Should Pitt Bulls be banned?

Muise... · 24-02-2014 12:51AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Swans are pretty easygoing, so long as you don'y fcuk with them. Friendly even.

Indeed. Once I had a German Shepherd called Rommel and not once did I see him drive a tank and repeatedly kick Montgomery in the nads.

I think they'd be a majestic hardman pet/mascot/weapon.

I once met a Retriever called Rommel. He raped the back of my chair at the dinner table. Nazi bastard.

24-02-2014 12:55AM

XsApollo wrote: »

I don't know if they should be banned.
If people want to keep them in their homes that's their own business as long as they keep them locked in.
But strict licensing laws should be brought in for them and other breeds and the laws should be enforced. ( I know nothing about dog laws maybe there are laws already?)

The dogs should never be loose in public
Owners should be liable 100% and action taken if they break the laws regarding them.

If a pitbull has a set on something or someone it's almost impossible to stop them.
The dog will nearly always have to be killed to make it stop.

Personally I think they are a horrible breed.

Your opinion is ignorant and misinformed.

"If a pitbull has a set on something or someone it's almost impossible to stop them.
The dog will nearly always have to be killed to make it stop."

That statement you made do you have any experience with pitbulls at all cause I have a good bit and you don't have to "nearly kill them" to get them to stop. Pitbulls are very friendly dogs and the main reason they are involved in so many bites according to the media is cause if any breed has a slightly wide face they say pitbull type dog.

I have experience with many breeds and I can say that small terriers would be way worse for aggression than any other kind of dog.

But the way you are talking I can probably tell you are ignorant and misinformed so no amount of talking to people like you will make you do some research on the subject and get informed.

kylith · 24-02-2014 01:00AM

Stained Class wrote: »

I'm a long standing fan of the German Shepard/Alsation.

How could this happen & why?

Looks over temperament or function, unfortunately. Breed standard says 'sloped back' and, since people are idiots, the dogs with the slopiest backs won and therefore were bred more. Dogs with temperaments that should never have been bred from were bred from simply because they had slopey backs, and the end result is a dog of questionable temperament that looks permanently mid-sh!te.

Holsten · 24-02-2014 01:04AM

No.

We're too ban happy, especially in this country.

Nichololas · 24-02-2014 01:17AM

woodoo wrote: »

Pit bulls responsible for 65% of all fatal attacks in 2008
6 of 7 fatal dog bites in Texas in 2007 were inflicted by pit bulls
94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked
81% of attacks that occurred off the owner’s property involved pit bulls
One person is killed by a pit bull every 14 days
One body part is severed and lost every 5.4 days as a result of pit bull attacks
2 persons are injured by pit bulls every day
1.5 pit bulls are shot to death every day

What kind of monster shoots half a dog?

BrianG23 · 24-02-2014 01:21AM

Yes and no...

No they shouldn't be banned, they're already members of families.
Yes in that breeding them should be illegal, they are simply are a dangerous breed, how dangerous they are is overrated and thus underrated by alot who defend them. But please don't pretend they aren't a dangerous breed.

Of course it's the owner who lets this happen in the first place. It's just not fair on the breed but thats the way alot of people are. Bad owner + Pit bull = accident waiting to happen, bad owner doesn't even have to be violent, it's one that can't control their dog too, which most people can't seem to do, unfortunately when a pit bull does go out of control the attack that happens is normally a bad attack.

Well, that's how I feel anyway, it's not right to ban something that's already found a family, I guess I don't care about letting a breed of animal die out for the sake of a safer environment regardless of how bad a dog owner someone can be. Although that's subjective from person to person.

Jimoslimos · 24-02-2014 01:27AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, not quite, or more, the general perception is more down to Daily Mail "science". Bite strength is in simplistic terms mostly down to head/jaw size. Take an Irish Wolfhound. Like huge blokes, big easy going old yokes as a rule. Yet if one of them went rogue, it would fcuk up a pitbull/staffy in seconds and you don't even want to imagine what it would do to a person, even an adult bloke. Unusually among wolfhounds they were originally bred to take on wolves one on one. Other wolfhounds were bred to act as a pack(and "losses" were a given). Given a wolf has nigh on four times the bite strength of a pitbull and an Irish wolfhound was bred to take them out, as our American cousins say "you do the maaaaath". Yet they'd be considered "safe"?

