Pit bull attack

MorningStar

Myself and my wife were walking our two dogs in a park last night at about 8 when a pit bull latched on to my dogs throat. The owner was unable to to get the dog to let go. Luckily it didn't have a good grip. After about 5 minutes we managed to lossen it's hold and had to yank the dog off (it never released). My dog was only slightly hurt luckily. My dog was on a lead his wasn't. The owner stank of alcohol and had another pit bull with him but it was a pup. The park is full of kids and commonly used by dog owners. He was in his 40s incase anybody thinks he was a kid. He claimed the dog was pregnant so that's why it attacked! WTF!

I was very shook up as were my wife and dogs. I am going to contact the police but what will they actually do? Are these dogs meant to have a muzzle on when outside? Are they banned breeds in Ireland?

tallus

I dont know a huge amount about dogs, but I strongly feel that ownership of dogs of that breed should be regulated.

IANOC

well they should be muzzled!!!!!!

you would do right to report this ASAP mate
that could have been a small child`s neck it was tearing into. :mad:

MorningStar

Reported it to the dog warden and the Gardai.

These dogs are meant to have muzzles by law and the rest that he ignored.

http://www.irishdogs.ie/Information/Control%20of%20Dogs.htm

I am not agianst the breed for being aggressive just their strength and ability to lock their jaws. Idiots can get their hands on them and have no idea how to treat them or happy they are aggressive and scarey.

crazymonkey

you do the right thing mate, i am a dog owner also and understand that people must be responisable for there pets, Pit Bulls are dangerous dogs..

K!LL!@N

Speaking of Pitbulls, i was walking to work yesterday morning and there was one strolling around Gardiner Street.
No owner in sight.
Don't think it was a stray as it had a huge studded collar around it's neck.

Killian

kestrel

you did the right thing. owners who can't train their dogs properly should have them taken off them. it sickens me to see so many people, who obviously lack the knowledge required, owning a dog from one of the more demanding breeds. it's not fair on other dog owners, giving us all a bad name, and, more importantly, giving the dogs a bad name! it's fools like him that have people (myself included) nervous of encounters with pitbulls, particularily when im with my dog. i always try to judge by the owners reaction and appearance wether to put my girl back on her lead or not. i have had very friendly encounters with a couple of pitbulls.

Einstein

fair play.
I'm a real dog lover and have a purebred Weimaraner, and the thoughts of the likes of a vicious unrestrained pitbull attacking it makes me mad!!
I love dogs, but some breeds are just dangerous end of story.

D...

Sigma Force

Pit bulls are used for fightin it is becoming more commen in Ireland now, this dog could of been used for it and that's where they get their reputation from, sounds like the owner has the problem..never trained the dog right or has been using the dog for fighting.

peasant

Agree with informing the authorities and also the verdict on some owners ...but... it is nonsense to attribute a dog's bad behaviour to its breed.

Just because it says "Pitbull" it needn't be vicious same as just because it says "Golden Retriever" it isn't necessarily well behaved.

Upbringing, socialization and training (or lack thereof) maketh the dog ...

Breeding comes into it when bad breeders breed for the wrong characteristics (aggressiveness for example) or haven't got a clue what they're doing. But that can be done to any breed.

A Pitbull from a responsible breeder and with the right owner is no more dangerous than any other dog.

And no dog is 100% "safe" either...they all are predators after all.

Dyr

there was a massive thread on pitbulls and their inclination to attack other dogs to a while back...

squiiish

kestrel wrote:

you did the right thing. owners who can't train their dogs properly should have them taken off them. it sickens me to see so many people, who obviously lack the knowledge required, owning a dog from one of the more demanding breeds. it's not fair on other dog owners, giving us all a bad name, and, more importantly, giving the dogs a bad name! it's fools like him that have people (myself included) nervous of encounters with pitbulls, particularily when im with my dog. i always try to judge by the owners reaction and appearance wether to put my girl back on her lead or not. i have had very friendly encounters with a couple of pitbulls.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I've known a number of pitbulls who were absolute dotes but that was because they had responsible owners who knew what they were doing, did obedience training, made sure they learnt how to socialise properly etc.
I've encountered more of a vicious streak in inbred "pedigree" dalmations and the likes.
They are now trying to ban pitbulls in the states. :mad: It makes me really angry that a whole group of dogs ( for as far as I know "pitbull" isn't actually a specific breed, its just like the term Lurcher describes many kinds of whippet and greyhound crosses) are being given a bad name cos there's people who get them just for the street cred and to look "tuff!" etc.

FranknFurter

Its because of such owners that my own dog (JRT) has to have a short lead. Last time I had her on an extendable lead a bloody rothy went for her. (She is such a quiet dog, all she did was lay down and wait to be rescued).
Way I see it, If I can take time to train my dog, so can anyone, and if you cannot, then you shouldnt have *any* dog.

An untrained dog of any breed is potentially a dangerous dog imho.

MorningStar

Such dogs aren't strictly the problem but that doesn't mean they should be allowed. It may be a training issue but so is gun control. Guns don't kill it's people the same doesn't apply for dogs. If somebody doesn't train their dog the dog is a risk on it's own. A gun won't escape and go around looking to kill somebody. These dogs are particularly strong and have a jaw that can lock. There is no need for the breed and as their is such a risk they should be banned. I am not talking about them being destroyed just no longer allowed breed. Certain breeds are more dangerous than others because they require perfect training.

doctor evil

kestrel wrote:

i always try to judge by the owners reaction and appearance wether to put my girl back on her lead or not.

Dogs should be on leads full stop. Dogs are not robots, even if they have the best training things can still happen. It is not training by its self that makes the dog, you have to take into account the dog its self. Breeds have a reputation for a reason!.

kestrel

doctor evil wrote:

Dogs should be on leads full stop. Dogs are not robots, even if they have the best training things can still happen. It is not training by its self that makes the dog, you have to take into account the dog its self. Breeds have a reputation for a reason!.

normally i would agree, especially if it is an area that attracts alot of people and dogs to it, but it is different where i let my dog off. since you quoted me in your post, i feel obliged to justify my letting my dog off her lead...

i can assure you there is no danger from her- she is never let off the lead near houses or populated areas, it is just one particular large park beside a river. its basically a huge field where you can see exactly who is coming and what is going on. it took me six months of keeping her on the lead before i was comfortable letting her off, and then only because i began to know the place really well and began to meet the regulars. i have found that this particular park only attracts a certain type of dog owner, (responsible, loving-only these would bother walking their dog alllll the way out to the place!) except on very hot days, when you get the drinking groups by the river. there is never very many people; there has been days when i have met nobody in the 45mins it takes to circle it.

my dog herself is a cocker spaniel. she is absolutely fabulous off the lead, keeping to within a hundred metres of me, much less when around trees and heavy cover, and coming back when called. she is nervous enough of children, but would never attack, just run straight back to me and hide behind my legs, at which point i ask the children to move on. i've never had any sort of difficulty. with dogs, she will only play with other gundog breeds, and runs back to me when other breeds approach. if the dog persists, myself and the other dogs owner just move past each other, no problems.

i think it is absolutely cruel to keep some dogs on their lead constantly, especially if you have somewhere you can let them off. some working breeds in particular love the long grass, running around, swimming, and just letting their hair down. its part of their nature and in their genes. there is only the occasional bad owner that handles their dog badly and gives us all a bad name.

peasant

with dogs, she will only play with other gundog breeds, and runs back to me when other breeds approach.

Bruharrharr !!! ..priceless ...

Yes ...and in her lickle handbag she carries the FCI breed specifications, so that she can distingiuish the "good" gun dogs from all the other "bad" breeds.

Prey tell ...does she interview mongrels as to their parentage?

some working breeds in particular love the long grass, running around, swimming, and just letting their hair down

Just replace "some working breeds" with "all dogs" and you could be just about right

Get this breed-nonsense out of your head, quickly !!


When will people finally get it in their heads that a dog is a dog, is a dog. All dogs are the same and all dogs are different.

A "breed" only desribes size, shape and colour. No more, no less!
Any other traits (hunter, herder, sniffer, runner) only apply to certain sizes and/or shapes ..but that's it ...nothing more to be read into breed or type.

All the rest is individual dog and the results of its keeping/ socialization / training/ environment and THE OWNER.

Dyr

Get this breed-nonsense out of your head, quickly !!


When will people finally get it in their heads that a dog is a dog, is a dog.

If this was true do you really think people would have gone through the trouble to create such a plethora of different breeds for different jobs? Breed counts, its not the be all and end all of a dog but its the raw material you're going to work with.

Pitbulls were bred to fight other dogs, full stop. Its perfectly valid for people to be more concerned about that breed latching onto their dog than the average pooch. Anyone who thinks a pitbull has no less "viscious" potential than a dalmation has'nt been on the wrong end of a pit. You'd appreciate the difference if you had.

disillusioned

Pitbulls were bred to fight other dogs, full stop. Its perfectly valid for people to be more concerned about that breed latching onto their dog than the average pooch. Anyone who thinks a pitbull has no less "viscious" potential than a dalmation has'nt been on the wrong end of a pit. You'd appreciate the difference if you had.

I totally agree. Pitbulls aren't top of the dangerous dogs' list for nothing.

peasant

If this was true do you really think people would have gone through the trouble to create such a plethora of different breeds for different jobs? Breed counts, its not the be all and end all of a dog but its the raw material you're going to work with.

You are correct that man has bred dogs for centuries for their working ability. but only for that. The best at their jobs were bred ...regardless of their looks.
Breeds as we know them today in most cases are no older than a hundred years. They are no longer bred for ability but for size, colour, length of coat, shortness of muzzle, slope of back and all that other nonsense. This has actually led to the fact that some breeds cannot perform the tasks anymore that they were initially selected for.
All the bumpf that you read in most breed descriptions about lineage, history, character, ability etc is just marketing (and mostly wishful thinking).

As for fighting dogs ...
Any dog can be bred to fight. But breeding for aggressiveness is only half the game. Dogs as social animals need certain social skills in order to get along with each other, their siblings, their mother, in order to survive. So aggressiveness can't be too high, or they wouldn't get to be any older than just a few days. Instinctive non-aggressive behaviour and social skills can't be bred away, that is all mans doing in "training" the dog to be vicious as it grows up. In most cases it isn't actually "training" the dog to be strong and mean, but to make it so panicked and afraid that it has no other choice than to lash out at everything because it sees any other thing as a potential threat to its life.

The misfortune of the bull breeds is that they have the looks and the reputation of power and aggression. So they attract more than their fair share of nutters who get off on owning a "dangerous" dog.

Properly bred and raised they or no more or less dangerous than any other dog.

Dyr

peasant wrote:

You are correct that man has bred dogs for centuries for their working ability. but only for that. The best at their jobs were bred ...regardless of their looks.
Breeds as we know them today in most cases are no older than a hundred years.

yes true, but breeds have a long lineage beyond their current name. Pits come from a line that has been used to fight animals quite possibly since Roman times. I think its fair to say that, as a breed, they are naturally inclined to fight and do not have other dogs tendency to know when enough is enough, it makes them potentially very dangerous

peasant wrote:

They are no longer bred for ability but for size, colour, length of coat, shortness of muzzle, slope of back and all that other nonsense. This has actually led to the fact that some breeds cannot perform the tasks anymore that they were initially selected for.
All the bumpf that you read in most breed descriptions about lineage, history, character, ability etc is just marketing (and mostly wishful thinking).

I agree totally, "breeds" are bred to confrom to a standard now and not to fulfill a role but you're contradicting your argument somewhat, if you contend that humans have only being playing this game for a few hundred years and havent really made any significant changes to dogs behaviour then how could we have changed their ability to perform tasks in the last say, fifty years?

peasant wrote:

Properly bred and raised they or no more or less dangerous than any other dog.

i'd look at it differently, i'd say most pits, due to their history have a strong urge to fight with other dogs and it takes training and selective breeding to inhibit it

peasant

i'd look at it differently, i'd say most pits, due to their history have a strong urge to fight with other dogs and it takes training and selective breeding to inhibit it

I'd say the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, bull breeds, once out of control, can do more damage than most other dogs. To keep them in control requires a responsible breeder and a responsible owner. Unfortunately these bull breeds do not exactly attract these kind of breeders and owners. But that is NOT the dogs' fault.

I agree totally, "breeds" are bred to confrom to a standard now and not to fulfill a role but you're contradicting your argument somewhat, if you contend that humans have only being playing this game for a few hundred years and havent really made any significant changes to dogs behaviour then how could we have changed their ability to perform tasks in the last say, fifty years?

Take the most sorry example of them all ...the English bulldog: Once a strong, agile fighting dog, capable of fighting a bull.
These days they can hardly walk, they can't breathe properly, they have no endurance, their teeth are so crooked they have difficulty eating, their heads are so large that they have to be born by cesarian, their wrinkly skin is permanently inflamed and on top of it all they have a long list of inherited diseases.

The same, in varying degrees of perversion, has happened to almost every other breed. In some cases in as little as ten or twenty years ...especially when a breed becomes fashionable.

You could go as far as to say that most breeders are systematically destroying their breed in one way or another... and finally all dogs will be useless cripples.


Note: I don't own, breed or even particularly like bull breed type of dogs ...but someone has to come to their defence

Dyr

I actually quite like pitbulls/bull terriers/staffies and they can be really friendly hoors but i find it weird that people try attribute their agressive reputation solely to bad ownership. And yeah i know all about idiot pbt owners... my area is rife with 'em which is why ive been on the wrong end of the buggers a few times :eek:


You could go as far as to say that most breeders are systematically destroying their breed in one way or another... and finally all dogs will be useless cripples.


yep :mad:

MorningStar

I have dealt with dogs all my life. So to have my dog attacked by another didn't panic me. I held this pit bull by he neck so it didn't shake my dog to rip it's throat out.

We had greyhounds that we bred and dashunds too! I have had dogs attack each other as they are very like people where some just don't get on. At the same time there were aggressive dogs which we had to seperate and some had to be put down.

Greyhounds are specifically bred for stupidity from all the way back. The reason being it was about speed and not capturing the animal. THe more twists and turns the dog followed to try to catch the animal the more points it got, the dog that cut a corner to catch the animal lost points. Dog nature bred specifically

Dashunds dig it's their very nature. They will stick their heads in holes straight away without any fear a greyhound won't. They hunt down rabbits and have been around since the pyramids as have the grey hound a lot longer than 100 years

Different breed have differnt natures their are tons of books about it. Anybody who denies that is ill informed. Training is a key part

Pit Bulls (they are a breed contry to another posters belief) have a specific type of jaw that locks like an alligator. Their nature is to latch on and tear latch on and tear. A greyhound will run and bite repeatedly as they don't have the neck muscles to shake their slender necks. The key thing is a greyhound lets go and is easily intimidated. Three people held onto this pit bull and it didn't let go because it is it's nature beyond any lack of training. It could have been trained properly but the point is is the stregth and nature of this dog needs specialist training and the easiest option is an outright ban. There is no need for such a dog in this country and the breed will not die out if they are banned. AS domestic pets are being grabbed to bate such dogs a ban helps all

Dyr

Hardly, you might as well ban every other breed on the dangerous dogs act then, how many people need dogs to chase rabbits?? Should we ban lurchers, dashchunds and greyhounds??

MorningStar

Bambi wrote:

Hardly, you might as well ban every other breed on the dangerous dogs act then, how many people need dogs to chase rabbits?? Should we ban lurchers, dashchunds and greyhounds??

Because some breeds are more dangerous than others so you ban the dangerous ones. Obviously I didn't make myself clear so you could understand. Ban the dangerous breeds! Certain breeds should at least require specialts licence. Lots of people need dogs to chase rabbits. THe point I was making some breeds are too dangerous for the majority to own. Any breed strong enought to rip your hand off is too powerful to own. You need a special licence to drive a truck same idea.

peasant

Blanket bans by breed make no sense.

All dogs are predators and potentially dangerous. A Westhighland Terrier for example could seriously maul a small child (and quite a few of them have)..yet lots of people keep them as family dogs without thinking twice.

Most breed descriptions are just wishful thinking. There are border Collies that are afraid of sheep, Chihuhahuas that make fierce guardians, Dobermans that are shrinking violets and so on ad nauseam ....BECAUSE DOGS ARE INDIVIDUALS.

A "driving licence" might make sense (depending on the quality of the information and training that comes into it) ...but for EVERYBODY, not just owners of certain dogs.

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

Blanket bans by breed make no sense.

In your opinion! I understand dogs are individual more than most as I have sated already. The problem is certain breeds are simply too dangerous by their ability and normal nature. You may disagree all you like with that but many, many experts agree on this. Cetain breeds are harder to train than others. The reasons the breeds should be banned IMHO is peoples fault not the dogs.
Any dog can hurt but these dogs are too strong and do not have the nature to release quite the opposite.

peasant

How about banning certain people from keeping any dogs at all?

Would make much more sense in my opinion ...


Another thing wrong with blanket bans by breed is the reverse implication that all unbanned dogs are "safe" ..which is truly not the case.

How many people have been bitten by an allegedly friendly "pooch" ?
How many dogs have been attacked by the neighbours "doggy"?
How many kids and babies have been bitten by their own family dog?

These cases just never get the publicity, because the attackers weren't PB's or Rotties or some other dog with a bad reputation.

Information and education of the owners is the only real solution.

But as long as dogs are being treated as consumer goods (or weapons in the worst case scenario) and everybody assumes that they have an automatic right to dog ownership that aint gonna happen ...

kestrel

peasant wrote:

Bruharrharr !!! ..priceless ...

Yes ...and in her lickle handbag she carries the FCI breed specifications, so that she can distingiuish the "good" gun dogs from all the other "bad" breeds.

Prey tell ...does she interview mongrels as to their parentage?

think of it what you will, she's a strange dog. many people dont believe me. i think it has to do with her puppy playmates being a lab and a spaniel cross...so now all she gets on with is other gundogs, particularily floppy eared ones, or spaniels and spaniel crosses (incl king charles). she hates any type of terrier, boxers, dalmations, toy breeds (apart from charlies), collies etc etc.

Just replace "some working breeds" with "all dogs" and you could be just about right

i didnt make mayself clear, sorry, i have a habit of doing that. i added the word 'particularily' because i wanted to emphasis how long grass fields etc were the gundogs natural habitat, so to speak. moreso than most other groupings, they get a kick out of it. i did not mean to imply other dogs didn't.

but also, not 'all dogs' do. especially toy breeds. there are exceptions of course, but in general i have found they dont.

When will people finally get it in their heads that a dog is a dog, is a dog. All dogs are the same and all dogs are different.

A "breed" only desribes size, shape and colour. No more, no less!
Any other traits (hunter, herder, sniffer, runner) only apply to certain sizes and/or shapes ..but that's it ...nothing more to be read into breed or type.

