# Montreal Pitbull Ban



## Thecowboysgirl

I usually read these pitbull articles and it seems to me (unscientifically) that there are common themes amongst many of the attack stories:

-culprit dogs escaping their yards 
-previous accounts of dogs menacing or biting/attacking before a kill
-multiple dogs involved generating a pack mentality

This has caused me to wonder if legislation wouldn't serve the community better if it were geared toward more drastic action in the case of any of thise things happening. Also, those things are potentially not subjective. For instance, say a dog escapes its yard by a broken gate, or by digging under fence. 

If the dog has not menaced anyone then the owner could be given one chance to adequately secure the yard....and I mean really secure it to the point nothing is getting out of there, or lose the dog. This would also potentially differentiate responsible dog owners from irresponsible dog owners, who should not own any powerful or potentially dangerous breed.

In the recent Montreal case the dog had attacked and bitten before and also escaped its yard when it killed the woman. I would bet money it wasn't the first time it escaped the yard.

In a nutshell, I wonder if instead of banning pitbulls the laws should be revamped to say, no home has more than 1 pitbull, they must be speutered, and if any large breed escapes a yard owners have to make extensive and meaningful changes to the yard immediately or lose the dog.


----------



## llombardo

From what I'm understanding this law was basically put into place because of the backlash on the pit bull that had a previous history and killed the person. It's the easy way out for politicians and political officials. Let's make the law and it will go away. So what happens when a GSD kills or mauls someone? The law was easily set in place for pit Bulls and can just as easily be done for GSDs or any other breed. This is a very dangerous law for certain breeds. I don't agree with it, support it or believe it should be. It's time to hold people accountable for their dogs. There should be a system in place that does just that.


----------



## car2ner

I believe the law also specifies a mandatory spay / neuter which I am against. It requires dogs over 20k to wear a harness or halter , I have no idea why they think this is a good idea. I have also read that it allows officials to come to the house and take the dog without any recourse for the owner. It really is a terrible law. How did this ever get passed?

So I had to check here:
Montreal Bans Pit Bulls : snopes.com

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/frequently-asked-questions-on-montreals-new-pit-bull-ban


----------



## dogma13

There is a township nearby that has implemented ordinances are pretty close to what Cowboysgirl suggested.Yards and kennels must be 100% escape proof.Pits must be muzzled when in public.They also have to be registered and photographed.I don't know if it's been effective in reducing bite cases or not,I'll have to do a little research on that.

That these ordinances target specific breeds is ridiculous.


----------



## Deb

Like all breeds there are good pit bulls and bad ones. The main problem is the owners, those who don't socialize them or deliberately desire them to be aggressive whether because they want a dog to fight, to protect, to make them look macho or whatever else reason they come up with. Sometimes I think Pit Bulls are every fourth dog you see in Louisiana, very popular here. I've met many good ones and some horrible ones. My neighbor down in the field breeds them. I'd rather have her pit bulls who are friendly and sweet come up to visit than her GSD or her Rottie, the latter two are dangerous, the GSD a fear aggressive dog and the Rottie aggressive but I luckily haven't had too much interaction with him to know the whys. They come up and jump at and snap at my DIL and go after my son's service dog. I go down and politely talk to the owner and they'll stay home for a few weeks, not let loose. But her sister lives with her and she's the one who turns them loose. When I have to go down I have to stand up to the GSD, (the Rottie on his own property just ignores people) to get to the door to knock. If I acted afraid or backed down from him, he'd bite. But I don't appreciate a dog snarling and snapping a few inches from my hand and body. The lady's landlord had Dalmations that were the exact same, very aggressive, only they'd jump and snap inches from your face. It was ridiculous. Someone else complained and the sheriff's dept went to talk to him and one of the Dals bit a sheriff. That one disappeared. I didn't ask. He took a job and moved to Hawaii when I told his wife that if he threatened my then minor daughter of killing her when he was drunk (sitting on a tractor in the field across from me) because our house that had burned down hadn't been bulldozed yet that I'd send him to prison for a minimum of two years as that was Louisiana law and my other neighbor's grandson had recorded it. We'd just love if someone moved in who controlled their dogs down there. But I digress...


It's a dangerous law, I worry eventually there'll be laws against not just breeds, but dogs over a certain poundage. If they'd jail the irresponsible owners I wonder if that would help. It might make at least some give a little more thought to having a dog that's aggressive.


----------



## Quinnsmom

In 2005 Ontario passed a "pit bull" ban similar to the one in Montreal but not quite so draconian - no entry without a warrant for sure. Recorded bites in Ontario have steadily risen even though most pitties that were grandfathered here have passed due to old age. Breed bans just don't work.


----------



## voodoolamb

dogma13 said:


> That these ordinances target specific breeds is ridiculous.


The are often poorly written and the way they define "breeds" does not ensure confidence...

From the Montreal law:


> Staffordshire bull terriers.
> American pit bull terriers.
> American Staffordshire terriers.
> Any mix with these breeds.
> *Any dog that presents characteristics of one of those breeds.*


Oh look! That dog has a big head! Must be a pit cross. Oh look! That one has a close brindle coat! Must be a pit cross! Oh look! That one has a tail! Must be a pit cross!!

I'm not a fan of breed bans. Mostly because I like having pits. I am a responsible pit bull owner capable of keeping a powerful, driven, aggressive dog safely. I don't like being punished for the stupidity of others. And I really really dislike the government putting such stringent limitations on my freedom.

There are better options. Stricter enforcement on licensing and dog at large laws, plus programs geared for responsible ownership targeted to lower income neighborhoods would be a good place to start.


----------



## llombardo

They would have to do serious harm or kill me if they tried coming into my home to take my dog and I'm not kidding....


----------



## wolfy dog

I don't think any country/US state has successfully solved the problem. The law doesn't seem to apply to the irresponsible ones. I think that is the problem. You can demand, speutering, muzzling, haltering, killing or whatever means, but the problem won't go away as long as money and egos are involved.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Thecowboysgirl said:


> I usually read these pitbull articles and it seems to me (unscientifically) that there are common themes amongst many of the attack stories:
> 
> -culprit dogs escaping their yards
> -previous accounts of dogs menacing or biting/attacking before a kill
> -multiple dogs involved generating a pack mentality
> 
> This has caused me to wonder if legislation wouldn't serve the community better if it were geared toward more drastic action in the case of any of thise things happening. Also, those things are potentially not subjective. For instance, say a dog escapes its yard by a broken gate, or by digging under fence.
> 
> If the dog has not menaced anyone then the owner could be given one chance to adequately secure the yard....and I mean really secure it to the point nothing is getting out of there, or lose the dog. This would also potentially differentiate responsible dog owners from irresponsible dog owners, who should not own any powerful or potentially dangerous breed.
> 
> In the recent Montreal case the dog had attacked and bitten before and also escaped its yard when it killed the woman. I would bet money it wasn't the first time it escaped the yard.
> 
> In a nutshell, I wonder if instead of banning pitbulls the laws should be revamped to say, no home has more than 1 pitbull, they must be speutered, and if any large breed escapes a yard owners have to make extensive and meaningful changes to the yard immediately or lose the dog.


If the noisy Pit Bull owners would work with the public instead of against, bannings would be unnecessary and effective BSL could be enacted such as ones that mandate six sided containment for Pit Bulls. The problem with Pit Bulls is the first attack is all too often extremely severe resulting in death, maimings, disfigurement, dismemberment, etc. making any laws that allow for a Pit's first attack woefully inadequate, one of the major reasons there is an outcry for BSL.



llombardo said:


> From what I'm understanding this law was basically put into place because of the backlash on the pit bull that had a previous history and killed the person. It's the easy way out for politicians and political officials. Let's make the law and it will go away. So what happens when a GSD kills or mauls someone? The law was easily set in place for pit Bulls and can just as easily be done for GSDs or any other breed. This is a very dangerous law for certain breeds. I don't agree with it, support it or believe it should be. It's time to hold people accountable for their dogs. There should be a system in place that does just that.


This law was put in place with the human fatality being the catalyst followed in rapid succession with over a dozen severe Pit Bull attacks on people and pets. It wasn't just one incident, but multiple incidents even in the face of a looming banning.



dogma13 said:


> There is a township nearby that has implemented ordinances are pretty close to what Cowboysgirl suggested.Yards and kennels must be 100% escape proof.Pits must be muzzled when in public.They also have to be registered and photographed.I don't know if it's been effective in reducing bite cases or not,I'll have to do a little research on that.
> 
> That these ordinances target specific breeds is ridiculous.


BSL was NEVER intended to reduce dog bites or Pit Bull bites. Its intent is to reduce fatalities and extreme maulings. I wish people opposed to a banning or BSL would stop promoting that fallacy. 

BSL is to protect the people of the community so that we may sit in our backyards, living rooms, and walk our dogs in our communities safely like those of you evidently do who protest BSL or bannings. Everybody should have the same basic rights to safety, especially on their own property and in their own communities.



Quinnsmom said:


> In 2005 Ontario passed a "pit bull" ban similar to the one in Montreal but not quite so draconian - no entry without a warrant for sure. Recorded bites in Ontario have steadily risen even though most pitties that were grandfathered here have passed due to old age. Breed bans just don't work.


Once again, BSL is not intended to reduce dog bites but extreme maulings and fatalities and to make our communities safe. People and other pets have rights too.


----------



## WateryTart

Thecowboysgirl said:


> In a nutshell, I wonder if instead of banning pitbulls the laws should be revamped to say, no home has more than 1 pitbull, they must be speutered, and if any large breed escapes a yard owners have to make extensive and meaningful changes to the yard immediately or lose the dog.


I have issues with this. I acknowledge it's less bad than the dogs being outright banned, but I don't like it.

They haven't even bothered to be subtle about the fact that it's any dog that even remotely looks like or could be identified as a pit bull. That means the generic "pit bull" mixed breed dog, but it could also mean purebred American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, American Bulldogs, Boxers, and bulldog or boxer mixes. That's a problem because that's now a huge group of dogs that would be subject to count limits and alteration that might not be in their best interests. It also wipes out the legitimate breeders of all of those breeds, because obviously a breeder is likely to have multiple dogs on premises at any given time, and if they're show or working dogs used for breeding, obviously they're intact.

Plus what happened to individual choice? I realize this is in Canada and not the US, and there are probably some subtle differences in how people view individual freedoms, but I would really bristle at being told I could only have one German Shepherd, I MUST alter it (and probably by an age that's way too young), and I would be at the mercy of the powers that be regarding whether my fencing was considered adequate.


----------



## WIBackpacker

Some of the most disturbing elements (IMO) are found in the details of the new law. 

1. The owner has to pass a criminal background check to own the dog. What kind of "criminal history" is allowed? Only violent crimes? Or some speeding tickets? If you are a non-violent, non-animal abusing speedy driver, but follow all the other rules, then what? It's very vague.

2. The registration times for pitbulls are weird ~3 hour windows during the work week, only one Saturday is available. What kind of insanity is THIS? What about the small business owner? The police officer? The doctor-on-call, the firefighter? A single parent? Heaven forbid you are out of town on business or family during the month of October, you don't have any other option. Unreasonable. Resources | Animal control

This sets all kinds of strange *and very invasive* precedents that everyone should be concerned with, whether you have this type of dog or not.


----------



## llombardo

Every article reads the same...this decision was made because of this.

Montreal’s City Council on Tuesday voted to make it illegal for anyone to adopt or acquire a new pit bull or pit-bull-mixed breed dogs following the deadly mauling of a 55-year-old Montreal woman four months ago, CBC reports.


It was also reported that they discussed more then this breed and other large breeds were discussed. I do not feel they are done and I can see them adding Rotts, Dobes and GSDs to this list. I'm willing to bet it will eventually happen, because all of those breeds are consider dangerous and every one of them can and have killed a person. If the government chooses to limit liability all these breeds are screwed. 

So no I still don't support it, because one day and one day soon the breed we love will be targeted.


----------



## llombardo

WIBackpacker said:


> Some of the most disturbing elements (IMO) are found in the details of the new law.
> 
> 1. The owner has to pass a criminal background check to own the dog. What kind of "criminal history" is allowed? Only violent crimes? Or some speeding tickets? If you are a non-violent, non-animal abusing speedy driver, but follow all the other rules, then what? It's very vague.
> 
> 2. The registration times for pitbulls are weird ~3 hour windows during the work week, only one Saturday is available. What kind of insanity is THIS? What about the small business owner? The police officer? The doctor-on-call, the firefighter? A single parent? Heaven forbid you are out of town on business or family during the month of October, you don't have any other option. Unreasonable. Resources | Animal control
> 
> This sets all kinds of strange precedents that everyone should be concerned with, whether you have this type of dog or not.


You got that right. It paves the way and opens the door for any dog that is already on numerous dangerous breed lists to be in the same situation.


----------



## voodoolamb

I have a LOT of pit bulls in my neighborhood. I live in a bad part of town. Drug dealers, gun shots, lots of break ins, crack heads living in crawl spaces, etc. 

On my street alone there are 11 pits. 2 rotts. 1 dogo. 1 chi. 1 poodle mix thing. And my own pups. The street over has a chow mix and like 4 more pits. 

The only dog that is ever at large is the little poodle thing. We do not have a problem with pits here. 

What I have noticed here though was/is HUGE animal control presence. They do random drive throughs in the neighborhood. When I fist moved here I had my elderly dog in the front yard. (There are fewer steps to get out front than the back so that's where I took him to potty) he was off leash sniffing around. An AC officer saw him, she stopped and started towards him. Then she noticed me. I explained and showed that he was very well behave and so old he COULDN'T wander out of my site. She checked to see that his licensing and asked about his vaccine status. (Only his rabies were current. Health reasons - but i didnt bother explaining) Then went back to the truck and put her pole away and then came back with a nifty little information packet. Phamphlets about free rabies clinics, a low cost vaccine & heartworm testing mobile vet, application for licensing, info about free training consults with the humane society, a coupon for spay/neuter and some other stuff. Clearly they had it ready to go. 

Animal control stopped by my place several more times when they saw my dog loose in the front yard. I think they only stopped once I spoke with all the officers that had my neighborhood on their route. Lol

Haven't seen them much in the past 2 years, I hope the city is still doing it and they just moved on to other problem areas.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

Does the world really need more pitbull breeders? What they are designed to do is illegal. Same with what they were originally designed to do. A d if it is a legitimate breeder of boxers they will have registration papers to show they are boxers, not pits.

I am truly asking questions for the sake of discussion, not because I want some doggie gestapo to infringe on people's rights.

But pits and all of the "like" breeds, I do have a hard time understanding the logic that says we need more of these in the pet population. I feel the same way about wolf hybrids. 

It really does seem like there could be some laws that make more sense, such as more strict laws meaning you lose your dog if it escapes your yard more than once. If it didn't menace anyone or do anything awful then adopt it to someone with better fencing.

Seems like the people who passionately love pit bulls should be doing community outreach on responsible dog ownership if they want to preserve the breed so bad.

I would be just as happy if they rounded them all up and speutered them all and imposed stiff penalties for any backyard breeding or selling of puppies, just to reduce the percentage of them overwhelming the pet population. Note I am not advocating anyone's dog be siezed forever, just sterilized and returned.

Maybe instead of a breed ban you have to meet a minimum care and experience standard outline by the pit bull faciers themselves....starting with the majority of pitbull fanciers needing to get real about their dog of choice....it ISNT just like every other dog a d it isnt a poodle just because you raised it right.

I don't know, I am just kicking around ideas.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> Every article reads the same...this decision was made because of this.
> 
> Montreal’s City Council on Tuesday voted to make it illegal for anyone to adopt or acquire a new pit bull or pit-bull-mixed breed dogs following the deadly mauling of a 55-year-old Montreal woman four months ago, CBC reports.
> 
> 
> It was also reported that they discussed more then this breed and other large breeds were discussed. I do not feel they are done and I can see them adding Rotts, Dobes and GSDs to this list. I'm willing to bet it will eventually happen, because all of those breeds are consider dangerous and every one of them can and have killed a person. If the government chooses to limit liability all these breeds are screwed.
> 
> So no I still don't support it, because one day and one day soon the breed we love will be targeted.


Other areas of Canada have had BSL in place for many years, same as some parts of the US, sometimes for decades. NONE have added breeds to the list, what makes you think this time they will? If anything history has demonstrated that is exactly what will NOT happen.


----------



## WIBackpacker

Thecowboysgirl said:


> *Does the world really need more pitbull breeders? What they are designed to do is illegal. Same with what they were originally designed to do. * A d if it is a legitimate breeder of boxers they will have registration papers to show they are boxers, not pits.
> 
> I am truly asking questions for the sake of discussion, not because I want some doggie gestapo to infringe on people's rights.


I still think it's a very slippery slope. 

Once you start down that road, it's not that far-fetched to propose banning urban Border Collies (no sheep here, no need for you!), and so on. 

I've been involved in gamebird breeding for a while now, and there are occasionally people who say the same thing about American Gamefowl - formerly, the premier cockfighting breed. They have a thriving fancy, people who breed for show or simply because they find them beautiful or desirable on their farm. I don't own any, but if others responsibly enjoy them, they should be allowed to do so IMO.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

WateryTart said:


> and I would be at the mercy of the powers that be regarding whether my fencing was considered adequate.


I am not sure how you could possible take exception to this. My girl was attacked, yet again, by a Pit Bull, not thirty feet from my house, just a week ago. The people had their GSD chained in the fence yard but their Pit was loose and sailed right over the 42" chain link fence. The owners weren't home and fortunately it was a warm Saturday and people were doing yardwork and came running to save her. 

Just because people think their yard is secure or that there fencing is adequate doesn't make it so. Innocent people and pets should not have to pay the price for that mistake.


----------



## gsdsar

Deb said:


> Like all breeds there are good pit bulls and bad ones. The main problem is the owners, those who don't socialize them or deliberately desire them to be aggressive whether because they want a dog to fight, to protect, to make them look macho or whatever else reason they come up with. Sometimes I think Pit Bulls are every fourth dog you see in Louisiana, very popular here. I've met many good ones and some horrible ones. My neighbor down in the field breeds them. I'd rather have her pit bulls who are friendly and sweet come up to visit than her GSD or her Rottie, the latter two are dangerous, the GSD a fear aggressive dog and the Rottie aggressive but I luckily haven't had too much interaction with him to know the whys. They come up and jump at and snap at my DIL and go after my son's service dog. I go down and politely talk to the owner and they'll stay home for a few weeks, not let loose. But her sister lives with her and she's the one who turns them loose. When I have to go down I have to stand up to the GSD, (the Rottie on his own property just ignores people) to get to the door to knock. If I acted afraid or backed down from him, he'd bite. But I don't appreciate a dog snarling and snapping a few inches from my hand and body. The lady's landlord had Dalmations that were the exact same, very aggressive, only they'd jump and snap inches from your face. It was ridiculous. Someone else complained and the sheriff's dept went to talk to him and one of the Dals bit a sheriff. That one disappeared. I didn't ask. He took a job and moved to Hawaii when I told his wife that if he threatened my then minor daughter of killing her when he was drunk (sitting on a tractor in the field across from me) because our house that had burned down hadn't been bulldozed yet that I'd send him to prison for a minimum of two years as that was Louisiana law and my other neighbor's grandson had recorded it. We'd just love if someone moved in who controlled their dogs down there. But I digress...
> 
> 
> It's a dangerous law, I worry eventually there'll be laws against not just breeds, but dogs over a certain poundage. If they'd jail the irresponsible owners I wonder if that would help. It might make at least some give a little more thought to having a dog that's aggressive.


Not sure why I am delving into this discussion, but your first part struck me because of a recent incident I was involved in. At a dog trial/event, a competing dog(a pit bull) had just run its course. Nice dog, fantastic owner, was working with her dog, the same way I do. This owner was a good a responsible owner. Exactly the type of owner we say all pitbulls should have. That day a cocker spaniel got one inch too close and the pit(being all jacked and in drive) grabbed that cocker. It was a horrific scene. Screaming like I have never heard and no less that 7 people jumped in to help. Nothing helped. After a minute I handed off my dog to a bystander and ran to help. When I got there the pits owner was literally on the ground with her entire body wrapped around the cocker trying to protect the little dog and 7 other people were trying to get the pit to release the poor thing. I was Able to get behind the pit and "flanked the crud" out of him and he finally released. But this dog was not finished. It was crazy and wild eyed and still out of his head aggressive. I have never seen anything like this. It was terrifying. 

I do believe that many pit bull owners and advocates are doing their breed a disservice by not being honest about the breeds capabilities and gameness. And that is even more dangerous. 

That said. I am not for BSL in any shape or form. At all. And it really upsets me when I see horrid laws like this happen. But I am honest about the breed. I am not a fan at all. But I am a less fan of reactionary laws that won't make a difference.


----------



## WateryTart

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I am not sure how you could possible take exception to this. My girl was attacked, yet again, by a Pit Bull, not thirty feet from my house, just a week ago. The people had their GSD chained in the fence yard but their Pit was loose and sailed right over the 42" chain link fence. The owners weren't home and fortunately it was a warm Saturday and people were doing yardwork and came running to save her.
> 
> Just because people think their yard is secure or that there fencing is adequate doesn't make it so. Innocent people and pets should not have to pay the price for that mistake.


Maybe because everything is subjective? Maybe because my fencing that is 6' tall but chain link could be criticized by some? Maybe because I have cast iron fencing with the bars set too far apart by someone's standard? It's ridiculous. (FTR my fencing is wooden privacy fencing, 6' tall.)

And no I'm not going to argue with you any further because it is utterly exhausting so I'm sure you'll come back and tell me why I'm wrong. I don't care. I take exception to a requirement that some nebulous power-that-be gets to determine if my fencing is good enough. Period.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Other areas of Canada have had BSL in place for many years, same as some parts of the US, sometimes for decades. NONE have added breeds to the list, what makes you think this time they will? If anything history has demonstrated that is exactly what will NOT happen.


German Shepherds and a couple other breeds are already almost there. They are already clumped in with dangerous dog laws that are on the books with cities and municipalities, because they are on EVERY dangerous dog breed list there is. Once those laws stop working, what do you think the next step is?


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I am not sure how you could possible take exception to this. My girl was attacked, yet again, by a Pit Bull, not thirty feet from my house, just a week ago. The people had their GSD chained in the fence yard but their Pit was loose and sailed right over the 42" chain link fence. The owners weren't home and fortunately it was a warm Saturday and people were doing yardwork and came running to save her.
> 
> Just because people think their yard is secure or that there fencing is adequate doesn't make it so. Innocent people and pets should not have to pay the price for that mistake.


So do you think the GSD wouldn't jump that fence if it wasn't tied up? Do you think the GSD would not attack your dog of any other dog?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

WateryTart said:


> Maybe because everything is subjective? Maybe because my fencing that is 6' tall but chain link could be criticized by some? Maybe because I have cast iron fencing with the bars set too far apart by someone's standard? It's ridiculous. (FTR my fencing is wooden privacy fencing, 6' tall.)
> 
> And no I'm not going to argue with you any further because it is utterly exhausting so I'm sure you'll come back and tell me why I'm wrong. I don't care. I take exception to a requirement that some nebulous power-that-be gets to determine if my fencing is good enough. Period.


Pit Bulls escaping six foot wooden privacy fences to maul and kill people and pets is rather common.

In fact, my vet has shown me one GSD and discussed another who were secure behind their six foot wooden privacy fences but Pits chewed through to maul them. One almost lost his life as his entire body went septic and the other did lose its leg. 

There is nothing to argue. It is a well documented, proven fact that a six foot wooden fence will not deter a determined Pit Bull.


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom

dogma13 said:


> There is a township nearby that has implemented ordinances are pretty close to what Cowboysgirl suggested.Yards and kennels must be 100% escape proof.Pits must be muzzled when in public.They also have to be registered and photographed.I don't know if it's been effective in reducing bite cases or not,I'll have to do a little research on that.
> 
> That these ordinances target specific breeds is ridiculous.


Terry, which township? PM me if you don't want to put it here.

Susan


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> German Shepherds and a couple other breeds are already almost there. They are already clumped in with dangerous dog laws that are on the books with cities and municipalities, because they are on EVERY dangerous dog breed list there is. Once those laws stop working, what do you think the next step is?


No, German Shepherds and some other breeds are not almost there. That is a fallacy promoted by the Pit Bull advocacy to frighten owners of those breeds enough so that they will join forces with them to fight BSL. It is nothing but just another deceitful tactic.

ALL dogs are encompassed by dangerous dog laws. The problem is that not all dogs are created equal. 

German Shepherds and other breeds are not on the average dangerous breed list. We have discussed this before and when I asked you to document it, you could only find one website where that was stated and it was not a very credible one. Let's not go back and rehash what has already been disproven.

I am not sure what laws you are speaking of, dangerous dog laws or breed specific laws. When dangerous dog laws failed because of one breed and its mixes/derivatives, the need for BSL arose. BSL, if enforced, has proven to be successful in every area where it has been enacted. Why worry about what might happen when as it stands, Pit Bulls are mauling and killing people and/or pets on a daily basis in this country?


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom

llombardo said:


> Every article reads the same...this decision was made because of this.
> 
> Montreal’s City Council on Tuesday voted to make it illegal for anyone to adopt or acquire a new pit bull or pit-bull-mixed breed dogs following the deadly mauling of a 55-year-old Montreal woman four months ago, CBC reports.
> 
> 
> It was also reported that they discussed more then this breed and other large breeds were discussed. I do not feel they are done and I can see them adding Rotts, Dobes and GSDs to this list. I'm willing to bet it will eventually happen, because all of those breeds are consider dangerous and every one of them can and have killed a person. If the government chooses to limit liability all these breeds are screwed.
> 
> So no I still don't support it, because one day and one day soon the breed we love will be targeted.


Back in the late 80s, early 90s, people with wolfdog crosses (and, yes, the vast majority are responsible people whose animals do NOT make the news) set up alarms for big breed dog owners, telling them that bans on wolfdogs would absolutely break ground and pave the way for BSL. And so it goes. I really don't think that the legislation works. The only people in Michigan now who have wolfdogs (and they are out there) are people who don't care about breaking laws anyway, the type of people who are not going to be responsible with their animals. I believe absolutely that the people whose dogs (pits, rotties, GSDs, etc.) maul or kill humans are not responsible dog owners anyway, and they will ignore the bans. JMHO.

Susan


----------



## Deb

Military bases have bans on certain breeds, mostly pit bulls, American/Staffordshire bull terriers, Rottweilers, Doberman pinschers, chows, wolf hybrids, and crosses of these breeds. Each Base or Post usually has it's own list, but there is a uniform pet policy of banned breeds as well. I believe this started around 2009 for the Army. Any dog seen as being aggressive can also be banned. Over the years there appears to be more and more places enacting bans.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> So do you think the GSD wouldn't jump that fence if it wasn't tied up? Do you think the GSD would not attack your dog of any other dog?


The GSD might have jumped that fence if not tied. The GSD might have attacked my dog. 

The GSD most likely would not have fought to the finish as they are not gamebred, i.e, to fight to the finish, to kill, without regard to self preservation, a genetic quality not bred for in the GSD but one that is specifically bred for, and admired, among Pit Bull enthusiasts. It is a part of the Pit Bull's standard, a quality that makes a Pit Bull a Pit Bull, a breed unique from other breeds of dogs.

The GSD most likely would have recognized signs of submission once the other dog lost or would have submitted itself if it were on the losing end. Once more, they are not gamebred. They fight to win, run off the opponent, nature's way, like wolves, survival of the fittest, live to fight another day, not kill, at least with neutral dogs, within their own packs it is entirely a different dynamic that would not apply to a dog walking down the street.

Most GSDs need to taught and encouraged to hold and grip, to not let go, it is not a natural trait in most. In Pit Bulls, it is a highly prized genetic trait. Although it is not well known, it is no secret that some WL Mals have had Pit Bull blooded added in the background to improve grip and tenacity. 

The GSD might have attacked me or somebody else that interfered, and I am okay with that to save my dog. The Pit Bull might have turned on me and refused to let go, often ripping shark like chunks from its victims and I am not okay with that and would have to let my dog die unless somebody else stepped in. I have seen the damage done, too easy to lose an arm, or two, or worse.


