Ten Years of Hell

but a fatality is a fatality. A dog that is aggressive to other dogs is more likely to be aggressive towards people, especially young people.

my20cents

but a fatality is a fatality. A dog that is aggressive to other dogs is more likely to be aggressive towards people, especially young people.

False. 

no it is proven. And here is the real problem. As long as denial takes place about the dangers of some dog breeds they will remain banned. It is proven that there are breed specific attributes and behaviours, try researching 'biological determinism' it shows that whilst there are many factors responsible for behaviours heredity is undoubtedly an important factor. There is no denying this, it is proven, it is the reason people are encouraged to always see the parent of the puppy they are going to get....

It is proven that some breeds are much more likely to show aggression than others and have the ability, and likelyhood, to do more damage than others. It is also proven that different breeds will take different approaches to attacking or defending. Therefor it is proven that some breeds are more dangerous than others. Just take another look at the national fatality stats, consistently the same breeds.

As long as you will keep making statements based on your experience you will continue to diminish the effort to loosen the laws on banned breeds why? because someone else's experience is completly different. Hence the government uses proven facts and not experiences to make its decisions. It looks at national statistics of its own, and other, countries. It looks at scientific studies into canine behaviours and biology etc.

As long as you continue to campaign for no restrictions on the banned breeds (often called blame the deed not the breed) the efforts to loosen the laws are diminished. Why? Because to blame the deed means that children are still going to be attacked before any action is taken, and then there is no restriction to prevent future attacks. Essentially if you support this attitude what you are saying is yeah people are going to die or be seriously maimed over the next few years, but im not going to worry about it, as long as it does not mean there are no restrictions on my dog. I find that deplorable.

As long as you jump to extreme conclusions such as the idea of a roll over effect onto other breeds, i hope its yours etc, you diminsh the arguements against loosening the laws. Why? because this has not happened once since the introduction of the laws, you just show that your arguemens are not founded in fact.

As long as you keep finding examples of remote attacks from some breeds and then try to equalise this one off with the consistent attacks of others... Why? because statistics show that other breeds are far more likely to do it, stress on likely. Similarly as long as you continue to compare an attack from a small dog to an attack from a dangerous dog and equalise them .... Why? Because of the outcome of a bite from a jack russell and a pitbull is completly different.

If you accept that whilst your dog may not be dangerous but it is of a breed that is more likely to be, as the proven facts indicate, if you accept that some may find your dog intimidating, if you accept the potential of your breed of dog, then you will come up with something similar to dumdog. And that is the only way that has even a remote chance of loosening the laws. Argueing outside of proven fact will achieve nothing.

Sorry, I can't take that argument seriously. Fighting pit bulls were once bred for maximum dog aggression, and minimal human aggression. Aggression towards people was not tolerated by the fighting folk. Bite a human = dead dog.

So it is entirely possible to have a dog with high aggression towards other dogs, and low aggression towards people.

My arguments aren't based on "my experience." They are based on historical information.

In the U.S., and in my area in particular, we are awash with poorly bred and badly raised pitbulls. If they were so dangerous, there would be a ton of injuries. The truth is that death by dog is rare. Tragic when it happens, but RARE. Even when dealing with bad specimens of "dangerous" dogs.

Snort. Pardon me while I drive the freeway in SoCal. To experience real danger. 

your historical account is somewhat romantic and misinformed.

my20cents

your historical account is somewhat romantic and misinformed.

And you fear of pit bulls is histrionic and out of proportion. Cheers!  

my20cents

but a fatality is a fatality. A dog that is aggressive to other dogs is more likely to be aggressive towards people, especially young people.

Where did you get this little nugget from?  You are presenting a false idea of your won as a fact. 

My personal experience with relying on "proven facts" especially if these facts were gathered and evaluated by a government entity is you can usually throw out the whole thing.  We can all dig up statistics to prove our point if we are willing to spend the time.  Breed bans in my opinion are terrible and I do not own a breed that would be banned.  Any breed can bite and cause serious damage. Enforce the laws in regard to owner responsibility.  Educate the future generation of dog owners and this can be a non-issue someday. 

