beantown Bronco]

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.


I simply don't subscribe to this belief. Much like humans, no matter how you raise them, no matter how much training/education/love/etc. you give them.....at any given time, any one of them can attack. For my money, it's all about the percentage chance that any one breed would be likely to attack and do damage vs. another.

There is a reason insurance companies won't cover homeowners that own certain breeds of dogs.....and that's good enough for me.

[kamakazi_kal]

really.......i have a pitbull and so does the house across the street, their is a shepard at the end of the street and a boxer next to him........

i'm covered by insurance, in california no less.

[kamakazi_kal]

[QUOTE=Beantown Bronco;1636296]I simply don't subscribe to this belief. QUOTE]

well then i guess we agree to disagree.

[Popps]

The bottom line is... there's one tiny sect of society trying to refute the mounting evidence against PBs (and related breeds/mixes)... and that's the owners.

The rest of the free world has no patience for this stuff, nor the desire to pontificate about who's fault it REALLY was when a 6 year old gets her face ripped off, or a woman is killed inside her own home by a family "pet."

People don't want cute slogans and rhetoric, they just want it to go away.

Like I said, if we stop breeding ALL dogs because our society is too goddamned ignorant to handle the responsibility, fine by me. It's more humane to the humans and its more humane to the dogs.

[kamakazi_kal]

To start, pit bull is not a breed of dog, it’s a term typically used to group 3 breeds of dog, the American Pit Bull Terrier (ABPT), American Staffordshire Terrier (AMSTAFF) and the

Staffordshire Bull Terrier (STAFFIE).



The Pit Bull is probably the most misunderstood dog in the United States. People see them and cross the street out of fear and try to ban them from their cities. Why? Simply stated, lack of education on the breeds. The public only sees negative stories in the news. Pit Bulls are wonderful dogs in the hands of responsible owners just like any other breed. As with any dog, there will always be irresponsible owners and poorly bred dogs. That does NOT mean that all of these dogs are evil! The majority of domestic violence in the US is caused by men, are all men considered evil and dangerous, No. Then why would all Pit Bulls be dangerous because of a few bad owners?

For hundreds of years Pit Bulls were bred to fight dogs, certain traits were bred into the bloodlines for that purpose, high pain tolerance, high prey drive, etc. However a quality that was never bred into Pit Bulls was human aggression. Human "aggressive" dogs were undesirable as these dogs required extensive handling prior to and during their fights AND most of these dogs were also family pets so no human aggression was ever tolerated. Dogs that exhibited human aggression were typically killed, meaning that only human friendly lines were perpetuated and desired.

It has been said that a Pit Bull never met a stranger. They love and adore humans. They want so much to be apart of your family and spend time with you watching TV, walking, driving, etc. I have seen severely abused and neglected Pit Bulls who see you coming and they can't wait to be petted and loved. Even after the abuse, they want nothing more than to be with a family of their own! As with any breed there are exceptions to the normal temperament and behavior. We see this in humans as well, there are good ones and bad ones.



So please, take a moment to learn about Pit Bulls and you will fall in love with the breed.

[Popps]

To start, pit bull is not a breed of dog, it’s a term typically used to group 3 breeds of dog, the American Pit Bull Terrier (ABPT), American Staffordshire Terrier (AMSTAFF) and the

Staffordshire Bull Terrier (STAFFIE).


We've been over that a number of times, here. That doesn't mean that those breeds, INCLUDING the APBT isn't dangerous.

[kamakazi_kal]

some positive press, not that any of you will care to read it.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PositivePress/positivepress.htm

[Popps]

your an idiot

!Booya! !Booya! !Booya!

An internet classic.

[kamakazi_kal]

there is always a story behind the story.............. that never gets told



Fatal Attack, Suffolk Virginia - Summer 2005

The parents have been charged with murder in this case. The grandfather says had they not left the two year old alone he would be alive today. The dog in the article listed as a pit mix should be labeled as a mixed breed as it could be anything. Story Story 2



Fatal Attack, Hamtramck Michigan Spring 2005

Story as reported:

Young girl was mauled to death by family pit bulls. Neighbors reported the dogs were friendly and loved the kids. They were family dogs. They had been raised with the children since puppyhood. The dogs had escaped the basement and attacked the girl while she was playing on the swing set at their old house.

Things not mentioned in the story or that need to be pointed out as what NOT to do:

These were made out to be family pets, yet the family had moved and the dogs were being kept locked in the basement of the old house. How long were they without human companionship?

The dogs were both malnourished.

Both dogs had ingested rat poison (which can lead to aggressive behavior)

The Female dog was only a year old and had already been shot at some point in her life with a bullet still lodged in her groin.

The Male dog was intact.

The female dog was intact and in heat.

[kamakazi_kal]

more positive press

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/HeroicPitties/HeroicPitties.htm

[Popps]

more positive press

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/HeroicPitties/HeroicPitties.htm

Dogs attacking intruders isn't really unusual. What's unusual is a breed that later in the day decides to kill one of the family members.

[Beantown Bronco]

some positive press, not that any of you will care to read it.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PositivePress/positivepress.htm

And you claim the general media and general public have a bias against pitbulls....Why don't you just send us to votehillary.org for some positive press about Hillary?

[orange 4 life]

beantown,

the press and much of the public is SO biased against the breed at this point that often times the only way to GET accurate information (the story behind the story) is to search the numerous sites that advocate the breed.
there are also plenty of neutral sites (www.dogbreedinfo.com - see what they have to say about the APBT. tops in reliability with children and strangers) that dont get caught up in the hysteria. neutral sites run by vets, groomers, and shelter employees. the people in the know.

[kamakazi_kal]

And you claim the general media and general public have a bias against pitbulls....Why don't you just send us to votehillary.org for some positive press about Hillary?

hey if everyone here is just going to hash out stuff to defend their position why cant I?

[orange 4 life]

I simply don't subscribe to this belief. Much like humans, no matter how you raise them, no matter how much training/education/love/etc. you give them.....at any given time, any one of them can attack. For my money, it's all about the percentage chance that any one breed would be likely to attack and do damage vs. another.

There is a reason insurance companies won't cover homeowners that own certain breeds of dogs.....and that's good enough for me.

i hate to go here, but your post begs it.

so, if youre all about the percentages, do you then think we should outlaw black people?
after all, they commit crimes at a much higher rate than caucasions.

of course there are reasons for this, and of course it has NOTHING to do with skin color, but dont tell that to the KKK.

im sorry all, but this is the same thing as far as im concerned. i know it sounds silly, but its a fair correlation.
the APBT was a celebrated breed in this country until a group of a-holes decided to make it the tough guy breed.
when that happened, good dogs everywhere were subsequently abused and neglected, and OF COURSE you see a higher percentage of attacks.
look BEYOND the statistics.
the breed is NOT violent towards humans by nature, and virtually everyone in the know agrees on that.

[Popps]

(www.dogbreedinfo.com - see what they have to say about the APBT. tops in reliability with children and strangers) that dont get caught up in the hysteria. neutral sites run by vets, groomers, and shelter employees. the people in the know.

Jake... those breed rankings don't factor in the reality of what's happening in our world. They're general observations about pure bred dogs and how they behave under normal circumstances.

They don't take overbreeding, inbreeding, abuse, neglect and other factors into consideration... and before you say "that's the human's fault"...... WE DON'T CARE.

If it's the human's fault that PBs turn violent and destructive, then removing the PB as an option is logical.

I'm sorry, Jake... but if you applied your line of defense to ANY other phenomenon in our society (gang shootings, carjackings, etc.) ... you YOURSELF would call bull**** on it.

There's no hysteria, there's no conspiracy.

A woman was killed by her family Pit bull on Friday. We have photos. It's an all too common story.

[Popps]

of course there are reasons for this, and of course it has NOTHING to do with skin color, but dont tell that to the KKK.

Wow, whatever support you may have had on this thread probably went out the window.

Let's compare the mentality and behavior patters of humans to that of dogs.

Perfect logic, Jake.

Wow.

[orange 4 life]

Not saying I don't believe you, Jake... but let's just say that it sounds fishy.

I mean, I see dog fights almost every time I go to the dog park.

1000 of ANY breed, and you're going to have an occasional fight or attack.
You're saying that NONE of the dogs you've ever encountered were anything but perfect angels? C'mon, bro.

I rescued and fostered ONE Pit bull. It was a sweet dog, but it did attack a dog at the dog park pretty good and I had to pull it off of it or she probably would have done real damage.

One Pit bull.... one problem. You're saying that you've somehow lucked into ONE THOUSAND Pit bulls that not only defy their breed image, but defy DOG image, as well?

