Changing views on pits, one person at a time

[Amstaffer]

OK, now this has really got me a but upset about Labradors getting mixed with pit bulls. I have inserted a pic of a black Labrador alongside a black pit bull of the same age- now you tell me the difference.

Also pit bulls tend to be much more stout, and have very good muscle tone in comparison to a Lab.

Also a pit bull has shorter, less floppy ears. A Labs muzzle is longer than that of a pit bull.

Also a Labrador a much friendler towards other dogs than a pit bull. A pit bull tends to be dog aggressive by nature unless otherwise trained.

Please never confuse a Labrador Retriever to that of a Pit Bull. If you know your breeds you can tell them apart.

-Dix

Most dog people can easily tell the difference but problem is most people who report the news or respond to these attacks are not dog people. Although I do like the trend in breeding stockier labs....I like the look.

Also I don't agree with your comments about the nature of the pitbull. Pitbulls are dominant by nature aggression is not a trait but rather a response to stimulus. Pits are only aggressive if that is how they have been taught or encourage to respond that way. My male Sal (who is entact) has been bitten and still not responded aggressively. He stole a tennis ball from a golden at the dog part and was bitten and he just thought it was part of the keep away game.....On the other had I have seen Labs at the dog park attack other dogs for no reason. I am not slamming Labs, my brother has one and it is a great dog, I am just saying dogs are Individuals and are products of how they are raised.

Why are you sooooo upset that Labs might be mistaken for a pitbull? It is a silly mistake but why does it upset you? Are you afraid as a Lab owner you might face some of the mindless prejudice that many of us Pitbull and Amstaff owners face? Pitbulls are wonderful and noble dogs, be happy if some uneducated (to dogs anyway) person makes the mistake.

 

[Dixie]

I think almost anyone could look at my dog and say - thats a Lab.

My cousin had 3 pits - you could definitely tell they were pits.

I think the general public here knows the difference between a pit and lab, my mom has never owned neither and she could tell the difference.

Also labs only come in 3 flavors - Black, Yellow, and Chocolate.

Pits come in countless variations.- but most pits are mixes of Terriers that were bred to form a Pit Bull.

Also another way - *several* people who own pits have the ears cropped and the tail docked.

Ive yet to see a Lab with its ears or tail cut (and if they were it was likely caused by an accident).

-Dix

 

[Dixie]

Most dog people can easily tell the difference but problem is most people who report the news or respond to these attacks are not dog people. Although I do like the trend in breeding stockier labs....I like the look.

Also I don't agree with your comments about the nature of the pitbull. Pitbulls are dominant by nature aggression is not a trait but rather a response to stimulus. Pits are only aggressive if that is how they have been taught or encourage to respond that way. My male Sal (who is entact) has been bitten and still not responded aggressively. He stole a tennis ball from a golden at the dog part and was bitten and he just thought it was part of the keep away game.....On the other had I have seen Labs at the dog park attack other dogs for no reason. I am not slamming Labs, my brother has one and it is a great dog, I am just saying dogs are Individuals and are products of how they are raised.

Why are you sooooo upset that Labs might be mistaken for a pitbull? It is a silly mistake but why does it upset you? Are you afraid as a Lab owner you might face some of the mindless prejudice that many of us Pitbull and Amstaff owners face? Pitbulls are wonderful and noble dogs, be happy if some uneducated (to dogs anyway) person makes the mistake.

Im not slamming pits, they are intelligent and are capable of learning things on their own and learning in ways that most other breeds couldnt.

But, I dont like the fact that people are going to run thinking my lab is a pit based stereotypes given to the pits, and entirely different breed from a Labrador.

Im not saying Labs are not capable of attacking, but it is rare. Youre not going to see a Labrador used as a protection dog, simply because it is in their nature that everyone they meet is their new best friend, whereas a pit tends to be stressed in the prescence of strangers. My cousins pits would pull at their chains, growl and bark like mad if a stranger walked through the yard, especially if it was a male.

Again, not slamming pits, I just dont want to get the breeds mixed as someone mentioned earlier.

