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.