You have to understand why people are sort of scratching their head a little, here.

I suppose you just got very, very, very lucky and even with NORMAL dogs, those results are almost unheard of.

fair enough popps. let me elaborate.
we ALL worked with pits that were so badly abused they had to be put down. we were VERY careful with those dogs, and though we all saw some growling (a VERY bad sign from an APBT) no one was bitten, but then again, we never took any chances.

as for dog on dog crime, we've all seen plenty.
many of the pitbulls we rescued/sheltered were very dog aggressive (many had been fought out in the fields), though rarely were they people aggressive.
most were perfect angels.....until another dog was around.
many of those dogs had to be put down as well.

what ive NEVER seen (nor has ANYONE that ive EVER worked with) is an APBT from a good home "snap" and turn into a killing machine. hell, other than a couple scratches from playing (and then the dogs ive known become VERY sad and submissive when they realize they hurt you) ive never known one to even SNAP at a person.
i cant say it hasnt ever happened, but in my extensive experience with the breed, ive never seen it or even heard of it.

[kamakazi_kal]

Jake... those breed rankings don't factor in the reality of what's happening in our world. They're general observations about pure bred dogs and how they behave under normal circumstances.

They don't take overbreeding, inbreeding, abuse, neglect and other factors into consideration... and before you say "that's the human's fault"...... WE DON'T CARE.

If it's the human's fault that PBs turn violent and destructive, then removing the PB as an option is logical.

I'm sorry, Jake... but if you applied your line of defense to ANY other phenomenon in our society (gang shootings, carjackings, etc.) ... you YOURSELF would call bull**** on it.

There's no hysteria, there's no conspiracy.

A woman was killed by her family Pit bull on Friday. We have photos. It's an all too common story.

just understand that once pits are gone it opens the door for dobies, shepards, boxers and any other dog that could be deemed aggressive,
those same owners will move to the next dog.

[orange 4 life]

A woman was killed by her family Pit bull on Friday. We have photos. It's an all too common story.

we also werent there, and we have no idea what the situation was in that home. do you believe everything you read? i know you dont.
MAYBE that was a family dog that "snapped", or maybe there is alot more to the story.

[orange 4 life]

Wow, whatever support you may have had on this thread probably went out the window.

Let's compare the mentality and behavior patters of humans to that of dogs.

Perfect logic, Jake.

Wow.

i dont care anymore popps, its how i feel, and you should understand that.

all im saying is you cant look at goddamned statistics and determine that a breed of dog is bad just like and alien species couldnt look at crime stats for humans organized by race and make judgements.
if that surprises you then im not sure why. its the exact same thing.
severe misuse of statistics, and if that "loses support" then so fvvkking be it.
everyones made up their minds anyway, and it pisses me off.

[orange 4 life]

ive worked too hard at this to just sit back and watch whats happening without making every effort to fight it.

[orange 4 life]

.....and i think you forget that most of the proposed bans DO include people coming to my house and trying to take my dogs away.
theyre not a privelege, theyre part of my family, and no one is taking them away......ever.

[Beantown Bronco]

i hate to go here, but your post begs it.

so, if youre all about the percentages, do you then think we should outlaw black people?
after all, they commit crimes at a much higher rate than caucasions.


Waaaaaay off-base with this one. I'll even do you the service of avoiding the whole crime stats debate, which I could get into at length, and simply go with this: innocent blacks are convicted of crimes they didn't commit all the time. This helps to perpetuate a lot of stereotypes.

Find me ONE example of an innocent pit that was put down for mauling a human, when it was in fact the boxer down the street that really did it. Do that, and even I will buy into your seriously flawed logic.

[Popps]

we also werent there, and we have no idea what the situation was in that home. do you believe everything you read? i know you dont.
MAYBE that was a family dog that "snapped", or maybe there is alot more to the story.

Well, considering the family said it SLEPT WITH THEM... verified it was a family pet and said, "we don't know what happened".... yea, I'm going to go ahead and assume this story isn't part of the global Pit bull conspiracy.

[Popps]

.....and i think you forget that most of the proposed bans DO include people coming to my house and trying to take my dogs away.
theyre not a privelege, theyre part of my family, and no one is taking them away......ever.

Which bans? The ones I read about involved basically grandfather clauses where people who already owned them just had to register, insure, etc.

For the record, I'm not into cops breaking down doors and stealing dogs, Jake. My stance is more forward-looking, honestly. It's more to say that we just don't need to breed more dogs our society can't control.

