The Pit Bull Ban: Yay or Nay

Irish..
You cannot debate without facts, and here are some,...
 
1. dog, and human aggression are separate, very different aspects of dog behavior.
 
2. PB's have never historically been bred for people aggression...ever. Many other breeds were, but not PB's.
 
Now the two things above, you seem unable or unwilling to open yourself to. I wonder why that is?
Perhaps if you explain this to us, we can understand you better. Please explain...or cite how PB's were historically bred for aggression towards human beings...and then that dog aggression will always, inevitably lead to human aggression?
 
Your debate rather peters out when you consider...that you will never convince anti BSL people...that you are right. Period. So one wonders who exactly...you are targeting with your comments? Again...who are you speaking to? Who do you want to reach? The undecided? If so...there probably are very few here on this list...this fence is a hard one to straddle. In the absence of a middle of the road audience...it's not so much debate as it is "I am right because"...countered with "I am right because".

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

Irish..
You cannot debate without facts, and here are some,...
 
1. dog, and human aggression are separate, very different aspects of dog behavior. 
 
They may be, but pit bulls as a breed are aggressive towards both. Also, originally seeing the damage PBs can do to other dogs may be why they are now in some parts being bred/used for human aggression, to instill the same (justified) fear in people.

2. PB's have never historically been bred for people aggression...ever. Many other breeds were, but not PB's.
 
Alright, but the point is now they are used for human aggression by a lot of people. And when someone breeds one to be human aggressive and the puppy therefore is the same way, and that puppy later has a pup who is the same way, it is spreading.

Now the two things above, you seem unable or unwilling to open yourself to. I wonder why that is?
Perhaps if you explain this to us, we can understand you better. Please explain...or cite how PB's were historically bred for aggression towards human beings...and then that dog aggression will always, inevitably lead to human aggression?
 
I tried my best to explain my case. Dog aggression with ALL breeds will not always inevitably lead to human aggression, but in pit bulls that is often the case. They were originally bred to be dog aggressive, and now they are being bred/used to be human aggressive.

Your debate rather peters out when you consider...that you will never convince anti BSL people...that you are right. Period. So one wonders who exactly...you are targeting with your comments? Again...who are you speaking to? Who do you want to reach? The undecided? If so...there probably are very few here on this list...this fence is a hard one to straddle. In the absence of a middle of the road audience...it's not so much debate as it is "I am right because"...countered with "I am right because".
 
I am *debating* an issue, that doesn't mean my ultimate goal is to persuade others to agree with me. I am merely showing my side of the issue, and others don't agree with it, then  that's fine. That's why it's a debate. Debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. Yes, this is a debate.

 
[I put my responses in bold for clarity, I'm not the best with the quote tool so I don't know how to quote an individual part and respond to that in the normal  box]

And when someone breeds one to be human aggressive and the puppy therefore is the same way, and that puppy later has a pup who is the same way, it is spreading.

Is it?  Everything I read says human aggression is not carried genetically.  Maybe BYBs are selling dogs to unfit owners who are conditioning generations of pits to be agressive, but that's not the same.  And if this is the case, let's crack down on BYBs, not blanket-ban breeds.  Otherwise, why stop with pits?  How about Rotties, Chows, Akitas, and GSDs?

You tend to state things as tho they are facts...when that isn't the case, it is merely your observation or opinion.
 
Since you have, I assume (please correct if otherwise) limited experience owning or breeding or even studying the breed as a whole, you've been focusing only on one aspect, for a short period of time, and you had a heavy bias to begin with. Would that be a fair statement?
 
If you read the recent article posted in General....you could see even today, as brutal as these people are that dog fight...aggression towards people is seen as something to avoid and condemn. Not sure why you keep connecting the two things, when even the people who LIKE the one...condemn and discourage the other? Even people fighting dogs...do not agree with you on that, and certainly aren't breeding to make thier money makers harder to handle...so you are getting more and more isolated on "opinion" island, there.

Wow.
I cannot believe that after being told FACTS, you cannot accept them, Irish.

For the LOVE OF GOD. Pit bulls are NOT bred to be human aggressive. They NEVER were. IN FACT, they were bred to be SO human-FRIENDLY (yes, the opposite of human aggressive) that their owners had to be able to pull them out of a pit WHILE fighting another dog.

What about this are you NOT understanding??? The pit bull attacks happening, that the media CLAIMS are happening, are 99% of the time NOT MADE BY ACTUAL AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIERS. Most everyday common people can't even tell the difference between a pit bull and a labrador.

Every breed can produce a "fluke" every now and then. There are labradors that won't retrieve (a joke on the radio was that a guy had a labrador retriever that he called a labrador observer because the dog would simply watch him throw stuff and never retrieve it), dobermans and GSDs that won't guard. NO pit bulls do NOT have a propensity towards human aggression. Your ideas are WRONG. They are NOT backed up by facts. You are spewing ignorance about my breed of dog and I do NOT appreciate your falsities.

Please. Leave MY breed alone and I'll leave YOURS alone.

The ban requires that the dogs be spayed/neutered and leashed and muzzled in public.

If those were the stipulations it wouldn't be called a "ban".
What you described is simply Breed Specific Legislation and considering that it singles out a breed(s) of dog is terrible as well.

You miss the point,,, setters didnt start out stupid...
 
I guess the point I really need to make is bigotry is bigotry plain and simple.

The arguments you are presenting, Irish, are simply your opinion. I don't think its safe to say that "pit bulls" as a breed are unstable, unpredictable or human aggressive.

I have never met in my life a pit bull that was human aggressive.

Based on temperament test statistics, that have been provided here for you, pit bulls have very consistent high scores/passing rates on them. Better, in fact, than many popular breeds. You have been provided with bite statistics, have been told that APBTs, ASTs, Staffy Bulls, Cane Corsos, Presa Canarios, mixed "pit bull" breeds, etc. are incredibly hard to indentify.

I would also like to add that as I watched the videos you provided, in the first two links that you posted, I saw dogs that were play bowing, dogs that were muzzled most likely due to BSL, not necessarily the dog's temperament, dogs that looked strong and brave and beautiful (the dogs that were simply sitting, or standing, looking noble). Sure, there were dogs baring their teeth, but it very well could have been at another dog... and don't all dogs bare their teeth?? Many breeds at humans??

IrishSetterGrl, answer me this, and answer it truthfully:


Are you actually reading all these posts that have been givin to you?  I feel like you're just sitting on the sidelines tossing in occasional "facts" (which are really just opinions, mind you) for us to get angry over.  It seems to me like there is NO point to this thread other than to just make people angry, which it seems to be doing quite well.  You say you're "not trying to cause an upset"....well gosh what the heck do you THINK you're doing?  No offense, but your case was doomed from the start.  This is a forum of dog lovers.  You're not calling anyone's dog a devil...but you're saying they're all going to turn on their owners unexpectedly...?  Good GRIEF.  Can you not understand that dog aggression CANNOT turn into human aggression?  They are two completely different things.  Pit bulls are in NO WAY inherently people aggressive. 

The pit bull is the victim here due to a series of cause and effects.

-Pit bulls were originally bred to fight other animals- dogs, bulls, what have you.  They were bred to be extremely people friendly.  Because of their history they are sometimes DOG AGGRESSIVE, not HUMAN AGGRESSIVE.

  -->This history of being 'tough' and able to stand up to a bull and win gives them an image that often attracts, unfortunately, the wrong kind of people.  These 'tough guys' want a dog that can show how "cool" and how tough they are.  They want a dog that demonstrates how "bada$$" the guy wishes he was himself.  They want to scare people.

-->So these guys get pit bulls and they raise them poorly.  They want that tough image and so they raise them in such a way that they will act that way.  Not because they're pit bulls, but because these tough guys WANT them to be that way because they're pit bulls and that's how they think pit bulls are supposed to be.  They are rough with the dogs, they instigate fights.  They encourage aggression toward humans.

