Pit bull attack

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.

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

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.

Thank god because you don't know how to debate , discuss or communicate any other way than state your own opinion. You have failed to understand anything said to you

peasant

I understand perfectly what you're trying to say ...I just don't share your opinion.
And what is there to debate? You're either for or a against a ban ..I'm against it (for the reasons I have stated here over and over). You're for it, for your own particular reasons. We have failed to sway each other's opinion ...so be it.

But reading both sides of the argument might help some undecided reader make up his / her mind one way or the other.

And your beloved "facts" ...how can I disprove them, when there aren't any real ones... at all ...ever...

I'd happily buy you a pint, if you can provide me with a scientific source as to biting force and sawing action ...

aare

As you raised it Peasant, to my mind Yorkies and pit bulls have rather similar natures in many ways (and if you dunk a protesting Yorkie in bathwater you might be surprised how similar they look too), but, if a Yorkie bites he is NOT GOING TO KILL ANYONE.

A Pitbull can.

I do not see any reason to sentence individual dogs to death for being pit bulls, but I DO see reason to sentence the breed to death through sterilisation and breeding bans.

Another truth people do not like to look at is that, as loving, loyal, obedient and playful as he can be a pit bull usually LOVES TO FIGHT AND KILL. Just as a Collie usually loves to work sheep more than anything. He is bred to be that way. Dogs do not think like us.

I cannot model an image in my head of a "responsible dog owner" who would want a dangerous breed kept going (often, perforce, in circumstances miserable for the temperament of the individual dogs) so that he could own one.

Surely, if the dog owner is responsible and adult enough a Staffie would do just as well?

peasant

aare wrote:

I cannot model an image in my head of a "responsible dog owner" who would want a dangerous breed kept going (often, perforce, in circumstances miserable for the temperament of the individual dogs) so that he could own one.

Surely, if the dog owner is responsible and adult enough a Staffie would do just as well?

Indeed ...

And which Staffie would that be? The Staffordshire Staffordshire Terrier a.k.a. Staffordshire Bull Terrier or the American Staffordshire Terrier a.k.a. American Pitbull Terrier ...



You do realize that a pitbull-ban would most likely include the "Staffie" as well ?

nesf

Pit Bulls, just like any big, aggresive or strong dog should be kept leashed and muzzled when in public parks etc. I don't see what the debate is about.

With a good owner these dogs are not dangers. They just need to be treated and kept in the right manner and precautions taken.

Not a very docile breed, but with a responsible owner I don't see the problem. Unfortunately a lot of the people keeping Pit Bulls shouldn't be allowed near one. They have no idea of how to keep them, train them or the precautions they need to take.

I wouldn't blame the breed, but the owners attracted to the breed. If you mistreat a Golden Retriever they can be vicious animals, despite them in general being quite nice as a breed.

aare

peasant wrote:

Indeed ...

And which Staffie would that be? The Staffordshire Staffordshire Terrier a.k.a. Staffordshire Bull Terrier or the American Staffordshire Terrier a.k.a. American Pitbull Terrier ...

Just a standard, ordinary, kennel club reg Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Y'know the relatively harmless brindle guys?

The American Staffordshire is a seperate breed, usually called an Amstaff, not a Staffie, and is the, totally different "show strain" of the American Pitbull.

But if you want to split hairs rather than discuss the real issues I'll amend my original statement to:

---

I cannot model an image in my head of a "responsible dog owner" who would want a dangerous breed kept going (often, perforce, in circumstances miserable for the temperament of the individual dogs) so that he could own one.

Surely, if the dog owner is responsible and adult enough a shorthaired collie would do just as well?

---

Perhaps now you would like to address that point without further prevarication?

peasant

Perhaps now you would like to address that point without further prevarication?

Well, see ...now I have a problem ...

Because by instinctively jumping to the first "nice" dog that came to mind (the Staffie) you just proved my point that judging dogs by breed is nonsense.

In Ireland and England Staffies are regarded as one of the nicest and most peaceful dogs that you could possibly have ...fabulous with children and all that...

In Germany, in several of the federal states, there are breed bans in force which ban all "bull breeds" ...they mention AmStaff, Pitbull and Staffie in one breath and make no distinction. In other federal states they have ban laws applying to Amstaffs and Pitbulls but not staffies or Boxers but again to bulldogs. In yet other states it is the other way round.
And in Northrhine-Westphalia EVERY dog over 40 cm shoulder height and/ or 20kg in weight must be permanently muzzled in public. (i.e Labrodors, Golden Retrievers, Collies, Standard Poodles, etc, etc,)
Nonsense and totally erratic, isn't it? All with total disregard for the capabilities of the owner or the individual dog.

All because five years ago some drug-pushers pitbull killed a child.


Back to your point:
Under the assumption that there is a "dangerous breed", you would be right. *EDIT* But there is no one generally dangerous breed, just dangerous individual animals and owners. All dogs are potentially dangerous, they are predators by nature. It is the responsibility of the owner to control the dog.
(the same way you have to prevent your collie from chasing sheep, you have to prevent your pitbull from fighting dogs, your terrier from digging holes in other peoples garden, and your weimaraner from hunting deer)

A responsible owner would only get a dog that he/she could control in all circumstances and for which he/she has enough knowledge and understanding to train and socialize it properly.

Now look around you ...how many dogs do you meet every day day that are out of control and a danger to themselves and others? How many of the dogs that you meet daily show erratic, unpredictable behaviour?

As long as there is no system in place to educate / train and control dog owners, there is no telling, which breed is actually dangerous and which isn't. Because you will find dangerous animals in every breed, made (or allowed to be) dangerous by their owners.

Yes, there are dangerous bull breed type dogs out there ...but i fail to be convinced that this is an issue of breed rather than owner.

So why punish the dog for it ??

MorningStar

Peasant
So much for leaving :rolleyes:
There are some breeds more dangerous than others. Read any book on dogs and they say so. You want to oppose that view state a reason why you know better? Not that you don't agree but why you know better!

You may not remember the sight of the post man who lost his face to pit bulls but I do. There are a few breeds that if not trained are more dangerous due to their strength. If you don't think a yorkshire terrier and a pit bull or a staffie with the same aggressive temperment are just as dangeous as each other explain how? One is simply stronger than the other that is why one needs control and the other doesn't. There is no need to keep the breed alive in ireland and you keep avoiding the point, why allow them? You either avoid the question or ignore it!
I would love special licences but that is not going to happen due to cost. I don't want them all dead (you incorrectly accused me of that) but I don't want them to breed or be allowed in 10 years time. There is no need for the risk that idiots breed them and fight them. Peoples' fault but we can't control that as easily as the dog breeding.

If you are going to reply try to stick to what you are being asked and note you don't have to repeat all your points again. If you are going to make wild statements like "as most of the incidents involving pitbulls usually end up being recorded by the police, they also end up in statistics." Tell us how you know this or that it is only your opinion. It could actually be possible that they are recorded more because there is more or more damage is done:eek: But that is assuming it is fact in the first place that their are more reports which I don't know how you know anyway

aare

peasant wrote:

Well, see ...now I have a problem ...

Because by instinctively jumping to the first "nice" dog that came to mind (the Staffie) you just proved my point that judging dogs by breed is nonsense.

You see this is where YOU are jumping to conclusions, because the reason I said "Staffie" is simply because it was the first dog I ever knew that has similar appearance size and short fur to a Pit Bull...and I first knew that dog, my best childhood friend, at the age of 2 when he could have sat on my adult hand with room to spare.

But another breed similar in size and appearance is the short haired collie.

Pit Bulls are lovely sweet natured dogs. They are playful and adore people, particularly children. They are also far less likely to worry sheep than any other breed I know (a creature that runs without fighting back doesn't trigger their aggressive instincts) But, through no fault of their own they have been specifically bred to love to fight and thrive on it instinctively, and to have the jaws and musculature to do the maximum amount of damage.

I would never put a dog down for being a pit bull, but I really do not see how it makes any kind of sense to go on breeding these genuinely good natured killing machines when the pounds are destroying thousands of other unwanted dogs who aren't capable of doing the same kind of damage, even if they wanted to.

How is it anything but cruel to go on breeding a dog that will love children but can never be trusted to play with them? What would you be breeding such a dog for anyway?

Machismo?

Or some other form of arrogance?

In Germany they also go through phases of rounding up and destroying ALL bull breeds. Is that what you advocate?

But there is no one generally dangerous breed, just dangerous individual animals and owners..

Well that's a daft statement, unless you want to make a case for claiming that any Bichon Frise is as dangerous as any Akita, or that any Cocker Spaniel is as dangerous as any Ban Dog.

There are dangerous animals and dangerous breeds. A Bengal Tiger is a breed of cat, but you don't breed them as pets.

All dogs are potentially dangerous, they are predators by nature. It is the responsibility of the owner to control the dog.

...and just how do you intend to ensure that all owners behave responsibly?

...and what are you going to do with the dogs if they don't?

Take 'em into rescues that can't even handle the current levels of strays and unwanted dogs, ship 'em to England?

What are you going to do with pit bulls if the owners can't or won't behave responsibly (always assuming you can get anyone to Police that)? Because currently, the few rescued pitbulls tend to sit alone in cell like kennels year in, year out with limited light to keep them quiet (I have seen this with my own eyes)...and there are only a couple of dozen places for them to do THAT.

It all leads to humanely killing even more dogs than we already do.

Isn't it much simpler, and kinder to just "not breed" the more dangerous dogs?

system in place to educate / train and control dog owners

...and what "system" would you suggest?

The current trend of e250 per hour "dog behaviorists"?

A concensus from the self appointed "experts" of the animal welfare world?

This years trend?

Last years trend?

The way I was taught to train dogs 20 years ago?

The way sheep dogs are traditionally trained?

Let's be realistic, except for the last, which has to be ruthless with failure, there is no more a consistent "standard" for training and controlling dogs than there are resources to enforce it.

It is much simpler and safer to ensure that the more dangerous breeds are never born at all. Because in real terms every other option leads to large numbers of those breeds being exterminated or living miserable lives, as well as the risk they represent to others.

peasant

So much for leaving :rolleyes:
There are some breeds more dangerous than others. Read any book on dogs and they say so. You want to oppose that view state a reason why you know better? Not that you don't agree but why you know better!

Paper is patient ...you can write anything in a book. All dogs are potentially dangerous. But if you want to market a golden retriever or yorkshire terrier you don't mention that ...if instead you want to sell a rottweiler, dobermann or pitbull ...you do !

You may not remember the sight of the post man who lost his face to pit bulls but I do. There are a few breeds that if not trained are more dangerous due to their strength. If you don't think a yorkshire terrier and a pit bull or a staffie with the same aggressive temperment are just as dangeous as each other explain how? One is simply stronger than the other that is why one needs control and the other doesn't.
Explain that to the mother who just had to rush her baby to hospital because the family yorkie/shi-tzu/whatever attacked it in its cot.
All dogs need to be controlled

There is no need to keep the breed alive in ireland and you keep avoiding the point, why allow them? You either avoid the question or ignore it!
There is every need. Because ...once again ...its not the dogs fault, its the owners. Or do you want to ban all newfoundlands, st.bernhards, pyreneean mountain dogs, etc as well ...they are much stronger than pitbulls.

I would love special licences but that is not going to happen due to cost. I don't want them all dead (you incorrectly accused me of that) but I don't want them to breed or be allowed in 10 years time. There is no need for the risk that idiots breed them and fight them. Peoples' fault but we can't control that as easily as the dog breeding.
And you honestly believe that a breeding ban would prevent illegal dog fights from happening and dogs being bred for them? Not even muzzle orders or leash orders can be enforced ...much less criminal backyard breeding prevented. A ban would only hit responsible breeders and owners

If you are going to reply try to stick to what you are being asked and note you don't have to repeat all your points again. If you are going to make wild statements like "as most of the incidents involving pitbulls usually end up being recorded by the police, they also end up in statistics." Tell us how you know this or that it is only your opinion. It could actually be possible that they are recorded more because there is more or more damage is done:eek: But that is assuming it is fact in the first place that their are more reports which I don't know how you know anyway
Once again ..it has to do with pb's reputation and the large amount of anti-social owners. If your nice neighbours yorkie bites you by accident, you're not going to report that. If your nasty neighbours pitbull only growls at you, yo're going to call the guards ...normal human behaviour.
somebody has to spend time and money collecting bite statistics. the yorkie bite is not in the public interest ...the pb bite is and will most likely get blown all out of proportion as well.

and as you like reading up on the internet so much, here's a link for you
http://www.goodpooch.com/BSL/dogbiteepidemic.htm
not necessarily completely my opinion, but a refreshing change in style from that article that you're always on about.

And here's another one:
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/