am I right????

Well damn it Kel. You could have left them guessing for a while. The mastiff is a Bull mastiff...

And check this shit out...this is NOT a photoshop. Its called double muscling and this dog is a whippet. creepy.

http://blogmuscle.files.wordpress.co.../07/wendy1.png

Ive actually seen a tv episode about Wendy, the freaky whippet. Very interesting, a rare genetic problem whippets have...poor lady is accused all the time of doping her dog...can you imagine if humans were able to isolate and utilize something like that..?

They have:

http://www.thrillist.com/images/maps/3295.jpg

Strange how since his father stopped giving him steepids, he's average sized..
Ever

Don't you dare try to use that goddamn logic with Tigger! What's wrong with you Hokie?!? You really want a brain explosion on your conscience?

Man this is like a gun control argument... it's never going to be the dog is it? 67% out of the what, hundreds of breeds, not to mention the mixes that DON'T get called out as pits...if you're ready to say they can be wrong one way, you have to be aware that they can call the breed wrong and NOT name it a pit after an incident.

What's killing me, one side says it's the owner's fault when dogs are bad. Hokie is saying that her parent's dog attacks other dogs but it's not the dog's or her parent's fault. You are almost saying that it's the person who gets attacked fault, and to top it off you think that animal control officers are idiots and more that 50% incorrect in their breed identifications.

I guess I'm confused, when a dog bites is it;

a. the owner's fault
b. the dog's fault/temperament/breed
c. the victim's fault
d. Cesar Milan's for making a bunch of suckers believe that they can own potentially dangerous animals without incident if they hold their collars a certain way.:lol:

Come on, I'm sure that we can all understand that it's a combination of a, b, and c (maybe a little of d as well :lol:) You can't just rule out the possibility that if Hokie's parents had owned a different dog (possibly even a pit) that the situation might be different and incident-less. That if the trailer trash had owned a poodle that the baby would still have it's toes. I honestly believe that dogs have individual personalities just like people and like people different types have different strengths and characteristics, in general. Stereotypes suck BUT they rarely just get started without any reason whatsoever. :idk:

Tigger,

I think people need to be aware of the animals that they have. They are, first and foremost, animals that live life by instinct and learned behavior FIRST. Ignorance is not an excuse.

I am very aware that my dog, if put in the right situation, could kill. I just don't like the idea of putting any breed into a bracket. It's profiling... just because it's profiling dogs doesn't make it any better than profiling humans.

What logic? When did I ever say that "all animal control officers make perfect identifications"? In fact, I've given you 50% wrong! That's a fuck load plus, as I've said, if you maintain that they can be wrong one way, you HAVE to agree that they might make a mistake and not identify a pit mix and call it something else.

I'm glad that you all have good dogs, seriously. If you guys all go out and buy leopard cubs and swear they make great pets, I'm not going to get one of those either. :lol:

We had a wolf mix when I was a kid and the dog was great with us. I remember riding on it's back when I was little (really big dog). Killed a bunch of neighborhood dogs and bit a few kids.

I could tell you how he pulled me on my skateboard, or how we used to wrestle and he always let me win. How he woke us up when there was a fire (true story) or how he attacked some dudes that had chased me home from school.

Unfortunately, I could also tell you how we had to replace the front door because it used to be glass and the dog went through it after the mailman. He attacked my step mom when she came into my room to yell at me and he was on the bed (I kinda enjoyed that one). How a neighbor kid had to get a ton of stitches because she didn't see the dog and stepped in our yard. Or how a stupid neighbor's dog got loose one time too many and ended up with a broken neck.

Or any worse...

Yea you're right we shouldn't profile ANY animals. Go ahead and pick up that rattlesnake, they're not dangerous. They're just a victim of PROFILING!!!:lol:

Don't you agree that some breeds of dogs are bigger than others? Some are faster? Smarter? It always gets me that positive profiling is okay but don't you dare say anything negative!!! I don't care if you have facts, they must be wrong. I don't care if you have documentation, it has to be falsified or the documentors are idiots/incompetent. I don't care if there are thousands of news stories, it's media bias. (um, even the first story?) I don't care if you have personal stories, it must have been the circumstances/owners/victims.

When did it start becoming profiling/media bias? The 10th incident? The 100th?...the 1000th?...the 10,000th? :idk:

What if I told you that I have a pet leopard and it's an AWESOME pet! It plays with my kids and is so sweet! Would you go out and get one? Why not? Oh you've heard the story about the leopard owner in New York who was mauled...- he was a bad owner and didn't assert himself as pack leader. Huh, what about the 5 year old that lost his leg? Hey he was taunting the leopard and the animal was improperly exercised and trained. It's all just a bunch of media bias and sensationalism, don't pay it any attention! Besides, those animals may just as well been panthers, cheetahs or tigers, you know how stupid animal control officers are.:lol:

Yes, different dogs call for different methods. It is a dog owner's responsibility to recognize their dogs need and how they respond to different training stimuli. Because Hokie's parents owned a dog that developed aggression issues does not make them bad people or even bad owners because true canine behavior is not common sense. As strong working and hunting dogs have been relegated to city living our perspective on dogs has changed as a majority and only now are many people learning that their city pet requires special exercise methods and actual work in order to fulfill their "beastly" desires.

