Banning Pitbulls

I'm curious to know why the voting is so close.  Why ban Pitbulls?  You can make any dog mean and prone to bite or attack.  Let's say they did ban pitbulls--what's next...Rotties, Dobies, German Shepherds, ankle-biting Chew-awa's (taco dog)[sp?].   Please don't tell me stories about attack victims; I already agree that it is a terrible thing to go thru, can be very disfiguring, and sometimes can cause death.  Make the owner accountable.  Irresponsible ignorant people will just find another breed and make it vicious...agree or disagree?

Completlely agree. Pit bulls are aggressive, as are many other dog breeds. They are not unique, except that people who own them tend to exploit their aggression more than shepherds or Rotts. When I was a kid, people were terrified of dobes.

I own a Pitbull and an American Staffordshire Terrier.  They are the sweetest dogs in the world, and the only reason they would jump on you is to lick you to death.  I'm not saying all Pitbulls are like that, but why punish a breed or breeds for the act of stupid humans training them to be aggressive.  This makes me soooo mad.  They deserve the same chance as ALL other dogs.  

I bet more than half the people who voted for a Pitbull ban, have absolutely no clue what a Pitbull or Amstaff even look like.  They are just media brainwashed.  Pitbull attacks are far and few in between the majority of dogs bites (they are just the ones we hear about).  It wouldn't as interesting of a story if the dog that attacked someone was a Lab or Golden Retriever.

In PG County, Pitbulls and any look-alikes are banned.  But let me tell you, it's not working.  I know more people who own Pitbulls and Amstaffs now than before the ban.  Looks like soon it will be the same in Charles County.  What a shame.

Kara~

It normally isn't the dog's fault that they were raised to fight or be mean, it is the owners of the dogs that make them a problem and instead of attacking the problem our wise elected officials feel that by doing away with them they will make the problem go away.  NOT!  I have a Chow and that breed has been given a bad reputation too, but in all honesty he is just a pussycat that will cover you with saliva if given a chance.

I used to have a pit-bull mixed dog that I bought at the pound. He was the best dog I ever owned. Very smart and very well behaved because I spent a lot of loving time with him. He probably could have easily been an attack dog, but what fun would that have been? I  just miss playing frisbee with my Bo-doggie.

The way a dog acts is the way you train them.  I had a Doberman and people actually turned us away from renting or living in "their neighborhood" because of it.  He was a great watchdog when it came to the kids but if you actually broke into the house all you would've had to do was pet him and he would show you where everything was and let you take anything you wanted except us or the kids.  It's all in how you raise a dog as to his attitude.  Don't blame a breed of dog just because some idiot treated it badly and made it the way it is. Don't get me but wrong, I feel bad for the person that is attacked but I blame the owner not the dog.  The dog can be retrained.  I have done it so I know it can be done.

The comments sure don’t reflect the survey voting.  You would think that one of the over 100 people who said that the breed should be banned would provide some reasoning for their choice.  Come on people, cat got your tongue.  

I wouldn't have a pitbull in my house or near my children.  There are certain innate characteristics of a breed that stay around no matter how much you love the dog or how hard you train them.  Pitbulls were bred to be aggressive fighter dogs - much like any other breed was created for certain characteristics.

Friends of mine had a pitbull that they loved dearly.  The dog was very well-behaved and gentle with their two young children.   One day, as we were all sitting in their backyard visiting, the dog jumped up from where he was dozing and ran clear across the yard to attack their 2 year old son.  Mauled him pretty good and the only reason the kid wasn't killed is because everyone immediately jumped up to knock this dog out.  There's was nothing out of the ordinary going on.  Apparently the dog just snapped.

That's my only personal story but I know several people who have pitbull horror stories to tell.  I realize that other breeds can be just as vicious but it seems to be consistent with pitbulls.  And every story I've heard starts out with "but he was so gentle and loving..."  Yeah, until he "snapped" and ripped your kid's throat out.

So I voted to ban them because there's no reason on Earth to have a pitbull unless you like to play Russian Roulette.  You can say "Punish the owner" but that doesn't help the kid who is maimed for life or dies.  Nobody HAS to have a pitbull - if you want a Rockin' Boss dog, get a real one like a Dobie or a Rottie.  Not a skulking coward of a pitbull.

(Edited by vraiblonde at 5:20 pm on Jan. 26, 2002)

Kenny,

That's good, cat got yer tongue! Wish I’d said that.

I haven't voted yet because the word “ban” gives me, as it should everyone, reason for pause, serious debate and thought. Like in here.

It is my opinion that anyone who has a large, or larger, dog should understand and act accordingly in the fact that they now own and should be responsible for a lethal weapon.

I say this without using the word potentially because I have guns and water pistols in our home. You could be potentially hurt or worse by one, the other is for real in the same way that a little dog MIGHT hurt someone; the big dog is capable of maiming and killing.

So ban, probably not, but if your dog gets loose or my kids or anyone else innocently steps on your property and is hurt, you, the owner/operator, should pay, all the way up to the death penalty. We’ll also destroy the dog in the same way we take your firearm.

My wife’s heart broke when the only “person” in the house who she TRULY loved, absolutely unconditionally (and reciprocated), had to be put down because he was becoming a time bomb.

It was done BEFORE we had to live with someone being hurt for real.

PS Would anyone who has a big dog (protector/guard/fighting breeds) have gotten that breed if you knew their characteristics were that of a BLANK  (most docile breed there is?).

I fix.

You're welcome.

Okay that's one no vote with a terrible story about one dog that "snapped".  Is this really that prevalent in this breed?  Having never been around one I would think this is the exception rather then the rule.  So I started checking.

In the U.S. from 1979 to 1996, 304 people in the U.S died from dog attacks, including 30 in California. The average number of deaths per year was 17 (similar to the average number of playground deaths).  Most deaths occurred in children. (Centers for Disease Control)

Although pit bull mixes and Rottweillers are most likely to kill and seriously maim, fatal attacks since 1975 have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds. (www.dogbitelaw.com)

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability 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.)

The Centers for Disease Control study dog bite incidents, including the types of dogs most likely to bite. The breeds that the CDC considers highest risk are pit bulls, Rottweillers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernard and Akita.






(Edited by Ken King at 12:42 am on Jan. 27, 2002)

So what's your point?  If pitbills and Rotties are the dogs most likely to bite, why not make someone get a license to own one or make them go through training of some form?  Hell, you'd have to do that to buy a gun, and you have absolute and perfect control over a gun.  Not the case with a dog.

It would sure be a lot simpler if people would just show some common sense and be responsible for their animals.  Also get animals that are appropriate to their lifestyle and living conditions.  But, alas, tis not the case.  So we have to have laws.

I always knew Pomeranians were evil dogs - right up there with weenie dogs.  Yuck.

What’s my point?  My point is that there are a lot of breeds that might require more intense handling and socializing to make them good pets.  As I said earlier I am currently owned by a Chow, a breed on the CDC biting list, my last dog was a Husky, also carried on that list.   I could never think of banning either of these dogs.  

I don’t think that it is luck that these dogs have or have had a gentle disposition, it was how they were treated and cared for.  We keep the animals in a fenced yard, in the house, or on a leash, unless some delivery person leaves the gate open (Which I will never understand. We have a dog box in the yard and they usually see the animal prior to entering the yard but they will leave the gate open.  Why?) and if they ever get out we get them back immediately.   We regularly socialize the animal with our neighbors, their children, and their pets so my dog is comfortable being around them and is not a threat.  None of my dogs have been trained as watch dogs or attack dogs but as companions that will let me know when something is amiss.  I believe that I would have similar results with a pitbull or a Rot if I ever decided to own one because of how the animal would be trained, treated and cared for.

Now it’s my turn.  What’s your point?  If I read you right you have sidestepped from the ban to requiring training and a license to own one of the “dangerous breeds”, throwing in a comparison to owning a gun.  You do realize that you can purchase a gun (shot gun) without requiring a license or training from the purchaser.   Even if you lock up a gun you have no absolute control over it unless it is in your possession 24/7, just like the dog.   For me that is where the comparison ends.  We have many more incidences of death and injury from a firearm then what we do from a dog (latest numbers from the CDC for Maryland are in 1999 there were 657 firearm related deaths while there are only six dog bite deaths from 1979 to 1996).  Considering that country-wide there is an equal amount of households with dogs as there are with firearms (around 35% for each group).   The data shows that the number of deaths related to dogs is about 17 per year and for firearms it is greater than 35,000 per year.  I just don’t see it as a problem requiring a ban and unless I have missed something you don’t seem to be for it that much either anymore.

I agree with you 100 percent when you said, “It would sure be a lot simpler if people would just show some common sense and be responsible for their animals. Also get animals that are appropriate to their lifestyle and living conditions.”   This is what we need, not more laws or outright bans. There are plenty common sense factors to keep in mind with dog ownership and accountability.  Just to mention a few.  If young children are part of your family you need to really think this through when getting or keeping a pet.  Older dogs need to be watched as they sometimes get grumpier and they lash out with their teeth at times.  Some dogs react to a young child’s movement similar to how they would react to the movements and noises of a natural prey.  You need to socialize the dog to keep it friendly with your visitors.  Never leave an infant and a dog alone no matter how short of a time they will be out of your sight.

I don't think that a ban would "fix" anything.  Just make that particular breed more desirable to the kooks who think that its better to have one to beat and make mean and to maim others.  I don't think that anyone in their right mind would intentionally make a dog mean and to fight and attack.  

I personally have had a female German Shepard for the last 7 years and she has not once tried to attack or hurt anyone.  When my daughter was born, she took to her immediately and keeps a very close eye on her.  

She will bark at other people or dogs that come onto or near our property, but has never left the property to go after an individual, and she has ample chances to do so.

I don't know, maybe we are just lucky.....

Larry,

I don't totally agree with holding the owner responsible when someone walks onto your property.  

We have a 5' chainlink fence around our backyard and own a bloodhound.  This is a big dog that most often will just lick and slobber all over you.  However, we also had a family that let their 5 year wander the neighborhood, their attitude was "God will watch over him" and he CLIMBED my fence into my yard one Sunday morning.  God sure was watching over him, since he entered a yard with a mild mannered dog, but it could have been otherwise.

I did the right things, had my dog in a fenced in area and we had even posted "Beware of Dog" signs on the gates to the yard after our insurance company asked if we had dogs and what breed they were.

If my dog had attacked this child, while it would be a terrible thing, I do not think I should be held responsible.  The gates were closed and there was fence.  I agree it would have been different if we did not do this, but we did.  

Sometimes people have to be responsible for themselves and their actions.  

Well, to be fair, friends of ours have a pitbull and a Jack Russell Terrier.  The pitbull looks menacing but is actually very sweet.  The Jack Russell, on the other hand, is a maniac.  In fact, I'm hoping that one day the pitbull will snap and eat the Jack Russell.  If I had to make a choice of which dog to be around, it's the pitbull, hands down.

<b>However</b>, if (when) the Jack Russell bites, it's just a nip and doesn't cause any permanent damage.  The pitbull could kill you if he took a mind.  To me, that makes all the difference in the world.

And Alex, I totally agree with you.  But you're taking proper precautions with your animal (which is more than can be said about your neighbors and their kid).  If you've done everything you can to keep your animal under control, you shouldn't be held responsible when a someone trespasses on your property and gets bit.

There was a case in Santa Clara County (CA) in the late 80s where a toddler wandered out of his unlocked house, walked down to the sidewalk, down the street, opened the neighbors closed front gate and was mauled to death by the pit bull that was teathered in his own fenced front yard.  

Believe it or not, the owner of the dog was prosecuted for manslaughter.  Prosecution argued that the dog was visious and had been trained to guard the pot crop growing in the fenced off back yard.

I for one did not agree witrh that.  I feel that the owner had complied with the laws (except for the pot thing) and had his dog tethered in his fenced in yard.  

As sad as it is that this child lost his life, I do believe that his parents should have been held somewhat accountable for his death.  How can they not notice their child missing?  Negligence???

Just my thoughts....

Vraiblonde---So... you are trying to say that we should ban all large breed dogs that have the capability to kill or maim.  That would be half the dog population, why single out Pitbulls?

Kara~


(Edited by karaalexis79 at 12:50 pm on Jan. 28, 2002)

(Edited by karaalexis79 at 12:49 pm on Jan. 28, 2002)

Quote: from vraiblonde on 12:45 pm on Jan. 26, 2002[br]So I voted to ban them because there's no reason on Earth to have a pitbull unless you like to play Russian Roulette.  You can say "Punish the owner" but that doesn't help the kid who is maimed for life or dies.  Nobody HAS to have a pitbull - if you want a Rockin' Boss dog, get a real one like a Dobie or a Rottie.  Not a skulking coward of a pitbull.

(Edited by vraiblonde at 5:20 pm on Jan. 26, 2002)

Click to expand...

Where do you get off saying Pitbulls are cowards and to get a real dog like Dobie or Rottie.  If you never owned one, then how do you know?  Personally my dogs are the sweetest I've ever met, but try to enter my house without my husbands or my permission and my dogs would be all over you.  I never trained them to be that way, they just feel they must protect their family.

Both of my dogs are people, cat, dog, goat, horse and many other animal friendly, as I live on a farm.  But of course, I'm not speaking for all Pits or trying to change your mind about how you feel about them.  But before you badmouth a breed of dog, maybe you should own one first and form a educated opinion.

Kara~

Dog breeds tend to hold on to their characteristics, regardless of how the owner has treated/trained them.  When a dog was specifically created for bloodsport, it should give you pause for concern.  You may get lucky with your pitbull and never have an incident.  Lots of people do.  But the fact is that it wasn't bred to herd sheep or hunt or be your companion - it was bred to fight and kill.  Even Susan Thompson, noted pitbull trainer, says the golden rule is:  Never trust your pitbull not to fight.  Then she gives this enormous list of things to beware of with pitbull ownership.  Don't see this with Yorkies, do we?