Pit bulls and a kitty

[VicVinegar]

Originally Posted By: AlienBug
1) Pitbulls are bred to attack without warning and to bite and rip.

2) Pitbull owners are either gangsta wannabes or in complete denial.

Plenty of dogs out there that don't maim. Pitbulls need to be bred out of existence.


My pit bull is 9 and has attacked zero people, nor threatened to attack anyone.

My wife and I are both educated professionals. My typical work outfit includes a Brooks Brothers suit. I'm real gangster.

Sounds like you need to check the stereotyping, on both the dog and the owner. I'd suggest the idiots be bred out of existence first, and I think you'd see a reduction in problem dogs of all breeds.

 

[JOD]

I agree, any large-breed dog has the potential to be dangerous; of course, lots of other things in life are more dangerous, like driving or mountain biking... The problem becomes assessing the risk in what becomes a sensationalized and emotional environment.

For anyone who actually cares to learn a bit above internet snippets, here's a very well-written book on the subject: LINK. Note, the link downloads a PDF of the actual book, "Pitbulls and Placebos". Dial-up not recommended.

I own a 7 year old pitbull, 8 year old Ridgeback and 2 cats, and I've fostered a lot of other dogs, mostly Ridgebacks. One of the reasons I opted for a pitbull is that I wanted a dog that exhibited no aggressive tendencies towards humans. They can be naturally dog-aggressive, depending on the dog--but animal and human aggression isn't the same thing, not even close. That's not to say there aren't human-aggressive pits out there, but the determining factor in that is NOT the breed, but a host of other factors. The linked book does a good job of explaining the "why's".

Living in the city, all of your hypotheticals about loose dogs are all characteristics of bad owners, not of characteristics of any breed, large or small. And even small, football-sized dogs can injure severely, and kill. What are stray dogs doing running around, unless they're owned by irresponsible owners to begin with?

With that, I'm taking Killer for a walk!

 

[yonyon]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Dogs that are larger than my foot are a liability no matter what. Get too near me making me feel like I'm going to get bit and the dog is going down.


This sounds fair to me. If a dog runs up to me all asnarlin' and abarkin' and appearing to be in a bitey kind of mood he's getting a kick in the head. Of course, if a human runs up to me all asnarlin' and abarkin' and appearing to be in a bitey kind of mood he's also getting a kick in the head.

The exception being if the dog or human is small enough to comfortably pick up and give belly rubs.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: JOD
I agree, any large-breed dog has the potential to be dangerous; of course, lots of other things in life are more dangerous, like driving or mountain biking... The problem becomes assessing the risk in what becomes a sensationalized and emotional environment.



I find it humerous that you attack things that I personally do in order to support your dog apologetics. It doesn't really help win support, plus it is a weak argument. If I go mountain biking I am the only person that has the power to injure myself, and it is truly a risk that I select and I impose upon myself. Driving is also a risk that I impose upon myself, but the risk that you create for me, your liability to damage others, you are legally required to insure against because of the potential for damage to others. Dogs bite. Do you carry specific insurance for that liability? No.


Originally Posted By: JOD
.

I own a 7 year old pitbull, 8 year old Ridgeback and 2 cats, and I've fostered a lot of other dogs, mostly Ridgebacks. One of the reasons I opted for a pitbull is that I wanted a dog that exhibited no aggressive tendencies towards humans. They can be naturally dog-aggressive, depending on the dog--but animal and human aggression isn't the same thing, not even close. That's not to say there aren't human-aggressive pits out there, but the determining factor in that is NOT the breed, but a host of other factors. The linked book does a good job of explaining the "why's".



You can recommend all the reading you want, but it doesn't really help. Can I know beyond reasonable doubt that the dog will be 100% fine in all conditions with all people? Likely not. You need to understand that the bystander has no control over the multitude of other factors while the owner does. This all liability falls upon the owner and everyone else must be in self defense mode because of this.

Originally Posted By: JOD


Living in the city, all of your hypotheticals about loose dogs are all characteristics of bad owners, not of characteristics of any breed, large or small. And even small, football-sized dogs can injure severely, and kill. What are stray dogs doing running around, unless they're owned by irresponsible owners to begin with?
!