Am I correct in thinking it is not the bite strength of an Irish wolfhound but rather the fact it can pick up most smaller animals and cause severe damage to the neck by vigorous shaking?

Wibbs wrote: »

Why? A purebred "pitbull" has been bred to be dog aggressive. They were originally bred as fighting dogs. In such a "sport" back in the day, such dogs have to be separated and thus they were bred to be not human aggressive. IMHO it's not the breed/type as such that is the issue, more the inbreeding within the type. All "purebreds" are inbred to fcuk.

Which I'd argue is reason enough not to have them as pets. For the life of me I can't understand how anyone could enjoy owning a dog that only wants to attack other dogs. Makes going for a walk in the park a pain in the hole.

Wibbs wrote: »

No really. Check out what even responsible breeders consider safe breeding. Banjo playing inbred mutts ahoy. King Charles spaniels with lifetime headaches, British bulldogs who can't breath, move, or give birth naturally. The list is long. Add in gobshíte owners with small penises and it's not a good combo. And that goes for many modern breeds. All you have to do is look at the German Shepherd. Once an amazing working dog, not far from it's wild ancestor in form and function(even included European wolf admixture in the very early days), yet a family member and amazing search and rescue dog, helper, guide dog for the blind, hunting dog etc. A true all rounder. And now? The "breed standard" that wins the most prizes and mating rights is a fcuked up, sorry arsed, collapsed legged freak with questionable temperament. When was the last time you saw one as a guide dog? When I was a kid they were common in that role. And that's not that long ago.

I'm not going to agree on everything you say in this thread but this. 100 times this. The various kennel clubs have a lot to answer for IMO and as you alluded to a lot is due to decline in demand for working dogs and a rise for "pets". In the absence of sufficient benchmarks for working ability this void is filled with meaningless cosmetic judgements.
To further compound the issue, once a breed becomes "fashionable" the pressure to supply animals that meet the traits of the breed standard leads to irresponsible breeding practices. Repeated inbreeding is a quick and dirty method to ensure a certain trait is passed down to the next gen but it is questionable whether many of these traits are actually important (as a pet or working animal) and also the obvious genetic implications. If I was picking a pet tomorrow I'd go with a mongrel everytime. Tend to be more intelligent and suffer from less health issues as they age (Irish Wolfhounds have ridiculously short lifetimes I think).

Personally I'm conflicted as to whether banning Pit Bulls and related breeds is the answer. The scumbags just move to another breed, and for the reasons liste above usually end up ruining that one too. However I also don't think the breed can be held completely blameless. If these dogs are to be kept as pets I would expect more of an emphasis on improving the breed for this purpose - rather than maintaining it. Fine if that means losing a few breed characteristics and not fitting some perfect dimension criteria. I can live with that and I think most pet owners could too.

Both owners and breeders of these dogs need to share the responsibility, because while many of the breeds on the dangerous dogs list could make wonderful family pets, they simply won't until the emphasis is on careful breeding for these attributes.

lego101 · 24-02-2014 01:35AM

ban people, they kill more people then pitbulls,
ban knives because when they're used by agressive people they kill,
Maybe some regulation on who can have one might help, but not banning the dog.

end of the road · 24-02-2014 01:36AM

woodoo wrote: »

Should Pitt Bulls and associated breeds that they have the same power and physical stature be banned.

no, we can't bann everything or bann our way out of every problem, this would be another pointless waste of time and money unenforcable bann

mistress_gi · 24-02-2014 01:39AM

b_mac wrote: »

Wibbs for President!!

Seconded

Freddie Dodge · 24-02-2014 01:43AM

Yes, absolutely they should be banned, and the scumbag wannabe "hardmen" who own them as well.
Shooting either would be fine with me too, and I've had the pleasure of dispatching a couple of the former by .22 when they went on a killing spree in a field of sheep with young lambs. I've seen many dog attacks on sheep, but none caused the level of stomach churning carnage and gore I saw that day.

Banning them would be difficult to enforce but maybe bounty on their rotten heads would help.

Da Shins Kelly · 24-02-2014 02:08AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Greed and stupidity, mostly the latter. The German chappie who was the progenitor of the breed studied many breeds, from toy dogs to working dogs to wild dogs and came up with what he saw as the "perfect" dog in form and function and temperament. He damn near succeeded too. For a time they were the go to dog for home, defence, helper, hunting, shepherding etc. Even made the perfect movie dog long before Lassie in the shape of Rin Tin Tin. Then the anal dog nerds got involved and figured it could be "improved". A slightly lower hip in the original was considered a slightly better bet designed for speed, but not a gven, but this was hit on as one such thing to be "improved" and we ended up with pups with geriatric hips outa the womb. And that's before we get to personality traits.

Here are a couple of German Shepherds from the turn of 19th/20th century;

http://www.dragongsd.com/26719.jpg
http://www.dragongsd.com/VA_Beowulf_vom_Nahegau.jpg
(ony for the upright regal head that could be a Eurasian wolf)

to this;
http://xitahausberg.com/Images/GSD%20Anatomy.JPG
http://www.irishdogs.ie/images/gallery/77/1373_album.jpg
The latter you can see by the URL is a proudly Irish example. Short in limb, dopey in ear and fcuked in hip and rear legs.

All of this makes me sad. I knew that a lot of pure breeds have been inbred to fcuk and end up with all these health problems, but damn, I never knew how much the German Shepherd has been fcuked with in the space of just a century. In the early photos, they look great.

As for the pitbull ban, just no. That particular dog is just a good face for a Daily Mail-like panic about dogs, and they tend to get picked up by people who haven't a clue or get them for bad reasons. It's happened before with other breeds. I remember as a kid, people used to say similar stuff about Rottweiler dogs - they can't be trusted, they're naturally vicious, etc. Bad owners make bad dogs, and you shouldn't take on strong breeds if you can't handle them. I think better care should be given with regards to who ends up getting their hands on these dogs, but banning them outright is silly.

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 02:14AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Yes, absolutely they should be banned, and the scumbag wannabe "hardmen" who own them as well.
Shooting either would be fine with me too, and I've had the pleasure of dispatching a couple of the former by .22 when they went on a killing spree in a field of sheep with young lambs. I've seen many dog attacks on sheep, but none caused the level of stomach churning carnage and gore I saw that day.

Banning them would be difficult to enforce but maybe bounty on their rotten heads would help.

most ill informed post in the entire thread.

i know a lot of bull breed owners and none of us are wannabe hardmen. we're people who are into dogs and bulls are our preferred breeds.

do i look like a wannabe hardman with a killer dog to you?

challengemaster · 24-02-2014 02:16AM

dharma200 wrote: »

no.... yawn.... I own three pit bulls. the american stats you are quoting are complete tripe. there are extreme anti pit bull groups that are always looking for members, they are sort of like the christian right except its pit bulls they are against.

Yup, the figures from a peer reviewed medical/scientific journal are tripe. I'm glad you've clarified that random internet stranger who owns 3 dogs.

/facepalm

kylith · 24-02-2014 02:17AM

Before the pitts it was rottweilers, before them doberman pinschers, before that German Shepherds, before that it was St. Bernards believe it or not. Now huskys are the new devil-dogs, victims of the latest 'cool' dog fashions.

BetterThanThou · 24-02-2014 02:22AM

Pit bulls are fantastic dogs, I don't believe they're naturally more likely to attack, and there's definitely breeds I feel could inflict much more damage. Pit bulls were chose to be fighting dogs by gangs, this is what gave them a bad reputation. Why were pit bulls chose? Their trainability and loyalty, two very desirable traits for any dog, including a family dog. Dogs like German Shepherds, Alaskan Malamutes and Siberan Huskies, among many other dogs would be capable of inflicting more damage, and quite honestly, I'd say more likely to, due to the need of an experienced owner to train those breeds. Pit bulls are very nice dogs, as I said, very trainable, very loyal, very affectionate and very friendly, I've never seen a bad pit bull of any type.

