Save The "Bullied" Breeds

Yeah, you're absolutely right....mighty crowded under the desk with the six german shepherds.....

ORIGINAL: NuestraFamilia1

No you'ev got you 1 bad Latino.  You better hide period!

i'll be glad when you little fellows are back and school and can quit playing make believe.[]

Threatening to have dogs kill each other does nothing for the "save the bullied breeds post."
 
Your words don't belong here.
 
I fear that you have some growing up to do.  You need to rethink your actions.

here are some concrete numbers....

Breed Name Tested Passed Failed Percent
AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER 515 430 85 83.5%
AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER 503 419 84 83.3%

this is from the American Temperment Testing Society (www.atts.org). check their site for temperment testing results on many different breeds. (note: they do list a percentage, but with numbers to back it up.) the numbers above are better than the numbers produced by chihuahuas and italian greyhounds.

 
I swore I'd swim upstream no more but, after this topic came up at my local dog park, I thought I'd see if all the 'talking points' I'd heard matched up with the board's well rehearsed talking points...very, very close....  Well, thought I, as long as any statistic leaning the 'wrong direction,' for pb advocates, how about this ATTS test...pbs temperment better than Italian Greyhounds..hmmmm...?
 
Here is the criterea listed by ATTS for these temperment tests:
 

The ATTS Temperament Test focuses on and measures different aspects of temperament such as stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness as well as the dog's instinct for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat.
The test simulates a casual walk through a park or neighborhood where everyday life situations are encountered. During this walk, the dog experiences visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. Neutral, friendly and threatening situations are encountered, calling into play the dog's ability to distinguish between non-threatening situations and those calling for watchful and protective reactions.
Dogs must be at least 18 months old to enter this test. The test takes about eight to 12 minutes to complete. The dog is on a loose six-foot (6') lead. The handler is not allowed to talk to the dog, give commands, or give corrections.
Failure on any part of the test is recognized when a dog shows:

• Unprovoked aggression
  
• Panic without recovery
  
• Strong avoidance

The ATTS Temperament Test consists of ten subtests divided into five subcategories:
Behavior Toward Strangers
Objective: To measure the dog's reaction to strangers in a non-threatening situation.
Subtest 1: Neutral stranger
A stranger to the dog approaches the handler, shakes hands with the handler and engages the handler in a brief conversation, ignoring the dog.
The purpose of this subtest is to evaluate the dog's reaction to passive socialization and the dog's protective instinct.
Subtest 2: Friendly stranger
A stranger to the dog approaches happily and briskly, is very friendly to the dog and pets the dog.
The purpose of this subtest is to evaluate the dog's active social skills.
Reaction to Auditory Stimuli
Objective: To measure the dog's reaction to auditory stimuli and the dog's investigative behavior.
Subtest 3: Hidden Noise
The handler/dog team approaches a hidden assistant who rattles a metal bucket filled with rocks and sets this bucket in the path of the team. The handler may encourage the dog to investigate the bucket only when asked to do so. The handler's focus must be on the bucket, not on the dog.
The purpose of this subtest is to test alertness and curiosity.
Subtest 4: Gunshots
The handler stops at a designated marker with his/her back towards a well hidden assistant. The assistant fires three shots using a .22 caliber starter pistol (SHOT-PAUSE-SHOT-SHOT).
The purpose of this subtest is to measure the dog's recovery response to a sudden noise.
Reaction to Visual Stimulus
Objective: To measure the dog's reaction to a sudden visual stimulus.
Subtest 5: Umbrella
The handler/dog team approaches an assistant sitting in a chair holding a closed umbrella parallel to the ground at a 90 degree angle to the approaching team. When the dog is five feet from the assistant, the umbrella is opened. The handler may encourage the dog to investigate the umbrella only when asked to do so. The handler's focus must be on the umbrella, not on the dog.
Tactile Stimuli
Objective: To measure the dog's reaction to unusual footing.
Subtest 6: Plastic Footing
Both the handler and the dog walk the entire length of a 15-foot by 6-foot clear plastic strip.
Subtest 7: Wire Footing
Only the dog will walk the entire length of a 12-foot by 3-foot unfolded exercise pen.
The purpose of these subtests is to measure the dog's sensitivity to unusual footing, its ability to recover from the fear of unusual footing and to measure its investigative behavior to the unusual footing.
Self Protective/Aggressive Behavior
Objective: These tests collectively evaluate the dog's capacity to recognize an unusual situation, its threshold to provocation, its protective instincts, and its propensity to realize when the situation becomes a threat.
Subtest 8: Non-Threatening
The handler/dog team stops at the designated marker. A weirdly-dressed stranger crosses the path 38 feet in front of the team.
The purpose of this subtest is to test the dog's alertness to an unusual situation.
Subtest 9: Threatening
The weird stranger advances 10 feet towards the stationary handler in a threatening manner.
The purpose of this subtest is to evaluate the dog's ability to recognize when an unusual situation turns into a provocation.
Subtest 10: Aggression
The weird stranger advances to within 18 feet of the stationary handler in an aggressive manner.
The purpose of this subtest is to evaluate the dog's protective instincts.
The stranger is never closer than 10 feet from the dog. The handler's 2 foot arm and the 6' lead is added in for a total of 18 feet. Aggression here is checked against the breed standard and the dog's training. A schutzhund trained dog lunging at the stranger is allowed, but if an untrained Siberian husky does the same, it may fail.
At the conclusion of the test, the handler will receive a critique about the dog's performance. Certificate will be mailed within 90 days of the test.
This copyrighted test may not be used in whole or part without the express written consent of the American Temperament Test Society.

 
Of the three main criterea, only ONE (that's 1/3) of the tests measures "UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION...."  Testing "positively" to the other two tests basically indicates how much of a scaredy cat the dog is....  Talk about statistics lying...!  I'm sure the majority of Iggies DID  react strongly to gunshots for crissakes...!  Basically, an overly timid dog flunks this test...period....  How, in heaven's name, does this test 'absolve' pbs and 'indict' Iggies and Chihuahuas...?
 
Let's, for the sake of argument, discuss the ramifications of failure, item-by-item, by the two categories of animals--this still isn't an "apples to apples" comparison as the odds of a lapdog exhibiting unprovoked aggression are probably as rare as a pb exhibiting strong avoidance but, nonetheles, here goes:
 

• Unprovoked aggression
  
• Panic without recovery
  
• Strong avoidance

1.  Unprovoked aggression.
 
--PB:  Katie bar the door...mangled hand, arm, torso, face and a decent chance of death.
 
--Iggie:  Bite on fingers-hand, potential of danger to very small children/infants, embarrassment of victim.
 
 
2.  Panic without recovery
 
--PB:  Lost dog, stretched arm (jerk of leash) and the afore mentioned ramifications from item 1.
 
--Iggie:  Lost dog, hurt dog (from "hitting" the end of the lead to flee), and listed ramifications from item 1.
 
 
3.  Strong avoidance
 
This is just too ridiculous to finish.
 
 
I've gotta side with Dr. Beck's statistics over this "Indicator of very little...."
 
Remember, this whole debate centers around a given breed's propensity to do damage as well as the potential to do serious damage.  I'm no little guy at 6'4", 225.  A vicious lap dog might embarrass me if my advance is met with aggression.  When encountered by an aggressive pb, rottie, dobie, etc., I AM DOWNRIGHT SCARED TO DEATH!!!!  When my iggie was bitten by a pb mix at the dog park (2 nights in the hospital, nineteen staples, catheter, etc. etc....oh, and $1,800) it somehow was deemed to be HIS fault by the pb mix's owner.  I believe she said the dog was only aggressive to "small, yappy dogs" and that the dog park was there for all dogs to play and "if my dog can't handle it, I shouldn't bring him there...."  I don't, anymore.... 
 
As I said previously, I know I'm swimming upstream...perhaps, breed bans aren't the answer--hell, many states, cities and municipalities ban guns...if those laws aren't enforced, who's going to enforce breed bans, were they enacted...?  Would most of you agree, at least on this point...?  **Any attack, provoked or unprovoked, which inflicts a serious degree of harm by ANY dog, results in the dog's banishment from the community.  The owner would have the option of relocating the offending dog but pity that owner should his/her dog be involved in a similar incident (a 'dog attack' database or, perhaps, a tatoo would confirm the dog's 'probationary status)...the dog would be manditorily destroyed and the human would be on the line for damages--civil AND legal...!  This would place the onus on the dog's owner, where it belongs and make people think about the consequences of irresponsible dog ownership.
 
For all you "second chance" advocates ou there, consider this, the offending dog's first offense changed the life or it's victim, in some respect or other, irrepairably.  One strike and you're out!!!!
 
I can hardly wait for the flames, the anecdotes and contrary statistics...ugh....
 
 

Hi,

     Joining this thread pretty late but Holdeninpdx am sorry you had what sounds like a terrible experience at the dog park with a pitbull mix. But because one pitbull mix attacks a dog does not mean the same pitbull will attack a person. Dog aggression and human aggression are two MAJORLY different concepts. And I would say that the owner of the dog that attacked yours should not have been allowed to go to the dog park if he/she knew their dog responds so badly to small dogs and should have been held accountable. But it should have been the owner and not the dog that was punished for this. Why is it always the dog that gets killed and not the owner sent to jail or banned from owning animals. The dog dies and the fool who does nt control their dogs just goes out and gets another - and it starts all over again.

   As so many people on this thread have said pitbulls were originally bred to be people friendly, it was one of the most important traits the breed had. And the mixing and backyard breeding that seems so rampant today is one of the main causes for all the problems we see, along with totally irresponsible owners.

    But my question is - how far do you want to go? How many breeds do you ban? Each generation has its killer or devil dog myth. And this is the point ban the pitbull category and those who want dangerous dogs or fighting dogs will turn to another breed, and so on and so on. So do we ban all breeds above a certain size? Do you want to ban the Shar Pei which was used as a hunting, guardian and fighting dog way back when in China?

    If you were saying there should be laws requiring all dogs to be registered, microchipped, even spayed, owners to have to undergo home checks and if an owner was found to have let his/her dog wander or attack another dog or person (if it was their fault) they get fined or jail time I would agree with you. (How on earth that could be managed I dont know) But banning breeds is illogical - with the pitbulls gone in certain areas look for the next group of dangerous dogs to become the latest "in" thing and stories of aggression and attacks to start.

   Again am sorry that your experience of a pitbull mix, note not even a pitbull but a mix, was so terrible and I hope your dog is ok. This is one of the problems with dog parks - anyone and everyone goes and then makes excuses for their dogs behaviour. Not all dogs are meant to socialise and play happily ever after with strange dogs amidst dozens of people in a busy area. Why do owners assume theirs will? I would never take my dog Sam, not a pitbull by the way, to one because he just does nt like strange people and the chances of something happening are just too great.

   But you keep saying that its the potential to cause damage that counts as well. There have been cases where small size family pets attack young children and do significant harm to that child. So do we ban small size dogs because they might be able to kill a baby? Any dog can hurt someone - is banning them all the answer? Or is it holding people accountable when their dog does something they should have never allowed to happen in the first place?

Just an additional point

"Any attack, provoked or unprovoked, which inflicts a serious degree of harm by ANY dog, results in the dog's banishment from the community"

How can that be fair? If someone takes it upon themselves to enter someone elses property and then provokes a dog into attacking that its the dog's or dog owner's responsibility and not the person who put themselves in that position????

I have signs right by my front door warning that there are dogs in here, do not enter without permission, dog does not like strangers, etc etc. Even have a metal grill which is always padlocked in front of my door. Are you saying that if someone gets into my home uninvited and teases or pushes my dogs around and they get bitten it is the dogs fault?

I am sorry but it is also time for people to take responsibility for their own actions - and that applies to dog owners as well as non dog owners. I will never forget the time I was walking one of my dogs and a parent pushed their two toddlers straight at my dogs head saying oh go and say hello to the cute dog. Thank god Sam and I have practised over and again what to do when small children are around. He stopped dead in his tracks, looked at me and then took a few steps back. However where is the parental responsibility in this case? What if the kids had moved faster or run at us, what then? It was a tragedy waiting to happen and it was nt my fault.

And by the way when I explained to the guy why you just dont do that with a strange dog and toddlers he just did nt get it. All too often its a cop out - people focus on the dog that hurt someone and dont hold others accountable for their own stupidity. I can give you dozens of examples that I know off where someone has approached a dog after being told not to, or let their kid run up to one because it looks so cute and friendly and then act surprised when the dog barks and start rambling on about dangerous dogs.

   It is not always a black and white case when someone gets bitten.

ORIGINAL: holdeninpdx

here are some concrete numbers....

Breed Name Tested Passed Failed Percent
AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER 515 430 85 83.5%
AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER 503 419 84 83.3%

this is from the American Temperment Testing Society (www.atts.org). check their site for temperment testing results on many different breeds. (note: they do list a percentage, but with numbers to back it up.) the numbers above are better than the numbers produced by chihuahuas and italian greyhounds.

I swore I'd swim upstream no more but, after this topic came up at my local dog park, I thought I'd see if all the 'talking points' I'd heard matched up with the board's well rehearsed talking points...very, very close....  Well, thought I, as long as any statistic leaning the 'wrong direction,' for pb advocates, how about this ATTS test...pbs temperment better than Italian Greyhounds..hmmmm...?

Here is the criterea listed by ATTS for these temperment tests:

The ATTS Temperament Test focuses on and measures different aspects of temperament such as stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness as well as the dog's instinct for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat.
The test simulates a casual walk through a park or neighborhood where everyday life situations are encountered. During this walk, the dog experiences visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. Neutral, friendly and threatening situations are encountered, calling into play the dog's ability to distinguish between non-threatening situations and those calling for watchful and protective reactions.
Dogs must be at least 18 months old to enter this test. The test takes about eight to 12 minutes to complete. The dog is on a loose six-foot (6') lead. The handler is not allowed to talk to the dog, give commands, or give corrections.
Failure on any part of the test is recognized when a dog shows:

• Unprovoked aggression
  
• Panic without recovery
  
• Strong avoidance

The ATTS Temperament Test consists of ten subtests divided into five subcategories:
Behavior Toward Strangers
Objective: To measure the dog's reaction to strangers in a non-threatening situation.
Subtest 1: Neutral stranger
A stranger to the dog approaches the handler, shakes hands with the handler and engages the handler in a brief conversation, ignoring the dog.
The purpose of this subtest is to evaluate the dog's reaction to passive socialization and the dog's protective instinct.
Subtest 2: Friendly stranger
A stranger to the dog approaches happily and briskly, is very friendly to the dog and pets the dog.
The purpose of this subtest is to evaluate the dog's active social skills.
Reaction to Auditory Stimuli
Objective: To measure the dog's reaction to auditory stimuli and the dog's investigative behavior.
Subtest 3: Hidden Noise
The handler/dog team approaches a hidden assistant who rattles a metal bucket filled with rocks and sets this bucket in the path of the team. The handler may encourage the dog to investigate the bucket only when asked to do so. The handler's focus must be on the bucket, not on the dog.
The purpose of this subtest is to test alertness and curiosity.
Subtest 4: Gunshots
The handler stops at a designated marker with his/her back towards a well hidden assistant. The assistant fires three shots using a .22 caliber starter pistol (SHOT-PAUSE-SHOT-SHOT).
The purpose of this subtest is to measure the dog's recovery response to a sudden noise.
Reaction to Visual Stimulus
Objective: To measure the dog's reaction to a sudden visual stimulus.
Subtest 5: Umbrella
The handler/dog team approaches an assistant sitting in a chair holding a closed umbrella parallel to the ground at a 90 degree angle to the approaching team. When the dog is five feet from the assistant, the umbrella is opened. The handler may encourage the dog to investigate the umbrella only when asked to do so. The handler's focus must be on the umbrella, not on the dog.
Tactile Stimuli
Objective: To measure the dog's reaction to unusual footing.
Subtest 6: Plastic Footing
Both the handler and the dog walk the entire length of a 15-foot by 6-foot clear plastic strip.
Subtest 7: Wire Footing
Only the dog will walk the entire length of a 12-foot by 3-foot unfolded exercise pen.
The purpose of these subtests is to measure the dog's sensitivity to unusual footing, its ability to recover from the fear of unusual footing and to measure its investigative behavior to the unusual footing.
Self Protective/Aggressive Behavior
Objective: These tests collectively evaluate the dog's capacity to recognize an unusual situation, its threshold to provocation, its protective instincts, and its propensity to realize when the situation becomes a threat.
Subtest 8: Non-Threatening
The handler/dog team stops at the designated marker. A weirdly-dressed stranger crosses the path 38 feet in front of the team.
The purpose of this subtest is to test the dog's alertness to an unusual situation.
Subtest 9: Threatening
The weird stranger advances 10 feet towards the stationary handler in a threatening manner.
The purpose of this subtest is to evaluate the dog's ability to recognize when an unusual situation turns into a provocation.
Subtest 10: Aggression
The weird stranger advances to within 18 feet of the stationary handler in an aggressive manner.
The purpose of this subtest is to evaluate the dog's protective instincts.
The stranger is never closer than 10 feet from the dog. The handler's 2 foot arm and the 6' lead is added in for a total of 18 feet. Aggression here is checked against the breed standard and the dog's training. A schutzhund trained dog lunging at the stranger is allowed, but if an untrained Siberian husky does the same, it may fail.
At the conclusion of the test, the handler will receive a critique about the dog's performance. Certificate will be mailed within 90 days of the test.
This copyrighted test may not be used in whole or part without the express written consent of the American Temperament Test Society.