-Dix

 

[Saje]

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

 

[Vega]

It doesn't go either way, I bet you never have a Pitbull mistaken for a Lab, if there is a dog attack most people assume it is either a pitbull or a Rott.

You don’t know that for a fact since your betting.

Well, in any event my main point in this whole thread that it is the owners at fault for bad pits. Dog in general are haunted by bad owners, it just gets more news when a pitbull goes bad because of abuse.

Evidently.

Why should there be levels of qualification? Idiots shouldn't own any dog...have them buy ant farms.

Different types of dogs are suited for different types of households. Not all dogs are the same; they all have different needs that go according to their breed.

I would say VAST majority. If you goes to dog shows (I have been to many) you never see Amstaffs fighting or attacking anyone and they are mostly entact males....which are the ones said to be the most dangerous. If it was their nature to attack and they were more dangerous wouldn't this happen all the time?

You still do not understand what I have been explaining to you. Firstly, all canines in the dog shows are trained by canine enthusiasts. It’s very unlikely for any canine to go berserk when they have owners who spend a great deal of their time with them. Your average Pit Bull owner does not go to shows to exhibit their pit. This was an awful example, try again. The reason why the Pit Bull has a high fatal dog attack percentage is because it’s a powerful dog. It’s that simple. The Pit Bulls need owners who understand them and will not try to educe their powerful fighting capabilities.

First of all, if you are implying that I am racist....I am Biracial, and my wife and kids are black so don't go there. What station are you watching? Most media, movies and TV shows make Blacks appear to mostly criminals. Heck even in sports they love nothing more than make black athletes look like thugs. You see it in music as well, who do the music companies push to the kids? Positive black role models...nope they push Ganster rappers, because it feeds the countries need to have a boogie man to fear.

You had to read the stories about the "looters" in N.O. after Katrina. In pictures with black people they were always called "Looters" if White people were photographed taking stuff they were call "people searching for food". If you honestly don't see racism in the media then I want to move to your world.

Once again I am getting off topic, if you can't see the similarities in the hysteria about pitbulls and the stereotypes of blacks in the American media I guess my writing here is in vain.

But I will try to put it like this, Both Human Criminal (of any color) are usually a product of there environment and result of their upbringing. Dogs are the same way (Pitbull or anybreed.)

Just because you’re black, doesn’t automatically exempt you for being racist. Any ethnic group can be racist towards a different ethnicity. The media is not making black people look like criminals; you’re in a state of delusion. This whole gangster appeal just happens to be popular with the African-America population. Don’t blame others for what’s being displayed. I sense the presence of Jesse Jackson in you. According to him, it’s racist to call people from the hurricane Katrina disaster refuges because a large some of them are African -American. You ever consider that they are reporting what’s actually going on and not participating in some kind of anti-black propaganda conspiracy?

What is your main point? At the end of your post, you say "better to be safe than sorry.....because you don't know how they were raised" are you implying they should be outlawed? I hope I read this wrong and you are just saying there should be restrictions on who owns them, which for the dogs sake I would be fine with restrictions because fewer dogs would be abused; but I wouldn't like to see pitbull singled out, those restrictions should apply to all dogs.

You’ve been reading a lot of things wrongs apparently. I clearly stated that only certain qualified people should posses such a powerful breed of canine like the Pit Bull. Well its quiet evident that I meant in favor for the restrictions rather then having this breed outlawed because of its reputation.

Also what is the point of listing fatal dog attacks stats as part of you signature? Just wondering.

It happened like this, I was copying and pasting a lot of stuff for my signature but by accident copied this tad bit of information when I was reading it in a wild life agency website. I became aware of it when I was being sent private messages in regards to my signature. I decided to keep it since it caused a spark of interest with certain canine enthusiasts on this board. You are now included.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

I got it right the first time. Btw, a lot of those canines are very powerful but are not popular so we don't hear about fatal dog attacks from them.

 

[Amstaffer]

whereas a pit tends to be stressed in the prescence of strangers. My cousins pits would pull at their chains, growl and bark like mad if a stranger walked through the yard, especially if it was a male.

