One of my clients brings his Pit Bull to his training sessions with me (in my gym). He LOOKS scary as hell but is as gentle as a lamb.
My sister-in-law and brother’s dog (American Bulldog) would come see, sniff and lay down next to and protect my newborn whenever we brought him over.
This is like doggy racism.
Great video by the way, I’ll send it to my brother.
This is a tough one. Clearly most pit bulls make great pets and never attack anyone. However, in England several headlines have made the news in recent weeks about fatal attacks made by dogs, including pitbulls. Its a tough call, but i do think certain dogs should be banned, including pitbulls. They appeat too tempremental, too often.
I think that says where I stand on this.
Thanks for posting this video.
[quote]elliotnewman1 wrote:
This is a tough one. Clearly most pit bulls make great pets and never attack anyone. However, in England several headlines have made the news in recent weeks about fatal attacks made by dogs, including pitbulls. Its a tough call, but i do think certain dogs should be banned, including pitbulls. They appeat too tempremental, too often.[/quote]
Bad dogs are not born, there is no genetic mutation present in certain dog breeds that make them turn against their owner or reach out and bite their latest victim. Bad dogs are created, usually by the people who raise them, less often by unscrupulous breeders who deliberately or unknowingly breed unsound temperaments to another unstable temperament. Every dog is a product of his environment. Every puppy born is born innocent of future charges levied against him by the public.
[quote]elliotnewman1 wrote:
This is a tough one. Clearly most pit bulls make great pets and never attack anyone. However, in England several headlines have made the news in recent weeks about fatal attacks made by dogs, including pitbulls. Its a tough call, but i do think certain dogs should be banned, including pitbulls. They appeat too tempremental, too often.[/quote]
“Clearly most pit bulls make great pets and never attack anyone… They appear too temperamental, too often.” Well, which one is it? I bet I know.
Temperament Tests
http://www.atts.org/statistics.html
American Pit Bull Terrier 84.1%
American Staffordshire Terrier 83.9%
Staffordshire Bull Terrier 85.2%
Golden Retriever 83.8%
Hmmm…
Don’t believe all the sexy stories. More often than not, the people bitten can’t correctly identify the dog that did it. And all too often the blaim is then wrongly placed on a “pitbull”.
Most people I’ve sent this link to have gotten it wrong. Can you find the “pitbull”?
[quote]SBT wrote:
I think that says where I stand on this.
Thanks for posting this video.[/quote]
I agree 100%. I had a pitbull (recently died) but where I live pitbulls were banned about a year ago. Biggest shit law ever.
[quote]SBT wrote:
I think that says where I stand on this.
Thanks for posting this video.[/quote]
I agree 100%. I had a pitbull (recently died) but where I live pitbulls were banned about a year ago. Biggest shit law ever.
[quote]derek wrote:
elliotnewman1 wrote:
This is a tough one. Clearly most pit bulls make great pets and never attack anyone. However, in England several headlines have made the news in recent weeks about fatal attacks made by dogs, including pitbulls. Its a tough call, but i do think certain dogs should be banned, including pitbulls. They appeat too tempremental, too often.
Bad dogs are not born, there is no genetic mutation present in certain dog breeds that make them turn against their owner or reach out and bite their latest victim. Bad dogs are created, usually by the people who raise them, less often by unscrupulous breeders who deliberately or unknowingly breed unsound temperaments to another unstable temperament. Every dog is a product of his environment. Every puppy born is born innocent of future charges levied against him by the public.
[/quote]
Good post!
[quote]SBT wrote:
elliotnewman1 wrote:
This is a tough one. Clearly most pit bulls make great pets and never attack anyone. However, in England several headlines have made the news in recent weeks about fatal attacks made by dogs, including pitbulls. Its a tough call, but i do think certain dogs should be banned, including pitbulls. They appeat too tempremental, too often.
“Clearly most pit bulls make great pets and never attack anyone… They appear too temperamental, too often.” Well, which one is it? I bet I know.
Temperament Tests
http://www.atts.org/statistics.html
American Pit Bull Terrier 84.1%
American Staffordshire Terrier 83.9%
Staffordshire Bull Terrier 85.2%
Golden Retriever 83.8%
Hmmm…
Don’t believe all the sexy stories. More often than not, the people bitten can’t correctly identify the dog that did it. And all too often the blaim is then wrongly placed on a “pitbull”.
Most people I’ve sent this link to have gotten it wrong. Can you find the “pitbull”?
[/quote]
Great links. Thanks.
I think the dog owner should be 100% responsible for the dog’s actions, no matter what breed.
It’s just like not feeling responsible for when your kid steels something. If my daughter breaks something at a store, I don’t just blame it on her genes and leave without taking responsibility.
But he’s wrong, and dead wrong if we’re talking about pit bulls. All men may be created equal, but not all dogs. Says Katherine Houpt, director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at Cornell and author of Domestic Animal Behavior: “Different breeds have genetic predispositions to certain kinds of behavior, though that can be influenced by how they are raised. The pit bull is an innately aggressive breed, often owned by someone who wants an aggressive dog, so they’re going to encourage it.”
As Carl Semencic, author of several informative books on guard dogs, and a big pit-bull fan, describes it, the bulldogge owners made a striking discovery: “a cross between the bulldogge and any of the game [i.e., brave and tenacious] and relatively powerful terriers of the day produced a game, powerful, agile, and smaller, more capable opponent in the dog pits.” These bull-and-terrier crosses became renowned for fighting prowess and soon were the only dogs used in organized dog fighting in England and later in the United States. To preserve the bull-and-terrier’s pugnacious traits, the dogs were bred only to dogs of the same cross. Thus was born the pit-bull terrier, “the most capable fighting dog known to modern man,” Semencic enthuses.
Though breeders, realizing the pit bull was an attractive dog when it wasn’t scrapping, bred a less feisty version?the American Staffordshire terrier (“Pete” of the old Our Gang comedy series is a well-known representative)?the pit-bull terrier is first and last a fighting dog. Its breeding history separates it from other tough dogs like Doberman pinschers and rottweilers, which have been bred to guard their masters and their property. Pit bulls are genetically wired to kill other dogs.
The pit bull’s unusual breeding history has produced some bizarre behavioral traits, de- scribed by The Economist’s science editor in an article published a few years ago, at the peak of a heated British controversy over dangerous dogs that saw the pit bull banned in England. First, the pit bull is quicker to anger than most dogs, probably due to the breed’s unusually high level of the neurotransmitter L-tyrosine. Second, pit bulls are frighteningly tenacious; their attacks frequently last for 15 minutes or longer, and nothing?hoses, violent blows or kicks?can easily stop them. That’s because of the third behavioral anomaly: the breed’s remarkable insensitivity to pain. Most dogs beaten in a fight will submit the next time they see the victor. Not a defeated pit bull, who will tear into his onetime vanquisher. This, too, has to do with brain chemistry. The body releases endorphins as a natural painkiller. Pit bulls seem extra-sensitive to endorphins and may generate higher levels of the chemical than other dogs. Endorphins are also addictive: “The dogs may be junkies, seeking pain so they can get the endorphin buzz they crave,” The Economist suggests.
Finally, most dogs warn you before they attack, growling or barking to tell you how angry they are?“so they don’t have to fight,” ASPCA advisor and animal geneticist Stephen Zawistowski stresses. Not the pit bull, which attacks without warning. Most dogs, too, will bow to signal that they want to frolic. Again, not the pit bull, which may follow an apparently playful bow with a lethal assault. In short, contrary to the writings of Vicki Hearne, a well-known essayist on animals who?in a bizarre but emotionally charged confusion?equates breed-specific laws against pit bulls as a kind of “racist propaganda,” the pit bull is a breed apart
To learn more, read Attorney Kenneth Phillips’ 10-point plan for Preventing Dog Bites.
The breeds most likely to kill
In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:
“Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996…[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.” (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)
The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)
Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.
The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family’s Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby’s uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. (“Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog,” Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)
In Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them, it has been pointed out that the dog bite epidemic as a whole involves all dogs and all dog owners, not just the breeds most likely to kill.
In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:
Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Study stuff
[/quote]
That study is great and all but it’s flawed: a pitbull is not a breed. To lump at least three breeds and “pitbull type dogs” together under one heading of “pitbull” and compare it to specific breeds will surely mess with the results.
Aside from the hype and the fear, one of the truths is that a large portion of owners have these dogs because they want an aggressive dog and that is more so than any other breed.
I realize that is the owners fault.
But if the majority of owners breed and raise these dogs to attack, cause injury, and to kill, than that is the circumstances for the majority of these dogs: they are bred, trained and raised to attack, cause injury and kill.
I am not saying all owners but too many owners do want a pitbull because they think it is bad ass and they want a mean and viscious dog. These are not the most reliable and responsible of people and they are what makes the general population fear and want to ban these dogs.
Where I live there are codes that have done away with the “one bite rule” for dogs. Not just pitbulls but dogs that are listed as being more aggressive are not allowed one bite before owners being on notice.
There is also legislation wherein owners of potentially more aggressive dogs must have a high value home owners policy in case of attack.
So again, the majority of owners who buy and train these dogs for their aggression are the ones that have created the problem and caused the fear and backlash, but it is a vast majority of owners.
[quote]SBT wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Study stuff
That study is great and all but it’s flawed: a pitbull is not a breed. To lump at least three breeds and “pitbull type dogs” together under one heading of “pitbull” and compare it to specific breeds will surely mess with the results.
[/quote]
I don’t know if you are the person to answer that.
I do know that the majority of owners for that breed, mixed breed, assumed to be aggressive dog, are the type of owners that want that dog to be mean and want them to attack.
I recognize the difference between the dog and the owner. It is unfortunate. It is like they have made that type of dog, mixed dog, assumed to be part pitbull mixed dog, their “gun” of choice.
I can understand the fear and distrust of that breed if irresponsible owners are training attack dogs using that type of dog.
[quote]SBT wrote:
Most people I’ve sent this link to have gotten it wrong. Can you find the “pitbull”?
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html[/quote]
ohh yea, first try. I don’t own a pitbull but they certainly have the bad reputation thanks to stupid owners. If only people were more open-minded . . . .
A lot of the anti-Pitbull thing in England is exactly a result of legislation that was brought in over 10 years ago (when a child was killed), yet never enforced, and so recently a child was mauled to death by a family dog.
To be honest, I don’t really have any strong opinions on animals, beyond valuing human life more than animal life.
In the case of Pitbulls however, the government minister who introduced the original legislation in England that sought to ban the breed as such, pointed out specifically than when the dog bit down on a child’s arm, it would only release it by killing the animal. I do not know if this is the case, but if it is, then I can see why people don’t want these animals around.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Pit bulls are genetically wired to kill other dogs.[/quote]
And genome testing has concluded this, or is it just scientific-sounding hyperbole?
This was concluded how?
Oh, well, if a magazine dealing with economics suggested it…
In all cases, all the time. Right. I’m sure all other breeds are completely devoid of this behavior.
[quote]Most dogs, too, will bow to signal that they want to frolic. Again, not the pit bull, which may follow an apparently playful bow with a lethal assault. In short, contrary to the writings of Vicki Hearne, a well-known essayist on animals who?in a bizarre but emotionally charged confusion?equates breed-specific laws against pit bulls as a kind of “racist propaganda,” the pit bull is a breed apart
http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_scared_of_pit.html
To learn more, read Attorney Kenneth Phillips’ 10-point plan for Preventing Dog Bites.
The breeds most likely to kill
In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:
“Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996…[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.” (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.) [/quote]
I find it interesting that in the above statis-schtick that there is no mention of a total number of dog attacks over the same time period vs. fatal dog attacks.
I’m just guessing, but I’m pretty sure one would find that they do not attack humans more than any other breed (in fact, some of the literature I’ve read says significantly less).
As for why they are responsible for the majority of fatalities, uh, gee, that couldn’t possibly be because they are stronger, more robust breeds than most other dogs, could it?
Factor in the propensity for such dogs to be trained to attack by their owners (as the article points out) as opposed to other large breeds like German Shepherds or Great Danes, and the statistic isn’t unreasonable at all.
The “study” also fails to mention any victim statistics as well. How many were young children/toddlers/infants/elderly/disabled persons incapable of defending themselves from even a mildly aggressive attack?
They cite Vicki Hearne’s rebuttal of anti-pitbull laws as “bizarre but emotionally charged confusion”. Maybe, maybe not, but it couldn’t be any worse than the slanted statistics and highly flawed junk science presented in this “study”.
[quote]The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)
Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds. [/quote]
Where have I heard this before?
Umm, so, what the fuck? Now a lack of breed predictability is being cited? Doesn’t this counter act what just went before it?
[quote] In Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them, it has been pointed out that the dog bite epidemic as a whole involves all dogs and all dog owners, not just the breeds most likely to kill.
In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:
Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.
[/quote]
Right, the last sentence says it all and pretty much renders the preceding “studies” inert.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I do know that the majority of owners for that breed, mixed breed, assumed to be aggressive dog, are the type of owners that want that dog to be mean and want them to attack.[/quote]
And how do you know this? Another study?
That’s my dog, Ace. He’s an American Pitbull Terrier. I got him because I wanted an athletic, very intelligent, agile, and loyal dog. My choice had nothing to do with aggression or attacking. He’s never even nipped or growled at anyone yet.
I know the majority of Ferrari owners speed and consistently break the speed limit as well as other driving laws. I can definitely understand the fear and mistrust if one sees a Ferrari driving down the street. These cars should be outlawed.
Good post, Digital.
You can’t deny there are a lot of dogs out there that are just plain mean, no matter what the breed. My mom’s Pomeranian would eat me and everyone else in the family if it were anything more than a barking fur-ball.
However, my gut tells me that most of these dogs that do attack people and other animals and seem so terrible, have probably been abused and neglected by their owners. It’s pretty easy to go get a dog with a big pair when you don’t got a set of your own.