I’m pretty sure in Ohio you only have to have 1 plate visible…but I am Australian so I could be wrong, but I’ve never been stopped in 13yrs. CA is, well, to put it simply, run different that’s fo’sho
Official Off Topic Discussion Thread #1
- Thread starter Chrisplosion
- Start date
Hello; Was browsing just now and ran across this link. Contains pretty much every cliche about how unfairly the Pit bull terrier is characterized. I do not buy into most of it. A new one to me was some sort of personality test the results of which had Pits scoring better than Gloden Retrievers. Smells to me.
Certainly can't argue with logic like that.
I wonder if you have ever owned or had much exposure to a Pit, aside from the bad one you have described. I certainly have; I've never owned dogs other than rescues, or a few that were inherited when their owners passed away. Can't really say that I have had very many dogs that could be described as "bad" myself, and I find myself agreeing with virtually all the comments in that link. Even dogs that have been ruined by their Pitboob owners were able to be largely or completely "curable" with patience and firm, intelligent training. I've had several Pits, as well as several Pit crosses, and in the unlikely event that I were to purchase a purebred dog for myself rather than selecting another rescue, I'd say that a Pit would be one of my top choices.
I once knew an exceptionally ill-tempered and aggressive fellow who was simply impossible to get along with; not only could we not see eye to eye on anything, but he went out of his way to instigate arguments and discord. He was French; I wonder if I should assume that all the French are that way? But such a reaction seems rather silly; I'd go so far as to say it smells to me...
Hello; A thing is the records encompass a large number of dogs. Very likely many more than you personally have ever owned. I suppose not every attack attributed to Pitts is of a pure breed animal. I also imagine to be #1 in fatal mauling's that the authorities did get the breed type mostly correct.
To your comment, that even you a self-attested superior dog owner, has had what you consider a "bad" dog is telling. How does that fit within the "it's all bad owners" story? Again, I smell a rat. (a turn of phrase)
I had a Siberian Husky. Raised him from a pup. He was obedient and well socialized with people. Nevertheless he was a husky. Death to any small animal which wandered into fenced in yard. A neighbor had to start keeping his chickens penned in. Small animals such as coons or possums were found dead in the yard. A fine dog but one I watched closely around kids and never left him alone with them. I would not have called him a bad dog either.
One of the things i agree with in the sorry excuse for a link is most any breed of dog can bite people and very likely have. It is the bigger dogs we have to be concerned about. On the list of fatal dog mauling's there are several breeds. Even those normally considered safe. The telling thing is the pitts top every such listing. Such is not a biased observation.
For what it is worth I am wary of a strange Husky as I am about a strange to me Pitt. A bit more wary of the pitt because they are physically more capable of doing damage. That short snout and muscled head gives them a superior bite force.
But continue on with the flawed defense. Flawed because the breed is a personal favorite.
Again, I'm not denying that the Pit-type breeds rank high in the ratings of problem dogs. I simply suggest that this is mostly because they have the look and the reputation that attracts problem owners, who in turn create and nurture and encourage the "bad dog" mystique.
Well, it was supposed to be "telling"...but in order for that to work you must be listening. "Superior" is your word, apparently chosen as a dig at me. As to how I wound up with a "bad" dog...which part of the phrase "rescue dogs" is eluding you? The dog in question came from an owner who was a real specimen; he not only bobbed the dog's ears and tail himself when he was unable to find a reputable vet to do it, but according to his wife (no prize herself, but at least she drew the line at DIY veterinary cosmetic surgery) he was planning to split the dog's tongue to give it a forked-tongue "snake" look.
Even that poor dog responded well to training and proved to be a lovely well-rounded animal, although it never lost some of its nervous behaviours. Most of the other dogs were rescues that came from circumstances of neglect, or were plucked from the "to be euthanized" schedule after their owners passed away (or went to prison...) and nobody wanted them.
My current dog Duke (Lab x Boxer) was tied to a gatepost in front of the local animal shelter; the wonderful people who run that place received a phone call at 2:00am explaining where he was, which ended with the comment "Deal with it!" They had to rush to the shelter immediately, as this occurred in the middle of a harsh Manitoba winter and temperatures were in the -35C range; they found Duke shivering, growling and unapproachable. They worked with him for many weeks, and came to love him so much that they almost decided to keep him personally, but they already had too many dogs of their own. They still come to visit him here at my place occasionally and the reunion is always heart-warming to see.
Yes, Pit-type breeds, which the "authorities" usually just call Pitbulls, rank high in the records of attacks, no question. If they all disappeared overnight, another breed would take over the top position, placed there by the sort of people who would have gotten a Pit if they could.
Hello; yes, such was a bit cheeky of me. Likely better to say something along the lines of not everyone has the dog skills you claim in various posts. Probably better if I left such things out altogether. Apologies. Sad thing is we are on opposite ends of the subject and I see little to no common ground. I took a stab at training my best dog. Got him to the point I could signal for him to stay and then walk all the way around the house and he stayed put. I would like for all dangerous dogs to be trained like the rottweilers in the "THE OLD MAN" TV series.
While I get the point that proper training can help with these dogs very likely a great deal, such does not refute at least two or three things. One or two being most dogs do not get such training and most owners do not follow up with secondary strategies. Secondary strategies being things such as an escape proof fence or never letting them off a lead when out and about. My favorite would be several breeds be required to be muzzled when out and about. Not just Pitts to be sure.
I do appreciate a well-trained dog or dogs. A story- I was riding my bicycle. I was going up a grade on the shoulder of the highway near my home. A man had three boxers out in his yard. A yard with no fence by the way. One boxer spots me and immediately charges, soon followed by the other two. Knowing I could not outrun them up a hill I stopped. I put the bicycle between me and the first dog then got my pistol out. I figured I might get one or two at best.
Fortunately, the man was able to call them back with a command so no bad outcome. He apologized to me.
My neighbor who is now passed had a Pitt. Raised it from a pup. Had it a few years. For no understandable reason it attacked a family member out of the blue. I have seen the family around other dogs and know they do not mistreat their dogs.
Back some years when this very topic was being cussed and discussed on this site, a story was posted. A man did not come to work. When someone went to check on him, he was found dead. Killed by his three Pitts he raised from pups. I get you will likely want to classify such as him being a bad owner. Maybe but such stories further reinforce my low opinion of the dog type.
Lastly the -if all pitts were gone some other would become first place- sounds technically correct but misses the main point. The second place breed are the rotties. They would then be number one but that does not mean they would start mauling more people to death. Pitts and Rotties make up something like 71% of fatal mauling's with the Pitts doing something like 54%. So Rotties do around 17% of that. To me that means over all mauling deaths would drop by over four times. That is the point of the statistics about the Pitt breeds.
I would not miss them at all if all Pitts were gone. But lacking that I want them treated/restricted similarly to other dangerous animal such as lions. The cages and leads and muzzles would not have to be as robust of course.
That logic is not missing the point; IMHO it is the point. Are you seriously contending that simply banning a breed...any breed...that now stands out as being problematic will automatically eliminate all attacks that in past were done by that breed? Utter nonsense.
Once again: these dogs are not born with an instinct to kill people. They contain the natural potential for aggression of the dog species, and will to a greater or lesser extent display the increased aggression of the fighting breeds towards other animals. The fighting breeds were created to fight each other and other animals. The human lowlifes who followed that perverse obsession would not and did not want the animals to turn on them, so a dog that exhibited aggressive tendencies to humans was not desired.
As horrific as that mindset is, I think that it pales in comparison to today's wannabe tough-guy pit bull owners. They want animals that look and act like the Baddest Of The Bad, and encourage behaviours that would not be tolerated by responsible breeders of any breed. Plain and simple: they create "bad" dogs, because that's what they want. If they can no longer get their preferred raw materials, i.e. Pit Bulls, they will go with other breeds and ruin them in the same way. And once they do so, the number of maulings will continue unabated, but done by Rotties or Dobes or American Bulldogs or whatever the idiots decide is trendy and cool to own.
It's interesting that you feel the authorities will be an accurate source of information regarding the identity of these dogs. There are so many breeds that now fall under the "Pit Bull" umbrella it's hard to keep track; much of the legislation uses vague and mealy-mouthed terminology that basically lets the Powers That Be grab any dog that looks like it might be a Pit Bull or Pit Bull-type dog...whatever that is...
I agree with one point you have made; there will be no agreement reached here, so I will let this conversation go its way without further comment from me. Cheers!
Hello; too bad i am talking to myself at this point. Other than those lurking perhaps. But since the topic may be winding down, I will answer the last salvo. Yes I do contend that if Pitt Bull Terrier dog types did not exist the fatal maulings by Pitts will come to an end as well.
All the dog breeds came from a few wild types such as wolves, dingos or African wild dogs. To those wild types we primates were prey and where such wild packs exist we still are. I suspect wolves being the most likely ancestor of our modern selective breed dogs. I do have degrees in Biology but cannot say all the selective breeding has filtered out things so that they do not see humans as prey.
There was an effort in Russia some years ago. Several wild foxes with particularly beautiful fur were captured and put thru a selective breeding program. The goal was to select for the least aggressive so as to make raising them easier in order to harvest the fur. Much of the aggression was indeed bread out. To the point they had some docile strains. The spoiler turned out to be that the tamer strains lost the beautiful fur. An interesting outcome but a ruined business model. Just as well we humans already raise and slaughter plenty of domesticated animals.
But a bottom line is I do not know if modern pet breeds see us people as off limits. I do suspect such is not the case. Too many examples of pet dogs running as a pack which seem to very quickly revert to wild instincts. I recall a story of a pack of house dogs which started running together, I think in Ohio. They became a pack and started running down deer and other animals. An interesting point being it was a pack of all sorts of dog types including some small breeds.
Being a Jack London book fan ( not the poorly made movies) I think of Buck going to a wolf pack after his favorite human was killed.
I have no particular reason to dispute the comments about some folks finding some other breed to turn into a replacement for the pitts. I do think such has already been done however with German Shepards and other breeds. I do not have a way to calculate the number of human interactions between Shepard, Rotties, huskies and other dog breeds on the fatal maulings lists compared to the Pitt types. I strongly suspect the number of interactions are likely much the same, yet all other such breeds kill many times fewer people. Go figure.
The last cliche about Pitt Bulls is they get blamed when it is other breeds doing the deed. Fair only to an extent. That extent being it is not so hard to spot the general characteristics. I guess some misidentifications are made, but not enough to tilt the scales.