Again, not slamming pits, I just dont want to get the breeds mixed as someone mentioned earlier.

-Dix

Wow...two things here, Pits are not and should never be used for protection. Anyone who uses Pits for Protection work is just asking for trouble, that is not what they are meant to do....try a GSD or Rott. (Pits are too small anyway).

Pits by nature are not stressed by the presence of humans. They have (breed history) always been bred to be human friendly, because they often exchange hands (fighting breeders have little attachment to their dogs.) They also had to be people stable and friendly because they were often handled by strangers while injured.

Pits usually make terrible guard dogs because they are too human accepting. Which is another reason why they are easy to steal. It has only been the drug explosion of the mid 80s that they have been used to guard property. Before the mid 80s no one ever heard of pitbull attacks.

The thing in your post the worried me the most was the part were your cousin chains his dogs outside. If you read any book on dog behavior you will see that it is a BIG no no to chain dogs outside where they can see humans. It drives them crazy. Tell him (if you have any influence with him) to stop this chaining of his dogs and read up on the breed. Check out his link
http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/dog_care/do_you_chain_your_dog.html

 

[Vega]

It's really simple.

We have a problem with a physically powerful breed that is causing statistically high fatal dog attacks because of irresponsible owners. The solution is not to ban because it’s unfair for both the canine & owner. Rather, let there be restrictions on ownership of the AMPBT breed so we don't have any more bad owners.

 

[Amstaffer]

[
Just because you’re black, doesn’t automatically exempt you for being racist. Any ethnic group can be racist towards a different ethnicity. The media is not making black people look like criminals; you’re in a state of delusion. This whole gangster appeal just happens to be popular with the African-America population. Don’t blame others for what’s being displayed. I sense the presence of Jesse Jackson in you. According to him, it’s racist to call people from the hurricane Katrina disaster refuges because a large some of them are African -American. You ever consider that they are reporting what’s actually going on and not participating in some kind of anti-black propaganda conspiracy?

If you don't see the very clear bias in today media then it is you who is "Delusionial". I won't pursue this any farther as you are most likely a big fan of fox news or worst yet a ditto head (Rush fan)

The claim my dog show example is a bad one doesn't seem so bad when your critizism of it makes my point perfectly and maybe we don't disagree as much as we both think. My point is it is the owners are at fault and not the dogs fault and your critizism reforces that. Thus the old saying ban the deed not the breed. If you have restrictions on one breed and not another it reinforces the idea that the breed is bad not the idiot who abuses them.

On the rest of your posts, if you want restrictions...great, just include all breeds. The dog species as a whole would be better off if only truly qualified people can own dogs.

PS... I love your quote under the picture of your dog, it is very very true.

 

[Amstaffer]

It's really simple.

We have a problem with a physically powerful breed that is causing statistically high fatal dog attacks because of irresponsible owners. The solution is not to ban because it’s unfair for both the canine & owner. Rather, let there be restrictions on ownership of the AMPBT breed so we don't have any more bad owners.

Do you feel that Rotts and Rott mixes should also be singled out?

 

[Vega]

If you don't see the very clear bias in today media then it is you who is "Delusionial". I won't pursue this any farther as you are most likely a big fan of fox news or worst yet a ditto head (Rush fan)

Assumptions on people will not get you far. Show me another example because the Katrina one was not a good one.

The claim my dog show example is a bad one doesn't seem so bad when your critizism of it makes my point perfectly and maybe we don't disagree as much as we both think. My point is it is the owners are at fault and not the dogs fault and your critizism reforces that. Thus the old saying ban the deed not the breed. If you have restrictions on one breed and not another it reinforces the idea that the breed is bad not the idiot who abuses them.

That first sentence makes no sense. Again, finding a canine with awful behavior is very unlikely when the people who participate in these show events spend a grrrrrrrreat deal of time with their pets. You can safely say the owners in those Eukanuba dog shows really care about their canine companions. I mean after all, they are exhibiting supposedly flawless dogs with excellent temperaments.

