My dogs and I were attacked by a pitt bull this morning (we're OK)

[QUOTE=CanadianTrotter;8887520]
That’s why the term “pit bull type” is legally used here in Ontario within our “pit bull and pit bull type”.

I strongly disagree that it’s just a case of it being the owner and not the dog. In many of the cases of attacks and killings it could have been prevented by the owners. But regardless of whether they could have been prevented, the pit bull and pit bull type do have the inherent breeding to attack, maim and possibly kill.

Anyone that doesn’t see this is being willfully ignorant about these dogs.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but I completely disagree and I am definitely not being “willfully ignorant”. I have worked in animal shelters and vet clinics for awhile. BSL does not work, as is clearly evidenced in Denver, Colorado.

Any dog can be dangerous. It is all about socialization and training.

Lord have mercy. This crap again?! FFS!!

How can we surprised that a dog we selected to FIGHT, KILL, NEVER GIVE UP…does exactly that?!

You people that love the breed should get your people in line! None of us would care what you had on the end of your LEASH if you kept it under control.

If you can’t control it (as so many seem to be challenged by) , get a gerbil.

If all four of my Papillons worked out daily, did steroids, and came up with a plan…they STILL couldn’t take down even a 13" Beagle!

Keep you dogs off mine, and you will never have a problem with me…

Good lord! It IS the owners!! They don’t understand what they own!

ASPCA statement on BSL. This is well worth a read.

Dog breeds are characterized by certain physical and behavioral traits. Each breed was developed to perform a specific job, whether that job is hunting rabbits, retrieving downed birds, herding livestock or sitting on people’s laps. When developing a breed, breeders selected only those dogs that performed their job best to produce the next generation.

Physical abilities and behavior are both important facets of any breed. A well-bred dog should have both the physical attributes necessary to perform its job and the behavioral tendencies needed to learn it. It’s not surprising that individuals of a specific breed tend to look and behave somewhat similarly. Pointers are more likely than Poodles to point, and sheepdogs are more likely than lapdogs to herd. However, while a dog’s genetics may predispose it to perform certain behaviors, tremendous behavioral variation exists among individuals of the same breed or breed type. It’s also important to note that some dog breeds are now bred for entirely different jobs than those for which they were originally developed. For example, certain strains of Golden Retrievers are now being bred as service dogs, a far cry from their original job of retrieving downed birds.

Today’s pit bull is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting dog—a dog that was bred to bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head. When baiting large animals was outlawed in the 1800s, people turned instead to fighting their dogs against each other. These larger, slower bull-baiting dogs were crossed with smaller, quicker terriers to produce a more agile and athletic dog for fighting other dogs.

Some pit bulls were selected and bred for their fighting ability. That means that they may be more likely than other breeds to fight with dogs. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be around other dogs or that they’re unpredictably aggressive. Other pit bulls were specifically bred for work and companionship. These dogs have long been popular family pets, noted for their gentleness, affection and loyalty. And even those pit bulls bred to fight other animals were not prone to aggressiveness toward people. Dogs used for fighting needed to be routinely handled by people; therefore aggression toward people was not tolerated. Any dog that behaved aggressively toward a person was culled, or killed, to avoid passing on such an undesirable trait. Research on pet dogs confirms that dog aggressive dogs are no more likely to direct aggression toward people than dogs that aren’t aggressive to other dogs.

It is likely that that the vast majority of pit bull type dogs in our communities today are the result of random breeding—two dogs being mated without regard to the behavioral traits being passed on to their offspring. The result of random breeding is a population of dogs with a wide range of behavioral predispositions. For this reason it is important to evaluate and treat each dog, no matter its breed, as an individual.

While a dog’s genetics may predispose it to behave in certain ways, genetics do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, behavior develops through a complex interaction between environment and genetics. This is an especially important consideration when we look at an individual dog versus a breed. Many diverse and sometimes subtle factors influence the development of behavior, including, but not limited to, early nutrition, stress levels experienced by the mother during pregnancy, and even temperature in the womb. And when it comes to influencing the behavior of an individual dog, factors such as housing conditions and the history of social interactions play pivotal roles in behavioral development. The factors that feed into the expression of behavior are so inextricably intertwined that it’s usually impossible to point to any one specific influence that accounts for a dog becoming aggressive. This is why there is such variation in behavior between individual dogs, even when they are of the same breed and bred for the same purpose. Because of the impact of experience, the pit bull specifically bred for generations to be aggressive may not fight with dogs and the Labrador retriever bred to be a service dog may be aggressive toward people.

Early positive experiences, most notably socialization, are considered key in preventing aggressive tendencies in dogs. Puppies that learn how to interact, play and communicate with both people and members of their own and other species are less likely to show aggressive behavior as adults. Given the powerful impact of socialization, it’s no surprise that dogs that are chained outside and isolated from positive human interaction are more likely to bite people than dogs that are integrated into our homes. Unfortunately, pit bull type dogs that find themselves in these conditions may be at greater risk for developing aggressive behavior. But because these factors are ones that can be controlled by better educated owners, it is possible to reduce these risks, not just in pit bulls but in dogs of all breeds.

The reality is that dogs of many breeds can be selectively bred or trained to develop aggressive traits. Therefore the responsible ownership of any dog requires a commitment to proper socialization, humane training and conscientious supervision. Despite our best efforts, there will always be dogs of various breeds that are simply too dangerous to live safely in society. We can effectively address the danger posed by these dogs by supporting the passage and vigorous enforcement of laws that focus, not on breed, but on people’s responsibility for their dogs’ behavior, including measures that hold owners of all breeds accountable for properly housing, supervising and controlling their dogs. Breed neutral “dangerous dog” laws, “leash laws” that prohibit dogs from running loose off their owners’ property, and “anti chaining” laws can control the behavior of individual dogs and individual owners and thereby help reduce the risk of harm to people and other animals.

Laws that ban particular breeds of dogs do not achieve these aims and instead create the illusion, but not the reality, of enhanced public safety. Notably, there are no statewide laws that discriminate based on dog breed, and 18 states have taken the proactive step of expressly banning laws that single out particular breeds for disparate legal treatment. Even the White House has weighed in against laws that target specific breeds. In a a statement issued in 2013, President Obama said “[w]e don’t support breed-specific legislation—research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.”

All dogs, including pit bulls, are individuals. Treating them as such, providing them with the care, training and supervision they require, and judging them by their actions and not by their DNA or their physical appearance is the best way to ensure that dogs and people can continue to share safe and happy lives together.

All of the major organizations which are concerned with animals are loudly contemptuous of breed-specific legislation and are dominated by their desire to appease breeders. All breeders, whether they’re reputable hobbyists or the miller outsourcing 70 breeding bitches to Amish farms or the slithering filth with 45 pit bulls chained to trees. All of the above, though vastly different in how they go about their ‘fancy’ feel deeply threatened and respond with extreme self-protection every time a law is proposed which limits their breeding activity. Respectable hobby breeders are willing to suck up to people who raise puppies in hutches or let pit bulls tear each other up in pits if it means defeating a proposal to limit the number of dogs you can own. And until that little bit of selfishness is unraveled, we’ll continue to see the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’s continue to support the new norm, where the majority of all unwanted dogs in shelters and rescues are pit bulls, where a staggering majority of unwanted dogs euthanized in shelters are pit bulls, where pit bulls kill 30 people a year and an unknown number of other animals. Because anything is better than limiting an American’s God-given right to breed and sell animals, no matter the cost of that breeding to society and to the animals themselves.

*Just to make clear - the reputable breeders are fine with me. I don’t think it’s rescue or nothing. But the good breeders are part of this whole situation. While I think it’s fine they continue to produce good, healthy, sane dogs, I don’t think it’s fine when they and their organizations fight legislation that would put a dent in the breeding operations of the bad breeders.

[QUOTE=cbv;8887301]
For anyone really interested in the history of pittbulls and dangerous dog stats should read this book:

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/science/review-pit-bull-by-bronwen-dickey.amp.html

I have no “dog in this fight”. Bully breeds are not my preference and I try to avoid any of the completely decisive issues like Pit Bulls and breed bans.

But this book is well written, a good read, and I found it very enlightening. I am a scientist and found the evidence compelling.

But if you are hard core on either side of the issue, don’t bother.[/QUOTE]

I was just going to suggest that. Probably the most balanced read out there on the topic.

I think it is a sort of math problem, at least around where I live. If you take:

–pit bull-looking dog (plentiful in shelters and on the informal dog exchange market)

  • owner who really thinks of dogs as backyard theft detection devices, so

  • does not socialize the dog or really interact with it much except to throw food

  • dogs not spayed or neutered, or taken to the vet unless/until they get hit by cars

  • no collar (a sign of many other bad things)

  • “My dog is out looking for a girlfriend. If you see him call ________” - an actual message posted on my neighbors net. When someone gently pointed out San Antonio’s horrific stray dog problem, the reply was “Not your business”

  • Owners are engaged in illegal activity of some kind and need a scary animal to let out upon occasion

= Pit bull looking dog is a problem and owner is a worse problem.

[QUOTE=ASBJumper;8887538]
The pittie advocates just don’t get it, as evidenced by more recent comments of the “pitties are not inherently more aggressive than other dog breeds” variety.

Let’s put it another way. Try to really drive the point home.

Say you want to get a car.

Car salesman presents you with two appealing options. Car Number 1 is “more likely” to have mild mechanical issues from time to time, but they are going to be minor issues and easy fixes.

Car number 2 is very, very reliable - “far less likely” to have any issues. However, if an issue DOES crop up with car number 2, it’s going to be major… like, “engine suddenly dying on the highway when you’re going 100 miles/hr” major.

Who the hell would risk their life with Car Number 2? Seriously - I wanna know!!

I hope this illustrates the point most of us are trying to get across.

I don’t care, I don’t care, I don’t CARE how “rare” it is for a Pittie to “snap”. I don’t care. It’s what happens when that one, rare “bad apple” DOES and a human being is in the vicinity that I have a problem with!!

And yes, I do feel this also applies to other known dangerous breeds like Presas, Cane Corsos, Bull Mastiffs… absolutely. But that was not the subject of this thread.[/QUOTE]

To follow up on your car analogy, people do it all the time, or else everyone would be driving Toyota Corollas. We trade in reliability for performance, for towing capacity, for price, for comfort, even for looks. Nobody NEEDS a Lamborghini when the maximum speed limit is 110km/h everywhere. Why do we even need cars that go that fast? Why not just regulate cars so they cannot go faster than, say, 140km/h? Road racing problems - solved. If law enforcement discovers a tuned car in someones garage, they would KNOW that this person is up to no good, cause why else would they have a tuned car, right? Certainly people should be happy to submit to a bit of regulation, just think about all the children that could be saved from road accidents…
But that’s not the way it works. As a society we determine what is an acceptable risk and what isn’t, and which decisions we leave for everyone to make individually.

In the case of Pit Bulls, I feel that there are several problems with the call for breed specific regulation. The worst is possibly that it creates a narrative of “us vs them”. The message should not be “thugs have Pit Bulls, so ban them all while I go about my life with Fluffy as if nothing happened”. The message should be “this behavior is acceptable / is not acceptable for us as a society”. It has to include everyone, not just “them that have Pit Bulls”. It’s always easier to see that the others are the problem and should be regulated.
CanadianTrotter is the perfect example for this - you say you “don’t miss Pit Bulls” after the ban in ON (I am assuming you are not personally affected by this), but there seems to be little concern about whether it actually made the community safer (which it most likely hasn’t).
It’s like someone saying “we should ban cars, they are dangerous and they screw up the environment. Doesn’t bother me, I take the bus to work anyways.”

I personally think it is ridiculous to propose that every dog that has bitten (or not even bitten - jumped on someone, gotten loose, whatever) should be euthanized. We are expecting the impossible of dogs.

[QUOTE=CanadianTrotter;8887520]
But regardless of whether they could have been prevented, the pit bull and pit bull type do have the inherent breeding to attack, maim and possibly kill.[/QUOTE]

And what “inherent breeding” would that be exactly? The vast majority of “Pit Bull type” dogs around these days, the typical dogs that are sold on kijiji/craigslist and in supermarket parking lots in California, the dogs that show up in shelters by the thousands, have a background of many, many generations of backyard scatterbreeding.

Let’s take the most defined of the Pit Bull type dogs, the AKC American Staffordshire Terrier, which became an independent breed in 1969, so 47 years ago. Let’s say they were all responsibly bred and one generation is 2.5 years, so 47 years and 19 generations of guaranteed, documented non-purpose breeding by now. How long does it take for a breed to “redeem” itself???

I’m sure every dog breeder ever wishes that the trait they breed for is as stable as this. It is just unrealistic that any trait, especially one as vague as “aggression” remains stable through so many generations of cross- and scatterbreeding.

The thing is, there is no “your people”. There is no magical secret network of Pit Bull owners where you can write a message and say “knock off the crap”. We’re all individuals. Or why else haven’t you told “your people” yet to clean up their damn poop after themselves?

I can only echo the comments others have made about the importance of training and, if you have a dog that has tendencies that make it a risk, keep the dog out of those situations (appropriately fence the yard and keep the dog in it!). That said, we have 2 pit bulls who are absolutely wonderful, calm, and safe for all to be around. I work with them constantly on manners and behavior, and I know it is on ME to ensure they continue to be solid citizens.

FWIW and IMHO, I’ve been attacked by a JRT (would NEVER have one of them around), and a golden retriever attacked my pit bull twice (sorry, but goldens are overbred idiots, for the most part).

I work in a vet clinic.

I would rather do a room with a pit ANYDAY vs doing one with a German Shepherd. It’s not always the Shep’s fault… They are just generally SUPER nervous when they come in, and I swear NONE of them like their temp taken. We don’t have many bite incidents (once that were actually bites not just snaps), however the ones we have had in the multiple years since I’ve worked here were these:

3 - GSD (2 required medical attention)
2 - Chi’s (Barely broke skin)
2 - Terrier (1 bruised the tech, 1 had no teeth but again WOULD have broken skin had he had teeth… He is literally one of the most vicious dogs we get in.)
1 - Shih Tzu (He has no teeth… So really it’s hard pressed to call a bite incident, but he would have broken skin if he had teeth).
1 - Heeler (that broke skin… many snappers)

and of course angry/feral cats…

If I counted snapping incidents or when we needed to muzzle, chi’s would win. Also, our Rabies Quarantine dogs are a LARGE majority GSD.

So tell me again it’s the breed?

[QUOTE=Perfect10;8887310]

And euthanizing any dog that “attacks?” What about your 12lb terrier mix who bit a man who got too close? What about your Rottweiler who lunged at a robber who entered your home? What about your Golden who bit the dog that had been giving her dirty looks the whole walk home? What about your Maltese who bit the kid that has poked him in the eye every time he sees him? Should all of those dogs be euthanized? It’s too hard to decide what is an unprovoked attack versus a provoked attack. Your blanket statement just doesn’t work in practice.[/QUOTE]

At this point, yes they should all be put down. End the crap about pits being singled out.

My father has a Chihuahua that is more aggressive than it needs to be. Last time I tried to catch the thing, he tried to bite me. If it were up to me, the dog would go. I worry about it being around my niece and nephew. I worry about someone coming in to help my parents (in the future). The dog gets rough with the cats. This is already the dog’s second chance (I can completely see why he was in a shelter/rescue). There is no reason to pass the buck. Little monster better hope Dad lives a long time; their life spans are linked.

There never used to be all of these issues with dog bites and attacks because dogs that committed those crimes were put down. If there were a shortage of dogs out there, I might feel differently, but there’s not.

[QUOTE=MustangSavvy;8887554]
Sorry, but I completely disagree and I am definitely not being “willfully ignorant”. I have worked in animal shelters and vet clinics for awhile. BSL does not work, as is clearly evidenced in Denver, Colorado.

Any dog can be dangerous. It is all about socialization and training.[/QUOTE]

Yes, any dog can be dangerous…nobody is denying that. Any dog can bite and or snap…nobody is argueing that either. Even with the best socialization and training any dog can be dangerous and attack, bite or snap. Nobody is disagreeing with that.

What you and other pit bull/pit bull type advocates are being willfully ignorant about is the amount of damage that these dogs can cause with one bite let alone a full blown attack…in comparison to any other dog breed. You are also being willfully ignorant to the fact that when a pit bull/pit bull type goes into a full blown attack, they do not stop until their target is dead. If there are people around to stop the attack the target is only severely maimed.

Name one other dog breed that has been recognized as a “biting/aggressive breed” that has caused severe damage and/or death on a regular basis. Yes, there are isolated incidents of other breeds causing great damage, but compared to the number of devastating pit bull/pit bull type attacks, it greatly pales in comparison.

[QUOTE=CanadianTrotter;8887855]
Yes, any dog can be dangerous…nobody is denying that. Any dog can bite and or snap…nobody is argueing that either. Even with the best socialization and training any dog can be dangerous and attack, bite or snap. Nobody is disagreeing with that.

What you and other pit bull/pit bull type advocates are being willfully ignorant about is the amount of damage that these dogs can cause with one bite let alone a full blown attack…in comparison to any other dog breed. You are also being willfully ignorant to the fact that when a pit bull/pit bull type goes into a full blown attack, they do not stop until their target is dead. If there are people around to stop the attack the target is only severely maimed.

Name one other dog breed that has been recognized as a “biting/aggressive breed” that has caused severe damage and/or death on a regular basis. Yes, there are isolated incidents of other breeds causing great damage, but compared to the number of devastating pit bull/pit bull type attacks, it greatly pales in comparison.[/QUOTE]

You also need to look at the availability for pits (and mixes) vs. others. As I stated in my post, we see a number more of aggressive German Sheps than anything else. However, most GSD’s and other more aggressive breeds (not that all GSD’s are bad) are for sale at a higher price. Where as pit’s are so easily available to anyone. I could get on CL or walk into any shelter and twirl around and probably fall on a pit.

[QUOTE=Sunsets;8887161]
I think that if GSDs were as common among the “thug classes” as the pit-types seem to be, we’d be seeing a lot more nasty GSDs. Given an unknown pittie vs. and unknown GSD/Malinois, I’d approach the pittie first (assuming I read its body language as OK). And I own the sweetest GSD on the planet! But as stated above, GSDs can be sneaky, sneaky bastards. And many of them are smarter than their owners.

Almost every vet tech I’ve encountered goes for a muzzle when it’s time for blood draw on my guy. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t hurt a fly, but he’s got big teeth, and if he gets scared, he might snap. I don’t blame them since they are working from experience.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I love GSDs - my “lifetime dog” was a GSD and I will always, always love them. But I find their motives are not always so pure, and it can be very hard to read them. They are sneaky! My mother ended up getting her own GSD after mine passed away, from the same breeder - she picked one from my GSD’s sister’s litter… so… this one is my GSD’s ‘niece’. Anyway, on a basal level I do think they are very similar in temperament; anxious but very job oriented. The difference is my GSD spent nearly every waking moment of his first year out and about, socialized, at kennels, etc – while this GSD was more sheltered and not as fiercely ‘campaigned’. She is very bitey and snappy and has gone after several dogs.

I volunteered in the Aiken shelter when I lived in Aiken. The “pitbull” types (I use this term to describe what I would call an Am-Staff) were the sweetest, most trustworthy things - I find you really can read an Am-Staff quite well and they would really rather not hurt you.

I do think to an extent, TERRIER breeds are not as good with other dogs. Socialization can truly overcome that. I do not for a second believe that TERRIER breeds are more aggressive towards people. I’m sorry, I just don’t – and it’s clear that the vets, vet techs, and other shelter-workers on both this board and in my life agree.

[QUOTE=Belmont;8887803]
I work in a vet clinic.

I would rather do a room with a pit ANYDAY vs doing one with a German Shepherd. It’s not always the Shep’s fault… They are just generally SUPER nervous when they come in, and I swear NONE of them like their temp taken. We don’t have many bite incidents (once that were actually bites not just snaps), however the ones we have had in the multiple years since I’ve worked here were these:

3 - GSD (2 required medical attention)
2 - Chi’s (Barely broke skin)
2 - Terrier (1 bruised the tech, 1 had no teeth but again WOULD have broken skin had he had teeth… He is literally one of the most vicious dogs we get in.)
1 - Shih Tzu (He has no teeth… So really it’s hard pressed to call a bite incident, but he would have broken skin if he had teeth).
1 - Heeler (that broke skin… many snappers)

and of course angry/feral cats…

If I counted snapping incidents or when we needed to muzzle, chi’s would win.

So tell me again it’s the breed?[/QUOTE]

I for one am not talking about which breed snaps or bites, because they all have that potential.

I am speaking of which breed has the potential to maul and kill. Not periodically or in rare cases, in regular cases.

[QUOTE=Belmont;8887866]
You also need to look at the availability for pits (and mixes) vs. others. As I stated in my post, we see a number more of aggressive German Sheps than anything else. However, most GSD’s and other more aggressive breeds (not that all GSD’s are bad) are for sale at a higher price. Where as pit’s are so easily available to anyone. I could get on CL or walk into any shelter and twirl around and probably fall on a pit.[/QUOTE]

Of course any type of shepherd is more aggressive, they are a guard dog and are specifically bred to protect and guard. If they see or sense danger they are immediately on alert, actually they are on alert before they see or sense danger. Shepherds are constantly on alert.

Pits are much more easily available because they have been allowed or forced to breed out of control. Why is that?

[QUOTE=CanadianTrotter;8887878]
I for one am not talking about which breed snaps or bites, because they all have that potential.

I am speaking of which breed has the potential to maul and kill. Not periodically or in rare cases, in regular cases.[/QUOTE]

Fine maul or kill - GSD, Mastiffs (all breeds/kinds), Rotties… Hell, a bulkier Catahoula can be put in this category as well, along with mostly any other dog above the 50lb range, especially if they are specifically bred for guard or hunting/bey type situations. They can all maul or kill. If you really want to get into it, a Labrador has the potential, especially as people are starting to bring in the bigger, blocky types.

Again, I made the statement earlier, the large number of pit bulls owned by reckless people vs any other breed makes it seem like pits are the more dangerous. When in reality, there are MUCH more dangerous breeds out there. They are just generally owned by responsible people. One of our last rabies quarantine dogs was a GSD that literally ran out of his front door while the mans wife was bringing in groceries and mauled someone jogging down the street. The owner was able to run out, grab the dog by the collar, and rip him off. If he wasn’t there, who knows what could have happened… However, a majority of pit owners are NOT responsible people. They don’t know what to do. They don’t take proper care of their pets or keep do any sort of proper socialization. They are over populated and easy to get a hold of… Therefore, you see many more cases of pits when in reality if you had the same number of pit vs other “aggressive” breeds out there, I would put money down that you would see mauling/attacks by OTHER breeds over the pits.

ETA: To answer your question, I don’t know WHY they were allowed to be so over bred. They are so easily available. I’m sure it has something to do with the fact that all the rappers had them because they are “badass, mean” dogs. When in reality, a majority of them aren’t like that at all. Maybe it has something to do with having no real registry or regulations for a long time… Who knows. However, I think we can agree that their over breeding and over population is the main root of the problem.

[QUOTE=CanadianTrotter;8887878]
I for one am not talking about which breed snaps or bites, because they all have that potential.

I am speaking of which breed has the potential to maul and kill. Not periodically or in rare cases, in regular cases.[/QUOTE]

CdnTrotter, save your breath. We keep repeating the same point ad nauseum, over and over, and they’re just.not.getting.it.

I feel you.

https://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

GSDs, eh? GSDs account for less than a THIRD of the fatal dog attacks in the USA since 1979 vs Pitties.

Holy freaking DENIAL batman.

I would LOVE it if somehow you could pass a law banning the breeding of these animals unless you’re licensed, accredited, inspected, regulated up the yin yang - but that is NEVER going to happen… so in the absence of that (which yes, makes much more sense), BSL it is. If it prevents even ONE irresponsible person from acquiring a Pittie, then it’s worth it.

The vet techs, kennel workers, shelter volunteers that all insist the pits are fine to deal with are purposely ignoring the fact that these dogs are incredibly DOG aggressive and pose a massive threat to everyone else’s pets in the neighborhood.

Like the OP, most of us would put our lives on the line to protect our pets. The OP was knocked off her feet by the pit bull attacking her beloved dog and she sheltered her dog with her own body to protect him/her. OP is INCREDIBLY lucky. This exact scenario can and does end in death or mutilation of both victim dog and owner.

I just fail to see how those of us, minding our own business, being responsible, ordinary citizen pet owners, taking a stroll in our neighborhoods with our lovely dogs, should ACCEPT this potential threat as just life----so that people who own pit bulls can go about their merry way, unencumbered. That, my friends, is intrinsically unfair and unjust.

I don’t know what to do about it, but those of us who walk our dogs must take this risk on a daily basis and frankly, it sucks. I will probably have a nice, routine, peaceful walk. But tonight, I MIGHT watch my beloved dog get mauled to death by a monster in a horrific attack, right there on the public, neighborhood street. Roll the dice. All so you-general pit owners can enjoy YOUR pets. Thoughts?