Pit Bulls [Archive] - Dog Forum .org

Betsy

10-11-2006, 06:44 PM

The notion that it is impossible for anybody to identify a pit bull as a pit bull is a popular one, but it isn't true.

There really aren't any good nationwide (at least in the US) statistics for the dog breeds involved in "biting incidents" so the notion that a person will be so highly excited that they will (falsely) blurt out that a "pit bull" was responsible is irrelevant to any stats that we know of, even if you believe it to be true. Plus, most dog bites involve a dog known to the bitee, often a dog who the bitee lives with. Most people have some idea of the breed of the dog they live with. (and if they don't, there is no reason for them to mistakenly claim it is a pit bull in any higher proportion than they mistakenly claim it is a lab or a poodle).

Where we do have reasonably good statistics (because they are usually extremely well investigated by people who know how to investigate and who expect that they will be questioned in court about their conclusions so they try to get it right) is fatal attacks on people, and in those, pit bulls, unfortunately, don't do well. According to Karen Delise (author of "Fatal Dog Attacks" and certainly not considered to be anti-pit bull) 90 "pit bull type" dogs have been involved in fatal attacks on human beings in the US between 1965 and 2001. Ms. Delise was extremely skeptical of the breed identification in the case of pit bulls (not, however, other breeds--the rottweilers were all identified as "rottweilers," not as "rottweiler type" dogs) but she was able to confirm that the dogs involved were actually apparently purebred pit bulls in 36 of the cases. In contrast, only four labradors (the number one dog breed in popularity by a WIDE margin) were involved in fatal attacks during that same time period. It would take an extreme case of wishful thinking on the part of pit bull people to think that every one of the other 54 cases involving dogs identified as pit bulls were not really pit bulls, but even if you believed that, thirty six fatal attacks is evidence that there is a pit bull problem in terms of temperament.

It is just silly to claim that animal control officers don't (generally) know how to identify a pit bull. It is true that in many shelters dogs that are clearly pit bulls get identified as "boxer mixes" because shelter workers are trying to make them more adoptable (or get around shelter policies that forbid adopting out pit bulls), but that is generally a conscious decision, not a lack of knowledge. We know that it is a conscious decision because few, if any, purebred boxers are misidentified as "pit bulls mixes" while PLENTY of apparently purebred pit bulls are misidentified as "boxer mixes" (or ridgeback mixes or lab mixes or, if they are black and white, dalmatian mixes or pointer mixes). For example, does anybody here doubt that this so-called "boxer mix" is an apparently purebred pit bull? http://search.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=7024686

On the other hand, I doubt that you will find an apparently purebred boxer misidentified as a "pit bull mix" on pet finder. (Lots and LOTS of apparently purebred pit bulls are misidentified as pit bull/boxer crosses on pet finder. I didn't see any that looked to be apparently purebred boxers. The "error" only goes one way, apparently).

skunkstripe

10-11-2006, 07:50 PM

The notion that it is impossible for anybody to identify a pit bull as a pit bull is a popular one, but it isn't true.

Betsy, I assume that this is NOT in response to my post, because this is not something I said. Who are you addressing here?

According to Karen Delise (author of "Fatal Dog Attacks" and certainly not considered to be anti-pit bull) 90 "pit bull type" dogs have been involved in fatal attacks on human beings in the US between 1965 and 2001.

What exactly is a "pit bull type" of dog? Blocky head? Stocky build? Rose ears? All or none of the above?

It would take an extreme case of wishful thinking on the part of pit bull people to think that every one of the other 54 cases involving dogs identified as pit bulls were not really pit bulls, but even if you believed that, thirty six fatal attacks is evidence that there is a pit bull problem in terms of temperament.

Perhaps you should take a look at the site maintained by the American Temperament Test Society, Inc.. These are to my knowledge the only reliable statistics. The tests are performed under controlled condition, and the dogs' breeds are known BEFORE the test is carried out. American Pit Bull Terriers score 83.5 %, not at the top of the list, but well above Sheepdogs, Basenjis, and other breeds who do not have a bad reputation.
http://www.atts.org/statistics.html

It is just silly to claim that animal control officers don't (generally) know how to identify a pit bull.

Are you referring to any poster here specifically? Because so far no one has brought up animal contrrol officers. Not that there is not a fair share of serious errors among these people. No, it is police officers who are often responsible for the reports. Many communities do not even HAVE Animal Control. And police officers are not dog experts.

If you look at consistent factors, it is most often unneutered male dogs who are responsible for the bites. So to have an imapct, stronger incentives to neuter are needed. But to imply that there is some inherent viciousness directed against humans in the breed known as the American Pit Bull Terrier has not scientific or reliable statistical basis.

The current problem is IMO caused by hoodlums who have chosen this breed because of the reputation. Take the breed away and they wil choose another - Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Labrador mixes, anything that looks strong and can be trained to be nasty. BSL will not solve the problem. harsher measures for the scummy owners will.

Sabledog

10-11-2006, 09:25 PM

The current problem is IMO caused by hoodlums who have chosen this breed because of the reputation. Take the breed away and they wil choose another - Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Labrador mixes, anything that looks strong and can be trained to be nasty. BSL will not solve the problem. harsher measures for the scummy owners will.

i fully agree with this statment. i actually reported a couple of people, whom i met that had a pair of pitbull puppies (around 15 weeks) they had NO EARS, i asked them what happened and they said they had cut them off with a razor blade and a hammer to make them mean, needless to say they didnt have the dogs long.

Betsy

10-12-2006, 07:57 AM

skunkstripe

I understood you to be saying that pit bull bite rate figures were "inflated" because bite victims can't identify dog breeds and would falsely claim the dog involved to be pit bulls. But the statistics where pit bulls do worst aren't just victim reports of bites (I agree with you that they can be inaccurate, for a variety of reasons) but the much more reliable reports of shelter populations and also dog attack reports where the attack resulted in a human fatality. In these cases, not only are police officers always involved but also generally the OWNER of the dog (fatal attacks are overwhelmingly perpetrated by owned dogs) and often veterinarians, animal control officers, other witnesses and other experts. It isn't just Officer Friendly just filling out a single form and identifying the boxer who killed the child as a pit bull.

"Pit bull type dogs" (in the Delise book, for the purpose of her statistics) are dogs involved in fatal attacks where her only source of knowing that the dog was a pit bull was the media or where the dog appeared (to her) to have the characteristics of a pit bull but didn't look like a purebred pit bull, but no other breed was apparent. (If characteristics of other breeds were apparent, the dog was lumped with "mixed breeds," even if it was clear he was part pit bull).

It is, frankly, silly to claim that the American Temperament Test Society maintains "reliable statistics" about dog temperament, although that claim is often made (and very often believed and repeated by the media, who don't understand ATTS tests). The ATTS is rididulously inadequate to test for aggression toward humans and doesn't even purport to test at all for aggression toward other dogs. In order to flunk the ATTS test for aggression toward humans, a dog would have to be so dangerous that reacts aggressively toward even a completely non-threatening human being while the dog's owner is right beside him. Few dogs remain alive (and even fewer choose to voluntarily bring them to "temperament tests") if that is the case. I do AKC Canine Good Citizen tests and I have NEVER had a dog flunk the equivalent portion of the CGC. Dogs DO flunk both the CGC and the ATTS, but it isn't generally because they demonstrate aggression toward humans in the lame tests they are given. In the CGC it is because they can't hold a stay or go toward the other dog in the meeting another dog or whine during the "supervised separation," in the ATTS it is because they don't touch the umbrella with their nose (huh? what is that about?) or are too gunshy.

By the way, the ATTS allows dogs (and sometimes probably requires, although the standard is unclear) to react aggressively toward a human being who presents no immediate threat to the handler and is just dressed and acting "threatening." A dog who jumps out and demonstrates a willingness to be aggressive at every "oddly dressed" stranger who is acting "threatening" might be quite a liability if you have to walk by a schizophrenic street person gesturing wildly on the corner.

As an aside, I always thought it was very strange that the ATTS purports to test "temperament" but allows aggression toward the "oddly dressed" person but not to the "friendly" (normally dressed) person. Wouldn't it make more sense if you were serious about testing temperament to have the friendly person be dressed in a huge hat, clown nose and bite sleeve. (Heehee, see if those schutzhund trained dogs can ignore THAT, just becasue the person is "friendly") and have the threatening person be dressed normally? I have heard of tests where they had the "threatening" stranger dressed in a bite suit. Uh...kind of telling the dog what to expect there, aren't we?

Do you disagree that pit bulls tend to be inherently dog aggressive? That quality, on its own, can cause human injury (even if you don't care about dogs dying as a result of it, which I do). But, perhaps more ominously, dog aggression attracts horrible people to pit bull ownership, people who LIKE the idea that their dog is capable of killing. A lot of those people are, in fact, breeding pit bulls for aggression toward human beings which is a big part of why pit bulls are flooding shelters.

