I realize it verges on tasteless to introduce facts into an off-topic argument in this newsgroup, but if anyone is interested, here are some references on the 'dangers' of pit bulls that I turned up in a quick google search.
An article > "Rick Cook" spewed in message
Rick is obviously quite emotionally incensed by this discussion. Well, that's fine. It doesn't follow from one's being emotionally involved that one's mistaken, although clearly one should be careful. He claims that pit bulls, as a group, aren't more dangerous or aggressive than other dogs.
Notice that this is a different question than whether or not other breeds of dogs can be trained to be aggressive. Of course they can. Other breeds can also have individuals that are naturally aggressive, either towards other dogs or whatever.
That fact is that statistical studies have been run that correlate aggression and damage inflicted by various dog breeds. I don't have them at hand, and I don't remember where the pit bull ranked. Nonetheless, the studies clearly proved that some breeds are more dangerous than others, and the fact that one might know a number of examples of non-aggressive dogs of a more aggressive prone breed does nothing to undermine the statistics. If I remember correctly, german shepherds were the breed most likely to bite a person. Someone will no doubt respond, "But I've known tons of g. shepherds and they've all been goofy little pudd'n pops! They wouldn't bite anyone!" That doesn't change the statistics, or the fact that breeds vary in there general aggressiveness.
The fact is that dog breeds very quite considerably in their behavior. I would not take a full grown intact male Great Pyrenees to a dog park, and it doesn't matter how well socialized the dog was. These dogs, which are great dogs by the way, were bred to see other large animals as a threat to the flocks of sheep that the great pyrs guarded. As such, they tend to be very aggressive towards other dogs, and they will not back down, as they were bred and trained to defend their flocks with their lives. This tendency towards aggression is recognized in the breed standard, and a person ignores this genetic predisposition at their peril, or, more correctly, at the peril of other people's dogs.
Let's stay with Pyrs. All of the major Pyr sites, books and breeders will tell you not to walk your Pyr off-leash. Why? Because they were bred to be independent and to roam with their flock of sheep. This required patrolling a very large territory. As a result, when given the chance, they often take off. There are are even stories of obedience champions who get loose, and despite their very good training they nonetheless take off. How many people do you think have lost a dog because they thought that _their_ dog wouldn't do that, and hadn't taken off the prior times when they were let loose? Training, even very conscientious training, does not guarantee the extinction of a genetic behavioral predisposition.
Let's get back to the American Pit Bull Terrier. They were bred to hurt and kill other dogs. While it's true that their jaws don't "lock", consider this from the American Pit Bull Terrier Faq:
"Those of you who frequent dog shows for the APBT will no doubt eventually be witness to dogs getting loose and starting a fight. So, what happens when they are serious? Well, each dog will bite the other, take hold and start to shake its head punishingly. It is so serious that in most cases nothing you do will cause the dog/bitch to give up that precious hold! Nothing! Choking, shocking, etc...It just doesn't matter!"
This is different behavior than a large number of other dogs. These dogs were bred to be killers, just like other dogs were bred to be retrievers, herders, working dogs, or companion animals. Each of these classes has dogs with unique behavioral instincts. Why then would the pit bull be any different? There's no reason to think so. Does this mean that they aren't good dogs? No! But it does mean that special care need to be taken with them, just as it does with a number of other breeds of dogs, such as mastiffs, rottweilers...
So you're upset by people being wary of pit bulls? Get over it! My dog, a Leonberger, was bred to be a companion dog, which is the reason that the breed was created. Nonetheless, he's a very big dog, roughly the size of a great dane. He's goofy and lives for playing with people and other dogs. Nonetheless, he often scares people. Take the UPS guy. He won't come into are yard. Now I could get all pissed off about how Murphy is being ignorantly maligned, but then I realize that he's a very big dog who could be very dangerous if he wanted to be, and I recall all of the idiot's I've met who've had dogs. Example, I once pulled a husky off of another dog. Luckily, there was only a little blood. The owner of the husky said, "I don't know why, but every time I come to the dog park Klondike picks out one other dog to attack."... A person should be wary of an unknown large dog, especially one that might have aggressive predispositions, and that certainly applies to pit bulls.
By the way, the angrier pit bull fanciers get,the more dismissive they become of the worries of others, and the more they brush off the dangers of the breede, the more likely it will be that ownership of the dogs will be restricted.
-Peter De Smidt
It's not if they really are dangerous. In fact, it wouldn't be arrogant even if they're not. There's a difference between being wrong and being arrogant, at least sometimes.
-Peter De Smidt
Peter De Smidt wrote in news:415fa764$1_2 @newspeer2.tds.net:
Number one in deaths, Rottweiler number two, other large dogs dominating mist of the list. Surpisingly, a Yorkie gets a mention! Less than 1% involved a leashed dog off the owners property.
Frankly, I (and every other human) have urges at times to strike out and destroy other humans...but I do not give into those urges because I was trained from birth not to. The urge is not removed...just overridden.
Bad example because it is apples and cantelopes. S&R were dealing with tigers...Wild Animals that were not pets in any way, shape or form. They were more like bad-tempered, dangerous partners. Dogs, though, have been socialized to mankind for thousands of years, and, have developed into a creature that works well in a symbiotic relationship with mankind. It's called domestication, and, has quite a range..If it is 1 to 100, Tigers are at about 0. Dogs are at about
90-95 (cats are probably 50).
Not absolutely, but breeding does make a difference. After all, you would not want to send a dachshund out into a lake to retrieve a downed duck, nor would you send a Lab down a hole to hunt a badger. Ever since the first wolves joined mankind at the fire, mankind has manipulated the gene pool to create an animal that is suited to the hunting task at hand. Speaking of which... have you ever seen a badger? they are one of the nastiest fighters one could come across...so by this logic, dachshunds should be restricted because they are tough enough fighters to take on such an opponent. However, nobody is scared of a dachshund... mostly because they have not been the subject of so much bad press over the past few years. Regards Dave Mundt
OF *COURSE* it is! The long-form name is the T-errr-til. Cousin to the tortise.
LOL! a good point...however, again, apples and cantelopes. All those are wild animals...not ones that have thousands of years of close association with humans and the domesticating effects thereof.
Regards Dave Mundt
Reminds me of a great story about Winston Churchill... One day he and another fellow (I don't recall who just now) were in the garden, when his dog (an English Bulldog, by the by...) came staggering back in through the gate, all torn up and the worse for wear. The guest observed that Churchill's dog did not seem to be much of a fighter. Churchill replied that the dog was an excellent fighter...just a very bad judge of opponents.
Regards Dave Mundt
Okay, I'll give you that. I guess it is true that *most* of the pit-bull owners I've met (not all, mind you) are worse than the dogs themselves. Could be that the wrong folks are attracted to the breed, but I've seen and heard of more than a couple horror stories with terriers in general and pit-bulls specifically. (Though, of course, "horror" is kind of an overstatement when talking about something like a rat terrier or a jack russel.)
When I think "pit bull" I think "Spuds McKenzie". But most people don't realize that Spuds was a pit bull. I find it interesting that Bodget in "The Incredible Journey" was changed from a bull terrier to a bulldog in the 1993 remake. I'm not really a "dog person" myself but I find this hysteria directed at a single breed to be silly. It's all irrational--I see the same thing directed at Rottweilers, which were never fighting dogs--apparently their use as cattle-herding dogs dates back to the early days of the Roman Empire, and later they were used to pull carts and the like, so one cannot claim that they were bred to be vicious. Sure, they can be dangerous--they're immense and well-armed so of course they're dangerous. But even a housecat can kill someone if it wants to badly enough--my mother made the mistake of backing a frightened stray into a corner once and ended up with a severed artery, nerve damage, and something like 75 stitches (came home that night and no parents and blood all over the place--thought the Manson Family had visited). If she hadn't gotten prompt medical attention she would at best have lost a hand and quite possibly bled out. And that poor cat wasn't really trying to do anything but get away.
Speaking of goldfish, I overheard a conversation at a pet store one time--two guys standing there, one extensively bandaged. Owner asks what happened (apparently they're regulars). Seems the guy who was bandaged attempted to pick up the other's electric catfish, which was on the bottom of a tank of piranha, snakeheads, and other fish noted for their rapacity (he was apparently drunk at the time). The piranha, snakeheads, etc attacked their new meal (the guy's arm) with great gusto--fortunately he did succeed in grasping the catfish, as the others let go when the catfish blasted him. Apparently once they got him stabilized and conscious (the catfish seems to have been at full charge) the crew at the emergency room derived much merriment from the manner in which he came to be injured. So it would seem that something as apparently innocuous as a tank of fish can be pretty dangerous if one doesn't treat it with due respect.
I did agree with a previous poster's sentiment to that effect a few minutes ago. The original statement was a gut reaction to several very bad encounters with that particular breed, most of whom were kept by people who could also reasonably be called "nasty creatures".
I'm not positive, but I believe that the breeders are sticking to tradition when they breed pit-bulls (or any other terrier) to be tough and mean. I think the original purpose of the [terrier] breed was to hunt down and kill big sewer rats in Europe. The story I had heard was that for many, many generations, a new litter was thrown into a barrel with a weasel (or a badger, I can't remember), and the last pups to survive were used for breeding.
Of course you're right, that does lead to awesome physical specimens, but it also breeds an agressive streak into the animal. That being said, I emphatically do not believe in banning breeds- I would simply like to see agressive animals either kept at home, or taken (after more than say, two offences) to a local shelter where they may or may not be able to be rehabilitated. (I get all my pets from the shelter, and they are often wonderful once they are in a better environment)
I know German Shepards are demonized as well, and I love those dogs. But it does seem that pit-bulls are particularly prone to turning, and their bites are far worse than most other animals, with that muscular, locking jaw.
