Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[SaltyDawg]

That doesn't mean they're not an overly aggressive and dangerous breed. I'll bet you've owned at least one in your lifetime. Am I right?

Yes I have. I adopted him when he was a small puppy and his loser owners went to jail. He went his entire life without ever even barking at another person.

He was raised with another dog though (not a pit) so he had no social issues.

I don't think they're naturally over aggressive. They're just easy to make really aggressive, so lots of losers get them for this purpose.

 

[Bronco70]

There are probably thousands of pit bulls that have never hurt anyone. If there were a way to know which ones would behave, and which wouldn't, this would be an entirely different problem.

Owners can be a huge part of the problem. But, as I cited by personal experience in my original post in this thread, being a responsible owner is no guarantee. The dog that attacked that kid was not neglected, mistreated, or teased. He was a really good dog that snapped, unprovoked. You just don't know.

 

[SaltyDawg]

There are probably thousands of pit bulls that have never hurt anyone. If there were a way to know which ones would behave, and which wouldn't, this would be an entirely different problem.

Owners can be a huge part of the problem. But, as I cited by personal experience in my original post in this thread, being a responsible owner is no guarantee. The dog that attacked that kid was not neglected, mistreated, or teased. He was a really good dog that snapped, unprovoked. You just don't know.

And that can (and does) happen with just about any dog breed. It happens more often with pit bulls because that is the trashy losers' dog of choice.

 

[billyshelby]

I have a pit bull. I've had several dogs and never thought I'd own a pit bull until fate dropped one into my life. Everything I know about pit bulls (besides my Masters in Talking To People and Internet PhD) is from observing her for the last year and a half. I don't pretend to know where DNA and experiential trauma divide in figuring out why she does what she does. These are my objective findings about aggression in pit bulls:

They exhibit more aggression than other dogs. They're incredibly strong. My dog is 55 pounds, she could tow a Volkswagen over the Rockies, and it would be the best day of her life. They have intense play drives. If I threw her over the fence of the Cheetah Cage, I think they'd be fast friends. Because pit bulls are so strong and capable of violence, I completely understand other people's fear. I don't entirely trust my own dog at this stage of her development.

But she's come a long way with training. And I encounter pit owners every day whose dogs are no more dangerous than your standard lab. Very unscientifically, my experience is all dogs have common fear issues. But with Labs and other breeds, you never really have to figure them out because they express their fears with timidity. A pit is more inclined to express fear with their physicality. I doubt pits require more training than other breeds, but they do require more conscientiousness on the part of owners for that reason.

So I understand the urge to ban ban pit bulls. Pit bulls require responsible owners. But any system that requires people to do the right thing for everything to work perfectly is a doomed system. Which basically applies to every system with people in it, including but not limited to local governments that hilariously pretend to make the world safer by creating more systems to protect themselves from each other.

In conclusion, my advice is to remind your constituents that people are much scarier than dogs. Then move on to more pressing matters like setting a date for an exploratory meeting about when to hold an official meeting on the controversial motion to ease restrictions on sprinkler heads per acreage.

 

[Bronco70]

And that can (and does) happen with just about any dog breed. It happens more often with pit bulls because that is the trashy losers' dog of choice.

You're right, any breed of dog is capable of an attack. However, the fact that 67% of fatal attacks are committed by a breed that makes up 5% of the dog population is a fairly telling statistic.

In reading up a little further on this, I came across a few sources that agree on a basic difference between dog attacks by breed. According to many of them, pit bulls (and to a lesser extent, rottweilers) attack to kill, while almost any other breed (including German Shepherds) attack to intimidate.

Responsible ownership does lower the risk, but to suggest that any inclination toward aggression is purely environmental is a hollow argument.

 

[freakazoid]

And that can (and does) happen with just about any dog breed. It happens more often with pit bulls because that is the trashy losers' dog of choice.

I agree with this, but I do believe that guard dog breeds have protective/aggressive instincts that make it more likely for them to bite. The only dog I've ever been bitten by that actually scared me instead of just pissing me off was a German Shepard. It was my brother's dog, and I used to take care of it when they were out of town. It was extrememly territorial. Anyone who approached the fence outside would be greeted by a dog out for blood. Once you walked into the house and through the back door, he was your buddy.

One time I had just finished playing with him, and I was walking into the house right behind my brother. Something instinctive kicked in and he grabbed me by the ankle. Hurt like hell. Funny thing is, I never held it against that dog because I understood why it happened. I continued taking care of it for them, and it never bit me again. When they weren't home, I could open the door into the back yard, and that dog would be in attack mode, with just the screen door between us. As soon as I opened the screen door to let him in the house, he's come in and the visciousness gave way immediately to friendliness. It was the damnedest thing.

 

[bigb]

I don't entirely trust my own dog at this stage of her development.

The fact that you can't entirely trust your own dog after a year and a half is very telling to me. That isn't exactly a vote of confidence for pit bulls.
I have two labs. I grew up with labs in our family. In fact, the only time I haven't had a lab in my life was in the first two years of my marriage while I lived in an apartment. The weekend after I moved into my first house, I bought a lab. I trust those dogs with one exception: My yellow lab will chew up anything left in our yard.

 

[billyshelby]

Timeframe is not the issue. As puppies (0-1), dogs of any breed rarely exhibit problems. It's when they hit 1-3 that issues surface. I started formal training with my dog a few months ago when I noticed she had problems with little dogs. They cause her intense anxiety and, for now, I won't allow her to be in situations where she plays with little dogs. Big dogs, sure. And I have Zero concerns she will ever bite a person. She makes a clear distinction between people and animals and is extremely docile around humans.

Every dog has different problems. I have a second puppy that, like your dog, destroys everything I own. She's done unspeakable things to my couch. Yet she's harmless to all living things. With her, I'm basically dealing with separation anxiety issues. If I leave, she goes on the warpath. With the other, I'm dealing with fear issues. I have to manage her social interaction much more carefully.

But they're no more fully formed as 'teenagers' than people are.

 

[SaltyDawg]

You're right, any breed of dog is capable of an attack. However, the fact that 67% of fatal attacks are committed by a breed that makes up 5% of the dog population is a fairly telling statistic.

In reading up a little further on this, I came across a few sources that agree on a basic difference between dog attacks by breed. According to many of them, pit bulls (and to a lesser extent, rottweilers) attack to kill, while almost any other breed (including German Shepherds) attack to intimidate.

Responsible ownership does lower the risk, but to suggest that any inclination toward aggression is purely environmental is a hollow argument.

I think such a high percentage of dog attacks are from pit bulls because that is the trashy losers' dog of choice.

If rots, dobies, or shepherds were the "cool" dog for losers, then you'd probably see that breed with the highest percentage of attacks.

 

[SaltyDawg]

The fact that you can't entirely trust your own dog after a year and a half is very telling to me. That isn't exactly a vote of confidence for pit bulls.
I have two labs. I grew up with labs in our family. In fact, the only time I haven't had a lab in my life was in the first two years of my marriage while I lived in an apartment. The weekend after I moved into my first house, I bought a lab. I trust those dogs with one exception: My yellow lab will chew up anything left in our yard.

I love labs. I have one too. They're probably my favorite breed. But I have seen a couple of mean ones in my day.

It's all in how you raise it. Good owners have good dogs, regardless of the breed. Bad owners have bad dogs.

Some dogs require more work than others, no doubt. But in the end, they are all just dogs and will act the way they are taught.

 

[freakazoid]

There are probably thousands of pit bulls that have never hurt anyone. If there were a way to know which ones would behave, and which wouldn't, this would be an entirely different problem.

Owners can be a huge part of the problem. But, as I cited by personal experience in my original post in this thread, being a responsible owner is no guarantee. The dog that attacked that kid was not neglected, mistreated, or teased. He was a really good dog that snapped, unprovoked. You just don't know.

I don't disagree completely, but I think this gets blown out of proportion. Most dogs that do something like that have probably shown signs at times of a potential problem. People either ignore the signs because they don't want to believe their family pet could be dangerous, or they just don't want to take the blame for a situation they allowed to happen. If you're going to own a pit bull, it's probably not a good idea to pretend it's just like any other family dog. If you're someone who can't keep your dog from getting out and roaming the neighborhood, you probably shouldn't own a pit bull.

 

[LogGrad98]

No pit bull is born with clipped ears. If you see one with clipped ears, someone purposely clipped them. It's losers like that who give pit bulls a bad name.

They are just dogs. They'll act the way they are taught to act.

If there was some way to track it, I would bet the vast majority of pit bull attacks are from dogs that have been owned by a loser at some point. (and by loser, I mean someone that did not raise the dog right and either on purpose or inadvertently made it a mean dog)

The point is clipping the ears is part of the official standard for the breed, which means that a breeder who feels that is a telling sign of the high end of the breed will do that to every puppy, meaning you cannot make assumptions based on that feature alone. Much like bobbing the tail is a breed standard that is optional on some breeds according to the AKC. It does not necessarily have anything to do with a negligent or homicidal owner.