Pitbulls and other violent breeds

[Toadfish]

For those of you who don't know the situation...

Canada in light of a few pitbull attacks has banned the breed in Canada, this means that no one can breed or import any new pitbulls, and all current pitbulls must be neutered. I'd also like to know what they plan to do with the other large agressive breeds. If any dog wants to they can do severe damage to a child, perhaps not as much as a pitbull, but rotweilers can be dangerous aswell.

Often the case is that the owners have pitbulls particularlly to be agressive guard dogs but do not have them properly trained, and thus they attack. Personally I think it is a responsibility thing on the owners part, they should have the sense to properly leash, muzzle, or contain agressive and less-controlable breeds. Anyways I'd love to here your thought because as the owner of a medium sized mutt (springer spaniel, german sheppard, chocolate lab), i'd be interested to know hoe the fate of these dogs lie. My dog, granted, is the sweetest thing ever but she can be a little grumpy some days and may snap, and I would hate to think that she would have to be destroyed if some kid is irresponsible and chooses to bother her and gets hurt.

 

[Angry_Platy]

Unfortunately in Australia the rule stands that if someone enters my yard, say, to break into my house, if they get injured in MY yard, from a dog or whatever, then I am responsible. As far as i am concerned if they get injured in my yard after having been there without my consent, then TOO BAD!! I don't keep my house nor my yard child safe.....if my dog (A Jack Russell Terrier) nips at them when they are in MY yard without MY consent then again...TOO BAD!!!! (as far as I am concerned)

The issue I have with aggressive breeds, and I am not singling out pit bulls, is when they are walking around. Here, we have off leash areas, where dogs can run around without a leash on. Any responsible owner will know whether their dog is suitable for such an environment. Unfortunately not all owners are responsible and in this situation there is the possibility for innocent people to get injured etc. Hence I think there should be laws in place to prevent this. The issue with this is that how are the laws going to be enforced and who is going to enforce them? If there is some way that it can be done then great but really, I don't see it working because there are always idiots out there that never follow rules and always seem to get away with it.

I voted the ban option...not the option that has existing dogs destroyed but the other one. I believe it is the only way that the problem can be eradicated in the future (future because it will be a long time for any existing dog to come to the end of its natural life.

 

[MegTheFish]

They banned them in ALL of Canada? Wow...I never knew that.
Atleast there not making everybody who has a pitbull put them down, that would be just terrible.
I don't really agree with the whole thing either...as you said, it mostly depends on if the owner can control their dog.
If they start banning any more dogs...then...grrr.
Maybe they should of inforced some kind of licence for people that own pitbulls instead of banning them.

Unfortunately in Australia the rule stands that if someone enters my yard, say, to break into my house, if they get injured in MY yard, from a dog or whatever, then I am responsible. As far as i am concerned if they get injured in my yard after having been there without my consent, then TOO BAD!! I don't keep my house nor my yard child safe.....if my dog (A Jack Russell Terrier) nips at them when they are in MY yard without MY consent then again...TOO BAD!!!! (as far as I am concerned)

Don't you just hate that? I know I sure do. Its not dog related, but we wanted to set up a trampoline in our back yard. The only problem was is that a lot of people cut through our yard to get to school (the school is right across from my house) (oh, and a lot less people cut through our yard now, maybe only a couple of my friends or people we know) and if they decided to jump on the trampoline and got hurt, guess who gets sued? I don't think it would be a problem now though, because as I said, only my friends or people I know cut through my yard now a days, and I'm sure they wouldn't sue us. (they better not... )

 

[Haiku]

Oh boy... don't get me going on breed bans. Suffice it to say I am totally and completely against breed specific legislation. I believe BREEDERS and BREEDING is what should be addressed. It is people who BREED these dogs to fight and/or be aggressive that needs to be stopped. The breeds are NOT "naturally" violent. It is the ill-bred, ill treated dogs that have violent potentials. A special license to breed that includes education and regular inspections of the breeding situation etc, with laws to spay/neuter all other dogs, would be ideal.

As far as I know, pit bulls (which sadly includes many different "bully" breeds) have only been banned in Ontario thus far in Canada, not all of Canada.

This flash movie sums it up well as pertains to pit bulls (WARNING, includes graphic images):
http/www.pitbullproblem.tk/

Edited to say, I'm not angry at the poster, I just have strong feelings as pertains to this issue. I reread my post and I didn't want it to sound like a rant against the poster.

 

[RandomWiktor]

I'd like to say above anything else that pit bull, dobermans, rotties, and german shepherds - who get a bad rap as "violent" breeds - are not violent animals by nature. They are trained to be guard dogs, fighting dogs, or a prop for someone's masculinity, which results in them becoming an agressive animal. Pit bulls especially are very sweet, family-oriented dogs. You're much more likely to get mauled by a chow or nipped by a cocker. So, I kindof dislike the subject title labeling them as a violent breed, but I think in your post you've acknowledged that its more of an owner issue than a breed issue.

I am against the banning of dog breeds because it doesn't hurt the people who make dogs into monsters. What they do is already illegal; do people honestly think a ban will stop them? Instead, bans like these only hurt people who love and care for their dogs but will reluctantly give them up because they are law-abiding citizens. We see this in counties in Florida; they thought it'd curb pit bull fighting, but it hasn't - it just forced every moral person with a good pit to have their dog destroyed.
The only way we're going to stop agressive dogs is to make the laws regarding punishment for offenses like pit fighting stronger, and make the punishment for having a vicious dog more severe. So far as I am concerned, if your dog bites a person, you should be forced to pay a high liscence fee to keep it, the dog should go through mantidory obedience training and temperament testing at YOUR cost, the dog should be leashed and muzzled at all times when out in public, and your yard - front and back in case it gets out through an open door - should have to have a 6 foot tall fence around it with warnings posted about vicious dogs. People only listen when you hit their wallets; if we make it expensive to keep a vicious dog, much fewer people will train them to be that way.

 

[pnyklr3]

I agree that the training and selective breeding are what cause some dogs so be "off kilter." I have been told that if you have a dog, do not put signs up on your property that suggest your dog is prone to violence ("Guard Dog" or "Warning" signs). They should say "Dog on Duty."

 

[MAM]

Actually, if you research pit bulls, they WERE bred as a fighting breed. http/www.akc.org/breeds/staffordshire_bu...ier/history.cfm


But when it comes down to it, its all in how the dog is raised and treated (same could go for humans I suppose, nature vs. nurture....). Any dog, ANY dog could be raised to be viscious. I've seen tiny terriers that were ready to rip your throat out. And I've seen 85lb pitbulls that just want to curl up in your lap and cuddle (I fostered one like that ). Unfortunately there are people in this world that feel they need to have viscious killer dogs. You could train a golden retriever to be a killer if you really wanted to..... Certain dogs have a rep and so the cycle continues. This leads to these breeds being put down when they come in to shelters, its lead to bans in some communities and now countries, its leads to fear of noble breeds of dogs. I hate to see a ban on any breed. Its sad.

You need a license to have a dog in most places, but I think they need to require a special license for certain breeds, much like some places have implemented with certain reptile species. (Granted, actually enforcing such licensing would be impossible but oh well) Go down to your local pound or shelter sometime and count the number of pitbulls there. And most won't be adopted out becasue they've been mistreated and therefore are unpredictable, and will ultimately be euthanized. Its a pity really.

 

[Haiku]

MAM, with all due respect, they were bred to bull bait and fight other DOGS, but they were never originally bred to be aggressive towards people in the beginning, in fact in order to control such a strong and tenacious breed, they were bred to be particularly docile with people. Over time, pit bulls were bred more and more by fighters (particularly illegal fighters) without any care to their temperment or pure bloodlines. Many years ago, people got together who wanted to breed back the sweeter nature originally in the breed and that is how the American Staffordshire terrier came about. They are basically "pit bulls" that have been bred to have less "gameness" than the fighting lines. Gameness is an increased prey drive and focus, so for instance a very "game" dog will continue to focus on his opponent no matter what pain he's enduring. Unfortunately, breed bans include these well bred and sweet dogs. That is why I say if the breeders and suppliers of these dogs are the focus, that will trickle down and lessen these problems without banning the breed, which is actually a very loving and sweet natured breed in its standard.

Edit: Re-reading your post, that is probably what you intended to say. I guess I just wanted to clarify that they were never bred (at least by responsible breeders) to be aggressive towards people. Quite the contrary \

Edit #2: Your link didn't work for me at first, so my response and explanation of gameness was before I read it. Sorry about that ) But I'll leave my explanation for anyone who is interested.

 

[RandomWiktor]

MAM, with all due respect, they were bred to bull bait and fight other DOGS, but they were never originally bred to be aggressive towards people in the beginning, in fact in order to control such a strong and tenacious breed, they were bred to be particularly docile with people.

Agreed; they actually had to make pit bulls so docile towards people that you could pry them off of a dog or bull without getting hurt, even in the heat of battle. It is only in recent years where pit fighters have bred them to be agressive to people as well as a dual purpose guard and fighting dog that we've seen temperament issues directed towards human beings.
Also, being bred for the purpose of fighting still doesn't make them an inherently "violent" breed. Dogs used for say, fox hunting, or hunting badgers underground, or coursing and fighter large, dangerous game like wolves and bears are not considered violent breeds, so if the pit bull's prey is a bull or dog, how can we call them vicious and not a foxhound, otterhound, beardog, terrier, etc.?
However, I can see that MAM wasn't justifying fighting them, I'm just reiterating Haiku's point about having an inclination against biting people.

 

[Toadfish]

Hey guys just an edit, I'm sorry for saying it was in all of Canada, I admit I was wrong, sorry, it is just in Ontario 9but it could end up being all of Canada one day). And I do agree that these are not violent breeds by nature they're just the ones that do the most damage and thus get the bad reps, and I have seen some of these agressive breeds being bery gentle, it's a matter of responsibility of the owner and more importantly the one who raises the breeds. Thanks for all the input.

 

[MegTheFish]

And I just HAVE to live in Ontario...

 

[pnyklr3]

My homeowners insurance won't cover any medical costs if 3 different breeds of dog that I may own cause injury. As weird as it may sound, Pit Bulls, Rotweillers, and Chow Chows are those not covered. I guess it's the bad rep, but honestly, I don't really think that one could lump an entire breed into a single category. Sounds kinda prejudiced

 

[Iron Man]

I have read a little on pitbulls myself and these dogs are pretty much born killers. Even those who claim they are "sweethearts" will admit...the instinct eventually comes out and they will kill another animal. Now the reason I say other animal is they were bred to like humans. The owner had to be able to trust his dog so much he could yank it out of a fierce fight and not worry at all about the dog turning on him. BUT they do NOT take into account that sometimes dogs to not see babies and children as humans...they see them as rivals...that is if they are not properly trained.

Most humans attacked by pitbulls have been children and infants.

All I'm going to say is...as an American I know that...with freedom comes responsibility...if you aren't going to be responsible....if you can't handle it....you don't need it.

I have seen these dogs ALL OVER THE PLACE where I am and its a "cool" thing to have one. That's ok. Those are the very types that are going to get the dog banned from this country as well.

I have nothing against the animal of course....but any animal that attacks a human for no reason (not self defense or defense of its family) should be put down and I think pitbulls should be banned.

I don't have a problem with most of the other breeds. Now before anyone else were to jump down my throat about being biased about breeds......you get chased by one of these dogs when a child and miraculously be saved from its jaws and know what that's like.....because the look in the eyes of this particular animal is purely....KILL YOU and that's it. And that is what it will take to be saved from a pitbull.....a miracle.

 

[Haiku]

I'm only going to add that many breeds that aren't even pitbulls are mistaken to be pits, everything from boxers, American bulldogs, mastiffs, and so on. This site put together a nice example of how easy it can be to mistake other breeds for pits.

http/www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

I also don't believe pits commonly view children as prey. My sister had a pit with 4 kids and other dogs, and no "killer instinct" ever surfaced.

As a child I was chased and barely escaped in time from the jaws of a dog clearly intent on attacking me. As I got my leg back in the door it attacked the corner of the door ripping holes in the screen and splintering the edges. It was a black lab.

 

[RandomWiktor]

Ironman - I'm sorry that the bad experience you've had with pitbulls has caused you to think that they are "natural born killers." However, this is simply not true. Yes, they absolutely have a strong prey drive, but what breed of terrier doesn't? Heck, what breed of dog doesn't, for the most part? Any dog that is not thoroughly socialized with other dogs, humans, children, and animals at a young age will not be a "safe" animal. However, even pit bulls, if raised around other animals and dogs, will usually be very gentle, unless they come from poor bloodlines (ie. fighting lines), in which case I will admit there is definately an inborn agression towards animals.
Pit bulls also do not view children as prey. A pit bull who hasn't been well socialized and has a powerful prey drive can indeed mistake a child - which wriggles and whines and cries like a wounded animal - for prey, but ANY dog can make this mistake, and indeed many do. This is why an infant or child should never be left unsupervised with ANY dog. Dog attacks in general - not just pit bull attacks - are most common in children. And let us not just crucify the dogs; in many cases with older children, the dogs have been severely provoked to the point that any animal would lash out unless they were the best trained creature in the world.
Just as a side note, I'd like to add that I volunteered at an animal shelter that had a *lot* of pits, even ones from fighting lines, for 7 years. You would think volunteers, who range in age from about 16 to 80, would have been attacked by at least one of these pit bulls, some of whom came directly from a dog fighting ring and through our doors. And yet, of the two serious dog attacks on volunteers, one was a dalmatian who had previously shown no signs of agression, and one was a chow mix. Lesser bite incidenced inolves a spaniel mix, several terrier mixes, two beagles, and a collie. I bet if we actually looked into the ratio of the number of pit bulls vs. the number of dog attacks as compared to other dog breeds, we would find it no higher than average; there are simply so many of them in bad hands right now - and the media so heavily covers the incidents that do happen - that it seems like they're just running around killing people.
As a second side note, there was a case last year where a woman was mauled to death by what the news described as "two massive, pit-bull like dogs." The breed was the Preso Canario (Canary Dog), a breed of dog banned pretty much everywhere else in the civilized world due to temperament issues. Their origional use was hunting big cats, so is it any wonder that they could take down a human? Yet, everyone heard the news and thought "pit bulls." Talk about a bad rap! I'd bet many so-called pit bull maulings were actually mixes or similar looking breeds, but since that doesn't make news, the media just called it a pit bull.