I'm not sure what you're trying to show with the story of your boyhood wolf hybrid, though it seems you are helping to illustrate it is the owner and not the dog. You had a dog with a strong personality that your parents did not take proper steps to control. You were part of his pack so of course he didn't bite you and he let you win at wresting etc. However without strong leaders he also killed a bunch of dogs and bit a bunch of people. Tell me what steps were taken to control this dog and get his behavior under control? Why was he in the yard unsupervised? A dog with strong territory instincts shouldn't be left in the yard unless you expect him to protect said territory. Why was he attacking the front door and who worked to correct that behavior? Why didn't he sit on the rug and let out a few soft barks to alert you? These behaviors are not hard to achieve, but the dog can not usually do it on their own.

Once again, you are using your own brand of sensationalism to prove a point and therefore losing the debate on your own. Leopards have not been genetically engineered for thousands of years to serve as a companion for humans. Dogs are animals, yes and they originated from wild undomesticated aminals yes...but their genetic make-up (which is unique in its ability to be manipulated) has been changed drastically since they were wild. Comparing them to completely wild animals such as rattlesnakes and leopards is absurd.

There are numerous factors that contribute to owning a well behaved and socialized dog of the working or hunting stock. Many of these factors are no longer common knowledge as these dogs are not being used as they were bred to be used. Dogs are highly adaptable and can easily be happy and satisfied in a city lifestyle if their owners are willing to learn their individual needs and take action. To make light of training methods such as those used by Cesar Milan by saying "oh well you didn't hold the collar right" is to completely miss the point of proper pack structure and also shows a bit of ignorance regarding canine behavior.

I was lucky, I grew up on a farm with working dogs and then lived in the city with my father who would've never tolerated a dog rushing the door at the mailman. I've owned everything from German Shepards to Pit Bulls to a 120lb Rottweiler to numerous working cattle dogs. Never been bitten or treated aggressively by any of them and never had them bite someone else. This is solely because my family understands how to handle strong dogs. I inherited that knowledge from my grandfather and my father and have expanded on it with the science that we have learned about dogs in the past 50 years. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have always been around well behaved dogs and doesn't take the initiative to learn. Instead when their dog develops behavior issues or bites the mailman they say, "We don't know what happened, he was a great puppy and then all the sudden he changed!" Then their once beloved family pet makes his way to the vet to get the needle. It happens everyday and I hear about it all the time.

Regarding Pit Bulls specifically the situation is even more bleak as (I have mentioned this) the typical Pit Bull owner is young and wants the dog for the tough image they are now (unfortunately) known for. They do not know the first thing about dogs and have likely never even seen a dog do real work (dogs are NOT pets, hamsters are pets. Dogs are working creatures) and don't even understand the concept of fulfilling their dogs needs. Pit Bulls are high energy and full of determination...yet many of their owners simply leave them in the back yard and in many cases chain them to a tree. This happens with other breeds as well but is more common with Pit Bulls.

The bottom line is that Pit Bulls are no different than other breeds of the Molosser ancestry yet suffer from a variety of factors that make them seem like killers to the general public.

My feeling is that ALL dogs need to have responsible owners. They are carnivore/hunters after all and have a pack mentality. I do think some dogs need more attention than other and I think pitbulls are one of those breeds. My parent's dog is one of those breeds as well. She is VERY sensitive to any negitive training and it is very hard for them now that she is older to discipline her when she freaks if you even so much as raise your voice, yet she is so focused when she is going after another dog that you almost have to smack/startle her to prevent her from further attack. Sometimes I wish there was a Dog Whisperer that could give them advice. She is a terrier though and it is well documented that they can be dog aggressive.

I think a well trained pitbull is a great dog and one of my personal favorites. Do I think everyone is capable of training and handling a pitbull. NO and unfortunatly they have become common pets to families that don't give them the love/training they need and for that the breed suffers.

I'd be glad to share some advice if you'd like to PM me some specific issues.

That would be great Josh. I think they have just gotten used to her behavior and think "can't teach an old dog new tricks" but she is VERY intelligent and I think they really could see improvement if they would work with her more.

Come on. These guys did it so we all should be able to own lions. They aren't killing machines it's just a bad reputation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDZaWgf_bk0

I aso ges my Border Collie is smart b kass uv eye and not his brieding.

Some people can't tell when I'm through debating and just having fun with them....:lol:

It would not be unfair to say that was a predictable response.

Oh come on, I said about 5 posts ago that I was just screwing with you.:lol: I certainly don't care what kind of dogs you have! :lol: Yea I really belive that pit bulls and panther are the same thing! I only bring up the wolf mix because everyone always says that they are dangerous. Anyway, I'm the one that gets his panties in a twist, what are you trying to do...steal my fucking shtick?

Oy Vey :lol:

If you say so man. All I know is that we were engaged in a good debate with you even going to the trouble of looking up internet stats and relating childhood stories to back up your point of view. It was enjoyable, then you pulled the "oh, I was just fuckin with you" card. *cough* smells like bullshit *cough*

People have been leary of Wolf Hybrids but it does seem they are capable of being well behaved companion animals., however, they are not as likely to look to a human for help for various tasks that they may not be able to do. Thus their genetic makeup doesn't allow for as close of a bond with humans. Your Wolf Hybrid obviously needed some help though.

Speaking of bonding with your canine, here's a pic from this morning's bike ride.
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g8...09bikeride.jpg

No wonder you keep such macho dogs around, you gotta protect those bikes!

PeeWee Herman had pits too.

http://byfiles.storage.live.com/y1pA...NXNhWqYRD1q7tM

PeeWee Herman was a connaisseur! And my wife thinks we look cute on our matching vintage Schwinns! lol

Okay now you're being you... hold on, I'm getting into character.... me,me,me,my,my,my,mo,mo,mo.....deep breath...you're a star!!!!...okay..

Whatever dude! You're "debate" consists of "me and some of my friends have pits and they haven't eaten us or our kids" and "I know people who were bitten by non-pits" Whoopie fucking doo!!! I came to the table with loads of facts and you all bring suppositions, "well, the animal control people are stupid and label all biting dogs pits when in doubt", "it's media bias", oh and my fav, "it's unfair profiling".

Listen, if there are 100 robberies in the state of North Carolina in Sept and 67 of them were perpetrated by black people, it is NOT "profiling" to state that more black people than white people committed robberies! It is NOT "media bias". It's the fucking truth! I'm not going to shoot back, "well some of those so called black people were probably mixed, so it's an unfair assessment" or even "well you know how stupid cops are, if a guy has so much as a tan, they label him "black". Pit Bulls HAVE been involved in more than their "fair share" of attacks. They have attacked and killed children, they have chewed off a baby's toes, they have ripped off a child's face. It did happen. All the finger pointing in the world won't change those facts. Have other types of non-terriers been involved in attacks? Of course but Pit Bulls compromise only a small percentage of the dog population but they are involved in a very large percentage of attacks. You can chalk it up to mismanagement by owners or mistaken identification by animal control officers/the media if you want but you can not completely wash away the fact that the dogs are inherently dangerous imho.

See? I can turn it on or off AT WILL!!!!:lol:

Due to extreme overbreeding Pit Bulls are no longer a small percentage of the dog population.

What? Okay it's fact check time! I'll check but are you saying that Pit Bulls attack/capita numbers are in line with all the other breeds?

You seem so confident that all these numbers you are researching are accurate. Do you think backyard Pit Bull breeders are registering their dogs and intentions with their prospective city? No. There is absolutely no way to account for how much these Pit Bull population has exploded in the past 5 or so years. Most of the Pit bull owners I talk to have plans to breed their dog. You can see it every time you go to the pound...full of Pitties. You can talk to Animal Control officers who routinely pick up litters of Pit Bulls. You can look at the dogs being sold on the side of the road...mostly Pit Bulls. To most Pit Bull owners breeding and making money is just part of the experience. Look up Pit Bull breeders on the net....look at all the scummy low class operations you find. Compare it to a search for Golden Retriever breeders.

My point is that if Dobermans or Goldens or Labs or Rotts or Mastiffs were considered the tough guy fighting dog then they would be the [I]victim[I] of over breeding, mal-treatment and numerous media articles quoting experts who claim they are dangerous beasts that should be outlawed.

Here's something...

http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2008/09...ics-bites.html

Media bias? Okay how about this...

http://www.kake.com/news/features/2/3352771.html

Yep more media bias... These people claim that pits only account for 5% of the dog population...

http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2009/08...-that-pit.html

Even if they were 10% of the population, they still account for more than half the reported attacks! No matter how you slice it, Pit Bulls account for more attacks than their percentage of the population would dictate. How can you disagree with that? Face it, most of us are crappy "pack leaders", very few of us are Cesars or Kanemans. If you want my honest opinion, you "superior" dog owners need to stop trying to convince the general public that these dogs are the same as any breed and rather push for special licensing to own this type of dog.

I never said these dogs are the same as any breed, I said they're the same as any breed of the Molosser ancestry. Some people shouldn't have dogs, and some people shouldn't have certain types of dogs.

No bias? :lol: Dude, the name of the website is dogsbite. You basically pulled those stats from an anti-pitbulls site.

this shit is still going on?? :lol: snort

Awwww... come on. I recognize that the numbers aren't perfect concerning ANY breed of dog. You once again want to single out Pit Bulls but there are all kinds of dogs, mutts if you will, that are being born every day without papers. There is no way, you are going to convince me that Pit Bull attacks are commiserate with their population numbers. Even if you could produce numbers that proved that PBs are 20% of the dog population, which is ridiculous, they still account for over 50% of the fatal dog attacks and I believe over half of the attacks in general. If every single, white trash guy, Mexican and brother owned a Pit Bull, it would still not compromise over half of the dog population!!!

What your numbers fail to account for is how much more likely a Pit or a Rott is to be obtained for the sole purpose of biting people. Owners with those intentions abuse their dogs in numerous ways and chain them and leave them intact to increase their aggression.

I don't doubt that Pits and Rotts are responsible for the majority dog fatalities. They are the most popular of the large powerful dogs and they are routinely "trained through mistreatment" to hate people.

This does not make them more likely to bite a person because of their breeding rather because of they way they are most commonly used.

The point none of you can prove is, how much of the attacks are due to poor training, and how much is due to any alleged "genetic personality"

The only way to settle this debate would be to do some kind of scientific test where you took several examples of each breed, straight from the mother's womb, and send them all to the SAME owner, who uses the SAME training methods, and then after some time goes by put them into controlled situations where you see how they respond to humans, and see if there's a difference between breeds.

Yeah, I know, I just took the top three articles out of the THOUSANDS of articles on this issue. These are still numbers pulled from the emergency call centers, the animal shelters and etc. The problem with calling media bias on one issue is that it sets you up to receive the same treatment when the media says something you agree with. You can't have it both ways. Either they are ALWAYS biased and wrong or there is some semblance of truth there. FWIW the first time I put up the 67% number, it was from a dog training center that wants to help people properly train their PBs.

You know what? Where's YOUR facts to PROVE that Pit Bulls aren't dangerous? Pointing fingers at other dog bites doesn't make PBs any less vicious. Under that logic, I could prove that rattlesnakes aren't dangerous because Black Mambas bite too. Every time I post a figure or a fact, your response is that it's biased or wrong...Oh yea? Well prove it! I don't contend that my figures are perfect, there aren't any such thing, where are yours? You've shown that you, an expert dog trainer and Cesar Milan, also an expert dog trainer can own a Pit Bull without incident. Why does that mean that they aren't inherently dangerous? Where's your proof? I can post figures from animal shelters and emergency call centers all day that "prove" that PBs account for far more attacks than any other breed AND that absolutely show that they are responsible for more attacks than their numbers should call for. Where are your numbers and facts that say they aren't?

Hey I tried to bow out...:lol:

Hmmm that's a good point but my contention is that we all are crappy owners/"pack leaders" for the most part so why aren't there stories of Collies chewing the toes off babies? Do you all really believe that the media is suppressing these stories in an effort to demonize Pit Bulls?:lol: I'm a terrible "pack leader", I let my dog go out the door first and I use a Flexi leash. I'm fucking lazy and my dog gets minimal exercise and yet he hasn't attacked a single baby or dog... Well, I guess that I can claim to be an expert dog owner as well.:lol: Maybe, I should have a show on Animal Planet!:wink:

Oh well if a pro-Pit organization says so... see what I mean about pulling the bias card? How can you post a pro-Pit organization as being the truth? Even on their site, I didn't see any numbers disproving mine. All I see are a bunch of opinions and some isolated stories of good Pit Bulls. Hey, I never said that they were all "EVIL" or whatever.:lol: Heck, even that site admits that some Pits have an aggressive temperament to humans and should be euthanized!

Shit, I missed 20 minutes and feel overwhelmed by the plethora of Tiggasponses.

Here is a NEUTRAL organization that tests dog breed temperements. Here is how they test...
http://www.atts.org/testdesc.html

And here are the results. There are multiple pages. The "pitbulls" are listed under American Pit Bull Terrier.
http://www.atts.org/stats1.html

Hey, can we take a break? It's hard to maintain this level of intensity when I really don't care....:lol:

Besides, I actually like pits for the most part, I'll never own one for the reasons put forth by myself and you.

Fuck no, I've spent the last hour digging up info to debunk all the Goddamn false statistics you posted up so just bear with me as I prepare my Pièce de résistance.

One thing everyone who reads this will be sure of by the end. Tigger and I need to get jobs.

Didn't strike you as "odd" the disproportionate number of Pits and Rots that were tested?:idk: it just seems weird. Oh and did you actually read how the test is done and what it takes into account?

http://www.atts.org/testdesc.html

Well, while you do that I'm going riding around campus and check mout the new eye candy!:drool:

Yes...I read it....:skep:

Did you see that they take into account the dog's training? So if a dog is trained as an attack dog/security dog then aggressive behavior is permissible. Did you notice that a large part of the test has nothing to do with aggressive behavior but nervous behavior, curiousity, fear, etc? This test in no way proves that Pit Bulls aren't more vicious. The possibility exists that every Pit that failed, did so by attacking a tester and every Collie that failed, did so because it wouldn't cross a 15' piece of plastic. :lol:

Oh and who says they are "neutral", they claim "non-profit" status, not neutrality. :nee: Hey, whatever, I give, I give Collies are way more vicious than Pit Bulls, you guys are absolutely right!:lol:

Lassie was a farce!

http://www.mockpaperscissors.com/blo...-and-timmy.jpg

Ten years later...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/4...a186b3.jpg?v=0

:bs:



:lol:

Tigger and other haters of awesome dogs,
I have no illusions that you will read the links below or do the research that proves your own POV regarding American Pit Bull Terriers to be false and the result of hype and hysteria. However, with my own Pit Bull resting his cute lil' head in my lap throughout much of the day I felt obligated to come to his defense. Plus you dared me to prove my side, so here is the proof.
------

Karen Delise is director of research for the National Canine Research Council. She has spent over 20 years closely examining and evaluating dog bites with a focus on fatal dog attacks. She has extensive documentation and research to back up her findings. Despite your numbers claiming over half of fatal attacks were from Pit Bulls Karen found that: "Pit bull and pit mixes account for 21 percent of all human fatalities" This is based on an evalulation of 431 fatal dog attacks between 1965 and 2001.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/ncrc-research/
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/


----------------------

The American Veterinary Medical Association formed a task force on "Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions" to further investigate dog bites. They state:

“An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are ‘most dangerous’? This inquiry can be prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as ‘dangerous.’ . . . singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control . . . ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community’s citizens.”

Their report also shows why I kept denouncing the stats posted up regarding Pit Bull attributed fatalities:
"Dog bite statistics are not really statistics and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.... There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds..."
http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf
--------------------------

Here is an example of media hype as it relates to Pit bulls, this is a common occurence proven by people who research these articles regularly by fact checking:
http://www.kirotv.com/news/16648489/detail.html -
Media reports that two men save lil' girl from vicious Pit Bull attack.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911...ves/142027.asp -
The responding police officers confirm that a Pit Bull was playing with a girls shoelace and she got scratched. They also note that the dog was not aggressive.

-----------------------------

If Pit Bulls are so incredibly dangerous why don't cities who have enacted Pit Bull bans have decreasing bite numbers?
Council Bluffs, IA:
2003 (pre-ban) - total dog bites: 85

2004 (pre-ban) - total dog bites: 131

Ban passed to deal with unusualy high number of dog bites.

2005 (ban in place) -- total dog bites: 115

2006 (ban) -- 132

2007 (ban) -- 98

Aurora, CO:
2003-- 185

2004 -- 178

2005 -- 110

BSL in Aurora is passed here.

2006 - 129
2007 - 157

-------------------------------------------

Perhaps not really relevant, but amusing to me nonetheless.
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/arti...ec001471d3.txt
(Lawmaker that pushed for Pit Bull ban based on typical hysteria has a Lab that bites someone and ends up on death row.)

-------------------------------

Despite the CDC's own report they claim:
"There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."
---------------------------------

Here is an entire website that shows just how full of shit dogsbite.org is. There's a LOT of info there so feel free to do your own research as my post is long enough as is. The owner of the site was "attacked" by a dog she identified as a Pit Bull and started her own crusade.
http://rdows.wordpress.com/2008/01/1...g-dogsbiteorg/

There is so much legitimate research that debunks the myriad of myths and statistics put forth that have demonized the once beloved APBT floating around that it seems redundant to attempt to post even a fraction of it. I will close by saying my love for the breed comes from my own personal experience in the many, many years I have spent around dogs. My opposition to the anti-Pit Bull rhetoric is also enhanced by my belief that far too many people are ignorant, lazy, gullible, emotionally controlled and fearful. They believe that which is presented on the TV without question or research. These are the same types of people that were convinced Marijuana turned nice young college boys into sociopathic rapists and murderers, etc et al.

George Bush hates Pitbulls - Kanye West

What the hell was that guy doing to that dog back there?!?!?!?!:lol:

Hey this is almost as much fun as arguing gun control with Amorok!!!:lol:

Hahaha! Dude, seriously? Did you just admit that Pits are responsible for 20% of all fatalities and aren't you the one that has repeatedly pointed out that "recently" the pitbull population has exploded? I'm old enough to remember when there wasn't any such dog as an American Pitbull Terrier. Or at least to my knowledge at the time. I also quoted the same chick and if you look at the more recent numbers and eliminate the decades where there were hardly any Pitbulls at all...well, I think you already know how it looks. Look at the numbers for the last decade for example. Shit, this is like proving that the AIDS scare is bullshit by pulling the number of AIDS related deaths from 1965-2005 and leveraging them against the number of total deaths from the same period.:lol:

Besides why do your numbers get to be facts and my numbers are false? Why are your sources so much more "non-biased"?:lol: Shit, most of that PDF is double-speech about how they can't make real statistical judgments... so that means neither of us are right. I mean, if they can't form accurate statistics that prove Pits are more dangerous, then they can't form stats that prove they aren't.:lol: So I guess that you win and all the stories about Pit Bulls attacking people and other dogs are complete bullshit! Btw my gf had a point, she watches Milan all the time, have you ever seen an episode where he goes up against an aggressive Pit Bull? I haven't.:lol:

Because my sources are respected professionals from the canine community and yours were not anywhere close to it. Given the population of PB's, the power they wield, the type of owner they attract etc I believe 15-20% is a much closer number than your 50%+. There are also numerous links backing up the extensive research of the sources I quoted.

I never said there wasn't a Pit Bull problem, there is indeed a very large Pit Bull problem...I just don't believe it lies in the dog's genetic makeup. I never said Pit Bulls weren't capable of killing humans. I said the numbers have been greatly exaggerated and the whole story isn't being told.

Yes, I have seen many episodes of the Dog Whisperer where Cesar "goes up against an aggressive Pit Bull" Milan also owns numerous Pit Bulls including the old one "Daddy" that used to be Redman's dog. Daddy is personal protection trained BTW.

Consider:
My study of fatal attacks occurring over the past five decades has identified the poor ownership/management practices involved in the overwhelming majority of these incidents: owners obtaining dogs, and maintaining them as resident dogs outside of the household for purposes other than as family pets (i.e. guarding/ protection, fighting, intimidation/status); owners failing to humanely contain, control and maintain their dogs (chained dogs, loose roaming dogs, cases of abuse/neglect); owners failing to knowledgably supervise interaction between children and dogs; and owners failing to spay or neuter resident dogs not used for competition, show, or in a responsible breeding program.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/ncrc-research/

And from the CDC:
Dr. Randall Lockwood, one of the authors of the CDC’s “Breeds of Dogs,” as well as a member of the AVMA Task Force, submitted an affidavit in 2007 in opposition to the breed ban currently in effect in Denver, Colorado. He stated, in part: “Focusing on a single breed as the ‘source’ of the dog bite problem reflects a 19th century epidemiological mindset that attempts to identify the vector of a public health problem and eliminate that vector. . . The dog bite problem is not a disease problem with a single vector, it is a complex societal issue that must address a wide range of human behaviors in ways that deal with irresponsible behavior that puts people and animals at risk.”

You're going to totally ignore my point about there being few Pits from 1965-1985+ which makes her numbers stoopid!:lol: I don't disagree that it's not all the dog's fault but if the same crappy owner gets a Golden Retriever instead of a Pit Bull... I've said repeatedly that we people are terrible pet owners and "pack leaders", I totally agree! I still believe that if the crappy owner gets a GR vs a PB, the PB is far more likely to attack someone and if it does attack, it is far more likely to do serious damage and possibly kill someone. Go back to your stats and find out that there are or at least were far more GRs in the US than any other dog and see how many fatal attacks were carried out by GRs. Are there any?

Back when I was a kid, Dobermans and German Shepherds were the mean dogs. In fact if you check the numbers from 1965-1985 for which dogs were the dog bite kings, I bet it's one of these two! Then Rots got popular and finally Pits.

Facts are going to be facts, no matter if you like it or not. Shit, if you really want to prove that Pits aren't biters, why not go back to the 1800s? Why not post the dog bite numbers from Alaska to prove that Huskies are more dangerous? Colorado? Iowa? Could you have found smaller towns? What would the dog bite number reduction be in LA if all of the Pits/ Rots were eliminated?

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore a Tigoint. APBT's are a very old breed of dog and have been popular in America since long before you were born....they just didn't used to get a lot of media coverage as they do now. In fact, the most decorated war dog in World War 1 was a Pit Bull.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_Stubby

I strongly disagree that a poorly treated or chained German Shepherd is "far more unlikely" to bite someone than a Pit Bull and believe I have shown evidence backed up by strong research that proves that point. Chaining and abusing all dogs can turn them into people biters.

I don't have the bite numbers from LA...but I provided info that shows in at least two cities breed bans had no effect on bite numbers. Again, bite statistics are incredibly unreliable for reasons provided in my previous post and therefore not a clear indicator of reality.

So why do you get to use them?:lol: Oh and I said Golden Retrievers not German Shepherds. I never said that pits didn't exist, they did in ENGLAND! I don't know when they were first brought here or became APBTs. They were first bred as, hmm fighting dogs in the early 1900s. Oh and now YOU are going to mis-identify a bull-terrier mix as an American Pitbull Terrier?:lol:

HEY!!! APBT aren't even a recognized breed!!! No wonder that can't keep good records of their bites... they don't fucking exist as a breed!:lol: I'm looking at the AKC page and it hits me! Duh!:lol:

Hey you win, how can a breed that doesn't exist be dangerous?!?!?! There's a bunch mutts out attacking people but whatever they are, they aren't APBT because that breed does not exist. I may as well be arguing that DRAGONS are dangerous!

They are UKC

Nice fact checking, Ace.

What the hell is the UKC? Well hush my mouth! I ain't never heard of no UKC! Shoot, when the lady gave me UKC paperwork for my dog, I honestly threw it away! No bull shit! Hey, I never claimed to be an expert! I'm SUPPOSED to be the irrational side of this argument!!!:lol: I'm still not sure how immigrants brought American Pitbull Terriers to this country but okay, it says so on the UKC website so it must be true!:lol:

http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/B...dNovember12008

Sometime during the nineteenth century, dog fanciers in England, Ireland and Scotland began to experiment with crosses between Bulldogs and Terriers, looking for a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the Bulldog. The result was a dog that embodied all of the virtues attributed to great warriors: strength, indomitable courage, and gentleness with loved ones. Immigrants brought these bull and terrier crosses to the United States. The American Pit Bull Terrier’s many talents did not go unnoticed by farmers and ranchers who used their APBTs as catch dogs for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, to drive livestock, and as family companions. Today, the American Pit Bull Terrier continues to demonstrate its versatility, competing successfully in Obedience, Tracking, Agility and Weight Pulls, as well as Conformation.

The United Kennel Club was the first registry to recognize the American Pit Bull Terrier. UKC founder C. Z. Bennett assigned UKC registration number 1 to his own APBT, Bennett’s Ring, in 1898.

Dude the UKC has "events" and "shows", like dog pulls and what not.

The programs at UKC include Obedience Trials, Agility Trials, Weight Pull Events, Terrier Races, Dock Jumping Events, Total Junior Program, Dog Sports (including Family Obedience), Coonhound Field Trials, Water Races, Nite Hunts and Bench Shows, Hunt Tests for retrieving breeds, Pointing Dog Events, Beagle Events (including Hunts and Bench Shows, and Cur and Feist Squirrel and Coon Events and Bench Shows.

Dude, they even let mutts in! WTF!

Part of our mission is to have events where all dogs can compete. In addition to our purebred dog registry, United Kennel Club offers a Limited Privilege program. The Limited Privilege is open to all dogs that are spayed/neutered. This includes mixed breed dogs, purebred dogs of unknown pedigree, and purebred dogs with disqualifying faults as described in the UKC breed standards. The programs open to Limited Privilege dogs are Obedience Trials, Weight Pulls, Agility Trials, Total Junior Program and Dog Sports (including Family Obedience).

You have to admit that it's kinda funny that the UKC founder had one so he decided that this was a legitimate breed but the AMERICAN Kennel Club still says "mutt"!:lol: It sounds like somebody couldn't get his dog registered with the AKC so he started his own damn club!!!:lol::lol::lol:

:stirpot: <- Tigger

I completely agree that the dangers posed by potentially dangerous breeds (all of them, really) are greatly aggravated by the actions/neglect/failure to discipline by their human owners. BUT, I can't help to conclude that that for whatever combination of factors, there's simply no denying that a few breed 'types' are responsible for the vast majority of fatalities. I think it's reasonable to assume a similar correlation with cases of serious injury. Based on the raw fatality stat's, Pits and Rotts are by far the leading breeds in dog-attack deaths, alond with a few others (and yes, I know a lot of bully dogs that aren't APBTs get lumped together as 'pit-bulls', but so what? - we're not debating pedigree, and by that same token lots of Rott-mixes are classified just the same as pure-breds). Of course, the figures aren't correlated to the total # of dogs of a particular type - but it's hard to argue with the raw #'s showing a very strong trend in the types of dogs that attack/kill humans.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAtt...ttackhome.html


I asked my brother to refresh my memory about his good friend, Dominique, who was the guy I knew that was bitten badly - 3rd hand account, but a reliable source (to me) with no reason to lie about it. It was actually his girlfriend's family dog, which was kept as an indoor 'pet' (I know, they're not pets, blah, blah - but that's the reality of how many if not the majority of dogs are kept in this country). He was visiting for X-mas dinner & eating a plate of food while sitting on the hearth, and the dog was pestering him by nosing at his plate while he ate (unacceptable behavior, but the dog was simply being a pest & not 'visciously' aggressive). After pushing him away a couple of times, it snapped onto his face twice & laid him open from the top of his cheekbone to his chin. Was it precipitated by ignorance/negligence on the part of the owners and perhaps an improper/careless reaction from the 'victim'? Sure - but it sure as hell wasn't some chained-up grossly-mistreated curr being unduly provoked by someone blatantly taunting or abusing it.

I'm not at all saying that pit-bulls or Rotts or any other 'dangerous' breed are automatically 'bad' or 'evil'. I think that the vast majority that have good owners & proper treatment/training can be loyal, loving, trusted family-members, and I totally accept that the biggest factor in their propensity to attack is how they are raised, socialized & disciplined. BUT, I also think that without a proper upbringing they (dogs in general, larger/stronger dogs particularly, and a handful of breeds specifically) can be very much like having a loaded gun laying around. :shrug:

Well put but I'm sure that you know that your numbers are suspect and your information is biased. :lol:

Rottweilers have the highest bite strength of any dog. Pits are high on the list too. So yes, if they bite they do damage. That certainly plays in to the statistics AND into incident reports.

If for example if you are bitten by a Poodle you won't be injured as badly, even if the dog bites all the time.. as in my moms poodle that bit me multiple times, or the choc lab down the street that attacked my Rottie twice, or the neighbor's daschund that tried to bite me twice, or my former employers toy poodle who bit numerous people, me included. NONE of those bites or attacks were ever reported because the damage was minimal.

If all dog bites were reported the statistics would show a vastily different result. AND we would be debating breed bans on Poodles right now, no doubt about it..

You haven't been keeping up have you? :lol:

I've owned two Rotties and several Pits that never bit anyone and own guns that have never shot anyone...wow what a boring life. :lol

Sucks being responsible.

I don't own Pits or Rotties currently...just a little Shiba Inu and he's just an early warning system...I've still got the guns. :dthumb:

Oh no....Chihuahuas, my friend! They are dogs from fucking HELL!!! I have never seen a more vicious or meaner breed of dog in my life!!!:lol:

I see your point but on the other hand almost everyone that has ever owned a hamster has been bitten at least once, would you like to consider a ban on those?:lol: Besides, I NEVER even once suggested that the dogs be banned, I think that they are of a more aggressive temperament than the average dog, like say a Golden Retriever, Kaneman does not agree. :lol:

Geesh, paranoid much? Just kidding!!!! No gun arguments for me for a while!!!:lol:

:lol:

I agree that dogs of the Molosser ancestry have special requirements and are not for the dog owner that doesn't want to invest the time and effort.

Mainly I just wanted to have a long debate with Tigger to see if he would "get his panties in a wad" as he is so often accused of and he did not. In fact, I thought he held his end of the debate very well.

Damn - I was hoping someone would bite harder than that! :lol:


Kaneman - guilty as charged. I see what you're saying re: many pits/rotts 'trained to hate humans', and while I agree that it's part of the issue, my feeling is that it doesn't explain away the numbers being skewed so highly towards those two types in particular. Just an opinion that can't be proven/disproven by lies, statistics and more lies though. And I'd still be far more worried about dangers presented the 'scumbag'-owner element than any of their 'viscious' dogs.


One thing that jumped out at me doing a little reading though - supposedly 1/3 of homeowners' insurance claims result from dog-related claims? Wow - seems hard to believe it could be that high. Does your ins. company ask if you own dogs (or specific breeds) & jack your rates?

Kerry my insurance company did a 'drive by' and asked that we sign a waiver on our Rotteweiler so we can't make claims on him. They didn't ask for a waiver on my two parrots though and they've bitten plenty of people! :lol:

Aw shucks! Twert nuthin'!!! Actually, I like long debates until the name calling starts...:lol:

RrrrrAAAAWWWWKKKkkk... Polly want a finger RRRAWWK TWEET WOOT!

*gasp* You guys are too funny! Tiggasponses and Tiggoints, those are worth remembering...

Kerry, in response to your question, every time I have gotten home insurance or renewed my policy they have gone through a list of dogs (pits, rotts, shepards, etc) and let me know that if I owned any of the above it would affect my insurance.

Milk, I cant remember where I read it, but I know I read somewhere that Poodles tend to be a VERY nippy and agreesive biting breed, especially the large ones, tho when properly trained make excellent pets. However, I am sure they dont even get an honorable mention since whos afraid of a Poodle?! Not a breed that typically inspires fear...:lol:

Well they would if they started chewing baby's feet and tearing people's faces off!:lol:

Our homeowners insurance here in Florida is well aware that we have an APBT and a Boxer. No special rider or upping the policy.

Tigger, what ever happened to the tank pack sized dog you used to have in your avatar?

It was eaten by a Pit Bull, and he hasn't been the same since.

JC

It wasn't even a Pit, it was a mixed breed that they couldn't identify so they reported it as a Pit for statistical purposes.

:lol:

JC

:lol:

I ate it and since I'M a mixed breed they classified it as a pit bull attack!!!:lol:

Actually, I ws working 14 hr days and the dog was getting severe separation anxiety so I gave him to an old lady that I met. She has all the time in the world and takes him everywhere. I felt that it would be a better home for him.:idk: