Pitbulls…why?

Homepage Forums Small Talk Pitbulls…why?

This topic contains 25 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 4 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #646

    Unseen
    Participant

    Again on the news yesterday, something that seems to me happens all too frequently. A woman out walking her small dog was attacked by a free-roaming pitbull. Then, there are the many stories of children seriously maimed or even killed, often by the family’s dog, a pitbull.

    Pitbull owners seem blind to any problem in the breed, always blaming the owner. However, if the owner owned a cocker spaniel or chihuahua or even an Irish setter (a fairly large breed) we’d probably be talking about a much less dangerous or lethal attack.

    Decades ago, I was out with my daughter and she was attacked by, of all breeds, a beagle. It nipped her and ran off. A pitbll would have latched onto some part of her and would not have let go. Unless, of course, it pulled off a finger or ear or something, but then it would have gone back for more. They are “game” (really into attacking) and almost immune to pain.

    While there are other large and even potentially dangerous breeds, such as rottweilers and great danes, one seldom hears of such vicious attacks by those breeds.

    Well, what is the best approach to the problem of pitbull attacks? If it were your job to eliminate such attacks, what would your approach be?

    #652

    Strega
    Moderator

    In the Uk we banned pit bulls about 15 years ago. I don’t think much happened, and there were lots of claims that it was the owners responsibility, etc. To be honest, I think a certain type of person seeks a dog that reflects their image. If you took pit bulls out of the equation, another breed would replace it in terms of aggressive owners.

    It’s more likely that if you enforced a leash law and added dog parks where they can run free if they’re safe, coupled with simply eliminating (putting down) dogs that are not on leashes and roam free to potentially endanger people, you’d go a long way towards reducing dog violence. Banning an entire breed is prohibition, and you guys don’t do well with prohibition.

    #655

    Gregg R Thomas
    Participant

    WHY??? Because they’re in league with the devil, just like all you Atheists. 🙂

    I haven’t been around for a while, been having strokes (what fun), what’s left of me is BACK. LOL

    #657

    Lars
    Participant

    Now I know people whom have had both american and british pit bulls. Which never attacked anyone, they where the sweetest more adorable dogs you could imagine. They even stood guard when children where crying and stuff like that.

    The key was that the dogs, got a lot of exercise and was treated as a dog should be treated with love and care.

    However I also know a single guy whom had an american pit bull, which attack his girl friend, at let me put it this way. She did not treat the dog well and the dog hardly ever got any exercise.

    They are very energetic dogs and they are extremely loyal.

    The problem is not the dog, in the pit bulls case, at least in my opinion, if the dog should be put down, so should the owner.

    Though I do have another theory about the american pit bull, and that is their pureness, the american pitbull and that is inbreeding. The reason I have this theory is that I have looked up, some American pit bulls heritage, and it was hard to find one which was not 100% pure breed. Even in dogs such as German Shepherds this is a hugh problem. I have seen a couple of those being truly frightening, even though there where not danger nor thread against them or people.

    And to quote you @unseen

    A woman out walking her small dog

    Have you ever seen how agressive those tiny dogs are? I cannot count the amount of times, I have been bitten by my ex’s girlfriends chihuahua or her aunts pekingese. Both which I have never threadende nor hurt in anyway.

    – Tools

    #672

    Unseen
    Participant

    Lars, as predicted, you go right to “the owner is the problem, not the dog.”

    Well, we can’t prevent people from owning dogs, but perhaps we can prevent the kind of dog they own.

    The guy who feels a need to own a pitbull is quite often (at least here in the US) the same guy who feels a need to carry a gun or a scary knife, who drives a big wheels rig or is obsessed with death metal. (Enough stereotypes there for you? Well, they aren’t always true but do apply often enough.)

    We can do something about a vicious pitbull only AFTER they bite or kill most of the time. But suppose there were no pitbulls?

    I agree, some small dogs can be quite aggressive and even vicious, but let’s be realistic: Would it be better to be attacked by an aggressive Yorkshire terrier or cocker spaniel…or a pitbull. I’ll take the Yorkie or spaniel, I don’t know about you.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Unseen.
    #674

    Unseen
    Participant

    In the 10-year period from 2005 to 2014, pit bulls killed 203 Americans and accounted for 62% of the total recorded deaths. (source)

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Unseen.
    #676

    Unseen
    Participant

    Many pitbulls are nice dogs. Many less aggressive breeds and breeds less capable of actually killing people are also nice. What’s wrong with those breeds?

    #681

    Matt
    Participant

    In the 10-year period from 2005 to 2014, pit bulls killed 203 Americans and accounted for 62% of the total recorded deaths.

    That sounds highly suspicious. In a ten year period, putpulls accounted for 62% of the total recorded deaths of Americans? That’s like saying only around 10 to 15 Americans die each year and 6 to 10 of them were killed by pitbulls.

    Now on to the actual discussion: I have no problem with people owning dangerous animals as long as they are well contained and controlled according to how dangerous they are. E.g. If your pet is capable of tearing a child’s limbs off, it should probably be locked up in a cage (e.g. lions in the zoo). Pitbulls (and many other breed of dog) are certainly capable of severely injuring or killing children and even grown adults, I would expect them to be well contained in the owners house and/or property.

    Unfortunately, Unseen, it does come down to the owner being at fault. A child should never encounter an unrestrained pitbull in the street and it is the owners responsibility to make sure their dog is never able to get into such a situation. As for attacks from the family dog: never leave a child alone with a dog.

    #686

    .
    Spectator

    I got a dog that is part pit when I graduated college. She’s the SWEETEST dog EVER!!!! She stayed with my dad, but she’s just….I can’t say enough good about her. She’s my Dad’s best friend now….My son LOVES her and she’s loves him. She tolerates him following her around imitating her and pretending to be her on all 4’s as she wags her tail, ever a hint of aggression.

    A HUGE number of dogs in NM have at least a little pit in them. It’s very hard to avoid. They are highly coveted and many many people own them. In my experience, it’s all really dependent on the owner. Just like children. If you have an asshole owner you’ll have an aggressive dog. Plain and simple.

    #697

    SteveInCO
    Participant

    Granting, just for the sake of argument, the premise that a purebred pitbull is inherently dangerous, and also granting, just for the sake of argument, that that justifies instituting a Doggie Final Solution and killing all pitbulls, what percentage of pitbull blood is too much? Surely it’s something higher than 0.00000001 percent. Is it over half? Over a quarter? Should there be some behavioral test used instead of a percentage test?

    #699

    Unseen
    Participant

    All too often, the offending dog which kills the family’s 3 year old girl will say that “He never showed any sign of being vicious.” Something triggers the attack instinct in many of these dogs and it may vary from dog to dog. The unpredictability itself could be taken as a reason to undertake eliminating this breed.

    As for pitbull mixes, I think some research could be done to catalog some combination of physical configuration along with a tendency to latch onto a toy and refuse to let go.

    I didn’t raise this question with a finished plan to propose. I’m proposing that perhaps we need a plan.

    You didn’t answer the main question: why do we need them?

    #700

    Unseen
    Participant

    In the Uk we banned pit bulls about 15 years ago. I don’t think much happened, and there were lots of claims that it was the owners responsibility, etc. To be honest, I think a certain type of person seeks a dog that reflects their image. If you took pit bulls out of the equation, another breed would replace it in terms of aggressive owners.

    It’s more likely that if you enforced a leash law and added dog parks where they can run free if they’re safe, coupled with simply eliminating (putting down) dogs that are not on leashes and roam free to potentially endanger people, you’d go a long way towards reducing dog violence. Banning an entire breed is prohibition, and you guys don’t do well with prohibition.

    It seems to me that the “It’s the owner that’s the problem” approach is doomed to failure from the start. It’s true that some breeds are more of a problem than others. Rottweilers come in second. Once you weed out the fighting breeds and guard dog breeds and the very large breeds, the public would be much safer. I’d much rather have to face a large golden retriever attack than a pitbull or rottie attack. People could be encouraged to get (or shamed into getting) progressively smaller dogs. Supposedly, people like dogs for their companionship. Is the companionship of a beagle or fox terrier less worthwhile than that of a pitbull, rottweiler, dogo argentino, or presa canario?

    And let’s not forget: getting rid of a breed isn’t the same as causing the extinction of a species. It’s just getting rid of a certain set of traits in the species canis familiaris.

    Many pitbulls are sweethearts their entire lives. Others are sweethearts until the day they maim or kill someone, often someone small or elderly.

    Your ideas tend to handle take the approach of “solving” the problem after it’s happened. I’m more for preventing the problem in the first place.

    #703

    SteveInCO
    Participant

    You didn’t answer the main question: why do we need them?

    I don’t have an answer, and in fact, I really don’t have a dog in this fight. 😛

    #727

    Unseen
    Participant
    #730

    Davis
    Participant

    My family and I had a pitbull terrier. It was pretty much like this:

    It was incredibly sweet and loving and harmless. This is…until a poodle came running after it screaming with open teeth. If my father had not jumped on top of her and held her as hard as possible then the poodle would have been bit in half. This was in Canada where leashing dogs is not optional…yet this owner thought it was okay to forget the rules. Despite the fact that we had stopped the poodle from being eaten up and that the poodle was off leash rushing towards our dog in attack mode…the owner denounced our dog. We muzzled our terrier from then on whenever it was outside of the house (not in the back yard).

    After she passed away (one of the most traumatic days in our family ever) we all agreed that, despite her being one of the most amazing dogs in the universe, it was a good idea not to have another dog past a reasonable threshold of while still unlikely…ability to potentially rip a person’s throat out. I support all by-laws that disallow ownership of any new dogs, completely support muzzling laws and that those with pitbulls/terriers/similar-dogs have their fences inspected yearly to ensure it won’t get out.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Davis.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Davis.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.