I'm sorry, but it's a really stupid idea to want to kill off an entire species because some people raise them wrong. Just because a certain breed has a bad image, that doesn't justify wiping it out. The idiots who train their dogs to attack people will just pick up another dog, brutalize it, and train it to attack people. I'm all for checks on who is buying a dog and how they plan to care for it. And if their dog does attack someone, the dog should probably be put down (unless there are special circumstances) and the owner should be investigated before being allowed to buy another animal. But eradicate the entire species? Surely you jest.
My sister's dog, Satchmo, likes to play tug-of-war with toys, and when he really wants to clamp down, nothing can pry his mouth open. I used to open his jaws when he was little and he ate grass or something on a walk. I could stick my hand down his throat.
Satch does like other dogs and loves kids, especially babies. He licks them too much actually. The tendencies of pit bulls is that they're fiercly obedient and obviously they're physically bred to clamp down -- powerful jaws, huge neck and shoulder muscles, low center of gravity. They are every bit as sociable as other dogs, but they wil defend their owners with total abandon if they see a physical threat to them.
Licensing is what people are supposed to do with their dogs anyway.
A friend of mine has a neighbor that has a Canary (Presa Canary) and his kid once smack the dog with a stick in the head - the dog just ran away from the three year old. If I'm not mistaken, the Presa is the most furious dog there is (IF RAISED TO BE BY THE OWNER).
Alliance, chill. I didn't say that we should execute a "genocide" of Pit Bulls (which aren't a 'species' btw guys, they're a 'breed'). Alcimedes comments go straight to the heart of the matter, it's proportionately the people who raise them to be bad. I know that there are some fantastic breeders who go to great lengths to vet their potential clients. I have friends who rescue Shelties. I know this stuff.
But as these animals are particularly prone to violent attacks I do not see the problem of exploring a licensing similar to that done for handguns. Particularly in areas that are known to be hotbeds of dog-fighting. Punish the PEOPLE who make a living from raising killing machines.
EDIT: Yes, I went shock-jock for the beginning of the thread.
But as these animals are particularly prone to violent attacks I do not see the problem of exploring a licensing similar to that done for handguns.
They're not!
I have first hand experience with more than one pit bull and plenty of dobermans and rotweilers, no sensationalist media articles or overarching prejudices required. These animals can be made to be dangerous. So can a can opener.
Okay, I'm open to the possibility that the media's rush to show pit bull attacks parallels their coverage of shark attacks, but until I see proof I'll continue to believe these animals are living grenades. As others have stated I'd like to see the numbers of attacks by PBs as compared to other breeds of dogs. I'm led to believe that Dalmatians are an ill-tempered breed, Daschunds as well.
I still believe that PBs are dangerous and should be regulated, just as some of you (logically) want to strengthen regulations on handguns. And just like handguns, the victims are all too often the families of the people who own the dogs.
About three days ago we had a Pit Bull attack a 3 year old here in Atlanta, coming out of nowhere into the family's garage and locking onto the tyke's face.
I've owned plenty of dogs in my life, and I've loved them all.... the big breeds especially...Shepherds in particular. I have friends with Great Danes, retrievers, poodles and mutts. Two of my friends with Rotts have to watch them around people because they'll snap. Every dog is different, some are as gentle as the day is long. The fiercest is a miniature collie mix, the biggest baby is a Great Dane.
Really, ANY dog can be trained to be vicious. Pit Bulls have earned a really terrible reputation, but in truth it means nothing when you look at the dogs in general. I have met my share of angry pit bulls, but my friend Sondra has one that is the complete opposite. This dog is without a doubt the sweetest, gentlest dog you could ever hope to meet. When you walk into a room she trundles over to you with her ears folded back and her eyes full of happiness, then just leans against your legs begging for a pet or two.
So, the reputations of dogs mean nothing in my opinion. I mean, some people keep Chihuahuas because they're all froo-froo or "cute" or what not. My mom met a Chihuahua that tried to take off one of her fingers. Not so cute, eh?
IMO, the disposition of the dog depends almost entirely on the owners.
I don't think that particular races of dog can be dangerous naturally. However some breeders have tried to make aggressive dogs via selection. This breeders are a shame, and if there is licenses, it should be for them.
In another way some dog owners only buy Pitbull for their supposed aggresivity, and not for their special look. This dog owners want to have terrible dogs, and those terribles masters will suceed.
In resume, bad breeders, and bad dog owners are responsible of the bad reputation of pit bulls.
Well come on Alliance, participate then...stop sniping from the sidelines. You say you work with dogs, then give us something to work with here...okay, licenses for breeds of dogs is stupid? Fine. Do you have any suggestions that might result in a safer interaction between the public and animals that can be turned dangerous that doesn't involve posthumous fines to the dogs' owners? This stuff is in the news too much (around here anyway) not to be an open topic of discussion.
I'm serious, I'm discussing this topic in hopes of hearing other peoples thoughts on the problem of dangerous dogs.... not standing around with my arms crossed calling people names. Get in here and talk.
Okay, I'm open to the possibility that the media's rush to show pit bull attacks parallels their coverage of shark attacks, but until I see proof I'll continue to believe these animals are living grenades. As others have stated I'd like to see the numbers of attacks by PBs as compared to other breeds of dogs. I'm led to believe that Dalmatians are an ill-tempered breed, Daschunds as well.
In terms of deaths, Pit Bulls have killed more people than any other dog, and about twice as many (118 ) people as the next dog (Rottweiler - 67), according to the 6th link down.
Of course that doesn't prove it's genetic. As alcimedes points out, it could just be because people are more likely to teach pit bulls to attack. But I also haven't seen anything to rule out a genetic basis, and we know for a fact that aggressive behavior is heritable.
I think we have a tendency to believe in a tablua rasa myth about people - that we are all a product of our environment and upbringing, and heredity has little if anything to do with anything important about us. I wonder if people believe the same kind of myth about dogs.
Well come on Alliance, participate then...stop sniping from the sidelines. You say you work with dogs, then give us something to work with here...okay, licenses for breeds of dogs is stupid? Fine. Do you have any suggestions that might result in a safer interaction between the public and animals that can be turned dangerous that doesn't involve posthumous fines to the dogs' owners? This stuff is in the news too much (around here anyway) not to be an open topic of discussion.
I'm serious, I'm discussing this topic in hopes of hearing other peoples thoughts on the problem of dangerous dogs.... not standing around with my arms crossed calling people names. Get in here and talk.
yes, but the answer has already been hit on. it aint the breed of the dog. it's the breed of the man. just as you said that the breed of dog has been bred over the years to get the physical traits (not a species), the men who breed these dogs are obviously the answer. they are their own breed themselves, and they need to be dealt with. the dogs themselves are relatively harmless, unless you start hitting them or something stupid like that. that is how you make them mean and aggressive towards man. a large penalty probably wont do any good. how about prison time for those found creating this type of temperment? an example must be set of the MAN, NOT the dog!
But if a person is only half as responsible as they should be held accountable for their dogs, neither will a bit bull. You have a far far greater chance of your neighbor's kids being abused, molested, shot, maimed, etc. by a human than by a pit bull. In light of this fact, we should therefore exterminate people or license them. People are responsible for raising animals responsibly.
I have no problem with the idea of testing whether a person is in fact responsible enough to take proper care of a dog. Furthermore, we should probably stop allowing so much pure breeding of animals. It's inherently sick stuff really.
C'mon people, if these were people, we'd call it ethnic cleansing. I'm no crunchy PETA member, but you're all rather quick to judge.
Is this kind of activism present in your community? It's not in mine. Every couple of months there's a news report about a dog or cat that's been mutilated by "unknown" individuals, it makes me angry.
I'm sorry that my own feeling about Pit Bulls is so negative, but it is. Of course it's because of the people. Punishment should be strong and inflexible when it comes to mistreatment or "danger" breeding animals. Are Pit Bulls being made "more dangerous" in certain breeding populations though? It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.
A costly precautionary ownership fee and stiff fines might discourage people who might otherwise forego owning a dog. How do you break the cycle before it becomes so socially ingrained that it becomes tradition? You'll never stop dogfight fans, only slow them down.
Comments
Satch does like other dogs and loves kids, especially babies. He licks them too much actually. The tendencies of pit bulls is that they're fiercly obedient and obviously they're physically bred to clamp down -- powerful jaws, huge neck and shoulder muscles, low center of gravity. They are every bit as sociable as other dogs, but they wil defend their owners with total abandon if they see a physical threat to them.
Licensing is what people are supposed to do with their dogs anyway.
http://www.canismajor.com/dog/amerpit.html
http://www.ukcdogs.com/breeds/terrie...rier.std.shtml
http://dogs.about.com/cs/breedprofil...bull_today.htm
there are more you can find, but after you get past the sensationalism, there's not a whole lot of substance to the hype.
the only thing you have to actually be careful of with a well socialized AMPBT is dog aggression.
But as these animals are particularly prone to violent attacks I do not see the problem of exploring a licensing similar to that done for handguns. Particularly in areas that are known to be hotbeds of dog-fighting. Punish the PEOPLE who make a living from raising killing machines.
EDIT: Yes, I went shock-jock for the beginning of the thread.
But as these animals are particularly prone to violent attacks I do not see the problem of exploring a licensing similar to that done for handguns.
particularly prone to violent attacks based on what?
Originally posted by drewprops
But as these animals are particularly prone to violent attacks I do not see the problem of exploring a licensing similar to that done for handguns.
They're not!
I have first hand experience with more than one pit bull and plenty of dobermans and rotweilers, no sensationalist media articles or overarching prejudices required. These animals can be made to be dangerous. So can a can opener.
I still believe that PBs are dangerous and should be regulated, just as some of you (logically) want to strengthen regulations on handguns. And just like handguns, the victims are all too often the families of the people who own the dogs.
