Pit Bulls - not personal attacks please

[Ranger68]

Re: For pity sakes!

No one is demanding that the government do something about 'all dogs' because, I guess, no one sees 'all dogs' as the big problem. It's a solution in search of a problem.

Pit bulls are a real problem and a breed ban a reasonably effective solution. Education would be politically unpopular and would probably be very costly, even supposing it would work. Any information on the cost effectiveness of education in other jurisdictions or is it just an article of faith? Forgive me if I'm suspicious but I suspect you're just trying to toss us a bone!

Now I do happen to agree that certain people will probably move to other breeds of fighting dogs when pit bulls are finally banned. Just a guess and not supported, as far as I know, by our Canadian experience. Nonetheless, I think it's unfortunate that the proposed legislation is not more encompassing of these types of dogs. Maybe some lobbying on the question will help.

jwm

Pit bulls are not a real problem. They're a *perceived* problem.

The perception is idiotic, and fuelled by mass hysteria.

Sheik is right - we need legislation that applies to ALL breeds.

 

[jwmorrice]

Re: Re: For pity sakes!

Pit bulls are not a real problem. They're a *perceived* problem.

The perception is idiotic, and fuelled by mass hysteria.

Sheik is right - we need legislation that applies to ALL breeds.

Every problem is a 'perceived' problem. Facts are always seen in a context. And sorry, but I don't see the perception in this case as idiotic.

The injuries and deaths caused by these animals have been real. Moreover, we needn't put up with the current situation so why should we?

If anything has been hysterical, it's been the hand wringing of the doggie set over the impending limitation to be placed on this ugly and troublesome breed. They just gotta go and it looks like they will. Good!

jwm

 

[La Contessa]

When my son was 9 he went to visit his friend across the street, who had recently moved here from the States. When he opened the side door of the house, their Rottie attacked him and took a bite out of his chest. Luckily the owner was nearby and grabbed the dog before he could do serious damage. The people were horrified that the dog did this to my son, and wanted to put the dog down. They said, that the dog was trained as a guard dog, because they needed it in the States but, they realized that they didn't need it here, and didn't want this to happen again.

No one in our family wanted the dog put down. We took my son back over there and under a controlled situation, introduced the dog to my son. He proceeded to spend a lot of time in the company of that dog and his owners over the next few years, and never had another problem with the dog. BTW..my son learned not to just open someone's door to their house without knocking.

He currently owns a pitbull of his own right now, and has raised her to be a loving gentle dog.

As Sheik said: .....ownership to that breed should be restricted only to those that understand them. Same thing goes for Rotties, sheppards, dobermans. All of these breeds are capable of inflicting similiar damage to what a pitbull does. Yet I dont hear any outcries about them.

 

[jwmorrice]

...I'm sorry but all the dog experts say the same thing, breed bans dont work. Education and responsible ownership does and what a breed ban province wide is doing is making some very responsible people criminals in addition to condemning a breed that has been subjected to unfair attention.

Just as on other, similar threads, you keep asserting that breed bans don't work. However, you have never shown where they haven't worked.

As for restrictions on other breeds, I'm for that too. I wouldn't want to be seen as prejudiced against those warm, cuddly "devil dogs"*.

jwm


*Thanks to the Shake for that turn of phrase. I'd never heard that one before. Guess I don't get out much.

 

[Ranger68]

Re: Re: Re: For pity sakes!

Every problem is a 'perceived' problem. Facts are always seen in a context. And sorry, but I don't see the perception in this case as idiotic.

The injuries and deaths caused by these animals have been real. Moreover, we needn't put up with the current situation so why should we?

If anything has been hysterical, it's been the hand wringing of the doggie set over the impending limitation to be placed on this ugly and troublesome breed. They just gotta go and it looks like they will. Good!

jwm

The injuries and deaths caused by LOTS of things have been real, but we don't talk about banning them, or even fear them. But, hey - once a mob gets going, it's hard to stop. Congrats for grabbing a torch and jumping on the bandwagon.

This ban is ludicrous and idiotic. Period.

 

[assoholic]

..the owners have to be held responsible regardless of the breed, if your not up for that responsibility , don't get a dog. If it attacks someone your ass should be sitting in jail.

 

[Ranger68]

I agreee wholeheartedly.

Of course, I also think exactly the same thing about children.

 

[Garrett]

Re: Re: Re: Re: For pity sakes!

The injuries and deaths caused by LOTS of things have been real, but we don't talk about banning them, or even fear them. But, hey - once a mob gets going, it's hard to stop. Congrats for grabbing a torch and jumping on the bandwagon.

This ban is ludicrous and idiotic. Period.

Pit bulls cause a disproportionate number of human *deaths* amongst dog breeds. They kill people. They maim people. Far in excess of any other breed. All the calls for responsible ownership are bullshit.. even more impossible to legislate. I will also say anyone who keeps these dogs in the city, or any big dog, is fucking nuts and is pretty much abusing the animal.

The number of these dogs in the shelters is also disproportionate... more and more people want large, aggressive dogs and then figure out they cannot handle them. People need to stop compensating for their own shortcomings and find a dog that is actually suitable...

 

[Morgan Ellis]

I think that the ban is poorly planed and more about political optics than public safety. I think that a lot of beautiful, and harmless, dogs are going to be destroyed for no good reason.

It won't work. I was at shows this weekend, and (other than the theft of a $50K US dog from a show in Maryland) it was pretty much the only topic of conversation.

There are a lot of people out there with AKC/CKC Amstaffs that are also dual registered as UKC American Pit Bull Terriers, and they have a LOT of money behind them. It's not going to take place without a fight.

Then we have to deal with the look-a-like breeds - dog breeds which can be easily confused with APBTS, but are entirely seperate breeds. Staffy Bulls (Staffordshire Bull Terriers), BTs (Bull Terriers - also called 'Don Cherry Dogs' here in Canada), American Bulldogs, Victorian Bulldogs, Cane Corsos...

I also fail to see how it will be possible to tell the CKC - which is a branch of Agriculture Canada - that certain breeds cannot be owned or bred in Ontario. Since AgriCan is federal, I don't understand how provincial regulations can be applied to it. CKC has already issued a statement that it is prepared to challenge any such ruling in court.

Morgan

 

[Ranger68]

Your argument would lead you to ban LOTS of things - whatever the most "dangerous" example of some kind of lifestyle is. Cigars are far more dangerous to your health than cigarettes - I suggest we ban cigars. If you're hit by an SUV it's much worse than being hit by a normal sized vehicle - I propose we ban SUVs.

Look, I think my chances (and practically ANYONE'S) of being attacked by a pit bull are vanishingly small. This is a mathematical fact.
HOWEVER, I think my chances of being run over by someone who doesn't know how to drive are NOT vanishingly small. In fact, they're an order of magnitude higher. To that end, I propose that the driving test become more difficult - to the effect of carving away half the existing drivers - that licensing become drastically more costly, and that the legal driving age be raised to 25.
This would have MUCH MORE EFFECT on our society than your pit bull ban, in terms of money saved, improved environmental benefits, and public safety.
Is anyone proposing this? Despite the fact that it would do MUCH MORE for us than banning some dog breed? I suspect lots of people would think this insane. But, by your argument, we SHOULD do it.

The pit bull ban is a ludicrouse piece of knee-jerk legislation, pandering to the worst in us - fear borne out of ignorance.

Also, your arguments are false, but hey - don't let the facts get in the way of a good witch hunt.

 

[Morgan Ellis]

Yes, breed bans are great. They lead to the sort of rational thinking that results in stories like this::

One of the women I was speaking to this weekend has owned Staffy Bulls for almost twenty years. She has put multiple obedience, conformation and agility titles on her dogs, as well as doing St. John's ambulance therapy work (this involves dogs going into hospitals, nursing homes and the like and doing pet assisted therapy).

Her fourteen year old niece was walking one of her dogs on Friday - a dog with a CDX, AKC/CKC Championships, and a registered Therapy dog. Two men approached her and said that since 'all those pitbulls are now banned' she might as well give them the dog so they could 'take it out and shoot it'. Needless to say, the girl was terrified, the dog was panicked as the two thugs yanked on it's leash (and how frightened could you be of a dog, if you were willing to try and grab it?), and my friend was in a state of upset and depression all weekend.

Don't think it's the last we'll see of this kind of stupidity, either. When Washington, DC tried to issue a ban on Pit Bulls, almost fourteen dogs were shot, poisoned or bludgeoned to death, some while in their own yards. Of those killed, THREE were actually APBTs. Two of the dogs killed were Pugs - which were strung up in the owners yard from their tree. DC soon revoked their ban.

'Civilized' society at work....

-- Morgan

 

[Ranger68]

Mob mentality at work. All ability to think rationally is lost to the mob. Once these things get going, they're hard to stop - people just start joining in without thinking. Everyone wants to feel like they belong.

It's all fine until the mob turns on you.

 

[big dogie]

Some random but on point thoughts..........

Most common types of dog bites

1) the prey bite - the way PB's usually bite, can be play gone to far
2) the fear bite - the reason for most German shepherd bites because they are so neurotic they are afraid of everything
3) the startled bite - a dog that is in pain or shocked and it's response is to bite

I had a conversation with a friend last night that was very interesting she is a Ph.D. in animal behavior and facility at a US University. Before she left for the US she was called in to examine 'Bandit' the notorious PB at the THS who ravaged a young child and has been in the care of the THS for about four years. The THS claims that they have rehabilitated Bandit and he is now adoptible. After a lengthy court battle THS vs. Metro the court has ordered the dog destroyed......... It was her opinion that the dog was not adoptible and still proved to be a risk to people .........but the THS disagreed ... IMHO the THS is a group of zealots that don't know when to say uncle and put the public at risk when they adopt out dogs that have been aggressive to people or other dogs in the past and often they do not inform the new owners of the history of the dog ........ a very dangerous practice.......

she also had a gem for me "pheno-type is not indicative of geno-type"... meaning by looking at a dog you can not tell if it will be aggressive just buy looking at its physical attributes


I have heard from many in the behavior world they are supporting individual temperament tests for dogs over 30lbs. and making it part of the licensing process.... you need to have your dog temperament tested and a rabies shot to get you dog license. My problem with this is who writes the test and watching baseball the last few nights who is going to make the call that the dog is of stable temperament........... oh boy more bureaucracy

b d

 

[Morgan Ellis]

bd, are you referring to the infamous Bandit of "Bandit - Portrait of A Dangerous Dog" (by author and dog trainer Vicki Hearne)?

I somehow think not, since that Bandit was an American Bulldog, and I think it happened in the eastern US. Is this another Bandit case, then, and do you have links to this story?

btw, the temperment testing that most of us are referring to is called the CGC - or Canine Good Citizen test. It was written and standardized by a group of trainers and behaviouralists working in conjunction with the AKC and the HSUS.

Many regions now require your dog to have proof of a CGC passing grade before being allowed access to off leash area. In fact, I believe that one of the Vancouver area parks either does now require this, or is thinking of adopting this as a policy.

The test is pretty cut and dried, and is evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

I'm a FIRM believer in a CGC pass for ALL dogs - not just those over 30 lbs. A pissed off small dog is easy to laugh off, but can also cause dog fights, and do serious damage to a young child or frail adult. Bear in mind that I personally know several dogs close to the thirty pound mark who easily obtained their Schutzhund I titles...


-- Morgan

 

[tompeepin]

I am not for big government involvement. I also do not think that a ban will entirely work. It is true that the ban is a public relations exercise. (One should be able to do whatever they please as long as it does not intrude on another's rights; when it does the government has a responsibility to act, and protect a citizen's right.)

However there are a number of question that arise:

1) Why are pit bulls over represented in animal shelters?

I propose that it is because owners do not realize that they are getting more dog than they can handle and so they give it up once confronted with this reality. Additionally a number of owners do not realize this as well as irresponsible owners are a detriment to society. Of course there are responsible owners, but that does not resolve the problem.

2) If you had a choice which dog would you choose to have bitten you? (Not all dog breeds bites are the same.)


Pit Bull bites are nearly three times worse than that of Rottweilers.

A Rottweiler's bite force is approx. 800 psi

A pit bull’s bite force is between 1200-2000+ psi plus.

