Yet another Pitt Bull attack (1 Viewer)

[Exit 1]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

It's 3.8 deaths/year, not 12, attributed to Pit Bulls according to BST's article.I didn't say it is no big deal but it's a country of 310+ million people. All I suggested is that the hysteria is completely disproportionate to the problem. And I'm correct.

If your child or wife was the victim, I am correct in saying that you would be speaking differently on this subject.

JFC.

 

[Exit 1]

I take that back...you got me. You really got me. You're fishing, right? This all has to be a fishing trip, right?

You really can't be this dumb.

 

[Chaka]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

It's 3.8 deaths/year, not 12, attributed to Pit Bulls according to BST's article.I didn't say it is no big deal but it's a country of 310+ million people. All I suggested is that the hysteria is completely disproportionate to the problem. And I'm correct.

If your child or wife was the victim, I am correct in saying that you would be speaking differently on this subject.

You can use that kind of reasoning for any tragedy. I am correct.Are you even reading the posts in this thread? No one is saying there is no problem let's stick with the status quo. The "breed advocates" as you call them (and that is an inaccurate description) are pointing out that breed specific laws are pointless and don't deal with the real problem. Breed specific laws won't change anything in the attack statistics. If you want to effect lasting change then you need to start holding people responsible for the actions of their animals. Most laws are far too lenient in dealing with owners whose dogs cause harm.

Why does that seem so unreasonable to you?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Beavers> Do you want to restrict my right to own a pitbull?

 

[beavers]

Beavers> Do you want to restrict my right to own a pitbull?

 

[beavers]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

It's 3.8 deaths/year, not 12, attributed to Pit Bulls according to BST's article.I didn't say it is no big deal but it's a country of 310+ million people. All I suggested is that the hysteria is completely disproportionate to the problem. And I'm correct.

If your child or wife was the victim, I am correct in saying that you would be speaking differently on this subject.

You can use that kind of reasoning for any tragedy. I am correct.

 

[Mister CIA]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

I declare you world dictator for a day. Tell us how you would eliminate the 12 deaths per year?

Duh, eliminate Pit Bulls. And I love the "They only eat 12 kids a year so it's ok" defense.

Congratulations overachiever, you eliminated 1/3 of the problem.

 

[Chaka]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

It's 3.8 deaths/year, not 12, attributed to Pit Bulls according to BST's article.I didn't say it is no big deal but it's a country of 310+ million people. All I suggested is that the hysteria is completely disproportionate to the problem. And I'm correct.

If your child or wife was the victim, I am correct in saying that you would be speaking differently on this subject.

You can use that kind of reasoning for any tragedy. I am correct.

Great logic here.

 

[3C's]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

I declare you world dictator for a day. Tell us how you would eliminate the 12 deaths per year?

Duh, eliminate Pit Bulls. And I love the "They only eat 12 kids a year so it's ok" defense.

So you and the beav want to eliminate how many breeds exactly? Because there's more than just "pit bulls" responsible for killing. Guess the beav declined to read the article I posted about the lab actually eating a toddler.

 

[3C's]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

 

[beavers]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

 

[Exit 1]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

 

[The Commish]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

Well of course another breed would take it's place at the top. That's simply because there are other breeds of dogs. I get where the defenders are coming from as I owned Rotts my entire life. For a pretty long stretch of time they were the dog of choice to strike fear in people at the movie theaters and on TV. The difference here is the real life experiences (at least at the time) didn't match what was shown on TV and the movies.

 

[jomar]

Well of course another breed would take it's place at the top. That's simply because there are other breeds of dogs. I get where the defenders are coming from as I owned Rotts my entire life. For a pretty long stretch of time they were the dog of choice to strike fear in people at the movie theaters and on TV. The difference here is the real life experiences (at least at the time) didn't match what was shown on TV and the movies.

I'm confused here. are you saying Rottweilers never attacked people at that time? because I seem to remember they did and would make the news. it was the same as it is today with Pitbulls, only it was before the internet so of course its may seem worse now with Pits. I don't believe it is.

 

[beavers]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

 

[The Commish]

Well of course another breed would take it's place at the top. That's simply because there are other breeds of dogs. I get where the defenders are coming from as I owned Rotts my entire life. For a pretty long stretch of time they were the dog of choice to strike fear in people at the movie theaters and on TV. The difference here is the real life experiences (at least at the time) didn't match what was shown on TV and the movies.

