Another pit bull attack in the news today - should pit bulls be banned?
Submitted 93 days ago by WishingforSun  Favorite
Embed
Options
|
|
Loading...
| Results | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| 163 votes 47% | |
|
|
| 181 votes 53% | |
How about the hundreds of people who were bit by dogs that were NOT pit bulls? Should we ban dogs in general to keep us safe? And which breed are you referring to by saying 'pit bull'? Many non-fighting dogs have also been lumped into this category by ignorant people and a sensational-story seeking media.
Where I live, any dog that bites people, and their owners, can get in serious trouble, and that seems proper to me.
And what do they do where you live when people hit, kick, strangle, tease and beat dogs until they defend themselves and bite? Why, they punish the owners of the vicious dog, of course. Does that seem proper to you?
Amazing how if a person hits you, you can hit back and it's called self defense. If you hit a dog and it hits back - the dog is put to death while everyone screams that its particular breed should be banned.
I'm sure the circumstances will get a hearing and judgment rendered. It is also illegal to mistreat or bait dogs. Now you and I both love dogs, and wouldn't stand for their mistreatment. But the existence of vicious dogs is a fact, not a myth, whether innate, by breeding, mistreatment, or training. When those tendencies become evident, they can be dangerous to anyone who comes near, even their owners. One of my best friends chose to put to sleep his beloved cocker spaniel after it became hostile to the toddler in the family. In my experience, dogs identified as pit bulls are not generally friendly and reliable. Given that many other options exist for pet owners, I am not against banning their ownership.
No, they should ban pit bull owners.
(boo hoo hoo) How about banning people who don't know how to TREAT dogs, and teach dog safety in school? Often times when children are bitten it's because their parents never taught them how to behave around a dog. Children grab, hit, poke - even unintentionally provoke the dog - and hurt it. The dog responds the way any OTHER child would. They put a stop to it. Teaching your child dog safety should be as fundamental as teaching them how to cross the street.
One thing you have to think about is, did the kid do something to aggravate the dog. If not, the dog's owner should be held responsible.
How are you going to "ban" pit bulls? Are you going to round them all up and shoot them?
The whole concept is absurd.
They're illegal in Germany.
There was talk of banning them in Ontario, too, although I'm not sure if the legislation passed or not. On the ban in Germany, did they ban "pit bulls" OR did they ban specific breeds?
No, you sterilise all the females and let them die out naturally.
(Not saying this is right or wrong btw, I have mixed feelings, but if you want to do it, that is probably the kindest way.)
Many dogs, for whatever reason, are hostile and dangerous and should be put down. That their owners love them is understandable, but irrelevant. Pit bulls, as a category, seem worse than most others. If not very well controlled, such dogs should be confiscated and destroyed.
destroyed you make it sound like it's a device not a living being. For what I know these dogs as well ad rottweilers(did I write it correctly?) where genetically engineered for to be aggressive, for dog fights, they should be banned, but not killed, they should be kept in special places until they die.
I have always hated that term too, they use it in the UK media, as thought they don't want to admit an animal was killed in cold blood.
I can see a case for sterilising the females and lettign the dangerous breeds naturally die out.
Rottweilers were not bred to be fighting dogs. They were bred to be working dogs - specifically to pull carts. They were bred to have a gentle nature because you can't trust a spastic dog to pull your cart. The dog is large, muscular, deep chested and energetic so it can pull a considerable amount of weight for many miles.
The problems with all these breeds is NOT their nature. The problem is that most of society no longer uses dogs for purposes for which they were bred. The dogs need exercise, attention and a kind firm hand to give them direction - much like children do. But people just buy dogs that are 'pretty,' 'cool,' or (God help us) FASHIONABLE (like rotties and dalmatians) who then simply toss them in the house and deal with them only when they have to. The dog becomes frantic with all this pent up energy. People don't train their dogs - takes too much time or energy or money - and let the dog run much as they would one of their kids.
In short - no dog has a vicious nature. Some guard dog breeds are more territorial than other breeds, but they are NOT vicious - they are just doing what they were bred to do. With careful training and attention these dogs can be made into wonderful pets by people who wish to do so.
Sometimes they have mental problems caused by inbreeding or insanity. Dementia is as common in old dogs as it is in old humans. Rabies, brain cancer - these things all cause problems. But the media and the public at large don't cut an old dog any slack - they just say "that dog done turned vicious ..."
Of course, you're right about pit bulls not being a defined breed, and how mistreatment or bad training is the primary problem, and how media jumps on bite stories for their own purposes, etc. I'm not sure how the term can be defined, but it is certainly my experience that pit bulls are very often those dogs used by single males to intimidate the people around them and give the owners a sense of power, much like displaying a weapon.
Absolutely. You're kind by saying 'single males.' I would have said "hillbilly trailer-park-living bad-ass-wannabe pathetic white trash." (lol)
But, having owned one of these dogs that so many people are now actively seeking to ban ... I get pretty opinionated on the subject. (lol)
Here - I love showing off my baby girl. Not to get sympathy, but so you can see one of these 'vicious dogs' and how special they can be to someone who loves them. I have two favorite parts. How she used to jump backwards (she does that fairly early into the video) and when she throws snowballs at me (as we're going up the walk).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j5FqPnUEg4
Wow, I can't believe there are so many people that agree with banning a bread of animal. Seriously it's not the dogs fault, normally it is a case of poor owner coupled with naive victim.
But they are also bred for the purpose of being aggressive and strong. The odds of a pitbull attacking are greater than the odds of a beagle.
Not true. Pit bulls are specifically bred to NOT be aggressive. They are bred to be strong, yet to have a naturally gentle nature so they can be handled. The dogs are then TRAINED to fight.
And 'pit bulls' are not actually a BREED. Pit bull is a term used by pathetic human beings who like to evoke fear in others, the media and people who don't know anything about dogs.
When someone refers to 'pit bulls' - they are referring to one of six or seven DIFFERENT breeds that have been lumped together. Like terriers or retrievers. Imagine how you'd feel if you owned a Golden Retriever, the Labrador Retriever down the street bit a kid and then the media started chanting about the vicious nature of retrievers, and the local government started banning retrievers as vicious dogs. The logic and wording is identical.
Once you break down the category of pit bulls into specific breeds, you can easily see that children are bitten with the same frequency by every other breed - and I would venture to guess, probably less. The dogs are very sweet natured - even more so than retrievers.
Wanted to edit to add the list of dogs (and I'm sure there is more) that are often 'lumped' as pit bulls: Staffordshire Terriers (which is what my dog was), American Staffordshire Terriers (Petey in The Little Rascals was an AST), American Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers (the EBT was actually the first dog bred strictly for human companionship - a 'gentleman's dog' in 19th century Britain) (it's the dog you'll see in the Target ads), English Bull Dogs (this dog you're highly familiar with, I'm sure - but it's lumped as a pit because of the 'bull' in it's name these days), American Bull Dogs, French Bull Dogs (that makes me laugh - they're actually little dogs) and quite a few more.
Often times when there is an attack and the media shows you a clip about it on the news - they're showing you a stock film of the local pound. It's not the dog that actually did the attacking. If the breed has 'bull' in the name - it's called a 'pit bull' because it makes a great lead story.
If I publicly stated I would try to bread a new kind of dog for fighting and killing other dogs I would expect all dog lovers to come after me with everything they have.
This is a very emotional issue, I'm sure there are many more owners who have never had any trouble with their dogs, and of course we only hear about the bad ones.
What causes a "bad dog"?
I would suggest it is about 70% bad owner and 30% the dog, but that is just from personal observation.
Many, perhaps most, "bad" dogs have moronic owners who see walking an aggressive dog as a status symbol, to make them look tough and dangerous themselves.
To me this is animal abuse, pure and simple.
Then again, with any pedigree breed you do get rogues, due to a thinking of the gene pool.
Chances are if someone gets such a dog, they will turn out dangerous despite their best efforts.
A responsible owner will realise they are unsuitable for family environments and try to get them rehomed or sadly have them killed.
Then you have the well meaning but just plain stupid owners. They either do not put any effort into proper training, and let the dog become boss of the house, or will get a dog knowing they have no free time to care for one (or start off all enthusiastic and soon get bored). A neglected dog will form bad habits and often become mentally ill, like zoo animals do.
So what do we do?
Quite a few options I guess.
licencing seems a good idea. Put people on a waiting list and do background checks, like if someone wants to buy guns, or foster a child.
or even drive a car.
rather than tryong to work out which breeds are dangerous, you could have a list of "harmless" ones that required no licence, this might in itself encourage more of them as pets and less of the suspect ones.
After all, when was the last time you heard of anyone being savaged by a Yorkshire Terrier?
Here is a page that lists some statistics about who, how, where and when in the USA. The website also has some good advice on the subject.
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
Interesting to note that Rottweilers and Presa Canarios share the lead with pit bulls.
I followed your link to the link that provided the mortality report. Notice how "pit bull" is in quotes. None of the breeds I listed above are listed individually. It's all about media, and politicians looking to say they accomplished some legislation.
ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/wk/mm4621.pdf
I actually find the number of deaths by ALL dogs to be so low as to make it a kind of questionable bandwagon to hop onto (32 deaths in 2007.). I think there are larger problems out there to worry about, and this is one of those "distraction" issues the press likes trotting out because everyone gets riled up.
Look at the numbers...most of the attacks happen in peoples homes, to kids in their early teens, or with multiple dogs present.
I liked the guys website because he makes some good points on what to do and not to do in regards to dogs. People often forget they are pack animals, but NOT human. We can send off the wrong signals to them, and they will defend themselves or their pack.
Evolution in action?
Most likely.
Another peaceful protester clubbed by cops. Should cops be banned?
Just a few individuals
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=273220&in_page_id=34&in_a_source=