JackieG

especially if these facts were gathered and evaluated by a government entity is you can usually throw out the whole thing

Ain't that the truth!

Chuffy

my20cents

but a fatality is a fatality. A dog that is aggressive to other dogs is more likely to be aggressive towards people, especially young people.

 

Where did you get this little nugget from?  You are presenting a false idea of your won as a fact. 

Not so, it is the case that a dog that shows aggression to other dogs is more likely to show aggression towards a human, especially in the case of in those breeds where aggresion is in part due to genes.

my20cents

but a fatality is a fatality. A dog that is aggressive to other dogs is more likely to be aggressive towards people, especially young people.

Your talking about "nanny dogs" the same breed favored by Hellen Keller that score considerbaly higher on the American Temperment Society then most family dogs? 

I've got to say I've heard a lot of funny things from uneducated people about pit bulls but this one takes the cake, LOL!!!!

Please, please give me links and or refferneces that support your facts, I'd love to see them, really.

So should most dogs with prey drive and the capacity to kill be banned?

Should Chesapeake Retrievers who could kill water fowl be banned?

Should regualr Labrador Retrievers who hunt and kill fowl be banned?

Oh what about Rat Terriers that vicously kill and maim rodents?

Just because the APBT has the capacity to do more damage dosnt mean it is volatile or unstable. Should I even bother posting statistics and facts or are you one of the select few who refuse to be swayed by science and nature and instead prefer to believe what they think to be actual fact?

Just so you know what your getting yourself into.......I grew up with hunting pit bulls and catahoulas. Before I was 7 years old I was washing boars blood of "vicious" male intact pit bulls and sleeping with those same dogs at the foot of my bed. Those same dogs let me pull their ears, scream in their faces and run amuck around their pens. I currently have two beautiful APBT's that have proved worthy in protecting me and still let my neices and nephews run around screaming like crazy children.

Also don't be fooled into what you think a real APBT is. If you picture some 100lbs beast with a fat head on a choke chain that snarls at passing strangers then I can't begin to tell you how wrong your vision of a APBT is. Those are not pit bulls, those are mutts that are not bred with temperment in mind. Those are American Bullies and a quick google search will quickly show you the difference and how true APBT enthusiasts do not claim them as our own. In that case I would completely agree that reform needs to be made.

my20cents

As long as you keep finding examples of remote attacks from some breeds and then try to equalise this one off with the consistent attacks of others... Why? because statistics show that other breeds are far more likely to do it, stress on likely. Similarly as long as you continue to compare an attack from a small dog to an attack from a dangerous dog and equalise them .... Why? Because of the outcome of a bite from a jack russell and a pitbull is completly different.

And this is where you go wrong. You have to think on a ratio scale. Obviously there are more pit bull attacks because there are more pit bulls then any other breed right now. On top of that there are more irresponsible pit bull owners then any other breed....a horrible combination I know! So evidently the breeding practices of this breed are so irresponsible with no attention paid to temperment or aggression. You can see the same thing happening with Labs, if on a extremely smaller scale. The quality and temperments of Labs have severely diminished over the past 10 years due to the demand and irresponsible breeding. I'm not saying Labs are bad so please dont take me out of context, I'm saying it is a example of how a breed can easily be exploited and over bred.

And DUH the outcome of a bite from a JR and a pittie is completely differnet BUT that dosnt signify that the pit bull is more aggressive because it has the capacity to due more damage.......thats silly to even make that assumption.

So 20 years ago the Rottweiler and the Dobie had the same reputation, do you feel those should be banned as well? Or becasue there are fewer in the world with more responsible owners its ok?