On the rest of your posts, if you want restrictions...great, just include all breeds. The dog species as a whole would be better off if only truly qualified people can own dogs.

We don’t have problems with fatal dog attacks from Dachshunds.

Do you feel that Rotts and Rott mixes should also be singled out?

It seem like their might be a need for restriction.

 

[Amstaffer]

Assumptions on people will not get you far. Show me another example because the Katrina one was not a good one.

Funny you made assumptions about me. I have taken this part of the arguement to PM....

That first sentence makes no sense. Again, finding a canine with awful behavior is very unlikely when the people who participate in these show events spend a grrrrrrrreat deal of time with their pets. You can safely say the owners in those Eukanuba dog shows really care about their canine companions. I mean after all, they are exhibiting supposedly flawless dogs with excellent temperaments.

The first sentence is right on and makes sense. My whole point is that Pitbull or Amstaffs are good dogs and behave great as long as they are not abused. It is not the fault of the dog but abusive owners, and I think you feel the same way, you just can't bring yourself to agree with me.

We don’t have problems with fatal dog attacks from Dachshunds.
[/I]

Just because Dachshunds don't contribute to fatal human attacks doesn't mean they couldn't benefit by requiring qualified owners. I don't think any breed should be singled out, I am all for restrictions on dog ownership, as long as it applies to all dogs. The root of all these problems is animal abuse and I am for any restrictions that stop this.

Another flaw in your stats in your sig is also it fails to take into consideration the sheer number of pitbulls in poverty areas where much of the animal abuse is the worst. In the area where many of these attacks take place the pitbull is the number one dog by far. In the inner city of Milwaukee I would bet that 8 out of 10 dogs are pitbulls and the 20% is mostly Rotts or GSDs.

So with that in mind, of course the majority of fatal dog attacks in Milwaukee are going to be Pitbulls and Rotts. Please check out the link in my Sig and you read a lot of interesting information.

 

[Amstaffer]

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Great post, I could easily see most of those dogs being identified as pitbulls if they bit someone and ran off. Not bragging but I got the right one on the first try.

 

[rottiegirl]

Wow I thought everyone knew about the Psychology debate of Nature vs Nuture. If you have ever had a Psy 101 course you will know that nature= genetics or breeding. Nuture = how you are raised and the sum of your experiences. Do a google search on Nature vs Nuture and you should be able to get the info you need. Maybe that will make more sense to you.

You got me wrong here... I know what it means, but I dont know why you are applying it to me (that is what I meant). I understand that the owners are the ones that help shape their dogs behaviour, but I am just trying to say that the breeders have alot to do with it too. I am not saying that good breeding will solve the problem, because it wont (it will sure help out though!). About the prey drive, I am going to quit arguing with you because its going no where. You will have your own opinion and so will I. The only important thing here is that you are trying to help the breed out, and you do give good advice, so props to you!

 

[filarotten]

I can only say....owning a fila and a rottie. Both of my dogs are on bsl list popping up all over the U.S. I think it is unfair and unjust.
My rottie was attacked by three dogs in our yard. They were not pitties....they were to yellow labs and a gsd mix. She fought back because she had to...I fought with the broom because I love her and she was overpowered. A pitt was in our yard later, also. Roxie did raise her fur, Brutus was right beside her....but no fight incurred. It was my dogs yard, their home. The Pitt sensed it and turned away.

As far as the pitt breed goes, and attacks. No, the general public does not know the difference. If you search the internet you will see an unbelievable amount of dogs that are being classified as pitts. My fila is banned in Colorado, My Rottie is next on the list for bsl all over. It is not the breeds fault. Dogs are not born with aggression. Some dogs are born with protection tendencies. There is a difference. The pitts that are raised for fighting are raised by very aggressive humans who get their sick kicks off watching and urging their poor animals to fight. the video I partially watched the dogs didn't want to fight. The human owners forced them. Humans are the sick you know whats and should be the ones put to sleep. They don't seem to reform well. The pitt that did attack my almost daughter- in- laws lab was raised by a sick s.o.b. He didn't have a care about anyone or anything. The dog only knew what he had been taught.