-->So now we have a bunch of tough guys with their tough dogs that are not only dog aggressive, but extremely human aggressive as well.  Hot dang.  Now when one of these pits gets loose (as they're likely to do seeing as they're kept chained up or fenced outside with no supervision), it is a danger to society.  Not because its a pit, but because it was raised by some stupid fool who thinks pits are supposed to be evil.

-->When that pit bites a kid, the government steps in.  'Well, a loose pit bit a kid LAST week,' they think, 'good god they're all EVIL!'  Do they ever once stop to follow up the whole story?  Do they go to the roots of the problem?  No, of course not.  They ban the breed.  Now we have what everyone here is so afraid of.  Pits who were raised by GOOD owners (who know of course that pits are NOT supposed to be human aggressive) are suddenly finding themselves wrenched from their loving homes and killed. 

-->Now that all the tough guys have had their dogs confiscated (do they really care?  No, it was just a dog to them anyways) they start looking around for more dogs.  Well gosh, you know, look at those Rhodesian Ridgebacks....hot DANG they're s'posed to fight freakin' LIONS!  By golly, they must be crazy mean, I gotta get me one o' THEM!

And so it goes.


This is getting repetitive I think.

Ok...it seems to me that everyone is missing the big picture, not intentionally but thats the way it appears. The biggest factor is not whether pit bulls were originally bred to be human aggressive or not, it's where they are now. Now, a lot of them are. Is it because of breeding? Ownership? Abandonment? Or just the way Pits are? I don't know in every single case. But most fatal attacks involve pit bulls, it is a fact. So yes, pit bulls are dangerous to society (the point I've been trying to make all along). Therefore, if pit bulls were prohibited, fatal attacks would decrease and more lives, human and canine, would be saved. Why is that not important to some of you (or so it seems)? I know ifa pit attacked one of my dogs or myself/a relative, and the dog was PTS, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it. Any pit bull can do that. Is it really worth the risk? How many lives could be saved if pit bulls were not allowed? I guess the only way to see is to not allow pit bulls.
 
BTW ~ to some of the respondees: when you use caps and "yell", people tend to take what you say less seriously and your posts seem more targeted at the poster instead of targeting the poster's position, which only takes away from the content of your message. Saying things like, "WHAT ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING" is childish. I didn't insult anyone in particular, there's no point to it.
 
 

Let's see if I can remember this correctly....even if not, it should make a point.
 
First they came for the gypsies, but I'm not a gypsie so I didn't care.
Then they came for the jews, but I'm not a jew, so I didn't care.
Then they came for the catholics, but I'm not a catholic, so I didn't care.
Then they came for the blacks, but I'm not black, so I didn't care.
Then they came for the Christians, but I'm not a Christian, so I didn't care.
Then they came for me and no one was left to care.
 
Let's put this banning of dogs into perspective.  Pitties were never BRED to be human agressive.  German shepherds for many years have been bred to have a certain drive, trained as police dogs, drug sniffers, ammo sniffers, bomb sniffers, personal protection dogs.  So, it could be said that gsds are HUMAN agressive.  Not true, but they are often used in areas that cause them to be bred and trained towards that end.  I myself was badly mauled by a "trained guard dog" gsd, yet I got over it and share my home, and my bed, with SIX of them.
 
When we start banning dogs simply because of their breed we start up a slippery slope and who's next?  What breed comes AFTER pitties?  Certainly not my CGC german shepherds?  Certainly not my therapy gsd who works with the elderly, arguably the most vulnerable portion of the population?  Yep, once pitties are banned some fool will start screaming about the NEXT breed that*might* be human agressive.  Yep, lets blindly follow this lead, lets let our government continue to erode our personal rights.  Gosh, someday they might even decide to regulate who can and who can't have CHILDREN.....altho, that *might* not be a bad idea.......
 
Oh, and didn't we not so long ago have a thread about leading biters?  As I recall wasn't it something like LABS?

ORIGINAL: Nikki_Burr

IrishSetterGrl, answer me this, and answer it truthfully:
No problem. []

Are you actually reading all these posts that have been givin to you? 
Yes, I am reading them.
 
 I feel like you're just sitting on the sidelines tossing in occasional "facts" (which are really just opinions, mind you) for us to get angry over.  It seems to me like there is NO point to this thread other than to just make people angry, which it seems to be doing quite well.  You say you're "not trying to cause an upset"....well gosh what the heck do you THINK you're doing?  No offense, but your case was doomed from the start.  This is a forum of dog lovers.  You're not calling anyone's dog a devil...but you're saying they're all going to turn on their owners unexpectedly...?  Good GRIEF. 
For the last time, no, I am not trying to make anyone angry. I am stating my opinion and explaining it. I am a dog lover, too. Because I'm pro-ban I don't love dogs? So you all are the only ones who love them? Yeah, I must hate my puppy who I adopted from the humane society. I'm so cold. The obedience classes, $140 cage, $300 adoption fee, $200 vet bills, and most of all love and care just scream "dog hater!". All PBs CAN turn on their owners unexpectedly, moreso than other breeds. No, I did not call any dog a devil, and I honestly would appreciate it if words were not put in my mouth. Am I not allowed to oppose an issue? It's all good when everyone opposes the ban, right.
 
Can you not understand that dog aggression CANNOT turn into human aggression?  They are two completely different things.  Pit bulls are in NO WAY inherently people aggressive. 
If you read what I wrote, I said that people are now breeding/using PBs to be human aggressive. Is it impossible that the natural urge a lot of PBs have to fight dogs also arises with humans? The thrill of attack, and going in for the kill?

The pit bull is the victim here due to a series of cause and effects.

-Pit bulls were originally bred to fight other animals- dogs, bulls, what have you.  They were bred to be extremely people friendly.  Because of their history they are sometimes DOG AGGRESSIVE, not HUMAN AGGRESSIVE.
So pit bulls are not human aggressive? With pit bulls being largely responsible for human attacks, that makes perfect sense.

-->This history of being 'tough' and able to stand up to a bull and win gives them an image that often attracts, unfortunately, the wrong kind of people.  These 'tough guys' want a dog that can show how "cool" and how tough they are.  They want a dog that demonstrates how "bada$$" the guy wishes he was himself.  They want to scare people.
 
I know...

-->So these guys get pit bulls and they raise them poorly.  They want that tough image and so they raise them in such a way that they will act that way.  Not because they're pit bulls, but because these tough guys WANT them to be that way because they're pit bulls and that's how they think pit bulls are supposed to be.  They are rough with the dogs, they instigate fights.  They encourage aggression toward humans.
Exactly, so the dogs become human aggressive. Also, not all pit bulls that attack are from criminals. Some are family members who one day, for one reason or another, do what pit bulls are fully capable of doing.

-->So now we have a bunch of tough guys with their tough dogs that are not only dog aggressive, but extremely human aggressive as well.  Hot dang.  Now when one of these pits gets loose (as they're likely to do seeing as they're kept chained up or fenced outside with no supervision), it is a danger to society.  Not because its a pit, but because it was raised by some stupid fool who thinks pits are supposed to be evil.
Pit bulls are dangerous to society, and all of them have the power and potential to attack and kill - despite the environment they are in. Also, even if PBs raised by 'stupid fools' are more aggressive, these dogs often end up in shelters, and can pass temperament tests. Then, a normal family adopts the dog and bam, one day, the dog attacks.

-->When that pit bites a kid, the government steps in.  'Well, a loose pit bit a kid LAST week,' they think, 'good god they're all EVIL!'  Do they ever once stop to follow up the whole story?  Do they go to the roots of the problem?  No, of course not.  They ban the breed.  Now we have what everyone here is so afraid of.  Pits who were raised by GOOD owners (who know of course that pits are NOT supposed to be human aggressive) are suddenly finding themselves wrenched from their loving homes and killed. 
I understand why pit owners would be upset. But, pit bulls are more responsible for fatal attacks than other breeds. Pit bulls. Not pit bulls from the Bronx. Or Detroit. Pit bulls attack.

-->Now that all the tough guys have had their dogs confiscated (do they really care?  No, it was just a dog to them anyways) they start looking around for more dogs.  Well gosh, you know, look at those Rhodesian Ridgebacks....hot DANG they're s'posed to fight freakin' LIONS!  By golly, they must be crazy mean, I gotta get me one o' THEM!
Alright...the thing is, this concern is not addressing the current problem of pit bull attacks and the dangerous to society. Anyway, to prevent this, maybe everyone should have to obtain a permit before adopting/buying a dog. Pet stores, shelters, or anyone who does not check for permits should be punished. Permits should only be given to people who do not have criminal records. This may help the bad owner problem, but it doesn't take into account the many pit bulls out there today who will attack. The ban would. The issue is pit bulls, everyone - if you have to resort to problems that are not prominent yet (leaving pits b/c of a ban and switching to another breed), that is a big sign your case is not very effective. "What ifs...." in the sense of creating a scenario which has not even happened yet makes no sense.

And so it goes.


This is getting repetitive I think.
I agree.

 
My responses in bold.

ORIGINAL: IrishSetterGrl

Ok...it seems to me that everyone is missing the big picture, not intentionally but thats the way it appears. The biggest factor is not whether pit bulls were originally bred to be human aggressive or not, it's where they are now. Now, a lot of them are. Is it because of breeding? Ownership? Abandonment? Or just the way Pits are? I don't know in every single case. But most fatal attacks involve pit bulls, it is a fact. So yes, pit bulls are dangerous to society (the point I've been trying to make all along). Therefore, if pit bulls were prohibited, fatal attacks would decrease and more lives, human and canine, would be saved. Why is that not important to some of you (or so it seems)? I know ifa pit attacked one of my dogs or myself/a relative, and the dog was PTS, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it. Any pit bull can do that. Is it really worth the risk? How many lives could be saved if pit bulls were not allowed? I guess the only way to see is to not allow pit bulls.

BTW ~ to some of the respondees: when you use caps and "yell", people tend to take what you say less seriously and your posts seem more targeted at the poster instead of targeting the poster's position, which only takes away from the content of your message. Saying things like, "WHAT ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING" is childish. I didn't insult anyone in particular, there's no point to it.

We're not missing the big picture, you are.

Pit bulls are not human aggressive now. Have you not read any of the posts in this thread??????


Pit bulls were bred to be human friendly and still are that way.


The media misinforms about dog attacks being pit bull attacks. As I have said before in my previous post, most people cannot tell the difference between a pit bull and most other breeds of dogs.

Childish? I'm sorry, if you came here asking questions, I'd be more tolerant and I'd educate you. But you come here claiming things as fact when you are obviously ignorant (lacking knowledge of). You'd obviously rather rely on the "sources" that have told you false things about pit bulls then to listen to people who actually owned and have owned the breed.
So, childish? Whatever. I'm not going to beg to be nice to someone who is thinking that wiping my dog's breed off the face of the earth is the answer to all problems with dogs and human attacks.
You're not here to become knowledgeable about pit bulls and BSL, you're here to stir trouble at the expense of MY dog. Think what you want**Content removed**

Therefore, if pit bulls were prohibited, fatal attacks would decrease and more lives, human and canine, would be saved. Why is that not important to some of you (or so it seems)? I know ifa pit attacked one of my dogs or myself/a relative, and the dog was PTS, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it. Any pit bull can do that. Is it really worth the risk? How many lives could be saved if pit bulls were not allowed? 

Thousands of lives would be lost (canine) and ruined (human) were pit bulls to be banned.

I....don't think I have ever been so at a loss for words.
 
You...keep saying...that you're not here to offend anyone....and yet...you're saying, in the next breath...that our own family pets should be drug away and killed because they are killers? I....ow. Ow.
 
Sigh. You know, this is just me, but I don't think theres any point in even continuing this discussion. It's one thing not to know something and be willing to learn. Willful ignorance is another.
 
If I ever meet you dragging your big doofy dog down the street, don't worry about my vicious pit bull and akita mauling your dog. We'll be running, far, far FAR away the second we see you coming.