Of the three main criterea, only ONE (that's 1/3) of the tests measures "UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION...."  Testing "positively" to the other two tests basically indicates how much of a scaredy cat the dog is....  Talk about statistics lying...!  I'm sure the majority of Iggies DID  react strongly to gunshots for crissakes...!  Basically, an overly timid dog flunks this test...period....  How, in heaven's name, does this test 'absolve' pbs and 'indict' Iggies and Chihuahuas...?

Let's, for the sake of argument, discuss the ramifications of failure, item-by-item, by the two categories of animals--this still isn't an "apples to apples" comparison as the odds of a lapdog exhibiting unprovoked aggression are probably as rare as a pb exhibiting strong avoidance but, nonetheles, here goes:

• Unprovoked aggression
  
• Panic without recovery
  
• Strong avoidance

1.  Unprovoked aggression.

--PB:  Katie bar the door...mangled hand, arm, torso, face and a decent chance of death.

--Iggie:  Bite on fingers-hand, potential of danger to very small children/infants, embarrassment of victim.


2.  Panic without recovery

--PB:  Lost dog, stretched arm (jerk of leash) and the afore mentioned ramifications from item 1.

--Iggie:  Lost dog, hurt dog (from "hitting" the end of the lead to flee), and listed ramifications from item 1.


3.  Strong avoidance

This is just too ridiculous to finish.


I've gotta side with Dr. Beck's statistics over this "Indicator of very little...."

Remember, this whole debate centers around a given breed's propensity to do damage as well as the potential to do serious damage.  I'm no little guy at 6'4", 225.  A vicious lap dog might embarrass me if my advance is met with aggression.  When encountered by an aggressive pb, rottie, dobie, etc., I AM DOWNRIGHT SCARED TO DEATH!!!!  When my iggie was bitten by a pb mix at the dog park (2 nights in the hospital, nineteen staples, catheter, etc. etc....oh, and $1,800) it somehow was deemed to be HIS fault by the pb mix's owner.  I believe she said the dog was only aggressive to "small, yappy dogs" and that the dog park was there for all dogs to play and "if my dog can't handle it, I shouldn't bring him there...."  I don't, anymore.... 

As I said previously, I know I'm swimming upstream...perhaps, breed bans aren't the answer--hell, many states, cities and municipalities ban guns...if those laws aren't enforced, who's going to enforce breed bans, were they enacted...?  Would most of you agree, at least on this point...?  **Any attack, provoked or unprovoked, which inflicts a serious degree of harm by ANY dog, results in the dog's banishment from the community.  The owner would have the option of relocating the offending dog but pity that owner should his/her dog be involved in a similar incident (a 'dog attack' database or, perhaps, a tatoo would confirm the dog's 'probationary status)...the dog would be manditorily destroyed and the human would be on the line for damages--civil AND legal...!  This would place the onus on the dog's owner, where it belongs and make people think about the consequences of irresponsible dog ownership.

For all you "second chance" advocates ou there, consider this, the offending dog's first offense changed the life or it's victim, in some respect or other, irrepairably.  One strike and you're out!!!!

I can hardly wait for the flames, the anecdotes and contrary statistics...ugh....

I really am very sorry that you have had a bad experience with a pit mix.  It must have been horrible to have your pup attacked.  That owner should NOT have had the dog in the park period in my opinion, but ESPECIALLY if it was any kind of dog aggressive.  Shame on them.  I hope they paid for every penny of your vet bills.  It is disgusting to see people behaving so irresponsibily.  It is morons like them that make the rest of our lives so difficult.  I hope that you dog has made a full recovery.

It is very tragic is that you would then blame all pit/pit mix owners for the iresponsibility of this one person.  Please don't do that.  it was not my dog that attacked your pup, nor was is me that was such a jerk about the situation. 
 
I do agree with you on one point--if a dog cannot live peacfully with human they need to be put to sleep.  I am very strict as far as human aggression goes.  If Sally ever bit someone (God forbid), as much as I love her, I don't think I would have any other choice (it's like the Meatloaf song "I would do anything for love, but I won't do that").  As a matter of fact, I was biten as a child by a GSD (21 stitches) who had biten someone before, so I know how horrible a dog attack can be.  In addition, I also do not agree that dangorous dogs should be rehomed by rescues.  Actually, I think you will find that pittie advocates, in general, are more strict about not puuting up with human aggression than those that work with other breeds.  We know that this is not proper temperment for our breed and we are accutely aware of the stakes.  I also agree that aggressive behavior in dogs is an issue.  I was hiking with Sally a few months ago and was confronted by a very aggressive GSD on a leash (thank God).  We had to pass this dog on the trail as he was going ballistic.  Thankfully the collar and leash held, or I'm fairly certain one of us would not be here.  The only postitive about the whole thing is that we both stayed calm, walked by the dog quietly, and went on our way.  I will no longer go hiking without pepper spray though.

Carefully rehearsed lines?  I do not now, nor have I ever owned a pittbull.  Probably never will.  However, every pittie I've met is lovely temperment wise.
 
I'm sorry for your problems in the dogpark, however....the pittie MIX attacked your DOG, not you, which is more common to the breed, and the OWNER was the dork who insisted it was YOUR fault.....the dog didn't sit there telling you to take your yappy dog out of his park.  Sure because of that incident you are uncomfortable with pitties, but this wasn't even a pure pitt......heaven knows what it was mixed with....and the OWNER was the problem.  Perhaps the dog had some issues but the OWNER should have been on top of those issues.  It isn't the fault of the dog that he wasn't properly trained and managed.  That's an OWNER issue.
 
The only dog that has ever intentionally bitten me was a purebred "trained guard dog" german shepherd.  He meant business.  Funny, yes, I was terrified of shepherds for a bit....but we had a gsd mix who was an enormous baby and the gentlest creature you'd ever want to meet, and I now own SIX german shepherds....also the biggest babies and gentlest creatures you'd ever want to meet.  COULD they be dangerous?  Sure they could.  Anything with teeth can be dangerous....I could bite the tar out of someone myself, inflicting some serious damage.  But, I know better.  So do my dogs, because they have been trained and are properly managed.
 
Therein lies the entire point.  There are idiots who want "tough" muscle dogs, there are idiots who shouldn't own a stuffed dog, there are little men who wear their manhood at the end of the leash with a "macho" dog.  It isn't the DOG that is the problem, until the owner trains it to be the problem.
 
Certainly the larger the animal the greater the potential for serious damage.  I don't dispute that.  But, DH decided to stick his hand into a cocker fight and ended up with some SERIOUS injury from little cockers....a trip to the ER and a ton of stitches, as well as a course of antibiotics.  Potentially, yep, even that cocker bite could have been life threatening because it doesn't MATTER the size of the bite so much as the toxins that entire the human blood stream because of the bite.  DH didn't want to take antibiotics.  The doc told him you can take them now, or you can take them later in IV when you come back in here septic and near death.  From a cocker.  Not a breed known to be mean, and no one intended to bite DH....he just put his hands where they didn't belong in a bitch-bitch fight.  Should this girl have been banished from the community for sinking her teeth into the wrong flesh?
 
And I agree with Sergio.  People don't have enough common sense these days to "finish the paperwork" in the bathroom.  The last place we lived was out in the country.  BUT, a subdivision was being built next to us....down a very steep hill and through a dense woods.  A young teenager from that subdivision, bored no doubt at living out in the boonies thought that MY 4 acres  should be his own personal playground.  The dogs were the lure.  He built a treehouse in MY trees (holy liability) used electricity stolen from a construction site, made his way up my hill almost daily, decided that my motorhome, parked and winterized and unused, was a public bathroom (I so loved having frozen crap all over the toilet seat not to mention IN the tank).  We went so far as to run barbed wire at the property line and he STILL got onto our property.  His parents KNEW this was happening. We told them and the sherriff told them....I was pretty upset over the RV incident......didn't stop him.  And you know what my friend the ACO told me?  Don't EVER leave the dogs in your securely fenced yard when you aren't RIGHT handy.  Despite the barbed wire, despite the signs, despite the PADLOCK on the dogs gate, if that little jerk had gotten into the dog yard and been so much as scratched by one of my dogs jumping up on him, I would be libel.
 
There was an incident at the doggie day care/kennel that actually went to court before it was dismissed as a nuisance suit.  The fences there are EIGHT feet tall with "prison" wire at the top.  Again, kind of country setting, new subdivsion behind it, bored teenager who skipped school.  The kid was constantly being run off for throwing stuff at the dogs in the play yard.  He climbed that fence, got into the yard and was running out when caught by the staff....got nipped in the butt by one of the dogs and LAW SUIT CITY!!  Law suit against the kennel owner, the dog owner and the STAFF at the day care.  Obviously the teenager didn't go out and retain legal counsel....the PARENTS of this out of control kid did and further encouraged his lack of personal responsibility.
 
If you eat like a pig and get fat from eating at Burger King 3X a day every day for months, lets just sue BK and not accept any personal responsibility.  If you climb a danged fence and torment dogs and get a little nip in the butt, lets just sue the dog owner and not accept any personal responsibility for being where you didn't belong.  If you aren't careful with your cup of coffee and spill it all over your lap, lets SUE.  If you do drugs while pregnant and the doctor doesn't put you in a lock down facility to MAKE you stop and your child is born damaged, well, by golly, lets sue the DOCTOR......he didn't protect your baby so it must be his fault.
 
Why don't we just PULL the teeth of all dogs, big, small and in between?  Then they CAN'T bite anyone.

SergioTariq and Silly Sally, well said.

sorry your dog was attacked by a pit bull.

i provided concrete statistical evidence (not just vague numbers or some non-descript percentages) to back up what i was saying. is this the only temperment test out there? probably not. but thus far all of your so-called statistics lack real numbers to back up any heresay perported in your posts.

i provided concrete statistical evidence (not just vague numbers or some non-descript percentages) to back up what i was saying. is this the only temperment test out there? probably not. but thus far all of your so-called statistics lack real numbers to back up any heresay perported in your posts.

 

[linkhttp://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-3891566_ITM]9 Out of 10 Doctors Have Legible Handwriting - According to Pilot Pen Handwriting Survey; National Survey for Doctors Day (3/30) Reveals: Most MDs Do Write Clearly and Are Not Motivated by Greed.[/link]

 
Here's some factual evidence for you....  What it means, I don't know but, according to Pilot Pens, it's absolutely true--their study PROVES it...!  So, now we both have provided some "concrete statistical evidence."

that tells me nothing about dogs. if this were a thread about dr's handwriting that would be a worthwhile post.

so far in your posts all i have read is hatred and bias about a breed with NOTHING, other than your own antecdotal evidence and one very misleading article, to back up your opinion.

i understand if you can't/won't provide any scientific data to back-up your opinion. as it has been my experience that most opinions rooted in hate cannot be supported by scientific data.

But, Billy, it is his opinion and he's entitled to hang on to it.  It's unfortunate when someone is soooo closed minded that not even a stick of dynamite would open it.......
 
Ya'll know I am NOT a pittie person, I'm a gsd person, or a cocker person or a mutt person.......I seem to LIKE cleaning up mounds of fur on a daily basis.......BUT every single pittie I have met is sweet and good tempered. I have NEVER felt fear when I saw a pittie...it's rare for me to feel fearful around ANY dog (although I sure was afraid of that gsd after he attacked me, but then I DID have good reason) but I have been very nervous around some of the smaller, yippy-snarly type dogs and downright FEARFUL of one such dog that I encountered recently on the village streets.

Should add Akitas to the list.

he is entitled to any opinion he wants. but if you are trying to convince someone your opinion is the correct one there has to be some data to back that up.[sm=2cents.gif]

it's not billy btw... it's bradley []