Ohio legislation to ban pit bulls.

[Janelle]

The fact is, everybody's argument has some truth to it. The statistics do show that bully breeds are responsible for more attacks than other breeds. However, as others have pointed out, their circumstances aren't factored in. The unfortunate thing about these breeds is that the very people who shouldn't own one are some of the only people who want them. The vast majority of the owners of these breeds want them for fighting, or to be "tough," etc. So the majority of the dogs are mistreated. So of course they're more prone to attack, since they're more prone to mistreatment.

Unfortunately, it's a vicious cycle. The more bad publicity they get, the more good people don't want them and the more bad people do.

 

[bizziesdad]

cagny, new report is out. Why dont you research and post that. It's much newer than 1998. And even if the old report is 10 yrs old the results were the same then as they are now. It specifically said that pit bulls and rotweillers account for more than 50% of all attacks that resulted in deaths.

And yes I do believe in financial reports from 10 yrs ago. They provide a great deal of information you can use combined with current statistics to make wise decisions. What is the saying about forgetting the past and being doomed to repeat it?

Sorry, once again using current and past statistics combined with personal and reported occurences is just me being closed minded and ignorant. I will totally give that say 70% of the PB's have not attacked. What is scary is those that have not are just time bombs. Everything about the breed when looked at without emotion will tell you that.

And I have said anything about Rot's because this was an article and discussion about PB's.

Now did you get crapped on by the mod of doom for attacking me and calling me sheep? I didnt think so.

 

[Bennalaya]

bennalaya, the post you responded to wasnt even a response to anything you have written. Now, you never answered the clydesdale question and have now brought up deer. While I am sure it has happened, has it happened frequently enough that while simply walking down the road you are attacked and hospitalized from a deer? NO. It doesnt. If you are going to make a point at least make one that isnt so out as to just not make sense.

Look, I have already stated that I have said my piece and you've certainly stated your fair share in this thread as well. I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine. This thread wasn't supposed to be about whether or not "bully" breed dogs are inherently dangerous. It was about breed-specific legislation and the negative impact it has both on the animals as well as the owner (mostly the animal). There is no anecdotal or empirical evidence I can provide you with that will change your perception of Staffies.

But, since you continue to attack my character rather than debate the talking points, I feel the need to continue to come back to this thread in order to defend myself. The reason I make comparisons with other animals is because the fact remains that no breed is inherently dangerous. It's about being a responsible pet owner and realizing that different breeds require different types of care. I have owned and fostered many animals in my life and my parents did as well, so I have been exposed to every type of animal you could imagine. Some were tremendous. Others came from situations that caused a great amount of distrust and they needed lots of extra special care and patience. Out of all the years I've been around animals, I've never been seriously injured by one.

If you'd like to know why, I'll tell you. Because I don't fear them. I'm calm around them. They don't become stressed because they sense my fear. I handle them patiently and with care and understanding. I've had some close calls. I've been in a stall feeding a horse before and had another one get loose somehow and enter the stall with them. I've never scaled an eight foot wall so fast in my life, but I did it without panicking and the situation was quickly diffused without myself or the horses getting injured. I respect them and I don't take any animal into my care that I haven't done the sufficient research to understand their specific care and handling needs.

I tell you what, we'll do a comparison of statistics. Let's take the percentage of humans killed every year by dogs and compare it to the percentage of humans killed every year by other human beings and then we'll see which group is more worthy of trust.

 

[bizziesdad]

You seem to ignore other's posts and focus on the one's you think you can best disprove. I answered your horse question. And as for the deer, you might not be walking down the street, but they cause harm when driving down the street.

No you did not. You just said "it happens more than you think". Now maybe that is scientific evidence to everyone here but I am not seeing it. It might also be what you would consider an "answer". Not really seeing that either.

And deer dont, as a generalization, cause damage unless you run into one. And that is not really what the poster of that comment was saying. The poster was commenting on cornering one and seeing what happened. Is just perposterous as anyone cornered is going to fight. You certainly cant blame that on the animal. Its also NOT what we are talking about. PB's attack at random with no warning or cause.

 

[bizziesdad]

bennalay, I will take that bet. I get the humans for most deaths and least trustworthy.

 

[dra&pigs]

Commenting on the orginial posters message (and bizziesdad)-I don't believe they should be banned, and they never, ever should be banned. Lets think about it this way. A pit bull has two puppies, also full pit bulls. They are taken by friends. One of the friends (I'll call him Bob) is abusive to the dog and teaches it to attack. The other friend (His name will be Joe) who took a puppy provided a loving, caring home, with a proper diet, training and human interaction time. The first friends puppy gets loose from the backyard and attacks a pedestrian. The other dog gets along with everyone and everything, and has never intentionally hurt someone. A similiar problem occured at our local shelter (I volunteer there), except they were both labs. Now, how do the pit bulls differ? One fits your 'beast' category, and the other is treated the way all dogs should be treated. I have two dogs. One is from a breeder (yes, shame on me) and the other is a rescue. The rescue happens to be a pit bull. The other dog, a Border Terrier, is more dominant and bullying than the pit bull. You can argue all you like, but a dog is taught to act a way, they very rarely will do it by their own "personality" because they are pack animals. They follow the alpha, or leader.

 

[Cagney]

No you did not. You just said "it happens more than you think". Now maybe that is scientific evidence to everyone here but I am not seeing it. It might also be what you would consider an "answer". Not really seeing that either.

And deer dont, as a generalization, cause damage unless you run into one. And that is not really what the poster of that comment was saying. The poster was commenting on cornering one and seeing what happened. Is just perposterous as anyone cornered is going to fight. You certainly cant blame that on the animal. Its also NOT what we are talking about. PB's attack at random with no warning or cause.

No it's not scientific evidence. I would find it for you, but past experience has taught me it's a waste of time.


Why is it everytime any other animal attacks someone, wether it be deer, horses, lab's, golden's, lightening bugs, etc....your response is you certainly can't blame that on the animal? Can you seriously not see the failure in the logic there? And why so many are going to dissagree with you?


Well I'm brining up Rott's. If you feel so strongly that Pits (which again aren't an actual breed) are predispositioned to be mean because of their genetics bred into them for fighting. What could your possible explanation be for the Rottweiler being right up there with them on your "reports"? Rott's were bred to pull carts and be social and yet protect their owners. Like many many other working breeds. And yet they do score slightly lower on the temperment tests. And what about the other breeds of dogs bred to fight, the same way a pit was? Why aren't they genetically crazed as well?

Problem is I personally can't follow your logic at all. You want to argue a report. New old, whatever. But ignore a test that tested actual known bully breed breeds. Real ones, not generalized terms like pit bulls. They were tested in a controlled environement and all breeds were tested equally. This is as scientific as you get. It proved beyond a doubt that bully breeds are tempermentally sound. Yet you bypass that "report" every time.

You tapdance over questions relating to unknown factors in your reports that you cite from. Such as the condition of the dog, and all other unknown factors, like is it really a pit? (of course not because pit bull's are a general term, do you get this yet?) Find me a breed standard for a Pit Bull. There isn't one. It's not an actual breed. Which proves how general the term pit bull dog is when any report refers to them as such. They are grouping at least 4-5 different actual breeds into one, and any other dog that has been mistaken for one. What other breed does your report do that to? Do they group all herding dogs under cattle dogs? No. Add up 4-5 different herding dogs, and 4-5 different working dog breeds and see how quickly they climb up the report charts.

Sorry sheep offend you. Some people like them.

 

[Bennalaya]

Well I'm brining up Rott's. If you feel so strongly that Pits (which again aren't an actual breed) are predispositioned to be mean because of their genetics bred into them for fighting. What could your possible explanation be for the Rottweiler being right up there with them on your "reports"? Rott's were bred to pull carts and be social and yet protect their owners. Like many many other working breeds. And yet they do score slightly lower on the temperment tests. And what about the other breeds of dogs bred to fight, the same way a pit was? Why aren't they genetically crazed as well?

Exactly! The same rings true for Presa Canarios, which also rank high in dog attacks that result in hospitalization. They were bred as a multi-purpose farm labor dog. They are enormous in stature and very strong, hence why they could be misconstrued as a "dangerous breed".

Dogs do not realize their own size or strength. A Chihuahua will oftentimes pick fights with larger dogs, not even realizing that their small size puts them at tremendous risk. A Rat Terrier jumping up and biting you isn't going to cause anywhere near the amount of damage a St. Bernard exhibiting the same behavior would. It's relative to size, not a pre-disposition toward aggression.

 

[crazywiggy]

Bizziesdad

Did you actually read any of my posts? You do not seem to have responded to the points I made.

So, plese let me ask you a straight question.

You believe that "pit bulls" attacks more than other breeds. (Based on the stats - fine)

You believe that they are "born that way" - WHY? What reason do you have for blaming breed over circumstances, background, health and all the other factors?

What if the stats showed that 90% of pit bulls were undersocialised, untrained and abused? Yet only say 10% of other breeds were?
Would you then realise that pit bulls are more likely to be dangerous because they are more likely to be badly reared?

Of course, we don't have these stats.... because of people like you who only look at breed.

Sadly I do not remember the title of the dog but one of the many books I have read on dog training and behaviour looked into the whole pit bull issue.

Please consider the two points that arose...

1) In whatever state that banned pit bulls they checked the veterinary records. As the number of pit bulls on the books dropped the number of rottweilers on the books rose the same amount! What a surprise - the morons just went out and bought a different "scary" breed of dog to abuse!

2) Of around 12 pit bulls responsible for fatalities over a period of time, I believe around 10 were known to have been physically abused, and all were owned by known criminals.

If I can find the book I will give more details, but there have been so many I have lost track.

Just to reiterate....

How do you know pit bulls are aggressive because of nature, and not nurture?

 

[Taboo]

I don't think its right to ban them in some places. I think it's all on how they're brought up and if they're brought up to be aggressive then that's how they'll be. I've heard of more sweet pit bulls than I have aggressive ones.

It's not right to ban ownership of any animal in a certain state/area in my opinion. It's not fair to the animals or the people that would love to have them as pets.

 

[Jennicat]

If we're going to play the statistics game, 90%+ of dogs involved in serious and fatal attacks are unaltered animals. I think that really trumps all other figures.

 

[salana]

bizziesdad, you need to refrain from bringing politics into this. That's why I've been impacting you.

Also, I kind of have a life so I haven't been hopping to every complaint.

 

[wickedrodent]

I'm against BSL plain and simple.

In fact, there is not much more I can add to the conversation then has already been said. However, I saw something I have to comment on.

Are you sure they're actually pit bulls?

I personally am more wary of chows than pits

I think everyone who has had bad experience with a specific breed in the past with be a tiny bit hesitant toward that breed. For instance, I had been attacked my a Rottie and then a Shepard.

I can go up to a Pit or Doberman without a second thought. After asking the owner, of course. A Rottie or Shepard? I hesitate. Your hesitation and fear sparks something in the animal. They can feel what you feel.

That is another factor in some of the Pitt attacks. People market them as being horrible, vicious animals. In reality, people are the ones breeding them and training them to fight. They train them to kill other animals, etc. Even if the dog is amazinly docile around other animals and people the hesiation, fear and aggression you feel is going to me mimiced by the dog.

Anyhow. My origional thought to post that is because I have a chow mix (well, we think. I'll tell you in a few days when her DNA test comes in) that is as sweet as can be. She was abused, neglected, you name it. When we got her she took a LOT of training. She was never aggressive unless cornered. She shied away from nearly everyone. Proper training does wonders. I can leave her alone with my 3 year old cousin right now and they would have a ball. He could tug on her tail or try and ride her and she'd be fine. Training DOES work. Not for all dogs with all pasts but owners are partially to blame for some of these attacks.

 

[salana]

Once upon a time, I had a pet who was a known biter.