[Rigs11]

here orange another false biased news report.

Women save toddler from pit-bull attack

By: WILLIAM FINN BENNETT - Staff Writer

LAKE ELSINORE ---- Jennifer Ruckel never saw it coming, she said on a recent afternoon. One minute she was sitting on her bed talking to her sister Robin, laughing and watching her 18-month-old son Taylor dance on the rug at their feet ---- the next, their 30 seconds of terror began.

With no provocation or warning, the family's 5-year-old pit bull, Molly, suddenly lunged across the room and grabbed Taylor's head in its jaws and began shaking the boy like a rag doll.

"The dog just snapped; it changed from a protective, loving dog to a beast within a second," Jennifer said of the March 31 attack.


Robin threw a cup of hot coffee on the dog. Jennifer began pounding on the animal from behind, desperately trying to get her to let go, the woman said. The dog's lower jaw was clamped on the back of the boy's head, its upper jaw locked onto his face next to his ear and neck and it continued to shake the boy.

Finally, the dog loosened her grip for a split second, letting go of Taylor, and Jennifer threw herself on top of the toddler as the dog continued to lunge and dig beneath her body to get at the child.

The whole incident lasted perhaps 30 seconds, Robin said. "But it seemed like 30 years."

Another sister, Lindsey, came running into the room and helped Jennifer pick up the child. Robin said she grabbed Molly by her choke collar and held her off long enough for Jennifer to get out of the room with Taylor.

As she pulled the dog outside the Lake Elsinore home, Lindsey called 911, but no one answered, Robin said.

Adding to their panic, Taylor was bleeding profusely. "Jennifer was covered in blood and I thought we could lose this little guy," Robin said.

When they couldn't get a response from 911, the women jumped in the car and rushed the child to Inland Valley Medical Center's emergency room in Wildomar.

Doctors gave Taylor a strong sedative before applying 30 stitches to his face and neck and using four staples to patch his torn scalp, Jennifer said. Doctors said that one of the wounds was just fractions of an inch from the boy's jugular vein.

Animal-control officers later took Molly to Animal Friends of the Valleys shelter in Lake Elsinore, where she is to be euthanized after a 10-day quarantine period, Jennifer said.

Although the family could choose other options, such as keeping the dog in a kennel, where it would never again have contact with their child, Jennifer said she and Taylor's dad really have no choice but to have the dog killed.

"Just thinking of the dog staying alive and that it could bite another child, I couldn't live with the guilt," she said.

One week after he was mauled, Taylor sat on his mom's knee, playing with his food and listening to a conversation he didn't fully understand. But he seemed to perceive what was being talked about. "Dog," he said, without a trace of rancor or fear on his face.

But his mother said the boy's father, her fiance, Brandon Reynolds, 24, had taken Taylor to a friend's home a day earlier, and the family had a large dog in the house.

"He latched onto his dad's leg, crying, not wanting to even walk by the dog," Jennifer said.

The Ruckel's experience was terrifying, but the outcome was better than that of many similar pit-bull attacks. In June 2003, a pit bull mauled and killed 2-year-old Somer Clugston. A baby-sitter had left the dog unattended inside a Good Hope home with the child, while she went to run some errands. The woman later pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter.

Deaths related to pit-bull attacks are not uncommon.

A compilation of statistics by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on fatal dog attacks on human beings shows that American pit bull terriers, or pit bulls, have the worst record of any breed. Between 1979 and 1996, there were 60 fatal attacks across the country by pit bulls on humans. The second-worst record was for rottweilers, with 29 fatal attacks, followed by German shepherds with 19.

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.

In some parts of the world and this country, certain breeds of dog ---- including pit bulls ---- have been outlawed.

Denver County, Colo., for example, has an ordinance prohibiting the breed. If someone is caught with a pit bull there, they are issued a citation and required to sign an affidavit promising to remove the dog from the county and not bring it back. Animal-control officers later return to the owners' residence to make sure they have gotten rid of the dog.

Sakach said that such laws are shortsighted, however. When communities outlaw pit bulls, the first people targeted are the ones that obey the law and have their dogs licensed. Since their names and addresses are on record, they are easy to find, he said. As a result, it's the unlicensed dogs that are left in the community.

"If you outlaw pit bulls, only the outlaws will have them," he said, adding that the real solution to the problem boils down to owner responsibility.

"These laws fail to acknowledge that there are many well-behaved, responsibly kept pit bulls out there," Sakach said.

In the aftermath of the attack, Taylor's family is left with a mix of feelings: guilt for allowing such a dangerous animal near Taylor; relief that the boy survived; and anxiety over what might have happened.

When Jennifer first found out she was pregnant with Taylor, her parents tried to convince her that she and her fiance should get rid of Molly, she said. But because Reynolds had raised the dog since she was 8 weeks old and she had never showed any signs of aggressive behavior, they decided not to heed her parents' advice.

Now, she said, she has to live with that decision.

"My son almost lost his life because of a decision I made," Jennifer said, her eyes welling up with tears. "You always wish you had listened to your parents ---- after the fact. I am just lucky I got a second chance."

http://images.townnews.com/nctimes.com/content/articles/2004/04/11/news/californian/23_29_184_10_04.jpg

[mosca]

You are proving Popps' point and you don't even realize it....3 deaths in 20 years at the hands of boxers. Friggin' dachshunds probably have more notches on their respective doghouses than that.
Proving his point that boxers don't have the capability to kill? The stat I threw out was a direct rebuttal to that, nothing more.

[mosca]

There's no hysteria, there's no conspiracy.

A woman was killed by her family Pit bull on Friday. We have photos. It's an all too common story.
Yes, it's a hysteria. You keep posting news articles and pictures of isolated pit attacks to bolster your agrument. I can do the same regarding other breeds, human on human violence, car accidents, accidental poisonings, etc. The U.S. averages 17 deaths due to dog attacks a year. SEVENTEEN. This is in a country with a population of 300 million. Hardly a need to panic.

Asking the authorities to step in and ban/restrict all dogs of this breed is not the answer to the problem. Furthermore, selectively concentrating on one breed will not get rid of dog attack deaths. Dog attacks will still exist, and always will.

[Beantown Bronco]

Proving his point that boxers don't have the capability to kill? The stat I threw out was a direct rebuttal to that, nothing more.

WRONG. That's not what Popps said. He never said they don't have the capability to kill. He simply said the odds are against them doing it.

Here are his exact words, so you won't misquote him again:

"Capability and probability are two different things.

An abused Boxer might snap at you, like any other dog. But, if you understand the breed, you know they're no more of a threat than a Lab might be."

[Beantown Bronco]

The U.S. averages 17 deaths due to dog attacks a year. SEVENTEEN. This is in a country with a population of 300 million. Hardly a need to panic.

So, you don't think there's a need to panic if there were over 10,000 gun-related injuries in your city last year....because only a dozen or so were fatal? Great logic. People have to die before it gets your attention. I'm glad we're clear on that one.

[kamakazi_kal]

WRONG. That's not what Popps said. He never said they don't have the capability to kill. He simply said the odds are against them doing it.

Here are his exact words, so you won't misquote him again:

"Capability and probability are two different things.

An abused Boxer might snap at you, like any other dog. But, if you understand the breed, you know they're no more of a threat than a Lab might be."


so he knows what all boxers are thinking, stating they are as gentle as a lab and would do no more then snap at you?
sorry but how would he know the probability and is he saying that a 15% chance of a mauling is ok as opposed to a 25% chance?

[Popps]

so he knows what all boxers are thinking

That's not an argument, dude. It's just nonsense. It's not what I said, and clearly not what I meant. My post dealt with actual occurrences and probability.

You don't have to know what a polar bear is "thinking" to know that he's more dangerous than a ferret. It's about common sense, data and the probably derived from that data.

[mosca]

WRONG. That's not what Popps said. He never said they don't have the capability to kill. He simply said the odds are against them doing it.

Here are his exact words, so you won't misquote him again:

"Capability and probability are two different things.

An abused Boxer might snap at you, like any other dog. But, if you understand the breed, you know they're no more of a threat than a Lab might be."
Thank you for correcting me.

I should have said, "Proving his point that boxers or great danes don't kill? The stat I threw out was a direct rebuttal to that, nothing more."

[mosca]

So, you don't think there's a need to panic if there were over 10,000 gun-related injuries in your city last year....because only a dozen or so were fatal? Great logic. People have to die before it gets your attention. I'm glad we're clear on that one.
Well, for the record, I am against gun control as well. That's another issue, and to answer you, NO, I am not panicking about the availability of firearms in my city or any other one.

People do not have to die to get my attention. I have already acknowledged fatal attacks and also non-lethal, yet severe attacks by dogs (of all breeds) earlier in the thread. But there's a large gulf between acknowleding that problem and then taking it a step further and demanding the bans and restrictions.

[Popps]

just understand that once pits are gone it opens the door for dobies, shepards, boxers and any other dog that could be deemed aggressive,
those same owners will move to the next dog.

That's called a slippery slope argument, and it's garbage.

People don't just "move to the next breed." They move to breeds that deserve it.

The world doesn't sit around trying to decide which dog breeds to pick on. Pit bulls and their owners brought this upon themselves.

[Popps]

sorry to break it to ya but that dog in your avatar fits your discription.

Good lord, man. It's a Boxer. You can't tell one dog breed from another and you're on this thread arguing?

[cutthemdown]

Waaaaaay off-base with this one. I'll even do you the service of avoiding the whole crime stats debate, which I could get into at length, and simply go with this: innocent blacks are convicted of crimes they didn't commit all the time. This helps to perpetuate a lot of stereotypes.

Find me ONE example of an innocent pit that was put down for mauling a human, when it was in fact the boxer down the street that really did it. Do that, and even I will buy into your seriously flawed logic.

what a load of crap

[Beantown Bronco]

what a load of crap

Wow. Thanks for your well articulated contribution to the thread. :notworthy

This is not even a debatable point. Hundreds of people are wrongly convicted of crimes every year (a good deal of them are african americans). False confessions, faulty DNA evidence, mistaken eyewitness testimony.....it happens quite often and the government knows this. That is why they have even begun to set up funding for people convicted but later exonerated due to these issues. There are entire agencies set up to take on these cases.

You really believe a significant number of innocent people aren't convicted of crimes? You may want to get your head out of the sand.

[kamakazi_kal]

Wow. Thanks for your well articulated contribution to the thread. :notworthy

This is not even a debatable point. Hundreds of people are wrongly convicted of crimes every year (a good deal of them are african americans). False confessions, faulty DNA evidence, mistaken eyewitness testimony.....it happens quite often and the government knows this. That is why they have even begun to set up funding for people convicted but later exonerated due to these issues. There are entire agencies set up to take on these cases.

You really believe a significant number of innocent people aren't convicted of crimes? You may want to get your head out of the sand.


and you know all this how?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yes, it's a hysteria. You keep posting news articles and pictures of isolated pit attacks to bolster your agrument. I can do the same regarding other breeds, human on human violence, car accidents, accidental poisonings, etc. The U.S. averages 17 deaths due to dog attacks a year. SEVENTEEN. This is in a country with a population of 300 million. Hardly a need to panic.

Asking the authorities to step in and ban/restrict all dogs of this breed is not the answer to the problem. Furthermore, selectively concentrating on one breed will not get rid of dog attack deaths. Dog attacks will still exist, and always will.Uh, they aren't isolated at all. I already posted the Google numbers. One reason they are reported more is because they cause FAR more damage when they attack than other breeds. And of course, the other reason is the number of attacks they constitute.

Results 1 - 100 of about 885,000 for Pit Bull attacks June 2007 (http://www.google.com/search?q=Pit+Bull+attacks+June+2007&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

and you know all this how?Oh please, those numbers have been public for decades.

[Beantown Bronco]

and you know all this how?

Masters in Criminal Justice. 4 police officers and one judge in the family. But it's really not high level info or some radical belief I'm talking about here. It's all public information and 90% of the country knows this stuff already.

Groups like Amnesty International and other lesser-known groups such as this (of which there are dozens): http://www.innocenceproject.org/ represent these people all the time and constantly show the flaws in the system.

Just do a simple Internet search for "wrongfully convicted" and you'll get a glimpse just how many cases are out there.

[Popps]

Wow, it's not even lunchtime and we've got our first child attacked by a Pit bull today... complete with witnesses and a picture. (As these stories usually are.) Yet, I'm sure this is just another case of mistaken identity...

http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=99670

A Gwinnett County toddler is recovering from bites she received during an attack by a pit bull in her neighborhood.

Police said the dog was tied up but broke loose and launched into the girl at a Norcross apartment complex Thursday night.

Two other people who tried to help the girl were bitten. The child was taken to Children's Healthcare of Atlanta at Scottish Rite for treatment. The two other victims were treated at the scene.

