Ban the deed not the breed!!

[ekipkcorb]

hahah mate it wasnt meant to be a youtube fight. anyone can play that game. it was just showing that any animal can have a good heart all this nonsense about one breed of dog that is soo misrepresented in the media gets soo many people in an upproar. this isnt even the right forum to be having this conversation about we own reptiles and everyone knows what sort of picture we paint. we try our hardest to make things right but its those random few that get all the headlines. if you cant control your animals then you shouldnt have them

 

[KaotikJezta]

Whats appealing is they are loyal, intelligent, nice looking dogs. Whats appealing about a taipan or a lace monitor. Plus making them illegal just makes the idiots who want them for the wrong reasons want them more.

 

[longqi]

It would be interesting to read data on Worldwide Fatal Pet Dog Attacks and see which breed has been the most responsible???

 

[ekipkcorb]

i've read somewhere malamutes are pretty high up there in fatality rates.i'll try and find the article

 

[user 23122]

Yeah sure, but you just completely misinterepreted my question. Given that different dogs have different characteristics and it is a large part of choosing a dog, what are the characteristics that make the Pitbull type dogs different to others?

pure bred PBS are physically superior to most other breeds of dogs. As someone already said they were initially bred for bullbaiting and from that line a fighting dog was also created during a time when dog fighting was considered acceptable. Apbt puppies and I have seen a few grow up are quite possibly the most well behaved submissive pup you can have and rarely play up they do change a little as they mature and care needs to be taken with them especially around other dogs.

 

[BigWillieStyles]

pure bred PBS are physically superior to most other breeds of dogs. As someone already said they were initially bred for bullbaiting and from that line a fighting dog was also created during a time when dog fighting was considered acceptable. Apbt puppies and I have seen a few grow up are quite possibly the most well behaved submissive pup you can have and rarely play up they do change a little as they mature and care needs to be taken with them especially around other dogs.

I have to agree about Pit Bulls being superior physically. Despite there other uses, these dogs were bred for fighting, even the name 'Pit' refers to the pits that they fought in.

Owners will always be biased, but the dogs are clearly an aggressive breed and while there are responsible owners out their, there are also plenty of ignorant ones that wont responsibly manage these dogs.

 

[joelly116]

its how you bring them up my mate has two great with kids and strangers, also my friends she is a vet and thinks germanshepeds are the most dangerous dog you can never tell when they are going to bit or feels threaten they dnt show signs, any one that says pittys are just out to hurt ppl and other dogs either own a house dog with ribbons in its hair, or just dnt get what dogs are like they all can be dangerous its how they are bought up

i dnt own one im going off what a vet says, you just follow the media and stero type i guess,

I have to agree about Pit Bulls being superior physically. Despite there other uses, these dogs were bred for fighting, even the name 'Pit' refers to the pits that they fought in.

Owners will always be biased, but the dogs are clearly an aggressive breed and while there are responsible owners out their, there are also plenty of ignorant ones that wont responsibly manage these dogs.

 

[user 23122]

I don't think they're any more dangerous to humans than any other large breed I can tell you now care has to be taken around other dogs especially larger, dominant breeds a pit will never back down to another dog they may tolerate aggressive behavior from a smaller dog if they don't feel it's a threat. You have to remember a 20 kg Apbt will quite easily savage another dog that's double it's weight and height.

 

[snakehandler]

Statistics are fundamentally flawed as the report of dog attack relies on what a person thinks the bred of dog is, lots of dogs are unregistered and this is for a variety of reasons. We breed rotties, a dog which most people do not trust due to it's size and use in recent history, many people do not know for example that they are actually a herding, then a carting dog before they were used as guard dogs. Pitties were bred to dog fight, the opponents owner inspected the dog before a fight to ensure it would be a fair fight, if the dog bit a human it was killed, no human aggression permitted. That does not mean that I support dog fights either, just stating that a dog breed has a long history that is biased by two groups, the ones that love them and the ones that hate them, maybe it's time to pull back at look at the overall picture, not all dogs attack, not all attacks are from one breed, BSL is flawed because it is hard for the average person to pick one breed from another. Consequences for the owner is the solution, if a dog does damage hold the owner responsible!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Suenstu]

I think alrightknight has it in one!

Agreed

As I mentioned earlier, I had 2 pitties. Great dogs. Had them from 10 weeks old. Current dog is a rescue dog - fluffy puppy is (we've been told) a 2 year old Maltese/shih Tzu. Shes little and cute and sweet and great with everything except other dogs. My pitties were considerably better mannered in "mixed" company. We do our best to contain fluffy puppy's tendencies and it's all good. The buck stops with the owner - not the breed.

 

[JasonL]

But with so many pit type dogs Michael it couldn't and wont be enforceable. If someone gets reported for owning a pitty all they have to say is that it's a staffy. Then what are the authorities going to do?

Put down anything that looks like one, Some councils in Qld have already taken a hard line to dogs and their owners, dog bites someone and it's gone, any dog that gets a complaint of any kind and it will have a dangerous dog label slapped on it and that brings on special (and expensive) keeping requirements or has to be put down. I don't think banning particular breeds is the go as the authorities have no idea how to tell them apart, esp with millions of x breeds ect. Keeping a dog is a privilege and should be regarded as so, all dogs owners should be licensed and all dogs sold to private owners desexed, breeding should be licenced too. Too many good dogs are being put down daily due to over supply yet aggressive dogs are still being bred because some young kid wants to own potential killer to be cool and protect his crop.

 

[myusername]

What I love about those two reports (I read the 2005 one earlier) is how they skew the figures by working out the percentages based on number of registered dogs. Everyone knows that people stopped declaring there pitties to council or lying about the breed when the threat of seizure started to become a real problem. So, even though there are breeds responsible for many more actual attacks than pit bulls, pit bulls come out with a higher per capita percentage rating. Lets face it, they want to bring in the legislation so they'll skew the results anyway they can.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your logic. And it isn't "skewing the figures", it is providing a more accurate depiction of the data. Even if they listed the breeds without numbers of dogs (i.e. not representing the prevalence of the breed within the total canine population) the pit bull would still come in 3rd, 4th, and 7th in those tables in the first report. Therefore, even if ALL breeds were identically distributed, you would be justified in saying the pit bull was more dangerous than most according to the statistics.
Representing the rate of attack makes MORE sense. If you had only had two breeds of dog in Australia, A and B, and there were 50 000 of A, and 100 of B, and in one year there were 500 attacks by A and 100 by B, which is the most dangerous breed? Clearly we need to work out per capita attacks to account for the difference of the breed's representation in the population. By your logic it should be listed as A being the most dangerous due to the gross number of attacks being highest. This would be misleading, and although what I have presented is an argument in the extreme, I'm merely trying to illustrate that per capita attacks are a more relevant measure than gross numbers of attacks.

Statistics are fundamentally flawed as the report of dog attack relies on what a person thinks the bred of dog is, lots of dogs are unregistered and this is for a variety of reasons.

Also, in regards to misidentification, I do not think that in the majority of dog attacks the dog attacks some one on a street and runs away, with only their opinion on what the breed was becoming the identifier. If you look at the second study, I think, you can see the actions taken after the attacks. Sometimes the dog was put down, other times penalties were imposed etc. Clearly the victim knew where the dogs were located in order to have these actions taken, and upon actions being taken the investigating body would be made aware of the breed with certainty, either by visual identification or identification by the owner or identification by a veterinarian etc. So, given that in around 70% of attacks some sort of formal action was taken, we can be reasonably sure of the breed of the dog being correct. The other 30% either no action was taken or it was not certain what action was taken. Even if we assume that in all 30% of cases this was due to no dog being identifiable, we can at least be sure that 70% of the statistics are reliable. What about the other 30%? We would have had to take part in the report to know that. But still, I think that any pit bull owner who claims that the breed is not more dangerous than the average dog is absolutely kidding themselves. It is almost irrefutable.
That being said I do not support a ban on pit bulls. I think that their ownership needs qualification to ensure they don't fall into the hands of irresponsible owners.

Sorry kaotikjezta

I just got what you meant about the population of pit bulls not being accurately represented due to people not registering them. This is unfortunate, but without an accurate gauge on just how many unregistered dogs there are out there working with registered dogs is probably the only accurate way that data can be compiled. Also, what about the people who misrepresent their pit bulls as staffordshire terriers etc? On one hand this may take away from the total number of pit bulls, thus making their per capita attacks higher (assuming all dogs misclassified did not cause attacks), or alternately, if pit bulls are indeed responsible for more attacks per capita (and the misclassified dogs attacked some one), it could be harming the staffordshire terrier's per capita attack rate.

 

[Virides]

Our late dog was a very gentle dog but my Dad always said that children should never be left alone without supervision. We were taught when we were young that a dog can obey directions but ultimately decides what to do when alone. Pack dogs will tend to assert dominance and a child will be challenged (even adults).

Training a dog is the first step, but respect for what all dogs are capable of is what is important. Our dog given the right circumstances could kill as any other dog. Just some dogs are more prone to such behaviour especially when trained to do so.

I knew some rotwielers in my time and despite their image as being "aggressive" these particular ones were very placid. And I always made sure I wasn't alone with them. Respect

 

[alrightknight]

Also, in regards to misidentification, I do not think that in the majority of dog attacks the dog attacks some one on a street and runs away, with only their opinion on what the breed was becoming the identifier. If you look at the second study, I think, you can see the actions taken after the attacks. Sometimes the dog was put down, other times penalties were imposed etc. Clearly the victim knew where the dogs were located in order to have these actions taken, and upon actions being taken the investigating body would be made aware of the breed with certainty, either by visual identification or identification by the owner or identification by a veterinarian etc. So, given that in around 70% of attacks some sort of formal action was taken, we can be reasonably sure of the breed of the dog being correct. The other 30% either no action was taken or it was not certain what action was taken. Even if we assume that in all 30% of cases this was due to no dog being identifiable, we can at least be sure that 70% of the statistics are reliable. What about the other 30%? We would have had to take part in the report to know that. But still, I think that any pit bull owner who claims that the breed is not more dangerous than the average dog is absolutely kidding themselves. It is almost irrefutable.
That being said I do not support a ban on pit bulls. I think that their ownership needs qualification to ensure they don't fall into the hands of irresponsible owners.

Though remember a pit bull isnt a breed of dog, its a group of dogs, just like mastifs or terriers. Many of these dogs are cross bred and unregistered, so as far as ive researched there is no real way to detemrine what a cross breed actually is, just by its characteristics which is not very accurate. Really unless you get professionals who know a lot about the breed there is very few people who can guarantee that they own a pitbull, were attacked by a pitbull or biopsies confirming it was a pitbull, because today so many dogs share identical features. . If i was attacked by a cane corso or a dogo argentino I would certainly think it was a pitbull. Someone could sell one to me telling me its a pitbull and I would believe them and register it as one. Dogs can't be so easily identified, it actually makes me wonder how many people sell dogs labelled as pitbulls when they are not.

 

[simonandtoni]

(((but the worst breeds to deal with are shar peis and akitias, they are extremely aggressive to both animals and humans, but they are not in the news, as pitbulls sound much better media wise)))

Have you ever kept a Shar Pei? Ours was 18.5 years old when we put him down two months ago and the only thing he ever bit or attacked was his food and beef bones.
We've had English Bull Terriers, Kelpies, Cavaliers and Shar Peis - the kelpie was the worst for aggression and your statement is as ill-informed as what others are saying about your breed.

 

[grimbeny]

Though remember a pit bull isnt a breed of dog, its a group of dogs, just like mastifs or terriers. Many of these dogs are cross bred and unregistered, so as far as ive researched there is no real way to detemrine what a cross breed actually is, just by its characteristics which is not very accurate. Really unless you get professionals who know a lot about the breed there is very few people who can guarantee that they own a pitbull, were attacked by a pitbull or biopsies confirming it was a pitbull, because today so many dogs share identical features. . If i was attacked by a cane corso or a dogo argentino I would certainly think it was a pitbull. Someone could sell one to me telling me its a pitbull and I would believe them and register it as one. Dogs can't be so easily identified, it actually makes me wonder how many people sell dogs labelled as pitbulls when they are not.

Isnt the solution just to treat all pitbull like dogs the same. The problem is that the majority of dog attacks or fatal dog attacks if you look at the american study are done by dogs that are identified as pitbulls with certain charachteristics. We should then ensure we manage if not ban all dogs that look like pitbulls.

(((but the worst breeds to deal with are shar peis and akitias, they are extremely aggressive to both animals and humans, but they are not in the news, as pitbulls sound much better media wise)))

Have you ever kept a Shar Pei? Ours was 18.5 years old when we put him down two months ago and the only thing he ever bit or attacked was his food and beef bones.
We've had English Bull Terriers, Kelpies, Cavaliers and Shar Peis - the kelpie was the worst for aggression and your statement is as ill-informed as what others are saying about your breed.

simon and toni for moral support shar pei or shar pei mixes did not cause any fatal attacks in America over the 24yrs of this study: http://roominate.com/blogg/dog_attacks_1982_to_2006_clifton.pdf.

 

[Defective]

i must say, i love bullterriers; their nature in general but again they are in that sterotyped box as dangerous...i can understand it because pitties and bullies are bred for fighting and their jaws lock so they can shake and pull on whatever they have hold of, when my step mum told me to hit 'daisy' the family bullie with a lump of wood if she jumped on the couch, i refused. i use to sneak her up onto the couch in the mornings.

a dogs social behaviour is not only about how its bred (parents etc) but also how its treated as a pup, a traumatic experience for it like being kicked, things hitting it other than a hand, exposure to rough handling (not playwrestling) can be detrimental to the pup. so if we are to lay a blame....lay it on the owners!

 

[grimbeny]

i must say, i love bullterriers; their nature in general but again they are in that sterotyped box as dangerous...i can understand it because pitties and bullies are bred for fighting and their jaws lock so they can shake and pull on whatever they have hold of, when my step mum told me to hit 'daisy' the family bullie with a lump of wood if she jumped on the couch, i refused. i use to sneak her up onto the couch in the mornings.

a dogs social behaviour is not only about how its bred (parents etc) but also how its treated as a pup, a traumatic experience for it like being kicked, things hitting it other than a hand, exposure to rough handling (not playwrestling) can be detrimental to the pup. so if we are to lay a blame....lay it on the owners!

You are exactly right, the owners are also to blame, but blaming the owners wont solve these problems. Harsh penalties will not stop idiots from bringing up their dogs in a stupid way. We dont trust the general public with guns so why should we trust them with a breed of dog that has shown to kill time and time again. The fact that most individual pitbulls arnt aggresive means nothing, most guns dont kill people either.

 

[mysnakesau]

Maybe the authorities need to start strictening up their stance on dog ownership. If they are able to categorise dogs from easy-most difficult to keep then they need to start putting restrictions on the registration of dogs in a similar fashion as our reptile licenses are categories. Years of experience and proof of capability to keep the likes of pit bulls and ALL bull terrier breeds might help get this breed under control. Ordinary ppl buying these dogs as a first pet most likely do not understand the consequences that potentiallly come with owning such dogs. So DON'T BAN THE BREED, LICENSE THE OWNERS. Make them prove they are sensible and capable owners to be able to control them.

 

[Chantelle_1]

I like the idea of making owners get licences. We all had to go out and get a licence for our reptiles, so why shouldn't they?

It might make some of these low socio-economic tools think twice about getting a so called "tough dog" because in the end it would be all to hard (and expensive).

I believe ALL dogs have the ability to bite and inflict damage. I never trust a dog, and I never leave my kids alone with them. And I have 2 dogs myself.