All the rest is individual dog and the results of its keeping/ socialization / training/ environment and THE OWNER.

each dog breed has been bred for a specific duty. certain instincts and characteristics have been emphasised by selectively breeding to create the perfect dog for the perfect job. for example:

sheepdog breeds had their 'hunt' instincts built upon to create a dog that had a strong desire to work a co-ordinated manoever of a herd, but their actual 'kill' instinct was played down. thus, what we get is a dog that works well as part of a team (either with another dog or the master), has the ability to learn to herd (like a wolf pack picking their meal from a herd) but should not have the instinct to attack.

shepard dogs had their protective instincts built upon, so that (provided they are brought up with a herd, become part of it) they have a stong desire to protect what they see as their 'pack'.

gundogs were built to work well with their master, making them fabulous 'people' dogs, and to fetch or rise the target. they shouldn't really have the desire to kill as a primary instinct.

dogs bred for fighting have the kill instinct. it's highly unlikely they would have the patience to work together to single out one animalfrom a herd like wolves would, they tend to just run straight in, unco-ordinated, jaws snapping.

etc etc.

of course there are exceptions to every rule, especially these days. most of the jobs that would have existed for dogs years ago have dissappeared, most dogs are now just kept as pets. for this reason, you now get some strains of pitbulls and dobermanns, for example, that aren't vicious. the biggest example of what i'm talking about has to be the boxer- they were origionally fighting dogs, probably as vicious as pitbulls are percieved to be today. look at them now: loving family pets, hyperactive usually, but friendly all the same!

it's all down to selective breeding usually. you take a placid pitbull female from a good home, mate her with a dog of the same nature,the litter will be placid (provided good homes are found). there may be a pup with higher tendencies towards aggression, but keep up the pattern for a few generations, and you now have a strain of pitbull that is not agressive (emphasis on the good homes- any dog can be made a killer in the wrong home)

peasant

each dog breed has been bred for a specific duty. certain instincts and characteristics have been emphasised by selectively breeding to create the perfect dog for the perfect job.

You are partially right ...
The above was certainly true (and still is in the few true working lines that are left) for the pure purpose-bred working dog. Bred for ability and nothing else. With that ability came a certain "purpose-built" shape and form (a guard is big, a sighthound is slender and fast, a herder is wiry and agile, etc) and the "type" was born.

From about the mid 1800's with the breakdown of the feudal system (only gentry could have hunting dogs until then) dogs became more fashionable and a pet more than a worker. Soon after people started forming breeding clubs and set up breed standards.

From then on the emphasis was not on ability any more (or much less so) but on looks according to the standard.
Standards became ever more stringent and ridiculous, changing with the fashion of the day and totally neglecting ability over looks. Inbreeding or close line breeding were (and still are) common, to keep that all important colour or backline, thus introducing illnesses and weaknesses (most of them hereditary) into the breed.

This is why there were / are so many herders that are either afraid of sheep or kill them, retrievers that never come back, fox hounds so aggressive that they killed each other as pups, guard dogs so highly strung that they lash out at everything, etc, etc ...the list is endless.

But what has happened recently, in the so called information age, is the perversion of it all.
Customers have woken up to the fact that dogs aren't what they used to be any more. They're sick, they die young, they're hyper, they're shy or in the worst case aggressive.
But what do breeders do? Re-think their breeding? (ok some do and that needs to be commended)

No ...the big breed clubs (remember ...there is a lot of money to be made breeding pedigree dogs) invent HISTORY and MYTH. Every breed under the sun, when you read up about it in books or on the internet, has an ancestor that shared a cabin with Noah on the ark. Every breed is "noble", shared a fire with the Native Americans, Celts, Vikings, Goths, King Arthur, Ali Baba (please tick according to desired image).
Each breed is a master hunter, a "nanny", friendly, playful, true, obedient, strong, independent, fearless (again ... please tick according to desired image).

Rhodesian ridgebacks are Lion hunters
Irish Wolfhounds fought with / against Queen Maeve
Rottweilers were originally Roman fighting dogs
The old English sheep dog kept King Arthurs children save
Siberian Huskies were left behind in Asia when the first "Indians" crossed over to America

And people's eyes glaze over ...they buy into the myth and get "THAT" puppy ...truly the noblest, bestest dog in the whole wide world.

COTSWOLLOP !

That is what i meant when i said: Get that breed nonsense out of your head, quickly !!

What has this all to do with Pitbulls?
Nothing really ... but still a lot. By buying into general (undeserved) condemnation of one breed as vicious, brutal, not to be trusted dangerous, you're playing into the hands of those, who are breeding sickness and disease ridden unworthy replicas of a dog, making them out to be the best and noblest thing in the world ...well, at least "better" than a Pitbull, because, you know ...Pitbulls they're just pure evil, I'm tellin' ya ...

Catch my drift?

peasant

Oh, yes, kestrel ...one more thing:

The fact that your dog only wants to play with a certain type of dog is not at all strange or peculiar ...it just means that she wasn't properly socialized to play with ALL dogs.

Dogs don't distinguish other dogs by breed or size ...just by known or unknown.

Children seem to be another unknown.

How old is she now? You might still be able to change that, if she's not too old and set in her ways.

kestrel

peasant wrote:

The fact that your dog only wants to play with a certain type of dog is not at all strange or peculiar ...it just means that she wasn't properly socialized to play with ALL dogs.

Dogs don't distinguish other dogs by breed or size ...just by known or unknown.

Children seem to be another unknown.

How old is she now? You might still be able to change that, if she's not too old and set in her ways.

oh i never said it wasn't my fault, i take total responsibility for the fact that she was not properly socialised. i'm not too bothered by the fact she is wary of some breeds because it means she knows to be careful. just today in fact, there was a cross-breed running around that came up to her, but because she pretty much ignored him, he ran off. a couple of seconds later he attacked a lab that had tried to play with him. RE kids, i dont see any point socalising her with them, because she is never in contact with them, except in passing on the street. any young kids that have been in the house she has adjusted to fairly well, i think it's mainly just kids outside because she doesnt feel secure outside her house.

she's only two years old, so she is probably still able to learn, but we've got a routine going and i dont see any point in changing it. shes fine with people i show affection/recognition to or people we allow into the house, she's wary of strangers. she's fine with breeds that seem to match her style of play (not overly bounding, prefered game; tag!). there is absolutely no danger posed by her to anyone or any animal, so as long as she's happy, i'm happy!

RE your other post- you raise a very interesting point, something for me to consider. but i don't think there's as much of a conspiracy as you seem to make out, and i definately still think there are breed-specific traits, however faint they may have become in recent years.

doctor evil

kestrel wrote:

normally i would agree, especially if it is an area that attracts alot of people and dogs to it, but it is different where i let my dog off.

i can assure you there is no danger from her- .

my dog herself is a cocker spaniel. she is absolutely fabulous off the lead, keeping to within a hundred metres of me, much less when around trees and heavy cover, and coming back when called.

i think it is absolutely cruel to keep some dogs on their lead constantly, especially if you have somewhere you can let them off. some working breeds in particular love the long grass, running around, swimming,

The unknown can still happen,tis the nature of the beast and all that. Its good that you don`t let her off willy-nilly. If you feel she is not getting enough excerise on the lead why don`t you walk faster? or run for short bursts. If she is capable and ye don`t have hopeless coordination why don`t you ride a bike while walking/running her or go swimming with her(some riders do this with horses).

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

That is what i meant when i said: Get that breed nonsense out of your head, quickly !!



Catch my drift?

You aren't getting what I am saying. It is not just the normal nature of the dog that is the problem as I said. It is the physical nature too! Pit bulls are very very strong and have a specific type of jaw that is so dangerous. Their general nature is of attack and kill which they were specifically bred for.
http://www.canismajor.com/dog/amerpit.html
This shows how a well bred dog can be fine but that's not what is happening in the real world.
It would be ideal to only allow certain people to have such dogs but it would be too difficult to enforce. It is easier and cost effective to ban certain breeds.
http://www.edba.org.au/courier.html
This is on a website for protecting breeds. I agree they can be trained but who and how can you enforce that? I don't want to see money spent to protect an animal that has little or no use, non native, connected will illegal activity and outright dangerous. I am not suggesting they be killed just not allowed to bred and stopped entering the country. Not a perfect solution but reasonable. I can't think of any reason to protect them and nobody has said why they should? The only arguement being put forward is they aren't the problem which I agree with to the extent many could be properly trained. The problem is that responsible pit bull owners aren't the problem

peasant

RE your other post- you raise a very interesting point, something for me to consider. but i don't think there's as much of a conspiracy as you seem to make out, and i definately still think there are breed-specific traits, however faint they may have become in recent years

.

God, no ....not a conspiracy ...just "market forces" ...that's all

People believing they have a right to "own" a dog like they own a new car. people having enough money to buy into an image, forking out hundreds for that special puppy ...and market that happily supplies them whith any old crap that they can't breed quickly enough ...laughing all the way to the bank.

The latest scam is to churn out hundreds of sick little puppies in puppy mills and give them away in return for a sizeable "donation" as rescue or charity cases. Making the buyer think they performed a good deed, when all they did was create a market for puppy-mills. (This isn't happening in Ireland ...yet ...but the puppy farms are here ...waaaay to many of them, exporting "charity-dogs" to the UK and the continent)

Education and information for dog owners is what's needed.

Back to Pitbulls and banning them:
Once again ...Pitbulls are dogs, just dogs, not crocodiles, not killer whales, not crushing machines.
But yes, they are different from other dogs. In the same way that every dog is different. The legends about locking or sawing jaws and thousands of pounds of biting pressure are just that ...legends. Underneath (in their skeletal make up) they are just dogs and can't do anything any other dog couldn't do.
With one exception: In comparison to their rather small size they are very athletic and strong and once they bite, they tend not to let go. This is something people (and especially their owners) have to know about and be prepared for. Socialize and train that PB properly, avoid getting into fights, train it to release on command and there is no problem ...same as with any other dog.
The problem are owners/handlers who either never trained the dog or aren't paying attention or (more usually) owners who deliberately train the dog to fight. But once again ..that can be done to any dog.

As for banning ...i think it would be totally ineffective. For the real hardcore dickheads out there, it would only make PB's more attractive, creating a black market in truly ruined fighting machines.
The wannabe dickheads would just ruin another dog ..preferrably one with an equally bad reputation, shifting the problem to another type of dog. And the real enthusiasts who want to preserve the gene pool and breed bull breeds responsibly would just be criminalized.

Once again ...Education and information for dog owners is what's needed.

And by that I don't mean the sales bumpf that you can read in any breed description, but hard, honest facts.
But there are too many vested interests out there to make that possible. Even critical breeders / clubs usually ever only point their fingers at other breeds instead of starting with themselves.

In a way, bull breeds are the perfect example of what is happening to dogs. Bred to fulfill mans' whims regardless of the welfare of the dog or the health and sanity of the breed. Just with bull breeds that whim is a rather unsavory one and people actually take note ...unlike with all the tragedies that are happening to other breeds.

But it's not the dogs' fault ....just ours.

Another grim example ...a breed that has come into fashion lately ...the Bernese Mountain Dog. Up to 20 or 30 years ago, these used to be fit, peaceful and energetic dogs, about 50 -60 cm high and weighing 30 - 40 kg. They were used as an allround dog in switzerland, herding cattle, guarding the farm and occasionally pulling carts.

These days, they are giants of up to 75 - 80 cm, weighing anything up to 70- 75 kg, riddled by heart disease, with crippled hips and joints, no energy or endurance and hardly live longer than 6 or 7 years.

And yet they're supposed to be a "better" breed (morally ??) than any pitbull ?? Just because they've got the gentle giant image ...

I actually think that there is a large number of breeders / clubs out there who are quietly pleased about this pitbull / dangereous dog hysteria. Because it deflects attention from the rubbish that they are breeding and makes them look good in comparison. Plus it helps to fuel general misconception and ignorance, making it easier for them to peddle their myth and image.

As long as everybody believes in the big, bad Pitbull, they are just as likely to believe in the healthy, peaceful and sound ...(please insert breed of choice)

So to conlude my ranting, i honestly believe it is fruitless to hinge this whole discussion on the issue of breed. Yes, there are breed differences. But the differences between individual dogs are much bigger.
It is pointless to compare breed with breed, only individual dogs can be compared. How healthy are they, how well have they been socialized, how well trained, how badly spoiled, etc, etc ...
And in that case, a well bred/trained/socialized/cared for Pitbull will ALWAYS score higher than a puppy-farmed, locked out the back, untrained, unsocialized common garden variety pure bred of any breed.

Nuff' said ...

kestrel

doctor evil wrote:

The unknown can still happen,tis the nature of the beast and all that. Its good that you don`t let her off willy-nilly. If you feel she is not getting enough excerise on the lead why don`t you walk faster? or run for short bursts. If she is capable and ye don`t have hopeless coordination why don`t you ride a bike while walking/running her or go swimming with her(some riders do this with horses).

i don't get how people can think that an owner can still have the possibility of being surprised by something out of character. i think if you know a dog really well, you know what to do in any situation. i can honestly say that i know my dog inside out, and she will not surprise me. TRUST ME. she just wont. ever since i have gotten her, i have assumed total responsibility for walking her, grooming her, basically looking after her. on our walks every day, i know exactly how she will react to, for example, a child running towards her, or a dog she has not seen coming up behind her. but i also know that if anyone else in my family was to bring her for a walk, they would encounter problems. she's very much 'my dog'- nobody gets her like me.

it's not just the excercise that is happens when you walk a dog! it's the whole deal; smells, sights, sounds, bounding, playing, rolling- when i let her off her lead, she can chase birds, roll in the grass, duck into ditches, under fences etc etc. i see dogs just plodding along beside their walker, and i feel bad for them. them i look at mine, and i'm glad she is constantly on the move, doesn't just 'run', she has fun. i would feel like i'm denying her all that, even though i walk her on an extendable lead. and anyway, why should I? shes a good dog, never bold, and i feel totally safe letting her off (in the one specific park, i'd have a heartattack anywhere else!) the only problem i'd ever come across is other dogs, but we can deal. and like i said, it's very rare in this park.

kestrel

to: peasant- you sound so much like me on certain issues! lol! but i thing regarding dog ownership, i have a little more faith. you make it sound like the vast majority of breeders are cruel and in it for the money. now i do know that it does happen, and it is, sadly, quite common. but the fact is, that the majority of dog owners and breeders are in it for their love of dogs. i'm still incredably cautious of breeders though, and i think it's better to rehome, but i don't think there is as much corrupt breeding going on as you think.

but maybe this is just me defending something i just really don't want to see as bad!

peasant

Kestrel

Not necessarily cruelty ...but lack of knowledge, stupid breeding rules set by the clubs, focussing on the wrong issues and the minor detail of having to make a profit.

