Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am SO sick of hearing this. We had two come after our dogs when we were walking and yes, they were pits. The owners stood in the yard. This is just a regular every day family, not hoodlums. Pit bulls were selectively bred to be the monsters that they became just like a herding dog, there is the instinct and it is not easy and sometimes impossible to train out breed qualities. Anyone that believes that you have to mistreat or not train in order for a pit bull to attack and kill knows absolutely nothing about dogs and how they were bred in the first place.
Your antidotal "evidence" means nothing. Anyone of us can provide an experience we have had but that has no bearing on the facts concerning an entire breed of animal. I have had various breeds come after my dogs while on walks as well and no they were not pits. One a Collie, one a St. Bernard, a jack Russell and several mixed breeds.
I'll give you that SOME specific American Pit Bull Terriers and mixes have been selectively breed BY DOG FIGHTERS for aggressive traits. These people will cull those dogs that don't have aggressive traits, often using them as bait dogs to actually train dogs to "be monsters". Responsible breeders and normal people cull those dogs that DO have aggressive tendencies.
Pit type dogs are not hearding dogs as are the collies and shepards. The instinct bred into APBTs that make them appealing as fighting dogs is their tenacity. This trait was desirable when these dogs were used to help get bulls to market. Given this trait early breeders also bred for size (small), loyalty, and non-aggression because owners had to be able to easily handle their dogs. It is folly to label the APBT breed as monsters based on the actions of some illegal dog fighters.
Quote:
Our Animal Control Facility also. It is my understanding that 90% of them are put down. Yes, throw away!
In my area most dogs are euthanized after 3 days. I would say in the cities and larger areas there is a higher percentage of pit bull type dogs in the animal control facility partly due to the breed bans, over breeding and insurance restrictions. I don't see that in my area. A lot of labs and hounds. I have read pleas from many pit owners trying to rehome their dog because they were forced to get rid of it for this reason. We also have at least one local pit bull rescue. Perhaps you are just assuming they are "throw a-ways". Sometime circumstances beyond our control force us to take actions we would not normally take.
Quote:
ALL owners of dogs should be required to have liability insurance if they have any dog. Counties/cities should be insuring that all dogs are vaccinated and licensed. I asked our animal control officer if when she went out on a complaint or picked up a dog if they checked to see if the dog had rabies shot and the free license issued by the city. They don't do that. We have SO many dog bites here and most of the dogs you see are pit bulls which explains the high death rate at the shelter.
Homeowner's insurance covers liability for pet claims. The problem is that municipalities most often don't have the funding or man power to enforce vaccinations and licensing if a license is even required. It is not in my area. Rabies clinics are set up each spring at a reduced price conducted by volunteer veterinarians.
What facts do you have to support your statement that your area has "SO many" dog bites. I am assuming you are claiming they are from "Pit Bulls" since you claim that is the reason for the high death rate of pits at the shelter, or is you statement just your uninformed opinion because although the majority of dog attacks have been by what was labeled a pit bull, overall the percentage of bites/attacks on humans is very low. As well both the CDC and Am Vet. Asso. and other REPUTABLE sources warn of the bias in both identifying and reporting.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 01-09-2015 at 01:46 PM..
Reason: Fixed formatting
People should be held liable depending on the case. If someone climbs over a fence and breaks into a home and gets bitten then no they should not be held liable. If their dog is running lose on a daily bases chasing people down the street then yes they should be. Pit bulls have become a problem because trashy people want them for what I call a Ghetto alarm system. Typically I see people from mexico tie them up in the back yard and could care less about the dog it's only there to bark or bite this is typical of 3rd world people. When it gets lose and runs out in the front of the home it has never been around people and it attacks a kid.
Definitely NOT true. I am in a suburban/rural area. Every SINGLE ONE of the shelters here are occupied by at least 90% pit bulls - every time I have visited them.
It is sad isn't it! TONS of backyard breeders selling these dogs to idiots that want to say, I GOT MYSELF A PIT BULL. Then they find out they have to feed and walk them, not to mention the EXPENSE. So they can't afford them because they tend to buy $20 highs most nights, so the dog becomes an inconvenience. They drop the thing off and it sits there with the other countless "pit bulls" (not a breed). As I stated, they should be all fixed and let them die off as a breed. Humans can't handle them or should I say the majority of humans can't. They get them for the wrong reasons, not to love a dog, just to use a dog. Kind of sick. You know the Michael Vicks of the world! Gross!
Pit type dogs are not hearding dogs as are the collies and shepards. The instinct bred into APBTs that make them appealing as fighting dogs is their tenacity. This trait was desirable when these dogs were used to help get bulls to market. Given this trait early breeders also bred for size (small), loyalty, and non-aggression because owners had to be able to easily handle their dogs. It is folly to label the APBT breed as monsters based on the actions of some illegal dog fighters.
I do not have the time or inclination to address all of your post since it was not in response to me. However you assume most dogs who are bred for fighting do not apply to pitbulls overall, which on the surface sounds accurate, but is folly.
I am actually surprised to have read that from you, when in the same paragraph you acknowledge the following; "instinct bred into APBTs that make them appealing as fighting dogs is their tenacity".
You are correct, however you also leave out other instincts bred into them such as a lack of fear and self preservation, not to mention resistance to pain. The various traits bred into them makes them much more dangerous than other dogs, even ones who are larger and more powerful.
For instance you can beat a GSD off of someone with a baton, as it will disengage to protect itself. Many a pitbull out there will hold on for dear life, despite you potentially breaking it's back with blows while attempting to disengage it.
