The nitty-gritty of agressive dogs... solutions, not flames

Well, let's hope this is a thread of solutions. :)

My idea for helping communities to combat agressive dogs of all breeds: require licensing and, as a part of that process, educational classes taught by animal control or the SPCA. (Basically obedience 1 and 2 but with an "intro to dogs")

At the end of the classes, the animals are tested to see if they are agressive. Any animal which does not pass the test is immediately put down.

Animals kept without licenses are taken from the owner and put through class & tested.

There has to be a solution to the problem. That's my idea. What's yours?

that train their dogs to be aggressive or that don't train their dogs at all.

its not the dogs fault

Most of us agree that people should be educated about dogs. That's the point of my idea, licensing would be done in conjunction with education.

The majority own pit bulls BECAUSE they are aggressive.

And most pit bulls, as well as other aggressive breeds, start out as wonderful pets.

If not trained well and kept under control at all times, attacks are bound to happen later on.

So the responsibility does lay with the owners, and, like it or not, the breed may have to be banned because of bad owners.

Society agrees Pit Bulls are "bad" dogs as a breed and we elect to ban them completely. Those existing dogs are spay/neutered and others are forced to wear muzzles or other preventative measures when outside their owner's home. Within a few years, we will either not have any pit bulls or we will be left with the worst of the breed -- the ones owned by people who do not care about the ban and have kept their agressive dogs and bred them for sport.

Either way... what will we do when this same subject comes up about German Shepherds? Cocker Spaniels? Chihuahuas?

Shall we, in turn, ban each breed in total?

it's a breed, not a species. Pit bulls and some other breeds are more dangerous than others. Period. If they die-out good riddance.

Pit bulls ARE NOT MORE AGRESSIVE!! They are strong dogs. German Shepherds are strong, Dobermans are strong. They are not inherintly agressive! Bad treatment makes them that way! Evil people make them that way!

I have a friend who rescues pit bulls for this reason... read and educate yourself!


http://www.outofthepits.org/

and carry the traits necessary for their task. Pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs. They carry the genetic traits necessary for this task--tenacity, aggressiveness. To claim they are not aggressive is dangerously naive. Pit bulls are aggressive for the same reason my hound is "nosey", it's necessary for the task they were bred to do.

They are trained and raised to be that way.

Dalmatians have more inherent aggressiveness than pit bulls, but Dalmatians don't have the same social stigma because they are not big strong killers, not to mention, the stupid Disney movie.

I've seen very aggressive Golden Retrievers, a breed thought to be one of the most docile out there. They are aggressive because of environmental conditions -- namely, their owner did not train them or socialize them with other people and dogs. The result of this was that any time these dogs came in contact with people and other dogs they became very aggressive.

The sweetest, most loving and docile dog I ever met in my life was a Pit Bull, a former fighting Pit Bull who was rescued by his current owner. This dog literally would not kill the horse fly biting the crap out of his nose.

The point is, a viable solution that is fair to every dog would be based on individual dogs, not entire breeds. Something similar to the solution outlined by the OP; something involving mandatory education on dogs and training.

To say that all Pit Bulls are aggressive would be like saying all DUers are far left socialist commies who love terrorists (or whatever the freepers like to call us). The opinion is based on nothing more than stereotype and stigma.

There's never been a breeding program to create far-left DUers. There have been--and still are--breeding programs to create aggressive pit bulls. Your analogy doesn't hold up.

East Texas so as to go undetected.
The majority of these towns can barely legislate the water bill, let alone backwood dog breeders who are training these dogs to be aggressive.
Case in point...I had 9 puppies to give away last year.
I had a lady call and ask me for ALL the puppies.
Who the hell needs 9 puppies?
I refused to give her any because I am aware there are pit bull factories in this area that use puppies as bait.
Very sad and sadistic.

which I don't consider "backwoods"

:P :P :P :P

they cant actually hurt anything to easily.

Any agressive dog is a danger, regardless of breed. (There was an infant mauled to death by a Pom.)

The only difference in the agressive smaller breeds and the agressive larger breeds is that people often find the smaller dogs funny when they act agressive. The thought is that if they are easily controlled by the owner then they are harmless.

Anytime I hear someone talk about "immeiately putting down animals," I have to wonder just how many steps it is from such a statement to supporting death camps were we can "immediately put down" humans who don't fit into someone's world view.

Such an idea is an example os speciesist thinking at it's most deplorable from the kinds of people who view dogs as merely "property" and not companions.

Putting down the animals would only be done after it is determined that the animal is agressive (i.e., willing to attack a human or another animal with the intent of killing).

If you have a better solution, I'd like to hear it. If the only thing you can muster is an assumptive diatribe... well, let's just say I'd like this thread to be about solutions. What's yours?

Animals act "aggressive" for all sorts of reaons. One of my dogs is very aggressive if someone he doesn't know comes to the door. I am fine with that because he is trained that once the person is allowed in it means he or she is a "friend."

There are certainly dog breeds I would exercise caution around, such as pit bulls. And I would certainly make sure such aggressive breeds were kept restricted (as well as making it equally difficult for youngsters or others to wander into their territory). Kids are especially prone to being attacked by pit bulls. I've heard that this is so because kids tend to have high pitched voices and when they "squeal" with excitment, fear, etc., it triggers a predator/prey reaction in the dogs - much the same as a rabbit's "squeal" triggers the same reaction.

So the solution for agressive dogs is threefold:

1. Make sure aggressive dogs are confined;
2. Make sure kids (or others) are kept out of the confined area; and
3. Make sure humans are educated about aggressive dogs and how to avoid them.

I'd bet that in 9 out of 10 cases dog attacks can be prevented by using those methods ... and none of them call for indescriminately killing an animal.

P.S. - Sorry you think my arguement is an "assumptive diatribe," but I feel that eliminating animals simply because they can't pass a test is reprehensible. Just as I believe the death penalty should only be used in the most eggregious of cases, so, too, do I believe an animal should be put down only in extreme cases.

is food aggressive. I do't know why. I adopted her at about 1 year. She's taken three obedience courses, and (finally) passed her CGC. But food aggression continues to be a problem. She has to be fed in her crate with the door shut, because she growls and gets her hair up if one of the cats sniffs around her food. I know about this problem and carefully monitor who's around when she has food--I don't allow anyone but me to giver her treats, just in case.

Other than this, she's a great dog. Everyone loves her, and few people have seen her aggressive side--and don't believe me when I tell them about it. Should she be put down? That seems a bit drastic. But I don understand my responsibility to be vigilant.

I would love to know if something in her puppyhood caused this...

It's a serious problem. It seems as if the people owning the dogs were clueless about what the dogs could and did do. And pit bulls didn't used to be so vicious. It seems like when a breed becomes "trendy", puppy mills crank them out like an assembly line and unstable dogs are placed out in our communities.

Rescue organizations evaluate dogs all the time and take the unstable and vicious dogs to be euthanized. That is a tragedy for the individual dogs as well as for the entire breed.

We do need some solutions, what is being done now just isn't working.

And as for the small dogs mentioned above, size doesn't matter to dogs. The little guys can be dangerous and they will attack. I get disgusted when I see people laugh at that. A neighbor's quite small dog bit my son on our deck with no provocation at all, the owner's other dog, a small poodle, bit him on the face doing damage to his eye area. His wife thought it was hilarious. Some people just shouldn't have dogs.

On edit: Actually, more than two kids were mauled, one in Colorado is in critical condition in the hospital. Two others, I believe in Indiana, are in the hospital, at least three adults were treated in that attack.

And, we have a big dog from rescue.

How true that statement is!

We require that dogs be licensed (at least in most areas) when we should require some mandatory licensing for dog owners. Make them take a course and sign an agreement stating that they understand their responsibilty for their dogs and prosecute the owner for the pet's behavior if he or she does not fulfill the obligations.

Punishing pets for their owners' incompetence is wrong.

owners.

Pretending that they can be "educated" into caring about their dogs or whether or not they will eventually attack is naive.

Or at the very least pay higher differentials for intact city licensing. That might discourage irresponsible breeding, or those who think breeding is a profitable hobby?

I'd also like to see live animals banned from pet stores to discourage supporting the "pet" mill industry.

I'd like to see alot more responsibility placed on breeders, especially willing to take a dog back any time during it's life.

Of course, the pet lobby is very strong and lashes out against any ideas or laws that control breeding.

I would also like to see only spay/neutered animals (preferably none at all) being sold in "pet" stores.

I also think we as a society have a right to impose restrictions and policies on breeders.

Thank you for your thoughts!

See my lengthy post below...

i oppose the death penalty in ALL cases ...

of course, if owners refuse to do whatever is necessary to either make their dogs safer or adequately isolate and restrain them, i guess i would go along with the idea of "putting them down" ...

i mean the owners, of course, not the dogs !! there are plenty of "shelters" that could rehabilitate the dogs ... killing dogs is not acceptable ...

1. Better, fair "aggressive/vicious dog" statutes and ordinances in all communities.

2. Proper, adequate enforcement of same. Violators get prosecuted, not just cited. That goes for anyone that has a dog that is/becomes aggressive all the way through someone raising/training dogs to fight. Put them in f'ing jail, don't just take the dogs and slap their wrist. Additionally, empower these folks. If they see something isn't right, let them do what a cop would do were that a child. They shouldn't have to "leave a note" for the person to call them. If the situation is bad enough, empower them to take the damn dog and impound him/her.

3. "Fighting" tools such as weights, treadmills, etc are banned. If you honestly use them to train your dog for pulling, you need a permit for them, followed up on yearly.

4. Breeder registry of any/all breeds with mandatory microchipping of all dogs at 6 months of age. "Lines" of breeds should be able to be tracked all the way back so trending can be established.

5. Mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs.

6. Mandatory registration of all dogs with the county/city/town in which they reside. If they move, gotta reregister.

7. No more breeding (see below).

8. Ban on tethering/chaining dogs. Socialization should be part of the aforementioned statutes/ordinances.

9. Temperament testing throughout the shelter/rescue community. Self-imposed, self-governed, the shelter/rescue signs off at the time of adoption.

10. Better checks/policies involving those adopting from the shelter/rescue community.

How to pay for all this? Fines and levies from prosecution. Also, breeders should be forced to pay an impact fee for every dog they sell, and it can be breed related. Make them self-govern, somewhat. They also should have to pay a yearly permit fee, based on the number of dogs they sell. All this money goes to pay for the enforcement of these rules, any extra is divvied out to shelters and rescues. I figure, if you're going to breed and contribute to the overpopulation problem, as well as selling dogs to less-than-desireable people for less-than-desireable reasons, then you're going to help pay for fixing the problem you've helped to make.

Unlike many of the other posts on here. You know what you're talking about for good reason... I've read some of your other posts.

Being an attorney, I hold a special place in my heart for the liberal use of legal process. But, alas, the jails are already full my friend. And you KNOW that many of these people won't pay the fines levied against them. There have got to be more solutions than throwing people in jail.

What about some kind of insurance requirement for owners of dogs? I've said this in a post below, and I'm aware that it could lead to a breed-specific and sometimes arbitrary classification by the insurance companies, but at least then the victims can recover. It's probably impossible, but I don't see the harm in discussing it.

What do you think?

you need a license to own a car. Car drivers need to know the rules of the road so they are not a hazard to others. A car is a dangerous weapon if not used properly.

I'd do the same thing with large dogs. Any dog whose adult size is over say 50 lbs is a potential hazard if not managed properly. Like a drivers license, you'd have to certify you (and the dog) have been trained and you'd have to undergo a "practical" just like the driving test to demonstrate you can control the dog and it is not agressive.

require personal injury insurance for agressive breeds, or hell, any dog. make it fair, they all bite.

but it would be pro rated for pits, staffordshires, etc., the same way that auto insurance is scaled for sports cars.

THAT is going to discourage A holes from owning &/or creating dangerous dogs. hit em in the pocketbook.

in many areas you can't buy homeowner's insurance if you own certain breeds of dogs or there is an additional fee, i haven't seen any great decrease in dog maulings since this came to be

the problem is not the homeowner who cares abt his home & won't buy such breeds because he doesn't want any liability against his property or bad feelings in his neighborhood

the problem is the trash dog owner that has no stake in the community and certainly no homeowner's insurance, in the 80s in my area drug dealers first got the idea of buying vicious dogs as a status item & to terrorize their communities, a damn drug dealer don't care if his homeowner's insurance is paid, he's prob. a renter anyway, and he doesn't care abt his neighbor's fears, he wants them afraid

You have to get an umbrella policy for this animal. I have an extra million dollar on my car insurance umbrella because I have a new driver in my household.

Anytime a vet/police officer sees a pit(county guidelines)they can ask to see the insurance policy on the pup. If the dogs don't have an insurance policy, current and in good standing, then the pup is taken away and the owner if fined/jail. This can be a county insurance program with the funds being forward to the counties dog pounds.

Make sure anyone who was found without insurance gets media play.
It won't be long before people who shouldn't have these dog will think it's not worth the hassle. Others that should have these dogs will understand why this was done and the breeders will attempt to get some of the aggressive traits bred out of the dogs.

It would be a win for the pits, the owners who understand them and love them and the pound dogs and cats.

but are you sugggesting that one carry their policy, or proof thereof, every time you take your dog on a walk?

i suppose we do that with cars already...

it could be a tag like for rabies.

And I wouldn't be against holding the owner responsible as if committing a crime with a deadly weapon. That said, I imagine there are instances when attacks may occur despite all precautions or where the dog was provoked, intentionally or not. For this reason, I don't believe the power or determining the sentence should be rigidly legislated - the residing judge should make the call.

He has a show on National Geographic channel. He rehabilitates dogs, has only had one failure. I'm sure that he could teach his techniques to any municipality that has this problem.

He rehabs potential killers, such as dogs that were trained to fight and highly aggressive dogs. He actually owns about 50 or so dogs (mostly pit bulls he rehabbed) who are as docile as kittens.

and it may have a lesson for this issue. I have been bitten by 2 dogs (a Shiba Inu & a Shih Tzu), so everyone must respect my opinions.

I had my doggers at work last summer & i was walking him out on the pier. He's a Wheaten Terrier, neutered, but has a nice modified show haircut & is trim, 50 lbs, and chuff. He's about as aggressive as, and looks like, the Snuggle Fabric Softener Bear. His entire raison d'etre is giving kissies.

I notice a young African American young man in baggies, throwback jersey, medallions, doo rag, etc., trailed by a white photographer. He's an aspiring rapper, and he asks if he could use my dog in a couple photos.

I said sure, why not. I thought it was a hoot. Knowing hip hop tropes, i know this photo is usually done with 2, 3, 4 pits, bulls, rotties, etc. snarling at the end of a chain with a low rider in the background. But this kid thought my fluffy buddy would add to his street cred. Now i look back & see it as subversive.

If we could get the Hip Hop nation to think of French Poodles, Bichons, Pomeranians & Chihuahuas as macho accoutrements, all of our problems would be solved. Other teenagers (AKA irresponsible dog owners who should not have agressive/powerful breeds) would follow their lead, and peace would reign across the planet.

yes, a bit of :sarcasm: but not entirely.

my mother was told early on that i was "very verbal".

so what you are adding is another nuisance school like driving school for the profit of the owner of the school

i bet these obedience school mills would be about as effect as driving school, the buttheads would still be buttheads

i agree that dangerous dogs should be put down, but i don't see why i as owner of a tea cup chihuahua, say, should be subject to the same educational requirements as the owner of rottweiler

it is fair that the rottweiller owner be asked to offer additional proof that his animal is safe and under control but to make this a blanket requirement for "all" breeds is silly & means the ordinance won't likely pass -- unless of course the corrupt owner of the obedience school pays off the town council, of course

I'm making a guess that it can't be the only such town.

Very strange. After moving here, I went to City Hall to get a license. The woman there said it isn't necessary--the county requres rabies tags, but that's it. Never heard of such a thing.

Dogs that are acquired and kept as lawn ornaments are the number one reason for the majority of these maulings. If there was a ban on chaining/tethering dogs, you'd hear less about these incidents.

A dog tied out in the yard and forgot about is dangerous when released. Many dogs are kept like this for months, even years on end. Once loose the are crazy. In fact thats how i see it. A dog tied so long with no exercise on a 10' chain goes mental. Even when periodically let loose behavior can be very bad due to pent up energy.

Another technique i have heard of being used, is to isolate the dog from all contact in a single room. Allowing only for contact with their feeder.

People who treat their dogs as such are not being very kind to the animal in my opinion. Dogs need lots of exercise and attention. These are things they love and live for. To deprive them of it to live on a chain is cruel and inhumane to me.

I would fully agree that there should be licensing for dog owners. I think there is a bit of a need for this. It would help in holding people accountable for their treatment of animals, and maybe prevent some folks who have no business owning animals from having them.

It just so happens I have a dog story. My sister's friend has been working in and near Beaumont, Texas cleaning up debris from Hurricane Rita. There was one lot that they were going to clean up but the guy next door had his dog (rotweiller sp?) loose and they had to inform the owner to either tie up his dog or bring it in the house so that they can get to work. Well, the dog owner didn't want to do either, he was holding it back and held a huge stick to keep it back. My sister's friend said it wasn't enough to them, so they proceeded to pick up a large rock or something to protect themselves in case the dog came up to them. The man said "if you harm my dog I will kill you!". After the owner said that, they left. They did not want to risk their lives picking up trash and you have this aggressive idiot saying something like that. I'm guessing if the dog would have somehow broke loose and attacked one of the men, and they beat the dog off, I take it the owner would have picked up his gun and shot them? This is ridiculous. I know this is my sister's friend story but I am guessing it was true. This was in Vidor, Texas and that town is known for racial violence.

Get their pictures up too.

And open us up for dognapping, theft and the death of our dogs. But then again, there are some canine haters that would love that solution. Amazing that they even call themselves liberal, considering how eager they are to invade others privacy.

The suggestions does nothing to improve dogs, or to educate their owners in any way....so I really would like to know how they think that would improve the situation.

Because, as you say, on the surface it does just look like a fascist bullying tactic.

:shrug:

and politely tell him/her, that if the dog so much sets a toenail on my property, I'm going to make K-burger out of their murder dog.

Yep, that's it.

People who will train these dogs to be aggressive killers, or those who will negelct the dog and possibly let it go wild, will not bother with licensing.

Its not as though they won't be able to obtain these dogs from puppy mills or private breeders.

And, in cases like that, usually the only way the dog is discovered is once it has already hurt someone.

mauling and killing children because we dont want to punish the pets because it is the owners incompetence.

the priority here is not the pet. the priority is the childs right not to be mauled and killed. any day

what is the answer.

co habitation. and it cannot be forced. but just simple courtesy that an aggressive breed does not belong in a neighborhood. there is not a whole lot i can do about it. i feel a dog breed has the right and is going to be true to its breeding no fault of its own. and i feel that an owner has the right to chose it pets. and raise it as it sees fit. though,....... i am all for an active animal control and a high fine, maybe even a higher fine toward aggressive breeds.

but ultimately, it really is a persons responsibility to be sensible enough to be concerned with their fellow man, especially child and allow the child as safe an environment as possible to grow up in. not a hard one. we dont do that in our world today. i have equal concern with cars going 60 up and down our street. hill both sides, we on bottom and a wide fun street to drive. i am as concerned with adults now feeling children are in way when they ride bikes, and almost to point of feeling they can hit kid, not slow down, if kid is in way

we might ought to be looking at how we see our children and their rights to be on this planet too.

we dont need more law, but we do need more kindness compassion and cohabitation going on. and really i can do without the pet lovers that in excusing the aggressive dog they put the fault on the child. like the 6 year old should even kinda be expected to have the knowledge and courage to stand in the face of a mauling like a tree in all his/her bravery. simply pet lovers, you ask too much

our children are first, not the dog

Perhaps make certain dog owners have insurance (probably not feasible and leads to a breed specific system, but it's an idea).

I am NOT for immediately putting down an animal that has shown signs of aggression. If they have attacked and seriously injured a person, then perhaps, but that's an extraordinary circumstance. I KNOW there are people that take former fight dogs and bait dogs into their care and actually DO rehabilitate them to a certain extent.

I want to know what route I can choose to walk my son to school without having to be snarled at by someone's drooling hunk of mongrel bravado. That's for the ones that have the courtesy to keep them in a 10-foot high cage, with a top on it. As to any owners adjacent to my property, I would warn them, politely, that if I ever saw their dog on my property, I'd shoot it -- and that the law should permit me to do so.

I think that the decisions on regulation should always remain at the city/township/village level, and, personally, in my town, I'd like to see the owner have to carry insurance. I would also recommend a $500 - $1,000 release fine for ANY dog that is found to be unsupervised. More than twice, and the dog is removed from the household. I would also like to see some fencing specs -- I don't want an aggressive breed behind a rib-high fence.

I don't think the dogs should be banned, but I think the average person should be able to choose whether or not they wish to be terrorized by barking dogs, and should have a ton of recourse for any time they feel threatened, as a result of bad dog ownership. And I also think that any unsupervised dog who minorly injures a person, should be put down, and the owner fined. And any dog that kills or seriously injures a person should be put down, and the owner charged with attempted manslaughter or murder.

Because what you propose is draconian, and quite frankly if you were in charge, I would be starting up the equivalent of the canine NRA immediately.

First off, registering a dog is wrong. It is an invasion of my privacy, opens me up to theft and burglary, both of my house and my dog(do you realize how big a business dognapping is?)

Secondly, if you shot my dog for merely stepping on your property, well since the law wouldn't cover it, I would be taking the law into my own hands, probably at the business end of a shotgun(if I was feeling merciful). Frankly to many, if not most, people, their dog is as much a part of their family as their children are, and they respond with the same protectiveness as they would if their child was threatened.

Third, a fine such as you propose($500-$1000) for getting one's dog out of the pound is reprehensible. Many many people couldn't come up with that kind of cash on the spot, so in essence you would be sentencing the dog to death for getting out of the fence. Then there are those little neighborly spats where one lets the other's dog out and then calls the pound for them to pick it up. Under your solution, owners and dogs would be getting punished for the actions of their neighbors. Good show:eyes:

It is obvious from your posts that you have had a traumatic experience with a dog. I'm sorry that had to happen to you, but it really is your problem. You shouldn't externalize and project your own fears and loathing upon the rest of us, nor penalize all of the great and wonderful dogs in this world for the actions of a very small minority. Perhaps you should take some time and get to know a dog, see what a wonderful companion they are for you and your family before you condemn the entire species.

A) Registry: I think this is the least draconian of the compromises. Besides? Why do you have a mean dog to protect your house from a burglar, if a burglar can come in and steal the dog??? Otherwise, there are far less agressive breeds that I'm sure make excellent companions.

B) Shooting your dog: Keep your dog off of my fucking lawn.

C) Fine: keep your dog locked up. If your neighbor's an asshole, that sucks. Try diplomacy.

I have only been barked at and drooled at and snarled at. I can't walk my son to school without being terrorized -- but I've never been bitten. I just feel for the parents and the children, in these cases where someone's out-of-control monster rips half their scalp off, or kills their kid. I guarantee that if anyone's dog attacked my son, I'd be conducting my revenge at the business end of a shotgun, as well.

I agree, my solutions are draconian. I'm normally not so -- in fact, in general, I'm a libertarian. But I think being terrorized on the sidewalk is a violation of my personal liberties. That's why I don't want to ban the dogs. Owners should be allowed to take the chance, but god fucking help them if their dog gets out and terrorizes, hurts or kills someone.

My solutions are intended to be zero-tolerance policies, which is why they're so harsh. You get the dog, you be fierce at making sure it minds its "ps and qs."

In fact I suggest that you start with a big one, a lab or Great Dane. They are very gentle, loving and intelligent dogs, perfect starter dogs for those with canine phobias.

As for as a registry goes, the reason I have a dog is for companionship, not protection. However even without training most dogs will protect their(and your) territory, thus if somebody breaks in, they have problems. Hell of a lot more effective that electronic alarms and ADT, both of which can be bypassed pretty easily.

But the main reason I have against registries is that it will give dognappers a map of where to go to pick up a dog. Would you want your child's information put on a public registry? Same thing applies with dogs.

And again, if you shoot my dog for daring to put foot on your lawn, you're dead, plain and simple. Like I said earlier, if you're lucky I will shoot you. More likely I would prefer a slow painful death when I'm in that kind of rage. So next time you get a hankerin' for shooting a dog, you had better be careful of whose dog it is. Most people who own dogs feel like I do, and they will take their vengance just as if it were their child.

In fact speaking of kids, maybe I'll just shoot yours the next time he/she dares to step foot on my yard. After all, they're always yelling and playing right outside the window, tearing up my yard, breaking stuff. Shooting kids, yeah, that's the ticket:eyes:

And quite frankly friend, one of the reasons that you're being "terrorized" by dogs is because the know that you're scared shitless. They smell your fear and react. Maybe if you would calm down and get to know the dog these things would change. Go pick up some MilkBones and take them with you walking. Dogs are easily trained with their stomach. Next time you have a dog barking at you behind a fence do this: Squat down so that you're on eye level with the dog. Extend your hand with the back of it towards the dog so that the dog can sniff you. Whatever you do, remain cool and calm, no sudden movements. After the dog smells you, take out a treat and let the dog take it from you. By this time the dog will be friendly enough for you to pet it. And guess what, you've just made a new canine friend. Yes, it still might bark when it sees you, but in that case it will be saying "Hi!"

At least you recognize that your solutions are draconian. I really hope that you make a canine friend in order that you can see the error in your thinking.

help care for when she's away. She lives alone in a sparsely populated area in the mountains and only feels safe with the dog with her. We installed a high fence in the back yard, plus there are no families right around her.

However, when she's with me, I DO have a family next door with small children and a younger dog. My yard is totally fenced in too, but when the dog's outside - I GO OUT WITH HER to make sure everything stays okay. I also met with both sets of neighbors and asked them to not let anyone too near my fence when she's here and outside. They've trained the kids to respect that the pit is way different from my other dogs and THEY ALSO WATCH to make sure the kids are obeying and don't try to tease her. When the dog's not here, I let them know so they can play around the fence. They love to throw balls to my other dogs to fetch.

If my daughter's having company, we bring the dog to my house. While she seems the sweetest dog and gets along great with my two (a Pug and a Boston Terrier), we know not to ever really TRUST her. I make special arrangements when taking her to the Vet - they let her in the side door so she can't get upset by other dogs/kids she's not used to. She actually kisses the vet while she's checking her out, but I insist on using a muzzle when they give her a shot or other invasive procedures. Same at the kennel. The personnel there love her, but again I insist they never trust her or let their guard down.

We love the dog but know we have to be very cautious when it comes to letting her interact with others. We've found it's just easier and safer NOT to allow any interaction. Yes, if I had my way, my daughter would have chosen another breed. But since she chose this one, we have to be RESPONSIBLE OWNERS. That of course still doesn't guarantee that we'll never have a problem.

Your solution will only work with puppies. They wouldn't have the strength and be as dangerous at that point. Once they're older, it's too late if the owner has been lazy or just dumb.

Don't know if this helps or not.

Though I think that you're over reacting a bit, I suppose better safe than sorry. I've had a pit, along with a couple of pit mixes, and quite frankly I have found that if you raise them right, with love and compassion, they're like any other happy loving dog. Contrariwise, if you abuse and mistreat any dog while raising it, that dog will become a threat.

In fact up until about thirty years ago, pits were considered ideal family dogs. Loving, intelligent, obedient, and child tolerant. But when people start training them to fight, well, like any other abused dog they'll get mean. And quite frankly, it takes an extraordinary amount of abuse to turn a pit mean. They have to literally be beaten with a two by four, starved, caged among other horrors before they become mean, and sometimes not even then.

There are absolutely inherently mean dogs by birth. It takes the interference of mean humans in order to create a mean dog.