Pit Bulls should be banned in this country ! <<MOD WARNING - FOR RULE 9>>

Just imagine the sheer pain as those fangs sink through flesh and into bone. FFS who are these idiots who own such dogs! WTF have they got for a brain?

 

I do let kids play with and pet my dogs after warning them that the big one can un-intentionally push them or step on their feet because she is kind of clumsy. It's a big animal and as such it requires responsability. I know these dogs appreciate the attention of humans because they have been raised that way, as were all the other dogs I owned before, and that all came out of shelters. None of them ever bit a human, not even in self-defense. I own dogs for companionship, not defense or intimidation.

In fact, the small one requires more attention, for he can be quite the troublemaker.

 

The law blames both, the owner can be sued or brought up on charges, the dog on the other hand gets euthanized.

 

I don't have a pit but my daughter does and he is the sweetest most loving dog I have ever known which includes my own dogs. He and one of his offspring live in the home like one of the family and have never caused any problems except when a neighbor poisoned and killed 2 of her other dogs. I would agree with a law which states that if any domesticated animal attacks and harms a human unprovoked it should be put down. I have had a dog which reacted badly towards a child and I immediately put it down myself. But to make a law to exterminate all pit-bull breeds without regards to their temperament is just wrong.

 

Well, I guess it would be quite useless to euthanize the crime's weapons... Althought Israelis are being known for destroying the house of the families of terrorists... For the house's crime, I suppose.

As a society, we are sure getting weirder by the minute.

 

If you are careless or illegally use a gun, they will take it from you and probably any others you own.

 

And then what happens with these guns?

 

No kid can borrow my pistol for any use whatsoever. When it is not on my belt it is always in my line of sight and the only kid allowed in my house are the kids I have personally trained and in my family.

 

That's because you are a responsible gun owner. You know of the dangers that comes with owning a firearm and act accordingly.

 

No cat can be trusted. They do what they want to and have no master.

 

I also believe the vast majority of gun owners are just as responsible, it is the minority that get the publicity.

 

You are trying to cover up for faulty statistics with additional bad reasoning appeals to emotion instead of appeals to fact. All of your statistics are based on MEDIA COVERAGE. They don't prove that pit bulls are responsible for 70% of dog fatalities, only that in 70% of the news stories used by your source the media identified the dog as a pit. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if I look up what your other posts have to say about the veracity of the media, it isn't going to be complementary. Just a hunch. Also, that number is based on a total of 10 news stories. 10. Even if the media got all of the breed identification right (and, seeing as pit bulls are multiple breeds, not one, and identification often just means looking at the skull shape . . . no, the breed identification probably isn't right), more kids have died from finding their parents' gun. Hell, more have died from inhaling balloons. Shall we outlaw parents from owning guns or giving their kids a balloon?

 

Because we "idiots" are more aware of the facts. We aren't going to judge 99.9% of dogs based on what .1% of them do.

 

How many have had to have stitches or treated for infections due to dog bites. Far more than have been killed by pitbulls.
The pitbull is not on any list for dogs not to have around young children, 6 or under. The reason a death by any dog breed is news is because it is not common.

 

At first I thought you were being facetious but now I see your "morality" is truly turned around completely, not just halfway.

Animals are not not evil. They can act in no other way than their nature's allow and it is up to humans to either know their natures and so not allow them to be used in a foolish way or leave them alone. Would you extinct all lions and tigers because some have become man-eaters? Conversely, no one argues we should be able to keep one of the Great Cats as a conventional pet.

Pit Bulls are the distant descendants of the war dogs used by the Romans. We use them as guard animals and as long as they are used as such they are a useful and beneficial breed. They should NEVER be around children unless a qualified trainer is present and even then a leash is necessary and a muzzle recommended. They should also under NO circumstances EVER be allowed to run free or even put under circumstances where it is possible they will escape the area they are confined to. The best use for them is guarding estates and military bases in tandem with human guards

 

The problem with that 'fact', to start off with, is that most people don't actually know all the different dog breeds by sight very well, so misidentification of any powerful bull-type dog as a 'pit bull' is very common.

Secondly, if you look at the evidence of where this has been done, you'll find that it doesn't actually work. It doesn't reduce dog attacks or fatalities. It doesn't even end supposed 'pit bull attacks' - either by people ignoring the law or by simple public misidentification, they still get reported anyway. What it does do is demonise (and actually mistreat) many perfectly well behaved ordinary family pets, and leave those who are allowing their dogs to become dangerous (intentionally or otherwise) to simply do so with a different large and powerful breed (while making that particular breed more attractive to those who want to have a 'status symbol' of a 'vicious breed' and who are prepared to ignore the law).

It's like saying 'statistically, most car accidents are caused by people driving red Fords, so we'll just ban red Ford and let those drivers drive something else instead', and then expecting the roads to be safer. They won't be - you've targeted the wheels, not the operators who are the cause of the problems. Same with dogs - the problem isn't the breed at all - it's irresponsible ownership (deliberate or otherwise, and very often it's simply down to ignorance). What you are proposing is to target the wrong end of the leash, when all of the evidence already clearly shows that it won't do any good at all anyway.

If you want to solve the problem of dog attacks, you have to look at raising owner knowledge and responsibility standards through education.

 

No dog 'suddenly turns for no reason', as many are reported as doing (with the exception of something like a serious brain tumour, which is very rare). It doesn't happen. What happens all too often is that owners haven't taken the time to understand dog behaviour, and the warning signs that are being given off in advance of an incident. And since they don't understand such things, they probably don't understand what they did (both in the upbringing, training and socialisation of the dog, and in the allowing of it to be put in the circumstances where the attack occurred) to create the circumstances where it happened. In other words, the cause of the problem was owner ignorance, and the circumstances of the incident are being described according to owner ignorance. Of course, what inevitably then happens after such an incident is that the dog is destroyed as 'dangerous' without any proper behavioural assessment about why it did what it did, and nobody is any the wiser - it's just written off as it 'suddenly turning' or being 'a nasty dog' or whatever, and nothing changes (apart perhaps from another breed being given an entirely unjust reputation for just being 'nasty').

Such owner ignorance is extremely common - take a look around at the internet, and the 'cute' photos and videos of dogs being 'funny' when many are clearly showing signs of distress or being uncomfortable. How often have you heard 'aw...he looks guilty', as another example - no, he doesn't, you're just superimposing your own emotional ideas onto a different species that doesn't react in the same way (the chances are that 'guilty' is actually a misinterpretation of submission and fear signs, usually caused by the owner raising their voice to the dog in reaction to whatever they are supposedly 'feeling guilty' about - it's nothing whatsoever to do with the actual thing itself). And the most common cause of dog 'attacks' is 'fear aggression' - if you can't read the canine body language around 'fear' and similar issues, you're not understanding when a dog might just feel that it has no alternative to react - the fact that it seemed to 'just turn' is a matter of human ignorance and lack of perception, not a matter of canine behaviour at all.

Dogs do have different tendencies bred into them over thousands of generations for whatever role or purpose they've been bred. Every dog owner should take the time to understand those so that they can work with them, and should do their homework before they ever get a dog to see what breed best suits their own personality and lifestyle (in other words, which will be the easiest or most rewarding for them to work with). No dogs 'just turn', and no breeds are 'nasty', just as no breeds are somehow inherently 'nice' - it's all down to the owner understanding their responsibilities and how to fulfil them effectively to produce a well adjusted, well socialised pet that is then not placed in any situations where it isn't comfortable and feels that it has no alternative but to 'attack' (and that's another thing - a 'bite', even a 'serious one' in terms of its effects, isn't necessarily an 'attack', but it always gets described as such).

The real problem, as always, is at the other end of the leash.

 

I've owned and trained dogs for 40 years, and my father was a breeder. Currently I own a Golden Retriever and an Australian Shepherd and I can unequivocally state this thread is bullshit.


An agressive dog is agressive for two reasons: breading and environment. If a dog is inbred incorrectly or bred incorrectly for temperment then it may cause issues. Of course aggression can also be taught. These two things will apply to any breed most vicious breed I've seen are Dauchshunds, usually due to pain because of back issues.

Either way, it is a human problem.

 

Westies are probably the ones I've seen behaving aggressively most often, generally because owners think their cute little fluffies don't actually need to be trained or socialised properly because they're just so cute (despite the fact that they were, like all terriers, essentially bred to be pocked killing machines).

'Awww look...he thinks he's a rottweiler....how sweet'

 

Cocker Spaniels are one of a couple of breeds most likely to actually 'just turn' without warning, because of the possibility of their being affected with 'rage syndrome'.

They are certainly capable of killing a baby or small child, and a number babies and small children have been killed by similar sized dogs.

 

Not exactly. You can easily wring a Chihuahua's neck and drop kick it over a fence. A pitbull can tear your throat out unless you have a bat or gun and even that doesn't work so well if you miss. And good luck trying to control a pit bull's head when its neck muscles are stronger than your hands will ever be. Please don't speak out of naivete and googly eyes, because how many more reports about, "my dog was the sweetest thing until..." which begins EVERY SINGLE pitbull attack. ALL OF THEM!!! Some dogs are hardwired to kill and attack when they interpret a certain sound or see something running that looks like prey. It's in their genes deep down. Other dogs are hardwired to protect and nurture. Its in their blood. Any dog can shift on a dime, but not every dog is capable of killing you.

No matter how sweet a pitbull appears, you can never trust it. Its too powerful and its biology is designed specifically to crush and tear. Look at its jaw and head/body shape. That's not by ACCIDENT!!! That's nature. But you go a try to nurture the nature out of an animal. Good luck when it goes south.

My wire haired fox terrier(mostly, still a mutt with something else in her) LOOOOVES violently tearing the innards out of stuffed animals. She didn't learn that. I never taught her. I can imagine if she got a hold of something living. She is extremely sweet and obedient otherwise, but loves to pull and tear at small squeaky things that look/sound like they're in distress and she sounds as ferocious as a little 10 lb dog/wolf can sound when she's doing it. She hasn't treated a baby any differently than any human. Extremely gentle and licky. But little furry things...different story. Now if she weighed 50+lbs....HOLY ****! That would be quite scary....sort of like a pitbull.

 

Then why do the vast majority of them not hurt anyone? I keep asking this question, but you keep dodging.

 

Same. If you can't afford to provide dig/climb/jump proof fences to the entirety of your dog's area (which should be a minimum of an 8th of an acre, preferably more), you can't afford a dog.

 

It's just as important to contain your dogs when you live around farms and livestock.

 

It's really the ideal canine shape. Dogs of this shape usually have the least 'structural' and general health problems. It's also associated with high intelligence (Kelpies and other wild breed crossed dogs are super intelligent), and superior agility. IMO, it's also the most beautiful shape.