News of the Day

Re: Pit bull attack

being — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:58:49 GMT

To "bigbrain": I agree pitbulls are not criminals and all the fault around pitbulls resides with humans. So why is it your loving friends have not had this dog neutered like the week they became the owner? that's not treating their dog in a loving manner, knowing how anxious and upset he gets. And it wasn't clear that they will do that now. Will they? or, are they more interested in making money on this dog? your comments made an assumption they would get him neutered. If you care so much about this family and dog, i do hope you are emphasizing to them the importance of getting this dog neutered, if you truly believe in peace and love .... and frankly, i found your comments about "well, he didn't actually kill the dog as insulting, insensitive, ignorant, and lacking personal accountability traits. I hope you or your dog or other loved ones are never given a back injury, stomach injury, tail injury, or other injury due to a terrorist attack while you are quietly walking down the public street, especially if you cannot see. Good God.

Re: Pit bull attack

codeblue — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:15:15 GMT

Horsey,

I'm with you 100% on this. I'm a dog lover, but the Pit is a dangerous breed. And they somehow end up being owned by quite a few people who have nothing to lose if the dog harms someone or something else. I shall refer to those owners as "lowlifes". The responsible owners probably have little or no trouble with their Pit Bulls. So they all suffer account of the "lowlifes' who obtain this animal for reasons none of the sane world can understand.

Re: Pit bull attack

zjmower — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:46:51 GMT

I agree with everything you said, and thank you for not singling out the breed here. One point of interest in the Happy Valley case is that they claim that the pit bull weighed 90 lbs. That means one of two things- the weight is wrong in the article or this dog was not a pit bull.

Re: Pit bull attack

Kim871979 — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:47:37 GMT

It's kind of hard to let this go now, isn't it? Especially after the poor little girl was attacked on the swing set? When it took someone shooting the dog to stop the attack? I agree that you can't judge ALL dogs by their breed but how a dog behaves at home with his loved ones and people who they are used to is a lot different than how they will behave around strangers, whether they are human or another animal. Pet owners need to be aware of this, it is probably the main reason that leashes are required, yet many pet owners are blinded by their emotions. It's the same as a parent not seeing all the trouble their child is causing because they are "such a good kid" from "such a good family." Owners need to be held accountable, whether or not it is an accident. If someone accidentally left their gun out and a kid picked it up and shot themself we would expect the owner of the gun to be held responsible, right?

Re: Pit bull attack

zjmower — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:24:07 GMT

Oh Christ! I thought this discussion had finally fizzled out. Last month called and they want their forum back. Let it go, the rest of us have.

Re: Pit bull attack

rgl1345 — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:28:31 GMT

Yes I do know the dirt bags and their dog. Some pits are heroes just as some people are good. These dirt bags decided to not properly confine their animal. This was not the first time these clowns we in trouble with a pit bull.
I could toss a ball and hit their house so I do know them and what they are.

Re: Pit bull attack

zjmower — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:20:35 GMT

I agree with about 70% of what you said (after reading this, feel free to do the math and see how off I am on that figure). My figure on whites committing crimes was nothing more than an example but your response has furthered my case for not taking statistics too seriously. Don't get me wrong, statistics serve as good guidelines but I feel that it's best to read between the lines and make what you will out of them. Let's face it, most people are going to believe what they want to on either side of the statistics.

My biggest question to you is where do you expect these "pound pits" to go? Heaven or hell? No, but seriously do you think that they should be destroyed, assuming that these dogs have not shown any aggression or do not have a history of aggressive behavior? Don't get me wrong, I'm not some insane hippie, well I'm not a hippie anyway. I have killed flies and deer and a few other creatures in my time but I like to think that there was a viable reason behind that. I don't typically make high risk choices either and I live in the 'burbs and work for a living. (Hopefully I have dispelled a couple of stereotypes now). Anyway back to my point...we're talking about dogs here, man's best friend. My feeling is that someone needs to give them a chance. I feel that the irritating folks who consistently make high risk choices and then figure everybody else should share equally in paying for the resulting damage which you referred to should not own any pets whatsoever, or procreate for that matter, this goes back to my suggestion on background checks for dogs. Don't get me wrong, my point here has never been to advocate for the owners of the attacking dog but rather for the breed as a whole and I apologize if I have been misleading.

In regards to the rest of us responsible pet owners and potential pet owners who know the breed and understand and appreciate its many positive traits, I feel that we need to be advocates and do our part to rescue and keep them out of shelters. What is needed here is public education. A unbiased news special showcasing both sides of the spectrum here would be a nice start, leaving people some much needed exercise for their brain as they are forced to form their own opinion. I think it's no secret that the public only sees these dogs in a negative light. I assure you as a owner there is another side to this story and not only the public, but more importantly the breed, deserves to see this. A perfect example would be my grandmother who recently told me of my aunt's new dog, I put two and two together and informed her that the "terrier" my aunt had recently adopted was indeed a terrier...of the pit bull sort. She immediately was concerned as well as confused since this dog seemed so loving and loyal. That is until I informed her that my dog who she knows as friendly and extremely affectionate was a pit at which point she changed her tune, "saw the light" if you will.

Re: Pit bull attack

Spanky — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:14:13 GMT

zjmower:
... Statistically white people commit more violent crimes that African Americans or Latinos. Do you know any Caucasians? Better watch your back if you do...

I'm not sure what you mean by "statistically" here. If you mean more violent crimes in total volume, and you include even misdemeanor violence, than you're right -- but that number tells you nothing, as Caucasians still comprise 75% to 80% of the U.S. population. If you mean to suggest that white people are statistically more likely to commit acts of violence, you couldn't be farther off the mark.

It's probably safer to talk about dogs.

I'm not an anti-Pit Bull person. Still, nobody can seriously argue that there are no differences between breeds in terms of average levels of aggression or fight-attack risk. As the other person said, dogs are not created equal.

I also agree with the person who pointed out that many of the people who select Pit Bulls do so because they want a mean dog, so their ownership makes the dogs mean.

Pit Bulls also seem especially popular in poor areas. Why?

- Because they're "pound dogs"? (cheap)
- Because crime is especially high in those areas and folks want protection?
- Because the dog-owners themselves are criminals who want the meanest, toughest dogs?
- Because "Pits" are accepted or tolerated well in "that" culture? (Let's face it, Pits tend to show up in jail tattoos more frequently than labs, but they don't tend to show up in the L.L. Bean and Lands End catalogs at all.)

Who knows? People should be held personally responsible for whatever their dogs/tigers/cats/guns do. If they need the biggest and baddest, they can own whatever consequences flow from that, as they're clearly more responsible for any negative consequences that flow from their choices than the innocent victim who happened to be walking down the street (or sitting in her yard). Don't want to face the prospect of getting thrown in jail and losing your house because your dog got out, killed a guide dog and mauled a blind man? Get a Basset Hound -- or whatever. The most irritating folks? The ones who consistently make high risk choices and then figure everybody else should share equally in paying for the resulting damage.

Re: Pit bull attack

pitnalaska — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:38:11 GMT

rgl1345 ..Do you even know the owner's of this "VICIOUS DOG"? If not, then who the hell are you to say they don't give a damn what the dog does or who it hurts? Also if KMTR is such a joke to you then why the hell are you watching it and posting here about a breed you obviously have never had the pleasure of being around and know nothing about. I'm more afraid of your ignorance than you could possibly be of my breed of dog.Oh yea I might mention, I AM THE PROUD OWNER OF THREE AMERICAN PITBULLS!If I told you my Pitbull is a search and rescue dog would you still want to be saved?Let me educate you a little..PITBULLS ARE HEROES! The Pitbull was so popular in the early 1900's they were our mascot not only in World War One, but World War Two as well. They were featured on recruiting and propaganda posters during this time period. America's first war dog was a Pitbull named Stubby. He earned several medals during World War One and was honored at the White House. Stubby was wounded in action twice, he saved an entire platoon by warning them of a poison gas attack and he single handedly captured a German spy.The Ken-L-Ration dog hero of 1993 was a Pitbull named Weela. She saved 30 people, 29 dogs,13 horses and a cat during a flood in Southern California. Pitbull named Bogart saved a four year old child from drowning in a swimming pool in Florida.Dixie YEP another Pitbull was inducted into the Georgia Animal Hall Of Fame for saving some children. Pitbull Officer Neville Washington screens over 200 cars a day to help keep us safe from bombs.Popsicle is a narcotic and bomb sniffing Pitbull and has the largest recorded single drug find in Texas history. Including how he found over 3,000 lbs. of cocaine in Hildago,Texas. Petey,the Pitbull on Little Rascals spent countless hours with children day after day and never hurt anyone. One of the most intelligent Hollywood dogs of all time.Hellen Keller had a Pitbull as her companion and helper.Pitbulls score an 83.4% passing rate with the American Temperament Test Society. They placed the 4th highest. That's better than the Border Collie(who scores 79.6%).The list is endless the good this breed has done and is currently doing.They are dogs not killing machines!What have you contributed to your community and country rgl1345?The number one reason why you can't trust vicious Pitbulls...They will steal your heart like a thief in the night,showing you complete and pure love that only a Pitbull can show. People should really get the facts before moving their lips about something they know nothing about.

Pitnalaska

Re: Pit bull attack

zjmower — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:55:35 GMT

LOL a tiger? Ya that would be an issue but that's a wild animal that has not been domesticated. Dogs; even evil blood-thirsty, service-dog hungry, pit bulls, as many refer to them; have been domesticated for hundreds of years. I don't expect my neighbor's yorkie to get out nor do I expect my own to get out but we can't always plan for all circumstance. Dogs, regardless of breed, are very intelligent creatures and fences can fail due to acts of god, vandalism, etc. Thus the unfortunate incident of a dog escaping it's yard is a reality to almost any dog owner at some point in their dog's life. As for specific dogs, not breeds, that have a history of "not playing nice with others," I think that the owner should be extra cautious while at the same time working with a professional to try and curb their pet's aggression. In this particular case I think that clipping the dog's sack would be a good start. There's nothing to lose there except, well, you get my point. The Humane Society of the United States will tell you that neutering a dog could curb some of it's aggressive alpha-dog traits and I think that even if it doesn't it will definitely help to stop pet overpopulation. I'm really unsure as to why these folks had their dog still in-tact, especially being of a breed that has a sadly overwhelming presence in shelters and rescues across the country.

Re: Pit bull attack

kimberlywq — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:02:48 GMT

Maybe KMTR did not report the story because it was simply sensationalized. I doubt if anyone would have reported the story at all if the headline was "Labrador Retriever attacks service dog" or simply "Dog attacks service dog."

CHALLENGE: Identify the pit bull: http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html

Some reading material for you.....

The American Kennel Club, which registers about 1 million dogs a year, says it has the best data available to rate the popularity of America's 74 million dogs. But it doesn't register mixes or undocumented dogs, which account for half of dogs, by AKC's own estimate.

And it doesn't consider pit bulls to be an official breed at all. So no one knows precisely how many pit bulls there are nationwide -- let alone which breed accounts for the highest number of attacks per dog. "Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite," warns a report from the American Veterinary Medical Association. "Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular, large breeds are a problem."

Read the whole article in the San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/03/BAGGMDILA41.DTL&hw=Data+on+pit+bulls+may+be+skewed+by+popularity&sn=002&sc=675

October is Adopt-a-Shelter Dog Month http://www.petfinder.com/search/search.cgi?pet.Animal=Dog&pet.Breed=&pet.Age=adult&pet.Size=&pet.Sex=&location=97408

Re: Pit bull attack

redcity8 — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:42:47 GMT

A "dog" may 'get out' - this should be avoided as the dog could get lost or hurt. A dog that WILL ATTACK other dogs/animals without provocation MUST NEVER 'get out'. If this means you cannot have that dog at that house, so be it. If your neighbor had a 'pet' tiger, how would you like to hear the excuse,"Someone left the door/window open and he got out, sorry."

Re: Pit bull attack

horsey — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:28:06 GMT

Nice theory.

But I can't find any empirical support for it or any professionals who agree with it. I have a different theory and it's well supported.

Dogs, like horses and other animals that have been the subject of focused breeding to achieve particular characteristics, tend to reflect the results of that focus. Do you think they bred "Pits" for a particular jaw-and-tooth combination, but didn't select in favor of aggression? Nonsense.

It's not politically correct to make ANY generalizations about humans. If there are differences between races, we're obliged to ignore them, but there is no such obligation with respect to dogs. It's okay to acknowledge that Greyhounds are generally faster than great danes. It's okay to notice that Shepherds are generally smarter than, say, Pit Bulls, but not as smart as, say, Border Collies. Obviously, that doesn't mean that EVERY greyhound is faster than EVERY great dane, but I'd be money ahead if I continued to pick the greyhound to win the race :)

Ask any veterinarian whether there are differences in the "personalities" of the various dog breeds. I've asked several. Why don't you try. Ask if Pit Bulls are really no more aggressive and/or violent than, say, Golden retrievers. I don't think you'll find any who subscribe to the theory that all dogs are the same and it's ONLY the environment (owner) that makes them more smart/stupid/docile/aggressive.

Here's another thought: if all the vets are wrong, and all dogs really are the same, why not pick a breed that ISN'T so good at violence? Why not have one that that can get pissed off, or territorial, or defensive, or grumpy without such dire, devastating and permanent consequences? The pounds are full of non-lethal loving dogs being put to death...

Re: Pit bull attack

zjmower — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:03:12 GMT

Thank you redcity8, you just summed it up perfectly. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Re: Pit bull attack

redcity8 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:44:07 GMT

Pits are not genetically disposed to be more violent or territorial than other dogs, it's just that (A). They happen to be 'better' at being violent if they are violent, and (B). Since they have the 'rep' of being a violent, aggressive, dog, most people that own/want one are LOOKING for a violent, aggressive, dog. And will train it to be that kind of dog. If you take an untrained pit, and treat/train it to be a loving family pet, it will be one, just like most other dogs would be.