Questions for pit bull owners

"Why would anyone choose to own one?"

I've owned dogs all my life. Lab's, Cockers, Shepherds, Yorkies, Poodles, Setters and mixes. I can truly say that I would NOT put up with the extra crap that comes with owning this breed (and trust me, it is sometimes nearly unbelievable) if they had not, time after time, proven themselves to be so much more then your average dog. The intelligence, the goof ball nature, the ability to read your mood and do whatever it takes to make you smile. All dogs possess this to a degree, The American Pit Bull Terrier possesses these traits in a capacity that make other dogs pale in comparison (nothing against them) they are SO in tune with you, their main impetus is to please YOU, no matter what that means to them. Indeed, that same trait is often exploited to their own peril.
What other dog can you keep on a chain, feed sparingly, kick when you feel like, and will still worship you like the God you think you are?

"The American Pit Bull Terrier is reknowned in circles of knowledgable dog people for the love and loyalty they bestow on anyone who shows them a smidgeon of kindness"
 
Here is Martin, after Hurricane Katrina
comingtoCalifornia-1.jpg

One month later
Stack1.jpg


Here he is, recently, about to attack my daughter
LipGloss.jpg

If you look close, you can see the gleam in his eye (and the lip gloss on his cheek) If you are at all squeamish, don't look at the next pic.
MarilynMartin-1.jpg
 
Horrifying, really.
MarilynMartinKiss.jpg


I loose sleep at night worrying about this dog from unknown background, from the mean streets of the lower 9th Ward in New Orleans and my children
MartinSurgeryDay4Maxb.jpg

Here he is after surgery to repair not one, but two, fully blown ACL's suffered in the storm
Yep, ready to rip our throats out.
 
Here is a good article, by a writer who was not a 'pit bull' guy. Who's dogs found him and changed his life.

Page1
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/08/20/pit_bulls/index.html
Page2
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/08/20/pit_bulls/index1.html

State proposals to ban pit bulls reflect society's worst fears and prejudices. As the Michael Vick scandal has made clear, it is humans and not the dogs who are the criminals.

By Ken Foster
http://www.ken-foster.com/

AP Photo/David Zalubowski

A pit bull peers out from the door to its pen in the Denver Animal Shelter.

Aug. 20, 2007 | When you fall in love with a pit bull, you need to be prepared for a lot of abuse from strangers -- a lot of accusations, a lot of glares. Walking down the street with my dog, Sula, cars slow down as they pass. People cross to the other side of the street, as if my canine is a convicted killer or I am an associate of Michael Vick. In a vet's office on the other side of town, people talk trash about Sula while she waits motionless on the waiting room floor, her legs splayed out behind her like a roast. "I guess you like those dangerous dogs," a woman offers as a conversation starter.

"She's too nice to be a pit bull," a friend said on the day I found Sula as a stray. One eye was torn open, there was a crack across her nose from being hit with a stick, she was in heat and her heart was infested with worms. I was living in Florida at the time and called all the local animal shelters -- none would take her, except to put her to sleep. I brought her home, temporarily I thought, and then we fell in love. I already had a pit bull mix that I had adopted in Manhattan, where the shelter had registered him as a shepherd mix. "We don't want the city knocking on your door," they said, worried that the city might come to get my dog if a pit bull ban was passed.

No one came knocking on our door, but six years later, New York City is once again considering breed-specific legislation. The idea of targeting specific breeds -- and their owners -- is spreading to city councils across the nation. Here is the Bush-era logic: By limiting or banning pit bulls altogether, they will not only reduce what is frequently (but inaccurately) termed a "dog bite epidemic" but also rid the community of the unsavory characters associated with these dogs -- as if drug dealers, gang members, and dogfighters will all disappear once the corrupting element, the American Pit Bull, is banned. This concept sounds too idiotic to make it through the courts, yet breed-specific legislation (known as BSL) is coming to a town near you. Among the municipalities that are currently or have recently considered some form of BSL: San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Baton Rouge, La., Baltimore and virtually the entire state of Ohio. In fact, there isn't a state in the country where BSL is not being considered, even if, as in New York, there is a state law preventing legislation that identifies dangerous dogs strictly by appearance rather than individual temperament.

The terms of the legislation vary from mandatory spay/neuter and higher licensing fees to mandatory euthanasia. And while the primary target is the American Pit Bull, in many cases the list of evil breeds includes Akitas, boxers, chow-chows, Dobermans, mastiffs and German shepherds. In Ontario, after legislators successfully banned the pit bull, word spread (though was later discredited) that the government was also considering a ban on Labrador and Lab mixes, since -- due to their popularity -- they are responsible for more bites in the province than any other breed. The goal, according to the politicians who endorse BSL, is keeping people safe. They don't seem to care that the ASPCA disagrees. The American Veterinary Medical Association disagrees. The American Kennel Club disagrees. And the Centers for Disease Control disagrees, although an old CDC study on dog bites is frequently misquoted for the purpose of supporting the idea of targeting specific kinds of dogs.

Two years ago, Denver began enforcing its own ban, which had been on the books for 17 years. Pit bull owners had to give up their dog to be euthanized, or they had to get out of town. At a Border's cafe just across from Columbine High School, I huddled with several pit bull owners who spoke in whispers and looked over their shoulders, making sure no one could overhear. Over the phone, I spoke with a Denver journalist who told me about a secret society of pit bull owners who had defied the law and kept their dogs in town; she knew about the group because she was one of them. And I met Mike and Toni, who sheltered dogs from the Denver exodus on their property, named Mariah's Promise. The night we spoke, they checked into a Super 8 Motel with two of their dogs and were awakened by a knock on the door -- someone had seen pit bulls enter the room and called the cops. From what I can tell, this is what BSL accomplishes -- it makes dog owners fearful, it drives them into hiding, and it does nothing to stop anyone who is truly breaking the law.

One problem with enforcing BSL is that no one is entirely sure of what a "pit bull" is. The American Kennel Club recognizes no such breed, while the United Kennel Club (a separate organization) recognizes the American Pit Bull Terrier. But the generic term "pit bull" is used to refer to any number of variations of the bully breeds: boxers, American bulldogs, mastiffs, etc. And so the laws are written broadly, so that no dog is excluded: The definition generally includes American Staffordshire terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, pit bull mixes and ... any dog that looks like it might be in some way related to a pit. One Mississippi ordinance specifically stipulates that just because a dog might not demonstrate any of the characteristics in its definition of a pit bull, that doesn't mean it can't declare it a pit bull.

So demonized are pit bulls that it's often assumed if a dog committed violence, it must have been a pit. Recently, when a man died on the property of actor Ving Rhames, it was reported he had been mauled by a pit bull that went psycho. Eventually the dogs were identified by the police as "friendly" mastiffs, and the cause of death was declared unrelated to any dog attack -- but the story of the pit bull mauling lives on. And last summer, the Chicago Tribune ran a series of articles in which they followed up on a pit bull attack from the previous year. The term "pit bull" was used in the headlines, and throughout the stories, even though the dog was ultimately identified as another kind of mix, a yard-bred dog whose aggression had gone unaddressed by his owner.

I have a T-shirt that says "I Love My Pit Bull" in groovy 1970s-style lettering. Actually, I have three of these shirts, so that I know that there is always one that is clean and ready to wear. People see me wearing it and ask where I got it, or they point and say, "That's funny!" because they know pit bulls as dogs that are undeserving of anyone's love. "But I do love my pit bull," I tell them, and their smile fades. Pit bulls, to them, are ghetto trash, drug dealers' props, trailer park ornaments, symbols of desperation and anger. "There's only one kind of person who owns a pit bull," these people say, and often I imagine that the person they are thinking of is poor and black.

Next page: It is easier to blame dogs, rather than their human counterparts
 
Next page: It is easier to blame dogs, rather than their human counterparts

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/08/20/pit_bulls/index.html

Pit bulls are innocent
Pages 1 2 Share
Email
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
My Yahoo
Print RSS Font: S / S+ / S++
It would be a mistake to assume that pit bulls are a hallmark of poverty. Around the corner from me there's a house on the market for $750,000, and the real estate listing features the current tenant -- a pit bull -- proudly sprawled in the middle of the exquisitely appointed rooms. Gorgeous celebrities own pit bulls: Jessica Beal, Adam Brody and Rachael Ray are just a few who can be found walking their beasts in the pages of supermarket tabloids. But there is an economic component to the pit bull's popularity. When you live in an area so poor that even the police don't bother responding, you may want to have a little protection, and while any dog is likely to defend its owners from intruders, a pit bull at the door sends the message a bit quicker than the miniature schnauzer. And breeding just two litters of pit bulls in your yard can bring nearly as much cash as working full-time in Wal-Mart for a year. And then there is dogfighting, an illegal sport driven by gambling that has been around for centuries, but only recently seems to have made the news, through the power of Michael Vick's celebrity.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

It wasn't always this way. If you look into the history of the American Pit Bull, you'll find that a century ago, the breed occupied a far more elevated status in American culture. In 1903, a stray pit bull named Bud became a national celebrity when Horatio Jackson plucked him from the side of the road and took him on the first cross-country road trip. During WWI, it was the pit bull, then referred to as the American Bull Terrier, that was placed prominently on a series of American propaganda posters. In one, the pit bull, wearing a U.S. flag around his neck, is surrounded by the Russian wolfhound, the French bulldog, the German dachshund and the English bulldog; the caption reads, "I'm Neutral, but not afraid of any of them." Later, Buster Brown sold children's clothing and white bread with the help of his "American Bull Terrier" Tige. The pit bull was also featured in ads for sheet music, perfume, nearly anything offered for sale. Children got dressed in fancy outfits to pose with pit bulls in photographers' studios. A pit named Petey starred with a group of children in the "Our Gang" comedies.

When did the tide turn? In "The Pit Bull Placebo," Karen Delise suggests the dog's image was forever changed after a 1987 Sports Illustrated cover featuring a snarling, nearly unidentifiable dog with the headline "Beware of This Dog." News stories began slipping the term into headlines as shorthand for dangerous dog, even if it was a different breed involved in that particular crime. "Pit bull" entered the mainstream as an adjective, as in "I hope you've gotten yourself a pit bull attorney." Yet, when two Florida lawyers used a pit bull in an ad a few years ago, they were reprimanded by the Florida Bar for dragging the profession down to the level of these animals.

Self-appointed experts will tell you that fighting is in the blood. And dogfighters use this cliché to support their "sport." It would be cruel to keep them from fighting, they say. Yet if fighting were purely dictated by genetics, there would be no need to feed dogs gunpowder, insert glass shards beneath their skin, or to engage in any of the other cruel forms of "training" in the underworld of dogfighting. And if it were true that pit bulls, through their bad breeding, are prone to unexpectedly attack, the streets of New York City would be littered with victims of its estimated 300,000 pit bulls. It is easier to believe that the dogs are somehow to blame, rather than their human counterparts. It is easier to point to faults in the DNA.

The dog world is ruled by bloodlines, whether for fighting or for show. The AKC now offers DNA tests that can establish the parenthood of purebred dogs, but they insist that the test cannot determine or identify the breed. No matter, several private companies have stepped up to offer that service. The Mars Wisdom Panel MX Mixed Breed Analysis "identifies more than 130 AKC-recognized breeds that may be present." While the advertised purpose of the tests is to better understand the health and behavior of your mutt, it isn't a stretch to imagine that the test might eventually be brought into courts and animal control offices, where your 10 percent bully breed will be stuck on death row with the rest. And, since dogs are often used in trials for procedures that eventually get approval for humans, we may eventually see Orwellian courts being ruled by blood tests that can determine the criminal intent present in the defendant's DNA.

Does the fact that my pit bull love is forbidden make it that much more intense? Possibly -- because I know that I saved her life. And, like all forbidden love, from "Romeo and Juliet" on down the line, each time anyone questions or disapproves of our love, we defiantly love each other even more than before. But I think, like most other pit bull owners I know, that my love of Sula has more to do with this: She makes me laugh; she doesn't hesitate to turn and run away from bad music on the street; she likes to hug. And she loves to play practical jokes like hiding my glasses when I'm not looking. We even have our own song: Corinne Bailey Rae's "Like a Star" was, I am certain, written for us.

We are not immune to nepotism. I put Sula on the cover of my last book, because ... well, because I could. And I wondered if it might be the wrong thing to do, since the pit bull image is so loaded with dread. But instead of alienating consumers, Sula lured them in. I was taken aback by the number of people who told me, "I bought the book because I have never seen my dog on the cover of a book before." What they had seen, up to then, was their dog as the image of pure evil, on the news, in movies, on TV.

In Los Angeles, on the first stop of my book tour, two enormous pit bulls joined the crowd at Skylight Books. In Portland, Ore., I arrived at Powell's early to discover several rows in the front occupied by some nice suburban women all talking about their pit bulls. In Tallahassee, at a reading in a crowded and darkened warehouse, I asked for questions and was greeted by an enthusiastic yip from a pit bull that emerged from the back of the house. Even at a stop in a small public library in Michigan, I arrived to find a pit bull named Rose waiting for me in the stacks. People bring me photographs: their pit bull and their cat, their son's pit bull, the photo of a pit bull who died years ago but is still missed.

Pit bulls are loyal. They are known to sing, proudly, in ridiculously operatic voices. I know pit bulls who have nursed kittens and another who adopted a piglet as its own. And this I know from photographs of them in New Orleans wading through water up to their necks: When you take away their unmistakable dog bodies, their round skulls and even-set eyes make them look remarkably like infants or old, bald men, or occasionally like the overly pancaked face of Judy Garland in decline. And like infants, old men and Judy Garland, pit bulls are capable of expressing anguish and despair, as well as their euphoric joy at being alive.

In fact, I wonder if these very human characteristics somehow inspire their abuse.
 
You can not live with a dog like this and not see them as they are, an exceptional spirit, here, as we are, but for a brief time. I do not see how anyone can not see the beauty in that, or in them.
MartinMarilyn.jpg


Avatar3-2.jpg
 
That second link I posted on the previous page is a california personal injury lawyer site. Here's a quote that discusses statistics and "dangerous" dog laws in Canada:

The province of Ontario, Canada, banned 'pit bulls' in 2005, even though they've never been responsible for the most bites or attacks, or even a single, unprovoked, human fatality in Canadian history. According to Canadian hospital documents, the breeds responsible for the most serious dog bite injuries (those severe enough to require treatment in hospital) are:

#1 German Shepherd
#2 Cocker Spaniel
#3 Rottweiler
#4 Golden Retriever.

These are just the most serious attacks, mind you.

In the city of Kitchener, 'pit bulls' ranked behind Poodles in the dog bite statistics, at #8. With 18 bites attributed to 'pit bulls' the previous year, they were banned. But not #1 in the bite statistics, German Shepherds, with about 85 annual bites.

The same was true of Winnipeg, Canada. They banned 'pit bulls' in 1990, even though German Shepherds were attributed with at least 6 times the number of bites. The German Shepherd, by the way, has been one of the most common culprits in dog bite-related fatality cases in Canada. They're not banned anywhere in Canada, to my knowledge.
The truth is that almost any dog might attack and/or bite. The vast majority won't ever do so. People are more responsible for the problems than the dogs or dog breeds themselves.
 
Last edited:
That second link I posted on the previous page is a california personal injury lawyer site. Here's a quote that discusses statistics and "dangerous" dog laws in Canada:

The truth is that almost any dog might attack and/or bite. The vast majority won't ever do so. People are more responsible for the problems than the dogs or dog breeds themselves.


I wasn't going to mention it, but that entire discussion was bogus. I think it was just amateur bogusness ratehr than intentional bogusness, but not once did that woman factor in percentages of breeds owned. To exaggerate for illustration, if there were 99 Geramn Shepereds in town, and 3 pit bulls, and at the end fo the eyar there were 6 German Sheperd bites and 2 pit bull bites, that would NOT mena that the Sheperds were 3x more likely to bite than the Pit Bulls. It was the same throughout her piece. The only time she did mention percentages it seemed to point to 9.2% of dogs owned being Pit Bulls, contributing 20% of the bites. Which would obviously have flown in the face of her argument. So again, not sure whetehr amateur or just a mistake.
 
I wasn't going to mention it, but that entire discussion was bogus. I think it was just amateur bogusness ratehr than intentional bogusness, but not once did that woman factor in percentages of breeds owned. To exaggerate for illustration, if there were 99 Geramn Shepereds in town, and 3 pit bulls, and at the end fo the eyar there were 6 German Sheperd bites and 2 pit bull bites, that would NOT mena that the Sheperds were 3x more likely to bite than the Pit Bulls. It was the same throughout her piece. The only time she did mention percentages it seemed to point to 9.2% of dogs owned being Pit Bulls, contributing 20% of the bites. Which would obviously have flown in the face of her argument. So again, not sure whetehr amateur or just a mistake.
Fair enough. I'll retract it. The other site has links to better and more information, including Sacks study for the vet med journal in 2000. At the time pit bulls and rottweilers were the dogs involved in 67% of the dog-bite related fatalities in the US for 1997-1998. However, he points out that that has not always been the case.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

To decrease the risk of dog bites, several communities have enacted breed-specific restrictions or bans. In general, these have focused on pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers. However, breeds responsible for human DBRF have varied over time. Pinckney and Kennedy studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April 1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1); Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire
Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15). As ascertained from our data, between 1979 and 1980, Great Danes caused the most reported human DBRF; between 1997 and 1998, Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs were responsible for about 60% of human DBRF.

Indeed, since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people, including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a Labrador Retriever.
(That must have been one mean Yorkshire Terrier!:eek: )

Actually he discusses the difficulties of trying to track DBRF and non-fatal bites and account for all the factors involved, not just breed.
 
Last edited:
Pit Bulls Break Into Washington Woman's Home and Maul Her

KG, like my sister, your dog appears to be a very loving and kind member of the family, and I am happy you have found such joy.

I just post this as the most recent example of why many people are afraid of these dogs. You never hear instances like this with just about any other dog breed. Now I know we don't have all the details (or maybe many at all at this point), but instances of pit bulls (or a closely related breed) leaving their property to attack innocent people really hammer home how viscious these dogs can be, especially when mistreated or mistrained. Problem for most of us is that we (the general public) have no idea which dogs are "good" and which are not.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294013,00.html

GIG HARBOR, Wash. — Two pit bull terriers broke into a house through a pet door Tuesday and attacked a woman in her bed, mauling her badly, a Pierce County sheriff's spokesman said.
The woman was able to grab a gun and try to shoot the dogs, then break away from the attack and lock herself in her car, where she called 911, sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.
The woman, who was not immediately identified, was taken to a hospital in Tacoma, where she was listed in serious condition.
Officers planned to talk to the dogs' owner.
The pit bulls also killed a neighbor's Jack Russell terrier, which entered the house during the attack, Troyer said.
"The thought is that the Jack Russell heard noise in the neighbor's house, came in and was attacked by the dogs," Troyer said.
Firefighters responded first, locking the dogs in the house, treating the woman and calling for an ambulance.
Officers "had to pepper spray and fight the dogs until they were detained. We almost had to shoot them on site," Troyer said.
The dogs were taken to a Humane Society and will probably be destroyed, he said.
It was not immediately known why the dogs entered the house, whether the woman had dogs of her own or what set off the attack.


Here is a link with video about this story with a few more details:
http://www.kirotv.com/news/13943140/detail.html
 
Last edited:
You never hear instances like this with just about any other dog breed.

Guess that would be the question -- does it happen more often with them? Or do we just hear about it more often? Likely some of both?

But I do think there is an inherent problem with many of the bloodsport-derived dogs out there, no matter how loving to their families on a daily basis. These animals' ancestors were intentionally bred to be thrown into a pit to fight bears and lions, or each other. They were bred to be tough, vicious and ignore pain. And it does not mean that that is all they were bred for, or all that they are. And certainly does not mean that you couldn't slowly breed those traits out of them (albeit perhaps by interbreeding that effectively eliminated the inital strain). But does mean that that is always back there. Not only are the fighting breeds powerfully built to do damage, but when pressed, you have to worry about the instincts for blood in a way that is not as much of a worry with a companion breed. Death by basset hound is probably quite rare. ANY large dog could kill or maim you. But when something's been bred to attack a bleeping bear and hang on, there is always that extra level. Short of killing it, how do you convince such a beast to stop? (indeed I have always assumed that if one of those breeds latched inot me I would in fact have to kill it -- popping it on the nose isn't likely to work)

In any case, I don't doubt the testimonials of people who say they are loving and loyal dogs to their families. In fact actually that would fit -- dog with strong sense of loyalty troward its "pack". The problem being how it interacts with others, how it interprets threats, what happens if its hurt or overexcited by strangers? Despite my normal disdain for hysteria, without truly knowing the answers to those questions I just have to treat the potential threat level their differently than I do from a Collie.
 
I wasn't going to mention it, but that entire discussion was bogus. I think it was just amateur bogusness ratehr than intentional bogusness, but not once did that woman factor in percentages of breeds owned. To exaggerate for illustration, if there were 99 Geramn Shepereds in town, and 3 pit bulls, and at the end fo the eyar there were 6 German Sheperd bites and 2 pit bull bites, that would NOT mena that the Sheperds were 3x more likely to bite than the Pit Bulls. It was the same throughout her piece. The only time she did mention percentages it seemed to point to 9.2% of dogs owned being Pit Bulls, contributing 20% of the bites. Which would obviously have flown in the face of her argument. So again, not sure whetehr amateur or just a mistake.


You actually bring up a GREAT point, Brick. A common flaw in dog bite statistics (pretty much all of them) is that they don't take into considertion the population of the breed in the area. That's a hard stat to come up with, since so few people bother to license their dogs.
 
You actually bring up a GREAT point, Brick. A common flaw in dog bite statistics (pretty much all of them) is that they don't take into considertion the population of the breed in the area. That's a hard stat to come up with, since so few people bother to license their dogs.
It's not necessarily an intentional or even accidental flaw. It's very hard to find any information on ownership of any breed. Breeds are often mis-identified in reports, especially mixed-breed dogs. Many dogs are not licensed and many pure-bred dogs are never registered with the AKC or other breed registry. It is very difficult to determine how many dogs of specific breeds are out there.
 
Last edited:
But I do think there is an inherent problem with many of the bloodsport-derived dogs out there, no matter how loving to their families on a daily basis. These animals' ancestors were intentionally bred to be thrown into a pit to fight bears and lions, or each other. They were bred to be tough, vicious and ignore pain. And it does not mean that that is all they were bred for, or all that they are. And certainly does not mean that you couldn't slowly breed those traits out of them (albeit perhaps by interbreeding that effectively eliminated the inital strain). But does mean that that is always back there. Not only are the fighting breeds powerfully built to do damage, but when pressed, you have to worry about the instincts for blood in a way that is not as much of a worry with a companion breed. Death by basset hound is probably quite rare. ANY large dog could kill or maim you. But when something's been bred to attack a bleeping bear and hang on, there is always that extra level.

Brick, very few dogs were actually originally bred as 'companion' animals only. Pugs come to mind, I can't think of anything else they were ever bred for. Basset's, yep, hunting dogs. Daschunds were bred to be long to fit down tunnels after vermin and, gasp, kill them. Yorkshire Terriers, yep, like most Terriers, originally bred to hunt, and kill small animals. Most dogs had a JOB, and usually that job included things close to their carnivorous nature. Hunting, stalking, killing, holding. The original BullDogs WERE bred to grab the nose of a bull and hang on, not to kill it but to subdue it, while the bloodthirtiest animal of all (man) did what they wanted with it.
Dogs are decended from wolves, not rabbits, and those instincts lurk in the genetic pool of all of them.
 
It's not necessarily an intentional or even accidental flaw. It's very hard to find any information on ownership of any breed. Breeds are often mis-identified in reports, especially mixed-breed dogs. Many dogs are not licensed and many pure-bred dogs are never registered with the AKC or other breed registry. It is very difficult to determine how many dogs of specific breeds are out there.


Yes, that's what I meant. :D
 
The American Temperament Test Society tests (as their name suggests) temperament in dogs. It's a rigid test and any breed can take it. Here, you can view results. The really nice thing about it is it breaks it down not only by percentage of dogs passing of each breed, but also gives the number of dogs of each breed tested. American Pit Bull Terriers pass with a very solid 84+%, right up there with Labs and Goldens and far eclipsing breed like Beagles etc.
http://www.atts.org/statistics.html
 
some of the most special dogs i've encountered have been pit bulls. such a beautiful breed. i've know several that were nothing short of loyal companions.
 
I tried to find some info that seemed reasonable balanced and a couple of sites were quite interesting and may surprise some folks. (Covker Spanieals are pretty dangerous.;) )Both are sites run by lawyers. ;) Both seemed failry balanced to me.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm

http://lancaster.injuryboard.com/dog-bites/dog-is-shot-dead-after-he-attacks-a-child.php

My ex's family used to raise boxers (decades ago). The family pet was an adorable and loving female, who had never shown any signs of aggressive behavior until one day she almost tore the face of my ex's 2-yr-old nephew. They spent a harrowing night in the emergency room and it required quite a few surgeries to fix his face, which looks fine.

I currently have a pit bull mix I'm taking care of for an extended period, who is absolutely one of the most loving, delightful dogs I've known. Many years ago, I owned a american staffordshire mix I adopted from the shelter. She was quite timid, but never a problem. On the other hand, my mini-daschund bit my boyfriend and an intruder in the backyard. Feisty little beast.

Terriers might not cause serious injury, but they tend to nip at the ankles. When I was in elementary school, I was literally terrified of my neighbor's two chihuahuas. They would corner me and snap, growl and bark, until called off. And they bit. Just can't cause quite the damage a big dog can.

Aggression is not the only problem. There are timid, shy dogs who will "fear-bite."

There's no guarantee that any dog won't bite you, your child or someone else.

Pitbulls are cursed with being popular amongst certain people right now. When popularity hits a breed, people start breeding tons of dogs, without regard to health or temperament. Then to exacerbate the problem, the dogs are often bred in confinement and kept confined with little or no socialization. A sure formula for a "bad" dog.

I cry when I go to shelters and see the abandoned dogs who were obviously fight dogs. Ears gone, scarred and just worn down and out. The females are often bad, too. Bred over and over in captivity until their bodies give out at 3, or 4 and then abandoned.

If you want a dog around children, do the reserach. Certain breeds are supposedly known to be better with children than others and more tolerant of kids pulling, pushing, tugging and poking. Unfortunately, the experts don't seem to necessarily agree which breeds those are. Of course, going for smaller dogs would at least limit the damage. (Elderly and children are often injured unintentionally by rambunctious big dogs that aren't well-trained.) Mostly, I think temperment, socialization and training of the individual dog is what matters the most.

I agree completely with this post :)

Chihuauhuas? Pure Devil spawn. THe meanest dogs around. But.... they are physically weak, and you can flick them into next week with one hand. I don't know if pit bulls are intrinsically more liable to be violent or to flip out (of course they WERE bred for aggression for a long long time, though...) but even if they DON'T flip out more often than other dogs.... if they DO, they are armed to the gills with muscles and weapons. That is surely a problem.

When I was a kid (7 or 8 years old) my Spaniel nipped my face because I accidently stepped on her rear paw when I was holding her up to my face with her fron paws. It partially ripped off half of my lip, but they were able to reattach, and you can barely tell today. I imagine the damage from the exact same scenario with a pit bull would've been significantly worse.
 
Ah, but a Pit Bull, as opposed to a Spaniel, would be far less likely to take offense to having a paw stepped on. They were actually known as the 'Nanny dog" for decades, due to their extremely high tolerance to the foibles of children (ear pulling, eye poking, tail tugging, all good fun for a well bred Pit Bull dog)
 
Brick - You're forgetting about the American Staffordshire Terrier, which is often referred to erroneously as a pit bull.

american_staffy_02a.jpg

In regards to your post, Petey The Dog from the Our Gang / Little Rascals series is often referred to as an Amer pitbull terrier on the web and in common lore. The dogs they used to play Petey are probably Staffordshires though -- Petey looked nothing like a true pitbull.
 
I could list more, but I would like to get your opinions on why you would buy a pitbull, or would buy one when you have children around the dog. :confused:

Not for nothing, but there are many wannabe herpetologists in the U.S. who have cobras as pets. I'd prefer a pitbull in my neigborhood to that.
 
The dogs they used to play Petey are probably Staffordshires though -- Petey looked nothing like a true pitbull.

The dog who played the original Petey was actually a dual registered dog. (AKC is American Staffordshire Terrier, UKC is American Pit Bull Terrier, he was registered with both registries) I'm kind of curious as to why you think he 'looks nothing like a true Pit Bull" Could you elaborate?

No takers on the 'find the pit bull' game?

Here's a fun little factoid regarding TV dogs. Petey (both of them) were great dogs on and off the set. Lassie (one of them anyway) bit several people on the set. I'll see if I can find the link.
 
Here's some video's, if anyone is interested, a kind of mish mash assortment. Be forewarned that there are some graphic images in some of them.

One of my dogs is actually in this one, after the dog with the goggles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmwaHMzgrKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJueekvhRDI&mode=related&search=

Helen Keller's service dog was an American Pit Bull Terrier, as was President Hoover's dog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt8a9kS5sRI&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrYZ_J356Sk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, KG, those videos had me sobbing. I cannot stand to see anything like that happen to an animal of any kind.

We adopted a new pup (if you want to call him that!) from a guy the Unc works with, and were the local authorities to see him, he could be confused as either whole or part pit bull. He's just a mutt, but he's wonderful - and if he does have pit bull in him...fine. He's the biggest baby I've ever seen! He's afraid of thunderstorms, has to sleep under the covers with you at night, slobbers everywhere, has a real softspot for ice cream, and adores rides in the car. Not to mention the most well-behaved, loving creature we could have ever asked for.


This is him viciously licking our 14 year old.
BoysandDogs024.jpg
 
He's beautiful. Yes, since you live in Ohio, I would definitely call him a 'mutt' If you lived here, he'd be a Pit Bull:D
 
regarding pit bulls...

I found this article on the cdc website. The data is from 79-96 but it is a report of the number of deaths attributed to dog attacks broken down by breed, where the breed was able to be determined.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm

I have several thoughts on the matter. There are many people who will point out that there are other breeds of dogs that are statistically more prone to biting, but I'm not really concerned about losing my life to a chihuahua if it attacks me. I am concerned about dogs that can kill. And that list includes pit bulls. And for me this means when I am around that kind of animal I take as many precautions as I reasonably can, including thinking about what kind of barriers can I put between me/my family and that animal if things get out of control. I would do that for any potentially dangerous situation. ie think about how to mitigate or get out of situation should it turn ugly.

I don't think this means we should ban the breeding or owning these breeds, but I do think that if these or any dog is involved in inflicting significant harm on other animals or people, the owners should be charged with the most serious of the applicable criminal offenses, and if found guilty be dealt an equally serious sentence. I also think that these dogs show a history of progressive violence, they should be removed from their owners, evaluated by experts. The choices from there being rehabilitation, animal sanctuary situations, similar to PAWS does for large cats and Elephants, and as a last resort, destroyed humanely.

Going beyond those points

Do I think that Micheal Vick should be banned for life from playing football because of the dogfighting? No, but if he gambled or supported gambling on football, then he should be banned for life. Otherwise the league should fine/suspend what ever is deemed appropriate by the league and players union for behavior detrimental to the league. If no one wants to hire him afterwards so be it... but if someone does then its their risk both in PR and its impact on the team.

There are a lot of professional athletes out there that have done some pretty heinous acts, and I personally avoid watching them or supporting them. This is one reason I don't like the Lakers, or was not interested in the Baltimore Ravens. It was why I liked teams like the Patriots... I am less interested in the Kings because of Ron Artest. They just seem less appealing to me as an organization because they seem to be sacrificing the quality of the organization for the quantity of wins they can potentially get. If Ron can get his life straightened out, (I think its still possible he can) and he is still a part of the Kings, then I will be more interested and more supportive.

Just my few thoughts on the subject...
 
Back
Top