Matt:

The hysteria over "pit bulls" reminds me of the same kind of hysteria that surrounded the mythical "cop killer" bullets some years back (or the continuing ire against "assault weapons").

ALL dogs, not just so-called "pit bulls" can be very dangerous, as they are essentially domesticated wolves. In fact, while newspaper articles and sensationalist journalism jump on "pit bull" stories, the actual statistics show that dogs from many breeds bite and kill:

"The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictibility is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"

Now, dogs that are often identified as pits (most people report "pit bull attack" without actually knowing the breeds) such as American Pit Bull Terrier are powerful dogs. They are also highly territorial and dominant. In that light, they and other dogs like them are riskier than, say, Samoyeds (which tend to be extremely non-territorial and non-dominant though powerful).

Having said that, well-bred APBTs are indeed wonderful dogs. They were originally bred as fighting dogs (against other dogs). The irony of that fact is that when they were used as such, a tremendous amount of bite-inhibition (AGAINST biting humans) was bred into them so that handler could stick their hands into the dog fights without being bitten. During the 19th Century, "pit bulls" were often used by Western families to babysit and guard their kids.

Now, even if we assume that most APBT breeders are the yahoo types who cater to the "baddest, meanest dog" customers, that is no reason to ban APBTs as a whole. Why? Because the baddies will simply move to something else (God forbid to something like Presa Canarios, which are like APBTs on steroids in size and power). Following that logic, we will end up banning just about all the large breeds.

It's like banning guns to prevent murders. People either get them illegally or move to knives (or even cars) to commit murder. You don't ban guns (which only makes it impossible for the law-abiding types to enjoy their guns legally), you punish those who misuse the guns.

Likewise, you punish the owners for the misbehavior of their pets (like the owner of the APBT that attacked me and my dogs).

People have to understand that dogs CAN be dangerous creatures, just like guns CAN be dangerous instruments. As such, they need to take proper precautions, training and handling. Too many people treat their dogs like children and, worse, fail to give them the training and guidance and handling they need to exist peacefully in the human world. In Seattle, which is something of a dog lover capital, I see people walking their dogs without leashes ("Oh, my dog is not aggressive" even as it is about to jump on me or my dog). I also see dogs that are poorly handled, trained and led (most often your average Yellow Labs or Golden Retrievers "leading" their humans; I've also seen my share of extremely aggressive Poodles).

But, as a society, are we going to judge the actions of individuals or are we going to deny the freedom and choice of the law-abiding to exercise that choice wholesale for all?

One more thing:

http://www.valleyofthesundogrescue.com/apbt_fact_page.htm

"The APBT is, contrary to popular belief, very human-friendly and will not naturally be aggressive towards humans. The APBT is, however, very loyal and eager to please, so that if an owner wants a dog to be aggressive toward humans and reinforces this behavior from an early age, the dog will most likely be aggressive towards humans as an adult."

"Statistics
In a report from Dekalb County Georgia, the conclusion was reached that statistics could no be used to document the dangerousness of any one breed, or the comparison of one breed to another. The 5-year study of fatal attacks from 1975-1980 lists the GSD first and "mixed breeds" second with the American Pit Bull Terrier listed 6th.
A 6-year study in Palm Beach County of "most severe dog bite by breed" shows the top 10 breeds who have been identified in this comparison.

1988: APBT ranked 9th w/9 per cent of bites
1989: APBT ranked 5th w/15 per cent
1990: APBT ranked 5th w/16 per cent
1991: APBT ranked 9th w/10 per cent
1992: APBT ranked 2nd w/20.4 per cent (w/cocker spaniel showing in 1st)
1993: APBT ranked 5th w/16 per cent

Some of the breeds which placed above the APBT were Dalmatians, Chows, Labs, Goldens, Rotties, Dobermans, and the afore-mentioned Cocker Spaniel.

In a 1993 study, also in Palm Beach County, the bites were ranked by severity from 1 to 4 and the animal that was recorded as having inflicted the greatest number of severe bites was the domestic short-haired cat. A breed labeled as "pit bull" was in 5th place, following cat, GSD, Chow and Lab."

I've personally seen more aggressive Labs than APBTs, but then "everyone" owns darling Labs, so they can't possibly be dangerous dogs, can they? Perceptions, particularly those fed by the media, are often misleading.

It seems to me that the problem is directly related to the ongoing problem of inhumane dog breeders and dog breeding businesses. There are likely state laws on the matter, but they are often unenforced or low priorities. When dogs are treated inhumanely, and born into inhumane conditions, behavioral problems develop, which manifests itself as aggression in pit bulls. Enforcement of such laws would eliminate nearly all of the problem with violent dogs, and would address the problem of neglected/abused dogs at the same time.

Yes, once again we have the MEDIA creating the MONSTER. If the media did not practice so much yellow journalism then these dogs would not be the "in" thing. I have looked at both sides of the story, can you truly beleive an animal without an opposable thumb could have killed the man in Missouri? Especially since the cororner stated that he was standing up when he was strangled. If you can beleive that I have some land I would love to sell you. I think it is a case of easy out for the police dept. they don't have to figure out who killed the man that way. The poor dogs take the rap and are killed.
I personally resent someone like you trying to say I do not know anything about my breed. I have a newsflash for you, I DO KNOW about my breed, Not only do I breed but I also rescue them. If you have a mind, and it is open please corespond with me and I will teach you about a noble breed that the media is trying to help destroy. Yes, "pit bull attacks" sells papers, I understand that. But the press has a responsiblity to the public trust to report the whole truth not just the fairy tales that kill animals.
I love the fact that you reported the police officer that went into a back yard and was attacked by 3 pit bulls. Did you not think to place in there the fact that the officer was tresspassing and that there was someone home at the time? So family pets were killed because the police would not go around and wanted to "look good" by jumping the fence? I take issue with that.
We are in danger of loosing so many freedoms today that I guess the right to own property is just one more on the road to "1984", (that is a book written by George Orwell by the way)when "Big Brother" takes over and tells us what we can and can't do. That is dictatorship to me.
I am sorry for the rant but stupid people who do not know the facts and just perpetrate the "MEDIA MYTH" anger me. My advice is grow up, learn about these animals and then make an adult decision.

While the message from "Guns and Butter" (above) brought up some good points about the fact that agressive tendencies can be found in all breeds of dogs, there is one fact that you cannot deny. The APBT is responsible for more fatal attacks upon humans than any other breed of dog.

Official records state that between the years of 1978 and 1998 there were 440 deaths caused by dog attacks. The information contained in these records states that there were a total of 30 different breeds of dogs associated with these deaths. However, there were two specific breeds that were responsible for over 50% of these deaths. The remaining 50% of deaths were spread out amongst the other 28 breeds of dog and the percentage of deaths associated with the other 28 breeds totaled an average of 2.24% per breed.

The two breeds that were responsible for over 50% of all (human) deaths here in the United States were the APBT and the Rottweiler. There is another very important fact associated with the deaths caused by these two breeds and that is the fact that, the number of fatal attacks by APBT were twice as high as the number of deaths cause by Rottweiler attacks. Therefore, the statement that "more humans are killed APBT's than any other breed of dog" cannot be argued nor contested.

In my opinion, a better way for everyone to view the argument of "Who, if anyone, should be allowed to own a pit bull terrier?", would be to view the pit bull terrier the same way you would view the ownership of any other kind "lethal weapon." There should be no arguments or regulations focused on banning this breed. The focus needs to be pointed towards the person who "pulls the trigger" so to speak.

We need to implement a series of tough regulations that will enable authorities regulate and monitor the ownership of APBTs and Rottweilers. People should not be able to own a pit bull terrier (or a Rottweiler)just because they want to. Ownership should be contingent upon several factors, most importantly, they must be able to prove that they possess the knowledge and training that is required in order to adequately handle a dog that belongs to one of these "Power Breeds".

It is very similar to the popular saying that, "Guns don't kill people, People do". There are scientific studies that show that are specific breeds of dogs that have a genetic propensity to be aggressive. Why do you think that the APBT is the number one breed of choice for all of those who are involved in the fasting growing, illegal, underground industry in this country?

There are thousands of people across this country that possess APBTs for one purpose and one purpose only, to "fight." The only breed being sought after by these criminals is the APBT. The reason for this is because the genetic background of the APBT provides a solid behavorial foundation that, essentially, can provide a much smoother and much faster transition from being a friendly family pet into an aggressive and vicious fighter.

The risks of owning an APBT, (along with a couple other breeds), needs to be viewed and recognized by the willingness of the owners to accept 100% responsibility of an animal that may, or may not, exhibit uncontrollable behavioral along with the added risk that this animal may be legally viewed as owning a "lethal weapon." Anyone wishing to own an APBT (and other selected breeds) should be required to meet a very serious and strict set of guidelines, standards, and ownership criteria before they are even allowed to take possession of a dog belonging to a "Power Breed".

The APBT ownership criteria needs to require licensing on both sides. The dog must be licensed at all times and the owner should also be required to obtain an "APBT ownership license". The criteria for obtaining an "ownership license" needs to include a variety of things, such as, 1)the applicant must pass a series of written and oral tests about the risks and responsibilities associated with ownership of this breed of dog, 2)the applicant must be able to demonstrate that they possess the ability to physically control a dog of this size and strength. They should be required to attend education and training classes. And, finally, any costs associated with regulating and monitoring the ownership of these breeds should be the sole responsibility of those who wish to own dogs belonging to these specific breeds.

We should not prohibit people from owning the breed of dog they prefer. However, if they choose a breed, whose genetic behavioral background history involves the propensity that this animal could suddenly, and without warning or notice of predisposition, exhibit extremely aggressive behavior, and where the possibility exists that this behavior could escalate to a level whereby the possibility exists that the owner could lose control over the animal, and thus result in causing serious physical harm, injury, or even death to another animal or human, then the owner of this animal must be legally 100% liable for the actions of their dog.

They must be able to accept all responsibility, including physical, emotional, and financial responsibilities. In other words, you can make the choice as to what kind of dog you want as your pet, however, if you choose a high risk breed such as an APBT, then as far as I am concerned, you had better be willing to jump through all of the hoops, demonstrating to all of us that you are willing to do everything in your power to increase my safety, the safety of my children, the safety of my neighbors, as well as the safety of other pets and animals living in our community.

Once you have met all of the criteria and have received some sort of certification that indicates to us that you have acquired the knowledge and training that is required in order to possess a breed of this type and you have pledged your commitment of being a responsible owner of this breed by entering into contractual agreement with your community, whereby you will accept all financial responsibility for any damages and losses, including material loss as well as loss of life, then by all means, choose any dog you wish.

Unfortunately, I doubt that anything close to what I have described above will ever be implemented because it simply will be too costly. I don't foresee that any of the people who want these breeds as "pets" will be willing to bear the costs associated with a regulatory/monitoring program like this.

So . . . . as you can see, there just aren't any other options. Everybody gripes about breed banning laws stating that these laws aren't fair. Yet, no one on that side of the argument is willing to sit down and hammer out program that is designed to give them their choice while, at the same time, ensuring the protection everyone else around them.

Yes, unfortunately, one bad apple does spoil the whole bunch. However, we are talking about saving lives, not eating apples and if saving lives means that certain breeds of dogs cannot be owned by just anyone and that ownership will be restricted, permitting only those who show the breed professionally to possess dogs belonging to these breeds, well . . . then, for right now, that is the way it has to be.

Instead of everybody complaining about breed bans and pointing your fingers at other people, saying things like, "they are not responsible dog owners", why don't you sit down and start figuring out a way to regulate the ownership of these breeds. That is what you are asking the government to do when you insist that the blame be placed upon the dog owner, instead of the dog.

To those of you who prefer to own dogs belonging these "Power Breeds", I think the rest of us would really appreciate it if we could actually see that a genuine effort was being made to the regulate ownership of these dogs. If you love this breed like you say you do, then quit complaining and get out there and do something about it.

Your first hurdle is going to be a big one, but you can't go any further until you conquer it completely. You will have to find some way to completely obliterate the illegal sport of dog fighting. That is and always has been your number one enemy and the number one reason for implementing breed bans. If you can do that, the rest will be free sailing.

Yes, more humans have been killed by APBT's than any other breed of dog. It is also a fact that the original breeding of the dog was in favor of dog aggression and against human aggression. I mean really, two APBT's in the middle of a fight, yeah, I don't want them to turn and bite me. But there is a problem in America with Pit Bulls, people buy them and just use them as lawn orniments. They use them for the illegal purposes of dog fighting or to watch over their stash, or what they think of as a guard dog. I know everything there is to know about the American Pit Bull Terrier.

I studied, I researched, all before I bought the dog. I bought my dog Precious, when my daughter was 6 months old. She is a purebred APBT and turned a year old this past month. She and my daughter have gotten the lines crossed somewhere, the dog wants to love up on my wife and I and follows us around all day, and my daughter yells, screams, scratches, bites, and pinches us whenever we come by her. But that's ok.

The only problem in a year having her is that the dog sometimes believes she is a cross between a lap dog and a scarf. So you get 50 pounds of Precious wrapped around your neck, licking your ear. Pit bull love is a key phrase in our house. The baby has been known to use the sleeping dog's head as a step stool to get onto the couch. The dog wakes up, lifts her head to put the baby on the couch, and then goes back to sleep waiting for her role as a step stool again for the baby to get down off the couch.

Oh yes, Let me tell you, she's so vicious.

But see, now you have to look at the jackasses. They buy a dog, chain it up all day long (which provokes aggression in ANY dog) don't feed and water it properly (a trend you see in all the dying houseplants around) and then beat it for every little thing it does, making it scared shitless of humans.

Humans are not just owners, they must also be the head of the pack, the so-called Alpha Dog. All dogs are park of a pack. In the wild, wolves and coyotes have their own family packs and all is headed up by an alpha dog. But when the alpha dog lets things slide, that's when trouble happens. Dog owners will leave dog food on the floor all day long, along with water. That gives the dog control. We as the leaders of the pack tell them what they can eat, how much, and when. My dog would gladly eat 5 pounds of food, but that would not be healthy. Then she would drink a gallon of water before bed time, but that's how accidents happen. That is unacceptable. No water allowed after 7pm and she must be taken out on the lead for half an hour from 9-9:30 pm.

But not everyone is like me. They chain their dogs 24/7, a practice which breeds aggression. If I were to chain you to your couch and then go screwing around in our house, you'd get angry. If I were to threaten you, you'd have to fight, because with the chain, you cannot run.

Contrary to popular belief, dogs do not think like humans. The do what they do because of instinct and training. You can take a puppy from two of the most vicious fighting dogs in the world, raise them, socialize them, train them, and love them, and they will love you back.

The media does create a hysteria. In the 1950's, who was afraid of Pete the Pup from the Little Rascals? Or Chance form Disney's Homeward Bound series? Nobody is. Because they were trained, socialized, and loved.

Now put a stereotypical pit bull and put them in those scenes. The Little Rascals would be bitten, Chance would have killed that damn mountain lion, and been able to not only catch a fish, but would have killed the bear that wanted the one he did get.

But that is not how real APBT's act. And most people who claim their dog is a pit bull usually don't know what UKC and AKC standars are for the dogs in the first place. They breed them with other dogs to get heavier and stronger dogs. People do not breed dogs for the betterment of the breed.

It's not right to ban a breed based on a bunch of yahoo's running around trying to make a quick buck. Give me 3 months and I could train any dog to be mean and vicious. It is how they are trained and raised. But most people don't see that training and socialization is an ongoing practice, not something you do when they're young.

Ok first i would like say that Im only 15. I do on the other hand own a beautiful female pit bull by the name of Sage! Now that im hearing more and more about these pit bull "maulings" gets me pissed to a "T". Now your probably thinking well who knows ur pit bull may attack you next. Well i have thought that maby once but then agian as im writing this Sage is resting her head on my leg. I do also feel that the reason for this is due to poor breeding! And personally i feel that you should check into a pit bulls history before you get one. Like me, i bought Sage from my friend and they bought their dog Mary Jane, from a family friend who has been breeding pit bulls for their color, a friendly temporment, and for companionship. Like many other parents my Grandma was not to thrilled about bringing a Sage ( or any pit bull) into the house with our other 3 dogs, but i did anyway. With the fact that she had to be strickly trained which she is! Now its been a good year since we brought her home and yea she's gotten into a "dissagreement" with my lab/doberman Chyna but thats all and she got sent into "time-out"! And another thing is dissaplin i feel that you shouldnt hit your dog because that gets them either more mad or afriad. Well what I do is kinda funny but hey it works when she either growls or jumps on people (she is the biggest kissy dog ever) i pop her on her nose and i send her to what is called the time-out corner and i say in a deep voice "Sage go to your corner" and she goes and then i say down and she'll lay down until i say so otherwise. But in conclussion i honestly dont know what i'd do if the government band pit bulls, because im sorry, if you take my Sage away from me their is going to be some hell to pay, because taking her away is like taking a new-born away from their mother and that is just not right!! Now you can go on thinking that its okay for them to do this but until you have had one and look into those eyes and know that you can trust them or any dog,let me see you sit and watch while someone takes your life away!

Let's for the moment accept the notion that APBTs have killed the most people in attacks.

That does NOT indicate that APBTs are necessarily more "deadly." That's like saying that we should restrict freedom of blacks since they proportionately (per statistics) commit more violent crime per capita than, say, Asians.

That APBT statistic is largely a function of its popularity among a certain kind of people. It is not an enduring truism (for a while, GSDs were the choice of "thug dogs"; Presa Canarios are getting more popular since the infamous NorCal incident). Let's put it this way. Suppose you enact a ban. Suppose that it even works and is enforceable. Now the "thugs" move to Presa Canarios. Now what? Ban them? What if they move to GSDs? Ban them too? Akitas? Rotties? Siberian Huskies? Where do you stop?

This is not a dog problem. It's a people problem. And don't say that responsible APBT owners are doing nothing -- they have clubs, trainers and societies that promote responsible ownership (just like, say, responsible gun owners).

Ultimately, however, they cannot be responsible for what other individuals do with other dogs, just like responsible gun owners can only do so much to influence what bad people do with their guns.

What we do with this problem is what we are supposed to do with all forms of misbehavior. We dont' proactively ban activities, ownership of items (guns or APBTs or Clorox or whatever) for everyone wholesale. We punish those individuals whose misbehavior creates harm for others.

Individual responsibility and punishment on bad individuals for bad acts. That should be the guiding princple of judicial system of a free society, and that should be the way "dangerous" dogs are handled as well.

Otherwise, it's nothing more than "freedom for me and my favorite things but not for thee or thy favorite things" which is to say pure hypocrisy.

Here it is in a nutshell----although cocker spaniels are at the top of the list in dog bites, I have never heard of a cocker killing or seriously wounding/maiming someone. Certain dogs ARE born with a more geneticly agressive personality...this pit bull owners cannot deny. Is it magnified by being chained up, starved, and treated cruel? Of course. My heart breaks when I watch Animal Precinct Detroit and the Humane Society has to put them to sleep because of a no pit bull adoption law. BUT, alot of dog owners live in denial. I have seen pits and other breeds go absolutely crazy for no reason, they see you or your dog and you KNOW they would attack, but they can't get to you. Then the owner comes around and says, "Oh, my baby wouldn't do that!" Of COURSE the dog doesn't usually do it with the owner there---they are more secure when the owner is around. My dogs were attacked by chow and rotweiler 2 weeks ago. I got between the dog attack like a fool, but my small dog would've been killed, for sure. The owner of the dogs was shaking more than me---she said she would've NEVER believed it if she hadn't seen it herself. I kindly let her know I understood she did not know before, but now that she did, I will carry pepper spray for walks and use it. And if ANYTHING ever happened to my children, she has been forewarned. ANYONE who knows they cold cause potential harm to my family will pay, I promise you. People, PLEASE do not take this for granted. Your pets DO behave differently around you, the alpha master. Children are seen as small prey or competition sometimes, even in the same family. Please watch your kids when visiting dogs of any breed in question. Do not EVER let your child around a dog eating that you don't know.

It is very interesting to watch both sides of this discussion and see how polarized this issue has become. I know that many people will disagree with me on this but, in my opinion a pitbull is not a pet. A chihuahua is a pet, a Boston terrier is a pet. A pitbull is a guard dog, a rottweiler is a guard dog. As such, each should be treated and viewed differently. People tend to forget that they are animals, with animals instincts that are latent and not extinguished with training. It amuses me to hear people say that they are in control of such and such animal when in reality we as humans exert control over an animal as long as this animal allows it. Of course, there are always forceful or inteligent ways to make the animal do what we want, but that is different. Rememeber what happened with the white tiger and the entertainer in Las Vegas? He raised this animal since it was a pup and they were inseparable. What happened? I would say the tiger never stopped being a tiger, having tiger instincts and tiger mood swings and tiger personality, he was just being an animal. The same,at a smaller scale, happens with dogs, especially big, powerfull dogs which are born with an aggresive instinct, it's innate in them, they can't help it, no matter how many hours of training they undertake, give them the right opportunity and they show up their true nature. But again, they are not to blame, we as humans should understand that and treat them as such, if they are guard dogs they should be treated differently than a pet dog, the same way that you would handle differently a rattlesnake from a garden snake. Same concept. For those who say that Cocker Spaniels bite more frequently than pitbulls, that might be true but they don't kill people, they can't, nature did not designed them that way. On the other hand, pitbulls are known to kill not only strangers but even their owners with no apparent reasons. I wonder why?

Arilin:

Comparing a tiger to any breed of domesticated dog is useless. A tiger can be TAMED, but never DOMESTICATED.

There are fundamental differences between these two concepts. There is a reason why only certain animals can be DOMESTICATED, not just tamed (cow, horse, dog, etc. but not lions, tigers and so on; regarding cats there is a debate, but most side on tamed, not domesticated).

One of the keys to domestication (as opposed to simple taming) is PACK INSTINCT. Those animals with pack instinct can be domesticated, because we become the alphas of the pack. A dog does not see an owner, master or companion. It sees an alpha that must be pleased and obeyed for protection and food.

Furthermore, you don't seem to realize that, whereas tigers have been, at most, influenced by human habitation and existence, dogs have been SELECTIVELY BRED by humans for specific purposes over at least ten thousand years.

"Guarding," by the way, is a function, not a biological subset of animal species. Some of the qualities that make certain dogs better guard dogs are: territoriality, dominance and trainability (eagerness to please humans or alphas). No matter how "ferocious" or "dangerous," dogs that lack these qualities make poor guard dogs (they may make good "watch" dogs, however, which are a different thing altogther).

That's why you see GSDs as Schuzhunden, but not Akitas. Akitas are strong, powerful, dominant and territorial (and very loyal), but they are also highly "independent" and does not take repetitive training well.

Size is rarely an issue in this regard although people have, over the years, bred dogs with such qualities bigger to enhance the guarding capacity.

In fact, in some cultures, "small" dogs work in tandem with "big" dogs to guard, i.e. small dogs specialize in watching and alerting (barking) and big dogs respond physically to intrusion.

I can go on and on, but I think that is sufficient to demonstrate that some of the comments here are based on less than rudimentary understanding of dogs, their qualities, breed histories and other scientific factors and more on news media clippings.

I don't pretend to know it all about dogs -- Gawd knows there are so many people who have forgotten more about dogs than I will ever know. But it is clear that the vast majority of people who propel the APBT hysteria don't operate on so much as facts but myths that the headline sellers push.

Look I don't have a dog in this fight. I will NEVER own APBTs, because they are not what I prefer (I now own two northern Spitz-type dogs, a class that includes anything from Akitas to Siberian Huskies). But I recognize a hysteria when I see it, particularly because it is a field that I study as more than a hobby.

Lastly, I should point out that no one has presented a cogent counterpoint to my earlier argument about shifting popularities of "thug dogs." Ban APBTs? Then what when the "thug doggers" move to another breed? With that legal philosophy, we are going to end up banning a lot of dogs (dogs that many people assume are "safe" because they look "cute" but in fact have high degrees of dominance, territoriality and power).

One more quick point. I should point out that Matt mentioned "gameness" in context of not giving up during aggression.

There is another thing that should be separated in defining aggression -- interdog aggression and aggression toward humans. The two are completely different things.

One dog may be aggressive toward another dog, but not so toward humans. Another dog may be both. Yet another may be human aggressive, but not so toward another dog.

APBTs with fighting pedigrees may have a high degree of aggression toward another dog of same sex (not necessarily so, but it is likely). But it should NOT have aggression toward humans (kinda hard to handle for a human in a dog fight in that case*).

This is another thing that should be kept in mind when discussing "aggression" in context of dogs, including APBTs.

*I want to make it absolutely clear that I neither approve, support nor advocate dog fighting.

I'm gonna piggyback off of guns and butter for a minute. Perfect example comparing ABPT's to blacks since by statistics, we do account for quite a large percent of violent crime, but then you look at people like myself, Colen Powell, Russel Simmons, or any other black male in this country, just like this dog many of us have been raised in bad situations, and many of us still flourish doing positive things. So to ban this dog for the actions of a few is clearly showing prejudice towards the breed. I've grown up around this dog my whole life, i've seen the good, and i have seen the bad, take a guess at what i saw the most...and in respose to the notion of placing purebreds in the same categorie as mixes, when you mix breeds, everything can be affected, from size, color and you got it...TEMPERMENT. Out of the millions of ABPT's in this country, maybe 30% have been poorly trained,treated and socialized, so for the other 70% of responsible dog owners, we have to bear the weight of the jackasses, thats like me having to take punishment for what the D.C. sniper did, simply because he was a black male...and one more thing, julie keep in mind everything needs to be realistic. If it were possible to "obliterate" the illegal sport of dog fighting, do you really think it would be going on today,2nd, that's like puting an end to all crime, the fact of the matter is this, as long as there are humans on this earth, there will be bad seeds. And as long as there bad seeds, there will be crime, including pit fights.

Guns and Butter:

Really appreciate your explanations and education since I am not a dog expert. However,your very good points explain why exactly we should make a distinction between a "pet" and a "guard" dog. Dogs,as all animals,come with their own built in instincts which will kick in at any moment and without asking for permission from the dog's owner.
You've probably read accounts where the dog's owner said:..." I'd never seen my dog act that way!..."
It is also interesting to see that pitbulls in several cases are attacking their owners,"apparently" without provocation. We are not talking about thugs and drug dealers being attacked by their dogs but regular people. Again, you might say that other dogs attack their owners also and it's true, the difference is that the damage is not the same and death to the owner is not even considered.
So, my point is that you need to treat these animals differently because they behave differently from a regular pet dog, like I said before, a chihuahua, a poodle,etc.
Just today I was reading the newspaper and there it was, another pitbull dog mauling its owner, this time it was a lady who was in a discussion with her adult son, both co-owned the dog. In the middle of their argument, the dog started attacking the man and when the lady tried to intervene the dog turned on her and sent her to the hospital in a very serious condition.
We are not talking about two gansters here, just regular people who, I have no doubt, love their dog and still the dog attacked. What kind of provocation could the dog have had? Who knows! The animal experts might come with some speculation as to the motives but that's all that is speculation because they don't know for sure.
In my opinion, these dogs are dangerous and they are useful for some people and purposes but they don't make good pets because if I had a dog that I knew had the determination,power and means to end my life I wouldn't want it around me or my family. I don't own dogs at this moment but I have in the past,small and not so small but I never had to deal with this latent threat that pitbulls present to any person around them.
If you are interested in reading about the case that I was talking about here is the link:
http://www.ktvu.com/news/4610404/detail.html?treets=fran&tml=fran_12pm&ts=T&tmi=fran_12pm_1_02000306152005

"However,your very good points explain why exactly we should make a distinction between a 'pet' and a 'guard' dog."

You did not understand what I wrote, did you? There is no such thing as a natural "pet" dog or "guard" dog. These are FUNCTIONS that people assign to dogs based on breed AND individual characteristics and temperament of a particular dog (a somewhat humorous sidenote -- I rescued my two current dogs; one of them came with the description of "Gard [sic] pet dog" in the orignal owner release form).

"Dogs,as all animals,come with their own built in instincts which will kick in at any moment and without asking for permission from the dog's owner."

Again, you did not understand the distinction between a TAMED and a DOMESTICATED animal. A pack animal follows the cue from its alpha of the pack (they are not even supposed to fight without the alpha's permission as an alpha is the "warrior" of the pack). Humans, the alphas, whether through overt direction or bad (or no) training, are responsible for how their dogs behave. Unless there is a serious medical (brain) issue, a dog will not "act crazy out of nowhere."

Dogs are, of course, animals and as such possess common traits such as fear, affection and etc. A dog that feels threatened or hurt may respond with violence to the offender ("pet" dog or no). That's another pet peeve I have. People feel compelled to approach and touch other people's dog, often, without permission! They seem to think that if a dog is cute enough looking, they are entitled to touch it. I am sure if some strange person insisted on petting my wife on her head because she "looks cute," I am pretty sure that he will get more than a "bite."

I have had children lunge at our dogs on a walk (in one case beating the head of one of my dogs with a lollypop) with nary an apology.

As much as dog owners must be responsible (always supervising dogs with children and strangers), people ought to reciprocate the same respect, particularly with their children.

An individual dog, by the way, that is human-aggressive is one that has been bred and trained to be that way whether intentionally or not.

"You've probably read accounts where the dog's owner said:... 'I'd never seen my dog act that way!...'"

Frankly, I hold people who say that in contempt. A dog (or a human for that matter) is completely capable of behaving in a way that it has not before. But that is exceptionally rare (but still something to be aware of). Moreover, even when it happens, there are signs of "escalation" (just like kids who kill start with hurting small animals, for example). Responsible owners keep apprised of their dogs and behaviors, whatever the breed.

"It is also interesting to see that pitbulls in several cases are attacking their owners,'apparently' without provocation."

News clippings are not reliable in such reports. Post-mortem (of the dogs) analyses and other scientific findings usually find the causes.

I've also read and heard such stories about many breeds (most often with GSDs).

"Again, you might say that other dogs attack their owners also and it's true, the difference is that the damage is not the same and death to the owner is not even considered."

You think that a standard (full size) Poodle is not capable of doing serious harm or even dealing death to a normal sized human? My wife's family has been standard Poodle aficionados for a long time, and they (as well as I) can tell you that a badly bred and trained Poodle is a dangerous thing. Poodles, like a lot of other large dogs, are exceptionally athletic and muscular, the "goofy" fur notwithstanding (they were hunting/retrieving/water dogs in Germany) and can do quite a bit of damage. Unfortunately, many prospective owners do not realize this due to "fluffy" media portrayal. There are three standard Poodles in my area, and all three are highly dog aggressive and none too human-friendly (clearly owned by people who don't know what they're doing with dogs).

"So, my point is that you need to treat these animals differently because they behave differently from a regular pet dog, like I said before, a chihuahua, a poodle,etc."

See above answers. By the way, it just so happens that I raised several Chihuahuas (along with a number of other breeds). They can be feisty, temperamental and dominant little creatures. It is an ugly sight to see a small child's face half bitten off by a badly handled Chihuahua. Sadly it happens a lot more than it should because people assume that Chihuahuas are "cute little pet dogs" that couldn't possibly harm a child.

Remember, be cautious with any and all dogs that are not your own. Then be doubly cautious with your own dogs.

You may consider citing your references (where you got your stories, and the dates) to add weight to your credible reports of pit bull incident. A longtime pitbull opponent, I keep loose track of news stories. September 2004, a boy in Bartlesville OK was attacked while at an uncles house, most of his face was ripped off and he was in serious condition and will suffer permanent disfigurement. He was 10 or 11. The dog "never showed aggression before" was said.

This week, prior to 6/16/2005, an oklahoma child of about 2 was attacked through a fence in her own yard by a pitbull(s?). The neighbor had TEN PITS in his yard, and the privacy fence was missing one slat where the attack occured. The child's arm was "ripped off and eaten" according to the morning DJ's on an Oklahoma radio station. All 10 dogs have already been euthenized. More to follow when I find the actual news story.

~J

John, please do forward the story, and thanks for being in touch. Regarding your suggestion I include citations of the news reports Iam referring to, you can get those by actually clicking on the maroon-linked words, which take you right to the stories, as they appeared in the online versions of various newspapers (name of publication, date included). Sometimes, certain online news links expire after a month or so.

Okay, when you say that the dog never showed any aggression before, another thing we have to take into account is that it is their word, and we all know not everyone will admit to their dog having issues, because that will bring up the question "why didnt you do anything about it before?" Too many people dont want to take responsibilty for their dogs actions, which only adds to the already horrible stereotype, by them saying it never happened before, only makes the dog seem that much more unpredictable. How many of you have heard about a rape case, where there were no witnesses, just his word against hers. Right away, the accused is labeled as a rapist, and if in fact he was falsely accused, does it change the way people look at him? No. He is labeled for life and without just cause. So apply this to our previous scenario. Do i think that they should be treated differently, yes, but persecuted, no. I feel they should be treated with the necessary caution considering their strength and determination.

Excellent point -- I meant to bring it up eariler.

The classic case of "my dogs have always been gentle and friendly" BS from bad owners are the ones who owned those Presa Canarios in norCal that killed a female neighbor.

Their neighbors, when interviewed by police, almost all uniformly said that those Presas were aggressive to HUMANS. But no one called Animal Control to document it officially! We know now that those dogs were very badly reared (something about guarding drug labs from the police on behalf of white supremacists among other things).

Like I wrote before, I don't often buy the the marble tears of "But my dogs wouldn't do that!" from bad or clueless owners and handlers of dogs. I had enough attacks from other dogs with such protestations to know the BS (some of these owners then try to claim that their -- usually unleashed -- dogs were not at fault, you see it's apparently MY fault because my leashed dogs were "rouling" their dogs up with "bad attitude").

Unless there is something wrong with the brain (stroke, genetic defect, disease), there is almost always a trigger and/or escalation with aggressive behaviors.

My own dogs have been extensively "kid-tested" so to speak, but I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER let them interact on their own with other people, especially children. I supervise all interactions and ALWAYS maintain psychological and physical dominance/control over my dogs (this does not mean staying in a constant state of tension as nothing freaks out a dog more than its handler's tension or fear; it's "relaxed dominance").

They spend their days indoors and they are always leashed on their many walks (yes, I do run into about 3-4 unleashed dogs on each walk on average). They also have undergone multiple training programs (not the Petco variety; a real trainer who used to train dogs for the US military).

That's the kind of responsibility that comes with having dogs -- any dogs, no matter what the breed.

As a side note, our professional dog trainer often gets "difficult" cases that the Petco types cannot handle or write off. Many of these dogs come with serious aggression issues. Half the dogs he trains are the small "pet" or "toy" variety.

In my anecdotal, personal experience, little "pet" dogs are often temperamentally worse, because their owners coddle them and do not provide proper alpha leadership and control.

It's very difficult for me to take the side of banning a breed of dog, I don't like the precedent it sets, I don't like anybody losing their freedoms of choice whether it's pet ownership or anything else, however, unless someone can come up with a viable alternative I don't see that we have any choice in the matter. My own experiences with pits has convinced me that they are an extremely unstable and unsafe animal for the majority of people to own.

I have worked as a professional dog trainer (not the petco variety) for years, in that time I've worked with a huge variety of breeds, some hardheaded, independant and difficult to impossible for their owners to handle, however, pit bulls are the only breed I used to work with that would become violent.

My first negative pit bull incident happened with my friends dog who I'd helped her train since the dog was 8 weeks old at a year old the dog had shredded the garbage, she was corrected by taking her to the garbage, showing it to her and saying "No", she was not bopped, spanked or struck in any way during this correction. Roughly two hours later I was sitting on the floor and as she started to walk past me, she turned and lunged at my face. Luckily she was a small pit and I'd caught the look in her eye a split second before she lunged and was able to grab her and with assistance subdue her. Until that incident she was the sweetest loving dog, great with kids, good around other animals etc. She had never exhibited any type of aggression up to that point. About 6 months later she bit her owner when she was ordered out of the kitchen. The dog was put down.

My invalid mother was sitting in her wheelchair in the front of the house when three loose pits decided to stop and investigate our yard. One of them decided she didn't like my mom and started growling and stalking her in the chair. My mom is unable to talk or respond in any type of aggressive manner and yet the dog became aggressive towards her. I managed to get the dog interested in me instead, until animal control got here. It was a terrifying incident.

Another dog trainer friend of mine was teaching an obedience class and having the owners walk the dogs in a circle around her, the pit owner walked too close to her back and the pit bull bit the trainer in the calf. She no longer allows pit bulls in her classes either.

I now have a large pit bull living in the house behind me, who attempts to claw and leap at the fence anytime the kids are playing in the pool or playing with our dogs. Animal control has not been able to remove the dog yet... until he actually comes over the fence and attacks?

In all of my experience as a trainer I've never had a dog intentionally go after me or anyone else. I personally think of Pit Bulls as loaded guns, they're fine until they slip the safety off. The problem is that no one can anticipate when that might happen or what the result would be. I believe there are very few people who can safely control a pit bull especially if they slip the safety off.

Whether you blame the irresponsible owners or the dogs themselves, it doesn't change the fact that people and animals are not safe around an unrestrained pit bull. Everyone in our neighborhood who doesn't own a pit bull carries a weapon and has animal control speed dialed on their cell phones. All of this so we can safely walk our own dogs or allow our children to play in the neighborhood. So while pit bull owners have the freedom of owning thier dog, we have lost the freedom to feel safe in our own neck of the woods.

I don't agree with banning a breed. We share our home with a pitbull and she greets every visitor with a tail wag and a kiss. She lives indoors with us and never leaves the house without her leash on. She's not left outdoors to roam the neighborhood. Irresponsible owners who train this breed to fight are the problem. This breed is animal aggressive, afterall, they have been used for fighting in the past. But, many homes have other dogs and all get along peacefully as long as they are properly supervised! Statistics show that there are more bites from cocker spaniels and other breeds than from pitbulls. The negative media attention doesn't help this breed either. Seems like only the attacks are reported. What about the pitbull who saved his entire family from burning to death in a house fire? Or pitbulls that are used as therapy dogs in hosptials and nursing homes? Or the pitbulls that are search and rescue dogs? Bet if someone's family member were missing and a pitbull found them, that would never be reported in the paper!!

Guns and Butter:
Yes, I think I understood your lesson.I appreciate it since,like I said, I am not an expert. The point that you made that, to me, was the most useful is the one about FUNCTIONS, which is exactly what I was talking about. You bring a dog into your house and life because you are looking for a specific FUNCTIONS for that dog to accomplish/perform. The degree of success that these FUNCTIONS will achieve will depend on the "natural" characteristics of the dog. My point is that a Pitbull will not FUNCTION as a pet, at least not a reliable one, consistently. You'll always be with at risk of having the dog attack you or somebody else, and the huge problem is the degree of the damage. Dogs always attack other dogs and humnas too but, like I said,a chihuahua will not kill, a Boston Terrier will not kill, a Pitbull will. Just yesterday, I read of another case in the newspaper about an 11 year old girl that was attacked by a Pitbull, she did not die because her mom intervened, but I saw her picture in the paper and it breaks my heart. She'll be with facial and arms scars for life. She is in the hospital along with her mom with serious injuries. The pitbull just got into the yard where she was doing some gardening and the dog decided that he did not like her that much and just bit her on her face. My question is, how many more of these cases people need to go through so that something can be done about it.
It's very interesting all the science and theory that you command but none of that can explain the actual facts of all these attacks that I am not imagining, I saw the picture of the girl in the paper, she was sedated with morphine because of the great deal of pain she was in. She didn't even owned a dog. Go figure.

arilin:

"The degree of success that these FUNCTIONS will achieve will depend on the 'natural' characteristics of the dog."

You did NOT get it. The degree of success does NOT depend solely characteristics of the dog. It depends on, yes, breed traits as well as INDIVIDUAL TRAITS AND OWNER INTERVENTION (training). Like humans, dogs are their own individual creatures (albeit social ones). The differences from dog to dog within a breed is great.

Many APBTs, for example, are used as therapy dogs, because well-bred and trained ones are exceptionally sweet and eager to please.

On the other hand, a "pet" dog like a Pomeranian has killed kids. Yes, a pint-sized Pomeranian (I referenced it somewhere back on this site).

Here are some stats I quote and then summarize. I hope everyone will read it and get informed first, before forming opinions based on sensational news clippings.

http://www.fataldogattacks.com/statistics.html:

"It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally unusual event. Approximating 20 deaths per year in a dog population of 53 million yields an infinitesimal percent of the dog population (.0000004%) involved in a human fatality."

"Victim Profile
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
12% of the victims were the elderly, aged 65 - 94
9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old

The age group with the highest number of fatalities were children under the age of 1 year old; accounting for 19% of the deaths due to dog attack. Over 95% of these fatalities occurred when an infant was left unsupervised with a dog(s).

The age group with the second-highest number of fatalities were 2-year-olds; accounting for 11% of the fatalities due to dog attack. Over 87% of these fatalities occurred when the 2-year-old child was left unsupervised with a dog(s) or the child wandered off to the location of the dog(s).

Boys aged 1 - 12 years old were 2.5 times more likely to be the victim of a fatal dog attack than girls of the same age.

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%).

Reproductive Status of Dogs
Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unaltered males.

From 2000-2001 there were 41 fatal dog attacks. Of these, 28 were attacks by a single dog and 13 fatalities were caused by multiple dogs.

Of the 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000-2001; 26 were males and 2 were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were found to be intact (the reproductive status of the remaining 5 males dogs could not be determined)."

So, here is my summary:

1. An infinitesimal percent of the dog population (.0000004%) involved in a human fatality.
2. 79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12.
3. Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%).
4. Of the 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000-2001; 26 were males (92.8%), 21 were found to be intact [males] (75%).

So, is this a breed thing even though "Pit Bulls" are, admittedly, the highest rated offenders at 21%? Of course, the two next breeds outnumber "Pit Bulls" in human fatalities.

Or does the statistics show that when children under 12 (79%), particularly boys, come into contact with intact male dogs (75%), particularly without adult supervision, there is substantially greater potential for a fatal attack?

Even if you don't care for individual responsibility and rely instead purely on statistics, it seems you should advocate banning intact males (or males in general) rather than Pit Bulls. Afterall, 75% or 92.8% shows heck of higher "co-efficient" of correlations than 21%.

Another set of statistics to note is that dog killings of humans, particularly children, occurred in the 50's and 60's as well. In a great majority of those cases, the offending dogs were not Pit Bulls or Rottweilers. They were, in fact, breeds that were most popular during the era. In other words, dog killings of humans are very rare but have been with us a long, long time. What change from era to era are the breeds, because to a great extent, the changes reflect popularity among PEOPLE.

Again, this is a people (owner/handler) problem, not a breed problem.

A dog is most often a reflection of his owner/handler. You do get what you put into the dog. This doesn't just mean abuse. A dog (particularly a sexually intact dog) that's tied outside all day and receives no proper socialization with people or dogs will more likely be aggressive than not, regardless of the breed.

I don't know if anyone reads this but this hysteria is somthing that I have been fighting for years. I am a proffessional dog trainer(have worked for petsmart...thanx....k-9 divisions of the police department, and service dogs--which I have used pits for) that works with hard headed and aggressive dogs. The funny thing is that the pits tht come into my classes typically are not all that aggressive, the owners just want to know how to deal with thier dogs. The most aggressive breed that I have encountered are the toy breeds, I have never been bit by a pit but have been bit by cockers, poms, and yorkies. I do have three pits and a rottie and they are great dogs. While i know that the argument is that the agression is breed into them you have to think that while that is a minor part but cannot blammed for it all. People have to train thier dogs and understand how thier brain works. There are three types of pit owners that I have come across. The first category is the people think that they have to be physically abusive to "break" their pit and that leads to pent up frustrion and bad behavior. If any dog it treated this way from a mutt to a basenji they are walking time bombs. Not being able to break the pit leads the owner to not socialize the dog properly and not showing them different situation in a positive light and seeing how they will react. Then there is the owner that is scared of the title of the dog, while not abusive the dog rarely is socialized not shown different situation. Making the dog fearfull of people, other dogs, animals and even things like wheel chairs. This dog might be a time bomb. The other type is the is the resposible dog owner, that trained their dog did not let them challenge other and have been well socialized, and about 75% of my clients are the resposible owner thant just want to make sure that they do everything possible for thier dogs. Now the same good hearted dog in the hands of a responsible owners could have been a murderous dog in the hand of a bad owner, so yes the degree that your dog is trained will decrease aggression.

Young people that I have come along that do have pits are for the image, and that is something that should never be done. Look at paris hilton and tinker bell--I am sure she got her toy breed for her image--and her little pup wound up attacking a tv producer, and nothing happen to little tinker because it was cute. I do not believe that all dog bites are reported because alot happen by toy breeds. Why is there aggression is so much different.

The bottom line is that it is up to the owner to control the dog and thier aggression. Insteado of a ban they should put a law that your dog has to go through a good citizen test when you register the dog. Before any one bashes an animal they need to do reseach on the animal, this is the same for when people decied which breed they would like. and There has to be a comprimise between pit lover and pit haters.

MY E-MAIL RALPERS476@AOL.COM

RENEE

My seven year old grandson was attacked and nearly killed by two pit bulls. He nearly lost his life and a leg but after a three hour surgery at our local hospital he was flown to Childrens Hospital in St Louis where he underwent several more hours of surgery. Since then he has had seven more operations but is back in school and doing well. He has gone through more than a year of physical and mental therapy. After the attack we found out that there are no laws in the state of Missouri to protect humans from animals. I would like to know how other people feel about this.

I recently had an awful run-in with a pitbull. I actually found this site because I was trying to look up information about attacks on service animals. My service dog, Arogs, was attacked by a pitbull a little over a week ago. I was walking down the street with my dad when I heard the pitbull start barking like crazy from the SUV it was sitting in. It then leaped out of the open window, ran down the street, grabbed Argos by the throat and started dragging him and shaking him all over the street. Luckily the second pitbull that was sitting in the backseat of the SUV didn't get a chance to jump out before the owner could stop it. My father immediately pounced on the pitbull, held onto it, and started punching it in the face over and over and over again. Argos was wailing and crying and I was screaming for someone to call the police. The owner's husband was pulling on the pitbull's collar, and she was shouting at the dog, but it wouldn't let go. It was the most vicious thing I'd ever seen in my life. After seeing my dad punching the pittbull in the face and seeing both him and my dog getting whipped around and dragged around the sidewalk, I was just pulling out my swiss army knife from my purse in an attempt to do ANYTHING to get that monster off of Argos. Luckily for the pittbull, it bit my dad's finger and let go just long enough for the owner's husband to pull it away and get it back in the car (with the windows rolled up this time - you can see these owners were not the most intelligent of people to leave a freakin' PITBULL in a car with the windows open).
Miraculously, Argos didn't even have a scratch on him. He's a collie with a very thick mane (interestly enough, collies are shepherd dogs bred with this mane for protection from other dogs attacking their flocks and themselves) and the pitbull had a mouthful of that and his thick rolled leather collar. The veterinarian told me that the pitbull just barely missed his throat and that my father's immediate attacks to the pitbulls face stopped it from being able to adjust to a better grip.
The owner was of course proclaiming her dog to be a good dog who never did ANYTHING like that EVER and that she had never trained him to attack. Well that may all be true, but she's kidding herself if she believes that by getting a breed of dog that's KNOWN to be vicious, her own pitbull isn't ever going to attack. Pitbulls need experienced owners who know how to train them to not be vicious. You can't just leave them to their own devices and figure that if you didn't train them to attack, they won't. I also don't like that people try to defend them by arguing that they're usually not agressive towards people, even if they are aggressive towards dogs. Now that I've found out how many service dogs are attacked, it's even more obvious why pitbulls should be banned as they are in many European countries who have enough sense to do so. I never liked pitbulls because every dog attack I've ever witnessed were by pitbulls. Now I really do believe that they should be banned or at least severely restricted. In the UK each pitbull owner has to be certified to have a pitbull and each individual pitbull must be completely checked out and OK'd by the government. In this country people constantly make the argue of the individual's right to own whatever dog they want. But when do the individual's rights impede the rights of the general public? And I'm not talking rights of property in that case, but the right to life itself! These dogs are worse than guns because they will attack even when the owners do not intend for them to attack and when they are completely unprovoked. My service dog immediately surrendered, falling to his side, but unlike a normal dog fight, submission did not stop the attack. That pitbull didn't want to claim dominance over my service dog. He wanted to kill him. Which makes sense, because that's what this breed has been bred for throughout its history; it was made for no other purpose. They maim and kill, and they have a proven track record. For those who say that these are all just stereotypes - stereotypes are usually based on fact. From my own experiences (and I have unfortunately had a lot of them) the breed in general deserves its reputation. Yes, some other breeds bite more than pitbulls. But when pitbulls attack, they are extremely vicious, and they aim to kill (and they can and do).
Pitbulls just can't be trusted unless they've been highly trained to NEVER show aggression to people or dogs. The owner of the pitbull that attacked my service dog has now seen for herself what a vicious and untrustworthy dog she has if what she claims is true that it has never been aggressive before. They're ticking time bombs just waiting to go off. And mind you, these people looked like decent people, with a brand new SUV, the dogs didn't look abused, weren't emaciated from a lack of food or marred by dog fights. So those of you who have so much faith in your pitbulls and point to scumbags who chain up their pitbulls and "make them" aggressive (they're bred to be that way) as the problem really are kidding yourselves. In my opinion, no one picks a pitbull for a pet because they make great family pets. They pick them for protection, because pitbulls look cool, because they think having a pitbull makes THEM look cool. Not because they're a loving breed of dog that gets along with everyone and everything. Like I said to the police officer who showed up and said he believed that it was a good dog and that it was just a freak occurrence (I'm sure he must have a pitbull himself), "It's a freak occurrence if a golden retriever leaps out of a car and down the street to attack. If it's a pitbull, it should be expected."

I recently had an awful run-in with a pitbull. I actually found this site because I was trying to look up information about attacks on service animals. My service dog, Arogs, was attacked by a pitbull a little over a week ago. I was walking down the street with my dad when I heard the pitbull start barking like crazy from the SUV it was sitting in. It then leaped out of the open window, ran down the street, grabbed Argos by the throat and started dragging him and shaking him all over the street. Luckily the second pitbull that was sitting in the backseat of the SUV didn't get a chance to jump out before the owner could stop it. My father immediately pounced on the pitbull, held onto it, and started punching it in the face over and over and over again. Argos was wailing and crying and I was screaming for someone to call the police. The owner's husband was pulling on the pitbull's collar, and she was shouting at the dog, but it wouldn't let go. It was the most vicious thing I'd ever seen in my life. After seeing my dad punching the pittbull in the face and seeing both him and my dog getting whipped around and dragged around the sidewalk, I was just pulling out my swiss army knife from my purse in an attempt to do ANYTHING to get that monster off of Argos. Luckily for the pittbull, it bit my dad's finger and let go just long enough for the owner's husband to pull it away and get it back in the car (with the windows rolled up this time - you can see these owners were not the most intelligent of people to leave a freakin' PITBULL in a car with the windows open).
Miraculously, Argos didn't even have a scratch on him. He's a collie with a very thick mane (interestly enough, collies are shepherd dogs bred with this mane for protection from other dogs attacking their flocks and themselves) and the pitbull had a mouthful of that and his thick rolled leather collar. The veterinarian told me that the pitbull just barely missed his throat and that my father's immediate attacks to the pitbulls face stopped it from being able to adjust to a better grip.
The owner was of course proclaiming her dog to be a good dog who never did ANYTHING like that EVER and that she had never trained him to attack. Well that may all be true, but she's kidding herself if she believes that by getting a breed of dog that's KNOWN to be vicious, her own pitbull isn't ever going to attack. Pitbulls need experienced owners who know how to train them to not be vicious. You can't just leave them to their own devices and figure that if you didn't train them to attack, they won't. I also don't like that people try to defend them by arguing that they're usually not agressive towards people, even if they are aggressive towards dogs. Now that I've found out how many service dogs are attacked, it's even more obvious why pitbulls should be banned as they are in many European countries who have enough sense to do so. I never liked pitbulls because every dog attack I've ever witnessed were by pitbulls. Now I really do believe that they should be banned or at least severely restricted. In the UK each pitbull owner has to be certified to have a pitbull and each individual pitbull must be completely checked out and OK'd by the government. In this country people constantly make the argue of the individual's right to own whatever dog they want. But when do the individual's rights impede the rights of the general public? And I'm not talking rights of property in that case, but the right to life itself! These dogs are worse than guns because they will attack even when the owners do not intend for them to attack and when they are completely unprovoked. My service dog immediately surrendered, falling to his side, but unlike a normal dog fight, submission did not stop the attack. That pitbull didn't want to claim dominance over my service dog. He wanted to kill him. Which makes sense, because that's what this breed has been bred for throughout its history; it was made for no other purpose. They maim and kill, and they have a proven track record. For those who say that these are all just stereotypes - stereotypes are usually based on fact. From my own experiences (and I have unfortunately had a lot of them) the breed in general deserves its reputation. Yes, some other breeds bite more than pitbulls. But when pitbulls attack, they are extremely vicious, and they aim to kill (and they can and do).
Pitbulls just can't be trusted unless they've been highly trained to NEVER show aggression to people or dogs. The owner of the pitbull that attacked my service dog has now seen for herself what a vicious and untrustworthy dog she has if what she claims is true that it has never been aggressive before. They're ticking time bombs just waiting to go off. And mind you, these people looked like decent people, with a brand new SUV, the dogs didn't look abused, weren't emaciated from a lack of food or marred by dog fights. So those of you who have so much faith in your pitbulls and point to scumbags who chain up their pitbulls and "make them" aggressive (they're bred to be that way) as the problem really are kidding yourselves. In my opinion, no one picks a pitbull for a pet because they make great family pets. They pick them for protection, because pitbulls look cool, because they think having a pitbull makes THEM look cool. Not because they're a loving breed of dog that gets along with everyone and everything. Like I said to the police officer who showed up and said he believed that it was a good dog and that it was just a freak occurrence (I'm sure he must have a pitbull himself), "It's a freak occurrence if a golden retriever leaps out of a car and down the street to attack. If it's a pitbull, it should be expected."

I recently had an awful run-in with a pitbull. I actually found this site because I was trying to look up information about attacks on service animals. My service dog, Arogs, was attacked by a pitbull a little over a week ago. I was walking down the street with my dad when I heard the pitbull start barking like crazy from the SUV it was sitting in. It then leaped out of the open window, ran down the street, grabbed Argos by the throat and started dragging him and shaking him all over the street. Luckily the second pitbull that was sitting in the backseat of the SUV didn't get a chance to jump out before the owner could stop it. My father immediately pounced on the pitbull, held onto it, and started punching it in the face over and over and over again. Argos was wailing and crying and I was screaming for someone to call the police. The owner's husband was pulling on the pitbull's collar, and she was shouting at the dog, but it wouldn't let go. It was the most vicious thing I'd ever seen in my life. After seeing my dad punching the pittbull in the face and seeing both him and my dog getting whipped around and dragged around the sidewalk, I was just pulling out my swiss army knife from my purse in an attempt to do ANYTHING to get that monster off of Argos. Luckily for the pittbull, it bit my dad's finger and let go just long enough for the owner's husband to pull it away and get it back in the car (with the windows rolled up this time - you can see these owners were not the most intelligent of people to leave a freakin' PITBULL in a car with the windows open).
Miraculously, Argos didn't even have a scratch on him. He's a collie with a very thick mane (interestly enough, collies are shepherd dogs bred with this mane for protection from other dogs attacking their flocks and themselves) and the pitbull had a mouthful of that and his thick rolled leather collar. The veterinarian told me that the pitbull just barely missed his throat and that my father's immediate attacks to the pitbulls face stopped it from being able to adjust to a better grip.
The owner was of course proclaiming her dog to be a good dog who never did ANYTHING like that EVER and that she had never trained him to attack. Well that may all be true, but she's kidding herself if she believes that by getting a breed of dog that's KNOWN to be vicious, her own pitbull isn't ever going to attack. Pitbulls need experienced owners who know how to train them to not be vicious. You can't just leave them to their own devices and figure that if you didn't train them to attack, they won't. I also don't like that people try to defend them by arguing that they're usually not agressive towards people, even if they are aggressive towards dogs. Now that I've found out how many service dogs are attacked, it's even more obvious why pitbulls should be banned as they are in many European countries who have enough sense to do so. I never liked pitbulls because every dog attack I've ever witnessed were by pitbulls. Now I really do believe that they should be banned or at least severely restricted. In the UK each pitbull owner has to be certified to have a pitbull and each individual pitbull must be completely checked out and OK'd by the government. In this country people constantly make the argue of the individual's right to own whatever dog they want. But when do the individual's rights impede the rights of the general public? And I'm not talking rights of property in that case, but the right to life itself! These dogs are worse than guns because they will attack even when the owners do not intend for them to attack and when they are completely unprovoked. My service dog immediately surrendered, falling to his side, but unlike a normal dog fight, submission did not stop the attack. That pitbull didn't want to claim dominance over my service dog. He wanted to kill him. Which makes sense, because that's what this breed has been bred for throughout its history; it was made for no other purpose. They maim and kill, and they have a proven track record. For those who say that these are all just stereotypes - stereotypes are usually based on fact. From my own experiences (and I have unfortunately had a lot of them) the breed in general deserves its reputation. Yes, some other breeds bite more than pitbulls. But when pitbulls attack, they are extremely vicious, and they aim to kill (and they can and do).
Pitbulls just can't be trusted unless they've been highly trained to NEVER show aggression to people or dogs. The owner of the pitbull that attacked my service dog has now seen for herself what a vicious and untrustworthy dog she has if what she claims is true that it has never been aggressive before. They're ticking time bombs just waiting to go off. And mind you, these people looked like decent people, with a brand new SUV, the dogs didn't look abused, weren't emaciated from a lack of food or marred by dog fights. So those of you who have so much faith in your pitbulls and point to scumbags who chain up their pitbulls and "make them" aggressive (they're bred to be that way) as the problem really are kidding yourselves. In my opinion, no one picks a pitbull for a pet because they make great family pets. They pick them for protection, because pitbulls look cool, because they think having a pitbull makes THEM look cool. Not because they're a loving breed of dog that gets along with everyone and everything. Like I said to the police officer who showed up and said he believed that it was a good dog and that it was just a freak occurrence (I'm sure he must have a pitbull himself), "It's a freak occurrence if a golden retriever leaps out of a car and down the street to attack. If it's a pitbull, it should be expected."

Guns and Butter, I would just like to say that I am so glad to see there are true breed ambassadors out there when we need them the most. Thank you so much. Pit Bulls need our help more now than ever. Keep up the excellent work and great points of education.

well to start off i have two daughters there 3 and 2 years old i really do understand where alot of you people are coming from about pitbulls attacking children and even adults but you have to look at it both ways there not the only dogs that bite they do more harm cause they are a bigger for example my mother has 3 chihuahuas i would much rather have my children around our pitbull that my mothers chihuahuas anytime not to long ago the female chihuahua bit my daughter in the face good thing i was right there and could get the dog off her befor it punctured her skin my daughter is a small child and even thought the chihuahua was very small it still could of took her lip or ear off whose to say thank god think god that wasnt the situation but you cant trust any animal even if it only weighs 3 pounds or 60 pounds like a pitbull having children is a big responsiblity and its the same for have a dog you wouldnt leave you child with just anyone right then why leave you child alone with a dog or any other animal for that matter animals dont think like us and alot of people dont understand that we no better they dont well thank you all and plz think bout it the next time you leave you children alone with a animal mommy_kayla_katelynn@yahoo.com and yall are welcome to e-mail me if you have a comment or disagree Paula

Our neighborhood if fighting the Pit Bull situation. We have 143 houses in our neighborhood and have the best in town. People move in our neighborhood because it is safe and crime free, or it was until the Pit Bull situation. Now neighbors are afraid to walk and afraid to let their children out to plan. We have already had a woman walking her dog, attacked by 3 Pit Bulls. They are dangerous and unpredictable.