OT bad experience today

"Juergen Hannappel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Eddie Munster <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Not that I want one but....
> >
> > It would be illegal for me to have a pet pot bellied pig, but okay for
> > me to have a pitbull!
> >
> > Substitute chicken for pig if you prefer.
>
>
> A pot bellied chicken?
>
Hey, let's leave Bay Area Dave out of this!

B.

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:18:37 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:


>Once the pit bull grabbed my
>hand the dog fight was over, but damn if he didn't bite me on the other hand
>during the next few minutes of me struggling to get my right hand from those
>jaws (around here, they typically grab them by the balls to make them open
>their mouths, but I didn't have enough hands left to try that).

Prairie Oysters?



Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

From your story, it sounds like the dog did not attack anyone. I understand
being prepared to defend yourself and others, but if it were my dog
(unlikely since I keep mine inside always) and you killed him just because
you thought that he was a danger, it would be you that "would have been
hauled off in a bag!"
A dog, like anyone else, doesn't deserve to be shot for what he MIGHT do!



"Searcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:wIo7d.434$pw4.78@trnddc01...
> A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my yard with
> my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work. Luckily, my siter in law was
> close to my son when from around the garage came a pit bull at full
charge.
> After my siter in law grabbed up my son the dog took off after another
> couple walking thier dog, it was then that I retrieved my .44 with every
> intention of dispatching that animal. The dog was still roaming as I was
> cleaning up our garden tools and I was ready. I saw the dog take off after
> another person walking his dog. I kept cleaning up and went in. I have not
> seen that dog before or again. But if that dog had come near my yard it
> would have been hauled off in a bag!
>
> Searcher1
>
>
>

> The bottom line is that with pit bulls, as well as every other
> breed of dog, the behavior of the dog is directly related to the
> training given it by the owner. If the owner trains it to promote
> its aggressive tendencies, then, it will be aggressive. If it is
> trained to attack...it will attack. On the other hand, if the owner
> has treated the dog with love and promoted its friendlier side, then
> it will not endanger any human.

Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage of
reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets that just
snapped and went wild.

> and now we have a 14 month old Leonberger name Murphy.

Leon must be proud to have a breed named after him.

>> Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage
>> of reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets
>> that just snapped and went wild.
>>
>
> For the most part, seemingly gentle family pets of all breeds are
> untrained. ALL dogs should be trained. ALL large dogs should be
> professionaly trained.

Too bad that few dogs received knowledgeable training, much less
professional training. Makes you question the sanity of allowing dangerous
breeds into residential neighbourhoods.

> Also too bad that most owners have never been trained and don't have a
> clue. There's always shock and amazement when Fluffie the Yorkie rips a
> squirrel to shreds in the back yard.

Better a ripping squirrel to shreds than the face of your neighbours kid.

> According to the CDC, Fluffy The Yorkie killed at least one person. Had to
> have been an infant, or the Yorkie From Hell.

I'd imagine if you let a Yorkie chew on your flesh over an extended period
of time it'll eventually kill you. Maybe.

Sorry, can't buy it. I had a pit bull and spent a great deal of time with
it hunting and just being out in the woods. I noticed that even in the
house, there was agression I didn't care for. One day, he almost took out
the front door of the house trying to get at a horse that was walking down
the street. About a month later, we were in the country and a 900 lb steer
grunted at him during a staredown. I saw it coming but was too late - the
dog attacked the steer in the throat and was then tossed outwardly by the
steer turning in circles. The dog couldn't hang on and hit a post through
centrifugal force when the grip gave way. He shook it off and went back
after the running steer and went under and grabbed the underside with the
steer hitting it with its hooves while running. I aimed to shoot the dog
but couldn't get a good shot without possibly hitting the steer. The steer
finally collapsed on top of the dog which still wouldn't let go. I ran to
the dog and turned the collar enough to make him let go and then took him to
the truck. Drove immediately to the vet and had the dog put down and then
the vet and I went to the steer. He said it almost died but not from the
wounds which didn't penetrate the leather but rather exhaustion.

I miss the dog because he was loyal but he couldn't be trusted. You're
probably going to assume it's something I did but all I can do is assure you
that he lived in a normal household enviornment with no teasing or tauting
and lots of human contact. While I don't think he would have ever attacked
a human, I couldn't take the chance because if he would have, there wouldn't
have been a chance in hell. A 40 lb dog against a 900 lb steer and the
steer didn't have a prayer - that dog made sounds during the attack I hadn't
heard in an animal before.

Don

"Rick Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Prometheus wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:00:02 GMT, Rick Cook
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >I realize it verges on tasteless to introduce facts into an off-topic
argument
> > >in this newsgroup, but if anyone is interested, here are some
references on the
> > >'dangers' of pit bulls that I turned up in a quick google search.
> > >
> > >An article on pit bulls and the problems involved in pit bull rescue.
> > >http://www.forpitssake.org/chronicle.html
> > >
> > >A FAQ on what pit bulls are really like
> > >http://www.pbrc.net/misc/pbrcbrochure.pdf
> > >
> > >A report on an Alabama Supreme Court ruling finding no evidence pit
bulls are
> > >inherently more dangerous than other breeds.
> > >http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/ourdogs18.html
> > >
> > >Long experience with pit bulls.
> > >http://www.richardfstratton.com/main.htm
> > >
> > >A good discussion of pit bulls and aggression.
> > >http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm
> > >(IMHO, this source makes too much of the fatality statistics. While pit
bulls
> > >probably less likely to attack a human than other breeds, there is no
question
> > >that a pit bull's
> > >strength and quickness means it can do a lot more damage when it does
attack.)
> >
> > I know you love pit-bulls, and from the fervor you're showing in
> > defending them, and the links you've gone through the trouble to find,
> > I've no doubt that you have good dogs. I've no doubt that your
> > friends are good dog-owners as well. You've probably never met a pit
> > bull you didn't like- believe it or not, I get it.
> >
> > On the other hand, I have never met a responsible pit bull owner. I'm
> > not saying that there are none, or even that it is very uncommon- but
> > it is not possible to draw a conclusion that is completely
> > inconsistant with every experience you've ever had. If I were to tell
> > you Black and Decker made THE BEST woodworking tools on earth, and
> > posted links to pictures of masterfully crafted furniture, and
> > hundreds of testimonials saying the same, would you believe me? Even
> > though your experience had shown you that that brand was inadequate
> > for almost every task you tried to apply it to? Could you change your
> > mind because I said so, or because someone put up a website that said
> > so?
>
> I would say that the responsible pit bull owners far out-number the
irresponsible
> owners. But that doesn't mean the irresponsible/psycho owners don't exist
and that
> they don't produce some very dangerous dogs. (Hell, there are creeps out
there who
> fight their dogs.) As I say, some people shouldn't be allowed to own a
goldfish.
>
> But those are the owners, not the breed.
>
> >
> >
> > I don't want to prevent anyone from owning dogs of any breed. I just
> > would like to see those dogs taken care of properly. If you have a
> > pit bull, and love it as a part of your family, great. Just don't
> > assume that it acts the same when you are not around, and let the
> > animal go roaming about the neighborhood. That's all I or anyone else
> > has the right to ask of you.
>
> No one should let their dog of any breed run around loose. That is
irresponsible and
> dangerous to the dog and everyone else. Dogs that run loose tend to have
real short
> life spans. I can't understand how anyone who claims to care for a dog can
allow it.
>
> > Do what you like on your own property-
> > hell, keep an elephant in your backyard and an alligator in your
> > bathtub for all I care. But if said elephant steps on my car, don't
> > expect your assertion that the elephant is a noble, wise and gentle
> > creature to change the fact that I can't get to work that day! And
> > don't expect the fact that not all pit bulls are the devil incarnate
> > to change the fact that it is damn scary when a muscular, viscious
> > animal corners you in your own yard.
>
> Well, if the dog is viscous, it's not going to be moving very fast. :-)
> Seriously, being confronted by any dog that is acting aggressively is
scary. It
> shouldn't happen and it is a sign of an irresponsible owner to let a dog
run loose.
>
> The fact that are no inherently dangerous breeds doesn't mean there aren't
any
> dangerous dogs.
>
> >
> >
> > I've got a friendly little pooch that doesn't seem to be a danger to
> > anything but table scraps, but I don't let him wander around on his
> > own- not only because he could be a danger to someone who is strange
> > to him, but also because he lacks the discernment to look both ways
> > before crossing the street, or to prevent himself from crapping in the
> > neighbor's yard. So the breed of dog is not all bad; fine, I'll agree
> > to that- but the overwhelming tendancy in my experience is for the
> > wrong kind of people to adopt that breed, and that- more than anything
> > else, is what makes them dangerous. I've seen other kinds of dogs
> > cause problems, but all of those others put together do not add up to
> > even 1/10 of the trouble I have personally witnessed when a pit bull
> > is present. The statistics [in the link another poster provided] show
> > that pit-bulls and rottweilers (which I have seen to be friendly,
> > gentle dogs) cause over 50% of all dog-related deaths. There must be
> > *something* there, even if the statistics are skewed.
>
> Don't confuse dog-related deaths with dog bite incidents. Problems with
> identification aside, dogs like Rotts and pit bulls are strong, fast
animals and
> when they do bite they tend to do a lot of damage. I'm not surprised they
account
> for a disproportionate number of deaths. But apparently, as best we can
judge from
> the dog bite reports, the _number_ of biting incidents pretty much tracks
the
> popularity of the breed.
>
> >
> > You could argue that not all bites lead to death, and you would be
> > right. I don't have any statistics showing the tendancy of each breed
> > of dog to bite- but for my buck, I'd rather get a superficial flesh
> > wound from a spaniel than be killed by a pit bull.
> >
> > Again, I do not believe that people should be prevented from owning
> > pit bulls- I just don't want them growling at me on my property.
> > That's all.
>
> You should not have to tolerate _any_ dog growling on your property. Any
dog that
> does is a candidate for removal -- either by animal control in a
reasonably
> well-policed county or by more direct means if you don't have that option.
>
> --RC
>

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 07:49:08 GMT, Rick Cook
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Prometheus wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:20:31 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >news:[email protected]:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:28:06 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net*> wrote in
>> >>>news:415efe92$1_3 @newspeer2.tds.net:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
>> >>>> knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of
>> >>>> faith that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might
>> >>>> make it less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you
>> >>>> totally remove that urge? I doubt it.
>> >>>
>> >>>ANY dog will attack any other, or anything else. They are predators.
>> >>>Predators are aggressive. The only differences among dogs is size and
>> >>>ability to do damage.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong, most domestic dogs will only attack after pretty severe
>> >> provocation. I favor Collies and Irish Setters, and I've never, ever
>> >> seen one show an agressive side unless someone they don't know is
>> >> trying to force their way into their home. No doubt it is *possible*
>> >> to train one *to* attack, but I've never seen it done. On the other
>> >> hand, it seems that anything in the terrier family will attack unless
>> >> well trained *not* to do so. It's not even a fine distinction, it's a
>> >> major one, IMO. Size has nothing to do with it- when was the last
>> >> time you heard of a Great Dane or St. Bernard attacking someone
>> >> without provocation? I hear about Pit-bulls attacking people all the
>> >> time, and they're smaller than either of those breeds.
>> >>
>> >
>> >What's provocation to a dog may not be provocation to us. The Collie,
>> >BTW, is up there with the other larger breeds on the CDC list I posted.
>>
>> True, but not with nearly as many incidents, for what it's worth.
>
>As nearly as we can tell from the dog bite list, bites correlate with the
>popularity of the breed.
>
>>
>> They are a nervous breed, at any rate- but trying to turn one mean
>> seems like it would be a trial.
>
>Just a matter of making the dog crazy. It works the same for any dog.
>Understand, a vicious dog is not a mentally healthy dog and usually shows an
>exaggerated fear response.
>
>Now if you're concerned about the 'instinctive characteristics' of the dog,
>keep in mind that a collie's herding behavior is a sublimated version of
>chasing prey and bringing it down by hamstringing it. In fact I am told that
>at least some shelties have a tendency to nip (bite) at the heels of running
>children and it has to be trained out of them.

Not concerned in this case. I've seen plenty of the herding instinct
in my dog, and it's all been benign. It's pretty funny to watch him
herding the cat around the house! He also does it with small
children, but only with gentle pushes from his muzzle.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> the thought did occur to me that it was not that
> long ago that German Shepherds and Dobermans were spoken of exactly the way
> the Pit Bull is today. Especially the Doberman - it was common folk lore
> and fire talk to rag on how they turned on their owners with no warning or
> provocation.
>
According to dog breeders I've spoken to, the Doberman was once bred for
agressiveness. I certainly remember them that way from my (long ago)
childhood. But in the last few decades, the agressiveness has been
deliberately bred out of them. The few I've met recently have certainly
been a lot friendlier than the ones long ago.

The same may apply to the German Sheperd - I don't know about them.

But I do have a question - what is a pit bull? What were they bred
from? I'm familiar with bull terriers, but the dogs I've seen called
pit bulls look more like a boxer/Rottweiler mix. They weren't around
in my earlier years.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:00:41 -0400, firstjois <[email protected]> wrote:
> Searcher wrote:
>>> A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my
>>> yard with my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work.

(snip story of dog endangering people)

> Did you call police? Someone is going to have to deal with that dog.

Over in misc.rural, I've seen the "3 S's" - Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.
If the dog goes after my kid, the dog will be dead, and the backhoe
will make noise for a minute or three.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> All that said, there is a lot of confusion about 'what is a pit bull'. At one
> extreme you have people who call any medium or large, short-muzzled dog that
> bites a 'pit bull'. (I have seen the term applied to a Bedlington Terrier in a
> TV news story!) There are also people who lump a number of distinct breeds, such
> as ABTs (true 'pit bulls'), English Bull Terriers, English Staffordshire
> Terriers, and several others as 'pit bulls'. At the other you have the people who
> apply the term only to ABTs used for fighting.
>
Thanks Rick. But I'm familiar with those breeds. And you're right,
they're often called pit bulls.

But the pit bull photos I see in Spokane show a larger dog. They don't
have the sloped nose of the bull terrier and they're bigger than the
Staffordshires. Oh well, probably just another case of mistaken naming.
I think the ones I'm talking about are crossbreeds.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>, george@least says...
> Oh yes, answer to your childish plaint is still the same - in the minds of
> the perpetrators.
>
You "conservatives" are really reaching since even President Bush has
admitted that there were no stockpiles. If he can admit that, why can't
you?

I suppose you're one of those who also think Saddam was responsible for
9/11.

I've given up arguing the facts. The signature will stay till after the
election.

Oh yes, thanks for the pit bull reference. As I responded to Rick, I'm
familiar with most of those breeds. But the "game bred" dogs shown on
the site are close to what's called a pit bull around here. Add a
little height and weight and shorten the muzzle and that's it.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> When I was an 8 year old kid, we had a German Shepherd. Biggest baby and the
> most gentle dog you've ever seen. One day when he was eating dinner, I was
> sticking my fingers in his dog food. He snapped at me and bit me on the
> cheek. Even then I could tell the dog was ashamed for nipping me, but I
> realized right at that moment, you don't interfere with instinct in an
> animal.
>
One of the few bad bites I've ever gotten came when I was about 2-3
years old. I tried to take a bone away from a Boston Bull. I know
because when I got older I had to ask my folks where I'd gotten that
scar on my hand :-).

Instinct doth prevail :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

rotts are probably the worst dogs for attacking, largely due to horrid
training techniques by their owners. many so called dog trainers ought to
be sued just once for what they are doing, and anyone stupid enough to try
and self train a Rott needs a good lawsuit as well.

OTOH, properly trained they are good dogs, but need close supervision and a
lot of interaction with the family. they are very poor choices as outside
dogs. if you want a dog that will stay outside most of the time, a Rott is
a very bad choice.

"Robert Galloway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, I can't disagree but I have to ask, do Rottweilers, as a breed have
> aggressive instincts? I've never seen any aggression out of this guys
> dogs but then I haven't been around a large number of Rotts.
>
> bob g.
> btw, statistically, German Shepherds account for the largest number of
> emergency room visits for dog bites. Statistic doesn't mean a lot by
> itself. Maybe they constitute the largest number of large dogs capable of
> inflicting bites deserving of an ER visit combined with the most
> opportunity.
>
> Upscale wrote:
>
>> "Robert Galloway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Why not. The guy I work for has three Rottweilers. Got to be careful
>>>around them or they'll love you to death. Great big teddy bears. I
>>>can't believe the breed has any inherent evil tendencies. They must be
>>>taught. One man's observation only.
>>
>>
>> Stayed out of this thread, but have to comment here. I may have missed
>> it,
>> but all this conjecture about improper training and personality traits in
>> dogs has very little to do (with some exceptions) with how they react.
>> It's
>> all about instinct.
>>
>> When I was an 8 year old kid, we had a German Shepherd. Biggest baby and
>> the
>> most gentle dog you've ever seen. One day when he was eating dinner, I
>> was
>> sticking my fingers in his dog food. He snapped at me and bit me on the
>> cheek. Even then I could tell the dog was ashamed for nipping me, but I
>> realized right at that moment, you don't interfere with instinct in an
>> animal. The problem with having any animal, is that it's often very
>> difficult to tell when instinct is going to overshadow training.
>>

All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden Retrievers.
You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's. Operating on this simple
principle and a the fact there are innumerable other breeds out there, I
would never own one. And that same belief leads me to the belief that most
(not all) people who do own them own them for the wrong reasons, they had
other options and chose the dangerous one.

--
-Jim
©¿©¬

If you want to reply by email its --> ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
"Robert Galloway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why not. The guy I work for has three Rottweilers. Got to be careful
> around them or they'll love you to death. Great big teddy bears. I
> can't believe the breed has any inherent evil tendencies. They must be
> taught. One man's observation only.
>
> bob g.
>
> Stay tuned - someone is yet bound to introduce the Rottweiller
> > into this thread...
> >

"jtpr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden Retrievers.
> You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's. Operating on this simple
> principle and a the fact there are innumerable other breeds out there, I
> would never own one. And that same belief leads me to the belief that
> most
> (not all) people who do own them own them for the wrong reasons, they had
> other options and chose the dangerous one.
>

I have a Rotti x Pitbull. A nicer dog would be hard to find. It is
protective of the house but lets kids grab her round the neck while she
walks along with them dragging behind.

Fraser

If you want to reply by email its --> ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
"Fraser Johnston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "jtpr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden
Retrievers.
> > You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's. Operating on this simple
> > principle and a the fact there are innumerable other breeds out there, I
> > would never own one. And that same belief leads me to the belief that
> > most
> > (not all) people who do own them own them for the wrong reasons, they
had
> > other options and chose the dangerous one.
> >
>
> I have a Rotti x Pitbull. A nicer dog would be hard to find. It is
> protective of the house but lets kids grab her round the neck while she
> walks along with them dragging behind.
>
> Fraser
>
>
>



There are always exceptions to every rule, and I'm glad your dog appears (so
far) to be one. My feeling is simply why take the chance?



--
-Jim
©¿©¬

If you want to reply by email its --> ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jtpr wrote:
>
> > All I know is you don't read about a lot of mauling by Golden
Retrievers.
> > You do about Pit Bulls, Rotts, and Shepard's.
>
> Reporterese-to-english dictionary "Pit Bull (n): a dog."
> snip<


Nice theory, but if you actually apply it to my example, a Golden Retriever
mauling a child would certainly be a LOT more newsworthy a story.

--
-Jim
©¿©¬

I had a similar experience just last Tuesday night. Must have been a
Bush supporter. He was VERY angry!

Not that I want one but....

It would be illegal for me to have a pet pot bellied pig, but okay for
me to have a pitbull!

Substitute chicken for pig if you prefer.

What a mess.

mp wrote:

> Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage of
> reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets that just
> snapped and went wild.

I knew an acquaintance that had three pit bulls. He used to fight them every
weekend. When anyone asked they were just "family pets" too.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Mark Hopkins wrote:

> Your "friend" ought to have HIS ass whipped.

Just to set the record straight, he was an acquaintance. No way would a call
him a friend.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Mark Hopkins wrote:

> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> [......]
>
> > I am generally of a live and let live philosophy on most issues, but to me
> > there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these dogs,
> > particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault
> weapons,
> > and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around one, except
> > for the owner.
> >
> > To let one run loose in an urban situation, even accidentally, is akin to
> > assault with a deadly weapon and should be treated as such.
> >
>
> This is like saying anyone who uses Dewalt tools is a poor woodworker
> without knowing anything about them.

Not exactly. It's more like saying anyone who has a high-powered shaper and
misuses it is a poor woodworker.

I've never owned a pit bull, but I have several friends who have them and I've
spent a lot of time around them. I have found them to be loving, affectionate,
even-tempered and easy to handle. What's more, any sign of aggressiveness
towards humans was systematically bred out of them. They are outstanding dogs.

But they are outstanding dogs in exactly the same way a powerful shaper is an
outstanding tool. If you do not know what you're doing, the consequences of
having one can be pretty horrendous.

Pit bulls are extremely strong and very, very quick dogs. While aggression
towards humans was bred out, they have the normal terrier aggressiveness toward
other animals their size or smaller. They need to be carefully socialized to
both humans and animals. Further, they require owners who understand them, will
work with them, discipline them wisely and above all keep them under
psychological control.

Having watched several people raise them from puppies, I firmly believe pit
bulls, rewarding as they are, are not dogs for novices.

Beyond this, pit bulls have a bad reputation and are discriminated against
because of it. Many animal control departments, humane societies, etc., will
automatically euthanize any pit bills they acquire. If the dog is running free
(which is a strong condemnation of any dog owner) animal control will typically
keep it for, say, three days and then put it down.

Pit bull owners are also under legal disabilities. If the dog does bite another
animal or a person, there is in effect a strong presumption that the dog is
'vicious' that works against the owner in court. And of course in some places
they are classed as 'dangerous breed' by law and require special bonds,
enclosures, etc. if they will let people keep them at all.

You can argue that this kind of action against pit bulls is another example of
fools confusing the thing with the person behind it. In my opinion you'd be
correct.

But the fact remains that anyone who allows a pit bull to run free (or get into
a situation where they can get free) is a bad owner and should be sanctioned.

--RC

>
>
> Having owned several dogs of this breed, have found them to be very playful,
> loyal, LOVING animals. Nothing vicious about them. My most recent pup sleeps
> under a blanket, loves honey buns and is very partial to cherry, but would
> never harm anyone unless you looked like a tennis ball or a squirrel. He
> even loves cats.
>
> Any dog can be made to be a vicious, anti social assault weapon, even a
> chihuahua. It is the owner who trains the animal that is the problem.
>
> [Image]

Peter De Smidt wrote:

> Dave Mundt wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Now...as the above points out, they [pit bulls] WERE bred for fighting,
> > whichs means that they WILL have a tendency (hard to overcome) to
> > fight with other DOGS. However, again, with proper training, it
> > is possible to overcome this, so the pit bull will not automatically
> > attack on sight...but...it does require training.
> <snip>
>
> That's quite scary, though, isn't it?

Not if you've ever been around pit bulls. Mostly what they are bred to do is please
their owners.

> Clearly most owners are not
> knowledgeable or equipped to do such training,

Well, no. It takes works and a little knowledge, but it is not at all beyond the
ability of the average person. You're simply wrong.

> and it's a leap of faith
> that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency.

No, it's a clearly demonstrated fact that pit bulls are readily trained not to be
aggressive toward other dogs. They are no more difficult in this respect that
terriers in general. Yes, it takes training. But it is neither rocket science nor
any great mystery. I've seen it done repeatedly and the dogs were perfectly safe
around everything from other dogs to new-born kittens. (Whether the pit bull was
safe from the mother cat was another question.)

> You might make it
> less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
> remove that urge? I doubt it.

You may doubt it all you want. But it is still a fact and easily demonstrable. In
fact a well-trained pit bull is quite capable of standing there and taking it
without retaliation when attacked by another dog.

>
>
> Consider Siegfried and Roy. Clearly they trained and socialized their
> animals much, much more than the average dog owner, but nonetheless
> tragedy struck.

Let me let you in on a little secret. Dogs, any dogs, are not tigers. They are the
products of thousands of years of selective breeding to socialize them to human
beings. Tigers haven't been and they are an infinitely dicier proposition to
handle.

> Training can mitigate inborn tendencies, but that's not
> the same thing as removing them.
>
> > The behavior of ANY dog
> > completely depends on the training and level of attention
> > that the owner gives to the dog.
>
> That's not true, the behavior of any dog completely depends on it's
> training, and on it's genetic pre-dispositions and the environment.
> Otherwise you could train a newfoundland to be as good a sheep herder as
> your average border collie.

For our purposes it comes down to the same thing.

--RC

>
>
> -Peter De Smidt

Swingman wrote:

> "Peter De Smidt" wrote in message > Dave Mundt wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Now...as the above points out, they [pit bulls] WERE bred for fighting,
> > > whichs means that they WILL have a tendency (hard to overcome) to
> > > fight with other DOGS. However, again, with proper training, it
> > > is possible to overcome this, so the pit bull will not automatically
> > > attack on sight...but...it does require training.
> > <snip>
> >
> > That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
> > knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of faith
> > that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might make it
> > less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
> > remove that urge? I doubt it.
>
> Precisely!

Precisely wrong! Do you have ANY experience whatsoever with being around pit
bulls? Have you ever trained one or tried to train one?

It's pretty clear you're talking from a near-complete lack of knowledge.

--RC



>
>
> > Consider Siegfried and Roy. Clearly they trained and socialized their
> > animals much, much more than the average dog owner, but nonetheless
> > tragedy struck. Training can mitigate inborn tendencies, but that's not
> > the same thing as removing them.
> >
> >
> > > The behavior of ANY dog
> > > completely depends on the training and level of attention
> > > that the owner gives to the dog.
> >
> > That's not true, the behavior of any dog completely depends on it's
> > training, and on it's genetic pre-dispositions and the environment.
> > Otherwise you could train a newfoundland to be as good a sheep herder as
> > your average border collie.
>
> Absolutely correct ... and particularly with a breed like the pit bull, it's
> damn scary that anyone can actually think otherwise.

What is scary is the level of arrogant ignorance we're seeing demonstrated here.

--RC

>
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 7/10/04

Swingman wrote:

> "Dave Mundt" wrote in message
> > Greetings and Salutations....
> >
> > On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:18:37 -0500, "Swingman"wrote:
> >
> > *snip*
> >
> > >I am generally of a live and let live philosophy on most issues, but to
> me
> > >there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these dogs,
> > >particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault
> weapons,
> > >and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around one,
> except
> > >for the owner.
> > >
> > I have to take some issue with this, as it is exactly like
> > saying all African-Americans are shiftless, promiscuous drug dealers.
>
> Tsk tsk ... next we're going to advocate civil rights to animals?

No, actually he's pointing up the irrationality of your position.

>
>
> You certainly CAN make that generalization about ANY animal that was
> _specifically_ bred to attack and kill ... just as you can safely say that
> any dog running loose in an urban setting is NOT receiving the proper
> attention. Put the two together, particularly with an American Pit Bull, and
> you're asking for trouble.
>
> AAMOF, if you have a dog you love, _you_ damn well better make that
> generalization the next time you see a pit bull running loose close by.
>
> > Here is a fairly good look at the breed and its characteristics
>
> I grew up with one. I've no doubt there are many that are lovable creatures
> in the breed (we owned a Staffordshire Terrier - given to my Dad as a gift
> by the CEO of Chevron Oil Company of those days - which was basically the
> same breed as American Pit Bull at the time, and while well trained and
> lovable to humans and children, would attack and kill another dog in a
> heartbeat, and did on more than occasion).

In other words the person wouldn't know a pit bull if he saw one. A Staffy is
NOT a pit bull and the differences are pretty obvious if you do know.

Now it is true that Staffys were also fighting dogs and one time and have the
terrier aggressiveness. What your story proves is that the owner didn't take the
time to properly socialize the dog so that it would not attack other dogs. That
can be a problem with any breed and its especially likely to be a problem with
terriers. Even very small terriers are notorious for picking fights with other
dogs.

>
>
> > THe bottom line for me is that it is a bad thing to
> > label ANY breed of dog as "evil". The behavior of ANY dog
> > completely depends on the training and level of attention
> > that the owner gives to the dog.
>
> Sounds good ... but I still have the scars on my hand to prove, inarguably,
> that this is not correct. The pit bull that got me years later, and the
> little boy, was a well trained family pet that was following his inherent
> instinct to attack and kill the other dog.

You have the scars on your hand to prove you got in the middle of a dog fight --
albeit for good reasons -- and you got bit. This somehow makes the dog that bit
you unusually vicious?

Swing, I've got news for you. If a dog -- any dog -- is out to hurt you, you
don't just get bit on the hand.

>
> I've been around dogs all my life and have never seen another domestic
> animal with the instincts of the pit bull.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention.

Look, I'm sorry you got bit. I'm even sorrier the dog that bit you was a pit
bull. (If in fact it was. There's a tendency to claim any medium-size
short-muzzled dog that bites someone is a pit bull. A lot of people can't even
recognize them.)

But your position is something like claiming that all African-Americans are
dangerous criminals because you were once mugged by an Africian American.

--RC

>
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 7/10/04

mp wrote:

> > The bottom line is that with pit bulls, as well as every other
> > breed of dog, the behavior of the dog is directly related to the
> > training given it by the owner. If the owner trains it to promote
> > its aggressive tendencies, then, it will be aggressive. If it is
> > trained to attack...it will attack. On the other hand, if the owner
> > has treated the dog with love and promoted its friendlier side, then
> > it will not endanger any human.
>
> Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage of
> reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets that just
> snapped and went wild.

"Snapped and went wild"? What utter nonsense! Absent psychosis, dogs simply
don't do that. Dog behavior is actually quite predictable, including a
potential attack, if you speak dog fluently enough.

One of the problem here is that dogs of any breed tend to behave differently
around their owners and families than they do around strangers or other dogs.
Most dog owners, unfortunately, are content if their dog is reasonably well
behaved around the family. And of course none of them will admit that their
dog had behavior problems after a dog bite incident.

--RC

Nova wrote:

> mp wrote:
>
> > Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage of
> > reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets that just
> > snapped and went wild.
>
> I knew an acquaintance that had three pit bulls. He used to fight them every
> weekend. When anyone asked they were just "family pets" too.

People who fight dogs are a pretty low form of life. It's one of the things most
pit bull owners hate. Not that that stops the dog fighters.

(If you've ever seen the 'winner' of a tough dog fight you'll know why most pit
bull owners hate dog fights so much. A battle sick dog is an awful sight.)

--RC

>
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Jay Knepper wrote:

> Your aquaintance is a scum bag. The breed was originally developed to be
> agressive to animals, but very people-friendly.

In fact a fighting pit bull that showed aggressiveness towards humans was killed
out of hand.

> In my research I read of how
> owners of fighting dogs would regularly stay in the ring with their dogs,
> get down beside them, and urge them on as they ripped each other apart.

The rules of American dog fighting require that the owners stay in the ring
while the dogs are fighting. Further, they have to wade in an separate their
dogs at the referee's command. They can't afford to have a dog which is
aggressive towards humans because they're the ones most likely to be bitten.

In fact you're less likely to be bitten by a pit bull in breaking up a dog fight
than just about any other breed. Which does not make it a good idea to try to do
it.

>
> So it is possible that his dogs were not a threat to you or to his family.
> However he was participating in a criminal activity, and probably not
> someone you would like to sit down and have a beer with.

As you say. A scum bag.

--RC

>
>
> Jay
>
> "Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > mp wrote:
> >
> >> Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage of
> >> reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets that
> >> just
> >> snapped and went wild.
> >
> > I knew an acquaintance that had three pit bulls. He used to fight them
> > every
> > weekend. When anyone asked they were just "family pets" too.
> >
> > --
> > Jack Novak
> > Buffalo, NY - USA
> > (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
> >
> >

mp wrote:

> >> Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage
> >> of reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets
> >> that just snapped and went wild.
> >>
> >
> > For the most part, seemingly gentle family pets of all breeds are
> > untrained. ALL dogs should be trained. ALL large dogs should be
> > professionaly trained.
>
> Too bad that few dogs received knowledgeable training, much less
> professional training. Makes you question the sanity of allowing dangerous
> breeds into residential neighbourhoods.

Reality check: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DANGEROUS BREED" of dog. All
breeds of dogs are potentially dangerous and the danger increases in
proportion to their size and strength. This is not because larger dogs are
more aggressive. It is because they can do more damage.

--RC

How about. "Get the county to pass a leash law" time?

--RC

AAvK wrote:

> > I see what you mean, But from my point of view (at the time) that dog was
> > making a bee line at my child. When the dog was coming at him I did not have
> > my gun. I think that if that other couple had not been there, the dogs
> > attention would have still been on my son. My child was ushered into the
> > house while I finished cleaning up. I had the gun for my protection at that
> > point. I most certainly would not have shot the dog just for coming near my
> > yard, it would have to have been showing aggression toward me.
>
> I don't blame you for the way you feel. At all. But, "build a picket fence time"?
> Alex

Agree -- except for specifying a pit bull.
--RC

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

> Joseph Connors wrote:
> > From your story, it sounds like the dog did not attack anyone. I understand
> > being prepared to defend yourself and others, but if it were my dog
> > (unlikely since I keep mine inside always) and you killed him just because
> > you thought that he was a danger, it would be you that "would have been
> > hauled off in a bag!"
> > A dog, like anyone else, doesn't deserve to be shot for what he MIGHT do!
>
> If an aggressive pit bull comes charging at me, I'm not going to feel bad about
> killing it. If you own one, you have a responsibility to keep it safe. That
> does not include allowing it to run free.
>
> I will defend myself... against man or beast... if I have to. Somebody else can
> wait to be chewed up. I won't.
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
> [email protected]
> http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Prometheus wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 02:51:08 GMT, "Searcher"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my yard with
> >my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work. Luckily, my siter in law was
> >close to my son when from around the garage came a pit bull at full charge.
> >After my siter in law grabbed up my son the dog took off after another
> >couple walking thier dog, it was then that I retrieved my .44 with every
> >intention of dispatching that animal. The dog was still roaming as I was
> >cleaning up our garden tools and I was ready. I saw the dog take off after
> >another person walking his dog. I kept cleaning up and went in. I have not
> >seen that dog before or again. But if that dog had come near my yard it
> >would have been hauled off in a bag!
>
> I love dogs, but those pit-bulls are nasty creatures.

Wrong. For the most part they are gentle and loving dogs.

> I never
> understood why the people who own them seem to like to let them roam
> around loose all the time.

People who own dogs of any sort and let them roam around loose aren't going to
have them very long. This is doubly true of pit bulls because of the prejudice
against them. (Which we have seen amply demonstrated here.)


--RC

Swingman wrote:

> "Jay Knepper" wrote in message
>
> > To make the bald statement that "...those pit-bulls are nasty
> creatures..."
> > is wrong.
>
> See my other post on the subject.

In which you displayed both prejudice and a near complete ignorance.

>
>
> > It is smart to be cautious about any dog. Large, athletic breeds
> especially
> > can do damage if they have been trained to do so.
>
> Not true at all of the pit bull

True of any dog.


> .. inarguably, the pit bull does not have to
> be "trained to do so" ... it was bred _specifically_ "to do so".

Wrong again. While terriers in general tend to be aggressive toward other
animals, pit bulls have to be very specifically trained to fight. Some of the
training methods are pretty horrendous.

>
> Too the contrary, as general rule thay have to be trained NOT to do so

No. Like any terrier they need to be socialized around other dogs, cats, etc.
But they do NOT have to be trained not to attack them. The statement simply
demonstrates further your lack of knowledge.


> ... a
> circumstance I don't necessarily relish with the number of idiots running
> loose in this culture, and certainly not one I would rely upon to safeguard
> my dogs, or even the children in the neighborhood, particularly if they are
> walking a dog.
>
> I like dogs, have been around them all my life, and have owned many breeds
> ... I've yet to see a dog with the propensity, and the tools/physique
> necessary, to do "damage" to another dog, or human if they get in the way.

Then you haven't been around many medium to large dog breeds.

--RC

>
>
> You can argue all you want, and I would own another pit bull ... but not in
> an urban setting, and damn sure not without kicking my umbrella policy up a
> few more million.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 7/10/04

Swingman wrote:

> "Rick Cook" spewed in message
> >
> >
> > Swingman wrote:
> >
> > > "Peter De Smidt" wrote in message
>
> > > > That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
> > > > knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of
> faith
> > > > that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might make it
> > > > less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
> > > > remove that urge? I doubt it.
> > >
> > > Precisely!
> >
> > Precisely wrong!
> >
> > Do you have ANY experience whatsoever with being around pit
> > bulls? Have you ever trained one or tried to train one?
>
> Can you read? Do you? According to your own words in a previous message, you
> havent had any of the above.

As far as I can see your experience with pit bulls consists of getting bitten by
one when you tried to break up a dog fight. This seems to have led you to a
phobic reaction against this particular breed of dog -- irregardless of the fact
that anyone attempting to break up a dog fight between _any_ breeds of dogs runs
a high risk of being bitten. (And if anything I'd argue the risk of being bitten
by a pit bull in that situation is less than with most other breeds because
aggression towards humans was stringently de-selected.)


> > It's pretty clear you're talking from a near-complete lack of knowledge.
>
> Had you made the smallest effort to read this thread, you wouldn't have made
> such a fool out of yourself by jumping to that erroneous conclusion. You
> also made clear that your qualifications were limited to having "never owned
> one" and only "having several friends who own them ..."

I have obviously spent far more time around pit bulls than you have. I have seen
them raised from puppyhood to old age. I have had the opportunity to observe a
number of specimens of the breed at very close range. And I have friends who
have spent literally years raising them. And of course, some of my best canine
friends are pit bulls.

So, yes. I have more than ample experience to comment when faced with the kind
of ignorance and phobias you've displayed in this thread.

>
>
> Not exactly what I'd call expert opinion that justifies such, well ...
> "arrogance" ... another one of your words in this thread.

Call it rather 'experience.' Far more than you have with pit bulls, apparently.

However beyond that, don't you see the arrogance implicit in labeling an entire
breed of dogs, or anything else, as 'dangerous'?

--RC


>
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 7/10/04

Swingman wrote:

> "Rick Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Swingman wrote:
> >
> > > "Dave Mundt" wrote in message
> > > > Greetings and Salutations....
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:18:37 -0500, "Swingman"wrote:
> > > >
> > > > *snip*
> > > >
> > > > >I am generally of a live and let live philosophy on most issues, but
> to
> > > me
> > > > >there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these dogs,
> > > > >particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault
> > > weapons,
> > > > >and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around one,
> > > except
> > > > >for the owner.
> > > > >
> > > > I have to take some issue with this, as it is exactly like
> > > > saying all African-Americans are shiftless, promiscuous drug dealers.
> > >
> > > Tsk tsk ... next we're going to advocate civil rights to animals?
> >
> > No, actually he's pointing up the irrationality of your position.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You certainly CAN make that generalization about ANY animal that was
> > > _specifically_ bred to attack and kill ... just as you can safely say
> that
> > > any dog running loose in an urban setting is NOT receiving the proper
> > > attention. Put the two together, particularly with an American Pit Bull,
> and
> > > you're asking for trouble.
> > >
> > > AAMOF, if you have a dog you love, _you_ damn well better make that
> > > generalization the next time you see a pit bull running loose close by.
> > >
> > > > Here is a fairly good look at the breed and its characteristics
> > >
> > > I grew up with one. I've no doubt there are many that are lovable
> creatures
> > > in the breed (we owned a Staffordshire Terrier - given to my Dad as a
> gift
> > > by the CEO of Chevron Oil Company of those days - which was basically
> the
> > > same breed as American Pit Bull at the time, and while well trained and
> > > lovable to humans and children, would attack and kill another dog in a
> > > heartbeat, and did on more than occasion).
> >
> > In other words the person wouldn't know a pit bull if he saw one. A Staffy
> is
> > NOT a pit bull and the differences are pretty obvious if you do know.
> >
> > Now it is true that Staffys were also fighting dogs and one time and have
> the
> > terrier aggressiveness. What your story proves is that the owner didn't
> take the
> > time to properly socialize the dog so that it would not attack other dogs.
> That
> > can be a problem with any breed and its especially likely to be a problem
> with
> > terriers. Even very small terriers are notorious for picking fights with
> other
> > dogs.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > THe bottom line for me is that it is a bad thing to
> > > > label ANY breed of dog as "evil". The behavior of ANY dog
> > > > completely depends on the training and level of attention
> > > > that the owner gives to the dog.
> > >
> > > Sounds good ... but I still have the scars on my hand to prove,
> inarguably,
> > > that this is not correct. The pit bull that got me years later, and the
> > > little boy, was a well trained family pet that was following his
> inherent
> > > instinct to attack and kill the other dog.
> >
> > You have the scars on your hand to prove you got in the middle of a dog
> fight --
> > albeit for good reasons -- and you got bit. This somehow makes the dog
> that bit
> > you unusually vicious?
> >
> > Swing, I've got news for you. If a dog -- any dog -- is out to hurt you,
> you
> > don't just get bit on the hand.
> >
> > >
> > > I've been around dogs all my life and have never seen another domestic
> > > animal with the instincts of the pit bull.
> >
> > Then you simply haven't been paying attention.
> >
> > Look, I'm sorry you got bit. I'm even sorrier the dog that bit you was a
> pit
> > bull. (If in fact it was. There's a tendency to claim any medium-size
> > short-muzzled dog that bites someone is a pit bull. A lot of people can't
> even
> > recognize them.)
> >
> > But your position is something like claiming that all African-Americans
> are
> > dangerous criminals because you were once mugged by an Africian American.
>
> Rick, your a TOTAL dork! ... go fuck yourself!
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 7/10/04
>
> In other words, you have nothing whatsoever to support your position with. The
> best you can come up with is a nasty personal experience that happened to
> involve a pit bull (and could just as easily have happened with another dog)
> and a story about a different breed of dog altogether.

--RC

> .

Well, it wouldn't hurt to have any large breed of dog professionally
trained. But the point is that any medium to large dog needs to be well
trained and properly socialized.

--RC

WoodMangler wrote:

> Lobby Dosser did say:
>
> >
> > For the most part, seemingly gentle family pets of all breeds are
> > untrained. ALL dogs should be trained. ALL large dogs should be
> > professionaly trained.
>
> All Usenet posts should be professionally edited before being posted.

Okay, some things :-) But labeling a whole breed of dog as dangerous is still
arrogant.

--RC

Doug Winterburn wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:49:38 +0000, Rick Cook wrote:
>
> > However beyond that, don't you see the arrogance implicit in labeling an
> > entire breed of dogs, or anything else, as 'dangerous'?
>
> Errr, aligators, piranah, west nile carrying mosquitos, ....?
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> "It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
> [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
> political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
> the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

I realize it verges on tasteless to introduce facts into an off-topic argument
in this newsgroup, but if anyone is interested, here are some references on the
'dangers' of pit bulls that I turned up in a quick google search.

An article on pit bulls and the problems involved in pit bull rescue.
http://www.forpitssake.org/chronicle.html

A FAQ on what pit bulls are really like
http://www.pbrc.net/misc/pbrcbrochure.pdf

A report on an Alabama Supreme Court ruling finding no evidence pit bulls are
inherently more dangerous than other breeds.
http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/ourdogs18.html

Long experience with pit bulls.
http://www.richardfstratton.com/main.htm

A good discussion of pit bulls and aggression.
http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm
(IMHO, this source makes too much of the fatality statistics. While pit bulls
probably less likely to attack a human than other breeds, there is no question
that a pit bull's
strength and quickness means it can do a lot more damage when it does attack.)

Swingman wrote:

> "Rick Cook" spewed in message
> >
> >
> > Swingman wrote:
> >
> > > "Peter De Smidt" wrote in message
>
> > > > That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
> > > > knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of
> faith
> > > > that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might make it
> > > > less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
> > > > remove that urge? I doubt it.
> > >
> > > Precisely!
> >
> > Precisely wrong!
> >
> > Do you have ANY experience whatsoever with being around pit
> > bulls? Have you ever trained one or tried to train one?
>
> Can you read? Do you? According to your own words in a previous message, you
> havent had any of the above.
>
> > It's pretty clear you're talking from a near-complete lack of knowledge.
>
> Had you made the smallest effort to read this thread, you wouldn't have made
> such a fool out of yourself by jumping to that erroneous conclusion. You
> also made clear that your qualifications were limited to having "never owned
> one" and only "having several friends who own them ..."
>
> Not exactly what I'd call expert opinion that justifies such, well ...
> "arrogance" ... another one of your words in this thread.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 7/10/04

Greetings and Salutations....

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:18:37 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

*snip*

>I am generally of a live and let live philosophy on most issues, but to me
>there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these dogs,
>particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault weapons,
>and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around one, except
>for the owner.
>
I have to take some issue with this, as it is exactly like
saying all African-Americans are shiftless, promiscuous drug dealers.
Here is a fairly good look at the breed and its characteristics
http://www.rescueeverydog.org/pitbull_breed.html
The bottom line is that with pit bulls, as well as every other
breed of dog, the behavior of the dog is directly related to the
training given it by the owner. If the owner trains it to promote
its aggressive tendencies, then, it will be aggressive. If it is
trained to attack...it will attack. On the other hand, if the owner
has treated the dog with love and promoted its friendlier side, then
it will not endanger any human.
Now...as the above points out, they WERE bred for fighting,
whichs means that they WILL have a tendency (hard to overcome) to
fight with other DOGS. However, again, with proper training, it
is possible to overcome this, so the pit bull will not automatically
attack on sight...but...it does require training.
Of course, I do realise that dogs, being living creatures,
come in QUITE a range of personalities, so, I am sure there are some
Pit Bulls that are so filled with aggression that they cannot be
brought to heel without constant supervision. In that case, either
the owner has to understand and take on that responsibility, or have
the dog put down.

>To let one run loose in an urban situation, even accidentally, is akin to
>assault with a deadly weapon and should be treated as such.

I agree with the first part of this sentence, although I
strongly disagree with the last part. Actually, that is one reason
I have not owned a dog for the past 20 years. The area just got too
grown up to allow the creatures the sort of life that they need.
While there are a number of breeds that do well in "indoor only"
settings, the larger dogs that I preferred really need to be able
to roam. The more folks packed into the area, the more chance
that the dog will run across someone whose irrational fear will
cause problems...so...no dogs.
THe bottom line for me is that it is a bad thing to
label ANY breed of dog as "evil". The behavior of ANY dog
completely depends on the training and level of attention
that the owner gives to the dog.
Regards
Dave Mundt

>
> "Jay Knepper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
><snip>
>>
>>Several years after leaving CO for the Chicago suburbs, my adult daughter
>>was living with us and fell in love with a dog at a local humane society.
>>It was a pitt bull. Crunch time. I began a program to educate myself on
>>the breed. The library and the internet turned up a number of very
>>enlighening articles that made me open to the idea. The clincher was a
>>neighbor who owns a large, well known dog training school. She, an owner
>>of three golden retrievers, proclaimed that pit bulls were among her
>>favorite dogs, and make wonderful pets.
>>
>>We adoped Mo. By the time my daughter moved out we decided that we could
>>not be without a dog. We now have two pit bulls. The first was bought from
>>a breeder and the second was rescued (a Chicago cop "took " her from a
>>drug dealer as a young puppy). Our dogs have been trained, loved, walked
>>daily, and in five years have never bitten any person, any other animal,
>>or our cats. We aren't unique in having great pit bulls. Most of them are
>>cherished family pets, and they have served our country in war, and have
>>been owned by individuals such as Helen Keller and Theodore Roosevelt.
>>

We've been dog owners for a good number of years. Our first dogs were
Bernese Mountain Dogs, both of whom have sadly passed away, and now we
have a 14 month old Leonberger name Murphy. Our dogs go on three long
walks a day, at least one of which is usually a woods ramble or an
adventure to a dog park. Unfortunately we don't go to dog parks anymore
since our dogs have been attacked too many times, and I've gotten bitten
pulling other people's dogs off of mine. Our dogs have been attacked by
golden retrievers and akitas, but the biggest offenders have been german
shepherds, rottweilers and pit bulls.

A pit bull made the scariest attack. He charged Murphy from 100 yards
away and lunged for his throat. Luckily, the pit was wearing a muzzle.
Nonetheless, he keep lunging and doing what he could to get at Murphy.
The raging noises the pit bull made were unbelievable. During the
roughly 5 minutes that it took the owners to get a hold of their dog,
they spent the first minutes just watching, the muzzle almost slipped
off. If that had happened, Murphy would be dead, and then either I or
the pit bull would also have been no more. I could grab Murphy, but that
just made him a stationary target.

People with aggressive dogs should never put that dog in a situation
where he can harm anyone or any dog, and people who have dogs that were
historically bred for fighting have to be very careful even if their dog
hasn't shown any aggression. There are a great number of incidents were
a supposedly perfectly behaved pit bull, akita, mastiff... went berserk
and hurt or killed something. I'm not saying that people shouldn't own
these breeds, but if they do they should very pro-active dog owners with
significant experience in dog training, and they should be responsible
for what their dog does. In my experience, this is often not the case.

-Peter De Smidt

Dave Mundt wrote:

<snip>
> Now...as the above points out, they [pit bulls] WERE bred for fighting,
> whichs means that they WILL have a tendency (hard to overcome) to
> fight with other DOGS. However, again, with proper training, it
> is possible to overcome this, so the pit bull will not automatically
> attack on sight...but...it does require training.
<snip>

That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of faith
that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might make it
less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
remove that urge? I doubt it.

Consider Siegfried and Roy. Clearly they trained and socialized their
animals much, much more than the average dog owner, but nonetheless
tragedy struck. Training can mitigate inborn tendencies, but that's not
the same thing as removing them.


> The behavior of ANY dog
> completely depends on the training and level of attention
> that the owner gives to the dog.

That's not true, the behavior of any dog completely depends on it's
training, and on it's genetic pre-dispositions and the environment.
Otherwise you could train a newfoundland to be as good a sheep herder as
your average border collie.

-Peter De Smidt

Rick Cook wrote:

> Okay, some things :-) But labeling a whole breed of dog as dangerous is still
> arrogant.
>
> --RC
>

It's not if they really are dangerous. In fact, it wouldn't be arrogant
even if they're not. There's a difference between being wrong and being
arrogant, at least sometimes.

-Peter De Smidt

Greetings and salutations....

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:47:59 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Peter De Smidt" wrote in message > Dave Mundt wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > Now...as the above points out, they [pit bulls] WERE bred for fighting,
>> > whichs means that they WILL have a tendency (hard to overcome) to
>> > fight with other DOGS. However, again, with proper training, it
>> > is possible to overcome this, so the pit bull will not automatically
>> > attack on sight...but...it does require training.
>> <snip>
>>
>> That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
>> knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of faith
>> that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might make it
>> less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
>> remove that urge? I doubt it.
>
>Precisely!
>
Frankly, I (and every other human) have urges at times to
strike out and destroy other humans...but I do not give into those
urges because I was trained from birth not to. The urge is not
removed...just overridden.

>> Consider Siegfried and Roy. Clearly they trained and socialized their
>> animals much, much more than the average dog owner, but nonetheless
>> tragedy struck. Training can mitigate inborn tendencies, but that's not
>> the same thing as removing them.
>>
Bad example because it is apples and cantelopes. S&R were
dealing with tigers...Wild Animals that were not pets in any way,
shape or form. They were more like bad-tempered, dangerous partners.
Dogs, though, have been socialized to mankind for thousands of years,
and, have developed into a creature that works well in a symbiotic
relationship with mankind. It's called domestication, and, has quite
a range..If it is 1 to 100, Tigers are at about 0. Dogs are at about
90-95 (cats are probably 50).

>>
>> > The behavior of ANY dog
>> > completely depends on the training and level of attention
>> > that the owner gives to the dog.
>>
>> That's not true, the behavior of any dog completely depends on it's
>> training, and on it's genetic pre-dispositions and the environment.
>> Otherwise you could train a newfoundland to be as good a sheep herder as
>> your average border collie.
>
>Absolutely correct ... and particularly with a breed like the pit bull, it's
>damn scary that anyone can actually think otherwise.
>
Not absolutely, but breeding does make a difference. After
all, you would not want to send a dachshund out into a lake to
retrieve a downed duck, nor would you send a Lab down a hole to
hunt a badger. Ever since the first wolves joined mankind at the
fire, mankind has manipulated the gene pool to create an animal
that is suited to the hunting task at hand. Speaking of which...
have you ever seen a badger? they are one of the nastiest fighters
one could come across...so by this logic, dachshunds should be
restricted because they are tough enough fighters to take on
such an opponent. However, nobody is scared of a dachshund...
mostly because they have not been the subject of so much
bad press over the past few years.
Regards
Dave Mundt

Greetings and Salutations....

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 22:16:41 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:49:38 +0000, Rick Cook wrote:
>
>
>> However beyond that, don't you see the arrogance implicit in labeling an
>> entire breed of dogs, or anything else, as 'dangerous'?
>
>Errr, aligators, piranah, west nile carrying mosquitos, ....?
>
LOL! a good point...however, again, apples and cantelopes.
All those are wild animals...not ones that have thousands of years
of close association with humans and the domesticating effects
thereof.

Regards
Dave Mundt

Greetings and Salutations...

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:28:06 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net*> wrote in news:415efe92$1_3
>@newspeer2.tds.net:
>
>>
>> That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
>> knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of faith
>> that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might make it
>> less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
>> remove that urge? I doubt it.
>
>ANY dog will attack any other, or anything else. They are predators.
>Predators are aggressive. The only differences among dogs is size and
>ability to do damage.

Reminds me of a great story about Winston Churchill... One day
he and another fellow (I don't recall who just now) were in the
garden, when his dog (an English Bulldog, by the by...) came
staggering back in through the gate, all torn up and the worse for
wear. The guest observed that Churchill's dog did not seem to be much
of a fighter. Churchill replied that the dog was an excellent
fighter...just a very bad judge of opponents.

Regards
Dave Mundt

Prometheus wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:00:02 GMT, Rick Cook
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I realize it verges on tasteless to introduce facts into an off-topic argument
> >in this newsgroup, but if anyone is interested, here are some references on the
> >'dangers' of pit bulls that I turned up in a quick google search.
> >
> >An article on pit bulls and the problems involved in pit bull rescue.
> >http://www.forpitssake.org/chronicle.html
> >
> >A FAQ on what pit bulls are really like
> >http://www.pbrc.net/misc/pbrcbrochure.pdf
> >
> >A report on an Alabama Supreme Court ruling finding no evidence pit bulls are
> >inherently more dangerous than other breeds.
> >http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/ourdogs18.html
> >
> >Long experience with pit bulls.
> >http://www.richardfstratton.com/main.htm
> >
> >A good discussion of pit bulls and aggression.
> >http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm
> >(IMHO, this source makes too much of the fatality statistics. While pit bulls
> >probably less likely to attack a human than other breeds, there is no question
> >that a pit bull's
> >strength and quickness means it can do a lot more damage when it does attack.)
>
> I know you love pit-bulls, and from the fervor you're showing in
> defending them, and the links you've gone through the trouble to find,
> I've no doubt that you have good dogs. I've no doubt that your
> friends are good dog-owners as well. You've probably never met a pit
> bull you didn't like- believe it or not, I get it.
>
> On the other hand, I have never met a responsible pit bull owner. I'm
> not saying that there are none, or even that it is very uncommon- but
> it is not possible to draw a conclusion that is completely
> inconsistant with every experience you've ever had. If I were to tell
> you Black and Decker made THE BEST woodworking tools on earth, and
> posted links to pictures of masterfully crafted furniture, and
> hundreds of testimonials saying the same, would you believe me? Even
> though your experience had shown you that that brand was inadequate
> for almost every task you tried to apply it to? Could you change your
> mind because I said so, or because someone put up a website that said
> so?

I would say that the responsible pit bull owners far out-number the irresponsible
owners. But that doesn't mean the irresponsible/psycho owners don't exist and that
they don't produce some very dangerous dogs. (Hell, there are creeps out there who
fight their dogs.) As I say, some people shouldn't be allowed to own a goldfish.

But those are the owners, not the breed.

>
>
> I don't want to prevent anyone from owning dogs of any breed. I just
> would like to see those dogs taken care of properly. If you have a
> pit bull, and love it as a part of your family, great. Just don't
> assume that it acts the same when you are not around, and let the
> animal go roaming about the neighborhood. That's all I or anyone else
> has the right to ask of you.

No one should let their dog of any breed run around loose. That is irresponsible and
dangerous to the dog and everyone else. Dogs that run loose tend to have real short
life spans. I can't understand how anyone who claims to care for a dog can allow it.

> Do what you like on your own property-
> hell, keep an elephant in your backyard and an alligator in your
> bathtub for all I care. But if said elephant steps on my car, don't
> expect your assertion that the elephant is a noble, wise and gentle
> creature to change the fact that I can't get to work that day! And
> don't expect the fact that not all pit bulls are the devil incarnate
> to change the fact that it is damn scary when a muscular, viscious
> animal corners you in your own yard.

Well, if the dog is viscous, it's not going to be moving very fast. :-)
Seriously, being confronted by any dog that is acting aggressively is scary. It
shouldn't happen and it is a sign of an irresponsible owner to let a dog run loose.

The fact that are no inherently dangerous breeds doesn't mean there aren't any
dangerous dogs.

>
>
> I've got a friendly little pooch that doesn't seem to be a danger to
> anything but table scraps, but I don't let him wander around on his
> own- not only because he could be a danger to someone who is strange
> to him, but also because he lacks the discernment to look both ways
> before crossing the street, or to prevent himself from crapping in the
> neighbor's yard. So the breed of dog is not all bad; fine, I'll agree
> to that- but the overwhelming tendancy in my experience is for the
> wrong kind of people to adopt that breed, and that- more than anything
> else, is what makes them dangerous. I've seen other kinds of dogs
> cause problems, but all of those others put together do not add up to
> even 1/10 of the trouble I have personally witnessed when a pit bull
> is present. The statistics [in the link another poster provided] show
> that pit-bulls and rottweilers (which I have seen to be friendly,
> gentle dogs) cause over 50% of all dog-related deaths. There must be
> *something* there, even if the statistics are skewed.

Don't confuse dog-related deaths with dog bite incidents. Problems with
identification aside, dogs like Rotts and pit bulls are strong, fast animals and
when they do bite they tend to do a lot of damage. I'm not surprised they account
for a disproportionate number of deaths. But apparently, as best we can judge from
the dog bite reports, the _number_ of biting incidents pretty much tracks the
popularity of the breed.

>
> You could argue that not all bites lead to death, and you would be
> right. I don't have any statistics showing the tendancy of each breed
> of dog to bite- but for my buck, I'd rather get a superficial flesh
> wound from a spaniel than be killed by a pit bull.
>
> Again, I do not believe that people should be prevented from owning
> pit bulls- I just don't want them growling at me on my property.
> That's all.

You should not have to tolerate _any_ dog growling on your property. Any dog that
does is a candidate for removal -- either by animal control in a reasonably
well-policed county or by more direct means if you don't have that option.

--RC

That's the key. Owner's the influence.

We've a large but well-behaved German shepherd, and some of my daughter's
college friends from Chicago wouldn't come close even when he was showing
all the "friendly" signs. Reason was "where we come from the only people
who have dogs like that are people who want vicious dogs."

Personally, I believe the larger the dog, the better he must behave.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Pit Bull has become a status symbol for punks, gander members and
other
> unsavory character. Cruise through a major city in the "lesser"
> neighborhoods and you will see them. The hoodlum wannabe walking his pet
> pit bull. He may not be able to flaunt a gun, so he does the next best
> thing for status.
>
> IIRC correctly, the dog in Our Gang Comedy was a pit bull. Dobermans are
> also docile when bred properly, nasty when not. Probably other breeds
too.
>
>

You must be pretty old indeed.

http://www.workingpitbull.com/informationservices.htm

Oh yes, answer to your childish plaint is still the same - in the minds of
the perpetrators.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But I do have a question - what is a pit bull? What were they bred
> from? I'm familiar with bull terriers, but the dogs I've seen called
> pit bulls look more like a boxer/Rottweiler mix. They weren't around
> in my earlier years.
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

George wrote:

> That's the key. Owner's the influence.
>
> We've a large but well-behaved German shepherd, and some of my daughter's
> college friends from Chicago wouldn't come close even when he was showing
> all the "friendly" signs. Reason was "where we come from the only people
> who have dogs like that are people who want vicious dogs."
>
> Personally, I believe the larger the dog, the better he must behave.

You certainly got that right! Owning a large dog carries with it special
responsibilities.

--RC

>
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The Pit Bull has become a status symbol for punks, gander members and
> other
> > unsavory character. Cruise through a major city in the "lesser"
> > neighborhoods and you will see them. The hoodlum wannabe walking his pet
> > pit bull. He may not be able to flaunt a gun, so he does the next best
> > thing for status.
> >
> > IIRC correctly, the dog in Our Gang Comedy was a pit bull. Dobermans are
> > also docile when bred properly, nasty when not. Probably other breeds
> too.
> >
> >

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > the thought did occur to me that it was not that
> > long ago that German Shepherds and Dobermans were spoken of exactly the way
> > the Pit Bull is today. Especially the Doberman - it was common folk lore
> > and fire talk to rag on how they turned on their owners with no warning or
> > provocation.
> >
> According to dog breeders I've spoken to, the Doberman was once bred for
> agressiveness. I certainly remember them that way from my (long ago)
> childhood. But in the last few decades, the agressiveness has been
> deliberately bred out of them. The few I've met recently have certainly
> been a lot friendlier than the ones long ago.
>
> The same may apply to the German Sheperd - I don't know about them.
>
> But I do have a question - what is a pit bull?

Pit bulls (AKA American Bull Terriers) were bred from medium size terriers with a
large admixture of bulldogs of various sorts, plus anything else that looked like
it would be an advantage for dog fighting -- or so the commonly accepted story
goes. According to that version, they were gradually developed after bull baiting
became impractical/outlawed in urban areas in the United States and was replaced
by the 'sport' of dog fighting.

Pit bulls were bred for strength, speed and 'gameness' -- the unwillingness to
quit -- as well as to be handleable since the owners had to separate them
repeatedly in the fighting pit. They were specifically not bred for aggression or
'viciousness', although aggression was trained into the fighting dogs later. As a
breed their outstanding mental traits seem to be a willingness to do anything to
please their owners and the unwillingness to quit.

> What were they bred
> from? I'm familiar with bull terriers, but the dogs I've seen called
> pit bulls look more like a boxer/Rottweiler mix. They weren't around
> in my earlier years

Actually pit bulls have been around for at least 150 years, as best we can judge.
They show up commonly in art from around the turn of the 20th century and were
widely used as mascots and symbols of American fighting forces about the time of
World War II and were also common in early movies. "Petey", the Little Rascals
dog, was a pit bull.

All that said, there is a lot of confusion about 'what is a pit bull'. At one
extreme you have people who call any medium or large, short-muzzled dog that
bites a 'pit bull'. (I have seen the term applied to a Bedlington Terrier in a
TV news story!) There are also people who lump a number of distinct breeds, such
as ABTs (true 'pit bulls'), English Bull Terriers, English Staffordshire
Terriers, and several others as 'pit bulls'. At the other you have the people who
apply the term only to ABTs used for fighting.

General use is to apply the term 'pit bull' only to American Bull Terriers, which
are recognized as a breed by some kennel clubs (but not the AKC). You can go on
their web sites and find breed descriptions.

Those are good questions, btw. They held define what it is we're talking about
here.

--RC

> .
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

You're not gonna like this, but. . .

The reason the dog displayed unacceptable levels of aggression is that it wasn't
properly trained. Just being around people (socialization) is important, but it
is not enough for any dog. You have to train them in what you want them to do.

This is especially important with a large, strong dog. You _have_ to train them
or you're going to have trouble.

For example, charging the door at a stimulus outside is a very common dog
behavior. Everything from Yorkies on up does it and I have a friend who ended up
with a huge vet bill because his Irish Setter charged through a glass storm
door. However when a Yorkie does it you may not notice. When a pit bull does it,
the dog is likely to break the door.

The incident with the steer doesn't surprise me either. When a dog like a pit
bull attacks it can do a lot of damage and pit bulls do not quit.

But the real point is that you simply did not have control over your dog because
you had not trained it properly. You can see equivalent behavior from just about
any breed of dog in the local park on the weekend. And in all cases the cause is
the same.

As I say, pit bulls are not for everyone and they most certainly need to be both
trained and socialized. If you don't do both, you're going to have trouble.

--RC



"D. J. Dorn" wrote:

> Sorry, can't buy it. I had a pit bull and spent a great deal of time with
> it hunting and just being out in the woods. I noticed that even in the
> house, there was agression I didn't care for. One day, he almost took out
> the front door of the house trying to get at a horse that was walking down
> the street. About a month later, we were in the country and a 900 lb steer
> grunted at him during a staredown. I saw it coming but was too late - the
> dog attacked the steer in the throat and was then tossed outwardly by the
> steer turning in circles. The dog couldn't hang on and hit a post through
> centrifugal force when the grip gave way. He shook it off and went back
> after the running steer and went under and grabbed the underside with the
> steer hitting it with its hooves while running. I aimed to shoot the dog
> but couldn't get a good shot without possibly hitting the steer. The steer
> finally collapsed on top of the dog which still wouldn't let go. I ran to
> the dog and turned the collar enough to make him let go and then took him to
> the truck. Drove immediately to the vet and had the dog put down and then
> the vet and I went to the steer. He said it almost died but not from the
> wounds which didn't penetrate the leather but rather exhaustion.
>
> I miss the dog because he was loyal but he couldn't be trusted. You're
> probably going to assume it's something I did but all I can do is assure you
> that he lived in a normal household enviornment with no teasing or tauting
> and lots of human contact. While I don't think he would have ever attacked
> a human, I couldn't take the chance because if he would have, there wouldn't
> have been a chance in hell. A 40 lb dog against a 900 lb steer and the
> steer didn't have a prayer - that dog made sounds during the attack I hadn't
> heard in an animal before.
>
> Don
>
> "Rick Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Prometheus wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:00:02 GMT, Rick Cook
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I realize it verges on tasteless to introduce facts into an off-topic
> argument
> > > >in this newsgroup, but if anyone is interested, here are some
> references on the
> > > >'dangers' of pit bulls that I turned up in a quick google search.
> > > >
> > > >An article on pit bulls and the problems involved in pit bull rescue.
> > > >http://www.forpitssake.org/chronicle.html
> > > >
> > > >A FAQ on what pit bulls are really like
> > > >http://www.pbrc.net/misc/pbrcbrochure.pdf
> > > >
> > > >A report on an Alabama Supreme Court ruling finding no evidence pit
> bulls are
> > > >inherently more dangerous than other breeds.
> > > >http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/ourdogs18.html
> > > >
> > > >Long experience with pit bulls.
> > > >http://www.richardfstratton.com/main.htm
> > > >
> > > >A good discussion of pit bulls and aggression.
> > > >http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm
> > > >(IMHO, this source makes too much of the fatality statistics. While pit
> bulls
> > > >probably less likely to attack a human than other breeds, there is no
> question
> > > >that a pit bull's
> > > >strength and quickness means it can do a lot more damage when it does
> attack.)
> > >
> > > I know you love pit-bulls, and from the fervor you're showing in
> > > defending them, and the links you've gone through the trouble to find,
> > > I've no doubt that you have good dogs. I've no doubt that your
> > > friends are good dog-owners as well. You've probably never met a pit
> > > bull you didn't like- believe it or not, I get it.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I have never met a responsible pit bull owner. I'm
> > > not saying that there are none, or even that it is very uncommon- but
> > > it is not possible to draw a conclusion that is completely
> > > inconsistant with every experience you've ever had. If I were to tell
> > > you Black and Decker made THE BEST woodworking tools on earth, and
> > > posted links to pictures of masterfully crafted furniture, and
> > > hundreds of testimonials saying the same, would you believe me? Even
> > > though your experience had shown you that that brand was inadequate
> > > for almost every task you tried to apply it to? Could you change your
> > > mind because I said so, or because someone put up a website that said
> > > so?
> >
> > I would say that the responsible pit bull owners far out-number the
> irresponsible
> > owners. But that doesn't mean the irresponsible/psycho owners don't exist
> and that
> > they don't produce some very dangerous dogs. (Hell, there are creeps out
> there who
> > fight their dogs.) As I say, some people shouldn't be allowed to own a
> goldfish.
> >
> > But those are the owners, not the breed.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't want to prevent anyone from owning dogs of any breed. I just
> > > would like to see those dogs taken care of properly. If you have a
> > > pit bull, and love it as a part of your family, great. Just don't
> > > assume that it acts the same when you are not around, and let the
> > > animal go roaming about the neighborhood. That's all I or anyone else
> > > has the right to ask of you.
> >
> > No one should let their dog of any breed run around loose. That is
> irresponsible and
> > dangerous to the dog and everyone else. Dogs that run loose tend to have
> real short
> > life spans. I can't understand how anyone who claims to care for a dog can
> allow it.
> >
> > > Do what you like on your own property-
> > > hell, keep an elephant in your backyard and an alligator in your
> > > bathtub for all I care. But if said elephant steps on my car, don't
> > > expect your assertion that the elephant is a noble, wise and gentle
> > > creature to change the fact that I can't get to work that day! And
> > > don't expect the fact that not all pit bulls are the devil incarnate
> > > to change the fact that it is damn scary when a muscular, viscious
> > > animal corners you in your own yard.
> >
> > Well, if the dog is viscous, it's not going to be moving very fast. :-)
> > Seriously, being confronted by any dog that is acting aggressively is
> scary. It
> > shouldn't happen and it is a sign of an irresponsible owner to let a dog
> run loose.
> >
> > The fact that are no inherently dangerous breeds doesn't mean there aren't
> any
> > dangerous dogs.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've got a friendly little pooch that doesn't seem to be a danger to
> > > anything but table scraps, but I don't let him wander around on his
> > > own- not only because he could be a danger to someone who is strange
> > > to him, but also because he lacks the discernment to look both ways
> > > before crossing the street, or to prevent himself from crapping in the
> > > neighbor's yard. So the breed of dog is not all bad; fine, I'll agree
> > > to that- but the overwhelming tendancy in my experience is for the
> > > wrong kind of people to adopt that breed, and that- more than anything
> > > else, is what makes them dangerous. I've seen other kinds of dogs
> > > cause problems, but all of those others put together do not add up to
> > > even 1/10 of the trouble I have personally witnessed when a pit bull
> > > is present. The statistics [in the link another poster provided] show
> > > that pit-bulls and rottweilers (which I have seen to be friendly,
> > > gentle dogs) cause over 50% of all dog-related deaths. There must be
> > > *something* there, even if the statistics are skewed.
> >
> > Don't confuse dog-related deaths with dog bite incidents. Problems with
> > identification aside, dogs like Rotts and pit bulls are strong, fast
> animals and
> > when they do bite they tend to do a lot of damage. I'm not surprised they
> account
> > for a disproportionate number of deaths. But apparently, as best we can
> judge from
> > the dog bite reports, the _number_ of biting incidents pretty much tracks
> the
> > popularity of the breed.
> >
> > >
> > > You could argue that not all bites lead to death, and you would be
> > > right. I don't have any statistics showing the tendancy of each breed
> > > of dog to bite- but for my buck, I'd rather get a superficial flesh
> > > wound from a spaniel than be killed by a pit bull.
> > >
> > > Again, I do not believe that people should be prevented from owning
> > > pit bulls- I just don't want them growling at me on my property.
> > > That's all.
> >
> > You should not have to tolerate _any_ dog growling on your property. Any
> dog that
> > does is a candidate for removal -- either by animal control in a
> reasonably
> > well-policed county or by more direct means if you don't have that option.
> >
> > --RC
> >

Prometheus wrote:

> Wrong, most domestic dogs will only attack after pretty severe
> provocation.

That statement is technically correct, but you have to look at things from the
dog's perspective. A dog, any dog, may be moved to attack by things that seem
utterly innocuous to humans. The resulting aggression may seem utterly
unprovoked to humans unless they speak dog pretty fluently. Simply looking at
a dog, or walking close to it may appear to the dog to be an attack under the
proper circumstances. (This is why it is dangerous to approach any dog that's
running loose, btw. The dog is most likely out of its comfort zone and prone
to nervous aggression. This can be true of even the most docile, well-behaved
dogs.)

Here is a good discussion of aggression in dogs, what causes it and how to
prevent it.
http://www.accesskent.com/Health/HealthDepartment/AnimalControl/kcas_bite.htm

> I favor Collies and Irish Setters, and I've never, ever
> seen one show an agressive side unless someone they don't know is
> trying to force their way into their home.

In an earlier post I mentioned the Irish Setter who charged through a storm
door. The reference above mentions collies as a breed that can bite.

The next time you go to your vet, ask him or her about what breeds of dogs are
most likely to bite. The answer is 'all of them'.


> No doubt it is *possible*
> to train one *to* attack, but I've never seen it done. On the other
> hand, it seems that anything in the terrier family will attack unless
> well trained *not* to do so. It's not even a fine distinction, it's a
> major one, IMO. Size has nothing to do with it- when was the last
> time you heard of a Great Dane or St. Bernard attacking someone
> without provocation?

Happens fairly frequently. In fact St. Bernards figure on the list of breeds
involved in dog bite fatalities. It's true that terriers of all sizes and
breeds have a tendency to aggression, but the difference is not nearly as
great as you make it out to be.

> I hear about Pit-bulls attacking people all the
> time, and they're smaller than either of those breeds.

Can you say 'media artifact'? If the dog even looks vague like a pit bull, it
will be described in the media as a 'pit bull' or a 'pit bull mix'. Otherwise
the breed of dog is quite likely to go unreported.

--RC

mp wrote:

> > Also too bad that most owners have never been trained and don't have a
> > clue. There's always shock and amazement when Fluffie the Yorkie rips a
> > squirrel to shreds in the back yard.
>
> Better a ripping squirrel to shreds than the face of your neighbours kid.

Better neither. That's why you train your dog. The kid you save may be your
own.
(According to the statistics family members are more likely to be harmed by
dogs than outsiders. The statistics also show that children are more likely
to be attacked than adults and in children most of the bites are to the
face.)

--RC

mp wrote:

> > According to the CDC, Fluffy The Yorkie killed at least one person. Had to
> > have been an infant, or the Yorkie From Hell.
>
> I'd imagine if you let a Yorkie chew on your flesh over an extended period
> of time it'll eventually kill you. Maybe.

Or the dog goes for your face and severs an artery. Can happen in an instant,
even with something as small as a Yorkie. Especially with a small child.

--RC

Dave Hinz wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:00:41 -0400, firstjois <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Searcher wrote:
> >>> A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my
> >>> yard with my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work.
>
> (snip story of dog endangering people)
>
> > Did you call police? Someone is going to have to deal with that dog.
>
> Over in misc.rural, I've seen the "3 S's" - Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.
> If the dog goes after my kid, the dog will be dead, and the backhoe
> will make noise for a minute or three.

True in a lot of places.
Arizona is an interesting state because it consists of urban islands isolated by
miles and miles of desert, rangeland, etc. In the urbanized areas you call animal
control when you encounter a dog running loose. In the un-urbanized, mostly
uninhabited areas, the rule is more direct. Free roaming dogs are likely to be shot
on sight.

In neither case are dogs running loose tolerated. Nor should they be.

--RC

Juergen Hannappel wrote:

> Prometheus <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:54:48 -0400, "Jay Knepper"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>To make the bald statement that "...those pit-bulls are nasty creatures..."
> >>is wrong.
> >
> > I did agree with a previous poster's sentiment to that effect a few
> > minutes ago. The original statement was a gut reaction to several
> > very bad encounters with that particular breed, most of whom were kept
> > by people who could also reasonably be called "nasty creatures".
>
> This discussion sounds suspicoiusly like that about overpowered cars:
> Their defenders tell you "just because my car has 400 horsepowers and
> can go 300km/h does not mean that i need to drive too fast...:

Well, there is this difference. This argument is essentially analogous to whether
or not that 400 horsepower vehicle will really do 300km/h.

If the 'car' in question is a semi-tractor designed to haul trailer loads of
freight, then the 300km/h claim is obvious nonsense. But if you're dealing with
people who can't see beyond the horsepower rating and are absolutely, totally,
unshakably convinced that the vehicle _must_ be capable of 300 km/m because it
has 400 horsepower, well. . .

--RC

>
>
> --
> Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
> mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
> Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
> CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Charles Spitzer wrote:

> "Rick Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:00:41 -0400, firstjois <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Searcher wrote:
> >> >>> A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my
> >> >>> yard with my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work.
> >>
> >> (snip story of dog endangering people)
> >>
> >> > Did you call police? Someone is going to have to deal with that dog.
> >>
> >> Over in misc.rural, I've seen the "3 S's" - Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.
> >> If the dog goes after my kid, the dog will be dead, and the backhoe
> >> will make noise for a minute or three.
> >
> > True in a lot of places.
> > Arizona is an interesting state because it consists of urban islands
> > isolated by
> > miles and miles of desert, rangeland, etc. In the urbanized areas you call
> > animal
> > control when you encounter a dog running loose. In the un-urbanized,
> > mostly
> > uninhabited areas, the rule is more direct. Free roaming dogs are likely
> > to be shot
> > on sight.
>
> not really, otherwise we'd likely have no coyotes left.

My friend, you underestimate the coyote! First, you're unlikely to see them.
Second, they are very prolific animals.

In days gone by people not only shot coyotes on sight, they killed the litters
in the dens, lured them into range with varmint calls (and 'range' was likely to
be 200 yards or more!), poisoned them, trapped them and hunted them.

Killed a lot of coyotes, but the coyotes kept bouncing back.

They're not my favorite animals, but it's hard not admire them in a sneaky sort
of way.

(And did I mention they are a major killer of free-roaming dogs?)

--RC

>
>
> > In neither case are dogs running loose tolerated. Nor should they be.
> >
> > --RC
>
> regards,
> charlie
> cave creek, az

Leon wrote:

> "Rick Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > You're not gonna like this, but. . .
> >
> > The reason the dog displayed unacceptable levels of aggression is that it
> > wasn't
> > properly trained. Just being around people (socialization) is important,
> > but it
> > is not enough for any dog. You have to train them in what you want them to
> > do.
>
> Um are you saying that the dog had to be "Properly" trained to not attack
> and kill? Seems to be contrary to what you have been indicating about Pitt
> Bulls.

I'm saying any medium to large dog must be properly trained in addition to being
socialized with the family. It is not just about 'attacking and killing'. It
includes everything from not charging the door when excited to responding to the
leash properly and not trying to drag you all over the place, jumping up on
people, etc. Above all, the dog has to be trained well enough to be under
control at all times.

A dog that challenges other animals or people is an extreme example of a dog in
bad need of training. So is a dog that crashes into the door an in effort to get
at someone or something on the other side.

>
>
> > This is especially important with a large, strong dog. You _have_ to train
> > them
> > or you're going to have trouble.
>
> Some maybe but not all. Take the Great Dane for instance, a fantastac
> indoor dog and superior around kids. Or a Lab, again naturally great around
> kids.

Have you ever been around a poorly trained Great Dane or Lab? It's no fun and it
is dangerous. I very nearly had my head taken off by a Great Dane when I was a
kid because I approached the dog where it was sitting on the grass with its
owner. Fortunately the dog was on a leash. I have some friends who had a Dane
who was as mellow as you describe -- unless he thought the family's daughter was
in danger. Unfortunately the dog didn't have very good discrimination as to what
constituted 'danger.' It took some doing for them to train that out of him.

The bottom line is that any medium to large dog needs to be carefully socialized
and trained. It's a fundamental responsibility of owning a big dog of any breed.

--RC

Lobby Dosser wrote:

> Rick Cook <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > As I say, pit bulls are not for everyone and they most certainly need
> > to be both trained and socialized. If you don't do both, you're going
> > to have trouble.
> >
> >
>
> As you may see in a previous response, I've owned a Pit Bull/Boxer mix and
> dearly loved that dog. But, I sure as shit would not have tried to
> socialize her with cattle! And don't know anyone that would.

Actually it's fairly common to have pit bulls who are fine around livestock.
One of my pit bull owning friends likes to work around horses and she has
trained pit bulls not to bother either horses or cattle. This same friend had
a pit bull who was an obedience champion.

Not all that difficult, actually to train a pit bull. You just have to make
sure the dog understands that certain things are no-nos. If you're consistent
with them pit bulls are extremely easy to train -- at least according to
people who know dog training and have trained many breeds.

--RC

Prometheus wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:20:31 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:28:06 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net*> wrote in
> >>>news:415efe92$1_3 @newspeer2.tds.net:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
> >>>> knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of
> >>>> faith that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might
> >>>> make it less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you
> >>>> totally remove that urge? I doubt it.
> >>>
> >>>ANY dog will attack any other, or anything else. They are predators.
> >>>Predators are aggressive. The only differences among dogs is size and
> >>>ability to do damage.
> >>
> >> Wrong, most domestic dogs will only attack after pretty severe
> >> provocation. I favor Collies and Irish Setters, and I've never, ever
> >> seen one show an agressive side unless someone they don't know is
> >> trying to force their way into their home. No doubt it is *possible*
> >> to train one *to* attack, but I've never seen it done. On the other
> >> hand, it seems that anything in the terrier family will attack unless
> >> well trained *not* to do so. It's not even a fine distinction, it's a
> >> major one, IMO. Size has nothing to do with it- when was the last
> >> time you heard of a Great Dane or St. Bernard attacking someone
> >> without provocation? I hear about Pit-bulls attacking people all the
> >> time, and they're smaller than either of those breeds.
> >>
> >
> >What's provocation to a dog may not be provocation to us. The Collie,
> >BTW, is up there with the other larger breeds on the CDC list I posted.
>
> True, but not with nearly as many incidents, for what it's worth.

As nearly as we can tell from the dog bite list, bites correlate with the
popularity of the breed.

>
> They are a nervous breed, at any rate- but trying to turn one mean
> seems like it would be a trial.

Just a matter of making the dog crazy. It works the same for any dog.
Understand, a vicious dog is not a mentally healthy dog and usually shows an
exaggerated fear response.

Now if you're concerned about the 'instinctive characteristics' of the dog,
keep in mind that a collie's herding behavior is a sublimated version of
chasing prey and bringing it down by hamstringing it. In fact I am told that
at least some shelties have a tendency to nip (bite) at the heels of running
children and it has to be trained out of them.

--RC

Doug Winterburn wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:33:36 +0000, Rick Cook wrote:
>
> > My friend, you underestimate the coyote! First, you're unlikely to see
> > them.
>
> Like the one that shadowed my wife and me for four holes on the golf
> course! He made no attempt at not being seen and hung around at 25 to 50
> yards. I don't see them regularly, but it's not uncommon to see them
> either - many times as road kill.
>
> -Doug

That one had learned he had nothing to fear from people on the golf course.
Obviously he'd never been hit by an errant golf ball.

Actually, that's the reason people think coyotes are more common in some
areas. Not only are they spreading their range, but they've learned they
don't have to worry about people in semi-urban or suburban areas.

In all my years in Arizona I've only seen 2 coyotes in the wild. Even when
I'm in areas with coyote sign all over the place.

--RC

>
>
> --
> "It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
> [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
> political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
> the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

Dog charges, target panics, trouble starts. Leash is a perfect way to work
on that behavior.

My Australian shepherd was an end-of-leash sniffer, so I had to drag him
past tempting domestic foliage while my four-year-old walked the female
borzoi who stood taller than he and outweighed him by three. Used to get a
lot of strange looks.

Actually he was the epitome of "dog" - if he couldn't eat it or screw it, he
pissed on it.

"Rick Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm saying any medium to large dog must be properly trained in addition to
being
> socialized with the family. It is not just about 'attacking and killing'.
It
> includes everything from not charging the door when excited to responding
to the
> leash properly and not trying to drag you all over the place, jumping up
on
> people, etc. Above all, the dog has to be trained well enough to be under
> control at all times.
>
> A dog that challenges other animals or people is an extreme example of a
dog in
> bad need of training. So is a dog that crashes into the door an in effort
to get
> at someone or something on the other side.
>

Then there's disease. My former collie got into a pissing (and rolling)
contest with one which absolutely fouled the corner of the shed by the trash
can, and resulted in mange for my dog.

One positive to the return of the wolf hereabout is the diminished coyote
population.

"Rick Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My friend, you underestimate the coyote! First, you're unlikely to see
them.
> Second, they are very prolific animals.
>
>
> (And did I mention they are a major killer of free-roaming dogs?)
>

Larry Blanchard wrote:
<snip>
>
> Instinct doth prevail :-).
>

It often does. This part of the debate is a rehash of the old
nature/nurture debate. It's very hard to prove stuff along these lines,
since you can't have one without the other, which makes experiment
difficult. However, there have been a number of studies recently that
show that genetics is more important for human behavior than previously
thought. It's simply not true that you can blame all behavior problems
on poor parenting. In fact, barring very good evidence, it would be a
very arrogant thing to claim. Since genetic traits are so important for
human behavior, it seems likely that it's quite important for dog
behavior as well, as we're genetically quite similar. It follows that
not all bad dog behavior can be blamed on poor training. Note: pointing
out that humans are not dogs would not count as a rebuttle. You'd
actually have to have evidence that genetics plays less of a behavioral
role with dogs than it does with humans.

Consider two people, Mary and Tom. Assume that both are raised in a
relevantly similar environment. It's perfectly possible in this
situation for Tom to have a problem with alcohol, due to a genetic
predispostion, but Mary does not, since she lacks the genetic
predisposition. Let's now put Tom in rehab, and let's say he stay's
clean. Good going Tom! Does anyone really think that Tom's desire for
alcohol has been removed? Moving back to the canine world, does my dog's
desire to chase the squirrel stop even when I tell him "no" and he
doesn't chase it?

Does anyone really think that a dog's genetics doesn't influence his
behavior, or that differn't breeds have, on average, different
behavioral traits? Such a claim flies in the face of overwhelming
evidence, such as, for instance, the various studies that analyze the
intelligence of different breeds. Yet such an unlikely claim must be
assumed by those who say that all doggie behavioral problems are caused
by bad training. It's simply not true.

-Peter De Smidt

Peter De Smidt wrote:

> <snip>

> Does anyone really think that a dog's genetics doesn't influence his
> behavior, or that differn't breeds have, on average, different
> behavioral traits?

Not nearly as much as you think, apparently. (We'll save the argument about
humans for a later time). However, start with this: An attack is a behavior,
not an instinct. In dogs as in humans, behavior is plastic. Temperament,
which is the expression of genetically determined psychology (among other
things) notoriously varies widely among individuals of all breeds. How the
temperament is expressed can be, and is, routinely modified.

> Such a claim flies in the face of overwhelming
> evidence,

In the case of aggressiveness it is in fact _supported_ by the evidence,
notably the dog bite statistics. As nearly as we can tell from the facts,
and despite the reputation to the contrary, dog breeds don't vary
significantly in biting behavior. And we know both from experience and
studies that dog behavior is quite straightforward to modify.

> such as, for instance, the various studies that analyze the
> intelligence of different breeds. Yet such an unlikely claim must be
> assumed by those who say that all doggie behavioral problems are caused
> by bad training.

Major error there. The specific claim is that in at least the vast majority
of dogs, regardless of breed, adequate training and socialization will
produce a dog with acceptable behavior, including not attacking people or
other animals. That is a very different claim and one well-supported by the
facts and experience.

What causes 'doggie behavioral problems' is a moot point. The important
point is that such problems can almost always be controlled with training
and socialization. The secondary point is that unacceptable behavior, such
as aggression, can be controlled in all breeds of dogs.

--RC

>
>
> -Peter De Smidt

Rick Cook wrote:
>
> Peter De Smidt wrote:

>>Does anyone really think that a dog's genetics doesn't influence his
>>behavior, or that differn't breeds have, on average, different
>>behavioral traits?
>
>
> Not nearly as much as you think, apparently. (We'll save the argument about
> humans for a later time). However, start with this: An attack is a behavior,
> not an instinct.

I've never said otherwise. Clearly, though, one can have an instinct to
attack that causes the actual behavior.

> In dogs as in humans, behavior is plastic. Temperament,
> which is the expression of genetically determined psychology (among other
> things) notoriously varies widely among individuals of all breeds. How the
> temperament is expressed can be, and is, routinely modified.

Yep. To a certain extent anyway. Try teaching a great Pyrenees not to
bark at "strange" noises.

>
>>Such a claim flies in the face of overwhelming
>>evidence,
>
>
> In the case of aggressiveness it is in fact _supported_ by the evidence,
> notably the dog bite statistics. As nearly as we can tell from the facts,
> and despite the reputation to the contrary, dog breeds don't vary
> significantly in biting behavior. And we know both from experience and
> studies that dog behavior is quite straightforward to modify.

Well, we're having a little problem since we're not directly citing the
"evidence" or studies. I'm guilty of this as well. In our defense, this
isn't an academic journal, thank God! Are we talking about dog's biting
humans? Has the study taken into account the size of each of the
breeds? What data do we have on dog on dog aggression? I don't know the
answer to the latter, as I haven't found any good studies. The CDC,
however, thinks that there's a good enough case to put the pit bull on
the dangerous breeds list. To that I'll add the extensive experience
that I've had at dog parks. Others have chimed in on this as well. Our
anecdotal evidence is relevant if yours is.

>
>>such as, for instance, the various studies that analyze the
>>intelligence of different breeds. Yet such an unlikely claim must be
>>assumed by those who say that all doggie behavioral problems are caused
>>by bad training.
>
>
> Major error there. The specific claim is that in at least the vast majority
> of dogs, regardless of breed, adequate training and socialization will
> produce a dog with acceptable behavior, including not attacking people or
> other animals. That is a very different claim and one well-supported by the
> facts and experience.
>

But that's not the major issue. The question is not whether most dogs
of a given breed can be made relatively safe, the question is are some
breds inherently more dangerous, whether to humans or to other dogs,
than others. The most recent statistics that I've seen indicate that pit
bulls killed twice as many people than any other breed during the time
span looked at. You say that's due to poor training. Why are these dogs
getting training significantly worse than rottweilers, dobermans...? In
my experience the character of a pit bull's attack on another dog is of
a different kind than that made by most other dogs. The pit bull has a
relentlessness that most dogs lack. Sure, some other terriers have a
similar disposition, but their size makes them easier to handle.

We probably should politely agree to disagree on this one. Although we
really aren't that far apart. We disagree on how much genetics affects
behavior, and the extent to which training can curb instincts. We also
disagree on whether medium to large dogs should always be walked on a
leash. More importantly, though, we agree on the need for proper
training (and treatment in general!) of any dog.

-Peter De Smidt

Peter De Smidt wrote:

> Rick Cook wrote:
> >
> > Peter De Smidt wrote:
>
> >>Does anyone really think that a dog's genetics doesn't influence his
> >>behavior, or that differn't breeds have, on average, different
> >>behavioral traits?
> >
> >
> > Not nearly as much as you think, apparently. (We'll save the argument about
> > humans for a later time). However, start with this: An attack is a behavior,
> > not an instinct.
>
> I've never said otherwise. Clearly, though, one can have an instinct to
> attack that causes the actual behavior.

Hmm. In that case we seem to be having a violent agreement. My main point is that
any such instinct can be overridden by training and socialization so it is not a
factor in the inherent 'danger' of the breed. (Which is in essence what the
Alabama Supreme Court found.)

>
>
> > In dogs as in humans, behavior is plastic. Temperament,
> > which is the expression of genetically determined psychology (among other
> > things) notoriously varies widely among individuals of all breeds. How the
> > temperament is expressed can be, and is, routinely modified.
>
> Yep. To a certain extent anyway. Try teaching a great Pyrenees not to
> bark at "strange" noises.
>
>
> >>Such a claim flies in the face of overwhelming
> >>evidence,
> >
> >
> > In the case of aggressiveness it is in fact _supported_ by the evidence,
> > notably the dog bite statistics. As nearly as we can tell from the facts,
> > and despite the reputation to the contrary, dog breeds don't vary
> > significantly in biting behavior. And we know both from experience and
> > studies that dog behavior is quite straightforward to modify.
>
> Well, we're having a little problem since we're not directly citing the
> "evidence" or studies.

Someone posted the CDC statistics on dog bites by breed earlier. I'll have to look
through and find it. Meanwhile, take a look at the references I cited on
aggression in dogs.

> I'm guilty of this as well. In our defense, this
> isn't an academic journal, thank God! Are we talking about dog's biting
> humans?

That's what we have the best numbers on, so that's been the focus, yes.

> Has the study taken into account the size of each of the
> breeds?

Size doesn't seem to matter in aggressiveness. Breed popularity is the major
determinant -- as in the more of breed X, the more likely you are to have bites by
breed X.

> What data do we have on dog on dog aggression?

There have been quite a number of studies on dog aggression, both by breed and
from a behavioral point of view. The Kent County material I cited earlier
summarizes a lot of this, without giving references back to the original papers.

> I don't know the
> answer to the latter, as I haven't found any good studies. The CDC,
> however, thinks that there's a good enough case to put the pit bull on
> the dangerous breeds list. To that I'll add the extensive experience
> that I've had at dog parks. Others have chimed in on this as well. Our
> anecdotal evidence is relevant if yours is.
>
> >
> >>such as, for instance, the various studies that analyze the
> >>intelligence of different breeds. Yet such an unlikely claim must be
> >>assumed by those who say that all doggie behavioral problems are caused
> >>by bad training.
> >
> >
> > Major error there. The specific claim is that in at least the vast majority
> > of dogs, regardless of breed, adequate training and socialization will
> > produce a dog with acceptable behavior, including not attacking people or
> > other animals. That is a very different claim and one well-supported by the
> > facts and experience.
> >
>
> But that's not the major issue.

For me it is exactly the issue. Remember I chimed on this thread because someone
claimed that pit bulls were urban assault weapons, inherently vicious, etc., etc.,
etc. If that's not the issue for you, we're talking somewhat at cross purposes.

> The question is not whether most dogs
> of a given breed can be made relatively safe, the question is are some
> breds inherently more dangerous, whether to humans or to other dogs,
> than others.

Okay, let's be specific here. Based on the evidence from the dog bite statistics,
as well as other evidence, I'd say that it is pretty clear that pit bulls are no
more likely to express _aggression_ than any other breed.

But there's a secondary issue involved in the concept of 'dangerous'. That is the
amount of damage the dog is likely to do if it does attack. There the evidence
pretty clearly indicates that a pit bull, rottweilers, etc. can do far more damage
than other breeds. However if the dog isn't likely to attack in the first place,
that almost never enters into it.

Keep in mind that only a tiny, tiny fraction of all dog bites result in fatality.
There are only about 10 to 20 dog bite deaths in the US each year, but there are
hundreds of thousands of dog bites. Considering the relative proportion of
fatalities to dog bites, I'd argue that the bite statistics are far more
important.

> The most recent statistics that I've seen indicate that pit
> bulls killed twice as many people than any other breed during the time
> span looked at. You say that's due to poor training.

Well, no. What I said was that _attacks_ are due to poor training. The amount of
damage once an attack is made is quite a different matter. You would expect
strong, fast dogs to account for a disproportionate number of fatalities and
that's what you find.

> Why are these dogs
> getting training significantly worse than rottweilers, dobermans...? In
> my experience the character of a pit bull's attack on another dog is of
> a different kind than that made by most other dogs. The pit bull has a
> relentlessness that most dogs lack.

This is quite true and it's one the reasons dogs like pit bulls, rottweilers, etc.
do more damage.

> Sure, some other terriers have a
> similar disposition, but their size makes them easier to handle.

This is generally true. However please note that this has no bearing on the dog's
aggressiveness.

>
>
> We probably should politely agree to disagree on this one.

I think you're correct.

> Although we
> really aren't that far apart. We disagree on how much genetics affects
> behavior, and the extent to which training can curb instincts. We also
> disagree on whether medium to large dogs should always be walked on a
> leash.

Peter, keep in mind what happens if your dog is involved in an incident while
walking unleashed. It doesn't matter who started it. If your Pyr is jumped by a
psycho Yorkie/toy poodle/whatever, we pretty well know who's going to get the
worst of the ensuing fight. And if your dog isn't on a leash when it happens,
you're going to be lucky to get off with just paying the other dog's vet bills.

There are excellent reasons for keeping your dog leashed in almost all
circumstances that have nothing to do with breed danger, obedience or anything of
the sort.

Responsible pit bull owners have to be especially sensitive to these nuances
because of the prejudice (deserved or not) against pit bulls. A pit bull involved
in a dog fight, no matter who started it, is all to often a dead pit bull once
Animal Control gets involved in the situation.

--RC


> More importantly, though, we agree on the need for proper
> training (and treatment in general!) of any dog.

>
>
> -Peter De Smidt

firstjois wrote:

> Prometheus wrote:
> >> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 07:49:08 GMT, Rick Cook
>
> [snip]
> >>> In fact I am told that at least some shelties have
> >>> a tendency to nip (bite) at the heels of running children and it
> >>> has to be trained out of them.
> >>
> >> Not concerned in this case. I've seen plenty of the herding instinct
> >> in my dog, and it's all been benign. It's pretty funny to watch him
> >> herding the cat around the house! He also does it with small
> >> children, but only with gentle pushes from his muzzle.
>
> My Sheltie herds only at mealtime - his mealtime and then I'm the sheep.
> His previous owners taught him to get a ball when he wants to play and he
> still does this with me, ditto for any child even looks his way. When I
> have a group of people here at least one ball per person will be someplace
> on the floor. No one taught him to herd the balls up and put them away.
>
> Josie

Have you ever seen a sheltie at a kid's soccer game? Hilarous.

--RC

firstjois wrote:

> Rick Cook wrote:
> >> firstjois wrote:
> >>
> >>> Prometheus wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 07:49:08 GMT, Rick Cook
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>>>> In fact I am told that at least some shelties have
> >>>>>> a tendency to nip (bite) at the heels of running children and it
> >>>>>> has to be trained out of them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not concerned in this case. I've seen plenty of the herding
> >>>>> instinct in my dog, and it's all been benign. It's pretty funny
> >>>>> to watch him herding the cat around the house! He also does it
> >>>>> with small children, but only with gentle pushes from his muzzle.
> >>>
> >>> My Sheltie herds only at mealtime - his mealtime and then I'm the
> >>> sheep. His previous owners taught him to get a ball when he wants
> >>> to play and he still does this with me, ditto for any child even
> >>> looks his way. When I have a group of people here at least one
> >>> ball per person will be someplace on the floor. No one taught him
> >>> to herd the balls up and put them away.
> >>>
> >>> Josie
> >>
> >> Have you ever seen a sheltie at a kid's soccer game? Hilarous.
> >>
> >> --RC
>
> LOL! Hadn't ever thought of that! Must be quite a sight to see, I'd have
> to gag, muzzle, and hog tie this one to keep him out of the game. Probably
> need to blindfold him, too, or he'd still manage to wiggle into the game.
>
> Josie

I had a friend who had a sheltie and two small kids who played soccer. It was
wonderful to behold. The dog was having a great time trying to herd both teams
and the ball. She was really upset when mom locked her in the car.

--RC

I think most of the problem is on the human side. Carnivores are dangerous
to each other, too, and have developed elaborate submission gestures as well
as aggressive gestures to get business transacted short of death. The
reason most bites are on kids is that they advance in spite of the warnings
the animals are giving.

"Rick Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Peter De Smidt wrote:
>
> > Rick Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter De Smidt wrote:
> >
> > >>Does anyone really think that a dog's genetics doesn't influence his
> > >>behavior, or that differn't breeds have, on average, different
> > >>behavioral traits?
> > >
> > >
> > > Not nearly as much as you think, apparently. (We'll save the argument
about
> > > humans for a later time). However, start with this: An attack is a
behavior,
> > > not an instinct.
> >
> > I've never said otherwise. Clearly, though, one can have an instinct to
> > attack that causes the actual behavior.
>
> Hmm. In that case we seem to be having a violent agreement. My main point
is that
> any such instinct can be overridden by training and socialization so it is
not a
> factor in the inherent 'danger' of the breed. (Which is in essence what
the
> Alabama Supreme Court found.)

Robert Galloway wrote:
> Well, I can't disagree but I have to ask, do Rottweilers, as a breed
> have aggressive instincts? I've never seen any aggression out of this
> guys dogs but then I haven't been around a large number of Rotts.
>
> bob g.
>

I like Rottweilers very much, although I've never had one. At our dog
park, though, there are two rotties that are a very big problem. Both
are un-neutered males. One's about 150lbs., and one's 135lbs. Both are
very aggressive towards other large dogs. The big one will shoulder butt
and growl at another dog until the other dog has had enough and
retaliates, which is exactly what the rottie wants. The other one will
pin other dogs and not let them up. He will stand over the other dog
growling, and when the other dog tries to get up, the rottie will force
the poor dog back down. The owner's think that their dogs should by
rights be able to do these things. They're "just being dogs." My vet
once commented that she makes a pretty good living sewing up dogs "just
being dogs." I don't know how representative this behavior is. As I said
at first, I know a number of very fine rotties.

-Peter De Smidt

OK, now figure the odds. Chows and Rottweilers are rare compared to
Shepherds and Shepherd mixes.

Fatal is mostly a case of large dog/small victim, though one might infer
something about the smaller pit-bulls from their ranking. Persistence.

Note, also, that when the dog could avoid the confrontation (unchained) the
incidence of bites was 35% of the chained. Of course some dogs _are_
chained because they can't be trusted.

"Lies, damned lies and statistics...."

"Robert Galloway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, I was wrong about Rottweilers being Teddy Bears, as a breed. Only
> know the ones I've encountered. Here are some state. This listing puts
> German Shepherds and Chow Chows neck and neck for incidents with Rotts
> ahead on fatal attacke.
> http://www.dogexpert.com/HomePage/DogBiteStatistics.html
>
> rhg
>
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> > Rick Cook <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >
> >>Someone posted the CDC statistics on dog bites by breed earlier. I'll
> >>have to look through and find it. Meanwhile, take a look at the
> >>references I cited on aggression in dogs.

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:12:30 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:

>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 05:51:22 -0500, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>We look forward to tomorrow's installment.
>>
>>UA100
>
>It's time to call up BARK (Brotherhood of All Restaurants Korean) and
>petition them to look into this situation.
>
>We had a similar problem with marauding felines and made one phone
>call to CAT (Chinese-Asian-Thai restaurant group).
>
>They sent out a SWAT (Small Wild Animals Tasty) Team and we haven't
>heard so much as a meow in months.
>
>(If there is anyone who has not been offended by this post, please
>forward your name and ethnicity via email, and an every attempt will
>be made to insult you personally.)
>
><):- )

Bwahahahaha! Excellent, Tom. Well done.

LJ
President CARDO (Citizens Against Rabid Dog Owners)



----------------------------------------------------------------
* OPERA: A Latin word * Wondrous Website Design
* meaning * Save your Heirloom Photos
* "death by music" * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------

In article <[email protected]>,
WoodMangler <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi did say:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> WoodMangler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>NOW You've gone too far!!! Our fine Florida state bird, the mosquito,
>>>seldom carries West Nile or any other virus. Don't let a gross
>>>exaggeration born of fear and ignorance ruin the reputation of an entire
>>>species.
>>>And Alligators?!?! And Piranha?!?! How come you're picking on Florida?
>>>
>>>Excuse my ignorance, but what's an Errr? If it's slang for another Florida
>>>species, well, that'll just seal it!!!
>>
>> OF *COURSE* it is! The long-form name is the T-errr-til.
>> Cousin to the tortise.
>
>I KNEW it!!! He's a Florida-phobe. Next thing you know he'll be bringing
>up that silly voting thing...
>It wasn't my fault.
>Regards,
> Chad
>

You mean you _don't_ have dimples, Chad?

And _nothing_ 'hanging', Chad?

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:00:41 -0400, "firstjois"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Searcher wrote:
>>> A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my
>>> yard with my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work. Luckily, my
>>> siter in law was close to my son when from around the garage came a
>>> pit bull at full charge. After my siter in law grabbed up my son the
>>> dog took off after another couple walking thier dog, it was then
>>> that I retrieved my .44 with every intention of dispatching that
>>> animal. The dog was still roaming as I was cleaning up our garden
>>> tools and I was ready. I saw the dog take off after another person
>>> walking his dog. I kept cleaning up and went in. I have not seen
>>> that dog before or again. But if that dog had come near my yard it
>>> would have been hauled off in a bag!
>>>
>>> Searcher1
>
>Did you call police? Someone is going to have to deal with that dog.

It might be different where you are, but I had a neighbor about three
years ago who had a pit-bull that they allowed to run free in the
area. The thing actually had the gall to come right into my garage
where I was working and start growling at me, until I ran the thing
out with a shovel and got the door closed. There were numerous
occasions like that, and the dog was always agressive. But when I
called Animal control and the local PD, they said they couldn't do
anything about it because it hadn't actually bit anyone yet.

The sad thing is- if a pit bull bites, it often needs to be killed to
make it release it's grip, and they do huge amounts of physical damage
to the person being bit, sometimes killing the person they attack.
Waiting until they bite someone seems like a bad policy decision, IMO!

First of all I do not live in a suburban setting, second I maintain a
legally recieved license to carry a firearm. If this (or any other animal
for that matter) was an imediate threat to myself or my child it would have
been shot post haste. As far as a gun control issue, I have NO problem
controlling my weapon. I believe that Pittbulls are notoriously used as
weapons against police and other persons. They have a deep seated instinct
to kill, and this instinct can be buried within the dogs mind but never
removed.

How can I as a parent allow my child to play in his own yard with a
dangerous animal running loose? I can't, so why should I keep my child
locked up in a house while this dog runs loose? Dig deeper into the internet
and you will find that "faithfull" dogs have turned on thier owners in the
middle of the night for no apparent reason.
By the way I am a dog owner, a pure bred Yellow lab, so this is not about
dogs. It is about the safety of my child.

Searcher1

"Jay Knepper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> To make the bald statement that "...those pit-bulls are nasty
> creatures..." is wrong.
>
> However, I can sympathize with this view having once lived in Denver for
> several years. Now Colorado is a wonderful place, but one that attracts
> some unique "individuals" who live in the country for good reason--they
> don't belong around people. This type, along with drug dealers and gang
> lords, fancy having the meanest creatures around. A pit bull is an
> awesome, and beautiful, physical specimens that, along with many breeds,
> can be made into deadly weapons (If you have the stomach you might do a
> little reaserch to find out what this takes). The upshot of this is that
> several of these individuals owned pit bulls that were trained to be
> aggressive, let to run free, and did some horrendous things to people,
> including children. The Denver newspapers played the horror up to the
> hilt, underplaying the less interesting fact that irresponsible oweners,
> and breeders, are responsible. Denver then enacted a law that banned the
> breed. In my ignorance I agreed with the law at the time. (Colorado has
> very recently passed a law making it illegal to ban dogs based on breed
> alone, and Denver is fighting it. )
>
> Several years after leaving CO for the Chicago suburbs, my adult daughter
> was living with us and fell in love with a dog at a local humane society.
> It was a pitt bull. Crunch time. I began a program to educate myself on
> the breed. The library and the internet turned up a number of very
> enlighening articles that made me open to the idea. The clincher was a
> neighbor who owns a large, well known dog training school. She, an owner
> of three golden retrievers, proclaimed that pit bulls were among her
> favorite dogs, and make wonderful pets.
>
> We adoped Mo. By the time my daughter moved out we decided that we could
> not be without a dog. We now have two pit bulls. The first was bought from
> a breeder and the second was rescued (a Chicago cop "took " her from a
> drug dealer as a young puppy). Our dogs have been trained, loved, walked
> daily, and in five years have never bitten any person, any other animal,
> or our cats. We aren't unique in having great pit bulls. Most of them are
> cherished family pets, and they have served our country in war, and have
> been owned by individuals such as Helen Keller and Theodore Roosevelt.
>
> It is smart to be cautious about any dog. Large, athletic breeds
> especially can do damage if they have been trained to do so. The most
> popular breeds tend to be overbred and thereby create some nasty animals.
> Remember Cocker Spaniels of 10-20 years ago, and now, I fear, Labs are
> suffering from this. But do advocate responsible ownership and don't make
> the mistake of condeming a dog based on breed alone.
>
> Now the original poster, apparently distraught at not being able to use
> his ".44" in what is apparently a suburban neighborhood, unwittingly
> presents an argument for gun control. But that's another OT for this
> group.
>
> Jay
>
>
> "Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 02:51:08 GMT, "Searcher"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my yard
>>>with
>>>my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work. Luckily, my siter in law was
>>>close to my son when from around the garage came a pit bull at full
>>>charge.
>>>After my siter in law grabbed up my son the dog took off after another
>>>couple walking thier dog, it was then that I retrieved my .44 with every
>>>intention of dispatching that animal. The dog was still roaming as I was
>>>cleaning up our garden tools and I was ready. I saw the dog take off
>>>after
>>>another person walking his dog. I kept cleaning up and went in. I have
>>>not
>>>seen that dog before or again. But if that dog had come near my yard it
>>>would have been hauled off in a bag!
>>
>> I love dogs, but those pit-bulls are nasty creatures. I never
>> understood why the people who own them seem to like to let them roam
>> around loose all the time.
>
>