Pit Bulls Rounded up for Destruction in Denver


Recommended Posts

They just dont come out the bum with the instinct to instantly attack people if that was the case then chihuahas would be a threat :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They just dont come out the bum with the instinct to instantly attack people if that was the case then chihuahas would be a threat :rofl:

585910860[/snapback]

haha....I just think that breeds that have been trained for years and years to fight have a higher tendency to revert back to animal instinct (like wolves). Who knows though...maybe I'm totally wrong. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha....I just think that breeds that have been trained for years and years to fight have a higher tendency to revert back to animal instinct (like wolves). Who knows though...maybe I'm totally wrong.  :)

585911242[/snapback]

Most wolves are not domestic pets, though in history they have been. And they would not have been taken as pets if they acted all wolfy because of their instincts. How do tou think they were domesticated? By being raised well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most wolves are not domestic pets, though in history they have been. And they would not have been taken as pets if they acted all wolfy because of their instincts. How do tou think they were domesticated? By being raised well.

585911529[/snapback]

Dude your totally missing my point.... :blink:

What I was saying is that some breeds of dogs don't have those "wolfy" animal instincts bred out of them as much as others do. They haven't been domesticated long enough for this to happen. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been around dogs my entire life. And I have owned a Femal German Shepherd, Female Border Collie (The Single most intelligent breed I have ever seen), Female Toy Poodle (Total wuss), and I currently have a 4 month old Male Beagle.

I've never ever, ever struck my dogs in anger or for training. never. I believe it is because of that, that none of my dogs have ever bit another person, outside of rough-housing. I know how important training is during the puppy months. Equally important is socializing a puppy with other dogs and other breeds and species. I often take my beagle to a local stable to socialize him with horses and cattle at a nearby ranch.

Because of my experiance I am torn on the issue of inherently agressive breeds. The statistics do show that Rottweilers, Shauzers, and Pitbulls have a more violent track record. But this begs the question, are the breeds more violent by nature, or do they attrack owners that lack the ability to give them the vital training they need?

The answer I like to think of would include a little of column A and a little of column B.

I think those breeds have more potential, and are more succeptable to angry tendencies. Owners of these breeds need to better understand that their dog has the tendecies to be more aggresive and need to work hard to subdue those tendencies. I would firmly state that less training would not result in an angry, aggresive, violent toy poodle. Those dogs love anything that has a lap they can sleep on.

-Ax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of my experiance I am torn on the issue of inherently agressive breeds. The statistics do show that Rottweilers, Shauzers, and Pitbulls have a more violent track record. But this begs the question, are the breeds more violent by nature, or do they attrack owners that lack the ability to give them the vital training they need?

The answer I like to think of would include a little of column A and a little of column B.

I think those breeds have more potential, and are more succeptable to angry tendencies. Owners of these breeds need to better understand that their dog has the tendecies to be more aggresive and need to work hard to subdue those tendencies. I would firmly state that less training would not result in an angry, aggresive, violent toy poodle. Those dogs love anything that has a lap they can sleep on.

-Ax

585912053[/snapback]

Every dog present a different challenge for training (as you must know). You have the stubborn breeds, the digging breeds, etc. People are much less likely to train a schnauzer, just because of its size. Then they freak out when they see other bigger dogs. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel

"It is. They bred the physical characteristics. If the dog was large and sturdy, it would be more likely to win. Nothing to do with an aggressive nature."

if they breed in the physical characteristics, then they can breed in the behaviours, which they did, for hundreds of years.

"You use "inbred" a lot, look it up."

yes I do " Fixed in the character or disposition as if inherited; deep-seated., also normally existing at birth;"

"Did you see what you wrote? They had to be taught to be aggressive, it's not a natural state for them, beyond the neccessary hunting instinct."

no, it is natural for them to be aggressive, they're dogs, not squirels or doves, and it was taught to them, for generations, now it is natural for them...it is "inbred".

"The new dog was a new part of your equation. My dog is happy-go-lucky all the time, but if an unfamiliar dog, or even a dog he knows but has never seen in his house comes in, he may behave totally differently."

