A guy north of town is fighting the rejection of his permit to build a $35,000 shelter for pit bulls displaced by katrina. I forgot how many dogs there will be, but they will have a/c, heat, television, little puppy beds, etc.

The neighbors don't want it at all.

I have a half pit bull, half yellow lab named Neo. He's the best most friendly dog I've ever owned. As for aggressive animal instincts of pit bull's I have video of my dog playing with fox puppies! The mother fox would bring her pups by our house every year for Neo's approval I guess. Very strange. So does my dogs stupid yellow lab side cancel out his mean grandma eating side?http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1128724545.jpghttp://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1128724609.jpg

What a wanker!

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the mechanical condition of the cars that share the road with you, and the driving abilities of the drivers of said vehicles. You're more likely to get hurt from someones' motoring negligence than you are to get bitten by a Pit Bull.

If you get in a car accident, do you want to see the person at fault (remember this could be you) "be jailed and lose his assets"?

With an attitude like yours, if you ever do get attacked by a dog, I hope it finishes you off. If I had more time and money, I buy a house next door to you and raise alligators - and you, not me, would be leaving the area.

Let me guess you're a lawyer.

NICE!
:eek:

Ha ha - yes, I used to be. And wanker or not - I'd still do it. A serious dog mauling is not the same thing as a "car accident". If a dog attacked me I'd certainly make sure the dog was destroyed and the owner suffered dearly.

In California, dog owners are strictly liable if their dog bites anyone off the owner's property. Dog owners have also been convicted of crimes after serious dog attacks if they had some prior knowledge that their dogs were dangerous. Written complaints by neighbors and warnings from the police would likely be considered prior knowledge.

By the way, I've owned dogs and I do see the difference between a dog nipping at someone, and a serious dog attack.

Yah, OK - I guess I was a bit brash.

Par thanks for the great links. Here is the one that best describes the lunacy of the "ban the breed approach." http://dogs.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=dogs&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angelfire.com%2Fbi z6%2Fdogholocaust%2F

Remember, in virtually every case you can site the problem turns out to be the owner and the most universal statistic of serious dog attacks is not breed. Most serious dog bites result from whole males who live on a chain. The owner is the problem. My dog, the one in the Santa hat in my avatar lives with a cat and has been around numerous other dogs, crowds of people, babies, small children, handicapped children, you name it. He is single minded in his desire for one thing, the touch of a loving human hand.

Here you go jyl: http://dogs.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=dogs&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angelfire.com%2Fbi z6%2Fdogholocaust%2F

Read it & weep.

More true than many know. The major cause of behavioral problems in dogs today is either confusion over expectations – or a complete absence of them. Interestingly, people will project almost every human need on a dog except the one for standards and expectations. I wonder what that says about our culture.

Take a walk with me through a public dog park and I will offer you a somewhat sad running commentary on this failure – I will tell you by mere body language which owners do or do not have the respect of their dogs, and which are destined for an ownership of vexation and distress.

You underestimate training. There are such dogs – those able to resist easily what you choose to call “chemical” responses. I know many. And curiously, these dogs are the “higher-drive” dogs, exactly the ones you would expect to be most susceptible to those primal temptations. One must remember that the dog is genetically conditioned over thousands of years to respond and conform to the wishes of the human being. We forget this. Or somehow it has crept into our culture that this sort of control of will over an animal is unseemly or morally bad. Thus the slow breakdown in the integrity of the historic relationship. People now accept dogs as alternate human beings, and in doing so forget our higher responsibility of leadership, of setting expectaions and enforcing them.

This is not necessarily wrong, it just begs a little clarification. The process of training a dog to “attack” people (really, to watch, to bite, bite and hold, and to “out”), is not based on inciting or developing a dog’s basic meanness or even aggression but rather on pure play. Dogs who excel in this work are generally friendly, outgoing and highly confident – and equipped liberally and in nice balance with the various “drives” needed to succeed. I have not met an effective protection or police patrol dog who was “mean.” These dogs always view their work as an elaborate and challenging game. There are some dogs with greater “defensive” drive than others, and who will show a greater tendency to react aggressively, and also some dogs with more “civil” drive than others, that is, the willingness or lack of reserve to bite a person not wearing pads – but good trainers and handlers identify these fractional differences in drives and sort out the dog accordingly. I am acquainted with some of the biggest, baddest-ass dogs in Los Angeles – in fact, I train with the current US champion protection sport dog, Porter, a Malinois, who can cross a football field of obstacles and still hit a full-grown man with the force of a freight train – and their handlers don’t hesitate leaving their little children with these dogs.

Good assumption, though I wouldn’t put it quite so direly. But very few people know what they are doing with dogs. Sad but true. For most people and dogs, it doesn’t matter. It never reaches a point of danger. But for those with big dogs, it matters greatly. I have lost all patience anymore with slack owners. I trained my GSD over two years in concert with two trainers and he is 100% in control. I expect the same of others.

I include a good story from a woman who trains in our class. Her dog, Able, is a Dutch shepherd. The picture on the bottom is my 3-yr. old protection dog, Rikki.


“I live in an urban area that includes gangs, drugs and shootings. We have witnessed gang activity within fifteen feet of our home. My husband has witnessed a killing not far from our home and a beating almost in our front yard. So when I selected a dog I wanted one for the real world that I lived. I have also been fascinated with protection sports for many years and wanted to compete at local levels.

Eventually I found K9 Coach and bought “Able” a puppy from a Diablo and Cindy breeding. After much coaching (really hard work, training and time) from OJ and his club members I have an excellent dog for my situation. We have passed the PSA PDC and TC and hope to get the PSA1 with more handler training! However my most recent walks in my neighborhood actually prompted me to express my gratitude to OJ.

On one walk we past our firehouse while they discharged their firehose and stopped at the light. Next to us were about 10 to 15 kids laughing and screaming as kids do. Able was in a sit. Given his release command to cross the street we walked past a gardener with a lawn mower moving completely into our sidewalk. Other encounters during this one walk-baby stroller, bike riders moving past us from behind on the same sidewalk as well as coming towards us on the street. Able never barked, moved away from or towards any of these elements. On several occasions I have met and shook hands with strangers (usually asking about his training) as Able lay in a down stay within three to five feet.

In another walk we encountered three men that I did not totally trust. As they began to speak to me I instructed Able to down. He did but watched the men carefully. They wanted to see if they could pet him even after I told them they could not. The men whistled and called to him continuing to push the issue. All three men moved within two to three feet of us. Able stayed in a solid down. He did not bark, lunge or growl but he did let these men know he was ready to react. I felt totally calm as Able was not over-reacting yet I knew from training sessions and that look in his eye he was more than capable of doing his job if needed. That was all we needed and the men backed off. We all stayed at the same park for a period of time. When I left the men were very respectful and not offended or angry with me or Able.

Able’s presence alone deters many but was not enough for this situation. His attitude and training allowed us to continue to interact within our community without worry. We also did not fear of any type of retaliation as his actions were not fear invoking. This is an ideal dog for the real world I live in. Thank you OJ and club members!”


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1128734841.jpg

So these dog's weren't breed for fighting ? Oh, OK :rolleyes:

Bob it's called reading comprehension. Look into it. "The dogs wer originally bred for farm work." They key word there is originally. And no they weren't originally bred for fighting. Low life human garbage who used these unfortunate animals as tools for gambling began the practice of dog fighting.

Hey Bob, would you want to know if your neighbor had a "dangerous" (legal) gun, as opposed to an acceptable model. Or would you be more interested in knowing that your neighbor with an "acceptable" (to you) gun was in reality mentally unbalanced or a dangerous criminal.

Your logic blows.

Boy, Is isn't too hard to start getting personal accusations thrown out by you guy's.
Why don't you just show me where you get this farm info from instead of going off. People might take you more seriously.

Relax, It's a friendly debate, nothing more. :)

Lots of interesting inputs here.

From rrpjr's information I see that any breed of dog can be made safe through diligent training. This makes sense to me; dogs are the product of thousands of years of breeding and evolution, during which the overriding requirement was that they obey people.

From dmoolenaar I see the concern that not every dog owner will diligently train his/her large dog. After reading accounts of numerous dog maulings today (say one thing about OT, it gets you looking into all kinds of weird stuff) one typical thread was that the dogs involved were uncontrolled and the humans were irresponsible (although there were exceptions, which is scary).

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cruelty_pitbull "Today, however, the breed often attracts the worst kind of dog owners--those who are only interested in them for fighting or protection. It's a shame what has happened to this loyal and affectionate breed-but as the pit bull population has increased so rapidly, shelters are now struggling to deal with an overflow of image-plagued, hard-to-place dogs. And despite its illegality, people are still training and breeding pit bulls to participate in dog fights in cities and towns across the country."

From Mule and Pari's information I see that there is some dispute over the pit bull's history. They say that this dog was not bred to fight other dogs. However, I find source after source - including clearly pro-pit bull sources - that says otherwise. So, guys, I'm not convinced.

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cruelty_pitbull "But did you know that pit bulls, despite the fact that they were originally bred to fight with each other, were also bred to be trustworthy and friendly to people?"
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm "Developed from the Bull and Terrier types of yesteryear, the American Pit Bull Terrier comes from an indisputable history of pit-fighting."
http://www.pitbulllovers.com/fighting-pit-bull-dog-fighting.html "it is true the American Pit Bull Terrier was (and still is) bred for dog fighting."
http://dogs.about.com/cs/breedprofiles/a/pitbull_history.htm "In 1898, Chauncy Bennet formed the UKC, a breed registry aimed solely at the registration and acceptance of pitbulls . . . For a pitbull to be accepted into the UKC the dog had to have won three fights - a requirement that was later dropped."

Finally, from numerous posters I see that one reason people get so worked up about this is because so many humans love dogs. Hence the temptation to approach the topic from the standpoint of "what is best for the dog breed" rather than, or in addition to, "what is best for the humans". Going all the way to the "Dog Holocaust" website that Mule pointed to.

A long, long time ago, back in my teens, I remember perusing the local library and reading up on different breeds of dogs. Mostly if you refer to the American Kennel Club books you can research the history of the recognized breeds and realize that all of these breeds were the result of very selective breeding to suit a specific purpose. Not only were they selectively bred for appearance but also for other attributes such as temprement, intelligence, strength or whatever was required.

What's kind of telling and sort of amazing, is that if you take a herding dog like a border collie for example, and introduce it to a flock of sheep, even though it may never in its' life time have ever seen a sheep, most of these dogs, though not all, will exhibit a herding instinct. That's only one example of how inbred a dogs behavioural attributes can be. Of course it's not just coincidence why Rots, German shepards, Dobermans are used as police dogs. They have the attributes, the size, strength and intelligence that make a good police dog. This is because not only do Germans know how to engineer good cars but dogs as well.

So my point is, and yes this is going somewhere, is that the original pit bull from my memory was a breed designed by the English for use in slaughter houses. OK, I suppose later on they decided it was more fun to pit them against each other. So bearing in mind the strength of the instincts bred into these dogs, a pit bull would behave in ways he was bred for. He was bred to have a stout body and strong jaws so he was able to clamp down an animal 20 times his size. If you consider the nature of most pit bull attacks, it may be not so much the frequency of occurence,but more the nature of the attacks. Any dog will bite, but most will bite only if provoked or the dog is afraid. The same could be said for the pit bull I suppose, but what reallydifferentiates the nature of the attack is that pit bulls just never seem to let go. I mean just to illustrate my point even further, when was the last time you read of somebodys' golden retriever mauling someone to death?

Well put, Ed. To further your point, a dog who can fulfill his breeding purpose, in whatever real or simulated way, is a happy dog. My brother had two golden labs, bird dogs, which he hunted regularly their whole lives. He hunted them in Iowa in the most trying conditions, before dawn, through the thickest underbrush, through icy streams and ponds. A fellow teacher at his college told him he was "cruel" to his dogs. No, he responded, he was the opposite of cruel. His dogs were happy and fulfilled. They were performing at the highest level they could according to their nature.

This is why working breed dogs are so much fun.

No hard feelings Bob. You are questioning my right to own a dog who is without question the finest companion animal I have ever owned solely because of your beliefs, which as has been pointed out here, are founded mainly in myth & mis-information.

As to wether they were bred to fight, I stated plainly that human garbage absoloutely tried to breed in traits that would make them effective fighters. Remember, that was against other dogs. German Shephards were bred in part as guard dogs, against people. But rrpj pointed out so well, they are also terrific companions.

My reason for posting the link to the Dog Holocaust site is simply to point out that the mistaken beliefs of people like you & jyl can lead to ignorant legislation. As was pointed out on that site, police were causing much more risk to human life by shooting at the dogs, than the dogs ever posed alone.

So yeah I'm a little passionate about this issue. I definitely don't want uninformed reactionary fools passing laws to make my gentle, wonderful dog illegal. I don't want my gun made illegal either. See here in America I think as did Thomas Jefferson, that your right to swing your arm stops where my nose starts.

Where did I say anything about banning the breed ? Or your right to own one ?
The title of the thread was "Why own one" and this was what I was addressing.

The "reasoning" is what I question.

I covered that in the first post. Talk to a Bulldog owner and the most common coment you'll get is "best dog I ever owned." What is hard to understand about why would you want "the best dog you ever owned?"

I'll ask my neighbor that question today who's story I mentioned in this thread.

Oh, and no hard feeling :) Even though I was'nt the one leveling insults in your personal direction. :)

Bob, before I had my dog I had no idea. I got him in the fall. In spring we planted some tomatos & other stuff in a little plot in the back yard. The dog had been running through this are all winter. I put little stakes around the garden about every 2.5 feet & told the dog twice not to go in there. He stayed out. Once the garden was done he ran through it just like before. The second year I didn't even put up the stakes. He would sneak in every now & then but he would walk down the rows without hurting a thing. I've had employees with far less ability to grasp a new concept than this dog has.

And I'm sorry if I overreacted. There are so many do-gooder bufoons out there trying to rid the world of this menace that it is somewhat of a sore subject.

Well, this thread seems to be winding down with hugs all around. The pit bull lovers happily agree that the others are ignorant bufoons, and the others have gotten bored.

Leaving the following data unaddressed:

US 1978-1998 pure-bred dogs involved in fatal attacks on humans ("death-based" count, i.e. excludes cross-breeds, attacks involving multiple dogs of the same breed are counted only once):
Pit bull-type 66
Rottweiler 39
GSD 17
Husky-type 15
Malamute 12
Doberman 9
Chow 8
St Bernard 7
Great Dane 7
Akita 4
and a few others
Labrador Retriever 1
Australian Shepherd 0
Collie 0

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

There goes that top-notch logic again. Go back to that ambulance chaser or all-knowing doo-gooder's site & get the info on how many akitas or great danes there are in comparison. Then you'll make a little more sense. While you're at it look & see how many of those dogs were whole male's who live on a chain. Then maybe you'll get it a little.

Mule, I think devotion to the pit bull breed can get in the way of a logical discussion.

First, the data I quoted is from a study by the Center For Disease Control. It merely happens to be linked from the dog bite lawyer's site. Would it be better if I linked to the CDC website? Here: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

Second, if the data shows a particular breed is involved in 8X as many fatal attacks as most other large dog breeds, "the ball is in the court" of the devotees of that breed. If you think the explanation is that there are many more dogs of that particular breed, it's kind of up to you to show the data.

Third, since you didn't, I will. http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm?SEARCH_BUTTON.X=0\&SEARCH_BUTTON. Y=0 From the American Kennel Club's 2004 registration statistics:
#1 Labrador retriever 146692
#2 Golden retriever 52550
#3 GSD 46046
#4 Beagle 44555
#5 Yorkshire Terrier 43522
#6 Dachsund 40770
#7 Boxer 37741
#8 Poodle 32671
#9 Shih Tzu 28958
#10 Chihuahua 24850
#11 Mini Schnauzer 24080
#12 Pug 23152
#13 Pomeranian 21269
#14 Bulldog 19396
#15 Cocker Spaniel 18553
#16 Rottweiler 17498
#22 Doberman 11724
#24 Husky 10566
#27 Great Dane 9507
etc etc (I got tired of typing, so after #15 I started listing only large breeds and I quit typing after #27). But the whole list is at the AKC website. By the way, #90 is Staffordshire Bull Terrier 791.

This data suggests that there are far fewer pit bull dogs than there are, say, GSD or retrievers or dobermans etc. I do realize that AKC registration statistics don't reflect the total number of pure-breed dogs, but I think it is a decent indicator of the relative numbers of different breeds. This is also consistent with what I see walking around - I see lots of GSDs and retrievers and very few pit bulls.) Since there are far fewer pit bulls than the more common large breeds (e.g. retrievers and GSDs) but 4-8X more fatal attacks by pit bulls, the data suggests there is an unusually high risk associated with pit bulls.

Fourth, maybe most of the attacks are indeed by abused/neglected male dogs who live on a chain. (Though this isn't something I've seen any data to support, do you have any?) Well, my original point was that if a neighbor owned a pit bull, I'd want to go over there and assure myself that the dog was well-trained, secured, and so on. What's wrong with making sure the neighbor's pit bull isn't indeed a neglected male on a chain?

I didn't expect this thread to be so polarizing. I may have been wrong about the "typical" Pit Bull owner. Plenty of intelligent, thoughtful and responsible owners on this board. However, I still say you fellas are the exception to the rule. I'm not for banning the breed but still feel Pits are not for the general public.

OK, I misunderstood you. I would not mention being bitten by a poodle - surely that can't hurt.

How many cases of poodles mauling children do you see on the news? Thought so.....

By the way, you have a very cute hairdo.

What you guys need to understand is that there is a very real movement in America to do away with the breed we love. IIRC, if I travel through Denver city limits with my dog, they confiscate and kill her. We feel it's the uninformed public (which many on this thread represent) which drives & allows this type of legislation. It makes me MAD!

Don't you guys wonder why we're so passionate about our dogs? Do you really think it's b/c we're stupid or trying to make up for a small penis? Have any of you stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, it's not the breed, but a specific sub-set of bad breeders and bad owners?

JYL- I don't have written proof. But, I would bet you large sums of $$$'s that breeders for attack/fighting dogs do not register with the AKC. Also, your typical street thug isn't going to take the time or spend the money going through the registering process. But, I could be wrong.

I'll say again... I have 35 years (my whole life) of experience with this breed. I've never been around another breed that was consistently more affectionate to humans.

I should also state... I encourage jailing bad owners & breeders and taking their dogs away. Such action would make life much easier for me & my dog.

- Skip

If pit bull lovers want to keep their dogs, they should be proactive. Try to keep the breed in the hands of responsible owners. Otherwise, the bad image will never be repaired.

Many landlord policies ban any agreesive breed of dog. Any chance to remove liability is OK by me.

A "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" is a small dog, ~30 lbs. Probably not what you're thinking, but often referred to as a "pitt bull". You need to add "American Staffordshire Terrier" (or AmStaff) to your AKC search.

Also, an American Pitt Bull Terrier (APBT), also known as "pitt bull" isn't recognized by the AKC. UKC registers APBT. So, you would need to include this data in your ownership calculations as well.

All of this will help you find out how many registered "pitt bulls" there are. But, I still don't think it will come close to telling you how many there are out there.

You should also know that an APBT is not an AmStaff is not an American Bull Terrier is not a Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not an American Bull Dog is not a Dogo Argentino is not Canary Dog is not a Bull Terrier is not ... the list goes on and on. Yet, all these dogs are frequently identified as "pitt bulls".

The numbers thrown out here as "proof" can be widely misrepresented. Just because someone says a certain dog is a "pitt bull" does not make it so. These dogs are frequently mistaken. Other breeds are frequently mistaken as pitt bulls. Mixed breeds make it harder yet. I've watched vets get it wrong my whole life.

Also, has anyone actually read the CDC report? They got mucho data from newspaper reports. "Pitt bull" deaths ARE more news worthy than Lab deaths. The CDC data is flawed. The report states this.

Here's something that might interest you guys...

The most famous/most watched local "investigative" news reporter lives in my neighborhood. He did a "story" about a "pitt bull" attack which showed the viscous pittbull, in a cage, barking and generally going crazy (like we've all seen on TV) after it was accused of biting a lady.

Weeks later, while washing my 930, I saw him walking a pitt bull with his pregnant wife. They stopped to say hello, so I asked him about his new dog. Ends up it's the same one from the story. The dog had been mistaken as the bitter (the actual bitter was NOT even a "pitt"). He fell in love with the dog during the story and adopted him!!!

When I scratched my head and asked him why he aired the story, his response was, "If it bleeds, it leads". I was dumbfounded. He then explained how they had teased the dog to get him excited and barking, so they could shoot the footage. I wanted to clobber the guy.

Now, ya'll can can write this off all you want. But, I believe this is typical of what happens every day. There IS an unwarranted bias towards this breed.

- Skip

My friend is a Real Estate agent and is trying to find a rental property for a client that has a Boxer/Pit bull mix. Every property she has contacted has turned them down b/c the Pit Bull part.

It doesn't matter how sweet the breed is, lots of people don't want to risk it.

If I had rental properties, I would not allow them.

This is starting to bring back memories of Bill Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is...

And by the way a Poodle can do real damage to someone not prepaired. You'd be surprised.

skip, the point I'm making is that from the point of view of a person who has no special devotion to the pit bull breed (e.g. me), the available data suggests the pit bull breed does in fact present an unusually high risk to humans, compared to other large dog breeds.

Think of my posts as an example of how a legislator, or public safety officer, or simply a member of the general public, might analyze the issue. Those people have no particular affection for, or even experience with, pit bulls. But they see that, compared to other large dog breeds like retrievers and GSDs and dobermans, the pit bull breed is 4-8X more likely to be involved in killing a human, even though pit bulls are far less common than those other breeds - suggesting that on average the risk from an individual pit bull is 30-60X higher than the average risk from an individual retriever, GSD, etc. Are you surprised that the pit bull breed has developed such a negative image and that some communities are passing laws regulating the breed?

To devotees of the breed, this viewpoint and conclusion may seem totally wrong. Okay, but how have the pit bull fans on this thread presented their side of the issue? I saw insults (e.g. ignorant, wanker, buffoon, etc - yeah, that's an effective way to convince others). I saw stone-walling (e.g. denying that the dog was bred for dog-fighting - contrary to most published accounts). I saw blame-shifting (e.g. the it's just "a few bad apples" argument - without suggesting what can be done about it).

In my opinion, the pro-pit bull posters are letting devotion to the breed get in the way of making a logical argument that is convincing to the majority of the public and their legislators. Some of you guys are thinking with your hearts, not your heads, and preaching to the choir, not to the skeptics.

I would think pit bull fans should be working to prevent irresponsible breeding of the dog, to screen owners and require training of dog and owner, and to work for responsible and acceptable regulation, in order to head off excessive and misguided legislation including breed bans.

Just so you know, I am a former dog owner (GSD/dobie, pom mix, and pure chow), and hopefully will be a dog owner again soon (probably GSD) and I'm not particularly pro or anti-pit bull. Where I live, I virtually never see a pit bull. I got involved in this thread simply because it was interesting, and started looking for information. I was surprised to find how much data there is that supports regulation of the breed, and I figured that if I posted it, we'd see the data that defends the breed. But I really haven't seen much of that latter.

P.S. Our posts crossed. You make good points that the data may not be fully reliable. But that's the data that is available to public safety officials and legislators when they're trying to decide what to do. How erroneous is the data - a lot or a little? Maybe pit bull owner groups should commission their own rigorous study.

John- I just noticed your edit. Looks like I almost crossed your post as well. Since I'm almost done, I'm going to respond as if your P.S. doesn't exist. :)

Respectfully, my point was, your data is flawed. Decisions based on incorrect analysis and false data is dangerous.

You "suggest" that our dogs are 30-60x more likely to kill people. Yet, you ratios are inaccurate. Kinda a garbage in, garbage out situation.

The numerator requires a complete accounting of the breeds involved, which according to the CDC, we don't have (for the reasons quoted below).

Your denominator is flawed as well - you only considered one registered breed. You failed to include all breeds of "pitt bulls" and theres no accounting of unregistered pitt bulls or mixed pitts. Do you wonder why the ratio is so high?

Did you read the portion of the article which discussed problems with breed specific legislation? There are MANY.

From the CDC on why their data is flawed:
You have to understand, our dogs are under attack. People want to take our dogs and kill them - totally eliminate all trace of them. Please try and understand that if we seem too passionate. My dog is part of the family!

You're the 2nd to suggest we owners should take a more active role in fixing the problem. The BEST way for us to do this is educating the public - which is what I'm trying to do. To believe we, as owners, can somehow personally stop breeding for fighting, control how street thugs train their dog to be aggressive, make sure all owners are responsible, etc is just unrealistic and unfair. Anyone can breed and sell dogs. Anyone can buy a dog. How do we control it? Kill all dogs? Or, try and make it socially unacceptable to have any dangerous dog and have hefty penalties if you do and they hurt someone. But don't empower people to kill my dog just because someone erroneously think the breed is dangerous.

That said, the breeder I purchased my current dog from definitely put me through a screening process (the good breeders all do this, at varying levels). It took me 6 months to convince her I was an acceptable human for her pup. No kidding. We fans ARE trying!

- Skip

p.s. If this breed is so deadly, why have I NEVER been growled at, snipped, bitten, mangled or killed? Again, my whole life I have been surrounded by "pitt bulls".

One more thing... Let's put this into perspective.

According to CDC, between 1979 through 1998 there were 76 deaths caused by "pitt bull types". Since these are usually reported in the media, I figure it's a decent figure.

In 1990 there were 859 bicycle deaths - in ONE year!!!

I say "Why own a bicycle - I just don't get it."

One more...
"According to the U.S. National Weather Service, 73 people die from lightning strikes each year"

Can anyone recommend a brand of invisible fence suitable for restraining a 19 lb road bike? I think my bike is prone to attacking random pedestrians.

Seems like this could be changed. Until now, CA law has prohibited breed-specific legislation, i.e. laws that would place specific restrictions on a particular breed(s). The CA governor just signed SB 861 that permits local communities to enact breed-specific regulations relating to spay/neuter and breeding. In San Francisco, the city council will likely consider requiring pit bulls and pit bull mixes to be spayed/neutered and for breeders of this type of dog to be licensed.

What's your view on this sort of regulation? Would you support any sort of regulation on who could own a pit bull type dog - e.g. mandatory training, screening of owners, no prior criminal records, etc?

I guess I'm trying to understand what sorts of measures pit bull devotees would and would not support.

Are you serious? You don't really think I was equating the two. I was simply putting it into perspective.

John- For me it depends. I say make it very painful for the unethical breeders and street thugs. And kill the b@stards that fight the dogs.

In theory, I love the licensing of breeders idea. But in practice, I wonder how successful it could be. I mean, look at how many bad "licensed" drivers there are on the road.

Also, forced spay/neuter is a problem. How do you keep a specific line going? My AmStaff comes from a 7 year National winning stud. I paid a significant amount for her. Shouldn't I be allowed to breed her? Isn't it good for the "breed" to breed her? We decided not to. But we could have gone to any number of breeders for help. Regardless, I'd be quite angry if some city council forced me to to spay/neuter.

I don't think there is an easy answer... except to punish severely those who are careless with ANY dog.

The real problem is the growing trend/threat that they will come pick our dogs up one day and kill them... Not a simple regulation here and there.

- Skip

Hey...while yer at it...why doan we consider a ban on stoopid people breeding?

Check your home owners insurance....they already deny coverage on "agressive breed" animals.

Meanest little bastard I have ever met was a Dauchshund.