In petsmart friday Brutus had a boxer that jumped up on him in a dominant stature. Brutus just stood there and looked at him. The petsmart employee actually told the guy his boxer just did a very dominant aggressive move. Be thankful the fila was wellbehaved.

There are millions of people on this earth and there are millions of dogs. The more dogs you have and the more people you have the more cases of dogs bites you will see publicized. The media has got it way out of proportion. Thanks to them, my home owners insurance is unreal. Because I own a Rottie and I had a GD. I haven't let them know I own a fila. They would probably double it. MY DOGS ARE INNOCENT. AND MOST ARE!!!!! I am more afraid of Maggie (my little one)biting someone, than both of my big ones put together. I know their warning signs, and they will mind. Maggie, she has a mind of her own.
BSL only stands for one thing....bull sh### Laws. It is not the answer.
There are actually more dog bites from smaller dogs. They just don't do as much damage as a big one. No, I don't remember any specific sights where I read it, but they are on the internet. Most people don't report a chi biting someone. And, they can be aggressive little farts if they are not socialized well.
Until the owners are under control, there will continue to be uneducated idiots in congress etc, and the general public that keep on blaming named breeds, even if they are not the ones doing it. You take a child and you beat him and put him on a chain, and you are going to have a very aggressive adult that will probably kill,maime or something. That is all he knows. the same with any animal.
And as far as breeding. I may be wrong but I think it stems from the owner, not the breeder. Psych 101.

 

[Vega]

Funny you made assumptions about me. I have taken this part of the arguement to PM....

The fact that you believe the media is out to get the black man and provided the example of hurricane Katrina does suggest you’re delirious. You assume without any knowledge whatsoever about me that I’m a fan of Fox News & a “Ditto” Rush Limbaugh follower without any substantial evidence. The only factual knowledge you have of me is that I simply disagree with your view. How does this give you any creditable evidence that I listen to some guy that you’re opposed to? Let’s see what “compelling” evidence you have to reasonably argue that the media is anti-black in your private message. I probably should have stated that blind assumptions will not get you far.

The first sentence is right on and makes sense. My whole point is that Pitbull or Amstaffs are good dogs and behave great as long as they are not abused. It is not the fault of the dog but abusive owners, and I think you feel the same way, you just can't bring yourself to agree with me.

I have never argued that Pit Bulls can’t have good temperaments; I know they can from personal experiences. You’re having problems with comprehending what I’m explaining to you. What I am arguing for is that there needs to be restrictions on who owns a Pit Bull because we have too many irresponsible owners. To be more precise, a system where we are able to verify that the owners of the pit bulls are qualified to raise such a powerful breed, it’s something that I feel we would benefit. Also, I’m not just speaking solely for Pits but Rotts also since they are apparently they the second group that holds a great percentage for fatal dog attacks.

Just because Dachshunds don't contribute to fatal human attacks doesn't mean they couldn't benefit by requiring qualified owners. I don't think any breed should be singled out, I am all for restrictions on dog ownership, as long as it applies to all dogs. The root of all these problems is animal abuse and I am for any restrictions that stop this.

Your red herring, what’s at hand right now is about fatal pit bull attacks, not animal abuse in general. Its quiet evident that we all believe that only people capable of raising canines should be allowed to. 80-year-old Granny can raise Chihuahuas but Pit bulls and Brazillian Mastiffs or Presas would be questionable. Why? Because they are physically powerful canines! A person can raise a Chihuahua and by mistake make it vicious but will it brutally kill a man? No. Raising powerful breeds like I listed is not the same then raising breeds like golden retrievers, bichron fries, jack russel terrier, border collie etc..

Yes, it would be nice if all canine owners would be supervised vigorously but right now in this thread it’s about Fatal Pit Bull attacks. Not fatal Chihuahua, miniature pinscher, dachshund, golden retriever attacks because currently not one of these breeds is holding the greatest percentage of fatal dog attacks. They may attack but they are not anywhere near as powerful as a Pit, Fila, Presa, Rott etc...

