Pit bulls and a kitty

[CourierDriver]

That story about the golden retriever biting his owner, I dont get it. I have had several goldens and labs, and a border collie and all dripped with kindness to the point of crazyness. They really were just big babies with 4 wheel drive and never hurt a soul. Strangers could drive up and all they did was bark once or twice and wag their tails, then lick them to death and then go find a tennis ball so the stranger can throw it, mercy.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
That story about the golden retriever biting his owner, I dont get it. I have had several goldens and labs, and a border collie and all dripped with kindness to the point of crazyness. They really were just big babies with 4 wheel drive and never hurt a soul. Strangers could drive up and all they did was bark once or twice and wag their tails, then lick them to death and then go find a tennis ball so the stranger can throw it, mercy.


Don't worry, I don't get it either and I experienced it.

Every golden I've ever been around to this point has been a wonderful and social dog. But this one just isn't right upstairs apparently.

 

[dave1251]

Agreed on the Golden Retriever. I have heard stories from owners that they arrived home and found Retrievers playing with the prowler. Playing with the intruder that it not the type of breed I want. But there are exceptions to every rule so they say. That includes pit bull terriers. Also to the poster about Chow Chow's you never had one of them walk into your yard and bite you have you.

 

[AlienBug]

Another weird aspect of pitbulls. Their owners are oddly arrogant. They really do think they're superior dog owners than labrador types.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: AlienBug
Another weird aspect of pitbulls. Their owners are oddly arrogant. They really do think they're superior dog owners than labrador types.


Ironic, coming from someone with nothing constructive to add besides attacking other posters...

Labrador owners typically don't have people trying to ban their dogs or say they should be exterminated. I'm trying to provide some information to dispel myth. I'm sorry if you happen to view that as arrogance.

 

[AVB]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Agreed on the Golden Retriever. I have heard stories from owners that they arrived home and found Retrievers playing with the prowler. Playing with the intruder that it not the type of breed I want. But there are exceptions to every rule so they say. That includes pit bull terriers. Also to the poster about Chow Chow's you never had one of them walk into your yard and bite you have you.


No, I have never had a random Chow come in my yard and bite me. There were only 2 other families around here that had Chows and they were kept securely for the most part. The one that bit me at my friends' house was known to break his chain a few times. The last Chow that I had was in my mid teens, that one was not playful or affectionate at all. He wasn't aggressive either he just wanted to be left alone, but he was protective he wouldn't let my sister's Rottweiler or my dad's bird dog come near me.

 

[yonyon]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: AlienBug
Another weird aspect of pitbulls. Their owners are oddly arrogant. They really do think they're superior dog owners than labrador types.


Ironic, coming from someone with nothing constructive to add besides attacking other posters...

Labrador owners typically don't have people trying to ban their dogs or say they should be exterminated. I'm trying to provide some information to dispel myth. I'm sorry if you happen to view that as arrogance.


Trying to "dispel the myth" is pointless. You'll find very few people who want to listen. It will be all but forgotten when the next scary dog breed becomes fashionable. I believe the akita is next on the schedule, followed by the poodle, then the blue heeler, and then the dachshund.

Edit:

Dachshunds migh get bumped up though because they (like doberman's who already had a turn at being the villain) were bred to induce terror in their prey. They may end up being seen as natural born terrorists which could be very bad for them, but could certainly make some people forget how scary pits are.

 

[AlienBug]

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.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/a...rs-other-breeds

Hmmm. I found a bunch of examples in 30 seconds of searching.

Heck just wiki "pit bull" and you'll find a dozen examples.

One 9-year (1979–1988) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks where breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%).[36] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[37] One 5-year (1989–1994) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths where breed was recorded.[38] One 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%).[39] Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were involved in most of these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls. All other dogs combined accounted for the remaining 65% of attacks.[40] In 44.8% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.[40]

But if as apologists say, there's no biological trait that makes pits aggressive, then why are pit owners so irresponsible? It's one or the other. The dogs are inherently more vicious than others or their owners are doing something to make these cuddly little furballs vicious, I mean other than their habit of blaming the victim.

 

[Spazdog]

just my two cents on the matter:

Our friends have a Pit Bull. My son loves that dog.

The only problem really is that the dog does not seem to know how strong he is.

One time while he was playing with the dog, the dog nipped at him a little. The dog's body posture never became aggressive, he was just happy and playing and did what some dogs do. Of course I'm watching this play like a hawk. I would do the same with a Dachshund or Dalmatian. The nip was hard enough to draw a blood blister. Through eyes already shrink wrapped in tears my son calmed the dog down and just started petting him while trying to hide his injury from me. He didn't want the dog to get in trouble.

The dog calmed down very quickly and layed down next to where my son was seated. Let him pet him while looking up at my son with sad brown eyes, tail thumping on the floor. (he doesn't have his tail or ears docked)

I don't blame the dog. He's a dog. He's not a person. That sort of nip is just dog play. "Hey look, I could've gotcha'." I just don't think he knows how strong he is.

Other pits that attack? I honestly do not know. Maybe some of it is the way humans react to them, maybe the dogs just have too much of their non-domesticated dog DNA programming.

 

[MinamiKotaro]

We had a very large, female pit when I was a kid. She hardly ever barked and never bit anything besides her food. She would also run and hide from any noise much louder than a person talking. Not much of a guard dog. Her life was mostly spent taking naps.

She certainly could have been extremely dangerous if she took a mind to it but so could any dog of comparable size.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: AlienBug

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.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/a...rs-other-breeds

Hmmm. I found a bunch of examples in 30 seconds of searching.

Heck just wiki "pit bull" and you'll find a dozen examples.

One 9-year (1979–1988) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks where breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%).[36] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[37] One 5-year (1989–1994) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths where breed was recorded.[38] One 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%).[39] Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were involved in most of these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls. All other dogs combined accounted for the remaining 65% of attacks.[40] In 44.8% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.[40]

But if as apologists say, there's no biological trait that makes pits aggressive, then why are pit owners so irresponsible? It's one or the other. The dogs are inherently more vicious than others or their owners are doing something to make these cuddly little furballs vicious, I mean other than their habit of blaming the victim.


1. not one singe case meets that standard...not one.

2. the dog lends itself to irresponsible owners. Keep in mind, you're talking about a dog population that is probably on the order of 8-10 million dogs, and a small handful of owners that are this irresponsible.

It's not "blaming the victim", so please stop making things up. It's blaming irresponsible owners, which is exactly where the blame lies.

 

[mcrn]

Originally Posted By: JOD

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.
Quote:


http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/a...rs-other-breeds

Hmmm. I found a bunch of examples in 30 seconds of searching.

Heck just wiki "pit bull" and you'll find a dozen examples.

One 9-year (1979–1988) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks where breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%).[36] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[37] One 5-year (1989–1994) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths where breed was recorded.[38] One 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%).[39] Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were involved in most of these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls. All other dogs combined accounted for the remaining 65% of attacks.[40] In 44.8% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.[40]

But if as apologists say, there's no biological trait that makes pits aggressive, then why are pit owners so irresponsible? It's one or the other. The dogs are inherently more vicious than others or their owners are doing something to make these cuddly little furballs vicious, I mean other than their habit of blaming the victim.


1. not one singe case meets that standard...not one.

2. the dog lends itself to irresponsible owners. Keep in mind, you're talking about a dog population that is probably on the order of 8-10 million dogs, and a small handful of owners that are this irresponsible.

It's not "blaming the victim", so please stop making things up. It's blaming irresponsible owners, which is exactly where the blame lies.



Exactly....dogs are not the problem...humans are.

 

[antiqueshell]

I hope that eventually the Pit Bull breed is made illegal to own.

Again folks may like that breed but no matter how well raised or trained they are GENETICALLY "hard wired" to attack. The same goes for a number of other breeds. You CANNOT "train" that out of the dog.

It is also true that among dog owners I have found that these people are some of the most arrogant, and oblivious when it comes to the lack of awareness of the potential for their animal to harm others.

 

[3311]

I own two rescue pit mixes and have had and found homes for many others. The dogs are not the problem they are terrific animals.

The problem is the idiots that own them.
They either are not capable of comprehending or are not able to establish that they must be alpha/leader of the pack (this holds true with any animal). Or They are low grade filth like Vick that view them as a status symbol and or have the intention to fight them.
I would like to see the statical break down of dog attacks by animals that were abused and mistreated. Furthermore there is a very loose interoperation of what a pit bull is in the media. I've seen new reports here locally of "pitbull attacks" that were basically a mixed breed mutt with probably more lab in them than anything else.

Edit: I think if there was a 25 year mandatory prison sentence for dog fighting you would see a lot less issues with dogs such as strays, overcrowed/stressd shelters irresponsible breeding, thefts of animals for fighting/training, illegal gambling rings etc...

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Between 1966 and 1975, there was 1 documented case of a "pit-bull type dog" killing a human. That's a 9 year period.

Long before they were popular and 40 years ago. Do you have any more recent stats?

Quote:
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.


Do you have any links showing the information you are posting?

Quote:
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.

A toy poodle is far less likely to cause serious damage. Breeds designed for strength and powerful jaws will.

 

[AVB]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Between 1966 and 1975, there was 1 documented case of a "pit-bull type dog" killing a human. That's a 9 year period.

Long before they were popular and 40 years ago. Do you have any more recent stats?


Before they were popular? Maybe before they were popular with thugs and the media. American Pit Bull Terriers have been popular for around 100 years.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: AVB
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Between 1966 and 1975, there was 1 documented case of a "pit-bull type dog" killing a human. That's a 9 year period.

Long before they were popular and 40 years ago. Do you have any more recent stats?


Before they were popular? Maybe before they were popular with thugs and the media. American Pit Bull Terriers have been popular for around 100 years.


I had a scoutmaster back in the day that had a bad pit bull attack on him in that time frame. Lived from it but had nerve and eye damage. He was attacked when the "mentally challenged" child of his landlord set the dog on him when entering his apartment building. Not nice.

Of course any dog could have done this, but a dog with breeding for bite capability likely has the capability to do worse...

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Long before they were popular and 40 years ago. Do you have any more recent stats?


Well, that's the point. Right now, they're dramatically over-represented (though relative to their population, much less so). They weren't exactly rare 40 years ago. Prior to that (at the turn of the previous century), American Pitbull Terriers were the most common family dog; Presidents had them living in the White House, they were on TV (the Our Gang Dog), used in advertisements (the Victrola dog), etc.

So, what happened? It became a popular dog for people who have no business owning any dog, and are using the dogs in a way which elicits that behavior. The breed itself didn't change. You can't change thousands of years of evolution within a couple of generations.



Originally Posted By: Tempest
Do you have any links showing the information you are posting?


LINK

note, that's a PDF download to an entire book, so don't click if you're on a slow connection or PDF's mess with your computer. It's one book, but the sources are listed and it's pretty comprehensive. It's not perfect and it's definitely written from it's own perspective, but it does a good job of explaining why the myths exist.

Originally Posted By: Tempest

A toy poodle is far less likely to cause serious damage. Breeds designed for strength and powerful jaws will.


Two points:

1) don't underestimate the potential of small dogs to do serious damage, including killing someone. Sure, it's rare--but it can happen, particularly when you realize that most dog bites involve children.

2) you're right, large breed have to potential to do more destruction, but the pit bull is hardly alone. Large dogs have more bite strength than small dogs, and it pretty much scales to size. A Newfoundland has a much stronger bite that a pit bull (and a lot stronger guardian instinct! I know, because this was my first dog). A pit bull isn't special in this regard. Larger dogs can exert more force when they bite. Claims about "locking jaws" are as inaccurate as the claims that they're "trained to attack" (in fact, pretty much the opposite is true. Generally, they're poor guardians).

Owning any dog is a responsibility, and owning a large-breed dog is an even bigger responsibility--but breed has little to do with the dog's potential for danger. Take a lab and leave him intact, chain him up behind your house and throw him some scraps every other day, hit him when he pees somewhere you don't like, then let him off-leash to run with some other dogs, and guess what? You're likely to have a really dangerous animal on your hands.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

I had a scoutmaster back in the day that had a bad pit bull attack on him in that time frame. Lived from it but had nerve and eye damage. He was attacked when the "mentally challenged" child of his landlord set the dog on him when entering his apartment building. Not nice.

Of course any dog could have done this, but a dog with breeding for bite capability likely has the capability to do worse...


To save you reading the long post above, a pit bull doesn't have any special bite capacity. It pretty much scales to the size of the dog and the length of the jaw. If anything, for its size the pit bull exerts a little less force due to its shorter jaw.

The anecdote above says a lot about the owner, but not much about the breed.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: mcrn
Exactly....dogs are not the problem...humans are.


Originally Posted By: JOD
So, what happened? It became a popular dog for people who have no business owning any dog, and are using the dogs in a way which elicits that behavior.


Originally Posted By: JOD
To save you reading the long post above, a pit bull doesn't have any special bite capacity. It pretty much scales to the size of the dog and the length of the jaw. If anything, for its size the pit bull exerts a little less force due to its shorter jaw.

The anecdote above says a lot about the owner, but not much about the breed.


But when human actions have caused something to become dangerous, like these (and the type of dogs that they are peers with), the packs of wild dogs roaming close to towns in Oz, 14lb feral cats, it's not punishing the animal, it's purely a matter of hygene...they must be gotten rid of.

My workmate can't tell who fudged the genealogy of his most recent German Sheppard, but it ended up with shockingly bad hips, was in agony, and was destroyed...fault of humans for sure, but it was never punishing the animal.