Here we go again, and again...

[Baroness]

How sad. I wonder sometimes what goes through owners minds when they cannot keep a leash on a dog and teach them obedience when they are a breed that is known to have issues. I had a run in with a pitbull a few years ago. I was walking my pom in my neighborhood, listening to my zune, and something made me look off to my right at a retaining wall. Here comes a pit bull galloping at me full speed ahead. I pulled up on sarge's leash and he flew up into my arms, I turned my back to the PB and yelled NO! He jumped up at my back trying to get to sarge and I kicked out and yelled NO again, he ran off. I stopped taking walks with sarge there...scared the bejeebies out of me. I held sarge all the way home and jogged most of the way.

When I first got my lab he scared me, he was 4 already and he's got a huge head like the biggest rottie. (We adopted him from a deploying soldier) He's the sweetest dog, but I know he has some bite power. Thankfully his owner trained him well and taught us the commands to keep Balance in line. Still I wouldn't trust my old man with a child. His teeth and head size are mammoth and he's never been around little one's. I was kinda surprised to see labs in some of the articles, but...logically thinking I'm guessing the larger specimens of the breed could be in the mix.

[moshes_human]

Originally Posted by Lil Sis

I used to sort of feel that way about dobies, but I have a friend who breeds dobies and I see that (if breed correctly) they are a great dogs. I let them play with my guys with supervision (very close supervision) because you just never know. She has a very hard time selling her pup (used to get $3000 per dog-- show quality) because many people don't want the added expense of the extra home owners insurance and other issue of having a dog that is perceived as aggressive



I watched a show on pitt bull rescue on tv-- they were talking about a gene that makes the pitt bulls very aggressive (if I remember correctly it showed up in blue markings?) so it is a breeding problem. And like already said-- the wrong people breed the wrong type of dog for the wrong reasons and we all suffer and the wrong dogs suffer.

That is exactly why my parents got out of Breeding Dobermans. What awesome dogs!!

As far as the blue gene....I really don't know. My Father in Law dogs are reddish/white with red noses and Sable was white with a red nose.

I don't particularly like Catahoula or Akita dogs as I have been attacked by both, but it doesn't mean I think they should be banned. I was also charged by a Cujo (SP?) looking Saint Bernard once (VERY VERY SCARY)...however Brandi our Doberman was with me and stood "our" ground. The Saint Bernard stood and barked at us but didn't come any closer. Brandi would have protected me with her life, and it would have taken her life if that massive dog had attacked.. I was only about 12 at the time. The dogs "owner" and I use that term loosely, finally came out of his house and got his dog. I never saw that dog again. My parents were so relieved we had her. I know if the same thing happened my Father in Laws dogs would do the same. Pits are very loyal and brave.

[yorkietalkjilly]

I don't know about the creds of this site but this is interesting:

U.S. Dog Bite Statistics - DogsBite.org

See the Home page, too. It is such a shame irresponsible people allow this to go on and on.

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by Britster

Dog Politics: List Of 75 Banned Or Restricted Breeds - Is Your Dog On The List?

Brit -- that article and its supposed LIST is a CROCK! Talk about trying to twist the facts around -- that group does it!("The information here comes from the Responsible Dog Owners Of The Western States (RDOWS) , which has just updated the list of breeds that have been banned or restricted in the U.S.") They do say that there are 2 ways to get on the list, either by name or by description! So, somewhere there is a description of pitt bulls that these people have very broadly decided also encompasses pugs, sharpeis, terriers and you name it! That is just ridiculous. I think any sensible person knows the description was never meant to include all the breeds they put on their list! You are sharper than to fall for that article!

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by yorkieusa

Banning worked here - like a charm! They've been banned here for 24 years, if I remember correctly. Bad memory. No more attacks have happened. Just the occasional dog bite that doesn't amount to more than broken skin.

Yay for Kansas! I wish we had more courageous enough to ban or at least enforce spay & neuter!

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Ontario's pit bull ban did very little good and now they are kinda backed into a corner. What now, ban the breed that they assume has the next highest bite potential?

Pit bull ban hasn?t cut dog bites - thestar.com

I.

By the way -- you omitted "BY MUCH" after "hasn't cut dog bites." in the quote. The number of dog bites has gone down, just not as much as desired! It takes a while. Remember Ontario did not move all the pit bulls out! The ones already there were supposed to be spayed & neutered and muzzled. But they ARE still there! So, the first 5 years are NOT going to show a huge reduction. But as they start enforcing the spay & neuter, the number of pit bulls will slowly go down and so will the number of serious dog bites.

Remember what I said about statistics showing about anything you want them to? This is an example. sure the numbers have not gone down much yet -- but NEITHER has the actual pit bull population. You have to give the law time to really make a difference in the numbers of pit bulls walking around! Another question would be just how much enforcement has gone along with the law change?

[Ellie May]

So to those who think that we should ban "pit bulls", exactly what breeds are you wanting banned?

[FlDebra]

Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly

I don't know about the creds of this site but this is interesting:

U.S. Dog Bite Statistics - DogsBite.org

See the Home page, too. It is such a shame irresponsible people allow this to go on and on.

That is a very telling article. I am especially interested in the numbers that have to do with fatalities. That is where the real difference comes in. Any dog can bite but only a few can kill (for the most part -- I know there are always exceptions to the rule).

BTW -- I apologize for the last post I made where the poster was just quoting the headline! The actual article said the number of dog bites had not gone down BY MUCH but the headline chose to shorten it for affect. Another slanting of the truth for the effect desired!

[Deuce]

Sorry, I'm terrible with statistics...Can someone explain how they got these numbers?
80% of attacks that induce bodily harm
70% of attacks to children
83% of attack to adults
69% of attacks that result in fatalities
75% that result in maiming
How can you have both 70% to kids then have another 83% to adults? Honest question, I'm not sure how they're doing their numbers...

PS...someone please define "pit bull", if you mean dogs that are used in the dog fighting rings, yes I agree, ban that "sport" and put down the dogs used in those rings. As sad as that is, but they may not be aggressive towards humans but they were trained to fight and it would only be a matter of time before the dog got out of control. But many of these disgusting humans that fight dogs for $$ don't have a specific breed, they call their dogs "pit bulls" because the dogs are fighting in the "pits". If you mean all bull dogs, well good luck with that...people that own their $2500 English Bullys aren't going to go down quiet. If you're talking American Staffs, I've met too many friendly ones to say they're no good.
I don't see the point to banning breeds, people are still going to own them. They'll just call them a "lab mix" and go on about their business.

Punish the deed, not the breed!

[moshes_human]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Sorry, I



I don't see the point to banning breeds, people are still going to own them. They'll just call them a "lab mix" and go on about their business.

Punish the deed, not the breed!

That is what they do here. We have a ban on "pits" so people just say their dog is a Stafford or some other breed, or a mix...no one really questions it.

The funny thing is that last two attacks we had weren't by pits at all.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

Brit -- that article and its supposed LIST is a CROCK! Talk about trying to twist the facts around -- that group does it!("The information here comes from the Responsible Dog Owners Of The Western States (RDOWS) , which has just updated the list of breeds that have been banned or restricted in the U.S.") They do say that there are 2 ways to get on the list, either by name or by description! So, somewhere there is a description of pitt bulls that these people have very broadly decided also encompasses pugs, sharpeis, terriers and you name it! That is just ridiculous. I think any sensible person knows the description was never meant to include all the breeds they put on their list! You are sharper than to fall for that article!

I'm not sure where you are getting that it's a load of crock. I admit, I didn't do any deep searching but that list is on multiple dog forums. I'm going to go search now to find out more info. I could not find anything about it being "fake" on Google, and usually snopes would have something. I believe they are simply saying that this list of dog breeds are banned SOMEWHERE. An apartment complex in, say, California, may have Pugs banned, etc. Irregardless, it just proves how ridiculous BSL really is and you can't just naturally assume your breed is "safe". Ban one breed, you're allowing them to be able to ban any breed they want for any reason.

I posted this above but everyone that is for BSL seemed to pass by some of the facts I posted. In the ten years since the Dangerous Dogs Act banned the last 4 dogs in the UK (Fila, PB 'type', Dogo Argentino and Japanese Tosa) dog bites have increased by 50%. Clearly... something is NOT working.

We don't wipe out or ban the German's because Hitler was a terrible man.
So why is it any different for dogs? Thanks to BYBers and puppy millers, Golden Retrievers have been on the rise over the last decade or so for dog bites. However, subjecting them to BSL would be... idiotic, right? A knee jerk reaction to a HUGE problem that can not just be fixed by banning them.

I saw this posted somewhere else and totally agree:
Why don't you just go ahead and ban all black people? After all, black people are the cause of violent crime and it's well known that having a group of black people around means that sooner or later, someone is going to get killed, because that's what they do. Black people are vicious killers and are a menace to society.

See how dumb that sounds? Now just replace black person with pit bull.

I don't particularly like Jack Russel Terriers. Most of them I meet are annoying, barky, hyper spazzes who constantly start trouble and get into fights. That's my generalization of them from all the ones I've had experienced with (and lived with). I've only met one JRT that I liked. So because I've had bad experiences with them, I'm going to support that they all be banned? No... that would be silly.

[moshes_human]

Originally Posted by Britster

I'm not sure where you are getting that it's a load of crock. I admit, I didn't do any deep searching but that list is on multiple dog forums. I'm going to go search now to find out more info. I could not find anything about it being "fake" on Google, and usually snopes would have something. I believe they are simply saying that this list of dog breeds are banned SOMEWHERE. An apartment complex in, say, California, may have Pugs banned, etc. Irregardless, it just proves how ridiculous BSL really is and you can't just naturally assume your breed is "safe". Ban one breed, you're allowing them to be able to ban any breed they want for any reason.

I posted this above but everyone that is for BSL seemed to pass by some of the facts I posted. In the ten years since the Dangerous Dogs Act banned the last 4 dogs in the UK (Fila, PB 'type', Dogo Argentino and Japanese Tosa) dog bites have increased by 50%. Clearly... something is NOT working.

We don't wipe out or ban the German's because Hitler was a terrible man.
So why is it any different for dogs? Thanks to BYBers and puppy millers, Golden Retrievers have been on the rise over the last decade or so for dog bites. However, subjecting them to BSL would be... idiotic, right? A knee jerk reaction to a HUGE problem that can not just be fixed by banning them.

I saw this posted somewhere else and totally agree:
Why don't you just go ahead and ban all black people? After all, black people are the cause of violent crime and it's well known that having a group of black people around means that sooner or later, someone is going to get killed, because that's what they do. Black people are vicious killers and are a menace to society.

See how dumb that sounds? Now just replace black person with pit bull.

I don't particularly like Jack Russel Terriers. Most of them I meet are annoying, barky, hyper spazzes who constantly start trouble and get into fights. That's my generalization of them from all the ones I've had experienced with (and lived with). I've only met one JRT that I liked. So because I've had bad experiences with them, I'm going to support that they all be banned? No... that would be silly.

:thum bup:

[yorkietalkjilly]

Probably they will have to ban anything with pitbull in its breed description or DNA. Not saying it is fair but action is necessary. Just because something is hard to do doesn't excuse society and caring people from starting to address it somehow - or else we keep having stories of the type that started this thread.

I think the quicker way to get results is to go after the dog fighers who breed fighters and the people who own a dog that attacks. When you go after the person responsible and start to jail them, they tend to see the light. If we have to pay more in taxes to build more jails/hire jailers and police because people will breed and keep dangerous dogs, then we have to do it or see maybe our own child or dog killed by one of these dogs.

I know at our Animal Control Shelter, the vast majority of them are pitbulls and the rest largely bully breeds. I guess many people just cannot control these big, strong dogs. Our AC Director told me that when they call owners to pick up their dog, most of the pitbull and bully breed owners refuse. We have to do something if we care about the victims and future victims and the endless killing of these poor dogs standing in all those cages across America.

[Deuce]

Also, I know that the victim usually isn't at fault when attacked by a dog. But PARENTS need to teach their kids how to approach strange dogs. I was walking my lab/shep mix one night, a big 95 lb white loveable polar bear , and a kid, no older than 3/4 y/o (I don't know with kids, dont have them) comes running up and jumps on Max to give him a hug. Lucky for the kid Max was such a friendly giant, as that could have been a tragedy if the child ran up to the wrong dog. And I'm not saying a "pit bull" per say would have attacked the kid, but he could have run up to a yorkie and got bit...
Parents definelty need to take charge and teach their kids to stay away from strange dogs, and if the dog is with the owner to ask if its friendly and if they can pet it. Then the owner of the large/small dog can say yes/no. I'd probably almost always say no, just because if the dog, lab mix/boxer/rottie/yorkie/shih tzu/pug/etc. were to have a moment of stupidity and nip the kid, then I'm liable for it. And most likely would have to put my beloved pet down.
Just sayin...I wish parents would really get more involved in teaching their kids respect of people and animals. I know there are many many many instances where the dogs were out running wild and then attacked because the kid/adult were at the wrong place wrong time, but for those cases where kids put their hands through a fence and don't expect to get bit...those ones really peeve me because now that dog has to be put down for "defending its territory".
Sorry...ranting done.

[Lil Sis]

Originally Posted by Britster

I'm not sure where you are getting that it's a load of crock. I admit, I didn't do any deep searching but that list is on multiple dog forums. I'm going to go search now to find out more info. I could not find anything about it being "fake" on Google, and usually snopes would have something. I believe they are simply saying that this list of dog breeds are banned SOMEWHERE. An apartment complex in, say, California, may have Pugs banned, etc. Irregardless, it just proves how ridiculous BSL really is and you can't just naturally assume your breed is "safe". Ban one breed, you're allowing them to be able to ban any breed they want for any reason.

I posted this above but everyone that is for BSL seemed to pass by some of the facts I posted. In the ten years since the Dangerous Dogs Act banned the last 4 dogs in the UK (Fila, PB 'type', Dogo Argentino and Japanese Tosa) dog bites have increased by 50%. Clearly... something is NOT working.

We don't wipe out or ban the German's because Hitler was a terrible man.
So why is it any different for dogs? Thanks to BYBers and puppy millers, Golden Retrievers have been on the rise over the last decade or so for dog bites. However, subjecting them to BSL would be... idiotic, right? A knee jerk reaction to a HUGE problem that can not just be fixed by banning them.

I saw this posted somewhere else and totally agree:
Why don't you just go ahead and ban all black people? After all, black people are the cause of violent crime and it's well known that having a group of black people around means that sooner or later, someone is going to get killed, because that's what they do. Black people are vicious killers and are a menace to society.

See how dumb that sounds? Now just replace black person with pit bull.

I don't particularly like Jack Russel Terriers. Most of them I meet are annoying, barky, hyper spazzes who constantly start trouble and get into fights. That's my generalization of them from all the ones I've had experienced with (and lived with). I've only met one JRT that I liked. So because I've had bad experiences with them, I'm going to support that they all be banned? No... that would be silly.

Sorry my friend.. but I find this post very offensive!!