What Should Be Done About Pit Bull Owners?

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog

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.

AH!
The thought "On leash recall" didn't make sense to me.
But I see what you mean now. And I know that that's how people teach their dogs a recall. I just didn't think of it existing on its own.

ORIGINAL: dyan
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.

I think this is a great question, and I may get flamed for my thoughts, but here it goes:

1. Jail time for irresponsible owners of any dog, 10 - 25 years to start. I have no problem locking an 16 year old up for the rest of his/her life if he/she fought or mistreated a dog, regardless of the breed. Make it far more trouble than it's worth to own any dog, and enforce those laws hard. In time, only those devoted to their pets will be left. It's a privilege, not a right, to be entrusted with the care of an animal.

2. Reduce the dog population. Spay/neuter laws and regulations for intact dogs and breeders. I support responsible breeding, but I also don't see why breeders can't be limited to a dog having 2 litters in its lifetime. (Not sure what a reasonable number of litters would be as I have zero breeding experience.)

3. If your dog gets picked up by animal control and it's intact, then it should be fixed. You can't keep track of the dog, then you lose the right to have it intact.

4. Lots more money into the system so there are resources available to manage the problem. I'd quit my job and work to control the animal population if I could pay the bills doing it.

5. Lifetime sentences for puppy mill breeders. They are costing the tax payers money with every litter they breed. I'd rather the money pay for someone's food in jail that the gas chamber for the dogs they produce.

Wow,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,great list.  
I wonder what others that come along will say about it.

2. Reduce the dog population. Spay/neuter laws and regulations for intact dogs and breeders. I support responsible breeding, but I also don't see why breeders can't be limited to a dog having 2 litters in its lifetime. (Not sure what a reasonable number of litters would be as I have zero breeding experience.)

 
I knew this would come up, on this board you won't get flamed but I will.
 
I have an intact dog.  And one day I hope he'll sire a litter or two.  I also hope to get a foundation bitch one day.  One doesn't create a noticeable line, or even begin to maintain the history of a regal breed with one or two breedings.  The line that Xerxes is from is the original line of PHs in the US.  Had you limited her line to two breedings, there wouldn't be the same line of dogs-in fact there never would have been.  Two litters, responsibly bred doesn't make a difference in a breed. 
 
I have been in gatherings where there have been 4 and 5 generations of dogs together-when you see that you can start to see the gradual changes either deviating from the foundation or breeding true to the foundation and to the standard.  Two litters and you'd have no idea where you were heading. 
 
If I were to qualify with breeding limitations, I'd say that no dogs would be bred by hobby breeders that weren't titled-CGC, Ch, SC, MACH or other titles and those dogs would have to be health certified-hips, eyes and elbows-for starters.
 
I know I AM the minority on this board and I know that the majority of posters on this board do not support even ethical breeding from responsible people.  I think I'm beginning to understand why the majority of those in the fancy post elsewhere. 

Geez Xerxes...are you saying you must have 4 or 5 litters or more before you can even get to what you are looking for in your breed? 

Xerxes - I won't flame you! But then again, that's because Luna is intact and may be a breeding quality dog someday[] -- if she proves herself in the breed, agility, etc. rings. I also agree that dogs should be held to very high health and performance standards before being bred.

If Luna is bred, it will be one litter and then the spay surgery. Her breeder knows her lines well enough to get a show quality pup out of the first litter by crossing her with an appropriate mate. And, if Luna can't produce even one show pup out of a litter, then I don't feel she is a high enough quality dog to be bred again. That's just me, and the decisions I am making for my dogs.

I just wish breeders could find a way to continue their lines, without having to produce a lot of "extra" puppies -- even if all those dogs are then fixed and placed in good homes. Ya know?

I wonder if it wouldn't be better for breeders to work in co-ops (this is totally off the top of my head). So that there could be several dogs from a line able to reproduce without needing a large number of litters from a single dog. That is obviously much easier said than done -- especially in the rare breeds -- but interesting to me none the less.

ETA: Not sure if this was clear when I first wrote this, but the idea would be that a co-op could breed 3 litters instead of three seperate breeders breeding three litters each.

ORIGINAL: Pit_Pointer_Aussie

ORIGINAL: dyan
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.

I think this is a great question, and I may get flamed for my thoughts, but here it goes:

1. Jail time for irresponsible owners of any dog, 10 - 25 years to start. I have no problem locking an 16 year old up for the rest of his/her life if he/she fought or mistreated a dog, regardless of the breed. Make it far more trouble than it's worth to own any dog, and enforce those laws hard. In time, only those devoted to their pets will be left. It's a privilege, not a right, to be entrusted with the care of an animal.

10-25 years for an irresponsible owner.  You have to be kidding, Michael Vick might not get that many months and he killed 8 dogs by hanging them, electrocution, strangulation and beating to death......

ORIGINAL: denise m

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.

 
denise m

 I think you hit one of the key factors with these type breeds. I have met a few breeders#%92 across the years and the ones that always impress me the most are the ones that almost try and talk you out of owning one. Breeders of heavy strong working breeds, high drive working breeds, strong hunting lines etc, should be more willing to dissuade people from purchasing one of their puppies.  They should be stating this dog requires a lot of exercise, this dog needs to work, this dog will need training, this dog may not do well with other dominant dogs in the household, etc etc.

They are considering (and will probalby pass) some form of BSL in the city I live in. The idea of mandatory dog training classes DID come up and was something the committee was interested in, and I think it would be a fabulous idea. The problem was, will this be low cost or free to the low income public. Some people volunteered their time but then another committee was set up run by the head of AC here, who already had his restrictions set up and training was not one of them (although one of the better ideas suggested)
 
Not only that, but I will go one step further and say mandatory home visits in which it can be determined if you are suitable to own the breed. Then again, it would rely on opinion but maybe have a check sheet of some sort?
 
I also thought of the idea (that was rejected why I have no idea) of a mandatory pit bull education class for owners of the breed, something that would be free to the public and include handouts. And allow the public to attend if they just want to learn more about the breed but do not own a pit bull. Maybe even have a demonstration with a well trained pit bull.
 
If your dog bites someone unprovoked then it should be euthanized. I know some of you on here have aggressive dogs that you manage well, but that would mean you wouldnt have any bite incidents. I dont care what kind of breed it is, human aggression should NEVER ever ever be tolerated. I went to the BSL meeting and that was one of my points (this is before I officially adopted my pit girl), if any of my dogs (which were not pits at the time) showed any unprovoked human aggression, then although I love them dearly, they would be euthanized. I am not willing to place the public in danger. I own a GSD, and 2 Dals, and any of those could do damage to a person as well.
 
It is sad how idiots are ruining the breed. I hate to single a dog breed out but I would like to see the above implimented for maybe pits at first then extend to other dogs. We had a bull mastiff here about 2 months ago attack a child, not a week later there was an Akita who attacked a child. People are SOOOOO irresponsible!
 
I hold Ani (my pit) to a very higher standard than my other 3 dogs. I want her to be one of the pits that changes people's mind about the breed. We should be enrolling in obedience classes starting in a couple of months. I hope to move her onto obedience or agility. Pit bull owners have to realize the up hill battle owning a pit is and how the pit bull MUST be a good example of the breed and only those owners IMO are the only ones who should own pits.

ORIGINAL: Pit_Pointer_Aussie

I think this is a great question, and I may get flamed for my thoughts, but here it goes:

1. Jail time for irresponsible owners of any dog, 10 - 25 years to start. I have no problem locking an 16 year old up for the rest of his/her life if he/she fought or mistreated a dog, regardless of the breed. Make it far more trouble than it's worth to own any dog, and enforce those laws hard. In time, only those devoted to their pets will be left. It's a privilege, not a right, to be entrusted with the care of an animal.

2. Reduce the dog population. Spay/neuter laws and regulations for intact dogs and breeders. I support responsible breeding, but I also don't see why breeders can't be limited to a dog having 2 litters in its lifetime. (Not sure what a reasonable number of litters would be as I have zero breeding experience.)

3. If your dog gets picked up by animal control and it's intact, then it should be fixed. You can't keep track of the dog, then you lose the right to have it intact.

4. Lots more money into the system so there are resources available to manage the problem. I'd quit my job and work to control the animal population if I could pay the bills doing it.

5. Lifetime sentences for puppy mill breeders. They are costing the tax payers money with every litter they breed. I'd rather the money pay for someone's food in jail that the gas chamber for the dogs they produce.

 
I am not flaming you on any disagreements. It is a good post and something that all dog lovers should be discussing.
 
1.      It will never happen, the time is to high, people are killing people, robbing and raping and are not always getting this high of a sentence. Laws to prevent animal cruelty do need to be enforced and enforced strictly. Sentences in extreme cruelty need to be lengthened. Making it far more trouble than it is worth to own a dog will impact me and I have done nothing worthy of this. You will punish the good owners along with the bad. Sorry but number one is not reasonable.
2.      If you restrict the causal or backyard breeder (of which many are fine breeders) you will affect the people who hurt the breed as well as those who are working hard to improve the breed. Instead why not encourage breeders to control their lines by spaying neutering pups going out as pets. Require breeders to pay a registration fee yearly in order to breed. If it costs the average one litter in a lifetime person $200 to have a litter then maybe they will not bother. The AKC and UKC could fix this problem overnight by requiring a dog to pass tests before it can be bred and have registered litters. Two levels of registration, one you get when you pick up your purebred puppy, and one you get when he or she has passed all required tests (conformation, health and working ability). Pups from your dogs litter cannot be registered ever if you do not have the second tier registration on both the mom and the dad.

3.      I like three. Make sure to add that you are fined for allowing your dog out and that you pay all costs of neutering along with the fine.
4.      If it isn#%92t profitable it is difficult to have more money go into it. Maybe the breeder registration fees and any fees paid for roaming dogs always go into the animal care system.
Not reasonable. Also how would the law define a “puppy mill”? It is possible to have several litter a year and still be a reputable breeder with fine stock. We need to make it un profitable for pet stores to sell puppies. The only way to do this is to get people to STOP purchasing puppies in pet stores. Stop buying food, toys etc from ANY petstore that sells puppies. As long as people are making money on it the process will continue.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes



If I were to qualify with breeding limitations, I'd say that no dogs would be bred by hobby breeders that weren't titled-CGC, Ch, SC, MACH or other titles and those dogs would have to be health certified-hips, eyes and elbows-for starters.

 
 I like this Xerxes. I would take it further and say no dog can be bred without passing these tests and if it is bred its offspring are not registrable ever

Dgriego - no worries and thanks for posting. I like a lot of your ideas and don't mind at all if people disagree! How boring the world/board would be if we all thought the same thing!

Realistically, I know that 10 -25 years won't happen. That's just what I would like to see. And no, Bobsk8, I am not kidding.  I take the disrespect of life very seriously, and if a person can't respect the world and creatures they have to share the planet with then they don't deserve to share it at all. That just MO. No hard feelings for those that don't share my opinion.

I love the idea of the AKC stepping up and asking for dogs that are going to be bred to meet a certain standard, and of mandatory spay/neuter of pet dogs. Also, good call on paying for the spay/neuter!

I have no clue how a law could define a puppy mill, but outlawing the sale of dogs and cats in stores would be a great place to start.

Geez Xerxes...are you saying you must have 4 or 5 litters or more before you can even get to what you are looking for in your breed?

I would say at least that.  One really needs to know where one is going before they get there.  Two litters doesn't cut it.  You may begin to establish after two litters but that's just a beginning.  Heck I've posted Xerk's pedigree here...there's several line breedings and several additions from Europe-just to get what the breeder was looking for.  However if you look at the different lines in Pharaoh hounds, you can see obvious differences in eye set, ear set, structure and so forth.

I wonder if it wouldn't be better for breeders to work in co-ops (this is totally off the top of my head). So that there could be several dogs from a line able to reproduce without needing a large number of litters from a single dog. That is obviously much easier said than done -- especially in the rare breeds -- but interesting to me none the less.

Interesting idea, but in alot of breeds-the fanciers cannot even agree upon what "improvements" need to be made, nor what faults their own dogs' have.  Breeding to a standard is not an easy thing.  Afterall, there are huge amounts of discrepancy in terms like "moderate" and "untrimmed." 

In my breed, those that are in this line especially will take back, rescue, or aid in any way possible any dogs from this line that find themselves in need.  That's how I fostered Gaia.  That's how she found her forever home.  Most of the PH people I know will put aside whatever differences they have for the sake of the dogs.  We care more about the dogs than our petty squabbles.  At this point, to my knowledge, there are possibly 8 or 10 PH breeders in the country.  Breedings are announced months in advance and puppies are placed on deposit as quickly as the breedings are announced.

Sounds a lot like Dogo breeders Xerxes. It is common to wait a year for a puppy and the breeders are very picky about who they release the puppies to and require a lot of questions to be answered before even allowing you to be on the list.