Pit bull to return to breeder Saturday

The Leader-Herald ^ | April 19, 2006 | JASON SUBIK

[Wristpin]

GLOVERSVILLE - Michael Ward, the owner of the 2-year-old pit bull that attacked a small bichon frise March 31, will be taking the dog back to its breeder Saturday to fulfill his court obligations to remove the dog from Gloversville without having to euthanize him.

"I called [the breeder] and he didn't want the dog to go to someone he didn't know and he wanted to make sure the dog had a safe home," Ward said. "Everybody thinks that he's a vicious dog because of the breed. Everybody is being discriminating against it. [The breeder] breeds them and he knows better than that." Ward said he plans to meet the breeder halfway between New York state and Virginia. Ward is giving the dog, named Blitz, back to his breeder, but is not charging the breeder any money.

"I had two years with the dog that I wouldn't want to trade for anything," Ward said.

On April 7, Gloversville City Court Judge Vincent DeSantis ordered Ward to study alternatives to euthanasia for his dog after the judge determined the dog was too dangerous.

Ward said the dog had been neutered prior to the incident and a microchip has been implanted in the dog.

[RushCrush]

Honestly, I'm simply pointing out that MAYBE the media is biased against certain breeds, and perhaps it is helpful for people to keep an open mind when it comes to something the media spins in a certain way.

There is no possible way this can be about you, specifically. So I hope you're not taking offense here.

[Finny]

There is a problem with 'power dogs' (your term) that are in the hands of the wrong PEOPLE. Why is THAT so hard to admit?

Again ... and again and again and again ... *sigh* ... OF COURSE most of the problem dogs (though not all, if sinkspur's story and the recent story about the little girl getting mauled by a pit that broke his chain are accurate) are because they're in the hands of the wrong PEOPLE. But why is it so hard to admit that a pit bull or Rottweiler in the hands of the wrong person is significantly more dangerous than a poodle or shepherd in the hands of the wrong person? Why oh why is that so hard to admit, and why oh why do the same people who understand the vital importance of racial profiling with regard to law and security enforcement, go completely blank when it comes to the idea of profiling dogs by breed? Boggles the mind.

And again again again ... UNLESS people want to see certain breeds banned, such as pit bulls (and I am not one -- I think it would be a very bad thing to ban the breed or any other), certain unpleasant truths have to be addressed, such as the fact that certain breeds of dogs are deserving of much stricter and serious enforcement of dog control laws than others. Unless that approach is taken, "general" dog enforcement laws won't hold water, the problem with truly dangerous dogs will continue, people will get fed up, and start demanding that some breeds be banned.

[Finny]

Don't worry, I'm not. Indeed, I'm having way too much fun wasting time on this thread all day. Ridiculous of me to be doing this ... but I'm being a hedonist today.

[sinkspur]

I have never understood how one single experience makes people so darned stubborn that they won't listen to ANY facts that might possibly change their mind.

It's not just one experience.

Imagine sitting on your back porch, sheltering some refugees from Louisiana who came up during Hurricane Rita. My brother-in-law drags one of his friends along, who has a pit mix. The mix gets along well with my dogs, and, the owner tells me, gets along well with cats as well.

My favorite little four-year old female Siamese, Juliette, jumps in her back yard and comes running toward us. The pit mix races toward her, grabs her like a rag doll, and rips her open from tail to head.

She died an hour later at a pet emergency clinic. It was horrible and I cried like a baby.

When I composed myself, I went home and threw the whole lot of my wife's family and their derelict friend out of the house.

These cretinous pits are a nuisance. Their owners lie, lie, lie. Neither they, nor their dogs, can be trusted.

You will never change my mind about pit bulls or pit bull mixes. As I said before, you pit owners better figure out a way to get control of these beasts, or the rest of us will do it for you.

[Wristpin]

So when is time up on the failed genetic experiment called the pit bull terrior? How many more deaths and maulings have to occur before the concluding that 19th century blood sporters created a mistake?

[Finny]

The time is now. I have read, and it seems as though, pit bull terriors in the past were not the way they were today. I suspect that over the decades, the dogs have been bred for characteristics of aggressiveness. Those characteristics can be bred away, too. That's what I'd like to see happen. I read (can't remember where) that pit bulls were valuable on the frontier because they were among the few breeds that could hold their own against boars and other dangerous critters. To me, banning the breed is just not right, and as someone else has pointed out, where will it stop? You know how I feel about the damned dogs -- they pose a real problem. The best solution will happen when their defenders come to grips with the fact that the problem is not universal to all dogs, and that somethign needs to be done.

Now I really do have to sign off ... it's been fun! Great thread! Hope kanawa comes back.

[Darnright]

>Perhaps all pit bull owners should be required to spend 6 months in training with Cesar the Dog Whisperer before being allowed to own one. He's the ONLY one I'd trust to train a pit or rottweiler.<

You've obviously never heard of this guy, have you?

Hint - he was training powerful dogs before Cesar was whelped down in old Me-he-co.

[RushCrush]

I don't own a pit bull and I never have.

I happen to believe that banning is the stuff of socialism.

Enjoy.

[RushCrush]

FYI

MYTH: All Pit Bulls are mean and vicious.

It is reported on temperament tests conducted by the American Temperament Test Society that Pit Bulls had a passing rate of 82% or better -- compared to only 77% of the general dog population.

These temperament tests consist of putting a dog through a series of unexpected situations, some involving strangers.

Any signs of unprovoked aggression or panic in these situations result in failure of the test. The achievement of Pit Bulls in this study disproves that they are inherently aggressive to people. (Please visit ATTS.org) MYTH: A Pit Bull that shows aggression towards an animal will go for people next.

"Many working breeds have antipathy towards other animals - coonhounds go mad at the sight of a raccoon, foxhounds will not hesitate to tear a dog-like fox to shreds, greyhounds live to chase and maul rabbits and even dog-like coyotes. Even the ever-friendly beagle will slaughter a rabbit, given the chance.

And yet the greyhound, coon and foxhound and beagle are among the friendliest of breeds towards humans. And it is the same with the pit bulldog. His work through the years has been control of other animals - never humans. A correct pit bull is more often than not submissive toward all humans, and adores children.

A pit bull that snarls, lunges or growls at non-threatening humans is NOT typical of the breed." (Written by Diane Jessup)

Pit bulls that do show aggressive behavior towards humans are not typical of the breed and should be humanely euthanized

[sinkspur]

I happen to believe that banning is the stuff of socialism.

I didn't say anything about banning.

Just get control of your dogs, and STAY in control of them, all the time!

[Wristpin]

Another lady needs reconstructive surgery north of the border...Pit bull terror shot by cops.

http://www.640toronto.com/news/news_xml.cfm?cat=1&rss=1&rem=36155&red=80110923aPBIny&gi=1&gm=news_local.cfm

[Wristpin]

Now we are back to the 12 minute test comparing Pit Bulls against their BREED standard. Meanwhile twenty something of them have been shot by Police during attacks over the past month failing the REAL WORLD TEST.

Isn't ms Jessup a Pit breeder and Pit advocate?

Got anything nonbiased?

[RushCrush]

Well if you're convinced you're right, then I guess you are, huh.

[Doc91678]

I'm not saying it is a cure all. But there are some people that don't deserve to breath the air God gave us. As a pet owner, I have never come across a bad puppy. It is the owners who make the dogs dangerous by abuse or specific training.

[Doc91678]

Like humans you get dogs that are mentally challenged. I am quite familiar with working dogs. I agree that some cannot be trained. Like humans. Not all humans commit felonies rape or murder. We don't classify all humans as bad and neither should we classify breeds of dogs as bad.
As an example, I once had a lab that was afraid of water and gun shy. Gave him to one of my kids and Sam turned out to be the best pet they ever had. So go figure.

[Doc91678]

I found that some breeders do not socialize their dogs while puppies. This poses problems when they get older. I have a bitch that is an alpha. She will attack any dog coming onto the property. But she will let my two years old grandson pull her ears sit on her and do all sorts of things that would set off other dogs. Why when Zack was crawling he put his hand in the dog's food while she was eating and the dog never flinched or nipped at him.
I trained her from a pup that it was okay for someone to put their hand in her food.
When you say fully aggressive what do you mean? Please describe.

[Darnright]

"Now we are back to the 12 minute test comparing Pit Bulls against their BREED standard. Meanwhile twenty something of them have been shot by Police during attacks over the past month failing the REAL WORLD TEST."

Oh, boy, here goes Wristpin the dog expert running off at the yapper again.

I've taken many dogs through ATTS (and have never had a failure), there SleightoftheWristpin, how many have you handled through the test?

That said, I'll offer some observations. Most dogs taken through ATTS are owned not by the average, clueless pet owner, but are taken because the owner has heard of and practices responsible dog ownership. Therefore, ATTS, while helpful, may not give a true reading of how many individuals in a given breed are screwed up by bad breeding and clueless or abusive ownership. In addition, the percentage of pass/fail is based on the number of a given breed tested, so if you test one Ukranian Striped Pointer, and he is gun shy (an aberration for this mythical superdog), you have a breed with 100% failure.

When you fill out the test application for your dog, you state whether it's had any formal training, and if it is a house or kennel dog. The application further asks if the dog is a rescue/shelter dog, or was purchased from a breeder. A dog with more training may be held to higher standards than would a kennel raised rabbit beagle, for example.

SleightoftheWristpin says, that the dogs are "compared against their BREED (his capitalization) standard".

The test is essentially the same, for a chihuahua as it is for a Saint Bernard. In fact, I have argued that the test is unfair to tiny dogs, because one test has an individual rattle a large bucket with rocks or chains in it, then put it down upright for medium/large dogs; but will put it on its side, so the tiny dog can reach it. A dog will recognize a container sitting upright as possibly being a food bowl, but a container placed in a different position does not present the same picture. The dog, to get a good score, must show interest in the bucket, and ideally must put his head into the pail's interior. To a Chihuahua, the opening of the bucket looks more like a tunnel than a food dish, and many of the little guys will ignore such an object.

Wristpin is correct, that the tester takes the breed being tested into consideration (the bucket example above notwithstanding), therefore, a sighthound, for example, may be scored less aggressively, than say a German Shepherd, for backing up a step or 2 when confronted by the "suspicious stranger" in the final part of the test.

Interestingly, this means that a Bull terrier, who by breed standard, is supposed to have good nerves and should view people as friends, would be scored more heavily than the more timid, aloof sighthound (as an example) for showing any hesitation/fear, or worse yet, aggression, on the tests.

[Darnright]

>Interestingly, this means that a Bull terrier, who by breed standard, is supposed to have good nerves and should view people as friends, would be scored more heavily than the more timid, aloof sighthound (as an example) for showing any hesitation/fear, or worse yet, aggression, on the tests.<

Just a note - the final test has a "suspicious stranger" approach the dog and his owner. The dog is allowed, during this test, once the stranger shows some aggression toward the team, to bark and/or lunge toward the weirdo. However, the stranger turns and runs at one point, and the dog must stop any barking/lunging when this occurs.

[Wristpin]

What does an industry temperment test have to do with Pit Bulls being the number one human killer, mauler, fluffy shreddin, shot by law enforcement animal in the pet world?

Nothing.


Keep being a dutiful ambassador for the breed. The fact that the breed needs ambassadors reinforces the existence of a problem.

[Darnright]

ROFL. Didn't read the post, now, did we? Actually, I backed you up, in a manner of speaking.

ATTS doesn't have any bearing on the fact (and I'm going to touch the 3rd rail here), that, Pit Bulls appeal to a certain group (NOT JUST THIS GROUP, so don't try to spin my words, Sleight) who (a) choose a breed because they want a "bad" dog to make them look tough, or cool (b) tend to aquire a cheap, poorly bred dog, whose breeder does NO screening of suitable homes for his pups (c) do no socialization with their dog, and who may actually tease and/or abuse the animal, bringing out aggression and (d) who are negligent, and who do not keep their dog from roaming, or from unsupervised contact with children (NO dog of any breed should be left alone with young kids). Negligent owners don't spay or neuter their dogs, particularly the male dogs (they mix up their own masculinity or lack thereof with neutering the animal).