[Dwayners]

I live in Ontario, Canada where pitbulls are banned. it's a farce. it's not the dogs it's the owners. we were at the local humane society last year checking out dogs and we saw an illegal 4 month old pup they were hiding to keep him alive. little brown guy and he was the cutest thing ever.

[skelaki]

I thought everyone would like a bit of good news. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080609/...2HcLrE5Xh0bBAF

[Regi]

Well I will tell you I get so upset about the pit bull controversy because they are gorgeous dogs and strong, powerful dogs and protective However once I went to the vet and saw a guy there with his pit and the poor dogs face was filled with blood and scratches and I felt so sad I asked the guy who was a teenager and he said that another pit got loose and they fought and now his dog looks like he will be scarred for life I felt so bad for the dog. He looked like he was in so much pain. I wanted to have the dog for myself to love him up and make him better. These teenagers think its a joke but that dog had to have his entire face stitched up. I dont like the bad name these dogs got because I am in love with all dogs. Pit bulls are no exception.

[Durbkat]

I'm not sure if this was asked. But I'm curious. In the article they say it was trained to be a guard dog so wasn't it doing what it was supposed to do, keeping people off the property? Or do real guard dogs do something different than this dog?

[Mac'N'Roe]

As everyone knows, it wasn't the dogs fault. The media always seems to forget to mention the fact that the owners shouldn't let a 2 year old walk into the space of a chained dog. Not smart.

[Spicy1_VV]

Originally Posted by Durbkat

I'm not sure if this was asked. But I'm curious. In the article they say it was trained to be a guard dog so wasn't it doing what it was supposed to do, keeping people off the property? Or do real guard dogs do something different than this dog?

A guard dog is supposed to keep dogs off your property, true that is their purpose. However doesn't include members of the family. There is no reason for a true guard dog to attack/maul their family members children or adults. That would kind of be counter productive. They should be protecting the family and their property.

Originally Posted by Mac'N'Roe

As everyone knows, it wasn't the dogs fault. The media always seems to forget to mention the fact that the owners shouldn't let a 2 year old walk into the space of a chained dog. Not smart.

I guess that is true for unstable dogs and the parent knew the dog was aggressive of course. He knows it now and still wanted the dog to be kept alive and around his son. How traumatized is the child going to be? And he wanted to bring this dog back to his home? I don't think it is fair to lump the abominations with the stable dogs. If your child can't be around your dogs space then I feel you have a problem. Guarding towards the children of space/resources isn't something I'd tolerate. Teaching the kids proper manners though and how to treat a dog are equally important. (dogs shouldn't have to take abuse at the hands of children either I don't believe)
Stable, property bred APBTs. Always friendly and ready to great.




Growing up I was around APBTs without ever having one attempt to bite me or make an aggressive posture towards. The breed is changing for the worse more and more. There are still breeders of proper temperament out there, who's children help out almost daily in the care of the dogs. Some even have their own dog that they get to be responsible for, train and show.

I feel we need more APBTs like these. Not ones trained to guard who will maul small child within their own family.

[Durbkat]

Oh, I thought the article said that a child wandered onto the property, not that it was family.

[dog-man]

i think part of the blame goes to the responsible pitbull owners as well.

i only see them fight any and all attempts to profile pitties...no matter how mild.

there are too many bad owners to just let the status quo continue as is.

all their own solutions are solutions without teeth....nothing that would stop the bad owners.

personally, i would like to see some sort of profiling...but one which allows responsible owners with good dogs to be temperament tested, and then exempt from restrictions.

[DobManiac]

Originally Posted by dog-man

personally, i would like to see some sort of profiling...but one which allows responsible owners with good dogs to be temperament tested, and then exempt from restrictions.

I really wouldn’t have a problem with this as long as it included all breeds, not just a select few. All dogs are capable of aggression, and will bite if pushed too far. There are no exceptions to the rule. And quite a few of the more dangerous dogs today are not so much bred as raised.

Not to mention that now a day’s every dog with teeth seems to resemble a pit. So really who will even be in charge of stating what breed the dog really is?

To me breed profiling is pretty much the same thing as racial profiling, just for a different species.

[Inga]

I don't even really know what to say about this other then it makes me so sad. I have managed to get many many people that I know over their fears of Rotties by showing them how wonderful and loving my dogs truly were. Over the years I have changed the minds of many hard core "dangerous dog" haters. The kind of people that thought they should all be put to sleep. Sadly, when talking to a few of them the other day about my dogs I said, I had fallen in love with a Pit that had come into the shelter and really wished I had been able to keep her instead of just fostering her. They responded with Shock and horror as If I had just told them I wanted to adopt the devil himself. They all started with the "they should ALL be put to sleep thing" again and I was standing there with my jaw dropped going "Are you kidding"? I proved to you people how great one of these breeds could be if it was in the right home and you are right back at this. The response was.... There are quite a few good Rottweilers but you don't hear about Good Pitbulls. I wanted to cry. I know a lot of good Pitbulls but I do not know of a lot of good Ambassadors for their breed. People that show enough interest in their breed of choice to train, socialize, educate the public and campaign against BSL and the stupid media hype phobias. There needs to be a LOT more of the breed lovers coming forward in a positive way. Not just Pitbulls but all the breeds currently in question. I am sorry to all of you that own Pitbulls too. I know how it feels to own that breed that people love to point out the sad stories about. It is like they take some personal pleasure in showing you these sad stories as if to prove to you how bad the breed is.
dog-man, I don't know what kind of profiling you are thinking? Like a CGC test or Therapy Certification? That would be something if that became mandatory wouldn't it? I think it should apply to ALL breeds not just a few. A walk into the bite quarantine area in my local shelter shows a diverse breed selection. Labs probably more commonly then any other breed. No breed should be singled out for anything. Owners should be held more accountable for the actions of their dogs though. They should be even more so when it is obvious neglect. Like tying a dog out after training it to be a guard and then allowing a small child to approach, knowing it is aggressive. That child should be taken away from that parent. I just hope somehow that child will be able to heal from that horrible experience.

[dog-man]

Originally Posted by DobManiac

I really wouldn’t have a problem with this as long as it included all breeds, not just a select few. All dogs are capable of aggression, and will bite if pushed too far. There are no exceptions to the rule.

to test all dogs would be an impossible task.

by demanding that all dogs be tested is to basically cause that none will be tested.

statistics are not perfect, but they are good enough to point out the breeds or mixes that cause a significant amount of damage.

there is a big difference between racial profiling and breed profiling.

unless someone has a better answer, eventually pitties will be banned all over...in part because the responsible pittie owners don't offer their own workable solutions.

[DobManiac]

Originally Posted by dog-man

to test all dogs would be an impossible task.

by demanding that all dogs be tested is to basically cause that none will be tested.

statistics are not perfect, but they are good enough to point out the breeds or mixes that cause a significant of damage.

there is a big difference between racial profiling and breed profiling.

unless someone has a better answer, eventually pitties will be banned all over...in part because the responsible pittie owners don't offer their own workable solutions.

Dog-man nothings impossible.

A CGC is a great suggestion Inga. And owners with big kennels could pay professional behaviorists out of pocket for a basic test. If these behaviorists were approved by the state that is. I'm sure they would be more than happy with the extra work and money.

That would be one step towards more responsible breeding practices as well. Because a dog that is incapable of passing a behavior test or a CGC test, should be spayed or neutered at the very least. PTS at worst. That is dependent on the dog of course, and how bad the aggressive tendencies are. We need to figure at a way to make the owners accountable for their dogs before an accident happens.

[Mycathinks hesadog]

Originally Posted by dog-man

to test all dogs would be an impossible task..

Perhaps all dogs over 30lbs then. I guess I'm not worried about being mauled by a pom or even a French Bulldog.

by demanding that all dogs be tested is to basically cause that none will be tested.

No, it just means equity, which is the biggest problem people have with BSL. Who is to say what breed is dangerous and what isn't, because any dog large enough has the probability to inflict serious harm. All dogs have teeth, and pound per pound are stronger than humans.

statistics are not perfect, but they are good enough to point out the breeds or mixes that cause a significant amount of damage.

Most of these stats stem from two things: the media, which I know I don't have to eloborate on biases and 2: police/AC reports. Though the former of the two maybe more accurate, it only indicates reported attacks/bitings, which I'm willing to bet is a fraction of the actual number. Going back to statistics 101, leaving out a portion of the sample size aside from outliers is a good way to get a wrong (biased) number.

there is a big difference between racial profiling and breed profiling.

I guess I'm in the dark on this one, would you please elaborate? I see this ending up in a nature vs nurture argument, but would like to see where you are coming from...

unless someone has a better answer, eventually pitties will be banned all over...in part because the responsible pittie owners don't offer their own workable solutions.

