# Ban the deed not the breed!!



## phantomreptiles (Aug 20, 2011)

As an owner of a pitty x, I have copped flak for the past seven years but since the media hysteria of late, I feel I can't even take my dog out in public! 
Don't get me wrong I feel for the family who lost their daughter, but why focus on the breed, this would never of happened if the owners were responsible.
My dog is the sweetest dog, she is used in school education about pets, used to evaluate other dogs behavior to new dogs, lives with six cats, pythons and rats. 
Working in an animal environment, I have seen myself and work colleagues bitten by various dogs - all of them bar one have been under 5kgs, breeds such as poodles (toy), Maltese, chihuahua, bichon, etc but the worst breeds to deal with are shar peis and akitias, they are extremely aggressive to both animals and humans, but they are not in the news, as pitbulls sound much better media wise.
It's unfortunate that the majority of pitbull owners are morans, as i believe if owners were iq tested before allowing to own one, (actually to own an animal at all would be better) there would be no problems (personally i think this should be brought in for human breeding too). I do understand that a pitty can cause far more damage than a white fluffy, which is why they can be dangerous, but no more so than any other breed that weighs over 15kg.
Sorry for the rant, but I just received a comment while taking my dog for a a stroll - "********" - you do know that your dog should be put down!
"me" - held tongue, but quietly muttered no it's not the dog but you that should be put down! 
Oh and just incase anyone makes a smartarse comment re my dogs collar, the reason she wears it, is I live in a low social economic area, and we have alot of strange people around, so she wears it as a deterrent for my protection
Would love to see pics of other peoples pittys, below pics are of "Rosie" a nearly seven year old pitty x, the love of my life


----------



## Reptile_Lover (Aug 20, 2011)

i get very pissed off when people all over the news are saying that pittys are aggressive and should be banned, it is the owner not the dog i'm with you on this 1 mate


----------



## pyrodarknessanny (Aug 20, 2011)

i have to agree, there are no bad breeds of dog, just bad people who do the wrong thing. 

ive knwoen several pitties and they are all very nice well scocilized dogs, 
working with a groomer at a hydrobath ive seen that most snappy dogs are of the small and yippy type. 
large dogs ive seen rarely are "nasty" .. 

the media is byond logic at times


----------



## hypochondroac (Aug 20, 2011)

I agree that pit dogs and breeds bred to fight are completely trainable given correct handling and socialization but 99% of people are not capable of raising dogs that do have a disposition for dominance combined with their muscle mass.

The negative attention they attract means 'dangerous' breeds are shut in a yard and not able to be given the right socialization with strangers, kids, traffic, other dogs etc so unfortunately not banning them is only going to make things worse.

People arn't getting any smarter and we all know how crap the government is at monitoring this kind of thing so having less of these breeds seems like the only logical alternative.



pyrodarknessanny said:


> working with a groomer at a hydrobath ive seen that most snappy dogs are of the small and yippy type.
> large dogs ive seen rarely are "nasty"



That in it's self is the same as saying pit dogs are dangerous. Smaller breeds simply arn't given the same level of training as larger breeds because they are just that.. small and their aggression is non lethal so they get away with it.


----------



## coastalboy (Aug 20, 2011)

It's not the fact that someone has the right dog or wrong dog.

BUT! the real fact is that Pitty's are always proving them self wrong. JUST as someone says they are good and all someone gets hurt buy them. to be honest im sick of people plasting post around about pittys.
Yes i no other dogs can be agressive and yes other dogs do bite. BUT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BREED FOR THEM TO BAND IT................

IM totally against them and hate them to the fact i could put them down myself. - ONLY because one has attached my dad in the past and they are not nice dogs and make a mess! 

I HOPE THE GET RID OF THEM ALL!.

thats my opinion but. 

CHeers.


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 20, 2011)

I agree totally with phantom. What I want to know is, not only how did that pitty get out of it's own yard, but how the hell did it get _inside_ the next door neighbour's house in the first place? Dogs don't hunt things down just for fun, that kid must have been doing something to annoy it or it wouldn't have bitten. I had to sit at work and listen to the morons on Kerry-Anne the next morning talking about how they should ban the breed and they were bred to kill and all that crap (they were actually bred for bull baiting, the idiots who owned them gave them the bad name of dogfight dogs and those were the mistreated, tortured animals that they _made_ to want to kill because they had no way out) saying we put down all the ones they can find and the whole time I was absolutely fuming. By their own rule, all the humans that ever hurt another living being should be shot. Half the people in this world couldn't tell the difference between a pure pitbull and a cross. I for one think it has nothing to do with the animal itself and all to do with how they are raised, I love the breed, I love ALL breeds, it's humans that are destroying their name. No different to bull terriers or staffies used to be the 'omg lock it up it's vicious' dog.


----------



## coastalboy (Aug 20, 2011)

You dont have to annoy a dog for it to bite!!!!! 

The one that bit my dad he wasent even looking at it either reconising it and it lunged at my mum and nearly got her then went for my dad!!!!! if i was in the pound god watchout who ever owns them!


----------



## StellaDoore (Aug 20, 2011)

Your dog is so gorgeous, looks like such a sweetie =) I agree with you one hundred percent on this, it's the owner, not the dog that's the problem. No matter what size or breed your dog, if you have one then you should be undergoing training and discourage all aggressive behaviour.

My biggest annoyance is little dog owners, actually. I'll have my 40kg White German Shepherd on a lead while walking him, and at the park he's very responsive and comes when called if, for example, he decides to run off and meet some new dogs. I make sure this is the case as he's a massive dog and does have the physical potential to attack and absolutely destroy another dog that decides to be aggressive with him. However, there have been so many instances where a little dog is allowed to run around on its own free will, comes up to my beautifully behaved boy and tries to bite him. If he then responds with an appropriate bite back I'm the one at fault?? No, no, if I'm doing everything right to keep my Shep under control and minding his own business, while you let your [email protected] chihuahua hassle other dogs, don't be angry at me or my dog if he comes out worse in the fight.
A message to any irresponsible small dog owners (I'm not saying you all are, but there are some): just because your dog is small and can't do much damage doesn't mean it's acceptable that it's nasty to other dogs. And if it attacks a larger dog like a Shepherd, it's your fault, not mine simply because he's bigger. My boy has never started any confrontations with other dogs, but he can certainly end them! Keep your animal in check please. Much appreciated.

That's my rant over. Phew. Feel better now =)


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 20, 2011)

Coastalboy it's the fact that most of the people who want to own these 'dangerous' dogs don't give a toss about them, they just want the 'cool factor' of owning a breed that people stay away from. Not saying that all do, and the ones that do care aren't the ones who's dogs eat children and misbehave. They will only attack given the right situation.


----------



## coastalboy (Aug 20, 2011)

yes i understand that!! i own bull mastiff X Neo Mastiffs. they a massive but i sook them up sooooo much they have never growled or even thought about biting. they are even scared of Maltese and poodles!!! so yes it is the owner but i have just had bad experience with them so my comment stands high and dry


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 20, 2011)

Some dogs don't have the social interaction necessary to make the judgement on what is friendly or threat. These are the dogs kept behind fences that bark at every noise, never get to go for a walk and see other dogs/humans because they're classed as 'dangerous'. How crazy do you think a human would be if they were never let out, or never got to see anything but the hand that feeds them for their entire life? Do you think they could differentiate between what is friendly and what means them harm?


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 20, 2011)

coastalboy said:


> It's not the fact that someone has the right dog or wrong dog.
> 
> BUT! the real fact is that Pitty's are always proving them self wrong. JUST as someone says they are good and all someone gets hurt buy them. to be honest im sick of people plasting post around about pittys.
> Yes i no other dogs can be agressive and yes other dogs do bite. BUT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BREED FOR THEM TO BAND IT................
> ...



I got attacked by a border collie once, should we put all of them down as well. My ex's mother had to save her neighbors kids from their own Rottie, should we put all them down. I used to get attacked everytime I walked down the street by a neighbours Jack Russell, better ban them now. Humans attack humans for no reason, maybe we should ban humans. When does this end. I have had 2 pittbulls one cross and one pure and they were both the best dogs ever.The only time either of them ever got narky with anyone or other animal was when a little girl shoved a burning stick in his face, then he only barked at her. He used to chase roos and wallabies until he caught up to them and then watch them hop away, he was friends with my cockateil for gods sakes.


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 20, 2011)

Your comment contradicts itself...you can't say they should all be destroyed in one sentence and then say it's their owner screwing them up in another.


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 20, 2011)

I agree with hypochondrac that they are a dog that was originaly bred as a fighting/gaurd dog, and generally the people that buy these breeds leave them tied to a chain in a yard for just that reason, eventually they get lose and attack people. So some dogs have more potential to be a bit more aggresive than other dogs. BUT with the right training there is no dog that can not become a great loving people friendly pet.

Remember dogs and there ancestors are pack animals that grow in a basic social structure, they like attention, and unfortunatley people buy these dogs for pre mentioned reason of being a guard dog.

Coastalboy, that is the reason pittys get such bad raps, its because the people that buy them dont buy them to be friendly family pets. If you treated a labrador or border kelly the same they would become anti social as well.

A dogs behaviour is a reflection of how its owner raised it.


----------



## coastalboy (Aug 20, 2011)

they will never understand...... no matter how hard you try and post stuff everywhere they will never see them as normals dogs. pitty's have now got a name for them self and i bet it wont go away


----------



## phantomreptiles (Aug 20, 2011)

coastalboy said:


> You dont have to annoy a dog for it to bite!!!!!
> 
> The one that bit my dad he wasent even looking at it either reconising it and it lunged at my mum and nearly got her then went for my dad!!!!! if i was in the pound god watchout who ever owns them!


 
Coastal boy, I am sorry for your experience, but clearly you have no idea on how canines think. There would of been a reason, you just don't know or understand what it is.
If by going by your thought, I have nasty scar from a chihuahua, it would of killed me if it was able to, I should kill all chi's despite the rare few that can be lovely!
The media has drummed it into everyone, that pits are bad, despite the fact 90% of people would not know a pit if they tripped over it (this was mentioned above)
I am not trying to start a thread defending them, (pits) but rather people need to understand that any breed of dog has the potential to cause serious injury, and all canine owners need to take responsibility for their dog, despite breed and oh learn what a real pit looks like


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 20, 2011)

It's people like you coastalboy that will make that name stay...


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 20, 2011)

Atleast we can easily establish the Antagonist in this thread haha.


----------



## Mighty_Moose (Aug 20, 2011)

coastalboy said:


> It's not the fact that someone has the right dog or wrong dog.
> 
> BUT! the real fact is that Pitty's are always proving them self wrong. JUST as someone says they are good and all someone gets hurt buy them. to be honest im sick of people plasting post around about pittys.
> Yes i no other dogs can be agressive and yes other dogs do bite. BUT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BREED FOR THEM TO BAND IT................
> ...




You sound a bit like Hitler... Lets gas anything we have a grudge against. 

Don't you think you look very ignorant branding a breed just because of one isolated incident that occurred with your Father.. I bet you would be angry at people labeling all snakes bad and calling for a mass killing of them, and people taking away your pet to have it gassed because of those incidents in America where idiot rednecks end up with dead children because the large pythons acted instinctually and had the opportunity to kill. I don't think a mass cull is needed, I think strict regulations on the acquisition of these animals, maybe (even though people have their ways of getting them, just to make it harder) just because there are plenty of idiots getting these dogs because they are over compensating for their man hood
But not a mass cull, innocent animals will be killed and I cannot say that I agree with that..


----------



## phantomreptiles (Aug 20, 2011)

Might_moose has it in one!
Oh I just took my pit out to the bathroom (she is an inside dog) and there were two people walking by - she didn't even attack them.....lol
The media has alot to answer to answer for, and you coastal boy should know as a python owner what a bad undeserved rap they (pythons) get. So just think maybe pits are getting a bad rap due to media, alot of the canines that are labeled pit or pit x are staffy x (I love staffs so don't jump on me), mastiff x (have a purebred mastiff in nz - love them), ridgey x, bulldog x, the list goes on. At the end of the day the media will report on the most sensational news and a pitbull will always be better news thanks to years of media reports that pitbulls are evil, nasty, devil spawn and killing machines.
My pit sleeps on my bed, should I draw up my will now? Just in case she kills me in my sleep!


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 20, 2011)

Yes, I have a bull mastiff x bull arab and I get people a lot saying "aren't pit bulls illegal"


----------



## kawasakirider (Aug 20, 2011)

phantomreptiles said:


> As an owner of a pitty x, I have copped flak for the past seven years but since the media hysteria of late, I feel I can't even take my dog out in public!
> Don't get me wrong I feel for the family who lost their daughter, but why focus on the breed, this would never of happened if the owners were responsible.
> My dog is the sweetest dog, she is used in school education about pets, used to evaluate other dogs behavior to new dogs, lives with six cats, pythons and rats.
> Working in an animal environment, I have seen myself and work colleagues bitten by various dogs - all of them bar one have been under 5kgs, breeds such as poodles (toy), Maltese, chihuahua, bichon, etc but _*the worst breeds to deal with are shar peis and akitias, they are extremely aggressive to both animals and humans,*_ but they are not in the news, as pitbulls sound much better media wise.
> ...



?????????????????????????????????????????? You hate people stereotyping pits, but you do the same thing to two breeds of dog that I have personally interacted with, without an issue and have seen other dogs get along with also.


----------



## hypochondroac (Aug 20, 2011)

For the record.. There is no such thing as a purebred pit bull.
They arn't recognized registered breeds.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 20, 2011)

Yes, gotta say I totally disagree with the akita statement, in Japan the farmers leave akitas home all day with there children as protectors, that is what they were bred for. They are not good with herbivores but they are no problem with other dogs and cats.


----------



## kawasakirider (Aug 20, 2011)

coastalboy said:


> It's not the fact that someone has the right dog or wrong dog.
> 
> BUT! the real fact is that Pitty's are always proving them self wrong. JUST as someone says they are good and all someone gets hurt buy them. to be honest im sick of people plasting post around about pittys.
> Yes i no other dogs can be agressive and yes other dogs do bite. BUT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BREED FOR THEM TO BAND IT................
> ...



I can't say the things to you I'd like to, I'd get banned. Just because your old man copped a hiding from a pit bull, doesn't mean every pit bull is a bad dog. You are so behind the 8 ball it's not funny, bias is a stupid thing, especially when you're advocating the slaughter of innocent, and loving animals.

Are you sure the dog was even a pitbull? Any dog that attacks someone seems to be labelled a pitbull.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 20, 2011)

hypochondroac said:


> For the record.. There is no such thing as a purebred pit bull.
> They arn't recognized registered breeds.


Maybe not in Australia


----------



## hypochondroac (Aug 20, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> ?????????????????????????????????????????? You hate people stereotyping pits, but you do the same thing to two breeds of dog that I have personally interacted with, without an issue and have seen other dogs get along with also.



I'm amazed at the number of people that are labelling other breeds or small breeds nasty just because they don't own or have a fondness for them. It's a blatant contradictory.



kaotikjezta said:


> Maybe not in Australia



That's right, not in Australia.
America loves to slap it's title on the front of various tweaked dog breeds and call them their own.


----------



## kawasakirider (Aug 20, 2011)

hypochondroac said:


> I'm amazed at the number of people that are labelling other breeds or small breeds nasty just because they don't own or have a fondness for them. It's a blatant contradictory.



Indeed. I think it's funny that the main argument a pitbull owner has, is that no breed is bad, it's just individual dogs that haven't been trained properly. Yet a pitbull owner who hates the stereotyping their dog receives does the same thing, lol.


----------



## hypochondroac (Aug 20, 2011)

It sort of reminds me of the 'study' done on dog bites in the UK. Lab came out on top with most dog bites recorded over a certain period of time.. I wonder why. Could it be that this is one of the most popular breeds, especially to keep as a family dog?

Laugh laugh laugh!


----------



## kawasakirider (Aug 20, 2011)

You're right! I have heard someone tell me that labs have more attacks to their name then pits. People don't hate them! The person telling me was under the impression that this was an Australian statistic, though.


----------



## Kitah (Aug 20, 2011)

There can be 'bad' dogs in all breeds that have a tendency to be more aggressive than others. There are a heap of factors that come into play- e.g. genetics (some lines and breeds do seem to have an increased frequency of being 'aggressive' whether because they are fearful (e.g. fear biters) or dominant for example), owners, training, environment, how they were raised from young pups to adults, and what they are exposed to. 

It also depends what you class as aggressive- as I said, some dogs are timid and can be fear biters, others can just be very protective of their owners such as cattle dogs. Working in the veterinary industry (Final year veterinary science student) I see so many dogs of different breeds, genetics etc with different histories and brought up in different environments. Some pitbulls we get through are nice, though admittedly a lot do give you that 'look' where you just cant trust them. But at the same time, there are also plenty of other dogs that are like that. Some cattle dogs, mastiffs, chihuahuas, maltese, terriers etc can be aggressive too though, for whatever reason. 

In summary- It is not a clear-cut black and white issue. You need a bit of common sense, and an awareness and understanding of canine behaviour. You're better off erring on the side of caution and being a bit wary with unknown animals at first, until you learn a bit more about what they are like as an individual. It can get a bit tricky when kids are involved, however. But if parents bring children up well with a good respect for animals and the knowledge that not all might be friendly, it would significantly reduce many problems

I will admit that _*generally*_ I would rather deal with a large mastiff or 'pig dog' type than some smaller spoilt rotten small breed dogs as they often tolerate things much better, can be better behaved and will let you do literally just about anything to them and not do anything- no growl, no 'look', nothing. but again, it is ALL dependent on the individual


----------



## Jen (Aug 20, 2011)

This is a bit like the whole "What snake won't bite me?" question. Any breed of dog will have members in it that will be aggressive - whether it is due to crappy owners or whatever. 

BTW OP, your dog is gorgeous.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 20, 2011)

Hey, I love all dogs and have owned all sorts of breeds. At the moment I have a Jack Russell x Pom, Jack Russell x Chinese Crested and the a fore mentioned Bull Mastiff x. Since childhood I've owned a Chinese Crested, Maltese, Pitbull, Border Collie, Welsh Collie, Ridgeback, Cattle x Dingo, Pitty x Dingo. All sorts.


----------



## phantomreptiles (Aug 20, 2011)

True, true hypo!
As to Kawasakirider, yep you are totally right! See how easy it is to condem a breed. I love all animals but my own personal experience has made me bias to shar peis & Akitas. To kaotikjezta I apologise, most can be lovely but not all.
I guess the only different thing is I am not going round saying kill them all (shar peis & Akitas), they are also both easily recognized as a breed.
As I had previously stated, I just wanted to get across that all pets (canine, feline, bovine, porcine, equine, ovine, reptiles and any that i have missed) have the potential to do damage and as owners we need to minimize this as much as we can.


----------



## kawasakirider (Aug 20, 2011)

I concur


----------



## hypochondroac (Aug 20, 2011)

Here here.


----------



## Kitah (Aug 20, 2011)

I'll also add that I don't have any dogs of my own, so I'm not biased to any particular breeds because of this. I just go by what I see every day with the numerous dogs that come through the clinics doors, and even just watching dogs out in public.


----------



## smeejason (Aug 20, 2011)

Most people would not know a pure pitty if they fell over it.. 
Unfortunately phantom it is people like yourself that say i have a pitty x that cause most the trouble. a dog bred to fight crossed with most other breeds that are bred to bite.. really what do people expect.. then the bite instinct takes over and the x bit never gets a mention only the pitty bit..
I owned them years ago when i new that i was getting a pure line dog . but up the road a guy had a boxer bitch he used to put a male staff over and get 3000 a pup for his 'pit bull pups' and he had people lining up to buy them parents unseen.. He would laugh about it.. 
Thus you have dogs running around that are not even remotely pit bulls but are declared so by genius vets and council workers. 
The only pure line i know left in my area that my friends own are registered as labrador crosses and that was from a vet that signed them off for the council lol lol.


----------



## hypochondroac (Aug 20, 2011)

That would be because the world pit bull not only refers to the dog that America claims to be their own pure line but many other pit fighing dogs also, i.e English staffordshire bull terrier.


----------



## Black.Rabbit (Aug 20, 2011)

I think part of the reason they are shown in such bad light is because of the MEDIA. Pittys are pretty much the only dogs that appear in the news for dog attacks... I am sure there are many many other breeds that have attacked people yet media doesn't bother reporting on them, because it wasn't by a pitty.

I have met a few pitty in my time, My husband had a pure bred red nose, one of my best mates has a red nose too and he's the most gorgeous dog, super friendly, she has 2 young kids, horses, goats, snakes, another 2 dogs and he's the least aggressive out of all her pets. 

To generalise all pittys, saying that they should be destroyed because they all attack is like saying vens shouldn't be allowed as pets because they have the potential to kill. With the right training (in a pittys case, for the dog and owner), there is no reason why they should be banned.

And because I can, and it's relevant, pics of my late-husbands gorgeous red nose, Baron, when he was a puppy. (bad quality sorry, photos of photos taken years ago).


----------



## Kitah (Aug 20, 2011)

smeejason said:


> Most people would not know a pure pitty if they fell over it..



Some of us do know what a pure pitty looks like, and they are a gorgeous looking dog I will admit


----------



## phantomreptiles (Aug 20, 2011)

Thank you hypo. 
Ummm to smeejason, I did not buy my dog, she was a rescue (I found out about her breeding after I had taken her on, though it was obvious)
I agree with what you are saying, in fact you are 100% correct and i should of brought this up, but please don't bring me into it, I am against any breeding unless it is to better the bred (eg a registered breeder, appropriate rads done, any genetic probs breed out). As soon as I got her, she was desexed.
Again I will suggest it's owners that need the training.....
Meant to say thanks to equinny for posting those pics - what beautiful dog


----------



## Suenstu (Aug 20, 2011)

This is so incredibly frustrating. I had 2 pure pitties. Wonderful dogs. Great with everyone. Not always terrific around other animals, but wonderful well mannered dogs all the same. Had them 8 years. Never had a negative indecent. I fear that the majority of the time that the problem is the " other end " of the lead.


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 20, 2011)

I think it can be well concluded it is how the dog is trained, not by the nature of its breed, that determines the behaviour of a dog, well any animal that can be bred in captivity.

Though considering we still stereotype human beings by race, gender and sexuality I think it will be along time before we see any differences in how animals are perceived.


----------



## phantomreptiles (Aug 20, 2011)

I think alrightknight has it in one!


----------



## snakebag (Aug 20, 2011)

Its the reputaion of the breed thats the problem. Every dog has the potential to be a danger to people especially to children. Their reputation means all the bogans that want a tough dog go for pittys but alot of them keep one for the wrong reasons and have never had real interaction with dogs. They want them to be agressive as they think thats protection for themselves and thier property. I have been keeping dogs my entire life. My last dog was a red heeler (red cattle). reds and blues in my opinion are amongst the most naturally aggressive of dogs. She was very protective extemly smart. That dog was a teddy bear but could evaluate a situation and act accordingly. I currently own a neo mastiff cross dogue de bordeaux. No one comes into our yard. both dogs were bred for war by the french and italians and both are known to be overly protective. He is heavy, his bark and the size of his head would shake the most mettle of men but I keep him social with other dogs and people. I have a son and my family and friends bring their children around regularly.He swims and plays with them and becomes part of the group. He might as well be a jumping castle for them but he is well disiplined and socially a pussy cat. I would be more cautious of my parents border collie.


----------



## dihsmaj (Aug 20, 2011)

snakebag said:


> Its the reputaion of the breed thats the problem. Every dog has the potential to be a danger to people especially to children. Their reputation means all the bogans that want a tough dog go for pittys but alot of them keep one for the wrong reasons and have never had real interaction with dogs. They want them to be agressive as they think thats protection for themselves and thier property. I have been keeping dogs my entire life. My last dog was a red heeler (red cattle). reds and blues in my opinion are amongst the most naturally aggressive of dogs. She was very protective extemly smart. That dog was a teddy bear but could evaluate a situation and act accordingly. I currently own a neo mastiff cross dogue de bordeaux. No one comes into our yard. both dogs were bred for war by the french and italians and both are known to be overly protective. He is heavy, his bark and the size of his head would shake the most mettle of men but I keep him social with other dogs and people. I have a son and my family and friends bring their children around regularly.He swims and plays with them and becomes part of the group. He might as well be a jumping castle for them but he is well disiplined and socially a pussy cat. I would be more cautious of my parents border collie.



Blue Heelers aggressive? No! What!? 
My mate has two and they're sooks, so nice, he takes them for walks off-leash and they're perfectly fine, they just walk with him.

I agree with the statement that Poms are aggro -- mine is a b-tch! I sit down near her, and move her a tiny bit,and she bites me! The majority of her bites are play-bites, but sometimes, she really wants to hurt me.

Pit bulls, to my understanding, are THREE breeds:
Staffordshire bull terriers (Staffies)
American pit bull terriers
American staffordshire terriers

My sister-in-law owns a Staffie, and I love it, it's so nice, but it can get hypo.


----------



## Kitah (Aug 21, 2011)

Snakeluvver3 said:


> Blue Heelers aggressive? No! What!?
> My mate has two and they're sooks, so nice, he takes them for walks off-leash and they're perfectly fine, they just walk with him.



Cattle dogs/heelers can be quite aggressive, actually (again from a veterinary perspective). They can be incredibly protective and loyal to one owner- when around them, they can be perfect, friendly angels. remove them from their comfort zone, threaten their owner or do something they dont like and they can be a TOTALLY different story. They can also be fear biters, if they are timid. I'd probably say >50% of cattle dogs/heelers through the vet clinics I've been to have been relatively aggressive in one way or another. Actually, probably around 70% or so. By default, cattle dogs/heelers are one of the breeds that I am ALWAYS quite wary of initially until I get to know them and they get to know me. (and no, I have nothing against cattle dogs)


----------



## snakebag (Aug 21, 2011)

Ban dog is neo and pitty, neo and staffy or staffy and pitty depending on the line it was bred from.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

Ban dogs are completely different.

Bandog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## TurboMoped (Aug 21, 2011)

I find it funny that we have so many pitbull experts here yet not a single one seems to know why they were initially bred, They weren't bred at all for fighting....They were bred specifically for pigging!!
Staffies aren't pitbulls "Snakeluvver".

I have been around numerous pitbulls and my educated opinion is that they should remain 100% illegal to breed or own in Australia, Don't believe what pitbull owners try to tell you, the dogs have a genetic disposition for aggression and were line bred for that exact reason. A lot of owners believe they have "trained" their pitbull and got them worked out....this is not the case.

It also angers me to see these macho morons try to list them as "American staffordshires" staffies are awesome dogs and shouldn't be put in the same class as pitbulls.


----------



## snakebag (Aug 21, 2011)

i know what i'm talking about[/QUOTE]
I doubt it very much.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

TurboMoped said:


> I find it funny that we have so many pitbull experts here yet not a single one seems to know why they were initially bred, They weren't bred at all for fighting....They were bred specifically for pigging!!
> Staffies aren't pitbulls "Snakeluvver".
> 
> I have been around numerous pitbulls and my educated opinion is that they should remain 100% illegal to breed or own in Australia, Don't believe what pitbull owners try to tell you, the dogs have a genetic disposition for aggression and were line bred for that exact reason. A lot of owners believe they have "trained" their pitbull and got them worked out....this is not the case.
> ...



Maybe your the one that needs a history lesson:
American Pit Bull Terrier, Pit Bulls, Pitbulls


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

i-snake said:


> the real pit bull doesn't even exist anymore it was bred out, all thats left is it's genes in todays pit bulls, i breed amstaff for a side hobby, my dogs do weight pulling comps, i know what i'm talking about


Where do you people come up with this.



i-snake said:


> what i meant by the ban dog was that is what americans see as a pitty


No it is not, refer to the above links on Ban Dogs and Pit Bulls


----------



## TurboMoped (Aug 21, 2011)

kaotikjezta said:


> Maybe your the one that needs a history lesson:
> American Pit Bull Terrier, Pit Bulls, Pitbulls



Hmmmm a pro-pitbull site, They were bred as piggers.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

TurboMoped said:


> Hmmmm a pro-pitbull site, They were bred as piggers.


It's a dog breed information site, not a pro pit bull site. Bull Arabs were bred as piggers and they are definately not pit bulls.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

Cant see your attachment, it's not working.


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 21, 2011)

A *pit bull* is any of several breeds of dog in the moloserr breed group
Though the pit bull type dogs were all created with similar crossbreeding between bulldogs and terriers, each individual breed within the type has a somewhat different history

*The Staffordshire bull terrier* had its beginnings in England many centuries ago when the bulldog and Mastiff were used for the sports of bull baiting and bear bating.

*The American pit bull terrier d*ogs were used as catch dogs for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, to drive livestock, and as family companions

*American Staffordshire terrier** were imported primarily, but not exclusively, for pit fighting

Pit bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know its wikipedia, but its not biased.*

stupid boldness.


----------



## notechistiger (Aug 21, 2011)

Amstaffs have the same history as pit bulls. They began breeding these dogs differently so they could be used for showing, as pit bulls aren't allowed to be shown. Anyone who tells you amstaffs are nothing like pit bulls obviously hasn't looked up anything on them. _English_ staffordshire bull terries are not the same.


American Kennel Club - American Staffordshire Terrier History

Just in case anyone was actually interested in pit bull history,
American Pit Bull Terrier


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

Do you compete in Hungary, that dog is from Ritas in Hungary


Weight Pulling AMSTAFF puppies mother and father TK-VES - Manila

Location: Kecskemét, Bacs-Kiskun, Hungary
Date Posted: June 15
Phone: 06303158473
Price: $ 25,000



notechistiger said:


> Amstaffs have the same history as pit bulls. They began breeding these dogs differently so they could be used for showing, as pit bulls aren't allowed to be shown. Anyone who tells you amstaffs are nothing like pit bulls obviously hasn't looked up anything on them. _English_ staffordshire bull terries are not the same.
> 
> 
> American Kennel Club - American Staffordshire Terrier History
> ...



I was getting to the Am Staff link but got distracted, lol


----------



## eitak (Aug 21, 2011)

I haven't read through the whole thread so forgive me if I am repeating myself. 

Pit bulls can be dangerous because the have the means to be. If line bred to fight or for agression then they can be aggressive. If bought and raised to be aggressive they can be aggressive. If both then chances are you potentially have a killer dog. But if you raise them right they have the potenial to be loyal loving dogs. I was reading an online new paper article on the killing in melbourne they had a timeline of dog attacks, they would list the date what happened and either listed pit bull as the attacker or nothing. there was a few that had nothing, so they only named the breed of the dog in the attack if it was a pitty - ridiculous right? Anyway it makes me sick the mentality of people saying they should all be put down etc. In NSW to walk your pitty you need a muzzle and a special fluro orange harness/coat thing to warn people your walking a dangerous dog, what a joke


----------



## ittybitty (Aug 21, 2011)

American Pitbull Terriers ARE actually a pure breed. Even though many disagree that the Amstaff and the Pitbull are two seperate breeds, if you read enough about the history of both breeds you will see that the Amstaff actually came from the Pitbull.. The Amstaff descends from the fighting pits of England and America, he was created as a seperate breed from the Pit Bull back in 1972 by breeding many generations of non fighting stock, and to be a better adaptation to being a family companion. 

Even here in Australia, they are still considered a pure bred dog, even though they are not recognised (due to law) by the ANKC. 

So many are quick to jump and blame one breed or another for being aggressive, but have you actually owned one and trained it properly from a young pup? Socialised it properly with both people and other dogs/animals??

I have been showing dogs for almost 20 years. I started when I was very young with a German Shepherd. I was 9 when I started her in obedience at 12 weeks old. Over my years of training and showing the breed, I have trained with over 20 German shepherds of my own. To this day, I have come across pups that are people shy, dont want to have anything to do with people, dogs, kids... As a private dog trainer, they usually dont contact me for help until the pup gets too big for them to manage, big enough to knock over a toddler or pull things off the line, about 6-9 months. Its not up to ME to train the dog, its up to me to teach THEM how to train their dog. And I can always tell the ones who follow through with their training at home, over the ones who leave it in the backyard and bring it back to me next session expecting a magic fix. Dogs dont learn bad behaviors themselves. If you buy a puppy of ANY BREED and leave it in the backyard, feed it and water it, then wonder why it is barking, digging holes, pulling washing off the line and jumping on the kids, then you shouldnt own a dog. A dog is a PACK animal, they need leadership, guidance and constant companionship. So if you buy a puppy raise it with your family, teach it how you want it to behave from the time you bring it home, let it be with you and your family, give it adequate exercise, play time, you will have a life long family companion. 

The dogs that get a bad name through media for attacks, are usually ones you see kept chained up in the backyard. They probably have had a negative life since the day they were obtained by their so called 'owner'.. It only takes one negative experience, and a dog NEVER forgets, even if he was belted as an 8wk old pup, you can heal his scars, but you cannot erase his long term memory. So the dog may well be in a good home, but may have been raised in a poor, unstable environment. Then it only takes one slightly negative experience as the dog gets older and wiser, and he will act quicker than you can think to save his own *** so to speak. 

Many (NOT ALL) of the small children we see being attacked by dogs in the media are left with the animals, with minimal or no supervision. This is just plain stupidity. As well as GSD's I also own and show Pomeranians and Italian Greyhounds. My partner owns and shows Boxers and Beagles. My best friend has Norwegian Elkhounds. You have to KNOW your breed of choice inside and out. As much as I trust ALL of the mentioned breeds with children of all ages. I still would not leave a small child unattended with either of them. Main reason being, a small child/toddler would not understand a dogs body language, they would not know if they were hurting the dog (pulling ears, biting), child bites dogs ear, dog reacts, even if it doesnt snap or bite back, a large dog swinging its head around could easily injure or at least scare a child, child starts screaming and dog reacts even more so. 

I do Pets As Therapy at Westmead childrens Hospital, and some local nursing homes, with all 3 of my breeds...

We have kennels part way up our property, and we have chickens who fly over their fence and roam the grass pens with the shepherds. Herding breed you see, bred to keep animals together, not kill them.

When i was running my own grooming business, my favorite client was a Pitty, and her owner also had a chihuahua and a toy poodle, who she played with and slept inside with. 

Last week there was a Pit in the back of a ute parked next to my car, that lunged and snapped at me as I walked by, it startled me as I wasnt expecting it, and said *holy ******* the owner was in his car, and said mind ya own business lady, thats what pitts are bred for'......... Stupid twit. 


Anyhow, its stupid owners NOT bad dogs. 

coastalboy, its people like YOU who keep these poor dogs from having a chance at life.


----------



## Bel03 (Aug 21, 2011)

I had an asian couple scream abuse at me yesterday for having my staffy 'out on the street'.......i was taking him for his walk, on a lead, whats the problem.......he is the BIGGEST sook, he wouldnt hurt a fly.......although maybe he is capable of licking someone to death........:lol: Anyway, as for pitties, my mate came home from work a few months ago to find a notice that his dog, a pitbull, had been taken & although he phoned them only a few hrs after the fact, she had already been destroyed........just because of her breed. I cried like a baby, Rahni was the most loving dog i have ever known, she would carry my kids around on her back if i had of let her, she literally thought all kids were 'her babies', i trusted her without any doubt! I believe ALL dogs, regardless of breed are capable of biting or attacking, it is sad that certain breeds get labelled though for being the 'worst'. I also own a maltese x shi tzu, & he is a cranky little sod when he wants to be, he has bitten in the past, & is NEVER left alone with my children or anyone else's for this very reason, although when he is aloud to play with the kids, he does have a great time. While Brocky, the staffy could do alot more damage to my children, it is the little fluff ball i worry about most!


----------



## mrkos (Aug 21, 2011)

Thats bull#### if they where specifically bred for hunting why do they make such poor hunting dogs talk to any pig hunter who uses dogs there are exceptions of course. My brothers passion is apbt and he has some of the nicest lines you will find anywhere ime no expert but ive seen what they are capable of and having a apbt is like having a loaded shotgun. They can bann them or whatever but people will always still have them. They are definetely one of the nicest dogs on the planet


TurboMoped said:


> I find it funny that we have so many pitbull experts here yet not a single one seems to know why they were initially bred, They weren't bred at all for fighting....They were bred specifically for pigging!!
> Staffies aren't pitbulls "Snakeluvver".
> 
> I have been around numerous pitbulls and my educated opinion is that they should remain 100% illegal to breed or own in Australia, Don't believe what pitbull owners try to tell you, the dogs have a genetic disposition for aggression and were line bred for that exact reason. A lot of owners believe they have "trained" their pitbull and got them worked out....this is not the case.
> ...


----------



## JasonL (Aug 21, 2011)

License dog owners and require them to be members of an affiliated group, lose your license and your dogs gone.


----------



## Morgwynn (Aug 21, 2011)

It annoys me that the dog's breed is only ever mentioned in dog attack cases when the dog is a pitbull or another so-called dangerous. It's not the fault of the dogs. People who own dogs need to have the space, and the time, to devote to providing for all their needs, which definitely includes training and making sure they get enough exercise. It becomes even more important with big, active dogs. IMO anything less is basically animal abuse. The sort of idiots who get pitbulls to show off are the same sort of idiots who get snakes just for the cool factor. They don't put anywhere near enough thought into how they are actually going to provide for and deal with a potentially dangerous animal. 
My neighbours have a staffie, who has escaped once or twice. He gallops into my front yard with his idiotic staffie grin and attacks me. By trying to lick my face off and drown me in dog spit. He's probably the happiest dog I've ever met. 

I think a lot of the problems come from how unregulated dog owners are. Many dogs come from poor origins (puppy mills or backyard breeders) who don't socialize puppies properly and will give puppies to any person who has the cash to pay for them. I like JasonL's idea. Dogs should be registered. They should be desexed unless owned by a registered breeder. They should all be microchipped. Properly fenced in yards should be a requirement. And cats should be the same. Maybe if it was harder for people to get animals so many wouldn't be abandoned to rescues and shelters where they get put down, all because some idiot couldn't care for them.


----------



## dosngo (Aug 21, 2011)

one thing with pits are they seem to snap and kill where as other breeds usually just maul (rottys and the like) why is it pits go to the extent of killing i do not know but deaths always seem to be the end from alot of pits attacks

our son lost one last year to being put down for just showing aggression and he now has a new one that is a pup

i think if new law starts by jailing owners whos dog attacks or kills with zero tolerance maybe things will change till then people just dont give a crap


----------



## Ships (Aug 21, 2011)

How much more proof do you need a 4 year old child has been slaughtered, do you people have children, dogs kill and fight a lot of the time because they enjoy it, dog owners should know this. It matters not what the child did to the dog, a dog should snap or walk away, it killed the child and how many others have come close.


----------



## Tiliqua (Aug 21, 2011)

> Pit bulls, to my understanding, are THREE breeds:
> *Staffordshire bull terriers (staffies) *
> American pit bull terriers
> American staffordshire terriers



Wait....what?


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 21, 2011)

Despite being a relatively uncommon breed in Australia, pitbulls make a disproportionate amount of fatal attacks. Despite your individual experiences to the contrary, pitbulls kill people. Something needs to be done that targets these more aggresive dog breeds and manages this problem. If no system to monitor ownership can be easily introduced then I think banning them is acceptable practice.


----------



## waruikazi (Aug 21, 2011)

I agree that there seems to be a disproportional number of attacks from dogs called pit bulls. But i wonder if banning them has actually helped to reduce this number. 

Like with anything, laws only stop the honest people. Banning the breed wont nessecarily stop the breed from being produced but it will make the breeding totally unregulated. That is where problems will arise.


----------



## Waterrat (Aug 21, 2011)

With the compulsory registration of dogs it would be difficult to keep a pit bull out of sight. Neighbors would notice a pit bull in the next door yard and report it and walking pit bulls in the streets, parks and on the back of utes (the macho status) would mean less accidents.


----------



## Ships (Aug 21, 2011)

It wouldn't get rid of all of them but it would dramatically reduce their numbers.


----------



## waruikazi (Aug 21, 2011)

But with so many pit type dogs Michael it couldn't and wont be enforceable. If someone gets reported for owning a pitty all they have to say is that it's a staffy. Then what are the authorities going to do?


----------



## CharliePython (Aug 21, 2011)

They can and will take DNA samples as their are genetics that identify these breeds from others


----------



## Waterrat (Aug 21, 2011)

I thought the pure breed is easily recognizable and so are staffies. Owners of the cross breeds would be required to produce papers. I think the authorities would find ways to get on the top of it.


----------



## Boidae (Aug 21, 2011)

I personally do not see the point of keeping these breeds of dog. 
Im not having a go at anyone, but I am genuinely curious as to why you own them? 

But anyway, I certainly believe special licensing is the answer. 
I think that all dogs like Pitbulls, Rotweilers, Dobermans etc. need to be on a special license so that only 
experienced dog keepers (with 5 years + experience or something similar) can keep them. 

Just my humble opinion


----------



## Wild~Touch (Aug 21, 2011)

all dogs like Pitbulls, Rotweilers, Dobermans etc. need to be on a special license so that only 
experienced dog keepers (with 5 years + experience or something similar) can keep them. 

Methinks: Owners intelligence is more important before length of time a person as been keeping any animal


----------



## waruikazi (Aug 21, 2011)

CharliePython said:


> They can and will take DNA samples as their are genetics that identify these breeds from others



Considering that dogs are all the one species, how will DNA testing prove that one dog breed is different from another? 



Waterrat said:


> I thought the pure breed is easily recognizable and so are staffies. Owners of the cross breeds would be required to produce papers. I think the authorities would find ways to get on the top of it.



I've never heard of cross breeds of this type available with papers lol. I like to think i can pick them apart, but in reality i don't think there is anyone who could pick a purebred pit from an amstaff. About the only way i can pick them is from the fact that most 'pitties' aren't purebred and they look just a lil' different.


----------



## Waterrat (Aug 21, 2011)

It's interesting to note that german shepherds and dobermans were historically regarded as the best guard dogs, yet the number of attacks on humans by these breeds were few and far between. That leads to a conclusion that pit bulls and rotweilers have something in them ..... the little screw in their brains that becomes loose sometimes.


----------



## CharliePython (Aug 21, 2011)

DNA tests may yield surprise breeds in mutts - Health - Pet health - msnbc.com just one bit of info for you to check out waruikazi..

Dogs Saved by DNA Testing ? Smartdogs' Weblog and another


----------



## waruikazi (Aug 21, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> It's interesting to note that german shepherds and dobermans were historically regarded as the best guard dogs, yet the number of attacks on humans by these breeds were few and far between. That leads to a conclusion that pit bulls and rotweilers have something in them ..... the little screw in their brains that becomes loose sometimes.



I think that comes down to the breed intelligence, pit type dogs are as thick as two short planks lol. 



CharliePython said:


> DNA tests may yield surprise breeds in mutts - Health - Pet health - msnbc.com just one bit of info for you to check out waruikazi..
> 
> Dogs Saved by DNA Testing � Smartdogs' Weblog and another



Thanks mate, i didn't think it could be accurately done.


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 21, 2011)

Pits are if anything, more intelligent than some other breeds. Maybe not so much as Sheps and Dobermans, but personally I find that Labs are dumber than a pit any day. Any breed taught correctly from day one can learn just as much as any other breed. It comes down to how dedicated the owner really is, and how much they really care whether their dog knows how to interact with other dogs and humans.


----------



## Ships (Aug 21, 2011)

It doesn't matter some breeds have a lower tolerance than others, some are not as bombproof as others no matter the amount of training some can just be unpredictable, why is that so hard to understand. Compare Red bellies to browns, tigers to copperheads, palmy's to tully's, different species of all kinds have differing temprements.


----------



## Chrisy (Aug 21, 2011)

As we all know some people are just stupid and should not be allowed to own any kind of animal weather it be repitle, dog, cat, bird or fish becuase they will no doubt ******* up the temerment of that animal.

Sad story for you all so you know what can happen to a perfectly natured animal in the wrong hands. 

I had Tj he was an australian staffy he was wonderfull as a puppy and he grew up with my two boys they were only 2 and 3 at the time, and he was wonderfully natured, got along with everyone, he was a pat ******* he would wait for kids to finish school and lay beside the fence waiting for anyone to walk past to give him a pat. He used to sleep with the cats for ******* sake he was a wimp and he would lay there while the kids climbed over him and tugged on his ears. He would not hurt a fly. Well he would eat flies occasionaly.

Any how when me and my ex split he took my Tj and he moved back with his parents and their two dogs, a geman sheppard and a cross bred jackrussle/foxie/something. Well after about two years of how knows what, I have been told that if Tj was caught doing something wrong he was kicked in the guts and locked out side and a few other things. Well in the last 12 months Tj was deemed as a dangerous dog and he was put down becuase he attacked my ex while holding a child. Now Tj did not like my ex to start with and when him and I used to argue he would bark at my ex or if he was getting angry at my children he would bark at him and go to nip his ankles. Dogs can sense a persons personality and character.

Tj (pictured below) was a loyal animal, god rest his soul.


SO it does not matter what the breed is it depends on its owner.

I would like to know how and why the dog got out of the owners yard, dogs do not just attack for no reason and from my understanding the owner lived a few houses down, so the dog and the owner would have been known same with the people that got attacked. How is it that the owner just walked into the persons house and collected their dog with no hassle, mean while the woman is screaming and yelling creating a stressfull environment for herself the child and the dog. 

I am sorry for the woman losing her child, and I am sorry for the owner of the dog .

SO what happened for all that to start.

And I applologise in advance if my story or my comments on the situation upset anyone. My intention is to show it does not matter what breed an animal is, it still can turn on you or someone you know and to condem a whole breed just based on a few incidences is BS, what about all the other attacks by other breeds of dogs. The media needs to stay out of those sort of matters when there are much more pressing matters that need to be addressed instead of making the situation worse.


----------



## Ships (Aug 21, 2011)

Chrisy are you serious, the dog mauled a child to death!!, who cares what the child did to the dog, who cares what happened to the dog, have you ever seen anyone die horribly, have you seen someone missing pieces of their anatomy and bleeding to death!! Have you seen the horror on their face. Its bloody horrific and this happened to an innocent child of 4 years, can you imagine that poor babies terror. Are you even aware that family dogs kill stock, they dont do this as a need to survive or to protect themselves they do it because they enjoy it and get carried away with the thrill of the kill.


----------



## Klaery (Aug 21, 2011)

Firedrake said:


> Pits are if anything, more intelligent than some other breeds. Maybe not so much as Sheps and Dobermans, but personally I find that Labs are dumber than a pit any day. Any breed taught correctly from day one can learn just as much as any other breed.



Not the dumbest dogs but I certainly wouldn't rate them as being anywhere near any of the intelligent breeds in that respect. I have to also disagree and say that in my opinion no, just any breed can not learn as much as any other. Different dogs have been selectively bred for different things and no amount of owner input is going to change an animals genetic makeup.

In the same way I think it is silly to say that all dogs are friendly to all and reliably safe if brought up correctly. That is like saying an animals genetics has nothing at all to do with temperament which we know is not the case.


----------



## dihsmaj (Aug 21, 2011)

Ships said:


> Chrisy are you serious, the dog mauled a child to death!!, who cares what the child did to the dog, who cares what happened to the dog, have you ever seen anyone die horribly, have you seen someone missing pieces of their anatomy and bleeding to death!! Have you seen the horror on their face. Its bloody horrific and this happened to an innocent child of 4 years, can you imagine that poor babies terror. Are you even aware that family dogs kill stock, they dont do this as a need to survive or to protect themselves they do it because they enjoy it and get carried away with the thrill of the kill.


Of course they have the instinct to kill, they're descended from wolves -- does that mean all dogs should be killed? All dogs DO have the capability to kill someone.


----------



## Ships (Aug 21, 2011)

Some more capable and proven than others, in any case the argument is moot, surely the evidence is in now


----------



## dihsmaj (Aug 21, 2011)

I agree that many attacks are from pitbulls and that their build is quite strong (my sister-in-law's dog literally tackles me to the ground, I'm 53kgs), but still, we shouldn't put them all down.

I've also been reading a lot about Rotties... again, what!? My sister had a Rotty (put down in April due to bad, bad legs, he could hardly stand) and he was a big sook, just wanted to play and wanted to get patted!
Hell, my Maltese and him used to play all the time, and once, cut his nose, and the Rotty didn't care at all!


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

danielk said:


> Not the dumbest dogs but I certainly wouldn't rate them as being anywhere near any of the intelligent breeds in that respect. I have to also disagree and say that in my opinion no, just any breed can not learn as much as any other. Different dogs have been selectively bred for different things and no amount of owner input is going to change an animals genetic makeup.
> 
> In the same way I think it is silly to say that all dogs are friendly to all and reliably safe if brought up correctly. That is like saying an animals genetics has nothing at all to do with temperament which we know is not the case.


Are you serious, drug dealers in the uk train them to carry drugs and money. They go deliver the drug sometimes across the other side of the city, pick the money up and bring it back. They don't stop for anyone or anything until the job is done. I would say the dog has to be pretty smart to be able to do that wouldn't you.


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 21, 2011)

Banning a breed will not stop the issues as breed specific legislation can only legislated against pure breeds not crosses. A jail term for the owner is what is needed, you are supposed to be in control of your animal, if it causes harm you should face the same charges as if you committed the offense yourself!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sher_khan13 (Aug 21, 2011)

TurboMoped said:


> I find it funny that we have so many pitbull experts here yet not a single one seems to know why they were initially bred, They weren't bred at all for fighting....They were bred specifically for pigging!!
> Staffies aren't pitbulls "Snakeluvver".
> 
> I have been around numerous pitbulls and my educated opinion is that they should remain 100% illegal to breed or own in Australia, Don't believe what pitbull owners try to tell you, the dogs have a genetic disposition for aggression and were line bred for that exact reason. A lot of owners believe they have "trained" their pitbull and got them worked out....this is not the case.
> ...



you sir, are wrong. in fact ALL TERRIERS have this genentic disposition that you talk of. "pitbull" is a nick name. a name given to a variety of dogs; staffies/bullies/AMERICAN staffies. a name given to them for obvious reasons. my family has owned all of these breeds ever since my great grandfather got his first. i bet i can make ANY dog angry and agressive. its not hard. place any "pitbull" pup in a loving home and the results will be clear. the owners of these dogs that do attack people are inhumane pricks that wont think twice about giving it a kick in the guts and overly using a choker chain etc etc. ive seen them plenty of times before. there is definitely a common factor with them though : all of them morons buying this breed of dog simply because of its reputation. "look how big and tough i am with my angry pitbull"



LiasisFreak said:


> I personally do not see the point of keeping these breeds of dog.
> Im not having a go at anyone, but I am genuinely curious as to why you own them?



as i said previously we have had these breeds for over 50 years in my family. they are the most loving and loyal creatures i have ever come across. for over half a century within my family, there has not been a single attack


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 21, 2011)

sher_khan13 said:


> as i said previously we have had these breeds for over 50 years in my family. they are the most loving and loyal creatures i have ever come across. for over half a century within my family, there has not been a single attack



This sort of annecdotal evidence really is useless in this argument. Obviously not every pitbull is violent but the breed holds a dissproportionate amount of fatal attacks. Lets look at something like a gun, obviously guns in themself arnt violent and wont hurt a fly unless put in the hands of the wrong person. 

We need to adress how ownership of these dangerous dogs, can be managed so that people who shouldnt own them dont have access. If this means banning the dogs from public hands then maybe that is a necessary step.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

wait......
Here we go, American yes but no such data has been compiled in Australia:

Dog Bite Statistics by Breed, Types of Pit Bulls, Are Pit Bulls Dangerous


----------



## sher_khan13 (Aug 21, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> This sort of annecdotal evidence really is useless in this argument. Obviously not every pitbull is violent but the breed holds a dissproportionate amount of fatal attacks. Lets look at something like a gun, obviously guns in themself arnt violent and wont hurt a fly unless put in the hands of the wrong person.
> 
> We need to adress how ownership of these dangerous dogs, can be managed so that people who shouldnt own them dont have access. If this means banning the dogs from public hands then maybe that is a necessary step.



i dont see how its that useless. just worked out wiht my dad that in the family there have been at least 15 staffies/bullies over a great number of years. different owners, different breeders. thats definitely worth something. and banning the breed wont stop the morons who get them for the wrong reason from just getting another dog capaple of great damage. my cousin has massive scars on his head from a german sheppard.

moron + ANY animal = somethign bad is going to happen


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 21, 2011)

Before you condemn the breed try this link:
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
See how long it takes you to id the pitbull!!
It's time people understood something, if we ban based on breed especially when they have been linked to deaths then it's a quick trip down the road to banning venomous snakes as they kill people too!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

Thats awesome, even took me three goes to get it.


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 21, 2011)

kaotikjezta said:


> wait......
> Here we go, American yes but no such data has been compiled in Australia:
> 
> Dog Bite Statistics by Breed, Types of Pit Bulls, Are Pit Bulls Dangerous



LMAO according to that website a pure bred pug has caused 1 fatality. I dont beleive everything I read on the internet.


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 21, 2011)

There is not much data kept on dog attacks. 

Australia has a canine population of about 4 million. The statistics currently available on dog attacks are incomplete and fragmented, since no comprehensive reporting system exists for dog attacks in Australia. However, it has been estimated that each year more than 100,000 Australians are attacked by dogs, causing injuries of varying degrees of severity.1 The Accident and Emergency Departments of the nation's public hospitals treat an estimated 12,000 and 14,000 people for dog bite injuries.2 Almost 1,400 of those have injuries that are serious enough to warrant hospitalisation. The majority of injuries inflicted by dogs are not serious, and the mortality rate is extremely low (11 cases between 1969 to 1999), but dog bites can cause severe physical and emotional damage.

Most of these attacks are on children ( nearly all breeds of dogs find it hard accepting new people within the "pack"). Media tends to focus on dog attacks in public places by dogs deemed "viloent" which are infact very low, as 60% of all attacks occur to visitors in a friend or families home. Breeds responsible are not well documented but the generally reflect the relative popularity of the breed in that area. nearly half of the dogs kept in australia are crossbreeds which do not demonstarte a constant breed type. So its unknown what breeds of dogs account to the most attacks.

Snakehandler is 100% correct, with so many crossbreeds it is impossible to implement a ban.


----------



## centro (Aug 21, 2011)

coastalboy said:


> It's not the fact that someone has the right dog or wrong dog.
> 
> BUT! the real fact is that Pitty's are always proving them self wrong. JUST as someone says they are good and all someone gets hurt buy them. to be honest im sick of people plasting post around about pittys.
> Yes i no other dogs can be agressive and yes other dogs do bite. BUT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BREED FOR THEM TO BAND IT................
> ...




just thought u should know that reading your posts made me want to put my hand in a blender and turn it on high, you sound like a uptight troll who is scared by the outside world, your comments are unneeded slander over subjects you clearly know sweet F.A about, cut your fingers off, make ice cubes out of them, and put them in cups of your tears, you make me sick


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 21, 2011)

Given that a little whip snake has caused a fatality.....why is it so hard to believe, don't be naive, all dogs are capable of killing!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> LMAO according to that website a pure bred pug has caused 1 fatality. I dont beleive everything I read on the internet.


So what a pug couldn't kill a baby or cause someone to die as a result of being attacked, eg: weak heart etc.


----------



## myusername (Aug 21, 2011)

While I don't think pitbulls should be banned I do think that their ownership should be restricted. Regardless of whether pitbulls are naturally more aggressive than other breeds, or whether they attract irresponsible owners, it is clear that they are the most dangerous breed of dog. 
Unfortunately, due to people misrepresenting the breed or not registering the dogs at all, I'm not sure ownership can ever really be effectively controlled or restricted.


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 21, 2011)

The pure bred pit bull is a restricted breed, the one that attacked the little girl is a cross breed, NO LEGISLATION against them!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

myusername said:


> While I don't think pitbulls should be banned I do think that their ownership should be restricted. Regardless of whether pitbulls are naturally more aggressive than other breeds, or whether they attract irresponsible owners, it is clear that they are the most dangerous breed of dog.
> Unfortunately, due to people misrepresenting the breed or not registering the dogs at all, I'm not sure ownership can ever really be effectively controlled or restricted.


What evidence is your claim based on. When I was younger Bull Terriers were classed as the most dangerous dog and my mother still believes that to be true, before that it was German Shepards, after that it was Rottweilers. In NSW they are claiming the Bull Arab is the most dangerous. People don't register them for fear that at any given moment they could be banned and seized, the legislation and fearmongering is only adding to the problem of unsocialised animals.


----------



## ittybitty (Aug 21, 2011)

> they dont do this as a need to survive or to protect themselves they do it because they enjoy it



This statement is bull*****... Dogs do not attack out of enjoyment in any way shape or form.. A dog can/will attack for many different reasons, out of fear, self defence from being mistreated, from being trained to do so at command, will to survive, jealousy. the list goes on... 

Heck, I have Italian Greyhounds, a breed that was created to be effective at hunting down and capturing small vermin.. Even though they have been bred away from doing what they do best for many years and generations, you put an Iggy infront of a rabbit, and you know who will come off 2nd best. They dont kill these rabbits/rats etc out of enjoyment. It is their instinct as a sighthound to see, chase, contain, what is small, fluffy and very quick. even though they have been adapted to family living, their natural instinct still exists well and truly. 


Dogs do not fight because it brings them enjoyment, it is a case of survival of the fittest. 

People who dont understand dogs should not own them. You need to be able to read their body language, and see into their eyes. A dogs eyes tell a million words. 


Right now on my bed, I have a 50kg oversized German Shepherd, 8 Pomeranians & 3 Italian Greyhounds. I have another 8 Pomeranians tearing around my house playing. Dogs are very adaptable creatures, and all breeds can live together given you understand that no two dogs are the same, and every dog had individual needs.. 

I trust my dogs more than I would ever trust ANY human being. They are far less complicated than a human, and will more than happily sit and listen to you ramble on about anything and everything. they dont care what you say to them, as long as it is in a happy tone, and you treat them with as much respect as they give you. 

I would LOVE to own a Pitbull... But unfortunately unless you obtain one illegally, you have no chance, and even then god knows what it has been crossed with.


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 21, 2011)

kaotikjezta said:


> So what a pug couldn't kill a baby or cause someone to die as a result of being attacked, eg: weak heart etc.



And pomeranians mauled 7 people, 1 of which was an adult? The table doesnt even make sense. Wikipedia states that pitbull terriers or mixes thereof account for 32% of fatal attacks between 1979 - 1998.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> And pomeranians mauled 7 people, 1 of which was an adult? The table doesnt even make sense. Wikipedia states that pitbull terriers or mixes thereof account for 32% of fatal attacks between 1979 - 1998.


All hail wikipedia. Pomeranians can be aggressive, I had a friend with a rescue pom and no-one except her could go near it. The table doesn't make sense because you don't want it to, you want it to show that pit bulls are the most dangerous. What was it that topped the list, oh yeah, lab crosses.


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 21, 2011)

re-look at the table, if you cant see why I say it doesnt make sense then lord help you


----------



## myusername (Aug 21, 2011)

> What evidence is your claim based on


Don't quote me but I'm pretty sure I read that they make up about 70% of dog related deaths in the US. Admittedly they are well represented (almost 10% of dogs over there I think?), but that is pretty compelling stuff (if my memory serves me well). Clearly they have the potential to be dangerous. Now whether this is genetic in nature (I believe that it is) or whether it is purely coincidental (i.e. pitbulls attract irresponsible owners who cannot train or socialise their dogs, do not believe this to be the case), I'm not sure. 


> The pure bred pit bull is a restricted breed, the one that attacked the little girl is a cross breed, NO LEGISLATION against them!





> People don't register them for fear that at any given moment they could be banned and seized, the legislation and fearmongering is only adding to the problem of unsocialised animals.


Precisely my point about restricting their ownership presenting numerous difficulties.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

If you research the source:

Source: Dog attack deaths and maimings, US and Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006. Merritt Clifton.

You will find that the author himself is anti-pittbull even though his statitics don't back-up any of his claims.


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 21, 2011)

Seriously!! All dogs are capable if putting a person in hospital, this does not make them dangerous, evil, or anything else! What it means us that people need to take responsibility for the actions of the animals under their control, regardless of species, breed or anything else. To ban a breed is naive! It will not solve the problem, but if a person had real consequences because of the actions of those under their control this will have an effect!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 21, 2011)

kaotikjezta said:


> If you research the source:
> 
> Source: Dog attack deaths and maimings, US and Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006. Merritt Clifton.
> 
> You will find that the author himself is anti-pittbull even though his statitics don't back-up any of his claims.



The statistics presented in the mentioned study are not those presented in that table


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

..........


----------



## Jeffa (Aug 21, 2011)

Bottom line people,
If you want to have the responsibility of owning a pet potentially dangerous or otherwise, you should be 100% accountable for its actions, training, housing and otherwise. If this animal for whatever reason escapes, mauls and kills a person than a life sentance for the owner would be just. Cant handle it then dont get the animal....


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 21, 2011)

Generaly deaths relating dog attacks are low, in a country like the US where a large population of kept dogs are pitbulls (which are kept in low socioeconomic areas as guard dogs or by criminals who train there dogs to be violent) It makes sense that a large amount of fatal attacks will be to that one breed.

Ive been bashed by 2 aboriginal kids before and they took my wallet, but I dont think that every aboriginal that walks past me is going to try rob me, though most people probably would, because a dog with a bad rap already has done something bad people overlook the thousands of incidences of other dogs that attack people on a much higer scale. I remember a story aout a golden retriever a few years ago that dragged a baby out of its cot by the head killing it because it was jealous, and most people see that breed as the most loving dog around.


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 21, 2011)

Jeffa said:


> Bottom line people,
> If you want to have the responsibility of owning a pet potentially dangerous or otherwise, you should be 100% accountable for its actions, training, housing and otherwise. If this animal for whatever reason escapes, mauls and kills a person than a life sentance for the owner would be just. Cant handle it then dont get the animal....



Although this might sound reasonable do you think it will actually work as a deterent for the people who are likely to abuse a dog?


----------



## Jeffa (Aug 21, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> Although this might sound reasonable do you think it will actually work as a deterent for the people who are likely to abuse a dog?



Probly not, but if this scum that abuses any animal in their care do get caught, maybe a bit of jailtime and a record of animal crulty acts known to the public wont hurt the community.


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 21, 2011)

Dog abuse is a different story! A person should be 100% responsible for the actions of the pets in their care, you own it, you are responsible to ensure others are not at risk because of it. If it attacks a person should be charged as if they did the attack themselves!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tildy (Aug 21, 2011)

I think the general public needs to be trained better. I love all breeds of dogs and I think that all dog owners should be taught to train thier dogs in several areas. I always train my dogs to accept children and other animals, allow people to take food and bones off them and touch them while thier eating (I certainly dont encourage it but I know if a child tries it the dog wont react), and just to be generally gentle with people. Then I dont let people near my dogs without ensuring they are going to treat it nice. I don't leave any children unattended with them either. Parents should be taught to train thier children in approaching a dog and reading body language and to never leave thier children alone with a dog they don't know.

Breeds should not be banned. People should be better regulated. I reckon dog licenses would be a good idea. Only allowed to breed dogs if you have a breeder license and without one you must only own desexed dogs. The license application process should include a course on dog training, ownership and body language. As part of your license you should have to train your dog in a variety of social situations including kids and other dogs and very good basic obedience. If you fail you get a warning for minor offences and the dog gets removed if its dangerous. A licensing system like this would help cut down the instances of unwanted puppies too. Well, it's an idea anyway. I think humans at large create our own problems and we should cop the resposibility rather than blaming every other creature.


----------



## EmmaMary (Aug 21, 2011)

All dogs are individuals, I realise the point of saying other breeds are vicious too but aren't you just buying into the breed blame-game? A pitty's strength and lock-on jaws worry me, but that just means I probably won't own one.

I have a Chihuahua and she's the exception to the rule but when she feels threatend she will growl and snap like any other animal however due to her size of 3kg and her abused background she can get scared easily. I think common sense is the key here, keep dogs in your yard and with proper restraint when out. And watch Ceasar Milan's the dog whisperer, it's really really good and I think anyone with a dog should check it out.


----------



## Bushkaboo (Aug 21, 2011)

I think it depends on the environment the dog is exposed to, along with the nature of the dog. I took my dog to the dog park and there was a Pitbull there. It had been sitting with its family (including a baby in a pram). It got distracted when I arrived, ran over and tried to attack my dog. I had to grab my dog and hold her above my head and keep turning. The Pitbull kept leaping and snapping. The Pitbull was great with it's own family, but it's "owner" couldn't control it and it should never have been in the dog park without a muzzle on. I think the biggest problem with them is that their jaws lock. I have met quite a few nice ones, but one dodgy one undoes all the hard work that responsible people do with theirs. I think sometimes it's just the temperament of the beast too. You might come across a nice Polar Bear once every now and again. Doesn't mean you can trust them all.

Having said that, one of my other dogs is a cattle dog. She has nipped three people - in my opinion each person deserved it because they teased her and continued to do so even after being warned again and again that she was getting annoyed. She is a wonderful dog, but it would be irresponsible of me to trust her around anyone younger than 10 purely because of the breed she is. I know she's protective, intelligent, loyal and strong. She sleeps on my bed. 

Phantomreptiles, you are very lucky. You have a great dog. You are a responsible owner. There should be more like you. The unfortunate thing is that Pitbulls are still being used as fighting dogs because they don't back down and they rip things apart. As sad as it is, bottom line is that it's people who are responsible.


----------



## myusername (Aug 21, 2011)

> If you research the source:
> 
> Source: Dog attack deaths and maimings, US and Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006. Merritt Clifton.
> 
> You will find that the author himself is anti-pittbull even though his statitics don't back-up any of his claims.



I don't think that is where I read it, but either way, the majority of statistics tend to put pit bull type breeds in front, and they can't possibly all be biased. I don't think the breed should be banned, and I think that controlling/restricting them is impractical, but I do believe they are more likely to kill than other breeds. I love dogs, and my uncle used to have a lovely pit bull, but I've also been attacked/chased by a few dogs (mainly very small ones!) but of the three larger dogs I've had issues with, two were pit bulls. The third was the world's biggest doberman.


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 21, 2011)

EmmaMary said:


> All dogs are individuals, I realise the point of saying other breeds are vicious too but aren't you just buying into the breed blame-game? A pitty's strength and lock-on jaws worry me, but that just means I probably won't own one.
> 
> I have a Chihuahua and she's the exception to the rule but when she feels threatend she will growl and snap like any other animal however due to her size of 3kg and her abused background she can get scared easily. I think common sense is the key here, keep dogs in your yard and with proper restraint when out. And watch Ceasar Milan's the dog whisperer, it's really really good and I think anyone with a dog should check it out.



I used to have a chihuahua, devils spawn haha.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

What dogs have lock jaw


----------



## Bushkaboo (Aug 21, 2011)

Top Ten (10) Most Dangerous Dog Breeds | Pets Do


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 21, 2011)

And where would you stand if the government decided to ban keeping venomous snakes because they can cause fatalities!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 21, 2011)

I have tracked down the real study that was miss referenced by a pro-pitbull website. As you can see pure bred pitbull terriers made 104 fatal attacks in the period representing 39% of the fatal attacks. 

http://roominate.com/blogg/dog_attacks_1982_to_2006_clifton.pdf


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 21, 2011)

General information about the American Temperament Test Society, Inc. (ATTS) | American Temperament Test Society, Inc.


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 21, 2011)

I dont think they deserve a flat out ban, they just need to be heavily monitored or managed, but I would support a ban if their management is not an economic or realistic viable option.


----------



## myusername (Aug 21, 2011)

> And where would you stand if the government decided to ban keeping venomous snakes because they can cause fatalities!



If push came to shove and venomous snakes started causing enough fatalities to warrant a ban, I would accept it. Also, I don't think a total ban on pit bull type breeds is even possible.


----------



## Klaery (Aug 21, 2011)

meh I don't think they need a ban at all. People should be fully accountable for the actions of animals in their care/control. But to say that all dogs are the same is foolish. Of course temperament differs between individual animals and breeds. That some people here are suggesting it has no connection at all to the animals genetics is just silly.


----------



## Mace699 (Aug 21, 2011)

it's really hard to judge a dog by statistics or take them on face value anyway. first thing. as stated by Hypochondrac there are more of some dogs in a population than others. Secondly majority of statistics only give a brief insight into how many dogs actually bite, even fewer go into detail of the type of situation the animal is in when it bites, playful nip, defensive bite when being cornered and so on. also a lot off the information is very biased for example if someones pet dog nips them on the hand would they report it? opposed to an animal getting out and biting an unknown passerby is much more often going to be reported. at the moment german shepherds, kelpies and cattle dogs followed by huskies and malamutes are responsible for most human maulings in australia. does anyone try and ban the breed? no. why its a ridiculous idea to outlaw a breed of dog. as most have already stated the majority of people who buy these dogs, mastiffs, rotties and the similar get them for the sole purpose of looking tough and don't know the first thing about animal discipline. look at cesar milan favourite breed of dogs are pittys and rotties. not one of his dogs would be considered a danger. why? his three key rules exercise, discipline, affection. these are ex fighting dogs that have been rehabilitated. now for those that have said the child must have done something it's irrelevant. now a realistic solution would be to have harsh penalties if you get caught with an unregistered pitbull and make it only legal to breed if you are a registered breeder and breed only for temperment. as with most laws yes it will be broken but it will make it easier to keep track what type of people are buying the puppies. who owns them and where they live. it's very dictatorship like but it will keep majority of uneducated people who blame the breed happy. and those who generally want that dog as a genuine pet wouldn't have any problems with this i don't think. now for those that say ban the breed stop being so ignorant. should we ban cattle dogs and kelpies of course not and it's rediculous to suggest it the same goes for pittys but sadly qld has bowed to pressure from small minded people who are up in arms about it. secondly those who say pitbulls where originally bred for fighting thats a load of rubbish they where bred for bull and bear baiting. and over the years people have bred them for fighting mainly in america as there is a lot of money to be made in illegal dog fights. we in OZ are just copycats and get them to be like our "big brother" if there were more rules around dog ownership and stricter guidelines maybe there would be less bad eggs ruining it for a lot of people. as with most cases its always the majority do the right thing and mean well. while the minority are irresponsible and should not own any animal let alone a pitbull. my personal opinion and pitbulls are generally a really great and loyal dog having said that i have met some tossers who raise them to be monsters the people like that should be put down not the dogs.



grimbeny said:


> I have tracked down the real study that was miss referenced by a pro-pitbull website. As you can see pure bred pitbull terriers made 104 fatal attacks in the period representing 39% of the fatal attacks.
> 
> http://roominate.com/blogg/dog_attacks_1982_to_2006_clifton.pdf



that report is irrelevant firstly its based on US figures secondly the data is old and inaccurate its self


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 21, 2011)

Deaths by dogs and dog attacks in general are self reported. Most poeple will go "it was a pitbull " when it could have been anything, as the article posted earlier by snakehandler? I think, most people couldnt I.D a pitbull, it took me 7 goes thats for sure. The data is completely up to the judgement of witnesses who probably couldnt ID a dog if someone shoved the name in their face.


----------



## Ships (Aug 21, 2011)

Ittybitty what is your advice/information based on, I have seen first hand well looked after family pets tear apart a dozen sheep, it wasn't for food. I have seen the ramifications of this time and time again, not by wild dogs but family bed layers out at night. Staffies love to fight other dogs. If they never get the opportunity to fight they are fine and perhaps never will, but once they do get in a fight they love it and seek it out. Again I have witnessed this many times first hand. Like all animals they are unpredictable.


----------



## Black.Rabbit (Aug 21, 2011)

As for those statistical articles... who is to say that the reason the pitbull number is so high is because people are more likely to report an attack from a pitty, rather than say, a Lab, or hell... a Chihuahua? 

Did you know that 80% of internet statistics are false?? (lol)


----------



## Mace699 (Aug 21, 2011)

equinny said:


> As for those statistical articles... who is to say that the reason the pitbull number is so high is because people are more likely to report an attack from a pitty, rather than say, a Lab, or hell... a Chihuahua?
> 
> Did you know that 80% of internet statistics are false?? (lol)


 you should have said 80.3% to be precise


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 21, 2011)

Dogs are generally aggressive to other animals unless conditioned otherwise. Their most primitive function is hunting, hence a group of sheep is going to trigger this this unless they have been raised around them and have had a firm upbringing. ships your information is just a valid as ittybitty's, what you have seen firsthand counts for nothing in a debate like this. My dog follows our sheep around at night and has killed 2 foxes trying to take lambs, we never trained him to do this he just does on his own accord, this directly counters what you have said.


----------



## kyle199 (Aug 21, 2011)

everyone should read up on the history of the breed and understand it.
a pitbull was never bred to bite a person whatsoever. the were bred to be dog aggressive yes they were bred for fighting and as such biting a human was condemed because the were many people in the "pit" at the time of a fight, only a few centimeters away from the fighting dogs.
if a pitbull ever bit a person they were almost immediately "culled" as noone wanted a "manbiter"..
and also as such were never used as a guard dog, which i believe is where we are gonig wrong now with pitbulls.
people are getting these dogs and teaching them to be guard dogs and human agressive and line breeding them that way, and with a pitbull being able to inflict massive damage is asking for trouble.
it is sad because its ruining the true pitbull breed.
And also 99% of pitbull's around these days as said before arent true pure pitbulls of the past. over time they have been interbred with other breeds changing the genetics of a true pitbull. amking them bigger and "meaner" looking for the same above reasons.
Gone are the days of the pitbull being very similar in size to the english staffy.. maybe just a little taller.
Many pitbulls i have been around and seen around that are true to breed standard and temperament u could break into their house and the damn dogs would walk out with you being ur new best friend.
it all comes down to continuous breeding away from breed standard imo.
same with any other breed when being interbred and bred away from breed standard or taught to do something that they werent bred for, trouble is going to happen.
sorry if this doesnt make sense writing very quickly.
i also rekon they should stay "illegal" so they dont become "mainstream dogs" as it will only cause more problems.
its very sad as Pitbulls are my favourite breed of dog 

and who ever said they have "lock jaw" wat a load of rubbish haha. no dogs has lock jaw.


----------



## Ships (Aug 21, 2011)

My point was that dogs will at times kill for enjoyment not out of any need, in any case this is all very pointless.


----------



## myusername (Aug 21, 2011)

Does anyone on here genuinely believe that, hypothetically, if pit bulls had never been bred (never existed), and their numbers were replaced by the 'average dog' in all statistics, that dog related deaths would remain the same or actually drop?


----------



## ittybitty (Aug 21, 2011)

Ships said:


> Ittybitty what is your advice/information based on, I have seen first hand well looked after family pets tear apart a dozen sheep, it wasn't for food. I have seen the ramifications of this time and time again, not by wild dogs but family bed layers out at night. Staffies love to fight other dogs. If they never get the opportunity to fight they are fine and perhaps never will, but once they do get in a fight they love it and seek it out. Again I have witnessed this many times first hand. Like all animals they are unpredictable.



omg how stupid can you be?!? staffies dont LOVE to fight each other. Fighting between ANY dog is a dominance/control thing. To determine where one stands. Unfortunately one too many times it results in severe injuries and/or death. Dogs arent aggressive because they love it, there is ALWAYS a reason behind a dogs behavior of any kind. 

A male dog will not seek out another just so he can fight because he enjoys it, he will seek a female, and if another male comes across his path, then yeah, it'll be on.. 

As far as pets tearing apart livestock, they may not appear to be doing it for food at the time, but if you read up on wolves, foxes etc, they will kill when the opportunity arises, and then leave the carcass where it fell, only to return when needed.. Sure you can say 'but they sleep on the bed and are house pets'.. That DOES NOT take away the fact that they are descendants of the WOLF, they STILL HAVE natural instincts. Whether it be a Pomeranian, staffy, sibe, dane etc.


----------



## Black.Rabbit (Aug 21, 2011)

Mace699 said:


> you should have said 80.3% to be precise



Touché 



Ships said:


> My point was that dogs will at times kill for enjoyment not out of any need, in any case this is all very pointless.



How do you know? Did you ask one?


----------



## Tildy (Aug 21, 2011)

Ships said:


> Ittybitty what is your advice/information based on, I have seen first hand well looked after family pets tear apart a dozen sheep, it wasn't for food. I have seen the ramifications of this time and time again, not by wild dogs but family bed layers out at night. Staffies love to fight other dogs. If they never get the opportunity to fight they are fine and perhaps never will, but once they do get in a fight they love it and seek it out. Again I have witnessed this many times first hand. Like all animals they are unpredictable.





I beg to differ dude. All of the staffies I have encountered have only ever sought other dogs out as playmates. I currently own a staffy and her two best mates are my friend's staffy and my boyfriend's kelpie. Mum owns a small white fluffy dog and he growls and snaps at her all the time and she never reacts. Her biggest reaction to other dog's agression is to hide between my legs. The only fights she has ever been in are with her kelpie friend over bones and they have never ever drawn even a small ammount of blood. She doesn't even start them usually, it's the kelpie that does. She has never sought out a fight in her life. Neither has my friend's staffy for that matter even when the neighbour's boxer pup is all over her annoying the **** out of her. Staffies are some of the best natured dogs I have come across. As for sheep, that would be on par with family pets killing native animals or other family pets like birds, rodents etc. They may not be immediately hungry but instinct kicks in. To them, it moves like food, smells like food and looks like food. If you want to prevent them from doing that then contain them better. It comes back to the human taking the blame for poor management not the animal for following its instinct or conditioning.


----------



## Dipcdame (Aug 21, 2011)

I agree, it's the way pits are brought up, this includes shepherds (got one of those myself), mastiffs (mine is crossed with one of them), rotttweilers, etc. when purchasing a dog, one should research the particular breeds traits, and discover how to discourage the inbred traits that labels the breed as vicious or agressive, then take steps to counteract this. THE ONUS IS ON THE OWNER!!!!!!
Our boy is graded as a 'gentle giant' at our regular vets, after consults for his age, (he's 11, when the vet says he should have only lasted 9 - 10 years), and by the lady there who bathes him every six weeks.
He IS gentle, it's in his nature, as much as it's part of his training,
I firmly believe there are individual dogs, of no specific breeds, who will turn nasty, no matter what. that's my opinion, and as an obedience instructor, I've seen 'em all!!!!!!


----------



## Ships (Aug 21, 2011)

I've owned four staffies and currently have one, I've worked in a job for the past 25 years where I have quite a bit to do with dogs and the ramifications of when things go wrong. What I've said has come from experience not soley from opinion.


----------



## Tildy (Aug 21, 2011)

Comes from your experience which granted may be extensive but there are others on here that have quite a bit to do with dogs as well that are not of the same opinion so it's really all a matter of opinion. I guess my point is that you can't tar whole breeds with the same brush. It's up to us humans to step up and take some responsibility instead of these knee jerk reactions to keep the general media fed public happy. It's on par with those morons who go out shooting sharks just cause thier mate got attacked the other week. If you can identify vicious individuals that cant be re-trained then by all means get rid of them, but don't punish responsible owners and innocent dogs because the human population is riddled with idiots. And don't make generalisations that are going to perpetuate the stereotype that has people picking thier little dogs up and glaring at me when I walk my dog like it shouldn't be allowed out in public when half the time thier dog will be the one to growl or snap at my dog which is hiding between my legs.


----------



## Red-Ink (Aug 22, 2011)

How about just some facts hey....

I won't get into the whole pitbull arguments having owned one in the past....

Page 14 may be of interest to people
http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlgho...s of Dog Attacks in NSW 2005-06 - 2009-10.pdf

Page 7 on this one
http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlgho...n/Dog Attack Report July 2004 - June 2005.pdf

Cheers


----------



## phantomreptiles (Aug 22, 2011)

Thanks to everyone for their input it has been most interesting.
At the end of the day any pet/animal has the potential to harm a human - yes even a goldifsh - a drowning risk;-), so all we can do is be as responsible as we possibly can be.
I think everyone that has replied has had their own experience so we always will get conflict. I have had good experience with pits, staffs, rotties, sheps etc, but bad experience with chi, shar peis, akitias, poodles, kelpies, cattle dogs so I am predjudiced toward them and I believe we all do the same with whatever breed we have had a bad experience with. I guess my only issue is if a person cannot 100% identify a dog breed they fall back on - it was a pit bull, so it comes back to my title - "ban the deed not the breed"
To Tildy I also get very annoyed about people grabbing their land shark and glaring at me - depsite the fact that sharkie was trying to take a piece out of my dog, (due to no training as most people don't believe their white fluffy needs training) the problem is if my dog retaliates she most likely will cause alot of trauma, then the papers would have great fun about the nasty pit attacking an innocent fluffy.
I am sure it would of been covered but Pits do NOT lock jaw.

To go off topic, my pit x "Rosie" is going to the specialists tomorrow to have a root canal done so wish her and me (her very, very anxious mother) luck! And no she did not get a fractured carnassial from eating anyone, but from a sawn marrowbone that my ex gave her, depsite my express wishes against it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
View attachment 214732


----------



## ekipkcorb (Aug 22, 2011)

*TurboMoped:*I have been around numerous pitbulls and my educated opinion is that they should remain 100% illegal to breed or own in Australia, Don't believe what pitbull owners try to tell you, the dogs have a genetic disposition for aggression and were line bred for that exact reason. A lot of owners believe they have "trained" their pitbull and got them worked out....this is not the case.

i dont own a pitty..well much of one anyway my dogs dad was pittyx lot of my mates have them and they are the most placid dogs i've ever met. sooks through and through . untrainable ?? bullshit all dogs are pack animals and if there is a leader they will follow. my mate runs a dogtraining business used by rspca and has two purebred razorlines that he uses for the courses. pitbulls are easily the most trainable dog in his eyes and he'd have a pretty sound idea as he's trained over 500 of them. ( i think ceaser millan has a remy bloodline as his own training dog as well). i agree there are the few that give them a bad name and the media will easily jump on that bandwagon and criticize the problem not the answer just as they always do. THE MEDIA IS A JOKE


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 22, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> How about just some facts hey....
> 
> I won't get into the whole pitbull arguments having owned one in the past....
> 
> ...


What I love about those two reports (I read the 2005 one earlier) is how they skew the figures by working out the percentages based on number of registered dogs. Everyone knows that people stopped declaring there pitties to council or lying about the breed when the threat of seizure started to become a real problem. So, even though there are breeds responsible for many more actual attacks than pit bulls, pit bulls come out with a higher per capita percentage rating. Lets face it, they want to bring in the legislation so they'll skew the results anyway they can.

And phantomreptiles good luck to your doggie tomorrow.


----------



## Tildy (Aug 22, 2011)

Good luck phantom. I'm sure Rosie will be fine. I also do think that Red Ink's links are very interesting and definately worth a read. Of all the dog attacks in aust each year, only half result in any injury at all and then only 10% or less result in hospitalisation with only around 1% (if that) resulting in death. And of those dog attacks the majority were determined to be not under control or it was unknown if the owner was even present much less in control (owner responsibility). The most common action against the dog was euthenasia where as up until last year the most common action against the owner was a warning or further investigation. Last year it was a penalty notice (fine). That tells me that tougher laws are needed to penalise irresponsible owners not to restrict dog breeds.

And to all those parents that let thier silly kids throw rubbish and sticks at my dog and dance around yanking thier arms in and out over the back fence, it is you that deserves the fine not me. If a dog ever hurts your kid for doing that feel free to take all of the blame because you didn't teach your kid to be intelligent around animals.


----------



## BigWillieStyles (Aug 22, 2011)

Truth is that it is probably the owners and not the dogs. But the easiest way to deal with the issue is to make the dog breed a less attractive pet as enforcing laws on owners is a lot more problematic. The problem with making the punshiments harsher to owners who were irresponsible, is that they are only enforced after an attack when the damage has been done and most owners will just take the chance that it wont happen to them.

What is so appealing about the breed any way? Its a dog that has been bred for aggression. It seems to me that the image of a tough dog is what makes the dog so attractive as a pet.? 

Its a bit like the case of dangerous weapons in Australia. Automatic weapons in Australia are stictly monitored, surely, another weapon, a dangerous dog, should also be monitored, if not banned.


----------



## ekipkcorb (Aug 22, 2011)

BigWillieStyles said:


> What is so appealing about the breed any way? Its a dog that has been bred for aggression. It seems to me that the image of a tough dog is what makes the dog so attractive as a pet.?


stupid question. whats soo appealing about small dogs then, snakes, lizards, frogs chickens etc. people keep what they adore. to each their own.


----------



## kawasakirider (Aug 22, 2011)

Punish the Deed, not the Breed!

My brother has a staffy/pit mix and he is the most loyal, lovable dog I've seen. He has no issues with other dogs at all. I had an elderly maltese, and they slept together every night when he visited. She would sleep right up against his stomach. This is 35KG of Pure MUSCLE sleeping with an essentially decrepit (not in a bad way, I love and miss Molly dearly R.I.P) rodent sized dog. 

I have plenty of stories and pics I'll post tomorrow.


----------



## ekipkcorb (Aug 22, 2011)

Pit Bull & Chicks - HAPPY EASTER !!!  The Great American Pit Bull Terrier - YouTube


----------



## BigWillieStyles (Aug 22, 2011)

ekipkcorb said:


> stupid question. whats soo appealing about small dogs then, snakes, lizards, frogs chickens etc. people keep what they adore. to each their own.



Yeah sure, but you just completely misinterepreted my question. Given that different dogs have different characteristics and it is a large part of choosing a dog, what are the characteristics that make the Pitbull type dogs different to others?


----------



## ekipkcorb (Aug 22, 2011)

Hilarious! Iguana LOVES Dog Pit Bull Sharky. Happy MOTHER'S Day!!! - YouTube


----------



## BigWillieStyles (Aug 22, 2011)

Nice iguana


----------



## ekipkcorb (Aug 22, 2011)

hahah mate it wasnt meant to be a youtube fight. anyone can play that game. it was just showing that any animal can have a good heart all this nonsense about one breed of dog that is soo misrepresented in the media gets soo many people in an upproar. this isnt even the right forum to be having this conversation about we own reptiles and everyone knows what sort of picture we paint. we try our hardest to make things right but its those random few that get all the headlines. if you cant control your animals then you shouldnt have them


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 22, 2011)

Whats appealing is they are loyal, intelligent, nice looking dogs. Whats appealing about a taipan or a lace monitor. Plus making them illegal just makes the idiots who want them for the wrong reasons want them more.


----------



## longqi (Aug 22, 2011)

It would be interesting to read data on Worldwide Fatal Pet Dog Attacks and see which breed has been the most responsible???


----------



## ekipkcorb (Aug 22, 2011)

i've read somewhere malamutes are pretty high up there in fatality rates.i'll try and find the article


----------



## mrkos (Aug 22, 2011)

BigWillieStyles said:


> Yeah sure, but you just completely misinterepreted my question. Given that different dogs have different characteristics and it is a large part of choosing a dog, what are the characteristics that make the Pitbull type dogs different to others?


pure bred PBS are physically superior to most other breeds of dogs. As someone already said they were initially bred for bullbaiting and from that line a fighting dog was also created during a time when dog fighting was considered acceptable. Apbt puppies and I have seen a few grow up are quite possibly the most well behaved submissive pup you can have and rarely play up they do change a little as they mature and care needs to be taken with them especially around other dogs.


----------



## BigWillieStyles (Aug 22, 2011)

mrkos said:


> pure bred PBS are physically superior to most other breeds of dogs. As someone already said they were initially bred for bullbaiting and from that line a fighting dog was also created during a time when dog fighting was considered acceptable. Apbt puppies and I have seen a few grow up are quite possibly the most well behaved submissive pup you can have and rarely play up they do change a little as they mature and care needs to be taken with them especially around other dogs.



I have to agree about Pit Bulls being superior physically. Despite there other uses, these dogs were bred for fighting, even the name 'Pit' refers to the pits that they fought in. 

Owners will always be biased, but the dogs are clearly an aggressive breed and while there are responsible owners out their, there are also plenty of ignorant ones that wont responsibly manage these dogs.


----------



## joelly116 (Aug 22, 2011)

its how you bring them up my mate has two great with kids and strangers, also my friends she is a vet and thinks germanshepeds are the most dangerous dog you can never tell when they are going to bit or feels threaten they dnt show signs, any one that says pittys are just out to hurt ppl and other dogs either own a house dog with ribbons in its hair, or just dnt get what dogs are like they all can be dangerous its how they are bought up

i dnt own one im going off what a vet says, you just follow the media and stero type i guess,



BigWillieStyles said:


> I have to agree about Pit Bulls being superior physically. Despite there other uses, these dogs were bred for fighting, even the name 'Pit' refers to the pits that they fought in.
> 
> Owners will always be biased, but the dogs are clearly an aggressive breed and while there are responsible owners out their, there are also plenty of ignorant ones that wont responsibly manage these dogs.


----------



## mrkos (Aug 22, 2011)

I don't think they're any more dangerous to humans than any other large breed I can tell you now care has to be taken around other dogs especially larger, dominant breeds a pit will never back down to another dog they may tolerate aggressive behavior from a smaller dog if they don't feel it's a threat. You have to remember a 20 kg Apbt will quite easily savage another dog that's double it's weight and height.


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 22, 2011)

Statistics are fundamentally flawed as the report of dog attack relies on what a person thinks the bred of dog is, lots of dogs are unregistered and this is for a variety of reasons. We breed rotties, a dog which most people do not trust due to it's size and use in recent history, many people do not know for example that they are actually a herding, then a carting dog before they were used as guard dogs. Pitties were bred to dog fight, the opponents owner inspected the dog before a fight to ensure it would be a fair fight, if the dog bit a human it was killed, no human aggression permitted. That does not mean that I support dog fights either, just stating that a dog breed has a long history that is biased by two groups, the ones that love them and the ones that hate them, maybe it's time to pull back at look at the overall picture, not all dogs attack, not all attacks are from one breed, BSL is flawed because it is hard for the average person to pick one breed from another. Consequences for the owner is the solution, if a dog does damage hold the owner responsible!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Suenstu (Aug 22, 2011)

phantomreptiles said:


> I think alrightknight has it in one!


 
Agreed

As I mentioned earlier, I had 2 pitties. Great dogs. Had them from 10 weeks old. Current dog is a rescue dog - fluffy puppy is (we've been told) a 2 year old Maltese/shih Tzu. Shes little and cute and sweet and great with everything except other dogs. My pitties were considerably better mannered in "mixed" company. We do our best to contain fluffy puppy's tendencies and it's all good. The buck stops with the owner - not the breed.


----------



## JasonL (Aug 22, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> But with so many pit type dogs Michael it couldn't and wont be enforceable. If someone gets reported for owning a pitty all they have to say is that it's a staffy. Then what are the authorities going to do?



Put down anything that looks like one, Some councils in Qld have already taken a hard line to dogs and their owners, dog bites someone and it's gone, any dog that gets a complaint of any kind and it will have a dangerous dog label slapped on it and that brings on special (and expensive) keeping requirements or has to be put down. I don't think banning particular breeds is the go as the authorities have no idea how to tell them apart, esp with millions of x breeds ect. Keeping a dog is a privilege and should be regarded as so, all dogs owners should be licensed and all dogs sold to private owners desexed, breeding should be licenced too. Too many good dogs are being put down daily due to over supply yet aggressive dogs are still being bred because some young kid wants to own potential killer to be cool and protect his crop.


----------



## myusername (Aug 22, 2011)

> What I love about those two reports (I read the 2005 one earlier) is how they skew the figures by working out the percentages based on number of registered dogs. Everyone knows that people stopped declaring there pitties to council or lying about the breed when the threat of seizure started to become a real problem. So, even though there are breeds responsible for many more actual attacks than pit bulls, pit bulls come out with a higher per capita percentage rating. Lets face it, they want to bring in the legislation so they'll skew the results anyway they can.



I'm sorry but I don't understand your logic. And it isn't "skewing the figures", it is providing a more accurate depiction of the data. Even if they listed the breeds without numbers of dogs (i.e. not representing the prevalence of the breed within the total canine population) the pit bull would still come in 3rd, 4th, and 7th in those tables in the first report. Therefore, even if ALL breeds were identically distributed, you would be justified in saying the pit bull was more dangerous than most according to the statistics. 
Representing the rate of attack makes MORE sense. If you had only had two breeds of dog in Australia, A and B, and there were 50 000 of A, and 100 of B, and in one year there were 500 attacks by A and 100 by B, which is the most dangerous breed? Clearly we need to work out per capita attacks to account for the difference of the breed's representation in the population. By your logic it should be listed as A being the most dangerous due to the gross number of attacks being highest. This would be misleading, and although what I have presented is an argument in the extreme, I'm merely trying to illustrate that per capita attacks are a more relevant measure than gross numbers of attacks. 


> Statistics are fundamentally flawed as the report of dog attack relies on what a person thinks the bred of dog is, lots of dogs are unregistered and this is for a variety of reasons.



Also, in regards to misidentification, I do not think that in the majority of dog attacks the dog attacks some one on a street and runs away, with only their opinion on what the breed was becoming the identifier. If you look at the second study, I think, you can see the actions taken after the attacks. Sometimes the dog was put down, other times penalties were imposed etc. Clearly the victim knew where the dogs were located in order to have these actions taken, and upon actions being taken the investigating body would be made aware of the breed with certainty, either by visual identification or identification by the owner or identification by a veterinarian etc. So, given that in around 70% of attacks some sort of formal action was taken, we can be reasonably sure of the breed of the dog being correct. The other 30% either no action was taken or it was not certain what action was taken. Even if we assume that in all 30% of cases this was due to no dog being identifiable, we can at least be sure that 70% of the statistics are reliable. What about the other 30%? We would have had to take part in the report to know that. But still, I think that any pit bull owner who claims that the breed is not more dangerous than the average dog is absolutely kidding themselves. It is almost irrefutable. 
That being said I do not support a ban on pit bulls. I think that their ownership needs qualification to ensure they don't fall into the hands of irresponsible owners.

Sorry *kaotikjezta* 




I just got what you meant about the population of pit bulls not being accurately represented due to people not registering them. This is unfortunate, but without an accurate gauge on just how many unregistered dogs there are out there working with registered dogs is probably the only accurate way that data can be compiled. Also, what about the people who misrepresent their pit bulls as staffordshire terriers etc? On one hand this may take away from the total number of pit bulls, thus making their per capita attacks higher (assuming all dogs misclassified did not cause attacks), or alternately, if pit bulls are indeed responsible for more attacks per capita (and the misclassified dogs attacked some one), it could be harming the staffordshire terrier's per capita attack rate.


----------



## Virides (Aug 22, 2011)

Our late dog was a very gentle dog but my Dad always said that children should never be left alone without supervision. We were taught when we were young that a dog can obey directions but ultimately decides what to do when alone. Pack dogs will tend to assert dominance and a child will be challenged (even adults).

Training a dog is the first step, but respect for what all dogs are capable of is what is important. Our dog given the right circumstances could kill as any other dog. Just some dogs are more prone to such behaviour especially when trained to do so.

I knew some rotwielers in my time and despite their image as being "aggressive" these particular ones were very placid. And I always made sure I wasn't alone with them. Respect


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 22, 2011)

myusername said:


> Also, in regards to misidentification, I do not think that in the majority of dog attacks the dog attacks some one on a street and runs away, with only their opinion on what the breed was becoming the identifier. If you look at the second study, I think, you can see the actions taken after the attacks. Sometimes the dog was put down, other times penalties were imposed etc. Clearly the victim knew where the dogs were located in order to have these actions taken, and upon actions being taken the investigating body would be made aware of the breed with certainty, either by visual identification or identification by the owner or identification by a veterinarian etc. So, given that in around 70% of attacks some sort of formal action was taken, we can be reasonably sure of the breed of the dog being correct. The other 30% either no action was taken or it was not certain what action was taken. Even if we assume that in all 30% of cases this was due to no dog being identifiable, we can at least be sure that 70% of the statistics are reliable. What about the other 30%? We would have had to take part in the report to know that. But still, I think that any pit bull owner who claims that the breed is not more dangerous than the average dog is absolutely kidding themselves. It is almost irrefutable.
> That being said I do not support a ban on pit bulls. I think that their ownership needs qualification to ensure they don't fall into the hands of irresponsible owners.



Though remember a pit bull isnt a breed of dog, its a group of dogs, just like mastifs or terriers. Many of these dogs are cross bred and unregistered, so as far as ive researched there is no real way to detemrine what a cross breed actually is, just by its characteristics which is not very accurate. Really unless you get professionals who know a lot about the breed there is very few people who can guarantee that they own a pitbull, were attacked by a pitbull or biopsies confirming it was a pitbull, because today so many dogs share identical features. . If i was attacked by a cane corso or a dogo argentino I would certainly think it was a pitbull. Someone could sell one to me telling me its a pitbull and I would believe them and register it as one. Dogs can't be so easily identified, it actually makes me wonder how many people sell dogs labelled as pitbulls when they are not.


----------



## simonandtoni (Aug 22, 2011)

_(((but the worst breeds to deal with are* shar peis* and akitias, they are extremely aggressive to both animals and humans, but they are not in the news, as pitbulls sound much better media wise)))

_Have you ever kept a Shar Pei? Ours was 18.5 years old when we put him down two months ago and the only thing he ever bit or attacked was his food and beef bones.
We've had English Bull Terriers, Kelpies, Cavaliers and Shar Peis - the kelpie was the worst for aggression and your statement is as ill-informed as what others are saying about your breed.


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 22, 2011)

alrightknight said:


> Though remember a pit bull isnt a breed of dog, its a group of dogs, just like mastifs or terriers. Many of these dogs are cross bred and unregistered, so as far as ive researched there is no real way to detemrine what a cross breed actually is, just by its characteristics which is not very accurate. Really unless you get professionals who know a lot about the breed there is very few people who can guarantee that they own a pitbull, were attacked by a pitbull or biopsies confirming it was a pitbull, because today so many dogs share identical features. . If i was attacked by a cane corso or a dogo argentino I would certainly think it was a pitbull. Someone could sell one to me telling me its a pitbull and I would believe them and register it as one. Dogs can't be so easily identified, it actually makes me wonder how many people sell dogs labelled as pitbulls when they are not.



Isnt the solution just to treat all pitbull like dogs the same. The problem is that the majority of dog attacks or fatal dog attacks if you look at the american study are done by dogs that are identified as pitbulls with certain charachteristics. We should then ensure we manage if not ban all dogs that look like pitbulls.



simonandtoni said:


> _(((but the worst breeds to deal with are* shar peis* and akitias, they are extremely aggressive to both animals and humans, but they are not in the news, as pitbulls sound much better media wise)))
> 
> _Have you ever kept a Shar Pei? Ours was 18.5 years old when we put him down two months ago and the only thing he ever bit or attacked was his food and beef bones.
> We've had English Bull Terriers, Kelpies, Cavaliers and Shar Peis - the kelpie was the worst for aggression and your statement is as ill-informed as what others are saying about your breed.



simon and toni for moral support shar pei or shar pei mixes did not cause any fatal attacks in America over the 24yrs of this study: http://roominate.com/blogg/dog_attacks_1982_to_2006_clifton.pdf.


----------



## Defective (Aug 22, 2011)

i must say, i love bullterriers; their nature in general but again they are in that sterotyped box as dangerous...i can understand it because pitties and bullies are bred for fighting and their jaws lock so they can shake and pull on whatever they have hold of, when my step mum told me to hit 'daisy' the family bullie with a lump of wood if she jumped on the couch, i refused. i use to sneak her up onto the couch in the mornings.

a dogs social behaviour is not only about how its bred (parents etc) but also how its treated as a pup, a traumatic experience for it like being kicked, things hitting it other than a hand, exposure to rough handling (not playwrestling) can be detrimental to the pup. so if we are to lay a blame....lay it on the owners!


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 22, 2011)

Defective said:


> i must say, i love bullterriers; their nature in general but again they are in that sterotyped box as dangerous...i can understand it because pitties and bullies are bred for fighting and their jaws lock so they can shake and pull on whatever they have hold of, when my step mum told me to hit 'daisy' the family bullie with a lump of wood if she jumped on the couch, i refused. i use to sneak her up onto the couch in the mornings.
> 
> a dogs social behaviour is not only about how its bred (parents etc) but also how its treated as a pup, a traumatic experience for it like being kicked, things hitting it other than a hand, exposure to rough handling (not playwrestling) can be detrimental to the pup. so if we are to lay a blame....lay it on the owners!



You are exactly right, the owners are also to blame, but blaming the owners wont solve these problems. Harsh penalties will not stop idiots from bringing up their dogs in a stupid way. We dont trust the general public with guns so why should we trust them with a breed of dog that has shown to kill time and time again. The fact that most individual pitbulls arnt aggresive means nothing, most guns dont kill people either.


----------



## mysnakesau (Aug 22, 2011)

Maybe the authorities need to start strictening up their stance on dog ownership. If they are able to categorise dogs from easy-most difficult to keep then they need to start putting restrictions on the registration of dogs in a similar fashion as our reptile licenses are categories. Years of experience and proof of capability to keep the likes of pit bulls and ALL bull terrier breeds might help get this breed under control. Ordinary ppl buying these dogs as a first pet most likely do not understand the consequences that potentiallly come with owning such dogs. So DON'T BAN THE BREED, LICENSE THE OWNERS. Make them prove they are sensible and capable owners to be able to control them.


----------



## Chantelle_1 (Aug 22, 2011)

I like the idea of making owners get licences. We all had to go out and get a licence for our reptiles, so why shouldn't they?

It might make some of these low socio-economic tools think twice about getting a so called "tough dog" because in the end it would be all to hard (and expensive).

I believe ALL dogs have the ability to bite and inflict damage. I never trust a dog, and I never leave my kids alone with them. And I have 2 dogs myself.


----------



## Defective (Aug 22, 2011)

respect the dogs breed and its natural capabilities and instinct...as soon as you lose that respect you get bitten


----------



## coastalboy (Aug 22, 2011)

LOL you's all make me laugh and yer i am like hitler!!!! those dogs need to die! and they will band them............. then i will laugh out loud at everyone who has one!!! HAHAHAHA.


----------



## Defective (Aug 22, 2011)

take a look at your sig coastalboy.... you don't have the key to the lock!!!!


----------



## kawasakirider (Aug 22, 2011)

Defective said:


> i must say, i love bullterriers; their nature in general but again they are in that sterotyped box as dangerous...i can understand it because pitties and bullies are bred for fighting and their jaws lock so they can shake and pull on whatever they have hold of, when my step mum told me to hit 'daisy' the family bullie with a lump of wood if she jumped on the couch, i refused. i use to sneak her up onto the couch in the mornings.
> 
> a dogs social behaviour is not only about how its bred (parents etc) but also how its treated as a pup, a traumatic experience for it like being kicked, things hitting it other than a hand, exposure to rough handling (not playwrestling) can be detrimental to the pup. so if we are to lay a blame....lay it on the owners!



No dogs jaw locks, it's a myth. Coastalboy, you are a sick person, very cruel. You should be ashamed of yourself, you don't deserve to own any animal with your attitude.


----------



## Mace699 (Aug 22, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> you are exactly right, the owners are also to blame, but blaming the owners wont solve these problems. Harsh penalties will not stop idiots from bringing up their dogs in a stupid way. We dont trust the general public with guns so why should we trust them with a breed of dog that has shown to kill time and time again. The fact that most individual pitbulls arnt aggresive means nothing, most guns dont kill people either.


 mate comparing a pitbull to a gun is stupid. Lets be realistic by that comparison that means elapids, all dogs, and any other item or animal that has the potential to kill should be put under this analogy hell electricity kills more people than dogs do should we ban power as well at the same time.



coastalboy said:


> LOL you's all make me laugh and yer i am like hitler!!!! those dogs need to die! and they will band them............. then i will laugh out loud at everyone who has one!!! HAHAHAHA.



Firstly Mate, learn to spell. Secondly if you have no genuine reason to be a hater other than you're loving the reaction you are getting why bother contributing. The word Troll comes to mind when I think of you. But if you really are that ignorant can you please justify your comments "those dogs need to die! and they will band them" with some solid reasoning other than daddy got bit so they must die? the word is spelt banned by the way.


----------



## kawasakirider (Aug 22, 2011)

Actually, in the context he was using, he should have said "ban", banned is past tense. Just goes to show what an imbecile he actually is.


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 22, 2011)

Mace699 said:


> mate comparing a pitbull to a gun is stupid. Lets be realistic by that comparison that means elapids, all dogs, and any other item or animal that has the potential to kill should be put under this analogy hell electricity kills more people than dogs do should we ban power as well at the same time.



Firstly elapid ownership is monitored. If dangerous dogs were monitored in a similar fashion I would be happy with that. Secondly electricity has a clear functional purpose in society. There are clear social benefits to having electricity widely accesible in society. Dangerous dogs however serve little purpose, the benefit of their ownership is limited.


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 22, 2011)

coastalboy said:


> LOL you's all make me laugh and yer i am like hitler!!!! those dogs need to die! and they will band them............. then i will laugh out loud at everyone who has one!!! HAHAHAHA.



Dogs arent particularly good at manipulating instruments, so they would be no good in a band.

I like the idea that dogs should be on a licensing system, of course it wont stop people but its a start. 

Basic license could by a one time fee which includes most small dogs medium dogs and some of the more family orienated large dogs (labs etc)

and advanced license could be used for dogs that have the "*power" *to do alot of damage if incorrectly trained. to obtain such license you must have proven you are a responsible dog owner who has the knowledge and dedication to own and train these dogs.

The only problem with this is the fact there is so many X breeds making it nearly impossible to regulate what dog belong on what lists. and people will just do the old "not register there dog trick".


----------



## Smithers (Aug 22, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> How about just some facts hey....
> 
> I won't get into the whole pitbull arguments having owned one in the past....
> 
> ...



Good one Red-Ink  Interesting how the month of August had the highest rate of attacks,...they either have the wind up their tails or they are sick of Winter and are up for some carnage.


----------



## Mace699 (Aug 22, 2011)

kawasakirider said:


> Actually, in the context he was using, he should have said "ban", banned is past tense. Just goes to show what an imbecile he actually is.


 touche haha


----------



## Schnecke (Aug 22, 2011)

alrightknight said:


> Dogs arent particularly good at manipulating instruments, so they would be no good in a band.


 Damnit! You beat me to it!! (lolz)


----------



## Frosty (Aug 22, 2011)

My boy goes alright on Guitar Hero.
Big bad Pittie.
View attachment 214788


----------



## mysnakesau (Aug 22, 2011)

Haha I was waiting for someone to pick up on the spelling "band". hehehe


----------



## Boidae (Aug 22, 2011)

coastalboy said:


> LOL you's all make me laugh and yer i am like hitler!!!! those dogs need to die! and they will band them............. then i will laugh out loud at everyone who has one!!! HAHAHAHA.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 22, 2011)

myusername said:


> Sorry *kaotikjezta*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are also cases where councils have seized dogs that are not pit bulls and when the owner has gone to retrieve the dog the councils vet has declared them pit bulls, even though the owner has papers for the dog proving the breed. There was a case in Victoria where the persons dog was impounded for 5 years while they went through court to get it back. When it was returned to them it was an an unhealthy nervous wreck. That's the problem, it is not only owners misrepresenting there dogs, it is places like the Lost Dogs Home misrepresenting seized dogs. There is also the problem as stated several times above of dogs being sold to people as pit bulls when they don't have any pit bull in the them at all. The owner then goes round proudly declaring they have a pit bull when they clearly don't, that dog attacks someone and is seized and the media gets to say it ws a pit bull. As a matter of interest, American and Australian Bulldogs are the most common breed used to hide the fact that your dog is a pitbull as Staffies look nothing like them.



Defective said:


> i must say, i love bullterriers; their nature in general but again they are in that sterotyped box as dangerous...i can understand it because pitties and bullies are bred for fighting and their jaws lock so they can shake and pull on whatever they have hold of, when my step mum told me to hit 'daisy' the family bullie with a lump of wood if she jumped on the couch, i refused. i use to sneak her up onto the couch in the mornings.
> 
> a dogs social behaviour is not only about how its bred (parents etc) but also how its treated as a pup, a traumatic experience for it like being kicked, things hitting it other than a hand, exposure to rough handling (not playwrestling) can be detrimental to the pup. so if we are to lay a blame....lay it on the owners!



No dogs jaws lock, refer to the link a few posts back, it is anatomically impossible.



Chantelle_1 said:


> It might make some of these low socio-economic tools think twice about getting a so called "tough dog" because in the end it would be all to hard (and expensive).



And that is just snobbery

Sorry for the long reply, haven't been here all day.


----------



## phantomreptiles (Aug 22, 2011)

simonandtoni said:


> _(((but the worst breeds to deal with are* shar peis* and akitias, they are extremely aggressive to both animals and humans, but they are not in the news, as pitbulls sound much better media wise)))
> 
> _Have you ever kept a Shar Pei? Ours was 18.5 years old when we put him down two months ago and the only thing he ever bit or attacked was his food and beef bones.
> We've had English Bull Terriers, Kelpies, Cavaliers and Shar Peis - the kelpie was the worst for aggression and your statement is as ill-informed as what others are saying about your breed.


 
If you read post 34, I agreed it was wrong of me to say this, and it just shows how easy it is to condemn a breed. And wow 18.5yrs that's a great age!  I can only hope my dog lives to that age.

To those that wished me luck in regards to my dog having her root canal done - she is back home, slightly groggy, but ok - apart from her mum now being very poor it was a long day


----------



## hypochondroac (Aug 22, 2011)

I got to say i agree with alot of Snakehandlers points but that Table of breeds was pretty ridiculous. More than half of those breeds you'd be lucky to accurately spot in Australia full stop.


----------



## Mace699 (Aug 22, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> Firstly elapid ownership is monitored. If dangerous dogs were monitored in a similar fashion I would be happy with that. Secondly electricity has a clear functional purpose in society. There are clear social benefits to having electricity widely accesible in society. Dangerous dogs however serve little purpose, the benefit of their ownership is limited.


 cool so you understand my why i think your comment comparing dogs to guns is one that really silly. A well balanced and socialised dog is no threat. so the whole argument of banning a breed is silly i for one am for tougher regulation on dog ownership. I for one am in favor of destroying any animal that has proved it can't be trusted. I don't see any benefit of banning a breed as those that keep them for the wrong reasons will still continue to do so and flout the law, and i wouldn't be surprised if this increases the chances of an attack. Although there will now be no registered pit bulls the people keeping them illegally will keep doing the same thing breeding them for there aggressive traits and behaviors. where as if a higher price is charged on an acknowledged registered breed that has been selectively bred for a good temperament and disposition certain people may not be so enticed to buy animal.


----------



## damian83 (Aug 22, 2011)

kaotikjezta said:


> I got attacked by a border collie once, should we put all of them down as well. My ex's mother had to save her neighbors kids from their own Rottie, should we put all them down. I used to get attacked everytime I walked down the street by a neighbours Jack Russell, better ban them now. Humans attack humans for no reason, maybe we should ban humans. When does this end. I have had 2 pittbulls one cross and one pure and they were both the best dogs ever.The only time either of them ever got narky with anyone or other animal was when a little girl shoved a burning stick in his face, then he only barked at her. He used to chase roos and wallabies until he caught up to them and then watch them hop away, he was friends with my cockateil for gods sakes.




if were gonna keep going on about pittys being put down why dont we put down any that have been know to be an agressive dog, why stop there, dingos, hang on dont snakes bite people??? should they be put down??? , next time pub brawls start why dont we put the bloke down who started the fight...... the ones that are agressive are the ones mis treated, in anytype of dog, my bro got a staffie cross that was abused and was nearly put down as it was agro but now a year on its a baby, sleep on his lap in the ute not on the back and "loves" kids...
people that put the blame on the species of dog are just as bad as the owners of the dangerous dogs...... have no common sence



Mace699 said:


> cool so you understand my why i think your comment comparing dogs to guns is one that really silly. A well balanced and socialised dog is no threat. so the whole argument of banning a breed is silly i for one am for tougher regulation on dog ownership. I for one am in favor of destroying any animal that has proved it can't be trusted. I don't see any benefit of banning a breed as those that keep them for the wrong reasons will still continue to do so and flout the law, and i wouldn't be surprised if this increases the chances of an attack. Although there will now be no registered pit bulls the people keeping them illegally will keep doing the same thing breeding them for there aggressive traits and behaviors. where as if a higher price is charged on an acknowledged registered breed that has been selectively bred for a good temperament and disposition certain people may not be so enticed to buy animal.




good idea to ban and make it more expensive so only the rich idiots can afford them???


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 22, 2011)

Mace699 said:


> cool so you understand my why i think your comment comparing dogs to guns is one that really silly. A well balanced and socialised dog is no threat. so the whole argument of banning a breed is silly i for one am for tougher regulation on dog ownership. I for one am in favor of destroying any animal that has proved it can't be trusted. I don't see any benefit of banning a breed as those that keep them for the wrong reasons will still continue to do so and flout the law, and i wouldn't be surprised if this increases the chances of an attack. Although there will now be no registered pit bulls the people keeping them illegally will keep doing the same thing breeding them for there aggressive traits and behaviors. where as if a higher price is charged on an acknowledged registered breed that has been selectively bred for a good temperament and disposition certain people may not be so enticed to buy animal.



Then you obviously dont understand my point. A well balanced and looked after gun wont cause anyone any harm, its when the gun is put in a good for nothing home that things turn sour. 

We know we can treat this breed and its crosses seperately because it has a proven track record for fatal attacks. I am all for highly managing these animals but I dont know if that sort of government input is a viable option.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 22, 2011)

damian83 said:


> if were gonna keep going on about pittys being put down why dont we put down any that have been know to be an agressive dog, why stop there, dingos, hang on dont snakes bite people??? should they be put down??? , next time pub brawls start why dont we put the bloke down who started the fight...... the ones that are agressive are the ones mis treated, in anytype of dog, my bro got a staffie cross that was abused and was nearly put down as it was agro but now a year on its a baby, sleep on his lap in the ute not on the back and "loves" kids...
> people that put the blame on the species of dog are just as bad as the owners of the dangerous dogs...... have no common sence


Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing, did you miss my sarcasm, can't tell online. From were I'm sitting your making the same point I was but unsure of why your quoting me.


----------



## Mace699 (Aug 22, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> Then you obviously dont understand my point. A well balanced and looked after gun wont cause anyone any harm, its when the gun is put in a good for nothing home that things turn sour.
> 
> We know we can treat this breed and its crosses seperately because it has a proven track record for fatal attacks. I am all for highly managing these animals but I dont know if that sort of government input is a viable option.


 Registered guns are stolen all the time or go "missing" lets ban guns then obviously the harsh penalties don't stop thugs from killing police and drug dealers killing each other or their families. Registered gun owners have never accidentally shot themselves or someone else? and cross breeds and unidentified dogs are responsible for many attacks each year, and like i said the statistics are always very inaccurate and any one who's spent time looking into these things will tell you it's impossible to get a clear picture on any true stats other than fatalities caused by animals. 

huskies and malamutes are responsible for more infant deaths than any other dog the information left out is in my mind the most important thing that should be brought up. Majority of the time when the husky has killed an infant is when the dog has been treated like a human or a surrogate child since joining the family. the child then comes along and takes over the dogs role. the irresponsible owner never teaches the dog its boundary around the child or it's new role in the house and the dog then challenges the infant for its spot back in the pack. 

Should they then ban owners from getting one until their children are over 13-15 years old to avoid another death? Maybe just people with no children fullstop should be allowed them. I my self own and have bred huskies and have never been worried about my dogs hurting anyone. in fact my dogs love kids. They know their boundaries and place in my household.

Its People like yourself Grimbeny that go around scare mongering and converting uneducated people or people who are just happy to go with the flock following narrow minded people who want a dictator state. wait a minute I recall reading about NAZI's trying to do a similar thing to a group of people a while back. That didnt work out so well from memory. Very inaccurate comparison yeah? Some might say so. just like your dogs n guns comparison mate..


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 22, 2011)

Mace699 said:


> huskies and malamutes are responsible for more infant deaths than any other dog the information left out is in my mind the most important thing that should be brought up.



What are these stats based on? The american study which has already been posted in here atleast 3 times (http://roominate.com/blogg/dog_attacks_1982_to_2006_clifton.pdf) shows this to be not true (atleast in america) and I very much doubt it is true for Australia. 

People in this thread just continue to fail to realise that although most individual dogs from all breeds are harmless and friendly some breeds are more likely to be bad eggs, esp. when kept by low lifes. This is not any individuals fault, just a correlation. Since guns were outlawed in Australia without a licence we have had a massive reduction in gun related crime.

The NAZIs tried to do what dog breeders like yourself have been doing to dogs for centuries.



kaotikjezta said:


> wait......
> Here we go, American yes but no such data has been compiled in Australia:
> 
> Dog Bite Statistics by Breed, Types of Pit Bulls, Are Pit Bulls Dangerous





In the above quote you refered to a website that refers to a study.

Above I have linked to the actual study results and as you can see your website is fabricated.

Does the readership of this website deserve an appology from yourself for spreading fabricated lies that have been shown to be false?


----------



## Red-Ink (Aug 22, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> What are these stats based on? The american study which has already been posted in here atleast 3 times (http://roominate.com/blogg/dog_attacks_1982_to_2006_clifton.pdf) shows this to be not true (atleast in america) and I very much doubt it is true for Australia.
> 
> People in this thread just continue to fail to realise that although most individual dogs from all breeds are harmless and friendly some breeds are more likely to be bad eggs, esp. when kept by low lifes. This is not any individuals fault, just a correlation. Since guns were outlawed in Australia without a licence we have had a massive reduction in gun related crime.
> 
> The NAZIs tried to do what dog breeders like yourself have been doing to dogs for centuries.



We should never condone the eradication of a breed of an animal based on the actions of a few.....

Guns are illegal and even if they were'nt I would never get one, unfortunately there are a few of us out there that do live in an area where crime would be at a higher rate. Hence you would see why some people get certain breeds of dogs.

If I was going to jump a fence and help myself to somebody else's hard earned posseions..... 
A choice between two or three houses, one with a small fluffy dog, one without or one with a pit?
Which one do you think would be the easy target to get my afternoon fix?

In saying that there is also the nuff nuts that do get these dogs as a form of compensation for their self esteem.....
Should we let these people dictate our choices in life.... I think not! That would be blatantly surrendering to the stupid.


----------



## damian83 (Aug 22, 2011)

kaotikjezta said:


> Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing, did you miss my sarcasm, can't tell online. From were I'm sitting your making the same point I was but unsure of why your quoting me.


 agreeing


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 22, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> In saying that there is also the nuff nuts that do get these dogs as a form of compensation for their self esteem.....
> Should we let these people dictate our choices in life.... I think not! That would be blatantly surrendering to the stupid.



Well because we have failed to admit that there is a legitimate problem with pitbull like dogs a 4 year old is dead. As are atleast 104 americans.


----------



## myusername (Aug 22, 2011)

> As a matter of interest, American and Australian Bulldogs are the most common breed used to hide the fact that your dog is a pitbull as Staffies look nothing like them.



I was merely using staffies as an example; seeing as they share ancestry with the pit bull it's not like they're the most unlikely candidate for misleading identification.


----------



## Red-Ink (Aug 22, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> Well because we have failed to admit that there is a legitimate problem with pitbull like dogs a 4 year old is dead. As are atleast 104 americans.



I'm not saying there isn't a legitimate problem with these types of dogs... I don't agree with eradicating the breed though. As with any animal out there that can do harm eradication would not be the solution but understanding and education is. Pit type dogs are not like regular dogs and education on what they are capable of would be the answer.

Hypothetically what if it was somebodies pet elapid that got out and bit the next door neighbours child (a frightening scenario) resulting in the death of the child. The public calls out for blood and death to all elapids.... Do we condone that as there's a nuff nut out there that uses elapids as a compensation tool for their self esteem as they do pit bulls?


----------



## myusername (Aug 22, 2011)

Some one should put a poll together!


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 22, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> What are these stats based on? The american study which has already been posted in here atleast 3 times (http://roominate.com/blogg/dog_attacks_1982_to_2006_clifton.pdf) shows this to be not true (atleast in america) and I very much doubt it is true for Australia.
> 
> People in this thread just continue to fail to realise that although most individual dogs from all breeds are harmless and friendly some breeds are more likely to be bad eggs, esp. when kept by low lifes. This is not any individuals fault, just a correlation. Since guns were outlawed in Australia without a licence we have had a massive reduction in gun related crime.
> 
> ...



I admit it doesn't gel with the real study but on researching the methods used for conducting the real study and the reason why it was conducted I don't think it is any more credible than the website misrepresenting it. Ok, so there is a breed that continuosly attacks both women and children in it's own household. It has been reported dozens of times but each time it is allowed to return to the household. This breed is a human, it surely should be put down and the rest of it's breed banned and destroyed on sight. Of course not because that is condemning every human for the actions of a few. How is it any different. In fact it is worse because the perpetrator is human and can distinguish between right and wrong. Humans are so quick to judge and so slow to take responsibility.


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 23, 2011)

Earlier someone stated that venomous snakes are regulated, yeah right! Not here in Victoria, if it's permitted to be kept you pay money and you can keep it. We already pay dog registration, we pay per dog, not one permit fee for all of them! The argument over which dog is more dangerous is ridiculous, you can quote stats all day, but in the end it is easy to manipulate figures to prove a point. We hear about big dogs attacking because they are bigger and cause more damage, there are lots of dog bites that go unreported, usually because of minimal damage. To ban an animal based on the potential of the breed to inflict harm on a human will be a very rapid decline in animal keeping in Australia, we keep many animals that can cause harm if not kept properly. This is why the owner should be held responsible for the actions of the pet, it's a control issue, correct housing issue and a training issue, not a dog breed issue.


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris (Aug 23, 2011)

There was an excellent article here in Adelaide in last weekends Sunday Mail (as a man down here was attacked by one of these dogs), the reporter basically summed up the majority of Pit Bull owners as thugs &/or meatheads. I agree. Fortunately public opinion will eventually force these dogs out of suburbia & 6 feet under.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 23, 2011)

That is honestly the most judgemental comment I have ever heard. I am neither a thug or a meathead and I have owned them.


----------



## Chris (Aug 23, 2011)

kaotikjezta said:


> I am neither a thug or a meathead



I don't believe anyone said you were?


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 23, 2011)

Chris_D said:


> There was an excellent article here in Adelaide in last weekends Sunday Mail (as a man down here was attacked by one of these dogs), the reporter basically summed up the majority of Pit Bull owners as thugs &/or meatheads. I agree. Fortunately public opinion will eventually force these dogs out of suburbia & 6 feet under.


 
Actually Chris you did indirectly by stating you agree with the reporters statement that most pitbull owners are thugs.

I know lots of people who own pitties and very few of them would fit into this category, infact many of them have rescued the dogs from pounds and taken them to obedience classes so they don't get destroyed because of over opinionated people who like to blame animals for the faults of the humans around them!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 85Hickey (Aug 23, 2011)

OH my..Your all a joke look at you all!! half of you aren't even on topic. Fact is, there illegal, and will always be illegal. Face up to it and stop trying to help a messed up breed, and its messed up owners!


----------



## jam89 (Aug 23, 2011)

pffff please the Goverment has no idea how to deal to any situation other than to ban something or make up a law that inables them to fine or put fees associated to various things there slowly controling more and more things and we loose our rights more and more people dont kick up a fuss because they do it in the name of something ie. peoples safety road safety animal wellfare what ever they can sell it as to get it passed the masses in the name of something and if you oppose it your made to look like the worse person/group of people around like this you say Pit bulls are ok but then they say your a thug that just wants a dog to harm others pfff please how offten did you see police and security firms use pit bulls they dont they use larger dogs to knock people down if you look its happening to all areas of life these days to name a quick few the live beef export (could have worked something better out there) Victory and NSW reducing speed tollerences to 0% so if your doind 61 in a 60 you get a fine that in the name of safety but how safe do you feel knowing people are going to be watching there speedo more than the road to avoid a fine look there are many examples people need to stop having knee jurk reactions to everything and work out a better sollution because at the end of the day these breeds will be around no matter what, I happen to know a few people with cross breeds that have pit bull in them and have been cleared by council officers to not have pitbull in them so work that one out. there are many things that can harm us and kill us but you cant go banning everything crap snakes harm and kill how long till its illegal and or costs the earth to keep one and pay to have your enclosure certified and inspected ? just like dogs some councils make you pay higher fees if you have what they class as a dangerous breed and there are some 10-15 breeds on that list and i love it when people run the line there illegal so why go on about it like they have never once broken a law the fact is belive it or not the goverment and councils get it wrong at times but as long as there making money off something or seeming to appease the masses they will just continue to do as they do and make things tuffer and harder by taking the easy root on every thing to win votes or make $$$$ Pitbulls where breed to help with wild cattle and pigs then used in dog fights not to attack humans, breeds like rotty's and german sheppards are used to attack people and guard against people entering places im aware all dogs can do this but to turn around and say a certant breed was breed to harm and there for must be banned is stupid crap ridgebacks where breed to hunt lions but there are many dogs breed for many reasons and i would much rather fight off a 25kg pitbull than a 60kg+ rotty or sheppard

o and her is a good read to both help people when faced with a nasty dog probably a good thing to go through with your kids to help keep them safe and with some interesting stats 
http://www.gtp.com.au/kidsafeqld/inewsfiles/inews.2773.1.pdf


----------



## coastalboy (Aug 23, 2011)

Very cruel and Sick!!!!!! ***... i own thousands of dollars worth of birds and snakes..... but these dogs..... are sure not on my nice list. if i hate them then good on me like come on there has to be a negitive in every post!!!! LOL


----------



## Red-Ink (Aug 23, 2011)

85Hickey said:


> OH my..Your all a joke look at you all!! half of you aren't even on topic. Fact is, there illegal, and will always be illegal. Face up to it and stop trying to help a messed up breed, and its messed up owners!



I'm pretty sure their restricted and not illegal.....


----------



## captive_fairy (Aug 23, 2011)

My girl, Gypsy, was the best dog I've owned...Her owners died and she was about 4 when I got her...She was so loyal, absolutely great with kids, Biggest sook ever but...She was scared of just about everything (funniest thing was watching her at the beach, she was scared of the moving water...She'd chase my other dogs to the water line then bolt backwards when the water came in)
She was good with other dogs too, once when I was walking her we had a foxy run up yapping at her, she just sort of tilted her head looking at it as if to say "you can't be serious".


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 23, 2011)

I love that first shot


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 23, 2011)

85Hickey said:


> OH my..Your all a joke look at you all!! half of you aren't even on topic. Fact is, there illegal, and will always be illegal. Face up to it and stop trying to help a messed up breed, and its messed up owners!


 
Actually they are NOT illegal, they are a restricted breed, it is still legal to own them under specific guidelines! So the joke my friend is on you! Many people have forgotten however that the banning of a specific animal because it has the potential to do harm or perhaps even kill is only one step away from banning some of the reptiles that many people keep or want to keep for exactly the same reasons! It's time people actually took some degree of responsibility for actions and stopped looking for someone or something else to blame.


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 23, 2011)

I think if people in Australia want to keep them then it should be the people doing the right thing's responcibility to ensure they dont get in the hands of the wrong people. Otherwise I think we need a couple of thousand gun shots across the country to bring this problem under control!


----------



## Ships (Aug 23, 2011)

Banning of venomous reptiles, please, how many reptiles get out and kill or attack other people. Venomous reptiles are a primary danger to their keeper, pity its not the same with the dogs.


----------



## Chris (Aug 23, 2011)

Ships said:


> Venomous reptiles are a primary danger to their keeper, pity its not the same with the dogs.



Correct.... & so ends the thread....


----------



## longqi (Aug 23, 2011)

I am not really a dog person so forgive me if I ask a silly question

So many times in this thread it has been stated as fact that dogs cannot lock their jaws
Years ago I had to use a tyre lever to remove some type of bulldog from a kids leg
If it wasnt 'locked' it was doing a pretty good impression


----------



## motman440 (Aug 23, 2011)

Most common breed causing severe bodily harm is the Labrador. Lets ban them??


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 23, 2011)

Actually the primary people affected by dogs are the owners and their families, just like keeping a venomous snake in a collection. It is not common for a dog to escape from a yard and cause a death....and how many threads have you seen "help my snake has escaped" so it then poses a threat to others if it is a venomous snake!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's go for another knee jerk reaction and ban German Shepherds because of todays incident......or maybe hold the owner responsible and give them a real consequence for the actions of the animals they own!!


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 24, 2011)

Just thought this might cheer things up a little


----------



## Defective (Aug 24, 2011)

thats adorable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## -Peter (Aug 24, 2011)

motman440 said:


> Most common breed causing severe bodily harm is the Labrador. Lets ban them??



and your source is? This thread is getting pretty much a back slapping session, When does Alan Jones arrive?

Lonqi, they have very strong jaws with tremendous muscle strength but no locking system.


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 24, 2011)

Note the new 'whiskers' and 'hair' inside the ears?


----------



## Just_Joshin (Aug 24, 2011)

In NSW, they are a restricted breed. This means that they are not permitted to be advertised for sale or bred. If you currently own it then you can keep it. These are the only restrictions. It does mean, however, if everyone did the right thing, the breed would eventually disappear in NSW. 

The restrictions to the way you house/keep your dog only come into place if you have had a 'dangerous dog' order placed on your animal by council. This may occur if your dog has attacked or killed another animal or bitten a member of public etc. In this case, the animal must wear a fluro yellow or pink heavy duty leather collar and be enclosed in "run" when kept at home in the yard. The run has minimum size restrictions. It must also gave a concrete floor, locked door and a roof. These are to ensure the dog cannot dig out, jump out or be accidentally let out. 

Fines for not complying with restricted breed legislation can be up to $16000. 

Not complying with dangerous dog orders cab result in similar fines and the dog being destroyed.


----------



## myusername (Aug 24, 2011)

> The argument over which dog is more dangerous is ridiculous, you can quote stats all day, but in the end it is easy to manipulate figures to prove a point.



No offence but that is a terrible excuse, usually used by people who have absolutely no rebuttal. In this case there have been a number of reports shown (all with very similar and seemingly conclusive findings, mind you) and all everyone can seem to come up with in response to them is that 'you can use figures to prove anything' or 'people do not represent the breed properly', or even 'that dog attack / fatality report is biased'. It's the oldest excuse in the book and it's used by every person on here defending the pit bull. Please present some sort of evidence. 
Once again my position is regulation and qualification, not a ban.


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 24, 2011)

Problem is, the councils have the right to 'identify' your dog as a 'dangerous breed' even if you have papers stating otherwise, if they think it even remotely looks like one they can fine you for not having it registered as one, fine you for not having it locked up, and can even take it away.


----------



## Just_Joshin (Aug 24, 2011)

Firedrake said:


> Problem is, the councils have the right to 'identify' your dog as a 'dangerous breed' even if you have papers stating otherwise, if they think it even remotely looks like one they can fine you for not having it registered as one, fine you for not having it locked up, and can even take it away.



In NSW they cannot. The reasons there are still so many pitbulls are is the fact that people register them as staffyX on the microchipping paperwork and get away with it. Unless it looks like a pure bred red nose pitbull it can be extremely hard to prove its not just some sort of "staffy x" as the pit bull breeds, amstaffs etc all have similar heritage. Therefore, the owner can defend the fact that it is simply a staffy x of some description and just happens to look like a pitbull.


----------



## coastalboy (Aug 24, 2011)

OMG.... now this is just getting out of hand!!!!!!!!! the REALITY is that they are and will be Slammed as dangerous and banned breed.

STOP pointing the finger to other breeds!! and YOU will not be able to stop the fact. no matter how cute or calm the dog is. and all my life i have not herd of any other breed of dog killing a person.! * there might have been but i havent herd or seen it* 

When that girl died from the pitty attack, i had someone say to me it was probally her fault for teaseing it.! thats bull, it was in there yard when it shouldnt have been and it GOD DAMM KILLED HER!!! can't yous get it threw your head's?? Just think if yous have little kids. one day they dog might turn on them and you wont be able to save the kid.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! think about it hard.!


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 24, 2011)

I think I read that on a Victorian site, sorry. I only remember because I found it appalling that they could go against what official papers you have and make up their own minds, which would be terrible if you had a few people on the council who decided they hated pitbulls and wanted them gone.

Like him ^

And actually Coastalboy it was in their house, now I would love to know who lets a neighbour's dog into their house to be alone with a four year old child huh?


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

coastalboy said:


> OMG.... now this is just getting out of hand!!!!!!!!! the REALITY is that they are and will be Slammed as dangerous and banned breed.
> 
> STOP pointing the finger to other breeds!! and YOU will not be able to stop the fact. no matter how cute or calm the dog is. and all my life i have not herd of any other breed of dog killing a person.! * there might have been but i havent herd or seen it*
> 
> When that girl died from the pitty attack, i had someone say to me it was probally her fault for teaseing it.! thats bull, it was in there yard when it shouldnt have been and it GOD DAMM KILLED HER!!! can't yous get it threw your head's?? Just think if yous have little kids. one day they dog might turn on them and you wont be able to save the kid.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! think about it hard.!


It actually chased some other kids that were out on the street into their house if you want to get technical, also, it was a crossbreed for a start off, it could have been 1/10th pitbull and the media would still be saying it was a pitbull. As for the little kids statement, my youngest son was three when I had a pure pitbull and 5 when I had a cross. My daughter-in-law grew up with pitbulls, as did my grandson and granddaughter so don't make assumptions. There is an aboriginal mission in Nambucca heads that can get pretty dodgy at times, pitbulls and staffies are the only two breeds of dogs they trust with their kids. You quite often see little kids walking round the mission with there dogs in tow. There has never been one attack on a child there by a human or a dog, ever, and they have been using those types of dogs for years and years, probably longer than you've been alive so keep your uneducated opinions out of it until you can back them up with real facts, not media generated propaganda.


----------



## coastalboy (Aug 24, 2011)

On the news it said they were in their back yard when the dog came over.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

I have read three separate reports as I don't have a TV to watch the news, and all said the kids were in the street and the dog chased them into the house.


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 24, 2011)

kaotikjezta said:


> It actually chased some other kids that were out on the street into their house if you want to get technical, also, it was a crossbreed for a start off, it could have been 1/10th pitbull and the media would still be saying it was a pitbull. As for the little kids statement, my youngest son was three when I had a pure pitbull and 5 when I had a cross. My daughter-in-law grew up with pitbulls, as did my grandson and granddaughter so don't make assumptions. There is an aboriginal mission in Nambucca heads that can get pretty dodgy at times, pitbulls and staffies are the only two breeds of dogs they trust with their kids. You quite often see little kids walking round the mission with there dogs in tow. There has never been one attack on a child there by a human or a dog, ever, and they have been using those types of dogs for years and years, probably longer than you've been alive so keep your uneducated opinions out of it until you can back them up with real facts, not media generated propaganda.



What like BS anecdotal evidence that is not related to the problem?


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> What like BS anecdotal evidence that is not related to the problem?


Funny how when it's defending the breed it's BS but wen it's condemning it it's the truth.


----------



## Just_Joshin (Aug 24, 2011)

coastalboy said:


> OMG.... now this is just getting out of hand!!!!!!!!! the REALITY is that they are and will be Slammed as dangerous and banned breed.
> 
> STOP pointing the finger to other breeds!! and YOU will not be able to stop the fact. no matter how cute or calm the dog is. and all my life i have not herd of any other breed of dog killing a person.! * there might have been but i havent herd or seen it*
> 
> When that girl died from the pitty attack, i had someone say to me it was probally her fault for teaseing it.! thats bull, it was in there yard when it shouldnt have been and it GOD DAMM KILLED HER!!! can't yous get it threw your head's?? Just think if yous have little kids. one day they dog might turn on them and you wont be able to save the kid.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! think about it hard.!



Dude, take a deep breath, get your over dramatic uneducated head screwed on straight and then go and re-read my post. Nowhere did i "point the finger" at other breeds or make excuses for the pitbulls. I simply pointed out a fact (one that i know from experience) that explains how we still have so many pitbulls in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Now.....here is my take on the pitbull saga......

I personally, agree with the fact that the majority of the problem surrounding pitbulls is their upbringing and the lack of training they have received. The fact is, pitbulls were bred, as the name suggests, to fight in pits. The have been line bred to exhibit undeniable strength both in body and bite and have a "blood thirsty" and aggressive streak to them. This is a fact that no-one, no matter how much you try, can defend.

NOW..I also agree that in general terms, the pitbulls themselves are not aggressive dogs if brought up correctly. They can be loving, caring, obedient, kind hearted, loving family pets. However, the problems exists in the fact that IF or WHEN something causes a dog to lash out or have a "brain snap", a pitbull is capable (and has been seen over and over) of delivery devasting damage in a VERY VERY short time frame. They have been designed to inflict major damage, they are stronger and deliver a much more powerful bite then many other breeds, larger or smaller than themselves. 

It is unfortunate that too many people own them that do not give them the proper training and upbringing to dramatically minimise the risk of such an attack occuring. The fact is, the majority of people who owns these type of breeds do so because they want a dog that is loyal to them and WILL get aggressive and attack people. They buy these dogs BECAUSE they are tough, BECAUSE they can kill many other breeds. BECAUSE they will rarely back down from a challenge/fight and BECAUSE they like the stigma associated with owning a breed of this nature. This unfortunately has lead to the breed being regarded as "restricted" and will ultimately lead to this breed becoming illegal in every sense of the word if something is not done soon.

All of these thoughts DO NOT extend to Xbreeds. I am purely commenting on pure bred pittys.

Just to be sure everybody understands what breed the media is talking about as well i have attached some pics. Bullys are very commonly mistaken by the public as pittys.
*THIS IS A PITTY*
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../220px-American_Pit_Bull_Terrier_-_Seated.jpg
*THIS IS A BULLY
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...emelle.jpg/220px-Bullterrierrouge_femelle.jpg*


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

Funny thing is, they have tried banning Bull Terriers in the past for the exact same reasons.


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 24, 2011)

The one Bull Terrier I knew, I didn't trust, but the family that owned him had two small children and did trust him. I always thought that Bull Terriers were more likely to turn neurotic and paranoid because of their tendancy to go blind and deaf later in life, therefore I would trust a Pitty over a Bull any day. My parents owned a Chihauha when I was a baby, he went blind and would attack anything that moved so they had to get him put down. I know an Amstaff pitty cross and he's the most loving thing in this world, the couple who own him have a four year old girl and they trust him with her. It's up to the people who keep these dogs to earn the good name they deserve as protectors and loyal loving companions, and up to the few mongrels out there who own them as fighting machines and give them this bad rap to go and drop dead or get themselves killed.


----------



## coastalboy (Aug 24, 2011)

Just_Joshin said:


> Dude, take a deep breath, get your over dramatic uneducated head screwed on straight and then go and re-read my post. Nowhere did i "point the finger" at other breeds or make excuses for the pitbulls. I simply pointed out a fact (one that i know from experience) that explains how we still have so many pitbulls in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
> 
> Now.....here is my take on the pitbull saga......
> 
> ...



THATS totally understandable! but what i cannot get is why everyone is trying so hard to keep them. seriously if i had a dog then it was class as dangerous or banned! i deffiently wouldn't keep it no matter what!!!!!!!!!!!!... you tell me to get my head straight i think other in this post need more straighter heads then me! and saying you seen a lab or kelpie or blue healer bit someone , they should band them, that is pointing the finger.!!!! I have fully grown bull mastiffs and yes they are massive dogs, bigger then pittys and if any of them bite or even showed aggression to someone i would get rid of it.! its just common sense.!???

i no people with roman nose terriers and beleive me they are one ugly dog! i would never own it. its surprising what people call cute and attractive these days aye.... im over this post. this is my last post and if they are banned dogs and they are going to crack down it might be wise not to post pictures of your dog on here aye.!


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

coastalboy said:


> THATS totally understandable! but what i cannot get is why everyone is trying so hard to keep them. seriously if i had a dog then it was class as dangerous or banned! i deffiently wouldn't keep it no matter what!!!!!!!!!!!!... you tell me to get my head straight i think other in this post need more straighter heads then me! and saying you seen a lab or kelpie or blue healer bit someone , they should band them, that is pointing the finger.!!!! I have fully grown bull mastiffs and yes they are massive dogs, bigger then pittys and if any of them bite or even showed aggression to someone i would get rid of it.! its just common sense.!???
> 
> i no people with roman nose terriers and beleive me they are one ugly dog! i would never own it. its surprising what people call cute and attractive these days aye.... im over this post. this is my last post and if they are banned dogs and they are going to crack down it might be wise not to post pictures of your dog on here aye.!


Hmm, they have tried to ban Bull Mastiffs in the past as well, they are the kind of dogs most of the people that want these dogs outlawed don't like, so are your dogs the kind of dogs that have no place in suburbia.


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 24, 2011)

As if you would part willingly with any pet of yours whether they'd just mauled someone or not! I can guarantee if you have any compassion for your animals you would be bawling your eyes out begging for their release, making excuses for them.


----------



## Australis (Aug 24, 2011)

To play devils advocate...


> 33 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2010. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 500 U.S. cities, pit bulls led these attacks accounting for 67% (22). Pit bulls make up approximately 5% of the total U.S. dog population









Source: 2010 U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities - DogsBite.org


Now if a breed only making up 5% of North Americas dog population can be reasonable for 67% of fatalities, there is obviously a serious problem associated with the breed.

Read some of the stories, it would seem its not just obvious fighting dogs, but also loved family pets that are causing fatalities. 


Here is just one:


> Christine Staab
> 37-years old | Philadelphia, PA
> Christine Staab, 37-years old, was mauled to death by one of her mother's six pit bulls. The victim had gone to her mother's home early that morning and the two reportedly had an argument, which set the dog, named Jade, off. The pit bull latched onto Christine's throat, killing her. The dog did not let go of the victim until being shot to death by Philadelphia police officers (a second pit bull was also shot dead at the scene). Christine's stepfather, Thomas Fowler, and mother, Barbara Erb, defended their pet pit bulls on local news stations. Erb described the six pit bulls as "house dogs" that were well cared for and even microchipped for identification. "They were spoiled rotten," Erb said. "They were not neglected in any way." Both Fowler and Erb pleaded with authorities to have the remaining four pit bulls seized by authorities returned to them


----------



## Smithers (Aug 24, 2011)

Bull Breeds are awesome, That's all I have to say


----------



## Australis (Aug 24, 2011)

Firedrake said:


> As if you would part willingly with any pet of yours whether they'd just mauled someone or not! I can guarantee if you have any compassion for your animals you would be bawling your eyes out begging for their release, making excuses for them.



If a dog i owned mauled someone, i wouldn't think twice about putting a bullet in it.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

Australis said:


> To play devils advocate...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quoting data from an anti-pitbull site is no more usefull than quoting from a pro-pitbull site.


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 24, 2011)

Hello, they don't like threats against their family!!! Being the loyal pack animals they are they won't stand for anything that they perceive as violence, whether it be arguing or yelling or squealing kids! That pitbull was 'defending' her owner, the fact that the daughter had gone over there and had an argument with the owner (her mother) had 'set the dog off' as was reported!


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

And reading the data, nearly all of the children killed by dogs were killed by other breeds, and a lot of the adult cases were dogs kept in pits, chained, not trained properly, strangers in the house, arguments and violence, etc. Ten therer are all the cross breeds that they have reported as pibulls disregarding the mix. It is also interesting that when you read the citations, the news coverage of attacks by other breeds don't include what breed in the headlines like they do for the pitbull attacks, it is also interesting that they refer to crossbred pitbulls in the headlines as pitbulls.


----------



## Red-Ink (Aug 24, 2011)

Neither pro nor against the breed... though I have a soft spot for them having owned one.

The bottom line is they are not like a "regular" dog, they have a predisposition to explosive sudden violence, they're stronger than other dogs, their stubborness and sometimes untrainable attitude, their need for proper socialisation... all need to be taken into account when owning one.

Fail to do so then it's your own fault for not understanding and taking that into account and I would fully support having the owner charge to the full extent of the law (heck throw the book at them and charge them with man slaughter if it results in a fatality or grevious assualt if it bites somebody). But to ban the breed is a knee jerk mob mentality which IMO would be illogical.
I for one do not want the choice taken away from me in deciding to own one again should I choose to do so by the fear mongering masses or this over letigious government trying to appease the scared masses and stay in power.

Make the penalties tougher then only the truly responsibles ones would even think of getting them.


----------



## Australis (Aug 24, 2011)

Firedrake said:


> Hello, they don't like threats against their family!!! Being the loyal pack animals they are they won't stand for anything that they perceive as violence, whether it be arguing or yelling or squealing kids! That pitbull was 'defending' her owner, the fact that the daughter had gone over there and had an argument with the owner (her mother) had 'set the dog off' as was reported!



You don't really think its acceptable for a dog attack to be triggered by squealing kids?



kaotikjezta said:


> And reading the data, nearly all of the children killed by dogs were killed by other breeds, and a lot of the adult cases were dogs kept in pits, chained, not trained properly, strangers in the house, arguments and violence, etc. Ten therer are all the cross breeds that they have reported as pibulls disregarding the mix. It is also interesting that when you read the citations, the news coverage of attacks by other breeds don't include what breed in the headlines like they do for the pitbull attacks, it is also interesting that they refer to crossbred pitbulls in the headlines as pitbulls.




What data, where? 

Would it really matter where i got data from? 
If i trawl online journal databases, and cite data published in peer reviewed journals i cant imagine you would accept that either.


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 24, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> Fail to do so then it's your own fault for not understanding and taking that into account and I would fully support having the owner charge to the full extent of the law (heck throw the book at them and charge them with man slaughter if it results in a fatality or grevious assualt if it bites somebody).



Do you think this sort of post event punnishment will make the low lifes who are buying a dog because it is awesome and could kill someone think that the risks are too high. Or will they just think that it wont happen to them. If it is the latter then the punishment is not doing anything to protect the poor 4 year old girls who are being mauled to death!



Australis said:


> You don't really think its acceptable for a dog attack to be triggered by squealing kids?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldnt argue with him Australis he earlier posted a website that had these statistics that were "based" on a previous study. When i found the previous study through google scholar, i found that the website was a complete fabrication and the study actually showed that pitbulls were responcible for more deaths than any other breed despite accounting for a small number of the dogs in the US. Statistical data is not rellevent to these people, only their experience...


----------



## Crystal..Discus (Aug 24, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> Make the penalties tougher then only the truly responsible ones would even think of getting them.



This and completely this. It needs to apply to EVERY animal though. People buy puppies not knowing what they're truly getting into, and five years later it spends 98% of its life in a yard with no attention. Then when the animal lashes out or gets out (causes havoc) the owners ask everyone but themselves "why?"

I'd be happier if there was a licensing system in place to own dogs (yearly registration, movement advices, mandatory vet checks etc), but I'd settle for fines that had a little more 'oomph' behind them.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

Australis said:


> You don't really think its acceptable for a dog attack to be triggered by squealing kids?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A study on dog bites was published in 2006 in _The Veterinary Journal._ The authors collected data on the characteristics of dog bites over a period of 8.5 months in six different hospital emergency departments. In 67% of the documented incidents, the bites appeared to be triggered by an interaction with a child, and so-called “dangerous dogs” were not responsible for the majority of the incidents.http://www.breeders.net/k9-articles/2010/08/pit-bulls-vicious-or-poorly-bred-and-socialized/#_edn1_
Another study published in the journal Pediatrics in 1994 identified German Shepherds and Chow Chows as the dogs most likely to bite.[ii] In this study, cases were selected from dogs reported to Denver Animal Control in 1991 for biting.
A study published in 2008 in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science came to a totally different conclusion after studying 30 dog breeds using the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire:Breeds with the greatest percentage of dogs exhibiting serious aggression (bites or bite attempts) toward humans included Dachshunds, Chihuahuas and Jack Russell Terriers (toward strangers and owners); Australian Cattle Dogs (toward strangers); and American Cocker Spaniels and Beagles (toward owners). More than 20% of Akitas, Jack Russell Terriers and Pit Bull Terriers were reported as displaying serious aggression toward unfamiliar dogs. Golden Retrievers, Labradors Retrievers, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Brittany Spaniels, Greyhounds and Whippets were the least aggressive toward both humans and dogs.[iii]



http://www.breeders.net/k9-articles/2010/08/pit-bulls-vicious-or-poorly-bred-and-socialized/#_ednref De Keuster, Tiny, Lamoureux, Jean, and kahn, Andre. Epidemiology of Dog Bites: A Belgian Experience of Canine Behaviour and Public Health Concerns. The Veterinary Journal 172(3): 482-487. November, 2006.
[ii] Gershman, Kenneth A., Sacks, Jeffrey Jl, and Wright, John C. Which Dogs Bite? A Case-Control Study of Risk Factors. Pediatrics 93(6): 913 – 917. June, 1994.
[iii] Duffya, Deborah L., Hsub, Yuying, Serpell, James A. Breed Differences in Canine Aggression. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114(3): 441 – 460. December 1, 2008.



​



grimbeny said:



Do you think this sort of post event punnishment will make the low lifes who are buying a dog because it is awesome and could kill someone think that the risks are too high. Or will they just think that it wont happen to them. If it is the latter then the punishment is not doing anything to protect the poor 4 year old girls who are being mauled to death!



I wouldnt argue with him Australis he earlier posted a website that had these statistics that were "based" on a previous study. When i found the previous study through google scholar, i found that the website was a complete fabrication and the study actually showed that pitbulls were responcible for more deaths than any other breed despite accounting for a small number of the dogs in the US. Statistical data is not rellevent to these people, only their experience...

Click to expand...


I'm a female just for the record and I also acknowledged that the website had indeed changed the results of the study in question but if you want to start in on personal attacks be my guest just don't expect me to play._


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2011)

Australis said:


> You don't really think its acceptable for a dog attack to be triggered by squealing kids?
> 
> What data, where?
> 
> ...



sorry people but IMO anyone that is pro-pit bulls really isn't playing with a full deck. Why people NEED a dog that regularly maims &/or kills other animals or people is beyond any of us that were born with a brain & any sense of logic.


----------



## Bec (Aug 24, 2011)

I wasent going to comment on this thread because after reading it theres all different facts. The person that started this thread is right on the ball about sharpei's. We are owner's of sharpei's and have seen first hand what they can be capable of. If they want to go ahead and ban pitbulls why not ban sharpei's aswell? Ill post pic's of our sharpei later on. Everyone really needs to do research before buying any breed of dog. Its common sence. Im not saying every breed of dog has some bad in them but no one can say every breed is perfect. No one has even said to us sharpei's are savage untill unfortunently we had to get 2 put down. Sadly molly was only 15 months when she was put to sleep and paige was 2 when she had to be put down. We did our research on this breed and only recently has it been added over in china they fight them. Ive seen some lovely sharpei's and i have to of the most placid dogs ever.


----------



## Australis (Aug 24, 2011)

I used google to find you had just copy & pasted your post from a webpage...
Fair enough, but maybe make that clearer for everyone.
Anyways.. so ive gone to the same website (Breeders.NET: Dog Breeders Search Directory) and read the same article "Pit Bulls: Vicious or Poorly Bred and Socialized" fairly balanced overview of the situation it would seem.

Now within that very article it clearly asserts (and shows data) pit-bulls are responseable for the majority of dog attacks resulting in fatalities... which is what your arguing against? 

With data shown for fatal attack between 1979 & 1997 (Centers for Disease Control Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46(21): 463-467 . May 30, 1997)

As follows:

Pit Bull = 60 
Rottweiler = 29 

And the list goes on... 
Pit Bulls: Vicious or Poorly Bred and Socialized : Breeders.net – K9 Articles


Now ive used your own source of information, so hopefully you don't denounce it lol


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

Australis said:


> I used google to find you had just copy & pasted that entire thing from a webpage.
> Fair enough, but maybe make that clearer for everyone.
> Anyways.. so ive gone to the same website (Breeders.NET: Dog Breeders Search Directory) and read the same article "Pit Bulls: Vicious or Poorly Bred and Socialized" fairly balanced overview of the situation it would seem.
> 
> ...



The writers personal interpretation of the data:

After doing the research for this article, I ended up with the following conclusions:
1. Any dog can bite, given the proper circumstances. A review of anecdotal news reports shows that even a Pomeranian has been guilty of killing an infant.
2. Certain breeds tend to do more harm than others when they do bite.
3. Pit Bulls are one of a short list of breeds most often associated with fatal attacks.
4. Other breeds, including German Shepherds and Chow Chows are far more likely to bite than Pit Bulls, but bites from these breeds tend to cause less damage than bites from Pit Bulls.
5. People who live with any dog have a responsibility to train their dogs and properly socialize them to reduce the number of dog bites and fatalities.
6. Breed-specific legislation doesn’t work. Banning breeds tends to push them to the black market, which results in poor breeding practices and ultimately leads to an increase in the number of dogs that are abandoned when they don’t meet the guardian’s expectations. In addition, legislation is expensive and difficult to enforce.
7. The best strategies to prevent dog bites from any breed of dog are:


Buy from a reputable breeder.
Socialize your dog from an early age.
Neuter your dog.
Restrain your dog in a fence rather than on a chain.
Teach your children how to behave around dogs.

I didn't quote the other article as it has already been quoted earlier and you wanted peer review studies that said otherwise.


----------



## Red-Ink (Aug 24, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> Do you think this sort of post event punnishment will make the low lifes who are buying a dog because it is awesome and could kill someone think that the risks are too high. Or will they just think that it wont happen to them. If it is the latter then the punishment is not doing anything to protect the poor 4 year old girls who are being mauled to death!
> 
> .



Banning is not a preventative measure it's a illogical knee jerk reaction....
Do you think prohabition should be enforced as one day some low life might drink and drive and potentially slaughter a whole family in another car... heck do you think cars should be banned as under irresponsible drivers and hoons they have the potential to kill.. (say a 4 year old girl down the street or in another car the result is a death so what's the difference between the car and the dog when the end result is the same; a dead four year old girl)

Moot argument... but if your talking about what could happen post results alot of things and scenarios out there can cause horrific carnage...Why don't we just ban them all.


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 24, 2011)

I also noticed that alot of the incidents relate to a 'new addition' or someone looking after the dog for the owners, often it was NOT a person the dogs knew closely. They may be classed as 'family' but it was mostly aunts, uncles, and step-parents looking after these animals as well as new parents. Dogs don't take kindly to a new member of the family taking up their place as second or third in line, they are ALL prone to jealousy.

The majority of attacks were by un neutered/spayed animals as well.


----------



## Australis (Aug 24, 2011)

You didn't quote anything, you copy/pasted a portion of an internet article (Btw what you posted was not at all a peer reviewed journal article).. and copied some of its references. 

Besides im discussing fatal attacks, not people being bitten by dogs?

Either way, you seem to find some value in that article, and the article shows pit-bulls were responsible for more than double the fatalities (U.S)of any other breed between 1979-1996. Do you accept this?


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2011)

becandjesse said:


> I wasent going to comment on this thread because after reading it theres all different facts. The person that started this thread is right on the ball about sharpei's. We are owner's of sharpei's and have seen first hand what they can be capable of. If they want to go ahead and ban pitbulls why not ban sharpei's aswell? Ill post pic's of our sharpei later on. Everyone really needs to do research before buying any breed of dog. Its common sence. Im not saying every breed of dog has some bad in them but no one can say every breed is perfect. No one has even said to us sharpei's are savage untill unfortunently we had to get 2 put down. Sadly molly was only 15 months when she was put to sleep and paige was 2 when she had to be put down. We did our research on this breed and only recently has it been added over in china they fight them. Ive seen some lovely sharpei's and i have to of the most placid dogs ever.



Good point, they don't have the same 'reputation' doen here as the pit bull though. Dunno about in the US.



Smithers said:


> That's a pretty low comment mate.



Fair point, my apologies.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

Australis said:


> You didn't quote anything, you copy/pasted a portion of an internet article (Btw what you posted was not at all a peer reviewed journal article).. and copied some of its references.
> 
> Besides im discussing fatal attacks, not people being bitten by dogs?
> 
> Either way, you seem to find some value in that article, and the article shows pit-bulls were responsible for more than double the fatalities (U.S)of any other breed between 1979-1996. Do you accept this?


As stated dogs are quite often sold to people as pitbulls when they are not, they also don't distinguish between purebred and crossbred. The conclusion drawn was the writers personal conclusion as stated by the author.The article was not peer reviewed and I never said it was but most of the studies posted in the article were so your just nitpicking. If you like, I will go and join the science website that publishes said studies and quote directly from it.



Chris_D said:


> Good point, they don't have the same 'reputation' doen here as the pit bull though. Dunno about in the US.


Exactly right, they don't have the 'reputation'
[h=2]rep·u·ta·tion[/h]   [rep-yuh-tey-shuh




n]noun

1. the estimation in which a person or thing is held, especially by the community or the public generally; 

Reputation and truth are two completely different things.


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 24, 2011)

Have there been any studies in Aus about these sorts of incidences yet? I'd be interested to see what percentage of dogs kept in Australia are these 'dangerous' breeds.

Friends of mine own a Shar-pei bullmastiff cross and I don't trust him as much as I trust my neighbour's Rottie or their pure Bullmastiff, he isn't neutered and to me seems a little 'too' playful. He's only young and very well behaved but in my eyes I wouldn't leave anyone alone with him as he's quite big and very strong. He gets kicked and smacked when he's done something wrong and I think he would hold it against any human in general.


----------



## Australis (Aug 24, 2011)

kaotikjezta,

Come on, you don't see my point at all?

My argument is that Pitt-bulls are responsible for a disproportionate number of fatalities. You then contest this with an opinion article, and specifically quote mine its comments on dog BITES. Conveniently neglecting to mention the very same article contains a table of dog attack fatalities showing pit-bulls to be responsible for more than double the fatalities of any other breed. 

Do you dispute this information??????


----------



## browny (Aug 24, 2011)

how many breeds will this eventually involve, think about it

wasnt that long ago that rotties were on the worst dog list and spread all over the media at that time i had 2 gorgeous well behaved rotties an omg the abuse i would get simply exercising myself an dogs, no1 cared they would lick anything and nothing more......point of this is as previously noted the treatment they recieve during the upbringing is what makes the majority of the individual dogs attitude towards anything and everything they need to bring in tougher laws on everyone who wants to keep dogs or this will just move onto another breed then another breed


also as was mentioned already about licensing of dogs.....um it is a legal requirement to licence your dog yearly the thing is so many ppl dont because its a big cost and hassle having to show the breed at time of registration, perhaps larger penalties for unlicenced is needed also its simply a case of the government needs to stop and think about it before they try a quick fix.......since they do that with everything else good luck with that one the day the government stops and thinks will be one to remember


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 24, 2011)

Of course there are more fatalities with Pits or Pit crosses, their jaws are designed for maximum damage as has already been covered. What are the results of overall dog attacks whether resulting in death or not? Discounting any attacks that involve a conflict, change of owner or any unusual circumstance (renovations/constructions/new baby). How many of these are 'out of the blue' and how many of these pitbulls have been 100% positively identified as Pits and what have the crosses been crossed with?


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

Australis said:


> kaotikjezta,
> 
> Come on, you don't see my point at all?
> 
> ...


I already answered your question previously. Councils, witnesses, dodgy breeders and the dogs owners frequently misrepresent dogs as pitbulls. This is done for a variety of reason, councils wanting to impose laws, backyard breeders wanting to make money, witnesses not knowing any better but being influenced by media reports and people buying dogs advertised as pit bulls when they are not. As stated earlier, most people wouldn't know a real pitbull if they fell over one. The study you are referring to also concludes that pittbull fatalitys peaked at 12 in 1988 but dropped to 5 in 1994 and 3 in 1996 whereas rottweilers rose to 10 in both 1994 and 1996 so taking the study over the whole span is misrepresenting the findings.


----------



## Australis (Aug 24, 2011)

Well i give up on you kaotikjezta. You use an article to (i presume) further your argument that actually just cements mine.


----------



## FAY (Aug 24, 2011)

Please be nice in this thread. Everyone has an opinion and it may be different from yours...please respect that. OR, it will be closed or moved.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

Australis said:


> Well i give up on you kaotikjezta. You use an article to (i presume) further your argument that actually just cements mine.


As i added before you replied:
The study you are referring to also concludes that pittbull fatalitys peaked at 12 in 1988 but dropped to 5 in 1994 and 3 in 1996 whereas rottweilers rose to 10 in both 1994 and 1996 so taking the study over the whole span is misrepresenting the findings.


----------



## Australis (Aug 24, 2011)

You don't seem to be grasping the value of data at all. Data collected over a longer period is more meaningful not less so. And again your cherry picking... and worse still you seem to be trying to undermine the very article you brought into the discussion?



But looking at the same table, which is presented in increments of 2 years (which you seem to have missed) . Not one of the 2 year periods is with out a fatality from a Pitt-bull. Where as 4yrs (two increments) have zero fatalities from rottweilers.

If a narrow focus (time-frame) is used the data is LESS meaningful. Look at the 2yr period 1979 & 1980 where the Great Dane (watch out FAY) caused more fatalities than any other single breed, more than either a rottweiler or pit-bull for this period. If we were to narrow the focus this much, with out being able to take into consideration the lack of fatalities caused by Great Danes over the following years, we wouldn't have proper over view. 

The below is from: Pit Bulls: Vicious or Poorly Bred and Socialized : Breeders.net – K9 Articles


----------



## grimjob (Aug 24, 2011)

there is no such thing as a bad dog only a bad dog owner, im all for pittys my mate had a cross and it was the most loyal placid thing in the world


----------



## Snake Catcher Victoria (Aug 24, 2011)

Havnt read all the posts but I was sent a video today that is relevant...i think
[video=youtube;8VzREzK4hUY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VzREzK4hUY&amp;feature=youtu.be[/video]


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

Thanks for that snakeman, awesome video.


----------



## jam89 (Aug 24, 2011)

You can get multiple different versions depending on the channel you watch it on the media loves beating these things up more than what they are and im in no way saying this wasnt a bad situation only that they will take something anything small and make it huge they dont wanna rub people the wrong way so to keep the masses happy they bring stories that are on a safe line for them ie. bigger issues poodle bites kid and people are going to think pff what ever kid probably pissed it off and deserved it but kid bitten by pitbull well now we have people listening and it fuels the hate for the hatters.
And Australis i see what your saying but honestly i think death stats from America while valid really doesnt apply so much here when they have a huge cult following over there and they are used in alot more violent ways over there ie dog fights yes they get used for that here but its far more common in USA and by the undesiarables we have breeds here they dont they show up high in bites records but again i think any bite info is not a fare way to look at these breeds no matter what they are as is stated pitbulls and larger breeds will inflict bad bites hence more commenly reported bites from smaller breed far less likely my sister had a border collie and it bit there friends kid no major damage and the parents weren't that worried about it but my sister put the dog down that dog was bought as a pup and brought up with her and 6 kids and was never abused or miss treated it was around 4 when it bit and only a few weeks ago a friends border collie tried to bite my leg when i left the property even with the owner there the dog was a fear bitter due to the previous owners miss treatment and this dog is still alive and still has the same issues to this day same breed 2 different up bringings same results one had a responsable owner doing the right thing the other not this is the real difference and and both of these where not reported every breed has potential to attack just some are reported more than others all that needs to be done is better regulation of these breeds owners and how they are kept and tuffer penalties for people that have a known dangerous dog no matter the breed that dont take measures to prevents attacks happening.


----------



## Waterrat (Aug 24, 2011)

Interesting video. They say "don't listen to the media hype, listen to the breeders". The breeders are fine, it's the red-necks idiots who buy them from the breeders because they need a status symbol - to "express" themselves. They are the ones with small d***s and equally small brains.
But they can't be banned, can they!


----------



## Suenstu (Aug 24, 2011)

Thanks for posting that ssssnakeman. 
There were some beautiful dogs there that SO reminded me of mine! I do still miss them, ten years later. 
The actions of the minority shouldn't dictate or determine the future for the rest. 
I can't support genocide, and that appears to be what is being promoted. This will always be an emotional argument for many, and it's a great thing that we all have our opinions and that we can express them. I lost count of the number of times I had to verbally defend my dogs over the 8 - 9 years that I had them. Funny thing is that most of the time they won they argument themselves, because they were just lovely with people and were so well behaved.

Next time I see a news article where any other animal has attacked a human, I wonder how many people will be wanting to "ban" that animal? 

Perhaps guys, we just need to agree to disagree.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 24, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> Interesting video. They say "don't listen to the media hype, listen to the breeders". The breeders are fine, it's the red-necks idiots who buy them from the breeders because they need a status symbol - to "express" themselves. They are the ones with small d***s and equally small brains.
> But they can't be banned, can they!


Reputable breeders, as you know yourself, are usually able to spot an idiot buying an animal for the wrong reasons very quickly.


----------



## ittybitty (Aug 24, 2011)

Im quite amused at those who think Pitties are more dangerous because they have 'lock jaw'....

Lockjaw in dogs is just a Myth, it is scientifically proven that a pitbulls jaw is no different to any other breed of dog. Be it a Chi or a sibe etc..

The truth is, before dog fighting pitties were used as gripping dogs with bullbaiting. In which they would grip and hold the bull by the nose, ears or neck and wait for it to drop.

The structure and function of the pit is no different to any other breed. 

Its just a shame that when bullbaiting was banned, idiots that owned the breed discovered dogfighting. And the pit was highly prized because of its jaw strength.


----------



## jam89 (Aug 24, 2011)

ssssnakeman thanks for that what a great video


----------



## Smithers (Aug 24, 2011)

Bravo, The true side of the animal.Thank you Baz


----------



## Slateman (Aug 24, 2011)

I watch this topic closely, and when things get hot, we will close it before people start fighting here and friendship between members get affected. We know that there is lot of pitbull owners who love they pets and we don't really want to hurt them. I personally think that this breed is not best choice for domestic pet in suburban environment. But I don't have one of them also. That is why this is easy to say it for me. I know few people who do have this dogs in outback and use them for hunting. I think that they choose this breed for that purpose for reason. I also can imagine that they are lovely pets and great with kids and people in most cases. But in case something go wrong and dog get crazy for any reason, I prefer this dog to be Maltese terrier. And they are cases when things can go wrong for many reason.


----------



## Jeffa (Aug 24, 2011)

20 pages about a possible ban on a dog that will resolve NO issues and have NO effect whatsoever on what the government may choose, wether they ban the breed (not going to happen). What needs to happen is potential pet owners (of most breeds)need to have met a certain criteria to meet the requirements of each breed, so that ultimately the breed of the dog benefits and also to phase out some of the scum that own these pets for the wrong reason. I have grown up being responsible for the pets I house and relate to the motto "housing pets is a priveledge, not a right!) This topic is getting old and if you cant get it into your head that if you cant be responsible for your pets, no matter the possible actions they may cause (eg mauling and death) and the ultimate penalty time you may spend in jail for negligence and fail of meeting the rights for the benefit of the the pet, society and your own wellbeing than dont get one (simple)

Can we please move on


----------



## reptinate (Aug 24, 2011)

I would love to own an APBT. Hopefully i will be able to one day. They are such beautiful looking dogs.

Some people are so ignorant. It's not the breed, it's the owner. If you treat any dog badly or don't socialize it and lock it up, then there is a higher risk of it becoming aggressive. I do not believe dog attack statistics, since most times numerous breeds are lumped under the "pit bull" label (including cross breeds). That is not right. 
Everytime there's a dog attack involving a "pit bull" (even though a lot of the time it's not or is a cross breed) it's straight on the news. But what about all the other dog attacks that happen? They're rarely reported. Oh that's right it wasn't a "pit bull" so it doesn't matter. It's ridiculous. People need to stop being a bunch of sheep and stop believing everything they see on TV. I don't see people calling for other breeds to be banned when one attacks someone.

Most people could not identify an APBT (including me) and could easily be mistaken. It took me 4 guesses to identify the APBT in the Snakehandlers earlier post. Thanks for that by the way, I'll show that to family and friends. I'm sure it'll take them even more times to get it right.

My sister and her husband bought two staffies (actually they got them free) They never take them out for walks or to socialize them. They have not registered either of them and have no plans to. All they want to do is breed them to make money. It's these sort of irresponsible owners that produce bad dogs. People are the problem. Not the breed. Banning them will do nothing. Idiot owners will just move on to another breed.

When you want to know about a certain breed, be it Geman Sheperds, Dobermans, Collies, Jack Russells, ect, who is best to advise you? A person with experience and knowledge of that particular breed.
So as far as I'm concerned, the people we should be listening to are the responsible APBT owners. They own these dogs. They know these dogs. They have experience with these dogs. Not fear mongering idiots or idiot politicians who want to make out like they're doing something about reducing dog attacks.

Sorry for the long post, I just hate what's happenning to these dogs. Innocent dogs who have done nothing wrong being put down simply because they're a 'pit bull' just aint right.


----------



## Just_Joshin (Aug 24, 2011)

ittybitty said:


> The structure and function of the pit is no different to any other breed.
> 
> Its just a shame that when bullbaiting was banned, idiots that owned the breed discovered dogfighting. And the pit was highly prized because of its jaw strength.


 
It is EXACTLY the structure and function of the pitty that gives them the jaw strength they possess. High domed skull, muscular jaw and the way the muscle attaches to the jaw. Length of the jaw compared to the jaw hinge also plays a role.


----------



## pharskie (Aug 24, 2011)

Its a joke, has anyone mentioned that over in america the Australian Cattle Dog is a restricted breed. So you have this same debate going on over in american reguarding dogs that we here hold in high reguard.
The truth is that the modern day American Pitbull Terrier, English Staffy, American Staffy and Bull Terrier are dirrectly linked to the old English Bulldog. As the owner of a Neo-mastiff x "american staffy" i can honnestly tell you the only problem i have encountered is the fact he snors so damn loud. He is listens to me like a champ, even at the packed out dog park i only have to speak ONCE and he does exactly as he is told. 
Now for everyone in NSW i have some very important information for you.
If you have a pitbull or pitbull cross, and your local ranger decides he is going to flex his muscles, he MUST give you writen notice of intent to take your dog. It must be in writing. This is so you have time to either prove that its not a pure breed pitbull or so you can build the proper enclosure to keep the dog in. They can only take the dog if it off your property or proving to be a risk to the public. 
Read up on your rights as people and the voice of your mute mate.


----------



## ittybitty (Aug 24, 2011)

Just_Joshin said:


> It is EXACTLY the structure and function of the pitty that gives them the jaw strength they possess. High domed skull, muscular jaw and the way the muscle attaches to the jaw. Length of the jaw compared to the jaw hinge also plays a role.





Have u ever seen a pit scull x-ray along side another?? Or even better, analysed 3D skulls of a pit beside a GSD scull? sure when it comes to the whole dog, they 'look' different..But the way the muscle attaches to the Jaw and builds up, takes deliberate work on the dog to use that area. i.e encouraging the dog to bite and hold a strong object, Playing tug-o-war etc. Muscle tone does not just 'appear' for lack of work. 

You can build up a muscular jaw on any breed with the right approach. But there is no such thing as 'lock jaw'


----------



## reptinate (Aug 24, 2011)

All APBT owners, supporters and anyone opposed to BSL should organise a protest and take their dogs too. It's about time we did. 

Here's The American Temperament Test Society site: American Temperament Test Society, Inc. | A sound mind in a sound body in which the APBT passed at a rate of 86.4%. Better than a lot of other breeds. Including Collies, Golden Retrievers, Dalmatians, pomeranians, ect. 

Here's a site with all the myths answered and information about the breed. Also videos showing just how loving and great APBT can be. And a bite force comparison in which the Rottweiler had the strongest bite.

Please watch these. They make me so sad. These dogs are beautiful and deserve better. So do their owners.

Also Pit Boss on Animal Planet is a great show and again shows how great they really are. 

Breed Information Center

The Truth about pit bulls - YouTube

In Memory of All Pitbulls - YouTube

The Great American Pit Bull Terrier - YouTube

Pit Bull Pride - YouTube

Bite force competition Between Rottweiler, German Shepherd, and Pitbull. - YouTube


----------



## redlittlejim (Aug 26, 2011)

hmmm, i hate to say it but how can you say that breed etc are not a factor.... i totally get that alot is in the owner and they can be bred to be lovely dogs. yours for example. but its just like with a jungle python.... there are plenty that are placid but why do people say "typical" jungle temperment? its because breeds, whether cats, dogs or snakes etc all have a "general" characteristic. pitts just happen to be very violent (not necessarry full aggresive but when they do they are killers!


----------



## Snowman (Aug 26, 2011)

Just ban the breed. And while you are at it ban any animal that was not living in Australia 1000 years ago. We don't need them


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 26, 2011)

Haha Snowman, so we don't need horses, cows, sheep, goats and most other sources of food and income then? Not to mention all the white settlers not being here that long ago...


----------



## aoife (Aug 26, 2011)

i have a rottie x pitty & a jack russell. my jack russell is way more aggressive than the rottie x. he has big dog syndrome & thinks he can take on anything :shock: anyways im on the pitty's side. it's the owner not the breed.


----------



## Snowman (Aug 26, 2011)

Firedrake said:


> Haha Snowman, so we don't need horses, cows, sheep, goats and most other sources of food and income then? Not to mention all the white settlers not being here that long ago...


NOPE! The indiginous survived with out them  But seriously we are talking pets... No need for exotic pets.


----------



## sd1981 (Aug 26, 2011)

I own English Bull Terriers & have been told to muzzle my "pitbull" when out in public by ignorant people who look at my little hurcules and think he must be vicious. i find it absolutely tragic what happened to that young child.... but that could have been any dog & any child... my mates 2yo son was mauled by 3 maltese terriers & a fox terrier... he was in a critical conditon & required blood transfusions & intensive care treatment... small dogs can do just as much damage to such soft skin....
moral of the story is not to get complacent around any dog/ animal as they can all do damage.... just sad thats all....


----------



## Exodus (Aug 26, 2011)

i had a friend of mine who bought a white and black pitty... and she was saying "it is NOT the breed, they are not viscious" etc etc.. well.. we didn't say much at the time (they were on a farm).. but the day DID come, not long after its 1st birthday, when it latched onto one of her young daughters! the child survived, but the pitty didn't.. this pitty was a yard dog only and very spoilt! .... unlike all other breeds, this breed was developed for killing only!... and i have heard over and over "my pitty isn't viscious, it is how you raise it" etc etc.. and then the dog bites!

and yes this was a purebred american pit bull... 

n.b. the English Staffordshire Bull Terrier no longer carries the "bull" in its name, it is simply known as a staffy or staffordshire terrior...


----------



## myusername (Aug 26, 2011)

Speaking of dogs losing it... my friend's neighbours have a dog called bonkers (ironically, apparently it is a beautiful and calm dog). It had never attacked anyone etc, beautiful temperament and it had been raised by responsible owners etc. These people also had loads of chickens and the dog had been raised with them and never really showed any interest in them, even when they were roaming, never aggressive towards them or attacked them or anything like that. Anyway, one day my mate came home to his neighbours (mum and daughter) out front of their house crying and hugging, so he asked what was wrong and the mum was like "Bonkers has gone mad!". Anyway, long story short my mate had to spend his Saturday afternoon cleaning up the remains of about 20 chickens that had been absolutely torn to shreds. I never found out from him what made the dog start his little rampage, I don't even think they would have known either. The dog is back to normal now anyway, and they haven't replaced their chickens.


----------



## ittybitty (Aug 26, 2011)

> this breed was developed for killing only!..




You are so wrong..... the Pitty is one of a few dogs that WERE NOT bred for killing. They were bred for bull baiting. This is to bring down and hold a bull, but NOT to kill it. When Bull Baiting was banned, THEN idiots got a hold of them and turned them into fighting dogs. 



> n.b. the English Staffordshire Bull Terrier no longer carries the "bull" in its name, it is simply known as a staffy or staffordshire terrior



Also wrong... The AMERICAN Staffordshire Terrier had 'Bull' removed from its name.... But the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's name remains the same, as per the ANKC. Get to know your breed standards before making statements you dont know the facts of!

Australian National Kennel Council


----------



## Recharge (Aug 26, 2011)

either ban the *dangerous* (or more likely to be dangerous) breeds, or making training (under certified trainers) mandatory under licencing. (this includes human children  )


----------



## Slateman (Aug 27, 2011)

Recharge said:


> either ban the *dangerous* (or more likely to be dangerous) breeds, or making training (under certified trainers) mandatory under licencing. (this includes human children  )



I would make mandatory licencing for owners of all dogs.
Simple ...... You want dog? So learn how to treat the animal properly and how to give it proper care and be prepared to be held responsible for any action your animal does.


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 27, 2011)

That's nice in theory, should this be imposed on reptile keepers too? How many times do we hear of people who have no idea on how to keep reptiles, at least with dogs, in most cases there is a legal limit as to the number they can have and they require each individual to be registered! That's why people should buy from registered breeders who will be available to give advice and guidance and also impose contracts of sale. 


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Suenstu (Aug 27, 2011)

Some really good points raised, but seriously does anyone else feel this thread is just going around and around in circles now?


----------



## BallaratWildlife (Aug 28, 2011)

As somebody abouve has mentioned, pit bulls, along with most of their relatives were bred not to kill. Having lived in north queensland i had alot of exposure to these types of dogs when we used to catch pigs to feed the parks crocodiles. any dog that kills a pig would never be used again, the mean simply isnt sellable. well bred dogs wont hold their prey anywhere except the ears (this includes my 2 year old pitty cross) most people in rural areas up there keep bull arabs, pit bull crosses ect (although i had seen very few pure pitties i have never been a fan of pure breed dogs anyway) but the fast majority of "piggers" have young kids, hence the amazing qualities of bull arabs. while my girl may have amercan pitty in her, she comes from lines that have been bred in aus for a different purpose for genorations. its no different to the fact that pet german sheaprds and "working line" shepards are different, yes genetics has to lay a part but there are many genetic lines within a breed and very few pit bull type dogs in aus would have come from any line used in fighting


----------



## kawasakirider (Aug 28, 2011)

sd1981 said:


> I own English Bull Terriers & have been told to muzzle my "pitbull" when out in public by ignorant people who look at my little hurcules and think he must be vicious. i find it absolutely tragic what happened to that young child.... but that could have been any dog & any child... my mates 2yo son was mauled by 3 maltese terriers & a fox terrier... he was in a critical conditon & required blood transfusions & intensive care treatment... small dogs can do just as much damage to such soft skin....
> moral of the story is not to get complacent around any dog/ animal as they can all do damage.... just sad thats all....



I bet that never made the news, either. I'd hate to be a small child up against a foxy.


----------



## Red-Ink (Aug 30, 2011)

Here's the latest on this in Mexico...

It's the end for unregistered pit bull terriers in Victoria | Herald Sun

My Q is how exactly are they going to identify that the dog is a pit bull.....

1) It's unregistered so how are they going to find the dog?
2) If they find one how are they going to prove it's a restricted breed?
3) I live in Brimbank council and in all honesty they were investigated for corruption themselves and their a bunch of (insert apt word that would get me banned and probably branded as a restricted troll on the forum)...

This is now really giving me great concern as I have this dog and I was told by the ranger around my neighbourhood that "hey nice pitty mate, make sure you put a muzzle on it"












No he ain't a pitbull... no where near being a pitbull. Lucky for me his microchipped and registered with the council...
Good to see at least they are well informed in these new laws their going to enforce


----------



## Smithers (Aug 30, 2011)

Aussie Bulldog Red-Ink ? loven the Brindle


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 30, 2011)

Wonder how much reward money they get for dobbing in a 'restricted breed'...Love your Aussie bulldog Red-Ink such smiley dogs 

Anybody else notice the chart in that article? Where there are less 'restricted' dogs there are actually more attacks, and less attacks where there are more of these 'dangerous' dogs.


----------



## Red-Ink (Aug 30, 2011)

Yeah guys... he's an Aussie bulldog.

The frieghtening thing is the Herald Sun in the hard copy ran a one page article with diagrams on how to identify a "pitbull" by conformation standards and description.
I had a knob here at work jumping up and down saying ban the breed as he reads the paper, I asked him what a pitbull looked like and he pointed to the description on the paper and said he would be able to indentify them from that and that he would dob people in....

I printed out the confirmation standards for the staffordshire bull terrier and gave him a copy (cutting out the breed name) and said "is this the same standards" he said "yes, they must have copied it from the page."

I then showed him the website on where i got the breed standard from and proceeded to call him a sheep and before he follows a law or dob somebody in he probably should know what the hell he's talkin about... Sadly that is going to be the general reaction of people out there given the fear mongering the media drummed up on this. Average Joe would'nt know a pity from a staffy or any other bully breed if it bit them on their behind yet it's out with the pitch fork and torches and kill them all...


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 30, 2011)

That has certainly got me panicking. I have an old lady up the road from me that hates everyone and dobs people into the council for the most ridiculous things, leaves on the footpath etc. She really doesn't like me as I allow my lawn to get over two inches long at times and she doesn't like dogs. My Bull Mastiff x Bull Arab has already been called a pitbull. If she wants to be really spiteful she just has to ring the hotline and make up some rubbish about my dog and bam, it's all over. It is really scary this dob in your neighbor rubbish. My friends Uncle got his house torn apart at gunpoint with his little kids present and was then detained for 10 days without charge because he is an Indonesian Muslim and some racist neighbor reported suspicious activity to the terrorist hotline. Leaving this kind of thing in the hands of the public who have already been whipped into a fear frenzy by the media is going to result in a lot of heartache for families who own dogs that people perceive as dangerous.



Red-Ink said:


> Yeah guys... he's an Aussie bulldog.
> 
> The frieghtening thing is the Herald Sun in the hard copy ran a one page article with diagrams on how to identify a "pitbull" by conformation standards and description.
> I had a knob here at work jumping up and down saying ban the breed as he reads the paper, I asked him what a pitbull looked like and he pointed to the description on the paper and said he would be able to indentify them from that and that he would dob people in....
> ...


Yep, and reading some of the comments on that article, people will deliberately do in staffies and the like because they think all those types of dogs should be banned.


----------



## BigWillieStyles (Aug 30, 2011)

The new laws today seem to have tried to make owners more accountable as well as stricter conditions on keeping these dogs. They are apparently constructing a profile of how these dogs can be identified. 



ittybitty said:


> You are so wrong..... the Pitty is one of a few dogs that WERE NOT bred for killing. They were bred for bull baiting. This is to bring down and hold a bull, but NOT to kill it. When Bull Baiting was banned, THEN idiots got a hold of them and turned them into fighting dogs.



How is he so wrong? They were bred for an aggressive temperament! It doesnt matter what they were first used for, the fact of the matter is they were bred for fighting and bull baiting and pig hunting and to have an aggressive nature suited to these uses. Even the name 'Pit' refers to the pits they fought in!


----------



## K3nny (Aug 30, 2011)

BigWillieStyles said:


> How is he so wrong? They were bred for an aggressive temperament! It doesnt matter what they were first used for, the fact of the matter is they were bred for fighting and bull baiting and pig hunting and to have an aggressive nature suited to these uses. Even the name 'Pit' refers to the pits they fought in!



Fact is heaps of other dog breeds were also bred for hunting, yet you don't see them being culled
take the Rhodesian Ridgeback, these were bred to take on lions.


----------



## Jeffa (Aug 30, 2011)

The government is cracking down on potentially dangerous dog breeds that are unregistered and unlicenced.
If there is a problem then do something about...


----------



## alrightknight (Aug 30, 2011)

Great danes were originally bred for one thing: Bull Baiting. But you never hear anything about them, as I guess that trait has been bred out of them.

Though I believe this thread is just beginning to repeat the same arguments over and over.


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 30, 2011)

Some of the stories on here are sad, basically in NSW they DO have the right to seize your dog under suspicion and you have 2 weeks to make the necessary arrangements to keep them. So you've got 14 days to move house or build a concrete prison for it.

Dogs Life Articles, Dog Information - Dog Breeders - Dog Training,


----------



## mrkos (Aug 30, 2011)

I would love to see half these people identify the original old style pittbulls with their floppy ears and brown noses they could easily be mistaken for a lab cross. They are still some around today but they are harder to come by.


Red-Ink said:


> Yeah guys... he's an Aussie bulldog.
> 
> The frieghtening thing is the Herald Sun in the hard copy ran a one page article with diagrams on how to identify a "pitbull" by conformation standards and description.
> I had a knob here at work jumping up and down saying ban the breed as he reads the paper, I asked him what a pitbull looked like and he pointed to the description on the paper and said he would be able to indentify them from that and that he would dob people in....
> ...


----------



## ittybitty (Aug 30, 2011)

> How is he so wrong? They were bred for an aggressive temperament! It doesnt matter what they were first used for, the fact of the matter is they were bred for fighting and bull baiting and pig hunting and to have an aggressive nature suited to these uses. Even the name 'Pit' refers to the pits they fought in!



NO DOG IS BORN AGRESSIVE.. Its STUPID owners and breeders that raise them this way... So because a pitbull was originally bred to bring down bulls but not kill, means they are aggressive? Does this mean because an Australian Cattle Dog is bred to nip at the heels of its herd of cattle make it aggressive? Or because an Irish Wolfhound was bred to drag men off horseback and kill elk and wolves, does that mean it is aggressive? Or the much loved Boxer, that was bred to bring down bear, wild boar and deer? The beloved whippet that is found lounging around in so many households in the world, it is a SIGHTHOUND bred to hunt and bring down small game.. Does that mean it is aggressive?? No?? I thought as such.. 

I think alot of people are so misled about the Pitbull's nature, and believe the rubbish about them being aggressive from the time they are born, that they forget to look at the dog that is in their own backyard.. So many people buy on impulse and dont read about the breed they are buying, therefore if the dog screws up, its that particular breed that gets the blame and the label 'dangerous', not the owner who should be banned from owning dogs full stop.

Funny how so many are quick to jump on the pitbull because they think they were bred to fight from day dot, which they werent... 

But how many of you own a Staffordshire Bull Terrier??? Just about every second person in my suburb owns a staffy. I dont own one, but have plenty of friends who show them.. So many people recommend staffies as being GREAT family pets, and great with kids. I agree... they are a wonderful breed of dog, as loyal as dogs get. 

How many of you know though, that the Staffy was seen in a dog fighting ring before the Pit Bull? Staffies were first used, to be set upon bulls at market as a way of tenderizing the meat, and also to provide entertainment for spectators... 

This thread is just going round and round in circles.


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 31, 2011)

There is only one aspect of the new legislation that will change the bite statistics, and it's not banning a breed, making a person pay for what their animal did, similar penalties to culpable driving, now that's more like it, especially when the general public see that more people owning Labradors, maltese terriers another breeds are fined and jailed because of the frequency of bites from these two breeds. We have more problems when we walk our rotties from small yappy dogs and people who have their dogs pull them around for the walk. At least our dogs have attended obedience school since we got them, have been socialized with people and are loving pets. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ittybitty (Aug 31, 2011)

alrightknight said:


> Great danes were originally bred for one thing: Bull Baiting. But you never hear anything about them, as I guess that trait has been bred out of them.
> 
> Though I believe this thread is just beginning to repeat the same arguments over and over.



Actually, Great Danes were originally bred for hunting Europe's Wild Boar, hence also being known as the 'Boar Hound'


----------



## Snake Catcher Victoria (Aug 31, 2011)

i picked this dog up 2 weeks ago, saving it from the pound and found it to be very smart and gentle.The longer we have him 
the more we are falling for him.An American Bulldog but walking him in public is so different to walking my outher long snouted dog.People always ask if he is a pbt, and quite a few will cringe when they see him. He has been attacked by a little mut in the leash free park where we go, didnt fight back, just let the other dog munch on him.I have only had him for a while but im convinced that while the power is there, this dog hasnt got any aggression in him,
Hope the link works,,, dogs & stuff | Facebook

This new approach is not going to help but as Sean just said, fining the mongrel owners will help

I added a pic of him incase the link dosnt work.


----------



## Suenstu (Aug 31, 2011)

Love your post itty bitty, and ssssnakeman what an absolutely beautiful dog!!

It is a sad situation, and once it starts where does it end? Which breed will be next?

This thread is going to just continue to go around in circles because it's a subject close to the hearts of many. Unfortunately just not enough it would seem. Education is the key issue I believe.


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 31, 2011)

Suenstu said:


> Love your post itty bitty, and ssssnakeman what an absolutely beautiful dog!!
> 
> It is a sad situation, and once it starts where does it end? Which breed will be next?
> 
> This thread is going to just continue to go around in circles because it's a subject close to the hearts of many. Unfortunately just not enough it would seem. Education is the key issue I believe.


Exactly, what breed is next on the agenda, large breed dogs have been targeted by RSPCA for years, claiming that they are dangerous and that the best dogs are cross bred, however many attacks occur from cross bred dogs, but people will only name the dog that it look most like. The new legislation is a further worry, they are going after unregistered dogs....so how to they know where they are.....is this going to be a door to door search for the dogs?


----------



## Bel03 (Aug 31, 2011)

Ships said:


> Staffies love to fight



:lol: Well my boy missed that memo then cause he gets 'smashed' by not only my maltese x shi tzu, but also our cats, he hasnt got a fighting bone in his body! Yes, when we go on our walks, he goes 'crazy' when he sees another dog.......crying & doing the 'staffy talk'........he just wants to play though!


----------



## Suenstu (Aug 31, 2011)

Bel, our Maltese Shih Tzu does the crazy talking thing every time she sees another dog!! It's all excitement and wanting to play!!


----------



## Oscar90 (Aug 31, 2011)

this is just rediculous i blew up when i heard it on the news and immediately called my 2 purebreds to come watch this "garbage" with me xD they are the most lovely dogs ever great with kids.
the call to ban this breed is stupid and if anything racist. its like calling for white or black or asian or any nationality to be banned from a country because of a few individuals that were probably raised poorly


----------



## Red-Ink (Aug 31, 2011)

snakehandler said:


> Exactly, what breed is next on the agenda, large breed dogs have been targeted by RSPCA for years, claiming that they are dangerous and that the best dogs are cross bred, however many attacks occur from cross bred dogs, but people will only name the dog that it look most like. The new legislation is a further worry, they are going after unregistered dogs....so how to they know where they are.....is this going to be a door to door search for the dogs?



That's my worry with the way my dog looks and this new legislation....
I don't put a collar on him while he's in my yard and only collar him on walks.
The stupid Brimbank council ranger himself thought he was a pit, shows how much they know yet their the ones who have the power to jump your yard and take your dog...

I have now since this morning put his collar on him while he's in the yard (poor thing thought he was going for a walk) with the rego tag clearly visable.
If some numb nut looks into the yard, see's him and calls on the council for an APBT the rangers now have the power to go into the property and get him...


----------



## HissFits (Aug 31, 2011)

*100% with you!!*

Here's me playing with my 2 american staff's, they always get looked at like pitties (because of their history) but are great family pets! We have a 8 year old who plays with them unsupervised, can take food off them and can walk them. Its all how you bring up a dog!


----------



## Suenstu (Aug 31, 2011)

Saw this on the news this morning. Guess which breed is next....

Owner faces jail over Sydney dog attack

*apologies if I'm bad posting an external link, however it does show a picture of the animal in questions, and I would be extremely interested if anyone else thinks it looks nothing like the breed it is supposed to be...


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 31, 2011)

Maybe we should have enforced genetic testing of all dogs, and a culling of all of those dogs that have genetic markers from a dangerouse breed's bloodline.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 31, 2011)

.........................


----------



## nonamesleft (Aug 31, 2011)

I can't take my pooch out without someone pointing/snickering and calling her a Pitbull. She is a Bull Terrier, these uneducated comments really frustrate me. I have people leave dog parks all the time when we go, doesnt bother me anymore, makes me laugh, Least we have more room to play.

( I have nothing against Pitbulls either!)


----------



## Firedrake (Aug 31, 2011)

Suenstu said:


> Saw this on the news this morning. Guess which breed is next....
> 
> Owner faces jail over Sydney dog attack
> 
> *apologies if I'm bad posting an external link, however it does show a picture of the animal in questions, and I would be extremely interested if anyone else thinks it looks nothing like the breed it is supposed to be...




Yeah Rottie my bum that's more like a heeler/shepherd cross, or some sort of major mongrel.


----------



## Red-Ink (Aug 31, 2011)

grimbeny said:


> Maybe we should have enforced genetic testing of all dogs, and a culling of all of those dogs that have genetic markers from a dangerouse breed's bloodline.



That'll bring us back to the whole nurture vs nature argument...


----------



## Sarah (Aug 31, 2011)

i have a mini bull terrier and a staffy and when ever i take one of them out for a walk i often get asked if its a pitbull , its so frustrating as people dont even know what the breed looks like and just assume it looks like one.


----------



## snakehandler (Aug 31, 2011)

If you have a dog you can get its gene profile done and be able to prove to any official who asks that there is no pit bull in the dogs you own, it may be one of the safest things people can do who own dogs often mistaken to be a pit bull.....This new law is the canine equivalent to the Hitler reign.....kill off something just because its a particular type, there is no need for this, but there is a serious need for owners to stand up for all breeds of dogs, take responsibility for the dogs and properly train them. The number of people who cannot control their dogs astounds me! If you are going to own it, understand it, train it and care for it properly, regardless of breed or species. Its not a right to have a pet, its a privileged!


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 31, 2011)

Suenstu said:


> Saw this on the news this morning. Guess which breed is next....
> 
> Owner faces jail over Sydney dog attack
> 
> *apologies if I'm bad posting an external link, however it does show a picture of the animal in questions, and I would be extremely interested if anyone else thinks it looks nothing like the breed it is supposed to be...



If that dog in the video is what they think a rottweiler looks like god help us all when the new laws come in.


----------



## Tristan (Aug 31, 2011)

kaotikjezta said:


> If that dog in the video is what they think a rottweiler looks like god help us all when the new laws come in.



well the laws will stipulate the dog has to be proven to be a breed on the dangerous list, and uneducated media speculating about a breed does not constitute proof.

i remember back in the 90's every single dog attack that had a black/brown dog was instantly labeled a rottie i just wish that journalists and media actually told/reported the truth they should not be allowed to speculate or take sides they should all be reporting from an impartial and factual position.


----------



## dangles (Aug 31, 2011)

Tristan said:


> well the laws will stipulate the dog has to be proven to be a breed on the dangerous list, and uneducated media speculating about a breed does not constitute proof.
> 
> i remember back in the 90's every single dog attack that had a black/brown dog was instantly labeled a rottie i just wish that journalists and media actually told/reported the truth they should not be allowed to speculate or take sides they should all be reporting from an impartial and factual position.



Actually its a case of you have to prove its not a dog of type on the dangerous breeds list. not a case of prove it is a dangerous dog. A couple of years ago, in Qld i think, there was a case of a dog deemed an APBT and was seized by rangers. I dont think the dog was registered but was microchipped. Even with DNA testing of this dog, the number of different breeds that came up in a purebred dog was amazing, one of which was allegedly APBT.

I have a purebred SBT with full papers that i got off a breeder that has been called a Pitty before. I have traced the line of my dog through quite a few generations, including a few champions along the way. Had the rangers at my neighbours house about his truck the otherday with my dog on leash out the front. The ranger muttered something regarding dangerous dog. I walked inside grabbed the pedigree papers and told him to read them. The look on his face was priceless.


----------



## reptinate (Aug 31, 2011)

Sorry to bump this thread up again, but just wanted to say something else.

The Australian Veterinary Association does not agree with BSL either: Cookie support required | Australian Veterinary Association
The Centre for Companion Animals in the Community, which was established by the AVA, shows that BSL does NOT reduce dog attacks. 
Centre for Companion Animals in the Community

Other professionals and organisations that oppose BSL are: Dr Kersti Seksel, Dr Katrina Ward and Dr Robert Holmes, RSPCA ACT boss Michael Linke, Australian Veterinary Association, Australian Companion Animal Council, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Dog Owner's Association and many more: Who's against BSL?

It's about time the government and people started listening to these people and organisations.

Here's a great aussie site working to stop BSL. Have a look and show your support.
BSL Australia | Information about breed specific legislation and breed bans.

Also they currently have a poll on yahoo asking if Rottweilers should be outlawed in Australia. Just shows how stupid BSL is and it'll go even further if we don't stop it now. Yahoo!7 News

Education is the key to reducing dog attacks, not banning breeds.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Aug 31, 2011)

The National Dog Trainers Federation is also campaigning against BSL and for eduction.

NDTF - National Dog Trainers Federation (Australia) - Wall | Facebook


----------



## pythonmum (Sep 1, 2011)

Breed-specific legislation is just unworkable. I have a friend who owns a mongrel which is supposed to be a cavoodle. She had a doggie genetic test done to see what breed it was from and one of the major components was staffy! It honestly looks like a dachshund crossed with a cavalier and who cares? The point is that it is a loving, well-trained dog which plays flyball and is a certified pet therapy dog. The deed is what counts, rather than the indeterminate breed.


----------



## thals (Sep 1, 2011)

I agree with the president of the APBT assoc. of VIC in that this is pure canine genocide, nothing more. It's pretty naive to target pit bulls when there exists a whole range of other breeds that are capable of the same damage. This isn't going to solve anything but drive owners further underground, the answer is responsible dog ownership & NOT the abolishment of certain breeds.


----------



## KRONYK94 (Sep 1, 2011)

i believe _*no dogs are as bad as another.*_* 
all dogs are more than capable to harm someone or something.
the owner is the main reason the dog behaves the way it dose,
you raise the way you want it to be raised violent friends etc 
but all dogs can turn weather there nice or friendly,

but my opinion is as soon as a dogs attacks a person or child i believe that the dog should be put down. 
kris


*


----------



## Tristan (Sep 1, 2011)

KRONYK94 said:


> *
> but my opinion is as soon as a dogs attacks a person or child i believe that the dog should be put down.
> kris
> 
> *



Does that count if the Person or Child was teasing/harming the dog and effectively instigated the attack? 



dangles said:


> Actually its a case of you have to prove its not a dog of type on the dangerous breeds list. not a case of prove it is a dangerous dog.



interesting the case of innocent until proven guilty does not apply :/ 

well i have always said that for 90% of the problems we have it all comes down to education and the other 10% is a good slap behind the back of the head to knock some sense into ya


----------



## Jeffa (Sep 1, 2011)

Can we please close this thred moderators? Circle after circle. Just keeps on going.


----------



## Chris (Sep 1, 2011)

View attachment 216055


----------



## Jeffa (Sep 1, 2011)

Good question, just die!


----------



## sagara_cp_2006 (Sep 2, 2011)

I agree, 99% of the time it is the owner or the dog being provoked and/or teased that cause them to attack or bite another dog/human. Your dog Rosie is gorgeous, if a dog is raised correctly then they are less likely to attack. We have had rotweilers for a long time, and it upsets us so much when any dog is put down because they have been mistreated and attacked somebody. Blind ignorance from some members in the community, mean that they don't want to look further than the facts the press present to them and this causes more problems than any dog or animal for that matter could.

The dog is Owner faces jail over Sydney dog attack is not a rottweiler. It looks nothing like one.


----------



## nakerz_the_herp (Sep 3, 2011)

I want a Dogo Argentino (because I like the look of them) but no, I can't get one because they are 'dangerous'....


----------



## Suenstu (Sep 3, 2011)

Nakerz, they are an impressive looking animal! I remember there was a really great movie out quite a long time ago now that had one of them as the "main" character. It was such an amazing animal. Apparently very intelligent as well.


----------



## pharskie (Sep 5, 2011)

ok i have an interesting point you all may like or hate. My best mate in the world is an american staffy x neo mastiff. Now if i wanted to go out and buy myself a Perro De Presa Canario i would be running the risk of having my dog taken and destroyed due to being a restricted breed. Now if you look at the breed history of this dog, it came to be the way it is today from people cross breeding an Old English Bulldog (Original pitbull) with a mastiff. Now, American Staffys and Pittbulls are very very hard to tell apart due to the various traits they can both carry, so with my logic of thinking, i have myself a beautiful,LEGAL,perro de presa canario. Breed legislation will never work nor win in the grand picture. Pittbulls get microchiped and registered as American Staffys, Dogo Argentinios get microchiped and registered as bull terrier x boxers ect. All a person has to do is look up the breed history of a "restricted dog" and go from there. BREED LEGISLATION IS DISCRIMINATION!


----------



## mkwak (Oct 1, 2011)

I agree that the dogs personality will in large part be determined by the owner and the environment it is brought up in, however that particular breed like several others has a genetic predisposition to aggression in the majority of animals, perhaps some breeds are not ideal for particular demographics or environments in our culture, i don't agree with distorting the breed, considering it has taken countless generations to produce it but perhaps it is good to decrease the breeding of the type purely for safety reasons??


----------



## Joshua-Tree (Oct 1, 2011)

people *** the dogs up plain and simple


----------



## Tildy (Oct 1, 2011)

mkwak said:


> however that particular breed like several others has a genetic predisposition to aggression in the majority of animals, perhaps some breeds are not ideal for particular demographics or environments in our culture


 Alot of the naturally snappy dogs I have come across have been little dogs. They are not mistreated but if not well trained are extremely snappy due to being very nervous and fearful. They are just not deemed dangerous because they are not big enough to do damage. Naturally dangerous is a sad excuse to restrict a breed. I have never met a dog that was agressive from puppy stage just because it was in its nature to hate. The only naturally snappy dogs I have seen have been so because they are nervous and fearful creatures or very protective of thier owners and family and they felt that those owners are being threatened. Not because they love to fight and kill.


----------



## nixie (Oct 5, 2011)

'Pitbulls and Parolees' on Foxtel - great show! 

This thread is just going around and around but seriously, no one really listens, it's not going to be changed anytime soon. 
I whole-heartedly agree that it is the owners that are responsible - has any research been done on their part about that particular dogs requirements. I highly doubt it. 

*And as it's been stated again and again, any dog can/will attack.* 

I grew up with a kelpie x something something something and he was charming and loyal and just a gentleman. He bit my friend on the hand (as a warning) because she ran her finger down his nose between his eyes... after having been told again and again not to do so because when he was a puppy, little children would poke sticks through the fence to scratch him on purpose!

As with people, respect them and they will respect you back.

And with what other people have stated previously, make it so people have to prove they are capable of owning a 'dangerous dog'.


----------



## grimbeny (Oct 6, 2011)

Obviously the owners are responcible Nixie, that is not the debate. The problem is there are too many people who are not responcible with animals, which makes keeping dogs that are exceptionally vulnerable to being problem animals too dangerous for the rest of us. I am not a dog owner and I would prefer it if the dregs of society that keep these animals in such away that makes them man killers be prevented from owning them.


----------



## SperO (Oct 6, 2011)

I agree with Grim, better control like keeping venomous snakes. I really dislike dogs and big ones freak me out. I heard the most aggressive are chiuahas (yea my spelling sux) but your hardly likely to be killed by an aggressive 10cm high dog.


----------



## thelionking (Oct 7, 2011)

I am truly a dog lover, but I disagree with you about this. The thing is, even while you might have a perfectly calm dog, it doesn't mean she is a bad breed. By your descriptions, your dog is stable and you have been a responsible owner. However, pit bulls are still a problem breed. If you look up pit bull attack, you would find hundreds of sickening stories. Meanwhile, if you looked up "Border Collie attack" you would maybe find one or two, which did not result in death. Whippet attack would probably show no results. As you can see, some dog breeds are more dangerous than others, so why are we taking the risk, by allowing anybody to purchase any dogs? Pit bulls, bull terriers etc. should simply be banned.


----------



## notechistiger (Oct 7, 2011)

The problem is that a lot of the news stories labelled "pit bull attacks" AREN'T pit bulls. They could be mastiffs, staffies or even outrageous things like labradors. The issue is that the media doesn't CARE. Just as they don't care if it's a pretty water python or a "deadly brown snake"- a story is a story, and if it's something that identifies with most of the readers (ie, pit bull attack because most of the readers don't like pit bulls), then it'll grab some attention and more of a response.

A lot of people don't even know what a true pit bull looks like. How the hell is the government going to enforce a breed legislation when they can't even tell what's what?


----------



## gemrock2hot (Oct 7, 2011)

I thought i might have put pics up of our girl but i didnt. i to could go on and on about this topic but at the end of the day there is no bad dogs only bad owners. so heres a couple of pics of our girl

this is when she was about 5 months
View attachment 220834

this is not long after we brought her home
View attachment 220835

and this is the most recent 
View attachment 220836

here is her mum and big bro 
View attachment 220837


----------



## HissFits (Oct 7, 2011)

thelionking said:


> I am truly a dog lover, but I disagree with you about this. The thing is, even while you might have a perfectly calm dog, it doesn't mean she is a bad breed. By your descriptions, your dog is stable and you have been a responsible owner. However, pit bulls are still a problem breed. If you look up pit bull attack, you would find hundreds of sickening stories. Meanwhile, if you looked up "Border Collie attack" you would maybe find one or two, which did not result in death. Whippet attack would probably show no results. As you can see, some dog breeds are more dangerous than others, so why are we taking the risk, by allowing anybody to purchase any dogs? Pit bulls, bull terriers etc. should simply be banned.



Lion, so using your theory, any animal which is potentially more dangerous should not be aloud to be kept?? Ok so there goes herp keepers having venomous snakes, because they are a lot more dangerous than pythons. Also any big dogs should be banned, German shepards, rotties, dobermans, labs - yeah no more seeing eye dogs lol.
Its clearly not about an animal, its how it is treated and exposed to the public. The other month some drop kick left a death adder in a cardboard box at a police officers house - so should we now assume that all people with venomous snakes would do the same??
I have two American Staffies, my male looks like a pitbull, however they are both purebreds and have papers. The other day i had a man try kick my dog because it walked too close to him (lucky for him he missed or right now i would probably be locked up lol). When we take them to dog parks to socialise them with other dogs people wont allow their dogs to play with ours out of fear. This is what the papers and news reports are causing. It is important to socialise ALL dogs however because of a perceived threat this is something we struggle with.
My dogs play with my son (8), and all his friends, they are terrible guard dogs, anyone could walk stragiht into our back yard and they would just wag their tails (yes this has happened with complete strangers) and are the most loving dogs i have ever owned (ive had german shepards, alaskan malamutes and jack russels) and i would trust them to protect my partner and our son while im away(i go away for 6months at a time and therefore want a big dog that can protect my family in the worst case scenario).
Grim is right, we need better control. But throwing a blanket breed specific legislation doesnt do it correctly. A dog which is a loving pet should not have to be kept in the under the same conditions as one used for pig hunting, or that has been declared as a dangerous dog!


----------



## Becky27 (Oct 7, 2011)

If society declares any one breed as 'dangerous' or try to ban a particular breed, where would it stop? Eventually, almost every dog would have, at very least, some sort of restriction placed upon them. Unfortunately, the many breeds of working dogs used on farms, account for the majority of injuries, that would then in turn put the focus on other professional working dogs, shepards, labs, spaniels, hounds, etc. 
Just because an attck isn't fatal, doesn't make it any less serious.

The point I think i'm trying to make, is that no one breed is any worse than the next. 

If you own a dog, regardless of the breed, it is YOUR responsibility to socialize them appropriately. Also, if you have a nervous or snappy dog, it's YOUR responsibility to take the necessary steps to avoid an unwanted incident.

Blaming a dog for a natural response to a situation, is just an excuse for human ignorance.

BAN THE DEED (or the idiot owner) NOT THE BREED!! :-D


----------



## JackTar (Oct 7, 2011)

Look I'm going to be honest here and declare I haven't read the whole thread because well it's bloody massive so sorry if I am just repeating someone else. 

My opinion is that we need to get rid of the types of dogs which have been historicaly used for fighting or as guard dogs full stop. I am more than well aware that it is not the dogs fault it is entirely the owners however let's be honest with ourselves and call a spade a spade, these dogs are deadshit magnets. Bogans absolutely love them because they are a wang extension. 

The other problem with these breeds is that a lot of people want a dog that is a guard dog and a pet, well I'm sorry it is one or the other you can't have both.


----------



## Firedrake (Oct 7, 2011)

Well looks like we'd be getting rid of the whole canine race, seeing as dogs were used for either hunting, guarding or working livestock. Being loyal companions was a priority in all these jobs and should an owner wish to exploit this trait by dog fighting or bull baiting for 'entertainment' the dog would do it. How about instead of killing the millions of innocent dogs, we grade the humans on suitability to own one? Good breeders already do this before selling a pup, if they don't think your reason for owning one of their babies is a good one, they just won't sell it to you. Maybe if we stop trying to blame someone for everything and just try to fix the problem without resorting to genocide when something goes wrong the world could quite possibly be a better place for everyone. (That doesn't just apply for dogs either)


----------



## Vixen (Oct 7, 2011)

JackTar said:


> The other problem with these breeds is that a lot of people want a dog that is a guard dog and a pet, well I'm sorry it is one or the other you can't have both.



I'll disagree with that one, one of the main reasons a guard dog will be so good at his job is that he has such love for his family and 'pack', he can and will certainly still be a good pet? Take Bullmastiff's for example, they are one of the best family dogs, very gentle and very good with kids and generally other people and pets too. However become hostile to one of his family and that will quickly change, they have a tendency to put there bodies between you and a threat, and would rather throw there weight around than bite.

I'm sure anyone that has ever owned a German Shepherd will say the same thing, they are great family dogs, and natural protectors. They don't need to be officially 'trained' to be a guard dog to make a good protector.


----------



## JackTar (Oct 7, 2011)

I'm not suggesting we kill them all, just not allow more to be bred. I know checks and balances with owners is the right thing to do but it is not always about the right thing is it? We don't have the resources/manpower for something as monumental as that we need to balance this out and use common sense.


----------



## Firedrake (Oct 7, 2011)

So once all of them die out we suddenly move on to another breed to slowly weed out of existance? And exactly what is the unemployment rate out where you live? I'm pretty sure there is more than enough manpower, just not enough bosses willing to fork out for all the new workers...


----------



## Slinkstar (Oct 7, 2011)

In the '70's they blamed dobermans, in the '80's they blamed the German shepherds, in the '90's the blamed the rottweiler. Now they blame the pit bull. When will they blame the humans? - Cesar Millan and i totally agree with that quote being a owner of a male pitty x and a proud owner at that too, the reason i think pitty's get a bad rap is cause of media be it the news, movies, and music videos but the main reason is the muppets that fear and do not understand larger dogs, there is a doco out there called "Off the Chain" (might find it on ebay) but it gives you the whole history of the APBT form how the breed start to the present day and it is full of great facts and some really bad ones like the whole dog fighting part of it. But it gives you a real understanding on the breed and that alot of larger dogs are misunderstand and it's easy to blame a big dog when a little toy dog for an attack on someone and i agree with the saying BLAME THE DEED NOT THE BREED !!!!


----------



## KaotikJezta (Oct 7, 2011)

JackTar said:


> I'm not suggesting we kill them all, just not allow more to be bred. I know checks and balances with owners is the right thing to do but it is not always about the right thing is it? We don't have the resources/manpower for something as monumental as that we need to balance this out and use common sense.


If you look at council regulations, it is not just pitbulls that are not going to be bred. Frankston council for example insists a dog is desexed before it is three months old unless you are a memeber of vicdogs, an organisation that is totally private and has no relationship to official purebred dog associations, so a lot of registered breeders wont sell to people in that municipality and a lot of vets refuse to desex until 6 months. The reason they give for this is it stops puppy farms and over population, but puppy farms are thriving with council permits under the guise of "Registered Companion Animal Breeders" and "The Lost Dogs Home" has an up to 70% kill rate and makes little to no attempt to rehome dogs, in fact they have been taken to court numerous times for not notifying owners and destroying microchipped dogs and for destroying before the 8 day cut off. It is a systematic push, being lobbied by anti-companion animal 'welfare' groups, to stop people having pets. You only have to look at how the reptile community is being affected by the lobbying of wildlife departments for mandatory enclosure size etc. It is easy to start with big breeds that people perceive as a threat and meanwhile we have our idiotic Prime Minister being given a $1500 dog from one of the most notorious puppy farms in the country for her birthday. It is all a bureaucratic farce. Some of you may have read my recent thread on what is happening to my dog, I had the ranger state it looked like it had pitbull in it yet by there own standards my dog is a) too large, b) white and it states they are NEVER white and c) the wrong shape. That also shows how ridiculous there standards are, they don't even know what they are looking for. If we allow them to ban one breed it will not stop.


----------



## Jeffa (Oct 7, 2011)

Blah,blah,blah, do you relise that this post just keeps going round and round?

Honestly if this much passion and whinging is on a public Reptile forum, I wonder how much energy could be spent orgainising petitions and making info generally available to the public about the facts of these animals. Has anyone contacted their local government to discuss facts or are we all happy to continue to keep on riding the boring merry go round?


----------



## KaotikJezta (Oct 7, 2011)

Yes, some of us have written to government, attended meetings, signed and made petitions etc. There are plenty of people giving up there time to try and educate the public but a public whipped into a frenzy by government and media fear campaigns is not easy to educate.


----------



## thelionking (Oct 9, 2011)

HissFits said:


> Lion, so using your theory, any animal which is potentially more dangerous should not be aloud to be kept?? Ok so there goes herp keepers having venomous snakes, because they are a lot more dangerous than pythons. Also any big dogs should be banned, German shepards, rotties, dobermans, labs - yeah no more seeing eye dogs lol.
> Its clearly not about an animal, its how it is treated and exposed to the public. The other month some drop kick left a death adder in a cardboard box at a police officers house - so should we now assume that all people with venomous snakes would do the same??
> I have two American Staffies, my male looks like a pitbull, however they are both purebreds and have papers. The other day i had a man try kick my dog because it walked too close to him (lucky for him he missed or right now i would probably be locked up lol). When we take them to dog parks to socialise them with other dogs people wont allow their dogs to play with ours out of fear. This is what the papers and news reports are causing. It is important to socialise ALL dogs however because of a perceived threat this is something we struggle with.
> My dogs play with my son (8), and all his friends, they are terrible guard dogs, anyone could walk stragiht into our back yard and they would just wag their tails (yes this has happened with complete strangers) and are the most loving dogs i have ever owned (ive had german shepards, alaskan malamutes and jack russels) and i would trust them to protect my partner and our son while im away(i go away for 6months at a time and therefore want a big dog that can protect my family in the worst case scenario).
> Grim is right, we need better control. But throwing a blanket breed specific legislation doesnt do it correctly. A dog which is a loving pet should not have to be kept in the under the same conditions as one used for pig hunting, or that has been declared as a dangerous dog!


Those who keep venomous snakes are licensed, and they keep them in their own homes-so it's them taking their own risks. Dogs, however, come at everybody's risk-and it is a danger to the general public to keep such dogs. I am completely opposed to banning all big dogs. Just because a dog is big, it does not mean that it is dangerous. Labs are much more laid back than Staffies-Staffies are NOT big dogs. And they can make great pets, but only for those who know how to bring them up properly. If your dogs had bitten that man as a result of him kicking them, you should not have those dogs. People can kick dogs by accident to, and the general public should not have to fear off leash dogs. I certainly think rotties should be banned, as they too have a tendency to be extremely dangerous. Dobermans are also known to attack very often and easily-same with German Shepherds. Border Collies, however, still attack but much more rarely, and I have never heard of a fatal event in which this has occured. St Bernards are loyal, HUGE and don't have aggression tendencies. You can't deny that some dogs are more dangerous than others.

I'd like to add this link:
http://americaagainstbsl.tripod.com/fatal_dog_attacks.html
Take a look at the percentage of Pit Bulls, Am Staffs and Rotweillers in this fatal dog attacks list. If it's not the breed, why are there so many pit bull attacks which have resulted in death?


----------



## Firedrake (Oct 11, 2011)

Because the media and most online statistics label anything they can't identify, most crosses and anything that looks like a 'fighting dog' a pit bull...
The reason these dogs attack can simply be a 'correction' by the dog, because it sees itself as alpha. But because humans and human children are so much squishier than another of the canine race, it doesn't always end well. If you look at those statistics, most are either unsupervised children, or chained dogs, meaning the one who was killed would have had to have been close enough to be bitten.

Attacks over 6 years '94-'99

28 rotties- 9 guard dogs, 8 unsupervised kids, 5 loose, 5 chained, 1 family dog
6 pit bulls- 1 mum threw baby to dogs, 2 loose, 1 owner away, 1 family dog, 1 newly aquired
8 pit bull *types- *3 unsupervised, 2 loose, 1 feeding, 1 family dog, 1 aggressive because of owner, 1 protecting his dog
16 mixed breeds- 3 loose, 8 family dogs, 1 newly aquired, 2 unsupervised, 2 chained


Over 2 years '01-'02

9 rotties- 2 infant death, 2 got loose, 2 unsupervised, 2 family dogs, 1 chained
8 pit bulls- 5 chained, 1 guard, 1 loose, 1 owner possibly had seizure
4 mixed breeds- 2 chained, 1 loose, 1 infant death


Looks to me like humans are more to blame than the dogs

Over all:
15 unsupervised
15 chained (which means they had to be close enough to get bitten)
14 loose 
13 family dogs
9 guards
8 misc
3 infant deaths


----------



## thelionking (Oct 12, 2011)

Firedrake said:


> Because the media and most online statistics label anything they can't identify, most crosses and anything that looks like a 'fighting dog' a pit bull...
> The reason these dogs attack can simply be a 'correction' by the dog, because it sees itself as alpha. But because humans and human children are so much squishier than another of the canine race, it doesn't always end well. If you look at those statistics, most are either unsupervised children, or chained dogs, meaning the one who was killed would have had to have been close enough to be bitten.
> 
> Attacks over 6 years '94-'99
> ...


The reason for why they killed the human does not apply. Because when you look at the big picture, those people died, because the government is not responsible enough to ban a dangerous breed. Pit Bulls are more dominant, and therefore more likely to be aggressive. This makes them dangerous dogs. If they were more fearful than most dogs, they would also have an aggressive tendency, and the results would be the same. 
My point is, the reason does not matter. The breed is likely to be dangerous-whatever the reason-so why do we pursue the breeding of it? And even more so for Rotties.


----------



## Firedrake (Oct 13, 2011)

The reason matters *entirely.* The fact that most were unsupervised or chained means that nobody actually knows what happened, and it is the responsibility of the parents or guardians to be watching. The breed is *not* 'likely' to be dangerous, there are probably a ton more bully breeds or Rotties in homes *not* attacking people that we never hear about. We never hear about every dog that doesn't attack someone, the unregistered dogs that aren't recorded in the statistics or the little-dog attacks that nobody reports because its 'cute' when they show aggression. The *only* reasons any breed would be more dangerous than another are simply lack of control and dominance by the owners, lack of awareness by strangers, size and temperament of an individual animal. 
I still think the humans looking for a dog should be evaluated on their ability to train and maintain the breed they've picked. They should show a knowledge of the breed, the risks involved in owning one, the mental stability to discipline, train and maintain alpha postion if the breed is a dominating one and the income to give the dog at least a decent feed every day and a place to sleep.

As to persuing the breeding of these dogs, it's the exact same as people wanting to breed those stupid fluffy yap dogs. I think 'why would anyone want one of those?' It's personal preference. I'm buying a pure Amstaff, because I like the breed, the look, the laid back attitude with the ability to still protect me and my family if need be. Some people would say 'but they're vicious pit bulls why would you get one of those?' Because I don't like fluffy yap dogs or energetic herding dogs. So until you stop letting people pick their preferences, you'll never get rid of these types of dogs.

On top of that, there are more mixed breed 'family dogs' attacking than 'family dogs' of the breeds you're tring to ban...The rest are doing their jobs (guarding) or are roaming or unsupervised, for which the owner should be entirely responsible.


----------



## mysnakesau (Oct 30, 2011)

How do these dogs get "the name" they have? One time it was the dobermans, then it was the German Shepherds, now it is these dogs. Any breed is capable of mawling. Its the people who breed them, buy them, train them, and give them this name - they are the ones that need destroying.


----------

