http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2013/03/opponents_of_breed_specific_le.html As the above article mentions, certain areas of the U.S. are considering breed-specific legislation (BSL) which places certain breeds or mixes of these breeds under required spaying/neutering, muzzling, special insurance, and licensing. Although Lansing, Michigan, may not be adopting BSL soon, many other areas in the country already have. In fact, over 600 cities have enacted such laws (http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-state-by-state.php). To introduce myself, I grew up in suburban New Jersey, surrounded by different types of dogs. I am currently a first year undergrad Pre-Vet major at Penn State. In the future, I hope to attend vet school and focus on small animals. Considering my career path, I obviously have a love for animals, but dogs are definitely my specialty. Growing up, my dad taught me that "there's no such thing as bad dogs, only bad owners." Additionally, my relatives in California own a pit bull, and she is one of the gentlest dogs I have encountered. The combination of these two aspects have molded my belief that BSL is ineffective and unfair. What are your views on BSL? Should more areas adopt these laws? Are such laws effective?
No, is the short answer, they are not effective. We've seen the result of this under the 'Dangerous Dogs Act' in the UK since 1991, and it's had no effect at all on reducing dog attacks. Worse, it 'demonizes' the specified breeds, and makes them more attractive to exactly the kind of people who should not own any kind of dog. Pretty much every dog group in the UK, even those originally involved in helping to draw up the scheme, is now firmly opposed to it. It was a knee-jerk reaction to sensationalist media reporting of dog attacks, and was drawn up in haste, and without proper consultation with all of the important groups who should have been involved. The idea of some breeds being 'bad' is a myth, and an extremely dangerous one. It creates an effective myth that other breeds are therefore 'good', and don't require proper training, socialisation, and so on. On top of that there is the issue of breed identification. In practise how that works under the UK system is that a dog's physical characteristics (irrespective of behaviour or temperament) are examined on a points-based system, and if it meets enough of the criteria (2/3rds of them, I think) the dog is legally declared as a 'pit bull type', legally condemned as 'bad' and 'evil' (even if it has never shown any indication of behavioural problems), and put to death. Even if it survives that process and is declared 'good' again, it has usually been held in police kennels for many months during the process, and often so traumatised by the experience that there is no alternative but euthanasia anyway. This is an issue I've spent a great deal of time and effort discussing and campaigning about over the years (in fact, it's how I ended up discussing things on internet forums in the first place! BSL is illogical, ineffective, and actually counter-productive. It targets the wrong end of the lead entirely, and is based solely on ignorance and bigotry. This is one of the campaign organisations about the issue in the UK: http://www.deednotbreed.org.uk/ There are also people proposing positive alternatives to reducing the problems of irresponsible dog ownership and dog attacks. This is one that I discussed at great length with the author before and since he formalised it into a proposal, and although it does have a few flaws here and there in my opinion, it is certainly based on much more sound and logical principles than BSL (essentially the basic idea, which I fully support, is to have mandatory basic education for all dog owners, similar to the kind of 'theory tests' which car drivers have to take in many countries, so that all dog owners understand their basic responsibilities (to their dog and to society), how to carry them out, and so on): http://www.dogownershiptest.co.uk/ BSL is no more sound or logical in principle than dealing with an issue like international terrorism by immediately putting to death anyone and everyone who looks 2/3rds like they might be some kind of Arab (irrespective of behaviour, religion, background, or even actual genetic descent!)! It is simple bigotry, with no basis in evidence, logic or common sense - nothing more. It fails dogs, fails dog owners, and fails the public by failing to even begin to reduce the problem of dog attacks.
