*Rant on dangerous pets and their owners*

[Menarker]

Had a bad run in with someone's PITBULL.

No leash, no muzzle, Entire driveway with 3-4 meter sliding fence open as possible as it could be.

Dog instantly and aggressively charge towards me on sight despite me not actually being on his territory.

I dunno if I was brave/smart or stupid/mistaking my "dog lore", but I stood my ground and didn't run (despite being a fast runner myself) so as not to encourage it to chase after me (it slowed down still growling insanely as I slowly moved backwards). Its owner finally shouted and ran to pull the dog backwards (and she ran off into the house so as to avoid me catching her face... which is pointless since I live 3-4 houses away from her!)

Good news is, I'm untouched. Shaken, but nothing worse.

But I'm pissed off as hell. She lives near 3 schools, several bus stops, a senior center, 2 centers of worship. Someone else much more panicky or weaker could have easily been severely injured, especially those younger or weaker than I am.

Now, I've walked that path for 5 years, and never seen it before, so it's possible that dog belonged to someone visiting them or they... *Shudder* bought an aggressive dog all the sudden and have the gall to not take the proper measures to keep it in the yard...

I've always had a distaste for dogs (and a fondness for cats). This event only made the feeling much stronger.

:argh:

So yeah, I hate owners of pets who are unable or unwilling to properly take actions to restrain their pets, especially if it has a history of aggression. Makes me want to advocate destruction of said animal and to charge owners in the same way as if they used a weapon.

[Krylo]

Isn't that more or less what they do if a dog like that mauls someone?

Edit: Just say kill or death or whatever. You want the dog dead. Not destroyed. Man, this ain't no prime time anime from the 90s. We aren't sending that dog to another dimension. And it's a living being, not an object.

Edit2: It's possible they've had the dog for a long time and it's never been violent before, as well. Dogs tend to get a little crazy in their old age just like any other animal (including humans), and with breeds bred to be aggressive that can often express itself in violence that the animal never actually displayed before. Which is why some people consider them 'time bombs'. While there's a good chance such a dog will never get violent, there's also a chance it will get violent for no reason other than getting old.

[Menarker]

I see the word destroyed used in nearly every book and newspaper I have read regarding santioned killing of animals under these circumstances. It's basically the approved euphemism. But dead's dead.

[Marc v4.0]

Pittbulls are absolute sweethearts unless you in-breed and then beat them for fighting, or they go crazy, but that is true of any big dog really. Blame the people, but don't hate the pup

[pochercoaster]

Not even a leash? Yeah, that's downright irresponsible. If you don't want to leash them put them in a fenced-in backyard at least.

I was in a similar situation when I got in the elevator the other day with a fellow tenant and their HUGE unmuzzled dog, which was growling quite... violently at me until I got off on my floor. I guess I was lucky that nothing happened- what are you supposed to do in a small, confined space like that? This dog was huge, its jaw was scary.

A lot of people say "oh don't worry he won't bite you he likes people," and yeah while dogs do have their own personalities and can lean towards being "nice," especially if their owners treat them properly, it doesn't GUARANTEE anything. It's still an animal and we can't read their minds so you have to be cautious and especially mindful of other people's safety. Meaning you should leash your dog and not let them run amok, regardless of their breed. Unless they're a toy chihuahua or something equally non threatening, but if you have one of those you probably carry it around in your purse a la Paris Hilton anyways.

[Menarker]

I'm willing to allow that pitbulls as rabid vicious murder on four legs are the minority (more of a trope than reality). However, I hate dogs (or any other animal) of any species that are uncontrolled when they behave in that fashion. (I still hate them when they are controlled, but at least it's not going to harm anyone unless they accidently or purposely bypass the controlling factors.)

Animals in a manner of fashion are worse than humans when they go out of control because they are impossible to negotiate or plactate in general. If it was possible that I could just tell that dog that I'm not stepping on his territory, don't plan to, and was leaving the general area anyhow in a few seconds, even that would be a massive improvement from being unable to do a god damn thing about my situation except being lucky that the owner heard the growling.

[Pip Boy]

Dogs tend to be less likely to attack if you're off of their territory and if you don't back down. Stand your ground and show them you're not afraid. That said, it isn't a perfect strategy. They're living beings, not robots, so if they're rabid or if you're just unlucky, they may attack anyway.

[phil_]

Why can't I own a lion tiger? He'd kick that mouse in the wall's ass no sweat, plus he's too heavy to jump on my shelves and knock stuff down like a regular cat.

Edit:Unless they're a toy chihuahua or something equally non threatening, but if you have one of those you probably carry it around in your purse a la Paris Hilton anyways.Little dogs will eat you and your family if given a chance. (http://www.whas11.com/home/Dogs-eat-owners-body-after-man-dies-79507677.html)

[Aldurin]

My family has always gone with border collies because of how smart they are, and the ones I've had are as loyal and kind as hell. The worst they are to strangers is sometimes avoiding them, sometimes scream-barking.

But those are medium size dogs. Little dogs are actually the perfect vessels for demons who are capable of completely fooling their masters or finding senile ones.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Why can't I own a lion tiger? He'd kick that mouse in the wall's ass no sweat, plus he's too heavy to jump on my shelves and knock stuff down like a regular cat.


You're right he would just completely destroy them with a swing of his massive paw of death.

[Pip Boy]

You'd be much safer just keeping Charlie Sheen as a pet.

[Premmy]

A Little boy on my block was mauled by a pair of Loose pitbulls this month. He's currently in critical condition. People who don't take care of their pets and look after them responsibly piss me the fuck off beyond belief

That said. I own a rottweiler a so called "Vicious" breed and I'm beginning to worry very much about both the safety of my little puppy while left alone in our yard whilst me and the roomate are at work and the general level of persecution I'm probably going to face in the coming months raising her.

Animals respond to the stimulus you give them, bad pet-owners make bad pets.

[Bard The 5th LW]

A few weeks ago, a friend and I found a parakeet fluttering around my backyard. We tried to get it to calm down so we could grab it, but it just flew a few blocks away. We lost track of it. Poor bird is probably dead. Admittedly, it wasn't dangerous towards us, but I've heard some stories of parrots and their ilk being dangerous birds in certain circumstances.

edit: we have little terriers running around, and they aren't physically dangerous, but the older one is just damn manipulative.

[Krylo]

Pittbulls are absolute sweethearts unless you in-breed and then beat them for fighting, or they go crazy, but that is true of any big dog really. Blame the people, but don't hate the pup

No. They aren't.

They have a reputation for being vicious because they were bred to be guard dogs. That means that when the breed was first created there were personality traits that were selected for in breeding as well as strength. Amongst those were a strong desire to protect its territory and a 'vicious' attitude in a fight.

Loyalty was ALSO amongst them, but when a dog starts going senile, or losing hearing and sight with age, welp.

I mean, yes, the people who have said that if they raise a pet properly it will probably be fine are completely correct, but on the other hand there is a reason you don't hear of many people raising wolves even from puppies that don't end with 'and then it mauled a child'.

Personality traits can be given a higher incidence through breeding, and while proper nurturing can repress them it's not a 100% thing and if you have a dog like a pitbull or a rottweiler you should be cognizant of that fact and treat it appropriately. Which is to say keep it leashed or fenced in places, don't let it play with small children (who are likely to yank on its tail/ears/do other things to provoke it--even the most mild mannered dogs and cats can react with violence to this, regardless of breed), and definitely don't let it run around your neighborhood where children play.

Just because they act nice and kind to you that doesn't mean they're going to be 'sweethearts' to anyone else who comes near. Especially if they decide to be protective of their 'pack'.

Edit: P.S. Trained attack dogs are also 'sweethearts' with their handlers, but you better believe they will rip a bitch's throat out if they're provoked in the wrong way.

Edit2: Really even ignoring that they are more likely to be mean to people who they don't recognize through selective breeding, they have ridiculously powerful jaws and are basically murder machines. They are weapons in living form, and you shouldn't ignore that fact just because you think they are cute or they have never acted out before. They are capable of killing someone very quickly.

[phil_]

I counter your well-reasoned arguments, Krylo, with my anecdote about the pitbull and her owner that I met in my alley. I have never been sober around this dog. Never ever. Why would I be sober in a freaking alley? Anyway, she's adorable, her owner reported the hole where the sewer collapsed in the alley, and I felt genuine concern when I saw posters of a similar missing pitbull until I saw her again. That dog is awesome.

Anecdotes! Off to the writing thread!

[Amake]

At least none of us are trapped indoors at night by packs of de-domesticated dogs roaming the streets. That happens in some places you know.

I've always said I like cats and dogs in equal measure, but when you think about it cats kill and maim a whole lot less people. Even though they spend a lot more time unsupervised and unleashed. It might be time to give up that "man's best friend" title, dogs.

[Premmy]

No. They aren't.

They have a reputation for being vicious because they were bred to be guard dogs.
Actually Pit Bulls were bred not as guard dogs, but as animal-fighting dogs.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier)
Whereas Rottweilers were bred as herd and work dogs(pulling carts and the like) (http://www.akc.org/breeds/rottweiler/history.cfm)
In a sense they can be considered "Guard Dog" breeds since I'm sure they were often used to protect owners from strange animals, but they aren't necessarily naturally human-aggressive.

That means that when the breed was first created there were personality traits that were selected for in breeding as well as strength. Amongst those were a strong desire to protect its territory and a 'vicious' attitude in a fight.
well yes, a strong Guard attitude, but pitbulls were actually (originally anyway) supposed to be easily separable from fights by human intervention.

Loyalty was ALSO amongst them, but when a dog starts going senile, or losing hearing and sight with age, welp.
This is definitely one of those "well that goes for almost everything" things and I know you know that

I mean, yes, the people who have said that if they raise a pet properly it will probably be fine are completely correct, but on the other hand there is a reason you don't hear of many people raising wolves even from puppies that don't end with 'and then it mauled a child'.
Apples and Oranges, man.

Personality traits can be given a higher incidence through breeding, and while proper nurturing can repress them it's not a 100% thing and if you have a dog like a pitbull or a rottweiler you should be cognizant of that fact and treat it appropriately.
Most definitely, yes but you have to be sure of the traits you're dealing with and not confusing them for other, similar traits, such as in the case with animal-aggression and Human-aggression

Which is to say keep it leashed or fenced in places, don't let it play with small children (who are likely to yank on its tail/ears/do other things to provoke it--even the most mild mannered dogs and cats can react with violence to this, regardless of breed), and definitely don't let it run around your neighborhood where children play.

yup

Just because they act nice and kind to you that doesn't mean they're going to be 'sweethearts' to anyone else who comes near. Especially if they decide to be protective of their 'pack'.
That's a matter of training will they be aggressive to other humans? that's up to you, do they have a greater chance to be aggressive to other animals? now THAT'S up to breeding.

Edit: P.S. Trained attack dogs are also 'sweethearts' with their handlers, but you better believe they will rip a bitch's throat out if they're provoked in the wrong way.
Emphasis on the "Trained" part of this statement

Edit2: Really even ignoring that they are more likely to be mean to people who they don't recognize through selective breeding, they have ridiculously powerful jaws and are basically murder machines. They are weapons in living form, and you shouldn't ignore that fact just because you think they are cute or they have never acted out before. They are capable of killing someone very quickly.
I really hope you're not citing that "Jaw lock" bullshit, because it is, indeed, bullshit (http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/6/2006/2006-ohio-975.pdf)

Both animals were bred for physical strength for their respective duties, and an enhanced prey instinct towards animals in particular and loyalty to humans.

Basically these dogs were trained to be aggressive(Kinda) to other animals first and foremost.

More often than not aggression can be curtailed to an extreme degree when only around humans, though improper socialization can lead to the presence of other animals flipping that switch, so don't keep them isolated from other dogs.

[Krylo]

Apples and Oranges, man.The only real difference between wolves and domesticated dogs are a few thousand years of living around humans and breeding/domestication.

So it's not really. It's the same thing. Aggression and territorial instincts weren't slowly bred out of wild wolves. This makes them much more dangerous even when raised from pups.

In the same way aggression was bred into various fighting dogs, which makes them much more dangerous than non-fighting dogs. Not to the same level, but the comparison is there.


Most definitely, yes but you have to be sure of the traits you're dealing with and not confusing them for other, similar traits, such as in the case with animal-aggression and Human-aggressionThey aren't really that different. Humans are just animals. Aggression is aggression. The only reason there's a difference to the dogs is that domesticated dogs see humans as part of their pack.

Depending on how much exposure the dog has to people other than its immediate family (and how those people treat it/its family) 'animal-aggression' can very quickly turn into 'aggression toward any humans I don't recognize' because, again, humans are animals.

I really hope you're not citing that "Jaw lock" bullshit, because it is, indeed, bullshit (http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/6/2006/2006-ohio-975.pdf)More like the 'they are a very powerful animal that can maul and kill you quicker than most people give them credit for just because they've been domesticated'.

Edit: I mean really, how often do you hear of a golden retriever mauling people? Compared to a pitbull or rott? There's a reason for this, guys.

[Premmy]

Labrador breeds bite Pretty often, actually (http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Fuck dogs and their owners.

[Premmy]

You shouldn't say that, your mother is a loyal companion and I take excellent care of her.

[Krylo]

Labrador breeds bite Pretty often, actually (http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html)

Only straight labradors, though.

Also, they're in second with pitbulls in third.

Rottweilers have no numbers.

Only paying attention to maimings. Just bites that cause some kinda bodily harm are hardly worth considering.

Edit: I'm pretty sure labradors are a lot more prevalent than pitbulls as well, but I don't care enough to look for numbers.

Edit2: I mean, arguably I chose a bad breed for the direct comparison, but there are only three breeds that are in the triple digits or higher (goddamn sharpei), and one of them is pitbulls. That is not exactly helping your case.

[Marc v4.0]

You are greatly mistaking "pitbulls are more often improperly trained to be fighting dogs, because they have exploitable traits, so incidents of attacks from them are high" with "Pitbulls are all dangerous all the time no matter what so that is why people fight them" It is a rather remarkable display of ignorance, honestly. The door on training this particular breed of Dog swings both ways, but they have recieved a horrible reputation due to a combination of people being careless and either not getting the animal trained properly by a proffesional or deliberatly training it to be a killing machine.

[Krylo]

people being careless and either not getting the animal trained properly

You realize that with most breeds not doing this isn't going to end up with someone maimed, right?

I mean, I've never said you can't do this. I've just said that you have to do this with this breed and you should be careful because hey: It's a dangerous breed.

Edit: Well, and that calling a breed you have to train properly/not be careless with/be careful with 'sweet hearts' is a misnomer, and kind of hints at a level of disregard for proper training/safety. Though, I guess you know better, it still comes off that way when you defend a breed with just 'they're sweethearts'.

[Marc v4.0]

Yes, throw out my entire point because you can take a word I said and shift it around to be right. That is how this works.

Clearly I meant you should handle all strange and untrained animals as nothing but babies all the time.


I am not singling pitbulls out as needing training to be well adjusted, you are twisting my words to mean that to suit your point of view on the matter. ALL DOGS should be professionally trained at least as soon as they start becoming of a terrirorial age. Singling out one particular breed as being a bad egg when it boils down to how Humans have mishandled their training or intentionally trained them to be monsters is wrong.

[Krylo]

I am not singling pitbulls out as needing training to be well adjusted, you are twisting my words to mean that to suit your point of view on the matter.The door on training this particular breed of Dog swings both ways, but they have recieved a horrible reputation due to a combination of people being careless and either not getting the animal trained properly by a proffesional or deliberatly training it to be a killing machine.You totally did.

APPARENTLY you didn't mean that.

However, I didn't twist your words at all. That's how that reads.

FURTHER:
ALL DOGS should be professionally trained at least as soon as they start becoming of a terrirorial age. Singling out one particular breed as being a bad egg when it boils down to how Humans have mishandled their training or intentionally trained them to be monsters is wrong.You realize that with most breeds not doing this isn't going to end up with someone maimed, right?

Seriously, the vast vast vast majority of people are 'careless' with their training of dogs.

The numbers still say pitbulls maim more people.

You'd have a point if people professionally trained every other breed or whatever, but that's not a thing that happens. Hell, Pitbulls, BECAUSE of their reputation, probably get proper training more often than most other dogs.

Honestly, your point seems to be that despite this breed a) being stronger than most other breeds, b) being statistically more likely to maim than other breeds, and c) being bred to fight and then as guard dogs* that they are no more dangerous than dogs that are weaker than them, statistically less likely to maim than them, and were bred to be companions. Which doesn't make sense, really.

And is, honestly, just a dangerous attitude to propagate. Maybe you think all dogs should be professionally trained. Most people don't. Most people won't get a dog professionally trained if they don't think not doing so is going to significantly dangerous. Most people grew up with dogs of less aggressive breeds that weren't professionally trained and never had a problem. Most people have reason to believe the average dog doesn't need it.

Pitbulls, rottweilers, sharpeis, aka...whatever they ares, etc. etc. do. Other dogs could benefit as well, yes, but you're significantly less likely to end up with your Jack Terrier maiming a child (or adult) than your pitbull. DEM'S JUST STATISTICAL LIKE FACTS.

And honestly, why do you think that it is a correlation directly between more people training pitbulls to be aggressive or mistreating them automatically? You have no evidence of this as causation. All we have is correlation, here. Without numbers backing up that pitbulls are only more likely to be aggressive because they are more likely to be mistreated (which I honestly find unlikely: dobermans are just as often trained for that kind of misbehavior and are yet far 'safer') seems rather... defensive of the breed.

It's a pretty small fringe of people that raise dogs to be violent on purpose. And if it isn't on purpose it's just as likely to be any other dog as a pitbull.

*Settlers bred and trained them as guard dogs. I had the order of fighting vs guard wrong before, admittedly.

[Menarker]

I am not singling pitbulls out as needing training to be well adjusted, you are twisting my words to mean that to suit your point of view on the matter. ALL DOGS should be professionally trained at least as soon as they start becoming of a terrirorial age. Singling out one particular breed as being a bad egg when it boils down to how Humans have mishandled their training or intentionally trained them to be monsters is wrong.

I don't think it's wrong but "unfortunate". Certain species are more of a liability when things go wrong. It's like comparing a child predisposed to steal with one predisposed to fighting. Both when raised to be healthy moral human beings are a boon, but the one predisposed to fighting is more of a liability to others' safety when things go wrong, which can be as small as a single incident which pisses them off.

Certain species of animals, like bulldogs, are like that child predisposed to fighting. Animals are not capable of comparing one abstract situations to another. Most animals can be trained to be obedient and gentle to humans, but once a certain trigger occurs cognitively, that unlucky person in their sight is no longer a human... to which they then default to their prior predisposed set of insights. You can't erase an animals tendencies so much as try to build/paint over it. They also lack the cognitive foresight to apply any of their training toward human to this "new thing that looks human but for some reason in their mind isn't".
By trigger, I mean anything like some odd perfume or colors, especially if it has a bad history with it with a former owner or antagonistic force like someone who kicked it before. Or just old age or illness wrecking havoc on their senses. Anything really. Animals react to many different stimuli, and as much as the training tries, there can be gaps in the training which doesn't cover certain stimulus which the dog is predisposed to act (something we can't predict without seeing and recognizing what it is in the first place.)
And when that animal is a strong animal like a bulldog, then a single incident is all that's needed to ruin someone's day/life.

The same is much stronger for wolves/dogs comparisions where wolves have vastly different cognitive states than dogs despite their similar looks. I mean, look at Dingos. Practically every guide will advise you to stay the fuck away from them and keep them away from children, because despite how much like they look like domesticated dogs, they are indeed wild and dangerous.

[Marc v4.0]

You totally did.

I guess context really doesn't mean much of anything around here as far as arguments go?

We were talking specifically about Pitbulls, so of course I used them in my response. Would it have made much sense if I had used some other animal? This is specifically twisting what I said around so you can be right, ignoring the specific context of the argument at hand to say even I am singling them out when THEY WERE THE TOPIC. I think I just made it very clear I think the same way of all animals.

[rpgdemon]

Pit Bulls are good dogs, generally. My cousin has two, and there's nothing in the breed that makes them violent naturally, unless they're inbred and abused into fighting.

The problem is that they're very strong dogs, so even if they're not violent, they can still cause damage (The two were running around, ran into my aunt and broke/sprained her ankle), and when they -are- violent, they can cause a lot more damage than other breeds might, with their immensely powerful jaws, for one. A violent chihuahua on the other hand? Just kick it in the face.

In general though, Pit Bulls will be aggressive towards other dogs, but not humans, and in fact, the inbred ones are still bred for docility towards humans, and aggressiveness towards dogs. Even the people who want hostile aggressive pit bulls don't want a fighting dog mauling it's owner.

[Krylo]

This is specifically twisting what I said around so you can be right

No, this is you wording things poorly and then blaming everyone else for twisting it around. This isn't the first time you've done it and I'm not the first person you've done it to or I wouldn't even mention it.

If you meant any dog, then you should have said something to that effect. Like, for instance: "Any dog can be violent due to poor training, but pitbulls have a particularly bad rap because of x".

I am not sure what x would be, in that case, however. Because your argument doesn't even make sense without singling out pitbulls as needing training, considering you were trying to explain why they cause the third most maulings and have a bad reputation but aren't ACTUALLY worse than any other dog.

Which, itself is another problem with your wording, not my reading. You made an argument that only makes sense when taken a specific way and is worded in such a way as to be taken a specific way. You then get angry when people take it that way.

This is a thing you do a lot. You should work on that. Not even the wording things better part, but the accusing other people of purposefully twisting your words around when no one did that part. It's not that hard to just say "Well I actually meant any dog" without accusing whomever you're arguing with (in this case me) of shit.

Edit@RPG: The plural of anecdote isn't data. Explain why pitbulls cause more maulings than most other breeds without making wild assumptions as to how they are trained worse than any other dog SO MUCH that they cause 5-10x the maulings. Honestly, I don't care if I'm wrong, but everything I've learned about the breed says I'm right and all I'm getting in return is anecdotes and guesses as to why they might be more violent without any actual proof or data to it.

I've laid out my reasoning clearly, but I can do it again:

Bred to be aggressive (Humans are just another animal and shit happens when you train something to be aggressive toward animals) -> Extremely powerful -> Often Lackadaisical Attitudes Toward Their Danger By Their Owners Because They Are So Nice -> Violence. This has been backed up by data, ironically from Premmy because man I wasn't gonna look that up, wherein they cause the third most maulings.

I mean, their just being stronger and shit happens could be part of it (though I don't think accidentally knocking someone's ankle would be counted as a mauling statistically), but there are lots of very strong dogs on that list with lower numbers. Like Boxers. I've yet to see/hear anything that accounts for such a large discrepancy (again, people who train dogs to be violent on purpose are fringe, and accidental poor training could happen to any breed) other than a natural streak of aggressiveness combined with their power that means they should be handled with more care than many breeds of dog.

Edit: I'm not even sure why I'm getting so much vitriol. It's not like I'm saying they're bad dogs, or horrible animals, or no one should have them as pets ever, or whatever. Just that you should be more careful with certain breeds of dog, this one among them.

[Menarker]

@rpg: Animals that are trained to be aggressive to SOME humans but not all could be even trickier because there are more chances of the people in the "do not attack catagory" bleeding into the "attack catagory". Also, because they have been allowed to exercise their aggressiveness, the likelihood that their aggression will lead to severe physical injuries are higher. Also, their aggression can become habit-forming and they become more aggressive in their neutral states and it is quicker for them to shift from neutral to "provoked" with fewer or weaker stimuli.

EDIT: @Premmy's Link: Holy Shit, look at the numbers for Sharpei breeds! How the hell do those guys gets numbers double the the next highest dog for injuries and deaths and not get any sort of negative reputation!?

[Shyria Dracnoir]

EDIT: @Premmy's Link: Holy Shit, look at the numbers for Sharpei breeds! How the hell do those guys gets numbers double the the next highest dog for injuries and deaths and not get any sort of negative reputation!?

I think you're looking at the Shar pei/Rottweiler mix stats; on my end, the purebred Shar pei stats are completely blank. It might be disproportionately inflated by the dog-fighting circuit; Shar peis can have a nasty temper in spite of their (to us) goofy looks because they were bred for fighting and guard work in China.

Western breeders maintain that any dog in China that protects property is called a fighting dog, whereas in Canada and the United States, they are referred to as guard dogs. This is still a moot point. Up until the introduction of Breed Specific Legislation, designed to target breeds alleged to be "more likely" to attack and largely aimed at criminalising the American Pit Bull Terrier, the Shar-Pei was regarded as a breed designed, bred and selected for dog fighting. After the introduction of various Breed Specific Legislation, many breeders started to deny the fighting ancestry and concocted fanciful tales of a hunting heritage. It is worth mentioning that the Chinese and Taiwanese still regard the Shar-Pei as a dog-fighting breed, although the prohibitive cost of the breed has done much to discourage such abuse.

However, since Shar Peis are so rare in the West to begin with and expensive even when and where you do get them, a lot of fighter dog breeders might decide to mate them out to other breeds to stretch what they have to work with. Additionally, those numbers might represent attacks among groups that get under reported in the media, such as minorites. To the news networks and legislators, a suburban white kid getting savaged by a family pet gets more attention than a poor brown kid in the same situation.

[Nikose Tyris]

Gotta say my girlfriend has been part of Daschund Rescue, and I have learned that if you don't baby those adorable weiner dogs from the time they hatch, that they'll happily maul the shit out of you. [She has scarred hands from an ignored dog [not abused] named Woody.]

In terms of scary dogs man Daschund's top my list. Nothing that cute and harmless looking should be so dangerous.

[Kerensky287]

Labrador breeds bite Pretty often, actually (http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html)

Only straight labradors, though.

Also, they're in second with pitbulls in third.

Rottweilers have no numbers.

Only paying attention to maimings. Just bites that cause some kinda bodily harm are hardly worth considering.

Edit: I'm pretty sure labradors are a lot more prevalent than pitbulls as well, but I don't care enough to look for numbers.

Edit2: I mean, arguably I chose a bad breed for the direct comparison, but there are only three breeds that are in the triple digits or higher (goddamn sharpei), and one of them is pitbulls. That is not exactly helping your case.

Just took a look at that table actually. It's a really, really shitty table.

Mostly because the dog breed names don't actually line up with their statistics.

See, I was wondering why they had things like:

German......................39
shepherd/husky...........2
mix............................1

and when I looked at the bottom of the chart, it looked like Shar Peis had about as many incidents of violence as all the other breeds put together.

Then I noticed that there was no entry next to "Total."

So yes, some idiot just threw all of their statistics into that chart without making sure the names lined up. That's why there are so many different entries that just say "mix." Just from counting line by line, it looks to me like Pitbull Terriers have about 1110 recorded attacks that caused bodily harm, which is more than half of all recorded attacks put together.

Labradors, as an aside, only have 26. So no, they aren't that bitey of a breed.

EDIT: Just by checking other big numbers, it looks to me like Rottweilers have 409 recorded attacks that caused bodily harm, second only to the Pitbulls themselves. So really, the table (arranged properly) is EXACTLY in line with what you'd expect.

The sad thing is that goddamn Wolf Hybrids only have 71 attacks. Fuckin' wolves aren't even all that dangerous compared to the big two, relatively speaking.

EDIT2: I feel I should say something more relevant to the original topic, while I'm here anyway.

I'm a dog owner myself, and I feel like my golden retriever would never hurt anyone on purpose. He was never mistreated, and he's a breed that doesn't really get territorial or aggressive. But the possibility is still there, I acknowledge, and I can see where people are coming from when they say "My dog would never do such a thing."

But when I see people saying that you shouldn't jump to conclusions about pitbulls - that they only attack if provoked, or the ones that fight must have come from broken households, that sort of thing - then I have to disagree. The evidence is there that they are the MOST aggressive breed out there by a long shot, and that's because they were bred to be aggressive. It's nature, not nurture. Their instincts will tell them to fight more often than not.

Like, yes, it's a bad reputation, but they certainly earned it. Their wikipedia page tells a little story about how San Francisco relabelled them to St. Francis Terriers in an attempt to circumvent the bad blood associated with the name Pitbull, but they had to turn it back almost immediately when some of the dogs killed other domestic animals in their new homes.

[Marc v4.0]

It is important to note from the Wiki article as well...

Temperament

The APBT is a breed that is loyal to friends and family, and is generally friendly towards strangers. Many have strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures, including deer and livestock (prey drive).[7] As with any dog breed, proper training and socialization at an early age is a must. According to the UKC, "aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable."[8]


However, the entire article seems to go back and forth between them good breeds and horrible breeds, so I don't even know what the hell.

Krylo, I didn't mean to fume so much vitriol about it. I disagree with your assertions on the breed, and think it is more the fault of people who breed the dogs to enhance the aggressive behaviors. Out of an entire litter, only one or two might express the traits to the level they were breeding for, and the rest get sold off as pets to people none the wiser. A properly bred Pit Bull Terrier shouldn't show increased signs of aggression to people over any regular dog bred to hunt animals that aren't human. This is where, I think, the problem comes from. They can be easily bred to be super-aggressive and unstable, which makes them better suited for people who WANT those traits, so litters of badly bred PBT's get more and more widespread. More of a 'vicious cycle' viewpoint then a 'bad in the genes' one. It is, apparently, a topic I am passionate about, more so then I actually realized and I really could have worded everything a lot better then I did.

Not to use as a solid example, it was more of an amusing one to me, bows are just as deadly as firearms. Yet more people want to ban or control firearms because you see much more crime involving guns then you do wandering bands of English Longbowmen.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Bows take a life time of practice to use effectively as well as constant workout to keep in physical condition to use it. A gun is much easier to use and requires far less training and physical condition.
A bow and the arrows are difficult to get, not so the gun.
A bow is much more limited by weather conditions.
A bow is much more difficult to haul around and is impossible to conceal.
It also takes longer to set up and fire and is fairly difficult to use effectively at close range.
We stopped using bows for a reason.

If you try to go on a killing spree with a box, good luck to you.

[Marc v4.0]

Bows take a life time of practice to use effectively as well as constant workout to keep in physical condition to use it. A gun is much easier to use and requires far less training and physical condition.
A bow and the arrows are difficult to get, not so the gun.
A bow is much more limited by weather conditions.
A bow is much more difficult to haul around and is impossible to conceal.
It also takes longer to set up and fire and is fairly difficult to use effectively at close range.
We stopped using bows for a reason.


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4549162/headdesk.gif

[PyrosNine]

My experience is that all dogs will bite you for different reasons, including relatively friendly dogs, in that they will mimic their owners treatment to them to other dogs, but also mimic the actions of other dogs in their company, or even in their neighborhood. My dog Lilu is about as fierce as cotton candy, but when we had a dumb as bricks Great Dane who barked at everything until she figured out it wasn't a threat or was in fact her owner, Lilu would follow her around and would mimic the bark at everything for years after the Great Dane vamoosed.

It can also work if your neighbor raises their dogs bad, and your dog is across the fence or whatnot: Your puppy, raised apart from other dogs, sees the other dogs as models of 'proper' behavior.

And yeah, unless you discourage violent or rough play/behavior without reacting with your own violence, most dogs will be carnivores: territorial and easily defensive. I'm not sure if you noticed this, but mankind's a carnivore, and we too tend to be reared to be aggressive and violent, regardless of race, gender, or situation, and fiercely territorial towards people and places. Just go onto a forum and make an illogical statement!

I've lived in some rough neighborhoods and I've known some mean ol' dogs, and I have smelled of both cats and a female Weimador in heat, and I have learned a thing or two about dealing with aggressive dogs. If you're not in their "turf", most dogs will just bark, aggressive and unaggressive, and get as close to you as they can get without exiting their territory. Aggressive dogs however, will be willing to leave the boundaries of their territory if you tary too long by their territory- and dogs will sometimes increase the boundaries of their territory over time, so what was safe one day might not be the next.

To tell the difference between the nonagressive and aggressive while you're in their territory, the non-aggressive will just bark at you, and remain a safe distance from you. It will respect your presence, because you're kinda a BIG dog. Small children are at a disadvantage, but for anyone over 13, or even 8, most dogs will treat you with the same deference as a dog of equivalent or more size and weight. The fact we stand upright like a Bear is an intimidating factor as well (another note, don't go on all fours or get low to the ground near dogs you're not friends with)

The aggressive dog will maintain some distance, but also inch closer- it's not respecting your space and it's not afraid of you to the extent it'll keep away. It will also have a visible difference- it'll be like there's an electric current in the air surrounding it if you're paying attention. A lot of people who are inexperienced or afraid of dogs will sometimes not notice this because they were too busy thinking about something else or performing a task, but dogs are very communicative with body language. This is your cue to back away, and get on your defensive. Sadly, most won't notice until...

An aggressive dog will then hackle it's fur (not to the extent of a cat, but it's still visible) and show teeth. The visible display of teeth will be a simple curling up of it's lips. The ears will accentuate all of the previous. This is GO time. This is your last warning, and you can usually still get away without a fight, but you normally don't want to get this far.

This is because when a dog does this, your typical first reaction will range from either OH CRAP to shitting your pants, and while dogs don't smell fear, they do sense when you're vulnerable and receptive to them. You are reacting to the dog, and they notice they have sway over you, and like a four year notices that they have at least the time it takes to count to ten to continue being disobedient, they realize you're not going to do anything.

What you wanna try to do is to get up your guns. Don't be aggressive yourself, don't make any needless motions, and keep both eyes on the dog, but stand firm. Solid. If you've ever seen a big, friendly dog meet up with an aggressive one, it will stand still and watch, and the aggressor will be intimidated. The dog isn't buying into the aggressive dog's shit, and if the big guy is big enough (as a human should be), the aggressor should lose the aggression and back off, or at least not bother attacking and the other dog (Or Human) can leave.

If it's a stupidly aggressive dog, usually one that has gotten into fights with it's owner or other less violent dogs and not been suitably punished for it, it will attack anyway, to the point of stupidity. This is why little dogs can be a menace to people and other dogs, because they aren't adequately aware that they are a small meal or quite punt-able. Bigger dogs need to be punished in a proper way immediately and continually when they show violence to owners or companions, because they are able to back up their threat.

When a dog attacks, typically, the dog being attacked will either dodge and run (not too great an idea), or will wait until the actual attack and then attack back- either with a tackle, or a counter bite, then disengage. The aggressor will usually do the same, because nobody likes an opponent who fights back. Ask any mugger, they're more afraid of the victim deciding to fight back than a police officer showing up.

Now, you don't want to actually fight with the dog, you wan to give the presence of attacking. An intimidation lunge, where you ball up your fist and move your upper body forward suddenly (you know what I"m talking about, whenever you are bullied or bully someone else, the bigger guy will do this) will count as an 'attack', and any sane dog will leap away. Immediately go back to the defensive and step back, minding your environment and your footwork.

You don't want to actually fight the dog (unless you absolutely have to, I myself have tackled a doberman for the sake of my Lejeune!) because then it will be a real fight, and the dog won't back down until you've beaten the ever living crap out of it. You might think that after enough fight, the dog will get scared and run off, but like human beings tenacity and stubbornness will sometimes keep any dog fighting until serious injury. You want to hold it off until it's owner comes out, or until you can retreat to safety.

So it will lunge, or draw close for a bite, and you want to intimidate lunge as a counter, and step back. Do so until it's gone, or you're in safety: a high area, the presence of a group of other people, the owner comes out to get it, the police, or until it considers you no longer a threat, or is scared from being so far out of its own territory and runs back home.

Now, you can run, skip, hop, whatever, call the police or local animal control, or even the owner of the dog to give them a piece of your mind.

More info:
http://leerburg.com/dogattack.htm

Of note, a RABID dog won't do any of the above things, because it might walk up friendly, then decide to maul your leg off. Also, a trained attack dog won't do any of these things because it's raised to tear the shit out of you (but should also be trained to know better), so the link above has some good advice.

Also, I could totally go on a killing spree with a box, if I had some duct tape. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Z3IALdF3k&feature=player_detailpage#t=143s)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You say that bows are as deadly as firearms when they clearly aren't, mostly due to their massive versatility. I could construct a situation where bows are as/more deadly than firearms but I could do that with anything. It's all about statistics.
And this is what dog dangerous breeds also comes down to. Sure most dogs can do damage but which ones are statisically more likely to.

[Marc v4.0]

You say that bows are as deadly as firearms when they clearly aren't, mostly due to their massive versatility. I could construct a situation where bows are as/more deadly than firearms but I could do that with anything. It's all about statistics.
And this is what dog dangerous breeds also comes down to. Sure most dogs can do damage but which ones are statisically more likely to.

It wasn't a serious example of anything other then a funny thought I had, I SAID that.


I still hold that the statistics are skewed on this because of people taking a dog already built for hutning and fighting and then breeding mental instability into it for illegal dog fighting or because they are stupid and want a vicious guard dog but without all that constly training and picking of proper pedigrees. The entire line isn't tainted, but the ones that are tainted are really really bad with it and in the hands of irresponsible people how distribute the 'failures' as normal animals.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

And guns are only dangerous if you misuse them. . But people will and you have to take that into account.

[Kerensky287]

It wasn't a serious example of anything other then a funny thought I had, I SAID that.


I still hold that the statistics are skewed on this because of people taking a dog already built for hutning and fighting and then breeding mental instability into it for illegal dog fighting or because they are stupid and want a vicious guard dog but without all that constly training and picking of proper pedigrees. The entire line isn't tainted, but the ones that are tainted are really really bad with it and in the hands of irresponsible people how distribute the 'failures' as normal animals.

I should have linked this article earlier, really. (http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/04/1/editorialHighRiskDogs1.04.html)

That's the source of the "St. Francis Terrier" debacle.

About 60 “St. Francis terriers” were placed during the next few months, after extensive screening and training, but then-SF/SPCA president Richard Avanzino reluctantly suspended the program after several of the re-dubbed dogs killed cats.

So they took about 60 of these pitbulls, re-trained them, checked them extensively to make sure that they wouldn't go crazy (because if they went crazy, well, that'd ruin the program), and then MORE THAN ONE OF THEM WENT CRAZY ANYWAY.

I'd say it's a case of the dog breed just being incredibly aggressive, and people who ignore that fact because "my little precious would never do such a thing" are irresponsible. If you willingly adopt a member of a breed that is legendarily aggressive and territorial, you had better be fucking prepared to reign it in once in a while. Ignoring the problem because "oh it's a stereotype and it's not fair to generalize" is bullshit. This particular stereotype is there for a reason.

[Marc v4.0]

That doesn't invalidate any part of my point at all. I am not advocating ignoring anything about dog behavior at all, I am calling that generalizing and stereotyping IS BULLSHIT, because the standard breed of Pit Bull terriers should not be exhibiting the level of aggression and instability that has been tagged on to them. I feel those stereotypes exist for the EXACT reasons I stated

it is more the fault of people who breed the dogs to enhance the aggressive behaviors. Out of an entire litter, only one or two might express the traits to the level they were breeding for, and the rest get sold off as pets to people none the wiser. A properly bred Pit Bull Terrier shouldn't show increased signs of aggression to people over any regular dog bred to hunt animals that aren't human. This is where, I think, the problem comes from. They can be easily bred to be super-aggressive and unstable, which makes them better suited for people who WANT those traits, so litters of badly bred PBT's get more and more widespread.

I don't even own a damn PBT, nor have I ever. I don't even currently own a dog!


edit: But I have!

[CABAL49]

I have to agree with Marc. I had a canvassing job for the ACLU, which means I go door to door asking for money. Of the hundreds of dogs I met, only one ever jumped on me. It was a Lab, and it wasn't doing it out of aggression. It was how it played. Granted if I was a smaller person I would have been knocked down, but it was hardly a threat. It wouldn't leave it's yard. And this was a pretty populated area, but it would only come to you once you entered it's territory.

Dogs do pick favorites and they mimic the behavior of the humans that they like the best. It really is a case of blame the person, not the dog. Saying certain breeds are more violent is just like saying certain humans are more violent than others. It all depends on how you are raised and your environment. Dogs that were bred to be guard dogs may not have the personality to be a guard dog. Being a guard dog means that they were bred to have the physical attributes of a guard dog, not that they themselves are guard dogs.

I have been around a lot of dogs. I have seen poodles be more protective than Huskies. Granted that is anecdotal, but is no less relevant. Cats are just judgmental.

Surprisingly one of the best pets to own are guinea pigs. I got my grandfathers after he passed away. The little dude would sneak out of his cage and follow me around. It was pretty funny when he climbed on top of our rottweiler mix named Chewbacca. Chewie would just sniff him then lay back down.

[pochercoaster]

Man, this thread is TL;DR

Supposing pitbulls don't have personalities significantly different from other breeds- supposing that being raised by kind humans is enough to repress aggressive traits- isn't it still true that, due to their sheer muscularity and powerful jaws, they should be handled very carefully, especially around humans that are not their owners? While most animals that have been raised properly and acclimated to humans will not be overly aggressive for no reason, it is apparent in ALL breeds that aggression towards humans is possible, and sometimes unpredictably. The difference is smaller breeds are easier to control even if they go berserk.

Not sure if there's really a point re-hashing that animals can and are and continue to be bred for specific personality traits. It's been going on since humans domesticated animals.

Edit: LOL nature vs. nurture debate.

Saying certain breeds are more violent is just like saying certain humans are more violent than others.

They aren't?*

This is going to be opening a can of worms, but... While your environment does have a significant impact on your overall disposition, genetics can manifest itself in your personality. Such as in separated twin studies. Your brain is an organ after all, it's not separate from your body.**

*Talking about INDIVIDUALS here, not GROUPS of people.

**And yes I know this is a dangerous argument when it comes to people because its used to justify immoral treatment of various groups. I'm not interested in starting that debate and I am strongly opposed to the usage of this argument when its about people. Animals are different, though.

[Kerensky287]

That doesn't invalidate any part of my point at all. I am not advocating ignoring anything about dog behavior at all, I am calling that generalizing and stereotyping IS BULLSHIT, because the standard breed of Pit Bull terriers should not be exhibiting the level of aggression and instability that has been tagged on to them. I feel those stereotypes exist for the EXACT reasons I stated

I just presented evidence that generalizing and stereotyping, at least in this case, is NOT AT ALL bullshit.

Tell me why the "standard breed" shouldn't be showing the amount of aggression that they're attributed with. Pitbulls were trained, historically, to be fighting dogs. That meant that people took the angriest, skullfuckingest dogs around, bred them together, and then took the most ferocious of their offspring and bred THEM together. It's generation after generation of the most terrifying little monsters around, selected to be the most eager and most capable of fighting if anything approaching an appropriate situation arises. Pitbulls are ABSOLUTELY bred with that concept in mind because if they weren't then they PROBABLY WOULDN'T EXIST.

What I agree with is the fact that domestic animals shouldn't exhibit those sorts of hostile tendencies.

What I disagree with is the idea that pitbulls, as animals that can be kept domestically, will necessarily NOT display those habits. You're making the argument that because they are domestic, they won't be violent. The rest of the thread is making the argument that because they are violent, PEOPLE SHOULD BE DOING A BETTER JOB OF KEEPING THEM GODDAMN DOMESTIC.

You're ignoring the evidence in favor of your ideals. Prove me wrong or your side of the argument has zero merit.

EDIT:

Like, part of your argument is that if they're "bred properly" then they won't do that shit. That's flat-out nonsense. They've been bred for their fighting instinct for centuries. If they're bred properly, they WILL do that shit, or at least they're more inclined to.

Yes, it's true that the vast majority of domestic animals will be angelic little companions for their entire lives. But to ignore the fact that PBTs are severely, SEVERELY more inclined toward violence than other breeds is to invite disaster, and if you pick one up then you'd best be fucking prepared for them to be one of the violent exceptions.

[Marc v4.0]

I don't think I can prove your opinion wrong so LOL MY OPINION IS WITHOUT MERIT LOL.

Love how you just ignore everything I have presented for my viewpoint, but I am the one just ignoring everything you have to say. Classy.

[Fifthfiend]

Jon Stewart is so ashamed of you right now, Kerensky.

You just don't even know.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I don't think I can prove your opinion wrong so LOL MY OPINION IS WITHOUT MERIT LOL.

Love how you just ignore everything I have presented for my viewpoint, but I am the one just ignoring everything you have to say. Classy.

I...do I laugh here?

[Kerensky287]

I don't think I can prove your opinion wrong so LOL MY OPINION IS WITHOUT MERIT LOL.

Love how you just ignore everything I have presented for my viewpoint, but I am the one just ignoring everything you have to say. Classy.

Like, part of your argument is that if they're "bred properly" then they won't do that shit. That's flat-out nonsense. They've been bred for their fighting instinct for centuries. If they're bred properly, they WILL do that shit, or at least they're more inclined to.

Yes, it's true that the vast majority of domestic animals will be angelic little companions for their entire lives. But to ignore the fact that PBTs are severely, SEVERELY more inclined toward violence than other breeds is to invite disaster, and if you pick one up then you'd best be fucking prepared for them to be one of the violent exceptions.

I dunno, maybe you posted that as I was writing up the edit or something? But yes, I directly addressed your points.

Jon Stewart is so ashamed of you right now, Kerensky.

You just don't even know.

Jon Stewart is a tough man to please. You of all people should know that.

[Marc v4.0]

I...do I laugh here?

Might as well. I had a huge write-up about pedigrees and mental instability/crazed aggression being unwanted in a proper breed of PBT, but then I noticed I said that twice already and it was still going on like I hadn't said a single word to the effect, so there must be some really funny joke here I do not quite get.

[Fifthfiend]

Dog racist.

I mean, is that what you want to be, Kerensky?

A dog racist?

Cause that's what you're bein'!

[Magus]

While it may be true that a "properly" bred and trained pitbull is no more aggressive than any other breed of dog, Joe Schmo off the street isn't going to take the time to do it. If you are good at training dogs or spend the money to do so, then perhaps you are okay with taking chances. If you are Joe Schmo off the street, leash the thing or put it in a fence if you don't want to take a chance. That is all I can say about the whole ordeal. It doesn't matter if a properly trained one is perfectly fine if no one bothers to do it, which most of the owners of said dogs do not.

My neighbors had a pitbull. It was very aggressive. They did not beat the thing, nor did they do anything special for it. They treated it like all prior dogs. Unfortunately, that is not good enough for a pitbull.

Basically, if you want to buy a pitbull, do some research on its pedigree and make sure it is properly trained. If you don't want to do that, don't buy a pitbull. That's all there is to it. I don't think this is an unreasonable opinion to have about the things.

EDIT: I mean heck it was a female pitbull besides. I can only imagine how aggressive a male is, especially one that has not been neutered.

[Kerensky287]

Dog racist.

I mean, is that what you want to be, Kerensky?

A dog racist?

Cause that's what you're bein'!

I guess I'm just sick of all them pitbull gangs struttin' around my street, with their loud music and their gang signs and their bandanas and their freestyle rap.


...

But when you have a species that is specifically bred to have certain behaviors in its gene sequence, then I think it's okay to assume that once in a while that sequence is going to show up in the breed. It's not racism, or if it is, it's justified.

[Marc v4.0]

While it may be true that a "properly" bred and trained pitbull is no more aggressive than any other breed of dog, Joe Schmo off the street isn't going to take the time to do it. If you are good at training dogs or spend the money to do so, then perhaps you are okay with taking chances. If you are Joe Schmo off the street, leash the thing or put it in a fence if you don't want to take a chance. That is all I can say about the whole ordeal. It doesn't matter if a properly trained one is perfectly fine if no one bothers to do it, which most of the owners of said dogs do not.

My neighbors had a pitbull. It was very aggressive. They did not beat the thing, nor did they do anything special for it. They treated it like all prior dogs. Unfortunately, that is not good enough for a pitbull.

Basically, if you want to buy a pitbull, do some research on its pedigree and make sure it is properly trained. If you don't want to do that, don't buy a pitbull. That's all there is to it. I don't think this is an unreasonable opinion to have about the things.

EDIT: I mean heck it was a female pitbull besides. I can only imagine how aggressive a male is, especially one that has not been neutered.

You do all the talking for me from now on, ok?

I had a talk with Kerensky on Minecraft and I think we both agreed that this was a pretty damn silly thing to go on about, as well as actually getting our points to each other in a way that the other could, at least, understand.

[Toastburner B]

I was going to go off on this, as it is a personal soapbox of mine, but I'll spare everyone and just address a few things:

Basically, if you want to buy a pitbull, do some research on its pedigree and make sure it is properly trained. If you don't want to do that, don't buy a pitbull. That's all there is to it. I don't think this is an unreasonable opinion to have about the things.

Really, you could (and should!) say the same thing about any breed of dog. A lot of dog related problems would be solved if people would research what breeds would fit their lifestyle instead of going to the pet store/shelter and going off of what dog is "cute".

EDIT: I mean heck it was a female pitbull besides. I can only imagine how aggressive a male is, especially one that has not been neutered.

That's what kills me about these studies. Everyone uses to them to demonize a few breeds, while totally missing the stat that shows that the majority of biters are intact males. I could go off on a rant about irresponsible owners on this, but that's been well covered in this thread, I think. Just spay/neuter your animals, folks, it helps do more than control the pet population.

The only thing I have left is my own anecdotal experiences: I've never had a problem with pit bulls. Of course, I've only been bitten once in my life (a chow chow, but I was pretty young and did a lot of provoke him, so I blame me, not him). I've made it no secret that I started taking classes to become a vet tech. Between time volunteering at a shelter, and working with animals on campus (which are from a different shelter), I haven't run into a single pit bull that wasn't a nice dog. Amazingly anecdotal, I know, but that's my experience with them. I'd rather try to get a temperature from a pit bull than any small breed dog (or cat) any day of the week.

[Magus]

Also another thing about dogs' "territory": to a dog, a fence is a very arbitrary thing, as are square plots of land. My parents could never understand why their dog would bark at people walking along the road adjacent to our yard, since they were "not in the dog's territory". I basically had to point out to them that at best a dog's territory is circular (if not irregular as shit, however the hell dog's minds work) and isn't going to conform to the property lines they have in their heads which are quite arbitrary. To a dog their territory would be "wherever they can get to and pee on a tree without running into another dog".

That's why you have to have a fence or something else that prevents the dog from leaving the yard. They're animals. They aren't going to be like "Oh, shit, I'm over here in the woods across the road, this isn't my owner's property, better skedaddle".

[Archbio]

I guess I'm just sick of all them pitbull gangs struttin' around my street, with their loud music and their gang signs and their bandanas and their freestyle rap.

Don't forget their flashy cars. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdRPRvhXSCo)

[Bobbey]

If you're a first time pet/dog owner, don't get a pitbull, especially if you haven't even taken the time to research that particular breed before buying one, or any other dog for that matter. A pitbull needs to be owned by an experienced (and strong) dog owner who will know how to proprely train the dog and are familiar with the breed or have trained similarly agressive dogs like the Rottweiler or the Doberman (by the way, the Rottweiler has the biggest bite out of all dog breeds, even bigger than pittbulls, which is due to the size of their heads compared to their bodies, so they can apply more pounds of force with their skulls). The local SPCA here in Montreal is chock full of pitbulls, mostly because people bought them on a "hunch" or thought they were cute and wanted one right away. Since many parts of the city banned pitbulls altogether a few years ago, many just end up in the pound after the city intereferes with the owners and they have no choice to bring them to the SPCA, where the dogs get killed off after a few weeks since no one can take them in. Yes, the dog is naturally agressive, some are more than others though. It's just a shame that since people don't do their research before buying one here, that many of them just end up dying before they even reach 1 year old.

[Magus]

To get us away from pitbulls, can we all agree that buying baby alligators is a really bad idea unless you are a zoo?

[Osterbaum]

Buying baby alligators is a bad idea, period.

[Menarker]

Too bad not everyone understands that...

http://www.funnyqanda.com/images/floriduh-in-florida-molesting-alligators-is-against-state-law.jpg

[TDK]

But we've already bonded. I've named him Chompy!

His friendship has finally taught me the meaning of love. And he has my scent now, his mother will never take him back!

[CABAL49]

Territory

Dogs bark at people outside their territory because they are telling people to stay out of their territory. It is not that common that they leave their territory to attack someone. Hence the phrase, "all bark and no bite."

[Oron]

To get us away from pitbulls, can we all agree that buying baby alligators is a really bad idea unless you are a zoo?

"We have real live alligators at Smugglers Cove that you can feed for a memory that will last a lifetime." (http://www.smugglersgolf.com/)

I've been there. They aren't kidding about the alligators.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

"We have real live alligators at Smugglers Cove that you can feed for a memory that will last a lifetime." (http://www.smugglersgolf.com/)

I've been there. They aren't kidding about the alligators.

I'm just waiting for all that blue family recreation water to mutate the little suckers into a city destroying posse.

[Token]

Pitt bulls. Alligators. Pfft.

A guy who's kept bet bears for years used to live around here. Oddly enough, (and more than a few people lost that bet) they didn't end up doing him in. Still, they didn't exactly have a good track record.

[katiuska]

My dad kept a nest of baby alligators in a water-filled tire for a while, when he was a kid. My grandmother discovered it the day his 2-year-old brother tried picking one up and got bitten in the stomach (baby alligator teeth aren't too deadly, but they sure can hurt). She made him get rid of them, but he recaptured most of them later. He didn't rethink the wisdom of keeping baby alligators until one bit him in the face, because he and his friends thought it was funny to poke them and make them snap.

My dad was kind of a little shit.