...and that is how one proves the dogs are aggeressive by nature; protectiveness and territorialism are both aggressive traits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about Rottweilers and other 'aggressive' dogs, but pit bulls in particular were bred with specific traits in mind. Some of them were used for harmless stuff like (i think) as farm dogs; the others were bred to win dog fights. In the latter case, the breeders looked specifically for aggression against other dogs, but not against people. If any dog was aggressive towards the breeders or owners, they were done, they were useless as a fighting dog. I don't know if they just killed them on the spot or if they gave them away or whatever, but they were not desirable for what the breeders were raising them all to do.

When dog fighting became illegal, a lot of enthusiasts (mostly in America) wanted to try to legitimise the breed, and i suppose they started the whole 'loyal and protective' thing.

Not really trying to defend pit bulls (i can't stand them), and i still think that all dogs belong on leashes or behind fences, but to act like they were bred to attack everything and everybody is pretty inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about Rottweilers and other 'aggressive' dogs, but pit bulls in particular were bred with specific traits in mind. Some of them were used for harmless stuff like (i think) as farm dogs; the others were bred to win dog fights. In the latter case, the breeders looked specifically for aggression against other dogs, but not against people. If any dog was aggressive towards the breeders or owners, they were done, they were useless as a fighting dog. I don't know if they just killed them on the spot or if they gave them away or whatever, but they were not desirable for what the breeders were raising them all to do.

When dog fighting became illegal, a lot of enthusiasts (mostly in America) wanted to try to legitimise the breed, and i suppose they started the whole 'loyal and protective' thing.

Not really trying to defend pit bulls (i can't stand them), and i still think that all dogs belong on leashes or behind fences, but to act like they were bred to attack everything and everybody is pretty inaccurate.

585924412[/snapback]

they were bred to fight for so long with other dogs that even though they are bred to be nice to people now, and not raised to fight, it's still in their genes to attack other animals (sometimes people) and win. And unless one spends thousands of dollars on a pitbull with a pedigree and trains it to be picture perfect, and puts a muzzel on it at all times, they can't prevent it from snapping at random, and that type of commitment is just not realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they breed in the physical characteristics, then they can breed in the behaviours, which they did, for hundreds of years.

585923641[/snapback]

No, they were bred to catch and hold bulls for the butcher to slaughter. Dog fighting came later. It's a not a bred behaviour, it's a learned behavior.

yes I do " Fixed in the character or disposition as if inherited; deep-seated., also normally existing at birth;"

585923641[/snapback]

So the context of inbreeding was missed in this thread?

no, it is natural for them to be aggressive, they're dogs, not squirels or doves, and it was taught to them, for generations, now it is natural for them...it is "inbred".

585923641[/snapback]

No, it's not natural for them to be agressive, or at least any more agressive than a chihuahua or schnauzer.

...and that is how one proves the dogs are aggeressive by nature; protectiveness and territorialism are both aggressive traits.

585923641[/snapback]

What? Are you deranged? ANY dog will be protective and territorialistic to a degree, larger breeds just manage to do it and be scary because they're larger. Why single out pitbulls (which aren't a single breed of dog anyway)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they were bred for dogfighting, then they were bred for aggressiveness, how can you not understand this?

inbred has 2 meaning, 1) having parents that are closely related, 2) characteristics that are inherited, deep-seated, or passed on from parents.

ALL dogs are aggressive by nature, pit bulls have been bred to be moreso than other dogs.

protectiveness and territorialism are both aggressive traits, all dogs are aggressive, pitbulls are dogs......pitbulls are bred to be bigger and meaner, hence they have those traits.

I single out pitbulls because that's the TOPIC of the thread, also, a small one snapped a 250lb, 6'2" man's arm and dragged him from room to room....it's not very complex here guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they were bred for dogfighting, then they were bred for aggressiveness, how can you not understand this?

585933347[/snapback]

When I say "bred for", I'm referring to the whelping process and the motivation behind it, not the trait.

protectiveness and territorialism are both aggressive traits, all dogs are aggressive, pitbulls are dogs......pitbulls are bred to be bigger and meaner, hence they have those traits.

585933347[/snapback]

So you singled out pitbulls because of the topic, while agreeing that all dogs share this behaviour? So what's the issue here with banning only one "breed" (pitbulls aren't a breed)? ?Ban all dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you're meaning by bred for, if something is bred for aggression, you take a male and female that are aggressive and mate them, what so hard to understand?

pit bulls are known to be more aggressive and kill more people than other smaller breeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you're meaning by bred for, if something is bred for aggression, you take a male and female that are aggressive and mate them, what so hard to understand?

pit bulls are known to be more aggressive and kill more people than other smaller breeds.

585934824[/snapback]

These articles make more sense than someone screaming, "OMG, a pitbull, run!!!"

Aggressive dogs: more nurture than nature

For many years, aggressive dog breeds, such as Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Huskies, Malamutes, Dobermans, St. Bernards, Great Danes and Akitas, has been blamed for attacks on people. The old argument goes that these dogs are bred for fighting and are, therefore, more aggressive. Although the physical attributes of these dogs do make an attack by them more dangerous, attacks by what is known to be 'non-violent' breeds have also occurred.

A study conducted by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Centre for Disease Control and the Humane Society of the United States analysed dog bite statistics from the last 20 years. The study found that dogs that bit the most were the most popular breed during a specific period. For example, during the 1970s Doberman pinschers were very popular and because a Doberman's size makes its bite more dangerous, the number of fatal bites from these dogs rose. The same goes for Pit Bulls during the 1980s and Rottweilers in the 1990s. As the study noted that there were no reliable statistics for non-fatal dog bites, there was no way of knowing how often smaller breeds were biting.

The above study should, however, make it clear that a dog's training and environment, rather than it's breed play a key role in aggressive behaviour. Here are five essential steps to ensure non-aggressive behaviour:

1 Socialise your puppy. Dogs must learn as soon as possible to interact with other people and dogs in a non-threatening way. The best ways to go about this are puppy classes, regular walks in the park and a few visits to the pet store. Praise your dog when the interaction goes well

2 Spay or neuter your dog. Neutered dogs lose some of their territorial instincts, including their territorial aggression

3 Restrain your pet. This might sound obvious, but always keep your pet on a strong leash whenever you're in public. Also, don't encourage strangers to interact with your dog as it may startle him or her

4 If you have a big dog, make sure that your yard is enclosed with a 2?2.5 m fence

5 Stop biting behaviour as soon as it starts. When your puppy bites, chews or growls, immediately send signals that the behaviour is unacceptable. Train your dog not to bite by making a quick sound, such as a clap and rebuke him or her

6 Watch your dog's behaviour. If your dog growls, snaps or bites family members or strangers, you have to speak to your vet about seeing a behavioural specialist. Don't ignore the problem; it will not go away

Biting Incidents: (The Basics)

    There is no such thing as a breed of dog that won't bite.b>

    * Supervised dogs in public places rarely bite strangers.  The general public has little rational or statistical reason to fear someone lawfully walking his or her dog down a public street.

    No breed of dog has more than 0.1% of its members involved in serious biting incidents...meaning...99.9% of all dogs, regardless of breed, never attack anyone.  No reasonable person can suggest restricting 99.9% of ANY group based on the actions of such a tiny minority.b>

    * The term 'pit bull' generally refers to a group of dog breeds.

    * We have not yet confirmed an unprovoked dog-related fatality in Canada that has been officially attributed to a 'pit bull'.

*Myth: "Some dogs are genetically predisposed to attack."b>

While we would love to dispute every angle of that kind of erroneous comment, we don't need to.  We can easily disprove the misguided notion that some kind of genetic abnormality is what causes dogs to attack, by simply looking at the actual dogs involved in serious biting incidents.

The Lab/Beagle cross and the purebred Doberman involved in biting incidents 5,000 km and 10 years apart do not share relevant genes, other than those that make them both dogs.  The purebred Dalmation that killed another dog and the Golden Retriever that killed a child are not genetically related, either.  In fact, even the purebred Rottweiler that killed a child in one province and the purebred Rottweiler that attacked a person in another province share no common ancestors in their pedigrees.  In short, the dogs involved in biting incidents are no more closely related than dogs in general.

There is no scientific evidence for a genetic cause for aggression, and there is no evidence that the dogs involved in attacks share relevant genetic information, even if there were.

The largest study of its kind, in which many of the dogs involved dog bite-related fatalities were examined by veterinarians, found that the dogs who'd killed people had no physical, mental or physiological abnormalities.  All tests came back normal, including bloodwork and brain examination.

Still need more proof?

As a general estimate, let's say that, out of approximately 5 million dogs in Canada, 50 dogs are involved in serious biting incidents each year.  (To clarify, that would be 0.001% of all dogs; leaving 99.999% of Canadian dogs not involved in attacks.)  If we look at those 50 dogs, individually, we find they represent a wide range of shapes, sizes, breeds, and original breed purposes.  Clearly, there is no one breed or size or original breed purpose involved in serious biting incidents. In fact, no breed of dog has more than 0.1% of it's members involved in serious attacks.  It would be absurd to say that 0.1% of the dogs in any breed are 'merely fulfilling their genetic destiny' by attacking someone or something, and that the 99.9% of all dogs who never attack, are behaving somehow "abnormally" by not behaving aggressively.b>  Most dogs never attack anyone, and that includes the often maligned breeds, too!  If any breed were 'genetically predisposed to attack', certainly more than 0.1% of them would!

In regards to the theory that aggression can be either inherited or genetically linked, what unique, relevant genetic information could possibly be shared by:

    * the Labrador/Rottweiler cross (Sporting/Working Group) that killed one of its owner's children,

    * the Soft-Coated Wheaton Terrier (Terrier Group) that killed a neighbour's dog,

    * the purebred Golden Retriever (Sporting Group) that killed its owner's child,

    * the Border Collie (AKC, Herding Group) that viciously attacked a neighbour's dog,

    * the purebred Pomerananian (Toy Group) that killed the owner's child,

    * or the purebred Bullmastiff (Working Group) that killed one of its owner's child's friends?

In fact, the ACTUAL dogs involved in attacks do not share any unique genetic information with each other, besides that which makes them dogs.

We need not look any further than the lack of any supporting evidence for shared genetic pathology in dogs that have actually attacked.  They simply aren't any more closely related than the dog population in general.

However, just to completely refute the idea that genetics are involved in attacks, we've broken it down further.

If we group those dogs by breed, we find that even the dogs of the same breed are not genetically related in any meaningful way.  They don't share any relevant common ancestors on their pedigrees, and therefore have not inherited some kind of aberrant gene that might explain their inappropriate behaviour.

If they're purebred dogs, we can completely refute the notion that those dogs involved in attacks share some kind of genetic cause for their aggression.  By definition, purebred dogs are not crossed with other breeds.  To explain a shared genetic cause in dogs from two different breeds, the gene would have to have been inherited from the breeds' shared ancestor, decades (even centuries) earlier, before those individual breeds were even created.  No reasonable person would suggest that a gene would lie dormant for centuries in all its descendants, then suddenly cause aggressive behaviours in one individual dog, so many years later.  It's preposterous!Next is the issue of original breed purpose as causational.  In fact, whether the attack was against a person or another animal, every single breed of dog has been guilty of serious biting incidents of one kind or another.  When a Soft-Coated Wheaton Terrier (Terrier group) attacks another dog, it is for the same reason that a German Shepherd Dog (Herding Group), Rottweiler (Working Group), or an American Pit Bull Terrier (UKC, Terrier Group) might attack another dog.

The overwhelming majority of dogs who attack other dogs are from breeds that were NOT originally bred for fighting.  That is important enough to repeat:  Most of the dogs ACTUALLY involved in unprovoked attacks on other dogs are from breeds that were NOT originally bred for fighting!  This thoroughly disproves the notion that breeds originally bred for fighting are somehow destined to attack other dogs.  b>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thread is about pitbulls, they shouldn't be kept as pets in cities or around children because of their size and territorial attitudes, done.

I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Run away, oh ye of little dog knowledge.

585939228[/snapback]

PWNED!!!one!one!!one!!!11 :rolleyes:

btw...what is the source of that information? There are a ton of websites devoted to "restoring" the image if pitbulls and other insane breeds of dogs. All I have to say is...I see a breed of dog like those on my property, bang, bullet in the back of it's head. Time for lunch. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

done.

585946490[/snapback]

...i'm still right and you're not though.

pitbulls = mean, you can't change that, therefore don't have them as pets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I have to say is...I see a breed of dog like those on my property, bang, bullet in the back of it's head. Time for lunch.  :D

585946717[/snapback]

Why is it OK to stereotype dogs, but not people?

pitbulls = mean, you can't change that, therefore don't have them as pets.

585946750[/snapback]

Wrong. People are PROVING you wrong every day, why do you persist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it OK to stereotype dogs, but not people?

lol....dude...they're dogs...WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO REASON...animals...four legs...lick their own balls...chase their own tails...run after the same ball being thrown for hours...chase cars...

btw....what is your source for the information you posted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pit Pounce

May 21, 2005

Image-4.jpg

A young girl was attacked by a pit bull in the west end Saturday morning.

According to police, the child was playing with her friends inside a home at a townhouse complex near Weston Road and Black Creek Drive when the dog pounced.

The 10-year-old suffered serious injuries to her face and will need extensive surgery. The animal has been turned over to authorities and has been quarantined.

A controversial bill to ban the dogs passed in the Ontario Legislature in March. Attorney General Michael Bryant called the animals ?ticking time bombs? and said the province will be a safer place because of the legislation.

The new law, which is set to go into effect in August, will require all owners to leash and muzzle their pit bulls whenever they?re out in public and have their pets neutered.

Dog owners will also face hefty fines or even jail sentences of up to six months if their pet attacks anyone and the legislation gives animal control officers and police unprecedented powers to enter a home and seize an animal if it?s believed to be dangerous.

Pit bull owners will be allowed to keep their dogs, but once they die, they can?t be replaced.

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050521-003/page.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May 22, 2005. 11:18 AM

Charges in girl's pit bull mauling

Child and friend were walking dog

HILDA HOY AND BOB MITCHELL

STAFF REPORTERS

Police have laid charges in a pitbull attack that left a 10-year-old Toronto-area girl with extensive facial injuries.

The pitbull?s owner, 30, has been charged with obstructing police and not exercising reasonable precautions to prevent biting or attacking, Canadian Press reports. Earlier, Hilda Hoy and Bob Mitchell reported that the Hamilton girl underwent extensive facial surgery yesterday after the dog she was walking turned on her. The youngster was rushed to the Hospital for Sick Children with severe injuries to her lip and face, police said.

Police said the girl and her female friend took the dog out for a walk sometime between 11:30 p.m. Friday and 12:30 a.m. yesterday.

Investigators are still probing the vicious attack, but it appears the dog owner dropped the animal off at a residence in the Black Creek Dr. and Weston Rd. area earlier in the evening and then left.

The victim and her mother had been visiting the residence when the two children left to take the dog for a walk, police said.

Soon afterwards, police said, the dog attacked her as they were walking through a field at nearby Archbishop Romero Catholic Secondary School on Humber Blvd.

Toronto Animal Services supervisor Fiona Venedam said the female dog was being held in routine quarantine to watch for signs of rabies.

Venedam said no decision had been made whether to put the dog down.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=968332188492

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May 22, 2005. 07:10 PM

Kids alone with pit bull, pups

FROM CANADIAN PRESS

The child who suffered severe lip and facial injuries was with three other children when she was attacked by a pit bull, police said today.

The dog?s owner, a 30-year-old woman, said the pit bull had recently given birth to a litter of pups.

The woman told Global News she had left the dog and the puppies alone with the four children while she went upstairs.

?She never shows aggressive behaviour,? the woman told Global. ``My daughter was holding the puppies and she never did anything to my daughter.?

The 10-year-old girl was attacked early yesterday morning and was rushed from the west-end home to the Hospital for Sick Children for surgery.

?The girl went in front of the dog. That?s how she got bit,? the woman told Global. ?She was protecting her puppies.?

The dog?s owner has been charged with obstructing police and not exercising reasonable precautions to prevent biting or attacking.

Police said the girl will need additional surgery.

The girl?s family has asked that their daughter?s condition and name not be released.

The pit bull is in quarantine.

Under Ontario?s ban on pit bulls, which goes into effect in August, owners of existing pit bulls will be required to have them spayed or neutered, leashed and muzzled while in public.

Owners must also comply with any additional requirements set by municipalities.

Ontario is the first province in Canada to pass a ban on the breed.

Two Ontario cities, Kitchener-Waterloo and Windsor, already have municipal bans on pit bulls.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=968332188492

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.