I hate to think of the training methods he used.

and bit two other people in the house (including a child). Why they didn't try and modify the dogs behavior is beyond me.

They obviously failed.

I think a dog that has attacked and bitten people twice has proven itself to be dangerous, and needs to be put down.

Dogs are born with an instinctive love of humans.

It must be beaten out of them with cruel training or abuse.

My dog attacked me.

The necropsy showed my dog had numerous brain tumors.

As she grew, the tumors grew.

The vet thinks acute pain caused my dog to react violently.

She was an inside dog.

I raised her from a pup.

She slept with me.

She was never hit, slapped, or beaten.

She was never trained to be vicious.

Sometimes I wonder if that is what makes people so mean, I have a friend that was sweet and then turned nuts. said ridiculous things, I tired to help until she became physically dangerous to me. I tried to get her family to help but they didn't seem interested. She said she saw a doctor, I wondered if she were honest with them or just used her delusions to focus the medical help elsewhere.

I did a 'very quick scan' and it appears this can also happen to people.

Chemotherapy can also affect thinking and personalities.

to do certain tasks and when breeders are not careful as to weed out bad traits you get sick or aggressive dogs. Only time will expose these flaws.

to retrieve a bird without damaging the flesh or try to get lhasa Apso to herd sheep. I've had many pure bred dogs and without training they display instincts that they are bred for. From my Britney to my Bedlington Terrier they act and perform as others in their breed have done for many, many years.

It's genetics plain and simple. Are there exceptions? Sure but they are usually not the norm. BTW I love when those who defend Pit Bull type of dogs use the fact that Chihuahuas bite people since that proves some breeds are prone to certain behaviors.

I knew her as a kind and loving person who never raised her voice or her hand to anyone or any animal. She had two pit bulls she had raised from pups, they were the family pets and were treated as such. Her three-year old grandson had been raised around the dogs and they knew him very well. He was never allowed at anytime to mistreat them. He walked out of her home with his mother on the way to the car to leave and the dogs attacked the child just outside the front door. The dogs ran from across the yard to attack the child, he was not threatening them in anyway. The grandmother ran out to save the child and the dogs turned on her and killed her. They. Killed. Her. Of course, no one knows why the dogs decided to attack someone that had shown them nothing but love and care but they did. No warning, no hint of a problem, no history of aggression, they went for their owner. That little boy has suffered extreme injuries, pain and nightmares ever since and it has now been 10 years. Those dogs were put down immediately. No second chance. Nature or nurture? I'm going with nature. Those dogs are killers and I don't care how many lovey, dovey stories you hear about how kind and gentle pit bulls are it just isn't true. Up until about 10 seconds before they attacked their owner she would be telling you the same nonsense. Anyone who has a pit bull around their family is playing with fire.

If it were "nature" that reality would be reversed.

Some dogs are damaged. Some are bred poorly. Some are abused. Not all. Not most. not a majority. Not even a very significant number.

Tell me, do you go around killing dogs in your area to keep oeple safe from the "monsters"? If they're so dangerous by nature, why don't you?

It's a sad, fucked up bit of evidence for genetic determinism.

Pit Bulls don't exist.

Besides, if they existed that guy wouldn't know whether he owned a Pit Bull or a Chihuahua.

Mistaken identity, no doubt. And they don't exist.

Listed below are pictures of ten dogs. None of them are purebred. They are all mixed breeds. ONLY ONE IS PART PIT BULL. Your job is to find the Pit Bull:

Dog 02


Dog 07


Dog 08


Dog 22


Dog 33


Dog 54


Dog 58


Dog 79


Dog 89


Dog 111

What made #8 say "pit bull" to you?

Those are all mutts, by the way. #7 seems most likely to have pit bull / staffordshire terrier ancestry, to me. I make that call on the slope of its back and splay of its legs. Those features could have come from some molosser breed or german shepherd ancestry as well, though.

Dog 08

DNA Results: 25% Boxer, 25% Alaskan Malamute, 21.95% Sealyham Terrier, 19.67% Pointer

because he looks the least "pit like" to me and I get the point you're making (or so I like to think).

I saw Kyra Sedgewick on Letterman quite a while ago talking about one of her dogs and how she and Kevin Bacon had always thought it was at least part Pit based on her looks and she felt bad people were afraid of her dog when it's such a gentle animal. On a lark, they sent a DNA swab in and the dog turned out to have 0 Pit in her background.

Would be at the top of the list. I know other breeds and even with the smaller breeds they can be vicious but their jaws does not have the strength of the put bulls.

But none should ever be terminated completely through sterilization. That would just seem morally indefensible.

I'm not even entirely comfortable with spaying and neutering. We create these eunuch dogs for our own entertainment, with no real consideration to the needs of a living being.

The "bloodlines" should be terminated and all dogs should be allowed to revert to being mutts.

Purebred dogs are less healthy and less stable than dogs with greater genetic diversity.

Mutts rule.

And without the crime of surgically depriving them of their reproductive instincts.

That is sheer comedy.

About the jaws and the strength and the "I'm an idiot" clause in the argument. Outstanding!

Last edited Sat Dec 27, 2014, 11:04 AM - Edit history (1)

And MY dog needs to be killed?

You did not get it straight.

You're advocating for the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent & loving dogs who want nothing but to please their humans.

extinct:no longer in existence; that has ended or died out:
I never said to kill the living animals, extinct is they die out and are not bred anymore.

Through wholesale slaughter, that's how.

You should be adult enough to admit you're advocating a holocaust.

Adult enough I understand allowing this breed to become extinct through attrition and halting further breeding will result in extinction, I am not advocating holocaust, you should be adult enough to know the difference.

Just so you can claim to be a vegetarian.

You advocate the extinction of one of the most popular types of dog in the country, yet you refuse to admit that would REQUIRE killing vast numbers of them.

Deeper understanding of what allowing the breed to be extinct really means. You jump in and go off on a tangent of which you are the only one there. I stand by my statement of allowing the bit bull breed to become extinct, end of the story.

And the fact that you advocate killing innocent dogs makes it even more heinous,

Maybe like cognitive dissonance, soon you will have yourself convinced. You still did not point out where I advocated slaughtering dogs. I will give you one more chance to do so.

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Slaughter of the dogs.

Last edited Sat Dec 27, 2014, 12:21 PM - Edit history (1)

third out of nine domesticated dogs in bite force. FACT. Edit for clarification. Third from the bottom. Six breeds have bite force far in excess of the Pit Bull.

No one uses it. If a dog is gun shy, it fails the temperament test. Real breed registries have their own temperament testing. This one is made up silliness that PBT owners use to show how docile their dogs are. However, you will see that 51% of Italian Spinone fail this test, not because they are aggressive, but rather, too docile to pass this test.

It is porchiere.

a test that selects for no criteria for breeding standards ain't much of a test.

It's a baseline test for minimum standards temperament for all dogs. It's not geared toward any particular breed or type of dog.

Again you've claimed that it's "bunk" and "nobody uses it" in spite of the fact that the ATTS works with trainers and kennel clubs all over the country, and has for decades.

So, at this point you can provide proof of your statements, or admit that you're pulling your ideas out of your ass.

of which I know many. They TEST their dogs PRIOR to breeding them to ensure that their dogs have the correct temperament. They have MEANINGFUL breed tests to ensure that their breeding stock has the right GENETIC material (you know, the stuff you don't believe in) to their puppies. This is done in reputable breed clubs or at least subgroups.

No one uses this ATTS test. I have seen breeders that use the AKC obedience title as a breeding criteria. All dogs under the FCI have breed-specific temperament tests that the dogs must pass prior to being eligible to breed. A failure on the test (even one time) excludes them from breeding.

I am sorry you cannot get your head around the fact that the APBT is a genetic mess brought about by indescriminate breeders, but just because you do not like it does not mean it is not true.

fear of walking over a ground texture change=fail, to retreat behind the owner when greeting a non-threatening stranger=a fail.

I think the ATTS test is a pretty fair indicator of a dogs basic character.

by the way your "If a dog is gun shy, it fails the temperament test"

the test is 3 shots, at about 80 feet away. The dog is on a loose leash with the owner, the owner is not to say anything to the dog. The owner stands quietly after the shots for about 30 seconds.

Most dogs startle at the sound and then just stand there. That is a pass. Some dogs bolt and try to run away, that is a fail. some dogs hear the sounds wait a couple seconds and start jumping up on their owner who is ignoring them, that is also a fail, its a sign of noise shyness.

Two in the water as Germans feel it expresses first in water.
I think I probably have a few more rodeos than you in this regard. That temperament test is garbage since it tests for no traits. For example, who cares if a Maltese is noise shy. Why would that be a temperament fault? For a retriever, it should be a disqualifying fault for breeding as it is important,

Tests that serve no basis for measuring traits for breeding stock are fairly stupid in the dog or horse world. IT is bullshit

especially the ones with loose skin under/around that mouth. Although friendly,they always stink. Even if you follow with towels and try to wipe that mouth after every drink.

Most dogs bred these days end up as pets, temperament is very important for all breeds.

I agree that temperament is important but it is also breed specific. My dogs' temperament is fairly aggressive. They have high prey drives and will hunt and retrieve birds, rabbits, raccoons, foxes, etc. They are high energy, high drive dogs. Their temperament would make them miserable for an apartment dweller.

People call hounds "stubborn", they are not stubborn, they are being hounds. A good hound will get on a track and ignore everything else. Deer scent, rabbits, etc., it does not matter. They track until the coon, bear, or lion is in the tree (or a rabbit in the case of a beagle). They are not stubborn, they are doing their job and doing it well. That temperament would be a flaw in a labrador retriever, who is suppossed to use his eyes and take hand signals from their handler.

This is why I keep re-iterating that properly bred dogs are subjected to breed specific tests that ensure they can do what they were bred to do.

is not basic canine temperament.

The ability to focus and not have your drives "leak" is very important and very much a factor of temperment. Look at a Malinois. They are high strung and nervous dogs. That nervous energy makes them very good at the more athletic aspects of Frnech Ring or Schutzhund

As far as tracking goes, my dog has passed a 1/2 mile track over 24 hours old in a field of active deer. I can assure you passing that test had much more to do with her temperment and mental abilities than it did with her ability to smell the blood.

This is unfortunate. Too many people worry about what the dog looks like and not enough pay attention to what is between their ears.

which are being done to try to measure this as accurately as possible. Many variables are involved, but most scientists agree that the pit is not number one in bite strength. That honor seems to go to either the Rot or the Mastiff. The size and shape of the head of the dog seems to be the biggest factor.

Owning a pit bull is risky. They're inherently vicious.

I wish people would stop spreading this lie. Pit Bulls are actually one of the most friendliest breeds out there.

Until they eat the face off your child.

did that to my kid about 22 years ago,after 3 surgeries and 22 years you can hardly notice it.

... had to put her (family pet) border collie down as he was aggressive. He had a loving home and she was a very experienced dog trainer ... however, his nature and temperament were aggressive.

This is NEVER acceptable for a family pet. It broke her heart to euthanize him ... but one cannot take that kind of chance.

I am very sorry your child had to suffer through this!

mauled my son when he was a nine year old. Doesn't matter the breed. 100 stitches and massive amounts of antibiotics. Scars all over the back of his head, and shoulders.

I know for a fact, he raised from the time it was a puppy, and he most certainly did not raise it to be vicious... but it was. Much as I LOVE dogs, that breed of dog should not exist. They are wildly unpredictable and they kill people. It's as simple as that.

And anyone who argues against spaying/neutering is a complete fool, given the thousands of unwanted dogs out down each year.

These animals are selectively bred to heighten characteristics of strength, aggressiveness and tenacity. They do not make good pets for cuddling. Any child that is around one, is at risk of being attacked.

Are you just yanking someone's chain?

These dogs are extremely affectionate and absolutely do 'make good pets for cuddling.'

Cuddling is about the only thing she liked to do.

Sure they appear very friendly. They always wag their tails, even when they are are fighting or mauling. A good pit bull knows his job. He has generations of breeding behind him. He was bred to fight. He won't growl or bark too much, if ever, because a noisy pit bull would give the 'game' away.

Some pit bulls, raised in loving homes, don't kill a human until well into their old age. Some just snack on the occasional cat or small dog. Some rip the throats out of horses, ponies, sheep, goats etc. Google 'pit bull attack' if you want to see the damage pit bulls can do. Some people get very lucky and their pit bull never kills or mauls a human or other animal.

I have Australian Shepherds and they need almost no training to do their job. It's been bred into them.

I don't eat animals. I've been a strict vegetarian for over 40 years because I love animals and it's my love for animals that makes me hate (yes I said hate) pit bulls. I can't stand the carnage they are doing to other animals - let alone humans.

There's a total pit bull ban in the UK, but people still keep them illegally. A few months ago when I was back in England, a pit bull killed a 6 month old baby. They did a DNA test on the killer dog to see if it was a banned dangerous breed and it came back as pit bull.

What's the solution when people like you are convinced the pit bull is the most friendliest breeds in the world? Aren't you curious about any of the other hundreds of truly nice dog breeds out there? Why settle for a breed that some countries out right ban because they have been proven to be dangerous? Why to you want to promote a breed that some insurance companies charge you extra for or some land lords won't allow? Do you think that people are just 'out to get' the pit bull for no good reason?

The most important question is; why do you promote a breed that has killed and maimed hundreds of people this year alone?

some breeds we call pit bulls (an artificial name) are still shown in the ring in England.

Under the 1991 Act (and as amended in 1997) it is illegal to own any Specially Controlled Dogs without specific exemption from a court. The dogs have to be muzzled and kept on a lead in public, they must be registered and insured, neutered, tattooed and receive microchip implants. The Act also bans the breeding, sale and exchange of these dogs, even if they are on the Index of Exempted Dogs.[1]

Four types in particular were identified by the Act:
Pit Bull Terrier (The English Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not on the list)
Japanese Tosa
Dogo Argentino
Fila Brasileiro

The Act also covers cross breeds of the above four types of dog. Dangerous dogs are classified by 'type', not by breed label. This means that whether a dog is prohibited under the Act will depend on a judgement about its physical characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited 'type'. This assessment of the physical characteristics is made by a court.

The Act applies in England, Wales and Scotland,[2] with The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 having a similar effect in Northern Ireland.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991

It specifically says American pit bull which is just one subset of the pit bull identified dogs.

In excluding the father of the American Pit Bull, it is really not an effective law.

I own a dog that was classified by the shelter as a vicious dog and I find her very gentle. Her owner dropped her off for biting. The owner lied. The dog has a soft mouth, can't eat hard food because she was bred to not bite down on anything so that she could bring small animals back without damaging them. She kills by breaking their necks - I know this by watching her kill mice and by having her angry and grabbing my hand in her mouth and holding it, ha ha. She could nibble but never tear skin. Now she has lost most of her teeth because I could never give her chew bones and had to brush her teeth every day, something she fights like hell, so little brushing. I don't think she could survive in the wild because of these traits. Which shows that shelters and all people believe what they hear, not necessarily the facts. I will say she can get "crazy eyes" and look scary, but if you can't bite down (and pit bulls do bite down as they are reputed to do) you can only do so much damage. This dog has gotten into a dogfight with another dog, that bit her and tore skin (dog park) but there was never a mark on the other dog. Can not bite down. She actually tried to hide behind my legs, but the otehr dog ( a vicious 20 pound cocker spaniel) chased her, I had to pick up all 50 pounds to protect her.

Now she could scratch me to death with her quick growing extra sharp nails (also bred to climb trees), but never bite me to do serious damage just because it is physically impossible.

So because of the particular characteristics of your personal dog, you would be against any regulation on these animals? Did I get that right?

I believe my dog was dropped off because of incessant barking, there are days when I have to shut the door to dampen the barking sound. But because she nibbles on fingers i.e. holds fingers in mouths while touching with teeth, the owners found condemning her with that was a good excuse. I think I tolerate the noise better because I have a pretty sound proof house with thick wooden doors and double plaster walls. But not only her owner returned her for that, but 3 people adopted her and returned her fro biting. But as I said that was impossible. The dog was almost 6 when I adopted her and had been kept in isolation because she was a "biting danger".

I think that people who own dogs might be required to see if they are suitable owners, just like I think some people should be evaluated as parents before being allowed to have children. Not an intelligence test but a kindness test.

I generally have no problem with denying certain people dogs - like Mike Vick, but not so much on denying a breed.

I don't ever see if these attacking dogs have been fixed. Maybe that is part of the problem. They never mention that in the stories, but that could be part of the problem.

Also I was once cornered in a city by a pack of small beagles - and no I don't know where they came from or why there was a pack of them, but it was a bit scary, I was not the only person terrorized by them - should all beagles be banned? Almost no one believes that story, but it did happen, I got away when a bus driver opened his door and I jumped on the bus.

"The senior coroner for Northamptonshire, Anne Pember, said the family had "paid the ultimate price" for owning an animal banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act".

"The public should be aware that this breed is classified under the Dangerous Dogs Act for a reason - its dangerousness".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11163754/Daventry-baby-killed-in-American-pit-bull-terrier-dog-attack-named.html

"Northamptonshire Police said it could not confirm the breed of dog. It said tests would be carried out by experts early next week to determine what it was however a spokesman said one line of inquiry was whether the destroyed animal was an illegally-held breed such as a Pit Bull terrier".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11140903/Baby-girl-dies-after-dog-attack.html


"The public should be aware that this breed of dog is classified as a dangerous breed for a reason. The family have paid the ultimate price for owning such a dog."

– ANN PEMBER, CORNONER

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2014-10-15/family-paid-the-ultimate-price-for-owning-a-banned-breed/

One resident told ITV News that the family owned two dogs and the sound of them fighting was loud and frightening. DNA tests are being carried out to discover the dog's breed.

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2014-10-04/six-month-old-baby-girl-killed-in-dog-attack2/

but it is a license you need to own any mixes with american Pit bulls and not all "pit bulls " are included as the noted above. They can still be shown in competition.

The "inherently vicious" part of it. Prove up your claim. Use valid resources.

Thanks.

BONNIE V. BEAVER, BS, DVM, MS, DACVB, Professor and Chief of Medicine, Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University
Executive Director, American College of Veterinary Behaviorists

By its origin, a pit bull is a fighting dog that takes very little stimulus to initiate aggression, and it will continue to fight regardless of what happens.

Pit bulldogs have been responsible for about 70 percent of the deaths of humans killed by dogs since 1979.

The AVMA warns veterinarians to be careful about supplying behavioural evaluations of dogs for insurance purposes.

"It's risky for veterinarians," said Dr. Beaver, explaining that there are many situations in which a dog may behave aggressively, and temperament tests can't rule out the possibility of aggression. "You don't have temperament tests that can identify all possibilities."

I am not sure if that meets your definition of "inherently vicious"; however, as a breeder and trainer of dogs myself, I think it is pretty clear that most informed people believe there is a genetic predisposition to aggressive behavior that when coupled with the breeds' athleticism, power, and habit of "kill shaking" rather than biting and letting go, these dogs are capable of inflicting massive damage when they do attack. Only deniers believe that genetics, breeding, etc. play no role in a dog's temperament and subsequent behavior. As one prominent trainer notes, "A dog dies with the temperament he was born with. You can modify it, you can train around it, you can hide it, but you cannot change the fundamentals of it". THAT is why we breeders chose different breeds for different jobs. Genetics has a huge role in things. To say otherwise is nonsensical.

Why do you even engage with me? We have already established that your are not a proponent of breeding regulations implemented by a strong breed club, you do not believe that genetics influence behavior, and when presented with the simple scientific truth that behavior and instincts are indeed heritable you retort with something like your link above.

Your anti-scientific stance is akin to climate denying. I am sorry it pains you to believe that fighting dogs have been selectively bred for generations for aggression, strength, and athleticism. Quite honestly, I find your stance at least a little reckless. I have bred and trained some of the aggressive dogs. I have worked schtuzhund and french ring. I have won a breeder's award. I have titled more dogs than you have owned. Your beliefs are simply not those other dogmen and dogwomen espouse. Everyone knows genetics are important. It is why we test, train, and compete. It is why the retrievers of today are better than those of 1970's and are capable of things they were not just a few decades ago.

Well, let's be fair, *ALL* of the people - who know the relevant law, science, medicine & canine behavior are opposed to breed specific legislation and breed bans & disagree with you.

Humane Society of the United States
American Veterinary Association
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
American Kennel Club
American Bar Association
National Canine Research Council

The science is on my side. The lying charlatans are on yours.

Odd.

The murder of Eric Garner was atrocious and the lack of prosecution was an injustice.

Sure, he might mess up my shoelaces in the struggle, but I could probably handle getting him in a carrier before any real damage was done. To be fair, my buddy is about 15, so he's not the hell raiser he used to be.

Ignorance is bliss.

And no, we didn't name him Ignorance. We called him Reeces because he's the color of a peanut butter cup



I was trying to be funny about dogs which is appears to be a sore subject with you, so please disregard and have a nice day.

And if your cute little guy is as determined, headstrong & stubborn as terriers usually are, he'd be a problem without proper training & socialization.

Just like any other dog.

That if standard-sized airedales were as common as pits, this would be the face of panicked anti-dog terror in this country;

Whattaya mean "they're not related"?!? They got that same curly hair & pointy nose ....

The cane corso to their pit bull

When I was growing up, our neighbor (a policeman) had a male Standard Poodle that had washed out of police dog training for being too stubborn. It bit or tried to bite every single child in the neighborhood, excluding his three kids. Not hard, because the dog's back teeth were missing for some reason, but my brother had a nasty gash in the arm for getting too near that dog when it got excited for some reason. Another kid almost had her ear ripped off when she fell because the dog jumped on her trying to get at her.
Because the neighbor was a policeman and the dog was the family "guard dog", nothing was ever done. He'd pay the medical bills if necessary, then everyone would move on, and the neighborhood kids learned how to quickly and non-threateningly leave their property if the dog got out. Which sucked, because that family had built the best tree-house and play area in their side yard, and all the kids liked to play there.

The dog was not neutered and kept inside most of the time, which didn't help with it's temperament.

Haele

"Thank God, they're little"

Keep posting them.

It's a matter of official record that these animals and their variants are not only the ones most likely to attack, but their strength and tenacity guarantee grievous wounds and even death when they do. I don't think you're really interested in "valid resources". Links have been supplied multiple times on these 'pit bull' threads, and with more than 63,000 posts on DU, you surely must have seen them, given your emotionalism over the issue.

I think you've seen more pit bulls than the rest of us put together, so you have the right to get emotional about them.

Show the official record you speak of. Back up you claim.

And I've seen them, refuted them, and shamed the morons who tout them. Be next. Please.

I still can't get the idea of the lab retriever who ate a baby from the feet up out of my mind and that happened a few years ago, the dog had not been fed for a long time and the owner was drunk with a baby tied into a seat. A german shepard also ate a baby when the mother went to the hospital and then left the baby at home when she got there to go out and get dog food for the Shepard who had been in the house for 3 days without food.

ETA - sorry while going to get the story turns out to have been a golden/lab mix that ate the toddler
Dog killed 2-month-old baby, ripped child’s legs off while father slept in other room: police

Fatal dog attacks in the United States

this is an old study showing times have changed

University of Texas Study: 1966–1980[edit]
A study[7] conducted at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School identified fatal dog bites during the period 1966–1980. They identified 74 incidents from newspapers and the medical literature. They found that the most (23) fatalities occurred in infants under 1 year old, and in most cases the dog was owned by the victim's family. In only 3 of the incidents was the dog reported to have been provoked by kicking, hitting, or having stones thrown at it. However, several incidents involved a child attempting to pet or hug the dog.[7]

In 6 of the incidents, there was no information available about the breed of dogs involved.

Of the remaining 68 fatalities, many involved large and powerful molosser breeds: eight Saint Bernards, six Bull terriers, six Great Danes, as well as two attacks by Boxers and one by a Rottweiler.

In contrast to the time period covered by the CDC study, which found pit bulls and Rottweilers to be the most commonly involved breed in such attacks during that time period, this study found no fatal pit bull attacks at all in the US during its time period, and only one Rottweiler attack.

Ancient and spitz breeds also committed a significant minority of the attacks. These were mostly sled dog breeds (nine Husky breeds and five were Malamutes), but there was also one Chow Chow and one Basenji.

Herding dogs attacks included (16) was German Shepherd attacks and two collies, although the breed was not specified.

There were multiple retriever attacks, including three Goldens and one Labrador.

The authors found two fatal doberman pinscher attacks, and two attacks by very small breeds: one Dachshund, and one Yorkshire Terrier, which is among the smallest of all dogs.

In ten fatal attacks, the dogs were only described as "mixed breed".[7]

these people should not be having any kids or animals.

You know it.

Black men are naturally criminals. Jews are naturally greedy. Arabs are naturally terrorists. Irishmen are naturally drunks. Frenchmen are naturally effeminate.

( for the sarcastically-challenged.)

Ignorance breeds exactly the kind of evil bigotry that liberals should be opposed to.

And they use the same old lies, the same old bigotry, and the same old false justifications to support their ignorance.

in this thread is ridiculous. I'd say that this dog lived a life of hell in order to attack and kill it's owner. Dogs rarely attack their pack leader, which leads me to believe the owner was very abusive to his "pet." All that accomplishes is endangering any one around the dog. I don't own pits, but I have a Mastiff/Boxer mix who could easily be mistaken for a pit mix, so I do have a dog in this hunt, so to speak. I've also never met a pit I didn't love. Most owner's are responsible with their dogs.

Perhaps some need to watch some of Eldad Hagar's rescue videos. Many and I mean many of Michael Vicks dogs were able to be rehabilitated and adopted into loving homes. Education is your friend. There are many dog breeds that aren't suggested for first time owners or for owners who are ignorant of the traits of certain breeds. Pits just happen to be one of MANY. This is why rescue groups and no kill shelters go to the lengths they do to match dogs with homes.

Breed bans are ridiculous. As a caveat, NEVER leave babies or small children alone with ANY dog.

For anyone interested, check out his organization, Hope for Paws.

http://www.hopeforpaws.org/

On the other hand, there is a pit mix in our neighborhood that has twice been off leash--in its unconfined yard--that has
attacked my dog when we're out walking. I reported it to animal control and the dog is never off leash now. I think
animal control told the owner the dog would be removed if it ever happened again. Know what that dog's name is?
Mellow. Right....

As for my dog, he is a marshmallow if you're invited into our house. If he hears any one or other dogs outside, or sees them when I take him out, he goes nuts in a territorial way. Kids voices don't antagonize him. He is muzzled and leashed 100% of the time when I take him outside. I'm not so blind to believe that "nothing will happen." I always err on the side of caution. In the neighborhood I live in, his bark to those outside is a good warning. No other weapons needed against a breakin, lol!

There isn't much in this story that explains what happened. I've owned dogs for over 60 years. All breeds including pit bulls only one bit me and that was a stray deer hound I was trying to rehab. It was when I was feeding him.

People are assuming this dog behaved this way either because of the breed or the owner abused it. We don't know but I agree if you can't safely manage an aggressive animal euthanizing is one option.

I agree that euthanasia is acceptable for dangerous animals - no matter how they came to be that way.

And those horror stories.

Now it seems that the attention has turned to another "breed".

and none of them would ever attack a human. But cats were another story. One of the Rotties and the Pit would chase cats. My last Rottie that has gone on to doggy heaven would just ignore cats and other dogs.

I have a Chihuahua that my Rottie got along fabulously with. I think it is because I had the Chihuahua since she was 6 weeks old and the Rottie sort of thought it was her puppy.

....and it was SMOKING!

I sure hope so....