As for owners
sure most of us luuurve our dogs ...but love alone doesn't do the trick. Respect and the willingness to engage with the animal would be much more important. Just "loving" your dog is just too condescending.
Also a taking on of certain responsibiliteis would help immensly

...but that is food for another mile long thread...

doctor evil

kestrel wrote:

i don't get how people can think that an owner can still have the possibility of being surprised by something out of character. i think if you know a dog really well, you know what to do in any situation. i can honestly say that i know my dog inside out, and she will not surprise me. TRUST ME. she just wont. ever since i have gotten her, i have assumed total responsibility for walking her, grooming her, basically looking after her. on our walks every day, i know exactly how she will react to, for example, a child running towards her, or a dog she has not seen coming up behind her. but i also know that if anyone else in my family was to bring her for a walk, they would encounter problems. she's very much 'my dog'- nobody gets her like me.

it's not just the excercise that is happens when you walk a dog! it's the whole deal; smells, sights, sounds, bounding, playing, rolling- when i let her off her lead, she can chase birds, roll in the grass, duck into ditches, under fences etc etc. i see dogs just plodding along beside their walker, and i feel bad for them. them i look at mine, and i'm glad she is constantly on the move, doesn't just 'run', she has fun. i would feel like i'm denying her all that, even though i walk her on an extendable lead. and anyway, why should I? shes a good dog, never bold, and i feel totally safe letting her off (in the one specific park, i'd have a heartattack anywhere else!) the only problem i'd ever come across is other dogs, but we can deal. and like i said, it's very rare in this park.

You can have just as much fun with the dog on the lead!, use your imagination.TBH I`m a bit miffed that you think dogs on leads aren`t as happy.When I`m walking a dog that I`m looking after(dogless, cat would disown me if I had one at home,dad also) I will always keep them on the lead.Not just because they are not mine but also for consideration of others, safety etc. I know you say the park is hardly used but things can still happen. In the park near me when the rat numbers go up too much they put poison out, there are usually notices alerting people to this but it won`t stop a dog that is off the lead from swallowing it! particulary if teh dog ducks "under fences" and enters someone elses land. When I walk a dog I do not just "plod along" and we are constantly on the move, I`m often the silly bint(proud of it!) that talks to the dog while going off road away from any set path to walk through long grass, along hedges, circle trees etc.

Good for you that you feel that you know your dog so well, I know my cat quite well but at times she still surprises me which is part of the joy of pet ownership. I think we will just have to agree to disagree, dogs off leads is a big bug bear of mine as I think it shows a lack of courtesy and safety for others, also I have found that those that don`t use leads are less likely to clean up their dogs sh*te and tend to look at life through rose tinted glasses.

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

.

Education and information for dog owners is what's needed.

FACTS:
# A Pit Bull bite is three times worse than a Rottweilers.
# A Rottweilers has 800psi (Pounds Per Squire Inch Jaw Pressure).
# A Bull Terrier has 1200psi,
# A pit bull’s bite force is 2000+ psi plus.
# A Pit Bull does not lock its jaw as do other dogs, but it lower jaw scissors back and forth to rend flesh from the bone.
# Pit Bulls are bred from Staffordshire Bull Terriers – Gaining their incredible musculature - and Bull Mastiffs Gaining a Cold-Hearted lack of emotion and Phenomenal resistance to pain.

peasant wrote:

.
Back to Pitbulls and banning them:
Once again ...Pitbulls are dogs, just dogs, not crocodiles, not killer whales, not crushing machines.
But yes, they are different from other dogs. In the same way that every dog is different. The legends about locking or sawing jaws and thousands of pounds of biting pressure are just that ...legends. Underneath (in their skeletal make up) they are just dogs and can't do anything any other dog couldn't do.
With one exception: In comparison to their rather small size they are very athletic and strong and once they bite, they tend not to let go.

Educate yourself then. They are not the same as all other dogs. What you have said as legend is actually fact. I posted up links so you may educate yourself. You might as well say greyhounds run no faster than any other dog if you claim pit bulls are no stronger or agressive than other breeds. All dogs can act baddly the difference is that pit bulls and similar are stronger and more agressive than most. Even dismissing agression it boils down to strength and how it can apply it. If you are going to continue your arguement they are no different explain how the facts I have stated specifically don't make a difference. You just dismiss things without anything other than your beliefs. If you think all the restrictions around the world are all knee jerk explain why.
From the article I posted "You can have savage Labradors and savage Chihuahuas, but none of them has the potential to maim & kill that a pit bull does.42% of all dog related deaths in the US are from Pit Bulls - & they constitute 1% of all dogs."

What use are they and why allow them even if it is only the owners faults?

peasant

FACTS: RUBBISH
# A Pit Bull bite is three times worse than a Rottweilers.
# A Rottweilers has 800psi (Pounds Per Squire Inch Jaw Pressure).
# A Bull Terrier has 1200psi,
# A pit bull’s bite force is 2000+ psi plus.
SHOW ME THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ..A SURVEY CONDUCTED BY A REPUTABLE INSTITUTION THAT HAS MEASURED THE "BITE FORCE" OF ANY DOG ...THERE IS NONE
# A Pit Bull does not lock its jaw as do other dogs, but it lower jaw scissors back and forth to rend flesh from the bone.
SHOW ME A PHOTOGRAPH OF A PB'S SKULL WITH THAT SAWING MECHANISM ...DOESN'T EXIST
# Pit Bulls are bred from Staffordshire Bull Terriers – Gaining their incredible musculature - and Bull Mastiffs Gaining a Cold-Hearted lack of emotion and Phenomenal resistance to pain.
CLAPTRAP ..DOG'S DON'T HAVE "EMOTION" ...THEY ARE NOT "COLDHEARTED"
AND ANY DOG CAN RESIST PAIN WHEN IT HAS MORE IMPORTANT THINGS ON ITS MIND (try beating a dog when its about to mount a bitch)

Educate yourself then. They are not the same as all other dogs. What you have said as legend is actually fact. I posted up links so you may educate yourself. You might as well say greyhounds run no faster than any other dog if you claim pit bulls are no stronger or agressive than other breeds. All dogs can act baddly the difference is that pit bulls and similar are stronger and more agressive than most. Even dismissing agression it boils down to strength and how it can apply it. If you are going to continue your arguement they are no different explain how the facts I have stated specifically don't make a difference. You just dismiss things without anything other than your beliefs. If you think all the restrictions around the world are all knee jerk explain why.
From the article I posted "You can have savage Labradors and savage Chihuahuas, but none of them has the potential to maim & kill that a pit bull does.42% of all dog related deaths in the US are from Pit Bulls - & they constitute 1% of all dogs."

