Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Recently there have been several high profile pit bull attacks where people have been killed or seriously injured. Miami and Denver have banned them. San Francisco requires that they be neutered or spayed. I also know Ontario Canada bans them. As does the Netherlands and the UK (I think).

Is banning them valid or just a knee jerk reaction?

I say banning them is crap. While you do hear about a few highly publicized incidents 99.999% of Pit Bulls are not dangerous to people. The vast majority are not dangerous to other dogs either (I regularly encounter Pit Bulls when I take my dogs to the dog park and there has never been a problem).
Those pits that are dangerous have been trained to be. To be sure some will argue they were bred to be agressive but so have a number of other breeds. Rottwieliers, Dobermans, German Sheperds, just to name a few, have been bred to be aggressive. It's $%$#@ to single out one breed.

I DO think owners of any animal, not just pit bulls, who injure another person, or their pet, should be held accountable.

Pit Bulls are actually not agressive when in the right hands. My friend has a pit bull who is the sweetest dog I know.

It is the owner of the dog who is usually to blame for how aggressive the pet becomes.

Banning them is stupid.

any dog can be vicious

No, bad pet owners should be banned.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, bad pet owners should be banned.

I like that idea.

We used to have a dog who was half-pit bull and half-golden lab. He was such a sweet dog, even though he was massive (he liked to sleep on my lap on the couch, which meant I was stuck there until he felt like moving...). Right now we have a Rottweiler, who is, I swear, the biggest chicken on the face of the earth, and is also a totally sweet dog. It's all down to the owners - neglect or be nasty to the dog and it doesn't matter the breed, the dog will be mean. Be nice for it, pay it attention and play with it, care for it....and it will be fine.

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/easttexasbirdawgs.jpg

doggie!!

OMG viszlas! Bam I had to put my little red pointer to sleep 2 years ago

Pit Bulls are ok once again its just a knee jerk reaction to irresponsible owners as well as the media looking for something to put into print to drive numbers.

What, exactly, do you consider a Pit Bull? It's a very vague name used to describe any dog with big jaws and short hair.

I know Detroit (and most news orgs) consider anything that looks like an APBT a pit bull. But, normally it's something totally different or a mixbreed.

APBT are, by breeding, non aggressive towards humans. The same can't be said for small animals, which they are naturally aggressive against.

American pit bull terrier, english Staffordshire terrier and maybe I cannot recall I read an article on this about a month ago bull terriers........

Funny thing is labs actually have more bite cases in the USA over pit bulls............although thats because there are so damn many of them.......

Pitbulls arent dangerous as long as theyre socialized and have a responsible owner. I used to have a german shepard/ pitbull mix and she was the sweetest dog ever!! ^_^

Just a few quick thoughts directed to the pit bull lovers of the world.

Why does everyone say that Pit Bulls are not aggressive? When Golden Retriever retrieves it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. When a sighthound takes off after a squirrel or rabbit it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. When a Shepard is protective of those around it it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. When a Water Spanial swims with amazing skill it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. So why do people deny the very character traits that were bred into pit bulls in their defense?

People say that Pit Bulls are bred to attack other dogs and not humans. That is a bit incorrect. They are bred to be aggressive, relentless, strong and determined. You cannot breed specified targets of aggression into a dog. For example, I used to have an Irish Wolfhound (which is a sight hound), he was a superbly trained dog (as any that size should be) and you know what, he was just as happy to chase a bear, deer, rabbit, coyote, dog or person as he was a wolf. If I allowed him to chase it, he'd chase it. So a pitbull is bred to fight other dogs, it's trained to fight other dogs, if it does not fight anything, it's tendancies for aggression build up andhave to be feleased somewhere.

As for people who say, "other dogs bite too", well, that's true. But most dogs cannot apply the same force behind their bite that a Pit Bull does nor are most other dogs as vicious at the moment of attack and cause as much damage as they can.

Other issues are at hand in this issue as well. Poor training and mishandling of a dog capable of this level of violence is ridiculous, as are the breeding practices that have been occuring to meet demand resulting in inbred populations of Pit Bulls that are quicker to "snap" than other specimens.

You may love the breed of dog, but with that also comes the responsibility of being aware what that dog is capable of and accepting those traits. To say they don't exist is foolish, ignorant and extremely dangerous.

Agree.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, bad pet owners should be banned.

no...this is stupid....the pets are only as bad as their owners.... i've worked with dozens of pit bulls and they're naturally not aggressive...I've worked at the vetenarian hospital for 7 months and i've yet to see an aggressive pit..