A wolf's bite force is approx. 1500 psi

A Pit Bull does not lock its jaw as do other dogs, but it lower jaw scissors back and forth to rend flesh from the bone.

Some of the features Pit Bulls are bred for is: incredible musculature and Phenomenal resistance to pain.

There is a problem and something must be done. Maybe a ban is not the solution, but the status quo isn't either. Maybe charging the owner for the dog's assault in context of a human sentence for the same assault is a solution. Owners would certainly think twice if they would want to serve a potential murder sentence. That might be much more effective than a ban. Yes very much like owning a gun. However a gun is not autonomous. Dogs who escape a responsible owner's care are.

Some numbers:

Based on a study by the CDC (between 1979 and 1994)
pit bulls were involved in 57 fatal attacks -- well over twice the number for the next breed on the list, Rottweilers with 19, and more than German Shepherds (17), Huskies (12) and Malamutes (12) combined.

The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association concluded that pit bulls "were involved in 65 fatal attacks between 1979 and 1998 ... twice that of rottweilers and more than three times German shepherds.''

 

[The Shake]

"devil dogs"*.

jwm


*Thanks to the Shake for that turn of phrase. I'd never heard that one before. Guess I don't get out much.

I don't recall using that term - are you sure you got it from me?

 

[Garrett]

Your argument would lead you to ban LOTS of things - whatever the most "dangerous" example of some kind of lifestyle is. Cigars are far more dangerous to your health than cigarettes - I suggest we ban cigars.

Uhhh.. we have smoking laws that effectively ensure people are not exposed to cigar smoke. This has effectively been done.

Look, I think my chances (and practically ANYONE'S) of being attacked by a pit bull are vanishingly small. This is a mathematical fact.

The breed causes problems out of proportion to its population. This is a mathematical fact. It is simple... pick a breed that is more manageable! I love Shepherds (though mauled by one as a child and still wear the scar) but given their behavior, I am not dumb enough to actually own one.

HOWEVER, I think my chances of being run over by someone who doesn't know how to drive are NOT vanishingly small. In fact, they're an order of magnitude higher. To that end, I propose that the driving test become more difficult - to the effect of carving away half the existing drivers - that licensing become drastically more costly, and that the legal driving age be raised to 25.
This would have MUCH MORE EFFECT on our society than your pit bull ban, in terms of money saved, improved environmental benefits, and public safety.

I agree on tougher licensing.... though not 25. If you are old enough to go to jail.. to go to war.. you are old enough to drive As for mathematics, factor the number of pitbulls and the number of cars and the incidence of death and I am curious what the results would be. Lies, damned lies, and statistics and all that rot.

Is anyone proposing this? Despite the fact that it would do MUCH MORE for us than banning some dog breed? I suspect lots of people would think this insane. But, by your argument, we SHOULD do it.

To say something is worse is not an argument that something should *not* be done.. it is deflection at best.

 

[Garrett]

Ah Garrett, show me the proof that the breed is responsible for more deaths than any other breed. You will be surprised to find out that Rotties are responsible for more deaths than any other breed.

Hey, ban them too. This article claims pit bulls are #1.

http://www.dufferinpark.ca/dogs/pdf/starwhattodopitbulls.pdf

Let me see.. the two breeds are less than 10% of the dog population... but account for over 60% of the deaths. Good enough for me...

The article also refers to the Diane Whipple case... a huge tragedy and quite chilling... and it generated people wanting to purchase the breed that killed her! This is the root problem, people who are compensating through the kind of dog they get... get a fricking poodle, they are a much better choice.

 

[Morgan Ellis]

Hey, ban them too. This article claims pit bulls are #1.

The article also says that Bandit is a Pit Bull/Lab cross.

Are we going to ban Labs, too?

Just curious...

-- Morgan

 

[Ranger68]

I have heard from many in the behavior world they are supporting individual temperament tests for dogs over 30lbs. and making it part of the licensing process.... you need to have your dog temperament tested and a rabies shot to get you dog license. My problem with this is who writes the test and watching baseball the last few nights who is going to make the call that the dog is of stable temperament........... oh boy more bureaucracy

b d

That would work for me. LOTS of dogs of all breeds are not fit for human ownership, sadly.