Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is because these two breeds are statistically much more likely to attack somebody. Statistics based on poorly contrived incident data that may or may not list accurate breeds of dogs. And the insurance industry runs on statistics (actuarial tables). Which are flawed based on the input data from poorly compiled incident reports. The CDC report I saw listed "pit bul type" dogs.  Again, there are Staffordshire and American Pit Bull Terriers, why can't they accurately identify the dogs? Or are they simply MUTTS?  Well of course a majority probably are, but then again "MUTT ATTACKS CHILD." won't sell as many papers as "Super Aggressive Pit Bull Bites Child.", now will it? Truth is most experts at a shelter, SPCA, the vet's office can't tell what's EXACTLY in a mutt.  If it looks like it MIGHT be from a pit bull breed, they list it as "pit bull", it's easier for them. Truth is there are many dogs that look like TRUE pit bulls, especially when mixed and crossbred with other dog types. As to "statistics" that use flawed incident data: Garbage in; Garbage Out. If there's ANY group whose statistics I will trust, it's insurance companies.  Actuarial tables are the life-blood of insurance companies.  It's what they use to make sure they remain profitable.  They spend thousands of man-hours every month making sure those tables are accurate and updated.  It's how they survive.  What kind of ACTUAL EXPERIENCE do you have with actuarial tables?  None?  That's what I thought.

Here's the other point you didn't mention. If the breed of dog is wrong on an actuarial table then the OWNER doesn't know what type of dog they have, because these incidents are usually covered by home owner's or renter's insurance. In order to settle the claim/to get the coverage in the first place the insurance company gets the breed from the owner. And it wouldn't surprise me if there are people lying about what breed their dog is in order to get the insurance in the first place.

Quoted: THEY DO USE INCIDENT DATA!!!!!  INCIDENT DATA IS WHAT ACTUARIAL TABLES ARE ALL ABOUT.  They have ENTIRE DEPARTMENTS dedicated to making sure THE DATA THEY USE IS AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE.  They can't afford to get it wrong.  I will trust them MUCH MORE than some internet schmo that thinks he knows what he's talking about.

Oh, they do?  Then thanks for proving my point.  From the incident data compiled by the CDC for the last several years, they list "pit bull type" as a BREED.

Quoted: Here's the other point you didn't mention. If the breed of dog is wrong on an actuarial table then the OWNER doesn't know what type of dog they have, because these incidents are usually covered by home owner's or renter's insurance. In order to settle the claim/to get the coverage in the first place the insurance company gets the breed from the owner. And it wouldn't surprise me if there are people lying about what breed their dog is in order to get the insurance in the first place.

You mean the actuarial tables may be f'ed in any number of ways in regards to what breed a dog is?  Gee, color me surprised.

That is my point, without a historical ancestry of the dog, not one single person can say, "Yes I am CERTAIN that MUTT contains x% of Staffordshire Terrier or x% of American Pit."  Truth is there are numerous dogs that resemble a pit bull when mixed with other dogs.

In fact, many "pits" are adopted out by the SCPA and various shelters, and it turns out they aren't pit at all.  Wonder what the responsible home owner claimed to his agent for coverage after being misled on what his dog was???

Quoted: Quoted: Here's the other point you didn't mention. If the breed of dog is wrong on an actuarial table then the OWNER doesn't know what type of dog they have, because these incidents are usually covered by home owner's or renter's insurance. In order to settle the claim/to get the coverage in the first place the insurance company gets the breed from the owner. And it wouldn't surprise me if there are people lying about what breed their dog is in order to get the insurance in the first place. You mean the actuarial tables may be f'ed in any number of ways in regards to what breed a dog is?  Gee, color me surprised. That is my point, without a historical ancestry of the dog, not one single person can say, "Yes I am CERTAIN that MUTT contains x% of Staffordshire Terrier or x% of American Pit."  Truth is there are numerous dogs that resemble a pit bull when mixed with other dogs. In fact, many "pits" are adopted out by the SCPA and various shelters, and it turns out they aren't pit at all.  Wonder what the responsible home owner claimed to his agent for coverage after being misled on what his dog was???

It's all clear to me now.  Pit bulls don't bite people.  OTHER dogs, that look like pit bulls, bite people, in order to make pit bulls look bad.  Pit bulls are the most passive breed on the planet.  