breed specific laws work...those who oppose them play with stats to protect the dangerous breeds...any dog bite is considered an attack, but there is a world of difference between being bitten by a toy poodle and a pitbull...the strength/aggressive nature of a pitbull makes it dangerous, they're breed to be determined fighters and if the intended victim happens to be another dog or person the damage is horrific, whereas the injuries from toy poodle attack will be very minor...and the stats are very clear on the danger of pitbulls, a not particulary popular dog is responsible ... from 1982 to 2012 Pittbulls which make up only 4.4% of the dog population and pitbull mixes were responsible in the USA for 316 human fatalities all other breeds combined totaled 110 deaths[/U]... ...nearly 75% of all fatalities are caused by just over 4% of the dog population, pitbulls...that's a statistical fact that cannot be explained away by "bad owners"... and in regards to "bad" owners, 99.99% have no clue as to how to train a dog, give those 99.99% a pitbull and you have idiots playing with a live hand grenade that may or may not go off...a grumpy poodle results in a nip or bite, a grumpy pit and you end up with major carnage...the only difference between good and bad owners is the good owners are lucky...
No, BSL does NOT work. It has done nothing to reduce attacks in the UK since 1991, and in fact they have increased. It's done nothing to reduce fatal dog attacks either, and has even done little to reduce attacks by 'pit bull types' - all it has achieved is to make 'pit bulls' so much more attractive to that element in society who want a 'hard' dog, and who should never have any kind of dog at all, and don't give a hoot for what the law says. That is one reason why the seem disproportionately represented in the statistics - the myth of 'bad breeds' and 'good breeds' needs to be broken down for that reason. Another reason, of course, is that of simple mis-identification - most people (including police officers) have no idea what a 'pit bull' actually is or looks like, but assume that a large and/or powerful dog (unless it is a very commonly known and easily recognisable breed) that has attacked someone must be 'one of them pitbull things' because they are the ones that are 'nasty' - another myth perpetuated and increased by the ignorance of BSL: http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html BSL, with its illogical assumption that some breeds are 'bad' and some breeds are 'good' also means that people who are walking any dog that can potentially be mistaken for a 'pitbull', or any other breed that gets commonly abused as a 'devil dog' by the media, can actually subject to abuse in the street for daring to own 'one of them nasty dogs', even if they are perfectly well trained, socialised and adjusted family pets with no behavioural problems at all (oh, but 'they can just turn' - apart from a rare health issue like a brain tumour, which could be suffered by any dog, that is just completely untrue - if someone thinks that a dog has 'just turned', they just didn't understand the dog and its behaviour!). Perpetuating that kind of bigotry is never a good thing, and it's even worse if it's being done by actual legislation. A 'pit bull' is not the only kind of dog that can inflict significant damage - ANY large and/or powerful breed can be every bit as 'dangerous'. A toy poodle may not inflict damage as serious as a 'pit bull', although it is certainly quite capable of significantly injuring or even killing a small child, but a Rottie, or a GSD, or a Newfoundland, or a Bernese, or an Irish Wolfhound, or a Ridgeback, or even a large Golden Retriever, etc., etc., etc., certainly can. The idea that 'pit bull types' are 'dangerous' and every other breed is therefore 'safe' is complete nonsense, and has no basis in fact or logic whatsoever. As for people not knowing understanding their responsibilities as owners in training and socialisation and so on, while I would not put the figure as high as 99.99%, I would certainly agree that that is not only A problem, but actually THE problem. It is that ignorance that needs to be targeted, not any particular breed. An idiot, or wilfully dangerous, owner is just as much of a danger if they have a GSD, Rottie, or whatever other large/powerful dog in their possession as if they had a 'pitbull type'. In fact, some of the most dangerous dogs to children are terriers, because many terrier owners don't understand what a terrier actually is, and what it has been bread and created to do. What is needed is a way of keeping stopping people getting any dog until they have proven that they have a basic knowledge of their responsibilities as owners and how to carry them out, along with a method of ensuring responsible dog breeding standards. Should we abandon car driving licences? Should we stop making people learn how to drive before they can go out, get a car, and drive it around however they want? If someone has an accident, is it usually the car's fault? If car accident statistics showed that the worst cars for accidents were red cars, would it be sensible or reasonable to just ban red cars, leaving their drivers to just go out and drive something else instead (still without ever having to prove any prior knowledge of their responsibilities as drivers)? Would that make the roads safer? Of course not - it doesn't make any kind of sense. Neither does BSL, for exactly the same reasons.
