Dangerous dog on my property

[deviousdevelopment]

I've had Pit bulls and Staffordshire Terriers all my life, our first was when I was 5yo and that is why I reject your argument as 100% nonsense! I stick by my original statement, your argument is as invalid as any anti gunners argument. You could put a steak in your teeth bend down and feed it to my dog and she would take it from you gently. My dogs have never bit anyone and they are 100% trust worthy around any children.

Sorry that you are scared of big dogs, I'm not, even unknown vicious dogs can be handled by most any stranger if you show the dog that you are the alpha male right from the get go.

I don't like little yapper dogs and I have zero use for one. In fact the only dogs that have made the mistake of snapping at me are always little yappers, at which point they get the soccer chip shot. How can you have respect for an animal that you can carry around like a fashion accessory.

Too funny.

This is exactly what every single pit owner says about their dog before it kills a child.

It is a simple fact that attacks (not bites but aggressive attacks) by bully breeds make up the majority of dog attacks. I cannot believe that pit owners are always in denial.

 

[NuthinFancy]

It is a simple fact that attacks (not bites but aggressive attacks) by bully breeds make up the majority of dog attacks.

Don't suppose you could back this up with more than just an assertion?

Full disclosure: I don't like dogs.

 

[yotehunter]

Too funny.

This is exactly what every single GUN owner says about their GUN before it kills a child.



Like was said above remove the pitbull out of the word and replace with guns... Same concept...

 

[yotehunter]

The same anti gun people are the anti bully breed people...

 

[iGun]

I've had quite a bit of experience with dogs. From what I've seen personally, most of the cases of dogs biting people have been by labs and border collies. None of the bites was serious. However, the one really serious bite I've seen was from a Pit Bull. Most of the life-threatening dog-on-dog injuries I've seen have been inflicted by Pit Bull types. My conclusion: Pits aren't necessarily more likely to bite you or your dog than other breeds, but they are still more dangerous.

 

[deviousdevelopment]

Don't suppose you could back this up with more than just an assertion?

Full disclosure: I don't like dogs.

Absolutely not. This is the internet, I can't be expected to browse the entire thing and still provide sources.
Seriously though, a search on deaths and maulings will give you countless results for pit bulls. Yes, there will be the occasional and rare death caused by another breed, but by far the majority will be pit bulls.

Too funny.

This is exactly what every single GUN owner says about their GUN before it kills a child.

Like was said above remove the pitbull out of the word and replace with guns... Same concept...

You can't be a serious poster, and you certainly can't seriously compare an inanimate object to a do breed. That is ridiculous; why would I ever say my gun was so nice and could eat a steak from my mouth?

The same anti gun people are the anti bully breed people...

Really? I'm not anti-gun but I am anti- worthless breed now being bred for worthless characteristics without regard to temperment or actually need or use in society with the exception of ripping off faces and killing innocent people.

I've had quite a bit of experience with dogs. From what I've seen personally, most of the cases of dogs biting people have been by labs and border collies. None of the bites was serious. However, the one really serious bite I've seen was from a Pit Bull. Most of the life-threatening dog-on-dog injuries I've seen have been inflicted by Pit Bull types. My conclusion: Pits aren't necessarily more likely to bite you or your dog than other breeds, but they are still more dangerous.

This


For once just set aside your personal feelings about the breed based on your individual history and interactions with one or more pit bulls and look solely at fact. And stop providing random articles about other breed bites. It's a poor argument to point the finger elsewhere; address the topic at hand.

 

[Gunner3456]

Absolutely not. This is the internet, I can't be expected to browse the entire thing and still provide sources.
Seriously though, a search on deaths and maulings will give you countless results for pit bulls. Yes, there will be the occasional and rare death caused by another breed, but by far the majority will be pit bulls.

For once just set aside your personal feelings about the breed based on your individual history and interactions with one or more pit bulls and look solely at fact. And stop providing random articles about other breed bites. It's a poor argument to point the finger elsewhere; address the topic at hand.

http://www.pitbulls.org/article/are-pit-bulls-dangerous

Are Pit Bulls Dangerous?

In a word: no. Many people THINK they are, and if you ask them for proof, they send you lists of bite statistics and news reports of Pit Bull attacks.

But that doesn't prove anything.

Rarely do the writers perform actual research. One obvious question they could investigate: Was the dog actually a Pit Bull? It's impossible to determine breed by appearance alone. And given that the CDC non-fatal bite statistics come from counting newspaper reports of attacks claiming it was a "pit-bull type" dog, there are bound to be gross inaccuracies.

No DNA tests were ever done, which are required to determine breed.

This is highly related to the reason why breed specific legislation doesn't work. And it never will. Even the CDC agrees:

"Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites. An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their behavior" (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000 Vet Med Today: Special Report 839-840).

For these reasons, and many others, both the CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association do not recommend discriminating based on breed.

The frenzy against Pit Bulls is nothing but blind fear fueled by the human need to find a scapegoat. There is not a single shred of proof that the American Pit Bull Terrier is a vicious, dangerous breed.

What are the facts?

The American Temperament Test Society (American Temperament Test Society, Inc. | A sound mind in a sound body) perform their temperament tests regularly on popular breeds. You can visit their web site to view upcoming testing dates and location and actually get your own dog tested. The most recent aggregation of all test results was in 2008. Description of the test:

The test simulates a casual walk through a park or neighborhood where everyday life situations are encountered. During this walk, the dog experiences visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. Neutral, friendly and threatening situations are encountered, calling into play the dog's ability to distinguish between non-threatening situations and those calling for watchful and protective reactions.

The dog fails the test if it shows:

Unprovoked aggression
Panic without recovery
Strong avoidance

American Pit Bull Terriers passed the test at a rate of 85.3%.

This is higher than Collies, Golden Retrievers, and other dogs generally considered "family friendly". The average dog population is around 77%.

As most dog behaviorists and trainers will tell you, a dog is almost 100% a product of it's owner and the training it receives.

And if the APBT is so inherently dangerous, how come they are so successful as therapy dogs? As search and rescue animals?

Honestly, more people die drowning in their backyard swimming pool every year than die from dog attacks. That doesn't make it any less tragic, but to call it an "epidemic" is a little far fetched.

Pit Bulls are not the first breed to be unfairly labeled dangerous, and they won't be the last. Politicians love to act important and pretend like they're doing something, and media outlets love to sensationalize. Don't let them get away with nonsense. Learn the history of the breed and educate yourself.

The only thing that can be said about them is that sometimes, they tend to be dog aggressive. But almost every breed of dog is aggressive toward some other animal. Where did foxhounds and wolfhounds get their names from?

UPDATE: We now have a review up of "The Lost Dogs", which is about the fate of the Michael Vick dogs. Dogs trained and abused to fight, and many of them are now therapy dogs. This is an important book showing the true nature of the breed.

 

[deviousdevelopment]

Why would I take information from a pro pit bull website seriously?

In the first section alone they ask you to ignore news reports and statistics. Reasoning: there is no proof that the dogs are American Pit Bull Terriers. Talk about splitting hairs, I am sure many people understand the term pit bull to mean a bully breed dog.

As for your bold sections, many dogs of many breeds pass these temperament tests. Some of them go on to maul people. Almost every one of the dogs that randomly attack, kill and maul an innocent person or dog is described as "the nest dog ever, he wouldnt body a fly. I can't believe this happened". Nobody thinks their dog will attack and kill, but hundreds of pits do.

And I'm not looking for a scapegoat, that makes no sense. What scapegoat? For what? The dog attacked and killed, why would I place blame anywhere else but the dog? And when dogs of the breed are consistently doing this I place blame on the breed. Common sense.

And of course they wouldn't recommend breed discrimination. Who would? What company or public agency would recommend breed discrimination? I will concede that not every dog is going to be a violent killer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to risk my children's lives by getting one and hoping it'll turn out right.

 

[Gunner3456]

Why would I take information from a pro pit bull website seriously?

In the first section alone they ask you to ignore news reports and statistics. Reasoning: there is no proof that the dogs are American Pit Bull Terriers. Talk about splitting hairs, I am sure many people understand the term pit bull to mean a bully breed dog.

As for your bold sections, many dogs of many breeds pass these temperament tests. Some of them go on to maul people. Almost every one of the dogs that randomly attack, kill and maul an innocent person or dog is described as "the nest dog ever, he wouldnt body a fly. I can't believe this happened". Nobody thinks their dog will attack and kill, but hundreds of pits do.

And I'm not looking for a scapegoat, that makes no sense. What scapegoat? For what? The dog attacked and killed, why would I place blame anywhere else but the dog? And when dogs of the breed are consistently doing this I place blame on the breed. Common sense.

And of course they wouldn't recommend breed discrimination. Who would? What company or public agency would recommend breed discrimination? I will concede that not every dog is going to be a violent killer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to risk my children's lives by getting one and hoping it'll turn out right.

And, you still refuse to post any links or info of our own. Just personal prejudice.

 

[Redcap]

Why would I take information from a pro pit bull website seriously?

In the first section alone they ask you to ignore news reports and statistics. Reasoning: there is no proof that the dogs are American Pit Bull Terriers. Talk about splitting hairs, I am sure many people understand the term pit bull to mean a bully breed dog.

As for your bold sections, many dogs of many breeds pass these temperament tests. Some of them go on to maul people. Almost every one of the dogs that randomly attack, kill and maul an innocent person or dog is described as "the nest dog ever, he wouldnt body a fly. I can't believe this happened". Nobody thinks their dog will attack and kill, but hundreds of pits do.

And I'm not looking for a scapegoat, that makes no sense. What scapegoat? For what? The dog attacked and killed, why would I place blame anywhere else but the dog? And when dogs of the breed are consistently doing this I place blame on the breed. Common sense.

And of course they wouldn't recommend breed discrimination. Who would? What company or public agency would recommend breed discrimination? I will concede that not every dog is going to be a violent killer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to risk my children's lives by getting one and hoping it'll turn out right.

How much experience do you actually have with APBTs or other bully breeds?

 

[deviousdevelopment]

Pit Bull Myths - Dangerous Dogs - DogsBite.org
The breeds most likely to kill

 

[deviousdevelopment]

Zero. Once again, experience with a few out of hundreds of thousands of a dog breed creates more of a bias than basing your belief off fact.

 

[Redcap]

Zero. Once again, experience with a few out of hundreds of thousands of a dog breed creates more of a bias than basing your belief off fact.

Please remove your head from your rectum before continuing to post.

 

[deviousdevelopment]

Please remove your head from your rectum before continuing to post.

Will do, so long as you open your eyes, remove your hands from over your ears and stop singing "la la la".

I deal with fact. I do not deal in emotion and skewed opinion formed only from personal experience.

You argue like those attached to political parties do. The information fed to you comes from pro pit bull organizations and you spew it out and defend it as truth. This is very similar to using the Bible to prove the bible true.
By contrast, my opinion is formed via factual information from reliable sources and disclaimer* yes sometimes from anti pit sources that provide accurate references.

 

[Gunner3456]

Will do, so long as you open your eyes, remove your hands from over your ears and stop singing "la la la".

I deal with fact. I do not deal in emotion and skewed opinion formed only from personal experience.

You argue like those attached to political parties do. The information fed to you comes from pro pit bull organizations and you spew it out and defend it as truth. This is very similar to using the Bible to prove the bible true.
By contrast, my opinion is formed via factual information from reliable sources and disclaimer* yes sometimes from anti pit sources that provide accurate references.

You disparage information from people who have LOTS of experience with the breed, and attribute sainthood to those who can quote only newspaper articles, but probably have never owned a pit.

 

[deviousdevelopment]

You disparage information from people who have LOTS of experience with the breed, and attribute sainthood to those who can quote only newspaper articles, but probably have never owned a pit.

I have already admitted this. Is it that hard to see and/or believe that one persons experience with one or even 100 dogs is not equal to large studies.

 

[saxon]

I have already admitted this. Is it that hard to see and/or believe that one persons experience with one or even 100 dogs is not equal to large studies.

are you saying that independent research is invalid?
now thats funny

 

[deviousdevelopment]

are you saying that independent research is invalid?
now thats funny

Are you saying that loving your individual pit bull and basing your opinion of an entire breed off of that experience is independent research?
Now that's funny.

What I am saying is a majority of these pit bull defenders have not conducted any independent research but instead inject emotion and spoon fed propaganda (not backed by any research or fact) into the argument and claim it to be fact.

 

[Gunner3456]

I have already admitted this. Is it that hard to see and/or believe that one persons experience with one or even 100 dogs is not equal to large studies.

Well, when reading the posted articles, I found that in temperament tests, pitbulls were 10th down the list of bad. Don't forget that Dobermans, German Shepherds, Rottys, and even the rogue Golden Retriever can be aggressive.

I also read that fewer than 100 people are killed by dogs each year. That sounds horrible until you realize that 50,000 are killed in car accidents. There are more than 6 million auto accidents in the US each year, more than 2 million with non-fatal injuries. Someone dies in an auto accident every 13 minutes in this country.

If we are afraid of our shadows, we should start by getting rid of cars.

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html]Car Accident Statistics, Stats, Auto, Fatal, Drunk Driving[COLOR="blue"

Next we really need to get rid of guns. Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot to death in murders, suicides, and accidents. Another 65,000 suffer from gun injuries. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html]System tracks gun deaths: Details are being collected on murders, suicides in the U.S.

 

[deviousdevelopment]

Now we are getting somewhere.

I agree, other breeds are aggressive.
I agree with all the other factual information in your post.