That article basically said, “Sure, Sir Thomas was a Boston Terrier, but wouldn’t it have been cool if he were a Pit Bull? Let’s just pretend he was.” Nonsense. The breeder is even known. There’s no mystery.
I disagree with BSLs period. I agree with spay/neuter laws for all breeds unless it is a licensed breeder. My personal feelings on breeding dogs is that it should only be done to improve the breed, not just for money making or for designer dogs.
No I base my feelings about pit bulls on my personal experience with the breed. Are there bad ones? Of course there are, just like there are bad dogs of every breed. In my world there are just too many unwanted pets, too many that are abused and neglected, not members of a family.
Haven’t read all the posts, but jeez these sensationalist posts get old.
First of a “pit bull” is not a breed of dog, its a type. Anything with a big blocky head, cropped ears, and a stocky body are deemed pit bulls. And by the media, dogs that don’t even look like pit bulls are described as so because let’s face it… “pit bull mauls toddler” grabs a lot more attention than “lab mix mauls toddler”. Also, the “blue” coloring so commonly associated with pit bulls is actually pretty rare in registered dogs of notable performance history. It is however a color common amongst mastiff types which may also lead to the other illusion that pit bulls are supposed to be these huge beasts. Their standard calls for a max of 60 lbs in males and many old famous lines had dogs under 30 lbs. Next.
There are at least a dozen legitimate breeds that fit this pit bull description, and a countless number of “grade” dogs. There is the American Pit Bull Terrier, a breed YES originally bred to fight other dogs. Dogs. Not people. Can you imagine trying to handle such a dog that was human aggressive? Any individual that exhibited such behavior was immediately culled. They were not called “nanny dogs” for their human flesh eating tendencies.
Any dog, of any type, has the potential to inflict damage if they so choose. This is where responsible breeding comes into play. How you raise it only does so much, you can not train a genetically unstable dog to become stable. Let’s jump off the breed hating bandwagons and instead promote sterilization for pet quality dogs, euthanasia for the dangerous, and breeding for only the best role models of their respected standards. Physically, and most important mentally.
[QUOTE=atomicfriday;7508382]
There is the American Pit Bull Terrier, a breed YES originally bred to fight other dogs. Dogs. Not people. Can you imagine trying to handle such a dog that was human aggressive? Any individual that exhibited such behavior was immediately culled. They were not called “nanny dogs” for their human flesh eating tendencies.[/QUOTE]
They weren’t ever called nanny dogs until a pit person started calling them that, in other words, a pit bull advocate said it about her own dog 10 years ago and now it gets repeated as historical fact. The nanny dog rumor is completely made up because it’s a fighting dog. And there was no place for a fighting dog on your typical family farm. What for? Killing the other dogs, or the kids? I don’t think so. Petey was a character on TV. Not real life. The Black was a rank, unmanageable Arabian stallion, yet he was the perfect mount and companion for a beginner adolescent kid. Do you advocate such a match?
And considering pit bull biters STILL aren’t culled, I’ll say prove they were ever culled in the first place. You can’t because it’s not true. Dog fighters don’t break dogs up with their hands and they don’t dispose of winning dogs. This “biters get culled” nonsense frequently gets thrown around by pit people like there’s some code of honor that dog fighters adhere to. Do you look up to dog fighters? Like their code of breeding ethics has kept the breed human safe or something? Will it magically stop attacking when it senses human flesh in it’s mouth instead of that innocent little JRT? Didn’t work for that lady in CA. Or that little girl yesterday… oh, or for that little girl today either.
But really, as if being just dog aggressive isn’t that bad.
For those posters who are against pit bull type dogs and there is a breed APBT as well, that are so against pit bull types, what do you base your feelings on? What you read or hear in the news? That is called media hype, just like the pit bull pro sites are media hype. BTW I do not believe everything I read on any site pro or against pit bulls. That is why I base my feelings about pit bull types on my personal experience, which has for the most part been very positive.
Look at the facts of the case sited originally, supposedly Niko is a 130 lb out of 2 UKC registered APBT parents. That just does not ring true in my book, there is something going on medically or genetically to get a dog with those parents that big. It may be on papers and on the internet, but unless genetic testing is done to confirm parentage I highly suspect a much larger breed was in the wood pile there and/or steroids were used. I do not know if UKC requires DNA testing to confirm parentage, highly doubt it knowing the UKC. Also, that is not the type of pit bull dog that I have personal experience with. The largest full registered APBT I have known was 80lbs at his largest. I agree with the poster saying Americans so damage the breeds that they want to breed here in the states. Look at what is going on with GSDs, for example. There are other breeds that when made popular by the public were greatly damaged in their makeup genetically, temperamentally, soundness etc. (dalmations after 101 Dalmations)
Second, in the first case Niko was in an apartment, 130 lb dog in an apartment with a female reported to be in heat. Where on earth would anyone think that is a good thing to do. Does that sound like a reputable breeder? Not in my book.
This is the type of pit bull dog that I admire and love http://www.11alive.com/story/local/2013/04/10/1930948/
they can undergo unspeakable abuse at the hands of humans and still have a heart big enough and kind enough to make a difference in an autistic child’s life.
More pit bull type dogs that I admire that are also shelter dogs:
http://animalfarmfoundation.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/pit-bull-service-dogs/
[QUOTE=vacation1;7508315]
I think my first suspicion that the pit bull movement was a moral vacuum came when I realized all their arguments hinged on denying the existence of any reality - pit bulls cannot be identified, data cannot be gathered, nothing can be proven. In an uncanny way, they’re almost dabbling in philosophy here.[/QUOTE]
:lol: That’s the best quote from the whole thread. :lol:
[QUOTE=khall;7508481]
For those posters who are against pit bull type dogs and there is a breed APBT as well, that are so against pit bull types, what do you base your feelings on? What you read or hear in the news? That is called media hype, just like the pit bull pro sites are media hype. [/QUOTE]
Seriously you are just hurting your argument, you really should stop.
How is it media hype that pit bulls mauled several people just this week? You don’t think it’s true? Or you don’t think it’s relevant?
Most of us are not “against pit bulls”. We’re against the idea that they are “just the same as all other dogs” and that there is nothing that can be done about the “incidents” that just seem to happen involving pit bulls/pit mixes/pitty types. (And, other breeds).
[QUOTE=khall;7508343]
I agree with spay/neuter laws for all breeds unless it is a licensed breeder. My personal feelings on breeding dogs is that it should only be done to improve the breed, not just for money making or for designer dogs…[/QUOTE]
Most states do not require breeders to have a license.
I have no dog in this fight, no pun intended, but I am not sure why there has to be so much disagreement? The facts are the facts…Animals are not evil by nature and on the same coin these attacks have happened…regardless of breed. People need to think how other people feel based on their experiences and feelings, there is most certainly a fantatical element…based in good intentions towards Pitbulls…I’ve know really sweet ones but the one’s attacking and killing are obviously not so…and demonizing the breed is cruel as well considering the plight of so many…supporters of the dogs should take facts and work to solve the problems for the good of the breed…making defensive comments and even the comment about people avoiding the dogs in the street comes across as fantatical and turns people off…use the energy to solve problems and educate. Dog Fighting is a disgusting horrific crime and it needs to be erradicated.
A lot of Bandogs look much like a “Pit Bull”. I was doing some protection work this weekend with some and made the mistake of calling them Pits…was corrected on that. A few of them were quite large…
Requiring a breeding license will not remedy the problems that I consider important. The people who would receive their licenses would be the very people who breed to “improve” the breed - such as has been done to GSDs, Pekingese, Bull Terriers, Rough Collies. Akitas and on and on…even Persian cats.
I sometimes think that there should just be a ban on Americans breeding dogs because of the “improvements” Americans try to implement in breeds of animals.
Even horses …hypp, herda…back to dogs with the DA that the bull dog people are makings excuses for keeping in the gene pool…
I’m not against pit/types. There are several in my family, one of our dogs that we lost last year was a pit/lab cross. My sister and my niece both work in pitbull rescue/rehab/training.
Most of my pitbull/type/cross experience is not from online or owning/knowing only a handful of dogs.
The link trying to assert that Sir Thomas was probably a pitbull is invalid when AKC stud book records have him listed in it as a registered show winning Boston Terrier.
Stating that any pit type is no longer a pit type due to crossbreeding in other breeds is also invalid. If that were a valid argument then horses outside of a few like Arabians, Andalusians, et al are invalid. It also means that any dog breed outside of the few “ancient” breeds are invalid/not breeds.
What is does show is that some types “breed true” and crossing them doesn’t often diminish their innate tendencies.
And sadly the USA does screw a lot of animal breeds up. There’s a reason we call staffies here American Staffordshires/Amstaffs. They’re no longer like the UK ones now. And it’s not just that breed. There are Akitas and Akita Inus. When Helen Keller brought over and made the Akita popular here, we just had to go screw it up. Which almost always includes exaggerating size at the expense of personality. Inus aren’t known for being high risk dogs. American Akitas most very definitely are. (and Akitas are great dogs, I absolutely love them. But they are sooooo not an Anybody Dog and by that I do not mean “no thugs” I mean most dog owners)
Dogs of a breed can be increased in size easily without crossing in other breeds. Ambullies are easily created by culling out the standard/average sized puppies and only breeding the biggest ones that would normally be speutered back to one another. It can happen in any breed. My sister and my niece both have an APBT that are over 100 lbs. Both females. Both registered. I’ve had plenty of AlMals that were well over breed standard size and were registered/full breeds. And due to them being large “impressive” dogs they’re often targeted for size breeding. And they’re so common they have been called Giant Malamutes. An ancient breed, no other breed mixed in to increase size. If breeding true and to purpose, the giants aren’t useful even though they happen from time to time naturally, so they’d be selected to be speutered instead of being kept intact for breeding.
Same with Ambullies. The big ones are bred back instead of culled out, each generation producing a few that keep increasing in size due to parent genetics.
Akitas and Malamutes are both ancient, very pure breeds. So many generations back without anything else crossed in for changes. But both still have serious size increases, in the Mals’ case they’ve been doubled in size and that’s astounding considering they’re already considered big dogs.
Heck, Americans have done the same with horses. Even very old, very pure lines of horses. Andalusians and Lusitanos come to mind…both are supposed to be under 16hh and have lines created very specifically, culled very heavily for a VERY specific type. Hard to argue that they’re a newish breed.
Yet let the Americans at them and voila! Tons of 17hh horses. That size would have been removed from breeding everywhere else, but we keep choosing to breed the biggest ones to create even bigger ones. Because Americans love tall horses. Now other countries, much more experienced/multi-generational in breeding, have lines made for size too. Why? They call those The Americans’ horses. Because we’ll buy and import them. (we love the “imported” title too) They also added in less common colors for the Americans.
Our own creation of the AQHA…one oddly overly muscled AQHA changes the halter history of the animal forever. Did anyone care that the extreme look caused a bunch of other serious flaws in the horse? Not for many generations.
We screw things up too often IMO. We’ve done it to plenty of animals/breeds. The pit/types are definitely on that list now unfortunately. :no: No amount of fantasy facts is going to change that. Now the issue is what to do about the problem, what steps will work out best for the dogs and the good realistic owners? What has the highest benefits for people and dogs?
Something tells me the FIRST step is that the good responsible owners of the good dogs need to be the embassadors and included in fixing the problem…instead of trying to misdirect their fans with ridiculous claims, trying to support them with misinformation.
Become more like the Akita and Malamute fans…start admitting there is definitely a problem and that the problem needs to be fixed for the good of the dogs and their loving owners. Because a problem that causes serious human injuries and worse has GOT to be handled and if the majority of the loving owners don’t get their heads out of the sand and stop reading ridiculous/unfounded fantasy facts online (even if they’re posted by others who also love the breed/type) then they’re losing out on a HUGE opportunity to help the dogs they love. They’re actually throwing them under the bus in an attempt to win an argument based on emotions. :no:
They’re great dogs…so go SAVE them!
And I don’t mean “rescue”…that word has been twisted into some sort of title and has caused most of the ignorance by those who think they’re helping the dogs they love. They’re really not.
[QUOTE=Moesha;7508526]
I have no dog in this fight, no pun intended, but I am not sure why there has to be so much disagreement? The facts are the facts…Animals are not evil by nature and on the same coin these attacks have happened…regardless of breed. People need to think how other people feel based on their experiences and feelings, there is most certainly a fantatical element…based in good intentions towards Pitbulls…I’ve know really sweet ones but the one’s attacking and killing are obviously not so…and demonizing the breed is cruel as well considering the plight of so many…supporters of the dogs should take facts and work to solve the problems for the good of the breed…making defensive comments and even the comment about people avoiding the dogs in the street comes across as fantatical and turns people off…use the energy to solve problems and educate. Dog Fighting is a disgusting horrific crime and it needs to be erradicated.[/QUOTE]
Supporters of the breed such as myself ARE doing what we can for the breed. PART of that is educating those who care to be educated that not all of what is reported in the media is true. However, there is only so much that we can do because the media reach so many. It is obvious from several posts on here that MANY people have never met in person a pit bull dog that has been properly socialized.
The media likes to say that these dogs may “snap at any time” and it is obvious to me that many people believe that. The bottom line is that this is simply not true. Dogs that “snapped for no reason” often DO have reasons that were missed or just not reported by the media.
The media is out for ratings. The media is NOT about telling the truth anymore. The media is about getting paid for advertising. And so, hype sells. PIT BULL attacks attracts FAR MORE attention than Mixed breed attacks. When that woman in San Francisco was mauled by those dogs, they were intially reported as pit bulls. I STILL have people tell me that she was mauled by pit bulls. It JUST.WASN’T.TRUE. And by the time the true breed of the dog came out (Presa Canario), no one cared. They just remember that she was mauled by pit bulls. This happens again and again.
One of the stories here was about a 130lb pit bull. This is WELL outside the breed standard for the dog. But, because it mauled someone, well it must have been a pit bull.
What do I, as a breed proponent do for my breed of choice? Educate people one by one by one. Scarlett meets people wherever we go with a happy wag of her tail and a goofy grin. When children want to pat her, I allow them to do so. I tell them that THIS is the true pit bull breed. And that they are not all bad. There are bad dogs in all breeds. The answer to this problem lies not in banning the dogs but working on the bad owners.
Rest assured that Breed Specific Legislation does not really help anyone in the long run. The bad owners will move onto the next breed of dog. And you better hope it isn’t YOUR chosen breed.
We need more good AKC trainers who support the breed like my own trainer. People who don’t automatically think that because the dog is a pit bull, it must be bad. Or because it bit someone it MUST be a pit bull. GOOD owners of pit bulls will take them to obedience school and train them to be good citizens just like any GOOD owner of ANY breed of dog.
Are they a good breed for anyone? No. Half the population is below average intelligence. I think you need to be at least as smart as your dog in order to own one.
My state does require pet breeders to have a license. Some states do, all should.
S, because of this statement of which I think it is so true. Approximately 10 people a day get bit by a dog but it is only news when it is a pit bull.
I am not saying there are not dangerous pit bull type dogs out there, dangerous to other dogs, sometimes but not all the time in my experience. Dangerous to people, can be but not in most of my experience and yes the damage done by a pit bull can be horrible as in the case of all big powerful breeds. Does that mean all pit bull type dogs should be euthanized on site? Not in my opinion, take each dog as an individual. Owners need to be responsible and no not everyone needs to own a pit bull type dog. No large powerful breed should be a first time dog owner dog. No one who is not able to train and keep under control should own a big powerful breed. That is my opinion.
[QUOTE=vacation1;7508145]
BSL would impact dogs - and pit bulls - for the better. It would be an inconvenience and an expense for pit bull owners, but that’s why it would be good their supposedly cherished breed.
Ah, a pit bull owner classic: Back in grandpa’s day, people KNEW about dogs and weren’t these helicopterparenting/cidiot/wusses screaming if good ol’ Roy gave an uppity young’un a warning nip." It’s a fantasy. There are 3 things being left out of that rosy picture of yesteryear:
-
The kind of dogs romping around loose didn’t include pit bulls because pit bulls were at that point in time owned almost exclusively by people who fought dogs.
-
Dogs that bit - really bit - weren’t given lawyers and court dates. They were shot or poisoned by cops or angry neighbors.
-
Rabies. People were not cool with biters back in the day because rabies was a real threat. Still is, of course, but people today mostly assume that their neighbor’s dog is vaccinated. The drive to vaccinate began in the 1920s but didn’t achieve nationwide success until the 1950s. Before that, the public attitude toward bites wasn’t “Ah, Jimmy, you deserved that nip on the face for pulling Buster’s tail!” It was more of a “Did I see Buster fighting with a raccoon last week? Was that the same raccoon I saw stumbling around in the daylight yesterday? Is my kid going to die?”[/QUOTE]
50 years ago in Baltimore, there was a one bite law. One bite was free,the next, the owners sued and the dog destroyed.
The good old days didn’t tolerate it either.
[QUOTE=Coyoteco;7508537]
Requiring a breeding license will not remedy the problems that I consider important. The people who would receive their licenses would be the very people who breed to “improve” the breed - such as has been done to GSDs, Pekingese, Bull Terriers, Rough Collies. Akitas and on and on…even Persian cats.
I sometimes think that there should just be a ban on Americans breeding dogs because of the “improvements” Americans try to implement in breeds of animals.
Even horses …hypp, herda…back to dogs with the DA that the bull dog people are makings excuses for keeping in the gene
pool…[/QUOTE]
These are entirely separate issues.
Requiring a breeder to be licensed is a regulatory issue - making breeders pay a fee and agree to regulation of some sort (inspections, sales, public health standards, etc.) Requiring breeders to be licensed is discussed as a way to reduce puppy mills, for example, because it requires breeders producing a certain number of litters a year to comply with health standards.
Breed standards are set by a breed’s parent club. Whether or not you agree with trends or standards established by the parent club has nothing to do with being a licensed breeder.
I think breeders of “dangerous” dogs (or whatever we want to call them) should be licensed for any litter, and breeders that produce over a certain number of puppies a year should be licensed as well. I think both should be regulated for the health of the animals as well as the public.
S1969-you STILL have not said how you think that being a licensed breeder will affect the people who are already doing illegal things with their dogs. Do you honestly think Mr Gangleader and Mr Dogfighter are going to say, “Oh, I need to go get a license”? I mean, really?
For the record, I am not against the idea. It couldn’t hurt. But I DO NOT think this is a good solution.
[QUOTE=khall;7508562]
My state does require pet breeders to have a license. Some states do, all should. .[/QUOTE]
What number of litters/puppies produced or breeding dogs requires a license? Most breeding legislation is aimed at puppy mills - for example, a breeder producing over 50 puppies a year. Most breeders don’t fall into that category and therefore don’t require a license.
Never mind: Pet Dealer: anyone who sells, offers to sell, or exchanges,
or offers for adoption dogs, cats, fish, reptiles, or other
animals customarily obtained as pets in this state. More
than 1 litter in a twelve month period, required to obtain a
pet dealer’s license. (Statute is 30 but Commissioner has
authority to reduce numbers.)
Go Georgia! That’s a very low number. I have no objection to breeder’s licenses. Curious how expensive it is…going to look now…
[QUOTE=khall;7508562]
My state does require pet breeders to have a license. Some states do, all should.
S, because of this statement of which I think it is so true. Approximately 10 people a day get bit by a dog but it is only news when it is a pit bull.
I am not saying there are not dangerous pit bull type dogs out there, dangerous to other dogs, sometimes but not all the time in my experience. Dangerous to people, can be but not in most of my experience and yes the damage done by a pit bull can be horrible as in the case of all big powerful breeds. Does that mean all pit bull type dogs should be euthanized on site? Not in my opinion, take each dog as an individual. Owners need to be responsible and no not everyone needs to own a pit bull type dog. No large powerful breed should be a first time dog owner dog. No one who is not able to train and keep under control should own a big powerful breed. That is my opinion.[/QUOTE]
It seems that I misunderstood what you meant then. I thought you meant that nobody would be able to breed a dog or keep unneutered pets unless they had a license. That does not seem to be the case in Georgia from looking at CL.
[QUOTE=S1969;7508567]
These are entirely separate issues.
Requiring a breeder to be licensed is a regulatory issue - making breeders pay a fee and agree to regulation of some sort (inspections, sales, public health standards, etc.) Requiring breeders to be licensed is discussed as a way to reduce puppy mills, for example, because it requires breeders producing a certain number of litters a year to comply with health standards.
Breed standards are set by a breed’s parent club. Whether or not you agree with trends or standards established by the parent club has nothing to do with being a licensed breeder.
I think breeders of “dangerous” dogs (or whatever we want to call them) should be licensed for any litter, and breeders that produce over a certain number of puppies a year should be licensed as well. I think both should be regulated for the health of the animals as well as the public.[/QUOTE]
A different specific issue, yes. However, it will be impacted by such legislation as it will tend to put more breeding in the hands of those very people who set these breed standards. It will also not stop the breeding in the groups of people who are breeding for a more vicious dog.
Limiting puppy mill activities is a little different and is being addressed with regulation based on numbers…still a very defective process, but less wide ranging that the breeding bans I was envisioning from statements in this thread.
I suppose the first step would be to determine what everyone means when they say license the breeders.