I got attacked by a pit bull a few weeks ago. Jumped on me, knocked me down, and licked my lips. She was just oohh soooo eager to lick me.  Yup, vicious child-eating monsters they all, they all should be destroyed.



Ben

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here's the other point you didn't mention. If the breed of dog is wrong on an actuarial table then the OWNER doesn't know what type of dog they have, because these incidents are usually covered by home owner's or renter's insurance. In order to settle the claim/to get the coverage in the first place the insurance company gets the breed from the owner. And it wouldn't surprise me if there are people lying about what breed their dog is in order to get the insurance in the first place. You mean the actuarial tables may be f'ed in any number of ways in regards to what breed a dog is?  Gee, color me surprised. That is my point, without a historical ancestry of the dog, not one single person can say, "Yes I am CERTAIN that MUTT contains x% of Staffordshire Terrier or x% of American Pit."  Truth is there are numerous dogs that resemble a pit bull when mixed with other dogs. In fact, many "pits" are adopted out by the SCPA and various shelters, and it turns out they aren't pit at all.  Wonder what the responsible home owner claimed to his agent for coverage after being misled on what his dog was??? It's all clear to me now.  Pit bulls don't bite people.  OTHER dogs, that look like pit bulls, bite people, in order to make pit bulls look bad.  Pit bulls are the most passive breed on the planet.

What should be clear is that incident data surrounding dog bites is UNIVERSALLY regarded as one of the most inaccurate types of reports that the CDC and other groups process yearly.

I can't say it more plainly.

"Pit Bull Type" as SPECIFICALLY listed on the CDC report compiled from ALL available incident data in 2001 is NOT A BREED.

Do you understand the difference?  A "pit bull type" dog is a dog bred specifically for fighting other dogs in a dog pit.  This can be any breed or any mix of breeds.

There is an ACTUAL breed called American Pit Bull Terrier.

These are NOT universally interchangeable.  It's THAT simple.

Here is some irrefutable arguing against the Pit Bull.

Dogs are bred for varying degrees of their 5 survival instincts. Sight, Stalk, Chase, Kill, Retrieve. The Pit was bred to accentuate the Kill Bite. Dogs that are bred this way have aggressive tendencies, are more lethal, and can be more unstable. This is a fact, one which breeders have documented for centuries. Why don't Labradors kill? They are bred for a very soft bite (for prey retrieval without destroying game). Ever hear of a lethal Lab attack? I haven't, and I'm very involved with the breed (see avatar).

The Pit is very strong, and is much more lethal than most breeds that bite more often. Tho a Cocker may be more apt to bite, the victim will live through the cocker's attack 95% of the time, whereas fighting off a Pit bull whose bite pressure is many fold greater is less likely.

The Pit is popular amongst people of disgustingly low moral standing - that's the nicest way I can say they are the pets of inner city shitbags. Pits are seldom the family pets of responsible breeders and afficianados who know how to handle complex predator behavior. Leon and Tyrone gots one so dey can watch da crib. This is a recipe for death.

Add up these three truths, and Pits are very dangerous ON THE WHOLE.

Yours may be wonderful, it may be a loyal family pet, and it may never bite anything other than a bowl full of Chuck Wagon. But, Pits are more deadly than most dogs, are owned by people who enjoy their lethality, and are bred willfully to enhance an aggressive nature and more vicious bite.

Should they be banned? No, but don't give me that "all dogs are the same" shit. The Pit is a dangerous breed, just like a wolf is a dangerous breed. You can control it, as much as you can control any wild animal....but the potential for harm is greater with a Pit, and their popularity with scummy folks makes them even more suspect.

