I nominate you for the NAAPB. Interesting post- good to know this.

Good read but a few things:

The AmStaff is basically a APBT of larger stature.

Another common feature of these and other molosser type dogs is profound underbite (which allowed the dog to breath when it was taking down cattle - they were farm dogs, after all)

A lot of these breeds also have some mastiff in them.

They are generally thought to be 'recreations' of the original English Bulldog (not the squatty, health trouble-ridden one we see to day).

Pit Bulls (specifically APBT) do tend to display more dog aggression as it was bred into them. However, other bully breeds seem to no have it. This aggression can be mitigated by socialization. Conversely, they are generally less likely to bite humans because that has also been bred into them. In the deplorable act of dog fighting, a bite on a human handler was disqualified the dog.

The scariest dog in my old neighborhood in Memphis was my neighbor's Saint Bernard. It's said to be a gentle and kind dog, but have you ever been chased by one? I have and it scared the hell out of me. That dog also tried to eat a lady's dachsund, but a friend of mine was able to wrestle it away.

I think there's a ban on Pits and Rottweilers in Memphis, but I could be wrong. Yet nothing against the Saint Bernard that terrorized High Point Terrace!

I thought I remembered the story in the New Yorker 02/06/06. A quote:

"In epidemiological studies of dog bites, the pit bull is overrepresented among dogs known to have seriously injured or killed human beings, and, as a result, pit bulls have been banned or restricted in several Western European countries, China, and numerous cities and municipalities across North America. Pit bulls are dangerous."

And, yet, John, if you were to read that whole article, you could not help but see that the main point he was making was not quite so easy nor so easily quoted.

Actually, this is a very good law and the reaction to it by pit bull owners shows just how little they really know about their own dogs. A responsible pit bull owner would NEVER take their dog to a dog park, NEVER. It has nothing to do with "how you raise the dog" because a dog's instincts are stronger than any love and training you can provide. Pit bulls are by their very nature dog aggressive. In fact, dogs in a multi-pit household should never be left loose together because even thought they may have gotten along fine for years, it only takes once for their instinct to be triggered. You said you did your research and read all these books, so why don't you know these facts? But don't take my word for it, listen to the people that rescue and care for these dogs everyday. Don't forget to click on the yellow box that says pitbulls and dog parks on the left.

http://www.pbrc.net/breedinfo.html

I know it's annoying for me to keep asking this question, but what do you mean by pitbulls? Which dogs? The American Pit Bull Terrier? Any dog used for fighting that looks like a pit? AmStaffs? Bull Terriers? American Bulldogs?

Which bulldogs are we supposed to treat like monsters in waiting?

That's bullshit, Ms. Ed. I've a good friend back home in NC who's raised pits professionally for 20 years, and he's got acres of them running around. A whole farm of these 'dangerous' animals. Sure there are fights, but he's never had a fatality. Not one. And I and my bandmates routinely visit him with our dogs, many of whom are also pits. We all get along just fine.

Auntie, I read the whole article.

If anyone thinks what I posted was wrong let you or your children just play with one running loose. That won't happen.

So fights among dogs are fine as long as there are no fatalities? But you admit they did fight, kind of sounds like a common occurance from your post. I think that proves the point of the pit bull rescue.

On my street there are two pit bull-like dogs. I don't give a crap what their actual breed is. One is owned by a responsible couple who have obviously spent a lot of time training their dog. The other is owned by a thug who doesn't care that his dog gets out and roams the neighborhood. In the past week it has chased two of my elderly neighbors into their houses. Several of the folks on my street have contacted animal control to deal with the matter, but so far nothing has been done. There are other dogs that sometimes roam around but they have never caused any problems. I am now afraid to let my two small children play outside.

Yeah, but we're not talking pit fighting. We're talking normal pack-hierarchy stuff. And if fighting 'turns on the killer instinct' as you said, then why didn't any of his dogs get killed, or even hurt? John, I rolled around with pits as a tot. Not a scratch on me.

Here's what the Center For Disease Control (CDC) said:

"Injury Center researchers examined data about deadly dog attacks that occurred during 1979ֱ998. They found that at least 25 breeds of dogs had been involved in the fatal attacks. However, pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of the deaths for which the breed was known. Of the 227 fatal attacks for which data were available, more than two-thirds of attacks involved a single dog, and more than half involved dogs that were unrestrained on their owner's property. The findings of this study provide insight into the circumstances surrounding deadly dog attacks that may help shape prevention efforts."

PB- if you live on the eastside, I feel your pain. There were some fearsome looking ones roaming about (not all pits of course). The problem is not the dogs, its the people. Maybe we should ban thugs from the dog park.

This is a great post -- particularly the clarification on breeds. Washington Post advice columnist Carolyn Hax is famously a defender of pit bulls and related breeds. She has an AST and three young children at home. Here's a live discussion where the issue came up recently and some readers wrote in about their experiences:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/09/02/DI2005090201529.html

"Maybe we should ban thugs from the dog park."

I'm talking about my own yard. And specifically pit bull-like dogs. We've never had any problems with any other breed of dog.
Too many people get these dogs to burnish their image as a badass and they intentionally condition them to be mean. Like my neigbor, for instance.

Next time M.C. Thugpants lets his dog out and it threatens you, put a bullet in its brain. Easy fix.

Right, Burrito.

Put a bullet in its brain? Seems to me pit bull owners don't help themselves when they play into the stereotypes they claim not to like.

Maam, I am no thug, I'm one of the best friends this dog could have. But PBH stresses that the incidents happen in his/her own yard. I've had to euthanize animals before, and wouldn't hesitate to do it again (on private property in the face of clear and present danger.) In fact, I have a .357 so at least the poor misguided animal won't feel any pain.

For the record, I've never had to shoot a Staffie though.

"What does this mean? Pit Bulls can't be shown in AKC dog shoes, although Staffordshire Terriers and Bull Terriers will (in fact, a Bull Terrier won Westminster this year)."

What are dog shoes and where can I get some?

"So fights among dogs are fine as long as there are no fatalities?"

For someone called ms. education, you don't seem to no squat. Dogs determine status in the social order through aggression and physical cues. All dogs are prone to fighting, period. To forget that is asinine.

The predominant factor in dog attacks is usually the reproductive status of males.

heh. no = know, after I criticize someone for knowing squat.

Da ironies, dey kill me.

John... I have an APBT and an STB and both my kids (age 3 and 5) get along just fine with them. They are tolerant to the poking and proding that most breeds get upset about. They are the best breed of dog that I have ever owned, and by far the easiest to train. My SBT has some dog aggression issues, but like other dog aggressive dogs, she can be just fine around other dogs. We can take to obedience class (they are both in advance training) and be off leash with other dogs. It's not about breed, it's about responsible ownership and understanding your dog. Any dog, from the biggest to the smallest can be a menace.

FYI, my 5 year old can easily get my SBT to heel off leash.

John... I have an APBT and an STB and both my kids (age 3 and 5) get along just fine with them. They are tolerant to the poking and proding that most breeds get upset about. They are the best breed of dog that I have ever owned, and by far the easiest to train. My SBT has some dog aggression issues, but like other dog aggressive dogs, she can be just fine around other dogs. We can take to obedience class (they are both in advance training) and be off leash with other dogs. It's not about breed, it's about responsible ownership and understanding your dog. Any dog, from the biggest to the smallest can be a menace.

FYI, my 5 year old can easily get my SBT to heel off leash.

Sure, any dog can fight. But how many are genetically programmed to do so? For reasons other than hierarchy, just for the thrill of it? How many are physically built for fighting? In fact, here's a nice article that explains how the pit bull has different brain chemistry than other dogs.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_scared_of_pit.html

As for the various comments about mixing children and pits without problems, this should come to no surprise to those who are educated about pit bulls as dog aggression and human aggression are very different. A well-bred pit bull should be fine with children.

Denise,
I'm just wondering how the parents of your children's friends feel about their kids coming over to your house to play. Personally, I would not let my kids go to a home that has these types of dogs, no matter how good they are with family members.

"extra sensitive to endorphins.." Are you kidding me? Maam, you don't want to talk chemisty with the burrito. The statistics were far more interesting than the brain chemistry bit, anyway.

Ms. Ed

you keep quoting stats to support your fear of these animals. Do you have background info on the owners of these dogs? I think if you did you would find that:

A/ the majority of these dogs are unneutered males - stats (I know you like them) show that the vast majority of attacks involving dogs are commited by unneutered males
b/these owners come from lower socio-economic backgrounds
c/many of these dogs are used by the criminal element for intimidation or protection

It is not the breed which is the monster it is the owners and breeders.

I have far to much information to offer to counteract the ramblings of someone who only gives half the story.

Let me just say this, I have a pit-cross as well as a 1 year old child. Do I trust the dog around my child? Absolutely. Would I leave my child unattended around my dog. No way! This has nothing to do with the breed it is just what a responsible parent and dog owner would do. There are people out there who should not be parents and should never own a dog. The problem is the government's of the land refuse to take the issue of dog ownership seriously. As long as they continue down this path we will continue to have fatalities involving dogs.

29 posts, all in a more-or-less pleasant tone and still on topic? Amazing!

Interesting, how do you know the backgrounds of these owners? They are not published anywhere, you clearly indicate I don't know, so how do you? So basically you "think" I would find - in other words you don't know either, you are guessing, but putting it forth as facts to make pit bulls look good.

Let's think about this: A/ while it is true that most attacks are done by unneutered males, there is nothing to suggest that all these pit bull that attacked were unneutered. Please keep in mind that all breeds fall victim to less than responsible owners and breeders, yet no other breed has the stats of pit bulls.

B/ are you saying that lack of money results in an irresposnible pet owner? Again, can you prove this, or is this just stereotyping? Poor people or urban dwellers don't just have pit bulls, and I hope you are not implying this.

C/ You must be joking with this one. The majority of pit bull owners are regular people, not thugs and drug dealers. And to imply that everyone that owns a pit bull is a criminal, well I find that very offensive.

Now let me correct you ona few other things: there is no fear involved here, only fact. And no one said these dogs were monsters. We cannot blame these dogs for acting the way we created them to act. But if you choose to own one, then you must be responsible about it.

The topic here is the ban on pit bulls in dog parks, and the fact is any responsible pit bull owner knows that pit bulls do not belong in dog parks.

OK, ms education go to this link. As for Denise I'd get rid of those beasts tonight.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/03/BAdogmaul03.DTL

This is a heartbreaking story of a 12 yo killed in SF 06/04/05 by the family pets, 2 pit bulls.

Why any sane person would take this kind of risk is beyond my comprehension. It's not the dog's fault and is sure the hell not the child's

One thing I can agree with you on, Ms. Ed, is the statement "if you choose to own one, then you must be responsible about it."

That is the root of our problem.

(Yay! Claire got her first marathon thread.)

I agree with both john and burrito on their last points. Irresponsible owners are part of the problem, but the thing is all breeds have irresponsible owners and not all breeds have that statistics of pit bulls. If you get this type of dog, or any other type dog, you need to understand BEFOREHAND what you are getting yourself into. Pit bulls can be great dogs, but having one means you don't get to go to dog parks with it, and you may have trouble with your home insurer, and people may be afraid of your dog. For the life of me, I don't understand why pit bull owners are so shocked when these things happen to them. It's like they can't even have a conversation about the issue without attacking anyone who doesn't think their dog is just like every other dog. And that is part of the problem as well. We need to work together to stop attacks so banning will stop.

Speaking of marathon threads- anyone noticed how the level of interest in NiT has severely dropped off the last couple of months? No one posts there anymore.

General interest in certain blogs waxes and wanes depending on who is pissed off when.

Does this mean Claire is no longer a virgin?

My intact male Rottweiler (AKC purebred, 115 lbs.) has been bitten by three different breeds, all under 12 lbs., and never once bitten back. He's 9 years old, and he goes to the park frequently (while we can, I suppose). This whole conversation is beyond absurd, and anyone who thinks banning one particular breed will solve some sort of dilemma is a misguided fool. My nephew was sent to hospital for stitches by my parents' Cairn Terrier (all 11 lbs. of him) yet my 115 lb. Rottweiler gladly let said nephew sit on him again this past Christmas for family photos. So any of you folks who think it's the "killer" breeds and/or not how you raise them and socialize them, please speak up. The last I checked, golden retrievers were the number one breed of dog that sent people to emergency rooms. Hate to get personal, but Ms. Education, you bring your responsible dogs around my supposedly dangerous and irresponsible one, and I'll take all of your money in a bet that your precious, perfectly socialized dog makes the first aggressive move toward my Rottweiler. When he throws your dog off to the side with nothing more than a grunt and snort, then you can talk, because if he (or Pits) were as anti-social and dangerous as you claim, he'd simply drop about 200 lbs. per square inch of Rottweiler jaw on your little dog and that would be the end of it. Somehow, he never has done that to any animal or person, and never will. Explain that and then I'll give credence to what you're arguing. Until then, my offer stands: let's see whose dog goes after the other one first. Off leash, in a park (preferably with other off-leash dogs to distract them both). You're going to owe me and I'll donate it to some sort of fund for Pit rescue or similar.

There are two things that I would like to comment on. The first is the CDC report. THis report is widely touted to be the "expert" report, however if you go to page 2 of the report about half way down if I remember correctly you will see that they say do not use this report as it is flawed. There are major problems with this report one of which is that Pit Bull is a combination of 4 seperate and distinct breeds of dogs and all other breeds are listed seperately. Also you need to understand that if a german sheppard shows up as 3 bites then the Pit bull would have to have 12 bites to equal that number. And the other interesting thing in this report is that if 10 chihuahuas kill one person it is reported as one bite, however if a poodle/beagle mix kills someone it is reported 2 times, once under poodle and once under beagle. So as you can see this report is truly flawed and should not be used by rational humans.
The other thing that I would like to comment on is the 12 yr old that was killed in San Francisco. His mother locked him in the basement with a shovel under the door handle but made the statement "he had plenty of food and water" How about a bathroom? The child was locked in the basement because the mother had a female in heat upstairs with a male so they could breed. This is the worst situation that you could possibly immagine happening. These people knew nothing about breeding or evidently about raising children. Why lock a child in the basement? Why leave 2 breeding dogs upstairs unattended? Have they not heard of crates for the dogs when you are not there to supervise? And how about the fact that the neighbors heard the mother scream when she found her son, but never heard the child utter a sound? There is more holes in this stories than you will ever see in swiss cheese. Oh by the way the mother was charged with abuse and neglect in the death of her son, as she should have been. It was sad, it was tragic, it was also unnessacary for that child to have died.

Here is the New Yorker article John mentioned earlier:

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_06_a_pitbull.html

It's really quite interesting. Good read.

In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog. The junk-yard German shepherd—which looks as if it would rip your throat out—and the German-shepherd guide dog are the same breed. But they are not the same dog, because they have owners with different intentions.

Two anecdotes I forgot to mention in the post:

1) One of my good friends lives in a neighborhood with a serious stray dog problem. It's in Antioch. She has "rescued" numerous dogs (kept one as her own pet, turned the rest over to humane animal shelters). A few months ago, she called me because a young pit bull had entered her yard and she was housing it until she could call an animal shelter to take it off her hands. The dog looked well cared for - no bite marks or signs of fighting - and it was very young and friendly. It played well with her dog and everything was fine. Except for one problem: we couldn't find an animal shelter that would accept it. We finally called the Dog Shoppe in Green Hills and the owner (I think? this was a whlie ago) of the store had a friend who rescued pits. So we gave the dog to her. But that dog lived at my friend's house for 4 or 5 days as we tried frantically to turn it over to someone we knew would treat it correctly.

2) When I see dogs wandering loose, I always check to see if they have collars. If they do, I return them to their owners. I was driving on Wedgewood a few weeks ago, and a pit bull just wandered up to my car as it sat at a stoplight at the 12th Ave/Wedgewood intersection. The dog was emaciated and wearing a giant collar with bits of heavy duty chain dangling from it. Its ears were cut extremely short and it was scarred all over its body; clearly a fighting dog. I did not get out of my car to help it because I was not equipped to deal with an unknown animal of doubtful background. I called the animal shelter when I got home, but I doubt they ever found it. I still think about this dog sometimes. It needed help, but I had no idea how to help it.

Also, dog fighters are jerks.

It's amazing how much of the population is controlled by heresay and fear mongering. Not to mention the incredible urge to create some frightening headline where there is none.

I am not here to change anyone's opinion on anything, I would just like to encourage everyone to always make sure that they collect information from a variety of sources before they decide to form such a strong opinion. (BTW, newspapers and journals are littered with heresay and fear)

I didn't get my dogs for my kids, or my kids friends. They are my companions, not beasts, but we are all entitled to an opinion. Call them what you will, but remember that if you want to take on the battle to abolish the bully breeds, there is a long list of dogs that will replace them, and your fight will be long.

My suggestion, educate the dogs owners, and severely punish those who are negligent... seems to make more sense on all levels.

The issue here is not owner education or making your dog behave. It is are pit bulls inherently dangerous?

The Chinese, English etc seem to think they are. People who fight dogs certainly use pit bulls almost exclusively.

The CDC thinks so.

Why keep these dogs if there is any doubt. It is irresponsible to own one. Why would anyone even want a dog like this?

We would want a dog like this because we know better then to believe the irrational fear of others.

It is PRECISELY about owner education and making your dog behave.

A pit bull is a dog, and regardless of what others would have you believe, they are not genetically different then any other dogs. If you really want to know more about the science behind it, then get reputable sources and not some journal that is dedicated to fads.

The pit bull is a strong dog, there is no doubt. But there are many other strong breeds out there just waiting to become the next popular muscle.

This trend will not end unless there are some real consequenses for the idiots that make them dangerous.

I don't own a pit, but here's reasons I would want one:

-protection of my home and person
-they are feircly loyal
-easy to train

There are lots of other reasons I wouldn't want one, but those are reasonable reasons to want that type of dog.

My father operated a kennel when I was growing up and we had literally hundreds of Collies, Shepherds,Standard Poodles and various Terriers over the years and I don't recall any person or animal being assaulted by any of them.A few years ago I picked up a starving and battered stray Pit bull pup and that 5-6 month old dog could make my adult Husky cower with just a snarl. Another time I was charged and forced back into my house by a Rottweiler who was owned by a neighberhood drug dealer biker who is now in prison for murder. I firmly believe it is the character of the owner rather than the breed of the dog that causes problems. BTW, a co-worker of mine just missed 2 days work because her thumb was mangled by her cat!

John, you're forgetting that before the association of pit bulls with fighting, they were extremely popular pets. Thus the dogs are not inherantly dangerous. Just like dobermans, rottweilers, etc. are not inherantly dangerous either. It's how you raise them.

Of course, a large dog of any size is likely to inflict more pain/injury in an attack than a small dog. You don't ever hear about people being mauled to death by Chihuahuas not because of their winning personality but because, well, they are Chihuauas. The pit bull is an extremely strong dog, pretty much all muscle. It's going to play hard, rip its toys to shreds, and if you mistreat it, it will fight and attack hard too.

John and Ms. Ed.

You are truly both just reading what you want to support a flawed argument. John, you say China has banned the breed and that seems to be good enough for you. Shall we trust China's lead? After all they have such a stellar record on human rights, I am sure they treat their animals just as well (hope you recognize sarcasm).

As for England, their BSL is not working according to almost all experts in that country. Dog attacks are not down as was anticipated with the adoption of BSL.

I live in Ontario, Canada where we have just enacted BSL. This legislation banned Am Staffs, Staffs, Pit Bulls and any dog which resembled any of the above breeds. This despite the fact that their has only been one fatality in Canada over the past 20+ years involving all these breeds combined! German Shepherds, Huskies, Golden Retrievers and Rottweillers were all involved in far more deaths.

And John, to answer your question I want a dog like this because she is loving, gentle, affectionate and loyal. Just what I am looking for in a family pet.

And just one final point, you all should read Karen Delisle's book on Fatal Dog Attacks. It provides a solid background on what leads to dog attacks and in almost all fatal attacks the owner's actions led to the attack. Why are more people not being held criminally and civilly libel for the actions of their pets?

On the subject of pit bulls in dog parks... I have met many pit bulls that are great with other dogs, and there would be no reason to not allow them to socialize in a dog park. I have also met MANY other breeds of dogs at a dog park that have no right being there. Pit bulls are not the only dogs that can have dog aggression, any dog that is not properly socialize can.

I have met many dog aggressive labs, goldens, huskies, mutts, and I can go on and on... I do not use dog parks since in my experience many owners that take their dogs to these parks are not paying attention to what their dog is doing and have absolutely not control over it.

My dogs socialize with other dogs that I know, and that I feel are under good control, whether they be pit bull type dogs or not. I never want my dogs to have to endure the trauma of being attacked by another dog, whether it be another pit bull type dog or a Chihuahua.

this may be anecdotal but my dog, a pit-cross, has been attacked by a dalmation-cross and required antibiotics to clear up a puncture wound. In a seperate incident a golden retriever was playing with my dog when my dog rolled on her back the retriever latched ont her throat. the owner of the retriever did nothing to stop the attack despite the howls of pain from my dog. I was forced to punch the retriever repeatededly in the ribs to get it to release its grip. the moral of the story, dogs are only as good as their owners. my dog has never bitten another dog in a park incident. yet Ms. Ed and John would like to see her punished by banning her from off leash parks? since statistics (again, I know you like statistics Ms. Ed.) show that:

1/ over 70% of dog attacks occur on the owner's property
2/ poorly socialized and dogs that are muzzled and leashed are more likely to be involved in an attack

does it make any sense to put an owner and his family at further risk by not allowing them to socialize their dog in an off-leash environment? your arguements make little sense and that is just not me talking. that is the majority of animal experts talking.

Exactly! On your property, anything goes. You can ban poodles if you want to. but Nashville is our collective hizzie, and therefore, we must use good judgement in our policies, and this new one sucks.

I'll give you a hand in answering that question Ms.Ed.

The current conservative guess as to how many pits there are in America is 8 million. That is 8 million of approximately 65 million dogs are pits. The lab represents about as many. Funny thing is, when I take my dogs to obedience classes, the room is filled with Labs and Goldens, and my two are usually the only pits.

So what are the owners of the other pits doing to ensure that their dogs are good canine citizens? Could this perhaps be why the statistics are the way they are. At one point in this discussion it was eluded that no respectful, law abiding citizen should have one of these dogs. Well if everyone took that stance, who would there be left to own these dogs. Not anyone that will help clean up the pit bull's reputation.

Let's also not forget that the above number is a conservative guess at the number of American Pitbull Terriers. Add to that 8 million the number of American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier... and even perhaps the Bull Terrier, since so many want to throw that breed in to the pit bull melting pot, and how popular are these dogs now? No wonder they make the news... it's a simple numbers game...

(not to mention that I was once told by a reporter that 'if it's not a pit, it's not news')

Ooops! I forgot to post the comment that I wanted to respond to.

Ok, technical difficulties! I was referring to the comment about how there are other breeds with irresponsible owners but those breeds don't seem to make the news as much.

It doesn't matter what breed is or isn't allowed in a Metro dog park because the park is funded by tax dollars, which everyone knows is an unconstitutional taking and a form of creeping canine socialism. Show me where in the constitution it mentions dog parks. Or for that matter parks. Or for that matter dogs.

Denise, Denise, Denise;

did your parents ever tell you not to believe everything you read? The media is riddled with incorrect reports misidentifying breeds involved in dog attacks. For example in an incident in Ottawa, Canada that received national attention a four-year old boy was reportedly mauled by two pit bulls. After another public feeding frenzy on this downtrodden breed it was discovered that the two dogs involved in the attack were indeed Bull Mastiffs. The misidentification received minimal coverage and the damage was done by the initial false report. The point is that it the media sells papers and attracts viewers by preying on the public's fear. Right now there is a misguided fear of the breeds we have been discussing. This is one of only hundreds (yes hundreds) of incorrect identifications of dog breeds by authorities, the public and the media.

Again, I urge you all to read the book by Karen Delisle which I referenced earlier. It will open your eyes to how the media truly drives this issue by misleading the public.

lol... Shapman, that was sort of my point. I do not believe everything I read since the majority of the time it is completely out of context and twisted in such a way as to prove the exact oposite.

Not only are dogs misidentified all the time, there is actually a tendancy to ONLY report incidents involving pit bulls. For goodness sakes, they report on dog/dog aggresion with the same gusto as the war in Iraq (probably more so now that people have lost so much interest in the war)

Since when has a dog fight been news? I'll tell you... since it involved a pit bull. (or one misidentified as such)

Denise,

my apologies, it was entirely clear which side of the debate you sided with.

Suddenly I like statistics and have a little aggressive dog ֠when did that happen? First of all, any dog can bite; not all dogs are instinctively dog aggressive, have a high tolerance to pain, have a great determination to finish the job, and the desire to not let go. Do you understand why these dogs have the statistics and reputation they do? It's not the bite, it's the potential for much more damage.

Whoever said to get info from multiple sources made a great point. Personally, I get most of my information from pit bull breeders and rescue organizations. "Why would anyone even want a dog like this?" This is a great question that I have often asked of pit bull owners, and I've never gotten a good answer. All the traits people rattle off can be found in other dogs, other dogs that are not inherently dog aggressive. All breeds were created for a specific function. Pit bulls were created for fighting. No other breed can be substituted for them, it is the one attribute they excel at. The question then becomes, with all the breeds of dogs out there, why knowingly choose this one if you are living in a neighborhood filled with kids and other dogs? I have no problem with someone who wants the breed as long as they understand the breed and keep the rest of us safe, unfortunately too many pit bull owners I encounter don't know much about their own breed. They insist "it's all in how you raise them" and think as long as their pit has gotten along with a dog in the past, it will always do so in the future. Any good pit bull rescue will tell you this is not so. Another misconception: someone mentioned they would want a pit bull for protection purposes. A proper pit bull makes a horrible watchdog. Pit bulls are supposed to be very people friendly; if they show any human aggression there is something wrong there. Again, any good rescue will tell you this.

Someone else mentioned other large breeds can also do lot of damage. Theoretically, dog bites/attacks/deaths should rank according to a combination of a dog's popularity and size and strength. Why then are pit bulls so far ahead of all other breeds? Clearly it is their instincts and bred in traits that cause this distinction.

For the Canadian, it might interest you to review the BSL of Winnipeg. I believe dog attacks went from 20-25 to only 1-2 a year after banning only one type of dog: pit bulls. And yes, people are starting to be held criminally for their pet's actions now, it seems to be a growing trend, and laws are being passed accordingly.

What it all comes down to is this new law banning pit bulls should not even be necessary if pit bull owners understood the breed properly. But clearly many do not. Nor does it seem they want to learn. Where does that leave the rest of us?

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm
"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 12 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill." I have two decades of personal/professional experience with all breeds of dogs, including thousands of American Pit Bull Terriers, of which I currently own 10 that are genetically related. There is more diversity of personality between individuals in my "pack" of "pit bulls" than between all dog breeds. ALL are properly socialized and trained, some function well in crowded and chaotic situations like dog parks and the "dog beach", while others cant even stand to watch the interaction and the rest fall somewhere in between. This is NORMAL canine behavior. Many of my clients "lap dogs" are human and/or canine agressive, and exhibit potentially dangerous predatory behavior. Everyone knows their own animal best. The decision, and liability for the outcome, should ultimately rest with the owner. This is one of many issues up for discussion at dogpolitics.com and everyone who owns a domestic animal should educate themselves on how our legislators are being manipulated by the minority of animal rights terrorists, who use high priced marketing companies to sell their agenda with tax exempt dollars from misinformed supporters.

Ms. Education

Caught you in a lie! Remember it is not nice to lie! Winnipeg enacted BSL in 1990. In that year there were 214 reported dog bites. In the following 13 years for which I have data the number was below the 1990 number 5 times and exceeded it 13 times!! On average there was over 50 more bites per year and the number of biting incidents involving breeds such as German Shepherds and Rottweilers increased significantly. Supporting the argument that punks (for lack of a better term), irresponsible breeders and owners just movede on to other breeds. Also supporting the argument that governments need to get tougher on these groups. Do not punish the responsible owner. That is exactly what BSL does.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!

"creeping canine socialism"!?! Gilbert,I can't believe you made me laugh. I so hope it was intentional.

Oops! Jokes on me, Gilberg Marlin. Damn, you're good.

obviously with my Winnipeg example I meant it exceeded the 1990 number 8 times and not 13.

Excuse me, shapman, but where in my post about Winnipeg did I mention dog bites? Please read posts correctly before you accuse people of being liars.

Excuse me, shapman, but where in my post about Winnipeg did I mention dog bites? Please read posts correctly before you accuse people of being liars.

Ms. Education:

This quote alone should exclude you from the debate: "Theoretically, dog bites/attacks/deaths should rank according to a combination of a dog's popularity and size and strength." I do not know any gang members who choose say a poodle or a jack russell as their dog of choice.

Also, is everyone aware that Helen Keller used an Am Staff as a working dog and that some police forces use pits as drug sniffing dogs. Saying that pits have been bred to fight is only partly correct, they have also been used for other valuable purposes. By the way did you know that English Mastiffs were originally bred and trained to fight lions in the Coliseum in ancient Rome? These dogs do not pose a significant threat why? Because they no longer are trained to fight. Some of you are underestimating the human element in the development of these animals. Yes, they do possess capacity to inflict great capacity but that capacity is only realized through brutal training methods and/or neglect and mistreatment of these dogs. Banning any breed is a band-aid solution just ask people in Italy where over 40 different breeds are banned and/or restricted.

Speaking as a former dog bather and kennel worker, I'd have to say that the type of dog I've had the least amount of problems with would have to be pits.

The pits who mauled a young boy here in San Francisco a year or so ago were not only severely inbred, but actively MATING with each other--and any animal in that state is far more aggressive than it would be during the "off-season". And exactly who the hell leaves their kid home alone with two big dogs mounting each other? From the looks of things, these dogs weren't even raised with any discipline in the first place.

I've never had problems when my dog plays with a pit. I'm actually grateful for them because they usually give him a great workout, and will play for HOURS.

Ms. (Un)Educated;

Let's not get into semantics. You mention dog attacks. I do not believe the statistics differentiate between an attack and a bite. And by the way the stats you are quoting are for the banned breeds in Winnipeg. Yes, the number of attacks did decrease (go figure there were less of these dogs in the city because of BSL). My numbers stand to show that yes the number of attacks (bites, whatever you want to call them) actually have shown an average increase in Winnipeg since BSL.

Well, the crazy sector of animal lovers came from all directions. Rallied to the cause.

Bizarre bunch of posts.
I knew they were out there. How did they all find out about the Scene blog? And, all at once.

Bite me!

Actually, there is a huge difference between bites and attacks, or else there would not be two different designations. The information I read said that attacks from all breeds dropped to only 1 or 2 a year after pit bulls were banned.

"Theoretically, dog bites/attacks/deaths should rank according to a combination of a dog's popularity and size and strength." Looks like this needs to be explained as well. Let's see, if a dog is more popular, then there is more of it, and therefore more people will be injured by that type of dog. Also, larger and stronger dogs can inflict more damage, the greater the injury the more likely it would be reported. It makes perfect sense to me.

well here goes, my Winnipeg stats are from the Dog Legislation Council of Canada, where do yours come from? the numbers I quoted from this report are all based on "reported" bites/attacks

also your argument does not stand up. again dogs which are used for illegal activities (and former Toronto Police chief Julian Fantino testified that pit bulls and smilar breeds are the breeds of choice for this are of society) are more likely to brutally abused to make them more aggressive. In almsot all cases a dog does not just become aggressive, he is made to be that way by his owner. WAKE UP!! I admit there is a problem but putting a cloth bandage on a gaping wound will not solve the problem. BSL does not work, we should zero in on the real problem; the owners and the breeders.

In this vein I suggest you all do some reading on the "sport" of dog fighting. If these animals are so predisposed to fight why to they have to abused in such a way to make them more aggressive. document methods include putting the fighting dogs on treadmills for hours, depriving the animals of food, etc.

oh and by the way Ms. (Un)Educated you are in way over your head on this one. you may find some support for your arguments among the generally uninformed public and some of the politicians who choose to pander to these individuals in order to garner public support but the informed public knows the facts.

Talk about personal attacks! Look, just because you don't agree with people doesn't mean they are uninformed. I wish I had the newspaper article to show you, but I don't - all I know is it talked about dog attacks, serious trips-to-the-hospital attacks, not dog bites. Most people understand that pit bulls are not all monster dogs. They also understand that the majority of pit bull owners are not thugs and criminals but regular people. Therefore they don't accept the argument that all these "bad" pit bulls come from dog fighters, they know that family pets are involved in most of the reported attacks. A lot of people like myself have done research because they have been told how wonderful these dogs can be, but when the breeders and rescues warn about the way the dog naturally is, we take notice. A pit bull in the right hands is not a problem, but when the majority of pit bull owners don't know what their own dogs are capable of, that worries people. Can you understand that point of view?

The funny thing about the argument you are making Ms.Education, is that the same can be said about the MAJORITY of the breeds out there.

Unfortunately there are so many backyard breeders for the pit bulls and no one properly screening what homes they are going to. Very few breeds belong in any home. But, pit bulls are being singled out here. That is the problem I have. The responsible breeders of pit bulls do not say anything different then the responsible breeders of other breeds whose owners need to be properly screened. That's why we have so many breeds...

And... I take offense to John's post refering to some here as the 'crazy sector of animal lovers' ... he started it.. and someone fought back. Sorry, but it seems that Jeff was defending others from John's personal attacks.

Three comments removed. Keep it civil, please.

I am out of ammo; all I had to begin with was ordinary common sense.

Jeff called me a jackass and I replied.

As for crazies, there is a sector of the whole animal rights thing whose members are crazy or worse. This is generally agreed by most normal people.

LOL... I'm just reading what I just wrote and it may be taken the wrong way... I'm not saying that there are breeds that don't belong in any home... what I was saying was that every breed is suitable for certain homes. Breeds typically do not fit every lifestyle and this should be assessed before ever getting a dog.

If you live in the city in an appartment with a fairly sedentary lifestyle, don't get a border collie... that would be disasterous!

If you want a dog that will get along with all other dogs... you should probably stay away from the terriers.

Instead of reading only what the pit bull breaders say... compare it with what other breeders of other breeds have to say about those. You may be surprised!

I am NOT an animal rights supporter.

Incase you did not know, the AR groups completely support breed bans. They want every single domesticated dog neutered/spayed and fizzled out.

So you definitely have those writing here grouped with the wrong people.

Denise,

I don't know about you and you don't know about those who are posting here. I'll bet you are wrong.

Fine... Anyone here an Animal rights believer?

I think that people make this mistake all to often!

I have fought on alone. But, I'm am leaving the field. Buy the kids a pit bull, wolf hybrid; hell, get them a tiger! Take it to the dog park.

You ever notice how a dog getting hurt in a movie is a guaranteed tearjerker, yet when a adult human is hurt, there is nary a wet eye in the house?

Animal rights supporters are the scum of the earth with no respect for the rights afforded to me by the U S Constitution. They are truly "crazy" indeed as the meatless, petless, loveless society they work towards will surely bring the apocalypse of humankind through starvation and pandemic diease. I think Wayne, Ingrid, and the whole lot should be abandoned on a deserted island somewhere so that we can watch them starve to death when confronted with their own hypocracy and film it for next seasons "Survivor"!!!Breed bans are only one of the ways they are furthering their agenda to end the use and ownership of ALL animals.Limit laws, public space bans (like parks), manditory microchipping with government data bases are just some of the policies they support with tax exempt donations. This discussion is only the tip of the iceberg for what is really going on. Am I crazy? No! Normal? Well that's up for debate...Informed? Definetely.Animal rights and animal welfare are incompatible philosophies. If you dont know the difference, look up the National Animal interest Alliance.
Jade
www.stopOklahomaBSL.com

Short, sweet and to the point - I own both a 60lb American Pit Bull Terrier and an 80lb Doberman Pincher. The robbers stay away and the friends are welcomed with licks and kisses. They do their job and i love them for it!

I have never seen such a group of uninformed people in my life!

First of all if you don't know your facts keep your pie hole shut, at least that way people just think you are ignorant but opening your mouth removes all doubt.

People face it you want to spout the CDC report, the CDC says it is flawed and not correct so just be aware that you are spouting a worthless useless piece of paper.

The next thing, what article states that a quarter of all PBs that maul are "ex-fighters?" If you can not produce it then you should not quote it, in a court of law that would get the case thrown out. I can tell you from first hand experience having rescued 7 fighters that they are not human aggressive at all. Animal agressive yes, but not human.
Oh yeah, dog not liking dog...that is called nature. Dogs not liking cats...nature. Cats not liking rats...Nature. Humans attacking a breed of animal becuase they are stupid enough to beleive everything they read...gulable.

Now let's learn about AR. Animal Right people have an agenda that is for no animal to be owned or explointed by any human. Don't beleive me? Want to see for yourself, go to the PETA OR HSUS websites and they will have it spelled out in their mission statements I know I have gone there and seen it for myself, I have talked to AR folks myself and they think we are all dirty ba**ards because we own animals. I have had red paint thrown on me because of my beleifs about animals.

Now let us look at Animal Welfare, these are folks who are concerned with and want to make sure animals have what they need and are well cared for by the humans that own them. With animal rights you are their gardian not their owner. With animal welfare you are their owner and want to make sure their lives are as good as they can be.
I refuse to pick out certain folks but I can tell you there are several here that are AR and Denise is not one of them.

Understand that when you talk about bite statistics you need to remember that not only do you need to take into account how many times a dog breed has bitten you also need to take into account the population of that breed in that area. These are all points that should be factored into it as well. Think about it logically for once not with emotion but as reasoning human beings. If we have a breed of dog that only has 100 in the entire breed and 5 of them have bitten a human that is a bite ratio of 20%. When you have a dog with a population of 8 million and you divide that by the bite stats from the CDC (we will use that as you all seem to think it is right even though it states it is not) then we come up with a bite percentage of 0.00000004%. No other breed of dog has a lower percentage of bites than does the american pit bull terrier. But no other dog is more popular at this time.

So when we see an article that says "PB bites" we need to question several things, what breed is the dog actually. When I was growing up with dogs and I have been breeding and rescueing since I was about 4 years old and can say I am 49 now that is 45 years experience, if a dog was a mix of more than one breed it was a MUT. Not purebred and certainly should not be counted as anything other than what it is a MUT. The MUT is by far and wide the greatest biter known to man, but the humane societies play that down so you will take one of the muts they offer at the shelter. And don't get me wrong, some of them make great pets, some don't. But with muts, you do not have a responsible breeder that is trying to make sure they put out a dog with a reliable temperment, good genetics and proper vetting before it gets to you.

What is the answer? Very simple, be responsible for your dogs be it an APBT or a chihuahua. Take them to obediance classes, socialize them with other dogs and humans, take the time and effort to have an animal you can be proud of that is not a slobbering idiot.

Here all of you are fighting on this list, how could that energy be better spent? Maybe take a little time with the dogs to do a little extra play and/or training time. Donate some time to your local shelter and do it in the name of PBs. Get to know other dog owners so when they come after your breed there will be power in numbers. You say "but I have fluffy foo foo dogs" yes, and when the big dogs are all gone because we let them legislate them out of existance then yes, they will go after the fluffy foo foos.

When out walking, I don't care what breed and even if they are voiced trained, put them on a leash and make sure you have a handle on what is going on around you. Don't allow aggressive behavior out of ANY dog, even a fluffy foo foo that is snarling and snapping at another dog is dog agressive and trying to challange that other dog. No one should blame the other dog but they always do because "it was just a little fluffy foo foo, and that big old mean doggy ate him" Yeah, if your Fluffy foo foo is taunting my big old mean dog he may get eaten. THAT IS DOG BEHAVIOR. It is a pack mentality and if we don't want the Alpha male to eat your little bitty alpha male then maybe we need to keep little and big dogs from being agressive to each other.

So let us agree to disagree but ban together to fight the wrong that is going on. Fight the breed specific legislation, fight the breed profiling.
Don't think you are being profiled because of the breed of dog you own? Think again. If you would like to help fight the good fight come and join me on RDOES@yahoogroups here we fight BSL and learn what is going on around the world.
Sandi

Wow... after reading this post, I am overwhelmed at the response (good and bad) that this subject rises out of people. Look, if it is not pits being targeted, another dog breed will be and we all can go round and round about them too. What does that say? That the same ole arguement, that it is the pit bulls' owners who are at fault not the pit bull, can apply to any dog. So when the media starts in on Rotts or German Shepards, sensationalizing their "aggressive" behavior and collecting data on every single bite these dogs inflict as front page headlines, are we then going to prejudice them as we are doing to pitt bulls? Of course! Not getting to the root of the problem, THE OWNERS, is not solving it.

P.S. You go Sandi!

"Dogfighting also threatens the lives of the human residents in every community where the activity thrives. If they aren't shot outright, losing dogs who fail to show "gameness" are released on the streets to fend for themselves. These dogs become an immediate menace to all who encounter them.

A look at pit-bull mauling cases shows that most involve dogs abused in order to make them "mean," and hence, better fighters. Once these dogs lose their natural inclination to see people as friends, they are more prone to attack, often with horrible results."

John Goodwin, investigator with The Humane Society of the United States

see the difference is that I am providing my sources. when I make a statement I back it up with either expert testimony or legitimate statistics. I don't say "I wish I had that article but I don't." The fact that I document my sources makes my case a little more believable than yours.

and as for you continually stating that dog rescue organizations have said these dogs are a bred apart I will give you one in Ontario, Advocate for the Underdog, which had a representative give testimony at the public hearings last year on how good these animals actually are when in the right hands.

the problem is that these dogs fall in the wrong hands far to often and governments do not take the issue of animal abuse such as dog fighting seriously.

are you familiar with a Presa Canario? If not you will be if restrictions (muzzles, leashes, bans, etc) continue to be the proposed solution to this problem. finding another strong breed to train to be overly aggressive will be as easy as going to the corner store to get a quart of milk.

those of you in favour of restricting pit bulls and similar breeds will be back on the forums and lobbying the government to do the same with another breed in the not so distant future.

take the city of Calgary's lead. make registration of dogs mandadtory (over 80 % of all dogs in Calgary are now registered). enforce the existing laws such as leash laws and target owners of dogs who are a habitual problem. this Western Canadian city has seen reported dog bites drop by over 75% since it enacted its Dangerous Dog legislation which by the way is non breed specific.

See Denise, that is exactly my point. All breeds are not for everyone, and in the wrong hands can be a problem. All breeds fall victim to irresponsible owners. Why then do pit bulls cause so many more problems? When you understand the breed, you understand why. And when owners don't know the breed (and I've seen several examples of that right here), accidents are bound to happen. With a border collie, your couch could be destroyed. With a pit bull, your nextdoor neighbor's dog could be destroyed. To many of us, that is a huge difference that we are not comfortable with. Demonstrate to the public you understand your breed and are willing to take care of it properly and no one hassles you. Get all defensive and yell that we are all uninformed because we don't own one (and this reaction happens often) and BSL starts looking like a good idea to the general public whether they agree with it or not. Just my observation.

I'm also happy to see that people here understand what AW is opposed to AR. All pet owners should know the real AR agenda.

Ms. Ed... again you are not up on the facts about dogs and breeds.

Border Collies have killed.

Ban the Deed, not the Breed!
As a professional dog trainer I feel obligated to respond to the latest news announcing a Pit Bull and "Pit Bull-type" dog ban from the leash-free areas of metros dog parks. The average person's knowledge of the breed is usually biased, based on urban myths aimed at damaging the breed's reputation. Contrary to what is portrayed in the media, we are not being overrun with vicious Pit Bulls. Since the 1980's. Pit Bulls have been responsible for about three human fatalities a year in the United States. We live in a society were 2000 parents kill their children each year through domestic violence, and drunk drivers kill another 25000 people. We have to ask ourselves if the Pit Bull issue is truly a safety issue or just hype. Of course, all pit bulls are not dangerous. Most don't bite anyone. Meanwhile, Dobermans and Great Danes and German shepherds and Rottweilers are frequent biters as well, and the dog that recently mauled a Frenchwoman so badly that she was given the world's first face transplant was, of all things, a Labrador retriever.
As a dog trainer that handles many breeds including Pit Bulls, I face the realization that society wants to put a bandage on the vicious dog issue by severely restricting or banning various breeds. We must come to our senses and realize that it is the irresponsible owner who is truly at fault. It has been proven by numerous studies that the Pit Bull is no more inheritably aggressive then any other breed. In August 2002, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld a decision that pit bulls were no more inherently dangerous than any other breed in WAF/Sheila Tack v. Huntsville Alabama. In 2000, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), joined together to investigate whether or not breed specific legislation (banning individual breeds, such as pit bulls) is effective. Dr. Julie Gilchrist of the CDC Injury Center in Atlanta concluded that, "We learned breed specific legislation is not the way to tackle the issue of dog bites. Instead, we should look at the people with the dogs responsible for the bites." Organizations against breed specific regulations include: American Veterinary Medical Association, The American Kennel Club, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, National Animal Control Association, and the Humane Society of the United States. According to a recent aggression test of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society, Pit Bulls achieved an above average passing rate of 83.9 percent based on their temperament. Golden Retrievers received an 83.2 percent score, Beagles 78.2 percent, and Standard Schnauzers scored only 63.5 percent.
In closing I would like to add that I never cared much for off-leash areas in dog parks, because very few dog owners are in control of their own dogs, regardless of their breed, there will always be a potential for dogfights. However to ban a dog based on its breed is to generalize, stereotype and a form of racial profiling. To state that a Specific Breed is more loving, more predictable, more dangerous or more compassionate than that of other Breeds - is Wrong. Dogs are only as good as Their Owners. Ban the Deed, not the Breed.

Bravo Thomas! Could not have said it better myself!!

Ms. Ed. Time to trot out your mythical dog rescue agencies who you believe support your argument.

The real experts all know that any type of BSL is the wrong way to deal with the issue.

Denise, my facts are not wrong. How many border collies have killed compared to pit bulls? All dogs are capable of killing and biting, some have a history of doing it more than others which can be explained by the breed traits.

A quick comment about the temperment test: it tells us nothing about breeds as a whole, only about individual dogs. If you understand the test and what dogs are tested, this becomes quite clear. In order for a comparison to be made, you would need an equal and random sample of each breed. With this test, the sample consists of those dogs with good, involved owners who have trained their dogs and paid money for the test because they believe their dog can pass. Hardly equal, hardly random.

"Good intentioned but ignorant owners who obtain a pit bull, convinced that the dog's temperament is ultimately influenced by "how you raise them" do tremendous damage to our dogs as well as being grossly unfair to their dog ." http://www.pbrc.net/breedinfo.html

These words were written by Diane Jessup. Ms. Jessup has bred, trained, and shown pit bulls for decades, has written three books on the subject, and is the creator and editor of Fully Bully Magazine.

Oh, and for shupman: my "argument" has always been that a responsible pit bull owner knows not to take their dog to dog parks. And yes, pit bull rescues, mythical or otherwise, support this. I never said anything about rescues supporting BSL. Is this where your confusion lies?

Gee... I thought we went through this already!!

0.00000004% is an outstanding record.

You need to compare it to the breed population. I thought you liked statistics?

Anyone going to a dog park needs to take their dogs temperament into consideration. If your dog does not typically like other dogs, don't go. REGARDLESS of breed. Don't single out one breed... There are MANY, MANY more breeds that typically don't get along with other dogs. And I've met many so called 'dog friendly dogs' that were dog aggressive.

There are also MANY pit bulls that are great with other dogs... just like there are retrievers who don't retrieve, hounds that can't follow a scent, and couch potato border collies... But I thought we were against creating laws based on stereotypes! This is my issue.

I don't take my dogs to dog parks. As I've said before, I don't find people mind their dogs enough there. So I'm not arguing about this for my sake, but on principal.

MS ED, your facts on breed traits are not wrong. It is your point of view, that BSL is the way to fix the problem of dogfights in the metro parks, which is wrong. The problem exists because of ignorant or irresponsible dog owners, not by any particular breed. And if you think that pit bull or pit bull type dogs are the only breed quick to engage in fighting than you are also wrong. There are numerous breeds that have a genetic disposition to aggression and bully breeds are not even on the top of that list. Many dogs in the hound group are ferocious dog fighters. And the working group of dogs has some of the most aggressive breeds of all.
When we support or ignore any BSL, we are doing our self and our dogs a great injustice.
When we say that pit bulls are dangerous, we are making a generalization. Pit-bull bans involve a category problem, too, because pit bulls, as it happens, aren't a single breed. The name refers to dogs belonging to a number of related breeds, such as the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and the American pit bull terrier-all of which share a square and muscular body, a short snout, and a sleek, shorthaired coat. Thus the Metro ban prohibits not only these three breeds but also any "dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar" to theirs; the term of art is "pit bull-type" dogs. But what does that mean? Is a cross between an American pit bull terrier and a golden retriever a pit bull-type dog or a golden retriever-type dog? If thinking about muscular terriers as pit bulls is a generalization, then thinking about dangerous dogs as anything substantially similar to a pit bull is a generalization about a generalization. A pit-bull ban is a generalization about a generalization about a trait that is not, in fact, general. That's a category problem.
The BSL in Metro parks is not treating the problem of dogs getting out of control of their handlers, but rather the symptom of peoples fears of a breed that they perceive as a big, nasty, scary dog breed that bites.
I state once more that I don't think much of off-leash areas in public dog parks, but if we must have them, then the only way to assure the safety of the dogs and their handlers is to ban them according to their individual temperament and actions and not according to breed or breed type.

Shapman,
since you werent able to prove your source about HSUS, John Goodwin and dogfighting claims, please check out a couple of mine.
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136
http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=1700
http://www.nraila.org/issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=156
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/arterror.htm
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm
The HSUS, which operates no animal shelters has a new budget of 20 million and one of the top marketing firmst to target "animal fighting" wi th Goodwin as its project head. According to HSUS themselves, it would be a felony under H.R.817 for the interstate traffic of animals used in dogfights, while an Illinios bill now sitting on the governors desk (HSUS sponsored)makes the ownership of exercise equipment "prima facia' evidence" of dogfighting. As someone who travels several thousand miles a year in an RV, taking my APBT's to dog shows, it's not hard to see the intentional slant of this "campaign". And as for Dianne Jessup, I've read her entire site and while she considers helself an expert, those of us that are consider her a fool.
Jade

this is ridiculous!! without getting too insulting, anyone with half a brain would never support any type of BSL! the statistics in areas where they have brought forth this type of legislation support this claim. Thomas is 100% correct when he states that; "The BSL in Metro parks is not treating the problem of dogs getting out of control of their handlers, but rather the symptom of peoples fears of a breed that they perceive as a big, nasty, scary dog breed that bites." There are existing leash laws, there are existing animal cruelty laws, why are they not enforced? my dog should not be banned from ANY public off-leash park. there is no history of aggression and thereefore any type of BSL is just a punishment to my dog. face facts the media has blown this issue way out of proportion and the governments have not shown the where-with-all to effectively deal with the problem.

Oh and Ms.(Un) Educated, I am a responsible pit bull owner and my no dog has had no history of aggression in 4+ years of going to off-leash parks. how do you explain that?

I'm exhausted.

Well, I checked on the Hound of the Baskervilles, dog lovers, and he sounded worse than any pit bull.

Dr Watson said: "It was not a pure bloodhound and not a pure mastiff; but it appeared to be a combination of the two—gaunt, savage and as large as a small lioness."

Denise, you keep saying I like statistics. For the second time, I think you have me confused with someone else.

And shupman, when did I ever say it was my opinion "that BSL is the way to fix the problem of dogfights in the metro parks"?

I think the problem here is many of you are arguing over points that were never made and blowing this whole thread out of proportion.

Look, it's not my opinion that pit bulls should not be in dog parks. I'm bringing to your attention the FACT that pit bull experts and rescues say not to do this. It's most likely very true that they are other breeds who should not be brought to dog parks either - but the topic of discussion was pit bulls being banned from dog parks which is why I offered information about pit bulls.

For those of you who say their dog has not shown any aggressive tendancies towards other dogs up to this point, this does not mean your dog never will according to those experts and rescues. See, each individual dog has a varying level of dog aggression and while some act on these instincts all the time, some may never their whole life. But the rescues warn that many dogs that have never shown aggression before may have the instinct triggered in the right situation - an active dog park being the type of thing that could trigger such a response. Again, this is not my opinion, this is not statistics, I am not making this stuff up - this is what the breed is. How you wish to handle this information is up to you. However, please keep in mind that many people like myself know this information and question why pit bull owners don't know it, or otherwise ignore it. The rescues put forth that being a good pit bull owner means not placing your dog in a situation where there could be an incident since incidents lead to BSL. It makes sense to me.

Here are those links again in case you would like to read the information:

http://www.pbrc.net/breedinfo.html

http://www.pbrc.net/dogpark.html

Ms. (Un)Educated

Banning a specific breed(s) from an off leash area IS BSL! Note the three words Breed - Specific - Legislation!

As for you saying that "experts" say that these animals should not be taken to off-leash parks, well I sat through an entire day of public hearings held by the government of Ontario and ALL the experts said that any type of BSL is not effective. They never mentioned that BSL that bans dogs from parks is where you draw the line.

This next quote is from you; "But the rescues warn that many dogs that have never shown aggression before may have the instinct triggered in the right situation - an active dog park being the type of thing that could trigger such a response." I agree with you 100% however in my research and reading of experts I have come across more experts fall on the side that this type of behaviour is not specific to any one breed. In other words almost all dogs are products of their environments. This is a fact.

Exactly, Shap. ANY dog has the propensity to 'turn' in a situation like that. Certainly the Staffie has a few more on-board weapons than a lab, but so do dozens of other breeds. Besides, we made this point about 50 posts ago. You guys are late.

Exactly, Shap. ANY dog has the propensity to 'turn' in a situation like that. Certainly the Staffie has a few more on-board weapons than a lab, but so do dozens of other breeds. Besides, we made this point about 50 posts ago. You guys are late.

shupman, I really don't know why you are having such a problem comprehending. No one is saying BSL is a good thing in dog parks or anywhere else, but that this should be a non-issue because pit bull owners should know not to bring their dogs to the dog park in the first place. Just like they should understand that instinct is part of a dog and can not be trained or socialized away, that environment does not completely make the dog. Why don't pit bull owners know this information? And why resort to the same, childish personal attack with every post?

So we all agree that all dogs should be banned from dog parks? Well.. at least it's not BSL, and I could live with it.. lol..

As great of an idea as dog parks seem to be, there just are not enough owners out there that know their dogs enough to realize whether or not their's should be there.

And.. no offense was meant by implying you (Ms. Ed) liked statistics.. it's just that you kept going back on how many numbers of pit bulls have attacked.. which I assumed meant that you wanted to discuss statistics. (which is the only way that this information would hold any weight, otherwise it is simply opinion, not fact)

There are definitely some pit bull people that will tell everyone NOT to let their dog socialize with others. The answer I get when I ask why, is, 'because it won't matter who starts it, it will be your pit bull that will hold all the blame'. And the general concensus among all pit bull owners that I know is that we DO NOT want another pit bull whose owner thought they knew their dog on the news.

The situation here is that if two labs get into a fight nobody ever hears about it... but if it were a pit bull and a lab it makes the front page, which in turn propegates more hatred toward our dogs.

It really sort of ironic that a person named Miss Education is trying to inform people.

Ms. (Un)Educated

If the shoe (or maybe dog collar in this case) fits than wear it. For every expert you bring forth who says nature and not nurture is what makes any dog respond the way it does I can bring forth an equal number who support my argument. DO NOT try and present your side of the argument as if it is an absolute, like water is wet!! You are being more than just a little arrogant. A debate is where there are opposing viewpoints. I just happen to disagree with yours on this subject.