What Would You Say About This to the Management?

"...or coconuts in some regions."
 
[sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif]

Good job Jaime, now Sally is drooling ALL over the keyboard....

ORIGINAL: sillysally

I suppose if you ran back and forth under a coconut tree long enough.....[sm=lol.gif]

hahahaha

Anyway, Peter, if you had read all the articles linked, you will find that pit bulls (or "pit bull types") are actually not responsible for virtually all deaths caused by dogs.   Here is a study on which breeds have been involved in fatal attacks between 1979 and 1998.   Again, keep in mind that a dog is defined as a "pit bull type" based almost entirely on the testimony of witnesses, which is unreliable since most people can't differentiate between an APBT, an American Staffordshire terrier, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, etc.    As we have already seen, some can't identify between a pit bull 'type' and a lab, even:    These statistics also do not account for provocation, treatment, abuse, irresponsible breeding, etc. so it is impossible to use them to assume anything about inherent traits in these breeds:

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

ORIGINAL: peter_89

Well, how nice, you have another piece of your collection of endearing Pit Bull photographs up now, just like people I knew who would have done the exact same thing until their pet did something horrible... And somehow, what you seem to keep ignoring is that virtually every death report you will find involves a nice Pittie owner who insisted his dog wouldn't injure anybody, with no history of violence at all, who just killed a completely innocent person one day.

 
I would like to see these death reports that you claim that Pit Bulls are killing completely innocent people.
 

 If you take out, say, even fifty percent of these as Dogos, Filas, Presas, et cetera then you still have a high number showing that it is still a dangerous breed. This is why they are unpredictable and that even the tamest Pit Bulls can easily break out and kill.

 
You're killing me with your nonsense. So your basing your fears on unpredictability? How silly. And like I said before, 1 person has been killed by a dog this year and so far the breed/mix of the dog has not been mentioned. Considering that there are 60+million dogs live in the United States, the chances of you getting unpredictably killed by a tame, or insanely wild, it Bull is virtually 0.
 
 

Not every single Pit Bull is dangerous but their fighting backround and power make it easy for them to spontaneously to something like this. Pit Bulls have earned their bad reputation and believe me, if it were Presas or Dogos doing this every two weeks like Pit Bulls do then the media would cover them as they are no better in that regard (and some even worse).

 
There are Pit Bull maulings every two weeks?! Please provide evidence of this!

[linkhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/11/BAG5UDLOAC1.DTL]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/11/BAG5UDLOAC1.DTL[/link]
All those attacks nationwide? With some of the attacks being close to death? And you really expect me to believe that a Lab attack is equal or worse than a Pit Bull attack??

 
Let me analyze that article for you...
 
"Pit bull and pit bull mixes accounted for 27 percent of dog bites reported to the city's Animal Care and Control department since 2003, even though pit bulls account for just 6 percent of licensed dogs in the city, records show."
 
Although they make up 6% of licensed dogs, I'd like to know how many unlicensed dogs live in San Fran. If Pit Bulls are the most popular breed in that city then it can make sense as to why there are more Pit Bull bites than any other breed.
 
"In all, the city logged more than 900 bites against people and other pets since 2003, including 626 traced to a specific dog. Of those, 169 bites were blamed on pit bulls. That's more than the number of bites by German shepherds (69), Labrador retrievers (5 and rottweilers (34) combined."
 
Wow, even the beloved "tame" Labrador is high on that list. But like I said above, it's a matter of popularity.
 
"No pit bull attack has garnered more local attention than the one that killed 12-year-old Nicholas Faibish last month, after his mother left him alone with two pit bulls."
 
For those who don't remember this case, this was the case where the mother knew that the Pit Bulls were dangerous, the bitch was in heat and she put the boy in the basement and told him to stay there. The boy heard the dogs fighting and went to break it up and they killed him. The mother knew the dogs were dangerous yet chose to keep them alive. The mother knew the dogs were dangerous and put her son in the basement and gave the dogs free run of the house. In fact, his mother was quoted as saying something to the effect of "It was his time to go". Let's see, all the signs of aggression where there. The mother knew the dogs were dangerous. The mother put her son in the basement for Chrissakes yet it's much more easier to blame the dogs than the idiot mother who allowed this situation to escalate to the point where a child was killed. Thankfully there is justice in this case, the mother is charge with Felony Child Endangerment.
 
"In late May, a dog owner was walking his dog in the city when two pit bulls attacked both him and his dog. He wound up being treated for multiple bites to his hands at a local hospital."
 
"In November, a man was walking his black Labrador on Ocean Beach when a pack of dogs attacked the Lab, leaving multiple wounds. The dog that did the most damage was a white pit bull mix. "
 
It sounds like we have a bunch of Pit Bulls running loose here. I'd bet that these are intact dogs too. Responsible owners do not allow their dogs, regardless of breed, to run loose. Responsible owners do not keep their dogs intact unless they're being shown in conformation or if there's health issues surrounding that. So it's safe to say that the dogs involved in these stories were owned/once owned by irresponsible people. But it's much easier to ban Pit Bulls than to ban stupid people.
 
Since you're under the impression that eliminating Pit Bulls will prevent attacks, you must've skimmed over these parts in the article you posted....
 
"Still, the dog bite data also suggest that cracking down on pit bulls alone likely won't eliminate serious dog attacks.
After all, most bites are blamed on other breeds. In the past 2 1/2 years, San Francisco has logged dog bites involving roughly 80 other breeds, including everything from toy poodles to dalmatians to Jack Russell terriers."
 
"The data also show that despite the recent flurry of headlines about vicious pit bull attacks, there's no evidence that the overall number of dog attacks has soared in recent months.
Last year, the city recorded 308 dog bites, down more than one-third from 2003. This year, dog bites are on the same pace as 2004."
 
"Deadly dog bites are even rarer. About two dozen lethal bites are reported around the country each year, including two in San Francisco in the last five years. In recent years, the largest share of fatalities has been caused by pit bull-type dogs."
 
"Separately, Scott Delucchi at the Peninsula Humane Society said he didn't find any single breed to blame when he checked San Mateo County's dog bite records for a two-week period, covering 36 bites. He said German shepherds and Labrador retrievers were responsible for four attacks each, while pit bulls were blamed for three.
"It shows every breed can bite,'' he said."
 
I think the sentenced boldly highlighted says it the best. But you keep on living in fear. Just don't go out during a thunderstorm. You have a higher chance of getting struck by lightning than being mauled by a dog. []

ORIGINAL: glenmar

What the heck is a traditionally TAME breed??

Our own departed Betsy Perkins (maybenot) just got banned from ODO for beating up on pitties.  I suspect this is old BP in drag.

There is no changing the minds of folks who have closed minds.....in this case it seems to be soldered shut.  Don't feed it.

 
I doubt this is Betsy. I've known Betsy for years on various message boards and I know her style. She's way more articulate and that has to do with being a lawyer of sorts.

now Sally is drooling ALL over the keyboard....

 
Sally, Step away from the keyboard....

"Pit Bulls, descendents of the bulldogs used in the nineteenth century for dogfighting, have been bred for "gameness," and thus a lowered inhibition to aggression. Most dogs fight as a last resport, when staring and growling fail. A Pit Bull is willing to fight with little or no provocation. Pit Bulls have a high tolerance for pain, making it possible for them to fight to the point of extreme exhaustion. Whereas guard dogs like German Shepherds usually attempt to restrain those they perceive to be threats by biting and holding, Pit Bulls try to inflict the maximum amount of damage on an opponent. There is no dispute over this. They bite, hold, shake, and tear. They don't growl or assume an aggressive facial expression as warning. They just attack. They are often insensitive to behaviors that usually stop aggression, one scientific review of the breed states. For example, dogs not bred for fighting usually display defeat in combat by rolling over and exposing a light underside. On serveral occasions Pit Bulls have been reported to disembowel dogs offering this signal of submission. In epidemiological studies of dog bits, the Pit Bull is overrepresented among dogs known to have seriously injured or killed human beings, and, as a result, Pit Bulls have been banned or restricted in several Western European countries, China, and numerous cities and municipatlities across North America. Pit Bulls are dangerous."
-- The New Yorker, a well-known liberally leaning magazine publication, written in the pro-Pit Bull essay, "What Pit Bulls Can Teach Us About Profiling."

I'm not directly pro or anti Pit Bull because I don't have any problems with them in my current area of living. The people who do experience such problems have every right to present their solutions. That being said, part of my past employment has involved going into people's backyards to inspace utility lines. The one circumstance I will not deviate from is to never go into a yard with two or more Pit Bulls -- it's just too dangerous -- and they seem to be at least ten times more aggressive and featless when accompanied by another one. I can make just about any dog(s) back down (or at least give me space to briefly do what I have to do) but most Pit Bulls are just insane, especially in groups. I'm not blaming them for protecting their turf -- most dogs do -- I'm just stating the higher probability for a mangled leg or arm due entirely to the breed's phyical and mental characteristics.
Some of the nicest dogs I have ever known were Pit Bulls, but that should not preclude me from recognizing their potential for inflicting injury. My childhood friend's Pit Bull "Butch" was one of the nices dogs ever, and yet it was uncontrollable around cats and would snap their necks in about a half of a second when presented the opportunity.
Would I take a toddler to a park full of Pit Bulls? Nope. Are there too many Pit Bulls in the world, many of them owned by the wrong sort of person? Sure sounds that way. The questions seems to be what is to be done which would minimize the amount of Pit Bull attacks while at the same time of punishing the responsible dog owners who recognize that their dogs are and have been for hundreds of years bred for purposes not entirely consistant with non-violence.
And, in response the the below comment... I own a Miniature Schnauzer.
And once again, simply because a Pit Bull is sweet doesn't preclude me from recognizing their potential for inflicting extreme injury.

Peter is obviously a troll. He has admitted that a kid he knew got it's face tore up by a golden retriever.

He obviously is trying to provoke us and we all know that pit bulls are sweet and he probalby does too.

I wouldnt even be surprised if he owns a pit bull and is only on here to start a fight. He has yet to admit what breed he owns.

EDIT: I guess I would like to add too, I have 2 Dalmatians and if you go in my fence without me, you are a complete idiot. Neither are vicious dogs at all, in fact the one who "defends the yard" is the sweetest dog you have met. However, a couple months ago our neighbor had a friend (stupid friend) over. I heard Marley making a big ruckus and I went outside to find the woman laughing at Marley and poking her fingers through the fence. I got there just in time to see Marley snap at the woman's fingers. Had the woman not had such quick reflexes she would be in a world of pain right now. And again Marley is the sweetest dog you have met, she just doesnt want anyone in her backyard when she knows they arent supposed to be. I dont encourage her to do this but I realize it is instinct, she loves her family and loves her yard and loves her house and is willing to defend them. She KNOWS no one is supposed to be back there except for us or someone we personally bring in.
 
Okay, thats all I will say, I will join you also Jamie [] []

ORIGINAL: amstaffy

now Sally is drooling ALL over the keyboard....

Sally, Step away from the keyboard....

 
She keeps giving me a "why, oh why, did you guys spay me?" look....

Well Peter here's your
[]
 
Have a great day!

ORIGINAL: peter_89

 That being said, part of my past employment has involved going into people's backyards to inspace utility lines. The one circumstance I will not deviate from is to never go into a yard with two or more Pit Bulls -- it's just too dangerous -- and they seem to be at least ten times more aggressive and featless when accompanied by another one. I can make just about any dog(s) back down (or at least give me space to briefly do what I have to do) but most Pit Bulls are just insane, especially in groups. I'm not blaming them for protecting their turf -- most dogs do -- I'm just stating the higher probability for a mangled leg or arm due entirely to the breed's phyical and mental characteristics.

 
Actually, you'd be pretty stupid to go into any yard with dogs, regardless of breed, without the owners permission. It would be a damn shame that a dog might face euthanasia because it defended it's territory from someone who foolishly entered it.

Meilani...take my lead
 
[]

And somehow, what you seem to keep ignoring is that virtually every death report you will find involves a nice Pittie owner who insisted his dog wouldn't injure anybody, with no history of violence at all, who just killed a completely innocent person one day.

 
I very strongly disagree with this.  Im not sure if you read a previous post of mine, but I pointed out that any owner who claims that their dog "just turned" is missing the signs of an unstable temperament, something that is not within the breed standard of an APBT.  Whether the fact that they are missing the signs stems from ignorance, misinformation, or laziness is irrelevant.
 
Either that, or they simply did not want to seem irresponsible, having taken no action to address an aggressive (towards human) behaving dog... its just easier to blame it on the dogs "unpredictability."  The same people who would ignore, or even encourage aggressive behavior, are the same that would put the breed's reputation on the chopping block.
 
For all of these reasons, and for all of the responsible owners who will "praise their dog to high heaven" (deservingly so), the legislation should be targeted at BAD OWNERS.

Some of the nicest dogs I have ever known were Pit Bulls, but that should not preclude me from recognizing their potential for inflicting injury.

I don't think that anyone is saying that pit bulls cannot inflict an injury.  However, a RESPONSIBLE OWNER would take the proper precautions.
If they know their dog is DA, they will avoid dog parks.
If they know their dog is HA, they will take the necessary steps to right that wrong (training, temp evals, euth if necessary...)

We are blaming the wrong end here.  This is a humans doing.  We have bred pits to be DA, and irresponsible owners have gone above and beyond that with THEIR DOGS.  Target the ones who are at fault.

And in response to "never go into a back yard with two pitbulls"... I wouldn't feel comfortable going into a back yard that any dog is in (esp. if its an "outside dog.")  The story that someone mentioned above about the pits hung in WA from their fence.  Those *2* dogs let someone into their yard, and the perpetrator was then successful in killing the dogs.  Hanging them!  Pits are so people friendly, that those dogs could have unknowingly *welcomed* that person into their yard!  Its a terrible thought, but unless you've ever actually owned a pitty, you wouldn't have any idea about their gentleness, eagerness to please, their affection, and their loyalty.

Sorry Jaime.... I responded while reading....
 
[][]