Gory, Gory, Gory

Parttimefarmer · #41 05/20/11, 09:24 AM

I have keep this link forever, it's getting old now though. We have had 2 American Bulldogs, people seem to think they are pitts. They were great dogs, and they were bred for boar hunting, not protection, but were great lazy house dogs. We currently have a coon hound, she's a great dog.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in514774.shtml

65284 · #42 05/20/11, 10:47 AM

If the figures given in the link are anywhere close to correct it's a serious indictment of
pit bulls, they are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the deaths and damage inflicted.

A report I read concerning breed specific legislation stated that pit bulls make up less than 7% of total dog numbers. Any reasonable, open minded person has to know a breed that's 7% of the total dog population but is doing 40% of the killing and 70% of the maiming and mauling is way out of proportion to its numbers and there is a problem with that breed.

These dogs were designed and selectively bred to fight, kill, and inflict maximum damage! With all of the available evidence that they are very dangerous animals why anyone would want to own them is a total mystery to me.

mekasmom · #43 05/20/11, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65284

This could just as easily have been a person, an elderly individual or a child would have had no chance at all. What in the world is wrong with people allowing vicious animals like this to roam at large, or even owing one?

I would stand and applaud you for this statement. I completely agree.

ChristieAcres · #44 05/20/11, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65284

If the figures given in the link are anywhere close to correct it's a serious indictment of
pit bulls, they are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the deaths and damage inflicted.

A report I read concerning breed specific legislation stated that pit bulls make up less than 7% of total dog numbers. Any reasonable, open minded person has to know a breed that's 7% of the total dog population but is doing 40% of the killing and 70% of the maiming and mauling is way out of proportion to its numbers and there is a problem with that breed.

These dogs were designed and selectively bred to fight, kill, and inflict maximum damage! With all of the available evidence that they are very dangerous animals why anyone would want to own them is a total mystery to me.

What you have written coincides with what I have also read. I find it interesting to read about so many people having been the victim of a Pit Bull attack, being the parent to a child who was attacked, and knowing others personally who have been attacked.

DH & I talked about our combined dog owning experience. Neither of us have ever had a dog guilty of an unprovoked attack. Sam warning that child, boy of 12, was the ONLY incident, which was provoked. I don't blame Sam. You don't hit any dog on the nose! He didn't leave a mark on that boy, but got his point across. How many dogs would have bit the kid? Most would have! We have had Goldens, Labs, a German Shepherd, and Sam, our Lab/Chesapeake mix. All great dogs!

HTG_zoo · #45 05/20/11, 02:47 PM

This is my last post in this thread because I find it incredibly offensive that I am lumped with criminals and unreasonable people who want dogs to scare people simply because of my choice in companion dogs. My dogs have never attacked nor aggressed at anyone, they don't run around the neighborhood terrorizing people, I'm not naive or in denial, I'm responsible with my dogs.

I don't believe that pitbulls make up only 7% of the canine population. That may be true of registries (AKC doesn't acknowledge pit bulls as a breed, but does recognize several breeds often mis-identified as pit bulls by many) You can't have your statistics both ways by the way. When counting breeds for dogs who bit some one, it seems any dog that looks anything like a pit bull is recorded as one. Meanwhile, only dogs registered as pure bred are counting in the breed population. A quick look at Petfinder shows a great many dogs who look like they could be pitbulls, if they were only 7% of the canine population, it would reason that they would represent a similar proportion in animal control or shelters. Most dogs in the US aren't registered anywhere, not even in their counties. Oftentimes, people with known pit bulls or pit bull mixes are encouraged to register them as lab or boxer mixes. These are some of the many factors leading to under-reporting of the true numbers of pit bulls out there doing nothing wrong at all.

Some other quick points, which you and google.

The CDC quit recording the breeds in dog attacks in 1998 because there was no strong correlation between breeds and bites.

This may be because when the CDC did look at the breeds involved in the 327 fatal dog attacks from 1979-1998, they had to use newspaper articles to identify breeds. So we're basing our idea of which breeds attacks on the unexpert opinions of the media and witnesses. It can be difficult to tell all the mixes apart. In fairness to calculate the percentage of pit bulls biting we should consider all mixes that look like pit bulls in the percentage of pit bulls of the general dog population. (I mean, if there is 1 registered pit bull and 8 registered boxer or lab mixes, all 9 of those dogs should go on the 'pit bull type dog' list).

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that pit bulls aren't any more dangerous then other dogs.

The pit bull ban in Ontario didn't reduce the number of dog bites there, after 2 years, they're up to the same levels of bites as they were before the ban!

We hear stories of things that are remarkable. You don't hear about the dogs who don't do anything wrong, you don't even want to. You also rarely hear the stories of other breeds who do bite and kill people as well. they just don't strike fear in your heart like the unproked fatal attack does. You also don't hear about the dogs left to roam, growling at the mail carriers, killing the neighbors pets before they attack a person, only afterwards. It seems to me that more responsibility all around would solve the problem much better then decreeing 1 type of dog bad and all the others fine. I don't believe that pit bulls are a dog for everyone. There's not a breed out there that is suitable for every home. Just as is it wrong of me to call everyone who fears or doesn't like pit bulls unreasonable and closed minded, it is unfair to label everyone who owns one as irresponsible, dangerous, criminal or unreasonable.

You see these dogs as something bred for killing, many breeds were bred for killing and they aren't now though. Just as most rat terriers aren't ratting, most pit bulls aren't fighting (or ratting which was their original function). Responsible people are breeding prey drive down in companion lines and up in working lines. Like most other dogs, most pit bulls litters weren't bred to do anything specific, other then make money. Once you take this breed away and eliminate it, those people who want to breed aggressive dogs for fighting or looking macho or just making money, will move on to whatever breed they can get (which would probably still be the pit bull, as criminals have no moral dilemmas over obtaining illegal goods). Meanwhile, those of us who enjoy an athletic companion who bonds more strongly with people then other dogs, will create a demand for ill bred puppies of other breeds. Once we're over run with them, we'll see them biting more people too and on and on it goes until there are 2 state approved dogs, black and brown, just sits there, doesn't bite anyone, but you're never sure if they've stopped breathing. Then we'll be safe from 'vicious' breeds.

In the spirit of the friendly neighborliness of this forum, I respectfully withdraw from this topic. I'm not asking anyone to like my dogs, but I would like to ask you to stop trying to take away my rights to choose my breeds and lumping me in with criminals and the like.

fantasymaker · #46 05/20/11, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MushCreek

People that own pit bulls, and other dangerous breeds often aren't aware that there pets exhibit different behavior when out of range of their owners, particularly when in a group. When something triggers a pack of dogs, not much will stop them short of killing them. Tests show that some individual dogs will continue to attack even when subjected to stun guns and mace.

Our neighbors in SC have several pit bulls that are pussycats, WHEN the owners are around. I don't like the way the dogs approach me over on our property, though. If I ever do something that sets them off, my only consolation is that I'll get my 15 minutes of fame. I do carry a side arm when working our property, but I doubt I could handle all 3 of them.

Lots of wisdom here! Dogs and tanagers are both sweet with their folks around in the light of day and scary as heck after dark with their friends to show off for.
Id Kill the neighbors dogs now while you can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirquack

I have owned many Rottweilers and hear the same types of complaints against them as a breed. After owning several for a combined 20 years, I have not received one complaint from anyone who lived near me, or encountered the dogs on the street. The only ones who complained were fear mongers who saw my dogs as threats only due to their breed, not due to the individual dogs. .

The greatest best trained dog Ive EVER seen was a rot. Unfortunately as he aged he took a couple of nips, We had to put him down after the second one. Probably should have before the first one. But Just as a human can age and not show good sense so can a dog,unfortunately the dog can still be physically dangerous.

ChristieAcres · #47 05/20/11, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HTG_zoo

This is my last post in this thread because I find it incredibly offensive that I am lumped with criminals and unreasonable people who want dogs to scare people simply because of my choice in companion dogs. My dogs have never attacked nor aggressed at anyone, they don't run around the neighborhood terrorizing people, I'm not naive or in denial, I'm responsible with my dogs.

I don't believe that pitbulls make up only 7% of the canine population. That may be true of registries (AKC doesn't acknowledge pit bulls as a breed, but does recognize several breeds often mis-identified as pit bulls by many) You can't have your statistics both ways by the way. When counting breeds for dogs who bit some one, it seems any dog that looks anything like a pit bull is recorded as one. Meanwhile, only dogs registered as pure bred are counting in the breed population. A quick look at Petfinder shows a great many dogs who look like they could be pitbulls, if they were only 7% of the canine population, it would reason that they would represent a similar proportion in animal control or shelters. Most dogs in the US aren't registered anywhere, not even in their counties. Oftentimes, people with known pit bulls or pit bull mixes are encouraged to register them as lab or boxer mixes. These are some of the many factors leading to under-reporting of the true numbers of pit bulls out there doing nothing wrong at all.

Some other quick points, which you and google.

The CDC quit recording the breeds in dog attacks in 1998 because there was no strong correlation between breeds and bites.

