Until last year my state required NO permits for exotics. Several states still require no permits.
I am not against legislation restricting breeding, requiring training, etc for large powerful dog breeds, Pits included…
I simple find it a bit ironic that (at least until last year) my state required liability coverage to own a pit bull, and a license- while there were no restrictions at all to own, say, a tiger. We actually saw the “thug” types moving twards exotics and venomous snakes as the dogs got more restricted around here.
[QUOTE=chancellor2;7505109]
Pfft! Really? Have you never heard of Rage Syndrome? You wouldn’t be a very good breeder if you haven’t. I can’t believe you actually consider owning a dog where there is a disease with RAGE in the name.[/QUOTE]
I’m not a breeder. And show me a credible source that shows Brittanys and Rage syndrome. (Which, most people don’t consider a “disease” anyway).
Google honey, google. It took me 15 seconds because my internet is slow at the moment to come up with quite a few sources.
The way you shrug stuff off is incredible. Many pit bull owners don’t consider dogs with big blocky heads pit bulls either. But the media does and therefore it must be true in your book.
I have actually seen a Springer go into Springer Rage. Not something I EVER care to see again.
No, the point was
- someone suggested banning the top ten and their mixes-here they are
- The registration numbers are from AKC as stated- the fatalities were not all registered dogs. Sure there are more in the USA than are registered- it just gives us a place to start to estimate how many we have.
My chosen breed is small and fat and dangerous to no one- I don’t have “a dog in this fight”. I do have opinions, based on a slightly different experience than most people have.
I believe:
1)Pit bulls are no more likely to bite than any other breed- perhaps less so than some
2)Pit bulls that do bite are much more likely to do major damage or kill someone than most other breeds
With great power comes great responsibility. They are not for all owners. They are perhaps not even for most owners. But they are simply not the savage beasts so many are terrified to walk past down the street.
[QUOTE=shayaalliard;7505070]
I actually do walk the bird, on a leash, most days. But the trick of separation for her is that she, like horses, is an attractive nuisance. People all day long at the pet store, and at my house, actively try to feed themselves to the birds. It’s not the same, but it kinda is.
I have had little exotics (birds, reptiles,raccoons) and I had friends/customers with REAL exotics. The oh so scary pitbull kinda pales when someone walks in the pet store door with a bear. If you can keep a cougar in your house and walk it for potty breaks (neighbor a block away when we were kids), a responsible owner can mange a pit bull just fine.
(By the way, I DO NOT think that bears, big cats etc are appropriate pets…but we sure got to meet some cool animals up close those years in the pet store.)[/QUOTE]
oh for Pete’s sake. Even if you do, it’s not down hopping on the ground for a mile at a time and it’s weight is negligible compared to most dogs. And let’s not even get started on “pet cougar” and how often they attack humans. Oi vey. Side track much?
[QUOTE=chancellor2;7505131]
Google honey, google. It took me 15 seconds because my internet is slow at the moment to come up with quite a few sources.
The way you shrug stuff off is incredible. Many pit bull owners don’t consider dogs with big blocky heads pit bulls either. But the media does and therefore it must be true in your book.
I have actually seen a Springer go into Springer Rage. Not something I EVER care to see again.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, see, that’s a medical condition. It’s a seizure disorder. Has nothing to do with a desired, selected trait like dogs bred for fighting. It’s actually quite sad that otherwise nice dog can have such a defect, but it’s often treatable with anti-epileptic drugs (AED).
JackieBlue saying that it is easier to separate horses from kids than dogs is rather irresponsible. Horses are more often left out all day. Whereas a good dog owner doesn’t leave their dog out loose. Good horses owners DO!
Fences that contain horses are not often child proof where a good dog fence is most likely small child proof.
Your breed of choice is the Rottweiler which you have already said is difficult to read. I would think you would be anti BSL. Personally, I think my pit bulls are pretty easy to read. Therefore, your Rottweiler is a more dangerous dog.
Actually the attack and fatality rate for large exotics is considerably higher than for Pit bulls- but no one is freaking out about them. Exotics are credited for 82 deaths in roughly the same amount of time as the 60 some pit bull fatalities.
It also is a very good parallel for BSL. Exotic laws got the good owners who were responsible to surrender their animals. The thugs and rednecks kept them in spite of the laws- and they are the ones who were a problem to begin with. Same thing happens with a lot of BSL.
Education, and training have a better chance to make changes than anything. I would love to see a system for ALL breeds whereby the yearly dog license was $200.00 a dog UNLESS the dog had proof of passing a CGC test. The it would be $20.00. Let the local AC offer training classes at reduced rates perhaps. It would also take a bite our of our homeless pet issues, since so many end up homeless due to training issues.
[QUOTE=shayaalliard;7505091]
AVMA top ten fatality list:
10) Saint Bernard
9) Great Dane
8) Chow
7) Doberman
6) Malemute
5) Wolf/Dog Hybrid
4) Siberian Husky
3) German Shepherd
2) Rottweiler
- Pitt bull
AKC Study on fatalities
Numbers registered No. of Fatal Attacks Breed Percentage
240,000 12 Chow Chow .705%
800,000 67 German Shepherds .008375%
960,000 70 Rottweiler .00729%
128,000 18 Great Dane .01416 %
114,000 14 Doberman .012288%
72,000 10 St. Bernard .0139%
5,000,000 60 American Pit Bull .0012%[/QUOTE]
What?? The AKC doesn’t even recognize the APBT. What is this rubbish?
[QUOTE=chancellor2;7505131]
Google honey, google. It took me 15 seconds because my internet is slow at the moment to come up with quite a few sources.
The way you shrug stuff off is incredible. Many pit bull owners don’t consider dogs with big blocky heads pit bulls either. But the media does and therefore it must be true in your book.
I have actually seen a Springer go into Springer Rage. Not something I EVER care to see again.[/QUOTE]
Let’s see your source then.
I have heard of Rage Syndrome; my google search doesn’t come up with any Brittanys with Rage Syndrome. But let’s see your source, because - sure, it’s possible.
Even still…even if a Brittany had Rage Syndrome – it would be highly unlikely to fatally wound someone.
All dogs bite. We can all agree to that. Very few breeds seem to be responsible for “mauling” or “fatally wounding” people.
I’m not “shrugging” anything off.
[QUOTE=JackieBlue;7505167]
What?? The AKC doesn’t even recognize the APBT. What is this rubbish?[/QUOTE]
I agree. AKC doesn’t recognize the Pit Bull, so there is no AKC registration. That discredits the whole source.
I’d like to see the combined list of breeds that maul + fatally wound.
Jackie, that information comes from your study which you have been touting. You know the one…the one from the CDC? In fact, it calls the dogs pit bull types…
You are correct that the AKC doesn’t recognize that.
They recognize three of four breeds in that study as pit bull types. So, we see again that the study is flawed. You are comparing one dog TYPE (and four different breeds are included in that type) to individual breeds.
So pit bull TYPES are 66%
And your beloved Rottie is 39%.
Let’s just divide that 66% by THREE (when in fact there are FOUR breeds but one the AKC doesn’t recognize)
66%/3 is hmmmm. 33% which puts your beloved Rottweiler ahead by 6 whole percent.
[QUOTE=chancellor2;7505157]
JackieBlue saying that it is easier to separate horses from kids than dogs is rather irresponsible. Horses are more often left out all day. Whereas a good dog owner doesn’t leave their dog out loose. Good horses owners DO!
Yep, on private property, behind fences, usually with signs regarding inherent risk posted and properties with horses carry liability insurance. There are areas zoned for livestock and areas not. If you’re in an urban area, you’re not very likely to encounter a child aggressive horse. In general, areas where horses are outside all day are less densely populated than areas where oodles of children roam. So, yes, it’s easier to isolate horses from children than it is pet dogs in your house. And, when random horse related fatalities do happen, more often than with dogs, there is at least some, if not sufficient liability insurance to cover damages incurred. But again, the risk of your horse getting loose and savaging a child is low compared to the risk of a dog doing the same.
Fences that contain horses are not often child proof where a good dog fence is most likely small child proof.
See above.
Your breed of choice is the Rottweiler which you have already said is difficult to read. I would think you would be anti BSL.d
Yep. I know and love Rottweilers. And I live in the real world. With lots of other people. And I realize that sometimes the idiots create a need for legislation of some sort. As I’ve said, I’m against bans. But some degree of legislation seems necessary and if it affects me, I’ll survive, as will more children and other unsuspecting maul victims.
Personally, I think my pit bulls are pretty easy to read. Therefore, your Rottweiler is a more dangerous dog.[/QUOTE]
^That’s just stupid. Especially because Pits are notorious for purposefully sending mixed signals, as any good fighting dog will. But whatever. At least Rotts are honest. We just need to leave their tails alone. 
Hang on - I never said Banning the top ten and their mixes. This seems to be a point of great confusion for the “pro-pit” people.
BSL does not mean ban. It only means Breed Specific Legislation. Which could mean a ban, but could also mean higher licensing fee, requirement to spay/neuter, requirement to register/get a permit, requirement for a breeding license.
I don’t think banning has helped at all - but I do think other forms of BSL would help - specifically those that are directed at breeders. For the rest of the pitty type owners - that already intend to spay/neuter, train, socialize and supervise their pets…there would probably be little or no impact. And certainly for those that own pit mixes – why should anyone breed them EVER?
HAHAHHAHAHAH! Notorious for purposefully sending mixed signals???
Oh that is priceless.
Yes, and my pit bull is at home now sleeping on the couch and plotting her next child mauling too.
[QUOTE=S1969;7505068]
How about the top 10 on the fatally bite list - AND any mixed breeds that include those breeds.[/QUOTE]
This is going to be largely a function of popularity. Most large dogs are capable of killing a human being, and some much smaller dogs are capable of killing an infant. I think that what you propose would be very expensive to enforce and the end result would be that law abiding people would be most often impacted. Why not provide education on children and dogs, enforce leash laws, and offer low cost or free s/n in the economically depressed communities where there are lot of dogs tied out?
All in all, while I do take aggression in dogs very seriously, I don’t think that the enforcement of BSL is an effective use of funds. This is certainly not the biggest danger to people out there. Fatal attacks are fairly rare, and there were almost always signs of severe aggression beforehand, as well as significant management issues.
[QUOTE=Sswor;7503426]
You got that right. It’s a public safety issue.
Do I not have a right to walk my dogs on leash down my street without risk of them getting assaulted and mauled to death before my very eyes?
Why do pit bull owner’s rights to own a fighting dog which is a proven risk to society trump my right to work in my garden on my property on a nice day?
If there are pit bulls in your neighborhood, you can’t set foot outside your front door without being on alert. That’s ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, ^that’s^ ridiculous. My neighbor has a beautiful female pit, I don’t worry about her climbing the fence to kill my dogs, I don’t worry about her digging under the fence to kill my dogs and I don’t worry about her escaping to kill me and my dogs when we go for our daily walk.
What I DO worry about is the fact that she’s a banned breed in my small town so they can’t/won’t walk her anymore because they’re afraid they’ll be reported and she’ll be PTS just because she’s a PB. That’s wrong. And, unfortunately, it increases her risk (along with the Golden and the Poodle they own) of being a “bad” dog because she’s lost all opportunity at socialization and training outside her home/yard.
My daughter has a male (fixed) PB. He’s a lover - to people but he’s aggressive to other dogs. She is a smart dog owner, this is not her first PB but she’s the first to admit that, had she known that, she would not have gotten him and his parents never should have been allowed to breed.
I love dogs. All dogs. Until one has done something deserving vilification they deserve a chance and should not be considered a “proven risk to society” just because of their breed.
Banning or BSL will not work for the same reason gun control won’t work. Criminals will always have guns, drug dealers/gangsters will always have vicious dogs. If not a pitty then something else.
This whole topic makes me very sad. I feel horrible for the parents of the kids killed but that doesn’t mean a whole breed of dog should be wiped from the planet. If that happens…what’s next?
[QUOTE=EcstaticLady;7505244]
This whole topic makes me very sad. I feel horrible for the parents of the kids killed but that doesn’t mean a whole breed of dog should be wiped from the planet. If that happens…what’s next?[/QUOTE]
BSL does not mean ban.
Good breeders could still exist, and bad breeders could be discouraged – make it illegal to sell pit bull puppies without a license. It will still exist, of course, but it won’t happen every day on Craigslist.
[QUOTE=chancellor2;7505201]
Jackie, that information comes from your study which you have been touting. You know the one…the one from the CDC? In fact, it calls the dogs pit bull types…
You are correct that the AKC doesn’t recognize that.
They recognize three of four breeds in that study as pit bull types. So, we see again that the study is flawed. You are comparing one dog TYPE (and four different breeds are included in that type) to individual breeds.
So pit bull TYPES are 66%
And your beloved Rottie is 39%.
Let’s just divide that 66% by THREE (when in fact there are FOUR breeds but one the AKC doesn’t recognize)
66%/3 is hmmmm. 33% which puts your beloved Rottweiler ahead by 6 whole percent.[/QUOTE]
Bringing Rotts into this is another red herring. A Rottweiler killed one person last year to the 25 killed by Pits.
[QUOTE=chancellor2;7505218]
HAHAHHAHAHAH! Notorious for purposefully sending mixed signals???
Oh that is priceless.
Yes, and my pit bull is at home now sleeping on the couch and plotting her next child mauling too.[/QUOTE]
Laugh all you want. It’s a prized trait of the best fighters. Deceptive body language can give fighters the upper hand. They use it. All fighting dogs do. Well, the good ones, anyway.
