http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0111pitbull11.html

Pmp, I know you have a pit bull. We have a pit bull/lab mix who couldn't be gentler and more playful. There aren't any bad pit bulls, it's their training or neglect by bad owners that's at fault. We know a guy who's a professional dog trainer. He said that they're so often used as attack dogs because of their willingness to listen to people (the wrong ones) and their ability to learn.

So far, Denver (where I enjoyed living in the early 80's) and Ohio (where my company's parent is located) are both off limits so far. I'm glad I'm not looking to move to either of them.

At any rate, this logic is causing me to rethink my position on gun control. Haven't changed my mind yet, but..?

What really hurts the poor pitbulls repuation is that it was bred for dog fights.

As opposed to other large, powerful breeds that were bred for character and obedience and have found work in law enforcement, guide dogs, hunting and live stock protection.

starting this year all pittbulls are banned in the entire province of Ontario,even pure breds.the whole thing reminds me of the whole guns don't kill people,people kill people debate

quote:

---

Originally posted by saulphx:
There aren't any bad pit bulls, it's their training or neglect by bad owners that's at fault.

---

I couldn't disagree more. I think the majority of the problem is genetic. Learned behavior can only be blamed for so much. In my experience there are bad apples in any breed. ANY dog breed is susceptible to producing specimens who are genetically aggressive or fearful, some even to the point of being untrainable. It is outlined in the breeders code of ethics(for UKC and AKC) that such animals are not to be bred under any circumstances. With pit bulls the consequences are just a little more severe because of their power. This problem is actually probably less of an issue with pit bulls. They seem to be pretty accepting of people in general as opposed to chows, akitas, huskys, sharpeis, cattle dogs, sheep dogs, shepherds, rotties, and most small breeds who, in my experience, typically show the propensity to bite far more willingly than pit bulls.

I really hate to lump in german shepherds and rotties on that list but its true. Unless you are talking about pure dogs from german bloodlines or from one of the few reputable breeders who actually know what they are doing, getting one of these breeds can be a crapshoot. The question an owner of the above breeds has to ask themself is, am I willing to put my dog down if he proves to be genetically aggressive or fearful?

I have owned 4 pitbulls in the last 5 years and 2 were put down for aggression. That ratio is not really representative of the breed though, just my bad luck coupled with the fact that they were rescued dogs in a region where backyard pitbull breeders account for a huge percentage of dogs in the shelters. The last one was a pup I only owned for one month. It bloodied my hand up twice and I decided that there wouldn't be a third episode. If I had let that dog grow up he would have probably topped out at 90 pounds or so. Needless to say, my 120 pound fiance wouldnt be much of a match of he felt so inclined and I have no place in my house for an animal whose personality is such that I can't trust it with her life or my own.

Banning an entire breed because an owner/breeder fails to weed out and destroy a dangerous animal is not the answer. If this is what it has come to then we should probably ban most breeds. Why is it fair to ban the pit bull when although they seem to have less of a likelihood of attacking, they account for the more serious attacks? Maybe this is like gun control. I bet background checks, waiting periods,and breeder certification would work well to weed out many of the problem animals.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pmpimbura,

Maybe I should not add this, but here goes. I had a wonderful, gentle & kind Australian Shepard male dog...who was attacked by & almost killed by a Pitbull. My dog, Strider, then spent about 3 weeks at a Vet, but he did recover.

The same thing happened to my sister's female Australian Sheapard...that sweet dog was attacked and almost killed by another pitbull.
"Millie" did require surgery, although she did recover.

In both cases, if I could have caught those particular pitbulls, I would done whatever necessary to make sure they could not hurt another dog again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmpimbura:
akitas, huskys, sharpeis, cattle dogs, sheep dogs, shepherds, rotties, and most small breeds who, in my experience, typically show the propensity to bite far more willingly than pit bulls.

I really hate to lump in german shepherds and rotties on that list but its true. Unless you are talking about pure dogs from german bloodlines or from one of the few reputable breeders who actually know what they are doing, getting one of these breeds can be a crapshoot.

---

I take my dog to a large dog run in NYC everyday. I see up to 40-60 dogs in one place regularly. So i've seen every possible breed, from muts to almost every AKC/UKC breed you can think of. In all the years I have been doing this, it's clear that the only dogs that have problems are the ones that are raised by people who have no clue how to train a dog. There are rare exceptions where you get a dog that is untrainable. But even among attack dog breeds, that is rare.

The real problem is, puppy mill breeders are not responsible and they inbreed and overbreed. This results in unfortunate genetic problems...which are usually physical and not behavioral. Unfortunately, alot of people get their dogs from these places without even knowing it.

The other problem is, attack dogs have been bred to have the jaw musculature and teeth to inflict serious wounds. A pug, even if ferocious, simply can not inflict much more than a bruise. A Pitbull or Rot can punture and crunch bone.

But I will say, the most problematic breeds are pit bulls no question. German Shepherds, Rots and Dobbermans have been bred for strict obedience and this remains in most of them even if you train the dog well or not. As opposed to pit bulls which were bred for basically cock fighting style agression which does not require any obedience.

Too bad we can't ban the a$$holes that make these animals dangerous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmpimbura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saulphx:
There aren't any bad pit bulls, it's their training or neglect by bad owners that's at fault.

---

I couldn't disagree more. I think the majority of the problem is genetic. Learned behavior can only be blamed for so much.... With pit bulls the consequences are just a little more severe because of their power. This problem is actually probably less of an issue with pit bulls. They seem to be pretty accepting of people in general as opposed to chows, akitas, huskys, sharpeis, cattle dogs, sheep dogs, shepherds, rotties, and most small breeds who, in my experience, typically show the propensity to bite far more willingly than pit bulls.

Banning an entire breed because an owner/breeder fails to weed out and destroy a dangerous animal is not the answer. If this is what it has come to then we should probably ban most breeds. Why is it fair to ban the pit bull when although they seem to have less of a likelihood of attacking, they account for the more serious attacks?

---

Thanks for the well-reasoned response, PMP. And I agree. We've had this dog for two years, and she is absolutely wonderful, sweet, and gentle, although she gets a little rough when she's excited. No biting. Prior to her we had two dogs for about 5 months each that we had to return to the shelters because of aggressive behavior. A greyhound-sharpei and a cattle dog-lab. I note that sharpei and cattle dog are both in your list. No one was injured by either dog, but they both had aggressive tendencies that, as to the cattle dog-lab, could not be sufficiently reduced after heavy-duty training for us to be comfortable having him around our son. We got him at probably 8-10 weeks so as you say the tendencies must have been genetic. And you're right, the logical step would be to prohibit dogs. What a sad day that would be.

pmp hit it on the head. . .i'm a dog lover. Dogs have a long history of being bread for specific purposes. This breed has been breed to focus on its aggressive traits, its genetic at this point. Sure, the right upbringing can help, but I would say, as a whole, pitbulls have a higher probability of snaping. not saying they will, but are just more likely. and when a pitbull does snap its always extremely severe.

Personally, i feel they should be banned in cities or in close quarter residences.

First, let me say I'm a dog guy. But I'm getting sick and tired of these divorcee (or never married) ladies always trying to pawn off some rescued pit bull at a "Dog Rescue" event. They always go, "Oh, they're terrier mixes" and then my three year old wants to pet them as the 15 pit bulls are dragging the 110 lb lady down the sidewalk or through the parking lot. As a breed, I personally distain pit bulls.

Pmp, I can trust a guy like you to own a pit bull. You understand that not all dogs are keepers, they aren't human, and an aggressive animal needs to be put down. Most people are too wussified to put down fido. You don't keep all dogs. We had to get rid of a dog that snapped. A pre-emptive put down.

I don't believe that the government should ban anything, pit bulls or vicious dogs included. Most responsible people aren't going to own a vicious dog. I'm in the insurance business and if you have any dog of the breeds listed by Pmp you are going to have a hard time getting homeowners insurance without an animal liability exclusion. The most common banned dogs on the list are Pit Bulls, Rotts, Chows, basically any attack breed. The list used to be larger but is gradually shrinking. However, I don't think any insurance company would issue a policy knowing the prospective client owned a pit bull.

In this way, society polices itself. The problem is with the losers who are breeding these dogs to fight. I'm sure homeowners insurance and personal liability is the last thing on their minds. Unfortunately the dog owners in these situations can't be put down, so you must have some type of rules for these low lifes.

Personally, I don't understand why anybody would want to own a Pit Bull or Rott. I've seen some great Rotts, but I know the owners always have it in the back of their mind that their dog could kill them. Doesn't make sense to me but it used to be a free country.

a little OT, but isn't there a list of dogs you can't if you want to adopt a child? I think i remember friends of mine going through the process and they were presented with a list of dogs you can't own, apparently there were about 10 breeds on the list, which is excessive.

Most people shouldn't have children, never mind a dog.

pitbulls are a catch 22. . .the appeal to many is there toughness (not all, but most), so naturally the majority of owners will encourage rough behavior in these dogs, which only ruins it for the rest of good owners.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cigarmanron:
Maybe I should not add this, but here goes. I had a wonderful, gentle & kind Australian Shepard male dog...who was attacked by & almost killed by a Pitbull. My dog, Strider, then spent about 3 weeks at a Vet, but he did recover.

The same thing happened to my sister's female Australian Sheapard...that sweet dog was attacked and almost killed by another pitbull.
"Millie" did require surgery, although she did recover.

In both cases, if I could have caught those particular pitbulls, I would done whatever necessary to make sure they could not hurt another dog again.

---

Thats the KEY! Pitbulls are DOG aggressive. This is a well know fact. But like I said many breeds are dog aggressive and aren't getting banned. Pitbulls are less likely to be aggressive to people than the rest of the dogs on the list regardless of personal experience. The numbers are out there. Pitbulls bite less often than most other dogs, they just do more damage when they bite.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sobek:
But I will say, the most problematic breeds are pit bulls no question. German Shepherds, Rots and Dobbermans have been bred for strict obedience and this remains in most of them even if you train the dog well or not. As opposed to pit bulls which were bred for basically cock fighting style agression which does not require any obedience.

---

First off, you would have a tough time proving that any of the above breeds are born with the capacity or the tendency for obeying or learning to obey. That is simply not the case. I should have my boss chime in on here about his work with shepherds. He loves the German shepherds but has seen more than his share of untrainables.

As far as the fighting goes, I'm not talking dog aggression. Unsocialized Pitbulls are known to have a problem with dog aggression. So are many other breeds I might add. My dogs don't have that problem but they don't come near any other dogs for the simple fact that if your dog instigates a fight, my dog will finish it and look like the aggressor. I have seen it happen many times(not with my own dogs). Even well trained, obedient, and well socialized pitbulls get blamed, not for starting a fight, for finishing it.

I have a little theory about this. Many of the Vets I have worked for over the years have been from different parts of the country where there were different dogs being overbred and had different views on breeds. A vet in arizona hated all rotties. I knew a vet from Iowa that hated and cattle dogs. Here the bad apples seem to be mainly chow and sharpeis but third on the list of aggressive dogs I have seen is SHEPHERDS. You just never know. I hate it when a client brings in a shepherd that is tucking its tail. I know I'm in for trouble. I can tell the second a patient hits the door most of the time it its going to give me a problem or not. I rarely see the telltail signs in pitbulls. The 2 most hyper aggressive dogs I ever encountered were a rott and a shepherd. After UNGODLY amounts of tranquilizers these dogs were drooling on the floor and unable to walk but still trying to snap. Kinda funny really.

Another thing to take into account is whether or not people are neutering their dogs. Any male non-neutered dog past age 2 is more likely to fight in my experience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bombardier:
pmp hit it on the head. . .i'm a dog lover. Dogs have a long history of being bread for specific purposes. This breed has been breed to focus on its aggressive traits, its genetic at this point. Sure, the right upbringing can help, but I would say, as a whole, pitbulls have a higher probability of snaping. not saying they will, but are just more likely. and when a pitbull does snap its always extremely severe.

Personally, i feel they should be banned in cities or in close quarter residences.

---

Actually my point was entirely to the contrary. While pitbulls were bred to fight other dogs, they were also chosen for their ability to coexist with people. They are, in my experince, not more prone to snapping at people than the afore mentioned breeds. Dog aggression is a different story but you need to differentiate.

By the way, my dog is not "dog aggressive" and just sniffs at other dogs. Quite a relief after the prior dog who was. She becomes quite a dominatrix, though, when she sees our neighbor's dog (similar size and coloring, unknown mix of breeds). We often put them together in the yard, neither realizes that the other has been neutered and they have fun together.

I hate to run counter to the common vein of the thread, but Pit Bulls have a higher PROBABILITY of being aggressive than other breeds. Training (behaviorism) cannot erase all signs of genetic (or natural) aggression. Pair that with their physical power (as someone has said), and you have a real problem.

Training is not a fail-safe. You can be the greatest trainer in the world, and your dog will still have instinctual reactions to some kinds of stimulus. "Environment" cannot completely erase genetic predispositions.

Many a well-trained dog has slobbered on and jumped on me, despite the commands of the owner. People who think they can have absolute control over animals of any kind or any breed are ripe for disaster.

Somewhere in this conversation is a theme concerning man's desire to control nature. And as we see time and again, nature cannot be controlled.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmpimbura:
First off, you would have a tough time proving that any of the above breeds are born with the capacity or the tendency for obeying or learning to obey. That is simply not the case. I should have my boss chime in on here about his work with shepherds. He loves the German shepherds but has seen more than his share of untrainables.

---

Dogs are the most obvious case of genetic determination of traits. These dogs are most often chosen for professional security work for a purpose...because they were breed to do so. You just try teaching a pug the same commands as you would a Dobberman or German and you will never come close to the same level of training. Obviously there are exceptions. But clearly, certain breeds are far easier to train than others.

quote:

---

While pitbulls were bred to fight other dogs, they were also chosen for their ability to coexist with people. They are, in my experince, not more prone to snapping at people than the afore mentioned breeds. Dog aggression is a different story but you need to differentiate.

---

That's your opinion. I seriously doubt pitbulls were breed for companionship. Companionship is simply inherent to dogs. But to what degree will vary depending on what other traits were selected for.

The plain simple truth is every dog has been breed with a trait in mind. Almost all dog breeds today were not originally breed for companionship, outside of the toy category. The fact that we keep work, hunting, terrier, etc breeds as pets is the adaptability of the species. But you can't ignore countless generations of selection for traits.

You also have to consider that many attacks on non-family members are the result of people protecting their own dogs from the unsolicited aggression of other dogs. Which is not really the fault of the dog...but when it comes down to the law the dog always gets blamed for the bite.

Amazing the things you can find on the net...

American Temperament Test Society, Inc.
Visit this site for the testing criteria.

Stats of the Top 25 most frequently tested breeds (not sure how well this will format):
Breed Name Tested Passed Failed Percent
Shetland Sheepdog 440 292 148 66.40%
Akita 397 285 112 71.80%
Giant Schnauzer 218 164 54 75.20%
Rhodesian Ridgeback 204 154 50 75.50%
Doberman Pinscher 1363 1041 322 76.40%
Great Dane 219 171 48 78.10%
Belgian Tervuren 373 292 81 78.30%
Samoyed 270 212 58 78.50%
Collie 761 601 160 79.00%
Belgian Sheepdog 449 358 91 79.70%
Weimaraner 202 161 41 79.70%
Briard 287 231 56 80.50%
Australian Shepherd 517 417 100 80.70%
Cocker Spaniel 214 174 40 81.30%
Dalmatian 299 244 55 81.60%
Rottweiler 4423 3634 789 82.20%
German Shepherd Dog 2642 2183 459 82.60%
Golden Retriever 637 530 107 83.20%
American Staffordshire Terrier 457 380 77 83.20%
American Pit Bull Terrier 446 374 72 83.90%
Boxer 317 268 49 84.50%
Bouvier Des Flanders 836 707 129 84.60%
Mixed Breed 645 548 97 85.00%
Siberian Husky 260 224 36 86.20%
Labrador Retriever 623 567 56 91.00%

p.s. Not well I see. Damn I wish the forum supported HTML!!!

Ruger

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruger:
Amazing the things you can find on the net...

---

Thanks, Ruger. Would be interesting to know how many of each were tested, which dogs were chosen for tests, etc. In large part, the results don't appear to be in line with general perceptions of the breeds.
Ruger