Originally posted by AdventChild
no...this is stupid....the pets are only as bad as their owners.... i've worked with dozens of pit bulls and they're naturally not aggressive...I've worked at the vetenarian hospital for 7 months and i've yet to see an aggressive pit..

No offense, but pit bulls were bred to be aggresive. Whether that aggressivenes was intended to be directed to dogs or not, it was a desirable trait that was bred into the dog. To deny that it exists is ridiculous.

Also you are speaking from personal experience, and you have only worked with a small fraction of the dogs that are out there in a very controled situation. By that train of thought I could say that I've worked with thousands of people in the last couple of years and i have never met one that killed anyone, therefore humans get a bad rap are not as dangerous as some would have you believe.

I have no doubt that they can be great pets, but anyone who is willing to overlook the intended purpose of the breed and it's nature and capabilities towards violence is either letting their bias overtake common sense or is not able to face reality.

I have to agree with KharmaDog here. Sure, its true that a dog is only as good as its trainer, but either way Pit Bulls are still naturally agressive. Any dog could be trained poorly and become violent, but its not like anybody is gonna get maimed by an unruly chihuahua.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, bad pet owners should be banned.
*Nods.*

However, pit bulls are bred killers. When attacking, they are doing what they were bred to do and are excellent at it. Unfortunately, this translates into serious injuries and/or death. I think that restrictions should be placed on the owners of pit bulls, such as that they have to be licensed dog trainers or something.

As a side note, people who use pit bulls as fighting dogs and use golden retrievers to train them--as goldens lack the killer instinct and can't defend themselves well--should be castrated with rusty shanks.

Originally posted by FeceMan
As a side note, people who use pit bulls as fighting dogs and use golden retrievers to train them--as goldens lack the killer instinct and can't defend themselves well--should be castrated with rusty shanks.

My first dog was a golden retriever and it was the most gentle animal I've ever seen. Goldens are amazing family dogs for this very reason. The thought that people would to that to a dog is barbaric. The thought that they would do it to a dog that doesn't have a chance in hell is horrific.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
No offense, but pit bulls were bred to be aggresive. Whether that aggressivenes was intended to be directed to dogs or not, it was a desirable trait that was bred into the dog. To deny that it exists is ridiculous.

Also you are speaking from personal experience, and you have only worked with a small fraction of the dogs that are out there in a very controled situation. By that train of thought I could say that I've worked with thousands of people in the last couple of years and i have never met one that killed anyone, therefore humans get a bad rap are not as dangerous as some would have you believe.

I have no doubt that they can be great pets, but anyone who is willing to overlook the intended purpose of the breed and it's nature and capabilities towards violence is either letting their bias overtake common sense or is not able to face reality.

you got me...Good point...

There are definitely bad owners, which have the potential to cause a lot of harm, and should be dealt with. And, after living much of my early life on a farm, I know there are also animals that can be right bastards, regardless of how good or bad the owner is, but this doesn't reflect on the whole species, or even breed.

And it is a good point that KharmaDog makes, various breeds do have inherent traits, including personality, to various degrees, and the Pit Bull is not excluded, and such traits do make it questionable how good a pet they make, but I don't think that alone should be enough to ban them entirely, provided the owner fully understands and respects the breeds potential, and in recognising that treats them right.

Still, all out ban? Why not do something a bit less over the top, like making muzzling compulsory or something if the dog is out in public? Or making it a more restricted kind of animal - which would mean an official recognised controls, like how they were contained (to stop the risk of them getting out of a back yard), muzzling and the like?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Still, all out ban? Why not do something a bit less over the top, like making muzzling compulsory or something if the dog is out in public? Or making it a more restricted kind of animal - which would mean an official recognised controls, like how they were contained (to stop the risk of them getting out of a back yard), muzzling and the like?

We have a ban in Ontario on Pit Bulls as of recently. I am not a huge fan of the idea. They are supposed to have muzzles on at all times and no breeding is allowed. Current dog owners do not have to get rid of their dogs, but the provincial government doesn't want any new ones.

That being said, having often been in downtown Toronto I have seen multiple pit bulls with no muzzles, others with no leashes and almost immediately after the ban some poor girl had her face mangled by, you guessed it, a pit bull.

I don't know what the solution is, people are crappy dog owners and other people use a dog to show what a bad ass they are. That makes it a dangerous situation with dogs like Pit Bulls or Presa Canerios or the like. Different approaches were taken, and the owners of these dogs did not step up to the plate.