Officials said the dog has been taken into custody by Animal Control and will be euthanized.

http://www.11alive.com/assetpool/images/077684352_pitbullattack250.jpg

Fourth of July went pretty well, though. Only two nationally reported PB attacks.

[Popps]

Another town bans the breed....

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6753252

Associated Press - July 6, 2007 7:44 AM ET

SOUTH PITTSBURG, Tenn. (AP) - Pit bulls aren't welcome in the Tennessee town of South Pittsburg -- near the Alabama and Georgia borders.

City manager Tom Landers says the city has a dog problem generally and that fed into passage of a recent ordinance that bars people from owning pit bull dogs.

The ordinance states pit bulls have a "genetic predisposition to aggressiveness" that makes the breed dangerous.

The law "grandfathers" people who already have pit bulls, but requires them to register the animals and carry liability insurance. Any pups must be removed within six weeks.

Auto repair shop owner Nathan Ellis says it's unfair to pass a law that picks on one breed.

He has two pit bulls to guard his shop, but says he'll have to get rid of them because he can't find an insurance agent who will underwrite them.

South Pittsburg is 25 miles west of Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Two PBs to guard his shop.... and you wonder why these dogs need to be banned? PBs are not guard dogs, folks. In fact, they're terrible guard dogs because they're USUALLY people friendly, and if they're NOT... they're a true danger to everyone.

[mosca]

Uh, they aren't isolated at all. I already posted the Google numbers.

They are isolated, in that he has been selectively posting only attacks by pit bulls and ignoring every other dog attack out there.

Look what I just found - yet another non-pit bull dog attack of the day!

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6755600

Dog Attack Sends 7-year-old to Hospital

July 6, 2007 04:35 PM

INDIANAPOLIS - A seven-year-old Indianapolis girl spent Thursday night in Methodist Hospital after she was attacked by a dog in her backyard. The dog was a chow-mix and is now quarantined.

"She didn't know not to play with the dog, she's just a kid," said the victim's uncle Donald Deems.

Cassidy Jones was playing with friends in her backyard Thursday night.

"She comes in screaming. We look at her and she's got a big hole in her arm. I mean it's like that. All the skin gone down to the bone," Donald said.

"The dog inflicted some pretty good damage on the girl, she had severe lacerations to her arm and some bruising on her head," said Media Wilson of Indianapolis Animal Control.

Deems' brother, Benny, called 911. He saw the dog in the yard and did not think it was dangerous.

"I came out here, pet it. It licked my hand and everything, It seemed like a very nice dog, so I told the kids they can feed it something if they'd like," Benny said.

After the dog attacked Cassidy on the deck, family members say the dog ran underneath the deck and would not come out until Animal Control officers tranquilized it.

"I just don't see how people can leave their dogs off the chain and let them out," Donald said.

Animal Control officials say the same dog attacked a child Wednesday in the same neighborhood.

"It was an unprovoked attack. The child was simply playing in her yard," Wilson said.

"It ain't just pit bulls that can hurt people, any dog can hurt anybody," said Benny.

Animal Control officers cited the dog's owner for not being able to produce proof of rabies vaccination tags and identification. He has a court date scheduled for Sept. 17. The dog will be euthanized in about 10 days.

[Rigs11]

They are isolated, in that he has been selectively posting only attacks by pit bulls and ignoring every other dog attack out there.

Look what I just found - yet another non-pit bull dog attack of the day!

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6755600

Dog Attack Sends 7-year-old to Hospital

July 6, 2007 04:35 PM

INDIANAPOLIS - A seven-year-old Indianapolis girl spent Thursday night in Methodist Hospital after she was attacked by a dog in her backyard. The dog was a chow-mix and is now quarantined.

"She didn't know not to play with the dog, she's just a kid," said the victim's uncle Donald Deems.

Cassidy Jones was playing with friends in her backyard Thursday night.

"She comes in screaming. We look at her and she's got a big hole in her arm. I mean it's like that. All the skin gone down to the bone," Donald said.

"The dog inflicted some pretty good damage on the girl, she had severe lacerations to her arm and some bruising on her head," said Media Wilson of Indianapolis Animal Control.

Deems' brother, Benny, called 911. He saw the dog in the yard and did not think it was dangerous.

"I came out here, pet it. It licked my hand and everything, It seemed like a very nice dog, so I told the kids they can feed it something if they'd like," Benny said.