----------



## cloudpump

Until pit owners in general become realistic to the issues with the breed, places are going to ban them. I doubt gsd will become banned because of bites. But if they start killing, it'll be a different story. Human nature is to react instead of being proactive. 
How many times have you seen people claim it's all in his they are raised? But as has been discussed on here so many times, genetics are genetics. Gsd bred originally to herd, and gaurd. LGDs bred originally to gaurd. Terriers, bred originally to kill. Pits bred originally to kill. Its there and is true to the breed. 
There are sensible pit owners on here, but there are a lot that aren't. And it's these dogs that are causing this. What would happen if pits were banned here? 
Topeka father heartbroken after 2-year-old attacked, killed by 2 dogs
This is the second 2 year old since 2010 when they repealed the law.
Now think, if that law was still there, that child would still be here. Does the owner of those dogs or any of the other dogs that mauled and killed someone put them on themselves? 
I look at that child and fear for my daughter. Maybe we don't believe in BSL (which if we all know can be skewed) because it doesn't work. But one human life over 1-4000 dogs all day long. No one stops to imagine the terror and pain she must have felt. Crying out for help. As she took her last breath. Something needs to be done. Because it keeps happening.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

WIBackpacker said:


> I still think it's a very slippery slope.
> 
> Once you start down that road, it's not that far-fetched to propose banning urban Border Collies (no sheep here, no need for you!), and so on.
> 
> I've been involved in gamebird breeding for a while now, and there are occasionally people who say the same thing about American Gamefowl - formerly, the premier cockfighting breed. They have a thriving fancy, people who breed for show or simply because they find them beautiful or desirable on their farm. I don't own any, but if others responsibly enjoy them, they should be allowed to do so IMO.


Respectfully disagree wholeheartedly. Gamefowl don't maul and kill people. 

Herding sheep is not an illegal bloodsport. And border collies aren't out there making the news on a weekly basis for mauling and killing people.

Now... I get the point people are making about "government" being in their business. I moved to a place that has no leash kaw on purpose because I like letting mine run and I don't want any nonsense about it. All of my neighbors walk their dogs up my road offleash. Labs and a doodle. All friendly, well behaved dogs except the old lab is nasty but the lady keeps her under control. My dogs have occasionally run down the driveway to greet the neighbor's dog when they walk by when I am not looking but they all know each other and it is no big deal.

I am happy there are no problem dogs around here.

I have boarded a couple of pits this year and one of them is hands down my favorite boarder to date, just a doll, and also hands down the most socially appropriate dog I have had board. She is a real pleasure. 

I don't think fencing is nearly as subjective as "which of these dogs of unknown ancestry is a pitbull". MAWL talks about pits chewing through privacy fencing. They couldn't do that if they were supervised, so maybe the rule should be unattended dogs go in a kennel with a roof. If you can't afford that then maybe you shouldn't own the breed.

I don't leave my GSDs in my yard unsupervised. They have also never been allowed to practice destroying or climbing fences so it isn't in their repetiore.


----------



## WIBackpacker

Thecowboysgirl said:


> Respectfully disagree wholeheartedly. Gamefowl don't maul and kill people.
> 
> Herding sheep is not an illegal bloodsport. And border collies aren't out there making the news on a weekly basis for mauling and killing people.
> 
> Now... I get the point people are making about "government" being in their business.... (snip)


Good points. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of human safety, not at all. I'm also playing a bit of the Devil's Advocate, here, for the purpose of discussion.

My thought process is: I do not think that it's a good practice to ban a breed _based on its historic purpose_. Many breeds that used to hunt elk, dogfight, kill rats, bull-bait, protect against and kill predators, now live unremarkable lives in suburban homes across America. I'm good with that. Times change, breedings and breeds evolve.

I definitely understand your preference for living in an area with less restriction - if I had my others, I'd live in the middle of nowhere, and that is not an exaggeration.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

WIBackpacker said:


> Good points. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of human safety, not at all. I'm also playing a bit of the Devil's Advocate, here, for the purpose of discussion.
> 
> My thought process is: I do not think that it's a good practice to ban a breed _based on its historic purpose_. Many breeds that used to hunt elk, dogfight, kill rats, bull-bait, protect against and kill predators, now live unremarkable lives in suburban homes across America. I'm good with that. Times change, breedings and breeds evolve.
> 
> I definitely understand your preference for living in an area with less restriction - if I had my others, I'd live in the middle of nowhere, and that is not an exaggeration.


The middle of nowhere is exactly where I live  on purpose. So far the only real bummer for me was the effort involved to socialize a GSD puppy when the nearest civilization is a god awful long way to drive to.

If Jack russels were bigger they might be out there giving pits a run for their money.

I honestly don't know what the solution to the problem is, and I really don't judge anybody for their opinion if it conflicts with mine....I wish I did have a good solution because I am one of those people who would get out there and campaign it.

Maybe the pitbull fanciers could all get together and do a thing like that nonprofit thst gets the dogs off chains, they show up with a small army, build a fence, put in a straw filled dog house, and voila the dog has such a better life.

Maybe they could install decent kennels for pit owners who need to leave their dogs outside unattended and offer mentoring for decent dog ownership....some people will do better when they know better, and if it is all voluntary vommunity based stuff no one's rights are getting stepped on, no one's dogs getting siezed,

As for the speutering, this is one case where I think the wellbeing of dthe world as a whole takes priority of health benefits to a dog staying intact. Mongrel pit types should be speutered. In my dream world, voluntarily by their owners because it is the right thing to do.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

cloudpump said:


> Until pit owners in general become realistic to the issues with the breed, places are going to ban them. I doubt gsd will become banned because of bites. But if they start killing, it'll be a different story. Human nature is to react instead of being proactive.
> How many times have you seen people claim it's all in his they are raised? But as has been discussed on here so many times, genetics are genetics. Gsd bred originally to herd, and gaurd. LGDs bred originally to gaurd. Terriers, bred originally to kill. Pits bred originally to kill. Its there and is true to the breed.
> There are sensible pit owners on here, but there are a lot that aren't. And it's these dogs that are causing this. What would happen if pits were banned here?
> Topeka father heartbroken after 2-year-old attacked, killed by 2 dogs
> This is the second 2 year old since 2010 when they repealed the law.
> Now think, if that law was still there, that child would still be here. Does the owner of those dogs or any of the other dogs that mauled and killed someone put them on themselves?
> I look at that child and fear for my daughter. Maybe we don't believe in BSL (which if we all know can be skewed) because it doesn't work. But one human life over 1-4000 dogs all day long. No one stops to imagine the terror and pain she must have felt. Crying out for help. As she took her last breath. Something needs to be done. Because it keeps happening.


That is one child of many who won't go to prom, get their driver's license, graduate college, be a doctor or president, or have their own children because some body did not adequately confine their Pit Bulls.

Like you, I can't imagine the horror this little one endured. She was just a little baby.

Many are always so quick to defend the breed and those that choose to own them. Seldom does anybody have a word of kindness or compassion for the victims.


----------



## GatorBytes

This is Montreal only. Not all of Quebec. So not province wide like Ontario
Vets are stating they can refuse to euth a healthy pitbull and no can make them 
Put a humane (basket) muzzle on the pitt when out and/or unsupervised
Don't leave the pit unsupervised. Keep it indoors and crated
They are only going to come and take the dog IF there are grounds to do so
banning a pit in Montreal isn't going to stop one from jumping the fence on the border of the next town/city
Microchip so they can hold owner culpable if dog does hurt/kill
Speuter so the breed can eventually become extinct and/or cut back on the breeding for fighting (which may save many "free to a good home" lives as found on kijiji and craigslist))
Vets call pitts boxers so these pits get a pass (unless they or any breed kills)
Backyard pitt breeders will still exist


The 3 yr old pitbull that attacked Gator and I...he was from a rescue....from Montreal (brought here long after the ban was in place)
Pitts are walked down the street in the town I live (although very few - this is a Shepherd town), and all over the place when I was living in city of near a million people. NO ONE muzzles their pitt...people did at first...no more.


----------



## WateryTart

WIBackpacker said:


> Good points. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of human safety, not at all. I'm also playing a bit of the Devil's Advocate, here, for the purpose of discussion.
> 
> My thought process is: I do not think that it's a good practice to ban a breed _based on its historic purpose_. Many breeds that used to hunt elk, dogfight, kill rats, bull-bait, protect against and kill predators, now live unremarkable lives in suburban homes across America. I'm good with that. Times change, breedings and breeds evolve.
> 
> I definitely understand your preference for living in an area with less restriction - if I had my others, I'd live in the middle of nowhere, and that is not an exaggeration.


I agree: I don't think that a breed's historic purpose is necessarily an indicator that it is incapable of being a companion to humans. Urban border collies are a great example, and I think it also brings home the point that the dog we all love - because we wouldn't be here if we didn't - could be banned based on the criterion of "usefulness within environmental context."

I think we have to be careful of human safety, but I also place a high value on personal choice and responsibility. I do not agree with legislation that would prohibit me from owning a certain type of dog regardless of whether I examine my situation and find it compatible with owning and being responsible for said type of dog, just like I cannot support legislation that would dictate when or if I alter my dog. It's a personal decision, along with all its risks and benefits, not to be dictated by government.


----------



## LuvShepherds

I recently left a public area with my dog when a woman's on-leash pit started staring my dog down from a distance and would not look away. Wherever I took the dog, hers tracked us. The woman was oblivious. I was going to put my dog in the car and go back to talk to her, but she left before I could. The dog may have been trained and well behaved, but that unwavering stare and the dog's posture were enough to scare me off. I don't know enough about this ban to know if it will work the way it's intended, but most people should not own pits. 

I may have mentioned a friend's adult daughter got one from a shelter that is very well behaved with people. The first time she took the dog on a walk, he pulled away without provocation and ripped apart another dog's skin on the side. The woman was naturally upset, offered to pay the vet bill, but was insulted at how angry the man was with her. I asked my friend, what did she expect? She said, we've have always owned rescues. Not much of an answer. My take away is that even people with dog experience have no business owning this breed unless they know what they are doing and take responsibility to make sure this never ever happens. No biting, no escaping from yards, no mauling.


----------



## WateryTart

LuvShepherds said:


> I recently left a public area with my dog when a woman's on-leash pit started staring my dog down from a distance and would not look away. Wherever I took the dog, hers tracked us. The woman was oblivious. I was going to put my dog in the car and go back to talk to her, but she left before I could. The dog may have been trained and well behaved, but that unwavering stare and the dog's posture were enough to scare me off. I don't know enough about this ban to know if it will work the way it's intended, but most people should not own pits.
> 
> I may have mentioned a friend's adult daughter got one from a shelter that is very well behaved with people. The first time she took the dog on a walk, he pulled away without provocation and ripped apart another dog's skin on the side. The woman was naturally upset, offered to pay the vet bill, but was insulted at how angry the man was with her. I asked my friend, what did she expect? She said, we've have always owned rescues. Not much of an answer. My take away is that even people with dog experience have no business owning this breed unless they know what they are doing and take responsibility to make sure this never ever happens. No biting, no escaping from yards, no mauling.


Interesting, I've seen WAY more issue with German breeds (GSDs and Dobies, specifically) trying to stare other dogs down. I declined to let my dog partner in obedience class with one shepherd because he was trying to engage her in a staring contest. He wasn't the first GSD I've seen do that to another dog. I guess it depends on your sample. I wouldn't have chalked that up to a pit problem, TBH. Yes, that stare would have unnerved me too, but so would an unwavering stare from a Standard Poodle.

I think so many people could say that about shepherds, too, but plenty of inexperienced people get into shepherds and do fine. And I'm drawing this parallel on purpose because I'm concerned that it's all a very slippery slope from pitbulls to GSDs. If legislators are willing to take the personal freedoms from the owners of one kind of dog, it's not a huge stretch for them to just add breeds to the list.


----------



## cloudpump

WIBackpacker said:


> Good points. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of human safety, not at all. I'm also playing a bit of the Devil's Advocate, here, for the purpose of discussion.
> 
> My thought process is: I do not think that it's a good practice to ban a breed _based on its historic purpose_. Many breeds that used to hunt elk, dogfight, kill rats, bull-bait, protect against and kill predators, now live unremarkable lives in suburban homes across America. I'm good with that. Times change, breedings and breeds evolve.
> 
> I definitely understand your preference for living in an area with less restriction - if I had my others, I'd live in the middle of nowhere, and that is not an exaggeration.


How about banning a breed for its more recent history? Unfortunately people are dying. Yet people are worrying about the government intruding. A 55 year old woman died. A two year old died. A 3 year old died. Pit owners need to do something. Dangerous dog owners need to do something. But they aren't. They are blaming others. The government stepped in to protect people who live under their jurisdiction. Right or wrong, something needs to be done.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

LuvShepherds said:


> I recently left a public area with my dog when a woman's on-leash pit started staring my dog down from a distance and would not look away. Wherever I took the dog, hers tracked us. The woman was oblivious. I was going to put my dog in the car and go back to talk to her, but she left before I could. The dog may have been trained and well behaved, but that unwavering stare and the dog's posture were enough to scare me off. I don't know enough about this ban to know if it will work the way it's intended, but most people should not own pits.
> 
> I may have mentioned a friend's adult daughter got one from a shelter that is very well behaved with people. The first time she took the dog on a walk, he pulled away without provocation and ripped apart another dog's skin on the side. The woman was naturally upset, offered to pay the vet bill, but was insulted at how angry the man was with her. I asked my friend, what did she expect? She said, we've have always owned rescues. Not much of an answer. My take away is that even people with dog experience have no business owning this breed unless they know what they are doing and take responsibility to make sure this never ever happens. No biting, no escaping from yards, no mauling.


It is unnerving especially when you know that Pits are bred to fight and kill while if it were another breed, the worst that would most likely happen would be a minor, bloodless scuffle. There is a distinct difference between game bred dogs and other breeds and I hate to see those that own game bred dogs continually throwing other breeds like GSDs under the bus trying to paint all dogs with one brush when it comes to sparing the public image of their breed.


----------



## LuvShepherds

WateryTart said:


> Interesting, I've seen WAY more issue with German breeds (GSDs and Dobies, specifically) trying to stare other dogs down. I declined to let my dog partner in obedience class with one shepherd because he was trying to engage her in a staring contest. He wasn't the first GSD I've seen do that to another dog. I guess it depends on your sample. I wouldn't have chalked that up to a pit problem, TBH. Yes, that stare would have unnerved me too, but so would an unwavering stare from a Standard Poodle.
> 
> I think so many people could say that about shepherds, too, but plenty of inexperienced people get into shepherds and do fine. And I'm drawing this parallel on purpose because I'm concerned that it's all a very slippery slope from pitbulls to GSDs. If legislators are willing to take the personal freedoms from the owners of one kind of dog, it's not a huge stretch for them to just add breeds to the list.


Based on your profile pic, I can see you have more and different experience than I do. I don't think that is a GSD in your picture. My post wasn't about all breeds, it was about one dog with frightening body language giving off clear signals something was up. It wasn't just the stare, it was the posture, the intensity. A neighbor has a labradoodle that stares my dogs down and barks, but I never once saw him in that stance. The owner is quick to stop him, the pittbull owner was oblivious. I mentioned both, I think, will have to go back and reread my post. A dog giving off signals and an owner not paying attention. It was two additional pieces to the stare.


----------



## selzer

Correct me if I am wrong but one of the worst lines in this legislation is that other breeds can be added WITHOUT a vote. 

Maybe I am for BSL. I flip-flop on the issue. I know it. 

I am for less government, but I think that laws should be made to protect society from real threats. I don't think people should be allowed to own lions and tigers and bears either. Because, when your lion or bear or tiger gets loose, it poses a real threat to other humans. So do pit bulls. And too many people owning them think they are fuzzy wuzzy pooker-butts that would never hurt anyone. They are not. They are dogs that have incredible power and when they are attacking, getting them to stop attacking is extremely difficult. 

And, I am tired of being lumped into a group of dogs that are potentially dangerous. GSDs bite, yes. But you go and get a tetnus shot, maybe a drain, maybe stitches. It is no fun, but you don't generally need to be hospitalized. And it is very rare, extremely rare for a GSD to kill someone. For a GSD to kill someone, other than someone extremely frail, it would have to be either really bad, deliberately bad breeding, or deliberately bad training/handling -- like feeding the dog gun powder, chaining it up so it sees 0 people other than the owner, starving it, kicking it daily to make it mean, choking it out, and encouraging every form of aggression and pressing the dog to continue to attack until the owner stops it. People have done stuff like this, and STILL their dogs have never killed anyone, even when given the opportunity. GSDs are potentially dangerous, but it is like comparing a pellet gun to an M16. 

And, I don't like constraints put on the ownership of any breed over 40 pounds say, because we don't want to be politically incorrect and spell out Pit Bulls and be attacked for suggesting anything breed-specific. 

One of the biggest problems with dogs is that the laws in effect are not applied until something drastic happens. Dog has run loose on many occasions. But the owners got the dog back, bailed him out of the pound, whatever, and no meaningful correction was levied at the owner to solve the problem. Then when the dog kills someone, the answer is to ban the breed, which of course punishes all of the breed. Or if the people put up a stink about BSL, the answer is to punish all dog owners, or all large dog owners. 

I guess, I don't want to be thrown under the bus as a dog owner because of one group of the population of dogs that really create a significant percentage of serious harm.


----------



## voodoolamb

gsdsar said:


> Not sure why I am delving into this discussion, but your first part struck me because of a recent incident I was involved in. At a dog trial/event, a competing dog(a pit bull) had just run its course. Nice dog, fantastic owner, was working with her dog, the same way I do. This owner was a good a responsible owner. Exactly the type of owner we say all pitbulls should have.


I'm sorry but no. That is NOT a responsible _pit bull_ owner. And not the type of owner I would EVER suggest a pit bull for - having been involved in rescue and placing pits in new homes. Someone who wants to do high key competitions are best to look at other breeds that have stronger genetic obedience and are far more capable of taking direction while in drive.

Responsible pit bull owners do NOT allow their dogs anywhere near other dogs while they are in drive. Period. No matter how well we think we have them trained. 

Being a responsible pit bull owner means that you don't always get to do what YOU want (like competitions) in order to always 100% of the time be managing your dog when it is out in public.

I'm sure she is a responsible/fantastic dog owner in general - but she has no business owning a pit. 

Pit bulls are zero mistake dogs. Responsible pit owners know that. We accept that. And we make **** sure our pits do no harm. 

The problem is responsible pit owners are needles in haystacks do to the overwhelming popularity of those dogs these days...


----------



## cloudpump

WateryTart said:


> Interesting, I've seen WAY more issue with German breeds (GSDs and Dobies, specifically) trying to stare other dogs down. I declined to let my dog partner in obedience class with one shepherd because he was trying to engage her in a staring contest. He wasn't the first GSD I've seen do that to another dog. I guess it depends on your sample. I wouldn't have chalked that up to a pit problem, TBH. Yes, that stare would have unnerved me too, but so would an unwavering stare from a Standard Poodle.
> 
> I think so many people could say that about shepherds, too, but plenty of inexperienced people get into shepherds and do fine. And I'm drawing this parallel on purpose because I'm concerned that it's all a very slippery slope from pitbulls to GSDs. If legislators are willing to take the personal freedoms from the owners of one kind of dog, it's not a huge stretch for them to just add breeds to the list.


I'm having a hard time finding any jurisdictions that have banned gsd after banning pit bulls. I could be wrong.


----------



## Dainerra

as Selzer said, the problem is that additional breeds can be added without a vote. Say the next mayor or a new councilman doesn't like GSDs, rotties, or whatever. There is no need to have a vote on it. The breed can simply be added.
also, the law doesn't include just "pit bulls" but any dog that has traits commonly viewed as "pit bull"
It also includes any dog that kills a small animals - including rabbits, rodents and toads!! and there is no appeal process. Also, if your dog is accused of killing a rabbit they can go in, without warrant or warning, and remove the dog from the premises.

So, many things in the law could easily apply to any of our dogs. How many of us have had our dog chasing rabbits or squirrels?


----------



## WateryTart

LuvShepherds said:


> Based on your profile pic, I can see you have more and different experience than I do. I don't think that is a GSD in your picture. My post wasn't about all breeds, it was about one dog with frightening body language giving off clear signals something was up. It wasn't just the stare, it was the posture, the intensity. A neighbor has a labradoodle that stares my dogs down and barks, but I never once saw him in that stance. The owner is quick to stop him, the pittbull owner was oblivious. I mentioned both, I think, will have to go back and reread my post. A dog giving off signals and an owner not paying attention. It was two additional pieces to the stare.


No, my avatar is actually a joke. I put it up on a dare. I don't own a pit myself and never have.

It just sort of surprised me, that's all: I read your post differently from how you meant it, clearly. The staring is something I've run across, big time, among shepherds and dobermans. Luckily the other owners involved have all been on the ball, so we've just stepped in front of our dogs (them to stop, me to prevent), moved them, and that's the end of it.


----------



## Dotbat215

In 2015 there were 34 fatalities due to dog attacks (united States). Sure, people are dying and that's terrible but there are other things killing people more often. 

That said, I would support making fines and jail time for dog negligence and abuse more severe. Maybe if general decency isn't enough to make someone a good dog owner, then fines out the buttv will


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

voodoolamb said:


> I'm sorry but no. That is NOT a responsible _pit bull_ owner. And not the type of owner I would EVER suggest a pit bull for - having been involved in rescue and placing pits in new homes. Someone who wants to do high key competitions are best to look at other breeds that have stronger genetic obedience and are far more capable of taking direction while in drive.
> 
> Responsible pit bull owners do NOT allow their dogs anywhere near other dogs while they are in drive. Period. No matter how well we think we have them trained.
> 
> Being a responsible pit bull owner means that you don't always get to do what YOU want (like competitions) in order to always 100% of the time be managing your dog when it is out in public.
> 
> I'm sure she is a responsible/fantastic dog owner in general - but she has no business owning a pit.
> 
> Pit bulls are zero mistake dogs. Responsible pit owners know that. We accept that. And we make **** sure our pits do no harm.
> 
> The problem is responsible pit owners are needles in haystacks do to the overwhelming popularity of those dogs these days...


Where is the applause button?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dainerra said:


> as Selzer said, the problem is that additional breeds can be added without a vote. Say the next mayor or a new councilman doesn't like GSDs, rotties, or whatever. There is no need to have a vote on it. The breed can simply be added.
> also, the law doesn't include just "pit bulls" but any dog that has traits commonly viewed as "pit bull"
> It also includes any dog that kills a small animals - including rabbits, rodents and toads!! and there is no appeal process. Also, if your dog is accused of killing a rabbit they can go in, without warrant or warning, and remove the dog from the premises.
> 
> So, many things in the law could easily apply to any of our dogs. How many of us have had our dog chasing rabbits or squirrels?


Most of my dogs have chased rabbits, cats, squirrels, etc. Not a single one of them have killed another animal. The law does state kill and not chase, doesn't it?


----------



## voodoolamb

LuvShepherds said:


> I recently left a public area with my dog when a woman's on-leash pit started staring my dog down from a distance and would not look away. Wherever I took the dog, hers tracked us. The woman was oblivious. I was going to put my dog in the car and go back to talk to her, but she left before I could. The dog may have been trained and well behaved, but that unwavering stare and the dog's posture were enough to scare me off. I don't know enough about this ban to know if it will work the way it's intended, but most people should not own pits.
> 
> I may have mentioned a friend's adult daughter got one from a shelter that is very well behaved with people. The first time she took the dog on a walk, he pulled away without provocation and ripped apart another dog's skin on the side. The woman was naturally upset, offered to pay the vet bill, but was insulted at how angry the man was with her. I asked my friend, what did she expect? She said, we've have always owned rescues. Not much of an answer. My take away is that even people with dog experience have no business owning this breed unless they know what they are doing and take responsibility to make sure this never ever happens. No biting, no escaping from yards, no mauling.


2 more incredibly irresponsible pit bull owners  

The first lady should have had a come to jesus moment with that dog. My pits were not allowed to look at other dogs. Im serious. We did a lot of focused heeling... You've got to stop the prey drive chain in the bud. Stalk > chase > catch > kill. You don't allow your pit to get into prey drive out in public. 

The second... was an idiot. No offense to your friend's daughter. Let me rephrase it to say she was an idiot about dogs. If you have a breed that is genetically aggressive towards dogs (which ALL pit bulls are, many just have higher thresholds) especially a new to you one. You have that thing padlocked to you and you are hyper aware of other dogs coming on the scene... 

Pit bull ownership = constant vigilance.


----------



## LuvShepherds

WateryTart said:


> No, my avatar is actually a joke. I put it up on a dare. I don't own a pit myself and never have.
> 
> It just sort of surprised me, that's all: I read your post differently from how you meant it, clearly. The staring is something I've run across, big time, among shepherds and dobermans. Luckily the other owners involved have all been on the ball, so we've just stepped in front of our dogs (them to stop, me to prevent), moved them, and that's the end of it.


Oh! I thought you have a pit bull nurse. The Red Cross and all.

I don't like any dogs staring mine down because it can escalate into a fight, but it never has so far. I try to keep mine from doing that, but GSDs are curious dogs and want to see the everything. Pits make me nervous because they fight to win and because they are bred to do that. There are just so many of them, and the shelters, at least ours, pretend they are something else to make them more adoptable. So, then we run into rescued pits that people don't know how to handle.


----------



## GatorBytes

voodoolamb said:


> If you have a breed that is genetically aggressive towards dogs (which ALL pit bulls are, many just have higher thresholds) especially a new to you one. You have that thing padlocked to you and you are hyper aware of other dogs coming on the scene...
> 
> *Pit bull ownership = constant vigilance*.


 
And there in lies the problem...They cannot pic who is allowed to own a pit, so they have to reduce because the majority are to _____
And that's a lot of work! (in bold)...What is the ave type person who owns one?


----------



## LuvShepherds

GatorBytes said:


> And there in lies the problem...They cannot pic who is allowed to own a pit, so they have to reduce because the majority are to _____
> And that's a lot of work! (in bold)...What is the ave type person who owns one?


Here, it's either people who want to own a ferocious, deadly dog, or people who want a pet and aren't finding anything else. The shelters are overrun with them for good reasons, and they disguise them as other breeds.

As an example, I used to check the local shelter for a hound rescue group. Whenever one popped up on a shelter search, I drove out to see the dog and evaluate. Without exception, every single dog I checked for them was a pittbull, not a hound. That is the same shelter that once tried to pass off a chihuahua as a German Shepherd.


----------



## Dainerra

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Most of my dogs have chased rabbits, cats, squirrels, etc. Not a single one of them have killed another animal. The law does state kill and not chase, doesn't it?


But what if your neighbor sees them chasing a mouse and assumes that the dog killed it? They can go immediately on that word and seize your dog, without notice or warrant. Now it's up to you to prove that your dog didn't kill this animal. Can you do that?
If you lose, there is no appeal and your dog is euthanized.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dainerra said:


> But what if your neighbor sees them chasing a mouse and assumes that the dog killed it? They can go immediately on that word and seize your dog, without notice or warrant. Now it's up to you to prove that your dog didn't kill this animal. Can you do that?
> If you lose, there is no appeal and your dog is euthanized.


I have cats so there are no mice here, but back on a more serious note, I would think somebody would have to produce at least a dead mouse body.


----------



## Dainerra

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I have cats so there are no mice here, but back on a more serious note, I would think somebody would have to produce at least a dead mouse body.


All they would need is video of your dog chasing a mouse/squirrel/toad/rabbit and then snuffling at the ground with no sign of where the animal escaped to. Prove that your dog didn't kill and then eat it. 
On another note, the ordinance also applies to cats so they can seize and euthanize all of them as well.


----------



## voodoolamb

GatorBytes said:


> And there in lies the problem...They cannot pic who is allowed to own a pit, so they have to reduce because the majority are to _____
> And that's a lot of work! (in bold)...What is the ave type person who owns one?


It's about the same amount of work that it takes to manage my defensive GSD. Just a different type of vigilance. 

I guess I just like to punish myself. I wonder what it's like to have an easy dog?

The average pit bull owner is the average dog owner these days. Pit types make up a significant part of overall dog population. 

Which in a way makes us lucky pits have been selected for dog - dog aggression instead of human aggression. 

There are literally MILLIONS of pits in the US. If they were naturally human aggressive... it would be bad. Then again they probably wouldn't have gained this much popularity...


----------



## llombardo

cloudpump said:


> I'm having a hard time finding any jurisdictions that have banned gsd after banning pit bulls. I could be wrong.


I did a little research and I was quite surprised to see quite a few bans on Rotts. There are some that have banned GSDs also.


----------



## voodoolamb

LuvShepherds said:


> Here, it's either people who want to own a ferocious, deadly dog, or people who want a pet and aren't finding anything else. The shelters are overrun with them for good reasons, and they disguise them as other breeds.
> 
> As an example, I used to check the local shelter for a hound rescue group. Whenever one popped up on a shelter search, I drove out to see the dog and evaluate. Without exception, every single dog I checked for them was a pittbull, not a hound. That is the same shelter that once tried to pass off a chihuahua as a German Shepherd.


If we want the pit "problem" solved for good... we need to solve the over population crisis.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dainerra said:


> All they would need is video of your dog chasing a mouse/squirrel/toad/rabbit and then snuffling at the ground with no sign of where the animal escaped to. Prove that your dog didn't kill and then eat it.
> On another note, the ordinance also applies to cats so they can seize and euthanize all of them as well.


One can just as easily say that the witness has to prove what they claim they have seen.

Does anybody have a copy of this ordinance so the rest of us don't have to speculate as to the content?

People have to bear in mind that laws are written as guidelines, not absolutes.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> I did a little research and I was quite surprised to see quite a few bans on Rotts. There are some that have banned GSDs also.


Rotts are a far distant second to Pits in human fatalities. It should not surprise anybody that they might show up as a banned breed. That should have been quite obvious with a simple google.

I would be curious to see what cities have banned Rotts or GSDs.


----------



## WIBackpacker

Penalties for at-large dogs in some areas (particularly urban areas) need to go way up. The law needs teeth. People who follow laws and don't infringe upon the safety of others can make their own choices.

Not a $50.00 fine, that's a joke. Make it $500.00. Make it more. Triple it for second offense. Unpaid dog citation? Warrant. Can't renew your driver's license, vehicle plates, etc. until paid in full. People WILL pay more attention to containing their animals if the consequences are real.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

WIBackpacker said:


> Penalties for at-large dogs in some areas (particularly urban areas) need to go way up. The law needs teeth. People who follow laws and don't infringe upon the safety of others can make their own choices.
> 
> Not a $50.00 fine, that's a joke. Make it $500.00. Make it more. Triple it for second offense. Unpaid dog citation? Warrant. Can't renew your driver's license, vehicle plates, etc. until paid in full. People WILL pay more attention to containing their animals if the consequences are real.


That is nice in theory. There is no way to find where loose dogs are coming from unless you live next door to the owner.


----------



## llombardo

I'm finding dobes banned in quite a few areas and Akitas in some as well. I kinda wonder if people are aware of this or check before moving to certain areas?

Here is one example(GSDs and mals are banned)


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> I'm finding dobes banned in quite a few areas and Akitas in some as well. I kinda wonder if people are aware of this or check before moving to certain areas?
> 
> Here is one example(GSDs and mals are banned)


What state is that in? Is that the only one?


----------



## voodoolamb

llombardo said:


> I did a little research and I was quite surprised to see quite a few bans on Rotts. There are some that have banned GSDs also.


 Why so surprised about the rotts? 

Between 1982 and 2012 

Pits killed - 209 people

Rotts killed - 78 people

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Dog+attack+stats+with+breed+2012.pdf

Now I think it is worth noting that pit bulls make up between 6% and 7% of the 70 millionish US dog population. 

Putting the estimated pit bull population somewhere between 4 and 5 million animals. 

I haven't been able to find the most recent registration numbers from the AKC but in 2006 they registered less than 20,000 rotts that year. 

So let's say 30,000 rotts per year are born (accounting for non registered breedings and the move up the popularity list) and an average life span on 12 years (high for the breed)... that's a nation wide population of 360,000 rottweilers. Heck let's round it up to 500,000.

78 deaths attributed to a breed with a 500,000 population

209 deaths attributed to a breed with a 5,000,000
Population

It looks like rotts are almost 4x as dangerous! /sarcasm

Neither are a breed that should be owned by the "average" owner. They are dogs that need to be respected for their capabilities, trained and managed well.


----------



## LuvShepherds

voodoolamb said:


> 2 more incredibly irresponsible pit bull owners
> 
> The first lady should have had a come to jesus moment with that dog. My pits were not allowed to look at other dogs. Im serious. We did a lot of focused heeling... You've got to stop the prey drive chain in the bud. Stalk > chase > catch > kill. You don't allow your pit to get into prey drive out in public.
> 
> The second... was an idiot. No offense to your friend's daughter. Let me rephrase it to say she was an idiot about dogs. If you have a breed that is genetically aggressive towards dogs (which ALL pit bulls are, many just have higher thresholds) especially a new to you one. You have that thing padlocked to you and you are hyper aware of other dogs coming on the scene...
> 
> Pit bull ownership = constant vigilance.


That is why I wanted to talk to the first young woman. She looked about 30. I wanted to know if she had noticed her dog's reaction to mine and why it worried me. 

Yes, I agree. They had a family dog that looked lab and Rottie that was very sweet to people and dogs. The new dog reminded her of their old one, even though it had no genetic reason to. It was a pittbull. The mom even told me.


----------



## WIBackpacker

MineAreWorkingline said:


> That is nice in theory. There is no way to find where loose dogs are coming from unless you live next door to the owner.


I disagree. There's some pending legislation in my state that could require mandatory microchipping of all domestic animals, which indicates that mandatory microchipping of dogs is realistic and on the horizon. Un-chipped dog caught running at large? Maybe the fine doubles. Quadruples. Maybe the owner loses the privilege of registering any additional dogs for a year. Five years. 

Laws work better when there are serious consequences. People will pay more attention.


----------



## Dotbat215

WIBackpacker said:


> I disagree. There's some pending legislation in my state that could require mandatory microchipping of all domestic animals, which indicates that mandatory microchipping of dogs is realistic and on the horizon. Un-chipped dog caught running at large? Maybe the fine doubles. Quadruples. Maybe the owner loses the privilege of registering any additional dogs for a year. Five years.
> 
> Laws work better when there are serious consequences. People will pay more attention.


At the very least an unchipped dog is fixed and can be evaluated for adoption. 

If someone wants to claim their unchipped, then double the fines.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> What state is that in? Is that the only one?


I believe this is Iowa and no it's not the only one.


----------



## llombardo

voodoolamb said:


> Why so surprised about the rotts?
> 
> Between 1982 and 2012
> 
> Pits killed - 209 people
> 
> Rotts killed - 78 people
> 
> http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Dog+attack+stats+with+breed+2012.pdf
> 
> Now I think it is worth noting that pit bulls make up between 6% and 7% of the 70 millionish US dog population.
> 
> Putting the estimated pit bull population somewhere between 4 and 5 million animals.
> 
> I haven't been able to find the most recent registration numbers from the AKC but in 2006 they registered less than 20,000 rotts that year.
> 
> So let's say 30,000 rotts per year are born (accounting for non registered breedings and the move up the popularity list) and an average life span on 12 years (high for the breed)... that's a nation wide population of 360,000 rottweilers. Heck let's round it up to 500,000.
> 
> 78 deaths attributed to a breed with a 500,000 population
> 
> 209 deaths attributed to a breed with a 5,000,000
> Population
> 
> It looks like rotts are almost 4x as dangerous! /sarcasm
> 
> Neither are a breed that should be owned by the "average" owner. They are dogs that need to be respected for their capabilities, trained and managed well.



I have been saying forever that if you look at the number of dogs within a breed versus bites/mauling pit bulls are probably not the number one dog with bite/maulings.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

WIBackpacker said:


> I disagree. There's some pending legislation in my state that could require mandatory microchipping of all domestic animals, which indicates that mandatory microchipping of dogs is realistic and on the horizon. Un-chipped dog caught running at large? Maybe the fine doubles. Quadruples. Maybe the owner loses the privilege of registering any additional dogs for a year. Five years.
> 
> Laws work better when there are serious consequences. People will pay more attention.


But who is going to catch them running at large? Certainly not me! The one time I tried to find out where a loose Pit lived (a Pit that always fence fought with my dogs), it ran down an alley. I followed in my car. Somebody had thrown clothes and garbage across the alley and had set it on fire. The Pit ran through it. I figured if the Pit can run through it then I could drive through it and so I did. The Pit then cut through an empty lot full of broken glass and who knows what. I drew the line there at how much damage I was willing to risk to my vehicle and stopped pursuit.

Call 911? I did that last Saturday when I called to report the Pit Bull that attacked my dog 30' from my property line when I walked to investigate why another dog was screaming and crying in seeming distress. I did decline to have the officers come to my house BUT I also sat in my backyard and watched to see what would happen...NOTHING. They never showed up. 

Call Animal Control? Every single time I have tried that, I get an answering machine. Besides, what can they do unless they know the owner or where the Pit lives?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> I believe this is Iowa and no it's not the only one.


If there are as many as you say you are finding, can you list a few? I just did a google and saw that one, but no others.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> If there are as many as you say you are finding, can you list a few? I just did a google and saw that one, but no others.


If you go by state that have bans, it gives the towns or counties that have bans, restrictions, and one I saw didn't even name the breeds but listed it as the top five dangerous dog breeds from a credible source--what the heck does that mean? I would think that list can change so how do you enforce that? A few had GSDs listed as declared potentially dangerous, which basically means if someone complains that your dog might bite them there are a bunch of rules and possible removal. One I saw stated that a higher standard of care required and GSDs were on that one. I know of a couple local towns here that have bans and are not listed, so I'm sure there are a lot not listed or updated. 

It's always been GSDs, dobes, Rotts and pit bulls that were on the radar in the last 30 yrs. Based on the bans I would have to say this is true. I never really thought that other breeds besides pit bulls were on banned list. For as many areas that have a ban I can't believe how many pit bulls are still out there, so I'm not sure that the bans are working?


----------



## scarfish

you'll never be able to successfully ban a breed of dog. they had banned pot plants for a long time and look how well that worked out.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> If you go by state that have bans, it gives the towns or counties that have bans, restrictions, and one I saw didn't even name the breeds but listed it as the top five dangerous dog breeds from a credible source--what the heck does that mean? I would think that list can change so how do you enforce that? A few had GSDs listed as declared potentially dangerous, which basically means if someone complains that your dog might bite them there are a bunch of rules and possible removal. One I saw stated that a higher standard of care required and GSDs were on that one. I know of a couple local towns here that have bans and are not listed, so I'm sure there are a lot not listed or updated.
> 
> It's always been GSDs, dobes, Rotts and pit bulls that were on the radar in the last 30 yrs. Based on the bans I would have to say this is true. I never really thought that other breeds besides pit bulls were on banned list. For as many areas that have a ban I can't believe how many pit bulls are still out there, so I'm not sure that the bans are working?


None of those list GSDs as banned that I know of. 

Somebody listing the GSD as one of the top five most dangerous breeds, I first ask what is their source and I want to know their definition of dangerous. 

I am sure it has happened, but I have never seen a list change. 

States that have passed laws banning breed bans and / or BSL (which are not necessarily the same) have forced communities to start looking at prebite laws where citizens in conjunction with AC and LE can get dogs declared dangerous before they cause harm.

A lot of breeds require more management and control to address safety issues. The main difference is that shelters, rescues, humane organizations, breed aficionados, and breed lobbyists aren't promoting those breeds as it is all in how you raise and train them.

It has not always been Dobes, Rotts and GSDS or even Pit Bulls. 

In the 70s, Shepherds killed ten people, in the 80s Dobes killed one, in the 90s Rotts killed 17, that is for the entire RESPECTIVE decades for when those breeds were notorious.

In the most recent decade Pits have killed over 200 people, with the number of fatalities per year, not decade, but per year, the most recent years, numbering over two dozen fatalities each year.

Bans and BSL are very effective. The number of maulings and fatalities are almost non existent in the areas who have long term BSL AND it is actively enforced.


----------



## WIBackpacker

Increasing fines (perhaps also increasing registration fees) can increase the available funds for additional animal control officers. 

Running through flaming garbage and broken glass is certainly not reasonable, expecting people to do that is not safe at all. 

My experience with animal control was more positive (they sedated and removed a problematic stray that was killing our birds). I lured it into our garage by setting out a plate of food, shut the door, called AC, they arrived with tranquilizer and other appropriate tools. Never saw it again. I'm content knowing that my license fees may pay the salary of individuals like that.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

WIBackpacker said:


> Increasing fines (perhaps also increasing registration fees) can increase the available funds for additional animal control officers.
> 
> Running through flaming garbage and broken glass is certainly not reasonable, expecting people to do that is not safe at all.
> 
> My experience with animal control was more positive (they sedated and removed a problematic stray that was killing our birds). I lured it into our garage by setting out a plate of food, shut the door, called AC, they arrived with tranquilizer and other appropriate tools. Never saw it again. I'm content knowing that my license fees may pay the salary of individuals like that.


I have no problems with higher fines or with tax dollars paying for more AC. I have way too much Pit Bull experience to offer food and lure it to a space on my property to harbor it until AC can come get it, nor will I accept that liability.


----------



## selzer

WIBackpacker said:


> Penalties for at-large dogs in some areas (particularly urban areas) need to go way up. The law needs teeth. People who follow laws and don't infringe upon the safety of others can make their own choices.
> 
> Not a $50.00 fine, that's a joke. Make it $500.00. Make it more. Triple it for second offense. Unpaid dog citation? Warrant. Can't renew your driver's license, vehicle plates, etc. until paid in full. People WILL pay more attention to containing their animals if the consequences are real.


This! 

Make the first fine $100. The second time the dog is caught, $1000, the third time the dog is caught, confiscated, need to go to court and fight to get the dog back.

Edit, and Voodoolamb, back when I was going to matches, obedience/rally, there was this little pit that kept kicking our ass. I was joking about hamstringing him. We'd look out for him when we would arrive and if he was there...

They can be great obedience/rally dogs. But yes, you do need to have constant vigilance.


----------



## Dotbat215

MineAreWorkingline said:


> None of those list GSDs as banned that I know of.
> 
> Somebody listing the GSD as one of the top five most dangerous breeds, I first ask what is their source and I want to know their definition of dangerous.
> 
> I am sure it has happened, but I have never seen a list change.
> 
> States that have passed laws banning breed bans and / or BSL (which are not necessarily the same) have forced communities to start looking at prebite laws where citizens in conjunction with AC and LE can get dogs declared dangerous before they cause harm.
> 
> A lot of breeds require more management and control to address safety issues. The main difference is that shelters, rescues, humane organizations, breed aficionados, and breed lobbyists aren't promoting those breeds as it is all in how you raise and train them.
> 
> It has not always been Dobes, Rotts and GSDS or even Pit Bulls.
> 
> In the 70s, Shepherds killed ten people, in the 80s Dobes killed one, in the 90s Rotts killed 17, that is for the entire RESPECTIVE decades for when those breeds were notorious.
> 
> In the most recent decade Pits have killed over 200 people, with the number of fatalities per year, not decade, but per year, the most recent years, numbering over two dozen fatalities each year.
> 
> Bans and BSL are very effective. The number of maulings and fatalities are almost non existent in the areas who have long term BSL AND it is actively enforced.


In the 70's what was the GSD population?

In the 80s what was dobe population?

And so on... 

I think it's better to look at percentages. I can't swing a bag without hitting a pit or pit type dog and I'm not in a low income/high crime area that is stereotypically associated with pit bulls. Labs are, iirc, the most popular dog if you go by AKC registration and gsds are 2. Yet they seem vastly outnumbered by pits. 

And, I think the other issue to think about is that people never seem to get pits from a breeder that isn't a byb or a mill. Other breeds seem to have a thriving community of fanciers that breed ethically. I don't see that as much with these dogs. I'm sure they're out there, but the pit seems to attract an unsavory element more than alot of other breeds. Your options seem to be bad breeder or shelter.


But I might be wrong in that perception.


----------



## WIBackpacker

(Shrug) That's fine. Plenty of farmers still shoot, shovel, and shut-up. 

If fines were higher - financial incentive -it's also likely that a market would develop for private entities (licensed or regulated, of course). If I have a coyote / mink problem, I can call a legitimate pest control company - essentially a trapper. They show up and get paid when the nuisance animal is removed. They deal with the paperwork and relocation or disposal. No danger to the homeowner.

There are safe possibilities.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dotbat215 said:


> In the 70's what was the GSD population?
> 
> In the 80s what was dobe population?
> 
> And so on...
> 
> I think it's better to look at percentages. I can't swing a bag without hitting a pit or pit type dog and I'm not in a low income/high crime area that is stereotypically associated with pit bulls. Labs are, iirc, the most popular dog if you go by AKC registration and gsds are 2. Yet they seem vastly outnumbered by pits.
> 
> And, I think the other issue to think about is that people never seem to get pits from a breeder that isn't a byb or a mill. Other breeds seem to have a thriving community of fanciers that breed ethically. I don't see that as much with these dogs. I'm sure they're out there, but the pit seems to attract an unsavory element more than alot of other breeds. Your options seem to be bad breeder or shelter.
> 
> 
> But I might be wrong in that perception.


I am too lazy to look it up but somebody once posted on a thread on this forum a much more accurate way to calculate the number of dogs, especially the GSD. The numbers were much higher than one would expect, especially when adding mixed Shepherds into the calculations. Being that GSDs, Dobes, and Rotts were/are popular breeds of dogs, I highly doubt that their percentages have changed much.

Pits and their derivatives/mixes are calculated to be about 6% of dogs owned.

Pits were responsible for 82% of dog bite related fatalities last year. I think those stats speak for themselves. 

Many people do make the argument that there must be a lot of Pits because that is all you see. I own six GSDs, my neighborhood has not seen them. Like so many others that own non Pit breeds in my community, we don't walk our dogs locally. So if you drove through my neighborhood, you would see Pits everywhere, although most of the people who own dogs that I know of don't own Pits. So you have to ask yourself, is it that there are so many Pits or are you seeing so many because owners of other breeds can't leave their non Pit breeds out in their yards or walk them around the block? Does it only appear that you see a lot of Pits only because you never get to see the other dogs that also live there?


----------



## llombardo

There is no doubt way more pit bulls then any other breed whether you see them or not.

As an example I used pit bulls and GSDs and went with bigger cities where both breeds would be popular. 

177 ADOPTABLE PIT BULL TERRIER DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF CHICAGO, IL
58 ADOPTABLE GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF CHICAGO, IL

896 ADOPTABLE PIT BULL TERRIER DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF LOS ANGELES, CA
481 ADOPTABLE GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF LOS ANGELES, CA

365 ADOPTABLE PIT BULL DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF DALLAS, TX
126 ADOPTABLE GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF DALLAS, TX

652 ADOPTABLE PIT BULL TERRIER DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK
96 ADOPTABLE GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> There is no doubt way more pit bulls then any other breed whether you see them or not.
> 
> As an example I used pit bulls and GSDs and went with bigger cities where both breeds would be popular.
> 
> 177 ADOPTABLE PIT BULL TERRIER DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF CHICAGO, IL
> 58 ADOPTABLE GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF CHICAGO, IL
> 
> 896 ADOPTABLE PIT BULL TERRIER DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF LOS ANGELES, CA
> 481 ADOPTABLE GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF LOS ANGELES, CA
> 
> 365 ADOPTABLE PIT BULL DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF DALLAS, TX
> 126 ADOPTABLE GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF DALLAS, TX
> 
> 652 ADOPTABLE PIT BULL TERRIER DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK
> 96 ADOPTABLE GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG DOGS WITHIN 25 MILES OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK


Nobody is disputing that Pit Bulls are the most disposed of breed of dog. They just certainly aren't the most popular.


----------



## voodoolamb

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Nobody is disputing that Pit Bulls are the most disposed of breed of dog. They just certainly aren't the most popular.


What other breed / closely related breed groups make up more that 6.6% of the total dog population?


----------



## Muskeg

Was it Voodoo that said the pitbull "problem" and pet overpopulation are connected? I couldn't agree more. Address pet overpopulation, and you immediately see that pitbulls represent by far the majority of breed types in shelters. Get to the root of that, first. I think it's a combination of pure numbers, and of course breed genetics causing the increase in pitbulls mauling and killing people the past decade or so.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

voodoolamb said:


> What other breed / closely related breed groups make up more that 6.6% of the total dog population?


Well, this article alone states that AKC GSDs total 3.5 million, and that is not counting non registered dogs, mixes, and GSD derivatives. GSDs have been an extremely popular breed for literally decades which one can speculate could give the breed a jumpstart on the number of unregistered dogs and mixes circulating compared to the new found popularity of Pits.

https://mygermanshepherd.org/global-gsd-population-how-many-gsds-are-there-in-the-world/

Pit populations are estimated to be at 3 million not including the same as above which puts GSDs at 500,000 more.

Define closely related breed groups. The numbers most frequently cited, and also legally defined, constitute Pit Bulls, AmStaffs, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, their mixes and their derivatives.

If Pit Bull fatalities were based merely on the increase in their numbers, that theory wouldn't hold water as GSDs still out number them, are bred to be human aggressive, and still rarely kill a human.


----------



## cloudpump

Dotbat215 said:


> In 2015 there were 34 fatalities due to dog attacks (united States). Sure, people are dying and that's terrible but there are other things killing people more often.


That's interesting. So those 34 lives lost (albeit terrible) are not as valuable as say all the people who die from smoking? Or from car accidents?

No one should do anything because there's other things killing more people?

Two-year-old boy killed by family dog in Fulton County - CBS46 News
4-Year-Old Boy Was Dragged Into Yard by Pit Bull Before 3 Dogs Mauled Him to Death: Cops - Inside Edition
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ENewBs7aHZi4Ab5Ig&sig2=jaG3vuhbbb5U9Zk3xDU7-A

Each and every life saved is a life. Yes fine owners of loose dogs. 
But what do we do if those dogs are on their own property? Once again things cannot be reactive.


----------



## WIBackpacker

cloudpump said:


> That's interesting. So those 34 lives lost (albeit terrible) are not as valuable as say all the people who die from smoking? Or from car accidents?
> 
> No one should do anything because there's other things killing more people?
> 
> Two-year-old boy killed by family dog in Fulton County - CBS46 News
> 4-Year-Old Boy Was Dragged Into Yard by Pit Bull Before 3 Dogs Mauled Him to Death: Cops - Inside Edition
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ENewBs7aHZi4Ab5Ig&sig2=jaG3vuhbbb5U9Zk3xDU7-A
> 
> Each and every life saved is a life. Yes fine owners of loose dogs.
> *But what do we do if those dogs are on their own property?* Once again things cannot be reactive.


I truly do not think a municipality can protect people from themselves by passing this type of legislation.

Children come to harm in their own homes from drugs (legal or otherwise), weapons (legal or otherwise), animals (legal or otherwise), disease (preventable or otherwise), horrible tragedies.

I have a fundamental difference of opinion from some of you, regarding where responsibility lies, and how much control should be imposed on people who follow the law and do not disrupt others' lives. I'm respectfully bowing out, i hope you all enjoy your weekend.


----------



## voodoolamb

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Pit populations are estimated to be at 3 million not including the same as above which puts GSDs at 500,000 more.


Where did the 3 million number for pits come from? The stat I've seen most frequently is "6%" (6.6% actually). With an estimated total dog population of 78 million that puts the pit population in the us well over 5 million dogs.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

voodoolamb said:


> Where did the 3 million number for pits come from? The stat I've seen most frequently is "6%" (6.6% actually). With an estimated total dog population of 78 million that puts the pit population in the us well over 5 million dogs.


3% Pit Bulls and 3% their mixes and derivatives totaling 6% of dogs owned, according to the ASPCA.


----------



## Nigel

Pitbulls along with chihuahua's make up the majority of dogs in our area. I think the stats are inaccurate and there are far more pits out there than the numbers show. This again could be attributed the types of owners pitties attract, mostly byb's and no licensing so they don't exist on paper.


----------



## llombardo

So the ban was put into effect because of the mauling of that lady, but it wasn't even a pit bull? All paperwork and registration says it was a boxer....


Montreal SPCA Files Lawsuit Against City After Pit Bull Ban


Woman mauled by boxer, not pit bull, says Humane Society - Montreal - CBC News


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

When the attack happened, both the dog's owner and the police described it as a pitbull.

It does not say what the "papers" were that identified it as a boxer. I would like to know what the paperwork was, kennel club reg, shelter adoption papers, vet records? And by the way, why don't they take better photographs of the offending dogs since this is always an issue. Surely the owner has some pics of his dog?

I have boarded some pits and I don't think any of them had paperwork saying they were pits. They are ALL lab mixes or some such description on vet records for vaccines.

We all know how shelters label them as something else to get them adopted.

So unless the dog came from a reputable breeder with papers saying it was a boxer then this doesn't totally move me one way or the other. I do wish there was an independant investigative team that wouod get to the bottom of these things who had the expertise with identifying dogs and wasn't biased to one side or the other....


----------



## llombardo

Thecowboysgirl said:


> When the attack happened, both the dog's owner and the police described it as a pitbull.
> 
> It does not say what the "papers" were that identified it as a boxer. I would like to know what the paperwork was, kennel club reg, shelter adoption papers, vet records? And by the way, why don't they take better photographs of the offending dogs since this is always an issue. Surely the owner has some pics of his dog?
> 
> I have boarded some pits and I don't think any of them had paperwork saying they were pits. They are ALL lab mixes or some such description on vet records for vaccines.
> 
> We all know how shelters label them as something else to get them adopted.
> 
> So unless the dog came from a reputable breeder with papers saying it was a boxer then this doesn't totally move me one way or the other. I do wish there was an independant investigative team that wouod get to the bottom of these things who had the expertise with identifying dogs and wasn't biased to one side or the other....


It said registration papers, so who knows? I'm thinking that in order for them to proceed with a lawsuit against the government they have some solid evidence this particular dog was not a pit.


----------



## Dainerra

I've seen labs called pit bulls, had my sable GSD puppy called a pit bull. Boxers, mastiffs, rotts, etc.

How many threads on here about "I can' find homeowner's insurance with my GSD" "having trouble finding an apartment to rent" "neighbors terrified of my dog" etc etc.

Many apartments don't allow GSDs specifically. They don't allow rotts, dobes, even huskies are banned in some. Yet we think that it's ridiculous to say that no one would put restrictions on GSDs? There already ARE!!

I've even seen an apartment complex that wouldn't allow black dogs with tan markings because the manager believed that "only dobes and rotts have that color so the dog must be a mix of one of those. And our insurance doesn't allow those dogs or their mixes"


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> So the ban was put into effect because of the mauling of that lady, but it wasn't even a pit bull? All paperwork and registration says it was a boxer....
> 
> 
> Montreal SPCA Files Lawsuit Against City After Pit Bull Ban
> 
> 
> Woman mauled by boxer, not pit bull, says Humane Society - Montreal - CBC News


Both articles state that LE identified the mauler as a Pit Bull. 

The internet abounds with detailed pages outlining how Pit Bull owners can coax vets to label their Pit Bulls as mixed breeds, they can license them as Boxers, etc., all to skirt laws, insurance restrictions, landlord requirements, and responsibility as well as spare the reputation of their breed in case of an incident.

The dissimilarities between the two breeds are glaringly obvious leaving little room to mistake one for the other.

Boxer:








Pit Bull:


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

llombardo said:


> It said registration papers, so who knows? I'm thinking that in order for them to proceed with a lawsuit against the government they have some solid evidence this particular dog was not a pit.


Maybe I will contact them and ask what the paperwork wask just for $*/& and giggles. Wonder if they would respond?


----------



## cloudpump

I'm curious what boxer owners are saying to that. I had a boxer. His temperament is nowhere near a pits. I know there are a few boxer Simon here. I'm curious what they think.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Both articles state that LE identified the mauler as a Pit Bull.
> 
> The internet abounds with detailed pages outlining how Pit Bull owners can coax vets to label their Pit Bulls as mixed breeds, they can license them as Boxers, etc., all to skirt laws, insurance restrictions, landlord requirements, and responsibility as well as spare the reputation of their breed in case of an incident.
> 
> The dissimilarities between the two breeds are glaringly obvious leaving little room to mistake one for the other.
> 
> Boxer:
> View attachment 386938
> 
> 
> Pit Bull:
> View attachment 386946


All articles state.....Police eventually arrived to shoot and kill the dog, which they described as a Pit Bull.

I know what boxers and "pit bulls" look like and I can tell you that if you were to have let's say a lab mix, some sill say mixed with pit, others will say boxer. I've seen it happen. Every dog becomes categorized as a pit bull type. 


The key word is described. What looks like a pit bull to some might not look pit bull to another. Let's not forget that "Pit Bull' is a type, so if any dog resembles what is in that group they become a pit bull. 

What do you do when someone says a white GSD, some sable GSD and huskies look like they have wolf in them and there is a ban on wolves? They now can come in and take the dog because it's a mix or so they say of what is against the law? So now your dog is dead and it doesn't have an ounce of wolf in it. 

Where does it end?


----------



## Dainerra

https://everythingworthknowingilear...-your-labrador-retriever-is-safe-think-again/


----------



## Dainerra

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Both articles state that LE identified the mauler as a Pit Bull.
> 
> The internet abounds with detailed pages outlining how Pit Bull owners can coax vets to label their Pit Bulls as mixed breeds, they can license them as Boxers, etc., all to skirt laws, insurance restrictions, landlord requirements, and responsibility as well as spare the reputation of their breed in case of an incident.
> 
> The dissimilarities between the two breeds are glaringly obvious leaving little room to mistake one for the other.
> 
> Boxer:
> View attachment 386938
> 
> 
> Pit Bull:
> View attachment 386946



except that the law specifically says "any pit bull like characteristics" blocky heads, muscular dogs, etc

how many threads do we see on this forum alone of people complaining "no one recognizes my dog is a GSD" and that's simply because the dog is black, white or sable - basically anything other than "traditional" black/tan saddleback look

you expect people to ID dogs that are just based on a few characteristics vs an actual breed?
SPCA threatens to end pound services if Montreal bans pit bulls | Montreal Gazette an older article before the bylaw was passed



No, You Probably Can't Guess That Dog's Breed ? and a New Study Explains Why It Matters

A New Study discussing the reliability of visual breed identification - KC DOG BLOG


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> All articles state.....Police eventually arrived to shoot and kill the dog, which they described as a Pit Bull.
> 
> I know what boxers and "pit bulls" look like and I can tell you that if you were to have let's say a lab mix, some sill say mixed with pit, others will say boxer. I've seen it happen. Every dog becomes categorized as a pit bull type.
> 
> 
> The key word is described. What looks like a pit bull to some might not look pit bull to another. Let's not forget that "Pit Bull' is a type, so if any dog resembles what is in that group they become a pit bull.
> 
> What do you do when someone says a white GSD, some sable GSD and huskies look like they have wolf in them and there is a ban on wolves? They now can come in and take the dog because it's a mix or so they say of what is against the law? So now your dog is dead and it doesn't have an ounce of wolf in it.
> 
> Where does it end?


I don't see where anybody is categorizing Collies, Irish Setters, Beagles, etc., as pit bull types, only Pit Bulls, their mixes, and derivatives. What makes you say that? 

A Pit Bull is not a type. It is a breed, the American "Pit Bull" terrier. It is the only breed with "Pit Bull" in its name, recognized by multiple breed registries complete with its own breed standard for over 100 years. There are pit bull types, just like there are retriever types, herder types, etc. So no, a Boxer is not a Pit Bull, nor is a Boxer a Dalmation. Most people do not even consider a Boxer a pit bull type although many Pit advocates try to present Boxers as such to try to fear monger.

Yes, the keyword is described. So if somebody saw your dog Apollo and ID'd him as a German Shepherd we should discredit that person's visual account because some child saw my sable Shepherd and thought he was a hyena? We should discredit experienced LEs, who most likely have had a lot of Pit Bull experience on the streets, maybe even owning one, or two, themselves who are trained to be collected under pressure and to have an eye for detail because some other people can't identify a Pit Bull? Should we call all three of your German Shepherds mixed breeds because nobody can identify a German Shepherd? That doesn't make sense. In fact it sounds like Pit Bull propaganda that a Pit Bull is not a breed and that nobody can identify a Pit Bull but this is exclusive only to Pit Bulls and no other breed. 

Here is what the courts have to say about it: 









I know a few police officers on a personal basis and I must say that not one, but all of them, exceeded ordinary intelligence.

I think the notion that the government taking a German Shepherd claiming it is a wolf is nothing but histrionics at its finest intended to fear monger that because a Pit Bull ban was enacted that somebody else's breed might be next. But we already discussed that and nobody was able to document where any BSL was ever enacted and other breeds were later added to the list of dogs impacted.

I do have to ask you one question though. You have made many posts on this thread in defense of Pit Bulls yet you are conspicuously absent on the current thread about 2 year old baby girl Piper who lost her life in the jaws of two Pit Bulls last Saturday. Why? You are a mother. Where is your voice and outrage over the needless loss of this child's life?


----------



## llombardo

Definition of "Pit Bull"


Pit bull is the common name for a TYPE of dog. Formal breeds often considered in North America to be of the pit bull type include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.[1] The American Bulldog is also sometimes included

For example..
If you were to assume that a staff and American pit bull terrier were the same, especially to someone that is a reputable breeder they would be offended.

Why do you think that wherever bans are for pits are just for the Anericsn Pit Bull Terier? They are not, they are a broad way to ban multiple breeds at one time, instead of naming individual breeds.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I don't see where anybody is categorizing Collies, Irish Setters, Beagles, etc., as pit bull types, only Pit Bulls, their mixes, and derivatives. What makes you say that?
> 
> A Pit Bull is not a type. It is a breed, the American "Pit Bull" terrier. It is the only breed with "Pit Bull" in its name, recognized by multiple breed registries complete with its own breed standard for over 100 years. There are pit bull types, just like there are retriever types, herder types, etc. So no, a Boxer is not a Pit Bull, nor is a Boxer a Dalmation. Most people do not even consider a Boxer a pit bull type although many Pit advocates try to present Boxers as such to try to fear monger.
> 
> Yes, the keyword is described. So if somebody saw your dog Apollo and ID'd him as a German Shepherd we should discredit that person's visual account because some child saw my sable Shepherd and thought he was a hyena? We should discredit experienced LEs, who most likely have had a lot of Pit Bull experience on the streets, maybe even owning one, or two, themselves who are trained to be collected under pressure and to have an eye for detail because some other people can't identify a Pit Bull? Should we call all three of your German Shepherds mixed breeds because nobody can identify a German Shepherd? That doesn't make sense. In fact it sounds like Pit Bull propaganda that a Pit Bull is not a breed and that nobody can identify a Pit Bull but this is exclusive only to Pit Bulls and no other breed.
> 
> Here is what the courts have to say about it:
> 
> View attachment 386954
> 
> 
> I know a few police officers on a personal basis and I must say that not one, but all of them, exceeded ordinary intelligence.
> 
> I think the notion that the government taking a German Shepherd claiming it is a wolf is nothing but histrionics at its finest intended to fear monger that because a Pit Bull ban was enacted that somebody else's breed might be next. But we already discussed that and nobody was able to document where any BSL was ever enacted and other breeds were later added to the list of dogs impacted.
> 
> I do have to ask you one question though. You have made many posts on this thread in defense of Pit Bulls yet you are conspicuously absent on the current thread about 2 year old baby girl Piper who lost her life in the jaws of two Pit Bulls last Saturday. Why? You are a mother. Where is your voice and outrage over the needless loss of this child's life?



I do not believe that about 80% of people can tell what the individual breeds are that are categorized as pit bulls. I do not think that police officers can tell the difference, because well they are people. 

I have not seen the post of the little girl killed, so I can't comment on it. I will look into it later, but as in other pit bull or any other breed attacks, I will guess that the child was not supervised, because that is pretty much how it always is.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dainerra said:


> except that the law specifically says "any pit bull like characteristics" blocky heads, muscular dogs, etc
> 
> how many threads do we see on this forum alone of people complaining "no one recognizes my dog is a GSD" and that's simply because the dog is black, white or sable - basically anything other than "traditional" black/tan saddleback look
> 
> you expect people to ID dogs that are just based on a few characteristics vs an actual breed?
> SPCA threatens to end pound services if Montreal bans pit bulls | Montreal Gazette an older article before the bylaw was passed
> 
> 
> 
> No, You Probably Can't Guess That Dog's Breed ? and a New Study Explains Why It Matters
> 
> A New Study discussing the reliability of visual breed identification - KC DOG BLOG


Big blocky heads, muscular dogs... heck that describes half the Czech dogs, and some German bred ones, that I have seen pictures of posted on this forum including my own. Rest assured, if I lived there, I would not be quaking in my shoes thinking that somebody is going to come knocking on my door and that LE or AC would be mistaking my dog for a pitbull type. I won't comment further on this aspect, as I have not seen the law, and though I have requested a link, nobody has provided one leading me to suspect that tidbits are being cherry picked and taken out of context to make the law appear as something evil vs something life saving that promotes the health and welfare of people and non Pit Bull pets.

I am glad to see the Montreal SPCA disassociate themselves. From their website: "Raise public awareness & help develop compassion for all living beings" Where is their compassion for all the human and animal victims of Pit Bulls? 

"However, a 2013 ASPCA study found the opposite.

The study, conducted in an SPCA shelter in Richmond, Virginia, focused on whether inclusion of DNA analyses of animals would affect adoption rates.

Once the study was complete, researchers compared the visual identification of shelter staff to the DNA test findings for each animal.

The results showed that shelter workers correctly identified 96 percent of the dogs in the study as being at least one quarter pit bull."

What is a pit bull? - News - Houma Today - Houma, LA

It was also found that correctly identifying a Pit Bull as a Pit Bull was to the detriment of the Pit Bull in the shelter causing it to be passed over. Shelters today now deliberately mislabel Pit Bulls and their mixes to foist these unadoptables onto an unsuspecting public. 

And KC dog blog? Seriously, one of the worst Pit Bull Propaganda sites on the internet that brings no credibility. Please, if you want me to respond with respect, at least use non biased sources.


----------



## Dainerra

DNA Tests Show Many Shelter Dogs Are Mislabeled as Pit Bulls | Mental Floss

and boxers very much fit the definition of "having pitbull type characteristics" blocky head, large heads, floppy ears, muscular bodies, etc


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> Definition of "Pit Bull"
> 
> 
> Pit bull is the common name for a TYPE of dog. Formal breeds often considered in North America to be of the pit bull type include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.[1] The American Bulldog is also sometimes included
> 
> For example..
> If you were to assume that a staff and American pit bull terrier were the same, especially to someone that is a reputable breeder they would be offended.
> 
> Why do you think that wherever bans are for pits are just for the Anericsn Pit Bull Terier? They are not, they are a broad way to ban multiple breeds at one time, instead of naming individual breeds.


The American Staff is nothing but a watered down version of a Pit Bull and is nothing but the AKC name for the breed. The breed books were open until the 70s, cross registering Pit Bulls from other registries that recognize Pit Bulls such as the UKC or ADBA, as AmStaffs considering both the same breed. 

You can't figure out why they encompass the other similar breeds? They do it because shelters and many Pit owners make a habit out of mislabeling Pit Bulls as Lab mixes, Hound mixes, and even American Staffs, to deceive the law and the public. When BSL or bannings pass, do expect Pit Bull owners to start registering their dogs as American Staffs, or like mentioned earlier, maybe even a Boxer, to skirt the law so they may continue to own Pit Bulls instead of getting one of those similar breeds. The law is written to encompass those breeds to close that loophole.

The UK passed BSL long ago. Today, Pit Bull maulings and fatalities are rare. The problem? UK BSL permits unrestricted ownership of AmStaffs so Pit Bull owners register their Pits as AmStaffs. The endline product? "AmStaffs" are mauling and killing over there like Pit Bulls are over here. Uh huh.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> I do not believe that about 80% of people can tell what the individual breeds are that are categorized as pit bulls. I do not think that police officers can tell the difference, because well they are people.
> 
> I have not seen the post of the little girl killed, so I can't comment on it. I will look into it later, but as in other pit bull or any other breed attacks, I will guess that the child was not supervised, because that is pretty much how it always is.


You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains that the shelter workers ID'd breeds at a 96% accuracy rate. I don't know why you have trouble believing it, most people I know can accurately identify the more common breeds. 

Victim blaming? If the there had been two Collies in that yard instead of two Pit Bulls, rest assured there would not be a thread on here regarding little Piper's death. 

There are way too many documented deaths of Pit Bulls killing children and babies right in front of the parents. To say the children are seldom supervised may hold true for other breeds but I can list dozens of children killed by Pits while supervised.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dainerra said:


> https://everythingworthknowingilear...-your-labrador-retriever-is-safe-think-again/


Are you saying we should prioritize one dog over the lives of many people and pets?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dainerra said:


> DNA Tests Show Many Shelter Dogs Are Mislabeled as Pit Bulls | Mental Floss
> 
> and boxers very much fit the definition of "having pitbull type characteristics" blocky head, large heads, floppy ears, muscular bodies, etc


Manufacturers of DNA tests state that for the purpose of identifying breed, that their product is to be used for entertainment purposes only.

DNA tests only accurately reflect parentage, not breed.


----------



## Dainerra

this is the closest I can find to the actual wording of the bylaw

FAQs on Montreal?s new dog ban | Montreal Gazette


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dainerra said:


> this is the closest I can find to the actual wording of the bylaw
> 
> FAQs on Montreal?s new dog ban | Montreal Gazette


Thanks! 

I found this: 

"The new bylaw will apply to all 19 boroughs and will define pit bulls as:

Staffordshire bull terriers.
American pit bull terriers.
American Staffordshire terriers.
Any mix with these breeds.
Any dog that presents characteristics of one of those breeds."

Montreal Bans Pit Bulls : snopes.com

Without the actual law, can somebody tell me again what the argument was concerning big, blocky heads or muscular bodies? Was that nothing but a foundationless scare tactic to fear monger somebody else's breed/dog might be next?

But here is what HORRIFIES me. We are on a German Shepherd forum and nobody has brought up, or cares about: 

-All dog and cat owners must have their pets sterilized and microchipped (affixed with a microchip with personal information so a lost animal can be returned) by Dec. 31, 2019

Because of all these Pit Bull maulings and fatalities, all dogs must be neutered and microchipped? How did our breed get thrown under the bus without any outrage?

-Residents can have a maximum of four pets per home, including two dogs, which can be increased to three with a special permit ($50)

Because of all these Pit Bull maulings and fatalities, people are now limited to four pets, only two of which can be dogs? How did our breed get thrown under the bus without any outrage?

Are we sleeping at the helm? Pit Bulls have mauled and killed too many times and earned themselves a banning. Why are we allowing the Pit Bull problem to infringe on our rights? 

Why are so many on here crying out in defense of Pit Bulls when our breed and all breeds have just taken such a blow? Where is the outrage for the German Shepherds?


----------



## LuvShepherds

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I found this:
> 
> "The new bylaw will apply to all 19 boroughs and will define pit bulls as:
> 
> Staffordshire bull terriers.
> American pit bull terriers.
> American Staffordshire terriers.
> Any mix with these breeds.
> Any dog that presents characteristics of one of those breeds."
> 
> Montreal Bans Pit Bulls : snopes.com
> 
> Without the actual law, can somebody tell me again what the argument was concerning big, blocky heads or muscular bodies? Was that nothing but a foundationless scare tactic to fear monger somebody else's breed/dog might be next?
> 
> But here is what HORRIFIES me. We are on a German Shepherd forum and nobody has brought up, or cares about:
> 
> -All dog and cat owners must have their pets sterilized and microchipped (affixed with a microchip with personal information so a lost animal can be returned) by Dec. 31, 2019
> 
> Because of all these Pit Bull maulings and fatalities, all dogs must be neutered and microchipped? How did our breed get thrown under the bus without any outrage?
> 
> -Residents can have a maximum of four pets per home, including two dogs, which can be increased to three with a special permit ($50)
> 
> Because of all these Pit Bull maulings and fatalities, people are now limited to four pets, only two of which can be dogs? How did our breed get thrown under the bus without any outrage?
> 
> Are we sleeping at the helm? Pit Bulls have mauled and killed too many times and earned themselves a banning. Why are we allowing the Pit Bull problem to infringe on our rights?
> 
> Why are so many on here crying out in defense of Pit Bulls when our breed and all breeds have just taken such a blow? Where is the outrage for the German Shepherds?


I agree. I have been saying that it's only time before all dogs must be altered and before large breeds are banned outright. They want to take away our collars so we lose our training tools. They want to remove the right to own intact dogs or breeds. Then they could go after large dogs, which many countries have already done. Google banned breeds worldwide. Then they could stop all breeders, and there goes dog ownership as we know it.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

LuvShepherds said:


> I agree. I have been saying that it's only time before all dogs must be altered and before large breeds are banned outright. They want to take away our collars so we lose our training tools. They want to remove the right to own intact dogs or breeds. Then they could go after large dogs, which many countries have already done. Google banned breeds worldwide. Then they could stop all breeders, and there goes dog ownership as we know it.


I have followed this since Christiane Vadnais was killed in her backyard by a Pit Bull. I have heard nothing from the start about any legislation impacting other dogs or cats, only BSL or bannings targeting Pit Bulls.

I think it was very foolish of Pit Bull advocates not to expose these "details" as they would have had many allies to defeat the legislation. As is stands, everybody lost. Once again, there will be many more victims. What is going to happen to the people who own five Beagles? Will they be forced to give up two or three? Many innocent dogs and cats will die. I don't understand how they managed to keep this swept under the rug and that their is no pubic outcry.


----------



## Dainerra

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I think it was very foolish of Pit Bull advocates not to expose these "details" as they would have had many allies to defeat the legislation. As is stands, everybody lost. Once again, there will be many more victims. What is going to happen to the people who own five Beagles? Will they be forced to give up two or three? Many innocent dogs and cats will die. I don't understand how they managed to keep this swept under the rug and that their is no pubic outcry.


what more allies do they need? AKC, UKC, CKC (canadian kennel club), the SPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, etc etc are all already strong anti-BSL advocates. All of the national breed clubs that I know of, including the GSDCA, are against BSL in any form. The only group that thinks this is a good idea is PETA.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dainerra said:


> what more allies do they need? AKC, UKC, CKC (canadian kennel club), the SPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, etc etc are all already strong anti-BSL advocates. All of the national breed clubs that I know of, including the GSDCA, are against BSL in any form. The only group that thinks this is a good idea is PETA.


I don't care about the banning, it was well earned at a very dear cost to innocent pets and people. Canada is no more a stranger to Pit Bull maulings and fatalities than the US.

The allies I am speaking of are cat and non Pit Bull dog owners that were discretely sold down the river. 

What happened here is one of the reasons that I follow these things so closely, so that other breeds, and I guess I have to add cats now too, don't suffer restrictions because of what one breed has done and continues to do.


----------



## Sabis mom

I live in Calgary and in the I was told years ago that max number of dogs per household is 3. Fosters, pups under four months are exempt.
And really do I want the neighbors six feet away having 20 dogs? Umm...NO! 
Mandatory spay/neuter? Isn't as bad as people think. If the dog was running loose and picked up it probably should be. In all places I know of the first time your dog is picked up if it is licensed they drop it off at home. So to end up in the shelter it would have to be second offense. I have a letter from my vet stating Shadow cannot be spayed for health reasons. It absolutely would exempt her.
Breed identification? Pretty sure if dna said lab it would not be challenged. Can anyone tell me how many breeder Staffs or Amstaffs there are in Canada compared to byb Pitbulls? I would be willing to bet the ratio is pretty staggering.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I don't care about the banning, it was well earned at a very dear cost to innocent pets and people. Canada is no more a stranger to Pit Bull maulings and fatalities than the US.
> 
> The allies I am speaking of are cat and non Pit Bull dog owners that were discretely sold down the river.
> 
> What happened here is one of the reasons that I follow these things so closely, so that other breeds, and I guess I have to add cats now too, don't suffer restrictions because of what one breed has done and continues to do.


The banning IS the problem. It opens the door for everything else. I don't care what breed it is, once you open that door it affects everyone that owns pets. Everyone that owns pets needs to care.

Here is an example--there is a pit bull ban, it seems to work so when the next breed has increased bites, they think we'll lets just add them to the ban list and then it repeats. If pit bulls become banned everywhere, there is always going to be another breed to take their place.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> The banning IS the problem. It opens the door for everything else. I don't care what breed it is, once you open that door it affects everyone that owns pets. Everyone that owns pets needs to care.
> 
> Here is an example--there is a pt bull ban, it seems to work so when the next breed has increased bites, they think we'll lets just add them to the ban list and then it repeats. If pit bulls become banned everywhere, there is always going to be another breed to take their place.


The banning is one possible solution to a serious problem. It does not open the door to anything else unless we let it. We do not punish all drivers because some choose to drive under the influence. That is just hysteria speaking. Everybody that owns pets needs to care about this serious Pit Bull problem, babies, dogs, cats and other animals are dying. What people should be caring about is the senseless slaughter of innocent victims, not the ones doing the killing.

As was already discussed in this thread and every other Pit Bull thread, bannings and BSL has NOTHING to do with dog bites. For the umpteenth time it is about extreme attacks and killings. Perhaps we should stay on topic. Once again, like on every Pit Bull thread, including this one too, it was already clarified that there was no breed before Pit Bulls killing people in the double digits annually and if the Pit Bull problem would ever be resolved, there is even LESS reason to believe that people will put up with a similar number of maulings and killings from another breed without taking swift action, and rightfully so.

You know, I had no desire to get involved on this thread. Then whoomp, there it is, the same old misinformation and propaganda like on every single Pit Bull topic. Let's just call it a day. 

Here, reread this old thread, or pick any other Pit Bull thread, where the same undocumentable misinformation was called out and replaced with facts. The answers are all there, this has been beaten to death. Just rest assured I will NOT sit idly by while dangerous misinformation is disseminated lest another child or pet or animal is egregiously harmed or killed because somebody just might read it and believe it.

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/aggression-good-bad-ugly/585458-dog-mauling-caught-video.html

Maybe the mods should just lock this thread. At this point there is nothing new being discussed, just the same old same old from earlier in the thread being beaten to death.


----------



## gsdsar

voodoolamb said:


> gsdsar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure why I am delving into this discussion, but your first part struck me because of a recent incident I was involved in. At a dog trial/event, a competing dog(a pit bull) had just run its course. Nice dog, fantastic owner, was working with her dog, the same way I do. This owner was a good a responsible owner. Exactly the type of owner we say all pitbulls should have.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but no. That is NOT a responsible _pit bull_ owner. And not the type of owner I would EVER suggest a pit bull for - having been involved in rescue and placing pits in new homes. Someone who wants to do high key competitions are best to look at other breeds that have stronger genetic obedience and are far more capable of taking direction while in drive.
> 
> Responsible pit bull owners do NOT allow their dogs anywhere near other dogs while they are in drive. Period. No matter how well we think we have them trained.
> 
> Being a responsible pit bull owner means that you don't always get to do what YOU want (like competitions) in order to always 100% of the time be managing your dog when it is out in public.
> 
> I'm sure she is a responsible/fantastic dog owner in general - but she has no business owning a pit.
> 
> Pit bulls are zero mistake dogs. Responsible pit owners know that. We accept that. And we make **** sure our pits do no harm.
> 
> The problem is responsible pit owners are needles in haystacks do to the overwhelming popularity of those dogs these days...
Click to expand...

I gotta say, being honest here, I was offended at first by your response. "How dare you tell me I don't know what a good owner is??" LOL But then I reread it, then I got it. And you are right. 

From the outside, based on the arbitrary way we evaluate people, this pits owner was a "great dog owner" she competed in obedience and dog sports. Her dog was well condition and a huge part of her life in every aspect of it. A more involved and active dog owner than most dogs get. 

But you have a solid point. She let her guard down for a split second. And you can't do that. She made the decision to go "right" and enter into a raffle instead of putting her dog away and coming back. That was a devastating error.


----------



## Nigel

llombardo said:


> The banning IS the problem. It opens the door for everything else. I don't care what breed it is, once you open that door it affects everyone that owns pets. Everyone that owns pets needs to care.
> 
> Here is an example--there is a pit bull ban, it seems to work so when the next breed has increased bites, they think we'll lets just add them to the ban list and then it repeats. If pit bulls become banned everywhere, there is always going to be another breed to take their place.


I tend to agree, it is a slippery slope. Pit bulls are what they are, if more of those who owned them would respect their power and potential we may not be seeing these bans. Pits may be reeled in or gone alltogether, but the irresponsible type of owners they often attract will still be here, seems more like a people problem.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> The banning is one possible solution to a serious problem. It does not open the door to anything else unless we let it. We do not punish all drivers because some choose to drive under the influence. That is just hysteria speaking. Everybody that owns pets needs to care about this serious Pit Bull problem, babies, dogs, cats and other animals are dying. What people should be caring about is the senseless slaughter of innocent victims, not the ones doing the killing.
> 
> As was already discussed in this thread and every other Pit Bull thread, bannings and BSL has NOTHING to do with dog bites. For the umpteenth time it is about extreme attacks and killings. Perhaps we should stay on topic. Once again, like on every Pit Bull thread, including this one too, it was already clarified that there was no breed before Pit Bulls killing people in the double digits annually and if the Pit Bull problem would ever be resolved, there is even LESS reason to believe that people will put up with a similar number of maulings and killings from another breed without taking swift action, and rightfully so.
> 
> You know, I had no desire to get involved on this thread. Then whoomp, there it is, the same old misinformation and propaganda like on every single Pit Bull topic. Let's just call it a day.
> 
> Here, reread this old thread, or pick any other Pit Bull thread, where the same undocumentable misinformation was called out and replaced with facts. The answers are all there, this has been beaten to death. Just rest assured I will NOT sit idly by while dangerous misinformation is disseminated lest another child or pet or animal is egregiously harmed or killed because somebody just might read it and believe it.
> 
> http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/aggression-good-bad-ugly/585458-dog-mauling-caught-video.html
> 
> Maybe the mods should just lock this thread. At this point there is nothing new being discussed, just the same old same old from earlier in the thread being beaten to death.



We have no choice in the matter. The government steps in and makes the laws and that is it. It's not something the general population has any say in.So it's not a matter of anything we can control. 

These bans are everywhere and yet there are 5 million pit bulls and the number increased all the time. You used the example of drunk drivers and punishing all drivers. So why is it okay to say all pit bulls are bad? Isn't that the same thing?

In a recent 11-year period, from 2005 to 2015, pit bulls killed 232 Americans. 

5 million dogs and 232 are bad, so they all are? There is bad and hood in all breeds, all races, all careers--that is how it is and no matter what it is never ok to punish any group for the bad the rest of the group has done. 

I don't like the fact that there are any dogs killing anyone and it makes me sad, but the numbers are very low compared to other ways people die. People are killing off people daily, parents are killing their kids, etc. We live in a crazy world and there are a lot of other areas that the government should have more control in and they don't. Pit bulls are the least of the worries now a days.


----------



## cloudpump

Harrison Forbes, author of the book “Dog Talk’’ told The Globe:

[“Pit bulls are very strong dogs. They were bred initially to hunt large animals. And for more than 200 years after that, they were bred to be fighters. You can breed certain things out of dogs, too. But that does not happen after just one or two generations. It will take a while, during which time any change will be attributable to responsible dog ownership.]

Key being responsible ownership. Pits are loaded with byb's. Genetics are not the first priority. Its looks. Blue nose, red nose. Until this breed is cleaned up, they will top the bite list and killings. And they will continue to cause the government to react. They will protect more than worry about a few.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> We have no choice in the matter. The government steps in and makes the laws and that is it. It's not something the general population has any say in.So it's not a matter of anything we can control.
> 
> These bans are everywhere and yet there are 5 million pit bulls and the number increased all the time. You used the example of drunk drivers and punishing all drivers. So why is it okay to say all pit bulls are bad? Isn't that the same thing?
> 
> In a recent 11-year period, from 2005 to 2015, pit bulls killed 232 Americans.
> 
> 5 million dogs and 232 are bad, so they all are? There is bad and hood in all breeds, all races, all careers--that is how it is and no matter what it is never ok to punish any group for the bad the rest of the group has done.
> 
> I don't like the fact that there are any dogs killing anyone and it makes me sad, but the numbers are very low compared to other ways people die. People are killing off people daily, parents are killing their kids, etc. We live in a crazy world and there are a lot of other areas that the government should have more control in and they don't. Pit bulls are the least of the worries now a days.


That is not true. They had many a meeting and heard all there was to hear and put it to a vote. It was a process that took months. 

The people had a say so at the numerous meetings.

The people have a say so on election day.

The people also have a say so when the BSL is put to the vote of the people where it has won in a landslide in every area that was given an opportunity to vote on it. Some people value their children over Pit Bulls. 

Drivers who choose to drive drunk are a minority. Pit Bulls that aren't dog aggressive or animal aggressive or game...well, they really aren't even Pit Bulls then if they lack those qualities. They are an overwhelming majority.

There is good and bad in all groups but what makes you think Pit Bulls have the right to kill babies? Or other peoples' pets? Or to maul and dismember them? There are always a lot of excuses offered but ZERO viable solutions by Pit Bull advocates. 

Are you saying the more than two dozen people who lose their lives to Pit Bulls every year have lives of lesser value because more people die from other causes? What is your number? How many newborns must die before you say enough? Feeling bad is not good enough.

Pit Bulls dictate how many communities live. Just because they aren't a problem where you live doesn't mean the rest of us should be held hostage in our homes.


----------



## dogma13

gsdsar said:


> I gotta say, being honest here, I was offended at first by your response. "How dare you tell me I don't know what a good owner is??" LOL But then I reread it, then I got it. And you are right.
> 
> From the outside, based on the arbitrary way we evaluate people, this pits owner was a "great dog owner" she competed in obedience and dog sports. Her dog was well condition and a huge part of her life in every aspect of it. A more involved and active dog owner than most dogs get.
> 
> But you have a solid point. She let her guard down for a split second. And you can't do that. She made the decision to go "right" and enter into a raffle instead of putting her dog away and coming back. That was a devastating error.


Without recounting every detail, this is exactly what has happened in the OB class we're currently attending.We've been to three classes,the last two we were working off leash and the pit attacked a dog each time he was unleashed and saw his opportunity.The owner is a very nice guy and the dog is a sweetheart.But genetics.

So yeah,if he's not kept on a flexi from now on we're out of there.


----------



## selzer

gsdsar said:


> I gotta say, being honest here, I was offended at first by your response. "How dare you tell me I don't know what a good owner is??" LOL But then I reread it, then I got it. And you are right.
> 
> From the outside, based on the arbitrary way we evaluate people, this pits owner was a "great dog owner" she competed in obedience and dog sports. Her dog was well condition and a huge part of her life in every aspect of it. A more involved and active dog owner than most dogs get.
> 
> *But you have a solid point. She let her guard down for a split second. And you can't do that. She made the decision to go "right" and enter into a raffle instead of putting her dog away and coming back. That was a devastating error*.


I'm sorry, but Who wants or needs a dog like that??? Yes your GSD might do something bad. But you will be able to stop him, pull him off. It won't take 6 people to pull him off after grievous injuries. 

Don't get me wrong, a GSD can do damage to other dogs. But GSD owners who have dog aggressive or people aggressive dogs KNOW it. They will walk the dog at 3AM so that they don't run into other dogs on their walk. They will crate their dog before opening their front door to get the mail. They choose to live with an aggressive dog, but there is no question about it.

This pit bull owner, who takes the dog everywhere, is in classes all the time, great dog owner, she should know her dog inside out, and probably thinks she does. If these dogs truly are ticking time bombs, than why are they even on the domestic animal list. And pit bull owners, when their dogs do something terrible, all say "He's never done anything like that before, we had no idea." It's like they practice the line. They all say it. We know it isn't the truth in every case, but in how many cases is it the truth? Do these dogs give people ZERO reason to believe they may go postal? 

It bothers me for a lot of reasons: We stick up for them and try to shut down BSL, to our cost. We all come into contact with them, and should we steer children we are responsible for away from them just in case this one might go postal today. Shelters label their mixes as "Lab mixes" to get them adopted. Our formidable dogs face the same regulations and restrictions as these kamakazi dogs. 

Why are they SO popular if owners have to be constantly vigilant just in case their dog might go postal today. 

It isn't even close between GSDs and pits. Sorry it isn't. However many million registered GSDs there are, there are that many or more unregistered GSDs and then their mixes. 

I think that we have to be more realistic about the breed, honest about the breed or breeds. And willy-nilly ownership of these dogs just isn't working. Yes, more people probably get killed by lighting or by drowning each year, but who wants to be killed by a dog? That just doesn't sound like a good way to go. And little kids. 2 year olds, four year olds, newborns. How can anyone get over seeing that? How do the parents? The dog's owner? The EMTs and police? Other kids in the family? Grandparents? Neighbors? 

When a mountain lion kills a human, a wild mountain lion with cubs. They go and kill the mountain lion. Because it is a terrible thing. To be killed by a critter. But dogs, we want people to welcome dogs. We want kids to not be afraid of dogs. 

I understand the thought behind altering all pit bulls. The problem with it is that not everyone will comply and the legislation is only good for their jurisdiction. So elsewhere they are breeding and raising these dogs, because they can. 

I just don't know why anyone would want a dog that they cannot trust, ever.


----------



## Sabis mom

llombardo said:


> We have no choice in the matter. The government steps in and makes the laws and that is it. It's not something the general population has any say in.So it's not a matter of anything we can control.
> 
> These bans are everywhere and yet there are 5 million pit bulls and the number increased all the time. You used the example of drunk drivers and punishing all drivers. So why is it okay to say all pit bulls are bad? Isn't that the same thing?
> 
> In a recent 11-year period, from 2005 to 2015, pit bulls killed 232 Americans.
> 
> 5 million dogs and 232 are bad, so they all are? There is bad and hood in all breeds, all races, all careers--that is how it is and no matter what it is never ok to punish any group for the bad the rest of the group has done.
> 
> I don't like the fact that there are any dogs killing anyone and it makes me sad, but the numbers are very low compared to other ways people die. People are killing off people daily, parents are killing their kids, etc. We live in a crazy world and there are a lot of other areas that the government should have more control in and they don't. Pit bulls are the least of the worries now a days.


How do you figure only 232 are bad? That doesn't included the ones who leave their victims alive to suffer through surgeries and treatments. It doesn't include the ones who slaughter and maim other dogs or cats or goats. 
Have you ever seen a dog torn to shreds? I have. I have watched my shepherds fight over the years, and been bitten a few times breaking up some pretty serious out for blood fights, but nothing compared to watching two pitbulls tear a goldie to pieces. Nothing compared to the hysterical call from a very close friend whose two 7 and 9 year old pits tore a leg and the side of his face OFF her 12 year old shepherd in her living room. 
These dogs are no joke and if it takes banning to protect people then I for one am good with it. 
I don't have anything against them, I have owned a couple and rescued several. But they don't need advocates. They need owners who understand the potential and are responsible.
Akitas are in the same category. But the only breed I hate is Chows. Thankfully neither of those breeds are popular. And I suspect if pitties lose popularity there is hope for them.


----------



## dogma13

They want them because they're the cutest,friendliest,most loveable puppies ever.Then they grow up.My niece has one that I've known from a tiny puppy that has bitten me twice since it's first birthday.Both times I was sitting in one room and she came running in from elsewhere and bit me on the arm.Thankfully I had a heavy coat over a sweatshirt so she got a mouthful of fabric and minor bruising for me.Now I make sure she's crated before I go inside.
My other niece has four.They also are locked away from company.All five of these dogs are strays they found on the street.So"cute and free" is the reason they have them.


----------



## voodoolamb

selzer said:


> I just don't know why anyone would want a dog that they cannot trust, ever.


I would have trusted my pit bull with my life. I personally find the pits i have had to be more trustworthy than my shepherd. Then my dane. And even my collie. A good pit is solid temperament wise and they are not civil.

There is a huge difference between the average pit's capacity for dog aggression and going postal. 

Pits are loving, devoted, goofy, snuggle bunnies. They so want to please their person and are total velcro dogs. They are very expressive and have a joyous smile.They are laid back, medium energy dogs with low grooming needs. It's no wonder why they have become popular pets amongst the middle class... 

The vast majority of pit bulls out there kept as pets ARE done so successfuly. They never harm a person or other animal. The saving grace is that most are pretty high threshold animals.

Perhaps that is part of the problem... That they are such sweet dogs. If they were jerks then people wouldn't want them and they wouldn't be in homes with people unwilling or incapable of managing a driven and potentially aggressive dog.


----------



## llombardo

voodoolamb said:


> I would have trusted my pit bull with my life. I personally find the pits i have had to be more trustworthy than my shepherd. Then my dane. And even my collie. A good pit is solid temperament wise and they are not civil.
> 
> There is a huge difference between the average pit's capacity for dog aggression and going postal.
> 
> Pits are loving, devoted, goofy, snuggle bunnies. They so want to please their person and are total velcro dogs. They are very expressive and have a joyous smile.They are laid back, medium energy dogs with low grooming needs. It's no wonder why they have become popular pets amongst the middle class...
> 
> The vast majority of pit bulls out there kept as pets ARE done so successfuly. They never harm a person or other animal. The saving grace is that most are pretty high threshold animals.
> 
> Perhaps that is part of the problem... That they are such sweet dogs. If they were jerks then people wouldn't want them and they wouldn't be in homes with people unwilling or incapable of managing a driven and potentially aggressive dog.



Agreed. I have never in 43 years met a pit bull that was human aggressive. They are loyal to a fault. Police are now pulling them from shelters and using them in police work and the biggest problem is that they can't train them in bite work or anything along the lines of protection because they just won't do it, so they do scent and detection work. Something would seriously have to be wrong genetically for these dogs to be killing people, that is not what they are about. 

I am always careful when I come across one if I have my dogs, because I do know what they are capable of with other animals. I have never witnessed it personally in 43 yrs but I'm not naive about it. I only know of one person that has lost their dog and it was 2 GSDs that dug under the fence and shredded her dog.


----------



## voodoolamb

Regardless of their individual reasons or whether you understand/agree with them...

Pit bulls have a LOT of fans out there. Many people WANT pit bulls as pets. Many people want to save the condemned dogs. Many "dog experts" make public stances against breed bans. 

Look at all the major organizations that have spoken against this type of legislation.

Places that have enacted breed bans have lifted them. States have passed laws prohibiting municipalities from enacting breed bans. 

Breed bans don't seem to be working. Fatalities by dog maulings keep happening. 

So what's the solution?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

The most vicious dog I have ever met lives right across from me and it is a Pit Bull. A friend of that family told me that it is the owner's worst fear that her Pit Bull is going to hurt somebody.

And then there was the Pit Bull next door to them. I did not see when it attacked his owner and put her in the hospital, but I saw the blood covered Pit Bull and owner after the attack before the ambulance took her away for her hospital stay. I did see later when she tried to put him in his crate in the back of an SUV so she can have him euthanized. How he raged and wanted to kill her. When she finally got him in the crate, the first stop was back to the hospital to get her already mutilated and bandaged hands attended to again before she could take him to the vet. As the AC worker on the case told the neighbors, that Pit is a danger to nobody except for its owner. 

It is extremely rare for any police department to pull a Pit Bull or any dog from a shelter to use in police work. To present it as a new found every day occurrence is point blank deceitful. On the other hand, the well found AFF Pit Bull lobbyist group does provide generous funding to one trainer to pull shelter dogs for single purpose training and the trainer they used seldom pulls Pit Bulls as he found them less capable than other breeds. 

Just as much as one can say that Pit Bulls are not trained for patrol work because it is difficult to get them to reliably bite, it also is just as difficult to get them to release once they do bite.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

voodoolamb said:


> Regardless of their individual reasons or whether you understand/agree with them...
> 
> Pit bulls have a LOT of fans out there. Many people WANT pit bulls as pets. Many people want to save the condemned dogs. Many "dog experts" make public stances against breed bans.
> 
> Look at all the major organizations that have spoken against this type of legislation.
> 
> Places that have enacted breed bans have lifted them. States have passed laws prohibiting municipalities from enacting breed bans.
> 
> Breed bans don't seem to be working. Fatalities by dog maulings keep happening.
> 
> So what's the solution?


I don't have the solution. And with all due respect, and you know I sincerely mean that, I think you and I both know that promoting Pit Bull propaganda not only hurts the breed more, but it also gets people and pets killed. Rinse and repeat.

I think the Pit Bull's plight can be ameliorated, and much of the carnage diminished when people stop promoting the Pit Bull for something it is not.


----------



## MadLab

> “A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal.”


 quote Oscar Wilde

Pictures painted Pro and anti Pit bull are polarised unrealistic views imo.

A Pit Bull is a dog and it is being handled incorrectly, for that type of dog, by a percentage of people in your society.

But at the end of the day, Dogs do little harm statistically compared to real killers like Obesity, Car accidents, Poverty, Diseases, Tobacco, Alcohol, etc etc. That reality is hard for some to grasp.

It's just some people grab onto an idea, Like a pit bull is a blood thirsty animal and they base their theories around that. Someone else can say they are fluffy Teddy bears.


----------



## llombardo

voodoolamb said:


> Regardless of their individual reasons or whether you understand/agree with them...
> 
> Pit bulls have a LOT of fans out there. Many people WANT pit bulls as pets. Many people want to save the condemned dogs. Many "dog experts" make public stances against breed bans.
> 
> Look at all the major organizations that have spoken against this type of legislation.
> 
> Places that have enacted breed bans have lifted them. States have passed laws prohibiting municipalities from enacting breed bans.
> 
> Breed bans don't seem to be working. Fatalities by dog maulings keep happening.
> 
> So what's the solution?


They have a website that documents each case a person was killed by a dog(most are pit bulls). There seems to be a certain victim if you read all the cases(with very few exceptions)

-victims were either very young or old
-lots of the attacks were two or more dogs(pack mentality)
-most dogs were male
-most attacks took place while victim was alone(a lot of parents that turned their back for a minute kind of things)
-it seems the dogs looked at the victims as prey(with smaller kids running, screaming, etc-I can see see this)
-not many witnesses as to how it why the attack happened, but lots of people got to see the dogs in action and nothing they did stopped them(lots were shot by police to stop the attack)
-quite a few happened on the dogs property but not the victims(they were visiting)


So I think the key with young kids is that they should always be supervised(this is just common sense with any breed). There is no turning your back for a second. Another thing is that this breed is known for female/female aggression, so people get males which they put together, it seems that the males form a pack mentality and to be honest one pit bull attacking is scary, but two or three would be horrific(in fact the two that tried going for my dogs were both male). They seem to feed off each other.

Almost every kid killed would most likely be alive today if the parents did not leave them alone with the dog. Geez one kid was jumping on a trampoline and the dog dragged him off. I can hear the squeaking of the trampoline and then the motion of the kid--that is pure prey drive.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Almost every kid killed by dogs would most likely be alive today if the breed had not been a Pit Bull. People turn their backs all the time for a second with other breeds, and with all those other breeds COMBINED, the child fatality stats still show that all other breeds COMBINED can't even remotely compare to the child fatality stats of Pit Bulls and all those breeds combined constitute @ 94% of the dogs owned. The disproportionate percentages are astounding.

To victim blame either the child or the parents, when the facts show that one breed is the common thread, not parents turning their backs for a moment is misleading and presents a false positive image which endangers the lives of children. The truth is that the stats demonstrate that the Pit Bull is the number one breed to kill family children at a disproportionately high rate when compared to all other breeds combined.

Last night somebody PM'd some links to me to multiple threads on this forum regarding members who lives have been impacted by Pit Bull attacks. The numbers were staggering and the disrespect, and blame, laid on these forum members by those who promote a false Pit Bull image is alarming.


----------



## LuvShepherds

voodoolamb said:


> Regardless of their individual reasons or whether you understand/agree with them...
> 
> Pit bulls have a LOT of fans out there. Many people WANT pit bulls as pets. Many people want to save the condemned dogs. Many "dog experts" make public stances against breed bans.
> 
> Look at all the major organizations that have spoken against this type of legislation.
> 
> Places that have enacted breed bans have lifted them. States have passed laws prohibiting municipalities from enacting breed bans.
> 
> Breed bans don't seem to be working. Fatalities by dog maulings keep happening.
> 
> So what's the solution?


The solution is to educate dog owners so they know what they have and the potential, and don't end up with a danger later from misinformation or mishandling like my friend's daughter who got a pound dog because they have always had rescues and ended up with the wrong dog for her lifestyle and abilities. She has no idea what she is doing but thinks of herself as a "dog person." She works full time, lives in an apartment so the only exercise the dog gets is on weekends. And now she is afraid to take him out anywhere. I can't even push too hard, because her mother, who is a good friend, has an "a dog is a dog" attitude. "We have always done it this way." That doesn't work with a Pitt bull. If this young woman knew before she got the dog what would happen, she would not have taken it, but now she is attached to a dog that is always going to be dangerous.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

LuvShepherds said:


> I recently left a public area with my dog when a woman's on-leash pit started staring my dog down from a distance and would not look away. Wherever I took the dog, hers tracked us. The woman was oblivious. I was going to put my dog in the car and go back to talk to her, but she left before I could. The dog may have been trained and well behaved, but that unwavering stare and the dog's posture were enough to scare me off. I don't know enough about this ban to know if it will work the way it's intended, but most people should not own pits.
> 
> I may have mentioned a friend's adult daughter got one from a shelter that is very well behaved with people. The first time she took the dog on a walk, he pulled away without provocation and ripped apart another dog's skin on the side. The woman was naturally upset, offered to pay the vet bill, but was insulted at how angry the man was with her. I asked my friend, what did she expect? She said, we've have always owned rescues. Not much of an answer. My take away is that even people with dog experience have no business owning this breed unless they know what they are doing and take responsibility to make sure this never ever happens. No biting, no escaping from yards, no mauling.


I train outside a dog park sometimes. Once someone showed up with two completely out of control pit type dogs. The dog park has a 4' fence. They began running the fence line and eyeing my dog with a very chilling predatory stare. We immediately walked away in a pretend calm manner and I got him in my truck as fast as i could without seeming like we were fleeing. They could have come over that fence in a heartbeat.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Almost every kid killed by dogs would most likely be alive today if the breed had not been a Pit Bull. People turn their backs all the time for a second with other breeds, and with all those other breeds COMBINED, the child fatality stats still show that all other breeds COMBINED can't even remotely compare to the child fatality stats of Pit Bulls and all those breeds combined constitute @ 94% of the dogs owned. The disproportionate percentages are astounding.
> 
> To victim blame either the child or the parents, when the facts show that one breed is the common thread, not parents turning their backs for a moment is misleading and presents a false positive image which endangers the lives of children. The truth is that the stats demonstrate that the Pit Bull is the number one breed to kill family children at a disproportionately high rate when compared to all other breeds combined.
> 
> Last night somebody PM'd some links to me to multiple threads on this forum regarding members who lives have been impacted by Pit Bull attacks. The numbers were staggering and the disrespect, and blame, laid on these forum members by those who promote a false Pit Bull image is alarming.



I'm not arguing with you anymore. You have your opinion I have mine. I'm not blaming the victim, I'm blaming the parents. 

I can't tell you how many times people say over and over and over that kids should not be left unattended with dogs, any dogs, so I don't want to hear that when it fits the story that it should be able to be done. 

Really, who leaves a dog with a high prey drive alone with kids that are running around, jumping on trampolines--continually on the move? No one with some common sense. 

Common sense can go a long way and I stand by the fact that if the parents had some in most of these cases the kids would be alive. 

As I have said before I was attacked by two pit bulls while I had two of my dogs out. There is no doubt that they wanted to kill my dogs. I do not hate the breed for it, I do blame the owner for not having better control. I'm very diligent when I'm around pit bulls, I'm very aware of what they are capable of, but I've met way more that aren't an issue. I can't say kill them all because 1% of the population might be bad. It's pretty sad when a dog gets a death penalty for killing a kid and when parents do the very same thing in sometimes a much worse way they get to live their lives out and we the taxpayers pay for it. It all comes down to human error. There is no room for error when it means life or death.


----------



## LuvShepherds

Thecowboysgirl said:


> I train outside a dog park sometimes. Once someone showed up with two completely out of control pit type dogs. The dog park has a 4' fence. They began running the fence line and eyeing my dog with a very chilling predatory stare. We immediately walked away in a pretend calm manner and I got him in my truck as fast as i could without seeming like we were fleeing. They could have come over that fence in a heartbeat.


I agree. I'm reluctant to use dog parks, although ours is well policed by other dog owners. They made me feel so defensive that my dog isn't neutered, I decided not to come back. I wasn't in a dog park, that was a public picnic area near a hiking trail. The woman and her dog were staked out near the entrance, so there was no way to get into the area without walking past them.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

dogma13 said:


> Without recounting every detail, this is exactly what has happened in thge OB class we're currently attending.We've been to three classes,the last two we were working off leash and the pit attacked a dog each time he was unleashed and saw his opportunity.The owner is a very nice guy and the dog is a sweetheart.But genetics.
> 
> So yeah,if he's not kept on a flexi from now on we're out of there.


I wouldn't be in the room with it on a flexi either, just saying. For that matter why is the trainer allowing this dog to be offleash when it is attacking dogs?

I have decided to not ever go back to the rally practice drop in class where the rottweiler charged my pup. It could have gone so differently in an instant, that dog is a regular there and I just am not taking a risk like that. 

If I really liked the trainer I might have had a heart to heart with her about it. There are some things I do like about her but in some ways I think she is too hard on the dogs and my boy is SUCH a do-gooder. He tries so hard to get it right, whatever I am asking of him...I just don't like it when the attitutude becomes do it perfect or else when I know he is trying and any mistake or sloppiness is almost certainly my fault for a less than stellar foundation because I have not done competition obedience before.


----------



## Sabis mom

I want to clarify a couple of things here.
For those who don't know Montreal is a city. Just a city. The ban is in the city not province wide.
The fatality victim that sparked this was a 55 year old woman. That is a similar age to many of us members who routinely deal with wild child GSDs. she was in her own yard.
The SPCA has stated that they will not be destroying healthy adoptable dogs.
Pitbull owners under the new law must be 18 or older, and have no criminal record. This is good.
The dogs must be altered and microchipped. This is good. Not a fan of microchips but it gives the city someone to charge if the dog does harm. Information must be kept up to date.
The leash and muzzle apply when the dogs are off their property and they must be securely fenced on their property. This is good.

Hope that clears things up.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> I'm not arguing with you anymore. You have your opinion I have mine. I'm not blaming the victim, I'm blaming the parents.
> 
> I can't tell you how many times people say over and over and over that kids should not be left unattended with dogs, any dogs, so I don't want to hear that when it fits the story that it should be able to be done.
> 
> Really, who leaves a dog with a high prey drive alone with kids that are running around, jumping on trampolines--continually on the move? No one with some common sense.
> 
> Common sense can go a long way and I stand by the fact that if the parents had some in most of these cases the kids would be alive.
> 
> As I have said before I was attacked by two pit bulls while I had two of my dogs out. There is no doubt that they wanted to kill my dogs. I do not hate the breed for it, I do blame the owner for not having better control. I'm very diligent when I'm around pit bulls, I'm very aware of what they are capable of, but I've met way more that aren't an issue. I can't say kill them all because 1% of the population might be bad. It's pretty sad when a dog gets a death penalty for killing a kid and when parents do the very same thing in sometimes a much worse way they get to live their lives out and we the taxpayers pay for it. It all comes down to human error. There is no room for error when it means life or death.


As I have said repeatedly, I was never arguing with anybody. I merely presented documented facts throughout this thread to refute any misleading information that could lead to child or pet endangerment. 

You think that parents who lost their child to the jaws of a Pit Bull aren't victims? My friend lost his toddler to his babysitter's Pit Bulls. He said he believed everything that resounds with your beliefs. His toddler was not left alone, he was ripped from her arms. His son was nearly decapitated. He told me that if he knew then what he knows now about Pit Bulls, he would have done everything differently. You think this man is not a victim?

You don't want to hear that a parent should not be able to make a quick trip to the bathroom or get a glass of water because the family pet, usually a Pit, might kill their children? That is a message that needs shouted from the mountain tops. 

Common sense is not owning or allowing children near the #1 breed most likely to kill them. There are way too many popular breeds that don't kill family children on a regular basis available as pets.

Please don't direct to me whacky comments like Pit Bulls should all be killed as if to create the illusion that I even thought, let alone suggested. I leave that to your ilk.

Pit Bulls are supposed to be game, fight to the finish, and be dog and animal aggressive. Are you saying that only 1% of the breed meets the standard? Some how I find that extremely unbelievable. My experiences have been that maybe 1% don't want to kill other peoples' pets if given opportunity.

You think a dog that mauled a child to death should not get the death penalty because parents who kill their children don't? Parents might kill their children in a worse manner? What can be worse than a sustained Pit Bull attack on a child? 

Dogs are not people and have NO entitlement to the rights of humans. Any dog that deliberately kills a child does not belong in society so that it may kill another. 

I will agree it comes down to human error, such as people who spread Pit Bull propaganda, especially when they know the dangers of the breed, or ignoring facts such as Pit Bulls, despite being only 6% of dogs owned were responsible for 82% of dog bite related fatalities in 2015, or human error such as legislators in ignoring all the stats and facts and failing to implement measures to ensure the safety of innocent people and pets.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

Sabis mom said:


> I want to clarify a couple of things here.
> For those who don't know Montreal is a city. Just a city. The ban is in the city not province wide.
> The fatality victim that sparked this was a 55 year old woman. That is a similar age to many of us members who routinely deal with wild child GSDs. she was in her own yard.
> The SPCA has stated that they will not be destroying healthy adoptable dogs.
> Pitbull owners under the new law must be 18 or older, and have no criminal record. This is good.
> The dogs must be altered and microchipped. This is good. Not a fan of microchips but it gives the city someone to charge if the dog does harm. Information must be kept up to date.
> The leash and muzzle apply when the dogs are off their property and they must be securely fenced on their property. This is good.
> 
> Hope that clears things up.


None of that freaks me out too much. If it is true, the part about ALL dogs having to be speutered and ability to enter homes without a warrant is 't cool...unless we are talking something like probable cuase, such as police ir AC saw a pit bull on your property breaking the rules from the street and now they are entering to sieze the dog.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

MineAreWorkingline said:


> As I have said repeatedly, I was never arguing with anybody. I merely presented documented facts throughout this thread to refute any misleading information that could lead to child or pet endangerment.
> 
> You think that parents who lost their child to the jaws of a Pit Bull aren't victims? My friend lost his toddler to his babysitter's Pit Bulls. He said he believed everything that resounds with your beliefs. His toddler was not left alone, he was ripped from her arms. His son was nearly decapitated. He told me that if he knew then what he knows now about Pit Bulls, he would have done everything differently. You think this man is not a victim?
> 
> You don't want to hear that a parent should not be able to make a quick trip to the bathroom or get a glass of water because the family pet, usually a Pit, might kill their children? That is a message that needs shouted from the mountain tops.
> 
> Common sense is not owning or allowing children near the #1 breed most likely to kill them. There are way too many popular breeds that don't kill family children on a regular basis available as pets.
> 
> Please don't direct to me whacky comments like Pit Bulls should all be killed as if to create the illusion that I even thought, let alone suggested. I leave that to your ilk.
> 
> Pit Bulls are supposed to be game, fight to the finish, and be dog and animal aggressive. Are you saying that only 1% of the breed meets the standard? Some how I find that extremely unbelievable. My experiences have been that maybe 1% don't want to kill other peoples' pets if given opportunity.
> 
> You think a dog that mauled a child to death should not get the death penalty because parents who kill their children don't? Parents might kill their children in a worse manner? What can be worse than a sustained Pit Bull attack on a child?
> 
> Dogs are not people and have NO entitlement to the rights of humans. Any dog that deliberately kills a child does not belong in society so that it may kill another.
> 
> I will agree it comes down to human error, such as people who spread Pit Bull propaganda, especially when they know the dangers of the breed, or ignoring facts such as Pit Bulls, despite being only 6% of dogs owned were responsible for 82% of dog bite related fatalities in 2015, or human error such as legislators in ignoring all the stats and facts and failing to implement measures to ensure the safety of innocent people and pets.


MAWL are you talking about the boy Daxton who was killed? What a tragedy. I actually just linked their website into a thread of pitbull propaganda about nanny dogs hoping ppl might educate themselves.


----------



## dogma13

Thecowboysgirl said:


> I wouldn't be in the room with it on a flexi either, just saying. For that matter why is the trainer allowing this dog to be offleash when it is attacking dogs?
> 
> I have decided to not ever go back to the rally practice drop in class where the rottweiler charged my pup. It could have gone so differently in an instant, that dog is a regular there and I just am not taking a risk like that.
> 
> If I really liked the trainer I might have had a heart to heart with her about it. There are some things I do like about her but in some ways I think she is too hard on the dogs and my boy is SUCH a do-gooder. He tries so hard to get it right, whatever I am asking of him...I just don't like it when the attitutude becomes do it perfect or else when I know he is trying and any mistake or sloppiness is almost certainly my fault for a less than stellar foundation because I have not done competition obedience before.


I really like this trainer.She raises,trains,and trials Terves.She has a wealth of knowledge about the nuances of trialing in OB and tracking.But she apparently isn't up to speed on pits.I plan on having a discussion with her and the owner tomorrow before class.The owner is such a nice guy,but oblivious to the way Duke is staring down other dogs.He was actually in tears after last week's incident.
Our trainer is strict too,on us handlers.It's irritating but it actually does drive me to strive for perfection.When we practice at home I'm saying in my mind(Yeah,criticize this lady!!)Operant conditioning,lol!When I'm feeling hesitant at class is when Samson screws up,so yeah,I know what you mean.
Sorry for going off topic!


----------



## Sabis mom

Thecowboysgirl said:


> None of that freaks me out too much. If it is true, the part about ALL dogs having to be speutered and ability to enter homes without a warrant is 't cool...unless we are talking something like probable cuase, such as police ir AC saw a pit bull on your property breaking the rules from the street and now they are entering to sieze the dog.


Speutering applies only to pitbulls and they can enter to enforce. So probable cause. Also the license fee for pits will be $150. Other dog licenses stay the same.
All this hysteria is foolishness. Media propaganda perpetrated by pitbull fanatics to try and sway owners of other types to support the cause.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Thecowboysgirl said:


> MAWL are you talking about the boy Daxton who was killed? What a tragedy. I actually just linked their website into a thread of pitbull propaganda about nanny dogs hoping ppl might educate themselves.


Yes, Jeff is a friend of mine.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Sabis mom said:


> Speutering applies only to pitbulls and they can enter to enforce. So probable cause. Also the license fee for pits will be $150. Other dog licenses stay the same.
> All this hysteria is foolishness. Media propaganda perpetrated by pitbull fanatics to try and sway owners of other types to support the cause.


From the link I listed earlier, it says all dogs and cats must be speutered and microchipped. It stated that there was a section to the new law that applied to all dogs and cats, and then there was a section that was breed specific. Anyhow, I have not yet found a link to the actual law and its wording.


----------



## Sabis mom

I can't link for some reason. Montreal Gazette. 
They will require all pets speutered by 2019. However city states on their page that this is due to 20 percent licensing rate and may be revisited or reworded.
Again people need to understand that the province of Quebec is well known for being the puppymill hotspot in Canada and has been very remiss in updating and enforcing its animal protection and animal control laws.
I suspect that if pet owners smarten up this new bylaw will be reworded.


----------



## cloudpump

llombardo said:


> I'm not arguing with you anymore. You have your opinion I have mine. I'm not blaming the victim, I'm blaming the parents.
> 
> I can't tell you how many times people say over and over and over that kids should not be left unattended with dogs, any dogs, so I don't want to hear that when it fits the story that it should be able to be done.
> 
> Really, who leaves a dog with a high prey drive alone with kids that are running around, jumping on trampolines--continually on the move? No one with some common sense.
> 
> Common sense can go a long way and I stand by the fact that if the parents had some in most of these cases the kids would be alive.
> 
> As I have said before I was attacked by two pit bulls while I had two of my dogs out. There is no doubt that they wanted to kill my dogs. I do not hate the breed for it, I do blame the owner for not having better control. I'm very diligent when I'm around pit bulls, I'm very aware of what they are capable of, but I've met way more that aren't an issue. I can't say kill them all because 1% of the population might be bad. It's pretty sad when a dog gets a death penalty for killing a kid and when parents do the very same thing in sometimes a much worse way they get to live their lives out and we the taxpayers pay for it. It all comes down to human error. There is no room for error when it means life or death.


Ive had a boxer (bully breed), my parents had an English bulldog. I've got friends with out bulls. I am not a bully breed hater. I hate over bred dogs that kill and maim. Dogs that people get to prove how tough they are, or to prove how safe and gentle they are. Dogs that are picked up from a shelter with little, po, or no training. 
Until this ends, something needs to be done. 
If this breeds owners are not doing something, the government needs to start policing. Unfortunately, someone else is ruining it. Its not people on here. Its owner's like this: Rescued Greyhound mauled while out for a walk in Newark, Wayne County | WHAM
Her goal in owning this dog was to prove how safe they were. I know her. She's a coworker. 
You cannot blame all parents. What about those parents who's children were attacked while they were going for a walk: Detroit mom testifies about pit bull attack that killed son, 4
No parent can prevent tragedies. No parent intentionally puts their child in harm's way. On a whole. 
Its a shame that there is such a push to show how amazing these dogs are. Its a shame people will lose sight of the tragedies that have happened and will unite to claim an animal as a victim. 

Maybe BSL is not the best answer. But I don't see anyone doing anything about uniting pit bull owners or dog owners for that matter to work with the government, or non owning dog majority to improve safety or prevent things from happening. Maybe there needs to be a larger push to teach people, not all dogs are equal. Maybe to own a dog you need mandatory proof of responsible ownership, and not just vaccination records. There's a lot of different things that could be done. Unfortunately people won't admit to certain breeds being a danger. 
I feel that different views are what's nice on here. Passionate people lead to heated disagreements.


----------



## llombardo

I don't disagree that laws and education are needed about the breed. How do you add more laws when the ones that are on the books don't get enforced? I know of two local towns with pit bull bans and neither torn has ever enforced it. What happens is that these laws affect the good dog owners more do then the bad ones. Do you really think that the gangbangers that use these dogs for fighting are going to care or follow the law? Chances are if you break up a dog fighting ring, you will find a bunch of other stuff, like drugs and illegal weapons. Do why does the government not focus on that? It's all about the money. These very same people breed their dogs for the money, they don't care that there are kids in the house the dog goes to as long as they get theirs. 

The answer is pretty simple. If they want to end this vicious cycle of all these dogs ending up in shelters and then into unsuspecting hands, get the gangs and drugs cleared up. That is exactly where it is starting. 

This breed is not bred to be HA at all, so there is something seriously wrong if they are killing people. 

All the good people that want to do right will follow these laws, but there are way to many bad people out there to make it work. They have to come at it from all ends--if they are serious about enforcing the laws.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

My theory is: no they are not bred for human aggression. But plenty of other dogs like labs aren't either and they also bite people. It is just that when a pit bull bites people....it isn't that unusual that it is a catastrophic mauling or even death, maybe the initial bite triggers that instinct to fight to the death. 

And I do believe the dogmen,...the dog fighters, would sometimes overlook human aggresion in an incredible fighter. And furthermore...those dogmen aren't usually snuggled up in the couch having a relationship with the dogs, they are chained outside with a 55 gal drum for shelter, they aren't handling them the way pet owners handle and live with their own dogs.

I think there were some (underground) famous fighting dogs who were known as "man eaters" and I am sure they were bred a lot due to their success in the pit.


----------



## Julian G

I have fostered dogs, most dogs in shelters around here are pitbulls. They are a victim of poor backyard breeding. Many of the people who have these can't even take care of themselves and their family let alone a dog.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

cloudpump said:


> Ive had a boxer (bully breed), my parents had an English bulldog. I've got friends with out bulls. I am not a bully breed hater. I hate over bred dogs that kill and maim. Dogs that people get to prove how tough they are, or to prove how safe and gentle they are. Dogs that are picked up from a shelter with little, po, or no training.
> Until this ends, something needs to be done.
> If this breeds owners are not doing something, the government needs to start policing. Unfortunately, someone else is ruining it. Its not people on here. Its owner's like this: Rescued Greyhound mauled while out for a walk in Newark, Wayne County | WHAM
> Her goal in owning this dog was to prove how safe they were. I know her. She's a coworker.
> You cannot blame all parents. What about those parents who's children were attacked while they were going for a walk: Detroit mom testifies about pit bull attack that killed son, 4
> No parent can prevent tragedies. No parent intentionally puts their child in harm's way. On a whole.
> Its a shame that there is such a push to show how amazing these dogs are. Its a shame people will lose sight of the tragedies that have happened and will unite to claim an animal as a victim.
> 
> Maybe BSL is not the best answer. But I don't see anyone doing anything about uniting pit bull owners or dog owners for that matter to work with the government, or non owning dog majority to improve safety or prevent things from happening. Maybe there needs to be a larger push to teach people, not all dogs are equal. Maybe to own a dog you need mandatory proof of responsible ownership, and not just vaccination records. There's a lot of different things that could be done. Unfortunately people won't admit to certain breeds being a danger.
> I feel that different views are what's nice on here. Passionate people lead to heated disagreements.


People like to blame Pit Bull attacks on dog fighting. It needs to be understood that Pit Bulls are chosen for dog fighting because of their inherent dog aggression. That means that dog fighters know what they have and also value their prized fighters. It is the breed, not the dog fighter. The only attacks I am aware of by Pit Bulls used for dog fighting are those that were "rescued", "rehabbed" and "rehomed" into family communities. It seems that the dog fighters aren't the problem but those that keep chanting it is not the Pit Bull.

The Pit Bull problem does not start and end with fatalities but their is a serious problem as well with extreme attacks resulting in the most severe of injuries such as loss of larged chunks of flesh removed resembling bites of sharks and / or complete removal of limbs. A great many of these extreme attacks are the direct result of the Pit Bull redirecting from its animal victim to the owner that is trying to save their pets. It is no small wonder that so many people get hurt when there are so many Pit Bull attacks on animals every day.


----------



## llombardo

In the City of Chicago, dog fighting is the norm on a weekly basis. If the dog loses, they let that dog run the streets all bloodied up until it dies from its wounds, gets hit or picked up by animal control. This is the norm every Friday night. People call the police when the dog is running the streets, but those same people won't call and turn anyone in when the fights are happening because that can get you dead. They are ruthless, they have no issueS putting a bullet in the dogs head or yours for turning them in. They are not playing and don't mess with their means of earning money. The dogs are basically tortured from birth and up and trained to fight, if a dog doesn't fight it gets dead--they are real good at tying these dogs to the railroad tracks too. Pit bulls endure a lot of pain, it's really just sad. Nobody steps in to help them, they just hurt them and want them dead because again maybe 1% of the 5 million out there have done damage. Do something about thd people that torture them and use them as fighting dogs. As dog fighting got more popular, so did the breed. It isn't a coincidence.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

No Pit Bull is trained to fight. They are bred and born to fight and are only conditioned to be better fighters. If you could train a Pit to fight, then anybody could be trained to be an Olympic quality competitor. But you can't, and you can't train a Golden Retriever to fight dogs, throw it in a pit with a Pit Bull, and expect it to win. 

That is no different than saying it is all in how you raise and train them. A google search on the genetics of behavior will provide much documentation. 

Fighting Pit Bulls are prized and cherished. An abused dog makes a fearful, shut down dog, not a good pit fighter. It is the non Pit bait animals that suffer horrifically.

Pets endure a lot of pain, especially bait animals. It is really sad. Nobody steps in to help most them most of the time. They just hurt as they are disemboweled, dismembered and sometimes eaten alive by Pit Bulls.

Maybe 1% in 5,000,000 won't attack somebody's pet, as it is what they are bred to do, but you can't base common sense and laws based on the 1%. 

They need to do something about people who falsely present a dog is a dog, it is all in how you raise and train them, who blame Pit owners who believed the propaganda and their Pits attack.

Once again, it is well documented that as dog fighting became illegal, Pit Bull attacks and fatalities escalated. Where they once were rare, now human fatalities occur on an average of once every ten days by Pit Bulls harbored as pets and not used for fighting. It isn't coincidence.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> In the City of Chicago, dog fighting is the norm on a weekly basis. If the dog loses, they let that dog run the streets all bloodied up until it dies from its wounds, gets hit or picked up by animal control. This is the norm every Friday night. People call the police when the dog is running the streets, but those same people won't call and turn anyone in when the fights are happening because that can get you dead. They are ruthless, they have no issueS putting a bullet in the dogs head or yours for turning them in. They are not playing and don't mess with their means of earning money. The dogs are basically tortured from birth and up and trained to fight, if a dog doesn't fight it gets dead--they are real good at tying these dogs to the railroad tracks too. Pit bulls endure a lot of pain, it's really just sad. Nobody steps in to help them, they just hurt them and want them dead because again maybe 1% of the 5 million out there have done damage. Do something about thd people that torture them and use them as fighting dogs. As dog fighting got more popular, so did the breed. It isn't a coincidence.


Pit Bull dog fighting has been around for over one hundred years and illegal for the past decade or two, depending on the state.

I would love to see one shred of documentation that demonstrates that people and pets were mauled and / or killed in greater numbers then vs after dog fighting became illegal. 

You post it on every Pit Bull thread. I say prove it.


----------



## llombardo

Not all pit bulls will fight. You can call it conditioned I call it trained. The dogs are basically tortured. I can sometimes understand why they might not get past that, yet most of them do.

Taking a dog from birth to fully trained for fighting can take two years. The animals are often acquired from a pound, shelter or adoption agency. Top breeders sell puppies from a successful bloodline for more than $1,000 each. Floyd Boudreaux, considered the biggest figure in dogfighting for several years, sold his dogs for up to $10,000 [Source: The Humane Society of the United States].

"These dogs are not allowed to live normal lives. Instead, they spend their time chained in place, training or fighting. They often live in small cages and in filthy conditions. Handlers use extraordinarily heavy chains to hold dogs in place, frequently adding weights to them, all with the purpose of increasing a dog’s upper-body strength. Dogs are kept close to each other, but just out of reach in order to increase their antagonism.

Professional dogfighters carefully structure training regimens. Food and nutritional intake are meticulously measured. Some trainers give dogs steroid injections and supplements. To build endurance, dogs are forced to run on treadmills and to swim in pools, sometimes for hours. Trainers keep detailed records of their dogs’ exercise and feedings.

To enhance aggressiveness, the animals are frequently beaten and antagonized. They may also be starved. As part of training, handlers will take cats or rabbits, often stolen, and use these animals as “bait.” These bait animals are tied up while the dog is restrained, or they’re put in a small enclosure with the dog. After training with the bait, the handler unchains the dog and allows him to kill it.

Handlers make their dogs tug on hanging objects, like tires, to increase jaw strength. Some handlers file their dogs’ teeth to be as sharp as possible so that maximum damage can be inflicted.

A “roll,” a dog’s first fight, takes place when the dog is around 15 months of age. This test run between two dogs lasts about 10 minutes and allows handlers to measure each animal's demeanor. A dog that’s deemed a non-prospect may be neglected, abandoned or killed."


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Pit Bull dog fighting has been around for over one hundred years and illegal for the past decade or two, depending on the state.
> 
> I would love to see one shred of documentation that demonstrates that people and pets were mauled and / or killed in greater numbers then vs after dog fighting became illegal.
> 
> You post it on every Pit Bull thread. I say prove it.


The proof is in the very numbers you have provided. Dog fighting way back when is nothing like it is today, especially in the City of Chicago. These are your everyday thugs, drug dealers, and gangbanbamgers thst cherish nothing, including life. 

Where do you think that the dogs that are picked up as strays because they didn't fight well enough end up? They end up in shelters where they are adopted out. This is after they are treated so bad by humans. After they are starved, fought and even beat. Then you wonder why they might have a moment where they remember that? 

They are considered a resilient breed but sometimes its to much. 

Get rid of the dog fighting and there will be less strays, less breeding of these dogs(since they breed the ones that are proven to fight)--a lot less pit bulls. And at the same time the streets will be safer because the unsavory characters are now in jail.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

I thought they almost always euthanized a dog that had signs of having been used for fighting. My scientific source for this? Lol... Animal Cops so I may be wrong. Wasn't there even an animal cops Chicago....

Everything you say Llombardo is incredibly sad. Bloodied loser dogs running the streets on Friday night. Dogs tied to train tracks. I am sad for the dogs and for the people. Kids who witness these fights lose empathy for the suffering of others and become more dangerous. The whole thing just breaks my heart.

As for training them to fight or not, that seems like a no brainer to me. Herding dogs still get trained to herd. Breeding produces the characteristics to do well at the intended job or sport....but sometimes there will be duds, GSDs that fail at schutzhund or herding, pits that won't fight, ect. The intent of the breeding is to get the most desireable characteristics that are most easily trained into what the humans want the dog to do.

So I think it is both, just like everything else. The "best" dogs will have the desire and instinct to fight already there or easily brought out, combined with training and encouragement and voila you have created a monster.

Most of us have seen what dogs have been bred for popping up with no encouragement from owners. If what was expressed was something we wanted the dog to do then we shape it, put it on command ect.

Around here there are tons of small rescues, many that haul dogs from the south or NYC to adopt them out to rich yuppies up here. I have absolutely seen pit bulls up for adoption that have been fought. The one that comes to mind stated that she had had professional training and was now rehabilitated but had to be the only dog. And my local shelter had a pit up for adoption that had killed the family cat, which they originally disclosed and later deleted.


----------



## llombardo

Thecowboysgirl said:


> I thought they almost always euthanized a dog that had signs of having been used for fighting. My scientific source for this? Lol... Animal Cops so I may be wrong. Wasn't there even an animal cops Chicago....
> 
> Everything you say Llombardo is incredibly sad. Bloodied loser dogs running the streets on Friday night. Dogs tied to train tracks. I am sad for the dogs and for the people. Kids who witness these fights lose empathy for the suffering of others and become more dangerous. The whole thing just breaks my heart.
> 
> As for training them to fight or not, that seems like a no brainer to me. Herding dogs still get trained to herd. Breeding produces the characteristics to do well at the intended job or sport....but sometimes there will be duds, GSDs that fail at schutzhund or herding, pits that won't fight, ect. The intent of the breeding is to get the most desireable characteristics that are most easily trained into what the humans want the dog to do.
> 
> So I think it is both, just like everything else. The "best" dogs will have the desire and instinct to fight already there or easily brought out, combined with training and encouragement and voila you have created a monster.
> 
> Most of us have seen what dogs have been bred for popping up with no encouragement from owners. If what was expressed was something we wanted the dog to do then we shape it, put it on command ect.
> 
> Around here there are tons of small rescues, many that haul dogs from the south or NYC to adopt them out to rich yuppies up here. I have absolutely seen pit bulls up for adoption that have been fought. The one that comes to mind stated that she had had professional training and was now rehabilitated but had to be the only dog. And my local shelter had a pit up for adoption that had killed the family cat, which they originally disclosed and later deleted.



Is is no different then a liter of GSDs. You might get different drives,one might be a great K9, etc. it's the same thing with pit bulls except they aren't breeders and they will keep "breeding" their dog over and over until they get what they want. Now you have 35 puppies and 2 might be what they are looking for, the rest are placed into homes. And that is only one female, they have multiple females. And remember they all have the blood of a good fighting dog..


----------



## llombardo

If you go to the shelter, there are a lot with some kind of battle scars. My sister picks them up routinely in Chicago and calls me in tears. After all these years she can't believe how evil people are. 


BSL is nothing more then a band aide targeting the wrong people. If the government wants to get involved then they need to get to the bottom of the issue.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> Not all pit bulls will fight. You can call it conditioned I call it trained. The dogs are basically tortured. I can sometimes understand why they might not get past that, yet most of them do.
> 
> You can't train a Pit Bull to fight. The fact is that it is genetic. They come out of the box like that. The facts also demonstrate there is an euphoric physical state similar to a runner's high when Pit Bulls fight, i.e., they enjoy it. It has nothing to do with what I call it but everything to do with the reality of fighting Pits.
> 
> Humans have created very specialized dogs through emphasizing desired traits and eliminating unwanted ones. It is no different with the Pit Bull breed. The American Pit Bull Terrier has been “selectively” bred for hundreds of years to fight other dogs. Tia Torres
> 
> “Yeah, but this is a different breed…the power that comes behind the bull dog, pit bull, presa canario, the fighting breed – They have an extra boost, they can go into a zone, they don’t feel the pain anymore. … So if you are trying to create submission in a fighting breed, it’s not going to happen. They would rather die than surrender. If you add pain, it only infuriates them…to them pain is that adrenaline rush, they are looking forward to that, they are addicted to it… That’s why they are such great fighters. Especially with fighting breeds, you’re going to have these explosions over and over because there’s no limits in their brain.” Cesar Milan
> 
> Taking a dog from birth to fully trained for fighting can take two years. The animals are often acquired from a pound, shelter or adoption agency. Top breeders sell puppies from a successful bloodline for more than $1,000 each. Floyd Boudreaux, considered the biggest figure in dogfighting for several years, sold his dogs for up to $10,000 [Source: The Humane Society of the United States].
> 
> Humane organizations are Pit Bull biased and have the blood of children and innocent animals on their hands. Please use unbiased sources so your data can be considered credible.
> 
> "These dogs are not allowed to live normal lives. Instead, they spend their time chained in place, training or fighting. They often live in small cages and in filthy conditions. Handlers use extraordinarily heavy chains to hold dogs in place, frequently adding weights to them, all with the purpose of increasing a dog’s upper-body strength. Dogs are kept close to each other, but just out of reach in order to increase their antagonism.
> 
> The dogs are not allowed to live normal lives according to whose standard? Did it ever occur to you that the purpose of the heavy chain is to ensure public safety?
> 
> Professional dogfighters carefully structure training regimens. Food and nutritional intake are meticulously measured. Some trainers give dogs steroid injections and supplements. To build endurance, dogs are forced to run on treadmills and to swim in pools, sometimes for hours. Trainers keep detailed records of their dogs’ exercise and feedings.
> 
> That is what I have been trying to tell you, fighting Pit Bulls are highly prized and well taken care of. Real fighting Pit Bulls are not given steroids as that would devalue their pups as steroids are not hereditary. Many people even on this forum use treadmills, hiking, biking and swimming, sometimes for hours to get and keep their dogs in shape. The AD endurance test has a dog covering 20 kilometers at a pace of 12-15 km per hour. The same methods are used to get a dog into condition to pass the AD. Are you saying that the AD test is cruel and inhumane?
> 
> To enhance aggressiveness, the animals are frequently beaten and antagonized. They may also be starved. As part of training, handlers will take cats or rabbits, often stolen, and use these animals as “bait.” These bait animals are tied up while the dog is restrained, or they’re put in a small enclosure with the dog. After training with the bait, the handler unchains the dog and allows him to kill it.
> 
> Beating dogs breaks their spirit and creates the opposite effect. A starved dog would be a weak dog incapable of a good fight. I have repeatedly advocated for all the bait animals, not sure why you are telling me about what I have been trying to get through to you.
> 
> Handlers make their dogs tug on hanging objects, like tires, to increase jaw strength. Some handlers file their dogs’ teeth to be as sharp as possible so that maximum damage can be inflicted.
> 
> Nobody makes dogs hang on anything. Pits and many other breeds of dogs enjoy a good game of tug. Pits, unlike other breeds of dogs, are BRED to not let go, and therein lies a huge part of their inherent dangers. Real dog fighters don't file a dog's teeth. Filed teeth is not genetic, cannot be passed on to progeny, and devalues the dog's puppies and is not practice by real dog fighters.
> 
> A “roll,” a dog’s first fight, takes place when the dog is around 15 months of age. This test run between two dogs lasts about 10 minutes and allows handlers to measure each animal's demeanor. A dog that’s deemed a non-prospect may be neglected, abandoned or killed."


What does that have to do with people and pets being killed by Pit Bulls?

I suspect this Pit Bull propaganda's source is an humane society but you are not giving it credit because you know that it would discredit the source of all this misinformation.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> What does that have to do with people and pets being killed by Pit Bulls?
> 
> I suspect this Pit Bull propaganda's source is an humane society but you are not giving it credit because you know that it would discredit the source of all this misinformation.


I have supplied my thoughts on this. When you have multiple females-often 10-20 at a time that have what it takes to fight and these scum know it, they breed them. Like I said maybe 1 in the liter shows signs that it has what it takes to do what they want, meanwhile all other pups with the blood/genes of a fighting dog are placed in homes. It is no different then breeding of other breeds--For example--not all GSDs can be police dogs, protection dogs, herding dogs, etc. every dog in a litter is different. They know what they are looking for. In a mater of 2 months you now have close to 150-200 puppies with maybe a few that have what it takes but all with those genes. 

This is just plain common sense. If you want to research the breed, research the people that are doing these things. A simple walk through the west side of Chicago will open up anyone's eyes. I don't need to read anything about the breed, I have witnessed first hand whst is going on. It's an eye opener.

So stop condemning the breed and condemn the people responsible for making them what they are today. Go after them for cruelty to animals, drug dealing, illegal gambling, weapons and murder.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> The proof is in the very numbers you have provided. Dog fighting way back when is nothing like it is today, especially in the City of Chicago. These are your everyday thugs, drug dealers, and gangbanbamgers thst cherish nothing, including life.
> 
> My numbers prove that Pit Bulls are far safer in the hands of dog fighters who respect what they have than in hands of JQP. My numbers and stats do NOT support your claims. Dog fighting way back was popular and prolific, not like the pockets found today. It seems that thugs, drug dealers and gangbangers aren't the only ones that cherish nothing, including life, especially of children and loved pets.
> 
> Where do you think that the dogs that are picked up as strays because they didn't fight well enough end up? They end up in shelters where they are adopted out. This is after they are treated so bad by humans. After they are starved, fought and even beat. Then you wonder why they might have a moment where they remember that?
> 
> Most dogs that are picked up as strays are either pets left to free roam or abandoned pets. Just because a dog winds up in a shelter does NOT mean that they were treated bad by humans or that they were used in dog fighting. The shelters around here have been a hot bed for abandoned, stray and dumped Pit Bulls for over a decade. I have yet to see one in the shelters that was used locally for dog fighting although it exists here on a small scale. Shelters here are proud to bring fighting Pits here from dog fighting busts down south, those Pits carry dog fighting scars, unlike the strays picked up here.
> 
> They are considered a resilient breed but sometimes its to much.
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Get rid of the dog fighting and there will be less strays, less breeding of these dogs(since they breed the ones that are proven to fight)--a lot less pit bulls. And at the same time the streets will be safer because the unsavory characters are now in jail.


Getting rid of the dog fighting might cause less strays in Chicago, but not nationwide. Every neighborhood needs to assess and address its own needs. We don't have a stray dog problem here, animal control does its job and it has nothing to do with dog fighters. 

You contradict yourself with this post and your last. You stated that Pits are fed steroids and their teeth are filed down, yet you say the breed the winning Pits. A Pit that won because it is on steroids or had its teeth filed cannot pass those qualities on to its progeny. 

I live in the city. There are lots of unsavory characters. Most leave you alone as long as you leave them alone. The same can't be said about their Pit Bulls.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> If you go to the shelter, there are a lot with some kind of battle scars. My sister picks them up routinely in Chicago and calls me in tears. After all these years she can't believe how evil people are.
> 
> 
> BSL is nothing more then a band aide targeting the wrong people. If the government wants to get involved then they need to get to the bottom of the issue.


BSL targets those who recklessly and irresponsibly own Pit Bulls, JQP.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> I have supplied my thoughts on this. When you have multiple females-often 10-20 at a time that have what it takes to fight and these scum know it, they breed them.
> 
> Genetics has been one of MY points.
> 
> Like I said maybe 1 in the liter shows signs that it has what it takes to do what they want, meanwhile all other pups with the blood/genes of a fighting dog are placed in homes.
> 
> Breed dog aggressive dogs to dog aggressive dogs and you are going to get dog aggressive dogs. Maybe one won't fight, but the majority will.
> 
> It is no different then breeding of other breeds--For example--not all GSDs can be police dogs, protection dogs, herding dogs, etc. every dog in a litter is different.
> 
> Every litter is different, but if you breed dogs with a genetic history of high prey drive to dogs with a genetic history of high prey drive, you will get a litter of puppies with varying degrees of prey drive, most will be on the high side, of course there are exceptions.
> 
> They know what they are looking for. In a mater of 2 months you now have close to 150-200 puppies with maybe a few that have what it takes but all with those genes.
> 
> If you breed a game, DA Pit with a history of genetic dog aggression and game to a game DA Pit with a history of dog aggression and game, as real dog fighters do, you are going to get a majority of DA, gamebred Pits. I might be wrong, but I think somebody posted that DA is recessive so if you have two DA adult dogs from DA lines, you have little chance of getting anything but a DA dog. Of course nature is not an exact science and it is not that simplistic.
> 
> This is just plain common sense. If you want to research the breed, research the people that are doing these things. A simple walk through the west side of Chicago will open up anyone's eyes. I don't need to read anything about the breed, I have witnessed first hand whst is going on. It's an eye opener.
> 
> I do talk with the people who are doing these things. I am no stranger to breeders. A simple walk through this country's shelters will open up anybody's eyes to the fact that shelters might be loaded with Pit Bulls but the majority are not carrying the badges of dog fighting. Chicago does not represent the US of A.
> 
> So stop condemning the breed and condemn the people responsible for making them what they are today. Go after them for cruelty to animals, drug dealing, illegal gambling, weapons and murder.


I will never condemn breed stewards for breeding to the standard. Pit Bulls are supposed to be DA and game. I salute breeders who are breeding to the standard so they can hand down to the next generation exemplary specimens on the breed. If you don't like REAL Pit Bulls, don't own one. If you don't like REAL Pit Bulls, create your own breed. If you don't like REAL Pit Bulls, don't present misinformation that misrepresents the breed and endangers innocent people and pets. 

I will not condemn or support any legislation that mandates temperaments on any given breed, including Pit Bulls. I support people who like and want a gamebred DA Pit Bull. It is their business. My problem are the ones that like and want a gamebred DA Pit Bull but want to pretend it is no different than Fifi the Toy Poodle. Those are the dangerous ones to the public, other animals and to the breed itself.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Thecowboysgirl said:


> I thought they almost always euthanized a dog that had signs of having been used for fighting. My scientific source for this? Lol... Animal Cops so I may be wrong. Wasn't there even an animal cops Chicago....


They used to euthanize them. They don't do that anymore.


----------



## WateryTart

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Almost every kid killed by dogs would most likely be alive today if the breed had not been a Pit Bull. People turn their backs all the time for a second with other breeds, and with all those other breeds COMBINED, the child fatality stats still show that all other breeds COMBINED can't even remotely compare to the child fatality stats of Pit Bulls and all those breeds combined constitute @ 94% of the dogs owned. The disproportionate percentages are astounding.
> 
> To victim blame either the child or the parents, when the facts show that one breed is the common thread, not parents turning their backs for a moment is misleading and presents a false positive image which endangers the lives of children. The truth is that the stats demonstrate that the Pit Bull is the number one breed to kill family children at a disproportionately high rate when compared to all other breeds combined.
> 
> Last night somebody PM'd some links to me to multiple threads on this forum regarding members who lives have been impacted by Pit Bull attacks. The numbers were staggering and the disrespect, and blame, laid on these forum members by those who promote a false Pit Bull image is alarming.


You know I'm not a pit fan myself, but I happen to value the freedom of personal choice far more than not having pit bulls around. When push comes to shove, that's where I'll stand.

I am utterly confused as to how a dissenting opinion amounts to alarming levels of disrespect. I've read up to here on the thread. Some people genuinely like pit bulls. How is stating their disagreement with BSL disrespectful? There must be something I'm missing, or else we just (again) fundamentally disagree. To be frank, I find some of your opinions about interpersonal stuff to be completely and utterly baffling, and I'm sure you find mine similarly so. So how on earth is it disrespectful to be a sincere pit bull proponent? I do not get it. I don't want to argue with you but I'll read a response.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

WateryTart said:


> You know I'm not a pit fan myself, but I happen to value the freedom of personal choice far more than not having pit bulls around. When push comes to shove, that's where I'll stand.
> 
> Because of Pit Bulls, peoples' freedom of personal choice has been taken away from them. I am no longer permitted to walk my dogs around my city block, or go to dog parks, or parks, etc., without concern of a dog fighting breed attacking my non fighting dogs. The last two times I tried to walk my dog locally, not only was my dog attacked by Pit Bulls, but I was also attacked in the first incident. I want my freedom of personal choice back, I want the same rights as you. Any solutions?
> 
> I am utterly confused as to how a dissenting opinion amounts to alarming levels of disrespect.
> 
> The alarming disrespect is being shown to the many people on this forum who have had their lives impacted by Pit Bull attacks.
> 
> I've read up to here on the thread. Some people genuinely like pit bulls. How is stating their disagreement with BSL disrespectful?
> 
> I don't know why you are directing that to me. I am not disrespecting anybody on here that disagrees with BSL. That is their business. If fact, I don't see where I have disrespected anybody, but I have seen where victims of Pit Bull attacks have been repeatedly disrespected and devalued.
> 
> There must be something I'm missing, or else we just (again) fundamentally disagree. To be frank, I find some of your opinions about interpersonal stuff to be completely and utterly baffling, and I'm sure you find mine similarly so. So how on earth is it disrespectful to be a sincere pit bull proponent? I do not get it. I don't want to argue with you but I'll read a response.


First of all, I never said that I agree with banning or BSL. I do support Montreal's decision to do what is best for their community. Nobody should die in their own backyard because somebody chose to own a Pit Bull. I could easily add "or any other dog breed" but that would be a bit misleading as it would imply that other dog breeds are trespassing onto other peoples' property and mauling them to death and though I am sure it probably has happened, I don't recall ever hearing of it.

If throughout this thread I have left some people with the impression that I was disrespectful to Pit Bull proponents, I am sorry that I did not get my point across clearly. 

I am disrespectful of Pit Bull propaganda especially when used to disrespect, dismiss and devalue victims of Pit Bulls. I disrespect any misinformation presented by Pit Bull biased sources. There are way too many sources out there, many by Pit Bull proponents, that speak the truth about the breed and even that information is dismissed. I even quoted a few such as Tia Torres and Cesar Milan.

I especially disrespect people who post misinformation that present a false representation of the breed that could result in the loss of life or limb of an innocent victim, both animal and human. 

I feel very bad that you saw so many of my posts as disrespectful of Pit Bull proponents. 

I also feel very bad that you were unable to notice all the disrespect shown to Pit Bull attack victims.

No disrespect intended, but maybe if you went back and cherry picked some comments and read them from a victim's point of view it would give you a different perspective.


----------



## WateryTart

MineAreWorkingline said:


> First of all, I never said that I agree with banning or BSL. I do support Montreal's decision to do what is best for their community. Nobody should die in their own backyard because somebody chose to own a Pit Bull. I could easily add "or any other dog breed" but that would be a bit misleading as it would imply that other dog breeds are trespassing onto other peoples' property and mauling them to death and though I am sure it probably has happened, I don't recall ever hearing of it.
> 
> If throughout this thread I have left some people with the impression that I was disrespectful to Pit Bull proponents, I am sorry that I did not get my point across clearly.
> 
> I am disrespectful of Pit Bull propaganda especially when used to disrespect, dismiss and devalue victims of Pit Bulls. I disrespect any misinformation presented by Pit Bull biased sources. There are way too many sources out there, many by Pit Bull proponents, that speak the truth about the breed and even that information is dismissed. I even quoted a few such as Tia Torres and Cesar Milan.
> 
> I especially disrespect people who post misinformation that present a false representation of the breed that could result in the loss of life or limb of an innocent victim, both animal and human.
> 
> I feel very bad that you saw so many of my posts as disrespectful of Pit Bull proponents.
> 
> I also feel very bad that you were unable to notice all the disrespect shown to Pit Bull attack victims.
> 
> No disrespect intended, but maybe if you went back and cherry picked some comments and read them from a victim's point of view it would give you a different perspective.


Okay, thank you for your response! I just don't see how victims were being treated with disrespect, and frankly still don't. I've read the whole thread at this point. I can get it on an academic level but I can't get there with you past that. 

And I still do not believe that someone's choice of dog breed or type should be legislated, ever, full stop. Period. Done.

I do appreciate you at least putting it out there on an academic level. We'll have to agree to disagree from here on out, because even having read the whole thread and not even being a pit proponent myself - like I don't want to own them, ever - I still come down on the side of this should simply not be legislated. Thank you for responding, though, I appreciate it.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> BSL targets those who recklessly and irresponsibly own Pit Bulls, JQP.


No they don't, those people don't care about laws. They have no problem dealing drugs or killing a person--what makes you think that the law means snything to them?

On top of that they steal pets to use as bait dogs. Another issue. In Chicago they stole a 7 month old GSD, used him as a bait dog, then cut his head off and pulled his canine tooth as a trophy.

They don't care about anything except themselves.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> No they don't, those people don't care about laws. They have no problem dealing drugs or killing a person--what makes you think that the law means snything to them?
> 
> On top of that they steal pets to use as bait dogs. Another issue. In Chicago they stole a 7 month old GSD, used him as a bait dog, then cut his head off and pulled his canine tooth as a trophy.


My comment reference JPQ, John Q Public. I really don't care about thugs, they seldom bother people who aren't pertinent to them and is way off topic.

You have no problem with Pit Bulls mauling and killing this baby German Shepherd? Do you know what it is like to see a German Shepherd puppy in the jaws of a Pit Bull especially when it is yours? Are you speaking from first hand Pit Bull experience?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

WateryTart said:


> Okay, thank you for your response! I just don't see how victims were being treated with disrespect, and frankly still don't. I've read the whole thread at this point. I can get it on an academic level but I can't get there with you past that.
> 
> And I still do not believe that someone's choice of dog breed or type should be legislated, ever, full stop. Period. Done.
> 
> I do appreciate you at least putting it out there on an academic level. We'll have to agree to disagree from here on out, because even having read the whole thread and not even being a pit proponent myself - like I don't want to own them, ever - I still come down on the side of this should simply not be legislated. Thank you for responding, though, I appreciate it.


I do have a couple of questions for you. Do you really think that the parents whose toddler was ripped from the babysitter's arms and was mauled to death, who believed what they had always heard, a Pit Bull was just a dog, it is all in how you raise and train them, poor abused doggies, and because of it, trusted, were not victims of Pit Bull propaganda let alone victims of a Pit Bull attack? 

"This is the first time Jeff sees his son after the savage attack. In the WISN interview, Jeff said that he would never forget how his son looked afterward. "There were unimaginable bruises and bites all over his legs, his arms and his body," he said. If only that was all that was forever seared into the father's mind. In reality, one side of his son's face was entirely ripped off, his skull crushed and one eye dangled from its socket. His wife was not spared this horrific imagery either."

Do you think it was disrespectful to dismiss these parents as being victims as was done on this thread?


----------



## WateryTart

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I do have a couple of questions for you. Do you really think that the parents whose toddler was ripped from the babysitter's arms and was mauled to death, who believed what they had always heard, a Pit Bull was just a dog, it is all in how you raise and train them, poor abused doggies, and because of it, trusted, were not victims of Pit Bull propaganda let alone victims of a Pit Bull attack?
> 
> "This is the first time Jeff sees his son after the savage attack. In the WISN interview, Jeff said that he would never forget how his son looked afterward. "There were unimaginable bruises and bites all over his legs, his arms and his body," he said. If only that was all that was forever seared into the father's mind. In reality, one side of his son's face was entirely ripped off, his skull crushed and one eye dangled from its socket. His wife was not spared this horrific imagery either."
> 
> Do you think it was disrespectful to dismiss these parents as being victims as was done on this thread?


I said I wasn't going to argue with you, and I won't. People have expressed opinions in a discussion space, and that's it. I don't really see how respect enters in as long as they weren't personally attacking each other.

We'll have to just agree to disagree. I do appreciate your response, but I won't discuss this further.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

WateryTart said:


> I said I wasn't going to argue with you, and I won't. People have expressed opinions in a discussion space, and that's it. I don't really see how respect enters in as long as they weren't personally attacking each other.
> 
> We'll have to just agree to disagree. I do appreciate your response, but I won't discuss this further.


??? You were the one that questioned the "alarming disrespect".


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

MAWL I totally understand why you are so passionate about this since you were friends with them. I have read some of the accounts of what was said to some of the mauling victims after the fact, and it is shameful. 

I don't think anyone on this thread means anything near that kind of malice and most, if not all of these people don't have the perspective you do.

Furthermore...I don't even believe the vast majority lf the pro pit people who perpetuate the nanny myths and so on even know it isn't true. 

NOBODY wants someone's child or dog to be mauled...but maybe I missed somethi g important on this thread


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Thecowboysgirl said:


> MAWL I totally understand why you are so passionate about this since you were friends with them. I have read some of the accounts of what was said to some of the mauling victims after the fact, and it is shameful.
> 
> I don't think anyone on this thread means anything near that kind of malice and most, if not all of these people don't have the perspective you do.
> 
> Furthermore...I don't even believe the vast majority lf the pro pit people who perpetuate the nanny myths and so on even know it isn't true.
> 
> NOBODY wants someone's child or dog to be mauled...but maybe I missed somethi g important on this thread


I think those who promote the nanny myth, its how you raise and train them, etc., are the biggest part of the problem. They are the ones who are more responsible than any other factor for the Pit Bull problem.


----------



## WateryTart

MineAreWorkingline said:


> ??? You were the one that questioned the "alarming disrespect".


Yeah, meaning I really did not see what you were getting at. It's just people talking. This is a discussion forum, and expressing opinions is what we do. Dissent does not equal disrespect. That's all.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> My comment reference JPQ, John Q Public. I really don't care about thugs, they seldom bother people who aren't pertinent to them and is way off topic.
> 
> You have no problem with Pit Bulls mauling and killing this baby German Shepherd? Do you know what it is like to see a German Shepherd puppy in the jaws of a Pit Bull especially when it is yours? Are you speaking from first hand Pit Bull experience?


You are reading what you want to read now. It wasn't a dog that killed the GSD, it was human scum. Imagine a human that knows the difference and can kill a dog with their bare hands. You need to care about these thugs because they are a problem. 

You need to wake up and read about these thugs. They would shoot you in a minute because you got in the way. 

I'm starting to realize that you really don't know what goes on on the streets. All of it is connected.

The bottom line is greed.

I have tons of experience with pit bulls and working with police and animal control. I've also dealt with some of the biggest drug dealers in Chicago. We can talk about the pimps later. I've actually been on the street, not hiding behind a computer reading about stuff. And you?


----------



## GatorBytes

Cities with Successful Pit Bull Laws; Data Shows Breed-Specific Laws Work - DogsBite.org


and from the same link is video after video - pit to human, pit to dog, pit to cat, pit to horse attacks...see below
Graphic Dog Attack Videos - DogsBite.org


and more
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-victim-videos.php


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> You are reading what you want to read now. It wasn't a dog that killed the GSD, it was human scum. Imagine a human that knows the difference and can kill a dog with their bare hands. You need to care about these thugs because they are a problem.
> 
> What does that have to do with Montreal's ban or Pit Bulls? Way off topic
> 
> You need to wake up and read about these thugs. They would shoot you in a minute because you got in the way.
> 
> I live in the city, have all of my life, I am very aware of what goes on. Way off topic.
> 
> I'm starting to realize that you really don't know what goes on on the streets. All of it is connected.
> 
> What does your speculation about _*what I know about my life and where I live*_ have to do with Pit Bulls or Montreal's ban? I find that comment a personal attack and very rude and disrespectful. I speculate that you are trying to discredit my comments by making it appear that only you know what happens in the street of the big city and others that live here don't. Rather pompous, no?
> 
> The bottom line is greed.
> 
> The bottom line is people struggle to reconcile beliefs with science, facts and statistics that don't support those beliefs.
> 
> I have tons of experienxe with pit bulls and working with police and animal control.


Then you have eye witnessed numerous, unprovoked Pit Bull attacks? Here is a link to Pit Bulls in Illinois: Pit Bull Attacks and Dogfighting in Illinois


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Then you have eye witnessed numerous, unprovoked Pit Bull attacks? Here is a link to Pit Bulls in Illinois: Pit Bull Attacks and Dogfighting in Illinois


You will never get how it is. This is way deeper then reading about it online. Way deeper.

I stand by BSL will not affect the dog fighting community. Get rid of the dog fighting community and you will see a difference with a lot more then just pit bull attacks.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> You will never get how it is. This is way deeper then reading about it online. Way deeper.
> 
> And you aren't entitled to disrespect me by telling me I will never know how it is. Really, who do you think you are?
> 
> I stand by BSL will not affect the dog fighting community. Get rid of the dog fighting community and you will see a difference with a lot more then just pit bull attacks.


Stand by what you want, you aren't entitled to make disparaging remarks about me "getting" how things are where I live.

You still did not answer my question. 

Let me ask another. You so vehemently defend the breed as a nice doggie that is trained to fight and kill other dogs. With all your experience and all those poor abused Pit Bulls running your streets and in shelters, if you sincerely believe that, why don't you own one, or two?


----------



## Dalko43

MineAreWorkingline said:


> *If the noisy Pit Bull owners would work with the public instead of against, bannings would be unnecessary* and effective BSL could be enacted such as ones that mandate six sided containment for Pit Bulls.


They're are plenty of "noisy" people on both side of this debate. A lot of the "noisy" proponents behind BSL have made very overt attempts to demonize and exaggerate the dangers with certain breeds.




MineAreWorkingline said:


> BSL was NEVER intended to reduce dog bites or Pit Bull bites. Its intent is to reduce fatalities and extreme maulings. I wish people opposed to a banning or BSL would stop promoting that fallacy.


It's not a fallacy. The pitbull's bite statistics were heavily relied upon to push the BSL agenda.

I agree with what was said earlier: hold the owners accountable. BSL doesn't work and also is unfair to all the other owners who are smart and capable enough to properly raise and handle their dogs.

Some dog elitists in here fail to realize that if this ban mentality can be used for one breed, it can be used for others. There have been more than a few maulings by GSD's, and certainly a lot of bites....if you're okay with pitbulls getting banned, then don't cry bloody-murder when these BSL advocates try to do the same thing for GSD's.


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Stand by what you want, you aren't entitled to make disparaging remarks about me "getting" how things are where I live.
> 
> You still did not answer my question.
> 
> Let me ask another. You so vehemently defend the breed as a nice doggie that is trained to fight and kill other dogs. With all your experience and all those poor abused Pit Bulls running your streets and in shelters, if you sincerely believe that, why don't you own one, or two?


First I don't have to own one to defend them. Second I have fostered them without issue. Third I plan on getting one down the road. I do not have a problem with owning one. I can tell you that it will never be left unattended with a child or a small animal like a cat.


----------



## llombardo

GatorBytes said:


> Cities with Successful Pit Bull Laws; Data Shows Breed-Specific Laws Work - DogsBite.org
> 
> 
> and from the same link is video after video - pit to human, pit to dog, pit to cat, pit to horse attacks...see below
> Graphic Dog Attack Videos - DogsBite.org
> 
> 
> and more
> Dog Bite Victim Videos - Pit Bull Victims - DogsBite.org


Let's think about this logically. If the bans are working, why is there an increase in bites and deaths? 

Bans are not going to work unless they enforced for everyone. No one has touched on the bigger issues and why this seems to be happening. How does a breed that is bred to hunt big game and to be dog aggressive go from that to killing people. Get to that reason and everything will come together like a puzzle.


----------



## GypsyGhost

Thoughts from someone who currently owns a pit bull (mix of what, who knows)...

First, let me say that when a dog attacks a human, another dog, cat, rabbit or any other animal, it is a terrible thing. There is no denying that. And I'm not here to argue whether or not BSL works. My opinion is that I personally don't want the government telling me what animals I can own, but that is neither here nor there. 

I tend to believe that the fault lies in irresponsible ownership, and irresponsible promotion of the breed. If shelter and pit bull advocates were honest with people, I can't believe people with small children would be adopting these dogs in droves. People have no idea what they are getting themselves into when they get one of these dogs. I know I didn't. And if they are just reading the breed standard, that doesn't help. Because you know what? I don't think any pit bull type dogs in shelters, or from bybs actually conform to the full standard. You have no idea what type of dogs they come from. Sure, human aggression isn't part of the pit bull standard, but people breeding them don't care about that.

I realize that how I manage my pit bull and how the general public manage theirs varies greatly. I realized very quickly what my girl was capable of. So, she is managed. She is not allowed in the yard unattended. She is never off leash. She is not allowed to get into situatuons where she will be with other dogs (except mine, and even those interactions are closely monitored). I don't introduce her to other dogs. Ever. We don't board her. No one else walks her. We don't take her to crowded places. We don't let her get worked up and in drive. And you better believe that if she ever bit someone, or another animal, or attacked someone in any way, I wouldn't be fighting to save her life. I love her, and I would of course be sad to lose her, but I wouldn't keep a vicious animal alive. Nope. No way.

So how do we get JQP to properly manage their pit bulls? I have no idea. How do we get JQP to not adopt these dogs without fully understanding what they are capable of? Again, no clue. Every day, I see people in my neighborhood with their loose pit bulls in their front yard, and it makes me very angry. Because I own one. And I am sick of being lumped into the same category as these irresponsible people. Of course, I get angry when the vicious chihuahua and the uncontrollable Boston Terrier down the street are loose, too, but that isn't what this thread is about.

All that said, I can see why people want these dogs. They are told over and over again that if you just love them enough, they will be wonderful pets. And you know what? There is some truth to that. Mine is sweet and loving and is the best cuddler in town. But that is just a small part of owning her. She requires constant management and is honestly not something I would ever look for in a dog again. 

I don't know how to solve this problem. Education seems like the obvious answer, but the pit bull advocates are loud and strong in number and don't seem to want to face reality. And the people that do have facts and evidence are either extremely argumentative, or not interested in making real change in the real world. 

And while I agree that this needs to be changed for pit bulls, I think responsible dog ownership, no matter the breed, needs to be more of a thing. People need to have their dogs under control. Period. People need to know WHAT THEY HAVE when they adopt a dog. Period. Education and personally accountability would go a long way here.


----------



## WIBackpacker

MineAreWorkingline said:


> But who is going to catch them running at large? Certainly not me! The one time I tried to find out where a loose Pit lived (a Pit that always fence fought with my dogs), it ran down an alley. I followed in my car. Somebody had thrown clothes and garbage across the alley and had set it on fire. The Pit ran through it. I figured if the Pit can run through it then I could drive through it and so I did. The Pit then cut through an empty lot full of broken glass and who knows what. I drew the line there at how much damage I was willing to risk to my vehicle and stopped pursuit.


I've been doing some more thinking, MineAreWorkingline.

Honestly, if I were in your shoes and needed to drive through flaming piles of trash, risking ruining my vehicle simply to defend my home and look out for my property and family, I would move.

Common citizens should not need to run around acting like Batman. 

If I lived next to a suspected drug dealer, I would move. If I lived next to a suspected pedophile I would move. Look out for yourself. 

I'm a firm supporter of personal choice, so I will not support a blanket ban on a breed. 

If I want to breed poisonous scorpions and snakes in my basement, hang a chainsaw on the living room wall, decorate my Christmas tree with scalpels and keep three pitbulls in my yard, it's my choice. The MOMENT that my choices negatively impact someone else's safety and property, I expect to me prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But if I take care of my own possessions and pursue my hobbies without troubling anyone else, it's my life.


----------



## Dalko43

WIBackpacker said:


> I've been doing some more thinking, MineAreWorkingline.
> 
> Honestly, if I were in your shoes and needed to drive through flaming piles of trash, risking ruining my vehicle simply to defend my home and look out for my property and family, I would move.
> 
> Common citizens should not need to run around acting like Batman.
> 
> If I lived next to a suspected drug dealer, I would move. If I lived next to a suspected pedophile I would move. Look out for yourself.
> 
> I'm a firm supporter of personal choice, so I will not support a blanket ban on a breed.
> 
> If I want to breed poisonous scorpions and snakes in my basement, hang a chainsaw on the living room wall, decorate my Christmas tree with scalpels and keep three pitbulls in my yard, it's my choice. *The MOMENT that my choices negatively impact someone else's safety and property, I expect to me prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But if I take care of my own possessions and pursue my hobbies without troubling anyone else, it's my life.*


Amen! Especially to that last part!


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dalko43 said:


> They're are plenty of "noisy" people on both side of this debate. A lot of the "noisy" proponents behind BSL have made very overt attempts to demonize and exaggerate the dangers with certain breeds.
> 
> Where? I have only seen science, genetics, and real life statistics posted on behalf of public safety. If there are so many, please point one out.
> 
> 
> It's not a fallacy. The pitbull's bite statistics were heavily relied upon to push the BSL agenda.
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> I agree with what was said earlier: hold the owners accountable. BSL doesn't work and also is unfair to all the other owners who are smart and capable enough to properly raise and handle their dogs.
> 
> In the US, BSL has been immensely successful in each and every community where it has been enacted.
> 
> Some dog elitists in here fail to realize that if this ban mentality can be used for one breed, it can be used for others. There have been more than a few maulings by GSD's, and certainly a lot of bites....if you're okay with pitbulls getting banned, then don't cry bloody-murder when these BSL advocates try to do the same thing for GSD's.


There are many people now who are pushing very hard for overly restrictive regulations on all breeds of dogs. I will cry bloody murder when you try to restrict my rights because Pit Bulls are mauling and killing like no other breed known in the history of mankind. In fact, that is one of the main reasons I am so vociferous about the issue, I don't want to pay for what Pit Bulls do.

Maybe those who choose to put blinders on regarding the Pit Bull problem yet are worried about other breeds being unfairly targeted should get active in a viable solution rather than crying bloody murder over legislation geared to protecting the public.

Please don't address my comments any more. I really had enough of you making things up on the Fila thread and I am not interested in defending myself against your delusions.


----------



## WateryTart

WIBackpacker said:


> I've been doing some more thinking, MineAreWorkingline.
> 
> Honestly, if I were in your shoes and needed to drive through flaming piles of trash, risking ruining my vehicle simply to defend my home and look out for my property and family, I would move.
> 
> Common citizens should not need to run around acting like Batman.
> 
> If I lived next to a suspected drug dealer, I would move. If I lived next to a suspected pedophile I would move. Look out for yourself.
> 
> I'm a firm supporter of personal choice, so I will not support a blanket ban on a breed.
> 
> If I want to breed poisonous scorpions and snakes in my basement, hang a chainsaw on the living room wall, decorate my Christmas tree with scalpels and keep three pitbulls in my yard, it's my choice. The MOMENT that my choices negatively impact someone else's safety and property, I expect to me prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But if I take care of my own possessions and pursue my hobbies without troubling anyone else, it's my life.


I am totally coming to your house for Christmas.


----------



## WateryTart

MineAreWorkingline said:


> There are many people now who are pushing very hard for overly restrictive regulations on all breeds of dogs. I will cry bloody murder when you try to restrict my rights because Pit Bulls are mauling and killing like no other breed known in the history of mankind. In fact, that is one of the main reasons I am so vociferous about the issue, I don't want to pay for what Pit Bulls do.
> 
> Maybe those who choose to put blinders on regarding the Pit Bull problem yet are worried about other breeds being unfairly targeted should get active in a viable solution rather than crying bloody murder over legislation geared to protecting the public.
> 
> Please don't address my comments any more. I really had enough of you making things up on the Fila thread and I am not interested in defending myself against your delusions.


To be fair, this IS a public forum. Anyone can address anyone else's comments. You (general) don't get to control that. Just put her on ignore if you don't want to see it.


----------



## Dalko43

MineAreWorkingline said:


> In the US, BSL has been immensely successful in each and every community where it has been enacted.


Care to provide some proof?



MineAreWorkingline said:


> There are many people now who are pushing very hard for overly restrictive regulations on all breeds of dogs. I will cry bloody murder when you try to restrict my rights because *Pit Bulls are mauling and killing like no other breed known in the history of mankind.*


This is what I was referring to when I said people on both sides of the debate are inclined to be "noisy" and exaggerate when making their points. Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## GatorBytes

llombardo said:


> Let's think about this logically. If the bans are working, why is there an increase in bites and deaths?
> 
> .



The links says otherwise


In 2004, the last full year before the ban, there were 984 licensed pit bulls in the city and 168 reported bites. Last year there were 501 pit bulls registered in Toronto, and just 13 bites. That’s right — the number of reported bites went from 168 to 13.


----------



## GatorBytes

GatorBytes said:


> Cities with Successful Pit Bull Laws; Data Shows Breed-Specific Laws Work - DogsBite.org
> 
> 
> and from the same link is video after video - pit to human, pit to dog, pit to cat, pit to horse attacks...see below
> Graphic Dog Attack Videos - DogsBite.org
> 
> 
> and more
> Dog Bite Victim Videos - Pit Bull Victims - DogsBite.org





Dalko43 said:


> *Care to provide some proof?*
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I was referring to when I said people on both sides of the debate are inclined to be "noisy" and exaggerate when making their points. Thank you for proving my point.



Let me help you out MAWL, Dalko, see link in quote please


----------



## karladupler

Such a controversial topic...I feel very bad for all of those families that own one...I still strongly believe that with proper training and owners they can be good dogs such as any type of breed... and at some point I understand people who fears them...they might have a very bad memory of them or just even watching the news...even with that case of the pit that killed a baby in California (don't remember specific city) I mean....I totally blame the person who was in charge of those dogs....tied up on the backyard? Why would you have a dog if he's tied up....who doesn't put time to let your dog the limits when it comes to babies...who doesn't put time to train them....just don't own a dog period. 
Hope people do not get dogs for cruel intentions...it's sad how they abuse them and make them look bad.

Talking about the topic...this girl Lilo she's an American Bully and we are on trial on to keep her or not (meaning we are the right family for her cause....let's say we are PRETTY ACTIVE) so far...she's a freaking angel the person who raised her did an awesome job  the one who's not happy right now is my shepherd...he will stare at me when i give the bully attention he's like...mom...pet meeeee do not pet her haha we will see if she fits with us  but so far with society...Well sometimes they give me bad looks even just with Duke (my shepherd)...on walks if people see us they would go the other side of the street or walk away...with Lilo....oh god....it's even worse is....ridiculous how people see her...not even me...just her....makes sad really really sad...


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

WIBackpacker said:


> I've been doing some more thinking, MineAreWorkingline.
> 
> Honestly, if I were in your shoes and needed to drive through flaming piles of trash, risking ruining my vehicle simply to defend my home and look out for my property and family, I would move.
> 
> I am not alone in this. My community is not alone in this, there are many more. I understand personal responsibility. I can move, but I can't unsee what I have seen or unknow what I know. After my experiences, I could never turn my back on the children and animals living in any community subjected to ill contained Pit Bulls.
> 
> Common citizens should not need to run around acting like Batman.
> 
> If I lived next to a suspected drug dealer, I would move. If I lived next to a suspected pedophile I would move. Look out for yourself.
> 
> I'm a firm supporter of personal choice, so I will not support a blanket ban on a breed.
> 
> If my choices are another child dies or another German Shepherd puppy is mauled, then I don't see choices. Personally, I just want to see Pit Bulls secured on their property, in the hands of an adult when off property, and out of dog parks or anywhere else they would have access to other animals.
> 
> If I want to breed poisonous scorpions and snakes in my basement, hang a chainsaw on the living room wall, decorate my Christmas tree with scalpels and keep three pitbulls in my yard, it's my choice. *The MOMENT that my choices negatively impact someone else's safety and property, I expect to me prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. *But if I take care of my own possessions and pursue my hobbies without troubling anyone else, it's my life.


And the bold is the problem. The laws were written when Pit Bulls were in the responsible hands of dogmen who properly secured them and kept the public safe.

Today's laws don't address the specific inherent problems of Pit Bulls and when the law is broken, there is no prosecution. The Pit lives to kill another pet, and the owner might get $50.00 worth of fines for an unlicensed or unvaccinated dog roaming free. Unlike other breeds, Pit Bulls frequently kill or cause extreme harm with their first attack. The laws need to change to address this. This is the problem.


----------



## GypsyGhost

@karladupler I mean no disrespect with this comment. But it's thinking like yours that is part of the problem here. They are not just like any other dog. Sure, not all bully breeds are bad dogs, but you cannot, I repeat, YOU CANNOT assume they are just like any other dog. That kind of thinking is unsafe. If you keep this dog, I sincerely hope you will do some research into proper management. Thinking that they won't do damage is how we have so many problems in the first place.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

WateryTart said:


> To be fair, this IS a public forum. Anyone can address anyone else's comments. You (general) don't get to control that. Just put her on ignore if you don't want to see it.


Uh, no, this forum has rules. You can't make things up and accuse others of having said them and then expect them to defend the false accusations as if they actually did say them.

That would be like me demanding that you defend your comment about how much you are looking forward to Christmas and Santa Claus coming down the chimney when you never said it.

I am too much of an adult to use the ignore button.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

llombardo said:


> First I don't have to own one to defend them. Second I have fostered them without issue. Third I plan on getting one down the road. I do not have a problem with owning one. I can tell you that it will never be left unattended with a child or a small animal like a cat.


Do you really think that Pit Bulls don't attack adult German Shepherds?

If you have been reading the comments up until now, you would have seen comments on adult GSDs almost losing their life or actually losing a limb due to Pit Bull attacks, both while secured in their own backyards.


----------



## karladupler

GypsyGhost said:


> @karladupler I mean no disrespect with this comment. But it's thinking like yours that is part of the problem here. They are not just like any other dog. Sure, not all bully breeds are bad dogs, but you cannot, I repeat, YOU CANNOT assume they are just like any other dog. That kind of thinking is unsafe. If you keep this dog, I sincerely hope you will do some research into proper management. Thinking that they won't do damage is how we have so many problems in the first place.


Just like german shepherd with a extremely high prey drive...with the WRONG owner how many times they don't have accidents cause they killed another animal saying could be a cat another dog...or just whatever...I almost put in contact a german shepherd owner with a Malinois breeder...find out his german shepherd seriously injured another dog cause his prey drive...give the dog the perfect input...you won't have any problems at all...teach a dog to have self control....you won't have any freaking problem. Freaking happy that i didn't gave this person the contact for the breeder...he can not even handle one dog imagine 2...


----------



## GypsyGhost

karladupler said:


> Just like german shepherd with a extremely high prey drive...with the WRONG owner how many times they don't have accidents cause they killed another animal saying could be a cat another dog...or just whatever...I almost put in contact a german shepherd owner with a Malinois breeder...find out his german shepherd seriously injured another dog cause his prey drive...give the dog the perfect input...you won't have any problems at all...teach a dog to have self control....you won't have any freaking problem. Freaking happy that i didn't gave this person the contact for the breeder...he can not even handle one dog imagine 2...


I have no response for this.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dalko43 said:


> Care to provide some proof?
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I was referring to when I said people on both sides of the debate are inclined to be "noisy" and exaggerate when making their points. Thank you for proving my point.


Where is the exaggeration? That is a well documented fact.

No breed in the history of mankind has ever killed people numbering in the double digits each and every year for over ten years in a row.


----------



## WateryTart

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Uh, no, this forum has rules. You can't make things up and accuse others of having said them and then expect them to defend the false accusations as if they actually did say them.
> 
> That would be like me demanding that you defend your comment about how much you are looking forward to Christmas and Santa Claus coming down the chimney when you never said it.
> 
> I am too much of an adult to use the ignore button.


No, this is a public discussion space. There are rules, but I am not certain that "interpretation by Poster B other than what Poster A intended" is a violation.

An adult is allowed to choose whether to use the ignore button. An adult does not make the protest equivalent to, "Moooooom! She's touching me!" in a public forum.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

GypsyGhost said:


> @karladupler I mean no disrespect with this comment. But it's thinking like yours that is part of the problem here. They are not just like any other dog. Sure, not all bully breeds are bad dogs, but you cannot, I repeat, YOU CANNOT assume they are just like any other dog. That kind of thinking is unsafe. If you keep this dog, I sincerely hope you will do some research into proper management. Thinking that they won't do damage is how we have so many problems in the first place.



Where is the applause button?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

karladupler said:


> Just like german shepherd with a extremely high prey drive...with the WRONG owner how many times they don't have accidents cause they killed another animal saying could be a cat another dog...or just whatever...I almost put in contact a german shepherd owner with a Malinois breeder...find out his german shepherd seriously injured another dog cause his prey drive...give the dog the perfect input...you won't have any problems at all...teach a dog to have self control....you won't have any freaking problem. Freaking happy that i didn't gave this person the contact for the breeder...he can not even handle one dog imagine 2...


Pit Bulls don't just have high prey drive. They are game bred, to fight to the finish without regard to self preservation.


----------



## GatorBytes

Page Title


*"Help! My Pit Bull keeps attacking my other dog!"

*Almost weekly RPB receives emails or frantic calls from people whose Pit Bulls
have attacked their other dog. The story usually
goes like this:

"I have had this Pit Bull since he was a puppy, he is now a year old. He has
suddenly started attacking my other male dog and I don't know what to do
about it. They have always gotten along in the past!......


Pit Bulls tend to show dog-directed aggression.
That means that they have a tendency to be defensive towards or fight with
other dogs. This sort of behavior will often begin to
manifest itself at about a year of age. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later.
But in most Pit Bulls, dog-directed aggression is going to be
at least a minor issue for the guardian to contend with throughout the dog's
life.


In general, RPB does not recommend first time guardians bringing a Pit
Bull into a home that already has other dogs, or adding other dogs to a 
home that has just one dog that happens to be a Pit Bull. If a novice 
chooses to have a Pit Bull in a multi-dog home, it is ESSENTIAL that the dogs 
are kept separated, unless someone is around (and that
means "in the same room") to supervise them, 100% of the time. This goes
whether there has ever been any exhibited dog-directed aggression or not.

It's also imperative to note that some Pit Bulls can never do well with other
dogs unless they are under strict, on-leash control. Does this include
dogs that have been raised with other dogs in the same household? YES! 
Once a dog matures, his whole attitude towards other dogs may change. 
This is why it is important that novice guardians only bring adult, properly 
evaluated Pit Bulls into a home with already-established dogs.

What if you are already having problems with fights?

The first and most important thing you can
do is separate the dogs (at the very least, separate them when you are
not there to watch over them). Next, contact a trainer with experience in the
breed (this is important), and have them assess the situation so that you
can decide what the next, best step is to ensure that your dogs will be 
healthy, happy and safe in their own home.

It is SO important to research your breed before bringing one into your
home. What you may think is the perfect breed for you, may end up being a
disaster *if you have not properly prepared yourself and your home and
family.* Knowledge is your best weapon.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

WateryTart said:


> No, this is a public discussion space. There are rules, but I am not certain that "interpretation by Poster B other than what Poster A intended" is a violation.
> 
> An adult is allowed to choose whether to use the ignore button. An adult does not make the protest equivalent to, "Moooooom! She's touching me!" in a public forum.


Can't agree that one poster can *repeatedly* and blatantly lie about another then expect the that poster to defend the lie. I am not going to look up the rules on this forum, nor interpret them, but let it suffice to say that it does not make for a positive experience. 

An adult choose to ignore comments. An adult does not act like a little monkey covering their eyes, ears, or mouths. We will have to agree to disagree on the ignore button.

Besides this is way off topic.


----------



## WateryTart

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Can't agree that one poster can *repeatedly* and blatantly lie about another then expect the that poster to defend the lie. I am not going to look up the rules on this forum, nor interpret them, but let it suffice to say that it does not make for a positive experience.
> 
> An adult choose to ignore comments. An adult does not act like a little monkey covering their eyes, ears, or mouths. We will have to agree to disagree on the ignore button.
> 
> Besides this is way off topic.


Okay, then. I'll just end this the adult way: I'll quit.


----------



## Dalko43

GatorBytes said:


> Let me help you out MAWL, Dalko, see link in quote please


It should be noted that dogbites.org is one of the biased groups out there, especially when it comes to pitbulls. They are big promoters of pitbull bans. And a lot of the statistics they referenced in that report are nothing more than self-fulfilling prophecies...pitbulls were banned and forced to leave the area (either through owner moves or surrenders) so pitbull bites go down. Lol, why is anyone surprised by that?

The claim that MAWL made was that "BSL has been immensely successful in each and every community where it has been enacted." Has anyone actually confirmed that overall dog bites/attacks have actually decreased in every community with pitbull bans?

MAWL also claimed that "Pit Bulls are mauling and killing like no other breed known in the history of mankind." Again, are we keeping track of dog attacks in other countries? Did we historically keep track of dog attacks in years past? This just doesn't seem like a claim that can be substantiated, and honestly seems more subjective than anything else.

What's interesting is that some of the core studies referenced by anti pitbull groups, like dogbites.org, actually state very explicitly that targeting specific breeds is not the answer:

http://web.archive.org/web/20151116130816/http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf This well-known CDC study concludes that what we consider to be "dangerous" breeds have varied over time and that banning one specific breed will not have a practical long term effect.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24299544 And this one concludes that there have been many factors other than breed that have been behind attacks on humans.

All in all, I think some people point to a few bad cases where a kid or someone gets mauled or killed by a pitbull and then try to pretend that such issues are endemic to our country as a whole. That just isn't the case, this Huffingtonpost article does a good job of putting dog attacks into perspective as well as pointing out the inherent flaws and inaccuracies with pitbull bans:
The Lies, **** Lies and Statistics Behind Dog Bites | Huffington Post


----------



## Dalko43

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Can't agree that one poster can *repeatedly* and blatantly lie about another then expect the that poster to defend the lie. I am not going to look up the rules on this forum, nor interpret them, but let it suffice to say that it does not make for a positive experience.
> 
> An adult choose to ignore comments. An adult does not act like a little monkey covering their eyes, ears, or mouths. We will have to agree to disagree on the ignore button.
> 
> Besides this is way off topic.


MAWL, you're being a bit too dramatic.


----------



## Dalko43

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Do you really think that Pit Bulls don't attack adult German Shepherds?
> 
> If you have been reading the comments up until now, you would have seen comments on adult GSDs almost losing their life or actually losing a limb due to Pit Bull attacks, both while secured in their own backyards.


Why are you stirring the pot like this? Are pitbull attacks on GSD's really that much of a problem? Or are you letting a few internet posts and the random news story get the better of your imagination?


----------



## GatorBytes

I suspect taking pot shots at each other (not defending ones own view) is usually grounds for a thread lock.
Just sayin...if you want to keep the topic alive, which at least we have a topic that has gone on for more then an hr since the new forum look and "like" button took effect...it has been really boring here on this site...


So suck up the ego's and stop the back and forth and quoting and defending...


----------



## Dalko43

GatorBytes said:


> I suspect taking pot shots at each other (not defending ones own view) is usually grounds for a thread lock.
> Just sayin...if you want to keep the topic alive, which at least we have a topic that has gone on for more then an hr since the new forum look and "like" button took effect...it has been really boring here on this site...
> 
> 
> So suck up the ego's and stop the back and forth and quoting and defending...


It's not all ego. There are some very hyperbolic comments being made by MAWL in regards to pitbulls. Such comments add nothing but hysteria and internet myth to the debate. 

If you want to push this thread into a more meaningful direction, please feel free to comment on my response to your earlier post.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dalko43 said:


> MAWL, you're being a bit too dramatic.


How about keeping your off topic personal attacks to yourself? Personal attacks are against the rules.

Somebody like you might even want to try the ignore button. :smile2:


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Do you really think that Pit Bulls don't attack adult German Shepherds?
> 
> If you have been reading the comments up until now, you would have seen comments on adult GSDs almost losing their life or actually losing a limb due to Pit Bull attacks, both while secured in their own backyards.


I'm sure they do. I'm not disputing that this breed can be dog aggressive, not even a little bit. I will say that Tobyns favorite breed to play with and be around is pit bulls and boxers. It does make me nervous, I know it could be a fight from ****. 

In turn GSDs have also killed multiple dogs by shredding them to pieces. 

The law is clear that if a dog bites or kills another dog, it is like property and it goes into a civil suit. 

We are talking about the dogs that move from killing dogs to killing people. all I'm saying there is a reason why and the answer is not condemning the whole breed. 5 million dogs and under 400 deaths. If you look at the number of deaths caused by Rotts or GSDs versus how many are out there--they have a higher percentage of deaths by bites. 

No one is getting to the reason or how it's come to this point. People say genetics play a role, well if you have proven fighting dogs breeding, what does that say? Genetically speaking every dog that is bred within a dog fighting group has those genes. The ones that don't make the cut are tgen put into homes where they might not be used for fighting, but irresponsible owners breed them. Now you have dogs everywhere carrying these genes.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dalko43 said:


> Why are you stirring the pot like this? Are pitbull attacks on GSD's really that much of a problem? Or are you letting a few internet posts and the random news story get the better of your imagination?


Are you saying that I am responsible for all the Pit Bull attacks on German Shepherds in this world? 

Are you once again making things up like on the Fila thread?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

GatorBytes said:


> I suspect taking pot shots at each other (not defending ones own view) is usually grounds for a thread lock.
> Just sayin...if you want to keep the topic alive, which at least we have a topic that has gone on for more then an hr since the new forum look and "like" button took effect...it has been really boring here on this site...
> 
> 
> So suck up the ego's and stop the back and forth and quoting and defending...


He doesn't have any facts or documentation to back up his false accusations.


----------



## WateryTart

Dalko43 said:


> http://web.archive.org/web/20151116130816/http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24299544
> 
> The Lies, **** Lies and Statistics Behind Dog Bites | Huffington Post


On topic, thanks for posting these links. TBH, I put less stock in the Huffington Post for anything other than entertainment (not that I'm accusing them of not being at all credible, but I think they tend to be slanted, so I look for corroboration from another, more reliable source). The CDC and NIH are good. I wish the full text of the NIH article was available.

I've noticed that it can be very difficult to find neutrally written articles on the topic of pit bulls being dangerous. Nearly all of them have an agenda.


----------



## WateryTart

Dalko43 said:


> Why are you stirring the pot like this? Are pitbull attacks on GSD's really that much of a problem? Or are you letting a few internet posts and the random news story get the better of your imagination?


Accusations of pot stirring aside, I'm reading your post as asking, "Are you falling victim to confirmation bias?" Is that a fair translation of your question?


----------



## Dalko43

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Are you saying that I am responsible for all the Pit Bull attacks on German Shepherds in this world?
> 
> Are you once again making things up like on the Fila thread?


MAWL, if you take umbrage to every single instance where someone disagrees with you, then you're not going to have a very fun life.

You stated, and I quote (lest I be accused of lying):


> Do you really think that Pit Bulls don't attack adult German Shepherds?
> 
> If you have been reading the comments up until now, you would have seen comments on adult GSDs almost losing their life or actually losing a limb due to Pit Bull attacks, both while secured in their own backyards.


I've no doubt that pitbulls have attacked GSD's in the past, but why is that anymore deserving of our attention than Husky's, Malamutes, Rottie's, and heck even GSD's attacking other dogs?


----------



## Dalko43

WateryTart said:


> Accusations of pot stirring aside, I'm reading your post as asking, "Are you falling victim to confirmation bias?" Is that a fair translation of your question?


Yes, that was the intent behind my question.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dalko43 said:


> It should be noted that dogbites.org is one of the biased groups out there, especially when it comes to pitbulls. They are big promoters of pitbull bans. And a lot of the statistics they referenced in that report are nothing more than self-fulfilling prophecies...pitbulls were banned and forced to leave the area (either through owner moves or surrenders) so pitbull bites go down. Lol, why is anyone surprised by that?
> 
> Dogbites.org is an all breed dangerous dog site. It is not their fault that so many attacks are by Pit Bulls.
> 
> The claim that MAWL made was that "BSL has been immensely successful in each and every community where it has been enacted." Has anyone actually confirmed that overall dog bites/attacks have actually decreased in every community with pitbull bans?
> 
> Absolutely, just take a look at Aurora CO.
> 
> MAWL also claimed that "Pit Bulls are mauling and killing like no other breed known in the history of mankind." Again, are we keeping track of dog attacks in other countries? Did we historically keep track of dog attacks in years past? This just doesn't seem like a claim that can be substantiated, and honestly seems more subjective than anything else.
> 
> I know extreme attacks and fatalities are tracked in Canada. Historically the US did keep track of dog fatalities. Less casting aspersions and more research would be to your benefit. Google is your friend.
> 
> What's interesting is that some of the core studies referenced by anti pitbull groups, like dogbites.org, actually state very explicitly that targeting specific breeds is not the answer:
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20151116130816/http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf This well-known CDC study concludes that what we consider to be "dangerous" breeds have varied over time and that banning one specific breed will not have a practical long term effect.
> 
> The CDC is not comprised of dog experts or geneticists.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24299544 And this one concludes that there have been many factors other than breed that have been behind attacks on humans.
> 
> "Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)..."
> 
> Cherry pick much? The CDC is entitled to their own opinions like you have referenced but even they had to fess up to the facts.
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20151116...eandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf
> 
> All in all, I think some people point to a few bad cases where a kid or someone gets mauled or killed by a pitbull and then try to pretend that such issues are endemic to our country as a whole. That just isn't the case, this Huffingtonpost article does a good job of putting dog attacks into perspective as well as pointing out the inherent flaws and inaccuracies with pitbull bans:
> The Lies, **** Lies and Statistics Behind Dog Bites | Huffington Post


Huffington Post? They are a Pit Bull advocacy. Can't find any nonbiased sources to substantiate your nice Pit Bull claims?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dalko43 said:


> MAWL, if you take umbrage to every single instance where someone disagrees with you, then you're not going to have a very fun life.
> 
> For the thousandth time on this thread, I could not care less about differing opinions. Please leave my personal life out of your business.
> 
> You stated, and I quote (lest I be accused of lying):
> 
> I've no doubt that pitbulls have attacked GSD's in the past, but why is that anymore deserving of our attention than Husky's, Malamutes, Rottie's, and heck even GSD's attacking other dogs?


Uh... maybe because this is a German Shepherd forum?


----------



## GatorBytes

Pit Bull Advocate Killed By Her Pit Bull - The Dreamin Demon


Her husband, Greg Napora, says the last time he saw 32-year-old Darla Napora was when he was leaving for work. She was sleeping in the bed with their two pit bulls — Gunner, a 2-year-old male and Tazi, a 6-year-old female.
When he returned home at around 12, he found Darla laying on the ground covered in blood with Gunner, also covered in blood, hovering near her body. Napora called 911 and wrestled Gunner into the backyard, receiving some hand injuries in the process. Paramedics tried to save Darla, but she died on the scene.
One neighbor described a horrific scene.



*Greg has forgiven Gunner for taking the life of his wife and his unborn child* and is doing everything he can to get Tazi back..
“They are the most loving animals I have ever had in my life. Whatever happened right now was not the breeds fault,” he said. In fact, the couple loved the pit bulls so much, *Gunner’s ashes will be buried with Darla.*

NOW that is messed up.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

Dalko43 said:


> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24299544 And this one concludes that there have been many factors other than breed that have been behind attacks on humans.


" Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified."

How convenient! Despite knowing the breeds, refusing to divulge the information but you want to use this as a credible source? 

That's like little kids playing " I know something you don't know".


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

Well...as to whether ithe is a myth that pits really commit worse mailings or kill more frequently ect...

I set out to try and find that out maybe....5 years ago? Just out of curiosity. I had no opinion 1 way or the other. I did as much research as I could...including compiling my own data based on search criteria not including the words "pit bull" but dog bit, dog mauling, dog kills owner ect. I am sorry to say I did not organize my research into any format that I could share, it was just a dog nerdy hobby for me.

I also searched high and low for pictures of the offending dogs so I didn't have to take anyone's word for it whether it was a pit or not.

the conclusion I came to is that pits do have characteristic styles of biting, mauling ect. It is different from other dogs and makes perfect sense when you consider what they were bred to do. The other characteristics of the breed, not paying attention to signs of submission from the opponent, high pain tolerance, lack of warning before attack, do make them more dangerous. How much more dangerous? I am not really sure. 

I owned a GSD with the prey drive of a wolf and it was a lot of work protecting him from the world and the world from him. I would not choose to have another dog with those qualities in my life. I wouldn't own a pit bull.

Interestingly, in one huge compilation of dog bite info that I found, what came in #2 behind pit Bulls was not just GSDS but police k9 GSDS. these bites were mostly against children if memory serves.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

GatorBytes said:


> Pit Bull Advocate Killed By Her Pit Bull - The Dreamin Demon
> 
> 
> Her husband, Greg Napora, says the last time he saw 32-year-old Darla Napora was when he was leaving for work. She was sleeping in the bed with their two pit bulls — Gunner, a 2-year-old male and Tazi, a 6-year-old female.
> When he returned home at around 12, he found Darla laying on the ground covered in blood with Gunner, also covered in blood, hovering near her body. Napora called 911 and wrestled Gunner into the backyard, receiving some hand injuries in the process. Paramedics tried to save Darla, but she died on the scene.
> One neighbor described a horrific scene.
> 
> 
> 
> *Greg has forgiven Gunner for taking the life of his wife and his unborn child* and is doing everything he can to get Tazi back..
> “They are the most loving animals I have ever had in my life. Whatever happened right now was not the breeds fault,” he said. In fact, the couple loved the pit bulls so much, *Gunner’s ashes will be buried with Darla.*
> 
> NOW that is messed up.


What is more messed up than that was Pit Bull advocates were circulating all over the internet that Darla and her unborn baby weren't killed by her own Pit Bull but she died when she fell off of a ladder.


----------



## Dalko43

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Dogbites.org is an all breed dangerous dog site. It is not their fault that so many attacks are by Pit Bulls


They do come across as anti pitbull in terms of how they report and what solutions they advocate for.



MineAreWorkingline said:


> Absolutely, just take a look at Aurora CO


That's one city. You said "BSL has been immensely successful _*in each and every*_ community where it has been enacted." Moreover, what are the actual statistics on dog bites/attacks in Aurora?



MineAreWorkingline said:


> I know extreme attacks and fatalities are tracked in Canada. Historically the US did keep track of dog fatalities. Less casting aspersions and more research would be to your benefit. Google is your friend.


Well please provide those statistics then. I know that historically dog bites/attacks were widely not tracked, either in Canada or the US, until a few decades ago. And even then the methods of record-keeping have changed over the years. And dog bites/attacks are certainly not as well tracked globally as they are in North America and western Europe. My point in bringing all this up is that I don't know that there is enough historical context or evidence to substantiate your claim about how pitbulls are "mauling and killing like no other breed known in the history of mankind." Otherwise, it seems like too much of a subjective (read opinionated) statement to definitively prove one way or the other.



MineAreWorkingline said:


> The CDC is not comprised of dog experts or geneticists.


That seems like a summary dismissal of a very well-researched article. Moreover, it is one that that has been referenced heavily by certain BSL advocacy groups. One of the authors behind their study is a vet. The other two are doctors. I think the authors are qualified to author such a study, but other than the fact that the CDC sponsored the study, do you have any issues with the content itself?

BTW, the CDC routinely provides feedback and research on topics outside of disease and medical risks, like motor vehicle safety for example. This is nothing abnormal.




MineAreWorkingline said:


> "Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)..."
> 
> Cherry pick much? The CDC is entitled to their own opinions like you have referenced but even they had to fess up to the facts.


I didn't cherry-pick anything. I provided the report for all to read. Rather it is you who cherry-picked the quote you provided. In full it reads:


> Although fatal attacks on humans
> appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), *other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates.*


----------



## llombardo

MineAreWorkingline said:


> What is more messed up than that was Pit Bull advocates were circulating all over the internet that Darla and her unborn baby weren't killed by her own Pit Bull but she died when she fell off of a ladder.


This isn't that far fetched. A Rottweiler was taken in due to the death of a baby. The dog was euthanized, within a couple days it came back that the baby was killed by the father. The father then admitted to killing the baby and playing tug with the dog, causing the bite marks and original thought the dog did it.


----------



## GatorBytes

llombardo said:


> This isn't that far fetched. A Rottweiler was taken in due to the death of a baby. The dog was euthanized, within a couple days it came back that the baby was killed by the father. The father then admitted to killing the baby and playing tug with the dog, causing the bite marks and original thought the dog did it.



Except in this case it was the dog. Autopsy proved it. Update at the bottom of the story


----------



## llombardo

GatorBytes said:


> Except in this case it was the dog. Autopsy proved it. Update at the bottom of the story


I am not doubting it, just giving an example of something that did happen because people are just evil.


----------



## Dalko43

WateryTart said:


> On topic, thanks for posting these links. TBH, I put less stock in the Huffington Post for anything other than entertainment (not that I'm accusing them of not being at all credible, but I think they tend to be slanted, so I look for corroboration from another, more reliable source). The CDC and NIH are good. I wish the full text of the NIH article was available.
> 
> I've noticed that it can be very difficult to find neutrally written articles on the topic of pit bulls being dangerous. Nearly all of them have an agenda.


I'm not an avid huffingtonpost reader either. I just thought it was interesting that they had an article arguing against pit bull bans, especially considering their political background.


----------



## GatorBytes

Montreal bans pit bulls ? Animals 24-7


To address the SPCA findings that the BSL push was caused by a boxer...the owner of the dog admitted it was a pit:
Montreal SPCA director Alana Devine and Humane Society International representative Ewa Demianowicz argued that the pit bull was a “boxer,” based on licensing records, but _La Presse_ investigative reporter Marie-Claude Malboeuf revealed the truth of the matter, as discovered by the police investigation of Vadnais’ death: *Frontal registered his pit bull as a boxer to evade an existing and enforced borough ban on pit bulls.*

*Opposition councillors argued that science and other attempts have proven breed bans do not work*,” summarized _Montreal Gazette_ columnist René Bruemmer, contending that “*cities as close as Ottawa and Toronto have either abandoned their bans or are in the process of doing so,* because they did not have the means to enforce them, *and the rules did not result in a decrease in bites on their territories.”*

*Such contentions were easily disproved*, including because the pit bull bans in effect in Ottawa and Toronto were introduced by Ontario provincial legislation in 2005, and could only be abandoned by a change of the provincial laws.
Hard data, meanwhile, clearly demonstrated that the Ontario pit bull ban has been dramatically effective in reducing fatal and disfiguring attacks.
Pointed out Canadian public safety advocate Thomas McCartney, “Ontario has a human population of 13.5 million, * with 2.7 million people in Toronto*, the largest Ontario city. The U.S. state of Illinois has a human population of 12.8 million, *with 2.7 million people in Chicago*, the largest Illinois city. *Ontario has had no pit bull fatalities since 2005; Illinois has had at least 11.”*


----------



## Dalko43

GatorBytes said:


> Montreal bans pit bulls ? Animals 24-7
> 
> 
> To address the SPCA findings that the BSL push was caused by a boxer...the owner of the dog admitted it was a pit:
> Montreal SPCA director Alana Devine and Humane Society International representative Ewa Demianowicz argued that the pit bull was a “boxer,” based on licensing records, but _La Presse_ investigative reporter Marie-Claude Malboeuf revealed the truth of the matter, as discovered by the police investigation of Vadnais’ death: *Frontal registered his pit bull as a boxer to evade an existing and enforced borough ban on pit bulls.*
> 
> *Opposition councillors argued that science and other attempts have proven breed bans do not work*,” summarized _Montreal Gazette_ columnist René Bruemmer, contending that “*cities as close as Ottawa and Toronto have either abandoned their bans or are in the process of doing so,* because they did not have the means to enforce them, *and the rules did not result in a decrease in bites on their territories.”*
> 
> *Such contentions were easily disproved*, including because the pit bull bans in effect in Ottawa and Toronto were introduced by Ontario provincial legislation in 2005, and could only be abandoned by a change of the provincial laws.
> Hard data, meanwhile, clearly demonstrated that the Ontario pit bull ban has been dramatically effective in reducing fatal and disfiguring attacks.
> Pointed out Canadian public safety advocate Thomas McCartney, “Ontario has a human population of 13.5 million, * with 2.7 million people in Toronto*, the largest Ontario city. The U.S. state of Illinois has a human population of 12.8 million, *with 2.7 million people in Chicago*, the largest Illinois city. *Ontario has had no pit bull fatalities since 2005; Illinois has had at least 11.”*


Out of curiosity, what is the study or article referenced for that statistic on Chicago's pitbull fatalities vs Toronto's?

Also, what is the end game here? If and when pitbulls are banned throughout the country, which seems highly unlikely, but if that happens, and bad actors find another breed to twist and morph for their criminal purposes and that breed gains popularity and finds its way into naive homes, do we ban that breed? What about the next breed after that? Breed bans are simply addressing a symptom of a problem, not the root of it. More effective solutions would be to: target the irresponsible breeders and owners with more severe punishments; and promote education and awareness for families/owners adopting dogs. 

Pitbulls didn't always have the bad rap that they do now. Human actors created these problems. If we keep pretending that breed bans will solve this problem, those actors will either break the laws or find other dogs or breeding methods to circumvent them and achieve the same end results, and we'll have yet more breeds to add to the "banned" list. It's a slippery slope...and some people here may change their tune when they find themselves on the wrong end of it.


----------