Living in the suburbs (I've never lived IN a city) your assumptions may be wrong too. People move to the 'burbs because they want a yard and some space. So it's quite reasonable for people to have dogs out, a either chained up, behind an "invisible fence", or behind a physical one. But dogs break out. I don't care what the basis or reason is, if the dog comes to the edge of the property, charging, barking, and growling, at rapid speed, what other assumption should I make? Of I charged at you full speed from 25 feet away, yelling and screaming, would you stand their smiling because most humans don't have a human aggressive nature?

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: JOD
I agree, any large-breed dog has the potential to be dangerous; of course, lots of other things in life are more dangerous, like driving or mountain biking... The problem becomes assessing the risk in what becomes a sensationalized and emotional environment.



I find it humerous that you attack things that I personally do in order to support your dog apologetics. It doesn't really help win support, plus it is a weak argument.



huh??

I'm sure I spend a lot more time on a mountain bike than you do, so I'm hardly "attacking it?". I'm simply pointing out that lot of life activities involve risk?

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Dogs bite. Do you carry specific insurance for that liability? No.


How on earth do you know what kind of insurance I carry?



Originally Posted By: JHZR2
You can recommend all the reading you want, but it doesn't really help.


In other words, you really have no desire to increase your understanding on the subject. That's unfortunate, because ignorance is pretty much the main reason for fear. There's really not much point in discussing any further if you have no real desire to learn what you don't know.

My point is pretty simple: ALL dogs have the potential to be dangerous. Owning a dog is a serious responsibility. You and I agree on this, so I'm not sure why you're seemingly so upset with my response or labeling me an "apologist"? However, breed of dog actually doesn't matter much with the inherent risks, and those who make that claim do so out of ignorance.

 

[JHZR2]

So youre saying that a small dog is as powerful as a large one? That a reasonably capable human would have the same difficulty warding off a chihuahua or small terrier as a great Dane? Both a shark and a minnow are better swimmers than I, but I know which one I'd want to have attacking me. Same analog for dogs.

And just because life activities involve risk doesn't mean that I should have to accept others' liability freely. Again, that's why you pay liability on your car, to state one of your examples. So that damage that you cause (or by extension, your property) to others is covered.

If you have purpose-specific dog attack insurance, why not matter-of-factly state so and how it works. Even if you do, does every dog owner?

My point on reading isn't that knowledge and enlightenment is bad/dumb, but rather that just because some documents state some facts, doesn't mean that one can be aware and knowledgeable about every dog that they encounter to be safe. Especially if it is so much on the owner, one definitely cannot control all aspects of that sufficiently to be able to make the assumption of the safety, nature and behaviors of a dog that they may interface.

And therein lies the risk. There is too great of variability between dogs, breeds, owners, past and present treatment, etc. This creates risk, a ton of it, and it is tough to control if you are a bystander and do not have daily interface withbthendog to truly understand it.

 

[antiqueshell]

There are a few breeds that should be made illegal to own.

Pit Bulls are at the top of the list.

The problem with them is not just how they were raised but the genetic character as well. Pits and a few other breeds are
"hard wired" to attack, no amount of good training will remove that ingrained genetic tendency.

 

[mcrn]

I have 2 pitbulls and my parents have 4. They are all related. My parents have the mom and 3 of her puppies and I have 2 of the puppies. These dogs are great. The mom loves people and cant wait to get to them to lick them! Please do some reading about the breeding before making the comments that they were bread to kill. They certainly were not bread to kill humans. They are some of the most loyal to human dogs there is which often times leads to how the media portrays them. I am not denying the attacks, but it really is an owner (human problem) rather than the breed. Plus I would like to say that it is a big responsibility to own these dogs and it is unfortunate that a lot of humans have not done their job raising them and the dogs themselves have received the reputation they have. It is not a dog for everybody. Its not a dog that you can just purchase and not work with and give attention to or just leave in the backyard.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: mcrn
I am not denying the attacks, but it really is an owner (human problem) rather than the breed. Plus I would like to say that it is a big responsibility to own these dogs and it is unfortunate that a lot of humans have not done their job raising them and the dogs themselves have received the reputation they have. It is not a dog for everybody. Its not a dog that you can just purchase and not work with and give attention to or just leave in the backyard.


The problem lies with the fact that owner, breeding, or whatever else the root cause may be, to the innocent bystander who does not have daily interaction and of which the dog does not have keen knowledge, all bets are off.

And as long as whatever issues/problems continue to exist due to the owners, faulty breeds, etc., there still is a major risk that plays out everyday.

 

[mcrn]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: mcrn
I am not denying the attacks, but it really is an owner (human problem) rather than the breed. Plus I would like to say that it is a big responsibility to own these dogs and it is unfortunate that a lot of humans have not done their job raising them and the dogs themselves have received the reputation they have. It is not a dog for everybody. Its not a dog that you can just purchase and not work with and give attention to or just leave in the backyard.


The problem lies with the fact that owner, breeding, or whatever else the root cause may be, to the innocent bystander who does not have daily interaction and of which the dog does not have keen knowledge, all bets are off.

And as long as whatever issues/problems continue to exist due to the owners, faulty breeds, etc., there still is a major risk that plays out everyday.


I understand the concerns. But I do wish the humans would be punished not the dog. I blame humans and I feel they should take the responsibility and punishment that fits the crime when there is fault and not the animal. I dont want them to be made illegal. Punish the humans severely when there is a child that is attacked and not the dog. Thats all im saying. Not saying there is not concerns or that there is not a problem out there but the root problem is not the dog, as usual its the humans that mess things up.

 

[CourierDriver]

We can all raise what dog we want to, but beware of lawsuits and such of breeds that attack people or kids that get on society's radar of awareness. You all know which breeds come to mind when humans are attacked in neighborhoods. When moms and dads have a child mauled or killed by a high profile dog that has an aggressive attitude, just beware of the consequences. Lawsuits can cause you to lose your home, and you will be paying dearly for a long long time.

 

[AVB]

I got bit by a dog when I was a child, I still have the scar on my cheek and at the corner of my eye. It was a Chow that bit me it was our dog, but the only one that we didn't raise from a puppy. I don't remember much about that dog or why he bit me, he probably was just tired of me aggravating him and snapped at me. We had another Chow at the same time that my uncle gave us as a puppy on my first Christmas. I can remember riding on that dogs back like a horse. I also go bit by another Chow at a neighbors house when I was around 11.

I currently have 5 American Pit Bull Terriers, and they are the most affectionate dogs I have ever known.

 

[bigmike]

This is my dog. She looks to me to determine what the threat level needs to be and has defended me on several occasions from attack by people and by other dogs. I look at her as we are a team. We protect each other when necessary.

When she was younger, I was concerned only once about her strength and power. I woke up with her head laying on my neck and I thought she could easily kill me if she really wanted to, but then I reasoned that she probably understands I could easily kill her just as well.

A huge level of trust is given when owning a large, powerful dog.

It is extremely heartbreaking to me to see a dog that has not been properly trained and cared for.

 

[PandaBear]

No matter what, large powerful dogs should be on leash when there are other people around. There are too many cases of "tame and calm" dogs attacking people without any warning and it is a liability if the owners don't do it.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
So youre saying that a small dog is as powerful as a large one? That a reasonably capable human would have the same difficulty warding off a chihuahua or small terrier as a great Dane? Both a shark and a minnow are better swimmers than I, but I know which one I'd want to have attacking me. Same analog for dogs.


No, I'm saying that all dogs have the *potential* to be dangerous or even deadly, regardless of breed. This is particularly true when you consider that most dog bites involve children. Sure, as a full-grown adult a larger dog would be more difficult to fend off. I don't know of any documented cases of a minnow killing someone. The same can't be said for Fox Terriers or Dachshunds (or many other small-breed dogs).


Originally Posted By: JHZR2
And just because life activities involve risk doesn't mean that I should have to accept others' liability freely. Again, that's why you pay liability on your car, to state one of your examples. So that damage that you cause (or by extension, your property) to others is covered.


Except, that's not really true. Let's go back to the mountain biking example. If you ride a mountain bike (or road bike) in public areas, you're putting not only yourself but others at risk. Sure, you can mitigate this risk (greatly!) but acting responsibly, but you can't eliminate it entirely--just like dog ownership. And the truth is, I've seen more hikers hit by mountain bikers than I have people bitten by dogs! No, it's not a regular occurrence, but it happens. Living involves both assuming some risk and putting others at risk. Activities with high risk (like driving) require special insurance. Society has decided that some activities are low-risk enough that special insurance isn't required. If you feel you're harmed in one of those situations, that's what why our civil court system exists.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
If you have purpose-specific dog attack insurance, why not matter-of-factly state so and how it works. Even if you do, does every dog owner?


Well, because you didn't ask...you made a declarative statement telling me what kind of insurance I didn't have! To answer your question though, homeowner's insurance generally covers dog bites unless specifically prohibited. Still, I have a rider addendum on my umbrella policy for specific coverage. I have this since I was fostering some dogs through a Ridgeback rescue group, and "ownership" of the dog becomes a legal question--and I'm paranoid.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
My point on reading isn't that knowledge and enlightenment is bad/dumb, but rather that just because some documents state some facts, doesn't mean that one can be aware and knowledgeable about every dog that they encounter to be safe. Especially if it is so much on the owner, one definitely cannot control all aspects of that sufficiently to be able to make the assumption of the safety, nature and behaviors of a dog that they may interface.

And therein lies the risk. There is too great of variability between dogs, breeds, owners, past and present treatment, etc. This creates risk, a ton of it, and it is tough to control if you are a bystander and do not have daily interface withbthendog to truly understand it.


I don't disagree with anything you've written above. My point is simply that 1) the risk overall risk to society is actually pretty small (and overly sensationalized--balloons are dangerous, too--but it's not a great story), and 2) breed of dog is not the determining factor. So, when people start with the "pit bull scare tactic", it's simply done out of ignorance. The linked book does a good job of explaining why, and gives a history of the various dogs that have been demonized throughout recent US history: Blood Houds, Newfoundlands, Collies (yes, Lassie), GSD's, Rottweilers, Dobermans and now "Pit Bulls". It's actually an interesting read. In the end it's pretty clear though; breed is not the problem when it comes to dangerous dogs. Those who claim otherwise are doing so out of ignorance.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Audios
Originally Posted By: 96Cherokee
Originally Posted By: AlienBug
1) Pitbulls are bred to attack without warning and to bite and rip.

2) Pitbull owners are either gangsta wannabes or in complete denial.

Plenty of dogs out there that don't maim. Pitbulls need to be bred out of existence.


I agree totally,,,,,,,,,everyday some kid or a small dog is attacked. They always say "how it was raised" total [censored] its in their blood.


Is killing in golden retrievers blood as well? Or was it how they were raised?

http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/golden-retriever-mix-kills-baby-in-south-carolina/

http://wn.com/Golden_Retriever_euthanized_after_killing_owner#/videos

Wait let me guess, isolated incident, never happens as often as pits, this is rare. They are aggressive breeds, but should all aggressive breeds be bred out? Prey drive and aggression are two different topics. Small dogs get bit because they are usually the attackers. How many times do you see little dog owners dragging their snarling yipping rat away from the larger dog owners who just walk by? Probably not many because its ignored, but other way around and everyones on top of it.


So true.

We have a Pomeranian down the street that constantly goes crazy at my Newf like he wants to tear his face off. We (the owners of the Pomeranian included) have no idea why. They got along very well until my dog was full grown and all of a sudden there was this massive attitude change from their dog towards him

Definitely something about some little dogs.

But touching on the topic of Golden Retrievers, we are dealing with a problem one right now at the cottage next door to ours. The dog came over while my dog was on his tether and was snarling, showing his teeth and flipping out at him. Completely unprovoked. My Newf was standing there with his tail wagging trying to be friendly. Then, their guest's dog came over, a standard poodle, who skirted the interaction, but caught my dog's attention, and he turned his head to look at the other dog and was bitten on the leg and scratched on the nose by the retriever.

But this gets better.

The owner of the retriever is over at this point trying to get his dog. The dog is growling, barring its teeth and snapping at HIM!!! Meanwhile, I've got my arm around the head of my big dumb dumb who's now angry and wants to kill the retriever. I tell my dog no, and he stops and sits back. I can tell he doesn't want to, but I'm the master (as it should be) so he does what he's told. The retriever then bites its owners arm obviously indicating who the master is there. I was flabbergast. He finally manages to get it to go home and makes it a point to come over later and tell us that this isn't typical of this dog's behaviour (even though the first day we were there they made it a point to come over and tell us that their dog didn't get along with other dogs) and that the dog would never harm us or our kids. After watching it bite its owner, I'm having a hard time swallowing that one.

 

[Shannow]

When I'm not directly in control of my guns, they must be locked up, so that other people don't enter the equation...that's for an inanimate object.

As far as I'm concerned, same should be true of dogs.

Your pit-bull might be the friendliest, most placid animal when you are around, but when you aren't you have an obligation not to have any other member of the public exposed to ANY risk from the animal.

Yes, any dog can be aggressive, but in risk management, the "risk" is the likelihood x consequence. Per animal, this breed displays above average likelihood, and well above average consequence.

They (and their owners) definitely need to be held to a higher standard.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. 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. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)

Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html

Breed most certainly matters.

The meanest dog I have ever encountered was an Akita. The owners got rid of him because he was dangerous.

I have been charged by a pit bull type dog, but was fortunate I had a bike between me and him and the owner was close by. The dog retreated to the owner who said: "Sorry got away from my son."

I made my displeasure known.

I was startled the other day walking down an urban path by a large terrier type dog that nearly made it over the back yard fence. Got my attention real fast. I think he was just warning me not to come close, but if he really wanted over that fence he could make it.

These are animals with their own brains, life experiences and genetic coding. They are designed to be strong and fast with powerful jaws and large teeth. In short, they are designed to be intimidating and do damage to their target. If they can puncture a car tire, the power is self evident.

I'm on the proverbial fence about the legality of these dogs. I personally don't see a need for such a dog but others might and obviously the vast majority of them don't attack people. I do agree that the owners of these aggressive breeds need to be held to the highest legal consequences for the actions of these self thinking possessions.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Breed most certainly matters.


No, really...it doesn't..

Between 1966 and 1975, there was 1 documented case of a "pit-bull type dog" killing a human. That's a 9 year period. If you really think that a few generations of selective breeding can overcome thousands of years of evolution, then you're woefully misinformed.

First, there are issues with the statistics themselves as dogs are often misidentified--but the bigger issue is that you're assuming that correlation equals causation. This is the biggest logical fallacy in the book. As I said earlier, this same line of thinking was applied to dogs which no one now deems "dangerous", Newfies and Bloodhounds to use two examples.

There ARE things that matter when it comes to serious and fatal dog bites:

-reproductive status of the dog. 92% of dog fatalities involve intact dogs

-living situation of the dog. 25% of the dog/human fatalities are from dogs living a majority of their life chained up.

-the dog being part of a large pack of dogs

-the purpose of the dog. Dogs used as "protection dogs", for breeding or as "intimidation", not living inside the house are overwhelmingly the most likely to attack humans.

Sadly, "pit bulls" dominate all of the categories above. Before them, it was Rottweilers, before them German Shepherds, then Dobermans, and Bloodhounds... Treat any large dog the same way and you'll have the same results.

There's no documented case of a single, spayed/neutered pit bull or pit bull-type dog, maintained exclusively as a household pet involved in a fatal human attack. Chew on that one for a while. Sure, when you read the sensational headline, it says "pitbull kills baby" or whatever. The reality is that it's typically an intact male dog left out in the yard to fend for himself. Treat any breed of dog a certain way and you'll get the same results. Blaming the breed is easy, since it required less thought. I get that. But, it's intellectually lazy.

 

[AVB]

The problem with dog attack statistics is that dogs get misidentified all the time. Those statistics don't mean much without knowing what the population of each breed is. There was a news report on my local NBC station's website about a Chow attacking a smaller dog. The dog they claimed was a chow was clearly not a Chow at all, it was some sort of fluffy mutt.