ROFL!! You just made me imagine trying to turn my 70-lb. Collie into an attack dog- he'd much rather sleep on the couch than eal someone alive.
This discussion sounds suspicoiusly like that about overpowered cars: Their defenders tell you "just because my car has 400 horsepowers and can go 300km/h does not mean that i need to drive too fast...:
Robert Bonomi did say:
I KNEW it!!! He's a Florida-phobe. Next thing you know he'll be bringing up that silly voting thing... It wasn't my fault. Regards, Chad
Prometheus responds:
LOL. Yeah. I can imagine my 15 pound terrier (one of the smaller non-yappers) and dachshund might do as an attack dog. She's hell on moles and baby rabbits, which delights me, but her favorite exercises are sitting up (which she can do for a long time) begging for attention or food, or rolling onto her back to show she absolutely has to have a belly rub.
Charlie Self "Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Wrong, most domestic dogs will only attack after pretty severe provocation. I favor Collies and Irish Setters, and I've never, ever seen one show an agressive side unless someone they don't know is trying to force their way into their home. No doubt it is *possible* to train one *to* attack, but I've never seen it done. On the other hand, it seems that anything in the terrier family will attack unless well trained *not* to do so. It's not even a fine distinction, it's a major one, IMO. Size has nothing to do with it- when was the last time you heard of a Great Dane or St. Bernard attacking someone without provocation? I hear about Pit-bulls attacking people all the time, and they're smaller than either of those breeds.
I know you love pit-bulls, and from the fervor you're showing in defending them, and the links you've gone through the trouble to find, I've no doubt that you have good dogs. I've no doubt that your friends are good dog-owners as well. You've probably never met a pit bull you didn't like- believe it or not, I get it.
On the other hand, I have never met a responsible pit bull owner. I'm not saying that there are none, or even that it is very uncommon- but it is not possible to draw a conclusion that is completely inconsistant with every experience you've ever had. If I were to tell you Black and Decker made THE BEST woodworking tools on earth, and posted links to pictures of masterfully crafted furniture, and hundreds of testimonials saying the same, would you believe me? Even though your experience had shown you that that brand was inadequate for almost every task you tried to apply it to? Could you change your mind because I said so, or because someone put up a website that said so?
I don't want to prevent anyone from owning dogs of any breed. I just would like to see those dogs taken care of properly. If you have a pit bull, and love it as a part of your family, great. Just don't assume that it acts the same when you are not around, and let the animal go roaming about the neighborhood. That's all I or anyone else has the right to ask of you. Do what you like on your own property- hell, keep an elephant in your backyard and an alligator in your bathtub for all I care. But if said elephant steps on my car, don't expect your assertion that the elephant is a noble, wise and gentle creature to change the fact that I can't get to work that day! And don't expect the fact that not all pit bulls are the devil incarnate to change the fact that it is damn scary when a muscular, viscious animal corners you in your own yard.
I've got a friendly little pooch that doesn't seem to be a danger to anything but table scraps, but I don't let him wander around on his own- not only because he could be a danger to someone who is strange to him, but also because he lacks the discernment to look both ways before crossing the street, or to prevent himself from crapping in the neighbor's yard. So the breed of dog is not all bad; fine, I'll agree to that- but the overwhelming tendancy in my experience is for the wrong kind of people to adopt that breed, and that- more than anything else, is what makes them dangerous. I've seen other kinds of dogs cause problems, but all of those others put together do not add up to even 1/10 of the trouble I have personally witnessed when a pit bull is present. The statistics [in the link another poster provided] show that pit-bulls and rottweilers (which I have seen to be friendly, gentle dogs) cause over 50% of all dog-related deaths. There must be
*something* there, even if the statistics are skewed.You could argue that not all bites lead to death, and you would be right. I don't have any statistics showing the tendancy of each breed of dog to bite- but for my buck, I'd rather get a superficial flesh wound from a spaniel than be killed by a pit bull.
Again, I do not believe that people should be prevented from owning pit bulls- I just don't want them growling at me on my property. That's all.
Actually, both my hands and legs were 'otherwise engaged'. :(
In retrospect I probably should have made more of an effort to grab the kid instead of trying to pull the dogs off him, but he was under them and it just happened too fast ... then again, it might have been my arm in those jaws, instead of a hand.
As it is, every time I see two dogs squaring off now, I instinctively put my hands in my pockets. :)
Not that I want one but....
It would be illegal for me to have a pet pot bellied pig, but okay for me to have a pitbull!
Substitute chicken for pig if you prefer.
What a mess.
A pot bellied chicken?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.