Posted on 09/02/2007 9:30:42 AM PDT by meandog
Was the dog under two years old?
Again, “springer rage” and should be destroyed, I’m afraid. The breeder may find himself persona non grata—
Before you bring one home, check your homeowner’s insurance policy. If the dog mutilates some kid, you’re probably not covered.
It has been my experience that most responsible breeders of large dogs (like dobies or mastiffs) won't even sell an intact dog unless it is both a good example of the breed, and going to be a show dog. If the dog doesn't meet these qualifications, it is considered to be "pet quality" (still a good dog) and spayed or neutered.
I'd never get a pit bull unless it was a freshly weaned pup.
(They insist that they can all fit on that dog bed)
Oh, they look soooo comfy! Pretty dogs!
susie
>>........pugs. Or poodles. Or yorkies.<<
Is that a ‘ping’? ;-)
Come after mine
and you will be the one on a slab.
I have yet to meet a human aggressive “pitbull”...and I live in Los Angeles. I have seen dog aggressive dogs, but no human aggressive.
My neighbors chow....bit her 5 year olds face....47 stitches....should we kill all chows?
A purebred, or even a semi-pure dog is not a tabula rasa.
Behaviors have been bred into dogs by breeders selecting out for type over dozens (hundreds?) of generations, they are not free souls shaped by the environment.
Border collies will exhibit herding behavior when they've never seen a sheep.
There's a reason that Labs make good seeing-eye dogs. There's a reason German Shepherds make good police dogs.
Temperament and behavior has been bred into these dogs as surely as Original Sin.
Pits were bred to fight and kill.
Sorry, no. I’ve met many pit bulls.
One of them attacked the bumper of my parked truck for no apparent reason.
I’ve never seen any dog but a pit bull assault a parked car.
And no, I don’t live in the ghetto.
Your experience is clearly different from mine. Where have you met many pit bulls, btw? I rarely see them, actually.
susie
I like your ping list pic !
Pit bulls were indeed bred to fight. I agree that dog breeds do have certain distinct characteristics. However, pits didn't gain notoriety as dangerous dogs until fairly recently. How do you explain that?
I'm not suggesting that irresponsible breeders aren't trying to produce aggressive dogs, but pit bulls have been around for a long time.
Please help me out here, as I'm trying to fully understand your argument and absolutely do not wish to put words in your mouth. For your argument about pit bulls to be correct, either:
1. Pit bulls have always been a dangerous breed, or
2. The entire gene pool of these dogs has been destroyed by irresponsible breeders over a roughly 20-year period.
I have problems with both arguments because the first isn't supported by history. Pit bulls used to be viewed as pretty much the all-American dog. In the case of the second argument, I can point to when German Shepherds and Dobermans had the same type of notoriety that pit bulls currently have. Were their gene pools permanently destroyed when irresponsible breeders were churning out thousands of substandard dogs?
I'm not trying to be a jerk. I responded to your post because you advanced a coherent argument, unlike the people who post an inflammatory one-liner about wanting to kill all pit bulls.
The link I posted showed 95 percent of attacks were by intact dogs. That meshes with other things I’ve heard.
It is very much worth checking out, to include viewing of the linked film.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.