Originally posted by Ken Kenobi
Pit Bulls are actually not agressive when in the right hands. My friend has a pit bull who is the sweetest dog I know.

It is the owner of the dog who is usually to blame for how aggressive the pet becomes.

Banning them is stupid.

i say that too its what their owners make them they are only agressive when they are antagonised(sp) ....like any other animal

*tease a cat it scrathes you /bites you .....how many cats get put down for that

No. It's the dog's owners that should be banned.

Originally posted by ladygrim
i say that too its what their owners make them they are only agressive when they are antagonised(sp) ....like any other animal

Why can't people accept that some dogs are more aggresive than others? I agree that owner responsibility is also to blame, but come on folks, why all the denial?

Greyhounds were bred to be fast.
Chihuahuas were bred to be small.
Bloodhounds were bred to be great scent trackers.
Great Pyrenees were bred to be shepards.
Pit Bulls were bred to be aggresive.

Looking in a book of dog breeds called "the ultimate dog book" they even say," although it can be a reliable, and affectionate pet, it still enjoys a good fight.

It's how owners train their dogs honestly...I've seen friendly pit bulls and have seen people try to make their dogs aggressive by awful means...

Originally posted by debbiejo
It's how owners train their dogs honestly...I've seen friendly pit bulls and have seen people try to make their dogs aggressive by awful means...

Well there you have it, many people have met pit bulls that were friendly. This totally nullifies the fact that for generations (up until very recently) Staffordshire Bull Terriers were brought across the Atlantic and bred and interbred to result in a heavier more aggressive fighting dog known as the American Pit Bull Terrier. Generations of breeders work is all moot because it isn't breeding that made these dogs aggressive, just their handling. What a waste of 100 years for those people.
blowup

I have an aquantance who trains bears and other animals for movies. He has one grizz that I had the pleasure to meet and actually get up and close to. This bear was friendly and gentle. I guess that means that all grizzly bears (or even most) are equally gentle and approachable. That only makes sense right?

Did you stick your head in its mouth? I don't think you can really tell if a grizzly is friendly until you pull this one off.

Originally posted by botankus
Did you stick your head in its mouth? I don't think you can really tell if a grizzly is friendly until you pull this one off.



You kill me! Thank god you brought some levity to this thread.

This bear appears friendly:

it appears scared shittless

In Missisppi where I grew up Pit Bulls were bred to be fight dogs, but there's nothing being done about it...

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Recently there have been several high profile pit bull attacks where people have been killed or seriously injured. Miami and Denver have banned them. San Francisco requires that they be neutered or spayed. I also know Ontario Canada bans them. As does the Netherlands and the UK (I think).

Is banning them valid or just a knee jerk reaction?

I say banning them is crap. While you do hear about a few highly publicized incidents 99.999% of Pit Bulls are not dangerous to people. The vast majority are not dangerous to other dogs either (I regularly encounter Pit Bulls when I take my dogs to the dog park and there has never been a problem).
Those pits that are dangerous have been trained to be. To be sure some will argue they were bred to be agressive but so have a number of other breeds. Rottwieliers, Dobermans, German Sheperds, just to name a few, have been bred to be aggressive. It's $%$#@ to single out one breed.

I DO think owners of any animal, not just pit bulls, who injure another person, or their pet, should be held accountable.

Zing on anecdotal evidence.

Originally posted by JacopeX


What a well thought out retort.

Originally posted by botankus
This bear appears friendly: This should be your new Sig. pic....It's just sooooooo you..

Originally posted by KharmaDog
What a well thought out retort.
He doesn't need a well thought-out retort--he's GANGSTA 4 LYFE WEST SIDE!

Pit Bulls are indeed potentially agressive. It does take training to bring it out usually. People who do so should be nailed to the cross.

Having said that the vast majority of Pit Bulls aren't dangerous. The title of the thread is "Should Pit Bulls be banned". Acknowledging they can be dangerous my answer is still NO.

Some facts on pit bulls

I agree on the paragraph: Are 'Pit Bulls' More Likely To Bite?

Originally posted by Storm
I agree on the paragraph: Are 'Pit Bulls' More Likely To Bite?
You need to get an avatar.

OFF TOPIC.... OFF TOPIC!!!!!!!!

offtopic
hang
giljotiini
death

Let kills em....