After the dog attacked Cassidy on the deck, family members say the dog ran underneath the deck and would not come out until Animal Control officers tranquilized it.

"I just don't see how people can leave their dogs off the chain and let them out," Donald said.

Animal Control officials say the same dog attacked a child Wednesday in the same neighborhood.

"It was an unprovoked attack. The child was simply playing in her yard," Wilson said.

"It ain't just pit bulls that can hurt people, any dog can hurt anybody," said Benny.

Animal Control officers cited the dog's owner for not being able to produce proof of rabies vaccination tags and identification. He has a court date scheduled for Sept. 17. The dog will be euthanized in about 10 days.

If it had been a pit the little girl wouldn't have come in screaming.She would have probably been ripped to shreds.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

They are isolated, in that he has been selectively posting only attacks by pit bulls and ignoring every other dog attack out there.

Look what I just found - yet another non-pit bull dog attack of the day!

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6755600
Dog Attack Sends 7-year-old to Hospital
July 6, 2007 04:35 PM
INDIANAPOLIS - A seven-year-old Indianapolis girl spent Thursday night in Methodist Hospital after she was attacked by a dog in her backyard. The dog was a chow-mix and is now quarantined.
"She didn't know not to play with the dog, she's just a kid," said the victim's uncle Donald Deems.
There are more Pit Bull attacks than other breeds and they are more vicious, these are the facts. Most all breeds will bite.

I'm sure you don't want to compare dog attacks for the month of June or any other month by breed.

[Rigs11]

There are more Pit Bull attacks than other breeds and they are more vicious, these are the facts. Most all breeds will bite.

I'm sure you don't want to compare dog attacks for the month of June or any other month by breed.

But Benny said soLOL ROFL!

[Popps]

There are more Pit Bull attacks than other breeds and they are more vicious, these are the facts. Most all breeds will bite.

I'm sure you don't want to compare dog attacks for the month of June or any other month by breed.

It's just ridiculous how plain this is to see, and to what extents PB owners go to skew the logic.

Argument: Cigarettes are dangerous, so they shouldn't be given to children.

Counter argument: Yea, Kool-aid isn't good for them either, so what... should we ban that?

Just slippery slope... apples to oranges garbage.

[mosca]

There are more Pit Bull attacks than other breeds and they are more vicious, these are the facts. Most all breeds will bite.

I'm sure you don't want to compare dog attacks for the month of June or any other month by breed.
No, I'm not interested in selectively comparing by breed. If you want to address the problem of severe dog attacks, it's much more broad than simply one breed or another.

[mosca]

If it had been a pit the little girl wouldn't have come in screaming.She would have probably been ripped to shreds.
Sounds like she was ripped to shreds, the skin was gone down to the bone.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No, I'm not interested in selectively comparing by breed. If you want to address the problem of severe dog attacks, it's much more broad than simply one breed or another.Uh, no it isn't, as has been shown time and again in this thread.

[mosca]

Uh, no it isn't, as has been shown time and again in this thread.
Uh, yes it is, as I have demonstrated more than once in this thread. Breed-specific legislation is not the answer.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Uh, yes it is, as I have demonstrated more than once in this thread. Breed-specific legislation is not the answer.You were arguing attack stats a minute ago and now you're saying you have proven that breed specific legislation doesn't work?

[mosca]

You were arguing attack stats a minute ago and now you're saying you have proven that breed specific legislation doesn't work?
I never claimed to have "proven" anything. What I said was that the issue of severe dog attacks involves much more than simply one breed.

Not sure which attack stats you saw me arguing (for or against?). The facts are the facts and I'm not denying any of them.

[RunByDesign]

Sorry to say mosca, but you are coming off as incredibly short-sighted in this debate. With the phenomenel strength and gameness to fight that APBT show when committing to an attack, there ought to be special legislation that to own one, a person should be certified and trained to house a potentially lethal animal, period. Few dogs have the ability to kill other beings 5 to 10 times their own size. APBT are one of them. Sorry to say.

Any man-biting curr that is identified, ought to be euthanized, as well as it's entire bloodline. Such as was the old way. Cross-breeding and poor selective breeding in the past 25 years, has destroyed the breed. Truth be told, any APBT ought to have a pedigree; re: a papered animal.

[RunByDesign]

Just for the record, I think that large dangerous breeds ought to be included with similar (but not identical) legislation. Not to mention, all Spitz breeds - (historically and generationally bred man-biters.)