Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[LogGrad98]

You hit the nail on the head. It's the behavior of the owners that determines the behavior of the dog.


How do pit bulls temperament vary from other dogs given similar environments?


https://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/in_defense_of_the_pitbull_partner/

Maybe the problem is that when a pom-shi t(zu) bites you it hurts for a few minutes. When a teacup poodle gets all pissed off and decided to off someone, it tickles. When a pitbull does, it can kill full-grown humans quite easily. So might be the same percentage of attacks, but a far higher percentage of pitbull attacks will end in serious injury or death compared to most other breeds. In the end, I would much rather be attacked by a guy with a badminton racket than a guy with a gun. There is a reason big cats as pets are banned in most localities. If they choose to attack a fatality is likely.

So how do we ban bad owners? Seriously, it seems it would be far easier to ban the breed than the owners. Or are we just to accept that every so often a pit is going to kill someone and just kind of say "oh well" and move on. Is the issue even worth discussing when there seems to be no real solutions, or at least none that anyone will legitimately consider?



As an aside, a pitbull attack had a devastating effect on someone very close to our family, and the owner was a licensed breeder and trainer and regularly held obedience and temperance training sessions for pits and other large breeds. Not every pit that kills is a pet of a gang-banger intent on pit-fighting the dog. It is easy to brush it all under the rug with sound-bites like "it is a bad owner not a bad breed", but that is a cop-out way to not really analyze or address the issue. More often than not in the newspaper articles they describe their dog as a wonderful family pet that would never hurt a flea, until it attacks and/or kills someone.


However you view it, there is a problem here to be dealt with. What is the best way to deal with it? One way, is to ban the breed. That would work, even if it is unpopular or "unfair". How do we ban bad owners? Or how do we ensure that dogs that have been sweet wonderful family pets for a decade don't suddenly kill or permanently disfigure someone? Is the risk worth being "fair" to the poor wonderful falsely-maligned totally innocent pitbull?

I know I have been facetious here, but it does strike kind of close to home, and honestly I don't know the answer, and I wish there were an answer but I honestly don't know if there is one.

But if it came to a ballot, I would vote in favor of banning or controlling the breed, at least as a stop-gap. I like the idea of temperance "registering" or whatever you might want to call it. But there are plenty of reports of nice sweet kind pits, who never show any aggression for years, suddenly attacking someone, very often unprovoked. So is the temperance registration foolproof? Again, I don't know, but I do believe something needs to be done.

 

[franklin]

Maybe the problem is that when a pom-shi t(zu) bites you it hurts for a few minutes. When a teacup poodle gets all pissed off and decided to off someone, it tickles. When a pitbull does, it can kill full-grown humans quite easily. So might be the same percentage of attacks, but a far higher percentage of pitbull attacks will end in serious injury or death compared to most other breeds. In the end, I would much rather be attacked by a guy with a badminton racket than a guy with a gun. There is a reason big cats as pets are banned in most localities. If they choose to attack a fatality is likely.

So how do we ban bad owners? Seriously, it seems it would be far easier to ban the breed than the owners. Or are we just to accept that every so often a pit is going to kill someone and just kind of say "oh well" and move on. Is the issue even worth discussing when there seems to be no real solutions, or at least none that anyone will legitimately consider?



As an aside, a pitbull attack had a devastating effect on someone very close to our family, and the owner was a licensed breeder and trainer and regularly held obedience and temperance training sessions for pits and other large breeds. Not every pit that kills is a pet of a gang-banger intent on pit-fighting the dog. It is easy to brush it all under the rug with sound-bites like "it is a bad owner not a bad breed", but that is a cop-out way to not really analyze or address the issue. More often than not in the newspaper articles they describe their dog as a wonderful family pet that would never hurt a flea, until it attacks and/or kills someone.


However you view it, there is a problem here to be dealt with. What is the best way to deal with it? One way, is to ban the breed. That would work, even if it is unpopular or "unfair". How do we ban bad owners? Or how do we ensure that dogs that have been sweet wonderful family pets for a decade don't suddenly kill or permanently disfigure someone? Is the risk worth being "fair" to the poor wonderful falsely-maligned totally innocent pitbull?

I know I have been facetious here, but it does strike kind of close to home, and honestly I don't know the answer, and I wish there were an answer but I honestly don't know if there is one.

But if it came to a ballot, I would vote in favor of banning or controlling the breed, at least as a stop-gap. I like the idea of temperance "registering" or whatever you might want to call it. But there are plenty of reports of nice sweet kind pits, who never show any aggression for years, suddenly attacking someone, very often unprovoked. So is the temperance registration foolproof? Again, I don't know, but I do believe something needs to be done.

You have a nice way of conveying your pov in a teaching role to the ignorant masses. I've always figured you as a patient man.

 

[franklin]

This is incredibly ironic. Franky just argued for the other side.

You're right. Like Im not a fan of rye but Jewish folk love it. To each his own as far as Im concerned.

Your leaps in logic have been too large for me to follow. Engrish mother ****er, do you speak it?


++++++++++++++++++


where did heyeyhey's last post go? It was once again a solid point in the abstract, although nauseating when getting into specifics. That seems to be hey's specialty -- a forest for the trees type genius.

 

[♪alt13]

I think my view can be summed up by simply saying that I would rather live in a world that was slightly more dangerous than one that has been sterilized of everything that may cause people harm. If we continue to eliminate everything that could kill us there will be less of a reason to live. I think for instance that we should reintroduce grizzly bears and wolves to at least some of the land here in Utah.

I am really tired of all of the romantic/adventurous/fun things in life disappearing because somebody got hurt or killed. It is sad and tragic when something bad happens but tragedy is a part of life. Imo our society has put too much emphasis on comfort and safety to the point that we have sheltered ourselves into dull lives. We are a nation of fat, slothful, cry babies, it is beyond pathetic.

Further it does not make any sense to ban pit bulls. If there wasn't a single pit in the us than thugs would fight St. Bernards, Great Danes, German Shepherds, or even Black Labs. You can't blame Smith & Wesson for the cultural problems in our cities any more than you can blame pit bulls for them.

 

[♪alt13]

Your leaps in logic have been too large for me to follow. Engrish mother ****er, do you speak it?


++++++++++++++++++


where did heyeyhey's last post go? It was once again a solid point in the abstract, although nauseating when getting into specifics. That seems to be hey's specialty -- a forest for the trees type genius.

It wasn't fair to log's larger point. So when I read it again and realized as much, I deleted it.

 

[Stoked]

You have a nice way of conveying your pov in a teaching role to the ignorant masses. I've always figured you as a patient man.

Your leaps in logic have been too large for me to follow. Engrish mother ****er, do you speak it?


++++++++++++++++++


where did heyeyhey's last post go? It was once again a solid point in the abstract, although nauseating when getting into specifics. That seems to be hey's specialty -- a forest for the trees type genius.

Resorting to insulting the poster instead of debating the point?

 

[franklin]

Resorting to insulting the poster instead of debating the point?

Reported for trolling and trying to manufacture drama again (and try to make yet another thread all about you).

 

[LogGrad98]

I think my view can be summed up by simply saying that I would rather live in a world that was slightly more dangerous than one that has been sterilized of everything that may cause people harm. If we continue to eliminate everything that could kill us there will be less of a reason to live. I think for instance that we should reintroduce grizzly bears and wolves to at least some of the land here in Utah.

I am really tired of all of the romantic/adventurous/fun things in life disappearing because somebody got hurt or killed. It is sad and tragic when something bad happens but tragedy is a part of life. Imo our society has put too much emphasis on comfort and safety to the point that we have sheltered ourselves into dull lives. We are a nation of fat, slothful, cry babies, it is beyond pathetic.

Further it does not make any sense to ban pit bulls. If there wasn't a single pit in the us than thugs would fight St. Bernards, Great Danes, German Shepherds, or even Black Labs. You can't blame Smith & Wesson for the cultural problems in our cities any more than you can blame pit bulls for them.

Reintroducing a grizzly bear into what is their natural habitat is a completely different issue from a dog that can kill living next door to you.

Also, have you had the opportunity to visit a 6 year old girl in the hospital who will probably shudder every time she looks in the mirror for the rest of her life, thanks to the family's kind-hearted and wouldn't-hurt-a-flea pitbull that nearly destroyed her face? But I guess she is just being a cry-baby. All the dad could say was "I can't believe it, he would never do this, never. Never. Never." I am glad that her pain is worth it to you so you can live a more dangerous and thrilling life, or whatever drivel that was. Because it still does not address the issue at hand. But I guess on second thought it does. Your opinion is that this kind of "accident" is fully acceptable to make sure everyone else can have their freedom to do whatever romantic/adventurous/fun thing they want with their dogs, so nothing need be done at all. You are entitled to that opinion. I respectfully disagree.

In talking to some friends about this subject one of the tough things in legislating this kind of regulation is how often the attacks happen to family that own the dog, which is quite frequent. This makes a harsh criminal sentence not a very good deterrent as they will just figure, well I never let anyone else around my pit, so I don't need to worry about it, until it kills grandma one fine summer afternoon.

I wondered about requiring large-breed dogs to be registered and requiring owners to pay relatively large fees to do so, and then requiring regular vet visits in which the vet evaluates the dog's temperament and training and if it is deemed to be insufficient then it can be taken and put down and the owner fined a large-ish amount. There could be jail time and/or fines for people who own these breeds outside the system. The up-front registration requirement will ensure that only people who are very serious about having a dog of this and other large breeds will have one, rather than just picking one up from their cousin's sister because pits are so "ghetto-cool" or whatever. But then I think about my friend who is a registered breeder and trainer, whose dog was his pet for 10 years, very well trained and behaved, until some to this day unknown thing prompted it to attack the girl and chew on her face right in front of him and his wife. This kind of registration would do nothing to stop that. But I would be in favor of something like this over just outright banning the breed if it could be pulled off.

 

[Stoked]

Reported for trolling and trying to manufacture drama again (and try to make yet another thread all about you).

Keep them rolling now that you got your convo stuffed down your throat.

Log is actually discusing things.

@ Log - Not sure how I feel about banning things because they are potentially dangerous. At what point do we draw the line? I'd lean towards not banning people from what they can and cannot do.

 

[♪alt13]

Reintroducing a grizzly bear into what is their natural habitat is a completely different issue from a dog that can kill living next door to you.

Also, have you had the opportunity to visit a 6 year old girl in the hospital who will probably shudder every time she looks in the mirror for the rest of her life, thanks to the family's kind-hearted and wouldn't-hurt-a-flea pitbull that nearly destroyed her face? But I guess she is just being a cry-baby. All the dad could say was "I can't believe it, he would never do this, never. Never. Never." I am glad that her pain is worth it to you so you can live a more dangerous and thrilling life, or whatever drivel that was. Because it still does not address the issue at hand. But I guess on second thought it does. Your opinion is that this kind of "accident" is fully acceptable to make sure everyone else can have their freedom to do whatever romantic/adventurous/fun thing they want with their dogs, so nothing need be done at all. You are entitled to that opinion. I respectfully disagree.

In talking to some friends about this subject one of the tough things in legislating this kind of regulation is how often the attacks happen to family that own the dog, which is quite frequent. This makes a harsh criminal sentence not a very good deterrent as they will just figure, well I never let anyone else around my pit, so I don't need to worry about it, until it kills grandma one fine summer afternoon.

I wondered about requiring large-breed dogs to be registered and requiring owners to pay relatively large fees to do so, and then requiring regular vet visits in which the vet evaluates the dog's temperament and training and if it is deemed to be insufficient then it can be taken and put down and the owner fined a large-ish amount. There could be jail time and/or fines for people who own these breeds outside the system. The up-front registration requirement will ensure that only people who are very serious about having a dog of this and other large breeds will have one, rather than just picking one up from their cousin's sister because pits are so "ghetto-cool" or whatever. But then I think about my friend who is a registered breeder and trainer, whose dog was his pet for 10 years, very well trained and behaved, until some to this day unknown thing prompted it to attack the girl and chew on her face right in front of him and his wife. This kind of registration would do nothing to stop that. But I would be in favor of something like this over just outright banning the breed if it could be pulled off.

Log I am really sorry that that happened but I have addressed it and much more thoroughly than your ban would. Please see post #54. As for my cry baby comments that were not directed at any particular case rather at a society that is over reactive, over bearing, and over protective.

A few years ago an 11 year old boy was eaten by a black bear in one of our local canyons. You don't seem to have the same vitriolic arguments against bears. Does this mean that you don't have concerns for his family, of course not.

 

[♪alt13]

For the record. I do not currently own a dog. I have also been attacked and bitten by numerous breeds twice by an Australian shepherd.

If we are going to ban pit bulls than it is only logical to also ban everything that is more dangerous than pit bulls. I don't have a list because I don't have the statistics but if we were to make one I am sure there would be many things that you would be very opposed to banning.

 

[The Midnight]

Definitely ban them.

 

[franklin]

For the record. I do not currently own a dog. I have also been attacked and bitten by numerous breeds twice by an Australian shepherd.

If we are going to ban pit bulls than it is only logical to also ban everything that is more dangerous than pit bulls. I don't have a list because I don't have the statistics but if we were to make one I am sure there would be many things that you would be very opposed to banning.

This rhetoric is so simplistic it's hardly worth acknowledging or responding to. You're acting as if society is not capable of making judgments on a case by case basis but should instead abide by some arbitrary continuum based on nothing more than death toll statistics.

For example, common household cleaners unintentionally kill many orders of magnitude more people than guns do. That does not mean we auto-generate laws pertaining to guns and cleaners equally and without thought.

 

[olden_undercover]

A few years ago an 11 year old boy was eaten by a black bear in one of our local canyons. You don't seem to have the same vitriolic arguments against bears. Does this mean that you don't have concerns for his family, of course not.

That's because the vitriolic argument against this example has less to do with banning dangerous animals, and more to do with allowing kids to garnish themselves with open containers of food while sleeping in tents in bear country. Why anyone would do that is beyond me, but it's only barely on the same playing field as raising pit pulls as pets and keeping them in our homes. Maybe if we were to capture black bear cubs and raise them in our homes, though-- I mean, the parallel would be to believe they would then become less dangerous, raise them as sweet, non-violent pets, and then be suprised when they eat us. Right? Or would that only happen because bad bear owners equal bad bears? I dunno.

Look, both are animals with violent instincts. The difference is we have bred those instincts into one of them, chosen to place it in our homes, and then debate the situation like it defies logic when one of them instinctively rips someone's face off. Is it really overprotective, etc. to suggest that putting ourselves in the path of violent animals-- whether they're bred for violence or violent because they are wild predators-- is a pretty bad idea...?

 

[franklin]

It's surprising how many pit bull advocates defend the breed despite not owning one personally and having never interaction much with one. Put your money where your mouths are and go out and buy one and trust your children's lives with it. I guarantee you will see these dogs in a whole new light after finding out first hand just how ruthless they are capable of being.

The difference between a pit bull and every other breed is that an 80 pound pit barely gets warmed up in a dog fight after 15 minutes with a breed 3 to 4 times its weight is completely exhausted. There's something unnatural about animals being able to easily dominate larger animals of the same build. Comparing a pit bull's fighting ability is like comparing a black bear to a grizzly bear, only the pit bull is the size of the black bear and will have no problems dominating the grizzly's size. I don't think most people realize how quickly an 80 lb pit will tear apart a 120 lb Rottweiler, it's not even close to a fair match. Large Dogo Argentino's, which are also mastiff based, very lean and built and bread to individually kill 600 lb wild boars, are nothing compared to a pit. The Chinese fighting dogs were wiped out by pits. There is a damn good reason pit bulls are known for fighting and underground rings don't even bother toying around with other dog types: pit bulls are nothing short of natural born killers.

On top of the sheer muscle and energy these dogs carry, pit bulls are also unnatural in that they were specifically bread to fight to the death and nothing more. In the natural world, no predator is willing to fight to the death. Every action is a calculated risk based on potential rewards. If any other animal gets injured or feels the threat of it, it will retreat. Pit bulls are the only exception to this rule that I know of outside the motherly instinct -- which even then many mammals are not willing to lay their life on the line for a born child if the risk is too great -- they were bread willing to die losing a fight.

 

[Gameface]

I've changed my opinion on the pit bull thing. Used to think they should be treated like any other dog, but I don't think they are like any other dog. I think they are far more prone to attack and more capable of inflicting serious damage when they do.

I don't say ban outright but maybe require special licensing that includes a requirement to provide proper restraints to keep the dogs from getting out or from anyone accidentally getting to them. I'd say add an insurance requirement to the licensing.

Pit bulls are not just another dog.

EDIT: Wrote that while franklin was giving a much better response that basically expresses the same view on the breed.

 

[franklin]

That's because the vitriolic argument against this example has less to do with banning dangerous animals, and more to do with allowing kids to garnish themselves with open containers of food while sleeping in tents in bear country. Why anyone would do that is beyond me, but it's only barely on the same playing field as raising pit pulls as pets and keeping them in our homes. Maybe if we were to capture black bear cubs and raise them in our homes, though-- I mean, the parallel would be to believe they would then become less dangerous, raise them as sweet, non-violent pets, and then be suprised when they eat us. Right? Or would that only happen because bad bear owners equal bad bears? I dunno.

Look, both are animals with violent instincts. The difference is we have bred those instincts into one of them, chosen to place it in our homes, and then debate the situation like it defies logic when one of them instinctively rips someone's face off. Is it really overprotective, etc. to suggest that putting ourselves in the path of violent animals-- whether they're bred for violence or violent because they are wild predators-- is a pretty bad idea...?

Olden, I have not yet had the pleasure to meet your acquaintance. I see you are a very sensible person and likely well rounded in most areas with a couple intricate hickups that make you seem slightly bat **** crazy just like everyone else of your high composure. I gladly kiss your ***, suck up, and rain praise upon you with this post. Welcome, and I look forward to learning of your hickups.

 

[Stoked]

I wonder if any pitbull bans have been challenged in court and how high they have gone. Aside formt he pittbulls themselves it raises an interestign question.

At what point does society get to tell you what you can and cannot do, what you can and cannot own. At what point do they lose that right?

 

[Gameface]

I wonder if any pitbull bans have been challenged in court and how high they have gone. Aside formt he pittbulls themselves it raises an interestign question.

At what point does society get to tell you what you can and cannot do, what you can and cannot own. At what point do they lose that right?

There are a lot of animals that are not allowed in residential areas. Usually you can own them if you jump through the hoops, but you need to keep them on property that is appropriate and/or zoned accordingly.

 

[Stoked]

There are a lot of animals that are not allowed in residential areas. Usually you can own them if you jump through the hoops, but you need to keep them on property that is appropriate and/or zoned accordingly.

Oh I am sure one can list numerous examples on both sides of the fence. Just interesting to me at where different people feel the line is for them to tell others how to live their life.