Oh like you sig, btw....but it's a little smooooothy looking...

OH, back on topic....Pit bulls....

Thanks! Wonder where I got the idea from?

I have influenced another person...to stray away....




Oh pit bulls............

Only trained pit bulls should be owned by people because most won't bother to actually teach them how to behave

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Some facts on pit bulls

This site is pure propaganda and not unbiased at all.

Some quotes from that site:


No scientific proof of aggressiveness being attributable to certain breeds? That is f*cking crazy. Behaviour in dogs is bred into each breed for various reasons. Breeders take time and carefully plot the traits they want in a specific breed. Aggression, physical ability, even a dog's sense of sight or smell is controlled by breeders. The scientific proof is the variety of breeds themselves.



So basically, what they are saying is that it is totally dependant on the outside stimuli and rearing of the individual animal? I have hammered this point to death, but no one is acknowlging it:

Why are site hounds prone to chase other animals?
Why do retrievers naturally retrieve?
Why do some breeds of dogs have a more natural affinity to water?
Why do some breeds make better shepard dogs?

cAn you see where I am going and extrapolate on that?



Well that goes against what the american kennel club and a bunch of actual pit bull breeders said at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. But what do they know?

http://www.newtownabbey.gov.uk/dogs/aggression.htm
"In the wild dogs live in packs, where one dog assumes leadership, Over centuries of domestication, dogs have relied on us as 'leader of the pack', and they have learned to serve us accordingly. A dog is happiest when it is serving, but, a dog's willingness to serve and in turn its happiness can deteriorate for various reasons including - lack of training, inappropriate training methods, spoilt indulgent lifestyle, lack of exercise, lack of social contact, general neglect. This causes the dog to resort to its primitive instincts. It should also be remembered that some breeds are naturally more aggressive than others"

The site says this one minute:
And then this the next:


Here's are some stunning defences of the breed




Originally posted by Storm
I agree on the paragraph: Are 'Pit Bulls' More Likely To Bite?

That passage states:
The breeds at the top of biting statistics are the most popular breeds at the time. Meaning, in Canada, Labradors, Golden Retrievers, and German Shepherds and other popular breeds top the bite statistics. Any dog can bite. Any poorly trained and unsupervised dog may bite unprovoked. Breed is not the deciding factor, training and supervision is.

So basically they named three of the most popular breeds in north america. Of course these breeds will be responsible for a higher number of bites, there is a higher number of dogs. But if we are going to put any value in this stat, we should go back to where they say that PitBulls are responsible for more deaths than any other breed.

That site isn't pure propaganda........c'mon if thats the case most websites are "propoganda" as well........someone is ALWAYS trying to sell their point of view.

I don't feel pitbulls should be banned..........

Originally posted by soleran30
That site isn't pure propaganda........c'mon if thats the case most websites are "propoganda" as well........someone is ALWAYS trying to sell their point of view.

I don't feel pitbulls should be banned..........

They heavily sqew their facts to support their argument (though they don't do it very well). If you are going to title your website "Everything You Wanted To Know About 'Pit Bulls'", then perhaps they should tell the whole truth instead of their version of the truth.

And I agree, I hate the banning of a breed, it's a slippery slope, but I also hate the fact that people can't like an animal, but be totally ignorant of it's ptotential behaviour, or dismissive of the animal's peotential both good and bad.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
My first dog was a golden retriever and it was the most gentle animal I've ever seen. Goldens are amazing family dogs for this very reason. The thought that people would to that to a dog is barbaric. The thought that they would do it to a dog that doesn't have a chance in hell is horrific.
Yeah, they are gentle. Mine backed off from an ill-tempered Chihuahua, seriously.

Pfff.. Who needs a pitbull anyway? Point is that their jaws are just too well developed. When an incident does happen, it's usually not pretty.

Here in Holland they get killed. I think this is a bit extreme but why were those dogs bred anyway?

Get some normal dogs instead of ugly mutant ones for crying out loud.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
That passage states:
The breeds at the top of biting statistics are the most popular breeds at the time. Meaning, in Canada, Labradors, Golden Retrievers, and German Shepherds and other popular breeds top the bite statistics. Any dog can bite. Any poorly trained and unsupervised dog may bite unprovoked. Breed is not the deciding factor, training and supervision is.

So basically they named three of the most popular breeds in north america. Of course these breeds will be responsible for a higher number of bites, there is a higher number of dogs. But if we are going to put any value in this stat, we should go back to where they say that PitBulls are responsible for more deaths than any other breed.
Haha, website just got owned.

Perhaps they should have compared the number of dogs owned categorized by breed and number of dog bites categorized by breed...and then the resulting medical bills.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Haha, website just got owned.

Perhaps they should have compared the number of dogs owned categorized by breed and number of dog bites categorized by breed...and then the resulting medical bills.

What's sad is that they 'owned' themselves. Once again, you can love the breed, even defend the breed, but don't deny the attributes that make it what it is.


I was thinking about this again last night, that website says that ,"Aggression is a behaviour, not a temperament".

Now aside from keeping dogs as pets I also keep fish as pets, cichlids in particular. Now there are books and books on different breeds of cichlids and everyone of them lists the temperment of each breed or species as either aggressive or non aggresive.

Tasmanian devils are considered aggresive animals by nature, and bull sharks are considered the most aggressive shark. So apparently, the general population can accept that some species of animals can be more aggresive than others.

Furthermore, Horse breeders breed horses for tempermant and bull breeders look for certain tempermants in rodeo bulls to pass down through generations. So can aggressive or passive temperment behaviour be bred into or oout of every animals but dogs?


Comments from the web pages of reputable Pit Bull Breeders:

Jumpstart American Staffordshires - Breeder of Amstaffs since the 80's. Breeding for sound minds and bodies, from top US show lines.

Celtic Amstaffs - American Staffordshire Terriers breeding for Temperament , Structure, Mind , & life time companions

Triple A's Wind Dancing Acres - Licensed Breeder, breeding for Temperament, Conformation and Intelligence. All pups Guaranted 2yr.

Nitro Amstaffs - Exhibitor and Breeder of Champions. Temperament is our number one priority! Bred to standard with proper structure and movement, never sacraficing one

Dik-Cyn Kennels - Temperament is of primary concern. Please visit our website for info about us and our breeding program

All these breeders (and many more) note that temperment is a primary concern and breed their dogs to achieve the best temperment. But apparently they are wasting their time because the folks at http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm say that that is not posible.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Recently there have been several high profile pit bull attacks where people have been killed or seriously injured. Miami and Denver have banned them. San Francisco requires that they be neutered or spayed. I also know Ontario Canada bans them. As does the Netherlands and the UK (I think).

Is banning them valid or just a knee jerk reaction?

I say banning them is crap. While you do hear about a few highly publicized incidents 99.999% of Pit Bulls are not dangerous to people. The vast majority are not dangerous to other dogs either (I regularly encounter Pit Bulls when I take my dogs to the dog park and there has never been a problem).
Those pits that are dangerous have been trained to be. To be sure some will argue they were bred to be agressive but so have a number of other breeds. Rottwieliers, Dobermans, German Sheperds, just to name a few, have been bred to be aggressive. It's $%$#@ to single out one breed.

I DO think owners of any animal, not just pit bulls, who injure another person, or their pet, should be held accountable.


I say dont put down the dogs...........put down there owners

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Just a few quick thoughts directed to the pit bull lovers of the world.

Why does everyone say that Pit Bulls are not aggressive? When Golden Retriever retrieves it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. When a sighthound takes off after a squirrel or rabbit it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. When a Shepard is protective of those around it it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. When a Water Spanial swims with amazing skill it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. So why do people deny the very character traits that were bred into pit bulls in their defense?

People say that Pit Bulls are bred to attack other dogs and not humans. That is a bit incorrect. They are bred to be aggressive, relentless, strong and determined. You cannot breed specified targets of aggression into a dog. For example, I used to have an Irish Wolfhound (which is a sight hound), he was a superbly trained dog (as any that size should be) and you know what, he was just as happy to chase a bear, deer, rabbit, coyote, dog or person as he was a wolf. If I allowed him to chase it, he'd chase it. So a pitbull is bred to fight other dogs, it's trained to fight other dogs, if it does not fight anything, it's tendancies for aggression build up andhave to be feleased somewhere.

As for people who say, "other dogs bite too", well, that's true. But most dogs cannot apply the same force behind their bite that a Pit Bull does nor are most other dogs as vicious at the moment of attack and cause as much damage as they can.

Other issues are at hand in this issue as well. Poor training and mishandling of a dog capable of this level of violence is ridiculous, as are the breeding practices that have been occuring to meet demand resulting in inbred populations of Pit Bulls that are quicker to "snap" than other specimens.

