Then consider that the problematic Pitbulls are almost always maintained as livestock rather than as house companions, and most of those that are problematic are owned by criminals.
Yet we have a sample size here on the 'Fire of two "fighting breeds", of which the pit is the most common representation.
Rog's pit was a well-socialized dog kept loose in the backyard and frequently petted and fussed over by family members and friends and sometimes rode with him in his truck.
BC Brian's dog was an American bulldog that lived IN the house and slept on his daughter's bed.
Both attacked the clear alpha of the houshold without warning.
Part of why Brian shot and killed his dog like the very next day was that his young daughter told him the dog had recently been "grumbling" at her on her bed at night.
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
So which government appointee will you folks place in charge of determining for us which breeds are the bad ones that we can't own? Reminds me of the liberals who want to put a government appointee in charge of which guns are "assault weapons," and which aren't.
1- Pit bull attacks person,,, you will get About 1,440,000 results 2- Bear Hound attacks person,,, you will get about 0 results
Apples and oranges, first of all, because of what a minuscule number of bear dogs there are vs the number of Pitbulls. Then consider that even Pit mixes are classified in statistics as "Pitbulls," yet this is not the case for any other breed. Then consider the total number of "Pitbulls" in the US vs the total number of Pitbull bites. As to the latter comparison, it demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of Pitbulls are not problematic. Then consider that the problematic Pitbulls are almost always maintained as livestock rather than as house companions, and most of those that are problematic are owned by criminals. Any breed that's wildly popular among criminals is going to be more likely to cause problems in society than breeds that are not. Before they were adopted as the semi-official criminal's dog (right around 1980), you never heard of a Pitbull attacking anyone. If you even came across anyone who'd heard of the breed, the typical response would have been, "Oh yeah, that dog on the Little Rascals."
And why do you suppose criminals would choose a certain breed(s) over others to begin with?
Prior to 1980? I was a little acquainted with a couple of members of an outlaw biker gang back in early '70-'71. The breed of choice among outlaw types back then was usually the Doberman and German Shepard. Watched them work their dogs once. Scary aggressive.
I knew what the Pit Bull breed was originally bred for and heard that they were often used in organized dog fights long before I found out exactly what breed The Little Rascal's dog was.
So which government appointee will you folks place in charge of determining for us which breeds are the bad ones that we can't own? Reminds me of the liberals who want to put a government appointee in charge of which guns are "assault weapons," and which aren't.
AR-15s don't all of a sudden break out of the safe, load themselves, and attack people.
Pit bulls do.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
Pits are great dogs and a pleasure to have around. Right up to the point that they aren't! Unfortunately people don't know when that is until it's too late.
That's just plain wrong, People ignore the signs. When you pay attention to any dog you can very easily see the signs of a pending problem. Folks don't want to get rid of or put down the problem dog that they love, they'll just ignore it until they can't ignore it anymore.
I've been bitten by several dogs in my life, Poodle, Golden Retriever, Lab (Yellow), German Shepard, Shih zu. Chihuahua. Non of the owners of those dogs put them down all attacks were unprovoked.
The Golden Retriever and I had a come to Jesus meeting and he came away understanding that I was the boss but the owners never worked with him and he bit a few others as well but the dog new better than to even growl at me.
The owners of the Chihuahua were contemplating putting it down and asked if I could help, I did and it never bit anyone again as they were willing to work with it to keep from having to put it down.
All the other went on to bite others but nothing ever to serious.
Plain and simple, People just can't bear the thought of putting their dog down because it bite someone. I'll also guarantee there are folks reading this that have given their dog a pass for biting. I don't care what breed of dog it is when you see a "human aggression" problem you have to make that dog understand that it is not acceptable. Sometimes you gotta be mean.
Paul
"I'd rather see a sermon than hear a sermon".... D.A.D.
Trump Won!, Sandmann Won!, Rittenhouse Won!, Suck it Liberal Fuuktards.
So which government appointee will you folks place in charge of determining for us which breeds are the bad ones that we can't own? Reminds me of the liberals who want to put a government appointee in charge of which guns are "assault weapons," and which aren't.
LMAO!
There ya go. Change the argument.
If you take the time it takes, it takes less time. --Pat Parelli
American by birth; Alaskan by choice. --ironbender
So which government appointee will you folks place in charge of determining for us which breeds are the bad ones that we can't own? Reminds me of the liberals who want to put a government appointee in charge of which guns are "assault weapons," and which aren't.
AR-15s don't all of a sudden break out of the safe, load themselves, and attack people.
Pit bulls do.
OK, so that's the standard then. So, should we write our representatives and ask them to make a list of the dogs we can and can't own? Let us know what to do. Please include specifics, like how often should they reconsider the list, to add more breeds?
Those dogs were neglected. This is from the article that JoeBob linked above: I do believe that she would still be alive if it were any other breed, but she lost the bond she should have had with her dogs when she left them with her dad and they were left out in the cold in a pen and not cared for properly.
My dogs were left entirely alone in the back yard for more than two months when I went to the UK with a bicycle in the summer of 2016. All the caretaker did was feed 'em and check their water at least every other day (less care than I had been given to understand would occur). All of them lost weight but all were healthy, even the cat.
Dogs live in the "right now", when I got back we simply picked up our daily routine as if I had never left.
There's lots of explanations possible as to why them two dogs suddenly killed and ate that poor girl, how both of them were uncut males, how both of them were from a breed originally bred to kill and maul . Suffice to say very few dogs would have done what they did.
Have you ever read a book called "The Art of Racing in The Rain?"
?? I googled it, about a dog that worked to keep his owner's family together?
All sorts of jokes spring to mind but out of respect for the deceased young woman I'll refrain.
It's a novel written through the eyes of a dog, and it talks about how dogs live in the moment. Much like the dogs owner does when he's driving a race car, the dog lives in the now. When you wrote that earlier, I thought maybe you had read the book.
I guess not everybody is as in tune to the behavior of these animals as you are. It must be their fault then when they get bit. Were you ignoring the signs when all those dogs bit you? I'm not sure what the rest of your comment had to do with what I said. I guess we just disagree.
Deadlines and commitments, what to leave in, what to leave out...
So which government appointee will you folks place in charge of determining for us which breeds are the bad ones that we can't own? Reminds me of the liberals who want to put a government appointee in charge of which guns are "assault weapons," and which aren't.
So which government appointee will you folks place in charge of determining for us which breeds are the bad ones that we can't own? Reminds me of the liberals who want to put a government appointee in charge of which guns are "assault weapons," and which aren't.
Who suggested that? I missed it.
What's the solution, then? Persuasion?
Also, Indy seemed to be arguing for it, without actually coming out and putting words to it.
So which government appointee will you folks place in charge of determining for us which breeds are the bad ones that we can't own? Reminds me of the liberals who want to put a government appointee in charge of which guns are "assault weapons," and which aren't.
So which government appointee will you folks place in charge of determining for us which breeds are the bad ones that we can't own? Reminds me of the liberals who want to put a government appointee in charge of which guns are "assault weapons," and which aren't.
To be completely honest I used to be one of the Pit haters as well, After a lot "years" of pushing by my daughter I decided to learn more. I'm glad I did as the dog is exceptional, I went into it with the knowledge and fear that I might have to put her down, I no longer fear that this would have to happen but I will not let my guard down as it would be irresponsible to do so.
Last edited by 12344mag; 12/19/17.
Paul
"I'd rather see a sermon than hear a sermon".... D.A.D.
Trump Won!, Sandmann Won!, Rittenhouse Won!, Suck it Liberal Fuuktards.
"Over 900 U.S. cities have enacted breed-specific legislation. Cities such as Denver, which resides within a state containing a state preemption law, have effectively implemented these laws as well.
Appellate courts in fourteen U.S. states, as well as the District of Columbia, have upheld the constitutionality of breed-specific pit bull laws.