Go here to see an article about a shelter where sixty-five percent of the dogs coming in are pit bulls or pit bull mixes, sixty percent of whom are aggressive: http://www.hudsonreporter.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17204500&BRD=1291&PAG=461&dept_id=523586&rfi=6

Why do YOU think this is?

Of course the problem is one of human irresponsibility. Pit bulls don't breed themselves, human beings breed them. The solution is laws directed AT human beings, specifically human beings who want to breed pit bulls in an irresponsible way (as the VAST majority of pit bull breeders do). Require microchipping of all pit bulls and spay/neuter of all pit bulls that are not show dogs and you not only reduce the number of pit bull attacks (you are correct that non-neutered males account for the bulk of serious dog attacks), you also reduce the number of pit bulls. You ALSO make pit bulls less desirable to the very people who shouldn't have them (people who don't want to neuter their dogs because they want to make money breeding them, or want an intact male because it is the macho thing to have).

Will the folks who are currently destroying pit bulls move on to destroy labradors? Can you point to any evidence that that has happened, for example, in Denver, which has had a total ban on pit bulls for over a decade (with a short intermission while the City went to court to fight to allow the ban to remain in place)? If you go to the "found dogs" section of the Denver Dumb Friends League website, (a good cross section of irresponsibly owned dogs ends up in an urban shelter), you don't generally see a lot of muscle breeds. All you see is WAY fewer pit bulls than in most other urban shelters.

It seems to me that most irresponsible urban pit bull owners are not the sort of people who research breeds and are willing to spend a lot of money to buy a fila brasiliaro or a presa canario. (Assuming that a breeder will sell to them, which they better not if they don't want their breeds banned just like pit bulls are being banned). They get pit bulls because there is a puppy available for forty bucks on the street corner and their buddies have pit bulls and they want one that is tougher than the one their buddy has. If you make pit bulls less easily available, you de-escalate the canine arms race.

skunkstripe

10-12-2006, 10:58 AM

I understood you to be saying that pit bull bite rate figures were "inflated" because bite victims can't identify dog breeds and would falsely claim the dog involved to be pit bulls. But the statistics where pit bulls do worst aren't just victim reports of bites (I agree with you that they can be inaccurate, for a variety of reasons) but the much more reliable reports of shelter populations and also dog attack reports where the attack resulted in a human fatality. In these cases, not only are police officers always involved but also generally the OWNER of the dog (fatal attacks are overwhelmingly perpetrated by owned dogs) and often veterinarians, animal control officers, other witnesses and other experts. It isn't just Officer Friendly just filling out a single form and identifying the boxer who killed the child as a pit bull.

Can you stick to one topic long enough to have a discussion? You refer to "victim report of bites", "shelter populations" and "human fatality". These are three completely different subtopics. Bites legally can include any event where a dog's tooth touches a human hand-despite the fact that dogs consider this the penultimate warning (aftter growling) before a bite breaks the skin. Shelter populations is a mixed bag of strays and give-ups. Fatalities are the most serious, obviously.

"Pit bull type dogs" (in the Delise book, for the purpose of her statistics) are dogs involved in fatal attacks where her only source of knowing that the dog was a pit bull was the media or where the dog appeared (to her) to have the characteristics of a pit bull but didn't look like a purebred pit bull, but no other breed was apparent. (If characteristics of other breeds were apparent, the dog was lumped with "mixed breeds," even if it was clear he was part pit bull).

THE MEDIA? That is hardly a reliable source. Now you have a "victim" or "witness" who is incapable of identifying a dog's breed talking to a reporter, and once the same misinformation hits the newstands it magically becomes reliable information. I am reminded of a recent media report of an alleged "pit bull" attack along with the description provided by father and son who were witnesses. The dog was described as "weighing 120 lbs" and "looked like a wolf". Does that sounds like a Pit Bull to you? Sounds more like an Alaskan Malamute to me. But attacks by Malamutes, Labradors, Cocker Spaniels and other nice family dogs do not make for good press and thus tend to be noticeably absent in media reports. We do get the occasional "vicious Chihuahua bites meter reader" report because that is good for a chuckle.

It is, frankly, silly to claim that the American Temperament Test Society maintains "reliable statistics" about dog temperament, although that claim is often made (and very often believed and repeated by the media, who don't understand ATTS tests).

Gee, sorry you think it is silly. But for now, it is the only game in town. And I might add that the number of APBTs tested ALONE (currently 515) is twice as high as the total number of dog bite fatalities recorded in the CDC report (238). So the sheer high number of dogs tested allows for some reasonable attempt at statistical analysis.

I do AKC Canine Good Citizen tests and I have NEVER had a dog flunk the equivalent portion of the CGC. Dogs DO flunk both the CGC and the ATTS, but it isn't generally because they demonstrate aggression toward humans in the lame tests they are given. In the CGC it is because they can't hold a stay or go toward the other dog in the meeting another dog or whine during the "supervised separation," in the ATTS it is because they don't touch the umbrella with their nose (huh? what is that about?) or are too gunshy. The ATTS is rididulously inadequate to test for aggression toward humans and doesn't even purport to test at all for aggression toward other dogs. In order to flunk the ATTS test for aggression toward humans, a dog would have to be so dangerous that reacts aggressively toward even a completely non-threatening human being while the dog's owner is right beside him. Few dogs remain alive (and even fewer choose to voluntarily bring them to "temperament tests") if that is the case.

It sounds as though you administer both CGC and ATTS tests. Has it occured to you that the low failure rate for aggression towards humans that you observe might be that the drug addicts and low lifes who derive some sick pleasure from having nasty dogs are not interested in paying the $10 to get the AKC certificate and call their dog "Adolf Ruger, CGC"? And again, are you talking about dogs attacking humans or attacking other dogs? Otherwise, why are you bringing up a lack of aggression towards other dogs as a drawback of the ATTS? You will not get any argument from me that a true APBT (especially an intact male) is very likely to be aggressive towards other dogs thanks to decades of breeding for dog fights. This however does not transalte into aggression towards humans.

By the way, the ATTS allows dogs (and sometimes probably requires, although the standard is unclear) to react aggressively toward a human being who presents no immediate threat to the handler and is just dressed and acting "threatening." A dog who jumps out and demonstrates a willingness to be aggressive at every "oddly dressed" stranger who is acting "threatening" might be quite a liability if you have to walk by a schizophrenic street person gesturing wildly on the corner.

My understanding is that the standard allows for leeway depending on the breed. A Golden Retriver who issues a menacing bark at the oddly dressed stranger get a black mark. The Doberman does not. The reason has to do with expectations on the breed. I personally have no problem with that since I favor differentiating breeds based on temperament as well as appearance.

As an aside, I always thought it was very strange that the ATTS purports to test "temperament" but allows aggression toward the "oddly dressed" person but not to the "friendly" (normally dressed) person. Wouldn't it make more sense if you were serious about testing temperament to have the friendly person be dressed in a huge hat, clown nose and bite sleeve. (Heehee, see if those schutzhund trained dogs can ignore THAT, just becasue the person is "friendly") and have the threatening person be dressed normally? I have heard of tests where they had the "threatening" stranger dressed in a bite suit. Uh...kind of telling the dog what to expect there, aren't we?

I think the reason for that is simply that those of us who want some degree of protection from our dogs have no choice but to trust the dog's judgment. Any test we devise would be inadequate. There are numerous anecdotal cases of dog owners whose otherwise gentle dog abruptly showed a completely different side in the face of what turned out to be a threat against the owner. I for one would not want to be the human being who had to "threaten" a handler during an ATTS test to see how the dog reacts.

Do you disagree that pit bulls tend to be inherently dog aggressive? That quality, on its own, can cause human injury (even if you don't care about dogs dying as a result of it, which I do).

Nope. Dog aggressiveness was bred into them. That is why the UKC was formed. Originally bred to bait bulls in England, the ancestors of the Pit Bull were forced to turn to killing rats when bull baiting was banned in 1835. That foul sport was replaced with dog fighting. The AKC refused to register the APBT because they wanted nothing to do with registering fighting dogs. So the UKC was founded in 1898 so that there would be a registry for this breed. The gentler American Staffordshire Terrier (who shares canine ancestors with the APBT) was NOT bred for fighting, but is just as maligned because of the blur between the breeds. Because the APBT is not an AKC registered breed, many people just assume that the closest match, the Am Staff, is the "same thing" or at any rate a "pit bull type". We have had easily 20 generations of dogs since then. This is normally considered enough to completely domesticate wild dogs. So it should also be enough to breed traits in or out of a breed.

Now if I ruled the world, there would be no dog fighting. There would also be no cock fighting or Greyhound racing. So I would appreciate it if you would be civil enough in our little discussion no this board not to make insinuations like this:

"even if you don't care about dogs dying as a result of it, which I do)."

or you will find yourself without me as a discussion partner. I am happy to have a lively discussion, but I try to refrain from personal attacks. May I kindly ask that you do the same. :)

skunkstripe

10-12-2006, 10:59 AM

Now if "Pit Bulls" are inherently aggressive, why was a Pit Bull the mascot of little kids in the popular movie series "Our Gang" in the 1920s and 1930s? These movies were not about crime, they were about little kids. Why did Buster Brown shoes choose a Pit Bull as their symbol at about the same time? Why did the US government consider it appropriate to choose a Pit Bull as a national symbol during World War I? Certainly not to promote aggression.

But, perhaps more ominously, dog aggression attracts horrible people to pit bull ownership, people who LIKE the idea that their dog is capable of killing. A lot of those people are, in fact, breeding pit bulls for aggression toward human beings which is a big part of why pit bulls are flooding shelters.

Go here to see an article about a shelter where sixty-five percent of the dogs coming in are pit bulls or pit bull mixes, sixty percent of whom are aggressive: http://www.hudsonreporter.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17204500&BRD=1291&PAG=461&dept_id=523586&rfi=6

Why do YOU think this is?

Of course the problem is one of human irresponsibility. Pit bulls don't breed themselves, human beings breed them. The solution is laws directed AT human beings, specifically human beings who want to breed pit bulls in an irresponsible way (as the VAST majority of pit bull breeders do). Require microchipping of all pit bulls and spay/neuter of all pit bulls that are not show dogs and you not only reduce the number of pit bull attacks (you are correct that non-neutered males account for the bulk of serious dog attacks), you also reduce the number of pit bulls. You ALSO make pit bulls less desirable to the very people who shouldn't have them (people who don't want to neuter their dogs because they want to make money breeding them, or want an intact male because it is the macho thing to have).

Will the folks who are currently destroying pit bulls move on to destroy labradors? Can you point to any evidence that that has happened, for example, in Denver, which has had a total ban on pit bulls for over a decade (with a short intermission while the City went to court to fight to allow the ban to remain in place)? If you go to the "found dogs" section of the Denver Dumb Friends League website, (a good cross section of irresponsibly owned dogs ends up in an urban shelter), you don't generally see a lot of muscle breeds. All you see is WAY fewer pit bulls than in most other urban shelters.

It seems to me that most irresponsible urban pit bull owners are not the sort of people who research breeds and are willing to spend a lot of money to buy a fila brasiliaro or a presa canario. (Assuming that a breeder will sell to them, which they better not if they don't want their breeds banned just like pit bulls are being banned). They get pit bulls because there is a puppy available for forty bucks on the street corner and their buddies have pit bulls and they want one that is tougher than the one their buddy has. If you make pit bulls less easily available, you de-escalate the canine arms race.

Now this baffles me. First off, I do agree that the problem is the owners. But why do you want to make allowances for show dogs? The purpose of requiring that show dogs be intact is precisely so that they CAN breed. Do you want them to breed or not? And don't be surpirsed at what these people will shell out for a dog. The same way that teenage girls will miraculously come up with a huge amount of cash for a "teacup Yorkie-poo" or whatever silliness Paris Hilton is currently carrying around in her change purse, the drug dealers and low lifes will find the money to get the same cool snarling beast that the current "explicit lyrics" hip-hop ghetto hero of the moment has.

Oh and before I get back to work----I can relate to the shelter issue. I am having a discussion on ANOTHER pet board trying to convince someone to get their moron housemate to give up a GSD/Wolf hybrid to a shelter. Currently the 6 month old dog is out in the yard from 8AM-10PM (four roomies, and everybody is just too too busy to interact with, let alone train the dogs). This gal does not understand where this is headed.

Doberman's

10-12-2006, 02:22 PM

This is very informative. :)

I did not know this:

That is why the UKC was formed. Originally bred to bait bulls in England, the ancestors of the Pit Bull were forced to turn to killing rats when bull baiting was banned in 1835. That foul sport was replaced with dog fighting. The AKC refused to register the APBT because they wanted nothing to do with registering fighting dogs. So the UKC was founded in 1898 so that there would be a registry for this breed. The gentler American Staffordshire Terrier (who shares canine ancestors with the APBT) was NOT bred for fighting, but is just as maligned because of the blur between the breeds. Because the APBT is not an AKC registered breed, many people just assume that the closest match, the Am Staff, is the "same thing" or at any rate a "pit bull type". We have had easily 20 generations of dogs since then. This is normally considered enough to completely domesticate wild dogs. So it should also be enough to breed traits in or out of a breed.

I always argued that the Pit bull and the Am Staff were different but I had trouble getting people to listen. Considering I do not own one I was never took seriously. :)

BTW, I am against BSL, I do not think it will solve the problem with aggressive dogs. I think we need to punish the owners. You can make ANY breed of dog aggressive with neglect, abuse and dilberate attempts to make a dog aggressive for one's own purpose -- IE - dog fighting.

It is truly sad that some breeds are punished for the crimes of their owners. Only ethical breeding can restore trust in a breed, but it takes decades and determination. I know, Dobermans use to be at the top of the listed of hated dog due to misinformation and a few bad apples. They, with careful selective breeding are finally being seen for what they really are, sweet, kind, loyal dogs.

I have yet to meet a mean Pit Bull.

skunkstripe

10-12-2006, 02:33 PM

For some it is a matter of semantics. If you use the term "Pit Bull" to cover the range of dogs with a stocky build, blocky head and rose ears, then there is no difference. You do however end up with the problem of explaining what the difference between a Boxer and a "Pit Bull" is. If you use the term "Pit Bull" as an abbreviation for the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) then there is a difference. There are some die-hards out there who refuse to see the distinction between the AmStaff and the APBT, arguing that the past 100 years or so have not been enough to create two breeds out of what had been one.
This site is not too bad, is not inflammatory and as near as I can tell has no axe to grind for those who want more info:
http://www.answers.com/topic/pit-bull

Pit Bull

10-12-2006, 06:44 PM

Betsy...you seem like you are getting alot of inaccurate information about stats and pits in general..

You've said so much I don't know where to start about proving you wrong...its probably not your fault though..its your sources..but anyways...

You mentioned that pit bulls are more easily identifiable than most of us would like to believe..I'd like for you to show some proof of that..because I can definately show you proof of where dogs were misidentified as pit bulls but turned out to be anything BUT....can you provide some stats that show how pit bulls are easily identifiable and not mistakened as mutts/mixes that don't even have any "pit" in them? This would definately be news to me...

Second of all, I am very offended that you think responsible pit bull owners should support bsl...do you know what bsl entitles? It entitles the government to call pit bulls and their owners a menace to society..it entitles hate crimes against us and our dogs..it entitles pit bulls to die in shelter because of negative and FALSE stereotypes against them and their owners..it entitles pit bulls to be labelled as different than any other dog...why? WHY? This is absolute bull**** to me...why should only pit bulls require mandatory spay and neuter? Why should only pit bulls be required to wear a muzzle then? Shouldn't all owners have to comply with the same thing? Do you know how many German Shephard attacks there are in Winnipeg per year after pit bulls were banned? FAR MORE than any pit bull attacks in the history of the province....and that's on a yearly basis..again, I can provide you with the numbers if you'd like...

The media is the least reliable source if that is where you are getting your information from...its quite sad really...you need to start looking at the breeders and especially the owners of pit bulls, not the dogs themselves...I think that to own a pit bull, or any medium to large dog should require people to take classes..or a course....to pass some sort of exam..to have a home check...to be required to need a special registration...and not just for pit bulls..but like I said, for any medium to large dog...why? Because people are sick..they take advantage of animals..they train and breed them to do things that they shouldn't be doing...its not the dog's fault..its ALWAYS the owner's fault...

Statistics have alot of room for bias...I can bring my boyfriend in on this conversation...he'd be all too happy to explain how unreliable they really are...after all, he's a stat specialist...but anyways...you mentioned the book FATAL DOG ATTACKS...
Why aren't you mentioning the fact that the author takes heavily into account the circumstances that the dog was in when it attacked/bit people....that's basically what the book covers..and that's what is never taken into consideration when and if a pit bull attacks a person..does the media care if the dog was severely abused or neglected prior to the attack? Does the media or any politician or even the stats that you keep rehearsing take into consideration whether the pit bull was inbred, or trained to attack, or hungry before the attack to place? Was it teased? Was it neutered?

Stats don't take ANY of this information into account...breed identification in stats is never second guessed...even if the information and identification isn't even correct...stats are pretty much useless if you ask me or any other credible organization that deals with the issue of dog attacks/bites...

A pit bull is just like any other dog..they don't have 328492834789237 psi jaw strength..they aren't monsters that will turn on you and eat your family alive..they aren't vampires that prey on innocent little children..they are a family dog, which, believe it or not...was first bred as a vermont killer...to hunt rats and small animals...dog fighting didn't even come in until later on in the history of the breed....

Please, before you people start supporting BSL and talking nonsense...target the owners..and leave the poor dogs alone already!

Pit Bull

10-12-2006, 06:54 PM

By the way..the link to that pet finder "boxer mix"...uhh..that doesn't actually look like a purebred american pit bull terrier to me...if that is what you are referring to...I can give you many examples of mixed dogs that have no pit bull blood in them..and look like an amstaff or an apbt...you also said alot of times owners themselves are involved in identifying the dog during fatal attacks...how is an owner any more reliable than the victim when alot of people get dogs from shelters where the background and the breed isn't always known?.....you say stats are reliable because professionals do investigation on the cases?....yeah, and what kind of investigations would these be?...there's no special blood test or magical vet to go to that will identify the breed....cops don't know anything about dog breeds in general...victims...well, we all know how reliable they are...see where I am trying to get at here?.....

As for vets..well...with bsl in my province, we had alot of public hearings during the passing of the bill...many vets and vet associations were involved...all of whom argued AGAINST breed specific legislation, and forcefully insisted that it is extremely difficult to identify pit bulls...as many are in fact mutts of some sort...mixed breeds...mongrels....

This is nothing new...I can't believe you can't get past the fact that breed misindentification happens all too often..its so easy to say PIT BULL...too easy...and to say that animal control officers know about dog breeds is also pretty silly...they haven't taken any courses..they dont do special training on breed identification or standards..how do they know so much more about identifying a dog than you or I?....they don't...

Betsy

10-12-2006, 07:30 PM

The suggestion that there has been 100 years of separation between American pit bull terriers and American Staffordshire terriers is somewhat misleading. In fact, even today, the very same DOG can be registered both as an AKC American staffordshire terrier and a UKC American pit bull terrier. Go here to see an example of duel registered puppies: http://www.bluehavenkennel.com/available.html

Since the same dog can be both a champion UKC APBT and a champion AKC AmStaff (and many are) , the notion that there is a huge difference between the two breeds, or that they really ARE even two breeds, is pretty hard to support.

Of course, the problems pit bulls face generally aren't from either AKC registered AmStaffs or UKC registered APBTs. But the numbers of AKC registered AmStaffs, UKC registered APBTs and stafforshire bull terriers COMBINED is microscopic compared to the numbers of "pit bulls" (generic pit bull dogs who are usually not registered with any registry, or may be registered with one of the several pit bull registries more closely linked to current day dog fighting) who are being produced.

There is a new registry being promoted to register something they are calling the "american bully" in an effort to distinguish these "new" dogs from both AmStaffs and APBTs, but since the registry is open to both AmStaffs and APBTs, it is hard to quite see how it will accomplish its purpose.

And, of course, all the pit bull breeds (as well as generic pit bulls) have a heritage of dog fighting, with what Doberman's correctly notes is a longstanding serious effort on the part of fanciers to breed for a dog who will attack other dogs without provocation and keep on attacking (ignoring the submission cues that normal dogs give and accept) until the other dog is dead. This is the quality of "gameness" that was historically much sought after in pit bulls. It is still bred for today by a huge subculture of dog fighters. While it is certainly true that purebred Amstaffs and Staffordshire bull terriers are not as likely to be highly dog aggressive as are APBTs from pure UKC lines and none of the above are as likely to be dangerously dog aggressive as, say, American dog breeder association pit bulls, the difference is a matter of degree. The UKC standard explicitly recognizes that most pit bulls are dog aggressive.

I don't know what you mean, Doberman's, when you say that you have yet to meet a "mean pit bull." Most are dog aggressive. A significant number are so dog aggressive that they want to kill every other dog they see. If you own a dog, particularly a small breed dog or an elderly dog, living next door to one of those dogs can be life threatening for your canine family members unless everybody involved is 100% responsible and nobody ever lets a dog get loose. A walk through your nearest urban shelter death row will demonstrate there are lots of pit bull owners who are not 100% responsible.

Moreover, significant numbers of truly bad people are attracted to pit bull ownership (one has to believe that the dog aggression is a lure for such people, since they LIKE the idea of owning a dangerous dog) and many such people are breeding pit bulls specifically FOR aggressiveness toward human beings as well as aggression toward other dogs. According to Badrap co-founder Katie Dinneen "a lot of the [pit bull] community don't want to acknowledge that these dogs can be aggressive toward people, but in the Bay area shelters, its become a significant problem." "In the past 20 years, unethical people have not only tolerated aggression toward people, they have encouraged it and have been breeding for it." So, Doberman's, if you haven't yet met a "mean" pit bull, just keep posted. It is only a matter of time.

Pit bull,

I see that you are a pit bull owner in Ontario. Ontario (and Denver, Colorado and Dade County, Florida and Prince George's County, Maryland and....on and on) is an example of bad breed specific legislation, in my mind. I am against breed bans. They hurt responsible owners and don't help dogs. I am also against mandatory muzzle laws (as I said in my first post on this topic). But (and this is just reality, I am not saying I LIKE this) breed bans are what you get if you don't address a real problem. And, sorry, but when 65% of dogs in a shelter are pit bulls and pit bull mixes, and 60% of them are aggressive, that meets anybody's definition of a real problem.

I am sure that you are right in your implication that pit bull owners are much more likely to abuse and neglect pit bulls than are owners of labradors. Again, many of them are attracted to dog ownership absolutely because they can own a dog that is dangerous. To me, that is all the more reason to enact breed specific legislation to prevent these people from getting dogs to use as weapons.

Breed specific laws DO "target owners." Dogs can't even READ laws, much less choose to spay/neuter themselves to comply with laws. What is your objection to a law that requires all pit bull owners to microchip their dogs and all pit bulls except AKC or UKC-PR registreed show dogs (perhaps also with health screens) to be spayed/neutered? That wouldn't negatively affect a single responsible pit bull owner or pit bull breeder, would it? And it would put a lot of the HUGE number of scummy pit bull breeders who are destroying pit bulls (and filling shelters with pit bulls who die terrified and lonely deaths after living short, brutal lives) out of business, wouldbn't it? How can somebody who cares about pit bulls be AGAINST that?

You say that pit bulls were bred as a "vermont killer?" Yikes. I lovermont. (sorry about that).

By the way, the whole problem with breed misidentification becomes a total NON-problem if the kind of breed specific law I advocate becomes law. Even if zillions of dogs who are really boxer mixes or pointer mixes or rhodesian ridgeback mixes get misidentified as pit bulls, all their owners have to do is to do what responsible owners of mixed breed dogs already do--spay or neuter and microchip--to keep them out of the clutches of the law.

JDogg

10-12-2006, 08:36 PM

Betsy I have been raised around pitbulls and boxers my whole life 35 years I have never met a mean pitbull as a matter of fact I have only met a couple of mean dogs in my whole life one was GSD and the other was a black lab if you do your research pits dont even make good gaurd dogs because of there love of people thats why they are not used for personal pertection just my 2 cents

Betsy by the way I did not read all your posts but are you A pit owner or are you just a pit basher met alot of them in my life that had never met a pitbull and I do agree that more people should have their pets speuter that would solve alot of problems

polarpaws

10-12-2006, 09:21 PM

In a temperament test, conducted by the ATTS, 515 American Pit Bull Terriers were tested, 430 passed awesomely. 503 American Staffordshire Terriers were tested, and 419 passed the same. 130 American Bulldogs were tested, 107 passed.

According to these numbers, with the other breeds tested and the number fixed so that they all match, most of the breeds tested, including toy breeds, had worse temperaments than Pit Bull type dogs.

You cannot assume that people can identify a breed when a dog is attacking them. It's just as when a person is being attacked, and they are distraught and cannot rightly identify the person who did it. Fear affects people in many ways. Even people walking on the street just watching a dog often misidentify it.

Also, there are varying lines within American Pit Bull Terriers and AmStaffs. AmStaffs are generally more showy, and uniform. Look up Pit Bull Terrier breeders, and you'll see very many different types of them. The short 'lowriders' to the lanky or taller ones, everyone probably knows what Im talking about. The better lines are mixed within the two.

Pit Bull

10-13-2006, 12:37 AM

Pit bull,

I am sure that you are right in your implication that pit bull owners are much more likely to abuse and neglect pit bulls than are owners of labradors. Again, many of them are attracted to dog ownership absolutely because they can own a dog that is dangerous. To me, that is all the more reason to enact breed specific legislation to prevent these people from getting dogs to use as weapons.

No..its not a very good reason then...people who are already using these dogs illegally..who are fighting them..who are abusing them..who are breeding them for purposes they should never have been bred for in the first place..will continue to and still do so in places that have enacted BSL...you think these people really care if the law tells them to spay/neuter their dogs and stop breeding them or fighting them?...lol I'm very sorry but that is just too naive...BSL does not work, period..its been proven and will continue to be proven..its a band aid to a much bigger problem..irresponsible ownership..and banning a breed or putting restrictions on it will not prevent idiots from continuing to do what they have and will continue to do.

Breed specific laws DO "target owners." Dogs can't even READ laws, much less choose to spay/neuter themselves to comply with laws. What is your objection to a law that requires all pit bull owners to microchip their dogs and all pit bulls except AKC or UKC-PR registreed show dogs (perhaps also with health screens) to be spayed/neutered? That wouldn't negatively affect a single responsible pit bull owner or pit bull breeder, would it? And it would put a lot of the HUGE number of scummy pit bull breeders who are destroying pit bulls (and filling shelters with pit bulls who die terrified and lonely deaths after living short, brutal lives) out of business, wouldbn't it? How can somebody who cares about pit bulls be AGAINST that?

How can somebody who cares about pit bulls be against that? Because it still targets a specific breed..and that's wrong..breeds don't need to be targetted..PEOPLE do...and irresponsible people at that...the only ones that end up suffering are the responsible owners that have been following the law in the first place...the ones that were irresponsible could really give a rat's ass about the new legislation...by banning a breed, you still aren't targeting the bad owners..they will continue to do what they do...and if they don't do it to pit bulls, they will do it to other dogs...there are places in Africa that have banned pit bulls, and do you know who dog fighters have moved onto? Hyenas..yes....wild animals for their "sport" of dog fighting...
Ask any reputable organization, even vet associations...dog trainers...see what they say about BSL..they don't agree with it..and contrary to your belief that its just a matter of time before people like Doberman meet a mean pit bull....most people that are involved with pit bulls their entire lives find "mean" pit bulls to be a rarity...these dogs are human friendly..loveable, devoted dogs...and sorry to say, but dog aggression is not an excuse to call them "dangerous" or "aggressive, mean, and unpredictable" dogs...dog aggression can be controlled...if its severe..that's another story..but severe dog aggression in pit bulls, to the point where they cannot tolerate another dog, is something I have personally never in my life experienced...and I know a heck of alot of pit bulls..and have been around a heck of alot of pit bulls (including fighting dogs when I used to work as a cruelty investigator for the local humane society)...and continue to be around a heck of alot of pit bulls..

Even if they are around, which I don't deny...again, its not the dog's fault...banning the breed won't change what people are doing to it...

I've said it before and I'll say it again..punish the deed, not the breed...punish bad owners of ALL BREEDS, not just pit bulls..make EVERYONE SPAY AND NEUTER THEIR DOGS.....why not? there's already an overpopulation anyways...strengthen animal abuse laws...make dog fighting such a punishable crime that it will deserve a lifetime in prison....enforce more officials that will actually do home checks..that will get out on the road to check up on places where there are complaints of animal abuse, dog fighting, etc......change those laws...don't create new ones that make no sense...BSL is bull****..period!

Here is a list of breeds that possess dog aggression (even the so called severe dog aggression you mentioned) due to their history:

Chow Chow (even many cases of human aggression)
Cane Corso
American Bull Dog
Basenji
Jack Russell Terrier
Tosa Inu
Sharpei
Dogo Argentino
Alano Espanol
Kerry Blue Terrier
Dogue de Bordeaux
Ca de Bou
Akita
Fila Brasileiro

Jake2006

10-13-2006, 04:01 AM

With respect to all the members here who own a Pit Bull. Has any research been carried out regarding the personality, social class, etc., of pit bull owners? As stated previously its not the dogs, its the owners. Do the social workers in the US play any part in the rehabilitation and re-education of the youths who buy the pitbulls on street corners?
We are discussing the breed with little emphasis on the owner -
And yes, statistics can be loaded to produce the results the specific researcher wants to publish - and still seem fair and qualitative - been there!
I wouldn't be able to identify a pitbull and the only time I've been bitten as a child was by a cocker spaniel - but heck cocker spaniels are not agressive!

Fay

10-13-2006, 04:17 AM

I've read these posts with interest. I have a new dog and the RSPCA said it is a staffie cross. Take a look. Are they right?

Jake2006

10-13-2006, 04:19 AM

Could be - however your pooch looks really cute.

Bless you for rehoming a rescue dog - how long have you had him>

Fay

10-13-2006, 04:29 AM

Since Saturday. He's a companion for our other dog; a cocker spaniel. They seem to get on really well and I've got our dog trainer coming over tonight to double check.

Doberman's

10-13-2006, 07:14 AM

I don't know what you mean, Doberman's, when you say that you have yet to meet a "mean pit bull." Most are dog aggressive. A significant number are so dog aggressive that they want to kill every other dog they see.

This statement is PURE nonsense. How can you tell me Betsy what I have and have not seen???

Every single Pitt I have met has been sweet and even tempered, would not hurt a fly, dog, cat, child, adult.

Betsy

10-13-2006, 08:01 AM

Fay,

Your new dog is very cute. How old did they say he is? He is unlikely to be a "staffie cross" if by that you mean staffordshire bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier cross, just because those two breeds are quite rare, and generally aren't out on the street creating mixed breed dogs. He is more likely a generic pit bull cross or a "pure" generic pit bull. (I can't see anything OTHER than pit bull in him). Pit bulls are very commonly available in shelters.

If you got him as a companion to your cocker, you should be aware that dog aggression is a genetic propensity in pit bulls. He might be fine with the cocker (and every other dog) forever, but there is also a good chance that there will be problems. You should NEVER leave a pit bull unsupervised with another dog, even if they seem to be best buddies.

Here is a link that you might find helpful: http://www.pbrc.net/breedinfo.html

JDogg

10-13-2006, 08:03 AM

I think wetsy is just another pit basher that does not know what she is talking about she is just going by what she reads or people tell her none of my pits are or ever have been dog aggressive

Betsy

10-13-2006, 08:04 AM

Doberman's,

I wouldn't (and didn't) tell you what you have seen or not seen. Most pit bulls are dog aggressive, however, (a fact that is explicitly noted in the United Kennel Club American Pit Bull Terrier standard), so if you have met more than a few, it is odd that you have never met one that is dog aggressive.

JDogg

10-13-2006, 08:09 AM

betsy what you been smoking you have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever

Doberman's

10-13-2006, 08:11 AM

Fay, you dog is sweet and very well could be a Pit Bull.

I would not worry about that. Just because a dog, is, maybe, could be a Pit doesn't mean it will fight, kill or even remotely beat up your other dog. It is not fair to label ANY dog like that. It is rather unfair to paint an entire breed of dog with the same brush.

It is unfair to brand a breed of dog as killers just because of a few unscruplous people and unethical breeders.

Doberman's

10-13-2006, 08:16 AM

Most pit bulls are dog aggressive, however, (a fact that is explicitly noted in the United Kennel Club American Pit Bull Terrier standard), so if you have met more than a few, it is odd that you have never met one that is dog aggressive.

Maybe it is because they were bred by reputable breeders who care about the breed and are striving to change their rep. just like the selective breeding of Dobermans that was done to produce the wonderful, stable, kind and sweet Dobe's you see today.

I understand you are entitled to your opinion Betsy and you are more then welcome to express that here; but you also have to understand that the people who are also posting here have experience or own the breed and just because you may not like Pit's doesn't mean that every Pit is bad and no one here knows what they are talking about.

Betsy

10-13-2006, 08:18 AM

JDogg

10-13-2006, 08:20 AM

here are some of my dogs they all live together and i have never had a fight they are just ripping each other apart lol
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l216/jdogg72/dogs003.jpg

golden&hovawart

10-13-2006, 09:28 AM

And here we go,again with the pittbull!!.
I think that or you love the dog or you don't but there's no reason to trash the breed or any other breed, for that matter.
If the dog comes from a good breeder,has a good owner,is trained and socialized propally,you will have a good dog whatever the breed is.
All dogs can bite and can kill,it is stupid to just pinpoint a breed,juste because the wrong people have them.
I have seen aggressive ones,in many breeds,golden and lab,included.
I have,met some dog aggressive pittbull but the greater majority of them were nice,hapy go lucky dogs.

skunkstripe

10-13-2006, 10:36 AM

The suggestion that there has been 100 years of separation between American pit bull terriers and American Staffordshire terriers is somewhat misleading. In fact, even today, the very same DOG can be registered both as an AKC American staffordshire terrier and a UKC American pit bull terrier. Go here to see an example of duel registered puppies: [URL]http://www.bluehavenkennel.com/available.html.

I do not see what is "misleading". There are two separate registries who have two seperate breeds. This is a FACT. Plain and simple. Betsy provides an example of a breeder who allegedly registers their dogs both with the AKC and the UKC. However, if you take the time to CAREFULLY read the website, you find this statement:

"We raise AKC American Staffordshire Terriers and UKC/ADBA American Pit Bull Terriers for show and companion purposes."

In other words, AmStaffs are registered with the AKC, while APBTs are registered with the UKC. Pretty simple.

Since the same dog can be both a champion UKC APBT and a champion AKC AmStaff (and many are) , the notion that there is a huge difference between the two breeds, or that they really ARE even two breeds, is pretty hard to support.

Now this is an example of a cheap rhetorical trick-twist or exaggerate what someone else has said, and instead of dealing with their actual agruments, deal with the twisted version. It is easier to refute ridiculous claims than reasonable ones, even if you have to resort to making them up. Those who have been paying attention will note that I never used the term "huge" to describe a difference between the Am Staff and the APBT, what I said was this:

The gentler American Staffordshire Terrier (who shares canine ancestors with the APBT) was NOT bred for fighting, but is just as maligned because of the blur between the breeds. Because the APBT is not an AKC registered breed, many people just assume that the closest match, the Am Staff, is the "same thing" or at any rate a "pit bull type". We have had easily 20 generations of dogs since then. This is normally considered enough to completely domesticate wild dogs. So it should also be enough to breed traits in or out of a breed.

which I stand by as FACT. As a matter of fact, I would like to add a small piece of information about the AmStaff, which is that they were originally bred to help early American settler deal with vermin AND control livestock.

Those who insist on blurring the distinction between dog breeds with admittedly similar appearance have an agenda; it makes it the scare tactics much more effective. Let's say you stick to APBTs as the inherently dog-aggressive breeds who can easily be trained to be human-aggressive. The total number of dogs is small. So now let's add in AmStaffs, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and Bulldogs. Still not enough. You can convincingly argue that any dog with those bloodlines can be dog-aggressive, so add in all the "Pit Bull mixes". Well any of us who have studied mixed breed dogs know how difficult it is to correctly identify a mixed breed, so now you are stuck with this "definition" provided by http://www.pbrc.net/breedinfo.html, which states that a pit bull "is NOT a breed. It's a generic term often used to describe all dogs with similar traits and characteristics often known by the public as "pit bulls". This is a circular definition.

A duck is a bird that looks like a duck.

A pit bull is a dog that is percieved by the pubic as a pit bull.

At this point you are home free, because when it comes to properly classifying the breed of some mystery dog involved in a bite incident, the criterion has now become, "if some member of the public (meaning anybody) thinks it was a Pit Bull, it must have been one". And after all, since we all KNOW how aggressive these "type" of dogs are, :cool: it is obvious that the aggressive dogs must all have pit bull blood in them. A typical flawed circular argument.
All Pit bulls are inherently aggressive -> all aggressive dogs bite -> all biting dogs must be pit bulls.

What a nightmare in logic!

But the veil of logic is enough to scare a gullible public into thinking that measures such as those in Denver and Ontario will bring a long-term solution, and politicians see a cheap way to garner votes. Newspapers add fuel to the fire with articles about "yet another pit bull mauling", carefully avoiding playing up such factors as human irresponsibility. I am reminded of a recent case in Texas of two toddlers wandering around unsupervised in the fields who came upon a "pit bull" mother of several puppies. The tiny children thought the puppies were cute and wanted to play with them. Yo can guess the rest of the story and who ended up the scapegoat. It was not the human parents of the two-year-olds who let then run around outdoors unsupervised.

Another common error which is made when dealing with the "statistics" (which are now inflated to include any dog that someone thought might look like it had pit bull in him) is that no consideration is taken of the total number of dogs owned and their breeds or mixes. Taking a hypothetical example, if I were to hear that there had been 10 incidents of biting by a Keeshond and 10 by a Cocker Spaniel in a town of 10,000, I could assume

a) Keeshonds and Cocker Spaniels are equally aggressive

b) Keeshonds are MORE aggressive than Cocker Spaniels, since I happen to know that there are 200 Cocker Spaniels and only 2 Keeshonds

c) Keeshonds are NOT more aggressive than Cocker Spaniels, because even though there are 200 Cocker Spaniels and only 2 Keeshonds, it is always the same Keeshond who is biting, inflating the statistics.

This can be carried to even more extremes, but I think I have made my point. To analyze the data properly, you would need to first gather reliable statistics on bites, then normalize the data by the percentage of breeds or mixes owned. To use the example above, 10 bites/2 Keeshonds vs 10 bites/200 Cocker Spaniels would allow some kind of meaningful interpretation.

KCat

10-13-2006, 01:23 PM

Pit bull,

You make the point that the criminals who are breeding pit bulls to be weapons (against other dogs and against people) don't care if these activities are illegal. Well, I have to assume that they will care if somebody takes their dogs away because they are not spayed/neutered. I absolutely know that dog fighters care if somebody takes away all their dogs because they aren't spayed and neutered.

"Absolutely know" - Wow! You are a wise person of the world. You've met every criminal breeder out there apparently.

Please - have you never watched a single episode of Animal Precinct and it's many variations? There are thousands of breeders out there breeding solely for fighting who don't give a rat's backside about the fate of their dogs. Regardless of why they get busted. They will simply get more dogs. They will steal them, find other breeders, hide them in warehouses and get squatters to take care of them to hide them from the law. There may be a handful of fighter breeders who do have "valuable" dogs and do care such that they might be threatened by the law. But they are not the majority from what I've seen. They worry no more so than you worry about getting busted for using your mobile while driving I imagine.

I think one needs to be very careful stating "absolutes" - in fact, I believe there are no absolutes in this world with the exception of certain physical laws (lightspeed for example) and that making an absolute statement about human (or non-human animal) behavior is short-sighted at best.

Wait - is believing there are no absolutes stating an absolute?
:D

Jake2006

10-13-2006, 01:39 PM

Oh KCat - classical physics - and is this real anyway - you might just be a sophisticated software programme ... Like you, it scares me when I see the way those poor pitbulls are abused by their owners as shown on Animal Precinct, etc. I guess you can teach most dogs to fight under the right circumstances such as kill or be killed - because as far as I understand that is what happens to them if they do not fight. They use puppies as bait too.

If it wasn't pit bulls would it be some other breed - probably - because those low life scumbags involved in dog-fighting will do whatever they have to to carry on their sick sport. They'd probably sell their own kids for a joint!

Sorry for being judgemental -

sheplovr

10-13-2006, 01:52 PM

The problem is a strain of the Pittbulls lines are bred to fight with little training. This makes it so easy for the NUTS to train and throw in a young pup as bait. It is a sick way to make money and starve and tie the dogs to posts in hot yards neglected. I cannot even watch the Animal Prec. anymore.

KCat

10-13-2006, 03:01 PM

Statistics have alot of room for bias...I can bring my boyfriend in on this conversation...he'd be all too happy to explain how unreliable they really are...after all, he's a stat specialist...

"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" - a valuable read for anyone who wants to use stats to support any argument.

I worked in a medical research lab. I loved my job. I miss it terribly. But I have to warn people that even peer-reviewed article statistics can be manipulated easily to support a theory. The book is a fairly short one and very easy reading. I really do think if you're going to preach about any subject, you should read this book before using the statistics you hear or read and you should look into the original data where possible. Especially if you want to be taken seriously. Consider the daily news programs - one day chocolate is evil, the next day it can prevent cancer. One day caffeine is safe, the next a dangerous drug.

You may even find that your opinion changes when you rely on your own mind to read and interpret original data.

and on a totally different note and to bring a tiny bit of humor into the discussion, Yao Ming is sleeping with his head propped on the foot of this chair (star base) and sawing some serious logs. He snores almost as loud as my first husband! :rolleyes:

skunkstripe

10-13-2006, 03:11 PM

Don't get me started. I have many peer-reviewed articles myself, have reviewed submitted articles for publication in archival journals, and for a while was on an editorial review board for one. That's why I have a hard time not laughing when laypeople on dog boards start attacking each other's posts with such serious-sounding questions as: "Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific publications to support your argument?" :proof:

I guarantee you from personal knowledge, there is a lot of :turd: that gets published. If you want to really get picky, you can ask what the author's citation index is. But I no longer have access to that info since I am no longer in the academic game. :teaching:

KCat

10-13-2006, 03:32 PM

Oh KCat - classical physics - and is this real anyway - you might just be a sophisticated software programme ...

Heh heh. :) I think I need to spend more time in the books. I forget how entertaining "the real world" really is compared to the 'net.

Like you, it scares me when I see the way those poor pitbulls are abused by their owners as shown on Animal Precinct, etc. I guess you can teach most dogs to fight under the right circumstances such as kill or be killed - because as far as I understand that is what happens to them if they do not fight. They use puppies as bait too.

(nod) - and steal dogs out of yards - though that is probably not as common as some conspiracy theorists would have us think. Still, it happens and it's scary. I'm a bit overprotective of my dog. I've yet to let him stay outside in the backyard while I'm gone. He's big and probably would scare anyone off. but...

I agree - if it wasn't Pits, it would be something else and often is. Anyone who has ever seen a fox terrier "kill" it's prey (toys, lizards) knows that there are all sorts of ways in which a dog can be led down that path. And all sorts of dogs that are capable of it. It happens that dogs like Pits and Rottweilers have very strong jaws. But even that isn't a guarantee. My Dal had a jaw like a vise. Ever seen those croc handlers trying to wrestle with croc's jaws. That was Bay. She clamped down on my hand near the end, in her effort to clamp down on the greenie she didn't want me to take away. She didn't realize she had me and lord it hurt and she would not let go. All she could focus on was "that's my greenie!" In a fight, she'd have easily gotten her licks in (no pun intended). My big baby (MommyL calls him Baby Hughey) Yao Ming probably has as much strength to his jaw if not more - but no desire to use it. even when we play tug he doesn't grip nearly as strongly as he could if he wanted to. So

They'd probably sell their own kids for a joint!

Sorry for being judgemental -

heh... pot alone makes you too mellow to sell your kids or fight your animals. Shoot, we never wanted to get off the couch. (oops, my mispent youth is showing.) :)

Seriously though - I'm sometimes amazed and always disappointed in human beings these days. What counts for entertainment (anyone watch CSI last night?) and the lack of respect for life. It's always been there. IN some ways, we actually have improved if one considered the barbarity of the Roman "games". Still, the past couple of generations, at least in the US, seem exceedingly shallow, selfish and heartless to a large degree. More than I remember when I was younger. Like I said, it was there, it just didn't seem so rampant and obvious.

That said - a few generations ago dogs were just dogs to most of folk. They stayed outside 24/7, got cheap food, only went to the vet when they were sick if then. So I don't mean to be too judgmental here either since it sounds like I'm blaming "young people". I've known some pretty scummy older people, too.

sheplovr - you are right in that respect and that is why I don't think most would care about any spay/neuter laws. It is very easy in the US to acquire the fighters (or create them) and the bait. Yes, it's hard to watch and my husband has had to leave the room - literally sick to his stomach. I guess I watch it because there is usually a healthy dose of good outcomes and that gives me some hope. If I were to only see what the nightly news tells me, and not the happy endings, it would make everything feel hopeless. I do feel like people should watch at least a couple of episodes if they haven't. Why? because it might make it easier for us to recognize a situation that should be reported or to deal with folks who are having problems (hoarders for example). I know I am much more alert to these things now.

Anyway - I'm rambling off on tangents - I just think awareness and openness to different ideas is valuable and so I can get going on the topic if you let me. :)

KCat

10-13-2006, 03:40 PM

Don't get me started. (snippage)

I guarantee you from personal knowledge, there is a lot of :turd: that gets published. If you want to really get picky, you can ask what the author's citation index is. But I no longer have access to that info since I am no longer in the academic game. :teaching:

hmm... maybe we need to do some backchannel griping about this topic. I'm sure it would bore most folks here. I do miss it - but I didn't miss the occasional twitch in my gut when my boss would say "We need to present the data logarythmically instead." Translation - "We need to make the data look more significant than it really is. Nobody really looks at p-values anyway."

And then there's graphic interpolation routines... Oops. Sorry. :o

Jake2006

10-13-2006, 03:57 PM

Mmmmmm Skunk - its a great defence for an academic to ask about peer-reviewed publications! I've done it myself. Anytime you want biliographies etc., I'm your girl - I've got access to everything ever published!
And yes, of course stats can be massaged - done that too.
Ah - graphic interpolation routines - lol - you mean p-charts - like in excel!
I'll stop here or Dobe will be telling me to keep on topic.
We desperately need a chatroom.

KCat

10-13-2006, 04:52 PM

Ah - graphic interpolation routines - lol - you mean p-charts - like in excel!
I'll stop here or Dobe will be telling me to keep on topic.
We desperately need a chatroom.

I mean programs that take a stained tissue or cell slide and enhance the staining to be more "apparent" to the viewer and in the process can become distorted and potentially show data that doesn't really exist. We did a fair amount of fluorescent microscopy.

and with that, I'll shut up on this topic also. :) I have a paper on mitochondrial membranes lipis that I keep telling myself I'm going to review just for my own edification. Perhaps I should do that before committing to any kind of research griping chat rooms. :)

Sabledog

10-13-2006, 05:18 PM

If you got him as a companion to your cocker, you should be aware that dog aggression is a genetic propensity in pit bulls. He might be fine with the cocker (and every other dog) forever, but there is also a good chance that there will be problems. You should NEVER leave a pit bull unsupervised with another dog, even if they seem to be best buddies.

ummm im not sure where you got the idea that dog agression is genetic?!?!?!?!? but if you are such a dog lover you would know that ANY DOG is able to be agressive. I KNOW FOR A FACT that it is not a genetic trait, its like the old myth that pitbulls were mean because their brains were too big for their skull and it made them crazy, or that feeding raw meat to a pit bull will make them bloodthristy killers. If you beleive every damn urban myth then you might as well not leave your house because there are supposedly rabid pitbull dogs running around bloodthirsty to kill people!!!! i have never heard such closed minded stereotypical, breed judging from someone who calls themselves an animal lover!!!! I have worked around hundreds of pitbulls from the vets offices to the humane society and i have NEVER met one that was agressive because of genetics, that is the biggest load of horsecrap i have ever heard. its people like you that are putting in peoples heads that these are bad dogs. THEY ARENT! the only agressive dogs that i have ever been bitten by were spriger spaniels, small dogs and once by a yellow lab? so were they genetically agressive? NO they were abused or untrained. Before you open your mouth to give someone advice at least make sure it is correct or real for that matter.

Betsy

10-13-2006, 05:36 PM

[quote=skunkstripe;28002]I do not see what is "misleading". There are two separate registries who have two seperate breeds. This is a FACT. Plain and simple. Betsy provides an example of a breeder who allegedly registers their dogs both with the AKC and the UKC. However, if you take the time to CAREFULLY read the website, you find this statement:

"We raise AKC American Staffordshire Terriers and UKC/ADBA American Pit Bull Terriers for show and companion purposes."

In other words, AmStaffs are registered with the AKC, while APBTs are registered with the UKC. Pretty simple.

quote]

Sorry, Skunkstripe, but you just don't have the facts right. The same dog can be registered both as a UKC American pit bull terrier and as an AKC American stafforshire terrier, and the same dog can, in fact, be a champion APBT and a champion AmStaff. Go here to see some examples of this:

http://www.pitsandpawskennel.com/Males2.html

So if there are dogs who are both, it is a bit hard to argue that they are really distinct breeds. Not a big point, really, but the facts are the facts.

Betsy

10-13-2006, 06:04 PM

ummm im not sure where you got the idea that dog agression is genetic?!?!?!?!? but if you are such a dog lover you would know that ANY DOG is able to be agressive. I KNOW FOR A FACT that it is not a genetic trait, its like the old myth that pitbulls were mean because their brains were too big for their skull and it made them crazy, or that feeding raw meat to a pit bull will make them bloodthristy killers. If you beleive every damn urban myth then you might as well not leave your house because there are supposedly rabid pitbull dogs running around bloodthirsty to kill people!!!! i have never heard such closed minded stereotypical, breed judging from someone who calls themselves an animal lover!!!! I have worked around hundreds of pitbulls from the vets offices to the humane society and i have NEVER met one that was agressive because of genetics, that is the biggest load of horsecrap i have ever heard. its people like you that are putting in peoples heads that these are bad dogs. THEY ARENT! the only agressive dogs that i have ever been bitten by were spriger spaniels, small dogs and once by a yellow lab? so were they genetically agressive? NO they were abused or untrained. Before you open your mouth to give someone advice at least make sure it is correct or real for that matter.

Sigh. Is a retriever's instinct to retrieve genetic, sabledog? Just because you can train any dog to retrieve, do you think that a rough collie could win the next national retriever championship? Or is the fact that labradors have been selectively bred for many, many generations specifically for the trait of wanting to retrieve and being good at retrieving at least a TINY part of the reason why it is virtually certain that a labrador retriever will win the next national retrieving championship? (Okay, it MIGHT be a golden, but chances are that at least eight of the top ten dogs are going to be labs, and NONE will be a collie).

Is a border collie's instinct to herd genetic, sabledog? Or do you think that you could train a bloodhound to win a sheepdog trial? After all, if genetics have nothing to do with behavior, it is "all how you raise them," right?

The pit bull is, in the words of pit bull expert Richard Stratton (author of the book "This is the American Pit Bull Terrier" "...the end product of centuries of breeding of dogs that were the most successful fighters." Stratton goes on to describe the APBT's "unworldly love of battle" and to say that the pit bull's love of fighting other dogs "is simply a matter of breeding." (i.e. genetics, sorry about that). When asked if there was any way of training a APBT to get along with other dogs, Stratton wrote:

"Your best bet would be with a bitch, and even here you might be in trouble. I suppose a dog could be negatively conditioned to fighting by the use of an electric 'stinger' but that strikes me as being akin to kicking a bird dog on point!"

According to pit bull author Donna Reynolds: "No your bully breed doesn't necessarily have to have a fighting past in order to throw down with other breeds. No, selective breeding for less fight drive has not wiped out this trait. No the huge help of socializing your dog won't erase its genetics during those intense moments when both dogs want the same Frisbee. Some bullys are much more dog tolerant and some are closer to their historical fighting roots than others, but each still carries the ancestral voice that whispers, 'Don't push my buttons, Mr. Doggy, or I'll mess you up."

It is interesting to me that people here keep saying how "unfair" it is to pit bulls to recognize that they are the product of what they were bred to be. Is it unfair to siberian huskies to tell potential owners not to get them if they can't give them adequate exercise and can't deal with shedding? Is it unfair to Newfs to tell people not to get them if they aren't prepared to deal with drool (and shedding, again?). In fact, it is grossly unfair to the dogs of any breed not to be honest with people about what they are. And what they are, with pit bulls as well as with labs or border collies, is largely a product of what they were bred to do. Unfortunately pit bulls were bred to fight to the death with other dogs. It is true that fewer responsible people will choose to own a pit bull if they know upfront that they might be getting a dog who will, by age two or three, "turn on" and be dangerous to every other dog. But so what? That is REALITY, and the MOST unfair thing (and something you see all the time on pit bull boards) is for somebody to come and say that the can't deal with their pit bull's dog aggression only to be told "you shouldn't have gotten a pit bull if you couldn't deal with serious levels of dog aggression. Dog aggression is part of the pit bull package."

Sabledog

10-13-2006, 06:53 PM

Have you ever personally lived with a pitbull? or have you ever personnaly rehabilitated a dog agressive pitbull? or have you EVER seen a pitbull attack another dog in person fully knowing the dog and how it was raised? i have lived with pits, i have trained pits, and i have rehabilitated pits to be great dogs around people AND dogs, yes i have seen a pitbull get into a fight with another dog, i personnaly knew the pitbull and knew that it had been raised to be dog-agressive to keep coyotes away, you say all retreivers know how to retreive? i HIGHLY doubt that a retriever that wasnt trained to do it would win a championship because it had instincts, ALL DOGS CAN BE DOG AGRESSIVE. it goes back to the roots of wolves, but that doesnt make it a genetic trait to be dog agressive, instincts and genetics are 2 totaly different things. its like saying speach is a genetic trait in humans, yes genetics gave us the ability to speak but didnt MAKE us speak we have to learn how to do it.

if certain dogs can only do a certain activity, why then is there such a diverse group of dogs doing agility, flyball, and dog shows? do you think a show dog KNOWS how to enter a ring and prance around? or were they TAUGHT how to do it?

in alot of the "dog agressive" cases in any breed the dog lives with and gets along with another dog/s, so is it truely dog agressive or is it just a dominant dog trying to defend its territory by INSTINCT?

my father in law has a purebred rottie that lives with a boston terrier, yet this dog has never been agressive to it, on the other hand this same rottie killed a mini daushund that lived down the street? does that make this a dog agressive rottie? this same rottie has been to my house and played well with my 3 dogs with out any problems. is it still a dog agressive rottie?

you are going by what you read not by what you have experienced, and in my opinion that is being ignorant, in all aspects.

and no pitbulls were not bred to be dog fighters, they were bred to be gaurd and hunting dogs, so that shows how much you look into things.

LesterJ

10-13-2006, 07:07 PM

I don't think BSL has any effect on those people involved in owning and breeding Pit bulls for their aggression. Not just dogfighting, but as "guard" dogs for other possible illegal operations, or just for the sake of having a "tough" dog. It would be no more effective than gun registries really. The wrong people will continue their pursuits regardless.

I don't have a solution to this problem. No one does. I fully agree that it is a problem of irresponsible to downright criminal ownership of these dogs. It's a sorry state of affairs, but with a population as great as the US, I don't see anything changing significantly within my lifetime.

As a person who cares deeply for animals, I wish there really was a way to have every companion (that is non-breeding stock) animal of *every* breed spayed or neutered. I don't see that happening in the general population. So far only quality breeders see to this stipulation in my experience.

skunkstripe

10-13-2006, 08:11 PM

In summary, Betsy reserves the right to use the term "pit bull" as defined by http://www.pbrc.net/breedinfo.html

"*Pit bull is NOT a breed. It's a generic term often used to describe all dogs with similar traits and characteristics often known by the public as "pit bulls"."

which pretty much says that if anyone, no matter how ignorant, thinks a dog is a pit bull, it is by definition a pit bull. This thus allows all erroneous misreports of dog bites to miraculously become acceptable, justifying grossly overreporting bites by "pit bulls".

At the same time, she dismisses tests peformed under controlled conditions where the dog breeds are definitively known beforehand (ATTS) as "ridiculously inadequate" and "silly".

If nothing else, this thread is a good example of the lengths that BSL advocates will go to in manipulating data and ignoring facts that do not suit their cause.

Even Fay's dog is now "more likely a generic pit bull cross or a "pure" generic pit bull." (whatever that is.) Since Betsy cannot "see anything OTHER than pit bull in him", this dog must be a pit bull.

sheplovr

10-13-2006, 09:27 PM

I never give my Shepherds raw red meat for that very reason once tasting real blood some get nutty. Yes, it is so true and I can attest this from trainers, etc. Feeding a dog natural foods is better and keeping them from knawing on human fleash as a puppy is better than letting it go until they get a real taste for it to later as an adult decide I might bite u one day good and proper. We must learn to think like a dog as I do daily or I could never run a pack of dogs total of 8 daily and they get along with me stopping any bickering that might occur. People must learn how to handle more than one dog or even one dog and raise it properly to not be agressive, that is absolutely uncalled for to walk your pet and it starts in on a dog on a leash with another. I cannot stand that thread. Raise your dogs the proper way regardless of the breed with no problems to blame a certain breed, but the NUTTY kids in like Detroit, Chicago cities here grab Pittys from GOD knows who, teaches them agressinion and WALLA ........A KIller in the end and not the dogs fault at all. Lets get a grip on this folks and it is mostly in Pittys because they are mostly bred to fight and have the jaws, teeth and mind to take on any dog to kill and a human as well.............

Sabledog

10-13-2006, 09:34 PM

i guess 3 inches of skull is impentatrable and makes less room for brains lol
and i agree skunkstipe that a "pitbull" is not a breed but a definition of the bully's rolled into a generic term, when i said it i was using the term losley, i have worked with all the bully breeds except a cane corso, an argentino dogo, or a fila brasilero, only because they are not very well known breeds in maine, i HAVE worked with apbt's, am staffs, bullmastiffs, bulldogs, (both american and blue bloods) bull terriers, and anything else in between or mixed with lol i loved my job at the humane society and at all 3 vets offices that i worked at, but what do i know with all the experience i have? right? lol i actually took the time to read the list of the dogs tested, and i found it to be very interesting that they included mixed breed in it. good to know someone acknowladges them lol i thought fays dog looked alot like a hound mixed with a bulldog type breed. and either way whatever breed it is, with the right training im sure he will turn out just fine and get along wonderfully with the cocker spaniel she has.

polarpaws

10-13-2006, 09:43 PM

Betsy, it's pretty obvious that you buy into the media. Do you also believe that Pit Bull Terriers have locking jaws? And that they are born a certain, unturnable way? And that only criminals and idiots own them?

You must have missed all the heroic things that APBT's/AmStaffs have done. You also must have completely disregarded my post all together.

It seems to me that you're only looking at what the news and media, and other BSL advocates, want you to believe. You don't seem to have much of a voice that I haven't heard through the above before. You are taking a problem, and enforcing something that you have only "proven" to have worked in one city. It's no secret that banned breeds show up where they are banned more often than the people who dislike them would like. I'm not sure you really grasp that concept though...

Have you not read other reports? There are plenty of reports of Labradors, Goldens, Shepherds, Cocker Spaniels, Pomeranians, etc etc attacking people and dogs, more than enough. It does not matter how much it happens, what matters is that it should NEVER happen. We cannot ban all breeds. That isn't logical, and many things would go downhill for many people. Instead of having people ban breeds, why not take action against the real problem: bad owners, breeders, animal abusers! You very rarely hear of breeders being busted for selling dogs as fighters or as bait dogs, or of owners getting life sentences for fighting the animals...instead, the dogs get branded as dangerous, and genocide begins. Yes, genocide...it's nothing short of that very thing.

Instead of putting down the breed, and not complimenting responsible owners on their jobs well done, why not educate people? You might be one person, but there are many others who would support you. More who would support you in helping breed bans become history, than who would rather ban breeds and give the problem to another breed.