To me, the fundamental argument comes down to controling human nature, which is ultimitely responsible for these dangerous animals. Controling human nature is something I don't want the government to do, nor do I think they could do it if asked.

[dog-man]

Originally Posted by Mycathinks hesadog

Perhaps all dogs over 30lbs then. I guess I'm not worried about being mauled by a pom or even a French Bulldog.


No, it just means equity, which is the biggest problem people have with BSL. Who is to say what breed is dangerous and what isn't, because any dog large enough has the probability to inflict serious harm. All dogs have teeth, and pound per pound are stronger than humans.

i would have no problem having my own dog tested...but if the bureaucracy would be too cumbersome to do so many dogs, and that would be the death of the policy...then i have no problem profiling certain dogs.

what i meant to say before, is that racial profiling of humans can be degrading to those profiled.

however, dogs do not take offense...and their owners should relax a little.

Originally Posted by Mycathinks hesadog

To me, the fundamental argument comes down to controling human nature, which is ultimitely responsible for these dangerous animals. Controling human nature is something I don't want the government to do, nor do I think they could do it if asked.

what i would want is a ban on all pitties, except those who pass a temperament test...or who are currently enrolled in a class.

this stops the proliferation of the bad pitties in the hands of the morons, and allows the responsible owners to continue owning and purchasing the breed they love.

[Mycathinks hesadog]

Originally Posted by dog-man

what i meant to say before, is that racial profiling of humans can be degrading to those profiled.

however, dogs do not take offense...and their owners should relax a little.

This made me smile. Good one!

i would have no problem having my own dog tested...but if the bureaucracy would be too cumbersome to do so many dogs, and that would be the death of the policy...then i have no problem profiling certain dogs.

The current forms of BSL is a half-@$$ attempt at solving the problem because it fits in the current bureaucracy. I'm sure Oinest would pass with flying colors, but what if he were raised improperly in a worst case scenerio setting? I'm sure if you hadn't raised him right he would be just as capable of doing serious harm. To single out certain breeds is not a solution to the probelm of PEOPLE not being responsible owners.

Originally Posted by dog-man

what i would want is a ban on all pitties, except those who pass a temperament test...or who are currently enrolled in a class.

this stops the proliferation of the bad pitties in the hands of the morons, and allows the responsible owners to continue owning and purchasing the breed they love.

Passing a temperment test only certifies the dog for that period of time. Ozzie passed one, but IF I were using him as a bait dog, or abusing him, or not socializing him, I'm sure he would fail it in the future. Same with any other dog...

[Spicy1_VV]

Dog-man

Breed profiling isn't like racial profiling IMO, I agree. It of course depends on the situation but generally no. Saying certain breeds are prone to certain things if they are true is the truth. Dog breeds were created by selective breeding. Humans just breed with whoever whenever.

Testing all dangerous dog breeds is impossible too. There are 100 of 1000s of them, Pit Bulls alone let alone the other breeds commonly banned. Sorry but it would work no better then BSL, probably worse. If people still keep dogs despite them being banned (even fight them which of course again the law too) they certainly are not going to care that they are supposed to get a temperament test. I'm sure they would laugh and not give it a second thought.

Pits are not banned because Pit owners don't give a workable solution. Its not our job to, it is the governments job. Obviously people can suggest ideas or bills they want to see. Some Pit owners who have fought BSL head on have given ideas that could help but it is up to the government if they want them. If they turn them down then there is nothing that Pit owner can do. So I don't know how many BSL meetings you've been to when saying they don't offer any solutions.

Why do they not create their own workable solution? BSL is not a solution that actually works but they still continue to use it. The temperament testing if they implement that instead of total ban will still not be a true solution, it will end the same as BSL. If there is a full ban in the entire country on Pit Bulls oh well, they won't be helping anyone out. Maybe one day they will learn you can't put band-aids on things and people will stop calling for quick fixes whether it be BSL or corn ethanol.

You do realize that if in several years time Pit Bulls were brought down to a minimal number due to a country wide ban that another breed will be quickly exploited. The type of people that are irresponsible do not love a specific breed, they don't care if its banned even though they are the reason for BSL. Most the time it doesn't work anyway, but if it did then there are plenty of other dog breeds in existence.

Can you come up with solution that would actually be effective and work? The problem is with dog owners in this country. You can't force people to be responsible, have common sense, be educated. Owners are so clueless these days its scary and the more and more people follow the new age ideas of dogs the more problems we will see. The only thing that would seem like a solution would have to mandate classes and certification for the OWNERS and again that would be too many and too costly. Very hard to enforce yet again. You'd see responsible people there sure, but not the irresponsible ones who actually need the education. If the ban all dogs (maybe except toy breeds) then they would be making it safe from serious dog attacks. Maybe one day that is where we will be.

I mean no offense to your post dog-man, but like banning what you have works in theory. It wouldn't stop the bad breeders from breeding and selling. The bad owners from still having their dangerous Pits. The laws we have where I live don't stop all the dozens of adds in the newspaper by illegal breeders. These are of many different breeds and the fact is the county/city are supposed to be regulating it plus the state for those with more then a few dogs. Some they get, many others they don't. They don't care, have more important things or have too many cases.

[Inga]

If the ban all dogs (maybe except toy breeds) then they would be making it safe from serious dog attacks. Maybe one day that is where we will be.

Oh Spicy, I pray that does not happen in my lifetime. I would be so very heartbroken. I agree though, that what seems like a solution more often then not is an unenforceable dream.

[Spicy1_VV]

Oh I don't want it to come to that either, but seriously seems like the only thing. A 30lbs dog (as mentioned by the other poster) can do their fair share of damage. Some under 30lbs terriers have killed other peoples pets and have been known to inflict at least serious bites on people where chunks of flesh was ripped of (sorry for the graphicness). Most of the toy breeds can bite you but are usually not life threatening unless you are a small child/infant.

I posted the link on this forum I believe of the family Lab who attacked the son. They also had another dog, a Chihuahua, who the mom is keeping. She said that if you have dogs bigger and children you should seriously reconsider. So she considers a Chi safe wouldn't own another medium/large dog. That is the way some people are started to think. If it is bigger then a toy breed they won't trust them. There are more breeds banned then some people realize (more then just Pits or Rotts). There are breeds that haven't accounted for attacks, breeds that are very rare, in at least 1 town dogs over 100lbs are restricted despite breed. Just because of their size.

[4dogs3cats]

The problem is that if they do restrict to only certain breeding of pits, like spicey said, the bad ones will continue. IMO- we wouldnt need to restrict the breeing if it werent for the bad ones. Unfortunately it is way too easy to breed.

My SO has a friend who had an akc golden. Gorgeous girl. I dont believe that they did any testing, but they wanted to breed her. Not to make profit, but because they felt their dog was great (she really was) and more people deserved a dog like her. They have 2 little kids, a 7 yeard old boy and a 5 year old girl (approx) Fast forward to when the puppies are born. 2 are stillborn. 3 are left. The mom golden (named Gracie,) kills them one by one by stuffing them into the couch to suffocate. The KIDS find them. These are good people with good intentions mind you. THEN, mom gets a tumor. They have it removed ($2,000 surgery,) 2 months later, the tumor is back, and they put her down. She was 4 years old.

Eriks stepbrother and GF. I made a thread about them before. They have a 6 month old pit. AWESOME with Kody and Chance. They played for 5 hours straight. They want to breed her. She is 6 months old. They want to breed her soon because they want to keep a puppy. They got her from a friend who bred his pits. They are good people. They dont want to do it for profit.

Unfortunately a lot of the problems is the good people doing things for the wrong reason. I would LOVE to raise money, to air a national commercial about the problems with backyard breeding. I would LOVE to form some kind of group to get out there and educate people. In my local newspaper today there are 19 ads for pitbulls. Figure 15 of them are litters, the rest are one dog looking for a home. So take the 15 litters of about 5 and thats 75 puppies. Do you think every single one of those puppies is going to go to a responsible home?

[dog-man]

Originally Posted by Spicy1_VV

If people still keep dogs despite them being banned (even fight them which of course again the law too) they certainly are not going to care that they are supposed to get a temperament test. I'm sure they would laugh and not give it a second thought.

perhaps you don't get what i mean.

in places that have already banned pitties, i believe they can forcibly pick them up, and that's the end of story.

in the scenario i am suggesting, the authorities would also have the power to impound a dog...the difference is that the responsible owners could have previously proven that their dog is good, through some sort of temperament testing.
i'm sure some accomodation could be figured out for someone that hasn't done the testing yet, but will.

in this scenario, we don't need the cooperation of the bad guys...only of the good guys.