Remember many a pitbull out there may not have been specifically bred to fight, but it does not mean that previous pits in it's lineage were not. You cannot always tell by the temperament of the sire/***** on the typical one visit before you plunk down your money and take cute little Fido home. Heck for that matter, many people do not even know what to look for in behavior, and probably just think so long as the ***** is not over protective of the pups, "she is sweet".
Regardless, more and more of presumably safe pitbulls are taken home and raised by knowledgeable dog people, only to have one go on an unexplained rampage. Yet the pitbull apologists are so desperate to make excuses for this breed, they will even turn on their own fellow apologists/advocates when one of their own little angels puts them into the ER or morgue. Such is the case of Darla Napora who was so invested in the breed, she was part of an advocacy group. Yet her angels killed her and her child. When that happened her fellow nutters turned on her to obfuscate the danger of the breed.
This does not even cover all the people who ignorantly rescue pitbulls in shelters, and have no clue what the lineage of it is, nor how it was raised/treated. They hear apologists say that even Michael Vicks fighting pitbulls were rescued, and have been socialized.
So it gives them a false sense of security, which might last a few years before one of the ticking time bombs goes off.
I could go on, but only the rational will still be reading, and the pit apologists have already tuned me out.
I do not have the time or inclination to address all of your post since it was not in response to me. However you assume most dogs who are bred for fighting do not apply to pitbulls overall, which on the surface sounds accurate, but is folly.
I am actually surprised to have read that from you, when in the same paragraph you acknowledge the following; "instinct bred into APBTs that make them appealing as fighting dogs is their tenacity".
You are correct, however you also leave out other instincts bred into them such as a lack of fear and self preservation, not to mention resistance to pain. The various traits bred into them makes them much more dangerous than other dogs, even ones who are larger and more powerful.
For instance you can beat a GSD off of someone with a baton, as it will disengage to protect itself. Many a pitbull out there will hold on for dear life, despite you potentially breaking it's back with blows while attempting to disengage it.
Remember many a pitbull out there may not have been specifically bred to fight, but it does not mean that previous pits in it's lineage were not. You cannot always tell by the temperament of the sire/***** on the typical one visit before you plunk down your money and take cute little Fido home. Heck for that matter, many people do not even know what to look for in behavior, and probably just think so long as the ***** is not over protective of the pups, "she is sweet".
Regardless, more and more of presumably safe pitbulls are taken home and raised by knowledgeable dog people, only to have one go on an unexplained rampage. Yet the pitbull apologists are so desperate to make excuses for this breed, they will even turn on their own fellow apologists/advocates when one of their own little angels puts them into the ER or morgue. Such is the case of Darla Napora who was so invested in the breed, she was part of an advocacy group. Yet her angels killed her and her child. When that happened her fellow nutters turned on her to obfuscate the danger of the breed.
This does not even cover all the people who ignorantly rescue pitbulls in shelters, and have no clue what the lineage of it is, nor how it was raised/treated. They hear apologists say that even Michael Vicks fighting pitbulls were rescued, and have been socialized.
So it gives them a false sense of security, which might last a few years before one of the ticking time bombs goes off.
I could go on, but only the rational will still be reading, and the pit apologists have already tuned me out.
I dont totally disagree with you. The traits that make the "pit bull" attractive for fighting (and yes lack of fear and resistance to pain, I agree) do not make an overall fighting dog. While this makes the animal overall more potentially dangerous aggression is the key trait. Without aggression the dog is unlikely to ever bite or engage in an attack.
Obviously one can not guarantee 100% that an attack will not happen, nothing is 100%, nor can one be 100% positive there is not an aggressive trait. But for all practical purposes if you purchase from a reputable breeder your dog should not have been selective bred for aggression as are dog purposely bred for fighting.
You say more and more pit bulls are being raised by knowledgeable and responsible owners and go on rampages. Keep in mind, as the stats have been stated again and again and mostly ignored, that there are approximately 30 total dog related fatalities per year. ~1.8% of the population report a dog bite annually, of those 0.00001% are fatal.
Statistically pit bulls are responsible for the majority of attacks. Now one can stop there are assume pit bulls are all dangerous and over 50% will attack. Or one can look at the rest of the facts.
According to actual studies by reputable sources heredity, gender, early experience, socialization and training, reproductive status, health, supervision and victim behavior factor into a dogs inclination to attack.
Reported data is biased. Reports are likely underestimated, attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy than other breeds, breed identifications are subjective, and its not clear how to cross breeds.
In studies between 1975 and 1980 over 30 different breeds have been responsible for human fatalities.
In the case of Darla Napora, the dog that attacked her was an UN-neutered male. It is unknown why they did not have the male neutered. Reproductive status is one of the factors associated with dog attacks.
Again, I prefer to due diligence to all the facts and studies and not headline one incident as the holy grail of the breed.
Pit Bulls are great dogs and account for about 8% of dog bites...that leaves 92%.
If you want to do something to stop pit bulls from biting...check out the State of New Mexico's study on dog tethering. This is a large state study done, without the influence of any crazy nut job from either side. What is shows is that we can make our cities safer, by not letting scum bags permanently chain dogs up and leave them there.
We made dogs social animals. They make us their family...their social group. They need that interaction. Then we get these morons that chain them up, and create a dog very likely to bite. Pit bulls that live in loving homes with responsible owners, don't bite people. If some jerk chains up a pit bull...and the dog gets loose and bites someone...yes, I think it should be a crimiinal offense. So if you want to do something to help...make sure that the law in your city bans tethering ! Look at Unchainforsyth as an example of a group working on that here in Winston Salem, NC. Also check out the city of Burlington, NC who has recently banned tethering. Burlington used the same state study to ban tethering. Stop your complaining and blaming, and do something to make things better. Just my two cents...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
