Are people who love pitties actually helping BSL spread?

Polar, you are brave indeed. I have read a few threads on idog concerning pitbulls and BLS etc. that have made me a little uncomfortable. My main concern being the portrait of these loving dogs that have been bred SPECIFICALLY not to be human aggressive. They are touted as the perfect pet. Any attacks are dismissed as owner fault or victim fault. Now this may all be true but due to the shear strength and potenial for severe injury/death, I would have hoped that all those who love and support this breed would ALWAYS include a cautionary note to potential owners. "This is not a dog for everybody." I never hear pitbull supporters say this! For the dog savvy owner, I think pits are great and as loving and gentle as you describe, but in inexperienced hands they can be lethal. I read more cautions to people asking about Aussies than Pits. I can only imagine in an effort to protect this breed that it has become polictically incorrect to say anything negative about them. I think this attitude gives a sense of false security, which as Polar pointed out will indeed back fire as far as potecting the breed from BLS.

ORIGINAL: denise m

Polar, you are brave indeed. I have read a few threads on idog concerning pitbulls and BLS etc. that have made me a little uncomfortable. My main concern being the portrait of these loving dogs that have been bred SPECIFICALLY not to be human aggressive. They are touted as the perfect pet. Any attacks are dismissed as owner fault or victim fault. Now this may all be true but due to the shear strength and potenial for severe injury/death, I would have hoped that all those who love and support this breed would ALWAYS include a cautionary note to potential owners. "This is not a dog for everybody." I never hear pitbull supporters say this! For the dog savvy owner, I think pits are great and as loving and gentle as you describe, but in inexperienced hands they can be lethal. I read more cautions to people asking about Aussies than Pits. I can only imagine in an effort to protect this breed that it has become polictically incorrect to say anything negative about them. I think this attitude gives a sense of false security, which as Polar pointed out will indeed back fire as far as potecting the breed from BLS.

They have ads for Pit Bull pups  in the Atlanta newspapers for as little as $100. You just know that these dogs are going to be purchased by people that have no idea how to raise and train  a dog. Then when their dog bites someone, they are going to try and blame that on the victim, and what the victim did wrong to deserve the bite....   That is why so many people want to enact BSLs.  They are sick and tired of dealing with dogs and owners that think this way.   

i think one of the biggest issues with BSL is the vague way "pit bull" is defined. for example the BSL in denver defines pit bulls this way (according to the abc affiliate in denver)...

"A pit bull is defined in the ordinance as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier, a Straffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of these breeds."

3 of those dogs are dogs that are part of major national registries. the last part could apply to a multitude of different dogs (including mixed breeds). who makes the call as to which dogs are deemed to be part of this ban? if you have ever looked at the breeds section, people are constantly posting to ask what breeds make up their mixed breed dog. opinions vary. if assumedly dog savy people cant determine for sure what is in the mix, are we going to trust a random cop to make the call? would you accept the judgement of a random person if they claimed your dog was a menace based purely on looks? can you pick the pit bull from these pictures? ....
[linkhttp://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html]http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html[/link]

once BSL is in place then what? are we taking dogs from people? that is exactly what they did in denver...

"Last month, 150 Denver residents were sent letters from Denver Animal Control, warning them that the city planned to resume its ban outlawing pit bulls within city limits on Monday. More than one dozen dogs were confiscated Monday by animal control officers."

there are people on these forums that are advocats of a proposed spay/neuter law in the hopes that such a law will save the lives of thousands of dogs each year. yet i see some of the same people ready to condemn a dog to death based its breed. which one of you is ready to call my dog or anyone else's a potential killer? are you also ready to put the needle in her arm? to look me in my tear filled eyes and tell me this was the right thing?

last i checked we were living in the USA not communist russia or nazi germany. as an american i have always prided myself on the fact that our society was better than those places. is it really? what is going on in denver is akin to what china was doing last year.

[linkhttp://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4467849/detail.html]http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4467849/detail.html[/link]

ORIGINAL: denise m

..... They are touted as the perfect pet. Any attacks are dismissed as owner fault or victim fault. Now this may all be true but due to the shear strength and potenial for severe injury/death, I would have hoped that all those who love and support this breed would ALWAYS include a cautionary note to potential owners. "This is not a dog for everybody." I never hear pitbull supporters say this!

I agree with your sentiment here, but I think one has to go far beyond the generic "This is not a dog for everybody". Actually I do see PB fanciers use that bland caution pretty frequently. So do Labrador fanciers, golden fanciers, beagle fanciers, papillon fanciers, newfie fanciers....

"Not a breed for everybody" is absolutely meaningless, unless that is followed by a very specific description of what the downsides are.
Beagles howl a lot, labs are bouncy and high energy and demanding as adolescents and they are adolescents until they are ten years old,....

PB's have historically been specifically bred to enjoy engaging in dog fights and to never give up once a fight has started, and to be physically capable of killing other muscular and athletic opponents. Even if PB's are not human aggressive, their tendency to engage in fights with other dogs should not be passed off as "only" aggressive to other dogs. I don't want my canine friends mauled any more than I want my human friends to be, and potential PB owners need to be made aware that they will have to take far more precautions in this regard than your typical beagle owner is likely to. And, for all the statements about how human-friendly PB's are, that may not necessarily apply to the very very large number of irresponsibly bred ones. There is no denying that a segment of society breeds PB's to be intimidating to humans, and so great care must be used in selecting a PB for a pet. They should only be obtained from responsible breeders or rescues who have gone to great lengths to test the stability of their animals around humans in stressful situations.

I happen to think that a PB with a proper temperment is one of the most charming and delightful dogs imaginable. But I agree with the original poster that blaming the victim, whether it is human or dog, when an attack occurs does the PB no good in the long run, and overselling the PB as the ideal companion without very specific caveats ultimately leads to them being owned by well meaning but unprepared owners who think that their dog "is very friendly, but he doesn't like to be touched by other people" and allow it to be walked in a poorly fitting collar by a 12 year old.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: sillysally

ORIGINAL: polarexpress


You can't have it both ways: If you believe a pit bull is a gentle, loving, people-friendly soul then it CANNOT be acceptable to have one maul someone for trying to pet it on a walk.  

I could not agree with you more.  I actually had the same thought as you last night when I was reading that thread but didn't really have the energy to respnd at the time.  Pit bulls are NOT supposed to be human aggressive.  A pit bull who growls at strangers is most likely an unstable dog that should have been PTS long before sometihng like this happened.  I am not one that tolerates human aggression, and honeslty I have never heard of a fearful dog the slips its collar and mauls someone.

Sally has a very high bite inhabition but can be shy around strangers.  If she were to become fear aggressive (God forbid) DH and I would have a horrible choice to make.

The other side of the coin that nobody wants to talk about , is that even a dog aggressive PB can be a dangerous problem for people to deal with.  There have been several instances in the Atlanta area in the last year, where a PB attacked someones dog while they were walking it on a public street , and the person tried to defend their dog and were severely bitten and  and in two cases disfigured by the attack.

As a pit owner I am perfectly willing to discuss dog aggression.

The reason why it was so important for pit bulls to not be human aggressive was so that the owners could reach in and break up a fight without being biten.  If a pit attacks someone breaking up a fight then they are human aggressive in my opinion.

I also think that there is a level of dog aggression that is unacceptable.  A dog that would try to kill any dog it sees is not, in my opinion at least, a dog that is stable.  A dog that attacks (I mean really attacks) puppies or dogs that are desperately trying to show signs of submission are unstable as well, IMHO.

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog

ORIGINAL: denise m

..... They are touted as the perfect pet. Any attacks are dismissed as owner fault or victim fault. Now this may all be true but due to the shear strength and potenial for severe injury/death, I would have hoped that all those who love and support this breed would ALWAYS include a cautionary note to potential owners. "This is not a dog for everybody." I never hear pitbull supporters say this!

I agree with your sentiment here, but I think one has to go far beyond the generic "This is not a dog for everybody". Actually I do see PB fanciers use that bland caution pretty frequently. So do Labrador fanciers, golden fanciers, beagle fanciers, papillon fanciers, newfie fanciers....

"Not a breed for everybody" is absolutely meaningless, unless that is followed by a very specific description of what the downsides are.
Beagles howl a lot, labs are bouncy and high energy and demanding as adolescents and they are adolescents until they are ten years old,....

PB's have historically been specifically bred to enjoy engaging in dog fights and to never give up once a fight has started, and to be physically capable of killing other muscular and athletic opponents. Even if PB's are not human aggressive, their tendency to engage in fights with other dogs should not be passed off as "only" aggressive to other dogs. I don't want my canine friends mauled any more than I want my human friends to be, and potential PB owners need to be made aware that they will have to take far more precautions in this regard than your typical beagle owner is likely to. And, for all the statements about how human-friendly PB's are, that may not necessarily apply to the very very large number of irresponsibly bred ones. There is no denying that a segment of society breeds PB's to be intimidating to humans, and so great care must be used in selecting a PB for a pet. They should only be obtained from responsible breeders or rescues who have gone to great lengths to test the stability of their animals around humans in stressful situations.

I happen to think that a PB with a proper temperment is one of the most charming and delightful dogs imaginable. But I agree with the original poster that blaming the victim, whether it is human or dog, when an attack occurs does the PB no good in the long run, and overselling the PB as the ideal companion without very specific caveats ultimately leads to them being owned by well meaning but unprepared owners who think that their dog "is very friendly, but he doesn't like to be touched by other people" and allow it to be walked in a poorly fitting collar by a 12 year old.

When I got my pit bull/pit bull mix (we don't really know-she was a stray so we are guessing) I knew nothing about dogs.  I did lots of reseach on pit bulls and I did not find pit bull sites to be overselling the breed at all.  In fact, they were all very, very cautionary.  When DH and I made the final decision to keep her we did have all the facts and have not really had any surprises.

I highly doubt this 12 year old was walking a human aggressive dog because pit bull rescues said they were good pets.  I think it is much more likely that she was walking a human aggressive dog on an ill-fitting collar because of a lack of common sense at home, not a lack of proper warnings from pit bull advocates.  Honestly, I would not let a 12 year old walk my non-dog aggressive, non-human aggressive, totally over-the-top friendly lab without some sort of supervision.

The majority of the RESPONSIBLE pit bull community are temperment Nazis.  The things that other dog owners see a behaviorist or trainer for, they euth for.  There was a woman I knew of who had one of her pits PTS literally because she did not like the posture of his body when he saw a stranger.  They do not recommend muzzles, they recommend the needle.  Even though dog aggression does occur in the breed, often if the dog aggression is very bad, euth is often  recommended.  This is not because of laziness, but rather in the "good of the group trumps the good the the individual" line of thinking.  Personally, I am pretty much in agreement with this thinking.  Extreme?  Maybe, but when you consider that we are discussing the very future of the breed here--not so much.

Who is at fault here?  The owners, plain and simple.  I hope that they are legally punished somehow.

-at the VERY LEAST, the dog should have been muzzled
-a large, huamn aggressive dog should NEVER, EVER, under ANY circumstances be walked by a 12 year old child-period
-no dog, aggressive or not should be walked on an ill-fitting collar.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

The blame should rest squarely on the owner. This dog was clearly a danger to society and should have been handled by a responsible adult when out in public and should have worn a muzzle. Anyone that takes a dog out like that without a muzzle, isn't very bright, in my opinion.

anyone who approaches a growling dog to pet it is stupid. if they get bit it is out of their own stupidity, and they need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Not going to argue with you other than to point  out that your attitude that it is the victims fault and they should tip toe around the Pit Bull, is what helps to convince people that the PB is a dangerous breed.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

The blame should rest squarely on the owner. This dog was clearly a danger to society and should have been handled by a responsible adult when out in public and should have worn a muzzle. Anyone that takes a dog out like that without a muzzle, isn't very bright, in my opinion.

anyone who approaches a growling dog to pet it is stupid. if they get bit it is out of their own stupidity, and they need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Not going to argue with you other than to point  out that your attitude that it is the victims fault and they should tip toe around the Pit Bull, is what helps to convince people that the PB is a dangerous breed.

my statements hold true regardless of breed.

i was trying to help a neighbor catch her GSD that got loose. when i got close, she growled at me. guess what... i had the good sense to back off as i didnt want to get bit. does that mean i have to tiptoe around all GSD's? hell no.

ORIGINAL: denise m

Polar, you are brave indeed. I have read a few threads on idog concerning pitbulls and BLS etc. that have made me a little uncomfortable. My main concern being the portrait of these loving dogs that have been bred SPECIFICALLY not to be human aggressive. They are touted as the perfect pet. Any attacks are dismissed as owner fault or victim fault. Now this may all be true but due to the shear strength and potenial for severe injury/death, I would have hoped that all those who love and support this breed would ALWAYS include a cautionary note to potential owners. "This is not a dog for everybody." I never hear pitbull supporters say this! For the dog savvy owner, I think pits are great and as loving and gentle as you describe, but in inexperienced hands they can be lethal. I read more cautions to people asking about Aussies than Pits. I can only imagine in an effort to protect this breed that it has become polictically incorrect to say anything negative about them. I think this attitude gives a sense of false security, which as Polar pointed out will indeed back fire as far as potecting the breed from BLS.

I doubt very much if the "bred not to be human aggressive applies anymore. Back in the day, when the dogs were bred for fighting, dogs that went after the handler were prombtly disposed of. That was where the " bred to be non human aggressive " came from.  I doubt that this is happening anymore. Quite a few Pit Bulls are from backyard breeders where a couple of Pits are  living tied to a tree 24/7 , are bred, and now you have 6 or more pups with parents that have zero socialization , and the pups probably won't either.  These are the dogs that you see every day in newspapers in major cities for $150 and up ( I saw about 25 in the local paper this morning) . From having worked in shelters, many of these dogs become  potentially dangerous to both people and other dogs. The people that buy them want a "tough looking dog " that will get them "respect" in their neighborhood. I have heard some of these young people that get these dogs brag to their friends that there dogs growl at people and other dogs  when they take them  for a walk, and probably encourage that type behavior, because they think it is "cool" .  I have seen people come to the shelter and actually seek out "red zone" dogs for their toughness.  We always turn them away. 

So it's almost a chicken or egg kind of situtation.  Are ignorant people drawn to Pit Bulls because they have the reputation for being  anti-social and dangerous, or are Pit Bull's anti-social and dangerous because they are purchased by ignorant people and not raised or bred properly?  Whatever the answer is, when someone moves into the house next to you with two of these dogs, which are tied up in the back yard, much of the day and periodically break loose or are seen walking on the street with someone that has no control over them ( like a 12 year old kid, for instance) , it is a frightning situation and has caused many people to start looking  for a new house. A co-worker of mine with three young children, had this happen to him a couple of years ago, and he had a difficult time selling his house and had to drop the price several times, because the people coming to see the house were frightened by the dogs next door.  He finally sold it to a retired cop that told him that he would "deal with any dog problems that might crop up" .    Many subdivisions in the County that I live in, ban  this particular  breed, because of this exact problem.   This is the issue that usually has the BSL  folks getting together and trying to set one up.  When they read in the paper that the owner tries to blame the victim for his dog attacking someone, as was previously mentioned, then they really see red....

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: denise m

Polar, you are brave indeed. I have read a few threads on idog concerning pitbulls and BLS etc. that have made me a little uncomfortable. My main concern being the portrait of these loving dogs that have been bred SPECIFICALLY not to be human aggressive. They are touted as the perfect pet. Any attacks are dismissed as owner fault or victim fault. Now this may all be true but due to the shear strength and potenial for severe injury/death, I would have hoped that all those who love and support this breed would ALWAYS include a cautionary note to potential owners. "This is not a dog for everybody." I never hear pitbull supporters say this! For the dog savvy owner, I think pits are great and as loving and gentle as you describe, but in inexperienced hands they can be lethal. I read more cautions to people asking about Aussies than Pits. I can only imagine in an effort to protect this breed that it has become polictically incorrect to say anything negative about them. I think this attitude gives a sense of false security, which as Polar pointed out will indeed back fire as far as potecting the breed from BLS.

I doubt very much if the "bred not to be human aggressive applies anymore. Back in the day, when the dogs were bred for fighting, dogs that went after the handler were prombtly disposed of. That was where the " bred to be non human aggressive " came from.  I doubt that this is happening anymore. Quite a few Pit Bulls are from backyard breeders where a couple of Pits are  living tied to a tree 24/7 , are bred, and now you have 6 or more pups with parents that have zero socialization , and the pups probably won't either.  These are the dogs that you see every day in newspapers in major cities for $150 and up ( I saw about 25 in the local paper this morning) . From having worked in shelters, many of these dogs become  potentially dangerous to both people and other dogs. The people that buy them want a "tough looking dog " that will get them "respect" in their neighborhood. I have heard some of these young people that get these dogs brag to their friends that there dogs growl at people and other dogs  when they take them  for a walk, and probably encourage that type behavior, because they think it is "cool" .  I have seen people come to the shelter and actually seek out "red zone" dogs for their toughness.  We always turn them away.

I think that you have the good breeders, the merely irresponsible (not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination), and the Bad Breeders.  I think that most pit breeders are just irresponsible and a bit ignorant.  I do, however, theink that there are pit breeders who deliberately breed huamn aggressive dogs.  I do not think that they are the majority by any means, but I do think they exist.  It is the breeders like this that are the reason that so many pits are in shelters. 
Well I'll be, I think I just talked myself into backing a spay/neuter law.....

There are people out there fighting the good fight and trying desperately to keep ill-tempered dogs out of the gene pool.

I would also like to point out that none of the people on here who blamed the victim were actually pit bulls owners, now were they?

Quite a few Pit Bulls are from backyard breeders where a couple of Pits are living tied to a tree 24/7 , are bred, and now you have 6 or more pups with parents that have zero socialization , and the pups probably won't either.

It is really questionable as to how many of the BYB pit bulls are anything more than mongrels.  It is a shame to condemn a breed for the actions of their poorly bred, mongrel cousins.
 

ORIGINAL: sillysally


I would also like to point out that none of the people on here who blamed the victim were actually pit bulls owners, now were they?

Don't know, and don't care really. Sure the women shouldn't have petted the dog, but nobody knows what was going on in the women's mind. Maybe she knew zip about dogs and also didn't have a good grasp of English. She may have thought that if she petted the dog, she could make friends with it and it would stop growling. That is not the issue in this situation.  The issue, is that the dog was a dangerous dog and apparently the 12 year old knew this because she warned the women who may or may not have understood the situation.

I have asked this before, and will repeat the question, what if instead of a grown women, a small child had run up to the same  dog and tried to pet it?  ( They do this with my dog all the time, because she looks friendly ) The end result of that situation may have resulted in  a dead or disfigured child, and the 12 year old would have been in no position  or wouldn't  have had the capability to protect the child from the dog.  That is why the owner of the dog is the one at fault. That dog should not have been out without a muzzle, and should not have been out with a 12 year old walking it, with apparently no to minimal control over the dog.  I am training  two diffferent Pits at the shelter now, and I can't think of any 12 year olds that I personally know that could handle either one of the dogs I am working with, if those dogs  decided they didn't want to listen and started running for something. So the idea that this 12 year old could control the dog in this situation, a dog that even  a grown man couldn't stop from attacking the victim, is totally ridiculous. To blame the victim , is just as ridiculous in my opinion. And to blame the victim, just makes the BSL people think that they are on the right track. 

I think an appropriate conversation to have and expose JQP to would include BOTH the irresponsibility of the owner is this case and the correct way to behave with strange dogs. 

Ultimately, the dog owner holds the most blame because she knew her dog had issues, but ignored them with the ever-frustrating "my dog is too good to ever do any thing really bad."  It is a form of willful ignorance I see in too many dog owners, frankly.  There is this idea that lovable dogs can not be dangerous - my next door neighbor has the same idea bout her Old English Sheepdogs.  I want to shake people like this.  It is one of my all time pet peeves. I'm not sure what the answer is.

On the other hand, the non-dog owning population needs education on proper dog related behavior. I wonder what it is about little old ladies, in particular.  They are the one group of people that consistently freak Sasha out by looming over and reaching.  Sasha loves people, and isn't going to go on a rampage, but she finds it upsetting when a stranger "dominates" her in this way.  People need to know that in a dog's eyes, that kind of approach is offesnive and threatening.  Most dogs learn that people are dumb and have poor manners, but some dogs never really get that the person isn't speaking dog. 

A good rule of thumb is - never attempt to touch another person's dog without permission.  (Emergencies excluded, of course). 

Dogs are powerful creatures.  They deserve respect, not just adoration.  All dogs will bite, under the right circumstances. 

ORIGINAL: sillysally

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog

ORIGINAL: denise m

..... They are touted as the perfect pet. Any attacks are dismissed as owner fault or victim fault. Now this may all be true but due to the shear strength and potenial for severe injury/death, I would have hoped that all those who love and support this breed would ALWAYS include a cautionary note to potential owners. "This is not a dog for everybody." I never hear pitbull supporters say this!

I agree with your sentiment here, but I think one has to go far beyond the generic "This is not a dog for everybody". Actually I do see PB fanciers use that bland caution pretty frequently. So do Labrador fanciers, golden fanciers, beagle fanciers, papillon fanciers, newfie fanciers....

"Not a breed for everybody" is absolutely meaningless, unless that is followed by a very specific description of what the downsides are.
Beagles howl a lot, labs are bouncy and high energy and demanding as adolescents and they are adolescents until they are ten years old,....

PB's have historically been specifically bred to enjoy engaging in dog fights and to never give up once a fight has started, and to be physically capable of killing other muscular and athletic opponents. Even if PB's are not human aggressive, their tendency to engage in fights with other dogs should not be passed off as "only" aggressive to other dogs. I don't want my canine friends mauled any more than I want my human friends to be, and potential PB owners need to be made aware that they will have to take far more precautions in this regard than your typical beagle owner is likely to. And, for all the statements about how human-friendly PB's are, that may not necessarily apply to the very very large number of irresponsibly bred ones. There is no denying that a segment of society breeds PB's to be intimidating to humans, and so great care must be used in selecting a PB for a pet. They should only be obtained from responsible breeders or rescues who have gone to great lengths to test the stability of their animals around humans in stressful situations.

I happen to think that a PB with a proper temperment is one of the most charming and delightful dogs imaginable. But I agree with the original poster that blaming the victim, whether it is human or dog, when an attack occurs does the PB no good in the long run, and overselling the PB as the ideal companion without very specific caveats ultimately leads to them being owned by well meaning but unprepared owners who think that their dog "is very friendly, but he doesn't like to be touched by other people" and allow it to be walked in a poorly fitting collar by a 12 year old.

When I got my pit bull/pit bull mix (we don't really know-she was a stray so we are guessing) I knew nothing about dogs.  I did lots of reseach on pit bulls and I did not find pit bull sites to be overselling the breed at all.  In fact, they were all very, very cautionary.  When DH and I made the final decision to keep her we did have all the facts and have not really had any surprises.

I highly doubt this 12 year old was walking a human aggressive dog because pit bull rescues said they were good pets.  I think it is much more likely that she was walking a human aggressive dog on an ill-fitting collar because of a lack of common sense at home, not a lack of proper warnings from pit bull advocates.  Honestly, I would not let a 12 year old walk my non-dog aggressive, non-human aggressive, totally over-the-top friendly lab without some sort of supervision.

The majority of the RESPONSIBLE pit bull community are temperment Nazis.  The things that other dog owners see a behaviorist or trainer for, they euth for.  There was a woman I knew of who had one of her pits PTS literally because she did not like the posture of his body when he saw a stranger.  They do not recommend muzzles, they recommend the needle.  Even though dog aggression does occur in the breed, often if the dog aggression is very bad, euth is often  recommended.  This is not because of laziness, but rather in the "good of the group trumps the good the the individual" line of thinking.  Personally, I am pretty much in agreement with this thinking.  Extreme?  Maybe, but when you consider that we are discussing the very future of the breed here--not so much.

Who is at fault here?  The owners, plain and simple.  I hope that they are legally punished somehow.

-at the VERY LEAST, the dog should have been muzzled
-a large, huamn aggressive dog should NEVER, EVER, under ANY circumstances be walked by a 12 year old child-period
-no dog, aggressive or not should be walked on an ill-fitting collar.

 
 
Bob, please read the above post.  I am agreeing with you.  I am not sure why you are trying to argue with me......

Sounds like the lady used poor judgement.  Also, what was a 12 year old doing walking the dog alone?  Pitty, Rottie, GSD, whatever, if the dog growls at you, you don't try to touch it.  I am teaching Madison that she is to ask before she approaches any dog.  It's common sense.