I'm confused here. are you saying Rottweilers never attacked people at that time? because I seem to remember they did and would make the news. it was the same as it is today with Pitbulls, only it was before the internet so of course its may seem worse now with Pits. I don't believe it is.

I don't really follow it all that closely anymore, but it doesn't appear that Rotts attack people more now than they did then.

 

[Exit 1]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

And to spotlight these attacks and single out pitbulls (without mentioning how careless, stupid, and abusive the owners can be) is .

 

[The Commish]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

And to spotlight these attacks and single out pitbulls (without mentioning how careless, stupid, and abusive the owners can be) is .

I think it's a given though right? I don't know of a single animal that if abused, won't lash out at some point. That's probably why it's not specified. It's like going into a math class and making sure everyone agrees that 2 + 2 = 4. It's not necessary IMO.

 

[beavers]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

And to spotlight these attacks and single out pitbulls (without mentioning how careless, stupid, and abusive the owners can be) is .

Not all attacks from pits come from your stereotypical pit owner.

 

[Exit 1]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

And to spotlight these attacks and single out pitbulls (without mentioning how careless, stupid, and abusive the owners can be) is .

I think it's a given though right? I don't know of a single animal that if abused, won't lash out at some point. That's probably why it's not specified. It's like going into a math class and making sure everyone agrees that 2 + 2 = 4. It's not necessary IMO.

No, it's not a given. I don't think the pitbull haters in here realize that they are the most abused dog in the US and this, in turn, leads to attacks on humans.Or they do realize this and want to play blind to the fact.

 

[The Commish]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

And to spotlight these attacks and single out pitbulls (without mentioning how careless, stupid, and abusive the owners can be) is .

I think it's a given though right? I don't know of a single animal that if abused, won't lash out at some point. That's probably why it's not specified. It's like going into a math class and making sure everyone agrees that 2 + 2 = 4. It's not necessary IMO.

No, it's not a given. I don't think the pitbull haters in here realize that they are the most abused dog in the US and this, in turn, leads to attacks on humans.Or they do realize this and want to play blind to the fact.

How does one determine which breed is the most abused? How is that conclusion drawn? Not saying, you're wrong. I didn't know there was a way to capture that.

 

[parasaurolophus]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

Dog lovers sympathize with poorly treated dogs. This is no secret. I already brought up the guy I work with that used 10 days vacation for a new dog. He loves dogs and is on his third pit. He knows he is capable of providing proper care and doesnt want the dogs he adopts put down.I absolutely support harsher penalties on the owners. Pits are a very dangerous dog. Anybody arguing against this is living in a dream world. I have also stated as have many others that they don't support killing off the breed. The problem with pits is they are now easily available all over the place and they aren't cared for properly.Whether you love dogs or not, they are a problem and something needs to be done. Bringing up that dobermans are dangerous, doesn't change the fact that so are pits.

 

[beavers]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

And to spotlight these attacks and single out pitbulls (without mentioning how careless, stupid, and abusive the owners can be) is .

I think it's a given though right? I don't know of a single animal that if abused, won't lash out at some point. That's probably why it's not specified. It's like going into a math class and making sure everyone agrees that 2 + 2 = 4. It's not necessary IMO.

No, it's not a given. I don't think the pitbull haters in here realize that they are the most abused dog in the US and this, in turn, leads to attacks on humans.Or they do realize this and want to play blind to the fact.

Boy attacked by a 1 yr old pit. No sign of poor ownership.

LAVEEN, Ariz. -A 10-year old boy is recovering after being attacked by the family pit bull.The family loved this dog. All the kids played with him regularly, but this weekend, something set the dog off and he attacked 10-year-old Lucas Arnds.We should warn you, the boy's injuries are pretty severe."It growled once or twice which I should have known was bad," recalls Lucas. "And then it attacked me."These are pictures of Lucas Arnds taken just after the attack. He had to get more than 40 stitches."His top teeth hit my ear and then it hit this part and his bottom teeth bit into this. And I started crying. Blood was dripping down and I started banging on the door."Lucas was at his dad's house in Laveen this weekend and was in the yard playing with the 1 year-old pit bull."I just heard my son with a very loud bloodcurdling scream yell out help 'dad help help!'" says Ted Arnds.Ted got the dog from a shelter when it was a puppy, the dog was around kids all the time."All it took was something that you don't even think about, like the smell of another dog for that dog to reach out and grab my son and tear him to pieces."Just before the attack, Lucas was helping out a neighbor with some yard work and also played with that neighbor's pit bull.Animal control told the family the other dog's smell could have sparked the attack.Despite his injuries, Lucas is doing ok."I have a stepbrother who is about 4 and sister who is 6 and I am glad it didn't happen to them."Dad took the dog to animal control, and soon after he got a text from his son."He said 'please promise me that you'll never have a pit bull again' and I told him that I promise," says Ted.The dog is now in quarantine at animal control. The family was told he will be put down.

