Pit Bulls

[dentrecords]

People have very polar opinions on these dogs it seems. I will get my bias out of the way and state that I own a Lab/Staffordshire mix and he is a wonderful dog.

I'd been posting under an anonymous bugmenot account (dave_w_w) on a forum and I thought I would share the contents of the thread. I posted the contents on my blog: http://dentrecords.spaces.msn.com/blog/

More Pit Bull madness

http://www.canoe.ca/mb2/messages/cnewsf/11106.html


This is ridiculous. I have pasted the contents of this thread below.

moderator

7/10/2006 12:11:49
Topic: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
Dianne Singer has written a rebuttal to Peter Worthington's column denouncing pit bulls. In it she demands owners take responsibility for their pets, regardless of breed. So, then, is it the breed that is inherently vicious or the environment the owners create in which to raise the pet?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

David_Leslie

7/10/2006 12:37:20
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
It is the environment the owners create in which to raise the pet that makes them dangerous.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

uplink

7/10/2006 14:02:10
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I think that the problem is the owners as well.
Unfortunately the majority of the people who own these dogs are attracted to the characteristics that can make them dangerous, and like the intimidation factor that goes along with having these dogs.
A breed ban will not prevent people from going and getting another large intimidating dog and raising them the same way. I suppose then someone will eventually want to ban Rottweilers/German Shepherds/Dobermans etc...
On the other hand, as pit bulls were actually bred with a mind to maintaining their agressive tendancies, unless there's a way to prevent the idiots that view them as weapons from owning them, I won't complain much about the breed ban.
As the father of 2 youngsters, I'd really rather not have to worry about this type of dog being around my children.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ellwood_P_Dowd

7/10/2006 15:54:00
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I remember a show about a young man from Regent Park in Toronto who grew up with 2 Pit Bulls as Guardians. Wonderful daddy would set the dogs loose at night in the apartment to keep the kids in thier rooms while he and mom went drinking or drugging or whatever. He was able to get around the dogs and get out himself. He grew up to become a trainer, specializing in dangerous behaviour in dogs. He became very successful, owning a large piece of property in the Muskoka's. Anyway, the point of my post is that the only time any of his employees or himself were ever bitten, it wasn't a Pit Bull or Rotti that did it, it was an Australian Shepherd. He took the end of the little finger off an employee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

casper34

7/10/2006 16:05:02
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I don't know why anyone would want to own large dangerous breed but I don't bans of any kind work. I still think that insuring is the way to control it. Premiums based on statistics on amount of severity of attacks and whatever other risk factors are relevant.
The issue has similarities to gun control. It is not only the weapon that is the problem but also the owner. Mandatory safety training for gun users did a great job of dropping "accidents". Maybe owners of large dogs should have to take a course in animal training. Breeders (like gun PAL's) should have to have further checks and training.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

mtinyfeet

7/10/2006 17:27:44
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I believe strongly that it is the environment that the dog lives in. There are alot of bad dogs out there because of the environment that they live in and they are not pitbulls. I own one, and love her to the fullest. Alot of young people are owning these dogs not just for a family pet, but for a status of owning one. Pitbulls love to be praised and to please the owner, so if the owner asks of them to do wrong they will do it, in hopes to please the owner. Me and my family as pitbull owners treat all dogs the exact same, whether it is a poodle, lab, pitbull, they ALL need to be watched, people fail to forget that a dog is a dog, no matter what breed it is.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

uplink

7/10/2006 17:59:20
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
mtinyfeet:
I feel for you and the label being hung on these dogs. It's unfortunate that the thugs who own these dogs seem to have blown it for everyone.
Again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

court22
7/10/2006 19:14:05
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I'm a 'mom' of a 3 year old Staffordshire Terrier aka a pitbull. He's the most loving, loyal, smart and goofy dog ever and I'm not just saying that cause he's mine! These dogs can make wonderful companions IF trained properly and raised with love, affection and discipline. It disgusts me to see people train these dogs to be aggresive as they can be so loving when put into the right environment. People need to get over their fears of these dogs - I've actually had a Jack Russell attack my dog. Did my dog retaliate? No - he turned his head. Please don't believe everything you hear about these wonderful dogs. They have so much to offer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

jester1972
7/10/2006 19:29:42
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
The problem is with the owners.
Dogs are bred for certain characteristics. These dispositions are natural to the dog. You cannot fault an animal for being an animal. That is following natural instincts.
Where the problem occurs is when dogs are trained improperly, not trained at all, and sometimes it is the victims fault. But as an owner, you should know how to warn people of interaction with a dog that might perceive it as agressive. For some dogs, it might be hand gestures raised over the shoulder. Not good if you're in a park with your kid flying a kite.
People are ignorant and lazy. They don't take the time to learn everything there is to know about a new pet. That goes for everything in life though.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Angush
7/10/2006 20:12:10
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
<This post was updated by Angush. 7/10/2006 20:14:41>
<This post was updated by Angush. 7/10/2006 20:18:37>
Peter Worthington is correct.
Many people can say what they want but when you have been attacted by a Pit Bull you never for get it.
My family lives with this attact daily.
All dogs can bite but trust me when I tell you when a Pit gets you ,you better pray.
If you have not been attacted by a Pit Bull you do not know what you are talking about.
This pit is still around the owner never said a thing ,but he sure ran away quickly.
Ban the breeed, if not I want a shark in my pool.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

RZ50085
7/10/2006 23:22:53
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
Angush
I feel the same about Dobermans, that's what attacked our child.
But I also believe thet Breed Specific Legistration will not remedy the problem.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 09:28:40
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I have a pitty/lab mix. He is a wonderful dog, with great temperament. I have grown up with dogs, and I definitely know dog behaviour. I do not have any hesitation introducing him to new people and other dogs, and they are usually very receptive to his affection. When introducing him to new people, I usually let them play with him/get kisses from him for about 5 minutes, then I tell them he is a mix. More often than not, I hear people say "Oh.. really" and they will back off. They will step back from this dog as if it had suddenly turned vicious on them, but he's still just standing there wagging his tail, wanting to play. Nothing has changed apart from their perception formed from preconceived notions about this breed. I know they have an internal struggle going on. They have just seen first hand how playful and affectionate this dog is and this totally contradicts any horror stories the media has told about this breed. A story about how tens of thousands of these dogs live their whole lives without so much as a nip to anyone wouldn't sell as much as a story of a singular dog attack. It's very easy to neglect crucial details in stories of these dog attacks too such as location or provocation to sensationalize the story.

If a dog is by nature a territorial animal (remember, all dogs have wolf ancestry) then it will defend its territory if it feels threatened. A rogue dog straying into someone else's yard/territory may find itself quite unwelcome if there is another dog that has already staked its claim to this territory. Have you ever walked your dog and heard a yappy little dog madly barking at you from behind a fence? Some might excuse this behaviour as the dog is small and "cute". Some may find it annoying, but bottom line, this is a dog aggressively attempting to defend its territory. Trouble is, when you haven't trained or socialized your large dog properly, there is always the possibility of injury to another animal. More often than not, this is why attacks occur. The dog feels their territory is being threatened by an intruder/other animal, and it takes action. Following through on this unfettered instinct is never the dog's fault, it is always the owner's carelessness with regards to containing the dog in a fenced in property, let alone providing proper training and socializaion for the animal. Moral of the story is don't get a dog if you don't understand their behaviour and correct it accordingly. An untrained small dog may end up a yappy little annoyance but an untrained large dog can be a huge liability, regardless of the breed.

I read something recently in a local newspaper that absolutely disgusted me. "Neighbours have given unconfirmed reports that they believe the Pit Bull may have an attacked another dog at some point but no one has come forward with an injured dog." They then go on. "Injuries to the other dog may have been a fractured foot. City counsellors have planned an emergency meeting to discuss how to better enforce legislation against this breed."

There is no confirmation of an attack. There are no details as to the incident other than conjecture from neighbours. Even better, the owner of the dog has 5 Pit Bulls living in the same house, and lets them run at large on his unfenced property in suburbia. This information was only mentioned at the end of the story after all the sensational details of the supposed attack were published. The victim dog was listed as a 10 month old Australian Shepherd, but this has not been confirmed. Apparently, there are so many 10 month old Australian Shepherds in this neighbourhood that they weren't able to find the owners of the one that was injured and have them confirm the injury, but they did know that it was 10 months old at the time of the attack, and it was an Australian Shepherd. Do you think that if the dreaded Pit Bull was really out to attack this relatively helpless 10 month old puppy, it would have left it with simply a fractured foot? So many details of this story don't add up, but the outcome is that we have some overzealous city counsellors planning a meeting on what to do with this dangerous breed. Maybe they should require the owner to build a fence on his property to contain the animals, and put two of them up for adoption so he doesn't have more than the 3 dogs per property allowed by city regulations. Maybe they should also force him to take his dogs to training school so they won't be a liability to him, and he won't be a liability to us for being such a dumbass.

Bottom line, any large dog is capable of causing injury and it's up to the owners to take responsibility.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 09:47:35
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
Angush
"Ban the breeed, if not I want a shark in my pool."
Poor spelling and grammar aside, who in their right mind compares raising a Pit Bull in their house to keeping a shark in their pool?
Each year, world-wide, between 50 and 100 shark attacks are reported. There are over 6 billion people on the planet, and hundreds of millions of these people venture into the ocean without incident. Over 43,200 motor vehicle fatalities occurred in the United States last year alone. Maybe you should worry about all those cars on the road instead of my dog.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 09:51:40
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
to uplink:
"As the father of 2 youngsters, I'd really rather not have to worry about this type of dog being around my children."
I'd hope that you don't have to worry about an untrained dog being around your children too. Did you know that Pit Bulls were specifically bred based on their temperament? I bet you did. Did you know that part of those "desirable" traits was an absolute trust of humans? Why? So the owner of the dog could pull the dog out of a fight without any fear of being attacked by either dog.
Read this.
http://www.pets.ca/articles/article-pitbulls.htm
Your children are definitely safe from this breed. Leave my dog alone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

casper34
7/11/2006 10:01:54
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
Yes all improperly socialized dogs can bite. The difference is the amount of damage that can be done. Comparing a small dog attack to a large dog attack is like comparing getting hit with a slingshot or a shotgun.
Large dog owners need to realize this and have proper handling techniques, as you seem to. I think that it should be manadatory to register/insure all dogs and receive safety training for large dogs.
From reading I see that another problem is breeders. The so called puppy mills. This indiscriminate breeding is also a factor. They are not destroying dogs with anti social behaviour or actually encouraging this trait. That is why I think breeders should have to be screened as well.
These types of dogs have the potential to be to dangerous to not have any controls.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:03:39
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
casper34
Insurance is not the answer - look at the automotive rates in Ontario, they are astronomical. I've been driving for 9 years without incident and I pay out the nose for a mandatory "protection" service. What are insurance policies going to do to for the unfortunate victim who lost a finger because they stuck it in an territorial animal's face? It certainly won't get them their finger back, but will help to line the pockets of the insurance companies. Right idea to make the owner responsible somehow though. Training is certainly a great suggestion. It should be mandatory to show competence before being issued a dog license. I remember that I had to go through a half hour screening process one on one to even meet my dog at the Humane Society, let alone adopt him. This should be necessary as part of the process of obtaining a dog license. I am thankful the Humane Society cares enough to implement this policy voluntarily.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Angush
7/11/2006 10:06:45
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
<This post was updated by Angush. 7/11/2006 10:14:34>
dave ww and all
Always something else. I find in my day to day work, that people that supported the Pit bull are indeed the ones with the propblems.
example:Rude and always want to criticize other people ,other breeds and peoples spelling and grammer.
Grow up and stick with the Pit Bull matter at hand.
Peter Worthington is correct ,like it or not.
Angus and the dogs

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

casper34

7/11/2006 10:15:13
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I here what you are saying but I think insurance would do two things.
First, it enhances the concept of personal responsibility. At least financially.
Secondly, it would be easier for victims to get needed services after an attack like counselling or cosmetic surgery.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

rosemarie59
7/11/2006 10:17:19
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
just get a cat.
end of story.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

tweetypie
7/11/2006 10:19:20
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
As I wrote in an earlier post, the Windsor Ontario bylaw banning Pitbulls and other dangerous breeds, grandfathered the existing dogs but made the owner acquire a 1 million dollar liability insurance policy in order to retain ownership. Many owners were turning their dogs in.
GOOD!!!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

meshman
7/11/2006 10:22:36
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"Your children are definitely safe from this breed."
"The dogs jumped the fence and attacked a two-year-old boy and his father as they walked through a park on Feb. 24. One pit bull clamped down on the boy's head before the man and his neighbour managed to beat the animals away. The adults were badly bitten."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ll-050302.html
"Three pit bulls have been seized and their owner charged after the dogs attacked a two-year-old and his father in Ottawa – five weeks after the same animals bit another boy."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ll-050225.html
There's lots more...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

meshman
7/11/2006 10:24:57
Topic: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

Oops, same story Stupid CBC. Point being, many news articles will confirm that these dogs are not blanketly safe for children.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

tweetypie
7/11/2006 10:25:06
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"just get a cat.
end of story."
Cats should be treated the same as dogs. They should be licenced and kept on a leash.
They are an animal not native to Canada and not only kill many of our native birds and small animals but, destroy costly gardens and shrubs.
I am in the process of a court small claims lawsuit against my neighbours two cats that roam freely peeing all over everything in site, destroying costly garden plants. I encourage everyone who is fed up with cats to do the same SUE the owners.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:28:00
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"rosemarie59

just get a cat."

Had one before I got my dog. My pitty mix and my cat get along fine. Should I have been unable to get a dog because some people consider it unsafe?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:31:29
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"tweetypie
"Cats should be treated the same as dogs. They should be licenced and kept on a leash.""
I think people are very misguided when they let their cats roam around freely outside. My cat is an exclusively indoor cat, and he will periodically meow to try to get me to let him outside. I don't want him getting hit by a car or tearing a neighbour's garden apart. I love my kitty far too much to let his curiosity get the best of him outside.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:37:19
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"meshman
"Oops, same story Stupid CBC. Point being, many news articles will confirm that these dogs are not blanketly safe for children.""
No dog is absolutely safe for children, I'll restate that the only dog that ever bit me was a Bischon Frise and that was because it wasn't socialized properly. No dog should ever be left unsupervised with children.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:46:39
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"meshman
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ll-050225.html"
I just read this story, and decided to do a bit of background research. I did a 411 lookup on G Cleroux in Kanata, Ontario. He lives on Sheldrake Avenue. The Kanata newspaper that published the recent story about pit bull attacks mentioned that the owner with 5 dogs lived in the Glen Cairn area, around Sheldrake avenue no less. Sounds like we have one real idiot that shouldn't be allowed to keep his dogs. It's a shame people like this give the media fodder to label an entire breed as a menace when it's just a few bad apples out there that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

rosemarie59
7/11/2006 10:55:23
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"Should I have been unable to get a dog because some people consider it unsafe?"
dave,
you should be free to have as many pit bulls or whatever as you like.
as for you, tweety BIRD:
as with anything there are pros and cons. haven't you learned that yet? the good thing about cats outside is they keep the rodent population within present limits. which is better than unlimited. if you like birds, go on a nature hike. most of what you see now are just cow birds ..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:59:14
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
It warms my heart to see that there are at least some sensible people on this forum, such as rosemarie59.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

JudgeKing
7/11/2006 12:45:46
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
It sounds like a lot of pit bull owners are as unstable as their dogs. The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child.
The law allows you to keep your dog, why do you care if the breed is prevented from procreating? This way, this problem won't exist in 15 years or so. There are hundreds of other breeds, and humans 'made' them all; this one was a mistake that is being corrected.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

uplink
7/11/2006 12:52:02
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child."
Nothing much to say that can beat that...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 15:14:23
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"JudgeKing
"It sounds like a lot of pit bull owners are as unstable as their dogs. The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child.
The law allows you to keep your dog, why do you care if the breed is prevented from procreating? This way, this problem won't exist in 15 years or so. There are hundreds of other breeds, and humans 'made' them all; this one was a mistake that is being corrected.""

While I agree that human life trumps animal life, I don't think that it's a black and white situation like you paint. I tend to disagree with you there. I don't think for one second that this breed should be eliminated. Why? It won't solve the problem of irresponsible owners. What about Akitas? They have maimed people. What about Dobermans? They have maimed people. What about Rottweilers? They have maimed people. What about German Shepherds? They have maimed people. What about Australian Shepherds? They have maimed people. What about Poodles? They have maimed people. Does this mean as a pit bull mix owner, I'm somehow "unstable" for making such observations and conclusions? Am I "unstable" because I find this whole situation ridiculous? Is it "unstable" for me to try and understand the perspective of pro-BSL supporters? I'm trying to understand your perspective, and have you show me why you feel this is effective, but no one is saying anything that makes sense with all factors considered. How can you judge me (or any other pit bull owner) as "unstable" without knowing the first thing about me? Probably by using the same twisted logic that led you to conclude that destroying an entire breed of dog is a reasonable or effective solution to a misunderstood problem.

Why do I care that the breed of dog that I've got isn't "allowed" to reproduce legally? To be fair - I don't think most people should ever have unsterilized pets. I would never own an unsterilized pet or recommend it anyone that isn't out to breed their animals responsibly. Biters are 6.2 times as likely to be male than female, and 2.6 times as likely to be intact than neutered. Should we ban owning male dogs? Breeders should be the only people with unsterilized animals. I find that BSL is comparable to ethnic cleansing, but done mostly by sterilization.

If you don't understand how us owners feel, think of this... it will require you to suspend your prejudice for a few moments. Say your dog is a lab (or substitute your favourite breed here). A lab down the street bites a child that was poking at it's eyes through a fence. The media publishes a front page story about the KILLER LAB that viciously maimed the unsupervised perfect angel child. People from all over the street give you the evil eye everytime they see you with your dog. Your dog must be muzzled off-property. People do not want to socialize their dogs with yours. Your dog has never done any harm to anyone, or any other dog, and probably never will. Once all existing labs have died, you will never be able to own a lab again, unless you move somewhere without BSL. You probably can't picture that because of your prejudice that most labs are nice.
A little while ago, in France, a woman that had her face torn off by her dog. The dog that did this is a Labrador retriever. This is not an example of desirable behaviour by labs. My dog is half pitty and half lab. Watch out, he will lick you to death.

Many of these dogs surrendered to local shelters for the right reasons (moving out of country, unable to care for the animal, etc, etc) will simply be put down because they have been labeled - quite possibly unfairly - as a danger to people. Some dogs definitely have temperament issues and should be put down. Just not 99% of them. Responsible breeders never allow undesirable genes/traits to carry on. Being agressive towards humans is not part of the description of a Staffordshire terrier. Don't believe me? Check it out. Look for STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER.

http://www.atts.org/stats7.html

Here is a description of what they do.

http://www.atts.org/testdesc.html

Here's something to ponder... would an irresponsible owner ever subject their dog to a temperament test? JudgeKing, we should hope that most pit bull owners are as stable as their dogs. They are above average in terms of stability.

The breed has been demonized due to a few bad apples. I still can't get over the way people change the way they approach my pet when they learn that he is part pitty. That's the issue - it's knee jerk legislation and fear mongering. Are we in such need of babysitting that legislation trumps personal responsibility? If the breed is banned in Ontario, that won't stop people in other provinces, or other countries from breeding these dogs.
JudgeKing - have you ever owned a pit bull? How many have you met? Did you know their owners? In what kind of a situation did you meet the dog? In your words, describe to me what differences you observed about their behaviour from other dogs.

"uplink
"The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child.
Nothing much to say that can beat that...""

Faulty logic. Thinking that your child's safety is increased around dogs when BSL is introduced is just silly. I'll ask the same questions of you as I did JudgeKing. Have you ever owned a pit bull? How many have you met? Did you know their owners? In what kind of a situation did you meet the dog? In your words, describe to me what differences you observed about their behaviour from other dogs.

I also found an interesting quote at:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060206fa_fact

“Just as we wouldn’t let a great white shark in a swimming pool,” the province’s attorney general, Michael Bryant, had said, “maybe we shouldn’t have these animals on the civilized streets.”
Angush, is this where you got your wisdom of comparing raising a pit bull to putting a shark in your swimming pool?

Angush, I ask the same questions of you. Have you ever owned a pit bull? How many have you met? Did you know their owners? In what kind of a situation did you meet the dog? In your words, describe to me what differences you observed about their behaviour from other dogs.

I really want people to reply to these questions.

I would hope BSL supporters have done enough reasearch and have enough experience with dangerous breeds to know what they are supporting a ban on. Let's play spot the pit bull.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Here is a section from a very well written piece at the new yorker. Makes me mad that I couldn't take care of the idiot owner that started this whole fiasco.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060206fa_fact

"“A fatal dog attack is not just a dog bite by a big or aggressive dog,” Lockwood went on. “It is usually a perfect storm of bad human-canine interactions—the wrong dog, the wrong background, the wrong history in the hands of the wrong person in the wrong environmental situation. I’ve been involved in many legal cases involving fatal dog attacks, and, certainly, it’s my impression that these are generally cases where everyone is to blame. You’ve got the unsupervised three-year-old child wandering in the neighborhood killed by a starved, abused dog owned by the dogfighting boyfriend of some woman who doesn’t know where her child is. It’s not old Shep sleeping by the fire who suddenly goes bonkers. Usually there are all kinds of other warning signs.”

Jayden Clairoux was attacked by Jada, a pit-bull terrier, and her two pit-bull–bullmastiff puppies, Agua and Akasha. The dogs were owned by a twenty-one-year-old man named Shridev Café, who worked in construction and did odd jobs. Five weeks before the Clairoux attack, Café’s three dogs got loose and attacked a sixteen-year-old boy and his four-year-old half brother while they were ice skating. The boys beat back the animals with a snow shovel and escaped into a neighbor’s house. Café was fined, and he moved the dogs to his seventeen-year-old girlfriend’s house. This was not the first time that he ran into trouble last year; a few months later, he was charged with domestic assault, and, in another incident, involving a street brawl, with aggravated assault. “Shridev has personal issues,” Cheryl Smith, a canine-behavior specialist who consulted on the case, says. “He’s certainly not a very mature person.” Agua and Akasha were now about seven months old. The court order in the wake of the first attack required that they be muzzled when they were outside the home and kept in an enclosed yard. But Café did not muzzle them, because, he said later, he couldn’t afford muzzles, and apparently no one from the city ever came by to force him to comply. A few times, he talked about taking his dogs to obedience classes, but never did. The subject of neutering them also came up—particularly Agua, the male—but neutering cost a hundred dollars, which he evidently thought was too much money, and when the city temporarily confiscated his animals after the first attack it did not neuter them, either, because Ottawa does not have a policy of preëmptively neutering dogs that bite people.

On the day of the second attack, according to some accounts, a visitor came by the house of Café’s girlfriend, and the dogs got wound up. They were put outside, where the snowbanks were high enough so that the back-yard fence could be readily jumped. Jayden Clairoux stopped and stared at the dogs, saying, “Puppies, puppies.” His mother called out to his father. His father came running, which is the kind of thing that will rile up an aggressive dog. The dogs jumped the fence, and Agua took Jayden’s head in his mouth and started to shake. It was a textbook dog-biting case: unneutered, ill-trained, charged-up dogs, with a history of aggression and an irresponsible owner, somehow get loose, and set upon a small child. The dogs had already passed through the animal bureaucracy of Ottawa, and the city could easily have prevented the second attack with the right kind of generalization—a generalization based not on breed but on the known and meaningful connection between dangerous dogs and negligent owners. But that would have required someone to track down Shridev Café, and check to see whether he had bought muzzles, and someone to send the dogs to be neutered after the first attack, and an animal-control law that insured that those whose dogs attack small children forfeit their right to have a dog. It would have required, that is, a more exacting set of generalizations to be more exactingly applied. It’s always easier just to ban the breed."


There haven't been any replies yet.

[Civicaddict79]

I grew up with a S terrier, aka pitbull, named Katie. She was a whimp and the sweetest dog ever. She used to sleep with me from the time I was 8 to 18. I was bitten by a dog once, it was a mixed breed Benji type dog. I think it's nurture vs. nature, but I'm no expert. I think that if you bring a dog up in a loving home, that translates in their nature, regardless of breed. However, I do know if I were buying a pitbull, I would research the breeder and family tree and environment that the puppy was raised in for the first few weeks very carefully. Interesting post.

[Sleepy]

I am a firm beleiver, it is not the dog it is the owner. I am a proud owner of a rotti and he is awesome, one big teddy bear. I did the right thing and got him trained as I do not need a loose cannon with teeth tearing up the neighborhood.


sorry my spelling sucks, typing fast while at work.

[RedSIinPA]

I'm a believer in "it's the owner, not the animal"...

but I also believe that a pit is far more likely to have a bad temperament if the owner is bad/non-existent/violent than most other breeds that have the same type of owners.

[Special Ringpop]

I'm not going to lie here, I do think the owner has a huge shaping influence on it, but I do believe that certain breeds are genetically dispositioned to acting a certain way, especially with reinforcement, or a lack of such.

[LunchBoxed]

I don't beleive that some dogs are more or less genetically pre-disposed to aggression and attacking others; however, when a large dog attacks someone it makes the news, and everyone wants it put to sleep. When a small dog attacks someone it gets repremanded by its owner, and all is considered well and done. Pit bulls, Rottys, Dobermans, etc. are all large, powerful dogs, so when they attack someone everyone hears about it. However, if my little Boston Terrier, Emy, were to attack someone I guarantee no real fuss would be made. Just my .02.

[dentrecords]

I definitely agree that it's not going to make the papers if a toy poodle bites someone's hand causing them to need stitches, but you'll certainly hear if that happened with a "pit bull type" dog... even if that "pit bull type" dog has no staffordshire bloodline whatsoever.

[sichick]

i belive that it is the owners fault for the way the dog is, if you teach it to hate it will hate if you teach it to love and be friendly it is i have always been around junk yard dogs and have had them because my father has a car junk yard/ body shop and yes some of them are mean but again it is how you treat them i luuuvvv pit bulls especially one i had named mia cutest thing ever and we found her but too people must learn to not push a dog to a certain limit doesnt matter how much they luv you, i am also a proud owner of a rotwiler and a doberman and again they are like big teddy bears except they dont like intruders thanks too my rotwiler someone was staring at my car infront of the house my rot opened the gate and chased to two bald guys away.

[sichick]

^ sorry for the long reply i love animals alot

[CaliGuy]

Ok, I have never had a bad experience with a "pit bull"--which by the way is'nt an akc recognized breed---and there are many types of "pit bulls"--Spuds McKenzie is a "pit bull" for example.

That said the Pit Bull was bred for dog fighting. Plain and simple..therefore what does it naturally want to do? It want's to attack other dogs. Just like my Golden Retriever attacks/wants to attack birds--he was bred to be a bird dog.

The Pit Bull is a cros between a bulldog and a terrier--the terrier was bred in to make the dog more agressive.

I would personally never own an agressive breed---I don't need the liability.

Oh, and for those that say I didn;t get a pit bull because it looks tought, etc...then why the hell do you crop their ears????

I think, in general (I repeat: In general), many people get pit bulls because they want a "mean"/"agressive" dog--so they look more tough.

The only dogs that have ever bitten me were small terriers--sorry, but I despise terriers in general...

[sichick]

Hey have you guys ever seen "Amor Es Perros" ? its a movie that came out a while back it means love is a bitch but its a spanish english movie its good kinda like crash but it invovles dog fighting and some people

[CaliGuy]

Originally Posted by sichick

Hey have you guys ever seen "Amor Es Perros" ? its a movie that came out a while back it means love is a bitch but its a spanish english movie its good kinda like crash but it invovles dog fighting and some people

That movie kicked ass!!!!!

[dentrecords]

A lot of people get them for the wrong reasons - because they want a dog as a fashion accessory... that reminds me of a show my girlfriend was watching last week... this was a show in the vein of the apprentice, but for fashion designers... the worst designer is cut each week. This particular episode's "fashion accessory" was a small toy dog. This attitude is totally unacceptable in my opinion... this is a living breathing animal that feels and thinks, and it's being treated as an accessory. That kind of thinking does not promote responsible owners that want to train and care for the animal properly, and it seems that a few bad apples wanting some aggressive arm jewelry ruin it for all the responsible owners.

I couldn't give a crap that my dog is half staffordshire, or half lab. He'd be fine if he was all lab, or all staffordshire. It was his fun and lively demeanor that drew my girlfriend and I to him in the shelter in the first place.

[sichick]

Originally Posted by CaliGuy

That movie kicked ass!!!!!

I see it everyday! one of my fav's

[Gonzo]

I don't have all that much experience with dogs, but completely denying the fact that some breeds of animals are more subject to aggression is a bit silly. Even in humans it has been scientifically shown that adopted children's behavior more often resembles that of their genetic parents and not of the adopters.

That said, I am not saying Pit Bulls are aggressive. It might be that they are a breed that is not disposed to aggression, I personally have no idea. I have seen pitbulls who are both wonderful and overly aggressive and from my experience I'd have to say it was due to their environment.

My advice would be to try to get the animals when they are young, before they have exposure to potentially abusive owners. One of my friends had a lab that was supposedly abused at a shelter and the thing was never quite right and actually ended up trying to attack me for no apparent reason. Eventually it was put to sleep because it attacked a neighborhood kid.

[CaliGuy]

Originally Posted by sichick

I see it everyday! one of my fav's

Have you seen "21 Grams"? Same director...outstanding, outstanding movie! A must see!

[Markstudy]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

My advice would be to try to get the animals when they are young, before they have exposure to potentially abusive owners. .

All modern dogs are designer-animals that have been engineered by man.

The natural dog was so different then what we buy for pets today.

Dogs have been bred for 10,000 years to do exact, and very specific task for their owners.
Dachshund's for example where bred to fight badgers inside their underground dens. It takes a 1,000 years to create a breed for a specific task. The bit bull was built and designed many hundereds of years ago, to fight and kill for its Master.

Now fast forward to today.....Only in the last 10 years has rap music and owning a bit-bull made young males look "thugy" enough so they could impress the girls that think the "felon look" on MTV is the new "in thing"

Funny, how a fighting dog has turned into a fashion statement.

Just like carrying a gun to look cool, .....walking around with a pit-bull is always one split second away from a law-suit or going to jail for a long time if your pit-bull snaps and hurts or kills a child (or your gun goes off) odds are slim but it happens a few times every year without fail.

You could also argue that people get killed street racing... I personaly know two guys that have died on the track in race accidents.... So it is all a matter of how much risk you want in your life. Guns, Fast cars, and Pit-Bulls...can, and do kill or hurt people. If you have all three, your risk are higher.

I guess we learned this in med-school, when we had to learn comparative anatomy of all anaimals, take a look at the design of a pit bull from the inside....they are built to kill. If you don't belive this, its kind of like looking at the blue-prints for a Abrams Main Battle Tank and finding that it wasn't built for war.

[Civic4u]

Originally Posted by dentrecords

People have very polar opinions on these dogs it seems. I will get my bias out of the way and state that I own a Lab/Staffordshire mix and he is a wonderful dog.

I'd been posting under an anonymous bugmenot account (dave_w_w) on a forum and I thought I would share the contents of the thread. I posted the contents on my blog: http://dentrecords.spaces.msn.com/blog/

More Pit Bull madness

http://www.canoe.ca/mb2/messages/cnewsf/11106.html


This is ridiculous. I have pasted the contents of this thread below.

moderator

7/10/2006 12:11:49
Topic: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
Dianne Singer has written a rebuttal to Peter Worthington's column denouncing pit bulls. In it she demands owners take responsibility for their pets, regardless of breed. So, then, is it the breed that is inherently vicious or the environment the owners create in which to raise the pet?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

David_Leslie

7/10/2006 12:37:20
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
It is the environment the owners create in which to raise the pet that makes them dangerous.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

uplink

7/10/2006 14:02:10
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I think that the problem is the owners as well.
Unfortunately the majority of the people who own these dogs are attracted to the characteristics that can make them dangerous, and like the intimidation factor that goes along with having these dogs.
A breed ban will not prevent people from going and getting another large intimidating dog and raising them the same way. I suppose then someone will eventually want to ban Rottweilers/German Shepherds/Dobermans etc...
On the other hand, as pit bulls were actually bred with a mind to maintaining their agressive tendancies, unless there's a way to prevent the idiots that view them as weapons from owning them, I won't complain much about the breed ban.
As the father of 2 youngsters, I'd really rather not have to worry about this type of dog being around my children.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ellwood_P_Dowd

7/10/2006 15:54:00
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I remember a show about a young man from Regent Park in Toronto who grew up with 2 Pit Bulls as Guardians. Wonderful daddy would set the dogs loose at night in the apartment to keep the kids in thier rooms while he and mom went drinking or drugging or whatever. He was able to get around the dogs and get out himself. He grew up to become a trainer, specializing in dangerous behaviour in dogs. He became very successful, owning a large piece of property in the Muskoka's. Anyway, the point of my post is that the only time any of his employees or himself were ever bitten, it wasn't a Pit Bull or Rotti that did it, it was an Australian Shepherd. He took the end of the little finger off an employee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

casper34

7/10/2006 16:05:02
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I don't know why anyone would want to own large dangerous breed but I don't bans of any kind work. I still think that insuring is the way to control it. Premiums based on statistics on amount of severity of attacks and whatever other risk factors are relevant.
The issue has similarities to gun control. It is not only the weapon that is the problem but also the owner. Mandatory safety training for gun users did a great job of dropping "accidents". Maybe owners of large dogs should have to take a course in animal training. Breeders (like gun PAL's) should have to have further checks and training.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

mtinyfeet

7/10/2006 17:27:44
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I believe strongly that it is the environment that the dog lives in. There are alot of bad dogs out there because of the environment that they live in and they are not pitbulls. I own one, and love her to the fullest. Alot of young people are owning these dogs not just for a family pet, but for a status of owning one. Pitbulls love to be praised and to please the owner, so if the owner asks of them to do wrong they will do it, in hopes to please the owner. Me and my family as pitbull owners treat all dogs the exact same, whether it is a poodle, lab, pitbull, they ALL need to be watched, people fail to forget that a dog is a dog, no matter what breed it is.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

uplink

7/10/2006 17:59:20
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
mtinyfeet:
I feel for you and the label being hung on these dogs. It's unfortunate that the thugs who own these dogs seem to have blown it for everyone.
Again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

court22
7/10/2006 19:14:05
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I'm a 'mom' of a 3 year old Staffordshire Terrier aka a pitbull. He's the most loving, loyal, smart and goofy dog ever and I'm not just saying that cause he's mine! These dogs can make wonderful companions IF trained properly and raised with love, affection and discipline. It disgusts me to see people train these dogs to be aggresive as they can be so loving when put into the right environment. People need to get over their fears of these dogs - I've actually had a Jack Russell attack my dog. Did my dog retaliate? No - he turned his head. Please don't believe everything you hear about these wonderful dogs. They have so much to offer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

jester1972
7/10/2006 19:29:42
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
The problem is with the owners.
Dogs are bred for certain characteristics. These dispositions are natural to the dog. You cannot fault an animal for being an animal. That is following natural instincts.
Where the problem occurs is when dogs are trained improperly, not trained at all, and sometimes it is the victims fault. But as an owner, you should know how to warn people of interaction with a dog that might perceive it as agressive. For some dogs, it might be hand gestures raised over the shoulder. Not good if you're in a park with your kid flying a kite.
People are ignorant and lazy. They don't take the time to learn everything there is to know about a new pet. That goes for everything in life though.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Angush
7/10/2006 20:12:10
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
<This post was updated by Angush. 7/10/2006 20:14:41>
<This post was updated by Angush. 7/10/2006 20:18:37>
Peter Worthington is correct.
Many people can say what they want but when you have been attacted by a Pit Bull you never for get it.
My family lives with this attact daily.
All dogs can bite but trust me when I tell you when a Pit gets you ,you better pray.
If you have not been attacted by a Pit Bull you do not know what you are talking about.
This pit is still around the owner never said a thing ,but he sure ran away quickly.
Ban the breeed, if not I want a shark in my pool.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

RZ50085
7/10/2006 23:22:53
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
Angush
I feel the same about Dobermans, that's what attacked our child.
But I also believe thet Breed Specific Legistration will not remedy the problem.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 09:28:40
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I have a pitty/lab mix. He is a wonderful dog, with great temperament. I have grown up with dogs, and I definitely know dog behaviour. I do not have any hesitation introducing him to new people and other dogs, and they are usually very receptive to his affection. When introducing him to new people, I usually let them play with him/get kisses from him for about 5 minutes, then I tell them he is a mix. More often than not, I hear people say "Oh.. really" and they will back off. They will step back from this dog as if it had suddenly turned vicious on them, but he's still just standing there wagging his tail, wanting to play. Nothing has changed apart from their perception formed from preconceived notions about this breed. I know they have an internal struggle going on. They have just seen first hand how playful and affectionate this dog is and this totally contradicts any horror stories the media has told about this breed. A story about how tens of thousands of these dogs live their whole lives without so much as a nip to anyone wouldn't sell as much as a story of a singular dog attack. It's very easy to neglect crucial details in stories of these dog attacks too such as location or provocation to sensationalize the story.

If a dog is by nature a territorial animal (remember, all dogs have wolf ancestry) then it will defend its territory if it feels threatened. A rogue dog straying into someone else's yard/territory may find itself quite unwelcome if there is another dog that has already staked its claim to this territory. Have you ever walked your dog and heard a yappy little dog madly barking at you from behind a fence? Some might excuse this behaviour as the dog is small and "cute". Some may find it annoying, but bottom line, this is a dog aggressively attempting to defend its territory. Trouble is, when you haven't trained or socialized your large dog properly, there is always the possibility of injury to another animal. More often than not, this is why attacks occur. The dog feels their territory is being threatened by an intruder/other animal, and it takes action. Following through on this unfettered instinct is never the dog's fault, it is always the owner's carelessness with regards to containing the dog in a fenced in property, let alone providing proper training and socializaion for the animal. Moral of the story is don't get a dog if you don't understand their behaviour and correct it accordingly. An untrained small dog may end up a yappy little annoyance but an untrained large dog can be a huge liability, regardless of the breed.

I read something recently in a local newspaper that absolutely disgusted me. "Neighbours have given unconfirmed reports that they believe the Pit Bull may have an attacked another dog at some point but no one has come forward with an injured dog." They then go on. "Injuries to the other dog may have been a fractured foot. City counsellors have planned an emergency meeting to discuss how to better enforce legislation against this breed."

There is no confirmation of an attack. There are no details as to the incident other than conjecture from neighbours. Even better, the owner of the dog has 5 Pit Bulls living in the same house, and lets them run at large on his unfenced property in suburbia. This information was only mentioned at the end of the story after all the sensational details of the supposed attack were published. The victim dog was listed as a 10 month old Australian Shepherd, but this has not been confirmed. Apparently, there are so many 10 month old Australian Shepherds in this neighbourhood that they weren't able to find the owners of the one that was injured and have them confirm the injury, but they did know that it was 10 months old at the time of the attack, and it was an Australian Shepherd. Do you think that if the dreaded Pit Bull was really out to attack this relatively helpless 10 month old puppy, it would have left it with simply a fractured foot? So many details of this story don't add up, but the outcome is that we have some overzealous city counsellors planning a meeting on what to do with this dangerous breed. Maybe they should require the owner to build a fence on his property to contain the animals, and put two of them up for adoption so he doesn't have more than the 3 dogs per property allowed by city regulations. Maybe they should also force him to take his dogs to training school so they won't be a liability to him, and he won't be a liability to us for being such a dumbass.

Bottom line, any large dog is capable of causing injury and it's up to the owners to take responsibility.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 09:47:35
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
Angush
"Ban the breeed, if not I want a shark in my pool."
Poor spelling and grammar aside, who in their right mind compares raising a Pit Bull in their house to keeping a shark in their pool?
Each year, world-wide, between 50 and 100 shark attacks are reported. There are over 6 billion people on the planet, and hundreds of millions of these people venture into the ocean without incident. Over 43,200 motor vehicle fatalities occurred in the United States last year alone. Maybe you should worry about all those cars on the road instead of my dog.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 09:51:40
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
to uplink:
"As the father of 2 youngsters, I'd really rather not have to worry about this type of dog being around my children."
I'd hope that you don't have to worry about an untrained dog being around your children too. Did you know that Pit Bulls were specifically bred based on their temperament? I bet you did. Did you know that part of those "desirable" traits was an absolute trust of humans? Why? So the owner of the dog could pull the dog out of a fight without any fear of being attacked by either dog.
Read this.
http://www.pets.ca/articles/article-pitbulls.htm
Your children are definitely safe from this breed. Leave my dog alone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

casper34
7/11/2006 10:01:54
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
Yes all improperly socialized dogs can bite. The difference is the amount of damage that can be done. Comparing a small dog attack to a large dog attack is like comparing getting hit with a slingshot or a shotgun.
Large dog owners need to realize this and have proper handling techniques, as you seem to. I think that it should be manadatory to register/insure all dogs and receive safety training for large dogs.
From reading I see that another problem is breeders. The so called puppy mills. This indiscriminate breeding is also a factor. They are not destroying dogs with anti social behaviour or actually encouraging this trait. That is why I think breeders should have to be screened as well.
These types of dogs have the potential to be to dangerous to not have any controls.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:03:39
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
casper34
Insurance is not the answer - look at the automotive rates in Ontario, they are astronomical. I've been driving for 9 years without incident and I pay out the nose for a mandatory "protection" service. What are insurance policies going to do to for the unfortunate victim who lost a finger because they stuck it in an territorial animal's face? It certainly won't get them their finger back, but will help to line the pockets of the insurance companies. Right idea to make the owner responsible somehow though. Training is certainly a great suggestion. It should be mandatory to show competence before being issued a dog license. I remember that I had to go through a half hour screening process one on one to even meet my dog at the Humane Society, let alone adopt him. This should be necessary as part of the process of obtaining a dog license. I am thankful the Humane Society cares enough to implement this policy voluntarily.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Angush
7/11/2006 10:06:45
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
<This post was updated by Angush. 7/11/2006 10:14:34>
dave ww and all
Always something else. I find in my day to day work, that people that supported the Pit bull are indeed the ones with the propblems.
example:Rude and always want to criticize other people ,other breeds and peoples spelling and grammer.
Grow up and stick with the Pit Bull matter at hand.
Peter Worthington is correct ,like it or not.
Angus and the dogs

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

casper34

7/11/2006 10:15:13
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
I here what you are saying but I think insurance would do two things.
First, it enhances the concept of personal responsibility. At least financially.
Secondly, it would be easier for victims to get needed services after an attack like counselling or cosmetic surgery.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

rosemarie59
7/11/2006 10:17:19
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
just get a cat.
end of story.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

tweetypie
7/11/2006 10:19:20
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
As I wrote in an earlier post, the Windsor Ontario bylaw banning Pitbulls and other dangerous breeds, grandfathered the existing dogs but made the owner acquire a 1 million dollar liability insurance policy in order to retain ownership. Many owners were turning their dogs in.
GOOD!!!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

meshman
7/11/2006 10:22:36
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"Your children are definitely safe from this breed."
"The dogs jumped the fence and attacked a two-year-old boy and his father as they walked through a park on Feb. 24. One pit bull clamped down on the boy's head before the man and his neighbour managed to beat the animals away. The adults were badly bitten."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ll-050302.html
"Three pit bulls have been seized and their owner charged after the dogs attacked a two-year-old and his father in Ottawa – five weeks after the same animals bit another boy."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ll-050225.html
There's lots more...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

meshman
7/11/2006 10:24:57
Topic: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

Oops, same story Stupid CBC. Point being, many news articles will confirm that these dogs are not blanketly safe for children.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

tweetypie
7/11/2006 10:25:06
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"just get a cat.
end of story."
Cats should be treated the same as dogs. They should be licenced and kept on a leash.
They are an animal not native to Canada and not only kill many of our native birds and small animals but, destroy costly gardens and shrubs.
I am in the process of a court small claims lawsuit against my neighbours two cats that roam freely peeing all over everything in site, destroying costly garden plants. I encourage everyone who is fed up with cats to do the same SUE the owners.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:28:00
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"rosemarie59

just get a cat."

Had one before I got my dog. My pitty mix and my cat get along fine. Should I have been unable to get a dog because some people consider it unsafe?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:31:29
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"tweetypie
"Cats should be treated the same as dogs. They should be licenced and kept on a leash.""
I think people are very misguided when they let their cats roam around freely outside. My cat is an exclusively indoor cat, and he will periodically meow to try to get me to let him outside. I don't want him getting hit by a car or tearing a neighbour's garden apart. I love my kitty far too much to let his curiosity get the best of him outside.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:37:19
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"meshman
"Oops, same story Stupid CBC. Point being, many news articles will confirm that these dogs are not blanketly safe for children.""
No dog is absolutely safe for children, I'll restate that the only dog that ever bit me was a Bischon Frise and that was because it wasn't socialized properly. No dog should ever be left unsupervised with children.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:46:39
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"meshman
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ll-050225.html"
I just read this story, and decided to do a bit of background research. I did a 411 lookup on G Cleroux in Kanata, Ontario. He lives on Sheldrake Avenue. The Kanata newspaper that published the recent story about pit bull attacks mentioned that the owner with 5 dogs lived in the Glen Cairn area, around Sheldrake avenue no less. Sounds like we have one real idiot that shouldn't be allowed to keep his dogs. It's a shame people like this give the media fodder to label an entire breed as a menace when it's just a few bad apples out there that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

rosemarie59
7/11/2006 10:55:23
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"Should I have been unable to get a dog because some people consider it unsafe?"
dave,
you should be free to have as many pit bulls or whatever as you like.
as for you, tweety BIRD:
as with anything there are pros and cons. haven't you learned that yet? the good thing about cats outside is they keep the rodent population within present limits. which is better than unlimited. if you like birds, go on a nature hike. most of what you see now are just cow birds ..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 10:59:14
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
It warms my heart to see that there are at least some sensible people on this forum, such as rosemarie59.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

JudgeKing
7/11/2006 12:45:46
RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
It sounds like a lot of pit bull owners are as unstable as their dogs. The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child.
The law allows you to keep your dog, why do you care if the breed is prevented from procreating? This way, this problem won't exist in 15 years or so. There are hundreds of other breeds, and humans 'made' them all; this one was a mistake that is being corrected.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

uplink
7/11/2006 12:52:02
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?
"The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child."
Nothing much to say that can beat that...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

dave_w_w
7/11/2006 15:14:23
RE: RE: Pit bulls - nature or nurture?

"JudgeKing
"It sounds like a lot of pit bull owners are as unstable as their dogs. The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child.
The law allows you to keep your dog, why do you care if the breed is prevented from procreating? This way, this problem won't exist in 15 years or so. There are hundreds of other breeds, and humans 'made' them all; this one was a mistake that is being corrected.""

While I agree that human life trumps animal life, I don't think that it's a black and white situation like you paint. I tend to disagree with you there. I don't think for one second that this breed should be eliminated. Why? It won't solve the problem of irresponsible owners. What about Akitas? They have maimed people. What about Dobermans? They have maimed people. What about Rottweilers? They have maimed people. What about German Shepherds? They have maimed people. What about Australian Shepherds? They have maimed people. What about Poodles? They have maimed people. Does this mean as a pit bull mix owner, I'm somehow "unstable" for making such observations and conclusions? Am I "unstable" because I find this whole situation ridiculous? Is it "unstable" for me to try and understand the perspective of pro-BSL supporters? I'm trying to understand your perspective, and have you show me why you feel this is effective, but no one is saying anything that makes sense with all factors considered. How can you judge me (or any other pit bull owner) as "unstable" without knowing the first thing about me? Probably by using the same twisted logic that led you to conclude that destroying an entire breed of dog is a reasonable or effective solution to a misunderstood problem.

Why do I care that the breed of dog that I've got isn't "allowed" to reproduce legally? To be fair - I don't think most people should ever have unsterilized pets. I would never own an unsterilized pet or recommend it anyone that isn't out to breed their animals responsibly. Biters are 6.2 times as likely to be male than female, and 2.6 times as likely to be intact than neutered. Should we ban owning male dogs? Breeders should be the only people with unsterilized animals. I find that BSL is comparable to ethnic cleansing, but done mostly by sterilization.

If you don't understand how us owners feel, think of this... it will require you to suspend your prejudice for a few moments. Say your dog is a lab (or substitute your favourite breed here). A lab down the street bites a child that was poking at it's eyes through a fence. The media publishes a front page story about the KILLER LAB that viciously maimed the unsupervised perfect angel child. People from all over the street give you the evil eye everytime they see you with your dog. Your dog must be muzzled off-property. People do not want to socialize their dogs with yours. Your dog has never done any harm to anyone, or any other dog, and probably never will. Once all existing labs have died, you will never be able to own a lab again, unless you move somewhere without BSL. You probably can't picture that because of your prejudice that most labs are nice.
A little while ago, in France, a woman that had her face torn off by her dog. The dog that did this is a Labrador retriever. This is not an example of desirable behaviour by labs. My dog is half pitty and half lab. Watch out, he will lick you to death.

Many of these dogs surrendered to local shelters for the right reasons (moving out of country, unable to care for the animal, etc, etc) will simply be put down because they have been labeled - quite possibly unfairly - as a danger to people. Some dogs definitely have temperament issues and should be put down. Just not 99% of them. Responsible breeders never allow undesirable genes/traits to carry on. Being agressive towards humans is not part of the description of a Staffordshire terrier. Don't believe me? Check it out. Look for STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER.

http://www.atts.org/stats7.html

Here is a description of what they do.

http://www.atts.org/testdesc.html

Here's something to ponder... would an irresponsible owner ever subject their dog to a temperament test? JudgeKing, we should hope that most pit bull owners are as stable as their dogs. They are above average in terms of stability.

The breed has been demonized due to a few bad apples. I still can't get over the way people change the way they approach my pet when they learn that he is part pitty. That's the issue - it's knee jerk legislation and fear mongering. Are we in such need of babysitting that legislation trumps personal responsibility? If the breed is banned in Ontario, that won't stop people in other provinces, or other countries from breeding these dogs.
JudgeKing - have you ever owned a pit bull? How many have you met? Did you know their owners? In what kind of a situation did you meet the dog? In your words, describe to me what differences you observed about their behaviour from other dogs.

"uplink
"The life of every dog is Canada is less important than the health and safety of one child.
Nothing much to say that can beat that...""

Faulty logic. Thinking that your child's safety is increased around dogs when BSL is introduced is just silly. I'll ask the same questions of you as I did JudgeKing. Have you ever owned a pit bull? How many have you met? Did you know their owners? In what kind of a situation did you meet the dog? In your words, describe to me what differences you observed about their behaviour from other dogs.

I also found an interesting quote at:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060206fa_fact

“Just as we wouldn’t let a great white shark in a swimming pool,” the province’s attorney general, Michael Bryant, had said, “maybe we shouldn’t have these animals on the civilized streets.”
Angush, is this where you got your wisdom of comparing raising a pit bull to putting a shark in your swimming pool?

Angush, I ask the same questions of you. Have you ever owned a pit bull? How many have you met? Did you know their owners? In what kind of a situation did you meet the dog? In your words, describe to me what differences you observed about their behaviour from other dogs.

I really want people to reply to these questions.

I would hope BSL supporters have done enough reasearch and have enough experience with dangerous breeds to know what they are supporting a ban on. Let's play spot the pit bull.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Here is a section from a very well written piece at the new yorker. Makes me mad that I couldn't take care of the idiot owner that started this whole fiasco.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060206fa_fact

"“A fatal dog attack is not just a dog bite by a big or aggressive dog,” Lockwood went on. “It is usually a perfect storm of bad human-canine interactions—the wrong dog, the wrong background, the wrong history in the hands of the wrong person in the wrong environmental situation. I’ve been involved in many legal cases involving fatal dog attacks, and, certainly, it’s my impression that these are generally cases where everyone is to blame. You’ve got the unsupervised three-year-old child wandering in the neighborhood killed by a starved, abused dog owned by the dogfighting boyfriend of some woman who doesn’t know where her child is. It’s not old Shep sleeping by the fire who suddenly goes bonkers. Usually there are all kinds of other warning signs.”

Jayden Clairoux was attacked by Jada, a pit-bull terrier, and her two pit-bull–bullmastiff puppies, Agua and Akasha. The dogs were owned by a twenty-one-year-old man named Shridev Café, who worked in construction and did odd jobs. Five weeks before the Clairoux attack, Café’s three dogs got loose and attacked a sixteen-year-old boy and his four-year-old half brother while they were ice skating. The boys beat back the animals with a snow shovel and escaped into a neighbor’s house. Café was fined, and he moved the dogs to his seventeen-year-old girlfriend’s house. This was not the first time that he ran into trouble last year; a few months later, he was charged with domestic assault, and, in another incident, involving a street brawl, with aggravated assault. “Shridev has personal issues,” Cheryl Smith, a canine-behavior specialist who consulted on the case, says. “He’s certainly not a very mature person.” Agua and Akasha were now about seven months old. The court order in the wake of the first attack required that they be muzzled when they were outside the home and kept in an enclosed yard. But Café did not muzzle them, because, he said later, he couldn’t afford muzzles, and apparently no one from the city ever came by to force him to comply. A few times, he talked about taking his dogs to obedience classes, but never did. The subject of neutering them also came up—particularly Agua, the male—but neutering cost a hundred dollars, which he evidently thought was too much money, and when the city temporarily confiscated his animals after the first attack it did not neuter them, either, because Ottawa does not have a policy of preëmptively neutering dogs that bite people.

On the day of the second attack, according to some accounts, a visitor came by the house of Café’s girlfriend, and the dogs got wound up. They were put outside, where the snowbanks were high enough so that the back-yard fence could be readily jumped. Jayden Clairoux stopped and stared at the dogs, saying, “Puppies, puppies.” His mother called out to his father. His father came running, which is the kind of thing that will rile up an aggressive dog. The dogs jumped the fence, and Agua took Jayden’s head in his mouth and started to shake. It was a textbook dog-biting case: unneutered, ill-trained, charged-up dogs, with a history of aggression and an irresponsible owner, somehow get loose, and set upon a small child. The dogs had already passed through the animal bureaucracy of Ottawa, and the city could easily have prevented the second attack with the right kind of generalization—a generalization based not on breed but on the known and meaningful connection between dangerous dogs and negligent owners. But that would have required someone to track down Shridev Café, and check to see whether he had bought muzzles, and someone to send the dogs to be neutered after the first attack, and an animal-control law that insured that those whose dogs attack small children forfeit their right to have a dog. It would have required, that is, a more exacting set of generalizations to be more exactingly applied. It’s always easier just to ban the breed."


There haven't been any replies yet.

Good point You might break the record for the longest message

[hazeman]

pitbulls were originally bred for fighting so they'll automatically have a certain aggression towards other dogs, towards humans however, they are the sweetest dogs and especially around kids. I've had a couple, and have never had one attack anything/one, because ive trained them from a puppy. pitbulls are the best dog.

[Markstudy]

Originally Posted by hazeman

automatically have a certain aggression towards other dogs, towards humans however, they are the sweetest dogs and especially around kids.

Problem is that pitbulls don't see a line between dogs and humans....they only see other living things as- bigger or smaller, dominante or submissive.

The skull of a bit-bull is built more like a tiger than another dog. They have the power to kill, and a very small brain to try and over-ride 1,000's of years of breeding towards aggression.

Kids (other than your own) need to be as careful arond a pit-bull (as they do around a gun or firearm). Both are safe under strict adult supervision... but it only takes a split-second for things to go really wrong very fast.

Dogs are real good at finding their place in the family pack. They know the pecking order, but they also test from time-to-time over the years, and this is when even your own kids are at risk if an adult is not around.