Protect your pet from being labeled "Bad Breed"

Credit to www.pitbullpress.com for this article ^

[Alylonee]

THERE is a knock at the door. A uniformed official says he has come to take your dog. The dog has done nothing wrong, but his breed has been outlawed in the town where you live. You've had this dog since he was a puppy. He is obedience-trained, licensed and vaccinated. He never runs loose. He has never bitten anybody. And you love him. But it's bye-bye, Buffy, if he's the "wrong" breed.

All over this country - and in Allegheny County - owners of pit bull terriers and rottweilers have been ordered to get rid of them or have them seized by authorities. Now, a small but feisty group called American Dog Owners Association Inc. is battling officials on many fronts to put an end to this madness. The current battleground is Buffalo Grove, Ill., where both breeds are targeted.

Municipal officials don't ban any breed, outright. They just impose rules that the average pet owner can't live with: 8-foot fences, licenses that cost hundreds of dollars per year, proof of $500,000 in liability insurance. "Breed-specific" laws come in response to fear. A couple of well-publicized attacks, and the push is on to ban a breed.

So you say you don't like pit bulls or rottweilers and you would never own one. It's still your fight. They might come after your breed next, especially if it's a breed designed for guard and attack duties. On the local front, those of us who own and love Labrador retrievers should hug them tightly and donate generously to the ADOA. America's most popular purebred dog is also one of the top biters.

In 1995 - the last time I checked bites by breed - Labrador retrievers were No. 3 on the Allegheny County Health Department list. Labs logged 60 bites - right behind the 73 bites reported for pit bulls. German shepherds were No. 1 with 84 bites. There are no bad breeds. There are bad and irresponsible dog owners. There are bad and vicious dogs. Elected officials should go after them. The ADOA will help them devise laws to do so.

The association does not condone or defend bad dogs or their owners. They support laws requiring licenses and vaccinations. They are opposed to dogs running loose. Their main goal is "to promote, protect and defend responsible dog ownership."

"If your breed is banned, the ADOA has no legal standing to help you unless you are a member. And though the group has proved you CAN fight city hall, the cost is high - $20,000 to $30,000 for a full-fledged court fight. The group needs more members and cash donations. "

Their address is 1654 Columbia Turnpike, Castleton, NY 12033. Or check out their Web site, which includes an online membership form, at

No one bats a thousand, but the ADOA has won in court - usually because proposed legislation violates existing federal and state statutes. The group prefers to avert bad laws before they are put on the books. Pennsylvania has a very good "dangerous dog" law that arms local officials with effective remedies against dogs that bite and dogs that fight.

And Pennsylvania is one of 12 states that has laws specifically banning "breed-specific" legislation.

There are 52.9 million pet dogs in this country, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Most of us have done nothing as dogs lost ground: breeds banned, dogs banned from parks and limits placed on the number of dogs we can own.

We could learn a lesson from what the National Rifle Association has accomplished with big membership rolls, generous donations and well-paid lobbyists. They fight effectively for everyone's "right" to own guns that maim and kill more people than dogs ever could.

[Alylonee]

I am bringing it up to prove that Pit Bulls are not naturally vicious animals and that it is the responsibility of the owners on whether or not the dog is vicious. Almost ANY DOG has the capability to kill or seriously injure someone. PERIOD. Just because Pit Bulls can be stronger animals, does not mean that they shouldn't exist and that people shouldn't be aloud to own them. If it were up to people like you, there would be no dogs on the face of this planet other than you beloved wiener dogs... which I personally think are as useless as your precious lab. As I've said before and I will say it again.... IF PIT BULLS BECOME ILLEGAL TO OWN, PEOPLE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT "TOUGH" DOG TO ABUSE AND FIGHT, WHO WILL IN TURN BE JUST AS CAPABLE OF INJURING SOMEONE AS THE PIT BULL.

YOU SEEM TO BE DENYING THAT ANY LARGE BREED DOG IS CAPABLE OF HURTING OR KILLING SOMEONE IF ABUSED.

Just because Pit Bulls are stronger, does not mean other breeds cannot do just the same amount of damage. I am not denying that Pit Bulls can, I am just trying to show you that other dogs can do the same thing.

And you avoided what I said.... if you know people that fight dogs... why haven't you turned them in? You actually speak to people like that? Anything you say to me is completely disregarded at this point because if you know people that breed dogs to fight and you haven't done anything about it, then you are the problem with Pit Bulls, not the dog. I don't want to hear people like you complain when the dog "mysteriously snaps", when you don't do crap to stop this horrific, blatant animal abuse, yet you can sit here and talk about how horrible the breed is. OPEN YOUR EYES.

[Jeff Chandler]

If it were up to people like you, there would be no dogs on the face of this planet other than you beloved wiener dogs...

 

Now, take a deep breath. If you read my posts, you will find that nowhere did I support bans on particular breeds. I only  insisted upon correlating descriptions of traits particular to certain breeds with reality. And I do not now, nor have I ever owned a Dachshund. I have owned German Shepherds, Labs, Rottweilers, Collies, Basset Hounds, Chows, Boston Terriers, and Great Danes.

 

 

which I personally think are as useless as your precious lab.

 

Every dog has innate behavioral traits which are the result of selective breeding, and each has its use. I wouldn't call any breed, from the tiniest Chihuahua, to the largest St. Bernard, "useless".  To to so calls to mind the battles once engaged in by teenage boys over the relative merits of Chevies and Fords.

 

 

It is one thing to be passionate about one's favorite breed, but it is not at all rational or responsible to whitewash the negative traits inherant in that breed. Certain breeds can be particularly dangerous, and must be handled with special care. I'm sorry you are so upset over the fact that Pit Bulls top that list. The fact that Rotties are close behind, with various other large breeds close behind them, does not change the fact that owning a Pit Bull entails a very heavy responsibility, and that minimizing the inherant risk involved in keeping one often results in tragedy for human beings (whom I hold far above dogs).

 

Anyone who obtains a Pit Bull should be aware of the risks, and should thoroughly investigate the bloodline.

[Jeff Chandler]

YOU SEEM TO BE DENYING THAT ANY LARGE BREED DOG IS CAPABLE OF HURTING OR KILLING SOMEONE IF ABUSED.

 

</CAPS> No. Any large breed is capable of hurting or killing someone because they are dogs. Some breeds have had their canine instincts intensified through selective breeding. Pit Bulls top the list.

[Jeff Chandler]

if you know people that fight dogs... why haven't you turned them in?

 

If I knew the specifics of a particular dog fight, I would. I'm not about to go undercover to investigate the dog fighting world.

 

 

You actually speak to people like that?

 

I actually speak to a lot of people in many different walks of life. The people I come in contact with is vastly larger and less selective than my circle of friends.

 

 

Anything you say to me is completely disregarded at this point...

 

Disregard away.

[Jeff Chandler]

The people I come in contact = The list of people I come in contact

[Alylonee]

What on earth did that comment mean?

[Jeff Chandler]

I was correcting my typo from the previous post.

[Alylonee]

"It is one thing to be passionate about one's favorite breed, but it is not at all rational or responsible to whitewash the negative traits inherent in that breed. Certain breeds can be particularly dangerous, and must be handled with special care."

On that we can agree.

The fact that Rotties are close behind, with various other large breeds close behind them, does not change the fact that owning a Pit Bull entails a very heavy responsibility,"

On that we can agree.

"that minimizing the inherent risk involved in keeping one often results in tragedy for human beings (whom I hold far above dogs)."

I agree and disagree, owning any dog carries that responsibility and risk. Breed Specific Legislation still does not carry the answers and solutions to this problem. NEITHER DOES BASHING THE BREED OR PREACHING AGAINST IT!

"Every dog has innate behavioral traits which are the result of selective breeding, and each has its use. I wouldn't call any breed, from the tiniest Chihuahua, to the largest St. Bernard, "useless"."

Then that would mean the Pit Bull isn't useless????? Forgive me if I thought you have been saying that on this entire thread.

[Alylonee]

Do you "preach" to those people on the horrors of fighting Pit Bulls as passionately as you preach against Pit Bulls in general to me?

I would sure hope that some of your energy is put towards speaking to those disgusting excuses for human beings that fight Pits instead of wasting time trying to convince good people that the breed is Satan's spawn.

[Alylonee]

"No. Any large breed is capable of hurting or killing someone because they are dogs. Some breeds have had their canine instincts intensified through selective breeding. Pit Bulls top the list."

So just because the Pit Bull is stronger, it makes them more dangerous than a dog that might be a little weaker, but who has the same capabilities?

You are comparing a .38 to a .44, they are both going to kill you if fired, one is just more efficient than the other.

[Jeff Chandler]

Do you "preach" to those people on the horrors of fighting Pit Bulls as passionately as you preach against Pit Bulls in general to me?

 

 

No, I generally do not go around preaching to people. I'm not the prostelysing type. I do, however, discuss issues on FreeRepublic, which I consider to be an appropriate forum for such matters.

I would sure hope that some of your energy is put towards speaking to those disgusting excuses for human beings that fight Pits instead of wasting time trying to convince good people that the breed is Satan's spawn.

 

Actually, if I had to choose a dog to label as Satan's Spawn, it would be my daughter's Jack Russell Terrier.

[Jeff Chandler]

Just because the Pit Bull is stronger, it makes them more dangerous than a dog that might be a little weaker, but who has the same capabilities?

 

What makes Pit Bulls dangerous is a combination of their powerful weapons, and the fact that many of the bloodlines have been deliberately tainted through selective breeding to intensify its natural killer instinct.

 

[Alylonee]

"Actually, if I had to choose a dog to label as Satan's Spawn, it would be my daughter's Jack Russell Terrier."

LOL! I guess we can agree on that as well.

Ok, on a calmer level, you have no idea the horrors of dog fighting and Pit Bull abuse. I have posted a link earlier on this thread to "SadReality." Please read it and look into those dog's eyes, and I'm almost positive that next time you hear someone talking about fighting dogs, you might just be prompted to say something in these dog's defense.

I went to the Animal Care place here in Sac and found a Pit Bull, half starving to death, shivering, with gashes and gouges all over his face and body. The poor dog was beaten half to death because he wouldn't fight. In his kennel, he was letting the roommate (Rottie) bark at him and try to mount him. These dogs are very friendly, personable dogs who absolutely LOVE people and live to please. They do not deserve the abuse they receive and they certainly do not deserve for people to berate them and attack them as the problem. The people who harm these animals should be put down. The dogs are a product of their environment, there is only so much one can take before they "snap." What is truly amazing to me is the recovery that some of these magnificent animals make. Their courage and strength help even the worst cases pull through.... Then there are the ones that are too far gone. I am ashamed to know that there are people in the world that can commit these horrible crimes of humanity to these poor, defenseless animals. The scary part is that the same people who turn these dogs into monsters, probably have kids that they are turning into monsters as well. We as a people really need to evaluate productive ways to solve these issues. The issues being the people behind the abuse as apposed to the victims (the dogs).

[Alylonee]

"What makes Pit Bulls dangerous is a combination of their powerful weapons, and the fact that many of the bloodlines have been deliberately tainted through selective breeding to intensify its natural killer instinct."

A lot of dogs have a high predatory drive and killer instincts, it's how they survived out in the wild. If you own a Pit Bull, OR ANY DOG THAT SHOWS THAT TRAIT, you should keep them on a leash when in public and train them thouroughly. I laugh when you say all Pit's are like that. Especially when I can picture my Pit letting my 3 month old kittens attack him and sleep with him. He thinks the kittens are his babies, he watches them constantly and licks them. They clean him as well. There are many breeds that are agressive to other dogs and small animals. There are even more breeds that are agressive to humans. I will admitt that Pit Bulls are a stronger breed, but the are not "killers" any more than the previous mentioned dogs.

[keri]

I'm sorry for intruding here, but I must:-)

What makes Pit Bulls dangerous is a combination of their powerful weapons, and the fact that many of the bloodlines have been deliberately tainted through selective breeding to intensify its natural killer instinct.

Pit bulls do not have any more of a "natural killer instinct" than any other dog. They do, after all, belong to the canine species and all canines are descended from wolves. If you are saying, (and I think you are) that there is any way to change or "intensify" certain genetic instincts, I will tell you you are wrong.

The old time breeders of the true APBT bred for gameness, not "killer instinct." I've asked before -- and since you seem like an intelligent guy -- will ask again. If pitbulls have a "killer" instinct why aren't all of them killers, because the simple fact remains (contrary to popular opinion) that the vast majority of pitbulls, as with other breeds, never attack anyone or anything. We are discussing instinct, and not bloodlines, right?

I've pinged you Varda, because I figure if anyone here can correct inaccuracies in this post, you can, and please do so.

[Jeff Chandler]

All right, "killer instinct" may not be the appropriate term. What ever you may wish to call it, it is the tendancy, when engaged in battle, to continue fighting until your opponent is dead. This trait has been deliberately encouraged in many PB bloodlines through selective breeding because a dog with this trait can bring its owner tremendous lucre. This is a fact; it is the reality of the breed. If you deny that this has been going on for many years then there is no use in my discussing this any further.

I'm sure there are many good PB bloodlines, and, of course, there is much variance within any breed. The whole point of my post is that it is irresponsible to deny the possible negative traits of this breed, because many human tragedies have occured by those who have done so. Anyone who is thinking about getting one should think twice, then check the bloodlines thoroughly. A mistake with a PB can be deadly.

[Jeff Chandler]

If pitbulls have a "killer" instinct why aren't all of them killers

Why won't all hunting dogs hunt? Why won't all herding dogs herd? This is a non-arguement because we are discussing selectively bred tendancies.

[keri]

Yes, traits, to be specific. Traits aren't instincts and that really is the point. Pitbulls have no more of a killer instinct than other dogs. There's no way to breed for "instinct." The old breeders bred for something akin to courage.

[keri]

I missed your #96, somehow, or would have answered it first.

This trait has been deliberately encouraged in many PB bloodlines through selective breeding because a dog with this trait can bring its owner tremendous lucre. This is a fact; it is the reality of the breed.

Not quite...dog fighters are no longer the "gentlemen breeders" of the past. Please let me hasten to add that I don't understand the dogfighting mentality, period. Whether that mentality was of 100 years ago or now, it makes no difference to me. Having said that, it must also be acknowledged that the breeders who breed dogs to fight now are *most definitely not* the breeders of the past. I don't know how much money changes hands at dog fights, but have a good idea of the environment these dogs are raised in. It is nothing like that of the past, and the dogs are not bred for the same qualities, either.

No pitbull "fancier" would ever deny the past history of the breed, but likewise if one is interested in the truth the present cannot be denied either. The scumbag dogfighters do not OWN the breed, at least not yet. Some very responsible dog breeding is still going on. My point with this post is that because a pitbull is "game" or has a bloodline with game ancestors in its past, doesn't necessarily mean it is a killer of other dogs. (There's also a lot of "game" dogs in other breeds, too.)

The whole point of my post is that it is irresponsible to deny the possible negative traits of this breed, because many human tragedies have occured by those who have done so.

You still don't understand something, here. No one is denying pitbull history but those who claim that pitbulls are unstable and have tendencies to attack people. The propagandists for the other side would have everyone believe pitbulls were chomping at the bit to attack human beings. The truth is the old time breeders weeded out dogs that showed the least bit of aggressiveness to humans. (Now we have crackheads and druggies and know nothings not only fighting the dogs they breed, but worse, training them in ways that would make the old #astards roll over in their graves.) The culling part of the history should not be forgotten, either, when one talks about bloodlines and pitbull history. IOW, one cannot deny that aspect of their history and keep the other, for the amiable to humans trait is also in the bloodlines.

Having said this, no one should get a pitbull (or any other dog) if they cannot devote the time and attention it needs. That, these days, means thinking for a while before getting any dog.

[Varda]

I think you've pretty much explained your objections well. I will take exception to one thing;

"If you are saying that there is any way to change or "intensify" certain genetic instincts, I will tell you you are wrong"

Actually he's right. Intensifying certains traits is pretty much the whole ball game in breeding and it's what facilitates the development of new breeds. [Ex: intensifying the use of eyesight or scent in hunting (sighthounds & scenthounds) ]

Second his arguement (that PB have a "killer instinct") is entirely illogical. If they were selecting for an unusual instinct of this kind the breed in general would have this trait. This would mean that owners of PB could never own more than one dog at a time because they couldn't safely put them with another dog. (previous example: put a predatory dog with livestock simply gives him targets for his instinct)

Now I know a thing or two about dog breeding and believe me you have to have more than one dog.