C'mon, you are comparing a dog to a tiger. Is that really fair? How many people own domesticated tigers compared to owning a pitbull? I'm pretty sure its not the same process when domesticating a tiger and raising a pitbull.
They are incredibly faithful dogs, and some of the nicest dogs out there. Some people shouldn't be allowed to own dogs, but no dog deserves to not have someone to care for it.
I call BS. Sometimes chain or even spiked choke collars can't move a strong dog like a pit bull when it's after something, but this nine year old was able to apply more significant choke pressure? I think he slipped that dog some PCP or kindly bud.
Chihuahua 6 lbs. Pit bull 60 lbs. Tiger 600 lbs. I'm not saying the comparison is spot on. It's exaggerated to make a point. But my point is even if you're saying all the animals above have the same temperament... there is a significant difference when two of them decides to act on it. Now Jay says the Pit Bull temperament is normal... even better than average. Well, take a Golden Retriever... it's about the same weight as a Pit Bull. The Pit Bull has a 84.3% pass rate on the Temperament scale (high is better). The Retriever has about the same, a little less even at 84.2%. When was the last time you heard about a Golden Retriever attacking anyone? I'm sure it happens. But unless there is some conspiracy against Pit Bulls, there is an inordinate amount of attacks by that breed. All that said, I'm a big dog guy. Love em. And I don't think banning the breed is the right way. I don't know what is. But something's not right.
I'm with CrazyDave on this one. I don't care if studies show that pitbull attacks are equally or even less frequent than your average breed, because when they do attack, they are more capable than other breeds of inflicting serious or even fatal damage. They also have a history of attacking unprovoked whether trained to fight or not. Those traits make them extremely dangerous.
Seriously? You didn't hear about the family Golden Retriever that jumped on the 9 year old boy, clamped his jaws down on his neck and wouldn't let go? Spoiler Yeah, neither did I.
Again, first to admit that bully breeds can be physically superior, thus more dangerous. BUT, again, its not the dog. There are a myriad of reasons why you don't hear about the family Golden Retriever attacking the child. They aren't sensationalized as much, for one. A few years back a pomeranian killed a 6 week old child. They aren't specifically trained to be vicious, for two. You have to also look at proportionality - # of pits vs. other breeds (unfortunately, there is no good, accurate data on numbers by breed, as there is severe under-reporting of all breeds, but more so pit bulls, for obvious reasons). And you have to look at the stats closely. Pit bulls are often misreported as being causes of bites. Why? There is no such thing as a pit bull. Even if you think about the common "bully" breeds, there are still plenty of other breeds at there that many mistake for pit bulls but aren't. Spot the Pit. Broken record, but, again, it is not genetic. Scientific, unbiased testing shows the "breed" to rate ABOVE AVERAGE from a temperament perspective. So if statistic show the "breed" to be both above average temperamentally but more often to cause incidents or attacks, you have to start questioning why, since it isn't anything inherent in the breed. But, as I've said, they can obviously and definitely be very dangerous dogs - not inherently, but for whatever reason, bad ones are out there and they can be powerful and dangerous, so by all means, watch out. just also understand the facts and issues better before making a judgement about the entire breed.
Ok, touché, but two of the three WERE at least somewhat pro-pitbull, so I made a slight generalization. The ATTS site, frankly, was somewhat nondescript from the parts of the data I saw posted. You did fail to notice anything else I posted, such as "I'm agreeing that maybe their temperament isn't necessarily predisposed to be agressive." among other concessions I made in what I thought was discussion. Seems only your side of this discussion resonates with you. I understand. You like the dogs. Yours are probably great. I respect that. I don't recall posting anything caustic. I only proposed that the breed's physical attributes, combined with a common way of raising/training these dogs does in these times, and disregarding predisposed temperament issues which are at least somewhat debatable, in my opinion makes it normal to be wary of being around such animals. I also proposed that while a poodle or some other less physically imposing breed might be of more volatile temperament, that seeing one wouldn't concern me as much as seeing a pit bull (or, as I also said before, other physically imposing breeds). I do, however, agree that the media might be biased against the breed, but I think there are reasons for that, valid or not. I can see that my opinion on the matter doesn't matter much to you. I can see you love your pit bull dogs. That's cool. I just hope you don't live next door to me and my kids, just to be on the safe side. fwiw. Nothing personal. Seriously.
I pointed out something that was completely misplaced in your response? I'm not attacking you. calm down. I've agreed with this - with the exception of the debatable part on temperament - in every one of my posts. I've even brought it up. Please read them completely before making conclusions about my side of the discussion. I think this is a very logical position to take. Again, I've said in all my posts that there are reasons to be concerned about the breed. All I've done is point out that, scientifically, those reasons have nothing to do with inherent, temperament based issues. It's like global warming. You can probably find tests out there or one or two pet behavioral scientists who claim that pits are inherent violent creatures, but they are consistently in the minority and sometimes on the fringe. Again, your position is logical, because sometimes the facts are the facts. But understand that the facts (no ifs, ands or buts) also unequivocally show that it isn't temperament based. On the contrary. I sorted through your post and quoted what I did because I saw that you were basing your opinion on some wrong facts. Granted, some of those links were from pro-pit sites, but they used the same underlying data, and while those specifically links indeed might be biased, the first link was to the underlying scientific data. Again, while it may be debated by a minority, pretty much most experts out there agree... scientifically, unbiased results show it is not a temperament issue. just pointing that out as it may be pertinent to your thoughts on the issue. I do love my pits but don't take your viewpoint personally. Frankly, I completely understand and respect it. As mentioned, my wife does her own 501(c)(3) animal rescue work. She gets dogs in need, mostly from the pound, "cleans" them up, boards and kennels them and adopts them out, through the internet, events, emails, etc. To say she is selective about who she adopts to is an understatement. She has, undoubtedly, turned down many perfectly fine candidates...and honestly this typically causes some kind of uproar ("who do you think you are!", etc.). Plus, in so doing, she likely isn't saving as many dogs per month/year as she otherwise could, dogs whom eventually are put down at the pound. But she recognizes that in the long-run, it does no good to adopt out to the wrong family - even if they are good, responsible pet owners. You have to know the dogs disposition, their energy levels, breed characteristics (yes, some traits are inherent by breed...just know which ones are), the characteristics of the potential family, etc. So, for example, it definitely isn't wise for a family with two young kids and two working adults to get a dog who may be larger, highly energetic, mouthy, needing some training, kept outside or crated all day to be let out or integrated into the family for 4-8 hours a day, etc., regardless of how cute the family thinks the dog is or how capable they might be at owning a pet. It's just not a good fit. And when a few months later the dog one day decides to correct one of the children (let's remember, dogs are often treated like family members and should be, but they are still animals...some dogs need to know who's in charge or they will take it, and a child often isn't capable of understanding that concept), and tramples them, nips at and bites them, etc. then that is not a good thing for the dog, the family, or pets in general. And since, inherently, a majority of rescue dogs are or have some pit bull breeds in them, it is even more important to make sure you have the right fit. So I perfectly understand and respect your viewpoint. I also hope, with some of the comments, data and issues I've brought up, you are at least aware of why the situation is the way it is - had another dog been so viewed by different sectors of society over the last 30 year (i.e. labs - which can be huge, powerful, energetic, dogs), were popular fighting dogs, were portrayed as strong guard dogs (and thus bred and trained as such)...no doubt you could just switch viewpoints on labs and pit bulls. again, not to say that you should ignore the reality...that's not what happened, and thus you should be wary of pit bulls, but it is to say that more progressive view on the matter can help return pit bull breeds to their once beloved position in America as the perfect family, friendly dog.
Completely agree, and their coverage of it had scared me away from the breed. To the point where I hated them. BUT....last summer my beagle got knocked up by an American pittbull. And i ended up keeping one of the little suckers, he's damn cute....and possibly the sweetest dog I've ever owned.
People tend to forget, the Pitbull was the face of American family dogs. Very trustworthy, and friendly. Hell, IIR...University of Texas had a pitbull for their mascot before Bevo didn't they? Like in the 20's. Don't forget about the Little Rascals.
Ok, thanks, taking a deep breath. I don't think it was completely misplaced, but point taken. I guess the three question marks with no merit lent to the rest of my post was enough to make me think that nothing but the temperament issue was of any value to you. And seeing how I didn't completely disagree with the temperament posts.. well... anyway... Your insight is appreciated, and I don't think we're at odds on any of these issues. That Interweb context stuff are a funny thang. Back on OP, if that kid did put the choke hold on a vicious attacking dog, it's totally impressive.
no probs bob...you seem sensible about it all. i try to be as well. exactly. i said that earlier, too. my pit isn't a full pit, is a spayed female and is well trained. but she is definitely very strong pound for pound. http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/37069754.html if this boy really did what he said, he is a hero. the video is funny (and shows some of the bias in the media) with it's snarling pit image and then "pit bull like this one" comment with a random picture. even if it wasn't a pit (only the children saw it, right) but was a larger breed, or part pit....whatever, very impressive.
