Yep, that's definitely a pit bull that's had plastic surgery to make himself look like a boxer. They're sneaky little bastards...
Posted on 11/28/2009 7:47:28 AM PST by SLB
Yep, that's definitely a pit bull that's had plastic surgery to make himself look like a boxer. They're sneaky little bastards...
In a couple of weeks I will be delivering Christmas meals and presents to the needy in this same area. I have done so for the past 15+ years and don’t plan on stopping now. I do carry when I deliver the boxes, always have and always will.
Gee, I thought it was those nasty Golden Retrievers again. Anyway, we can’t get distracted by statistics, lest we stereotype and “profile” certain breeds. /s
Wrong!!!! These dogs have been bred for hundreds of years to bite and fight it's called instinct.
I'm a long time dog trainer. I can't train a pit bull to retrieve ducks in cold water and I can't train a wolf to chase a ball. A wolf will stand there and look at you like you are stupid and pit bulls do not like ice water.
We raise and train stock dogs now. At 6 weeks we pull a pup out of the kennels and put them on a heard of ducks. Most of them work the birds pretty well. This is with no training and almost no human interaction. They do it totally on the bred in instinct to work.
People can not make a dog have instincts or make them go away. We can train and suppress or enhance the natural instinct in a dog but we aren't God and can't put them there and we can never make them totally go away. Every pit bull owner owns an animal that has the instinct to bite and fight and that has the potential to kill. This is the first necessary realization that every pit owner needs to deal with. If this isn't done it will not be long until the breed is eliminated from most cities and counties withing our country. The owner does not make the dog dangerous but these attacks are still the owners fault. They fail to honestly deal with the dogs potential for hostility and then they fail to completely and constantly control their animal. When was the last time you heard the owner of a pitt that had just killed a kid say, "I just knew he would bite a little girl one of these days?" You will never hear that. What you do hear every time is how nice their little dog is and how he would never hurt a soul insinuating that something else must have caused the attack. WE have dogs, cattle, horses, and mules here at home. If a Pit Bulls sticks his nose on my property my 22-250 starts talking. Then I gt the backhoe and dig a hole.
I am not a pit bull advocate.
My Dog of choice is a Well trained German Shepard.
And for lap dogs I prefer Lasa Apsos.
Actually I love all dogs, some more than others.
What was a Dachshund bred to do?
Chase badgers out of their holes.
What does a hound love to do? Chase down animals and kill them. Luckily, they do it with a smile on their face so that you know they aren’t “vicious.”
I guess what you really want is all forms of working dogs to be outlawed, since nearly all of them were “bred to be vicious” in some way or another.
I wonder, does a duck feel the tender embrace of a Lab’s teeth? He probably thanks the big duck in the sky that the Lab isn’t a vicious breed.
There is an easy solution, and it doesn’t involve you and the state telling me what property I may own. Make the owner liable for the dog, criminally. If your dog kills someone, then you’re tried for murder. If your dog assaults someone, then you’re tried according to the severity of the attack. No dog “just suddenly” snaps and kills/attacks someone, unless it is a truly psychotic dog.
Go for the misdemeanor charges - get a conviction.
Sue the owner. With the conviction in place, winning should be easy.
Take everything he has. Maintain a judgment. Screw up his bankruptcy filing if he tries it. Collect. Collect. Collect.
Make his life a living hell.
I gotta laugh at the misinformation in your post. What is the name of your kennels, by the way? You want to present yourself as a expert, so lets hear a name.
“Every pit bull owner owns an animal that has the instinct to bite and fight and that has the potential to kill.”
What dog, or animal even...doesn’t have the instinct to bite or the potential to kill?
“We raise and train stock dogs now. At 6 weeks we pull a pup out of the kennels and put them on a heard of ducks. Most of them work the birds pretty well.”
So...those puppies that pass your test...they wouldn’t happen to act in an aggressive manner towards the ducks to show their suitability for working, would they? Maybe nip them a little? Because I thought you didn’t like dogs that have an “instinct to bite?” I happen to love ducks, myself. I find it totally irresponsible that you are breeding dogs specifically for the purpose of killing ducks. Imagine, taking an infant and throwing them into a cage like a gladiator...and then expecting them to prove their worth. I just wish someone would make what you like to do illegal cause I don’t like it. No innocent baby should be forced into an aggressive hunter/killer paradigm. It is barbaric is what it is.
Yeah...I care as much about the property you own as you care about the property I own. Say...those dogs that don’t pass the test...do they get drowned or just shot in the head? Or are you an irresponsible breeder who breeds inferior stock back in? Think carefully now, that’s a trick question. I’m trying to ascertain just how vicious you are, so that I may determine which laws I’d like to govern you with. So do you just murder the non-performers or do you have hundreds and hundreds of unsuitable dogs running around your place?
They keep dangerous dogs BECAUSE they are dangerous. It’s the ‘bad boy’ appeal, the fact that THEY ‘control’ something dangerous and menacing gives them a rush and a feeling of superiority and power.
With HUNDREDS of breeds to choose from that can be the only true reason why anyone would pick the one breed that scares people and makes you look bad. There are other big dogs, if that’s what you want. And if you truly love dogs you can love any dog. Intentionally choosing a pit bull- after all the press about the breed- says all I need to know about the owner.
Lets face it- the ‘ my dog isn’t a fighter’ excuse doesn’t hold water with any of the breed any more. There has been so much breeding of violent dogs that I would bet that EVERY pit bull has a fighting dog in its pedigree. It’s like being distantly related to Hitler- we would cringe from the thought, no matter how the person acts. In the case of dogs the genetics roulette is just not worth it.
In that case, I think the husband should sue the owner AND the sheriff.
This was a preventable death.
That is not a pit Bull. It’s an American Bulldog. Two entirely different breeds. And yes it is the owner’s fault. Not to say that a particular breed isn’t more aggressive than another, but with proper obedience training and discipline MOST dogs will be sweet puppies.
Rottweilers are not bad dogs. I have owned and trained them. American Bulldogs are not bad dogs. I currently own two. The combination of lack of training and owners who just want a mean dog result in these ‘bad’ dogs. How is it, that someone like Cesar Millan can rehabilitate even the worst redzone cases if the dogs are truly the problem?
My goodness! Folks surely get up in arms about a little old killing. Your solution to the dog problem is as mine, a fraction of an ounce of metal traveling at high velocity does wonders. Sure am glad we don’t have those problems up here. Lots of room for unpleasant creatures to disappear.
Everything I need to know about the BSL crowd, I learned from that quote.
Do you completely discount genetics in a dog’s psychological makeup? With dogs, 10 generations back isn’t that long, considering how many litters can be produced in a few years. Do you think every pit bull comes with a pedigree that can be researched- or a pedigree at all?
Far from trying to breed the aggressiveness OUT of pit bulls,
( which I don’t think can be done, it’s their nature) the number of people breeding the biggest, baddest, scariest looking block-headed pit bulls far outweighs the show-type breeder who cares about temperament. So the dogs being bought since the breed has been completely thuggified have little chance of not having a violent dog in their pedigree.
The sheer numbers of backyard breeders putting dogs on the market ensures that.
So any dog you might have could have a violent fighting dog in its bloodline. That, coupled with their size and strength, makes any pit bull a potential timebomb, IMO.
Why take the chance with a tainted breed simply because you like the way it looks? (big, intimidating and dangerous)
Why face the social stigma, the higher insurance and the higher maintenance when there are so many other breeds to choose from?
I love dogs, I’ve always had Shelties or toy dogs, but big dogs don’t intimidate me. I think Rotties have beautiful faces- but I wouldn’t have one. If owning any breed I personally liked carried with it the worry, stigma and social pressure that comes with a pit bull that would negate any pleasure I’d get from the dog. It would be work-something to constantly be wary of or defend, and I’d choose my second favorite breed instead.
I really think owning a pit bull today is more about defiance than being a dog lover.It’s about having a shark in your fishtank instead of goldfish- or having Godzilla on a leash instead of an iguana. It’s a dominance thing between humans and dangerous animals.
And when tested, the odds are the pit bull will dominate in an attack unless it is killed.
Helluva lot of drama to put up with because of one breed, if you ask me.
They were never bred to guard or to be human aggressive. Yes, they were bred to fight other dogs and also a variety of animals such as bulls and bears, but many dog breeds were bred for animal aggression. That in itself does not make a bad dog, and dogs can tell the difference between animals and adults.
There are millions of pit bulls alive today that aren’t making headlines, and the reason is because the breed itself is not, nor has it ever been, the problem. Irresponsible ownership has much more to do with the potential for dangerous behavior than breed, and this is a fact that many people overlook that the CDC even admits. The dog in this story was running around loose, and they aren’t even sure it was the dog in question yet. The owner of the dog has several dogs he apparently allows to roam around, further complicating things because dogs form packs, which are doubly dangerous.
If you look at the vast majority of these “pit bull” stories, you will see very clearly that the main pattern is the dogs’ owners. Either they are on a chain for their entire lives or running loose when these attacks take place. Many of the dogs have been picked up by AC before, and are intact, unlicensed, unvaccinated, and generally poorly kept.
If the owners of these dogs cannot provide the most basic care for them, how can we assume they have trained, socialized, or even provided any medical care? Irresponsibility is the reason. This is why places that have banned pit bulls have seen no decline in their attack numbers, but places that have focused on responsible ownership laws have seen dramatic decreases in serious dog attacks.
I find it terribly ironic that what we have known liberal media to do with conservatives is being repeated here with a specific breed or type of dog - and very few notice! Has no one noticed that when a pit bull (which is not a breed, but a type of dog anyway) is blamed for an attack the media is quick to mention that, but that when another breed is responsible - ooops! It’s just a “dog attack”. And the breed-haters don’t catch on??? GOOD GRIEF!! Thanks for your post.
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.