GOAT Roper wrote:
Dances With Snakes wrote:There are no bad dogs, only bad dog owners.
A bad dog owner with a beagle is a much different case than with a killing machine like a Pit.
^yes
GOAT Roper wrote:
Dances With Snakes wrote:There are no bad dogs, only bad dog owners.
A bad dog owner with a beagle is a much different case than with a killing machine like a Pit.
^yes
Dog gone wrote:
I always loathed pit bulls because of their reputation, usually well earned, until I spent time with my brother's pit bull. The absolutely sweetest dog I have ever been around. I have a sweet heart of a mutt that loves people and has never shown any aggression toward people in 13 years I've had her. But, she has and will kill rabbits, squirrels and anything small she can catch.
My brother's pit bull once came nose to nose with a wild skunk. They simply touched noses sniffing each other and both turned and walked away. My dog would have tried to kill that skunk no doubt. My brother also was keeping a bearded dragon for awhile and it would lay on top of the pit bull for naps and they would run around the yard together. He walks his pit in his neighborhood with no leash and it never gets more than 10 feet away from him, even when the small dogs are barking and being aggressive.
You just have to know how to raise a dog.
Your brother is as irresponsible as any dog owner ever has been. I hope he also tells people "don't worry, he won't bite."
Dog gone wrote:
Stupid brothers wrote:There is no accounting for stupidity.
You wouldn't need to account for it if you knew what you were talking about. The fact that you think EVERY pit is some kind of deranged killer demonstrates perfectly where the stupidity is.
No. Walking any dog without a leash demonstrates perfectly where the stupidity is. It's a dog, put it on a leash.
double dry wrote:
pitbulls are great. this thread is idiotic. i've only ever been chased or whatever by yappy little cat-sized dogs on runs. guess we should ban those too
Correct! Here's a lab puppy for you.
Since Montreal is in the province of Quebec not Ontario your point is not readily apparent.
your safe place wrote:
The whole province of Ontario did that 10 years ago. Try and keep up.
Of course these bans don't eliminate pit bulls. You'll have to wait until all the current ones die before you can go to those safe places.
A few weeks ago I was having lunch in a park. A guy had his pit bull off leash, and the dog came sprinting towards me. His tail was wagging and it was obvious he was a happy, friendly dog. He leaped into my lap and gave me a good face washing with friendly licks. I talked to his owner who caught up a few seconds later (apologized for his overly friendly dog, but no need to as I have a fabulously friendly Labrador at home). The owner said this dog loves everyone and is a great "spokesdog" for pit bulls - I absolutely agreed.
This was my main encounter with the breed. I'm glad they didn't "ban" this friendly guy.
PS - I especially love Labradors, what a great breed. I understand that a very high percentage of dog bites come from Labradors. I hope that they don't ban the Labrador breed in Montreal or anywhere else, but I guess if they are concerned about dog attacks there, I guess they should just ban all dogs - that would cover it.
I have had 5 dogs in my life, but none currently. My experience with pit bulls is probably somewhat typical. I have friends who own them and they have never attacked me. I have also had dozens lunge/come after me on runs during my life.
Here is a summary of the pitbull debate:
- the vast majority of US dog bites/deaths are from pit bulls
- the majority of pit bulls will not bite/kill somebody in their lifetime
- pit bull owners/friends statistically are unlikely to know a pit bull that bit somebody badly/killed somebody
- when a pit bull attacks/kills the owner/friends are typically surprised...people close to them become more skeptical of pit bulls while people not close figure 'it must be the thug owners'
The only real take-home is that you should be careful around pit bulls. You probably won't get killed, but 27 people were during 2015 and I bet it came as a surprise to them.
The owners will continue to delude themselves into thinking they are not putting others at risk and many will consider themselves 'proven right' when the dogs they own do not kill.
They are incapable of absorbing the very clear statistics on this due to their emotional bias.
Geography lesson wrote:
Since Montreal is in the province of Quebec not Ontario your point is not readily apparent.
your safe place wrote:The whole province of Ontario did that 10 years ago. Try and keep up.
Of course these bans don't eliminate pit bulls. You'll have to wait until all the current ones die before you can go to those safe places.
Well he says now is the time to learn from your "smarter northern neighbours" but it already happened 10 years ago in Ontario so the time was really then not now.
Anybody who uses
as a reference is clearly biased, mis-informed, agenda-driven and very very gullible. This site and the other that you referenced in another post are responsible for vast amounts of wanton misinformation and unfortunately people who don't know any better will believe what they read on these sites as truth. That non-factual "statistics" you post as "Fact" would be funny if it weren't for the uniformed people who believe this drivel and develop their own opinion about pit-bulls based on these myths and junk science that you and these websites propergate.
Most people cannot tell you why they don't like pitbulls or think they are dangerous, they just believe it to be true and can't give specific reasons why. Negative stereotypes of pitbulls have been beaten into peoples heads since the late 70's and 80's in the media. I believe most people who demonize these dogs couldn't tell you specifically why they think the way that they do other than that they read (or heard, or think they heard) a few stories about individual incidents and conclude the whole breed (which in and of itself is a very loose term) is dangerous (etc).
If you pay attention to dog-related stories in the paper or on the internet, whether a good or bad story, if a pitbull (labeled) dog is the subject of the story, the headline will say "Pitbull"; if it is any other type of dog it will say "dog". I've been noticing this for twenty+ years since a college professor pointed this out to me in a media class and it rings true everyday when I see stories and headlines involving dogs. Positive and negative stories.
If anybody reading this post really wants to dig into the history, truths and non-truths regarding pitbulls, go read Browen Dickey's book that came out earlier this year. It is well researched (30 pages of references in a 275 page book) and focuses also on the class/race relationship to pits. Or better still do your own research.- you will find that there really isn't much actual, data-driven facts that support the myth that pitbulls (as a whole) are dangerous (etc) and you may ask yourself why you think the way you do about these dogs when there isn't any hard, real evidence to support your fears and negative association with these dogs as a breed (or associated as a pit). Or at least any evidence that they should be feared more than any other dog breed.
Pediatric Dog Bites Study
"...5.5% of all patients required an operation. Pit bull bites were implicated in half of all surgeries performed and over 2.5 times as likely to bite in multiple anatomic locations as compared to other breeds."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27400935
I like pit bulls, but they are more dangerous than other dog breeds. I don't think they should be banned.
Thats so dumb its not the dog thats aggressive its the people who raise it.
trackislife12 wrote:
Thats so dumb its not the dog thats aggressive its the people who raise it.
Classic.
Bro - Mama wrote:
no pitt bulls wrote:They were [bred] to be attackers.
Actually, no, they were bred first to control rodents, as most terriers.
"Control"? WTF do you think "control" means--lining them up and leading them into a pen, like Babe the pig?
"Controlling rodents" means attacking and killing them, and that is indeed what those dogs were first bred for: attacking and killing.
Sheesh.
Sprinter Joe wrote:
Very small sample size, of course. However, I do not know one single person who has a pitbull that doesn't think he/she is a total badass. They're buying an image with that dog. They want others to think they, personally, are a hardass. Without fail.
Hear, hear. This has been my experience, too.
Over the years I've known a fair number of pitties and their owners. Some of the dogs were absolute sweethearts and some were lawsuits waiting to happen; but *every one* of the owners got the dog largely (if not solely) so that s/he (the owner) would be considered a cool, "edgy" badass.
Every one. No exceptions. And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that that perception-as-badass is a major personality element of every pit-bull owner who posts on this thread to defend the breed.
They have "an incredibly high pain threshold" and very strong jaws, hence, their use in fighting and for drug dealers.
Thanks. Your post and the links gave zero statistics and only claims that don't come close to the facts. How does a breed that accounts for about 11-12 times its proportion of fatalities constitute a safe animal that is "very good with children" (5 stars), as one dog breed website claimed. What we do know is that they account for most dog bite deaths, that they are dangerous to other dogs and animals (even that website gave them one star for use with other animals), and that they are extremely aggressive, can take almost any level of pain without letting go of the throat or scalp (which they often remove in killing children).
As for little dogs being aggressive, yes, that is true, and it is a good thing they are little, because they rarely cause anything significant and a feint at a kick will get them to back off when you're running by. They're most likely to cause injury because you trip over them as they lunge at you. How does it work with a big dog that can pull thousands of pounds and that doesn't get scared?
my part wrote:
I've fostered more pittys then years you've been alive that have come from cruelty cases, dog fighting, neglect, etc. and never once have I felt threatened or attacked by one. PIttys also have one of the best temperaments out of any dog breed. Once again, people fall for the main stream medias opinion and can't think on their own. Did schools eliminate critical thinking? Have you ever noticed in articles about dog attacks they use key words when a pitbull attacks vs when any other dog attacks a person? Take notice you might actually learn something
no pitt bulls wrote:It's time to get these killers off our streets. Good work Montreal.
LMAO this pro pit bull propaganda is completely FALSE and DANGEROUS.
Yes Pit bulls can be nice and loving....
However pit bulls are responsible for 1) more attacks on humans 2) more attacks on other animals and 3) fatalities on humans than every other breed.
A 2009 report issued by DogsBite.org shows that 19 dog breeds contributed to 88 deaths in the 3-year period of 2006 to 2008. Pit bulls accounted for 59% followed by rottweilers with 14%.
Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org, pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59% (52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period.
The data also shows that pit bulls commit the vast majority of off-property attacks that result in death. Only 18% (16) of the attacks occurred off owner property, yet pit bulls were responsible for 81% (13).
Absolutely, THIS. Damn things creep me out.
Pit Bull owners are more obnoxious than x-fitters
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Chinese Half-Marathon Champion Is Disqualified—Along With Runners Who Let Him Win
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?