You may love the breed of dog, but with that also comes the responsibility of being aware what that dog is capable of and accepting those traits. To say they don't exist is foolish, ignorant and extremely dangerous.
Your so called facts are way, way off base. I don't think you know the history of the APBT.

First, you're making the same mistake as most people. You seem to confuse animal aggression with human aggro.
PBs ARE more aggressive to animals, but to humans, they aren't.
Why? When they were first bred for fighting dogs, they were picked to be animal aggressive and totally non human aggro. When the pit master had to break apart the dogs, they made sure they could trust the animal's not to bite.

If they did happen to bite, they were killed. Thus, making it nearly impossible to spread the human agressive gene.

Seriously, stop confusing animal aggression with human aggression. They are totally different.

Originally posted by Arabian Knight
Thus, making it nearly impossible to spread the human agressive gene.

Human aggressive gene? WTF? Do you think that there is actually a gene in animals that defines as to what species of other animals it will and won't be aggresive to?

Pitbulls were bred for aggression, they were then socialized to be aggressive towards other animals and not to people. Now that this animal is no longer used for it's intended purpose (which is a good thing) there is no release for that aggresion (which is a bad thing).

As for my other so-called facts that are way off, please break them down for me.

What does one need with such an ugly dog anyway?
Certainly not pet them..

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Recently there have been several high profile pit bull attacks where people have been killed or seriously injured. Miami and Denver have banned them. San Francisco requires that they be neutered or spayed. I also know Ontario Canada bans them. As does the Netherlands and the UK (I think).

Is banning them valid or just a knee jerk reaction?

I say banning them is crap. While you do hear about a few highly publicized incidents 99.999% of Pit Bulls are not dangerous to people. The vast majority are not dangerous to other dogs either (I regularly encounter Pit Bulls when I take my dogs to the dog park and there has never been a problem).
Those pits that are dangerous have been trained to be. To be sure some will argue they were bred to be agressive but so have a number of other breeds. Rottwieliers, Dobermans, German Sheperds, just to name a few, have been bred to be aggressive. It's $%$#@ to single out one breed.

I DO think owners of any animal, not just pit bulls, who injure another person, or their pet, should be held accountable.


I agree with you but I would add that those people who own an aggressive dog who attacks someone should be treated as though they were the ones who did the attack and be prosecuted onthe extent of the injury. If a person is killed that dog owner should be sentanced to life in prison or worse. I love dogs but every once and awhile I come upon a dog walker (always is a guy) ans his dog that he has to rein in because once it sees me it goes nuts. I'm glad I carry a little knife with me cause if that guy some how loses his grip on that leash and that dog attacks me, it's going to be dog with a hole in it's throat.
I sometimes think what if a child goes up to one of these dogs? I don't even want to think about it..

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Recently there have been several high profile pit bull attacks where people have been killed or seriously injured. Miami and Denver have banned them. San Francisco requires that they be neutered or spayed. I also know Ontario Canada bans them. As does the Netherlands and the UK (I think).

Is banning them valid or just a knee jerk reaction?

I say banning them is crap. While you do hear about a few highly publicized incidents 99.999% of Pit Bulls are not dangerous to people. The vast majority are not dangerous to other dogs either (I regularly encounter Pit Bulls when I take my dogs to the dog park and there has never been a problem).
Those pits that are dangerous have been trained to be. To be sure some will argue they were bred to be agressive but so have a number of other breeds. Rottwieliers, Dobermans, German Sheperds, just to name a few, have been bred to be aggressive. It's $%$#@ to single out one breed.

I DO think owners of any animal, not just pit bulls, who injure another person, or their pet, should be held accountable.

They're not banned in the GB, atleast not in Scotland or N.Ireland I'm not sure about England and Wales.

I honestly believe you don't even know what a APBT is. I know you can look at websites and spurt propaganda, but do you honestly know ANYTHING about this subject?

Yes, there is a personality type that is bred into the APBT to prey on other animals, almost always other DOGS. When an owner is bad, they can switch the hardwire in the APBT's brain into seeing humans as prey. But, this is extremely unnatural for an APBT to do.

Why? Because:

They aren't guard dogs, they never have been. They aren't bred to be aggressive to humans or be territorial or even protective of humans. They are made to fight dogs and to be submissive to humans, even intruders(bad thing).

APBT are less human aggressive than most other dogs. Any guard dog/herd dog is more human aggressive.

Stop believing the hype, you sound like a friggin' drug war propagandist.

Originally posted by Arabian Knight
I honestly believe you don't even know what a APBT is. I know you can look at websites and spurt propaganda, but do you honestly know ANYTHING about this subject?

I think that I have displayed a knowledge about the subject via my posts. Just because you disagreee with my views, and basic common sense, is not a reason to claim that I am ignorant of the subject.

Originally posted by Arabian Knight
APBT are less human aggressive than most other dogs. Any guard dog/herd dog is more human aggressive.

Funny thing though, the websites that actually are supposed to defend pitbulls unknowingly condemn them(see earlier in the thread).

Originally posted by Arabian Knight
Stop believing the hype, you sound like a friggin' drug war propagandist.

Actually, you seem to be ramped up on the hypo-metre. I have remained calm and posted common sense arguements. You countered with the same lame arguement that everyone who is pro -pit bull counters with.

What anyone who has been raging against me has constantly missed is that I am not anti-dog. I really enjoy dogs and am a dog owner myself. I just think that it is pathetic when someone denies the defining characteristics of a breed because it's their favourite breed. They readily rag on others, but vehemently defend their own choice, APBT owners seem to be the worst in this regard.

I run a dogie daycare I have had good and bad experiences with pit bulls.When you get any dog you have to remember that it is your dog not your baby,YOU have to train it to be a social dog some dogs are aggressive by nature.If you decide to have one of these dogs be responsible YOU are owner and pack leader if you lead they will follow

I don't think they should all be banned or put to sleep, people in general are just reckless about taking care of them. Look at how many children are attacked a year because a owner failed to keep their dog from getting out of a gate that's not locked. Not all pitbulls are bad, but as said above, some are agressive by nature. More often than not it's the owners fault.

Depends, do they wear lipstick?

I didn't think of that...

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I think that I have displayed a knowledge about the subject via my posts. Just because you disagreee with my views, and basic common sense, is not a reason to claim that I am ignorant of the subject.



Funny thing though, the websites that actually are supposed to defend pitbulls unknowingly condemn them(see earlier in the thread).



Actually, you seem to be ramped up on the hypo-metre. I have remained calm and posted common sense arguements. You countered with the same lame arguement that everyone who is pro -pit bull counters with.

What anyone who has been raging against me has constantly missed is that I am not anti-dog. I really enjoy dogs and am a dog owner myself. I just think that it is pathetic when someone denies the defining characteristics of a breed because it's their favourite breed. They readily rag on others, but vehemently defend their own choice, APBT owners seem to be the worst in this regard.

the funny thing about it is that people barely complain about Rottweiler's even though they are bigger bite alot harder, and tend to be just as aggressive since they are breed to be extremely territorial

Isn't Sarah Palin a pitbull?

Originally posted by Markus Corvinus
I don't think they should all be banned or put to sleep, people in general are just reckless about taking care of them. Look at how many children are attacked a year because a owner failed to keep their dog from getting out of a gate that's not locked. Not all pitbulls are bad, but as said above, some are agressive by nature. More often than not it's the owners fault.

We should ban the people not the dogs.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Depends, do they wear lipstick? Originally posted by lord xyz
Isn't Sarah Palin a pitbull?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
No offense, but pit bulls were bred to be aggresive. Whether that aggressivenes was intended to be directed to dogs or not, it was a desirable trait that was bred into the dog. To deny that it exists is ridiculous.

Also you are speaking from personal experience, and you have only worked with a small fraction of the dogs that are out there in a very controled situation. By that train of thought I could say that I've worked with thousands of people in the last couple of years and i have never met one that killed anyone, therefore humans get a bad rap are not as dangerous as some would have you believe.

I have no doubt that they can be great pets, but anyone who is willing to overlook the intended purpose of the breed and it's nature and capabilities towards violence is either letting their bias overtake common sense or is not able to face reality.

they were never bred for dog-fighting...they were bred for things such as badger baiting and are no more inherently aggresive than bloodhounds are when chasing and killing foxes...sure you can argue that they were bred to be used for violent purposes...but the training is far more important than the breeding....it's no more a valid argument to say that than it is to say a person is violent because their decendants were violent

pit bulls, staffordshire bull terriers and other such varieties of dogs bred historically in the UK are extremely common in my home town...infact there are 3 in my street of 50 houses...none of them are as aggressive as the japanese akita that is also on my street....at least to other animals (never seen any of them be aggressive towards people...even the many kids that live on my street)

on the other hand i knew a staffy owner when i lived in a council estate and he kicked that dog around every time he was out with it...and that dog was a maniac and mauled more than a few other dogs in the time i was friends with it's owner

saying that...i could post a link to a picture of a victim of a pitbull attack...and it's not pleasant at all...i'm pretty sure its against forum rules so i'll just say if anyone wants to see it pm me.

i will say this though...muzzles...problem solved

oh...and here's pitbulls being used as therapy dogs in hospitals

http://www.thisisruby.com/tdi.html

Any breed of dog can attack a human. It is up to the owner of that dog to raise it in the right fashion. This is coming from the former owner of an American Pit Bull Terrier.