HOW MANY DEATHS BY DOGS ARE THERE ANNUALLY ...SHOW ME THE FIGURES. WHATEVER THEY ARE ... LESS THAN HALF OF THEM ARE CAUSED BY PITBULLS ...THEN LOOK INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE DEATHS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY AT HE OWNER'S BACKGROUND.
I WOULD BET THAT THE PB RELATED DEATHS WOULD HAVE AN OVERWHELMING PERCENTAGE OF SUSPICIOUS / ANTISOCIAL / CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS.
WHICH STILL LEAVES US WITH 58 % OF DEATHS CAUSED BY OTHER DOGS (MOST LIKELY IN A "NORMAL" ENVIRONMENT)

WITHOUT THE BACKGROUND STORY THESE STATISTICS ARE WORTHLESS

YOU WILL ALSO FIND THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED BY OTHER PEOPLE OR OTHER PEOPLES CARS OR EVEN FALLING OFF A CHAIR WHILE CLEANING WINDOWS IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THAT KILLED BY DOGS

kestrel

doctor evil wrote:

TBH I`m a bit miffed that you think dogs on leads aren`t as happy.

I'm sorry to have offended you, i didn't mean to. i have a habit of not explaining myself fully...i know dogs can have fun on leads, six days out of seven in the week i bring my dog for walks exclusively on the lead. her sunday walk is the walk by the river, off the lead. i just meant that in the park i feel mean, because she can't use the park to it's full advantage if she isn't off the lead. i know you say i could run with her, and i do, but the lead still restricts and jerks her- i just prefer letting her fully enjoy the grass and the water.

I know you say the park is hardly used but things can still happen. In the park near me when the rat numbers go up too much they put poison out, there are usually notices alerting people to this but it wont stop a dog that is off the lead from swallowing it!

that never happens down here. the only problems that could arise have happened already; the local horse riding school sometimes go there, guys ride dirt bikes through the forest, on hot days there are a lot of people sunbathing- on all these occasions i keep her on her lead. i won't let her off until i'm satisfied there are only a few people there.

particulary if teh dog ducks "under fences" and enters someone elses land.

these 'fences' are all on the same land- it's the grounds of a big house, so the land all belongs to it, with a forest around it.

When I walk a dog I do not just "plod along"

sorry thats me not making myself clear...i was referring to specific dogs. one in particular, another cocker spaniel, who i always saw plodding along really depressed looking, and i think that dog is the main reason i decided never to train my dog to walk to heel or restrict her too much on the lead (she has an extendable one).

I`m often the silly bint(proud of it!) that talks to the dog while going off road away from any set path to walk through long grass, along hedges, circle trees etc.

aren't we all!

she still surprises me which is part of the joy of pet ownership.

oh i know, but i meant she would never surprise me by snapping at a child or attacking another dog.

less likely to clean up their dogs sh*te

i hate that too, but i'm not one of them.

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

FACTS: RUBBISH

Why should I believe you over a newspaper article that has to adhear to a standard. I have posted up links which directly oppose you views on the subject . You have dismiss these on what grounds? I have no reason to believe you as you as you can't even argue you point with other than to say mine is rubbish.

I don't know why you wish to defend these animals. You are unable to argue a point without shouting and just repeating yourself there is no point contributing because you aren't. Find something defending your point instead of shouting like a madman or go away!

peasant

Why should I believe you over a newspaper article

Oh, so you believe everything that's printed in a newspaper or on the internet?

Your so called newspaper article is nothing but an allegoration of pseudo-scientific hysterical propaganda.

If your article adhered to "standards" there would be proof. A scientific study of biting force for example. Or a picture of a pitbulls jaw with your famous "sawing mechanism".

They're not there, because they don't exist. And that's the only fact.

Why should I "defend" myself (or pitbulls for that matter) against hysterics and propaganda ...its simply not true ...you can quote your article until you're blue in the face, it still won't make it right.

Going back to why i think banning pitbulls is the wrong approach:

The whole discussion is viewed from the wrong standpoint.
I agree with you, that there are certain individual dogs out there, that the world would be better off without. But they are the way that they are because of the owners that made them that way. Owners that the world also could do without. But we don't get rid of the owner (we are humans after all and we like to act humanely), so therefore we kill the animal (humanely, of course)

And in the bigger picture, we as a society show no compunction whatsoever about dealing with people / dog owners who clearly mistreat their animals, use them as waepons, behave antisocially. No ..instead we ban the breed.

If you love animals, if you take animals rights the slightest bit seriously, then you must realize that banning bull breeds is the wrong approach. Bull breeds are just dogs, behaving like any dog will ..its the "bad" owners that need to be dealt with by educating them.

And as a further argument ...today it's Pitbulls, tomorrow Rottweilers and Alsatians ...and then?? Labradors? Poodles? Terriers? Sheepdogs?

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

They're not there, because they don't exist. And that's the only fact.

Why should I "defend" myself (or pitbulls for that matter) against hysterics and propaganda ...its simply not true ...you can quote your article until you're blue in the face, it still won't make it right.

And as a further argument ...today it's Pitbulls, tomorrow Rottweilers and Alsatians ...and then?? Labradors? Poodles? Terriers? Sheepdogs?

You are stating your opinion without any facts. If you can not disprove what I call facts go away as your opinion has no vlaue further than repeating yourself again. Newspaper articles aren't books where all sources need to be named. You have nothing more to contribute so stop contributing you don't need to defend yourself just go away. We know what you think and you can't add to it other than shouting. If you know so much what is the pressure rating of a pit bull bite? You have never answered why we should have these animals?
The thin edge of the wedge arguement is pointless. I am advocating one thing nothing more. If somebody progresses beyond that I will make my decision on that. There are controls on many animal types, I am not aloud own a tiger for example but it doesn't mean I am being stopped from having a cat. Using your argument they are both cats and neither is more or less dangerous.

peasant

Now that:

There are controls on many animal types, I am not aloud own a tiger for example but it doesn't mean I am being stopped from having a cat. Using your argument they are both cats and neither is more or less dangerous

Is a ridiculous argument ...a tiger is a wild animal, a cat is a domesticated pet ...same as a pitbull who's after all just a dog.

If you know so much what is the pressure rating of a pit bull bite?

NOBODY knows ...that's my point. You can't prove (other than quote that is) your figures either, can you?

You have never answered why we should have these animals?

Nobody is forcing anyone to "have" a pitbull. I just don't see why I or any responsible owner couldn't have one if I wanted to, just because of some irresponsible owners.

You have nothing more to contribute so stop contributing you don't need to defend yourself just go away

Well looks like I am in the same boat as you are then ...

Why don't we just let both sides of the argument stand as they are and let people make up their own minds??

aare

Just my opinion, but having got to know a few truly adoreable pit bulls I really believe this breed should be allowed to die out through breeding bans, as much as a kindness to the dogs themselves as for the sake of safety.

Pit bulls do have an impressive musculature, a particularly deadly jaw and an highly developed killer instinct...

BUT, on the flipside, they have the same kind of smart, people loving and needing personalities as cute little fluffy terriers.

So that, whenever you breed a pit bull, you breed a puppy that loves and needs people and can never be considered fully safe around them.

Though they can be trained to behave very well, in many ways better than most dogs, you can never afford to bet a child's life on that training. A dog can *turn* through no fault of their own, because of something unexpected. They also tend to bond with one owner, and if, for any reason that owner is gone, again they cannot be trusted.

One of the saddest things I have ever seen was ex fighting pit bulls, with their smart, loving and often comical natures kennelled alone for life, because there is no other safe way to keep them.

Really it seems kinder to let the breed die out...

...and whoever said they get "cold heartedness" from English Mastiffs must have met a very different class of English Mastiff to the ones I have met, who were loving affectionate slobbery creatures with no cold heartedness at all...

peasant

Ahemm:

Though they can be trained to behave very well, in many ways better than most dogs, you can never afford to bet a child's life on that training

just as a reminder ...

NEVER ...ever, leave a a dog (whatever kind, breed, size, sex or age) unsupervised with young children !!

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

Now that:

Is a ridiculous argument ...a tiger is a wild animal, a cat is a domesticated pet ...same as a pitbull who's after all just a dog.

Actually the cat was never domesticated.

peasant wrote:

NOBODY knows ...that's my point. You can't prove (other than quote that is) your figures either, can you?

You actually think nobody has ever measured the pressure of a dog bite of different breeds of dogs? They messured the effects earth gravity on a a sheet of paper yet they never thought to do this? There may not be 100% accurate but you can be sure that you can figure out which is strongest.

peasant wrote:

Nobody is forcing anyone to "have" a pitbull. I just don't see why I or any responsible owner couldn't have one if I wanted to, just because of some irresponsible owners.

I am being forced to be in a country where they are allowed attack me and mine in a public park. You know what I was saying because I repeated the question many times. Why allow these breeds be owned by anyone? Just assume any of the views on their treat is true 20% higher than any other breed.

peasant wrote:

Well looks like I am in the same boat as you are then ...

Why don't we just let both sides of the argument stand as they are and let people make up their own minds??

Because it is a debate not an argument and you are stating opinion without any facts. You obviously don't understand that you don't insult, shout or riddicule somebody elses view. Not a views common with a reasonable person or a responsible dog owner IMHO. You didn't let the debate stand you shouted down opposing view and riddiculed newspaper articles for no other reason than you don't believe them. It wasn't an opinion piece. I have seen many dogs attack each other but I have only ever seen a pitbull refuse to let go. Been handling dogs since I was 7 with over 10 different litters and over 100 dogs. They are individual but pit bulls attack in a differnt way and refuse to release from my personal experience. What are you basing your views on?

peasant

I'm not ridiculing you personally, i'm rediculing that article that you keep referring to. First of all, look at the style in which it is written ...that is polemics at its worst. Secondly ...and I keep repeating myself ...there is no scientific data as to the "biting force" of dogs. The figures in your article are just plucked from clean air and made to look horrific. If you're so concerned about these figures, get in touch with the author, ask for his sources ...or try to find some other real ones.

Secondly, biting force is not the issue. Any dog above a certain size can crack bone with its bite.

I have agreed with you previously, that PB's have a tendency not to let go once they bite. That is one of their character traits. Same as other dogs shake everything wildly (to death) ...PB's hang on.
On top of that, they are stronger and more athletic than other dogs of similar size. (But if i was given the choice of being attacked by a crazed PB or a crazed St.Bernard ...give me the PB any day!)

All, every and any dog is potentially dangerous and even lethal ...given the wrong circumstances and the wrong owner.

Pitbulls suffer from two misfortunes:
1) They pack a big punch for their size, in a "class" dominated by dogs that are widely considered harmless.
2) They have a fearsome reputation which largely attracts the wrong owners.

But you cannot condemn them to death for those two reasons alone ...it's not their fault.

The reason why there are so man PB's involved in the statistics are also twofold:

1) as a lot of them are owned by the wrong kind of owner, they are involved in much more opportunities to cause harm ... in fact their owners keep them for exactly that purpose

2) as most of the incidents involving pitbulls usually end up being recorded by the police, they also end up in statistics. How many official statistics are there of Yorkies or even rabbits biting children? None! ...not because this doesn't happen every day, but because nobody ever reports or records it.

My main two reasons for opposing an ban on any breed are:

1) a ban doesn't do anything about antisocial owners ...it just shifts their attention to other breeds ..the problem stays the same. And the ban continues from breed to breed until every dog is truly spoiled and finally banned.

2) As long as these myths about one breed exist, classifing it as super-dangerous, the reverse implication that other breeds are super safe also still keeps hold. Both is equally rubbish. All dogs are potentially dangerous, all dogs can potentially kill, and all of them would do it, given the wrong circumstances.

People need to wake up to the fact, that a dog isn't a toy or a fashion accessory but a potentially dangerous animal ...any dog! All dog owners need to realize that and act responsibly and take good care of their dog and its upbringing and training.
The more owners do that, the more will realize that other owners are to blame and not other dogs ...and eventually we might even find a solution for the pitbull-owner problem.

But blaming the dog is the wrong approach.

That is my firm opinion and any insistance from you will not make me budge from it ...hence this is my last post on this subject.