dog bites stats are irrelevant if they do not include the type of dog...that pit-bull bites don't decrease in spite of the bans indicate the ban isn't enforced not that it can't work, if the dog doesn't exist it cannot bite... and you can't defeat the fatality statistics and attack statistics by identification errors, fatalities and attacks are reported by police and the animal is identified...the US dog stats are accurate, pitbulls and pitx's are definitively the most dangerous dog far out line with their low popularity...whereas for the most popular dog in the UK, USA and Canada the Labrador Retriever I can only find one human death since 1988...so the most popular dog in the USA has one death, the other which is 68th most popular accounts for more human deaths than all other dogs combined...poodles, ya go find me the list of human fatalities by poodles... the fighting breeds are lethal, and often people do not know if they have a killer until it kills, "I don't know what got into he's never attacked anyone before" with a poodle it's annoying with a pitt it's some kids's face torn of if lucky, dead if not...it's in their nature no amount of training takes that lethality out of the dog...no more than I can eliminate my BC's herding instincts sheep, kids, cats, rabbits and squirrels he was born that way, it's in his nature, but he never bites just herds... I found this on another forum I thought it was well stated.. " ." no amount of debate can overcome the stats on fatal attacks by pits...
The fact that they are reported to the police does NOT mean that the identification is accurate at all. The police can mis-identify just as well as the public - this has been proven in places where BSL exists and the police have removed dogs that they have mis-identified as pitbulls. Just because the police say something does not automatically make it so. There is one glaringly obvious flaw in that reasoning. Fighting dogs were bred to be aggressive towards other dogs, and specifically NOT to be aggressive towards humans - a fighting dog is no use if it attacks the audience, or its owner/handler! Of course, such breeds do have have the ability to be aggressive if not properly trained, as do many other breeds that were bred for hunting, pest control, and so on (and to some extent all other dogs too!) - that is why the important thing is to focus on the other end of the lead, and making sure that NO dog ends up in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to train it, doesn't understand the specific possible traits and tendencies of the breed, and so on. There is nothing more dangerous and counter-productive than telling people, legally, that some dogs are 'dangerous', and other dogs are therefore 'safe' - that only encourages the idea that people don't need to train dogs to make them into 'suitable pets' that won't attack them. And then, of course, there is the behavioural issue of what constitutes an 'attack' (and normally any bite gets described as an 'attack'), and what causes a dog to bite a human (or other dog, for that matter). The idea that dogs bite just because they are 'nasty' and 'aggressive' dogs by nature is simply nonsense. Dogs are simply not capable of 'malice' - they don't go around just wanting deliberately to be 'nasty'. There are all kinds of reason why a person might get bitten by a dog, the most common probably being 'fear aggression', and absolutely any dog is capable of that if it has been brought up to be afraid (which can very easily be achieved by an ignorant owner). For example, when we see reports of a tragic case of a small child being seriously injured, or worse, by a 'family pet', why is the question being asked usually 'was it one of those 'nasty' dogs?' instead of 'why was a young child left alone and unsupervised with a dog?'. ALL dog owners should be aware of the danger of doing that with ANY dog, but sadly so many obviously aren't. There can be a number of factors involved in such an incident, but usually the exact circumstances of what happened are unknown (because the child was unsupervised) and the background factors remain uninvestigated (because the dog is killed before any behavioural analysis can be carried out), and nobody points out the 'elephant in the room', that it was totally irresponsible of the owner/parent to leave the dog and child in that situation. It doesn't make any sense - educating people is what will make a real difference, not just trying to get rid of a certain section of the canine world. Yet another clear case of owner ignorance. Dogs do not suddenly 'turn', or 'attack' for no reason. All that means is that the owner has failed completely to understand their dogs behaviour, read and understand the signs of potential behavioural issues that they should be aware of, and has put them in a situation where the dog feels that biting is its best option to change its circumstances at the time. Yes, you do have to work with the instincts of a dog in training, but no dog