I love the laser on your rifle, daddy.

Originally posted by jaden101
they were never bred for dog-fighting...they were bred for things such as badger baiting and are no more inherently aggresive than bloodhounds are when chasing and killing foxes

Comparing on a breed to breed basis is pointless as each breed has had particular traits bred into or out of them over a period of years and generations.

The aggressive tendancies bred into a dog that was bred to "fight " another dog/animal (I am aware what statfordshire's were originally bred for, but we are mostly focusing on APBT's here) are different than those aggression tendancies of most hunting dogs.

Originally posted by jaden101
...sure you can argue that they were bred to be used for violent purposes...but the training is far more important than the breeding

But you cannot discount the years of breeding and the basis and demand of characteristics originally desired that justified the breed's very existence. As I said here:

Originally posted by KharmaDog
No offense, but pit bulls were bred to be aggresive. Whether that aggressivenes was intended to be directed to dogs or not, it was a desirable trait that was bred into the dog. To deny that it exists is ridiculous.


Originally posted by jaden101
....it's no more a valid argument to say that than it is to say a person is violent because their decendants were violent

I'm guessing you were going for "it's no more a valid argument to say that than it is to say a person is violent because their ancestor's were violent". (for all of you who are about to pick on me for pointing that out, I'm sure Jaden is sort of smiling right now and knows that I'm just joking...well, sort of. )

If we are going to compare people against dogs...this debate is not going to go anywhere.

Originally posted by KharmaDog





I'm guessing you were going for "it's no more a valid argument to say that than it is to say a person is violent because their ancestor's were violent". (for all of you who are about to pick on me for pointing that out, I'm sure Jaden is sort of smiling right now and knows that I'm just joking...well, sort of. )



hahaha...oops...i was tired....i had a hard day at work

well that's my excuse anyway

I have a Staffordshire bull terrier crossed with a greyhound, he's a lovely dog, but a nightmare to take out on walks. If he sees a dog that has ears that stick up, he seems to take it as a personal insult and try to batter them.

Are Pit Bulls dangerous? Judge for yourself, here are some stats....


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

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Are Pit Bulls dangerous? Judge for yourself, here are some stats....


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

the figures are generally considered a fallacy because not all bites are reported and bites from pitbulls are generally reported in much larger numbers...how many people report bites from chihuahuas for example...or small terriers?

But did you see the difference between Pit bulls and Rotts?

what's your point?...i would hazard a guess that far more people own pitbulls than rottweilers for a start

i would also say that 1110 attacks in 24 years means 46 attacks a year which is less than 1 a week...given that it's estimated that 20% of dogs in the US are pitbulls or pitbull cross's then that means, given that there are an estimated 53,000,000 dogs in the US alone (not including Canada) then that means 10,600,000 pitbulls with the full 46 attacks in a year means that only a fraction of a % of pitbulls attack under any circumstances

here's also another little nugget of information about them

You gotta remember, these are only the REPORTED attacks.

exactly my point though...pitbull attacks are far more likely to be reported because they're the alleged "devil dogs" and other such nonsense scaremongering that the media likes to portray them as

how likely is it that other dog species have bitten owners or other people and have never been reported simply because they're supposedly a more friendly or less harmful breed of dog?

hence the figures are completely skewed against pitbulls

I have seen a few dog attacks in my time, and most of the time it has been a Pit.

and i've seen alot as well...and i've been bitten a few times...and it's never been a pitbull...i've seen one serious attack and it was a doberman...i've seen loads of dogs fighting and only once was it a pitbull...strangely enough though, most of the time it was small dogs like jack russels going after bigger dogs like alsations

My sisters Lhaso once tried to take on a Great Dane haermm

that'd be brilliant to see

Seems the smaller the dog, the more bravado they have.

I like pitbulls, but pitbulls wearing lipstick should be banned, yes. They might bite.