What Should Be Done About Pit Bull Owners?

I agree dubilpie, it is more about the severity of the attack than which breed of dog. There are far more bites from other breeds than bullys but some of the most tragic tend to be the bully or high drive breeds, like the 7 year old that was killed this week,and the lady that was killed by the Preso's in a couple years ago.Looking at old statistics from 1996-1998 most were HIGH drive dogs or Bullys, with Pits and Rottweilers , Husky's, German Shepards and Wolf Hybrids being on the list. Again a lot of the problem is that the drive in these breeds is intense, the instinct to commit and not back down, the guardian instinct, the hunting instinct (depending on what breed) so that once there is some sort of trigger and these types do attack a human it tends to be worse than your average dog bite. I am not saying that any one breed is a problem, I am only saying if we own a dog with this type of drive we should always be aware of what it could do if triggered.

 
Please keep in mind that stats can be skewed easily.  Did they take into account the number of dogs overall in the country when this happened?  If one breed attacks someone but there are only 100 of them in the country, 1% of the breed can be considered aggressive.  But if 5 of another breed attack someone but there are 1000 in the country only .5% can be considered aggressive.  BUT if those 5 that attacked were a large breed and the one that attacked was a small breed, chances are #1 the attack from the small breed caused minor damage and therefor probably wasn't reported.  #2 the attack from the larger breed probably caused more damage and therefor was not only reported but hit the media due to the publicity.  So to the public thinks the larger breed is more aggressive than the smaller breed even though in all actuality the smaller breed is more likely to attack.

Keep on believing what you are believing and preaching what you are preaching and soon enough someone will call out your dog's breed or mix as aggressive and then you'll understand why the precedent you choose to support will be the undoing of responsible dog ownership everywhere.

 
Yeah,,,this is true. Make no mistake...its not just PBs that are at stake her.  Maybe they are in the most danger right now...but I have seen too many lists of dogs that people want outlawed.

And to clarify something, I don't own and probably never will own a pittie or an amstaff.  I admire the breed but I don't connect very well with them.  So don't think I'm defending them selfishly because I'm not.  I'm defending them because they are NOT the monsters that some people portray them as. 

I grew up with GSDs.  And yes, it was said that they'll "turn on you" and I heard the myth that "Dobermans go crazy when they hit 3 years old because their brains are too big for their heads."  Poppycock.  Dogs don't get mean for no reason.  People make them that way.  And sometimes dogs get a bad reputation for only looking similar to other dogs.  Me and my "miniature red doberman" know all about that.  We also know that educating people about dogs and how to act around them will save more blood than eliminating any particular breed of dog.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes


Gee when my dog was a pup, he got stepped on and scared by a larger dog, when I went to pick him up, he put a nice gash in my nose.  So now he's "people aggressive?" 

Wrong. 

.....But here you are claiming that reactivity is human aggression.  That's just not so.  Have you ever gotten mad at another driver while you were sitting in traffic?  That's road rage.  It doesn't mean you're an aggressive person all the time.  It doesn't mean you are a violent person.  You just reacted.  It's very similar to getting one's self into the middle of a dog fight.
....

Ok. So the hypothetical pit bull that Bob refered to as being human aggressive because it hypothetically bit someone trying to break up a hypothetical fight wasn't really human aggressive. So what? If someone is seriously bitten by a dog, they aren't going to care all that much about the niceties of whether this was human aggression, reactivity, resource guarding, blah blah blah. A serious bite is a serious bite regardless of what the dog was thinking at the time. And, the hypothetical victim of this bite isn't likely to be indifferent to the fact that his canine buddy's life was in grave peril either, which is why he hypothetically tried to break up the hypothetical fight in the first place. In terms of how one might train or manage a biter in the future, the motivation is important, but in terms of the dog being inflicting damage, the damage is what it is, regardless.

One of the mantra's is that pit bulls aren't typically human aggressive, "only" dog aggressive. But, no dog lover wants to see their pet injured or killed either, and it is not rare for people to be injured during the course of a dog fight. It's not like dog aggression is a trivial issue, and it does a disservice to pit bulls to fail to address the problems it causes. Claiming that there isn't really a problem because the streets aren't running red with pit bull induced blood fails to address the problem and ultimately fails to help the breed. As my personal experience attests, and as other posts in this thread attest, one of the reasons the streets aren't running red with blood is because other people are having to restrict their freedom in order to avoid encounters that are potentially dangerous to their own pets and to themselves.

ORIGINAL:Mirandadobe
A pit CAN do different damage than a cocker spaniel and those who think otherwise are fooling themselves. I understand the fear of just the kind of damage/impact we're talking about. Reasonably you cannot really compare the severity as equally as some might want to. BUT. If this was 1972, you would all be talking about my breed. dgriego's comments that the popularity is what has increased the volume of pits and thus the volume of incidents is pointed. Perhaps for another thread I'd like to throw out the possibility that in 5-10yrs we're going to see an onslaught of fear-biting "labra-golden-shnauzer-whatever else they mix with-doodles" who have been bred from the poorest stock of the poorest stock of their originating breeds. (ie, the worst of the worst) Maybe there will be a "what should be done about the -doodles" conversation. Maybe not. But either one (from my perspective) boils down to understanding the breed(s) while maintaining their integrity, reducing litters produced for mass consumption of an injudicious type, and general improvement in PET OWNERSHIP and its inherent responsibility. Maybe people think the last one really is too difficult to turn as a culture. But if that's the case, then these breed bans will only continue to repeat themselves against breed after breed until we all have left is something medium-sized, beige, with a short coat, long tail, prick ear, and ultimately no breeds whatsoever. Not the kind of world I want.

I agree that a big portion of the problem is related to the huge number of pits, which inevitably means that many of them are going to be owned by people who have no businsess owning a gerbil, much less a large potentially dangerous dog. Which brings us back to the original question in this thread - what to do about the owners of pit bulls. Nearly everyone in this discussion, including me, agrees that banning the breed is an injustice to the responsible owners of what can be a delightful companion when responsibly bred and owned. But the only way to reduce the number of pit bulls is to either increase the death rate (bad) or decrease the birth rate (good, in my opinion). So what can be done to put a serious dent in the birth rate of pit bulls that are presently living on chains in back yards and pit bulls being used to fight and to bolster the manhood of pathetic emotional midgets by providing an aura of invincibility without restricting the rights of responsible owners willing to do a minimal amount of training, and without restricting the rights of owners of Newfoundlands, cardigan Welsh corgis, American water spaniels, norwich terriers.....?

A serious bite is a serious bite regardless of what the dog was thinking at the time.

 
I agree.  We may be able to figure out the reasons for what happened and justify our dogs behavior.  But, the rest of the world won't.  The dog bit, it's aggressive. 
 
It just seems like a disservice to encourage people to trust a dog(any breed really) without fully knowing that dog.  There are so many factors, that persons dog saavy, the individual dogs personality despite it's breed, socialization, etc, etc.
 

ORIGINAL: powderhound

"And you need statistics to demonstrate that this would produce a population of dogs that is more likely to be dog aggressive and more likely to inflict serious damage when they express that aggression than a snappy ill-tempered cocker? Seriously? "

You wanna know how many of my co-workers have been bitten by the snappy ill-tempered cocker vs. the pit bull?  Seriously?  

Well, go ahead and tell us, but that doesn't address my point, which is that dogs that are specifically bred to be dog aggressive are more likely to be dog aggressive. And if those dogs are also bred to be exceptionally powerful physically, and to be exceptionally unlikely to quit once they've started a fight, they are more likely to inflict serious damage whey they express that aggression. You can quote all the statistics and anecdotes you want about how much more likely one is to be bitten by a cocker or a toy poodle or whatever, but that's not my point. The public is more concerned about the potential damage a dog can do than the actually frequency of bites. For good reason.

ORIGINAL: powderhound

1)  The American public cannot even identify a pit bull, neither can a lot of police.

Which is why I oppose breed specific bans. On the other hand, what would be so terrible about requiring that pit bull owners show that they are competent enough to train their dog to walk under control on leash and manage an on leash recall, and that their dog is mentally stable enough to be handed over to a stranger for three minutes if they want to keep the dog intact? Should anyone who is either not competent to train a pit bull to this ridiculously low standard, or whose pit bull is too dog aggressive to handle this ridiculously low standard be potentially breeding that dog? So what if some boxer mixes and unregistered yellow labs get misidentified and held to the same standard?

ORIGINAL: powderhound

2) Define Pit Bull.  The CDC list uses "pit bull breeds" as their classification and then compares them to individual breeds.  That's pretty flippin misleading, don't ya say?  I've heard all kinds of breeds lumped in with 'pit bull' and that's unfair--ok, let's compare pit bulls to spaniels or hounds or collies (bearded, smooth, border, etc.) if we're going to do this right. 

Fair enough. Lump all those human fatalities due to American water spaniels and clumber spaniels and field spaniels and springers in with the rampaging cockers. Combine all the border collie/rough collie/smooth collie/bearded collie fatality stats together. Heck, you can even throw in all the people who have been killed by the "miniature collies". And this changes the picture how?

ORIGINAL: powderhound
3) Ok, make it hard for PB owners....they'll move onto something else and wreck that breed.  Not an acceptable alternative I'm afraid.  My breed has the tendancy to be dog aggressive, I don't want 'those people' moving on to *my* breed, I have enough problems.  No thanks, I already have problems getting insurance. 

If your breed has a tendency to be dog aggressive and you already have problems getting insurance, I would think you would welcome some minimal standards for owning an intact animal so that it doesn't become highly popular and hence ruined.

I would definately welcome some sort of control over who gets to own my breed.  That's for sure.  I'm not saying it's rocket science or anything but the person needs to know or at least want to know what they are dealing with.  I think saying the dog is a great dog, pretending it's something it's not just doesn't serve the breed.

The sad irony is that those of you complaining about how vicious and dangerous pits are are contributing to the problem.  Yep, I said it and I mean it.

Right now pits have a street reputation as tough and mean dogs.  This attracts a certain kind of owner, and one who is likely to behave in ways that increase the chances of something bad happening. 

Pits are doing damage because of incompetent owners.  It wasn't too long ago that pibbles were considered ideal family dogs. 

THE DANGEROUS PIT BULL IS A RECENT INVENTION AND A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.

The "pitbull problem" will be solved as soon as pits cease to be the tough street dog of choice. 

I perssonally believe that some humans are born with a sttreak in them that make them serial killers or mean cruel bullies and it has nothing to do with their parents or how they were raised.  or course this isn't true or all killers, etc, just some.  I also believe that some dogs are born with a vicious, ,mean, killer streak and  the owners make no differecne, and i think this applies to all breeds.
 
Some dogs do exactly what they were bred for.  There are setters and pointers so dedicated to hunting birds they they go even if they have to drag themself.  others are gun shy, or not intertested.  Neither of these things has to do with who owns them, but with the dog themselves.  Most goldens and lab make excellent duck dogs, but then there are those that are scared to get into the water and can never do what they were bred for.  There are herding dogs that live for herding sheep, cattle, what ever, and there are some that aren't at all insterested.  There are dogs that were bred for guarding and will guard with their lives.  Others--well the worse they culd do to a theif was drown it with slobber kisses.
 
And with the bully breeds, i am sure many are totally agressive and can't be handled nor taught different.  Most can.  And then there are others that I suspect would have trouble attacikng a flea, much less another dog or human.

I want to know what "ON LEASH recall" is.
That's a new one to me.

I do agree  that something has to be done...and sitting here pretending that PBs are not possibly dangerous to others pets and people is not helping the problem. 
Dog_ma is 100 correct.... the breed is attracting a lot of undesirable owners who will not be responsible, and in a vicious circle, they will add to the fact that PBs are dangerous.   Somehow,,,the PB people of Idog,,,that have cute, sweet PB pets,,,that love their kids and other dogs....are not getting thru to the general public! What is getting thru to the public is the dogs that fight...attack and kill.
 
I have read on this board over and over the bully owners sticking up for their dogs,  and I know what wonderful pets you have...but what do you guys think should be done to protect your breed?  You see all around, people trying to ban your breed,,, and you know something has to be done before someone comes along and tell you that you can not have your beloved dog........
I do think we need to go after the irresponsible owners... the irresponisble breeders,,,and we need to not have more and more pit bulls bred only to get into more irresponsible hands.

ORIGINAL: Dog_ma

The sad irony is that those of you complaining about how vicious and dangerous pits are are contributing to the problem.  Yep, I said it and I mean it.

Right now pits have a street reputation as tough and mean dogs.  This attracts a certain kind of owner, and one who is likely to behave in ways that increase the chances of something bad happening. 

The other sad irony is that those championing the pit as a 'poor misunderstood' breed and promoting their reputation as loyal and loving pets is also contributing to JQP attraction to the breed without a full understanding of the responsiblity and special care needed to own a dog bred with dog aggressive tendancies. I was dismayed last week when I ran into a neighbour walking her new 1 1/2 yr old pitt bull. They had recently lost their Cocker and her 12 year old daughter showed up with the bully that a friend was giving away. The dog was sweet, they fell in love and decided to keep it. As I was having this conversation, the dog was lunging and growling at every dog that walked near. The lady was struggling to keep the dog from charging. She made no attempt to manage the behaviour other than pulling the leash as she continued to talk. I hope she learns how to deal with her new dog - but I have serious doubts. I am keeping my fingers crossed. My point being, it's not just those 'certain' people who are attracted to mean dogs that pose a problem. It is also ordinary people who feel sorry for the breed and are told how wonderful they are that get into trouble.

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog

ORIGINAL: Xerxes


Gee when my dog was a pup, he got stepped on and scared by a larger dog, when I went to pick him up, he put a nice gash in my nose.  So now he's "people aggressive?" 

Wrong. 

.....But here you are claiming that reactivity is human aggression.  That's just not so.  Have you ever gotten mad at another driver while you were sitting in traffic?  That's road rage.  It doesn't mean you're an aggressive person all the time.  It doesn't mean you are a violent person.  You just reacted.  It's very similar to getting one's self into the middle of a dog fight.
....

Ok. So the hypothetical pit bull that Bob refered to as being human aggressive because it hypothetically bit someone trying to break up a hypothetical fight wasn't really human aggressive. So what? If someone is seriously bitten by a dog, they aren't going to care all that much about the niceties of whether this was human aggression, reactivity, resource guarding, blah blah blah. A serious bite is a serious bite regardless of what the dog was thinking at the time. And, the hypothetical victim of this bite isn't likely to be indifferent to the fact that his canine buddy's life was in grave peril either, which is why he hypothetically tried to break up the hypothetical fight in the first place. In terms of how one might train or manage a biter in the future, the motivation is important, but in terms of the dog being inflicting damage, the damage is what it is, regardless.

One of the mantra's is that pit bulls aren't typically human aggressive, "only" dog aggressive. But, no dog lover wants to see their pet injured or killed either, and it is not rare for people to be injured during the course of a dog fight. It's not like dog aggression is a trivial issue, and it does a disservice to pit bulls to fail to address the problems it causes. Claiming that there isn't really a problem because the streets aren't running red with pit bull induced blood fails to address the problem and ultimately fails to help the breed. As my personal experience attests, and as other posts in this thread attest, one of the reasons the streets aren't running red with blood is because other people are having to restrict their freedom in order to avoid encounters that are potentially dangerous to their own pets and to themselves.

That is exactly the point that I was trying to make, but people do not want to think it though and find it easier to attack the person that is decribing a very real scenerio that happens quite often. The group of around 10 people that I frequent the dog park next to my home with, leave the park when PBs enter.  I suppose all the PB owners think we are nuts, but breaking up a dog fight or winding up in the Animal ER is not our way of ending an evening.  Are every one of the PB's entering the park, a threat to us, or our dogs, probably not, but there have been enough incidents with those dogs to make us all not want to be around them in a dog park setting .  This has nothing to do with BSL, or people that don't know anything about dog behavior. What it has to do with is the type of owner that brings dogs like that into the park, usually poorly trained and socialized , and the behavior of more than a few of that breed towards other dogs.

Once again:

DOG PARKS ARE NOT FOR PIT BULLS. EVER.

Sure, some pit bulls would do FINE at a dog park. But as a responsible pit bull owner, you shouldn't be bringing your pit bull to a dog park. Not one that has dogs in it, anyway...I know some pit bull owners that bring their dogs to the dog park late at night or early in the morning before the sunrises and there's ABSOLUTELY NO other dogs there. They keep close eye on the park entrance and if they see another person coming up with his dog, they'll quickly ask the person if they'll wait so they can leash their dogs and leave.

If more owners would be more educated about the breed and more responsible before jumping into owning a pit bull, I think that there wouldn't be a problem. Plain and simple.

ORIGINAL: chewbecca

I want to know what "ON LEASH recall" is.
That's a new one to me.

A typical procedure for one portion of the CGC test is to attach a 20 foot line to the dog, and then show that the dog will do a sit and a down on command. The handler tells the dog to stay, then walks to the end of the lead, then returns. With the lead still attached the handler then walks about 10 ft away and calls the dog.