Another sad reason to get rid of every pitbull.

[Bryan]

Still no one refuting stats that say every 14 days someone in North America is killed by a Pitt Bull. That sensationalizing?

Sensationalizing is exactly what it is.

First of all, you posted a link to an anti-dog activist site, hardly a credible source.

Second, even if we take their numbers at face value, context is everything.

1) Who is identifying those dogs as "pit bulls"? Are they doing a DNA test? Without one, even the best trained observer is wrong more most of the time. Even animal shelter employees can't do it. I've had both a mailman and a meter reader report seeing a "pitbull" in my yard (my dog is an old english bulldog).

This orgnaization (in conjunction with the University of Florida and Michigan State University) did an observational study of dogs in shelters that were identified as pitbulls, then did DNA tests to see how accurate the classifications were. Staff were spectacularly bad at ID which dogs were and were not pit bulls:

http://www.maddiesfund.org/Maddies_Institute/Articles/Incorrect_Breed_Identification.html

Conclusions:

• DNA analysis failed to confirm pit bull-type breeds in the pedigree in more than half of the dogs identified as pit bulls by shelter staff at the time of the study.

• One in 5 dogs genetically identified as pit bulls were missed by shelter staff

• One in 2 dogs labeled pit bulls by shelter staff lacked DNA breed signatures for pit bull terrier-type breeds.

• Lack of consistency among shelter staff in breed assignment suggests that visual identification of pit bulls is unreliable.

• Focusing on other attributes of dogs such as personality, behavior, and history instead of breed may help predict safety of individual dogs towards people and other animals.

• Public safety may be better preserved by recognition and mitigation of risk factors for dog attacks and on identification and management of individual dangerous dogs, rather than on exclusion of particular breeds.

2) Who were those dog's owners? Pit Bulls have a certain cache amongst douchebags who are far more likely to abuse their dogs, train them to attack, involve them in organized dog fighting, etc. Pit bull owners are more likely to be criminals than any other dog owner. Dogs raised that way are the most likely to be vicious, regardless of the breed. Those types of people don't choose German Shepherds, even though those dogs are much easier to train to attack humans (which is why police use them).

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/in_defense_of_the_pitbull_partner/

A 2009 study in the Journal of Forensic Science ($$), found that the owners of vicious dogs, regardless of the breed, had “significantly more criminal behaviors than other dog owners.” The researchers added that “vicious dog owners were higher in sensation seeking and primary psychopathy,” and concluded that “vicious dog ownership may be a simple marker of broader social deviance.” And according to the ASPCA, “Pit Bulls often attract the worst kind of dog owners.”

3) People actually do test dogs breeds for their inherent temperament and aggression. Pit bulls have never been demonstrated in controlled tests to be more aggressive or dangerous than other dogs.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/in_defense_of_the_pitbull_partner/

According to the American Veterinary Medicine Association, “controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous.” The American Temperance Testing Society (ATTS) puts thousands of dogs – purebreds and spayed and neutered mixed-breeds – through their paces each year. The dogs are tested for skittishness, aggression and their ability to differentiate between threatening and non-threatening humans. Among all of the breeds ATTS tested – over 30,000 dogs through May 2011 — 83 percent passed the test. How did pit bulls do? They showed an above average temperament, with 86 percent making the grade. Pit bulls are the second most tolerant breed tested by ATTS, after only golden retreivers.

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Backgrounders/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

..owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts³⁷—breed correlations may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Bryan

[Bryan]

No - a German Shepherd who just went crazy. My injuries were serious, but I could very easily have been killed or disfigured.

German Shepherds are significantly more likely to attack people than Pit Bulls. That's why they are used as guard dogs, that's why they are used as police dogs.

[jbg]

German Shepherds are significantly more likely to attack people than Pit Bulls. That's why they are used as guard dogs, that's why they are used as police dogs.

Actually, I petted a German Shepherd on patrol with a police officer. It licked my hand, Golden retrievers and Newfoundlands by contrast are ferocious.

[Bryan]

Golden Retrievers are the worst. In controlled studies, they are the breed whose temperament is the most erratic, and are most likely to become aggressive for no reason whatsoever, regardless of how they were raised. They're really the only breed where you CAN make a blanket statement that "these are bad dogs".

With Shepherds, it's their loyalty and ease of training that can make them dangerous. They do what they're told. If you teach them to attack people, they will without hesitation.

[cybercoma]

No - a German Shepherd who just went crazy. My injuries were serious, but I could very easily have been killed or disfigured.

so why not a ban on shepherds? Those were the pitbulls of the 70s. People wanted to ban them back then.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure.

[Bryan]

Sure what? You want all German Shepherds banned too?

[dre]

The way to deal with this is to treat criminal responsibility the same as legal responsibility. If your dog bites someone you should get a garden variety assault charge. Same goes if you kid assaults someone.

[Michael Hardner]

You want all German Shepherds banned too?

If they're vicious sure. I don't think that's going to happen.

Pit Bulls, though, are terrifying dogs and there's no upside to having them around. I have pointed that out repeatedly on this thread, and I haven't seen anybody provide one.

[Boges]

Like any dogs they can be gentle and loyal. But that's until they attack because that's what's bred into them.

What I see from fans of Pitt Bulls is to blame the owner therefore inorder to own a dog you must have some sort of accreditation. Of course that's unrealistic to expect jurisdictions to license all dog owners.

It's also insane to equate owning a Rottie or Pitt Bull with owning a Poodle or a Yorkie. But that's what I hear from Pitt Bull apologists. "Small dogs bite far more", "Labs are more dangerous than Pitt Bulls" etc etc.

Even if that's the case, the Pitt Bull or the Staffordshire Terrier if you want, was bred to attack, fight and bite. So it's ingrained in their DNA, so even the best training can't remove that threat from their nature.

[bleeding heart]

It's a very interesting argument; but I certainly take Michael's repeated point: being "prejudiced" against Pit Bulls (or any breed) is irrelevant, even if true. No serious and obvious "rights" are being denied even by banning breeds altogether.

[Rue]

The problem is a pit bull is not a breed. You can keep stating it is but its not. Its a mix. Its a generic name for a mix of up to 8-10 different breeds.

How do you define what you are banning-a mix of any of the 10? A mix of 3 of the 10? Do you intend to ban any or all breeds that can make up a pit?

As well in this case how does banning what you think is a breed deal with the issue of irresponsible dog owners?

The issue in this case was that an adult took a dog into his home he knew had already bitten a child and left it with his own child .

If you know a dog already has snapped or bitten at one child why take it in your home if you have a child? Does that make sense to you?

Read the story back. It makes no sense. There are some gaps missing. Think about it. Why would an adult bring an animal they know is dangerous into their home.

It ever dawn on you there may be more to the story?

Any dog by the way can have a problem with children. Sheepdogs for example nip and bite at anything eye level to either side of them. Its a herding instinct. Its why they can nip at children and cats but otherwise be gentle.

Any dog if you look it in the eyes and are eye level with it, might take that as an act of aggression and feel like it needs to defend itself.

It could be the child pulled the dog's tail or its ear. No one knows what precipitated the attack but the parent must take responsibility for placing his child in a dangerous situation to start with.

An owner who says I am taking a pit bull in to rehab because I know its violent and then leaves it with his child.....does that sound right to anyone with any common sense?

Just so Dre knows, the law already does what he says it should do.

More to the point in Ontario they do have a law that bans pit bulls. The fact is its not enforced as much as people think it is.

The fact is any dog may have to be put down regardless of breed if its vicious.

The fact is any breed of dog can be vicious.

The fact is its not the breed that makes it vicious its the line of genetic inheritance and/or the environment and training in which the dog receives.

The fact is banning pits will not prevent the same idiot owners who should not have them from finding another breed.

I say you deal with each dog, each owner, each fact situation and this notion you can kill all kinds of gentle dogs and punish innocent owners with well trained dogs because of a minority of bad dogs and owners is illogical

Some of you argue dogs have no rights. You miss the point-their owner's do though.

As for the belief that innocent dogs should be killed because of vicious ones that look like them, if you think its ok to use that reasoning simply because they are not human oh I get it.

[Boges]

If the Pitt Bull isn't a "Breed" then why does the Staffordshire Terrier have an AKC Standard?

https://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/index.cfm

Cockapoos and Labradoodles don't yet have AKC Standards, those are mixes/hybrids.

[bleeding heart]

You're right, Rue, that owners have rights. IF there were indeed to be bans, I guess a ban on breeding would be in order...not a ban on already-existing dogs.

But then, your point on the complications of breeding are well-taken. Obviously it's a topic I know nothing about.

But if a potential owner says "we have a right to such-and-such a breed"....I can't help but shrug.

[jbg]

Golden Retrievers are the worst. In controlled studies, they are the breed whose temperament is the most erratic, and are most likely to become aggressive for no reason whatsoever, regardless of how they were raised. They're really the only breed where you CAN make a blanket statement that "these are bad dogs".

Every one I know also attacks with its tail.

[PIK]

People blame Pit bulls often when they have no idea what kind of dog it really is. The American Veterinary Medical Association regularly tests dog breeds for their aggressiveness and temperament, and pit bulls routinely score at the low end of the scale -- they are less aggressive than most other breeds.

I understand that pitbulls make up 6% of dogs in canada and yet are responsible for 80% of the attacks. We don't need dogs like that running around. And if one was loose near me and kids were around , I would shoot it in a heart beat.

[Rue]

If the Pitt Bull isn't a "Breed" then why does the Staffordshire Terrier have an AKC Standard?

https://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/index.cfm

Cockapoos and Labradoodles don't yet have AKC Standards, those are mixes/hybrids.

Because a Staffordshire Terrier is not a pit bull. Staffordshire Terriers have small ears and large broad mouths which make them fierce looking but they are actually gentle dogs. They are always assumed to be pit bulls. They are not. A pit bull in fact is a mix of many dogs of which this terrier could be one of the components.

You also presented two types of dogs that are dual hybrids, i.e., made up of just 2 dogs. A pit bull is generic, i.e., it has more than 4 different types of dogs in it.

You also totally missed the point and that is that ANY dog of ANY breed or mix can be violent. These alleged statistics about pit bulls, can someone quote an actual source?

Here is some info you may want to consider:

http://companionanimalsolutions.com/blogs/are-pit-bulls-inherently-dangerous/

http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/truth-about-pit-bulls

(the above article includes what Angus took me to task for and that was saying the jaw ofg a pit bull locks, it doesn't lock but some of these dogs have very strong mouths that can not easily be opened, and that is what I meant, and when I discussed it I said not all pit bulls have the same size mouth and jaws)

Edited April 30, 2014 by Rue

[Boges]

Here's how Ontario defines a Pitt Bull

http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/truth-about-pit-bulls

• Under the amendments to DOLA, pit bull is defined as:

  •  A pit bull terrier

  •  A Staffordshire bull terrier

  •  An American Staffordshire terrier

  •  An American pit bull terrier

  •  A dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics substantially

    similar to any of those dogs.

So it covers those "mixes"

Also why is no one refuting claims that Pitt Bulls account for an overwhelming number of bites causing death to humans?

[Big Guy]

I believe all dogs have potential to attack;

[Boges]

Yeah and when that dog attacks, it's funny and even kinda cute. When a Pitt Bull attacks people die.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Boges

[eyeball]

Also why is no one refuting claims that Pitt Bulls account for an overwhelming number of bites causing death to humans?

Because you'll just train your sights on the next overwhelmingly dangerous "mix" at the top of the list. In any case they're all wolves at heart so we'll never ever be completely safe, which its been like since we lived in caves.

Edited April 30, 2014 by eyeball

[Boges]

Because you'll just train your sights on the next overwhelmingly dangerous "mix" at the top of the list. In any case they're all wolves at heart so we'll never ever be completely safe, which its been like since we lived in caves.

Not really. The dog was created by constantly breeding the most human friendly wolves together essentially creating a different animal.

I'd say a house cat is closer to a lion than a dog is to a wolf.

Studies have shown that the dog is so human friendly that it does things no other animal does in relation to humans.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Boges

[eyeball]

Yeah and when that dog attacks, it's funny and even kinda cute. When a Pitt Bull attacks people die.

The problems start when dumb people condition their big dumb dogs to behave the way that Chihuahua is being conditioned to behave, something that should be reiterated at dog owner's school.

Just to set the record straight, I'm a cat person myself, I really don't have a dog in this race, so to speak. I suspect my cats would probably be thrilled if every dog on the face of the planet was eradicated but that's them. They'd probably scratch me to death if they knew I was actually writing in their defence...in fact there's one looking at me now through slitted eyes.

Nice kitty...no kitty...NO...NOOOOOO....Aaaaarrrggghhh!!!

[bleeding heart]

I love the little kitty psychopaths myself...ours died recently, and we just adopted two from the SPCA: a young one and an old one. They're awesome.

[Boges]

You know your cat would eat you if it could.