Another flaw in your stats in your sig is also it fails to take into consideration the sheer number of pitbulls in poverty areas where much of the animal abuse is the worst. In the area where many of these attacks take place the pitbull is the number one dog by far. In the inner city of Milwaukee I would bet that 8 out of 10 dogs are pitbulls and the 20% is mostly Rotts or GSDs.

You have just admitted that pit bulls hold the greatest amount of dog attacks. Not just fatal attacks but just regular attacks. This statement collides with this statement above. According to your view, how can their be a flaw with my signature when its saying that Pit Bulls hold the greatest amount of fatal attacks when you acknowledge right above my paragraph that the pit bull is the number one dog by far in attacks?

So with that in mind, of course the majority of fatal dog attacks in Milwaukee are going to be Pitbulls and Rotts. Please check out the link in my Sig and you read a lot of interesting information.

Then how are my statistics wrong when you yourself are claiming that pits are the leading causing breed of fatal dog attacks?

 

[Amstaffer]

The fact that you believe the media is out to get the black man and provided the example of hurricane Katrina does suggest you’re delirious. You assume without any knowledge whatsoever about me that I’m a fan of Fox News & a “Ditto” Rush Limbaugh follower without any substantial evidence. The only factual knowledge you have of me is that I simply disagree with your view. How does this give you any creditable evidence that I listen to some guy that you’re opposed to? Let’s see what “compelling” evidence you have to reasonably argue that the media is anti-black in your private message. I probably should have stated that blind assumptions will not get you far.

Well once again you prove my point in your post which is suposed to be proving me wrong. Your arguement style of attack, name calling and non-logical dismissal of logical points is the exact style of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Thanks for making my point even stronger. I think most people accept that some of the reporting on Katrina was biased, you want to deny it....fine but who is the delusional one?

Check this link
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Blogs_raise_questions_of_racism_in_hurricane_photo_cap_0902.html

I have never argued that Pit Bulls can’t have good temperaments; I know they can from personal experiences. You’re having problems with comprehending what I’m explaining to you. What I am arguing for is that there needs to be restrictions on who owns a Pit Bull because we have too many irresponsible owners. To be more precise, a system where we are able to verify that the owners of the pit bulls are qualified to raise such a powerful breed, it’s something that I feel we would benefit. Also, I’m not just speaking solely for Pits but Rotts also since they are apparently they the second group that holds a great percentage for fatal dog attacks.

And apparently you comprehension also suffers as I say you should not restrict one breed over another. Irresponsible owners should not own any dog. Check out my sig....Pitbulls pass Humane society temperment test over 82% of the time which is better that many breeds like goldens.

Your red herring, what’s at hand right now is about fatal pit bull attacks, not animal abuse in general. Its quiet evident that we all believe that only people capable of raising canines should be allowed to. 80-year-old Granny can raise Chihuahuas but Pit bulls and Brazillian Mastiffs or Presas would be questionable. Why? Because they are physically powerful canines! A person can raise a Chihuahua and by mistake make it vicious but will it brutally kill a man? No. Raising powerful breeds like I listed is not the same then raising breeds like golden retrievers, bichron fries, jack russel terrier, border collie etc..

Yes, it would be nice if all canine owners would be supervised vigorously but right now in this thread it’s about Fatal Pit Bull attacks. Not fatal Chihuahua, miniature pinscher, dachshund, golden retriever attacks because currently not one of these breeds is holding the greatest percentage of fatal dog attacks. They may attack but they are not anywhere near as powerful as a Pit, Fila, Presa, Rott etc...

I see you have been reading your freshman debate team notes, this was not meant as a distraction but rather a retort to your claim only "powerfull" breeds need restrictions. If you limit the restrictions against certain breeds it is discrimination and will encourage prejudice against them. If you put restrictions on all dog ownership you protect all dogs.

You have just admitted that pit bulls hold the greatest amount of dog attacks. Not just fatal attacks but just regular attacks. This statement collides with this statement above. According to your view, how can their be a flaw with my signature when its saying that Pit Bulls hold the greatest amount of fatal attacks when you acknowledge right above my paragraph that the pit bull is the number one dog by far in attacks?

What I was showing you is simple math. If you have 100 dogs in a city and 85 of those are Collies, then Collies are of course going to be the dog that attacks the most. The way you quote stats infers that all breeds are represented equally. The reason that Pitbulls stand out in your stats is that they are popular in areas where dogs are abused alot (poverty areas) and in these areas they are the dominant breed (by numbers) by far.

I would bet in middle class America there are other breeds that record more attacks. GSDs, Rotts, St Benards (there was a bunch of these when I was a kid), Dobermans...etc

Then how are my statistics wrong when you yourself are claiming that pits are the leading causing breed of fatal dog attacks?

Why...because they don't take population ratios into consideration. The sheer number of pitbulls makes them more likely to record any stat (good or bad) example Pitbulls lick more faces, pee on more trees, dig more holes and get hit by more humans than any other breed in certain areas.

Example: You rarely see Malamutes in high crime areas....thus they are less likely to be raised for protection and thus there are fewer of them. So to compare Pitbull stats ot Malamute stats are flawed. For your stats to be valid you must compare them to other dogs that come close to them (population) in the same areas that attacks take place and/or adjust the number of attacks to there total numbers. Example if one out of 10,000 pitbulls attack humans and one out of 500 chows attack humans then Chows are more dangerous but if there are 10,000 pitbulls to every 250 chows then the Pitbull appears more dangerous even though stats wise and in reality...they are not. If you still don't understand, pick up a Stats book because I don't think I can put it any more simply.

 

[Bowowee]

I have to disagree with that.

I refuse to believe someone who lets their dogs drive.

 

[juliefurry]

Ok here's what I am going to say about pitbulls. Any dog can be dangerous and vicious. Pitbulls were not bred to be dangerous instead they were taught and then very badly bred on top of it. I think on the sake of ending all pitbull arguements that any and all dog should be put under the same ban if pitbulls are banned in cities and states. All dogs (big and small) should be leashed, and muzzled in public places. Maybe a chi can't do much damage to an adult but I am living proof that a small dog can do a lot of damage to a small child. I was attacked by a pom when I was young and I still have the scars on my arm and shoulder to prove it. So maybe out of fairness all dogs should be put under the same ban.

 

[rottiegirl]

Ok here's what I am going to say about pitbulls. Any dog can be dangerous and vicious. Pitbulls were not bred to be dangerous instead they were taught and then very badly bred on top of it. I think on the sake of ending all pitbull arguements that any and all dog should be put under the same ban if pitbulls are banned in cities and states. All dogs (big and small) should be leashed, and muzzled in public places. Maybe a chi can't do much damage to an adult but I am living proof that a small dog can do a lot of damage to a small child. I was attacked by a pom when I was young and I still have the scars on my arm and shoulder to prove it. So maybe out of fairness all dogs should be put under the same ban.

I agree with you. Every dog should be muzzled in public, instead of singling one breed out.

 

[Vega]

Well once again you prove my point in your post which is suposed to be proving me wrong. Your arguement style of attack, name calling and non-logical dismissal of logical points is the exact style of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Thanks for making my point even stronger. I think most people accept that some of the reporting on Katrina was biased, you want to deny it....fine but who is the delusional one?

Because my style of arguing is similar to Fox News or to Rush in your observation this makes me automatically a follower?

1. I don’t watch Fox News only Good Day L.A. in the morning for the day’s weather condition and to see Julian, the weather girl.
2. I don’t listen or watch Rush Limbaugh and don’t have any significant interest in him.
3. Nothing is making your point stronger but only in your own mind.
4. Yea the media can be bias.

Check this link
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Blogs_raise_questions_of_racism_in_hurricane_photo_cap_0902.html

Rather weak, no? I mean after all, those are two different news agencies If I’m not mistaken reporting on their own. Your example would have looked stronger if it was the same news agency. Here is one for you, the Toledo riots. I’m sure you are familiar with that violent event, right? Check this link.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1220242

White people were going to march in this city but they were oppressed using fear by the opposing faction which is comprised of mostly African-Americans and a very small multi-racial violent anarchist group. The headlines: “White Supremacist Riot in Toledo,” even thou it was the opposing faction that was rioting but the media likes to make the group of white marchers who belong to some Nazi group the ones at fault. They had all the legal rights to march. This was one the most obvious examples of the media being bias and protecting the black community. The headlines should have been anti-racist riots.

And apparently you comprehension also suffers as I say you should not restrict one breed over another. Irresponsible owners should not own any dog. Check out my sig....Pitbulls pass Humane society temperment test over 82% of the time which is better that many breeds like goldens.

No because not one of those other breeds has the greatest percentage of fatal dog attacks like the Pit Bull. The Human Societies’ temperament test proves that banning the breed is incorrect because they have a high rating of good temperament and shows it’s pretty much the owners of this breed that’s causing the high percentage of fatal dog attacks.

According to the 2004 December statistics from the American Temperament Test Society, Inc

Golden Retriever good temperament rating was 83.6%
American Pit Bull Terrier good temperament rating was 83.4%

So they are pretty much the same really. The key difference is that a pit bull is a far more powerful breed that can cause a far greater deal of damage. When a dog attack accident occurs, a pit bull is more likely to cause a fatality because of the fact that it’s a physically powerful breed with awesome offensive capabilities.

I see you have been reading your freshman debate team notes, this was not meant as a distraction but rather a retort to your claim only "powerfull" breeds need restrictions. If you limit the restrictions against certain breeds it is discrimination and will encourage prejudice against them. If you put restrictions on all dog ownership you protect all dogs.

No, its called don’t make irrelevant arguments to try to prove a point, Mr. Teacher. To obtain certain powerful breeds of dogs you would need additional qualifications to be a prospective handlers because these are powerful breeds that need owners who know how to handle them. Owning a Fila is not the same as owning a beagle.

What I was showing you is simple math. If you have 100 dogs in a city and 85 of those are Collies, then Collies are of course going to be the dog that attacks the most. The way you quote stats infers that all breeds are represented equally. The reason that Pitbulls stand out in your stats is that they are popular in areas where dogs are abused alot (poverty areas) and in these areas they are the dominant breed (by numbers) by far.

I would bet in middle class America there are other breeds that record more attacks. GSDs, Rotts, St Benards (there was a bunch of these when I was a kid), Dobermans...etc

Taking a bite is one thing but dying from a dog attack is way different. In these poor neighborhoods, don’t you think restrictions on pit bulls would decrease these pit bull fatal attack statistics? Restrictions would ensure only capable handlers would own Pits which would result in a dramatic drop of human fatality rate as a result of Pit Bull attacks. Just to clarify something, I’m not suggesting the elimination of Pits but rather unqualified owners. Ban No, Owner Restriction Yes. If we can extend this other breeds then sure why not but this is not the matter at hand right now.

Why...because they don't take population ratios into consideration. The sheer number of pitbulls makes them more likely to record any stat (good or bad) example Pitbulls lick more faces, pee on more trees, dig more holes and get hit by more humans than any other breed in certain areas.

Example: You rarely see Malamutes in high crime areas....thus they are less likely to be raised for protection and thus there are fewer of them. So to compare Pitbull stats ot Malamute stats are flawed. For your stats to be valid you must compare them to other dogs that come close to them (population) in the same areas that attacks take place and/or adjust the number of attacks to there total numbers. Example if one out of 10,000 pitbulls attack humans and one out of 500 chows attack humans then Chows are more dangerous but if there are 10,000 pitbulls to every 250 chows then the Pitbull appears more dangerous even though stats wise and in reality...they are not. If you still don't understand, pick up a Stats book because I don't think I can put it any more simply.

Again, this just really comes down to the owners not the breed. Let’s put restrictions on the owners rather then banning the breed. My stats are in general, not in one specific type of environment.


According to the AKC registration statistics, the Staffordshire bull terrier ranks # 92 of the most popular breed out of 154, it’s pretty much in the middle.