To wonder why people keep pitbulls when they are so often in the news attacking people

[Whitethorn]

I saw this re a little girl in Derry. The poor thing was attacked by 2 pitbulls. I am aware that the owners are responsible for the dog but why is it always pitbulls who seem to be in the news - whay not labradors, mongrels etc

www.independent.ie/national-news/girl-9-attacked-by-pitbulls-2346711.html

I wonder why people own cars when they are so often in the news for killing people. But apparently some people like them and find the benefits outweigh the risks. Ditto pitbulls.

pointydog

Usually because people who own pitbulls are nutters.

BarmyArmy

...and scum.

IMO people who call other people "nutters" and "scum" on internet forums without any real justified reason are small-minded, bigoted twats.

Just my opinion of course.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, DEED NOT BREED.

It's irresponsible owners that give these dogs a bad name, it isn't the dogs themselves.

I can speak with great knowledge on the subject, being a responsible owner and mother myself. But then again I'm a "nutter" and "scum" so what do I know?

that profile is always aided along by their chewing off a few kids' faces though beertricks

And what about the attacks on children by labradors, spaniels, retrievers, etc? They don't get the coverage that attacks by pit bull "types" do because it currently isn't trendy to scaremonger about these breeds in the media, even though it is justifiable at times (of course it is not nice for a child to be attacked by any breed of dog - there are no more attacks by pit bull "types" than there are labradors - google the statistics, I can't be bothered to do it for you - they just don't get mentioned).

Breed-bashing is a Daily Mail sport.

Its really not rocket science....its the owners NOT the breed.
Unfortuantly pittbull types are the dog of the day for SOME chav types who use the dog as a weapon. They do not socialise the dogs properly, walk them, care for them, love them. Instead they are used as a status symbol and abused. Staffies are particualry known for trying to please their owners and their loving nature. They are also known as the nanny dog because they are so good with children. The shame of it is though is that the irresponsbile owners give them a bad name to all those people who can not make up their own minds through fact and evidence and are too narrow minded.
I own a lovely staffie cross...she is loving, affectionate and not aggressive. She has been attacked by collies and other non aggressive types though.
I would always form my opinion of the dog through the owner or the dogs behaviour rather than running for the woods at the first sight of staffie!

I know loads of people with 'dangerous dogs' but there is only one dog in my acquaintance that I would put money on biting and thats my gran's chihuahua. She babies it, allows it to snap at her fingers and its completely untrained. Its really aggressive and I just know that one day it will turn and it will probably take someone's face off.

I don't understand the fuss about 'dangerous' breeds - a shit owner is all it takes.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act it is illegal to own a Pit Bull or Pit Bull type dog. Those that were alive at the time of the legislation in 1991 could be retained only if they were registered, neutered and muzzled in public. Given that this was 19 years ago now there are no legal Pit Bulls or Pit Bull types in this country and anyone who sees one should be contacting the police to secure its destruction.

Theincrediblesulk - i have never heard of that chow chows were the most dangerous dog, mine certainly was not nor the other 2-3 i knew. She was soft and gentle loved everyone. So it goes to show what you read is not always true.

(sorry had to defend the chow!)

I wouldnt have a pitbull, as a family pet. Perhaps there is an argument, if it can be handled properly. Safer to just not have a pitbull though.

My parents border collie, nips people he doesnt know/like. I think all dogs can potentially be dangerous.

I think it is safer for certain breeds to be illegal. It means that the police can put the pitbulls down with no legal argument, as these dogs seem to attract irresponsible owners.

I can see there may be an argument for very good dog handlers to be able to get a licence/permit? I suspect this would only result in chavs suing for hurt feelings / stress, that they are not considered responsible enough for a pitbull.

wahwah Thu 23-Sep-10 14:57:31
I think us 'dog haters' are more pissed off with irresponsible owners than dogs. Keep them on leads away from my children, or even better, muzzle them. Perhaps then we can feel less anxious about any breed being given 'free rein'.

Keep your children away from my dogs.

This is interesting, I know nothing about dogs but my friend has a Shi Tzu who has snapped at my Dd, and a friend's Ds and yesterday the dog bit another adult (friend of the owner) so badly that she ended up in hospital and has had surgery on her arm as all the tendons were damadged by the bite.

Should this dog be put down now?
I can also see how the dog has been 'babied', not trained and is very naughty, never does as is told etc.
I didn't realise this could cause a dog to bite others? How does it work?

Really? Again?

Is it anti-dog season or what?

Framey, not training a dog, will not neccessarily cause it to bite. Not training bite inhibition can do that, but mother dog usually does that before they leave the litter.

Training is more about mentally stimulating the dog and being able to keep it under proper control in public places.

It is bad socialisation that can cause a dog to show agression.

As for whether the dog should be pts, it would very much depend on the circumstances of the bite and the general behaviour of the dog. In general dogs do not bite without prior warning and provaction.

Framey, the problem with babied, untrained dogs is that they don't know who is in charge. They can become nervy and because they can't rely on you to defend them they defend themselves. With teeth. Thats not to say that a confident dog won't snap but IMO they are less likely to.

I would say that a dog should be put down as a complete last resort - its better that the dog be rehomed with someone who knows how to deal with a dog that has a history of biting.

The problem with pitt bulls is that they have the potential to do a lot of damage, which is one of the reasons people are so scared of them. If a little dog attacks someone then although nasty, it is less likely to be able to kill you, this however means that a lot of little dogs are snappy because people don't think that they are harmful

I have a staffie x boxer who from a distance could be mistaken as a pitbull quite easily, however she is a lovely thing.
I trust her as much as I would trust any dog however I would never leave her alone with young children.
She does as she is told in the house, but is less obedient out of the house in terms of her recall, for this reason she rarely gets let off the lead by me and generally only gets off lead time when she goes out very early morning. This is not because I think she would do anything bad, but she tends to tear about and if she came running towards me (as a stranger) I would be cautious so I don't think it is fair to allow her to do it to other non-dog loving people.
Unfortunately not all dog owners take the responsibility as seriously :(
My husband and I met working in kennels and the most aggressive dogs that we met were Golden retrievers, Old English Sheepdogs, Border Collies etc, a lot of the typical family pets.

all those dogs in the "find the pitbull" link look the same to be. Mean. I would run a mile. I hate dogs and I think they should be kept on a lead at all times, regardless of breed.

The dog haters on here:

Can differentiate between a PBT and any other breed or crossbreed

AND

Are fully conversant with the terms of the Dangerous Dogs Act

AND

know what the breed characteristics of a PBT are

AND

Know what is meant by the DDA's expression "type" with reference to PBTs

AND

Were aware that in law the onus is on the owner of what could well be a dog which has done no harm whatsoever to anyone to prove that the dog is not a PBT "type" and that this is one of very few laws where the burden of proof is upon the accused and not the accuser

AND

Have extensive experience in handling and dealing with all manner of dog breeds from all kinds of backgrounds

OR

Are talking utter bollocks.

Have a look at my profile picture (you may need to enlarge it because the message is highly relevant) . There you will see what the breed characteristics of a PBT are, together with a dog which fits that decription.

Errr... if I didn't have a pitbull I'd have to bite people myself!

Can we move away from the trite assumption that those against owning such a dog or having it around their children are 'blaming the dog'?

Dogs have no moral compass. Nobody is advocating holding them criminally responsible or trying them in a court of law, so talk of 'blaming the dog' is erroneous. Dogs which attack and are destroyed are done so for safety reasons, not as a punishment.

If people aren't blaming the dog why are they against specific breeds?

The fact is, these dogs can be taken and destroyed without ever having shown an ounce of aggression or being anything other than a wonderful family pet, purely because they 'look' like a pitbull type.

NineTails20 - wasn't it the American pit bull that was specifically banned? I don't know if it was but if I did have a banned breed living next door to me it would make me nervous.

To be fair I would only know if it was a banned breed if the person told me I would never be able to tell the difference.

They are against specific breeds living amongst us. This does not equate to 'blaming the dog'. It is absurd to imply that it does.

If you know a type of dog to be illegal, then isn't it cruel to breed and/or own one (even as a 'wonderful family pet') knowing it is at risk of being destroyed?

Vahalla - I don't give a shit about any of that. I just don't want dog shit on my street, in my park, or to feel threatened by dogs.

BaresarkBunny, the PBT is legislated against in the UK, which is not necessarily where NineTails20 lives.

In Ireland, for example, despite their appalling dog cruelty and PTS record, the PBT is thankfully not banned, although it is a "restricted breed" and covered by additional laws, including those specifying the age of the person in charge of the dog, lead length and obligation to be on one and that he is muzzled in public.

The same restrictions apply to my own breed of choice, the GSD, as well as 10 others and crosses of the same in the Republic.

If it is not down to the dog, then why shouldn't 'certain breeds' live among us? They really are no more a risk than any of the legal breeds, providing they are properly raised. Idiots DO get hold of breeds that are legal and teach them to harm people. Legislation should be trying to prevent people like this owning dogs, nto banning certain breeds purely for what they are.

Dogs that ARE legally allowed have been destroyed because it has been decided that they are 'type' dogs.

This is one pretty well known case, perhaps you can explain why this dog has not been released back to his family, who clearly love him? He is a Staff and has never done a single thing to make anyone think he is a danger to anyone:

www.ddawatch.co.uk/campaign_one.html