Quoted: Here is some irrefutable arguing against the Pit Bull. Dogs are bred for varying degrees of their 5 survival instincts. Sight, Stalk, Chase, Kill, Retrieve. The Pit was bred to accentuate the Kill Bite. Dogs that are bred this way have aggressive tendencies, are more lethal, and can be more unstable. This is a fact, one which breeders have documented for centuries. Why don't Labradors kill? They are bred for a very soft bite (for prey retrieval without destroying game). Ever hear of a lethal Lab attack? I haven't, and I'm very involved with the breed (see avatar). The Pit is very strong, and is much more lethal than most breeds that bite more often. Tho a Cocker may be more apt to bite, the victim will live through the cocker's attack 95% of the time, whereas fighting off a Pit bull whose bite pressure is many fold greater is less likely. The Pit is popular amongst people of disgustingly low moral standing - that's the nicest way I can say they are the pets of inner city shitbags. Pits are seldom the family pets of responsible breeders and afficianados who know how to handle complex predator behavior. Leon and Tyrone gots one so dey can watch da crib. This is a recipe for death. Add up these three truths, and Pits are very dangerous ON THE WHOLE. Yours may be wonderful, it may be a loyal family pet, and it may never bite anything other than a bowl full of Chuck Wagon. But, Pits are more deadly than most dogs, are owned by people who enjoy their lethality, and are bred willfully to enhance an aggressive nature and more vicious bite. Should they be banned? No, but don't give me that "all dogs are the same" shit. The Pit is a dangerous breed, just like a wolf is a dangerous breed. You can control it, as much as you can control any wild animal....but the potential for harm is greater with a Pit, and their popularity with scummy folks makes them even more suspect.

OK, good points.  So let's say we do ban American Pit Bull Terriers.  Since you mention only "pit bulls" I'm not sure if that is the specific breed you are referring too, or the general notion of a dog mix bred for put fighting.  Whatever.

Let's say we ban APBT's.

Think I can breed a Doberman to rip your head off?  How about a Boxer?  How about a Mastiff?  How about a Shar-Pei?  Husky?  Lab?  Retriever?

Of course I could.  Of course any determined individual can make another dog breed act as a killer.

A breed of dog is no more dangerous than any other breed.  It's the owner's of the dog that are dangerous, period.

I will write it again:

I can take any large breed dog, including a lab, and make it a killer.  Period.

The nature of dogs is that they are carnivores, and of pack mentality.  The training of dogs is that they perform demanding, and often dangerous, jobs for their human owners.

Those jobs have included hunting and cornering grizzly, boar, large cats, etc.  They will do what they are trained to do almost without fail.

In the abscence of PROPER training, they will revert to the basic programming.  Carnivores with a pack mentality.  A small child is not seen as a child to them, it's seen as another part of their pack and must be dominated.  Simple & basic dog behavior is the result of improper training.

FWIW...

Quoted: A breed of dog is no more dangerous than any other breed.  It's the owner's of the dog that are dangerous, period.

That's appallingly ignorant of the nature of the canid species.

Different breeds have been line bred through hundreds, sometimes thousands of generations to enhance certain physical and mental attributes.

Some breeds have been bred PURPOSELY to be used as companions and a gentle nature, with aggressive tendancies thrown out over the line breeding of the animal. If it was mean, it didn't breed.

Other dogs have been PURPOSELY bred to be used as attack or guard dogs, and lethality and aggression have been BRED INTO THEIR CHARACTER.

Genetically, there is very very little difference between a common wolf, a coyote, or a common whippet. Yet, given identical nuture, care and training, are you seriously going to argue that the wolf & coyote will display the same level of aggression as a whippet in adulthood???

You may argue that you can turn any animal into a killer - but I'm arguing that certain animals are genetically predisposed to be BETTER KILLERS THAN OTHERS, and that my friend is what makes Pit bulls more dangerous than other breeds.

Quoted: Quoted: A breed of dog is no more dangerous than any other breed.  It's the owner's of the dog that are dangerous, period. That's appallingly ignorant of the nature of the canid species. Different breeds have been line bred through hundreds, sometimes thousands of generations to enhance certain physical and mental attributes. Some breeds have been bred PURPOSELY to be used as companions and a gentle nature, with aggressive tendancies thrown out over the line breeding of the animal. If it was mean, it didn't breed. Other dogs have been PURPOSELY bred to be used as attack or guard dogs, and lethality and aggression have been BRED INTO THEIR CHARACTER. Genetically, there is very very little difference between a common wolf, a coyote, or a common whippet. Yet, given identical nuture, care and training, are you seriously going to argue that the wolf & coyote will display the same level of aggression as a whippet in adulthood??? You may argue that you can turn any animal into a killer - but I'm arguing that certain animals are genetically predisposed to be BETTER KILLERS THAN OTHERS, and that my friend is what makes Pit bulls more dangerous than other breeds.

Fundamentally dismissing the crux of my argument.  Is a whippet a large breed dog?

I did NOT argue that I could turn ANY animal into a killer.  I specifically stated that I could turn any large breed dog into a killer.  You know, 60lbs-75lbs or heavier....

If you would actually argue against it, I believe you suffer from a hubris induced ignorance on the matter.

A dog will learn what it is TRAINED to learn.  Some may be better at certain things, which means absolutely DICK if you purposely train a dog to attack.

A lab, in the abscence of proper BASIC training, is potentially as lethal to a small child as a pit bull PROPERLY trained.  Any statement to the contrary is asinine.

I've seen 45lb Border collies as junkyard dogs.  Their extreme willingness to learn makes them excellent candidates to train to bite and maul.  Which they are fully capable of doing.

Shar-pei, Akita, Shepard, Boxer, Mastiff, Chow, Husky..........the list goes on for dogs that are fully capable of EXACTLY the same performance as a "pit bull".

that is a pit bull website........now publish all the pit bull attacks...........

Quoted: that is a pit bull website........now publish all the pit bull attacks...........

You can't even begin to get an accurate picture.  The CDC, who compiled the incident data from ALL attacks for 2001, actually listed "pit bull type" as a BREED.

"Pit bull type" is no breed that is recognized in any governing body I know of......

So what are the "pit bull type" entries really?  Mutts of whatever lineage?  Who knows.

every generation of sheep needs a dog bread to fear and hate. In the 70's it was the Doberman, in the 90's it was the Rottweiler now it is the “pit bull type Dog”.

Quoted: every generation of sheep needs a dog bread to fear and hate. In the 70's it was the Doberman, in the 90's it was the Rottweiler now it is the “pit bull type Dog”.

I think next it will be Great Danes.

Quoted: Quoted: every generation of sheep needs a dog bread to fear and hate. In the 70's it was the Doberman, in the 90's it was the Rottweiler now it is the “pit bull type Dog”. I think next it will be Great Danes.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A breed of dog is no more dangerous than any other breed.  It's the owner's of the dog that are dangerous, period. That's appallingly ignorant of the nature of the canid species. Different breeds have been line bred through hundreds, sometimes thousands of generations to enhance certain physical and mental attributes. Some breeds have been bred PURPOSELY to be used as companions and a gentle nature, with aggressive tendancies thrown out over the line breeding of the animal. If it was mean, it didn't breed. Other dogs have been PURPOSELY bred to be used as attack or guard dogs, and lethality and aggression have been BRED INTO THEIR CHARACTER. Genetically, there is very very little difference between a common wolf, a coyote, or a common whippet. Yet, given identical nuture, care and training, are you seriously going to argue that the wolf & coyote will display the same level of aggression as a whippet in adulthood??? You may argue that you can turn any animal into a killer - but I'm arguing that certain animals are genetically predisposed to be BETTER KILLERS THAN OTHERS, and that my friend is what makes Pit bulls more dangerous than other breeds. Fundamentally dismissing the crux of my argument.  Is a whippet a large breed dog? I did NOT argue that I could turn ANY animal into a killer.  I specifically stated that I could turn any large breed dog into a killer.  You know, 60lbs-75lbs or heavier.... If you would actually argue against it, I believe you suffer from a hubris induced ignorance on the matter. A dog will learn what it is TRAINED to learn.  Some may be better at certain things, which means absolutely DICK if you purposely train a dog to attack. A lab, in the abscence of proper BASIC training, is potentially as lethal to a small child as a pit bull PROPERLY trained.  Any statement to the contrary is asinine. I've seen 45lb Border collies as junkyard dogs.  Their extreme willingness to learn makes them excellent candidates to train to bite and maul.  Which they are fully capable of doing. Shar-pei, Akita, Shepard, Boxer, Mastiff, Chow, Husky..........the list goes on for dogs that are fully capable of EXACTLY the same performance as a "pit bull".

You're totally missing my point (on purpose I think).

Dogs are not the same, they are not all one genetic sample, and they have been designed with different abilities, physical structure, tendencies toward their base nature, and with radically different personalities (on the whole).

I have no institutional bias against pits, anymore than I do against the North American Grey Wolf, which some people keep as pets. What I have against the dog is people who defend them as if they are no different, physically or mentally from a Greyhound, which is 100% unadulterated BULLSHIT.

You can, with some hard work, train a Greyhound to be a killer, but it'll be difficult, the Greyhound won't be as effective, and the Pit could kill it handily in a fight.

That's my point, sir. The Pit is a BETTER KILLER than 98% of the breeds and the deaths and severity of the maulings testify to this It is a harder dog to domesticate into a trustworthy companion animal, and left to the stupid, or the complacent, or the IGNORANT, will be a deadly dog. Much more so than a Lab, whose nature is not aggression and lethality. Certainly you can't have a disagreement with this??

There's no problem with Pits, or Akitas, or German Sheppards. There's only problems with people who believe they are the master of their dogs nature and let it become what it was BRED TO BE.

End of argument, enjoy your dog.

Pitbull owners can say whatever they like about how it all has to do with how the dog is raised, etc etc. But I know better. Just last night I was over at a house that had two dogs, one was a pitbull. Both dogs were raised by the same people. The pitbull was edgy at best and aggressive at worst. It attcked my buddy's 4 month old puppy. The other dog, raised by the same people had zero aggressive tendencies. The only difference between the two was the breed.

Now, I am not one for .gov interference with our lives, and I do not think that any dogs should be banned ( as they are here in Denver.) But, I think that people who keep pitbulls around children are insane.

They are not the same as every other dog. Their attitude is different. You can see it in their eyes. They will stare you down unlike any other dog.

Quoted: You're totally missing my point (on purpose I think).

I believe it is you, on some sort of tangent, who has missed THE point.  I will elaborate with the rest of your post.

Dogs are not the same, they are not all one genetic sample, and they have been designed with different abilities, physical structure, tendencies toward their base nature, and with radically different personalities (on the whole).

What it boils down to is that any dog of a large size has the basic tools to inflict damage on human tissue.  Any large breed dog is more than capable of inflicting GRAVE wounds on toddlers that are dwarfed by their size.  Those are facts.  Pure and simple.  Even your cuddly little labs, with their soft mouths can fuck up a toddler sized face or arm.  A lab can fit an average male forearm or wrist in its mouth.  Period.  Every dog I have seen, under the age of 20 years has teeth hard enough to penerate and maul human flesh.  Period.  Another fact.

I have no institutional bias against pits, anymore than I do against the North American Grey Wolf, which some people keep as pets. What I have against the dog is people who defend them as if they are no different, physically or mentally from a Greyhound, which is 100% unadulterated BULLSHIT.

I haven't compared a wolf to a greyhound, though some previous race handlers can attest to fierce human attacks at the hands of greyhounds in the kennels, pre-race, pre-muzzle.  I'm sure you knew that.  I'm not defending them as if they are different.  As I noted you missed THE point, not MY point.  Any dog in good health has all the physical traits to inflict GRAVE wounds on humans.  Even Lassie has enough bite pressure to sever the arm of a toddler.  Period.  Factual statement.

You can, with some hard work, train a Greyhound to be a killer, but it'll be difficult, the Greyhound won't be as effective, and the Pit could kill it handily in a fight.

I don't need a pit to fight a greyhound.  Stay on topic.  All I need is to produce a greyhound that will rip, tear and maul a toddler or other human.  Again, it is physically designed to be a carnivore.  Every large breed dog has the bite pressure to inflict GRAVE wounds to human flesh.  Talking about the "degrees" of someone being greviously mauled is irrelevant.  It's like saying a "pit bull" could kill you better.  Isn't dead; dead?

That's my point, sir. The Pit is a BETTER KILLER than 98% of the breeds and the deaths and severity of the maulings testify to this It is a harder dog to domesticate into a trustworthy companion animal, and left to the stupid, or the complacent, or the IGNORANT, will be a deadly dog. Much more so than a Lab, whose nature is not aggression and lethality. Certainly you can't have a disagreement with this??

Bullshit.  I've yet to see anything CONCRETE attributed to the BREEDS known FORMALLY as pit bulls that show a disproportional BREED specific incident level.  Despite what the currently accepted reports are.  Any report that lists BREED as "pit bull type" is utter and complete BULLSHIT.  It demonizes an actual BREED, when the true roots of the dogs involved in those incidents are UNKNOWN.  If they were know they would say MUTT, or American Pit Bull Terrier/Boxer mix.  Or something else much more descriptive than "pit bull type".

There's no problem with Pits, or Akitas, or German Sheppards. There's only problems with people who believe they are the master of their dogs nature and let it become what it was BRED TO BE.

You are assuming quite a bit here.  My point is that a PROPERLY trained dog has been TRAINED to overcome his basic needs as a carnivore and a pack animal.  "Proper" does not mean sit and stay.  

Further, if a breeder breeds American Pit Bull Terriers for show, then they are BRED TO BE SHOW DOGS.  If Bubba has a litter of puppies in his back yard that has unknown origins and may contain Stafforshire or APBT, and might also contain a crazy shepard as a stud then proceeds to beat them and train them to attack a mock-up human, they are BRED TO BE INDISCRIMINATE ATTACK DOGS...

Also, even in the prescense of a highly trained obedience MULTI-champion I would never believe that I have complete control.  A dog is a living being with it's own brain.  Proper training sometimes can not overcome illness, fear, or other circumstances a dog may feel.  This is not breed specific, again this is a trait that covers all dog species -- in fact -- it covers the human species too.

End of argument, enjoy your dog.

Not quite the end.  For one, I don't have a pit bull, a pit bull mix, or even a "pit bull type" dog.  Secondly, your complete dismissal of the capability of every large breed dog to inflict wounds of a grevious nature is stunning.  Especially in the face of you claiming others as ignorant.

I'd say you are a victim of the hype as well as a victim of some pretty piss poor dog owners.

At the end of the day, the BREED of pit bulls is not the problem.  It's the owners and trainers and breeders of untrained, but fully capable, attack dogs.

Now THAT is the end of the argument.

Quoted: Pitbull owners can say whatever they like about how it all has to do with how the dog is raised, etc etc. But I know better. Just last night I was over at a house that had two dogs, one was a pitbull. Both dogs were raised by the same people. The pitbull was edgy at best and aggressive at worst. It attcked my buddy's 4 month old puppy. The other dog, raised by the same people had zero aggressive tendencies. The only difference between the two was the breed. Now, I am not one for .gov interference with our lives, and I do not think that any dogs should be banned ( as they are here in Denver.) But, I think that people who keep pitbulls around children are insane. They are not the same as every other dog. Their attitude is different. You can see it in their eyes. They will stare you down unlike any other dog.

If you say so......

Ironically, I don't own a Pit Bull, Pit Bull mix, or pit bull type dog.....

So I guess you crutch for this argument is out the window.

Since that husky attack was local, there was quite a bit of coverage in the local papers where I read the following statistic:


94% of dogs involved in attacks of family members are male

of that 94% of male dogs , 97% were not nuetered.


So, Neuter your pets; it's (to use a phrase from here) "for the children."

Dogs were breed for characteristics. Herding, attack, nose etc. Just like people there will be large variance even in the same litter. Think about familys you've known.


IT is a mixture of breed characteristics and training. Nice people don't necessarily make good trainers.

However I believe that all dogs can be trained and broken from being overly aggressive, but not by your average person.

Koeler [spelling] wrote three very good dog training books. I believe he trained for Disney for awhile. He had a standing bet, he could cure any dog of aggressive behavior in a week.

You may not like his methods, it involved a choke collar and 16 length of heavy rubber hose. When dog makes an aggressive move you first issue the stop command. Then upon continued aggression you hang the dog up so that his front feet are off the ground and then give him a whack on nose with hose.

The whacking of the nose disorientates the dog so bad he is fear full and feels helpless. That along with the choking, puts but him  fear of his life. He claims he has never had to hit a dog more than three times.

I love rotties, but a Alpha male can be a handful. My little 12 week old puppy bit me the first time I feed him. Now why did he do that. What should I do. Well the owner had told me the he was the aggressive male of the litter. He would fight off all other puppies eat his fill and then finally let the other feed. So rather than hit him, I had to out think him. So at diner time I let him in the house, my domain, and put his feed bowl between my legs, plus he was good and hungry also. I did not call him I just sat on floor watching TV with his diner between my legs.

He came over, and started growling. I ignored him, finally he started eating and trying to growl at same time and choked himself. We did this for few day, next step was place my hand on bowl and not remove or move it. Couple of times he grab and held it but did not bite.  Finally we made it to me petting him while he ate.

We got to point that I could take a bone right out of his mouth, but I never grabbed, always touched him first then he would release whatever he had.

Now he would also growl at me on occasion, but never bite, but I would never let him win, if it was over a bath I just tied him and soaked him in face with hose it until he was tired of it.

He never bit anybody, very seldom ever growled, just would stare and scare most people.

He was that way about getting enough attention also. I had a 300 foot wire up between two trees with 40 foot length of rope to pincher collar for him to be on during the day. He like to chase dillers. He be tied all day and would never wrapped up around a tree. However if I came home and didn't spend some time with him, he could down to house end of his run and wrap himself around a tree where he could sit and bark at me through sliding doors. Now he didn't care if I came out and yelled and smack him just as long as I came out and paid some attention. So if I came home and spent about 10/15 minutes with him, he never wrapped himself around that tree. Like children they will do something to get attention good or bad.

I believe that some people are not upto handling a aggressive dog, and I believe that some breeds has instances of more aggressive behavior than other breeds.

As was case with this my rottie if I sat a baby down and said watch, nobody could come near that child until I said it was ok. Yet that child could anything do him, pull on ears, jump on back, thump on him with toy and he would take it. If baby tried to wander off he would herd it back. He was that way with my parents when I went on vacation, and left him with them. Nobody was allowed close to them until they said it was OK then he would just go lay down and watch.  

I still miss that dog!!!! I could take him to street festivals, where everybody was acting weird and was dressed up in costumes, like our halloween ball. I could take him to dog shows and he would sleep at my feet.

Boy could he fight, my redneck neighbor let his two pits out one evening while I was coming home and at my front gate. I saw them coming and cut my rottie loose and said get em. To my surprise he move out about 10 feet and sat down. When first pit got there he hit him with what look like a round house punch with left front leg, which diverted the first dogs charge and tripped up his feet and because of his momentum he went right on past head over heels. Upon arrival of second pit, he lowered his head, now he is still sitting, so that he and other pit bumped heads.

Now he used his strength from sitting position drove second pit backwards and grab him by back of neck and went straight up with him. Till he was standing erect on his back legs and while upright did a twisting motion that made a distinct cracking sound in other dogs neck. He released that one, then turned on other, again back to sitting position and used both front legs to keep other pit off him until he could get that same back of neck bite. This time he went up again, and came down on top and stradling the other pit with his neck still in his mouth. Put all his weight forward and your could hear the crunch sound again, and fight was over, both pits went to vet and never attacked again.

Where did he learn that, beats me. He used to think it was fun, when my neighbor [differnet neighbor]and I were out in woods and my rotties and neighbors little mut would run borehogs up to us.  

Like Colonel Askins you to say, all I need is my guns and good dog and my horse.

Swingset argument   >   Shivan argument


Shivan, we get that any dog can be trained to be aggressive.  That's not the point.  When comparing breeds, training notwithstanding, we are talking only of genetic predispositions and capabilities.  

Pit Bulls are fantastic dogs.  In fact, perfect.  They do exactly what they were trained to do.  To call pit bulls "bad dogs" is dumb.  They are nothing more than exactly what we wanted them to be.  Bulldog/Terrier mixes that won in the pit.  So really, they are very very good dogs.

Likewise, Retreivers are good dogs (retreiving), Dobermans are good dogs (watch/guard dog), Vizslas are good dogs (pointing).  Shoot, even a quick, growling Yorkshire Terrier is being a good dog -- it was bred to clear mines of rats.  

I think the argument here is based on a certain breed's propensity to attack and significantly injure humans.  Here, because aggression and strength were bred into them, they have earned a higher propensity.  That speaks volumes on the success of the breed.  Unfortunately, to ignore the public policy aspect is foolish.


From my subjective point of view, I've spent some time around pits.  One house I play cards at about once a month has two pits:  Bonnie and Clyde.  Yeah, they're nice and sit at your feet and haven't bitten anyone.  At the same time, we know not to piss them off.  Around other dogs they will attack.  When a stranger arrives the ferocity of their growling is a clear signal that they will not hesitate to attack.  

They're just being good dogs.  Doing what they're supposed to do.  But, I will never let my dog around them.  And the owner admits he'd never let them run free.  He loves them, lets his kids around them, but will be responsible with them.  Responsibility is what we're looking for.

Quoted: Swingset argument   >   Shivan argument Shivan, we get that any dog can be trained to be aggressive.  That's not the point.  When comparing breeds, training notwithstanding, we are talking only of genetic predispositions and capabilities.   Pit Bulls are fantastic dogs.  In fact, perfect.  They do exactly what they were trained to do.  To call pit bulls "bad dogs" is dumb.  They are nothing more than exactly what we wanted them to be.  Bulldog/Terrier mixes that won in the pit.  So really, they are very very good dogs. Likewise, Retreivers are good dogs (retreiving), Dobermans are good dogs (watch/guard dog), Vizslas are good dogs (pointing).  Shoot, even a quick, growling Yorkshire Terrier is being a good dog -- it was bred to clear mines of rats.   I think the argument here is based on a certain breed's propensity to attack and significantly injure humans.  Here, because aggression and strength were bred into them, they have earned a higher propensity.  That speaks volumes on the success of the breed.  Unfortunately, to ignore the public policy aspect is foolish. From my subjective point of view, I've spent some time around pits.  One house I play cards at about once a month has two pits:  Bonnie and Clyde.  Yeah, they're nice and sit at your feet and haven't bitten anyone.  At the same time, we know not to piss them off.  Around other dogs they will attack.  When a stranger arrives the ferocity of their growling is a clear signal that they will not hesitate to attack.   They're just being good dogs.  Doing what they're supposed to do.  But, I will never let my dog around them.  And the owner admits he'd never let them run free.  He loves them, lets his kids around them, but will be responsible with them.  Responsibility is what we're looking for.

Zoom.......

That's the sound of the point going over your head.

All large breed dogs have teeth and a bite strength capable of inflicting grevious damage to human tissue.  Period.

As readily as you can train any other dog breed to attack and maul.  You can properly train a Pit Bull, to run around in a tutu and give wet sloppy kisses.

Get it?  I bet not.  If you agree that I can train a lab to kill you on command, then by extension the same PROPER training can result in a Pit Bull who does none of the commonly observed traits in poorly trained "pit bulls".

If you don't get it, that's fine.

The fact remains that banning a dog breed due to irresponsible owners is asinine and creates a societal expectation where everything we can't fix we just ban it so as to make the whole of society FEEL better.

Quoted: As readily as you can train any other dog breed to attack and maul.  You can properly train a Pit Bull, to run around in a tutu and give wet sloppy kisses. Get it?  I bet not.  If you agree that I can train a lab to kill you on command, then by extension the same PROPER training can result in a Pit Bull who does none of the commonly observed traits in poorly trained "pit bulls".

Well, shit, Shivan, if you put it that way...

So I guess you're saying that a lab trained to fight will beat a pit trained to fight?  Why not, apparently they're exactly the same as far as lethality.

Likewise, a properly trained collie will make as effective a guard dog as a Doberman, right?  After all, all that matters is training.

Shit, as long as genetics don't matter, I think I'll go properly train a pit bull -- sorry, an American Pit Bull Terrier -- to race.  He'll go beat those greyhounds.


Sweet.  Thanks, Shivan.  You've been a BIG help.

Quoted: Quoted: As readily as you can train any other dog breed to attack and maul.  You can properly train a Pit Bull, to run around in a tutu and give wet sloppy kisses. Get it?  I bet not.  If you agree that I can train a lab to kill you on command, then by extension the same PROPER training can result in a Pit Bull who does none of the commonly observed traits in poorly trained "pit bulls". Well, shit, Shivan, if you put it that way... So I guess you're saying that a lab trained to fight will beat a pit trained to fight?  Why not, apparently they're exactly the same as far as lethality. Likewise, a properly trained collie will make as effective a guard dog as a Doberman, right?  After all, all that matters is training. A guard dog is used to dissuade trespassers in most cases.  Any dog capable of alerting to intrusion would make a good "guard dog" so long as they were also trained in bite scenarios. Shit, as long as genetics don't matter, I think I'll go properly train a pit bull -- sorry, an American Pit Bull Terrier -- to race.  He'll go beat those greyhounds. Sweet.  Thanks, Shivan.  You've been a BIG help.

What an asinine counter argument.

An APBT does not possess the physical characteristics to race a greyhound.  However a greyhound possesses all the physical characteristics to maul a human.

By your asinine assertion I should not fear a charging wild boar either because a bobcat can kill it....

Does it really matter that a wild boar is easily put to death by another wild animal?  I believe the worry here is attacking humans.

Both the wild boar and the bobcat possess enough "umph" to maul and inflict GRAVE injuries on a human.  Period.  How they fight one another is irrelevant, as are most of your comments to that effect.