It's beyond me how people think owning a pitbull as a family pet is a good idea...

[Tomorrow]

Like I said above, I wasn't speaking in absolutes. There are cases where the dog goes against the grain. But this is not common. If you want to keep defending the incredibly false idea that pit bulls are just bad dogs, be my guest. But you're wrong.

Well, I'm actually correct, statistically speaking. In a three year period from 2006 through 2008, 59% of all deaths from dogs were by pit bulls. But let's not let something like facts and actual statistics cloud our judgment, right? After all, it's all the owners' fault, right?

By the way, thanks for taking one thing I said out of context and disregarding everything else I said, which actually somewhat agreed with what you were saying.

Because the more you say it, the harder it is to take out of context:

Their bad reputation is due to horrible dog owners, not the dogs themselves.

There really aren't any bad breeds, just morons with dogs.

Yes ... the most dangerous dog breeds ... when raised by horrible owners.

...they are raised to do stupid things for stupid owners. That is the entire point of all this.

The dogs get a bad reputation because of bad owners.

There are no inherently bad breeds, just crappy owners.

Most of the time, however, problem pets ... or dangerous pets ... are a result of the owner ... nothing else.

 

[\-V-/]

OMG ... you've got to be kidding me. That statistic means nothing. The reason Pit Bulls get a bad reputation is because Pit Bulls are a strong breed that look menacing. Because of this, they're one of the most popular dog breeds to train for the wrong reasons. As a result, the statistics are going to show a higher number of dog attacks attributed to Pit Bulls, because there are a higher number of Pit Bulls being trained by dumb asses to do dumb ass things. Those weren't wholesome, family Pit Bulls that were doing the attacking. If Golden Retrievers suddenly became the popular dog to raise for dog fights and other ill purposes, then the rise in dog attacks would be attributed to Golden Retrievers. The fact that dog attacks are occurring more often with Pit Bulls is not because Pit Bulls are terrible dogs. It's because Pit Bulls are the dog of choice among sh** dog owners to raise for terrible reasons. They are abused ... they are raised to fight ... and this is the reason for that statistic. If you would get your head out of your bias, you would see that. I'm not the one with my head in the clouds. You're just incapable of seeing the bigger picture ... and the main problem ... which is people specially raising Pit Bulls for a terrible purpose.

 

[Tomorrow]

OMG ... you've got to be kidding me. That statistic means nothing.

At this point I had to check out. Can't have a discussion with someone who so brazenly dismisses factual research.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

At this point I had to check out. Can't have a discussion with someone who so brazenly dismisses factual research.

Yes, I can see where you are coming from.

My issue with this thread is that there appears to be a reluctance to face the fact that pit bulls were originally bred as fighting dogs with a ferocious bite.

Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that, properly trained and properly socialised, and housed in loving and responsible homes, they can make excellent pets. That is not the issue or the point of dispute.

However, I remain stupefied at the reluctance to face the fact that this is a breed of dog, which has been bred for fighting. This is not just irresponsible owners choosing to have the dog fight, as with bear fights, or cock-fights; it is what this breed of animal had been bred to do. As a result, my point is that owners of pit bulls, irrespective of how highly trained and socialised that individual animal is, have a higher duty to care to ensure that it is not a threat to anyone, ever, than owners of other breeds of dogs.

 

[\-V-/]

At this point I had to check out. Can't have a discussion with someone who so brazenly dismisses factual research.

I'm not dismissing factual research. You're simply ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your bias. Pit Bulls have a better temperament than many dogs that most would consider "family friendly." There's occasionally a bad egg, but this applies to any breed because dogs are unique, but in general ... Pit Bulls make great family pets when socialized properly as puppies and have been for many decades. Because they are a strong and menacing looking breed, people tend to use them for selfish and abusive reasons ... such as dog fighting. They are one of the most popular dog breeds to raise to be "bad" ... because of this ... the statistics will show that Pit Bull attacks make up a large portion of dog attacks. This is for the reasons I just stated. They are a popular breed for idiots to raise to be vicious. This is not because they are inherently vicious animals, as explained thoroughly. They also have a high tolerance to children being rough with them and are less likely to bite them. They are very protective of children.

I'm not the one that's having the issue here. You are just dismissing anything that shows Pit Bulls in any positive light.

Temperament:

The essential characteristics of the American Pit Bull Terrier are strength, confidence, and zest for life. This breed is eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children. Because most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog. The breed’s natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work.

 

[dejo]

Meanwhile, in Denver, the Dumb Friends League (a rescue shelter for which I foster cats) announced they are going to start placing pit bulls up for adoption. The DFL doesn't agree with breed specific legislation, but will only be placing these dogs with adopters in communities where there is not a breed restriction. Communities with restrictions are: Aurora, Castle Rock, Commerce City, Denver, Fort Lupton, Lone Tree and Louisville.

 

[\-V-/]

That's the best business name ever.

 

[benthewraith]

Well, the argument can be made to 'focus' on the owners, but this is a breed of dog that has been specifically bred to favour some characteristics, such as an awesomely destructive bite and a potentially aggressive nature - these have been bred to be fighting dogs.

It's "awesomely destructive bite" is less powerful than the GSD, rottweiler, and mastiff breeds that prior to the pit bull were maligned. In fact, a pit bull has almost 100 lbs per pressure less than the rottweiler.

 

[0388631]

Not a huge dog fan except a few breeds. Some breeds have different baseline temperaments. It all comes down to the owner.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

It's "awesomely destructive bite" is less powerful than the GSD, rottweiler, and mastiff breeds that prior to the pit bull were maligned. In fact, a pit bull has almost 100 lbs per pressure less than the rottweiler.

That "100lbs per pressure less than" (rottweilers, and some mastiffs) still leaves the pit bull - for its size - with a bite that is far more potentially powerful and destructive than that possessed by most other dogs, irrespective of size.

And that puts an onus on owners to be more careful, responsible and to take a greater duty of care when that dog interacts with other individuals, above all children.

 

[BigInDallas]

Yes, I can see where you are coming from.

My issue with this thread is that there appears to be a reluctance to face the fact that pit bulls were originally bred as fighting dogs with a ferocious bite.

Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that, properly trained and properly socialised, and housed in loving and responsible homes, they can make excellent pets. That is not the issue or the point of dispute.

However, I remain stupefied at the reluctance to face the fact that this is a breed of dog, which has been bred for fighting. This is not just irresponsible owners choosing to have the dog fight, as with bear fights, or cock-fights; it is what this breed of animal had been bred to do. As a result, my point is that owners of pit bulls, irrespective of how highly trained and socialised that individual animal is, have a higher duty to care to ensure that it is not a threat to anyone, ever, than owners of other breeds of dogs.

I don't think anyone here is dismissing the history of the breed. Just that how you raise a dog is what it temperament will be. I'm sure their are exceptions to this, but generally you raise a dog with love you get a loving dog.
My 2 pits are the friendliest dogs. They want live and attention.

 

[sdilley14]

Savage beast.

 

[A.Goldberg]

I think it comes down there being dogs with good behavior and dogs with bad behavior. I have come across many very sweet pits in my life and some nasty dogs from breeds you'd never expect - for example I know someone's child who was almost permanently disfigured from a basset hound.

Not the sweetheart you thought he was?

I think one to keep in mind is that a lot of muts and strays have pit in them. Pits are strong and energetic dogs. If not properly raised and trained, they can be out of control. A lot of people don't take the time or do not possess the skill to do this.

A yippy rodent dog is far less likely to incur significant harm if it bites someone. A pit bull obviously will. I think it's safe to assume the number of small dog bites is under reported.

I think it's niave to think everything is so black and white. Are all black people bad because they have higher crime statistics? Not all dog breeds are created equal and some require more training or will respond differently in different environments.

The fact is dogs are animals. You never know how they're going to react. As loyal as a dog may be to a family, you never know when they might turn. In that sense, getting any dog for a family is a risk in itself.

 

[Huntn]

I think it comes down there being dogs with good behavior and dogs with bad behavior. I have come across many very sweet pits in my life and some nasty dogs from breeds you'd never expect - for example I know someone's child who was almost permanently disfigured from a basset hound.

Not the sweetheart you thought he was?

I think one to keep in mind is that a lot of muts and strays have pit in them. Pits are strong and energetic dogs. If not properly raised and trained, they can be out of control. A lot of people don't take the time or do not possess the skill to do this.

A yippy rodent dog is far less likely to incur significant harm if it bites someone. A pit bull obviously will. I think it's safe to assume the number of small dog bites is under reported.

I think it's niave to think everything is so black and white. Are all black people bad because they have higher crime statistics? Not all dog breeds are created equal and some require more training or will respond differently in different environments.

The fact is dogs are animals. You never know how they're going to react. As loyal as a dog may be to a family, you never know when they might turn. In that sense, getting any dog for a family is a risk in itself.

I've not implied that Pitbulls are the only problem breed out there, but they rank at the top of the dog bite/fatality statistics. Whether it's their fault or the owners fault seems to be besides the point. And I can also acknowledge that the total attacks are low as compared to all the dogs out there, but still it seems self enforcing every time a Putbull seriously injures someone.

 

[benthewraith]

I've not implied that Pitbulls are the only problem breed out there, but they rank at the top of the dog bite/fatality statistics.

They broadened the statistics to pit bull and pit-bull like dogs. Unless they're doing pedigrees of every single dog that bites someone, a non-pit that looks kinda sorta like a pit will be classified along with them, skewing the results. Do you really think anyone is going to spend the time to properly pedigree every dog put down or killed?

 

[Huntn]

They broadened the statistics to pit bull and pit-bull like dogs. Unless they're doing pedigrees of every single dog that bites someone, a non-pit that looks kinda sorta like a pit will be classified along with them, skewing the results. Do you really think anyone is going to spend the time to properly pedigree every dog put down or killed?

No, many are mutts or are not pedigreed.

 

[JerryGarciaBandFan]

My vote is for Great Pyrenees. We have a Pyrenees/German shepherd mix. She is the sweetest animal I have ever met. Found her out on the side of the road in rural Texas. Pyrenees are extremely protective (bred to protect sheep) but extremely chill and generally quite friendly.

Yeah they shed, but that's the reality with a number of dogs.

This little (big. like 85 lbs) one is daddy's favorite

Had one as a kid. Great dog.

 

[applelover4u]

nobody is saying pitfalls are viscous 24 hours a day and always violent. All dogs flip out every now and then. When a pitiful flips out , it will get really violent and death is sure to come....