Another fatal Pit Bull attack....

[LauraKY]

[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]

They’re finding out that “rage” syndrome may actually be caused by thyroid dysfunction and partial seizures. Rage syndrome in Brittany’s would be very unusual, when found, it’s usually found in cockers and Springer spaniels, but not from field bred lines. There is a genetic component, which is why knowledgeable breeding is so important.

It’s not just spaniels, other breeds have the same problems with rage.

I had a cocker spaniel that would “rage” when she had a seizure. She was very confused coming out of it and would react by attacking if you disturbed her. Thyroid meds and removing exposure to pesticides and no more episodes. Not a good example.

[HorsePrerace]

Wow these are all so devastating.

[Marshfield]

[QUOTE=WorkingDrive;7505060]

The dog shown in the photo? Not a Pit Bull. The dog looks like a Presa de Canario mix to me based on the size, build, and skull structure. A human was attacked. I wouldn’t care if it was a Chihuahua or a Mastiff that did the attack.[/QUOTE]

That was my response as well. I had guessed Cane Corso mix when I saw the picture. I couldn’t quickly pull it up, but another post in this thread linked to the facebook information on the kennel and apparently the dog is actually a UKC registered American Pitbull Terrier, though apparently double the listed weight in their breed standard http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/AmericanPitBullTerrier12012012 The web information on the dog mention XL and XXL American Pitbull Terrier. The standard also listed viciousness as a disqualification.

[S1969]

[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]

It still seems impossible that there are 5,000,000 AKC registered “pit types” in the U.S. when there are fewer than 1 Million AKC registered Rottweilers…I will have to look at the study and AKC as well. Breeds like Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier are not very common. But Bulldogs are fairly popular…is that where the number is coming from?

[shayaalliard]

AKC conducted the study, and so I believe used the reg data for Am Staffs- which are same dog different name

I do not know if they extrapolated to include other bully types and unreg in the totals or not, but I believe the numbers reflect the total over a period of years. IE we may not have 5mil now, but there may have been 5 mil puppies listed in he last 30 years…

[chancellor2]

[QUOTE=shayaalliard;7505469]
AKC conducted the study, and so I believe used the reg data for Am Staffs- which are same dog different name

I do not know if they extrapolated to include other bully types and unreg in the totals or not, but I believe the numbers reflect the total over a period of years. IE we may not have 5mil now, but there may have been 5 mil puppies listed in he last 30 years…[/QUOTE]

Technically, the APBT and AmStaff are not really the same breed. While AmStaffs can be classified as APBTs, the converse is not also true. APBTs have largely been bastardized with the addition of Mastiffs and other larger dogs. The breed standard for AmStaffs is a lot more strict and would also NOT be considered a large dog.

Height and weight should be in proportion. A height of about 18 to 19 inches at shoulders for the male and 17 to 18 inches for the female is to be considered preferable.

Interestingly enough, that seems to be in the same size as the Brittany.
Sure they are larger than a chihuahua but they are more of a medium sized dog than a large dog.

Sort of makes me wonder if someone claimed the dog was a brittany spaniel and then said it was 130lbs, would s1969 say that it couldn’t possibly BE a Brittany. Or if someone said it was Rottie and say 50lbs would JackieBlue claim it couldn’t be.

[Perfect10]

JackieBlue, I’m curious about how you became such an expert on dog fighting history. Did you study it for some particular reason?

[chancellor2]

She read it on the interwebz. It must be true.

[JackieBlue]

[QUOTE=Perfect10;7505512]
JackieBlue, I’m curious about how you became such an expert on dog fighting history. Did you study it for some particular reason?[/QUOTE]
I’m a professional dog trainer (part time at this point in my life) and I specialize in working with aggressive dogs and dogs with other behavioral problems. I read all I can about dogs, especially the breeds I work with the most, many of which are fighting breeds. History tells us a lot about breeds and why they do what they do.

[S1969]

[QUOTE=chancellor2;7505501]

Interestingly enough, that seems to be in the same size as the Brittany. Sure they are larger than a chihuahua but they are more of a medium sized dog than a large dog.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this - which is one reason that I don’t subscribe to the idea that “it’s not the breed”. It IS, to a great part, related to the breed - because a 40lb Pit Bull (or AmStaff) could rip my 40lb Brittany to shreds. Maybe mine could outrun it, but if not, he’d be dead. And, if my dog went berserk at attacked a person, they would be able to fend him off far easier than a Pit Bull. If there is a problem with the temperament or training of a Pit Bull (or bully type)…it could be much more serious than many other breeds.

@chancellor2;7505501

Sort of makes me wonder if someone claimed the dog was a brittany spaniel and then said it was 130lbs, would s1969 say that it couldn’t possibly BE a Brittany. Or if someone said it was Rottie and say 50lbs would JackieBlue claim it couldn’t be.

Of course you could create an oversized Brittany; especially if it wasn’t a “true” purebred. That is one of my biggest issues. People talk about “pit bulls” or “AmStaffs” as if the breeders are actually trying to breed to the written standard. How do we know that the 130lb “pit bull” had “pit bulls” for parents? Or grandparents? How does the average backyard thug breeder prove the breeding of his dogs (maybe there is some Cane Corso in there, but not his parents)?

And even if they are registered that doesn’t mean they meet the standard (or even come close). I have 3 brittanys, all purebreds, all from AKC champion parents. One of them is 24 1/2 inches tall, and weighs around 55lbs…he’s gigantic. His parents were totally normal, but in his 5 generation pedigree there was one that was oversized and didn’t become a Champion, but all the rest were normal sized and finished champions. I had him neutered, because he didn’t meet the breed standard, but if I hadn’t, I could probably have found a big bitch and bred them for the purpose of creating a larger Brittany. It wouldn’t have been hard.

It would still BE a Brittany - just a crappy representation of one. The same issue with many of the “Pit Bulls” that have vicious temperaments and maul humans. They aren’t supposed to be that way, but if you don’t control for size, temperament and type…you could get anything when you “breed.”

[chancellor2]

There are PLENTY of AmStaff breeders out there who ARE breeding for the standard. I’m not sure why you think they are not.

[EcstaticLady]

[QUOTE=shayaalliard;7505165]

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.[/QUOTE]

^^^THIS^^^ a million times over. What a lot of you pro BSL people don’t seem to realize is that the only people it’s going to affect are the law-abiding, responsible pet owners. The redneck/drug dealer/dog fighter/idiot owner doesn’t abide by the law now, what makes you think passing legislation is going to change that?!?

[S1969]

[QUOTE=chancellor2;7505631]
There are PLENTY of AmStaff breeders out there who ARE breeding for the standard. I’m not sure why you think they are not.[/QUOTE]

Of course there are good breeders. I’ve never said there weren’t. They certainly must get the worst end of all the anti-pit backlash because they are actually doing the job the right way.

Most of the people that I know who have “pit bulls” or “pitty types” got them from a shelter, a rescue, or from online places like Craigslist. And I do have a friend with a pit bull that is nearly 100lbs and is not even a year old yet. From a Pit Bull only rescue…no idea what his breeding really is. Clearly it doesn’t exactly fit the breed standard, and no reason to think his sire and dam did either - that’s a bit more “oversized” than you could expect from 40lb parents.

To be a “breeder” - in my opinion - you have to breed for something. Just producing puppies doesn’t make someone a breeder, but I suspect that many of the “pit bull” puppies you see for sale aren’t bred for anything except money.

[JackieBlue]

[QUOTE=EcstaticLady;7505649]
^^^THIS^^^ a million times over. What a lot of you pro BSL people don’t seem to realize is that the only people it’s going to affect are the law-abiding, responsible pet owners. The redneck/drug dealer/dog fighter/idiot owner doesn’t abide by the law now, what makes you think passing legislation is going to change that?!?[/QUOTE]

This is always the argument thrown out by people who don’t want restrictions on something. If this were a valid argument, we wouldn’t have ANY laws.

[S1969]

[QUOTE=EcstaticLady;7505649]
^^^THIS^^^ a million times over. What a lot of you pro BSL people don’t seem to realize is that the only people it’s going to affect are the law-abiding, responsible pet owners. The redneck/drug dealer/dog fighter/idiot owner doesn’t abide by the law now, what makes you think passing legislation is going to change that?!?[/QUOTE]

What do you suggest then?

How can we allow people to own dogs, but still prevent maulings and fatal attacks? People want solutions.

[JackieBlue]

Today’s attack:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Life-Flight-called-to-League-City-for-dog-bite-253200601.html

:no:

[EcstaticLady]

I don’t have a solution, unfortunately. More education, more training, cracking down on backyard breeding, restricting who gets what dog, mandatory S/N…all that sounds wonderful but how does that actually get implemented? I don’t want restrictions that can’t/won’t/don’t work.

I know in my neck of the woods the police and AC don’t have the manpower, money or time to keep up with “real” issues so they took the easy route and banned Pit Bulls. If you have one and they find out you have to rehome it or they will take it away and euth it.

Animals are very, very low on the AR priority list. I watched a horse die because it didn’t have food or shelter. I reported it more than once, a friend reported it more than once, it still died. You’ve probably heard about the 200+ puppy mill dogs that are up for adoption or the horses taken by the SPCA, etc.

These are backwoods people that don’t care what the legislation is, they’re going to do whatever they want to with “their” animals. That’s the problem I have with BSL. It will not stop the problem owners. At least not here.

[Coyoteco]

My solution is to: 1) put an absolute stop to dog fighting; 2) stop promoting the breed as benign baby sitter, perfect family pet dog; 3) enforce existing leash laws; 4) allow dog parks to make their own rules relating to dogs that may be off leash.
So, you dry up the profit in breeding fighting dogs and pit bull nanny dogs and you limit the damage done by existing dogs by enforcing existing laws and allowing local dog parks to effectively manage existing situations in their own parks.

[chronos]

[QUOTE=JackieBlue;7505731]
Today’s attack:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Life-Flight-called-to-League-City-for-dog-bite-253200601.html

:no:[/QUOTE]

it’s just a 2 year old kid, who cares. I own a pitbull and she is the nicest pet ever. Don’t blame the breed, any kind of dog can kill a person and have her evacuated in a helicopter

[Sswor]

You will never put an absolute stop to dog fighting. Most communities take dog fighting very seriously and it’s still a problem.

Banning pit bulls would help reduce dog fighting because then dogs could be seized on their breed alone. The authorities need not have “proof” of fighting, which is notoriously difficult to obtain. Thugs are not going to fight anything but pit bulls* because the breed has been bred to be dog aggressive and for dog fighting for over 100 years. Nothing else will work so reliably for that purpose. Cock fighting will probably become more popular if pit bulls are banned, but at least they can’t kill anything but other roosters if they get loose.

Exotics are already heavily restricted by most municipalities and I would imagine anywhere considering BSL for pit bulls would also be reviewing and updating their laws regarding exotics at the same time.

*When I say “pit bull” I also mean cane corso, dogo, and any of the other fighting dog breeds from other countries that is essentially their version of a pit bull. I’m in favor of banning them all.