Pit bull terriers

[Freckle]

Can anyone explain to me the attraction of owning a pit bull terrier? Why would you choose that breed over any other? Especially when there are children around and the breed has a reputation for unpredictable behaviour - and don't forget that the breed was developed to take on bulls, so it's not going to be a pussycat in any circumstances.

Another child has been killed by one, apparently owned by her grandmother - here . I don't like flagging up bad news on here, but I'm struggling to understand the mentality of people who choose to own such dogs.

as sharon stone's ex-husband found out...

At least this rottie is neutered.... Tbh, he's a beautiful animal but I wouldn't have him in my home any more than I'd have the black bears that roam around our friends garden.

There's an old lady who walks her huge rottweiller round my way. My ds (5) is very wary of any animal let alone huge dogs. One day we went to cross a quite village road to overtake her so we didn't have to walk upto and past the dog. She took huge offence claiming her dog was more scared of us then we were of him etc etc. Only that week there was a rottweiller attack on some poor child splashed all over the headlines and apart from the fact my ds doesn't like any sort of dog - I'm not exactly going to hang round to find out whether her dog is friendly or not. Whereas another dog walker has a rescued whippet who really is more scared of us and they will stop move out onto the road and let us overtake no questions.

I have to say I am amazed that the vets here are wary of Staffordshire Bull Terriers... but then as stated there is a "fashion" for youths to buy them, encouraged by the look of the dog, and then do little or nothing to socialise or train the animal. I visit a few of the SBT rescue websites occaisionally and I read that there was an increase in drug dealers etc aquiring these dogs as "protection" - this goes directly against the nature of a well bred Staff and there is a direct increase in the number of staffies tortured maimed and killed because they wouldn't/couldn't do guard duty. And then they get tarred with the pitbull brush. When I look at my own dog laid out on the sheepskin in front of the stove as he is now, toasting his bald bits and being "loved" by my 2 year old, it makes me very sad.

I suppose that the vets at the practice I go to treat my dog as an individual though as rightly they should with any breed.

I see your point. Some friends of mine are freelance chefs, and carry enough scary knives to occasionally attract police attention.

But like knives, your dog is a weapon. It was bred for hurting prey or enemies. All dogs are artificial in this respect.
Your is safe.
Apparently.
Dgos have been bred as weapons far longer than humanity has had steel knives.

What ratio of safe dogs to torn apart children do you regard as acceptable ?

Of course you will say that you know your dog to be safe. You may be right. But given that it is impossible to objectively say this, and the fact that many attacks are by dogs seen as "safe", don't you think it is time for this threat to be removed, even if it is inconvenient for owners of large dogs ?

I own 2 ex guide dogs DC - they are powerful and fit and if so inclined could certainly do someone some serious damage. Would you include guide dogs in your ban? If not, why not? According to your argument, if any dog can be dangerous no matter how highly trained (I agree with that, btw), surely visually impaired people can do without them in case they 'tear apart' our children. In fact I know of a guide dog who while working has bitten. If you wouldn't include them in an outright ban, what about dogs for the disabled (Canine Partners for example) which include a number of rottweilers?

If you really would ban all dogs of a certain size, remember that this dog was illegal in the first place and yet someone still owned it and it killed. How are you going to solve that problem? Make it even more illegal?

A number of children die in ponds and swimming pools each year, but is the lack of a ban on those because as a nation we are putting our love of fish-keeping and breaststroke above the safety of our children? No, it is because as a rule the risk is held to be low, so instead we supervise our children near them.

In my opinion it is about levels of risk, and a bigger help than a ban would be more regulation of dog ownership.

I don't think it is just about levels of risk tbh, I also think it's about quality of life.

If my neighbour chooses to risk drowning his or her child by having a pond in their garden, that doesn't affect me (unless my kid goes round there for a play-date). If they choose to have a dangerous dog which they take out on the street and into the parks which my children use, it does affect me. Not just if my kids are attacked, but because of the low-level effects on quality of life it implies. (EG in terms of the under-utilisation of parks and public spaces because of the unpleasant experience of having to be extremely wary whenever you use them due to the prevalence of under-trained dogs around.)

I have just collected my morning paper (no pun intended to the MNetter of the same name!!) and there is more coverage on the pit bull story. What I read doesn't surprise me. I had a 'mind's eye' image of what the owner, Kiel (the name alone spoke volumes) Simpson would look like, and it fitted his picture in the paper. Surprise surprise he's also a convicted drug dealer. If you can believe the media reports of what the neigbours have said, he is the only relative not to have cried. Indeed, there is a large picture of him in my newspaper stood at the scene with his Sister (Ellie's Mum) and another female relative, the two females are clearly devastated. Him? His expression rather suggests he's watching a bit of a sad movie. The neigbours have reportedly said that there's no hint of regret, and he was even seen to be laughing in the street with a pal a few hours after his animal killed his Niece and severley wounded his Mother. Apparently, he can be prosecuted under the DDA for owning the pit bull, as it was found to be a banned type, but he can't be prosecuted for Ellie's death, as the law exudes attacks on property. FFS. What a waste of time. The most he'll get is a £5,000 fine (no doubt he's made enough money selling drugs to cover that fine. He was convicted of drug possesion in 2003. The drugs had a street value of £24,000.) and a six month prison sentence. Out in three for good behaviour? I hope he does go to prison and I hope he's there long enough to get the good kicking he deserves. Many words spring to mind when I look at this individual's photograph. Most of them are obscene, so I'll spare the MN posters of such vulgarity.

plus, 2labs, while i agree that both might result in a dead child if unsupervised, there is something viscerally horrifying about the thought that the child will be torn apart by an animal. which is stupid, i know, as the result is the same, but there you go. this case has had me in tears and i am avowedly Not That Sort of Person.
other than that, i think caligula's points are as ever salient and well-made. put in as blunt a manner as i can manage, an untrained, under-exercised, unsocialised garden pond isn't going to cross the road and tear my daughter's throat out if it feels the urge.

That should be 'the law excludes'. Just to add, he was regularly seen exercising the dog on a field, off lead and no muzzle. Neighbours say he deliberately intimidated people with it.

I agree it's also about quality of life, though that goes both ways (effects of exercise and stress-lowering on dog owners for example). One of my dogs is a PAT dog (visiting old folks' homes and bringing the out of themselves). The difference she makes to their quality of life is obvious - sometimes we are the only visitor that week for some of the residents.

At the risk of taking the comparison too far, there's also an unfenced pond in my local public park... (as well as plenty of untrained dogs roaming around).

Do you agree with DC about a ban on all dogs Caligula?

I agree it is viscerally horrifying, Aitch, and as a mother I am not immune to the story either.

My argument is not to defend the irresponsible ownership of dogs.

No I don't 2Labs, I think nice dogs are a Good Thing and should be encouraged. I just don't want nasty dogs wandering about all over the place.

What I do think, is that the dog licence should be re-introduced and properly monitored. If they can monitor our car tax and fine us £100 if we forget to pay it, they can jolly well monitor dog licences. I think the licence should be a hefty amount (more than the car tax) to ensure that people who buy dogs understand that they are taking on a real commitment and I do think there's a case for the muzzling of all dogs in public areas except in exercise areas of parks. I also think the issue of owners leaving shit in the street should be properly policed. Once again, they tell us it can't be policed, but they can police parking and speeding, why not dog-shit and biting? It's about priorities. Dog shit sounds trivial, but it's part and parce of the "responsibility" issue imo - the people who leave shit in the street are the same people who don't get their dogs wormed, don't bother to learn about pack behaviour and socialisation, and don't exercise their dogs enough so that the poor animals are stressed and badly behaved. When all these things are allowed to go unremarked upon, you end up with a culture where dog-ownership isn't seen as a responsibility, it's seen as a status thing.

DC... a dog is only a weapon if brandished as such (like the case in hand pit bull). Like most things in life, the minority spoil it for the majority. To use the previous comparison, a pond is more likely to tear a child apart than my dog and the vast majority of people's dogs, purely and simply because we are responsible owners able and willing to control our dogs.

I agree with you 2labs... and I agree that there should be a way to regulate dog ownership, but it is pretty unlikely to be workable or feasible.

agree Caligula

Much as buying your car tax requires the production of an MOT certificate and insurance, so the renewing of a dog licence every year should require a certificate that the dog has been trained (properly accredited dog training classes) and a certificate showing that the dog has been regularly vaccinated, etc., is microchipped and that it is insured against third party liability.

With such a requirement, many of the irresponsible owners will not comply and eventually will be banned from owning dogs for non-compliance. Others will not bother with having a dog at all because it requires some effort on their part to be responsible.

The cost of the licence should be substantial, with concessions for OAPs and others (concessions on cost, not on complying with the other requirements).

This may not eliminate all bad owners, badly trained dogs, etc., but it will go a long way to making owning a dog something people have to think about seriously and put themselves out to do.

Could even go further and get a DNA database for every dog so that dog shit can be traced back to an individual dog and fines applied if it isn't cleared from the streets - but I think I might be getting carried away here!

Just to hijack the debate, I'd like to respond to Caligula's suggestion that there is a case for muzzling all dogs in public. I think this should be restricted to dogs on the Dangerous Dog list, and breeds such as Rotties that have been involved in highly publicised attacks. I couldn't bear to think of muzzling my two very gentle Labrador and Golden Retriever. Thousands of large breeds are docile family pets that have never so much as growled at a human, and a lot of owners of such dogs, like myself, would feel the same about muzzling their dogs.

This is so very sad. There are so many other breeds to choose from so why the need to choose one that is illegal?

I?m afraid I disagree on the staffy front. ?staffies make lovely family pets, but they have a reputation for being aggressive towards other dogs?. So why own one? About 6 years ago my guide dog was attacked by a staffy. The dog was being looked after by a neighbour, the night before there had been a storm overnight and their gate had been blown open and the dog had got out. When I came out of the house the dog came across the road and launched itself at my dog and attached itself to her throat. My dh bashed the dog over the head with his laptop, mm yes, it?s actually funny when I think about it now but at the time I was histerical, and shortly after that the neighbour came out and got the dog off, she was mortified. She knew that the dog didn?t like other dogs and it was always kept on a lead, the fact it had got out was purely accidental. Now, this dog was attacking another dog, but if that other dog had been with a child and the child had tried to get it off, the dog wouldn?t have stopped purely because there was a child, if the child had got its hand in the way it too would have been bitten. So while staffies might be ?wonderful with children?, they are renouned to not be great with other dogs, and that would be my one reason for never owning one, ever.

Also, I have to say that I am at the amount of people who talk of their children dressing dogs up and pulling them along the floor by their tail etc, and who are so happy that the dog didn?t respond. Quite frankly, to allow any child to treat any dog in that way is completely unacceptable, and if my child treated a dog like that and was then bitten I?d tell him it served him right and he would receive punishment into the bargain as well. Yes dogs should be tolerant of children, but they also deserve to be respected and they are animals who do not deserve to be ill treated, even by a child who potentially knows no better.

I agree, Wannabe, with your remarks about children dressing dogs up and pulling their tails, etc. it shouldn't be allowed. All dogs, like people, have their 'off days' and can retaliate.

Agree with wann etc last post. I dont get it when people say their child does x, y and z to their dog either. We have clear rules at home about how the dogs are treated- e.g they are not allowed to cuddled, disturbed when eating or sleeping, no child is allowed to throw themselves on their bodies etc. I had a horrible experience earlier on this year when we lapsed our supervision, totally our fault but we've learnt from it.

I was the one who said about staffies being good with kids but not dogs. I wouldnt have a staffie because of this either.

I own a staffy because they are wonderful with people, have fantastic personalities and really funny quirks and they are called "nanny dogs" for good reason.

There are many breeds of dog that would have bitten your dog in the same circumstances Wannabe, depending on their socialisation. One of the nastiest most aggressive dogs I have ever come across was a labrador! I accept that this has been your experience of Staffys though, and it has not been a good one. It is a shame.

Plainly lots of people hate dogs. I feel the same about spiders, and they don't crap in the street or bound up to me in a park. Some posters think all big dogs should be muzzled/banned. Fair enough, but I am sure that there are also some who find drunks distasteful and threatening and would like alcohol to be banned. No doubt others feel the same way about cars! We can't ban everything without turning the country into a police state.

Pit bulls are not even big dogs - they are known to have a nasty streak - and I cannot think of any good reason why anyone should have one. Unfortunately if the idiots who want a vicious dog because it makes them look hard can't get hold of a pit bull they might choose a german shepard or a rottie and mistreat them to make them mean.

My family used to keep dobermans, and when we were children we used to play with them all the time, including dressing them up and doing other things we shouldn't have - I don't believe we were ever growled at. The only reason I would not have a guard-type dog now is that I would not be happy with children taking them for walks etc. Other families where I grew up tended to have border collies who were much more inclined to snap and bite than our scary looking dogs.

I think that banning all dogs of a certain size would be a total knee-jerk reaction. How many people are bitten every year by dogs, a couple of hundred at most? and yet you would get rid of probably a couple of million dogs who will never turn and bite anyone? and just how would you propose to instigate this ban, have a cull where people have to take their dogs to be put to sleep? and who would pay for it? and how would you explain to my 4 year old son, and so many other children that their dogs have to be put down for no reason at all? Madness.

More children are killed by cars in this country than dogs, and yet you don't see anyone trying to have those banned.

Which idiot suggested banning all dogs of a certain size? [disbelief emoticon]

"To use the previous comparison, a pond is more likely to tear a child apart than my dog and the vast majority of people's dogs, purely and simply because we are responsible owners able and willing to control our dogs."

i would dispute this, winestein... ponds don't tend to have teeth, for starters. people who own dogs are a bit daffy about them, aren't they? i like dogs well enough (actually too much to own one in the city but that's another matter) but not to accept their inherernt animal-ness, that they might one day get pissed off and use their teeth, is just crackers.