Positive Pitties

HI all,

I know I am going to get into trouble on this - but frankly I am very conflicted on the matter. On the one hand there are plenty of PBT that are 100% non-aggressive on the other hand there are just too many .

But we do know (I think) that PBT are more apt to become vicious. Years ago I was working with a guy that had 2 of them since he was single and then he got married and had 2 children. I kept saying (being from the UK and having seen a child that was attacked as a physician) that he should be very very careful. He said he had never seen them ever be aggressive.

Then one day he comes to work and tells me he put both of his dogs down because the kids were in one corner of the room when the PBT went ballistic with each other for no apparent reason and if the children had been closer (or the instigators) his 2 and 4 year old would have almost certainly been at least badly hurt.

I remember Chris Rock saying that the tiger that hurt Roy Horn from SIegfried and Roy in Vegas didn't go crazy. He went TIGER. Well some animals are just more dangerous than others.

Now are they dangerous enough that they should be banned???

Here is some info from Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/.../Breed-specific_legislation

Breed-specific legislation is a law passed by a legislative body pertaining to a specific breed or breeds of domesticated animals. In practice, it generally refers to laws pertaining to a specific dog breed or breeds.

Some jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving pit bull-type dogs or other dog breeds commonly used in dog fighting, and some government organizations such as the United States Army[1] and Marine Corps[2] have taken administrative action as well. This legislation ranges from outright bans on the possession of these dogs, to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establishes a legal presumption that these dogs are prima facie legally "dangerous" or "vicious." In response, some state-level governments in the United States have prohibited or restricted the ability of municipal governments within those states to enact breed-specific legislation.[3]

It is generally settled in case law that jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation; however, the appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities and injuries is disputed.[4] One point of view is that certain dog breeds are a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spay/neuter for all dogs of these breeds, mandatory microchip implants and liability insurance, or prohibiting people convicted of a felony from owning them.[5] Another point of view is that comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and legally mandating responsible pet keeping practices, is a better solution than breed-specific legislation to the problem of dangerous dogs.[7] A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely, but should strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, e.g., forbidding certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas in which they would be prohibited, and establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking dogs from specific breeds into public places.[9] Finally, some governments, such as that of Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and are requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to eliminate the population slowly through natural attrition.[10][11]

I think BSL is BS.   The legislators that pass these kind of laws are completely ignorant of dog behavior and dog breeds.  The pit bull is a perfect case in point.

There's a very interesting test that goes around the internet to see if people can even identify a pit bull correctly.  Most can't.  I'll see if I can find the link and post it later. Many times a pit bull is identified, incorrectly, as the breed involved in a dog attack.  

The pit bull is a very misunderstood breed.  They are great family dogs and are usually devoted to their humans.  They are intelligent and make great companions for active people. They come from a mix of several breeds but usually contain some Staffordshire Terrier and Bulldog somewhere in their bloodlines.  The terrier and bulldog were long bred in England for their tenacity, and the terrier temperament especially, does not back down from a fight.  These traits have been sadly abused and we have the world of dog fighting.

I would not recommend the breed for some owners.  They are  physically very strong dogs and require an owner that understands their temperament.  They need a lot of early socialization, especially with other dogs.  Like all terriers they have a tendency toward dog-dog aggression.  I also don't recommend Jack Russell Terriers to the average dog owner as they too have the tenacity and tendency to never back down.  The difference in the breeds is the JRT hasn't been exploited  into a fighting dog and turned into a demon in the eyes of so many.  The media feeds this frenzy.  

BTW, they don't have locking jaws either.   A tiger is a wild animal and can't ever be truly socialized.  A dog is thousands of years of evolutionary development into a human companion.  If you think about it, the pit bulls that are trained to fight other dogs have to be handled by their handlers.  If they were so incredibly dangerous to humans their handlers would be in constant danger.  That's not the case as the dogs are bred to be very good with humans. Research some of the dogs rescued from Michael Vick's dog fighting ring and their remarkable rehabilitation.    

See if you can find the pit bull.

http://www.pickthepit.com/

I agree Jackie with everything you said.  I always say powerful breeds are like race cars they need experienced drivers. BSL has not been proven to work thus far, so many good family dogs have been put down because of it. I believe more in education and stricter laws for individuals involved with illegal dog activity. Don't let yourself be influenced by the media.

Well if  we agree that there are powerful breeds that need experienced drivers how do you deal with that?

Read this link

Educate! The hardest part is there are so many back yard breeders out there who just want to make money they don't care who they sell to. I work closely with an awareness club that works with the public through, community organizations, boy scouts, schools etc hoping to educate young people and adults. We also work with law and government agencies to help crack down on bad breeds to shut them down. Little by little we make a difference.

Education is key - but is it enough? There will always be people who should not have dangerous things and laws and society have to also make decisions sometimes saying that you can't have that. Nobody things that e.g. hand grenades should be legal. Clearly you can educate people - but if you allow them to be legal - there will be that many more people that use them for nefarious purposes.

Look I'm not convinced myself of what to do - but if it were my child that was mauled - I would not be happy to know that little by little a difference is being made.

@DrAlexanderTab

but if it were my child that was mauled

That's the responsibility of the parent or guardian of the child, not the legislators.

 Comparing pit bulls to hand grenades is, frankly, ludicrous.  Almost as ludicrous as comparing a dog to a tiger.  I don't mean to offend but it's boggling my mind.

I'll leave this discussion with one suggestion to anyone who believes that dogs of certain breeds are inherently so dangerous they should be banned and ultimately extinguished.  Read a book called Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous. It's been out a few years but it's an eye opener if you want to read a more balanced side to the subject of dog bites and that includes any breeds.

I don't get offended Jackie. Clearly a hand grenade is very different as our tigers. However you also have to acknowledge that different countries have made legislation in this regard and we cannot just pretend there is no issue. It's not like they are banning Corgies in Australia and Chihuahuas in the UK.

I will say categorically that I don't know enough about this - but sure - everything is dangerous - even slippers - but relative danger needs to be considered.  

I can't say I'm very well read or educated on all the facets of this issue, so my reaction is a simple "gut feeling."  I feel that BSL is a bad thing . . . it's in a similar vein as racial profiling, it seems to me.  First of all, to assume ALL dogs of one breed are dangerous and should therefore should be eliminated/banned is ridiculous.  Second, even if there was such legislation and it was enforced 100%, the problems would just re-appear with another breed.  The irresponsible owners, gang members, dog-fighting rings, whatever . . . they'd continue with other strong and imposing breeds.  

When I was a kid (many moons ago), I'd never heard of a pitbull.  But I thought I knew what supposedly "dangerous" dogs were -- at that time, it was Dobermans (at least where I grew up).  If I saw one, I assumed it was mean, it was a guard dog, it would bite anyone and everyone, and that I should stay away from it.  Of course, that wasn't true, but I had no other info other than the impressions I got from media, adults in my life, etc.  Now I know that every dog, regardless of breed, should be judged on an individual basis.  Any dog can be well adjusted and friendly, and any dog can be unpredictable or dangerous.

As for family pets suddenly biting or attacking family members, the two cases I've known of family dogs that "suddenly" turned on family members were not pitbulls.  One was a Golden Retriever and the other was an Aussie mix.  Both were seemingly friendly family dogs, but as is the case with any dog, you never know what might trigger a bite -- something startles or scares the dog, like a busy or rough toddler, an unfamiliar environment, the dog's advancing age or ill health, etc.