What do you think of Pitbulls?
They're bad. They're naturally aggressive.
13.6% (17)
13.6% (17)
They're good. It depends on the owner.
72% (90)
72% (90)
Other/No Opinion.
14.4% (18)
14.4% (18)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: What do you think of Pitbulls? (Dogs)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

dmase:
I also state that the reasons these attacks are so high for pitbulls is that people don't know what it takes to raise one. If your going to suggest that pitbulls are only more violent because of their owners you need to come up with a solution to that problem which happens to be providing them with relevant information regarding pitbull violence.

Hey, I'll put my hand up right now and state that an APBT is not a dog for novice owners... but that goes for all breeds that were bred as herd guardians or as large game catchdogs (ones that actually latch onto the hunted critter and hold it down for the hunter to dispatch).

Hell, it pretty much goes for all large dog breeds because how many novices are going to shove their hand up a big dog's arse to correct a gastric torsion and be able to do it without causing further injury to the dog? Keep in mind that every large/giant breed dog is susceptible to 'bloat' (gastic torsion), and a 'fist and untwist' is the only way to sort it out without going to the vet.

There was no data on that pitbull website, and i don't deny there are lovable pitbulls I do however know they are more often violent then other dogs which my actual data has shown.

No, but they link to it and put forward their own interpretation of the data. Also, the Clifton report has been criticised for it's methodology, with a large part of it being using the media as a sole source on many of the reported attacks... Clifton's defense against that criticism is pretty pissweak - "the media itself is multisourced and should be considered accurate"...

You won't admit their is a problem with pitbull aggression despite obvious evidence otherwise and you choose to ignore valid concerns because of your bias. It's a perpetuation of the problem, keeping people ignorant of the dangers of not socializing your pitbull with other animals and humans often and at a young age and not training their urges to bite and shake out will just lead to more pointless attacks and deaths.

I think the 'pitbull problem' sits at a crux of problems:

- confusion over what constitutes a 'pitbull', especially when identifical is only done visually (there are number of common crossbreeds that can look very similar to 'pit bulls' and have no 'pit breeds' as part of that mix - eg, Lab x Boxer)

- the dog's 'bad' reputation leading to many people who shouldn't even be allowed to own pet rocks going out and getting themselves a 'pitbull'

- In the US especially, an unknowable number of dogs from litters bred from actual fighting dogs entering the pet 'market'.

- lack of understanding in the general populace of how much time and effort is required to maintain a physically and emotionally healthy dog of pretty much any breed. Not to mention a generally overall piss-poor attitude to training.

- I'll restate this again and again, different dogs require different types of owners and 'pit breeds', especially the APBT, are not dogs for first time owners... and far too many people don't research what breed of dog will best suit their lifestyle and the amount of time they're willing to devote to the dog.

Pitbulls are the sweetest dogs you could ask for, as with many other controversial subjects (gun control) it is the owner not the dog.

It's all dependent on owner. My uncle owns a red doberman, and its just a 90 lb lapdog now (I think its 4 or 5, maybe older). he doesnt even have the ears cropped cause he didnt want it to portray the violent dog image.

but I wouldnt get one as your first dog. If you want a big dog, start with a lab or retriever, tehy're the much gentler dog.

I live in an area that bans Pitbulls but personally I don't care. If you want that dog, by all means you can have ten of them. If something happens though, you the owner are responsible since you own the dog.

Well I know California wanted to ban them. Because they are used by gang members to gamble on dog fighting, used to attack other gangs members, and in extreme cases, police. It also has an intimidation factor for everyone else.

There is also an argument that these dogs pose dangers to all children, and parents want them outlawed just for that.

So basically, in the Californian police state, the "dog control" argument really is taken seriously there.

RatherDull:
I'm shopping around for a new addition to my household and it is startling just how many adorable, lovable and temperate pitbulls there are in animal shelters.

This is mostly due to the controversy surrounding the breed.

On the issue, people mostly fall into two camps:

First camp says that Pitbulls were bred to be aggressive fighters and are dangerous. Thus they shouldn't be kept as pets and should probably be put down.

The latter camp says that aggressive pitbulls are more often than not the result of bad ownership and any large dog can be dangerous when they have bad owners.

Where do you stand on this issue?

In case you missed the news this is a hot issue by me right now.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/boy-dies-pit-bull-attack-wisconsin-18671121

Personally I am against any dog that actively tries to supplant the human as the alpha in the human-dog relationship.

TheLycanKing144:
The fear of Pitbulls is born out of pure ignorance. Ignorance that the media tends to generate.

I grew up being unaware of Pitbull breeds (yes it is not one breed, it is a variety of different breeds lumped into one), I was told by several people that they are viscous killers, they just turn and "snap" on their owners, they have locking jaws (which is completely false), and other such nonsense that simply turned out to be wrong.

I had my turning moment when I actually met pitbulls. This was when I started volunteering at my local Humane Society and started walking and taking care of these dogs. My fears were completely gone, these dogs are no different than any other. The only danger I ever faced was having my face licked too much!

The problem of aggressive pitbulls is the same problem for any other aggressive dog. Bad owners. That's all it is, like how bad parents raise bad kids, bad owners raise bad dogs. Pitbulls just get the blunt of the blame because the media keeps portraying them as monsters, and unfortunately not everyone knows that the media is often wrong.

Also like I said above, the term "Pitbull" isn't really accurate. It isn't one breed, it is several. You have Staffordshire Terriers, American Bull Terriers etc...the public needs to be educated on this.

or because you know, they are more agressive, stronger and are usually own by moron who think that can control 40kg of pure muscle with a simple leash, dand dont use a bosal
i wonder why we never heard ofmpomeranian killing sprees and yet we keep hearing about pitbull attacks, geez i wonder why...

micahrp:

In case you missed the news this is a hot issue by me right now.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/boy-dies-pit-bull-attack-wisconsin-18671121

Personally I am against any dog that actively tries to supplant the human as the alpha in the human-dog relationship.

Have you ever owned a dog before?

RatherDull:

micahrp:
Personally I am against any dog that actively tries to supplant the human as the alpha in the human-dog relationship.

Have you ever owned a dog before?

Seeing as any dog will try to be the 'group alpha' if you let it, I'm guessing 'no'.

Well I'm probably going to go on the side of the argument that isn't basically

"LOOK! PUPPIES!!!!"

image

My pops said they're bred to be killers. And even if it is the owners, that means most pit bulls people will get are messed up from abuse. Yeah sure if everyone is Cesar Milan and got them from the expensive licensed breeder, but that's not the case because a lot of people are cheap.

So ya, throw that little guy in a woodchipper.

Well, a few years ago, my family adopted a beautiful pitbull/poodle mix (no idea how that happened), and she's been part of our family ever since. Also, she's less aggressive and more protective of her family. But if she knows you, she loves you.

It's a shame the pitbull's reputation is so bad, thanks to certain assholes... Don't blame the breed for what people do with them.

CrazyGirl17:
pitbull/poodle mix (no idea how that happened)

Call it an educated guess, but I'm thinking that a pitbull and a poodle fucked.

You want confusing mechanics? Mate of mine had a dog that was Jack Russel Terrier cross Bull Mastiff, and the JRT was the sire. We eventually decided a lounge chair was involved. Mental dog... size of a large staffy but had the energy and attitude of a JRT so it bounce around (and off) things pretty much as it's only form of movement.

When 'boutique breeds' (mutts for rich people) started getting popular the same mate wanted to breed JRTs with Shi-Tzus to make Jack Shitz... and Bulldogs with Shi-Tzus to make Bull Shitz... and Bull Terriers with Shi-Tzus to make Fuck Shitz (which only makes sense to people familiar with un-neutered male bullies, which generally will try to fuck anything they can't eat)... oh yeah, and Irish/Red Setters with Shi-Tzus to make Dumb Shitz. He was entirely serious, too, the mental bastard.

CrazyGirl17:
Well, a few years ago, my family adopted a beautiful pitbull/poodle mix (no idea how that happened), and she's been part of our family ever since. Also, she's less aggressive and more protective of her family. But if she knows you, she loves you.

It's a shame the pitbull's reputation is so bad, thanks to certain assholes... Don't blame the breed for what people do with them.

What you should understand is that the " pit bull" is not a natural breed. It was selectively bred for it's aggresive traits and damage inflicted. Even a pit bull raised in the most loving environments may still kill one day, and should never be trusted " not to bite". This is not an issue of " owners" this is an issue of traits specifically bred into this dog. I have raised many dogs, and what you should understand, is even the gentlest of dogs can become quite aggressive in their elder years. The difference of course being with a pit is the damage inflicted with it's bite. While a cocker spaniel has a high incidence of biting, you do not have reports of it actually killing other dogs and humans due to it's bite not inflicting the extreme damage that is inflicted with pit bites. Even a pit puppy has the capability of killing due to it's natural strength. If it were 2 cocker spaniels that attacked my sisters nephew, he would be here today, but it was pits, and due to that he never had a chance.

My friends pit jumped straight through a glass window to go after a dogowner and his dog on a leash walking down the sidewalk, that is not what most would consider " normal dog behavior", No it was the the strength and aggression bred into the pit that causes things like that to occur. My friends pit was not trained to be aggressive, and was a very well behaved dog until that happened. No one was home at the time, the dog was just defending what it considered it's home, instead of just barking out the window as most dogs do, it actually busted through a glass window and went after what it considered a threat. You are partially correct in saying that People are to blame for what they do to them, but it isn't " do" it is " did" they were created by people to kill. It is a terrible thing that was done to these dogs, they trait bred them to be extremely powerful, aggressive, and effective killers. That was not natural, that was a product of men.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php
http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2011.php

Vuliev:
You know, after reading through the debate between dmase and BrassButtons, all I see out of this is "innately aggressive and energetic dog? Make sure the owner can train it. If they can't, or if they fail and the dog injures someone, punish them, not the breed as a whole."

If people buy pit bulls to have an aggressive, angry dog, then they should be stopped from doing so (and punished if they do.) It really doesn't make sense to punish the breed because people don't know how to properly raise them.

