General Pit Bull Discussion
Terrible, terrible indeed. I am an expat Brooklynite living in Germany now and they have banned pit bulls over here going on 3-4 yrs. Is there a law in place prohibiting these animals ? Please excuse my ignorance.... I've been living here 20 years away from Brooklyn. Thanks & praying for Lola.
Vic in Germany-- Formerly from E-NY (City Line).
Vic in Germany-- Formerly from E-NY (City Line).
Comments
-
Whoa--I've got two very well-behaved and friendly pit mixes. There are bad seeds in every breed, not just pits.
-
indeed, lots of good pits out there.
The owners play a part in socializing and training them (well or poorly).
Genetics seem to play a part too. Those pits with "bad genetics" and/or bad training are the ones to watch out for.
....its not the whole breed. -
Soorrryy UrbanCowgirl... ;-( No offense. I do know some of these dogs are well trained & disciplined. Just curious about any law in existence in NYC regading ownership of pits. Many countries here in Europe will flatly turn you around at the airport if you try to bring any pit bull breed inside their borders. Doesn't even matter if you show proof & certification of their state of mind. They go straight by the breed.
-
I am going to bash pit bulls. I do not need to apologize for the facts. And sure, your dog is cute, and so is yours, blah blah, we're all so great, and "ohmydogwouldneverthatwould everhappen!" Until it does happen. And someone is scarred for life.
Usually a child.
"According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question."
DID YOU READ THAT? THE 1st ATACK IS USUALLY THE FATAL ONE.
"If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed..If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price." -
The Chipster wrote: I am going to bash pit bulls. I do not need to apologize for the facts. And sure, your dog is cute, and so is yours, blah blah, we're all so great, and "ohmydogwouldneverthatwould everhappen!" Until it does happen. And someone is scarred for life.
Usually a child.
"According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question."
DID YOU READ THAT? THE 1st ATACK IS USUALLY THE FATAL ONE.
"If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed..If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."
I think you mean the fatal attack is usually the first one...
At any rate, there are tons of mitigating factors in ALL statistics, including this one- Maybe the average owner of the above breeds is less apt to train them. Maybe the average owner of the above breed lives in a more densely populated area, thus exposing the animal to more people than an average dog of another breed. Maybe because of the size of the dog is is more likely to cause serious injury than other breeds and therefor there are more reported attacks. Maybe because of the TYPE of breed there are more reported attacks, but not more actual attacks.
This kind of logic is the same as saying "oh, well black people are arrested at a much higher proportion than whites...blacks must be more prone to criminal behavior!" without taking into account things like institutionalized racism, average crime reporting (ie- hispanics are far less likely to EVER call the police for crimes, especially domestic, so we dont even have a fair idea about real crime statistics...)
Sorry, I'm ranting. I'm just trying to make a point that throwing out % this and that doesn't really mean a whole lot about the ACTUAL BREED. -
Oh and also the whole concept of the "fatal attack being the first sign of violence" is a loaded statement- first, if the dog had seriously attacked anyone before, it would be put down. Second, its highly unlikely that the owner of a dog that fatally attacks someone will admit that the dog has been aggressive towards people before because they can be held criminally responsible for the acts of the animal if they knew it was dangerous.
-
Carmen wrote: [quote=The Chipster]I am going to bash pit bulls. I do not need to apologize for the facts. And sure, your dog is cute, and so is yours, blah blah, we're all so great, and "ohmydogwouldneverthatwould everhappen!" Until it does happen. And someone is scarred for life.
Usually a child.
"According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question."
DID YOU READ THAT? THE 1st ATACK IS USUALLY THE FATAL ONE.
"If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed..If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."
I think you mean the fatal attack is usually the first one...
At any rate, there are tons of mitigating factors in ALL statistics, including this one- Maybe the average owner of the above breeds is less apt to train them. Maybe the average owner of the above breed lives in a more densely populated area, thus exposing the animal to more people than an average dog of another breed. Maybe because of the size of the dog is is more likely to cause serious injury than other breeds and therefor there are more reported attacks. Maybe because of the TYPE of breed there are more reported attacks, but not more actual attacks.
This kind of logic is the same as saying "oh, well black people are arrested at a much higher proportion than whites...blacks must be more prone to criminal behavior!" without taking into account things like institutionalized racism, average crime reporting (ie- hispanics are far less likely to EVER call the police for crimes, especially domestic, so we dont even have a fair idea about real crime statistics...)
Sorry, I'm ranting. I'm just trying to make a point that throwing out % this and that doesn't really mean a whole lot about the ACTUAL BREED.
How the hell do you get racism in a thread about pit bulls.
OP I hope your dog is fine now. The police should have been called and given the idiotic woman a ticket. Maybe posters should be put up to warn other dog owners. -
eggcream wrote: [quote=Carmen][quote=The Chipster]I am going to bash pit bulls. I do not need to apologize for the facts. And sure, your dog is cute, and so is yours, blah blah, we're all so great, and "ohmydogwouldneverthatwould everhappen!" Until it does happen. And someone is scarred for life.
Usually a child.
"According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question."
DID YOU READ THAT? THE 1st ATACK IS USUALLY THE FATAL ONE.
"If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed..If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."
I think you mean the fatal attack is usually the first one...
At any rate, there are tons of mitigating factors in ALL statistics, including this one- Maybe the average owner of the above breeds is less apt to train them. Maybe the average owner of the above breed lives in a more densely populated area, thus exposing the animal to more people than an average dog of another breed. Maybe because of the size of the dog is is more likely to cause serious injury than other breeds and therefor there are more reported attacks. Maybe because of the TYPE of breed there are more reported attacks, but not more actual attacks.
This kind of logic is the same as saying "oh, well black people are arrested at a much higher proportion than whites...blacks must be more prone to criminal behavior!" without taking into account things like institutionalized racism, average crime reporting (ie- hispanics are far less likely to EVER call the police for crimes, especially domestic, so we dont even have a fair idea about real crime statistics...)
Sorry, I'm ranting. I'm just trying to make a point that throwing out % this and that doesn't really mean a whole lot about the ACTUAL BREED.
How the hell do you get racism in a thread about pit bulls.
OP I hope your dog is fine now. The police should have been called and given the idiotic woman a ticket. Maybe posters should be put up to warn other dog owners.
I am having a difficult time seeing why you think this has anything to do with racism. I'm illustrating a line of reasoning based on straight statistics without any analysis of the source or polling methods (and using an extreme but relatable example.) That's all. -
Pit bulls scare the hell out of me. I will cross the street to avoid one. I don't know why anyone would ever want to adopt or buy a breed that has a reputation as violent and aggressive as its is.
-
Pit bulls are smart, loving and loyal dogs. They are great protectors of children and their families. I have a pit and a Cane Corso that were both rescues and the pit has had some trouble adjusting to other dogs. He has bit 3 dogs and now wears a muzzle in public parks where other dogs can be off leash. An electric collar is useless. My first trainer recommended one and under his supervision my dog bit another in Prospect Park. Even the collar manufacturer states that it is not the proper tool for aggression training.
Lots of dogs are aggressive towards other dogs. Dont condemn pitbulls for a few bad seeds. The people who breed them to make money, and the idiots who buy them because they want a tough looking dog are to blame in most cases for creating and abusing these great dogs.
Yes my dog has an aggression problem, but with the right trainer I've learned to control him. But most every pit I;ve known will knock you down and lick you to death. These are great dogs. -
Flexichick wrote: That's terrible! I'm glad to hear that Lola is ok now. That woman has no business bringing that dog to the park. I would have called 911 and filed a report on her and the dog. Being fined might have got her attention and may deter her from bringing the dog back until he's fully trained and able to socialize
Yes, yes, and yes.
I am so sick of every Tom, Dick, and Harry getting trendy pit bulls and other dogs that they cannot control. I hate the back yard dog breeders too. Throw all of these morons in jail. Any human introducing violent, aggressive dogs to the public should go to jail. Putting the dog to sleep is not enough. Go to the source, the jackass who owns the dogs and breeds the dogs. Forget fees and fines, and give these irresponsible owners and breeders jail time without bail. -
Don't condemn pit bulls for a few bad seeds?!
Dont' you get it? It's g-e-n-e-t-i-c. Those bad seeds kill. And they do it frequently and efficiently. It's not like a bite from a badly trained poodle! I despise the arrogance of "pit bull lovers" whom I equate with drunk drivers with their "I've been driving drunk for years and nothin ever happened to me!." rationalization.
Just rejoice in the fact that when it come to pits, you politically correct slopeheads and your redneck bretheren are True Americans. You think your individual "rights" rise above the rest of ours. At any cost. -
I went through this when my dog was attacked by a pitbull. I just wanted to get the word out and the thread became that I was racist. It is a sad state of affairs when you are sad about what happened to your dog and want others to know what to be aware of. Don't apologize for hating the pitbulls. They are a rough breed to really love. They are strong and fierce. Yes, it's about the owner. My dog plays with one or two pits that are raised with love but they are strong dogs and they can do some serious damage. I love dogs, I don't like pits...and it has nothing to do w/ racism....
-
My dog was attacked by a pit bull as well a couple of years ago. I don't blame the dog or ascribe it to the (vaguely defined) breed's genetics. I blame the dog's owner -- a young woman who was no match for the size and strength of her poorly trained dog.
-
tsarina wrote: Pit bulls are smart, loving and loyal dogs. They are great protectors of children and their families. I have a pit and a Cane Corso that were both rescues and the pit has had some trouble adjusting to other dogs. He has bit 3 dogs and now wears a muzzle in public parks where other dogs can be off leash. An electric collar is useless. My first trainer recommended one and under his supervision my dog bit another in Prospect Park. Even the collar manufacturer states that it is not the proper tool for aggression training.
Haha, sorry . . . I just thought this was funny. "Pit bulls are smart, loving and loyal dogs." (skip a couple of lines) "He has bit 3 dogs and now wears a muzzle in public parks where other dogs can be off leash. An electric collar is useless. My first trainer recommended one and under his supervision my dog bit another in Prospect Park."
Lots of dogs are aggressive towards other dogs. Dont condemn pitbulls for a few bad seeds. The people who breed them to make money, and the idiots who buy them because they want a tough looking dog are to blame in most cases for creating and abusing these great dogs.
Yes my dog has an aggression problem, but with the right trainer I've learned to control him. But most every pit I;ve known will knock you down and lick you to death. These are great dogs. -
There are a number of dog breeds that have been bred to be dominant/aggressive. It is absolutely essential that these dogs, and any hybrids of them, be properly trained by an owner who knows what they're doing. There are lots of reasons why people get these dogs, but unfortunately there are a significant number of people who buy them, but don't have the time or money to properly train them. This is unfortunate because the dogs often end up poorly socialized and in rescue groups, other shelters or euthanized.
On the odd occasion that a non-dog owner has asked me about getting a dog, I've recommended spending up to a year doing research to find the breed that suits them, and finding a reputable breeder of that breed. I also recommend obedience training for owners and their dogs. In my view, all dog owners can benefit from obedience training, and it certainly doesn't hurt the dog.
Personally, I won't use the off leash area because my little dog would be a sitting target for the larger dogs. -
bullyboy wrote: My dog was attacked by a pit bull as well a couple of years ago. I don't blame the dog or ascribe it to the (vaguely defined) breed's genetics. I blame the dog's owner -- a young woman who was no match for the size and strength of her poorly trained dog.
Oh hell, the pit that took a swipe at me (fail, mutt) was owned by a large middle-aged dude. It's not primarily about physical strength, it's about mental strength. With few exceptions, people who can't control their dog have managed to prove that they can be outsmarted or outwilled by a dog - not really the sort of thing one wants one's dog to advertise. -
The Chipster wrote: Don't condemn pit bulls for a few bad seeds?!
Any statistics to back up that claim?
Dont' you get it? It's g-e-n-e-t-i-c. Those bad seeds kill. And they do it frequently and efficiently. It's not like a bite from a badly trained poodle! I despise the arrogance of "pit bull lovers" whom I equate with drunk drivers with their "I've been driving drunk for years and nothin ever happened to me!." rationalization.
Just rejoice in the fact that when it come to pits, you politically correct slopeheads and your redneck bretheren are True Americans. You think your individual "rights" rise above the rest of ours. At any cost. -
MOD NOTE
I've split this from the original discussion, because people who wanted to talk about the original incident were getting lost in the general pitbull topic.
also: BE NICE. if you can't find a way to reply to a post civilly, then take some deep breaths until you can. -
stats? somebody say something about dog bite by breed stats? Here's more of the article cited by Chipster, above:
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogsmostlikelytobite
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf
yes, the publisher of the website is an attorney that makes his living suing dog owners ...but the vet journals look reputable to me....
Note to those too lazy to click and read: Pit Bulls seem to bite the most.
Note to those who want to assume all dogs of a particular breed are violent and dangerous: Your stereotype is not supported by the research. -
My dog was attacked by a husky. Are all huskies the same? Granted, the blue eyes freak me out, but I doubt all huskies are aggressive.
-
I'd like to know how many people could actually properly identify a "pit bull" or pit mix.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html -
whynot_31 wrote: stats? somebody say something about dog bite by breed stats? Here's more of the article cited by Chipster, above:
i looked at this site, and just a couple of points:
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogsmostlikelytobite
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf
yes, the publisher of the website is an attorney that makes his living suing dog owners ...but the vet journals look reputable to me....
Note to those too lazy to click and read: Pit Bulls seem to bite the most.
Note to those who want to assume all dogs of a particular breed are violent and dangerous: Your stereotype is not supported by the research.
1) where are the vet journals you speak of? i honestly could not find one.
2) this webpage, in reference to pitbulls and other breeds, refers mostly to dog bite related fatalities rather than dog bites. if you want to know which breeds are the worst biters, the answer is "mutt". i'm not saying that dog bite related fatalities aren't of the MOST serious import, but to suggest that pitbulls bite the most is simply untrue.
3) this website is definitely skewed towards getting new clients, not getting out even-handed information.
4) the website refers a great deal to the work of Merritt Clifton. i don't have all night to explain why his data is not scientifically sound, but there is a blog i'd like to refer to which argues against Clifton's ideas. it's done by a layperson, but it's done very well. why do i refer to this site in this case? because the dog bite law website is written by a layperson, too.: http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/pit-bulls-dog-bite-statistics-and.html -
bohuma wrote: dominant/aggressive.
Two completely different things. -
the quotes feature is all screwed up, so you'll have to deal with bold and italics...
stats? somebody say something about dog bite by breed stats? Here's more of the article cited by Chipster, above:
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogsmostlikelytobite
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf
yes, the publisher of the website is an attorney that makes his living suing dog owners ...but the vet journals look reputable to me....
Note to those too lazy to click and read: Pit Bulls seem to bite the most.
Note to those who want to assume all dogs of a particular breed are violent and dangerous: Your stereotype is not supported by the research.
i looked at this site, and just a couple of points:
1) where are the vet journals you speak of? i honestly could not find one.
Really? there were 3 links ....Here's the link again: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf
2) this webpage, in reference to pitbulls and other breeds, refers mostly to dog bite related fatalities rather than dog bites. if you want to know which breeds are the worst biters, the answer is "mutt". i'm not saying that dog bite related fatalities aren't of the MOST serious import, but to suggest that pitbulls bite the most is simply untrue.
Mutts are the most common breed of dog ...are you sure you want to go there?
3) this website is definitely skewed towards getting new clients, not getting out even-handed information.
As noted in my post, he's an attorney looking for work. More research is welcome. The internet is free. Post links, don't just dismiss what I found in 5 seconds.
4) the website refers a great deal to the work of Merritt Clifton. i don't have all night to explain why his data is not scientifically sound, but there is a blog i'd like to refer to which argues against Clifton's ideas. it's done by a layperson, but it's done very well. why do i refer to this site in this case? because the dog bite law website is written by a layperson, too.:
http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/pit-bulls-dog-bite-statistics-and.html
Are you arguing that all breeds of dogs are equally violent? ...that thousands of years of breeding specific types of dogs for this effect has not achieved the desired behavior?
Or, are you just arguing that not all pit bulls are violent? If you have a slobbering mush ball of a pit, good for you. I'm certainly not stating that all pitts are violent. The stats I found (very quickly) just seem to say they are more likely to be violent than other breeds. I'm sure there are more....
Here's a site that says it goes both ways ...that it is a combination of the breed and the training that it receives. ....just like I posted above. It also says Rotweilers have pulled ahead of pitts in terms of violence (there seems to be a contest!)
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/09/15/deadly.dogs.ap/
Enjoy your dog.
Maybe you have two gripes: One with the caliber of some of your fellow dog owners who choose violent breeds as thier dog, then don't bother to train it ...or actually train it to fight.
The other gripe might be with folks who believe that hundreds of years of breeding to encourage violent tendencies has had the desired effect on all of the breed.
Are you sure I'm included in either group? -
But where does it stop? First, we'll ban pits bulls, then pit mixes, then all bully breeds. Finally, we'll be left with specially bred purse pooches with no teeth, no hair and they only shit cotton balls. Personally, I'm not willing to ban any breed of dog simply because our government doesn't know where to stop.
-
Anastasia Beaverhausen wrote: But where does it stop? First, we'll ban pits bulls, then pit mixes, then all bully breeds. Finally, we'll be left with specially bred purse pooches with no teeth, no hair and they only shit cotton balls. Personally, I'm not willing to ban any breed of dog simply because our government doesn't know where to stop.
I would never call for a ban on a particular breed, for this and many other reasons.
Just think of all of the people who would suddenly declare that their dog is a "not banned breed" just to save their buddy. You'd have people claiming their rotweiller was a beagle! -
One of the better articles that I've read, but one which I don't expect pit bull haters to read because a) it's too long b) it provokes more thought than just knee-jerk reactions, like most media attention given to pit bulls c) then they'd have to find something else to be ignorant, fearful and hateful about.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/06/060206fa_fact -
as i understand it, pit bulls have been bred to be dog-aggressive. it's possible that's been successful, though individuals will vary and training does matter.
but even in dog-fighting, human-aggressive dogs are not sought after and, it is my understanding, tend to be put down. so i don't see how it's likely that pits would be successfully bred to be human-aggressive. -
^^^From the article that I posted above -
The goal of pit-bull bans, obviously, isn’t to prohibit dogs that look like pit bulls. The pit-bull appearance is a proxy for the pit-bull temperament—for some trait that these dogs share. But “pit bullness” turns out to be elusive as well. The supposedly troublesome characteristics of the pit-bull type—its gameness, its determination, its insensitivity to pain—are chiefly directed toward other dogs. Pit bulls were not bred to fight humans. On the contrary: a dog that went after spectators, or its handler, or the trainer, or any of the other people involved in making a dogfighting dog a good dogfighter was usually put down. (The rule in the pit-bull world was “Man-eaters die.”)
Then which are the pit bulls that get into trouble? “The ones that the legislation is geared toward have aggressive tendencies that are either bred in by the breeder, trained in by the trainer, or reinforced in by the owner,” Herkstroeter says. A mean pit bull is a dog that has been turned mean, by selective breeding, by being cross-bred with a bigger, human-aggressive breed like German shepherds or Rottweilers, or by being conditioned in such a way that it begins to express hostility to human beings. A pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not to the extent that it expresses its essential pit bullness but to the extent that it deviates from it. A pit-bull ban is a generalization about a generalization about a trait that is not, in fact, general.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds