Why do people still think that these ferocious dog breeds are safe and should be tolerated?

[Anonymous]

^^^

a shining example of the ways the people have personified their pets. We're not bigots because we think owning a dog that could easily kill a child is not worth the risk, no matter how sweet the dog is in temperament. I might be a bigot if I hated all people that owned pits though....maybe.

[Anonymous]

a shining example of the ways the people have personified their pets. We're not bigots because we think owning a dog that could easily kill a child is not worth the risk, no matter how sweet the dog is in temperament. I might be a bigot if I hated all people that owned pits though....maybe.

So, specifically, what characteristics make a dog less risky? I guess everyone should get toothless dogs that weigh no more than 5 lbs. if you don't want to runt he risk of a child being killed.

Again, by definition, a bigot a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

You are obstinately intolerant of a specific breed of dog, pit bull. That is bigotry. 1+1 = 2

[Anonymous]

but why have a dog breed that was selectively bred over many many generations to have a huge powerful jaw and an unyielding tenacity? There is no need for those characteristics in a family pet. Just get a collie.

Actually, pit bulls are breed to be extremely human friendly. In case you missed it the first time, the American Temperament Test Society, Inc. (ATTS) which is a national not-for-profit organization for the promotion of uniform temperament evaluation of dogs, found pit bulls to have better temperaments than collies. That is an objective, unbiased measure. Sorry, you really can't dispute that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have never met a mean standard poodle. However, I have seen mean pit bulls. I don't understand why anyone would purchase a dog that has a reputation of being mean when there are so many other breeds to choose from EXCEPT if they want to appear tough or something. For all those pit bull advocates, why did you choose pit over another breed if you are looking for a baby sitter? Collies have a great reputation as baby sitters, so why a pit and not a collie or another shepherding type of dog which is bred to baby sit animals (translation, carry over to kids) - Oh, because you want to feel cool or something. that's why.

Oh puh-lease! We got our pit mix at the NY Ave shelter because she was a nice dog. And if we had wanted to avoid getting a pit mix, we would have had to fight for the few non-pitbulls there. The NY Ave shelter is overrun with pits. I couldn't care less about looking "cool"! We just wanted a nice dog - and, earth to pp, she's a nice dog! And like any dog I have owned, pit mix or not, I don't let small children get near her and I don't assume she would never bite anyone. Wow, park your stereotypes, pp!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

a shining example of the ways the people have personified their pets. We're not bigots because we think owning a dog that could easily kill a child is not worth the risk, no matter how sweet the dog is in temperament. I might be a bigot if I hated all people that owned pits though....maybe.

So, specifically, what characteristics make a dog less risky? I guess everyone should get toothless dogs that weigh no more than 5 lbs. if you don't want to runt he risk of a child being killed.

Again, by definition, a bigot a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

You are obstinately intolerant of a specific breed of dog, pit bull. That is bigotry. 1+1 = 2

You're joking right? You don't see how a pit bull is more likely to kill a kid in an attack than say, a retriever? Really? That's actually frightening, considering you own one. How would you defend a child if your dog suddenly lost it and, out of character, attacked them? Would you be able to stop it? I'm not sure I'd be able to, and that's why I don't own one. It's pretty simple really. Not bigotry, just common sense.

[Anonymous]

I too got my pit at the NY Ave shelter. He is the sweetest, cuddliest family dog! NY Ave is full of wonderful pit bulls that are overlooked because of the stereotype people on this board are perpetuating. It turns my stomach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

but why have a dog breed that was selectively bred over many many generations to have a huge powerful jaw and an unyielding tenacity? There is no need for those characteristics in a family pet. Just get a collie.

Actually, pit bulls are breed to be extremely human friendly. In case you missed it the first time, the American Temperament Test Society, Inc. (ATTS) which is a national not-for-profit organization for the promotion of uniform temperament evaluation of dogs, found pit bulls to have better temperaments than collies. That is an objective, unbiased measure. Sorry, you really can't dispute that.

You keep conflating temperament with physicality. Not the same thing. But I agree, collies can actually be quite nasty, I wouldn't own one either.

[Anonymous]

You're joking right? You don't see how a pit bull is more likely to kill a kid in an attack than say, a retriever? Really? That's actually frightening, considering you own one. How would you defend a child if your dog suddenly lost it and, out of character, attacked them? Would you be able to stop it? I'm not sure I'd be able to, and that's why I don't own one. It's pretty simple really. Not bigotry, just common sense.

Please read more closely. I did not say a retriever is more likely to attack than a pit bull. An objective temperament test indicated pit bulls have better temperaments than golden retrievers. It is not my opinion, it is a fact based on this test. And, for the record, I love goldens. LOVE them. I am not say pit bulls are better. Just putting FACTS out there.

If you cannot properly train and control a pit bull, then you are correct, you should not own one. Mine are trained and under control. Kids have fallen on them, pulled their tail, hugged there neck, etc. and my dogs turn on them...with kisses. Love a dog and train it well (no matter the breed) and you get good results. The fact that you single out pit bulls is the definition of pit bulls. Pit bulls are not the biggest dog, nor do they have the strongest bite. Yet, they are repeatedly singled out. Bigotry, my friend. Get your facts straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're joking right? You don't see how a pit bull is more likely to kill a kid in an attack than say, a retriever? Really? That's actually frightening, considering you own one. How would you defend a child if your dog suddenly lost it and, out of character, attacked them? Would you be able to stop it? I'm not sure I'd be able to, and that's why I don't own one. It's pretty simple really. Not bigotry, just common sense.

Please read more closely. I did not say a retriever is more likely to attack than a pit bull. An objective temperament test indicated pit bulls have better temperaments than golden retrievers. It is not my opinion, it is a fact based on this test. And, for the record, I love goldens. LOVE them. I am not say pit bulls are better. Just putting FACTS out there.

If you cannot properly train and control a pit bull, then you are correct, you should not own one. Mine are trained and under control. Kids have fallen on them, pulled their tail, hugged there neck, etc. and my dogs turn on them...with kisses. Love a dog and train it well (no matter the breed) and you get good results. The fact that you single out pit bulls is the definition of pit bulls. Pit bulls are not the biggest dog, nor do they have the strongest bite. Yet, they are repeatedly singled out. Bigotry, my friend. Get your facts straight.

And I didn't say a pit bull was more likely to attack than a retriever. I said they were likely to do more damage in any given attack. Can't argue with that.

[Anonymous]

You keep conflating temperament with physicality. Not the same thing. But I agree, collies can actually be quite nasty, I wouldn't own one either.

So, a large (actually, pit bulls are usually just 40-50 lbs), strong dog should not be a family dog? Then, let's ban shephards, labs, goldens, great danes, etc. Where do you draw the line? A bad temperament on a small dog can be deadly too. In my opinion, temperament trumps physicality.

[Anonymous]

And I didn't say a pit bull was more likely to attack than a retriever. I said they were likely to do more damage in any given attack. Can't argue with that.

Actually, retrievers are usually much larger than pit bulls and could overpower more easily. Pit bulls are usually 40-50 lbs. Retrievers are 55-75 lbs. And, if you are thinking pit bulls have magical locking jaws, that is a myth. Look it up.

[Anonymous]

Oh lordy.


"Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org, pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59% (52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period"


How bout them facts?

[Anonymous]

Classic case of vicious pit bulls:

http://stubbydog.org/2011/05/the-healing-power-of-the-pit-bull

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And I didn't say a pit bull was more likely to attack than a retriever. I said they were likely to do more damage in any given attack. Can't argue with that.

Actually, retrievers are usually much larger than pit bulls and could overpower more easily. Pit bulls are usually 40-50 lbs. Retrievers are 55-75 lbs. And, if you are thinking pit bulls have magical locking jaws, that is a myth. Look it up.

I know about the jaw myth. Spare me. I also know that they have extremely thick skulls and very strong shoulders (because they were bred initially for bear baiting) which makes them VERY difficult to fight off. A retriever has a relatively softer and smaller head...which makes them relatively easy to fight off with some well-aimed punches and kicks. Again, I ask, how would you defend a child that was attacked by your dog?

[Anonymous]

Oh lordy.


"Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org, pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59% (52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period"


How bout them facts?

What exactly is a "pit bull type dog"? I guess an american bull terrier, bull dog, boxer, Argentine mastiff all qualify as "pit bull type"? Nice definition of a "breed." I can't even take this site seriously since they don't even know what a pit bull is. Any scientist who conducts research with fidelity and integrity gets their subject well defined. Number one rule.