About three days ago we had a Pit Bull attack a 3 year old here in Atlanta, coming out of nowhere into the family's garage and locking onto the tyke's face.
I've owned plenty of dogs in my life, and I've loved them all.... the big breeds especially...Shepherds in particular. I have friends with Great Danes, retrievers, poodles and mutts. Two of my friends with Rotts have to watch them around people because they'll snap. Every dog is different, some are as gentle as the day is long. The fiercest is a miniature collie mix, the biggest baby is a Great Dane.
So, the reputations of dogs mean nothing in my opinion. I mean, some people keep Chihuahuas because they're all froo-froo or "cute" or what not. My mom met a Chihuahua that tried to take off one of her fingers. Not so cute, eh?
IMO, the disposition of the dog depends almost entirely on the owners.
In another way some dog owners only buy Pitbull for their supposed aggresivity, and not for their special look. This dog owners want to have terrible dogs, and those terribles masters will suceed.
In resume, bad breeders, and bad dog owners are responsible of the bad reputation of pit bulls.
or rather, lack of an argument...
I'm serious, I'm discussing this topic in hopes of hearing other peoples thoughts on the problem of dangerous dogs.... not standing around with my arms crossed calling people names. Get in here and talk.
Originally posted by _ alliance _
i cannot believe this argument...
or rather, lack of an argument...
What argument from who ?
What are yous speaking of ?
Originally posted by drewprops
Okay, I'm open to the possibility that the media's rush to show pit bull attacks parallels their coverage of shark attacks, but until I see proof I'll continue to believe these animals are living grenades. As others have stated I'd like to see the numbers of attacks by PBs as compared to other breeds of dogs. I'm led to believe that Dalmatians are an ill-tempered breed, Daschunds as well.
This CDC page has a bunch of papers on dog attacks.
In terms of deaths, Pit Bulls have killed more people than any other dog, and about twice as many (118 ) people as the next dog (Rottweiler - 67), according to the 6th link down.
Of course that doesn't prove it's genetic. As alcimedes points out, it could just be because people are more likely to teach pit bulls to attack. But I also haven't seen anything to rule out a genetic basis, and we know for a fact that aggressive behavior is heritable.
I think we have a tendency to believe in a tablua rasa myth about people - that we are all a product of our environment and upbringing, and heredity has little if anything to do with anything important about us. I wonder if people believe the same kind of myth about dogs.
Originally posted by drewprops
Well come on Alliance, participate then...stop sniping from the sidelines. You say you work with dogs, then give us something to work with here...okay, licenses for breeds of dogs is stupid? Fine. Do you have any suggestions that might result in a safer interaction between the public and animals that can be turned dangerous that doesn't involve posthumous fines to the dogs' owners? This stuff is in the news too much (around here anyway) not to be an open topic of discussion.
I'm serious, I'm discussing this topic in hopes of hearing other peoples thoughts on the problem of dangerous dogs.... not standing around with my arms crossed calling people names. Get in here and talk.
yes, but the answer has already been hit on. it aint the breed of the dog. it's the breed of the man. just as you said that the breed of dog has been bred over the years to get the physical traits (not a species), the men who breed these dogs are obviously the answer. they are their own breed themselves, and they need to be dealt with. the dogs themselves are relatively harmless, unless you start hitting them or something stupid like that. that is how you make them mean and aggressive towards man. a large penalty probably wont do any good. how about prison time for those found creating this type of temperment? an example must be set of the MAN, NOT the dog!
Originally posted by Mars
A can opener won't eat your neighbor's children.
But if a person is only half as responsible as they should be held accountable for their dogs, neither will a bit bull. You have a far far greater chance of your neighbor's kids being abused, molested, shot, maimed, etc. by a human than by a pit bull. In light of this fact, we should therefore exterminate people or license them. People are responsible for raising animals responsibly.
I have no problem with the idea of testing whether a person is in fact responsible enough to take proper care of a dog. Furthermore, we should probably stop allowing so much pure breeding of animals. It's inherently sick stuff really.
C'mon people, if these were people, we'd call it ethnic cleansing. I'm no crunchy PETA member, but you're all rather quick to judge.
Is this kind of activism present in your community? It's not in mine. Every couple of months there's a news report about a dog or cat that's been mutilated by "unknown" individuals, it makes me angry.
I'm sorry that my own feeling about Pit Bulls is so negative, but it is. Of course it's because of the people. Punishment should be strong and inflexible when it comes to mistreatment or "danger" breeding animals. Are Pit Bulls being made "more dangerous" in certain breeding populations though? It wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.
A costly precautionary ownership fee and stiff fines might discourage people who might otherwise forego owning a dog. How do you break the cycle before it becomes so socially ingrained that it becomes tradition? You'll never stop dogfight fans, only slow them down.
Originally posted by Mars
A can opener won't eat your neighbor's children.
Unless it's possessed.