Jimoslimos · 24-02-2014 02:29AM

BetterThanThou wrote: »

Pit bulls are fantastic dogs, I don't believe they're naturally more likely to attack, and there's definitely breeds I feel could inflict much more damage. Pit bulls were chose to be fighting dogs by gangs, this is what gave them a bad reputation. Why were pit bulls chose? Their trainability and loyalty, two very desirable traits for any dog, including a family dog.

This is IMO one of the more misunderstood traits. Misplaced and over loyalty to owners is what leads some dogs perceiving other dogs and sometimes humans as threats

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 02:39AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

This is IMO one of the more misunderstood traits. Misplaced and over loyalty to owners is what leads some dogs perceiving other dogs and sometimes humans as threats

Their loyalty lies with people in general. while they are quite loyal to their owners, they're a pushover for anyone with a treat. they make crap guard dogs but will defend what they perceive as a threat to their family.

ive been around them a lot and while ive seen plenty that have dog aggression, ive never met one with human aggression. im sure they exist as they do with most breeds, its just a very uncommon trait for them.

Gbear · 24-02-2014 02:43AM

Holsten wrote: »

No.

We're too ban happy, especially in this country.

It's the same everywhere.
We like to ban **** we don't like instead of minding our own business.

If you're allowing children alone with a pet there's just no telling what could happen.
Cats can suffocate babies, even small animals can give a nasty bite and they can all spread disease.

Ultimately dogs are dangerous animals. They're strong, have bloody big teeth and can be vicious ****ers.
They require a competent person to take care of them and if you prove yourself not to be such a person you shouldn't even be allowed to take care of gerbil, never mind a 40kg dog.

If you are a competent owner then there's no reason to ban what is really, by default, an intelligent, friendly and loyal animal.

On a side note, the inbreeding needs to be banned.

Femme_Fatale · 24-02-2014 02:47AM

Don't think they should be "banned" (how do you "ban" a dog? Think "banned" is just a way of skirting around "destroyed") but not just anyone should have them, and while a lot of the aggressive ones are that way due to nurture, there is an innate aggression too in fighting dogs, so they require very rigorous supervision and to be kept away from children.

My friends own two alsatians, which are excellently looked after, but they are still supervised all the time, and kept away from kids.

There's the "It's the owner" lobby and the "It's the dog" lobby. Surely the reality is somewhere in the middle?

RollieFingers · 24-02-2014 02:56AM

They should be destroyed, vile creatures!

wytch · 24-02-2014 03:01AM

They should be banned.

They are bred to fight in a pit. Hence the name.

I don't believe they are as dangerous to humans as other larger dogs. They are lethal to other dogs there own size. I am petrified of them when walking my dogs.
They are a status type dog. Their owners generally seem to know little about dogs. Not all owners but most.

Gbear · 24-02-2014 03:04AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

There's the "It's the owner" lobby and the "It's the dog" lobby. Surely the reality is somewhere in the middle?

It might be if dogs were fully sentient.
But they're just dogs.

If we expect them to live by our rules we have to make them do so.
When they "stray from the path" it's not because they're being dicks. It's because we've failed to handle them properly.
Because they're more intelligent than a fridge we tend to anthropomorphise them but trying to punish dogs only makes a little bit more sense than punishing the wind for blowing down your fence.
Really, it was your fault for building a ****ty fence.

Everything in life is a risk.
There's a risk with any pet, just as there is with any person, that they might go ape**** and start attacking everyone unprovoked.

The fact of the matter is that people focus on trivial things that, while tragic, don't happen very often but happily smoke a fag and chow down on a burger, which really do represent a clear risk to their health.
According to this wiki, there were 32 fatalities caused by dogs in the US last year.

Even if that number is off by a huge margin, it's still a tiny amount next to a million other things we do without batting an eyelid.

The real problem is people not looking at the statistical significance of events like these and seeing them for the freak accidents that they are.
Even with the legions of dickheads who mishandle these dogs you're still at essentially no risk from these dogs.

astonaidan · 24-02-2014 03:08AM

Its threads like this that reminds me why Im right that some people are frickin idiots, my cousin has a pit bull its the biggest pansy off a dog Ive ever seen.

Ehhh have you seen the damage a pitbull can do, right have you seen the damage a horse can do, a bull can do, a "wait for it" human being can do?

Every dog should be micro-chipped but its the owner who makes a dog cross, Ive seen some vicious Labradors in my time, where is the mass outrage on them.

Now Im off to ring the guards about the neighbours gander who chased after me yesterday, lets get geese banned people they are evil!!!!

Freddie Dodge · 24-02-2014 10:29AM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

most ill informed post in the entire thread.

i know a lot of bull breed owners and none of us are wannabe hardmen. we're people who are into dogs and bulls are our preferred breeds.

Really? Most ill-informed post in a thread about the damage and injury pitbulls cause is the ONLY post from anyone who's seen first hand what they can do? Wanna rethink that statement?

What I your sooooo informed opinion would add more to the thread? More "I like my doggie mkay" type posts?

You may legitimately disagree with what I think should be done about the problem, (as I don't really care what vicious breed apologists think of me) but to dismiss my post as "ill informed"just makes you look stupid tbh.

DamagedTrax · 24-02-2014 10:50AM

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Really? Most ill-informed post in a thread about the damage and injury pitbulls cause is the ONLY post from anyone who's seen first hand what they can do? Wanna rethink that statement?

What I your sooooo informed opinion would add more to the thread? More "I like my doggie mkay" type posts?

You may legitimately disagree with what I think should be done about the problem, (as I don't really care what vicious breed apologists think of me) but to dismiss my post as "ill informed"just makes you look stupid tbh.

let me correct a few more 'ill informed' statements you've just made.

firstly im no breed apologist, im 100% aware of what these dogs can do to each other, i posted this if you'd read further down "ive been around them a lot and while ive seen plenty that have dog aggression"

ive also made no bones about them in a previous AH thread when i said that these dogs were bred to do damage to each other. not all will but certain ones are born wanting to kill other animals. ive seen it first hand on a few occasions when crap owners let them run free and they turn on another dog. they are not fluffy pet lap dogs.

they're working dogs that need to be kept by reponsible owners. they need an amount of exercise that goes above and beyond what most other breeds need. they need a firm hand and a routine. they need to be kept securely at home and need to be on a lead in public. if you cant offer them what they need then you shouldnt keep one as a pet.

the ill informed part of your post was referring to owners as wannabe hardmen. as a member of 'Ireland's pit bull terrier association' with a championshoip winning dog i'm going to disagree with you, as i can guarantee im around more of these dogs and owners than you will ever be. if you still want to argue the point, fine but its a fact that for every scumbag i see with one, i know another 10 responsible owners.

dark crystal · 24-02-2014 10:58AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Don't think they should be "banned" (how do you "ban" a dog? Think "banned" is just a way of skirting around "destroyed") but not just anyone should have them, and while a lot of the aggressive ones are that way due to nurture, there is an innate aggression too in fighting dogs, so they require very rigorous supervision and to be kept away from children.

My friends own two alsatians, which are excellently looked after, but they are still supervised all the time, and kept away from kids.

There's the "It's the owner" lobby and the "It's the dog" lobby. Surely the reality is somewhere in the middle?

Don't forget the "It's the victim's fault" lobby too.

Caliden · 24-02-2014 11:02AM

I recently read an article on how pit bulls got their bad name and it's not because of their genetics it's from their use by gang's in the U.S. during the 80's.

Wibbs · 24-02-2014 11:13AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Am I correct in thinking it is not the bite strength of an Irish wolfhound but rather the fact it can pick up most smaller animals and cause severe damage to the neck by vigorous shaking?

Oh that would be part of it J, but that requires some serious bite strength to achieve on a wolf. Teddy Roosevelt in his travels through the American wilderness observed a single adult wolf killing a pair of mastiffs with ease. In general though bigger head and jaws(and teeth) = stronger bite. Still the Irish wolfhound of today is more a late 19th century reinvention of the breed from very depleted stocks at the time(ironically it was Cromwell of all people that helped them survive). The original of the species was probably a more robust, if not so large a dog. They were described as effin huge fookin greyhounds(actual historical term:)) in look.

The various kennel clubs have a lot to answer for IMO and as you alluded to a lot is due to decline in demand for working dogs and a rise for "pets". In the absence of sufficient benchmarks for working ability this void is filled with meaningless cosmetic judgements.

+1. In the case of the German Shepherd the guy who started the breed was aiming for pets as well as working dogs and was able to do it too.

The joke is responsible breeders freak out about backyard breeders(rightfully), yet it's the official breeders that have caused the problems we see, along with as you say the dog fanciers looking for the breed "type". Hip dysplasia in shepherds an example. "Good" breeders go for a good hip score, but the reality is a good hip score is still crap and way off what a wild dog would have. There has never been a recorded case of hip dysplasia in a wolf or dingo, yet for many breeds it's a near given at some stage in the life of the animal. The basic domestic dog stock is increasingly depleted of health down to inbreeding over the last century. The joke is wild wolves have been found to be quite narrow in genetic diversity, but they don't suffer the issues that dogs do, because the basic stock is strong(has to be). Add in recommended dog food(often pushed by vets) that consists of glorified meat flavoured wheatabix for an apex predator and you're screwed. Never mind pet insurance mandated yearly multiple vaccinations on top of that. How come a human can make to 80 with maybe 5,6 vaccinations throughout their lives, yet a dog that makes it to 10, could have that many vaccinations in a year? WTF?

If I was picking a pet tomorrow I'd go with a mongrel everytime. Tend to be more intelligent and suffer from less health issues as they age (Irish Wolfhounds have ridiculously short lifetimes I think).

Yep, though the problem is mongrels are also suffering, because of the "purebreds" and the genetic fcukups in their background genetics. Irony is in one way a purebred can be a better bet, because at least you'd know what you were likely to be getting in the way of vet bills.

I dunno what could be done at this stage though. Maybe a concerted effort to build a "German Shepherd" type dog for the 21st century, but avoiding the rigid standards and aiming for as "natural" a dog as possible? Mix current non fashionable breeds with the least amount of bad genetic traits. You could back breed in the more primitive dog breeds from around the world too, to get vigour back in. Wolves would be out as they're too different in temperament and behaviour to dogs and mixing the much greater strength of a wolf whose is normally very human shy with the forward aggressive nature of a dog is a dodgy one*. Maybe add in Dingo? Though care would have to be taken there. Huskies are a more primitive breed and can be a bloody nightmare, highly active, overly independent with high prey drives, a specialty dog.

*In captivity it has happened were a much smaller domestic dog has become the head male in a captive family pack, because of this forwardness and aggression. Interestingly it seems even wolves have changed. The german bloke who was responsible for the German Shepherd had a pet one that lived with him and his family, as did a few of his mates. It was quite fashionable at the time among your upper classes. The ancient Irish also had them as pets as the Brehon laws mention them in this capacity and had laws around their keeping(herons were among the most popular pets apparently. Weird eh?).

foggy_lad · 24-02-2014 11:24AM

dharma200 wrote: »

“A study performed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, and the Humane Society of the United States, analyzed dog bite statistics from the last 20 years and found that the statistics don’t show that any breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. The study showed that the most popular large breed dogs at any one time were consistently on the list of breeds that bit fatally. There were a high number of fatal bites from Doberman pinschers in the 1970s, for example, because Dobermans were very popular at that time and there were more Dobermans around, and because Dobermans’ size makes their bites more dangerous. The number of fatal bites from pit bulls rose in the 1980s for the same reason, and the number of bites from Rottweilers in the 1990s. The study also noted that there are no reliable statistics for nonfatal dog bites, so there is no way to know how often smaller breeds are biting.”

How many were killed or maimed by being attacked by a jack Russell or king Charles spaniel?

Should Pitt Bulls be banned?

Comments