pitbulls

[leansnslobbers]

I don't see anything wrong with what Brody's Mom said. There are some dogs that are well known for not being "beginner" breeds, and the pit bull would typically fall into that classification. That doesn't mean that they are bad dogs, it just means it takes someone who understands the breed and knows what they entail.

For the average dog, there is a small scale of forgiveness for novice ownership. Not for pit bulls. If you make a mistake with a pit bull, the whole breed suffers.

So yes, in the right hands, they make superb pets. In the wrong hands, they'll end up just another statistic.

Just my two cents.

[Spicy_Bulldog]

I'm am not bashing your comment at all. For some reason when I read it, it struck me funny. When talking about pit bulls this comments comes up a lot. I've even said it myself. BUT if you think about it, like I just happened to, wouldn't this go for ALL breeds? Not just the bully breeds? Any dog can be made aggressive. IMHO this comment can hinder the connection we try to make with Pit Bulls becomming good companions for normal every day people who think these dogs should be exterminated. It makes the dog sound like it IS a danger and you have to know how to "control the beast" in order for it to be a good dog. This couldn't be further from the truth. Infact the way to have a good level headed Pit Bull as a loving companion is good socialization as a puppy and a firm but not too firm owner. The same goes with any breed. There is nothing good socialization and training can't do.

I guess maybe I put too much thought into this small saying. For some reason or another it just struck me tonight.

Yes it is true of all breeds, but we are talking of Pits not all breeds. So that is why they are saying in the right hands they make wonderful dogs. It doesn't at all sound like controlling the beast. It sounds like you need to be a responsible owner with them, they are blaming bad owners for the bad dogs and know that in the right hands Pit Bulls are wonderful.

Training and socialization doesn't remedy everything, it can help and control somethings. A lot of people also do not offer training or socialization that is why they said in the right hands, in the hands that will train and socialize instead of owners who will not do those things.

Pit Bulls are a wonderful breed in general and only take a responsible, sensible owner, the problem is those seem to be in short order lately. So I think that is why they were saying it, not because Pit Bulls are dangerous beast or anything. Pit Bulls can have a horrid life and be excellent dogs, just sweethearts who only need a little training. They have been bred to be friendly, forgiving and trusting.

[Blackrose]

Yes it is true of all breeds, but we are talking of Pits not all breeds. So that is why they are saying in the right hands they make wonderful dogs. It doesn't at all sound like controlling the beast. It sounds like you need to be a responsible owner with them, they are blaming bad owners for the bad dogs and know that in the right hands Pit Bulls are wonderful.

Training and socialization doesn't remedy everything, it can help and control somethings. A lot of people also do not offer training or socialization that is why they said in the right hands, in the hands that will train and socialize instead of owners who will not do those things.

Pit Bulls are a wonderful breed in general and only take a responsible, sensible owner, the problem is those seem to be in short order lately. So I think that is why they were saying it, not because Pit Bulls are dangerous beast or anything. Pit Bulls can have a horrid life and be excellent dogs, just sweethearts who only need a little training. They have been bred to be friendly, forgiving and trusting.

So true. But I do understand what Lute is saying.
I recentally read of a Cairn/Poodle mix that attacked an infant while it was asleep. Long story short (and lots of questions about the mom's competancy) the infant lived but needed reconstructive surgery and the pup was put down.
Now. Let's say I posted that article online on a dog forum (I actually did). How many replies do you think it would get that said all Cairnoodles ( ) are inherintally aggressive, they should be liscensed like we liscense guns, they would never trust them, that groomers, doggy daycares, parks, and other places as such have the right to discriminate against them, and that insurance policies shouldn't cover them.
Funny, because a Pittie attacked a boy and the boy needed reconstructive surgery and those were the exact words that were coming out of people's mouths. It was the dog's fault. And yet, when I posted about the Cairn/poodle mauling, everyone was blaming the mother - not the dog. There were no sayings of "in the right hands this dog can be a wonderful mix". Nope, and BSL wasn't brought up at all.

Go figure.

I think the problem today is that is the Pitties turn in the "limelight". It was the Rotties, Dobermans, Chows, and GSDs. Those breeds were once the "pitbulls" of today. I'm just waiting for the focus to shift off of Pitties and onto another breed of dog...I'm just afriad of what it is going to be.

[lute]

So true. But I do understand what Lute is saying.
I recentally read of a Cairn/Poodle mix that attacked an infant while it was asleep. Long story short (and lots of questions about the mom's competancy) the infant lived but needed reconstructive surgery and the pup was put down.
Now. Let's say I posted that article online on a dog forum (I actually did). How many replies do you think it would get that said all Cairnoodles ( ) are inherintally aggressive, they should be liscensed like we liscense guns, they would never trust them, that groomers, doggy daycares, parks, and other places as such have the right to discriminate against them, and that insurance policies shouldn't cover them.
Funny, because a Pittie attacked a boy and the boy needed reconstructive surgery and those were the exact words that were coming out of people's mouths. It was the dog's fault. And yet, when I posted about the Cairn/poodle mauling, everyone was blaming the mother - not the dog. There were no sayings of "in the right hands this dog can be a wonderful mix". Nope, and BSL wasn't brought up at all.

Go figure.

I think the problem today is that is the Pitties turn in the "limelight". It was the Rotties, Dobermans, Chows, and GSDs. Those breeds were once the "pitbulls" of today. I'm just waiting for the focus to shift off of Pitties and onto another breed of dog...I'm just afriad of what it is going to be.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Like you said, when talking about most other breeds or mixes other than pitties you get a totally different excuse of "who's" fault it is.

I just hope that someday nobody thinks of any breed as dangerous. Look deeper into the issue. See that any breed turns out this way by fault of the owner.

[Jessika]

We had a guest speaker come in to school, she is a lawyer with the ASPCA and a huge Pit fan. She would tell us all kinds of stories, but one that stuck out the most was -

she had two print-outs of probably 25 or so different breeds, and only ONE picture on each was an actual Pit Bull. She asked the class to try to identify the pit bull on the first slide. Every single one of us got it wrong. She asked us to identify the Pit Bull on the second slide. All but one student got it wrong.

She says she uses that when she gives presentations to police and other public forums and really pushes the whole BSL is wrong deal and a lot of times it's misidentification. When she shows it to police, how many times out of hundreds do you think they identified it correctly? That's right -- none.

So it's amazing to me that pittys have such a bad rap... but yet... no one can actually IDENTIFY one correctly in the first place!!!


She also told me another story about how DNA testing saved this dog's life. A man's dog was going to be PTS for no reason other than he RESEMBLED a pit bull (I say resembled, because the owner fought that he was indeed not a pit bull). Authorities of course said he was one and he was scheduled to be PTS. The owner decided to get DNA testing to confirm that his dog was not a pit, and the results came back, and he wasn't. The dog was released back into his custody and he still lives happy today


Another statistic, if I may... She also presented us with statistics on dog fighting going back probably till the 1920's or so. As far back as records go in the US, anyway. Of every single dog mauling ever, no death has ever occurred from a neutered pit bull male, translating to: responsible dog owners who spay and neuter their pets (and pits, of course), are MUCH less likely to become aggressive and "maul".


I just think, if more people were educated about what a pit actually LOOKS like first instead of lumping all the bully breeds together, and of course SPAY AND NEUTER, which to me is OBVIOUS, that's a step in the right direction...

[Blackrose]

I just think, if more people were educated about what a pit actually LOOKS like first instead of lumping all the bully breeds together,

That too. here is a story to give you a laugh:

My family and I were at my grandparents' house. Across the street was the HUGE Doberman barking his head off at us (he was in a fence, thank God, but considering the fence was only about four feet high....). My older brother (he was probably 18 at the time) looks at the dog, then looks at me and asks, "Is that a Pit Bull?" I just start busting up laughing and he can't figure out what is so funny. I tell him no, it is a Doberman, and he gets this sheapish look on his face and says, "Oh, ya, I knew that. I just couldn't remember what they were called."

Just goes to show you how the common public identifies breeds.

[Spicy_Bulldog]

So true. But I do understand what Lute is saying.
I recentally read of a Cairn/Poodle mix that attacked an infant while it was asleep. Long story short (and lots of questions about the mom's competancy) the infant lived but needed reconstructive surgery and the pup was put down.
Now. Let's say I posted that article online on a dog forum (I actually did). How many replies do you think it would get that said all Cairnoodles ( ) are inherintally aggressive, they should be liscensed like we liscense guns, they would never trust them, that groomers, doggy daycares, parks, and other places as such have the right to discriminate against them, and that insurance policies shouldn't cover them.
Funny, because a Pittie attacked a boy and the boy needed reconstructive surgery and those were the exact words that were coming out of people's mouths. It was the dog's fault. And yet, when I posted about the Cairn/poodle mauling, everyone was blaming the mother - not the dog. There were no sayings of "in the right hands this dog can be a wonderful mix". Nope, and BSL wasn't brought up at all.

Go figure.

I think the problem today is that is the Pitties turn in the "limelight". It was the Rotties, Dobermans, Chows, and GSDs. Those breeds were once the "pitbulls" of today. I'm just waiting for the focus to shift off of Pitties and onto another breed of dog...I'm just afriad of what it is going to be.

Yes I saw the article on DF. A doodle mix is not a breed of controversy that is why you do not see those things being said.

Pit Bulls are considered dangerous, killers, people just have to live with that if its the breed they want. Their in the negative light and bring in the ratings. People have many misconceptions about them. The only thing we can do is fight them and educate and remember we can't change everyone's minds.

However I do not feel that the poster was at all attacking Pit Bulls, only stating with good people they are good dogs.

I feel like you are just preaching to the choir about it and that the poster did not mean to offend. They were actually saying what you'd want them to say, that it isn't the dogs fault, it is the irresponsible owners fault. Just like people say about the doodle mix, that is what the poster here stated about Pit Bulls.

Another statistic, if I may... She also presented us with statistics on dog fighting going back probably till the 1920's or so. As far back as records go in the US, anyway. Of every single dog mauling ever, no death has ever occurred from a neutered pit bull male, translating to: responsible dog owners who spay and neuter their pets (and pits, of course), are MUCH less likely to become aggressive and "maul".

Do you mean statistics on dog biting?

LOL none of my intact male Pit Bulls have ever tried to bite anyone, let alone maul them. Just because someone choses not to s/n doesn't make them irresponsible. My dogs are not likely to become aggressive, man biters, dangerous, ect because they are bred properly, socialized to people and it is in their nature to be friendly to everyone they meet.

[Blackrose]

I feel like you are just preaching to the choir about it and that the poster did not mean to offend. They were actually saying what you'd want them to say, that it isn't the dogs fault, it is the irresponsible owners fault. Just like people say about the doodle mix, that is what the poster here stated about Pit Bulls.

Just to clear anything up, I wasn't offended. Don't know if it came across that I was, but I wasn't.

[lute]

LOL none of my intact male Pit Bulls have ever tried to bite anyone, let alone maul them. Just because someone choses not to s/n doesn't make them irresponsible. My dogs are not likely to become aggressive, man biters, dangerous, ect because they are bred properly, socialized to people and it is in their nature to be friendly to everyone they meet.

I agree and disagree with you. It all depends on which dogs you keep intact. I have show dogs and pets. (All my dogs are companions first, but you know the difference I'm talking about.) ALL my "pets" are spayed/neutered. There is absolutely no reason for them to be intact. Having them spayed/neutered eliminates the chance of unwanted litters and prevents certain kinds of cancer in both sexes. In females you also don't have to bother with heat cycles. My show dogs are not spayed/neutered for obvious reasons. As soon as the dog is done showing/breeding it will be altered. No reason for them to be intact.

I strongly believe that unless the dog is actively showing/breeding it should be altered. All this crap you hear from people saying how "the dog wouldn't be a male without his balls!" or "I couldn't put my baby through surgery!" I see it as if your dog needs to keep intact to show Masculinity the owner has some sort of problem with their own Masculinity. If you can't put your poor baby through surgery just go ahead and run that risk of the dog getting pregnant and needing a c-section. That is a MUCH more dangerous surgery than a simple altering.

[Spicy_Bulldog]

I agree and disagree with you. It all depends on which dogs you keep intact. I have show dogs and pets. (All my dogs are companions first, but you know the difference I'm talking about.) ALL my "pets" are spayed/neutered. There is absolutely no reason for them to be intact. Having them spayed/neutered eliminates the chance of unwanted litters and prevents certain kinds of cancer in both sexes. In females you also don't have to bother with heat cycles. My show dogs are not spayed/neutered for obvious reasons. As soon as the dog is done showing/breeding it will be altered. No reason for them to be intact.

So it sounds like you agree with me then, not disagree. I did not say that no dogs should ever be spay/neutered. Having intact dogs doesn't make someone irresponsible is what I said. You have some intact yourself (like you said for obvious reasons showing/breeding) do you feel that you are irresponsible? Do you feel that your male dog is going to kill someone? Having them s/n does eliminate chances of certain cancers and increases the chances of others, especially if done early (pediatric s/n) in life. There are also other health factors in s/n vs intact. You will find positive and negative in both. My main concern in intact females is pyometra. Most pet owners they should s/n because of the possibility their dog could breed a female or their bitch become pregnant. Most are not responsible enough to have intact dogs, don't need intact dogs and it is stressful/taxing on them with the females at times. I never said that this was not the case.

What breed to you breed? Got any pics? Sorry I'm still kind of new.

[Jessika]

Do you mean statistics on dog biting?

LOL none of my intact male Pit Bulls have ever tried to bite anyone, let alone maul them. Just because someone choses not to s/n doesn't make them irresponsible. My dogs are not likely to become aggressive, man biters, dangerous, ect because they are bred properly, socialized to people and it is in their nature to be friendly to everyone they meet.

Did I say that owners who don't spay/neuter are irresponsible?? I just said that spaying and neutering IS responsible, and I do feel that way, and I'm sorry if you don't agree but that's what I think.

And I also said that neutered males are LESS LIKELY to bite, not they won't completely, whereas intact males ARE MORE LIKELY to bite, but not that they will.

And I'm obviously not talking about responsible pet owners... sure, dog bites and attacks can happen even with the most responsible owners, but it is more likely to occur with IRRESPONSIBLE owners, and irresponsible owners are obviously not going to get their pet from a responsible source, so most likely their pits will be poorly bred.

Don't be so quick to assume what I'm saying is against you, in fact we're really on the same side of the fence on this. My previous post was referring to irresponsible owners, and if you aren't irresponsible then there is no reason to take offense to anything that I've said.

[Spicy_Bulldog]

Did I say that owners who don't spay/neuter are irresponsible?? I just said that spaying and neutering IS responsible, and I do feel that way, and I'm sorry if you don't agree but that's what I think.

And I also said that neutered males are LESS LIKELY to bite, not they won't completely, whereas intact males ARE MORE LIKELY to bite, but not that they will.

And I'm obviously not talking about responsible pet owners... sure, dog bites and attacks can happen even with the most responsible owners, but it is more likely to occur with IRRESPONSIBLE owners, and irresponsible owners are obviously not going to get their pet from a responsible source, so most likely their pits will be poorly bred.

Don't be so quick to assume what I'm saying is against you, in fact we're really on the same side of the fence on this. My previous post was referring to irresponsible owners, and if you aren't irresponsible then there is no reason to take offense to anything that I've said.

I wasn't taking offense, sorry I didn't mean it that way. I was just saying that if someone doesn't s/n doesn't make them irresponsible is what I meant.

I guess my questions is why is a dog who is intact more likely to bite?

I know you were not speaking in absolutes, but saying things like more or less likely is still saying that one has a tendency over the other and basically as it reads it going to be more likely to happen, I just don't think it is true in general. In certain situations, a dominant male with temperament disorder around a female in heat and child gets bit. A neutered male wouldn't be frustrated and trying to get the female to breed with him who keeps pushing him and see the kid as a threat and have a temperament issue that escalates. So I do believe dogs with certain temperament problems might be more inclined to bite in certain situations then those who are not. Males as a whole I don't think so. A stable dog with proper handling and training who is intact is not going to be more likely to bite you then one that is not. I've been bit and know people who have been bit/attacked by both intact and s/n animals. I have been bit by an intact Chow and a neutered Poodle.

I think you proved the point that dogs owned by irresponsible people are probably more likely to bite and less likely to be neutered. To me doesn't translate to intact males are more likely to bite, it just happens that more irresponsible people own intact males.

I know what you mean about irresponsible people and all, but I just wanted to make it clear (about some responsible owners have intact dogs) and didn't mean to cause controversy.

The only kind of attack people have to worry about from my intact males is being licked and rolled on.

[Jessika]

As far as being intact versus spayed/neutered and biting goes, it boils down to hormones, and hormones have a huge role in a dog's temperament and actions. Not to say that all intact dogs will react violently in the same situations, but it's just more likely. This goes for -any- dog and -any- animal, not just pits.

You don't have to convince me that responsible owners can have pets that aren't spayed and neutered, as I said I used to be one of those, and my dog never got into a fight, was never aggressive, only got loose while in heat once (when I wasn't home and a family member was keeping an eye on her), and she never got pregnant. So I know it is entirely possible. I don't judge responsible or irresponsible owners solely on whether or not their dogs are fixed, in fact I try not to judge at all.

Oh, also another side note, I know in similar situations dogs can react one way or the other whether they are altered or not, it just so happens that statistically altered male pit bulls have never been the cause of a single human death in the history of dog attacks/bites in either the US or Missouri (I believe in the US though), and altered dogs - especially males - aren't driven by hormones as much as an intact dog would. I do not have the source of that information since it was given at a presentation from a guest speaker, however I can try to obtain it if you'd like since I found it -very- interesting.

I will say though, every pitty I've met in person, altered or not, has been a huge love-bug!

[lute]

So it sounds like you agree with me then, not disagree. I did not say that no dogs should ever be spay/neutered. Having intact dogs doesn't make someone irresponsible is what I said. You have some intact yourself (like you said for obvious reasons showing/breeding) do you feel that you are irresponsible? Do you feel that your male dog is going to kill someone? Having them s/n does eliminate chances of certain cancers and increases the chances of others, especially if done early (pediatric s/n) in life. There are also other health factors in s/n vs intact. You will find positive and negative in both. My main concern in intact females is pyometra. Most pet owners they should s/n because of the possibility their dog could breed a female or their bitch become pregnant. Most are not responsible enough to have intact dogs, don't need intact dogs and it is stressful/taxing on them with the females at times. I never said that this was not the case.

What breed to you breed? Got any pics? Sorry I'm still kind of new.

The only reason I said I disagreed with you is when you made the statement about not spaying/neutering is not a sign of irresponsibility I took it as you don't spay/neuter simply because you don't want to. I didn't realize you showed dogs. So yes, I agree with you.

No, I do not feel that my male would kill someone. Yes, I feel responsible because I do spay/neuter when the dog is done showing/breeding. Also dogs that do not turn out will be spayed/neutered.

The breed will be breeding is Australian Shepherd. I am working my way up to be a breeder. I feel you have to earn your title as a breeder. You can't just breed a litter and call yourself a "breeder". As of right now I am only working with a breeder. I do have a male Aussie I am getting ready to start showing. Hopefully everything passes and he can sire some successful litters!

These are a couple pics of my Aussie boy, Talon. He was about 4 mos in these pics. He's almost 7 months now.

[leansnslobbers]

I think the unaltered/altered debate (for me, anyways) boils down to this...

The people who have unaltered pets because of laziness or machoisms, are not likely responsible owners anyways. These are likely the same people whose dogs who are chained 24/7 with little to no socialization...teased and tormented by the neighborhood children, fed crappy food (and yes, I do believe that sometimes there is a correlation between crappy food and some types of behavior problems) encouraged to be "tough" etc.

Then there is another class of owners with unaltered dogs - people who show, people who do performance and feel that their dogs need to be "complete" to perform at their best, people who cannot alter their dogs because of some health reason (such as myself with my dane). These are responsible owners who are not apt to contribute to the other qualities that can lead to bad behavior.

There's no doubt in my mind that hormones can lead to aggression..but a responsible owner knows their dog well enough to head it off before it reaches a dangerous point. An irresponsible owner laughs, ignores it, or thinks it's cool until it's too late.

/ramble