[MuttHunter]

I don't think the pitbull is the the only breed that is the target of this kind of stereotyping, or even legislation. Tosa Inus, Dogo Argentino's, AmStaffs, Rottweilers, and English bull terriers are just some of the breeds tagged as 'vicious', and subjected to short-sighted legislation. Pitbulls are just number one in the charts right now. In the past, there was a fairly common assumption that Doberman's were vicious (as far as I can tell this was primarily due to the influence of a mercifully short-lived 70s B-movie genre).

All of these dogs are the descendants of dogs bred for fighting. Some of them, at least, are certainly capable of growing up into very aggressive dogs. They are not the only breeds that are potentially dog or human aggressive, and even 'friendly' breeds can be quite nasty. The last time I was bitten by a dog that wasn't just playing around was by a Basset Hound!

The thing is, that many dogs, even ones that decide to behave aggressively, aren't that good at hurting people or other animals. My old family dog liked to chase cats, but had no idea what to do with one when she caught it, and would always ended up retreating with a scratched nose, until she learned 'bark but don't touch'. On the other hand, I witnessed a Jack Russell take down a squirrel in a few seconds. The owner, a young woman who clearly had no idea her cutie pie was also a killer, was in tears (He was illegally off leash in a park teeming with very relaxed squirrels, that expected people to feed them, not sic Jack Russel Terminators on them.)

Anyway, Jack Russells might be every bit as aggressive as their larger cousins, but lack the strength to seriously threaten any but the smallest humans. Other dogs, like labs might have the strength to do serious harm, but on average, have stronger instincts to avoid fighting, and pretty weak ideas about how to go about it if they are put in a position where the aggression that almost any dog has the potential for is triggered.

'Fighting' breeds have the weight of many years of selection for exactly the traits that make the relatively small number that do become, for whatever reason, uncontrollably aggressive, unusually dangerous. No, they don't 'lock' their jaws, they just have proportionately large heads and very strong jaw, neck and shoulder muscles, as well as the 'gameness' typical of many terriers.

IMO all dog owners and dog breeders should be subject to the kind of qualification, licensing and insurance process that are required of people who handle any potentially dangerous item, like cars, motorcycles, aircraft or firearms. Right now, any knucklehead can get a large and powerful animal from a BYB or petstore and pretty much do with it as he pleases. Right now, the rather weak laws that do exist are not enforced (most dogs in NYC are unlicensed and many 'minor' dog attacksare not reported). Owners should be held responsible for their dogs all the time, and not only when some spectacular tragedy occurs. If there was a little more pressure on owners to prove that they had some notion of what they were doing, and understood that they were responsible in a legally and financially binding way for their dogs, there would be less breed prejudice and fewer animals in need of rescue.

[Spicy1_VV]

Originally Posted by MuttHunter

I don't think the pitbull is the the only breed that is the target of this kind of stereotyping, or even legislation. Tosa Inus, Dogo Argentino's, AmStaffs, Rottweilers, and English bull terriers are just some of the breeds tagged as 'vicious', and subjected to short-sighted legislation. Pitbulls are just number one in the charts right now. In the past, there was a fairly common assumption that Doberman's were vicious (as far as I can tell this was primarily due to the influence of a mercifully short-lived 70s B-movie genre).

All of these dogs are the descendants of dogs bred for fighting. Some of them, at least, are certainly capable of growing up into very aggressive dogs. They are not the only breeds that are potentially dog or human aggressive, and even 'friendly' breeds can be quite nasty. The last time I was bitten by a dog that wasn't just playing around was by a Basset Hound!

I'm not sure where you might have got your breed info but all those breeds are not descendants of fighting bred dogs are fighting breeds. Rotts, Dobies are not descendants of dogs bred for fighting. Dogo Argentinos do have a dog fighting ancestor along with many other breed ancestors. They were mainly bred for hunting (which means working with other dogs, not aggressive or fight, that would cause problems with them working) and their ability to protect and guard.

[Purplex15]

i dont have time to read all of these responses, but i wanted to say one thing to help the OP. the main reason that daycares and boarding facilities cant take pits is b/c of insurance. i work for a daycare and it is clear in the owners policy that she cannot accept pits, rotties, chows, and a couple others, and no mixes either.

however, we arent so ignorant to actually believe that problems come from these breeds alone. i actually cringe when we get a lab, golden, or springer in. so, in the end, we have accepted some dogs. we have 2 german shepards we take, b/c we know them, and we arent suppossed to take them. we have several mutts that most def. have pit in them, but we take them too b/c we know the dog. we also take 2 dobies, and a couple chow mixes. we evaluate the owners on the phjone, then evaluate the dog. we will usually still take the dog if we know it wont be a problem.

i really just wanted to say that you shouldnt be mad at the actual establishment b/c most are just following their insurance policy. maybe if you actually talk to someone they will make an axception and meet your dog, then make their judgement.

[Sunshyne]

That really sucks... I'm sorry.

People may be right in that it could be an insurance thing? I don't know. I had three pitbulls a long time ago that I rescued. We kind of pulled them off the streets in various places and times... they were fighting dogs that had been discarded. They turned out to be great dogs, but we when we walked them, the police would stop and ask for their licenses, shot records, etc... so I know the discrimination you feel.

The dog daycare I bring Chloe to does not have any breed restrictions. They require a tempermant test though and have seperate areas for small dogs and big dogs. It's funny because the dogs they have to take out for time outs and behavior problems are usually small dogs (thankfully never Chloe, though)! They have a webcam so you can see every inside and outside room, and there is always this one terrier type dog all by himself.

I hope you find something that works out for you!

[MuttHunter]

Originally Posted by Spicy1_VV

I'm not sure where you might have got your breed info but all those breeds are not descendants of fighting bred dogs are fighting breeds. Rotts, Dobies are not descendants of dogs bred for fighting. Dogo Argentinos do have a dog fighting ancestor along with many other breed ancestors. They were mainly bred for hunting (which means working with other dogs, not aggressive or fight, that would cause problems with them working) and their ability to protect and guard.

Oops, sorry--should have said many rather than all. I knew Dobermans were not bred as fighting dogs--Rotts I do not know much about, except for their reputation for needing a firm hand because of potential dominance issues, and being mentioned in a number of breed-specific laws. In any case I wrote the second sentence, and then later added to the list of supposed 'dangerous' breeds--should have revised the wording after. Thanks for the correction!

Back to the actual issue, I spent part of the day at a local dog rescue promotion event, and at least half of the dogs there were pits or pit mixes (one of whom immediately jumped up on me to lick my face). I mentioned to the rescue folks that I knew of someone having problems with various dog-related services being unwilling to accept pits and they expressed amazement. This may be partly geographical since pitbulls are so common in NYC, but I wondered if you have any rescues in your area that deal with Pitbulls? They might know of daycares and groomers that are more flexible.

[bluedawg]

That really brings the suck.
Both kennels I use allow pits and pit mixes to be boarded, Ive never used them for daycare so the rules might be different. Its up to the owner to decide who they patronise to though.

[Spicy1_VV]

Originally Posted by MuttHunter

Oops, sorry--should have said many rather than all. I knew Dobermans were not bred as fighting dogs--Rotts I do not know much about, except for their reputation for needing a firm hand because of potential dominance issues, and being mentioned in a number of breed-specific laws. In any case I wrote the second sentence, and then later added to the list of supposed 'dangerous' breeds--should have revised the wording after. Thanks for the correction!

No problem. I just wanted to point out. So there is no confusion for others.

[dusty&lulusmom]

I just read the post on this forum about the poor little dog that was attacked by a pit at the park....I hate to say but if I had a business dealing with dogs I probably would not want to provide services to pits. It may be discriminating against a breed but there are just too many reports of problems and unprovoked attacks, why take a chance. Sorry just my opinion and I think it is something that you probably have to deal with if you own a pit. I am still really angry about the poor terror the owner and dog were put through on this site when they were minding their own business and the pit went into a rage, broke off his leash and attacked...and believe it or not one of the people with the pit laughed...how can you call a beast like that a pet...and what kind of an owner can find humor in this...

[bluedawg]

Dog Day care places could add runs to allow pit bulls and other DA breeds, in fact they should be forced to because they are offerring a convenience to the public.

[Spicy1_VV]

Originally Posted by bluedawg

Dog Day care places could add runs to allow pit bulls and other DA breeds, in fact they should be forced to because they are offerring a convenience to the public.

Do you mean like runs to keep them separated? You can use the boarding type facility for this. (might even be cheaper) A daycare is to allow the dogs to be "babysat" and socialized. (I know some dogs that go there strictly for the play) They get to play together, run around while being watched by workers. Even then some boarding facilities don't allow Pit Bulls because as mentioned insurance reasons. It isn't just the issue of daycare with dogs running together. You can't force them to add runs for a breed they aren't allowed to accept. Not until they force the ins. comps to stop black listing breeds.They are a business and yes just like baby sitters (who offer you the convenience and service of watching your children for a fee) can refuse to watch your child.

I do think though that could be a good idea. If you'd like them interacted with by workers but not let around other dogs they could just keep them separated. But it might require more time of the workers so it might not go over too well. But with the insurance issues you can't force them to do anything. It doesn't leave Pit owners with a lot of options really. Its not too fair but I don't think much is going to change. I guess until then they can have family/friends to watch the dog or hire a pet sitter to come to their home.

[rsculady]

Here in the Bay Area it seems as if we have nothing but uneducated Pit owners and unsocialized, poorly trained, aggressive pits. It is the "thug" mentality here that has ruined more than one pit. It is a sad things because back in the 70's my grandparents bred and raised pits and they were some of the sweetest dogs I had ever met but in this area to trust one around my dogs or family? Not a chance. Not to mention that most of them in this area completely ignore the leash law and we our shelters are overflowing with them. Most are PTS immediately because of aggressiveness(be it human, dog, food etc).

On a side note, we rent our house and I had a lease company refuse to rent to me because I have Siberian Huskies and according to this lease company, "sibes are known aggressive dogs" ummmmm, yeah, I don't think so but what are ya' gonna do?

You can't force someone to change their thinking and Bluedawgs' response of "they should be forced to because they provide a public service" is just laughable. We live in America and therefore we have the freedom to do as we see fit. If you came into my business demanding that I be "forced" into serving you or treating you(Phys. Therapy), I would simply show you the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". We have had aggressive PEOPLE in my Phys. Therapy office including one just recently that was verbally abusive and tried fondling our assistant. He was removed from the facility by the police and we sent a letter to his referring doctor about his actions. Should we be "forced" to take him back in our office and put ourselves and possibly others at risk? I would close my business before I let that happen.

[MuttHunter]

Originally Posted by rsculady

Here in the Bay Area it seems as if we have nothing but uneducated Pit owners and unsocialized, poorly trained, aggressive pits. It is the "thug" mentality here that has ruined more than one pit. It is a sad things because back in the 70's my grandparents bred and raised pits and they were some of the sweetest dogs I had ever met but in this area to trust one around my dogs or family? Not a chance. Not to mention that most of them in this area completely ignore the leash law and we our shelters are overflowing with them. Most are PTS immediately because of aggressiveness(be it human, dog, food etc).

It sounds exactly like the situation in NYC.

On a side note, we rent our house and I had a lease company refuse to rent to me because I have Siberian Huskies and according to this lease company, "sibes are known aggressive dogs" ummmmm, yeah, I don't think so but what are ya' gonna do?

IMO many Huskies are victims of similar difficulties to pits, (if thankfully in smaller numbers). Some people get Huskies for the wrong reasons--cool outdoorsy macho image is one--and don't realize that they are high maintenance, independent-minded dogs, so the dogs end up misbehaving through the ignorance of their owners.

Originally Posted by rsculady

You can't force someone to change their thinking and Bluedawgs' response of "they should be forced to because they provide a public service" is just laughable. We live in America and therefore we have the freedom to do as we see fit. If you came into my business demanding that I be "forced" into serving you or treating you(Phys. Therapy), I would simply show you the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". We have had aggressive PEOPLE in my Phys. Therapy office including one just recently that was verbally abusive and tried fondling our assistant. He was removed from the facility by the police and we sent a letter to his referring doctor about his actions. Should we be "forced" to take him back in our office and put ourselves and possibly others at risk? I would close my business before I let that happen.

You are right, up to a point. The problem the owners of sweet, well-behaved pits have is that their dogs are not being rejected because they are unruly--they are being rejected because some other dogs were unruly. You were completely within your rights to eject your abusive customer. However, you would not be within your rights to refuse service to another customer simply because they shared some or all of the same ethnic background as that person, signs notwithstanding.

Dogs and humans are different of course, and dog 'breeds' as a concept do not map well to notions of human ethnicity -- I agree that trying to force unwilling dog services to accept dogs they don't want to deal with would be futile. Any long term solution would require reducing the number of ignorant owners and sloppy breeders that perpetuate the impression that all Pits (or Huskies) are a bad risk.

[rsculady]

Originally Posted by MuttHunter

You are right, up to a point. The problem the owners of sweet, well-behaved pits have is that their dogs are not being rejected because they are unruly--they are being rejected because some other dogs were unruly. You were completely within your rights to eject your abusive customer. However, you would not be within your rights to refuse service to another customer simply because they shared some or all of the same ethnic background as that person, signs notwithstanding.

You are right, we would not say "We refuse to serve all {insert race of choice}" based on this persons behavior but insisting that someone be "forced" to do something because it is a public service would just not fly in any situation. Some places refuse to rent to ANYONE who has ANY dog and that is their right. There is no way to force them to do so and that is what I was trying to say(although maybe I did not say it well lol).

[MuttHunter]

Originally Posted by rsculady

You are right, we would not say "We refuse to serve all {insert race of choice}" based on this persons behavior but insisting that someone be "forced" to do something because it is a public service would just not fly in any situation. Some places refuse to rent to ANYONE who has ANY dog and that is their right. There is no way to force them to do so and that is what I was trying to say(although maybe I did not say it well lol).

Of course, I did not think you would do that, and your post did not make it seem like you would -- I just meant that the analogy between your bad customer and pits was not quite on target, IMO (and mine between dog breeds and humans wasn't quite the same situation either.)

[poodleholic]

Originally Posted by trumpetjock

This is total BS. Your entire reasoning can be applied to ANY dog. All it takes is one dog of any breed with some issues to tear up your little darling. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a pit or any other breed.

The most vicious and dog aggressive dog I've ever met was a black lab mix. There isn't a doggie daycare in the country that would turn away a lab.

While I might agree with your first sentence, I know a local woman who owns a doggie daycare w/grooming, training, and pet supplies who nearly lost her business because she allowed a (known to her) pit bull to attend the doggie daycare. Her other clients quit taking their dogs to her establishment while the pitt was there. She tried educating people, but, to no avail. Although she hated to do it, she banned pit bulls, because there was no arguing the fact that, while other dogs may also bite, few can do the damage a pit bull can do.

I can't blame her - her livlihood was threatened. As it was, it took her a long time to recover.

And poodles bite more people that pits do, you just don't hear about it. Poodles and Chi's have a tendency to be a bit more high strung. (No offence to any poodle or Chi owners.)

No offence taken, but, with Poodles, a lot of this has to do with poor breeding and/or the owners creating the problems because so many with small/toy breeds spoil them rotten and don't treat them like dogs. I know a woman with Standard Poodles who also breeds Chis, and hers are unlike any Chi I've ever met - not high strung barkers at all, and not snappy biters. But, her dogs are highly socialized, and I suspect this is an area where most owners fall short.

[Spicy1_VV]

Originally Posted by MuttHunter

IMO many Huskies are victims of similar difficulties to pits, (if thankfully in smaller numbers). Some people get Huskies for the wrong reasons--cool outdoorsy macho image is one--and don't realize that they are high maintenance, independent-minded dogs, so the dogs end up misbehaving through the ignorance of their owners.

That is true to. I was watching its me or the dog (I love that show) and this couple had a husky. He peed on the bed, scratched, bit and humped people. He was pretty scary for the woman to be handling while the man was at work, because he had no respect for her and would snarl and bite her. He was only 6 months old. They didn't do the best when raising him, just because they didn't have the knowledge or tools. They were not the worse owners but they were probably the average owners who get dogs without knowing how to handle them. Anyone one of the comments the guy made was something about his GF wanting a certain breed (I can't remember some small breed) and he said something like yeah right, could you imagine me walking a dog like that, I don't think so. What is it with these guys thinking the dog makes the man? I don't think a man is bigger, better, tougher if they are walking a Husky instead of a Pom. I just don't get it with these people.

[MuttHunter]

Originally Posted by Spicy1_VV

That is true to. I was watching its me or the dog (I love that show) and this couple had a husky. He peed on the bed, scratched, bit and humped people. He was pretty scary for the woman to be handling while the man was at work, because he had no respect for her and would snarl and bite her.

That is very similar to a situation I was thinking of when I wrote it. A couple on my block had a beautiful Husky male that was very aggressive to the woman of the the house, who apparently was somewhat prone to fear of dogs in general. It had actually bitten her more than once. There might have been a worse breed for them to get, but I can't think of what it might be.

Originally Posted by Spicy1_VV

What is it with these guys thinking the dog makes the man? I don't think a man is bigger, better, tougher if they are walking a Husky instead of a Pom. I just don't get it with these people.

I kind of agree, although self-image is really such a big factor in why people prefer just about anything (cars, clothes, computers), that I don't completely think this is impossible to understand. I have to admit that I would feel a bit self-conscious walking a toy poodle, for example, although if I somehow ended up responsible for one I could deal. A number of years ago, I borrowed an umbrella from the woman I was dating at the time, after I got caught at her house in a downpour. Unfortunately, it was pink and had a fringe of little pom-poms around the edge, and my route home required that I walk past the 'Rogue Animals Motorcycle Club' who were having a barbecue that day (I swear, I am not making this up!). I managed to pass their HQ without incident, fortunately. Image isn't everything, but it is inevitably a factor.

In any case there are a lot of 'red-blooded guy image' dogs (hounds, GSDs, retrievers, etc) that are a lot easier to raise as a cooperative, non-aggressive pet. There are even some reputedly easier companion dogs that have a husky-like 'wolfish' look, although they are a bit rare in the lower 48. Some folks just don't do their homework before getting a dog, unfortunately.

[doggymommy]

Here is the way I see it, Any discrimination of any breed is wrong. People make their dogs who and what they are. Responsible owners can take any breed and raise it right, socialize him/her properly and obedience train and you will get a nice dog.

If we discriminate against one particular breed, when will it end. Dogs can bite, that is a fact, any dog, not just pit's, Gsd's, Rotties, Dobermans, Labs, etc. Small dog breeds can be even more nippy than bigger breeds.

Discriminating against any dog breed is kind of like labeling different human races as bad or good. It is the individual person who counts, not their race.

Pits were not breed originally for dog fighting, neither were Rotties, Dobe's or Gsd's, in fact no dog breed was originally bred to fight another dog.

People are to blame for BSL because they don't take care of their dogs properly and some teach dogs to fight.

BSL is the result of ignorant people, not the breeds fault.

[KDesirea]

Okay, this really wasn't supposed to be a breed banning discussion, just my feelings being hurt by someone who won't give my dog a chance.

I don't know my dog's breed but I do know her temperment and I believe that her acceptance should be based on that.

To further the hurt that I felt for her (yes, I realize that her feelings are just fine), I had her in the car with me when I went to Sonic the other day. One girl saw her and started freaking out, she kept yelling "Do you have her?! Hold her while I walk by!".... We were in the car and Cocoa just wanted to stick her head out the window just as any dog would do. Then the girl went back in and said something to all the people that worked there and then no one would approach my car. The carhop who brought my mean had to lean over to hand me my drink. So, yes, right or wrong, this makes me feel bad for her because I know that she is a sweet dog.

Later that day Cocoa and I went to the "Justice for Gage" thing (see the earlier post) and she had a nice time with all of the very well behaved dogs (pit and others). I felt very bad for Gage's mom and dad and actually understand their pain.

I just wish that people felt would not lump an entire group of dogs together based on how irresponsible people have raised theirs.

Originally Posted by doggymommy

Here is the way I see it, Any discrimination of any breed is wrong. People make their dogs who and what they are. Responsible owners can take any breed and raise it right, socialize him/her properly and obedience train and you will get a nice dog.

If we discriminate against one particular breed, when will it end. Dogs can bite, that is a fact, any dog, not just pit's, Gsd's, Rotties, Dobermans, Labs, etc. Small dog breeds can be even more nippy than bigger breeds.

Discriminating against any dog breed is kind of like labeling different human races as bad or good. It is the individual person who counts, not their race.

Pits were not breed originally for dog fighting, neither were Rotties, Dobe's or Gsd's, in fact no dog breed was originally bred to fight another dog.

People are to blame for BSL because they don't take care of their dogs properly and some teach dogs to fight.

BSL is the result of ignorant people, not the breeds fault.

I completely agree. You did a good job of summing things up and I feel the same way. Cocoa is a good baby and will continue to be as long as I raise her responsibly.

[InverseLogic]

Originally Posted by KDesirea

Okay, this really wasn't supposed to be a breed banning discussion, just my feelings being hurt by someone who won't give my dog a chance.

I don't know my dog's breed but I do know her temperment and I believe that her acceptance should be based on that.

To further the hurt that I felt for her (yes, I realize that her feelings are just fine), I had her in the car with me when I went to Sonic the other day. One girl saw her and started freaking out, she kept yelling "Do you have her?! Hold her while I walk by!".... We were in the car and Cocoa just wanted to stick her head out the window just as any dog would do. Then the girl went back in and said something to all the people that worked there and then no one would approach my car. The carhop who brought my mean had to lean over to hand me my drink. So, yes, right or wrong, this makes me feel bad for her because I know that she is a sweet dog.

Later that day Cocoa and I went to the "Justice for Gage" thing (see the earlier post) and she had a nice time with all of the very well behaved dogs (pit and others). I felt very bad for Gage's mom and dad and actually understand their pain.

I just wish that people felt would not lump an entire group of dogs together based on how irresponsible people have raised theirs.



I completely agree. You did a good job of summing things up and I feel the same way. Cocoa is a good baby and will continue to be as long as I raise her responsibly.

You have every right to feel like your feelings have been hurt. I wish people didn't lump groups of dogs together too. My dad actually has some hate for pit bulls because of some experiences he's had. I really hate his attitude about it, but there is no changing his mind.