NP here. I think pit bulls and bull terriers are often confused. They are different dogs. The more posts, the more amazed I am at how truly ignorant so many are here - blissfully so, unfortunately.

I tend to see that people are either dog people or not. Those I know who do not like digs really don't like people, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing you are a troll OP. But I'm biting anyway (no pun intended).

Dogs are as good as their owners. Bad owners = bad dogs. The breed is fairly irrelevant (in fact, small dogs like Chihuahuas can be pretty volatile if they aren't trained correctly).

I've known many good dogs who happen to be pitbulls, Rottweilers, etc.The issue isn't with the breed, its with the owners who don't know how to train dogs correctly (or who train them to be aggressive).

A mastiff with a bad owner can inflict more damage than a pomeranian with a bad owner. True or false? I am not in favor of banning ownership of this kind of dog, but I think restrictions on who can own them, where you can keep them and where you can bring them are not unwarranted.

True. But I'm essentially in favor of banning SUVs for the reasons you indicate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line: those who want to ban certain breeds are ignorant asses. There is no inherently vicious breed. That's a fact that any vet will tell you.

There are bad owners. Also a fact. You regulate them like you would any other crime.

Finally, all dogs have the potential to bite. Many dogs of every breed bite. These breeds only get the media attention b/c it's a good story. Also a fact.

Please return to your regularly scheduled, ignorant ass sniping.

Here's what I've never understood about people who defend pit bulls, Akitas, presa canarios, etc. if we all generally accept that terriers still very much enjoy killing rats and mice, and that herding dogs still very much like to herd because they were bred that way, why is it such a leap to acknowledge that some dogs were bred to be aggressive and, hence, are aggressive, good owners or not?

They may have been bred to fight other dogs but that's very different from just snapping and biting people.

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing you are a troll OP. But I'm biting anyway (no pun intended).

Dogs are as good as their owners. Bad owners = bad dogs. The breed is fairly irrelevant (in fact, small dogs like Chihuahuas can be pretty volatile if they aren't trained correctly).

I've known many good dogs who happen to be pitbulls, Rottweilers, etc.The issue isn't with the breed, its with the owners who don't know how to train dogs correctly (or who train them to be aggressive).

A mastiff with a bad owner can inflict more damage than a pomeranian with a bad owner. True or false? I am not in favor of banning ownership of this kind of dog, but I think restrictions on who can own them, where you can keep them and where you can bring them are not unwarranted.

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing you are a troll OP. But I'm biting anyway (no pun intended).

Dogs are as good as their owners. Bad owners = bad dogs. The breed is fairly irrelevant (in fact, small dogs like Chihuahuas can be pretty volatile if they aren't trained correctly).

I've known many good dogs who happen to be pitbulls, Rottweilers, etc.The issue isn't with the breed, its with the owners who don't know how to train dogs correctly (or who train them to be aggressive).

A potbelly with a bad owner can inflict more damage than a pomeranian with a bad owner. True or false? I am not in favor of banning ownership of this kind of dog, but I think restrictions on who can own them, where you can keep them and where you can bring them are not unwarranted.

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line: those who want to ban certain breeds are ignorant asses. There is no inherently vicious breed. That's a fact that any vet will tell you.

There are bad owners. Also a fact. You regulate them like you would any other crime.

Finally, all dogs have the potential to bite. Many dogs of every breed bite. These breeds only get the media attention b/c it's a good story. Also a fact.

Please return to your regularly scheduled, ignorant ass sniping.

Here's what I've never understood about people who defend pit bulls, Akitas, presa canarios, etc. if we all generally accept that terriers still very much enjoy killing rats and mice, and that herding dogs still very much like to herd because they were bred that way, why is it such a leap to acknowledge that some dogs were bred to be aggressive and, hence, are aggressive, good owners or not?

I'm guessing you are a troll OP. But I'm biting anyway (no pun intended).

Dogs are as good as their owners. Bad owners = bad dogs. The breed is fairly irrelevant (in fact, small dogs like Chihuahuas can be pretty volatile if they aren't trained correctly).

I've known many good dogs who happen to be pitbulls, Rottweilers, etc.The issue isn't with the breed, its with the owners who don't know how to train dogs correctly (or who train them to be aggressive).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is not the dog, it's the owner.

Signed, Scared face - attacked by a Chiwawa when I was a child.

So not true. I know this is something pit bull owners like to throw out there, but I have seen and heard of many well raised dogs turning on their owners. Unfortunately they are animals, and we don't know what is going on in their heads. Breeds like pit bulls, rottweillers, mastiffs are dangerous and unpredictable. They were bred to kill. That was their entire purpose. My dad used to say "if you raise them right they are such wonderful pets". His dog was pampered and loved and disciplined with a tender hand. But the momment she got out of his sight, this darling little pit bull was out killing cats and chasing other dogs and the occasional person. My dad tried to keep her locked up, but she was crafty. Finally she chased the wrong persons and ended up dead.

So let's just kill all the bad dogs, right?

What's your suggestion?

Killing them would be a good start. There should be no more than 5-10 per state.

Bottom line: those who want to ban certain breeds are ignorant asses. There is no inherently vicious breed. That's a fact that any vet will tell you.

There are bad owners. Also a fact. You regulate them like you would any other crime.

Finally, all dogs have the potential to bite. Many dogs of every breed bite. These breeds only get the media attention b/c it's a good story. Also a fact.

Please return to your regularly scheduled, ignorant ass sniping.

Anonymous wrote:Because it's bad owners who make them this way; the dogs are not this way inherently. In fact, they are such intelligent dogs and so eager to please, they will quickly learn to do whatever their trainer or owner asks, and mean people take advantage of this tendency and make them fight each other.

Pit bulls used to be known as family dogs and "America's babysitter" and in fact the RCA dog was a pit bull and so was the Little Rascals' dog, Petey, and the Buster Brown dog. Educate yourself:

http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=676

http://www.dontbullymybreed.org/

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/pete.php

theRCA dog & BUSTERbrown? They aren't real. Your toes are in the sand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is not the dog, it's the owner.

Signed, Scared face - attacked by a Chiwawa when I was a child.

So not true. I know this is something pit bull owners like to throw out there, but I have seen and heard of many well raised dogs turning on their owners. Unfortunately they are animals, and we don't know what is going on in their heads. Breeds like pit bulls, rottweillers, mastiffs are dangerous and unpredictable. They were bred to kill. That was their entire purpose. My dad used to say "if you raise them right they are such wonderful pets". His dog was pampered and loved and disciplined with a tender hand. But the momment she got out of his sight, this darling little pit bull was out killing cats and chasing other dogs and the occasional person. My dad tried to keep her locked up, but she was crafty. Finally she chased the wrong persons and ended up dead.

So let's just kill all the bad dogs, right?

What's your suggestion?

My suggestion is to aggresively inforce dog ownership laws. Crack down on puppy mills and dog fighting rings. Impose mandatory spay/neuter laws and make it crime to posses one if it is not fixed. Basically let the breed die out. They were an invented breed, It won't stop the rotation of the earth by not having them anymore.

Enforce not Inforce. Agree with ending puppy mills, dog fighting, madatory spay/neuter laws but not breed specific legislation.

dude, it happens, can't believe you had to point that out. What a douchebag, (is that correct, or should it be two separate words?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all pits should be euthanized. In the UK, you cannot even have them at all--they are a dangerous breed. How many people have to be mauled by these dogs before people wake up? They are dogs, not people. The safety of people trumps your affection for your ticking time bomb dog. Too many irresponsible owners don't know how to treat them and CONTROL them. My grumpy old white man neighbor strolls down the street in AU Park with his white pit bull OFF LEASH everyday @ 8:50, just as my toddler is getting outside to go to pre-school. EVERY DAY. The dog's face is right at my kid's face level. It is terrifying. I never say anything because the guy looks like such a mean grouch.

Seriously? How many dogs that will never attack anyone and whose family loves them as one of their own do you think should die to make you feel safe?

Like I said, all of them. You should never have adopted such a potentially crazy breed of dog. I'm sorry if your child is attached to a potentially dangerous creature but, you like the child should accept that the potential for harm from the animal outweighs your intense love for Boscoe or whatever.

I do not ascribe to YOUR opinion of potential harm in owning a dog of this breed and so I do not agree that it outweighs my compassion and care for a living creature. Also how would you have us handle mixed breeds, shall we exterminate them as well?

16:25 you are an idiot. Do some research into the results of the UK ban before posting that it's working fine. They've spent over $30 million enforcing it and the exact opposite has happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, all the folks who are calling for the banning of pit bulls, please be aware that this dog is an Argentine mastiff, not a pit bull. If you're going to ban by breed, you need to ban this breed, Dobermans, German shepherds (someone earlier said they are the biggest biters), Rottweilers, other kinds of mastiffs in addition to pit bulls. You really want to go down that road?

Really? Ok. Then never mind. You're right. Banning vicious breeds is wrong. See how easy that was? Now you can convince me that abortion is murder and that Obama is from Kenya and that he is the anti-Christ then we can all get along.

Would it trouble you too much to address the issue raised by the previous poster? Where would you draw the line? Do you just want to get rid of pit bulls, or pit bulls and Argentine mastiffs, or pit bulls, Argentine mastiffs and dogs that you think are dangerous (new position in Obama Admin: Dangerous Dog Czar)? How would you define dangerous breeds and how would you handled mixed breeds?

In the UK they seem to manage it fine. Let's do what they do.

Relevant legislation and regulations
Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits four types of dog:

the Pit Bull Terrier
the Japanese tosa
the Dogo Argentino
the Fila Brasileiro
It is important to note that, in the UK, dangerous dogs are classified by “type”, not by breed label. This means that whether a dog is considered dangerous, and therefore prohibited, will depend on a judgment about its physical characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited ‘type’. This assessment of the physical characteristics is made by a court.

The 1991 Act was amended by the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997. The 1997 Act removed the mandatory destruction order provisions of the 1991 Act by giving the courts discretion on sentencing, and re-opened the Index of Exempted Dogs for those prohibited dogs which the courts consider would not pose a risk to the public. Only courts can direct that a dog can be placed on the list of exempted dogs.

The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997
Section 3 of the 1991 Act created a new offence of being an owner of a dog of any type or breed which is dangerously out of control in a public place or a non-public place in which it is not permitted to be.

Detailed guidance on the legislation was issued to police forces and the courts between 1991 and 1998 by the Home Office. The guidance issued can be found below (in PDF format):

Home Office Notice (PDF 70 KB)
Home Office Circular 67/1991 (PDF 250 KB)
Home Office Circular 80/1992 (PDF 110 KB)
Home Office Circular 9/1994 (PDF 90 KB)
Home Office Circular 17/1997 (PDF 70 KB)
Home Office Circular 29/1997 (PDF 110 KB)
Home Office Circular 29/1998 (PDF 80 KB)
Key facts and figures
There are approximately 8 million dogs in UK.
In England in 2008/09, there were over 5,000 hospital admissions resulting from being bitten or struck by a dog (excludes people treated in minor injury units (MIU) or accident and emergency (A&E) departments, without being admitted as an inpatient).
In 2009, dog attacks on people in England cost the Health Service £3.3 million.
Estimate of 6,000 dog attacks on postmen/women each year.
Police and local authorities have powers to seize dogs they consider to be dangerously out of control.
Police, local authorities and animal welfare groups work together in some areas to promote responsible dog ownership.
Other related dog issues (including overseas legislation)
Leaflets and guidance are available

Anonymous wrote:new position in Obama Admin: Dangerous Dog Czar

Uh, oh. Doggy Death Panels?