Another great Pit Bull article.

The truth is, it is alot harder to take away a child then to take away a dog. Plus, part of the reason for the registration that labont is talking about is to not only protect the dogs, but also the general public from the dogs. People need to be educated on how to properly train their dogs so that they don't turn them into killing machines. A great idea would be to have the animal shelters hold monthy classes for all new adoptees or something like that. OR like our local no kill shelter is doing, having prison inmates train the dogs BEFORE they go to new homes. That is the best program ever, if you ask me. It teaches the inmates to respect another being and teaches the dogs good manners which help them find better homes. And stay in their homes. Tons of dogs get returned every year bc the new owners dont know how to deal with their problems, or to train them. It really is sad to see a dog come back to the shelter. It's sad for the dogs too. My dog lived at the no kill shelter for 3 months before I adopted her. I began working there about 4 years after her adoption and wanted to take her there to see my coworkers, she really really did not want to be there. She was afraid I was going to leave her there I think.
 
hmmm...... I didn't see Labont losing his cool once, not sure why it was said that he was getting steamed over it. As a matter of fact, I thought he was being very good about explaining things. I also want to say, that is a good idea for the licensing, as long as the law was followed when someone was seen walking the dogs or something like that. It may help with the illegal fighting pits that some of the more unfortunate dogs are thrust into.

I tend to agree with Dan about the children too... hypotheticaly. It is a shame how some kids are raised in this time. It's ignorant to believe that no kids are abused or brought up by less than satisfactory means. For instance.... last night, I was watching Cops. A woman and her boyfriend and 2 young boys (1 and 3) were in a mustang. The two parents were fighting and the car wound up jumping the curb and resting upon a tree stump, disabling the car. The man was arrested for domestic violence, the woman had said he hit her 100 times, she hit him only 50. All the while, these boys are screaming. She was arrested for drunk driving, she was clearly intoxicated. The officers asked if she had someone to call to come and get the boys, maybe her parents to which she replied, "my parents are dead, are ya happy??". He asked again, is there anyone you can call and she said yes and after some words, gave the officer a phone number. The cop then called this person. However, that person said they could not pick up the kids. Off to the state system they went. And raising these kids in this way is fine as long as the parents deem it ok.... ok

The saying may be overused, but ..... and some very good people can't even have kids....
 
I just think having to prove that you can own a dog or raise a child is exerting too much control on the general public. For it even to work you have to have some sort of basic guidelines that will have to be followed. And that is where the snag is hit. There are so many different ways people raise their children or pets. Even in the basic care, some people feed their animals twice a day, some only once, some only every other day. Who has the right to decide which way is correct? Sure, there are exceptions to the rule as in the obvious people who are bad with pets or kids. Given the idea is good on paper, would it really work? Think of all the bad implications, there will be a lot of people who won't get to have a dog or a child because of the "red tape" involved. Because someone believes his or her way is better than another’s.
 
I understand what you are saying Msouth. But its not laws on how you train the dog. You can train it in anyway you want but it has to be effective. For dogs such as pits there are tried and tested "Right" ways to train them and tried and tested "wrong" ways to train them. They arent like most other breeds when you train them. I personally will not sell my pups to first time pit bull owners unless they are somebody I know personally and have a good judgement of whether they will be good owners.
They can then train the dogs how ever they want. Its the final result that tells you whether they have done a good job. I personally visit if possible nearly every dog that comes out of my place every 3 months for the first year, then every 6 months for the second year, then every year from then on. At any time I deem the owner is doing an un-satisfactory job of training/maintaining the dog I will take it and find it a better suited home.
I dont care too much how they do it, but the dog must be well trained, obedient and non-aggressive. At the same time I also have ways to tell if the dogs are this way because they have been beaten or mis-treated and are only behaving because they are scared of their owners. I mean a little smack on the butt or a little smack under the chin is fine and is actually something I would tell any pit owner to not be afraid of doing, but anything more and it may start to affect the dog.

In no way do I necessarily think these laws should apply to every dog owner, but to owners that have had problem dogs in the past, or to owners who wish to own a "problem" or "aggressive" breed, they should have to be trained or have taken some kind of course to be able to own them.
The whole kid thing I am on the fence about. Some people just should not be allowed to have kids, the un-fortunate thing is that most of the time you dont find that out until its too late.
 
Last edited:
Fear is one thing you should NEVER show your dog. If you fear them, they will bite you. That is the #1 way to get bit. If your dog shows agression to you, you must stop it right away. My German Shepherd snarled at me once after I first got her and I smacked her right in the mouth(not hard enough to hurt her but hard enough to let her know who the boss was). She has never done it since and that was 6 years ago. She listens very well too.
 
They sure seem to be handsome dogs. Everyone's been posting a lot of numbers. For me, the important ones are what the insurance actuaries use (the guys who calculate odds of a payout event, amount, premiums required to maintain underwriter solvency, etc.).

In the end, who says what about the raw numbers and percentages of dogs that commit a fatal attack don't matter as much as my insurance underwriter's bottom line: I find it fiscally difficult to rent to anybody with an AMPBT, Rottie, or GSD...either my coverage lapses or I have to pay such a high hazard premium that it carries over to the monthly rent...most renters can't afford the premium increase, and I won't increase everybody else's rent so that one person can have this type of dog breed. It can really turn into a bit of a miserable lose-lose situation for the breed owner and his pet, no matter how well-mannered the dog is.

Sadly, it is not illegal in the least for insurers to use breed as a discriminator, since for them it identifies risk. Risk management and use of risk-based discriminators is the core of their business.

It just gets confusing when mixed breeds are involved. Pretty much explains why breed-specific legislation doesn't work as well as intended.

Can't say much about them...I never see pits much at all anymore (maybe some people who own these breeds don't go out in public in anticipation of possible negative reaction from others?), and I only personally know of a few really negative encounters.

It seems the media really does play it up...I mean, a small dog disfiguring a child's face is nowhere near as "exciting" to the news media as an adult being rushed to the ER w/ multiple bites (and resulting blood) from a pit bull....but both situations are pretty dangerous on their own merits.

In the end, fear of liability lawsuits seems to be driving the latest unstoppable craze by cities (and people who've never owned them) to outlaw these animals. What's next? Weiner dogs?

v/r, N-A
 
felons should not be allowed to own pitbulls.
and ppl who own pitbulls should take a class to own one. And they should sign a paper to agree that all their dogs be taken away if they get lose.
a class should cost a fee where the money goes to all the kids and ppl that have been attacked. Class should be long and boring to weed out the ones who want them for bad reasons.

labont dont get to much into the typing to me i lose interest after first sentence. skimming the end i saw something about little rascal dogs that is one mark for good. now please go on with some more. And respond with none of that blah blah you are uneducated in these dogs. How should i know a diffrence between your dogs and the ones i see on tv and read about in the paper.

ot and isnt PETA the number 1 killer of dogs. i think the website is petakillsanimals or petakillsdogs.com. round my parents house they were killing them in the van they picked them up in. PETA have many suspected ties to animal rights extremist or activist explain the diffrence in them to me again.


4 days to convince me of more good things b4 i leave again for 9 months.
 
Nc- Well that shows alot of why you are the way you are. Somebody takes the time to try and explain things to you and you dont even have the respect or courtesy to read it. Do us all a favour and dont bother posting in this thread again and let the adults have an adult discussion. you are obviously a close minded person and there is no hope at all of even cracking you eyes open a little bit. So there is no point. But do us all a favour and not post in these threads especially if you are not willing to even read others opinions or the facts.

If you actually read this far into it, the way to know the difference is to give them a chance, try to get to know a few and you will learn that they are actually decent animals. Its simple as that.

But you are right about PETA
 
N.A.- You are right, unfortunately the discrimination has spread there as well. The main reasoning is because of the abilities of the dogs, not so much for the number of attacks. They did the same thing with dobbies and a few other species back in the day too, yet now alot of these sepcies are perfectly fine to have and insurance doesnt care. Its crap.

Jodi- Yes you are absolutely right, fear is the worst thing you can show a dog for a few reasons. Dogs are naturally and evolutionarily a pack animal, showing fear will put them into the dominant position, this is not a good thing. Fear also triggers the natural urge to hunt in animals. This is on of the major factors in dog attacks.

The other worst thing you can do is to run from a dog, this triggers the instinct to chase. Not a good thing if you have a big dog and your kids start to run from it, the dog will chase and probably knock the kid down, which is also commonly mistaken for aggression on the dogs part, when in fact it is 90% of the time a playful thing. The trick is to be firm and somewhat aggressive. We had an aggressive dog lose in our neighbourhood once when I was young, it would chase all the kids around, and animal control couldnt catch it, it was lose for nearly a week. I was walking home from school and the dog came running at me, so I turned towards it and in a deep frim voice shouted HEY and it instantly stopped, I then said SIT and it sat. Then I approached the dog and started telling it good dog, next thing you know I have it walking next to me back to my house and then put it in my yard and called animal control. they came and got the dog and it turned out the dog was from kamloops and once it got home back to its owners it turned back into itself and was really a sweet dog apparently. It was aggressive because it was scared outta its tree and the kids kept running from it so it chased em.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom