Pit bulls suck� Is it in their genes?

Yes if you were some how able to erradicate every single specimen of the breed then you would not have a pit bull problem anymore. But you would still have dog maulings. Chow, Akita, bull mastiff, Rotts,German shepards, dobies, neo mastiffs,,, on and on... hell just ban all potentially dangerous animals and fire arms. data please.Most pit bull maulings if investigated properly will be a mix breed or some other breed altogether. The media is notorious for inserting the word "pit" to work up a story. This is incorrect. The APBT was bred for gameness. Gameness is a trait that is composed of stamina, courage,tenacity. NOT agressivness. There are plenty of dogs that were bred specifically for agressiveness towards humans:
Chow bred in ancient China as a war dog to attack enenmy infantry.
Rottweiler: bred by romans to be used in battle and as a protection dog.
Doberman: bred for attack dogs and defense
The pitt bull was bred for gameness, not to kill dogs or humans.
any dog that would show aggression to humans in the pit was most likely destroyed, and over time less likely to attack a human. If you have ever broke up a fight of a pit and a dog of another breed it is the other breed that is more likely to bite you.Just the other day a Great dane mauled a child here in my local area, and a few years ago 3 great danes killed a young woman of 17 years of age. Pit bulls if chosen from a good breeder and adequately socialized are just as safe as any breed. It is back yard breeders and idiots who turn these animals into antisocial time bombs. Knee jerk banning will do nothing because the aggression and propensity to kill a human is in mixed pits, mastiffs, and any number of dogs the media collectivley lable as pit bulls. IMO.

It seems the species Homo Sapiens sapiens is responsible for a tremendous amount of violence and killing of other humans. I think they should be banned.Also a extra ordinary amount of elephants over the past few years are responsible for the many attacks on humans.. we should ban them too.And it seems Florida has a shark problem as of late.....ban em.

According to these stats pit bulls (and pit bull like dogs) account for only 1/5 of all fatal dog attacks on humans. Not 1/4 of ALL fatal attacks on humans. The page goes on to state:

From your link:

quote:

---

Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%), Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).

---

Whats a "Pit-bull type" dog? And how easy is it for a mixed breed to be mislabeled as a Pitbull because it attacked someone?

quote:

---

THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001 *

​

The study covers 431 documented human fatalities from a dog attack.

---

So at 21%, we're talking 90 fatalities from Pitbulls (and pitbull types) documented from 1965 - 2001. No reason to ban the breed.

I guess we need to buy the book to find out what a Pitt-bull-type is. I assume it covers Staffordshires and American bulldogs etc., but I don't know. Many terriers probably get lumped in with a pit bull. When a short stout dog is tearing you a new one, you probably assume its a pit bull. I don't think that's a total. I think the study just covers the 431 of x documented human fatalities. Why that number? Perhaps the author could be sure of the attacking dog - only in these cases were the dogs ID'd after the attack perhaps.From what I can see, the study is very much against the idea that pit bulls are inherently evil dogs, and attributed some of the attacks as being directly the result of human endevour.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 28-June-2005 11:04 PM

Can't you sue the hell out of someone who owns a pit bull (or any other breed, for that matter) if it attacks you or your dog? That would seem to be the best way to deal with this problem. I know if a vicious dog of any breed were ever to attack my dog, I'd sue for everything I could possibly get.This reminds me of an incident at Vicksburg's RiverFest earlier this year. I had my dog with me and walked past a tiger exhibit. A manager of the exhibit called out to me to get my dog away, else his tigers might escape and attack. I very rudely and aggressively took issue with the idiot, asking him how he dared to bring an exhibit of insufficiently restrained tigers to a street festival where small children were present. I assured him that if any of his tigers escaped, he'd lose everything he owned in a lawsuit and that his precious animals would be killed. He started to answer but I didn't wait around to hear it.I went to a police officer and complained to him, and the following week I called and complained to city hall. I hope this exhibit will not be coming back next year, since by the exhibitor's own admission his animals pose a grave threat to unsuspecting people.

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

From what I understand the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Pit Bull are simply differing names for the same breed.
Official Pit Bull Site of Diane Jessup
Page not found - Louisiana SPCA
http://www.pethelp.net/pits.html
http://www.staffordmall.com/stoutheart-faq.htm
Pit bull - Wikipedia

As the articles you linked to indicate - the AST and the Staff Bull are regarded by some as seperate breeds (The AST were further bred for show).

Catholic Scientist: I admitted this myself in the next sentence. Pit bulls have a bad reputation because they were bred to attack other dogs and have killed more humans than any other dog breed. Remember, I'm not talking about a dog bite (that's what the American Temperament Test Society looks at), I'm talking about what happens when they attack, be it another dog or a human. I could care less if you believe that "fact" (why the quotes...look it up if you don't "believe" it)). Yes, it's true that the owners need to take more responsibility for their animals. My point is this. Pit bulls were bred for their viciousness...to attack and kill other dogs...to stop this behavior requires a great deal of training. If the owner does not do an adequate job... I can't answer this question because it was not another breed that attacked my dog. I will say this however, I have never been fond or supportive of the breed. What is it with you and quotes? Look em up for yourself.

Dogs trained or bred for pretection or as guard dogs have a place, I will admit that. Banning these dogs as family pets would not be something I'd object to. I never understand why people always jump to this line of argument. Quit being an ass. You can go to the link that Modulous mentions in post 18, it's the same place it got my data. He's a bit low (1/5) and I'm a high (1/4). Pit bulls were responsible for 21% of fatal human attacks. Funny, that's not what Home | BADRAP says: "The dog that we now recognize as the APBT was originally bred in the British Isles early 1800's to 'bait' bulls. These matches were held for the entertainment of the struggling classes; a source of relief from the tedius and brutal way of life suffered by many commoners during that time. In 1835 bull baiting was deemed inhumane and became illegal, and dogfighting became a popular replacement. The best fighters were made heroes and the trait for aggression towards other dogs began to be selectively bred into their genetic make up."They do go on to mention that aggressiveness towards humans was a trait strongly selected against. I don't deny this. However, the fact still remains that this breed is responsible for more fatal attacks on humans than any other breed.They also go on to say: " Pit bulls can run the gamut from very dog aggressive to exceptionally dog friendly, but each shares some degree of the inbred potential to fight other dogs encoded into their genetic makeup. Under the right (or WRONG!) circumstances, if a pit bull is poorly managed, he can get into a scuffle with another dog and fight like a pro ... even if he's never done it before."See, even they admit it's in their genes. Sorry. A terrible event. However, how many other fatal attacks over a 20 period year were committed by Great Danes? DING, times up...and the answer is...3%.

Let's start with people that put forth childish, pathetic responses to legitimate claims. Were these unprovoked attacks? Some dude was just walking along with his pet elephant when suddenly it attacked a small child? Oh wait, people don't really have elephants for pets do they. Perhaps this is yet just another example of your childish behavior. Sorry, my bad (God I hate that phrase ). But this seems to go against your first suggestion. The least you could do is be consistent with your weak attempts to address my concerns.

In all fairness the data might be self fulfilling. These dogs were bred for bear and bull baiting so they make great attack dogs. Therefore people who want an attack dog are more likely to get a GSD, a rottweieler or a bull dog than a labrador or a cocker spaniel.Since people who want an attack dog are more likely to train it to attack, we have a self fullfilling statistic...which is close to meaningless.To show that a pit bull is 'worse' than a golden retriever you'd need to show that, when coming from equal backgrounds, the one is more vicious than another. I concede that when both backgrounds are similar we would still see more fatal deaths from a pit bull than from a chihuahua but that's related to capability rather than temperament...an important point, but an aside from your central point.What would also be interesting is data on pit bull owners compared with labrador owners. If my hunch is correct I expect we'll see more violent criminal backgrounds per capita cropping up with the pit bull owners. If we take the violent criminal backgrounds out, remove the cases where the human was obviously to blame for the death rather than the animal, I'd say that statistics would be less harsh for the pit bull compared with the labrador.Unfortunately I don't think any such study has (or can have) ever taken place.

You miss my point. Chows were bred to kill humans. They are war dogs.
Rotts were bred to kill humans by the romans, as well as Neopolitan mastiffs were fed a steady diet of Christians in the Collosium in Rome. Dobermans have been bred to attack humans. Pit bull are bred for one trait and that is to be game. They are not bred to be agressive to humans or dogs. The APBT will fight a dog, a lion or bear it is fearless. Should we ban all fearless dogs?Your argument is void of facts. Drumming up a web site or a group that claims to speak for all breeders of Pit bulls is ridiculous. Do you know anyone that breeds APBT's?? I do. Do you know anyone personally that breeds any dogs at all? Just how much do you know about dogs besides what your personal fears and the media feed you?You say you would not be opposed to the banning of Guard dogs for pets. Is that the answer???Banning things? Drugs are banned...does that stop people from using them? Crime is banned yet crime occurs. Is banning things the answer?Home | BADRAP? Listen the pitt bull has been around for alot longer than 1800's The breed is dipicted in paintings as far back as the 1200's relatively unchanged. They were called all number of names "ban dog" bulldog" mastiff take your pick. It is true that bull baiting and lion baiting and any number of blood sports in Europe were what kept the dogs popular. The poor in some parts of England (like Staffordshire) matched terriers in the pit and bred them for there gameness . Other terriers were used in the pit to entertain by killing rats and such. The dogs that were smaller and easier to confine became more popular. Also size and weight in the pitt was a consideration. Over time the dogs that displayed true gameness the courage and tenacity and stamina were the ones that are now part of the bloodlines of The American pitbull.In Ireland another line of pit dogs were becoming very popular as well The Old Family rednose. So when English and Irish immigrated they brought these dogs with them to America and the blood lines of these dogs are what we see today in the APBT.Believe me when I tell you that dogs are matched all over the world and many countries have theyre own representative breed they use to fight in the pit.
China: The Sharpae (believe it or not )
Japan: The Tosa
Argentina: The Dojo
Should these be banned as well in this country?It is well know that dogs that are bred for a specific confirmation such as coat or color and not for disposition and intelligence will lead to stupid unhealthy breeds. Many of the sporting dogs were bred for what they can do and not just for how they look which is why there is such a wide variety of pointers and hounds and such.The APBT is bred for it's gameness, intelligence, and strength. It is a fantastic dog. Unfortunately many have used this gameness and strength and willingness to please to create monsters. Or back yard breeders who produce psycotic manbiters. Or idiots who buy one and isolate it and fail to socialize the animal. And are surprised when it bites someone or them. Most protection breed will do as much when frustrated and mistreated. I remember in the 70's there was the big Doberman scare. Dobies will snap and turn on you.. hog wash.
And Rotts.. oh they will snap they are dangerous!!The truth is dogs with the propensity to kill and maime us will always exist. Just as bad owners will alway exist. I think legislation should reflect that anyone who chooses to own a dog that has the ability to kill someone should be held accountable.Notice I said any dog. Because the APBT is just one breed. You still have the Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, The Bull Mastiff, The English Mastiff, The Neopolitain Mastiff, The American Bull dog, The English Bulldog, The Rodeisan Ridgeback, The Chow, The Rott, The Doberman, The Tosa, The Doberman, The German Shepard and every mix of the above. all game and all able to hurt mame or kill a human or another dog.If you ban one breed then what about all these others? Ban em Ban em all for all you care. As I said before humans are responsible for far more harm to us than dogs. But yet you say it is ridiculous to suggest banning humans. Who is being riduculous?

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

I agree and admit going a bit high...but I did say "almost". My data came from the same site as yours, so I am in agreement with your number (21%).I guess my over-all point about pit bulls was something I touched on with EZscience in a previous post. In most other dog breeds, training is done for a number of reasons, one of which is to bring out, or enhance, desired instinctive traitsto magnify their instinctive characteristics in a sense. That is to say, if I do absolutely no training whatsoever with a Brittany, he will still turn out a wonderful family pet...not vicious, not aggressive, but a bit stressful (to the owners) at times, because that is their nature. I would guess that same can be said for a majority of the breeds out there. With pit bulls however, not training your dog can have dire consequences. They are aggressive...it's in their nature, and therefore a lack of training to "control" this behaviors is a must.Do you understand what I'm trying to get across here? It's almost the opposite of any other breed (with a few exceptions of course). With dogs like mine, we train them to get what we want, while we train pit bulls in the hope of controlling what we don't want. Failure in the first case leads to a dog that is uncontrollablebut probably not vicious, while failure in the second case lead to an uncontrollable dog that stands a much greater chance of being vicious.Ok, so now we can say that any incident that may occur is the fault of the owner, and I can't completely disagree with this. At the same time, we must remember that the dog is instinctively aggressive towards other dogs (see the link in post 25). That's my beef. It's a breed that currently has in innate desire to kill other dogs. Can breeding remove this characteristic...perhaps...I don't really know that answer. All I do know is what I saw and what the statistics tell me.I have seen many other dog fights, including one involving our family pet while I was growing up. She (our dog) was attacked by another dog at a sledding hill. But it was significantly different than the latest incident with our Brittany (which was no "scuffle"). When a pit bull does attack, it is for one reason and one reason aloneto kill. That’s why I do not support continued breeding. Hey, cross em with another breed and get something that is not aggressive (a new breed I guess), but pit bulls are what they are.

That's true. I am very cautious with my dog... just as I would be if I had any big dog. We've had instances of labs, mastiffs, Chows, German Shepards, and other large dogs attack and kill people. In my opinion, ALL large dogs are suspect and should be watched carefully.