has some kind of simplistic 'instinct to kill' - fighting dogs have to be trained to fight, and brought up in a fearful environment where they learn that they need to attack something before it attacks them. They can also be trained and socialised so that they aren't fearful, and haven't learned that they need to attack first to avoid getting attacked themselves. There is no breed that cannot make a perfectly suitable loving family pet in the hands of a responsible and appropriately knowledgeable owner. There are some which are somewhat more challenging to work with in some ways than others, fair enough, and they aren't breeds I'd recommend to a 'beginner', but that again is the point of educating potential owners - so that they understand which breeds are best for them, and which are something better suited to someone with more experience. I wouldn't necessarily put all of the supposed 'fighting dogs' in that category anyway - a staffie, for example, can make an excellent first family dog, and I'd be far, far more concerned about a first time owner trying to take on something like a chow, or a GSD, or even a farm-reared, working-stock collie.
Cenydd, you seem to be approaching this with more of an emotional base, while Wyly, you seem to have a much for analytical and statistical approach. Do either of you think there could be a balance between the two, some type of compromise? Cenydd, you have suggested educational programs, like driving tests. Personally, I think this would work exceptionally well. If owners were forced to know more about the breed of dog they own, perhaps accountability and responsibility would increase. Then again, those who employ breeds like pit bulls for dog fighting might ignore these rules anyway, just as they might ignore BSL. That said, I was wondering what your views on this was, Wyly. You posted that "if the dog doesn't exist it cannot bite..." when in fact, breed-specific laws do not necessarily ban "dangerous" dogs, but actually place other regulations on them. Do you think these types of regulations should continue or that these breeds should be eradicated completely? Finally, I was wondering if either of you have interacted with any pit bulls, to be specific, or have had any other personal experiences that could have affected your perspectives. Do you see yourselves shifting your views if only slightly after these few posts on the thread? Thank you!
I'm not approaching it from an emotional base at all, but from an entirely logical one. BSL is based on a logical fallacy - that some breeds are 'bad' and 'evil, and other breeds are 'good' and 'nice'. That is simply untrue, and the 'logic' of BSL relies entirely on that simple untruth. The simplistic statistical approach to support BSL doesn't hold water, because it looks only at a particular set of raw statistics at face value, without taking into account other factors that have an effect on them. There are 'compromise' positions available when it comes to how to deal with the issues of dog attacks and irresponsible dog ownership generally, of course, but BSL isn't one of them. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't work, and those advocating it are entirely barking up the wrong tree, so to speak! There will always be an element in society that attempts to ignore the law. That isn't a valid reason for not having laws. The laws themselves, though, should be logical and sensible, and enforceable in a sensible and logical way. BSL is not, because it relies on an assessment of physical characteristics in order to determine a supposed behavioural issue, which has no basis in logic, and makes any enforcement both highly subjective and highly complicated. On the other hand, having a 'driving licence' type of solution does mean that there can be systems where people have to produce their licence on request, can have 'points' on their licence, ownership bans, and so on - although it cannot claim to be so perfect that nobody will ever break the rules (no law is), it is certainly a well-proven legal format that is almost universally accepted as a generally workable solution. I am a dog owner. I have never owned a pitbull, or any kind of dog that is (to the best of my knowledge) on a BSL 'banned' list. I have (some years ago) owned a labrador/staff cross that could possibly have been said to exhibit some of the physical characteristics of a 'pit bull type' under UK law (as a result of that particular breed mix combining the physical characteristics from both parents), although I doubt it would have been anywhere close to having enough of them to be in trouble - it does highlight to an extent how utterly ludicrous the nature of the 'pit bull type' ban is. Although it's over 20 years since BSL came into force in the UK, so I obviously haven't seen a 'pitbull' for a while, I have certainly known a number of examples of other breeds that are regularly talked about as being ones that might also get added to the banned lists (rotties, various types of mastiff, etc.). I have known behaviourally 'good' and 'bad' examples of a few of those, and behaviourally 'good' and 'bad' examples of other types of dog (including, but not limited to, other large and powerful breeds) - the difference between them in terms of their behaviour and whether I would consider them to be potentially 'dangerous' in some way has always been the owner, not the breed. I have also had contacts with a number of dog trainers and behaviourists of various kinds over the years - notably, not a single one of them in my experience has a single good word to say about BSL. The people who actually know dogs and dog behaviour seem to reject the whole concept of it completely (whether or not they support the kind of licence measure that I do). Animal and dog charities and organisations, even those who were consulted when the UK's legislation was drawn up 20 years ago, are lining up to call for an end to BSL: The RSPCA (the UK's largest animal charity), for example, says this: The National Dog Warden Association says this: The Kennel Club say this: The people who work with dogs, professionally train dogs, breed dogs, know about and understand dogs, and actually have to deal with the current legislation, are falling over themselves to say that it is both completely wrong AND completely ineffective. Pretty much all of them. Personally, I reckon that is pretty significant! Finally, from a personal perspective, I am someone who grew up being terrified of dogs - I understand what it is to be frozen with fear at the mere site of a dog, or driven to run from a dog that then chases, and I understand why some people fear dogs as they do (and most of it is down to a lack of understanding of dogs and their behaviour - I would also like to see some very basic information on that to be distributed to non-dog owners and their children - ignorance always breeds fear, and fear breeds knee-jerk reactions like BSL). I am also a parent - I want my children protected from the danger of being attacked by a dog in the best possible way, and I know that BSL not only completely fails to do that in itself, but completely fails to help address the real problem - that of irresponsible dog owners. I want the law to help in a practical way to protect my children from attack from a GSD or a Retriever as much as from a 'pitbull type'. I don't want to see any dogs in the hands of irresponsible owners, and I certainly don't want to see wilfully dangerously irresponsible owners encouraged to try to get hold of certain powerful breeds because they are told they are 'dangerous dogs' (which is exactly what they want) - to me that just doesn't make any kind of sense at all. In my case, although I always listen to arguments on both sides of any discussion, I've been discussing this issue for a very long time, in great detail, and with people who have a huge amount of expertise in dog training, behaviour, etc.. Realistically, unless there is some compelling new evidence that changes completely what we believe about how dogs minds and behaviour work, I'm very unlikely now to change my basic views on BSL, or on what the real problem that it is failing to address actually is, and certainly not on the basis of flawed arguments that I have seen so many times before.
in fact a breed specific ban does exist in Ontario, all pit breeds were prohibited as of August 2005, existing dogs were grandfathered but required to be sterilized, muzzled and leashed at all times when of the owners premises... "The amendments will prohibit anyone from owning, breeding, transferring, importing, fighting or abandoning pit bulls in Ontario. The definition of a pit bull under the Act includes: pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, American pit bull terrier or a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to any of the aforementioned dogs. I've owned dogs my entire life, I've also been the victim of an unprovoked attack(not a pit)...there lots of incredible dog breeds available that are not a bomb waiting to explode...other than the "tough macho" that seems to attract pit owners these dog has no redeeming qualities that cannot be found in much safer choices...it's no accident Labrador retrievers are the most popular breed and have been for many years, the danger there is getting licked to death...I tire of hearing from pit owners every time a person has been hospitalized by a pit that it was the owners fault, no it's the dog, it's in their genetic makeup...invariably when you hear someone has been seriously maimed or killed it's the same breeds but it's never a Labrador or Poodle doing the damage... would I change my views, no the statistics are definitive these are dogs no one needs to own... http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-dog-attacks-and-maimings-merritt-clifton.php Over 30 countries across the world regulate dangerous dog breeds with breed-specific laws including: France, Norway, Spain, Portugal and Great Britain.
virtually every dog is gentle with it's owners until it's triggered, what that trigger is unknown to the owner until it attacks and with Pit's that attack will generally be serious news event...pit bulls because of their breeding are particularly dangerous should something trigger an attack response...as their attack statistic show they have trigger point is reached much sooner than with other dogs, even other known aggressive breeds...and you can't pin it on owners because the other breeds have equally incompetent owners but much fewer aggression problems/consequences...
selective breeding of animals has been used for centuries to develop certain abilities and characteristics. dogs bred for aggression and fighting are aggressive. no surprise there
when there is an dog attack it's just not police that are involved animal control experts are involved...here any attack by a dog is thoroughly investigated by police, dog control/behaviour experts, veterinary experts there are no mistakes in identification... the obvious glaring flaw in your argument is the attack statistics show very clearly you are wrong, those fighting dogs are targeting people more than other breeds...agressive dogs come in two forms, people aggressive and dog aggressive, very rarely both, I picked that info up from our city dog control officers... there is no way to prevent idiots from owning dangerous breeds and expert dog handlers/trainers are only as capable as they believe themselves to be...my dog was enrolled in a dog agility school run by an "expert" dog trainer but that expert trainer was unable to prevent a dog aggressive rottweiler-X in his control ripping into my passive BC, my BC ended up having emergency surgery to repair the wounds a $1,000 cost...until an attack occurs a owner or trainer will not be aware if the dog is aggressive or not... 99% of owners are ignorant...maybe we should allow people to walk lions and tigers on leash, they don't have any malice either they only do what lions and tigers do, if that's mauling and eating the neighbours well it's not their fault it's the owner, but most jurisdictions do not allow lions and tigers as pets cat lovers are restricted to house cats... there have been a number of incidents in my city where pit's attacked people who were not a threat to them the dogs went out their way to attack them, that's not fear aggression that's just plain aggression.... what doesn't make any sense is why anyone with children would own a dangerous animal, there was a recent pit attack in my city where the child was attack while in the same room as his parents, with a dog that he played many times, the attack was totally unprovoked the boy had his cheek torn off, the father surrendered the dog to animal control authorities to be put down...it doesn't matter if parents are present or not they will not be able to intervene in time... ya they do, as in the example of my dog being attacked, my dog was leashed and laying quietly at my daughters feet when the leashed Rottweiler-X dragged the "expert" dog handler 5 meters to tear into my BC, the handler and the owner were unable to get the the Rot-X to let go of my dog, only my foot breaking his ribs persuaded him(a lifetime of soccer paid off)to let go...then there was my own bite experience, again unprovoked, myself walking down a road passing a owner and his dog who thought it was great time to chomp into my leg... agree with much of that, I research carefully when I buy a dog, I check out behaviour characteristics of the breed and ruled out all large guard dog breeds, they're breed to be aggressive/possessive, all fighting breeds, all working dogs like huskies/ akitas the people they originally breed them never intended them to be pets why do other people think they can change their behaviour.... my farm reared collie's behaviour came as predicted... very shy around strangers, herds everything that moves and nippers rather than a biters..
that would seem obvious behaviour is genetics...I've been a dog owner my entire life but I'm not blinded by my affection for dogs to pass the blame for their misbehavior to the owners...
I owned a bouvier de flanders and believe me, genetics had one hell of a lot to do with how she behaved.
my uncle in europe was in military security and he trained Bouvier's for the job, they have potential to be a very dangerous beast yet I haven't heard of one involved in attacks on people....which says something about Pit's, dogs breed for aggression toward other dogs attacking people, while a much larger Bouvier used for security with people does not share the Pit's reputation for fatal attacks on people... still for peace of mind I wouldn't have one around children ...
oh they will attack, but only strangers that cross an unseen boundary line around the owners property. my brother and I each had one in the same house and they were fearsome to anyone that inadvertently crossed that line. they wouldn't kill however, they just clamped down and held the trespasser until they were instructed to release. they did all this without training. we saw them naturally herd cattle and pull carts as well. incredible as we never trained them for any of it.
well there you go, that reflects my experiences as well, when I got my latest dog the Border Collie I was aware of their use as a herding dog but had no idea so much of that ability came breed into the dog, all that is required is to teach it commands giving it direction and they're so intelligent teaching them anything is very easy....just as well a large powerful breed like the Bouvier wasn't breed to have the Pit's instinct to kill and maim... denials that pit's are always provoked or misunderstood is BS, they've been bred to be dog aggressive, and claims that they've been bred specifically not to be human aggressive is also BS, all dogs in general have all been bred not to be human aggressive...but dogs still being wolves are territorial and will defend their home and pack/family... reading today's local newspaper there was an article about a dog owner complaining about her neighbours pit having twice attacked her collie/lab, both attacks were unprovoked...the pit owner has been fined once already for not controlling her dog and injuring another dog and a 2nd incident is being investigated...the owner of the collie/lab is incensed the court will not release the name of the Pit owner so she can sue for damages, $1K in vet bills... http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/c...les+shield+owner+dangerous/8092988/story.html http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Disfigured+victim+bull+attack+sues+owners/7842014/story.html http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports...er+bull+attack+quarantined/7836017/story.html http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/R...lls+fires+dangerous+debate/7786821/story.html http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Update+Owner+charged+after+bull+bites+girl+face/7607842/story.html http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=09147645-b109-424b-a4fe-ce9e5fc8bded http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...pitbull-owners-and-their-predictable-denials/ it's become routine here if there is a severe dog attack it's a Pit, the exception is when they're not involved...
and THAT is what I find to be so nonsensical. of course they are bred to be aggressive. each breed has its characteristics depending what they were bred for. my bouviers were bred for cart hauling, cattle herding and guarding. they did all of it naturally without any lessons from me. the way they herd cows is to go after the lead animal and hurl their shoulder against his front shoulder and it turns the animal and as a result the whole herd. one day I happened to be in a fenced field near Williams lake and damned if they didn't run off and collect a bunch of Herefords in just this manner. I was (*)(*)(*)(*) scared as the rancher would have shot them both for running the meat of his animals but luckily he wasn't around.
and my collie stalks me like a crouching wolf, gives me the collie stare... if move left he moves right and me cuts off, if I go right he goes left and corners me again...watching him do that with a half dozen kids for the first time at a city park was at first a cause for concern but the kids and their parents thought it was hilarious good fun...I don't let him do that anymore just in case he gets too excited and nips someone which they tend to do with sheep... the Pit owners want to dissociate breed characteristics from Pit behaviour which flies contrary to every reference source on dog breeds, what they're claiming is all dog behaviour is the same regardless of breed...if that's the case why buy a Pit, why not a Poodle or Lab or even a mutt? it's because they're after particular traits and image...all dogs will return affection to their owners a Pit is no better than a Lab or Poodle but the Pit gives them the macho image they crave, but Labs and Poodles don't have the tough guy image/reputation and for good reason...
I will actually change my path if I see one approaching. it might make some feel macho but I know it makes many feel badly that someone doesn't trust their baby. and that's just fine by me. if someone had a lynx on a leash, id avoid them too.
exactly...I think some of the links I provided involved pit's on leash and the owners were not able to hold them, a 60lb dog is a powerful animal and difficult to control on leash even an adult male will have difficulty controlling them....and I've seen 5-10 yr old kids with no adults present walking pits and dobermans on leash in my neighbourhood, WTF! what is wrong with people, I won't even let my 13 yr old walk my 60lb B Collie because he isn't strong enough...