 

[Exit 1]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

And to spotlight these attacks and single out pitbulls (without mentioning how careless, stupid, and abusive the owners can be) is .

Not all attacks from pits come from your stereotypical pit owner.

Just like attacks occur from other dog breed owners....However....If you look back in this thread and actually read the articles of the attacks, there are countless examples of how the owners are irresponsible (insufficient restraints such as fencing/leashes on the dog, poor training, prior knowledge of the dog being dangerous, etc.). It's all there. Just go actually read the articles and not just the headlines.

 

[parasaurolophus]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

And to spotlight these attacks and single out pitbulls (without mentioning how careless, stupid, and abusive the owners can be) is .

Not all attacks from pits come from your stereotypical pit owner.

and attacks from pits are not the same as attacks from cocker spaniels.

 

[beavers]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

And to spotlight these attacks and single out pitbulls (without mentioning how careless, stupid, and abusive the owners can be) is .

I think it's a given though right? I don't know of a single animal that if abused, won't lash out at some point. That's probably why it's not specified. It's like going into a math class and making sure everyone agrees that 2 + 2 = 4. It's not necessary IMO.

No, it's not a given. I don't think the pitbull haters in here realize that they are the most abused dog in the US and this, in turn, leads to attacks on humans.Or they do realize this and want to play blind to the fact.

How does one determine which breed is the most abused? How is that conclusion drawn? Not saying, you're wrong. I didn't know there was a way to capture that.

What we see here is that the profiling is being pushed to the owner and away from the dog. Not all pits who attack have poor ownership.

 

[Exit 1]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

And to spotlight these attacks and single out pitbulls (without mentioning how careless, stupid, and abusive the owners can be) is .

I think it's a given though right? I don't know of a single animal that if abused, won't lash out at some point. That's probably why it's not specified. It's like going into a math class and making sure everyone agrees that 2 + 2 = 4. It's not necessary IMO.

No, it's not a given. I don't think the pitbull haters in here realize that they are the most abused dog in the US and this, in turn, leads to attacks on humans.Or they do realize this and want to play blind to the fact.

Boy attacked by a 1 yr old pit. No sign of poor ownership.

LAVEEN, Ariz. -A 10-year old boy is recovering after being attacked by the family pit bull.The family loved this dog. All the kids played with him regularly, but this weekend, something set the dog off and he attacked 10-year-old Lucas Arnds.We should warn you, the boy's injuries are pretty severe."It growled once or twice which I should have known was bad," recalls Lucas. "And then it attacked me."These are pictures of Lucas Arnds taken just after the attack. He had to get more than 40 stitches."His top teeth hit my ear and then it hit this part and his bottom teeth bit into this. And I started crying. Blood was dripping down and I started banging on the door."Lucas was at his dad's house in Laveen this weekend and was in the yard playing with the 1 year-old pit bull."I just heard my son with a very loud bloodcurdling scream yell out help 'dad help help!'" says Ted Arnds.Ted got the dog from a shelter when it was a puppy, the dog was around kids all the time."All it took was something that you don't even think about, like the smell of another dog for that dog to reach out and grab my son and tear him to pieces."Just before the attack, Lucas was helping out a neighbor with some yard work and also played with that neighbor's pit bull.Animal control told the family the other dog's smell could have sparked the attack.Despite his injuries, Lucas is doing ok."I have a stepbrother who is about 4 and sister who is 6 and I am glad it didn't happen to them."Dad took the dog to animal control, and soon after he got a text from his son."He said 'please promise me that you'll never have a pit bull again' and I told him that I promise," says Ted.The dog is now in quarantine at animal control. The family was told he will be put down.

Yup, we know the whole story right there and the dog's background. Good job.

 

[The Commish]

Yup, we know the whole story right there and the dog's background. Good job.

This was actually my point to something 3Cs posted as well. We really don't know the whole story in many of these cases if any. That's why this whole thing seems bizarre. All we know is people are getting attacked by dogs. We don't really know how well/poorly the dog's actually been treated.

 

[Exit 1]

Yup, we know the whole story right there and the dog's background. Good job.

This was actually my point to something 3Cs posted as well. We really don't know the whole story in many of these cases if any. That's why this whole thing seems bizarre. All we know is people are getting attacked by dogs. We don't really know how well/poorly the dog's actually been treated.

Yes, but quite a few of the articles have stated how the owner was at least somewhat responsible or could have prevented the attack from happening.

 

[[icon]]

i mistreated/abused pitbull is no more dangerous than a similarly mistreated/abused poodle

Wow.

 

[The Commish]

Yup, we know the whole story right there and the dog's background. Good job.

This was actually my point to something 3Cs posted as well. We really don't know the whole story in many of these cases if any. That's why this whole thing seems bizarre. All we know is people are getting attacked by dogs. We don't really know how well/poorly the dog's actually been treated.

Yes, but quite a few of the articles have stated how the owner was at least somewhat responsible or could have prevented the attack from happening.

We were focused on the actions of the dog in your comments. You only mentioned the "dog's background". Someone posted a good point a while back about knowing the dog's history, how to handle them, knowing they are dangerous etc and I think that's a great point. How many other species of dog do we have to know that much about and how to handle/address so we have a level of comfort in our homes that we are safe? I've personally never had those thoughts about ANY dog I've ever owned.

 

[Exit 1]

Yup, we know the whole story right there and the dog's background. Good job.

This was actually my point to something 3Cs posted as well. We really don't know the whole story in many of these cases if any. That's why this whole thing seems bizarre. All we know is people are getting attacked by dogs. We don't really know how well/poorly the dog's actually been treated.

Yes, but quite a few of the articles have stated how the owner was at least somewhat responsible or could have prevented the attack from happening.

We were focused on the actions of the dog in your comments. You only mentioned the "dog's background". Someone posted a good point a while back about knowing the dog's history, how to handle them, knowing they are dangerous etc and I think that's a great point. How many other species of dog do we have to know that much about and how to handle/address so we have a level of comfort in our homes that we are safe? I've personally never had those thoughts about ANY dog I've ever owned.

I think it's gotta be a case by case basis. Regarding the one story that beavers posted with the 10 year old boy, I did see in another article that the family got the dog from a shelter so who really knows what the dog went through.

 

[[icon]]

A stick of dynamite is no more dangerous than a firecracker because, you know, they both gotta be lit and they both blow up.

 

[3C's]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

My goal is to get rid of dangerous dogs on a case by case basis rather than a breed because of a small (miniscule really) subset of bad animals. My goal also is to reduce the overcrowding at shelters (like mine) of unwanted bully breeds, many who go unadopted and are euthanized due to the unwarranted fear which is prevalent in this thread. My goal is to get the breed, and all dogs really, out of the hands of irresponsible owners and return it to it's stature of the early 20th century. I'm not a bully fanboy (we have more than a few at the shelter) but I think they're unfairly maligned. I've never owned one but I know people that have. I've owned a rottie (a breed which has been maligned as well) and now own a great dane pup, another "killer" breed. I've also owned a german shepherd (big time "killer" but never beaten up since they're used as police dogs and seeing eye dogs). All were very loving dogs and wouldn't hurt anyone, although the rottie sensed something about a guy at our house when I wasn't there and showed him the door.

 

[The Commish]

Yup, we know the whole story right there and the dog's background. Good job.

This was actually my point to something 3Cs posted as well. We really don't know the whole story in many of these cases if any. That's why this whole thing seems bizarre. All we know is people are getting attacked by dogs. We don't really know how well/poorly the dog's actually been treated.

Yes, but quite a few of the articles have stated how the owner was at least somewhat responsible or could have prevented the attack from happening.

We were focused on the actions of the dog in your comments. You only mentioned the "dog's background". Someone posted a good point a while back about knowing the dog's history, how to handle them, knowing they are dangerous etc and I think that's a great point. How many other species of dog do we have to know that much about and how to handle/address so we have a level of comfort in our homes that we are safe? I've personally never had those thoughts about ANY dog I've ever owned.

I think it's gotta be a case by case basis. Regarding the one story that beavers posted with the 10 year old boy, I did see in another article that the family got the dog from a shelter so who really knows what the dog went through.

Agreed....generalizations rarely work in these types of things. That's why I'm a bit surprised (not completely) that the arguments have turned to what they have. Reality is, we won't know the specifics that matter. I've not had a TON of interactions with pit bulls but I'd be lying if I wasn't nervous around them. In my experiences, it's pinchers, pit bull, German Sheppard in order of nervousness for me.

 

[simey]

now own a great dane pup, another "killer" breed.

I have two friends that have owned Great Danes, and both dogs had very sweet temperaments. The only warning I'd give on a Great Dane is to be alert of bloat symptoms since they are very susceptible to that.

 

[The Commish]

now own a great dane pup, another "killer" breed.

I have two friends that have owned Great Danes, and both dogs had very sweet temperaments. The only warning I'd give on a Great Dane is to be alert of bloat symptoms since they are very susceptible to that.

and hip problems. I've worked with various humane societies for the better part of two decades and have never heard great danes lumped into the same category with these other breeds though. First time I've heard to them being a "killer" breed.

 

[beavers]

Yup, we know the whole story right there and the dog's background. Good job.

This was actually my point to something 3Cs posted as well. We really don't know the whole story in many of these cases if any. That's why this whole thing seems bizarre. All we know is people are getting attacked by dogs. We don't really know how well/poorly the dog's actually been treated.

Yes, but quite a few of the articles have stated how the owner was at least somewhat responsible or could have prevented the attack from happening.

We were focused on the actions of the dog in your comments. You only mentioned the "dog's background". Someone posted a good point a while back about knowing the dog's history, how to handle them, knowing they are dangerous etc and I think that's a great point. How many other species of dog do we have to know that much about and how to handle/address so we have a level of comfort in our homes that we are safe? I've personally never had those thoughts about ANY dog I've ever owned.

I think it's gotta be a case by case basis. Regarding the one story that beavers posted with the 10 year old boy, I did see in another article that the family got the dog from a shelter so who really knows what the dog went through.

The article states that they adopted the dog as a puppy.

 

[3C's]

now own a great dane pup, another "killer" breed.

I have two friends that have owned Great Danes, and both dogs had very sweet temperaments. The only warning I'd give on a Great Dane is to be alert of bloat symptoms since they are very susceptible to that.

yep. we've discussed gastropexy briefly with our vet. considering it as a possible avenue when she goes in for her spay. using an elevated feeder and (trying) to keep her settled after eating. (hard to do though when there's 3 young dogs; 6mo, 1 yo and 2yo) she's very sweet and gangly/goofy. it's funny to watch a small horse who thinks she's tiny romp around like other 6 month old pups. oh, and she's "intimidated" by our 15lb terrier.

 

[3C's]

now own a great dane pup, another "killer" breed.

I have two friends that have owned Great Danes, and both dogs had very sweet temperaments. The only warning I'd give on a Great Dane is to be alert of bloat symptoms since they are very susceptible to that.

and hip problems. I've worked with various humane societies for the better part of two decades and have never heard great danes lumped into the same category with these other breeds though. First time I've heard to them being a "killer" breed.

there's a number of reports of attacks and killings by danes. and then there's this:http://www.ohmidog.com/2011/12/05/great-danes-and-other-attack-dogs-would-be-euthanized-under-cumberland-county-ban/pic looks a lot like mine...only bigger and adult.

 

[simey]

now own a great dane pup, another "killer" breed.

I have two friends that have owned Great Danes, and both dogs had very sweet temperaments. The only warning I'd give on a Great Dane is to be alert of bloat symptoms since they are very susceptible to that.

yep. we've discussed gastropexy briefly with our vet. considering it as a possible avenue when she goes in for her spay. using an elevated feeder and (trying) to keep her settled after eating. (hard to do though when there's 3 young dogs; 6mo, 1 yo and 2yo) she's very sweet and gangly/goofy. it's funny to watch a small horse who thinks she's tiny romp around like other 6 month old pups. oh, and she's "intimidated" by our 15lb terrier.

It used to freak me out when my best friend's Great Dane would sit on the couch, chair, etc. He would sit kinda on his hip and look like he wasn't fully sitting, but he was. They used to take him to doggie daycare sometimes, and the staff noticed symptoms of bloating in him and rushed him to the vet. He survived that, but about three years later he got very ill one night and died. They think maybe he bloated again, and I don't think (but i'm not sure) he had a gastropexy done the first time. :( They just recently lost their standard poodle to what the vet thinks was Addisons. It happened suddenly on Easter. He was very sweet too. I loved him.

 

[TexanFan02]

Yup, we know the whole story right there and the dog's background. Good job.

This was actually my point to something 3Cs posted as well. We really don't know the whole story in many of these cases if any. That's why this whole thing seems bizarre. All we know is people are getting attacked by dogs. We don't really know how well/poorly the dog's actually been treated.

Yes, but quite a few of the articles have stated how the owner was at least somewhat responsible or could have prevented the attack from happening.

We were focused on the actions of the dog in your comments. You only mentioned the "dog's background". Someone posted a good point a while back about knowing the dog's history, how to handle them, knowing they are dangerous etc and I think that's a great point. How many other species of dog do we have to know that much about and how to handle/address so we have a level of comfort in our homes that we are safe? I've personally never had those thoughts about ANY dog I've ever owned.

I think it's gotta be a case by case basis. Regarding the one story that beavers posted with the 10 year old boy, I did see in another article that the family got the dog from a shelter so who really knows what the dog went through.

The article states that they adopted the dog as a puppy.

That doesn't fit with their theory so they will ignore it.

 

[Cunk]

Yup, we know the whole story right there and the dog's background. Good job.

This was actually my point to something 3Cs posted as well. We really don't know the whole story in many of these cases if any. That's why this whole thing seems bizarre. All we know is people are getting attacked by dogs. We don't really know how well/poorly the dog's actually been treated.

Yes, but quite a few of the articles have stated how the owner was at least somewhat responsible or could have prevented the attack from happening.

We were focused on the actions of the dog in your comments. You only mentioned the "dog's background". Someone posted a good point a while back about knowing the dog's history, how to handle them, knowing they are dangerous etc and I think that's a great point. How many other species of dog do we have to know that much about and how to handle/address so we have a level of comfort in our homes that we are safe? I've personally never had those thoughts about ANY dog I've ever owned.

I think it's gotta be a case by case basis. Regarding the one story that beavers posted with the 10 year old boy, I did see in another article that the family got the dog from a shelter so who really knows what the dog went through.

The article states that they adopted the dog as a puppy.

And was always around kids. The father rolled the dice with his kid's safety. Selfish and irresponsible. But hey, the chances were very good nothing would happen right? Wonder if he was yelling "It was worth the risk! It was worth the risk!" as he held his bleeding son in his arms and into the hospital. Shame he didn't choose a dog that wouldn't inflict that much damage if it attacked. But he had to have a Pit. Why? Beats me as well. Some people need have to have a Pit.

 

[eoMMan]

Yup, we know the whole story right there and the dog's background. Good job.

This was actually my point to something 3Cs posted as well. We really don't know the whole story in many of these cases if any. That's why this whole thing seems bizarre. All we know is people are getting attacked by dogs. We don't really know how well/poorly the dog's actually been treated.

Yes, but quite a few of the articles have stated how the owner was at least somewhat responsible or could have prevented the attack from happening.

We were focused on the actions of the dog in your comments. You only mentioned the "dog's background". Someone posted a good point a while back about knowing the dog's history, how to handle them, knowing they are dangerous etc and I think that's a great point. How many other species of dog do we have to know that much about and how to handle/address so we have a level of comfort in our homes that we are safe? I've personally never had those thoughts about ANY dog I've ever owned.

I think it's gotta be a case by case basis. Regarding the one story that beavers posted with the 10 year old boy, I did see in another article that the family got the dog from a shelter so who really knows what the dog went through.

The article states that they adopted the dog as a puppy.

That doesn't fit with their theory so they will ignore it.

Exit 1 was right. They did get the dog from a shelter. It doesn't really say at what age though other than a puppy.And, TexanFan, you're useless in this thread. You should leave. TIA.

Ted got the dog from a shelter when it was a puppy, the dog was around kids all the time.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/18598870/2012/05/22/boy-viciously-attacked-by-own-pet-pit-bull

 

[parasaurolophus]

i mistreated/abused pitbull is no more dangerous than a similarly mistreated/abused poodle

Wow.

Yep. The dumbest thing ever written on this board, and that is saying something.

 

[joffer]

A mistreated/abused pitbull is no more dangerous than a similarly mistreated/abused poodle

Wow.

I don't believe this. I was wondering if it sounded as absurd written down as it did in my head. Seems that many in this thread believe this to be true

 

[Charlie Frown]

applaud your efforts Chaka but it's futile. some are fishing (I hope because they can't really be that dense) and others have their mind made up.

What is goal state for you? Is it to reduce the number of pit bull attacks or is it a PR move to help improve the name of the breed?

Why not just reduce the number of dog attacks in general? Why single out pit bulls? I think there has been more than enough evidence in this thread that if you eliminated all pitbulls in the world, another breed (rottweilier, doberman, whatever) would take it's place as the token abused dog that makes headlines from dog bites.I'd be totally fine with harsher penalties for the owners whose dogs bite or attack other people. It's just not fair to blame the breed and totally chalk it up to that and never admit that the owner is the dip#### at fault.Have you ever watched the Dog Whisperer? If pitbulls were such horrible dogs, why would a guy like Cesar Milan love them so much?

If you look at an earlier post of mine, I said that I would never own a dangerous dog which includes pit, rott, doberman etc. So I am not singling out pits by any means (FWIW - this is a pit thread, not a dangerous dog breed thread). But to disregard the genetic aspect of pits and their ability to attack is

And to spotlight these attacks and single out pitbulls (without mentioning how careless, stupid, and abusive the owners can be) is .

I think it's a given though right? I don't know of a single animal that if abused, won't lash out at some point. That's probably why it's not specified. It's like going into a math class and making sure everyone agrees that 2 + 2 = 4. It's not necessary IMO.

No, it's not a given. I don't think the pitbull haters in here realize that they are the most abused dog in the US and this, in turn, leads to attacks on humans.Or they do realize this and want to play blind to the fact.

Boy attacked by a 1 yr old pit. No sign of poor ownership.

LAVEEN, Ariz. -A 10-year old boy is recovering after being attacked by the family pit bull.The family loved this dog. All the kids played with him regularly, but this weekend, something set the dog off and he attacked 10-year-old Lucas Arnds.We should warn you, the boy's injuries are pretty severe."It growled once or twice which I should have known was bad," recalls Lucas. "And then it attacked me."These are pictures of Lucas Arnds taken just after the attack. He had to get more than 40 stitches."His top teeth hit my ear and then it hit this part and his bottom teeth bit into this. And I started crying. Blood was dripping down and I started banging on the door."Lucas was at his dad's house in Laveen this weekend and was in the yard playing with the 1 year-old pit bull."I just heard my son with a very loud bloodcurdling scream yell out help 'dad help help!'" says Ted Arnds.Ted got the dog from a shelter when it was a puppy, the dog was around kids all the time."All it took was something that you don't even think about, like the smell of another dog for that dog to reach out and grab my son and tear him to pieces."Just before the attack, Lucas was helping out a neighbor with some yard work and also played with that neighbor's pit bull.Animal control told the family the other dog's smell could have sparked the attack.Despite his injuries, Lucas is doing ok."I have a stepbrother who is about 4 and sister who is 6 and I am glad it didn't happen to them."Dad took the dog to animal control, and soon after he got a text from his son."He said 'please promise me that you'll never have a pit bull again' and I told him that I promise," says Ted.The dog is now in quarantine at animal control. The family was told he will be put down.

A dog nipping a kid to warn them will happen if you own a dog and kids long enough. A dog that is not trying to actually hurt you will nip you hard with it's front teeth.What this dog did was try to kill this kid.

 

[Mile High]

I have know some really loving Pitts, but would never own one if there are children in the house.

 

[jomar]

A mistreated/abused pitbull is no more dangerous than a similarly mistreated/abused poodle

Wow.

I don't believe this. I was wondering if it sounded as absurd written down as it did in my head. Seems that many in this thread believe this to be true

Can you name one or two of these people? It seems to me that people might not even know what they're arguing about anymore. I know the 'pit haters' will hate the pit bulls, but I don't think 90% of them understand what the 'pro pit' crowd is saying. Comments like yours are proof of that.

 

[jomar]

I have know some really loving Pitts, but would never own one if there are children in the house.

Any other breeds you would never own?