Another great Pit Bull article.

[DaisyTattoo]

I have a German Shep/Malamute mix and a Choc Lab/Pit mix and I'll be the first to tell ya that the German Shep is gonna bite ya. The pit mix wont. Sheps are one of the highest percentages of bites. Should we ban them? My Shep WILL BITE! Thats what I got her for. Personally, I wouldnt trust my kid around ANY strange dog, no matter what the breed or size. I would also like to mention that the smaller breeds bite MUCH more often than the big breeds, even pits. The only difference is the amount of damage done. People usually dont report those types of bites. I used to work at a shelter so I can honestly say that I would trust a Pit to any small dog any day. I have a friend that also breeds and raises pits. She has 6 adults at her house and only one of them has ever bitten and it wasnt even a bad bite. She will not breed that particular dog bc of the bite. If the breeders are responsible and are careful to check into who they are giving their dogs to(which she also does) they can be a WONDERFUL breed to have.

 

[labont865]

Okay now. Please nobody take any of these posts personally I have no intention to be rude or sound mean I am just gonna state the facts I know from my studies about the breed that I and other have conducted over my 8 years as a breeder and my 20 years owning pits.

MsSouth: The percentages are accurate. Pulled directly from independant studies by Universities, and Kennel clubs and other independant organizations. I am sure they have had alot more time and money invested in these studies than quick google searches. The numbers are also per-capita percentages in registered animals. The attack/bite numbers may also include estimates including un-reported atacks.
Pit Bulls per capita are the 4th safest dog in exsistance. Yes there are areas where they account for nearly 100% of all dog attacks in a year. But they still in total in world population acount for less than 2 percent of domestic dog attacks. There are areas where ordinance need to be put in, but it is not to ban the dog. It is more in banning ownership of the dog if you are not qualified to own them. And also in banning "Backyard breeders. If this was done there would be no issues with these dogs at all.

Tankfan: I hope you didnt take my response to your first post as me attacking you or anything. I was merely trying to shed some light on your situation. The main problem ther is honestly a lack of knowledge of the animals. It is your responsibility to protect your kids right? this is wy i said to try to meet the owners and get to know the dog. If the dog knows you and your family that is gonna seriously reduce any chance of any aggression towards your kids. Pit being an extremely loyal dog and all. If they know your kids and et to see your kids frequently the dog is actually more likely to protect hem than be aggressive towards them. I do agree the owner should at least tie him up or something. NO dog whatever the breed should be allowed outside in an un-fenced yard without being restrained in some way. I was merely trying to make it cear that your reasoning for banning the dogs from your town made no sence as there are many other steps that can be taken first. I respect your opinion and I 100% respect your protectiveness of your kids. BUT they are your responsibility, and if you go and approach the situation th wrong way it will simply cause more issues and if you leave the situation idle and dont do anything to try and better the situation and the dog were to attack or bite one of your children, this is just as much your fault as the dog and the owners fault. It is a two way street. However if you askt he owner to tie it up or you take initiative to get to kno the owner and the animal, and then it bites one of your kids the dog should be immediately destroyed and the owner should be charged.

The bottom line is: We as humans live as by a code of inocent until proven guilty. It makes no difference what colour you are or where you are from. Well why cant these dogs have that same right? Wy do we have to punish an entire breed because of the actions of the irresponsible owners?
Did you know there are over 1 million pit bulls on the world right now? even if 100K of these attack or bite somebody that is still only 10% of them. Does this justify banning over 1 million dogs? Does this justify euthanizing over 1 million inocent animals. Did you knwo that when Ontario banned Pit Bulls, they gave the owners 3 weeks to find new homes for the dogs out of province before they started taking th dogs by force if necessary and if the dogs were in the kennel for mor than another month they were euthanized. out of nearly 100000 Pits in Ontario there are rumours of only 10000 of them making out of Ontario alive. This is essentialy genocide. This is all because people refuse to belive the facts about dog attacks. and are strongly baised simply because of the dogs abilities and because they get more media attention than any other breed that attacks or bites a human.
My home town had a rash of about 30 attacks in about a month, 1 was by a pit bull the rest were a mix of other breeds. 4 made it to the news here, all were said to be "Pit Bull type breeds". In truth 1 was actually a pit, 2 were mastiffs, and one was a great dane. A bloody great dane! I didnt realize a great dane was a pit bull type dog. Anyways tis is the media biase because they know they will get more attentin by having pit bull in the title of the report. Ther were 12 of the atack commited by border collies. These wee not even mentioned in the news, yet one of the attacks by the border collie led to the amputation of a young girls arm. If this isnt biased I dont know what is.
What about the instance of the shih tzu mauling the 2 month old baby and kiling it, and the dog not even being put to sleep? If it was a pit there would be mass requests to ban th breed, yet this dog that kille the baby wasnt even ordered to be put to sleep. The owner did end up having it put down as the dog just killed teir new-born baby, but for the courts not to ORDER the dog to be destroyed this shows extreme biased and discrimination towards the breed of pit bulls.

The breed should not be punished for being Pit Bulls. Lets punish the deed not the breed. Just like we do every other breed of dog.
I have personally had more than 200 pits come through my home, only two have ever bitten somebody. Both in defence of their family. and both doing exsactly what they were trained to do. A friend of mine breeds retrievers, out of less than 100 dogs out of his kennel 16 have bitten and/or attacked someone.
There are much better things to wory about and to stress about than the dogs being pit bulls. Now being worried about a particular dog, or being woried about the dogs of a particular owner or group of owners I can undrstand and agree with but to wory abotu a dog simply because of its breed is rediculous, a show of ignornce toward the breed, and a show of serious discrimination.

This is my opinion and some fat to support why I have this opnion, I understand that some of you dotn agree and will have a different opinion. I am not trying to force mine on you, if you dont like the dog, you dont like the dog, that is fine with me. BUT dont try and force your opinion on me by trying to have my dogs banned and taken aay from me. As they are members of my family and I will protect them as if they are.

 

[msouth468]

Phew...that was a good read. I've got a few things to say, nothing bad, I think.

Are you talking per-capita for all registered breeds or just for the Pit-bull? Or talking about the United States as a whole? Per-capita is a horrible percentage to base any statistic off of simply for the fact that amounts are factored in that are not relivent to the statistic. And, if you have links to these statistics or studies that would be great. It is true that I did just do a google search, but that doesn't discredit the websites I visited. If you are going to defend a subject with percentages, you should cite where you got the info from so it doesn't look like you are just pulling numbers from the air to support your view. I hope I'm not offending you too bad (or at all).

 

[labont865]

No, not offended at all. The first post in the thread has a link that doesnt have concrete link or anything but it does state one of the institutions that has done a study so you could check them and probably get some good numbers.

I am talking per capita for all species world wide. Most of the studies are based aorund the 120 or so most common breeds in the world.
Sorry I am at work rigth now so I dont have access to most of my info at the moment.
I will do what i can when I get home.

 

[phoenixfyre]

Yes you have to be very careful with statistics, they can easily be manipulated.

The numbers are also per-capita percentages in registered animals. The attack/bite numbers may also include estimates including un-reported atacks.

per capita, and registered. The thing is that the street pit is generally not a registered pure animal. There actually is no such breed as the pit bull; it is not recognized. So, they wouldn't be registered with AKC or CanKC; if registered means with the city/town, then can you imagine how many thugs dutifully buy licences for their dogs every year?? Not too many. AmStaffs and other bully breeds- since those dogs have been selectively bred, it is not surprising that the responsible breeders have carefully worked on temperament.

It is your responsibility to protect your kids right? this is wy i said to try to meet the owners and get to know the dog. ... this is just as much your fault as the dog and the owners fault. It is a two way street. However if you askt he owner to tie it up or you take initiative to get to kno the owner and the animal, and then it bites one of your kids the dog should be immediately destroyed and the owner should be charged.

Actually it is not a two way street. If your dog bites, you are liable. It is ridiculous to put the onus/blame on a parent UNLESS the child has provoked the dog. This argument is akin to it is your fault if you are raped due to the clothes you wear, or it is your fault that your house is broken into because you don't have a security system. The dog owner is ultimately responsible for the child's welfare.

Did you knwo that when Ontario banned Pit Bulls, they gave the owners 3 weeks to find new homes for the dogs out of province before they started taking th dogs by force if necessary and if the dogs were in the kennel for mor than another month they were euthanized. out of nearly 100000 Pits in Ontario there are rumours of only 10000 of them making out of Ontario alive.

Actually this is not true. The Ontario bsl (Breed specific legislation) is a bane to pit bull owners, yes. But the ban did not force owners to get rid of their dogs. Pit bull owners need to comply with certain rules (spay/neuter, muzzles, no off-leash). The Toronto SPCA is full of pits and pit crosses, so obviously they are not being euthanized. Current pit owners are allowed to replace their dogs with another pit. Mainly the ban was against the breeding of more pit bulls. I'm not sure where you derived your stat about only 10000 animals making it out of Ontario alive. There are many still here, alive and well (but sadly muzzled).

I am not for BSL. In Ontario, it is very sad to see all pits muzzled. Many individuals are fighting this law in the courts and in political arenas. BUT it does no good to fight by spreading information that is untrue. I do agree with you that we should be looking at irresponsible owners, and not generalizing about the dog. But we should also not be fooling ourselves by imagining that the bully breeds are for everyone, or that they can be treated like any other (non-dog aggressive) breed. They do require special handling, and the wrong handling can result in very dangerous situations (and there are more breeds than pits that this is true for, I know).
If I were you, tankfan, I'd mention to the neighbours ONCE to get that dog tied up or restrained, and then I'd be calling the police or animal services.

 

[msouth468]

I did a little looking and there are higher percentages of "Pit Bull" type dog attacks. And I can see the biased in both opinions now. People against Pit bulls probably don't know there is more than one type. And people for pit bulls probably think that their specific breed of "Pit Bull" type of dog is being personally attacked. I personally won't ever own a "Pit Bull" just because I don't want one. But, I won't condem the breeds based off some attacks. Seeing that there is no genetic evidence to show one type of dog is more aggressive than another, one can only asssume that handling and training are the major issues involved in this. Hell, I own a rotwieler (came with the house I bought, heh...) and I constantly have to put up with peoples BS with thinking she will kill whatever comes around. Needless to say she is scared of everything and I have to chain her up (I live in the country BTW) when I do target practice or even burn some leaves or sticks. Because she will literally run away from being so scared.

 

[DaisyTattoo]

Back in the 80's and early 90's it was the Rotties and the Dobies that everyone was afraid of. They were the ones all over the news whenever someone was bitten or "mauled" but along came the pitbull and those breeds diappeared from the news. In the next 10 years or so the "thugs" will decide they like a different breed, will start training them to attack and begin fighting and abusing them, then the spotlight will be on a different breed. I'm surprised Shar Pei's haven't been picked yet. They were bred for fighting, they are also known to be very much 1 owner/family dogs. They would be the perfect canidate for the Pit replacement. Must not be mean enough looking .

 

[labont865]

Unfortunately Pheonixfyre you are wrong. The American Pit Bull Terrier is a recognized breed.

The BSL was altered after the initial introduction. I personally recieved 15 dogs from Ontario. The provincial law, you may be correct about now, but there were many municipalities that took it a step further. The parents and 4 siblings of two of the dogs I recieved were forcefully euthanized. But yes you may be correct about the current rules of the BSL. They have changed it quite a bit since introducing it because of loop holes making it legal to take action against any dog resembling a pit bull under the rules of the BSL.

It is a two way street, in that in you do not take action to protect your children you are just as guilty. This is a matter of opinion. Yours is different and that is fine. If somebody comes into my property and is bitten by one of my dogs that is not my fault. I have my dogs in a fenced area and if somebody comes in and gets bit that is 100% their fault. At the same token, if the kids are in the dogs yard and it were to bite one of them it is only half at fault. Many dogs are guard dogs, an many are protective. If you come into their yard it may percieved as a threat and thus the dog may bite. The dog and owners can only be deemed responsible in certain situations.
Tankfans situation would be the dog owners fault, I have no quible with that. What I am saying is, it is her responsibility to protect her children, I am merely offering suggestions of better ways to handle the situation than calling the cops, and causing a fewed and bad blood with her neighbours. If the situation arises the owners should be orced to build a fence or chain the dog. BUT if tankfan can avoid that situation by simply meeting the owner and the dog, this would be a much beter solution. Dont you think?

Also to the rest of you. if you have checked the links in my signature please do, it may shed some light as to why some of these dogs are aggressive, and have instability issues. Especially rescue animals.

 

[labont865]

I did a little looking and there are higher percentages of "Pit Bull" type dog attacks. And I can see the biased in both opinions now. People against Pit bulls probably don't know there is more than one type. And people for pit bulls probably think that their specific breed of "Pit Bull" type of dog is being personally attacked. I personally won't ever own a "Pit Bull" just because I don't want one. But, I won't condem the breeds based off some attacks. Seeing that there is no genetic evidence to show one type of dog is more aggressive than another, one can only asssume that handling and training are the major issues involved in this. Hell, I own a rotwieler (came with the house I bought, heh...) and I constantly have to put up with peoples BS with thinking she will kill whatever comes around. Needless to say she is scared of everything and I have to chain her up (I live in the country BTW) when I do target practice or even burn some leaves or sticks. Because she will literally run away from being so scared.

Yes you ar eright, there are multiple types of dogs that are constanly refered to as Pit bulls. BUT there is only one breed that is actually truely a Pit Bull and that is the American Pit Bull Terrier. There are other that are constantly referd to as pit bulls aka: Amstaffs, and other types of staffordhsire terrier, there are Boston red nosed pit buls which are actually a type of staffordshire terrier as well. In total there are abut 15 breeds constantly accused of being pit bulls. And this is what causes huge issues. When I talk and post somehting I am refering to one breed and one only, the APBT. But unfortunately when alot of statistics aying pits account for huge amounts of atacks they do not take that into consideration, that the dog may actually be a amstaff, staffordshire bull terier, a bull terrier, a staffordshire terrier, a british staffordshire terier etc. They just label them a Pit Bulsl and this is what the major issue is. Because it makes the Pit Bul look ten times worse than they actually are.

sorry guys my spelling today is horrible. hahaha trying to type as fast as I can sinc eI am at work right now.

 

[labont865]

Sorry yet another post in a row. hahaha

To clarify and gt into my last post.

20% of attacks are by pit bulls is what was said right?
When infact they are counting numerous breeds of dog a s pit bulls.
in truth the APBT accounts for less than 2%
the AMstaff accounts for 3% etc. etc.
With 15 breeds commonly counted as pit bulls it isnt hard to see where alot of these people get the 20% from. This is why i say people really need to educate themselves on the breed and what they are actualy discriminating against.

That dog that just bit your kid that looks liek a pit, and you told the news was a pit could have actually been a staffie, thus wrongfully chalk one up to the pit bull atack percentage.

Does that make sence?

I mean if somebody liek pheonixfyre who actually seem somehwta educated on the subject didnt even realize that the APBT is officially recognized as a breed now then how many people out there who have never taken any time at all to actually do any reading up on the breed make the mistake of wrongfull accusations?

I dont know if any of you remeber when I posted my photoshop image of about 10 different breeds of dogs typically called pit bulls. I posted it on two websites. Out of 500 people who voted between the two websites, only 7 were able to correctly tell me which dog in the picture was the real pit bull.