But is it punishing a person or the breed to restrict owners? To have forced musseling if you walk the dog. Increased insurance. Overall the OP didn't phrase the question in a way that is politically oriented but that is where solutions come in. The problem with only punishing the owner is that someone has already been attacked and possibly been killed at which point it's too late.

RhombusHatesYou:

Hey, I'll put my hand up right now and state that an APBT is not a dog for novice owners... but that goes for all breeds that were bred as herd guardians or as large game catchdogs (ones that actually latch onto the hunted critter and hold it down for the hunter to dispatch).

Too bad the pitbull was breed primarily to bull bait and after that was made illegal to fight other dogs. And even though they breed out the long legs of the average pitbull it doesn't take out the inherent danger.

Hell, it pretty much goes for all large dog breeds because how many novices are going to shove their hand up a big dog's arse to correct a gastric torsion and be able to do it without causing further injury to the dog? Keep in mind that every large/giant breed dog is susceptible to 'bloat' (gastic torsion), and a 'fist and untwist' is the only way to sort it out without going to the vet.

My huskies where pretty big and never had to do that. The coon hound my parents have now is definitely big but has never had to do that. There are a lot of things that owners of dogs need to worry about but the only one that affects everyone else in a community is a vicious dog.

No, but they link to it and put forward their own interpretation of the data. Also, the Clifton report has been criticised for it's methodology, with a large part of it being using the media as a sole source on many of the reported attacks... Clifton's defense against that criticism is pretty pissweak - "the media itself is multisourced and should be considered accurate"...

I'm drawing quite a few conclusions from the data and much of it agrees with the fact that pitbulls are violent. Alright you should read the report from the report:

"Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts since 1982, this table
covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal
control officers or others with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets. All accounts are crosschecked by date, location, and identity of the victim."

And maybe you should include the entirety of that quote you selected.

"There is also a persistent allegation by pit bull terrier advocates that the use of media
accounts as a data source is somehow suspect. Reality is that media coverage incorporates
information from police reports, animal control reports, witness accounts, victim accounts in many
instances, and hospital reports. Media coverage is, in short, multi-sourced, unlike reports from any
single source."

So your assuming that over 2200 attacks for pitbulls and the runner up dog is over 500. That is a huge skew in his data if your right.... and not small huge gigantic fucking huge. Tell me what's more realistic the media is incredibly retarded at reporting dog attacks or his data is actually accurate. One requires a systemic problem from the entire media industry.

- confusion over what constitutes a 'pitbull', especially when identifical is only done visually (there are number of common crossbreeds that can look very similar to 'pit bulls' and have no 'pit breeds' as part of that mix - eg, Lab x Boxer)

As seen in the data pitbulls are dog traditionally called pitbulls. He does not throw boxerss or bulldogs in with pitbulls.

- the dog's 'bad' reputation leading to many people who shouldn't even be allowed to own pet rocks going out and getting themselves a 'pitbull'

Rottweiler's have a very similar reputation. So we can compare the number of deaths for rottweilers and pitbulls accurately. Also from some quick looking at local sources pure rottweiler puppies are cheaper or comparable in price to pitbulls.

- In the US especially, an unknowable number of dogs from litters bred from actual fighting dogs entering the pet 'market'.

I'd like some information on this. And i'd also like you to think about the above statement. We have an unkowable amount of fighting dogs. If your correct then once again we should have pitbulls more heavily regulated.

Alright I can't see the bottom right of the typing section of the escapist, retarded ads. Anyways once again different owners argument I completely fucking agree. Which is why we should restrict pitbulls, if we just punish bad owners we are letting victims get attacked and then responding. Where we could prevent these instances by regulating the type of person that get these dogs, musseling these dogs if they go out, increase insurance costs for those dogs, etc

i like how some of the reasoning is: i had a dog and he wasnt bad, so all pitbulls arent bad and its all the owner fault, its not like the frigging dog is an animal or anything, clearly they cant be scare or try to protect someone, they are just blank slate

dmase:

RhombusHatesYou:

Hey, I'll put my hand up right now and state that an APBT is not a dog for novice owners... but that goes for all breeds that were bred as herd guardians or as large game catchdogs (ones that actually latch onto the hunted critter and hold it down for the hunter to dispatch).

Too bad the pitbull was breed primarily to bull bait and after that was made illegal to fight other dogs. And even though they breed out the long legs of the average pitbull it doesn't take out the inherent danger.

A dog bred for bullbaiting and a catchdog are pretty much the same when it comes to the attributes you're talking about. Pitbulls make great pigdogs (catchdogs for hunting feral/wild pigs)... but a hunting dog is not a pet... and a blooded (one that's been used in a game kill) hunting dog being treated as a pet is a tragedy waiting to happen.

- In the US especially, an unknowable number of dogs from litters bred from actual fighting dogs entering the pet 'market'.

I'd like some information on this. And i'd also like you to think about the above statement. We have an unkowable amount of fighting dogs. If your correct then once again we should have pitbulls more heavily regulated.

Can't remember where I dug it up but there was a collection of interviews with fight dog breeders and a lot of them stated that pups that didn't look to make good fighting dogs were given away/sold as pets. That means there are pups entering the pet market that come from lines bred purely for their aggression and gameness whereas pet breed lines (for any dog) should focus on an even temperament and lowered aggression. I'm sure even people who already think pitbulls are far too dangerous can see the problem there.

Alright I can't see the bottom right of the typing section of the escapist, retarded ads. Anyways once again different owners argument I completely fucking agree. Which is why we should restrict pitbulls, if we just punish bad owners we are letting victims get attacked and then responding. Where we could prevent these instances by regulating the type of person that get these dogs, musseling these dogs if they go out, increase insurance costs for those dogs, etc

*sigh* I'd prefer more responsible owners but if that isn't viable (and I admit it isn't) then increased regulation will have to do.

First thing I'd do is introduce an ordinance that forced all owners except registered breeders to have their dogs neutered/de-sexed. Cut down the number of backyard bred and crossbreeds in short-ish time. Also give registered breeders the right to refuse sale (pre-empting any civil liberties crap over buying an APBT, AST or SBT). I'd do that for all breeds, personally... Also, introduce mandatory dog registration (with yearly fees) for anywhere that didn't already have it... I'd also make the fines excessively punitive for people who failed to comply.

As an encouragement for people to train their dogs, half off the registration fees for dogs that have successfully passed a recognised dog training and obedience course... possibly also give a small-ish discount for dogs bought from registered breeders.

For registered dog breeders - temperament testing must be done on all litters as well as annual temperament testing on all breeding dogs. Failure to do so will result in deregistration of the breeder. Yeah, it will make expensive purebreds even more expensive but then I don't believe dog ownership is a right.

In areas where certain breeds have been noticably used in criminal activity, give the police the ability to contest the ownership of those breeds by people with criminal records that indicate a possibility that the dog will be used for illegal actions (fighting, intimidation, 'guarding' illegal activities, assaulting people, etc).

I'm against mandatory muzzling. I'll agree that any dog that's been involved in some form of lesser attack (one that hasn't resulted in criminal charges against the owner and/or the dog's destruction) anywhere but the owner's home should be legally required to be muzzled when not in a fenced off yard on their owner's property. In more serious attacks, assuming the dog isn't destroyed, I think it goes without saying that the same restrictions should apply. The only difference would be that in the 'lesser' case, any infringements would be met with punitive fines while in the more serious cases the dog would be put under a destruction order and the owner put up on criminal charges (I'm thinking something along the lines of 'criminal negligence' would fit nicely).

Make the fines for letting your dog roam the streets more than it'd cost to just build/maintain a secure, fenced in yard for the dog. Also make the owner completely liable for any damage caused by the dog.

As for insurance... From a few things I've read, several companies in the US are refusing insurance coverage (not entirely sure what sort) to owners of certain breeds of dogs ('pitbulls', rottweilers and Akitas being the ones mentioned in the articles I read. Personally, if you want to be a real dick about it, I'd say the better idea would be to force mandatory public liability insurance on owners of breeds that have been involved in a number of attacks above a certain threshold (let the policy makers decide the number) for, say 5 years... and for each multiple or part there of of the threshhold is reach, there is a punitive 10% added to the premium per threshold multiple

So, for example, say the threshold was an average 50 attacks per year over a 5 year period to kick in the mandatory public liability insurance... if Rottweilers had an average 100 attacks per year and APBTs had 400 per year then all Rottie and APBT owners would have to take out public liability insurance for their dogs and Rottweiler owners would have a 10% penalty added to the premium while APBT owners would have a 70% penalty. The only problem I see with this plan is giving more money to insurance companies... oh, and it will likely lead to a large number of targetted breeds being abandoned (and most eventually destroyed). :\

Yeah, I know it sounds a bit odd this coming from someone who likes 'pitbulls' (out of the 3 'pitbull' breeds, I vastly prefer Staffies over APBTs and ASTs) and I don't like most of my own suggestions but if people refuse to be responsible dogs owners then we must do what to can to force them to be responsible or they and their dogs will pay the price... which isn't exactly fair on the dogs but without preventative steps nothing will change. Of course my ideas would cover all breeds of dog... if someone's beagle kills a kid should they be held any less responsible than the owner of a pitbull that does the same? Sure, it happens way the fuck less often (only 1 beagle attributed death in the Clifton report). This is the problem with Breed specific laws/regulations... they ignore less common problems and outliers. Cover as many bases as you can. Target problem behaviours not breeds, that way any dog (or owner) that becomes a problem can be dealt with (yes, even preemptively/preventatively) regardless of the dog's breed. Otherwise, what good are the laws for people injured/killed/lose family by breeds that aren't regulated? If a family loses a child to a vicious... say, dachshund attack (don't laugh, little bastards were bred to hunt badgers), what consolation will laws targeted at pitbulls offer them? None. Nothing doing done for them and half the world laughing at them because their kid was killed by a dachshund, of all things.

RhombusHatesYou:
Snipped

Thank you your suggestions are both reasonable and effective. Many pitbull owners just refuse to see the writing on the wall and only think of their own dog and say they are the poster child of the breed.

I think they are fine. My good friend used to have two pitbulls and they were pretty much the coolest dogs ever. Problem is though that the breed is popular with assholes who don't know how to train and look after the dog. And just want one because they think it's cool to have an aggressive dog.

dmase:

RhombusHatesYou:
Snipped

Thank you your suggestions are both reasonable and effective.

I like to think so.

As I said, I don't particularly like the suggestions but if people need to be forced to be responsible dog owners and it takes that sort of level of regulation/law to force them, then so be it. Sure, it might be unfair to already responsible dog owners but being the victim of an unprovoked dog attack is several magnitudes more unfair.

Many pitbull owners just refuse to see the writing on the wall and only think of their own dog and say they are the poster child of the breed.

Hey, a lot of them might even be right about their dog... but it means nothing. Even if 95% of the 'pitbull breeds' (yeah, not going to give up on considering the 3 breeds as seperate - where I'm from 'pitbull' means APBTs) were perfect angels it still doesn't make the terrible number of pitbull attacks and fatalities in the US go away.

They should pull their heads out of their arses and support reasonable and effective measures that cover ALL breeds of dog. To be blunt, they should basically be saying "All serious dog attacks are tragedies not just 60% of them" although worded with far more sensitivity/tact. I'm sure you get the idea.

That site dogsbite has been discredited many times. It's written by a woman with no credentials in law and who is a bite victim (just about the worst bias you can have when writing on breed legislation). Anyway, is it just me or does anyone else notice the pattern of unsupervised children with dogs in so many of those fatal stories?

Twinkles:
That site dogsbite has been discredited many times. It's written by a woman with no credentials in law and who is a bite victim (just about the worst bias you can have when writing on breed legislation). Anyway, is it just me or does anyone else notice the pattern of unsupervised children with dogs in so many of those fatal stories?

My sisters nephew was playing in his own yard at the time the neighbors pitbulls came into his yard and ate him alive. Are kids not allowed to play in their own yards these days? Luckily though they convicted the owners, though I do not think the sentence was long enough. " children unattended?" What about their dogs being "unattended?" People leave their dogs in yards and think that is okay, but children who walk to and from school without leash laws should be attended? Yes, 7 year olds walk to school on their own. Yes, they ride bikes around their neighborhoods, and that is what they should be doing, not living in fear because people don't take proper precautions with their " pets". The sad thing is, dog owners are not held as accountable as other pet owners are. If you own a rattlesnake and it gets out and bites someone, you are charged just as if you placed that snake in their bed, that is why pet owners should be better damn sure make sure their animals they " just have to have" don't get out and hurt anyone. Dog owners should be charged the same as if they intentionally sicked a vicious dog to kill someone, that would make sure they tried harder to contain their " animals". I also feel that you should be required to have the same license to own a pit bull as you do to own a lion, and that would solve the problem. http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/10/fatal-dog-mauling-trial-of-tanner-monk.html

In regards to " dogbite.org" Everything I have read on there appears to be correct. It doesn't take much in regards to credentials to just relay the facts. Everything I have looked up in regards to what they have stated has been correct thus far. It doesn't take much to gather information from elsewhere and consolidate it on one site, and that appears to be what they have done. What they have on there in regards to my sisters nephew is correct as well.

You can attempt to discredit anyone, however, that still does not change the facts that are being relayed here. There honestly is no such thing as a " reputable source". I like to think BBC is pretty good, but that does not mean that everything they report is 100% without error.

micahrp:

Personally I am against any dog that actively tries to supplant the human as the alpha in the human-dog relationship.

So dogs in general? All dogs would take a shot at being the alpha if you're weak in handling them, that's how pack animals like wolves live.

Some dogs are less likely to try than others but they will all push at the boundaries to test you, if you don't get them in line you lose all control.

It's really down to the owner. It's unfortunate that a certain type of owner is attracted to the breed.

If you raise a dog to be violent, it will be violent, regardless of breed or sex. A pitbull is no different. Most dog breeds started off as hunting and war dogs, that doesn't mean my Beagle is going to rip my throat out.

maddawg IAJI:
If you raise a dog to be violent, it will be violent, regardless of breed or sex. A pitbull is no different. Most dog breeds started off as hunting and war dogs, that doesn't mean my Beagle is going to rip my throat out.

The bigger issue with the different breeds though is what is the dogs manner without ever being trained? Where I live, there is a big issue with " wild dogs". Dogs that live in packs on their own, that come through the area killing everything in their path. You can tell much from what a dog is like that has never been trained, because that is what you must overcome with training. Pits are a vicious breed when not trained, and when they are in packs it is terrifying. There is a huge difference between the breeds in their natural behavior of untrained dogs, and the amount of damage they can inflict. I would have to say that Pits are among the worst. Dobermans and German Shepherds are also pretty ferocious pack hunters, but it isn't like a Chihuahua is going to be able to rip a 7 year old child to pieces before they can get away.

Even what we consider to be " wild animals" such as a Bobcat can be raised well and be mild mannered. My friend had one he slept with growing up, but it was also territorial when someone other than family entered the premises. That is a major concern in how the animal behaves when a "stranger" enters the property. If the animal is aggressive to people it doesn't know, that IS a problem, and that is what must be overcome with training. If an animal is mild mannered around those it feels to protect, but aggressive towards anyone else, that is a problem if that animal gets out and then comes in contact with others.

With Wolves, Lions, Bobcats ect.., they have a high potential to inflict major damage if they attack and the laws reflect that in the requirements to own one. With Domestic dogs, however, that also have a high potential to inflict major damage if they attack, such as Pit Bulls, the laws are not in accordance with the amount of damage they are capable of inflicting. Unless you pass mandatory training laws, and special license requirements you cannot force an owner of pitbulls to take the proper precautions and to raise the dog properly. Sadly, more often than not, they are not only not raised properly, mistrained, they are also not properly kept in a secure area, and they get out and then you have a vicious dog running lose at School bus stops, endangering kids walking and riding to school, or playing in their yards.

The only way I see to resolve that is to make the requirements to own an animal match the amount of damage it can inflict, otherwise this will only increase as the population increases making it a much more severe problem.

Lil devils x:
Where I live, there is a big issue with " wild dogs". Dogs that live in packs on their own, that come through the area killing everything in their path.

So they're feral. As in "They have no training and revert to natural instinct in order to survive." That is the natural state. All Animals will kill for food or starve. Dogs are not herbivores, they are carnivores.

Lil devils x:
You can tell much from what a dog is like that has never been trained, because that is what you must overcome with training.

No. Dogs, believe it or not, don't all have the same personality. Some wild dogs are shy and will never approach humans while other trained dogs are vicious and some housebroken dogs will growl at the site of a stranger approaching their owners. Training, believe it or not, is not to make the dog human friendly, but to keep it from destroying households and inserting yourself as the alpha in their eyes.

Lil devils x:
Pits are a vicious breed when not trained, and when they are in packs it is terrifying.

Ever seen a wild doberman? How about a wild German Shepard? Most dogs are vicious and they can become like that regardless of training. All it takes is an abuseful owner. (And before you say that there is no owner among feral dogs, I gotta ask, how do you think those dogs became homeless to begin with? Because they're abandoned or strays, I.E. they have irresponsible owners! )

Lil devils x:
There is a huge difference between the breeds in their natural behavior of untrained dogs, and the amount of damage they can inflict.

Again, I'll say this again. Most dogs are feral when raised in the wild, regardless of breed. I've seen wild poodles chase people away from trashcans over here. Will a Pitbull do more damage then a Poodle? Of course, they were bred to take down large animals, they're gonna thrive in the wild because they were genetically built to hunt!

Lil devils x:
Dobermans and German Shepherds are also pretty ferocious pack hunters, but it isn't like a Chihuahua is going to be able to rip a 7 year old child to pieces before they can get away.

You'd be surprised mate.

Lil devils x:
Even what we consider to be " wild animals" such as a Bobcat can be raised well and be mild mannered. My friend had one he slept with growing up, but it was also territorial when someone other than family entered the premises. That is a major concern in how the animal behaves when a "stranger" enters the property. If the animal is aggressive to people it doesn't know, that IS a problem, and that is what must be overcome with training. If an animal is mild mannered around those it feels to protect, but aggressive towards anyone else, that is a problem if that animal gets out and then comes in contact with others.

When I was young I use to have an American Eskimo. The dog never hurt a fly and would often sleep around me while I was still an infant. Any time my grandmother attempted to come upstairs to our apartment and if I was asleep, he would growl at her. That's something you're not realizing about dogs as well. Its not a matter of territory, its a matter of protection to them. They act like guardians for their owners. That's why a dog chasing a mailman is so stereotypical, they deem the mailmen a threat to the household. That is why your friend's dog is aggressive to strangers. It deems them threats upon first arriving. It has nothing to do with the breed and its just instinct. Any owner worth their salt separates the dog from strangers.

Lil devils x:
With Wolves, Lions, Bobcats ect.., they have a high potential to inflict major damage if they attack and the laws reflect that in the requirements to own one.

....You're really comparing Lions, Bobcats and Wolves to dogs? Wolves I can understand, but you do realize Dogs have lived and evolved from wolves due to widespread domestication from Humans right? We've literally bred most of the danger out of them and the few breeds such as the Bulldog and Doberman and Bloodhound were bred for two purposes: Gaming and hunting, the former of which is illegal in most countries.

Lil devils x:
With Domestic dogs, however, that also have a high potential to inflict major damage if they attack, such as Pit Bulls, the laws are not in accordance with the amount of damage they are capable of inflicting.

There are several counties that straight up ban Pit bulls and several laws and regulations that go along with it. If there is legislation in your area,but the danger is still present, its because the Pitbulls are wild and a product of poor response time from your animal control squads to control their population within the wild. If you want them to go away, your town needs to step up its game and start capturing them or killing them.

My answer to the question is that it does depend on the owner but it can also depend on the breeding. There are those that have been bred by morons who want a big aggressive dog or backyard breeders that don't care about removing aggressive traits from their stock. Maybe in the hands of a genius trainer any dog can be taught to be a well adjusted family member, however I think that bad breeding has the potential to make plenty of dogs (not just pit bulls) unmanageable for many potential owners.

As far as pit bulls go I think that their reputation is far more damaging to the breed than their actual (or potential?) personalities. They attract more bad people as owners and others shun and criticize pit bull dogs and their owners making it a potentially unattractive pet even for those that believe that they can be nice dogs.

In terms of appearance though I think american pit bull terriers look fine it's the bull terriers that look terrifying...

maddawg IAJI:

Lil devils x:
Where I live, there is a big issue with " wild dogs". Dogs that live in packs on their own, that come through the area killing everything in their path.

So they're feral. As in "They have no training and revert to natural instinct in order to survive." That is the natural state. All Animals will kill for food or starve. Dogs are not herbivores, they are carnivores.

Lil devils x:
You can tell much from what a dog is like that has never been trained, because that is what you must overcome with training.

No. Dogs, believe it or not, don't all have the same personality. Some wild dogs are shy and will never approach humans while other trained dogs are vicious and some housebroken dogs will growl at the site of a stranger approaching their owners. Training, believe it or not, is not to make the dog human friendly, but to keep it from destroying households and inserting yourself as the alpha in their eyes.

Lil devils x:
Pits are a vicious breed when not trained, and when they are in packs it is terrifying.

Ever seen a wild doberman? How about a wild German Shepard? Most dogs are vicious and they can become like that regardless of training. All it takes is an abuseful owner. (And before you say that there is no owner among feral dogs, I gotta ask, how do you think those dogs became homeless to begin with? Because they're abandoned or strays, I.E. they have irresponsible owners! )

Lil devils x:
There is a huge difference between the breeds in their natural behavior of untrained dogs, and the amount of damage they can inflict.

Again, I'll say this again. Most dogs are feral when raised in the wild, regardless of breed. I've seen wild poodles chase people away from trashcans over here. Will a Pitbull do more damage then a Poodle? Of course, they were bred to take down large animals, they're gonna thrive in the wild because they were genetically built to hunt!

Lil devils x:
Dobermans and German Shepherds are also pretty ferocious pack hunters, but it isn't like a Chihuahua is going to be able to rip a 7 year old child to pieces before they can get away.

You'd be surprised mate.

Lil devils x:
Even what we consider to be " wild animals" such as a Bobcat can be raised well and be mild mannered. My friend had one he slept with growing up, but it was also territorial when someone other than family entered the premises. That is a major concern in how the animal behaves when a "stranger" enters the property. If the animal is aggressive to people it doesn't know, that IS a problem, and that is what must be overcome with training. If an animal is mild mannered around those it feels to protect, but aggressive towards anyone else, that is a problem if that animal gets out and then comes in contact with others.

When I was young I use to have an American Eskimo. The dog never hurt a fly and would often sleep around me while I was still an infant. Any time my grandmother attempted to come upstairs to our apartment and if I was asleep, he would growl at her. That's something you're not realizing about dogs as well. Its not a matter of territory, its a matter of protection to them. They act like guardians for their owners. That's why a dog chasing a mailman is so stereotypical, they deem the mailmen a threat to the household. That is why your friend's dog is aggressive to strangers. It deems them threats upon first arriving. It has nothing to do with the breed and its just instinct. Any owner worth their salt separates the dog from strangers.

Lil devils x:
With Wolves, Lions, Bobcats ect.., they have a high potential to inflict major damage if they attack and the laws reflect that in the requirements to own one.

....You're really comparing Lions, Bobcats and Wolves to dogs? Wolves I can understand, but you do realize Dogs have lived and evolved from wolves due to widespread domestication from Humans right? We've literally bred most of the danger out of them and the few breeds such as the Bulldog and Doberman and Bloodhound were bred for two purposes: Gaming and hunting, the former of which is illegal in most countries.

Lil devils x:
With Domestic dogs, however, that also have a high potential to inflict major damage if they attack, such as Pit Bulls, the laws are not in accordance with the amount of damage they are capable of inflicting.

There are several counties that straight up ban Pit bulls and several laws and regulations that go along with it. If there is legislation in your area,but the danger is still present, its because the Pitbulls are wild and a product of poor response time from your animal control squads to control their population within the wild. If you want them to go away, your town needs to step up its game and start capturing them or killing them.

I fully understand that dogs have different personalities, they are quite unique from one another, even at a young age. I have raised many dogs over the years, as well as trained them for others. You are incorrect about every dog being aggrssive towards strangers and becoming territorial, many are just the opposite and are friendly and welcoming to strangers. Even a wild animal such as my friends Bob Cat that he slept with could be trained to be mild mannered, but it also had aggression towards strangers. Growing up, of our 6 dogs, only one barked at strangers, that same dog, later had to be put down because it bit my baby sister in the face giving her stiches. None of the others barked at strangers, instead they would run up to them tails wagging and sniffing them welcoming them to the house. Also you are incorrect that you are not supposed to override their territorial behavior when training. No, a properly trained dog should not bark or growl at strangers. in fact, a great example of how a dog should behave was when my friend had a bird come in their house. Their dog was properly trained, and sat at attention and waited to be given the command to go after it, it did not budge for 20 minutes, until she finally gave it the command to get it out. That is what proper training does accomplish, the problem is most pet owners do not put forth the effort it takes to train them properly and find the idea of " a dog for protection" a good one. That puts both the dog's life in danger and anyone it comes in contact with and is a prime example of why people should not have a dog. If someone was really coming to your home to harm you they would just kill the dog first, anyone who loves their dog would never ever ever train them to do that and would do their best to override that behavior to ensure their dogs safety.

The problem is when these dogs who are aggressive to strangers get loose. Here we have people putting them in their fenced in yards thinking that is secure, but we also have regular 65-90 mph straight winds that take the fences down all the time as well as more tornados than any other state, making it very difficult for them to "be certain" their animals are contained. The fences being down is exactly what had happened when those two pits were going after the children at the bus stop here, and the man that saved the kids was sent to the hospital for putting himself between the dogs and the children. We have to look at the damage that can be inflicted as a good measurement as to what should be required of one to own one, otherwise we are just allowing this to happen repeatedly.

You should also understand that not everywhere even has an animal control,and when you call the sheriff they tell you to shoot it yourself. Our " animal control" is neighbors firing two warning shots and everyone knows that means grab your gun and get outside and protect your animals. All the residents go out and pick off the pack as it comes through their yards. Here it has gotten so bad that the coyotes have started taking down cattle, which is a very odd behavior for them to do. Both the coyotes packs and the Mutt pack are becoming even more aggressive than they have in the past, and I would guess that is due to reduction in their regular food supply.

Of course I would compare Pits to wolves, bobcats and Lions, they are all very capabale of inflicting fatal damage in one blow. My friends BobCat he slept with was more mild than most dogs I have seen. Any animal can be raised to be a part of a family and be mild mannered and friendly, that still does not mean that we should allow everyone to have one.

Can't say something meaningful over the character of this breed, because I never had one but I would prefer an English Bulldog or big Mastiff from this breed group though. I kinda have a problem with the social image and symbolic value of this dog, because in Germany alot of the owners look like those guys...

Which most likely aren't the type of responsible and proper owners a potentially dangerous breed would need. Besides the value of this breed to symbolize your toughness and dangerousness, which is very popular among several migrant groups, the breed has become an icon in the clothing scene for right wing nationalists, which is very questionable as well.

You can't blame the dog breed itself for those problems, but this is how this breed is percieved and used as a symbol in the society and these problems correspondend with your public image as an owner as well.

RhombusHatesYou:

CrazyGirl17:
pitbull/poodle mix (no idea how that happened)

Call it an educated guess, but I'm thinking that a pitbull and a poodle fucked.

You want confusing mechanics? Mate of mine had a dog that was Jack Russel Terrier cross Bull Mastiff, and the JRT was the sire. We eventually decided a lounge chair was involved. Mental dog... size of a large staffy but had the energy and attitude of a JRT so it bounce around (and off) things pretty much as it's only form of movement.

Yeah, it happens. I know a Jack Russell/Rottweiler cross...

OT: Okay, well how about the fact that I have one. His name is Jesse, and he is a 9 month old rescue who was found wandering the streets of Great Yarmouth. I also own four other dogs, three English Springer Spaniels and one Labrador Retriever, and he is not the first Pitbull style breed I have owned. I've had Staffies and Pitties in the past, and really, it's all just sensationalist propaganda spread by people who don't actually know what they are talking about. If you are an experienced dog trainer, you should be fine. Pitbulls are a surprisingly malleable breed, respond well to commands, training, and have lots of energy. They MUST be walked properly. This is not up for dispute. A dog like this will get restless and end up chewing your house to pieces otherwise.

There was one point at which Jesse grabbed my 9 year old little brother's arm and started to pull him around. It was about a week after we got him, and it was attributed to the fact that he was essentially a stray. This was a stand alone incident, and he was given a two week period for us to see significant improvement in behaviour, otherwise he was going back, no questions asked. Such behaviour in a canine is unacceptable, and should not be stood for, therefore we reprimanded him every time he started mouthing, and my little brother was told to quit playing with him quite so excitedly. A dog, especially a puppy, should not be wound up at all, otherwise it learns bad habits. Playing with it is one thing, but it should be done in a calm, controlled manner in order to promote the upbringing of a calm, mentally healthy, happy dog. Anyway, after a week of proper discipline concerning things such as mouthing, he has become the ideal dog. He is not protective over his food, as we discourage it, nor does he mind being manhandled. Should he become tired of it, he will simply walk away.

A dog is something that you need to put your all into raising, much like a child, so that it grows up into something which is well behaved, and well mannered. Many people don't realise the amount of work that actually should go into looking after a dog.

Those People are idiots they have turned a sweet little dog Into a living weapon I love all dogs and I don't have a problem with responsible owners having them same with anything potentially dangerous like cars or guns I blame Idiots who abuse them

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked