Illegal dogs

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:41 pm

Quote:

My statement is that pitbulls that are dangerous are dangerous because of the way they are raised. That is a fact.

So that would call for an owners permit/license/training diploma of bigger dogs that can be potentially dangerous if treated/trained the wrong way. A bit more extended than a gun permit but basically the same thing. You can have this dangerous object/animal only if you have proven that you can control it. Yes I can agree to that and I still don't see any guilt with the object or even responsibility for it's actions. Slight difference though, all guns can kill, not all big dogs will do that. Wink

BTW the cross breeding of other big dogs in Europe after the ban on pittbulls resulted in far more possibly dangerous dogs that are harder to ban as they don't fall under the normal breeds. But making them "forbidden" results in a status symbol that some people will try to keep for their own well being and status, kinda like gun nuts, bigger is better cause it's more dangerous.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:44 pm

Overall I consider this to be a very educated group of people, so I am truly surprised at the myths and inaccuracies I am seeing posted here (and yes, I do work in the dog world).

Large breeds with strong bites are capable of more harm, certainly. Because of that, more severe attacks are going to be attributed to these breeds. A yorkie is not big enough or strong enough to kill someone except in some very strange scenario. A pit that attacks is certainly capable of doing more harm. But the media also loves to villify certain breeds, and I can personally attest to the fact that the pitbull attack will make news, even if the damage is not severe, while the attacking lab down the street will be ignored (have seen this!). Add to the bias the fact that pitties and rotts are the breed of choice for drug dealers and career criminals, and you will get an even higher profile.

The belief that pitbulls will randomly turn on you is just a myth, plain and simple. In truth, St. Bernards and Springer Spaniels are more likely to have those kinds of problems.

Fighting pitties are bred for prey drive and animal aggression, not human aggression. People who fight pits (did I mention that I think this should be punishable by life in prison) actually need a dog who is obedient and under control by a human handler. Genetically, they are not predisposed to be a threat to people. With that said, pitties that have been bred specifically to fight, trained to fight, used as guard dogs in questionable situations (e.g. drug houses) or used as bait often do pose a higher risk, because they may go after other animals (and get the human between them and the other animal), or the cruelty involved in the training process may have led to temperamental instability. Very thorough evaluation would be needed with these dogs to ensure they really are safe. But I would trust a well-bred pittbull or American Staffordshire Terrier before I would trust a chihuahua in general!

I have known pitties that I simply wouldn't trust, and some that have bitten. I have also known labs, shepherds, dobes, spaniels, setters, pointers, and a lot of other breeds (even more often small breeds) that have bitten and broken skin. I remember a golden retriever a few years ago who would attack on sight.

If I were in a position to own a dog right now, I wouldn't hesitate to own a pittie, provided I had a good handle on its temperament, and that I had verified it was manageable with cats. I also wouldn't hesitate to own any other breed (except those little toy things, that I don't think are dogs at all Smile

) with the same criteria.

I also very strongly disagree with breed-specific legislation for a whole host of reasons I won't get into. But I also wouldn't get a dog that was illegal (not a problem where I live), as the dog and I would both suffer if I was caught.

And coincidentally, the jumping dog I pictured in the photo thread (jumping for a toy) is a pittie mix.

Ok, climbing off the soapbox now...

419Eater is my life Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 365

I have worked and seen to many complaints concerning attacks by dog. The majority are pit bulls. I have no compassion for them. In the line of duty, I have shot 7 dogs that have attempted to attack me, 4 Pits, 2 Rotts and a German Shepard. I refuse to be bitten by one of these animals. A while back my partner was attacked by a pit bull. The dog appeared docile and friendly. Partner was outside the patrol unit and I was inside. The dog jumped up on the side of the car and when I said "NO", the dog immediately attacked my partner. I had to shoot the dog while it was still attached to his arm. He had his pistol out, beating it in the head to dislodge it, but it wasn't working. A while back my ex-neighbors had 3 Rotts in thier backyard. They were constantly getting out and terrorizing the neighborhood. I told them that the next time they got out that I would shoot them, no questions asked. They took me seriously and erected a new fence. I was not going to have it where my kids were scared to go outside because of these animals.
Nope, no compassion at all.....if you can't control your animal, get rid of it. These "killer breeds" have no place in a small rural community where people still get out and walk in the evenings and kids actually play in the yards.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:28 pm

Quote:

So, what would your response to that be?

Spoken like a true pit bull owner that loves his dogs.

I'm sorry, but now your "logic" is horribly flawed. We were talking about pit bulls being a violent breed of dog. Your "logic" doesn't address how many inmates are incarcerated for violent crimes. you've just lumped them all together. At any rate, there are a whole host of reasons why human beings commit crimes. Animals act on instinct.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:30 pm

Quote:

(even more often small breeds) that have bitten and broken skin. I remember a golden retriever a few years ago who would attack on sight.

Yep I used to go to the dog pound and pick up the laptops for $90, retrain and slim them up to a real dog again, they would sell up to $1000 after three months, but they were the nasty ankle biters in the beginning and bit me more than all the others I trained.
The golden retriever I got there after he had terrorized and bitten two families stayed the remaining twelve years with me as the most perfect dog I ever trained, all he needed was some rules and guidance.

(former) Dangerous dog removed from dead row Laughing

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:31 pm

Quote:

I have shot 7 dogs that have attempted to attack me

I don't want to live wherever you live, as it must be a very unusual place for a rural area--and you must have nobody who has any real animal control training. In my neck of the woods, police shootings of dogs are very rare--if they occur are more likely when dogs are attacking livestock. The vast majority of police I know have never shot a dog. I have never known a police officer, even one who has been serving for many years, who has had occasion to shoot a dog more than twice (ok there's one who may have done it more than twice, but that one actually had to be disciplined for it and is lucky to still have a job).

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:42 pm

U. Sir Name wrote:

Spoken like a true pit bull owner that loves his dogs.

I do not own a pitt bull. I have never owned a pit bull. I will never own a pit bull. I don't like big dogs like that. In fact, I don't eve own a dog. I have owned one dog in my life. I probably won't own another.

My point was not about the "violence" of crimes. My point was about crime in general. Violent crimes are irrelevant. You could draw the exact same conclusion from the data I proposed as the data you proposed.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:45 pm

Dorothy wrote:

A yorkie is not big enough or strong enough to kill someone except in some very strange scenario. A pit that attacks is certainly capable of doing more harm. But the media also loves to villify certain breeds, and I can personally attest to the fact that the pitbull attack will make news, even if the damage is not severe, while the attacking lab down the street will be ignored (have seen this!).

I'd take a bite from a Yorkie over that from a Pitbull or Rottweiller any day. So what if Yorkies bite more? It quite simply doesn't do the damage that a large breed will.
And the fact remains that over 50% of fatalities are caused by Pitbulls and Rottweillers. Bad press? Maybe. But if they're the cause of over half the deaths then that press seems completely justified to me.

I own large breeds and true, a lot of thier temperament is down to how I treat them, but there are some dogs that are inherently dangerous simply because they're bred to be that way. To deny that is just stupid.

My dogs are bred to hunt lions. If they turned on a human, they could do a lot of damage. Yet although there have been cases where the breed has attacked people, I've yet to see a report of one killing a human being - something it could do very easily. Why? I don't pretend for one moment that every one of my breed's owners is a responsible person. Believe me, when it mauls, it makes the newspapers along with the obligatory "ban it" calls, so it's not down to the press not "picking" on it. So why isn't it in the newspapers killing people yet Pitbulls are?

Edit: As we're posting photos. Here's one of mine. He's a 16 month old Rhodesian Ridgeback.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:46 pm

Chief2B wrote:

In the line of duty, I have shot 7 dogs that have attempted to attack me, 4 Pits, 2 Rotts and a German Shepard. I refuse to be bitten by one of these animals. A while back my partner was attacked by a pit bull.

I presume you are a cop and you shot them? Please tell me about the location of these houses where you shot them. Were they in nice environments? Did they seem like they were in places where the dogs were treated well? Or were these in bad areas where the dogs are used to protect people's yards, cars, crack cocaine, etc? I have a real hard time beleiving a pit bill in a neighborhood where the dogs are being taken care of are that bad.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:49 pm

Quote:

You can have this dangerous object/animal only if you have proven that you can control it.

Personally I think anyone who owns a dog should have to prove they have the ability to handle it properly. Small dogs may not kill and they may not make the news, but they certainly have left their share of permanent scars on young kids! I've just seen too many of those out-of-control ankle biters.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:56 pm

Quote:

Believe me, when it mauls, it makes the newspapers along with the obligatory "ban it" calls, so it's not down to the press not "picking" on it. So why isn't it in the newspapers killing people yet Pitbulls are?

No, that is actually not true. I have seen multiple cases of "other" breeds that have done extreme damage to the point of "mauling", and they were never covered by the media. I wish they were--too many people end up getting hurt because they think that these few breeds are evil and all other breeds are safe.

Many insurance companies refuse to cover specific breeds based on their claim history, and there are some breeds on those lists that would be surprising to many people.

Edit: Slightly, your dog is a beauty. And your breed is one that appears on some discrimination lists.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:02 pm

Dorothy wrote:

No, that is actually not true.

It is in my country.
A dog bred for hunting lions? You think they'd pass that up?
The media have a field day if it attacks a human.

Both of mine are insured. I shopped around and I've never come across a company discriminating in this country although I have read reports of it elsewhere.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:06 pm

Slightlyoutofit wrote:

I'd take a bite from a Yorkie over that from a Pitbull or Rottweiller any day. So what if Yorkies bite more? It quite simply doesn't do the damage that a large breed will.

So, would you say Yorkies are "bred for bloodlust" if they bite more than Pitbulls do? Even if their damage is smaller?

It is simply my belief that these dogs can be sculpted to do a lot of damage. I would never deny that. However, people pick those dogs (pit bulls, rotts, etc.) to breed for damage because they are strong dogs, readliy available and relatively cheap. They can be made into fighting dogs. You can make any dog mean by starving it, hitting it or making it spend an evening with Slightly. I have no doubt in my mind that your Ridgeback will be a complete dick in no less than 6 months. Laughing

My point was never that pits cannot be dangerous. My point was that they are dangerous when people treat them poorly and raise them to be that way.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:14 pm

The trouble started when dog breeds that used to have a working function were kept as pets in a society where there is no time or room for pets anymore. Even bunny rabbits can do severe damage to a person (got the scars Smile

) Are they vicious? I don't think so, but their instinct, stress and frustration can make them aggressive. The same with dogs that are kept, handled without any knowledge of their basic needs or breed specific "difficulties".
Red American Cocker spaniels can become very dangerous for no reason at all as the breeding of their color was more important then their genetically other traits. I don't say that they all have it, but a large percentage of them shows sudden aggression in a situation where there is no need to do so.
Love the Ridgebacks Slightlyoutofit thanks for the picture.
Any animal can become dangerous if treated wrong, I have a stud horse my neighbor doesn't dare to approach, but my grand kids are safe with him. (no not on purpose, but my daughter wasn't paying attention and he took over and kept the other horses away from them.)
A permit or education for animal owners? It would benefit the animals, but in a world where everybody drives faster than the speed limit when they think they can't be caught, I don't see it happen any time soon.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:15 pm

jojobean wrote:

So, would you say Yorkies are "bred for bloodlust" if they bite more than Pitbulls do?

No. Yorkies bite because they're normally spoiled, snappy little pieces of shit.
I'm all for exterminating the breed so you'll get no argument from me on that one.

My Ridgebacks will not be "dicks". I've owned the breed for 14 years and had 6 of them all told. The only thing they are trained to attack is fat Yanks with bad breath, so keep clear, jojo.
Prior to Ridgebacks, I kept Dobermanns. And although I consider myself to be a responsible owner, I do consider them to be a dangerous breed. One of them would turn for no reason at all, thus kicking your "crap environment" argument into the bin.

Just admit it jojo - you're wrong. Just as you normally are.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:18 pm

Now we're getting personal ^^, I'm out of here Laughing

Baiting Guru Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2163

my dogs

the lab is 11 and the dobe 9 or 10 years

I wouldn't trust a pit with other dogs or children no matter how well trained the dog is. The pitts were originally bred for fighting and there is still some fighting spirit in it.

Master of Master Baiters Joined: 06 Feb 2008 Posts: 720

Quote:

In the line of duty, I have shot 7 dogs

If you were One of the few armed Cop's in the UK ,you would spend the rest of your Career doing the paper work

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:23 pm

Slightlyoutofit wrote:

And although I consider myself to be a responsible owner, I do consider them to be a dangerous breed. One of them would turn for no reason at all, thus kicking your "crap environment" argument into the bin.

No, that absolutely makes sense. And, it completely adds credibility to my argument. You were the owner.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

^^

Why? I hate all dogs myself, and I think that it is reasonable to kill a dog (and any other animal) that attempts to attack me. I don't understand why an officer will be doing paperwork for the rest of their career.

Also,

Quote:

Just admit it jojo - you're wrong. Just as you normally are.

is a bit unecessary.

I cant understand why people can feel so emotionally attached to dogs as they would humans. I'm baffled when I hear "Bad dog, don't touch that stick" when I take my kids to the park.

I also cannot abide dogs not on leads. Who knows what they'll do?

Master Baiter Joined: 09 Apr 2008 Posts: 114

A couple of points here. Firstly, I am not a crack dealer and therefore do not need to train my dog to be aggressive. Secondly, I did not go out to obtain an illegal dog - I found him wandering the streets as a puppy and thought initially that he was a Staffordshire bull terrier cross. It only became evident that he is a pit bull some time after I acquired him.

I am well aware of the damage that Eric could cause if kept by an irresponsible person, which I am not. He is never left unattended with children. No dog should be. He is exercised in an enclosed yard with 8 foot walls around it. When he is taken out he is in a very strong harness and is muzzled.

APBT attacks are always a good story for the newspapers to sensationalise. We did have a child mauled and killed by a pit bull in the UK over last New Year. The owner was a drug dealer and had injected it with steroids to make it bigger. I think that the newspaper follow-ups stated that the dog weighed almost 8 stone. Now that is a dangerous dog.

The last dog attack that I have seen is a woman who was fast asleep when her greyhound ripped off her nose and part of her face. Greyhounds are said to be one of the most friendly and dependable dogs to own. Perhaps we should ban all of those too?

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:21 pm

If I get angry at someone and hit them in the back of the head with a pebble, I probably won't do too much damage. If I hit them with a large rock, I will likely do some severe damage. Both stones hit people, it's just that the large one was able to inflict more harm.

The argument that pitties will attack people because they were bred for violence is not true. Unstable temperaments are actually undesirable in fighting dog (and also, don't forget that they are descended from some of the same breeds that people consider harmless, which is why scambo could have mistaken the breed when it was a pup, and there are show bloodlines bred for anything but violence).

The vast majority of pitbulls out there have never bitten anyone. Of course they will crop up more in the extreme cases--there aren't too many breeds out there capable of doing as much damage, and they are the dogs of choice for certain people that will increase the likelihood of violence. It is not that they are inherently more likely to attack, just that the results are going to be more severe. The yorkie in this example may be more prone to violence, it might even want to kill you, but it can't inflict as much damage.

I'm not suggesting that everyone out there should run out and get a pitbull--not everyone has the time, energy, or knowledge to ensure that they have a well-behaved, socialized dog. I just don't understand the ignorance that leads people to perpetuate the myths that they are evil or inherently violent or will turn on their owners some day.

I'm not sure where you are, Slightly, but I have enough connections in the animal control world to know about multiple cases in other breeds that didn't make the media stories. The dogs were quietly euthanized (or relocated--there are idiots out there who will relocate dogs that are clearly aggressive), and probably nobody beyond the families and animal control (and maybe the "rescuers") ever knew the true story. If you don't have those connections, you probably wouldn't know about them.

If anyone thinks that they could completely eradicate the breed and the world would be a safer place, then quite frankly they have a much better opinion of this world than I do. Pits were not the first fighting breed, and they won't be the last. As long as there are evil or stupid people who want a dog to fight/guard illegal ventures/make them feel macho, there will be dogs out there that are poorly bred, trained, and/or managed. There are people out there right now trying to create a bigger, stronger, "meaner" breed--sadly, I've encountered some of those people. And don't get me started on the wolf hybrids...

There are only 2 real ways to make everyone safe--eliminate ALL dogs, or make people more accountable for their animals. And not just the owners--breeders who are knowingly breeding dogs with genetically aggressive or unstable temperaments (like the weimaraner breeder in my area who kept breeding the same pair of dogs, in spite of the fact that he was fully aware that a significant percentage of the puppies he produced had been euthanized for random attacks on people by the time they were 1 or 2--different litters, different owners, and multiple experts called in to help) should also be included.

Ok, taking a deep breath and once again climbing down from that soapbox. Sorry, just a subject that frustrates me on a daily basis.

Edit to clarify: I am not saying violence can't be genetic. Just as some people are born sociopaths, some dogs are born with aggressive or unstable temperaments. What I am saying is that those genetic abnormalities pop up in all breeds, and even fighting pits are not bred for those genes, as they make them less predicable and unreliable for training purposes.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:42 pm

The only thing that matters to me now as a non-dog-owning citizen is that the state does what it can to protect me from the clear danger of a dog that is, even according to those fighting the corner of pitbulls here, capable of doing considerable damage and largely preferred by drug dealers or the criminally stupid and unstable who think that it enhances their ego. Rolling Eyes

If someone I love gets mauled by a pitbull, I really am not going to give a toss whether a smaller dog would have done less damage, whether the dog is bred for fighting or not, and whether 99% of the time the dog is a loveable angel. I am not going to care whether it's a momentary lapse by an otherwise careful owner or a complete lack of responsibility by a careless owner.

Dorothy, in your rock-throwing analogy, you are going to be guilty of a more serious offence if you throw the larger rock and do the greater damage - I don't see how that helps your case that having a dog that can do more damage is somehow as acceptable as having one that can do less, particularly when you acknowledge that the rocks/dogs are frequently in the hands of those unfit to be trusted with them.

Elite Baiter Joined: 19 Jan 2008 Posts: 1043

How about a car based analogy. Should larger cars be banned because they inflict massive amounts more damage to anyone they hit. Most people do not need an SUV, yet they are a very popular choice of car.

I'm sure more children are killed each year by large cars than by pitbulls.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:51 pm

I think the whole point that she is trying to make it that it is the owner who makes the dogs bad. Drug dealers prefer pit bulls. If you make pits illegal, then they would pick something else. The point that I am trying to make is that it's not the dog, but the owner that makes them mean. If you want to be safe, then you have to illegalize all large dogs.