She bit others of her species. She bit humans all the time. Provoked, unprovoked, whatever. It didn't matter to her. She just was a biter. Sure, she had a history of neglect at the pet store she came from. Sure, she was attacked by others of her own species. She wasn't fixed, and she had a chronic illness. Did that make her bite? I don't know. But she bit all the time, and I knew about it. What's more, her breed is well known for having a lot of biters. Whether they bite out of fear, or bad socialization, inherent temper, or whatever, a lot of them bite.

So should we ban dwarf hamsters?

 

[dra&pigs]

So should we ban dwarf hamsters?

Nice one salana. I'm going to use that as a springboard, if you don't mind. I've been volunteering at a local shelter since I was about seven (my mother used to come to). I was nine years old, and was attacked by a pit bull. I had to go to the hospital and get stitches all up my arm, as well as a cast because when I fell I broke my wrist. The dog wasn't adopted for nearly two months (Actually, my family ended up adopting him. Charlie hasn't bitten anybody since coming to live with us). Yet, the week after, I was socializing a hamster and I got bitten pretty hard on the thumb. It bled considerably, for little bite, yet the next day someone came and took the hamster, even though she had the "biter" sign on her cage like the dog. Now tell me, should we ban pit bulls and hamsters? If someone is so focused on eliminating breeds that bite and harm people, well they might as well wipe out the entire animal population. Almost all breeds can bite. Almost all can cause harm. Yet because pit bulls are publicized for being a nasty breed, they are the ones being banned. If a random person sees a pit bull, I'm sure most of them think they are dangerous and could attack, and won't approach them. If someone sees a hamster, they most likely would walk up and pet them, take them out and cuddle them. If they get bit, "Oh, well, he must have been scared". If a pit bull bites "He's evil and should be put down". That doesn't make sense to me. Why should a hamster be able to feel scared, but a pit bull is deemed as angry and evil. What if the pit bull was scared and the hamster was evil?

 

[Weatherlight]

Ok, before my disorganized rambling begins, please tell me how many tries you need before getting it right: http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html The first time I saw this site, I got it on my second guess. I was guessing because I didn't know for sure. I consider http://members.aol.com/radogz/find.html to be cheating a bit since AmStaffs and APBTs are so closely related that some dogs are dual registered. And keep in mind that most humans are probably more ignorant than I am.



Most of you people don't know anything about real dogs. Media pit bull myths? Try Disney dog myths. Don't blame your lack of dog-caring skills on genes or dominance. Puppies are not blank slates. Dogs are not bound by genetic determinism. Taking a puppy away from hir mother and littermates too early is no guarantee of safe personality--it's not a guarantee of anything else, but it does deprive hir of many important things that are best fulfilled in an early family (as in dam and siblings) environment. Dog-dog aggression is not the same as aggression against humans. Many people can't tell a bully breed from a lab, much less an AmStaff from an APBT (some dogs are dual registered, fun). If a certain type of person, less than 4% of the population, likes to run people over with cars, and they like to drive red cars, we really ought to ban red cars which will stop 22% of all cases of people being run over by cars. It is not inevitable that dogs dislike having their paws handled. Virtually all dogs are capable of biting. (Those who are not are freaks, like humans incapable of being violent, even if threatened with torture of their children or whatever.) Most people think that some dogs bite "without provocation" but they just don't see the provocation as provocation because it wouldn't provoke them (the humans) even though it provokes the dogs.

John always seemed like a friendly guy. Then one day he strangled another human, Joe, without provocation! All that happened was that Joe waved a gun around and threatened to shoot everyone in sight. I don't understand why John snapped. It must be genetic, since I don't see anything else that could have caused John to pry the gun away and strangle Joe. I always thought humans were nice unless they were trained otherwise. John proved me wrong.

As for "no warning," my friend worked with her first truly human-aggressive dog (if he was a pit mix, it didn't really show, he didn't have pit head, legs, etc) years ago and she understood very well if he gave the eye warning. Would the average pet owner or reporter? Probably not.

crazywiggy made a good point about growling. I truly LOVE when dogs feel free to stare, freeze, lick their lips, look away, move their ears, growl, snarl, and snap. These are like the humans who look uncomfortable, then say "hey, this makes me feel bad," etc. The ones who, for whatever reason, don't do these and go straight to biting are more dangerous because of this. These are like the humans who suppress themselves at all costs, and maybe their smile looks a little forced, before they erupt with uninhibited physical violence.

Some dogs are great with other dogs but not humans or cats. Some dogs are great with all animals under 80 lbs or so but not anyone else. Some dogs are great with humans and rabbits but no other species. Guess what? Dogs aren't children.

Oh also wanted to point out that you have to decide what sort of group your samples are representing. Dogs who are temperament tested are generally not representative of the entire breed.

I'm on the fence about BSL now, because maybe some people won't bother switching to another breed or going underground. Maybe a few less puppies will be bred. Or maybe not. But there should always always be a grandfather clause.

 

[Cagney]

Honestly you have many good points. But your statement is rather hard to follow. No temperment testing is not 100%, but they asked for scientific proof. Statistical proof. The temperment test scores are as close as you get to that. Nothing is 100%, or a good sample. There are way too many vairables in dog ownership to take into consideration.

From someone who lives in an area where almost every city has a BSL from personal experience it does not work. There is no fence for me to sit on about it. It doesn't work. Either it's not enforced, another type of dog is choosen and puppies are still being born. BSL stops nothing. The only thing it's stopped is my ability to rescue and bring home one of these breeds, since there is a BSL (with a grandfather clause) in my area. Grandfather clauses are great for a dog in that area at that particular moment. But what happens when that dog dies, or the people move? Those don't work either. If you put in a grandfather clause you are saying you understand that most of that breed in the city at that moment are fine, but new ones must have something wrong with them? There's no sense to that logic.

The fact is most people shouldn't own any dog, period. The only law that will help anything is requirements of dog owners showing proof of a well mannored dog, high fees for intact dogs, and the ability to fund enforcement of those laws. Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen? Probably not.

Stating that most of us don't know a thing about dogs is uncorrect and a very general statement. I find it difficult that you say most of us don't know a thing about dogs, when several people here have made very good points. Then to say you're on the fence about BSL, and give points that from my personal experience says do not work.

For the record I picked the American Pit Bull Terrier on my first guess. Didn't even have to second guess, to me it was obvious. I identified 20 out of 24 of the breeds as well, before clicking on the pic.

I read dogs very well, and what I see in most of them is a lack of confidence because the human holding the leash has no clue what they're doing. There's your problem. Finding a way to work on that would serve all dogs well.

 

[Susan9608]

I can leave her alone with my 3 year old cousin right now and they would have a ball. He could tug on her tail or try and ride her and she'd be fine.

I just have to comment on this - this is *not* a good idea, no matter how docile, sweet, small, tame, whatever your dog is. It's *not* a good idea not matter how much you trust your dog. Dogs and children that young should not be left unattended together - that's just asking for problems. I could give you a number of first hand accounts I've seen in the intensive care unit from parents who have done exactly that ... and who have lived to regret it. And they've all said the same things, "Oh, the dog has never bitten before." Things of that nature. You just can't predict what a small child will do to a dog when unattended and how the dog will respond.

 

[Bennalaya]

Mildly veering off course from the OP for a moment, has anyone else noticed a recent surge in their local Craigslist of people in search of pure-blood "pit bull" puppies? Every day there are at least five ads on my local Craigslist from people looking for pit bull puppies, but they must be pure blooded and they need to be either free or almost free. I find this trend truly disturbing.

 

[wickedrodent]

I just have to comment on this - this is *not* a good idea, no matter how docile, sweet, small, tame, whatever your dog is. It's *not* a good idea not matter how much you trust your dog. Dogs and children that young should not be left unattended together - that's just asking for problems. I could give you a number of first hand accounts I've seen in the intensive care unit from parents who have done exactly that ... and who have lived to regret it. And they've all said the same things, "Oh, the dog has never bitten before." Things of that nature. You just can't predict what a small child will do to a dog when unattended and how the dog will respond.

Oh, no. Of course, I would never actually leave them alone together. I would never leave a 3 year old alone PERIOD. I was just trying to show the point of the matter: even the most scared, abused dogs can improve with training and proper attention.