This may be because when the CDC did look at the breeds involved in the 327 fatal dog attacks from 1979-1998, they had to use newspaper articles to identify breeds. So we're basing our idea of which breeds attacks on the unexpert opinions of the media and witnesses. It can be difficult to tell all the mixes apart. In fairness to calculate the percentage of pit bulls biting we should consider all mixes that look like pit bulls in the percentage of pit bulls of the general dog population. (I mean, if there is 1 registered pit bull and 8 registered boxer or lab mixes, all 9 of those dogs should go on the 'pit bull type dog' list).

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that pit bulls aren't any more dangerous then other dogs.

The pit bull ban in Ontario didn't reduce the number of dog bites there, after 2 years, they're up to the same levels of bites as they were before the ban!

We hear stories of things that are remarkable. You don't hear about the dogs who don't do anything wrong, you don't even want to. You also rarely hear the stories of other breeds who do bite and kill people as well. they just don't strike fear in your heart like the unproked fatal attack does. You also don't hear about the dogs left to roam, growling at the mail carriers, killing the neighbors pets before they attack a person, only afterwards. It seems to me that more responsibility all around would solve the problem much better then decreeing 1 type of dog bad and all the others fine. I don't believe that pit bulls are a dog for everyone. There's not a breed out there that is suitable for every home. Just as is it wrong of me to call everyone who fears or doesn't like pit bulls unreasonable and closed minded, it is unfair to label everyone who owns one as irresponsible, dangerous, criminal or unreasonable.

You see these dogs as something bred for killing, many breeds were bred for killing and they aren't now though. Just as most rat terriers aren't ratting, most pit bulls aren't fighting (or ratting which was their original function). Responsible people are breeding prey drive down in companion lines and up in working lines. Like most other dogs, most pit bulls litters weren't bred to do anything specific, other then make money. Once you take this breed away and eliminate it, those people who want to breed aggressive dogs for fighting or looking macho or just making money, will move on to whatever breed they can get (which would probably still be the pit bull, as criminals have no moral dilemmas over obtaining illegal goods). Meanwhile, those of us who enjoy an athletic companion who bonds more strongly with people then other dogs, will create a demand for ill bred puppies of other breeds. Once we're over run with them, we'll see them biting more people too and on and on it goes until there are 2 state approved dogs, black and brown, just sits there, doesn't bite anyone, but you're never sure if they've stopped breathing. Then we'll be safe from 'vicious' breeds.

In the spirit of the friendly neighborliness of this forum, I respectfully withdraw from this topic. I'm not asking anyone to like my dogs, but I would like to ask you to stop trying to take away my rights to choose my breeds and lumping me in with criminals and the like.

I think you have a right to have any dog you choose, and be 100% responsible for that choice, which sounds like you are. Unfortunately, I believe you are in the minority. Rather than take this personally, just accept MOST PEOPLE are scared of your dogs. That is a simple fact. It won't change except for the worse as the breed is further messed with.

As for statistics? How about knowing Pit Bull owners, like I do, seeing their track records (pure breeds, not mixes). There are plenty on here, who have cited firsthand incidents, not just about reading the stories. Also, having asked all the owners I have known why they own these dogs and 100% of them cited safety in the guise of them invoking fear from most people. Some of them trained their dogs to be incredibly vicious. That would never be the reason I would own a dog! The Pit Bull owners have to go to great lengths to secure their dogs, so they cannot roam, and muzzle them in public (here you have to). That wouldn't be fun for the owners or the dogs!

I will never own a dog people are scared of on sight. That is my opinion. I have opted to own only dogs that fit my criteria and don't scare people. Of course, I'd be foolish indeed to buy a breed that scared people, and then expect to not fence the dog, bring him out in public so much (like WE DO), take him hiking, camping, in our vehicles, and even on our boat with us. Sam isn't fenced in! Also, Sam doesn't leave our property. Even though he has chosen to be a guard dog, we only wanted him to be a good watchdog. We want to protect HIM. He wasn't chosen to be a LGD, since he isn't. The fact he has the heart of a lion scares me a bit (he will take on anything to protect us, our critters, or himself). When my friend brought over her 120# black German Shepherd, Sam showed him very quickly whose turf it was, playing a little rougher with him. That big dog loved the rough play, since most dogs are scared of him. They didn't hurt each other, but sure wore each other out! This 120# G S? He IS a LGD and trained for that. My friend can hardly take him anywhere (people are scared of him). He is a real sweet dog, also thinks he is a big puppy, but he would rip anything and any one apart who threatened his owners. I once saw this dog go into protect mode and it was scary!

I know of folks who have LGD's with great track records and completely understand their reasoning, too. They are fenced in, aren't taken out in public, most aren't taken out on hikes, camping, etc... Their job is to guard the property, critters, and their owners.

kjmatson · #48 05/20/11, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMD_KS

One shows up on my property, it's SSS.

MARYDVM · #49 05/21/11, 12:47 AM

In Tucson, the most common dog breeds are Pit Bull, Chihuahua, Chow (and mixes of those breeds). Of the three, I much prefer to work on pits. The majority of them that come to my clinic are easy going, happy, friendly, and so stoic that they rarely object to blood draws or other painful procedures. We patched up a young pit bull with a badly fractured leg today. As we carefully eased her down on the table for x-rays, she was wagging her tail and trying to lick our faces. This is typical of what I see. There are unstable pit bulls out there, and owners who raise dangerous dogs, but most pits are not like that.

I often work on difficult dogs, with a capable owner's assistance, but occasionally I come across a dog that is such a menace to the public that I actually mention euthanasia to the owner. Of the three currently in my practice, one is a wolf hybrid, one is a Rottweiler, and one is a Lab Shepherd cross. None of these dogs are typical of their "breed", they are simply mentally unstable, dangerous individuals. All are owned by people unwilling to recognize the risk they are taking in keeping such an animal.

DryHeat · #50 05/21/11, 02:10 AM

I don't have any important direct experience either way with pit bulls, but have been an owner of a couple of medium-sized pooches over the last twenty years. Reading over this thread, one point did register to me: some insurance costs more if you own dogs of certain breeds, including pits. Insurance companies have access to a lot of data, have employees and agents collecting information about important issues, AND don't like to lose income by needlessly pricing customers out of their products, right? It seems clear to me that the combination of physical power of certain breeds, possible genetic attack behavior, possibility of inadequate training and control by owners, plus occasional random "bad luck" (parallel to a car owner having a tire with good tread blow out and cause a bad wreck), combine to make pits and some other breeds (like chows, I would say) a statistically bad, bad risk.

I'd think it would be a reasonable "experiment" for some localities to try to require much heavier insurance, or posting of a performance bond, on the part of anyone owning these apparently dangerous breeds. Failure to insure and/or control could become more quickly expensive, and then criminal, for a limited list and apparent crosses, than for breeds with lesser risks. Admire pit bulls and want to keep some rather than labs and shepherds and whatever, fine, but you have to have financial means to back your judgment and intentions, parallel thinking to licensing car drivers, doing safety inspections, and putting people with DUI convictions in the slammer. But, bigger guvment, yeh, <sigh.> How to deal with mixed breeds, how to define "enough" pit blood to put a given pooch in that class, might well be so difficult and ambiguous that such thinking would be doomed from the start. Just thinking out loud.

ChristieAcres · #51 05/21/11, 03:33 AM

http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/01/201...tatistics.html

According to the stats of 2010, Pit Bulls are 5% of the US dog population. Also, as you read, you find that Pit Bulls scored 67% of dog attacks. Also, in 5 years, Pit Bulls killed an American every 21 days. In CA, 83% of the fatalities were caused by Pit Bulls. Of these, some were the dog's owners.

On another site, this information:

In 2011, statistics to March: 8 fatalities, of them, Pit Bulls once again earned the top spot, killing 5. Rottweilers came in 2nd with 2. An Akita killed the 8th victim. Again a few of the deceased owned the dogs who killed them.

http://dogs.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Dog_Most_Likely_to_Bite

Which dog breed is most likely to bite? According to above Site, a study done by Animal People editor, Merritt Clinton... US Stats 1982 to 2009, 1,451 attacks, and of those, 65% was the score of the worst offender. Take a wild guess...?! Yes, Pit Bulls secured another top spot.

There aren't any competitors for this TOP SPOT Pit Bulls have earned.

Doesn't matter who wants to defend the breed, the statistics don't lie. They can be great dogs, just wonderful, but you don't want to be near them when they suddenly "aren't." Interesting that time and time again, the owners of the Pit Bulls claimed how nice they were, sweet, gentle, never a sign of any aggression, before the day their dogs "snapped." I don't believe for a moment all these dog owners were irresponsible. It is my belief likely more than half of the dog owners, never thought their Pit Bulls would ever bite, much less kill someone, and would never turn on them.

You can do searches all you want and the stories are gruesome. This appears to be a breed that is great or horrific. You can keep it!

DH & I would never ever discriminate. Any dog, of any breed, that is a threat to our livestock, our dog, or ourselves? Dispatched without hesitation.

TedH71 · #52 05/22/11, 04:12 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and ask how many people have actually bought a purebred, registered pit bull (american staffordshire or pit bull...basically they're the same breed just that the breed registries ban a certain color here and there (AKC in particular)) and raised the said pup to the age of complete maturity which is 2 years as a general rule and trained the pup. I bet not many. I have. I also have them as working dogs catching wild hogs in the past. Only concern I have with pits is that they can be dog aggressive so I generally buy from breeders who breed pits with little or no dog aggressiveness. It's been done and the pit that is left over is the same dog as if the dog was dog aggressive.