And dont get me wrong, as a responsible APBT I'm not totally against some kind of breeding restriction. I wish they would but to have the breed banned as a whole....well thats just ridiculous. My pit bull was bit by a mini poodle and did not seek retaliation, I can dig up the vet bill to prove it. Should I hate all poodles now or not mind because the capacity for it to do harm is slimmer then a big dog?

my20cents

you neglect to consider the severity of the bite and the potential of damage a dog can do. You also neglect to think that there are many people who are not 'dog savvy' and do not react correctly when challenged by a dog. Now breeds such as boarder collies have far less powerfull jaws than for example a pitbull.

That is 100% incorecct!, Where is your support for this acusation? Here is mine.......

• http://www.pbrc.net/mediacenter/mediaqa.html#PSI 
• Humans: 120 pounds of bite pressure
  
  
• Domestic dogs: 320 LBS of pressure on avg.  A German Shepard, American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) and Rottweiler were tested using a bite sleeve equipped with a specialized computer instrument.  The APBT had the least amount of pressure of the 3 dogs tested.
  
• Wild dogs: 310 lbs
  
  
• Lions: 600 lbs

• White sharks: 600 lbs

• Hyenas: 1000 lbs

• Snapping turtles: 1000 lbs

Crocodiles: 2500 lbs

Heck, even the National Geographic has looked into this.......

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PitbullInformation/Urbanlegends.htm

Sorry 20cents......your credibility and capacity to pass your opinion off as fact has just gone out the window

my20cents

Chuffy

my20cents

but a fatality is a fatality. A dog that is aggressive to other dogs is more likely to be aggressive towards people, especially young people.

 

Where did you get this little nugget from?  You are presenting a false idea of your won as a fact. 

Not so, it is the case that a dog that shows aggression to other dogs is more likely to show aggression towards a human, especially in the case of in those breeds where aggresion is in part due to genes.

I say again - WHERE did you get this from?  Please support this statement if you expect it to carry any weight.  There are a lot of people here whose beloved family members you are condemning.  It would be a courtesy to them to say where you got this from. 

o.k. types of aggression in dogs 1, fear aggression, where a dog defends itself from a percieved threat. 2, Maternal aggresion, where a bitch has a maternal instinctive behaviour to protect its offspring. 3, Senile aggresion where a dog experiences dementia and uncharectoristic aggressive behaviour occurs. 4. Genetic aggresion, where some breeds have been selectively bred to exacerbate aggressive tendancies. 5,Possesive aggresion, gaurding food etc. 6, Territorial aggression, the bark at the postman aggresion. 7, Redirected aggresion, more on this under. 8, sex related aggression, where dogs become aggresive over the competitiveness of a potential mate. 9) Predatory aggresion, Where a dog attacks something viewed as prey, 10) Dominance aggresion, trying to be top dog, this is the one where most people incorrectly label other aggresion types. 11, Defensive aggresion, where an injured animal behaves aggresively.

7 - Redirected aggression. This is where the stimulus for aggresion is one thing and the subject of the aggresion is another.

I get this from having studied canines formally, if you ever study canine studies in a college or university you will get the same info.

Now, take a step back and look at what I have actually been saying. I have not supported a blanket ban on any breeds, but I do support restricted breeding and ownership on some.

 It is the case that some dogs (breeds) are liable to be more aggressive than others, it is the case that some dogs are likely to have different approaches to attacking than others, it is the case that some dogs have a more powerfull structure to attack than others. And therefore it is the case that some breeds can be considered more dangerous than others.

What I have been trying to do is to get people to look at the middle ground, to look at the options between doing nothing and complete breed bans, I have applauded someone who did venture into that area, because as I said before the situation was severe enough for the government of the U.K. to take action, and as I said before, to promote the idea of having no restrictions will not benefit the fight to loosen the british laws.

The idea that I hate pitbulls is a conclusion you have jumped to, I have not once made that statement. I have purely tried to show you the reasoning of how the decisions were made. As i said the government do not make many decisions based on 'in my experiences'