Dogs killing people

[Erik]

Guns dont get out of a poorly contained area and roam the streets shooting people. They dont turn on their owners or owners family and kill them after years of ownership. Guns arent at a shelter after their untrained owners couldnt handle them for the next unsuspecting family to adopt.

Irresponsible owners own all kinds of things, including dogs and guns. Guns get left unsecured in cars and trucks and nightstand drawers, are handled negligently and discharge and are sold to people with no training. Those guns can and do kill people. There are lots and lots of social media posts, news articles, ad campaigns and studies that boil down to "Guns Killing People." We (as in PF members) generally don't blame the guns. We blame the irresponsible owners.

[JTQ]

I stopped taking them out in public because of A holes running up and saying wow what kind of dog is that and trying to pet them.

I agree.

I think some of this can be blamed on the popularity of the Labrador Retriever and the Golden Retriever here in the US. Both breeds are very accepting of strangers. It seems as if folks get the idea that all dogs have the same accepting behavior as Labs and Goldens, they don't.

I recommend folks be cautious with all dogs until their behavior proves otherwise.

[UNK]

Now picture that Mal without the benefit of an owner who cares enough to train it and work it. That’s basically a lot of pitbulls. They’re great, loving dogs but they’re sometimes wound tight and need structure and a way to release that pent up energy. Why do you accept this out of Mals and GSDs but not pitbulls?

I dont know what makes you think I would accept that.

[blues]

[UNK]

Irresponsible owners own all kinds of things, including dogs and guns. Guns get left unsecured in cars and trucks and nightstand drawers, are handled negligently and discharge and are sold to people with no training. Those guns can and do kill people. There are lots and lots of social media posts, news articles, ad campaigns and studies that boil down to "Guns Killing People." We (as in PF members) generally don't blame the guns. We blame the irresponsible owners.

I get your points. At the end of the day the owner of whatever it is, is responsible. I agree with that 100%.

[JRB]

I would have responded to each of your posts, @UNK, but each response would basically have been re-phrasing each of your arguments as an anti-AR15 argument. It's the same playbook of appeal to emotion followed by massive oversimplifications and sweeping judgement and bias. Lots of old man Ruger and Zumbo-esque sorts of claims and parallels to be made, even the old 'if it prevents one tragedy' argument. I implore you to take a step back and re-read your arguments with that in mind and see the parallels I'm talking about.

Man I really dont know. I think its a possibility. I dont think its a one size fits all situation.

Then why did you start a thread with a bunch of links to a website that's calling for exactly a one-size-fits-all blanket ban on Pitbulls everywhere? The whole purpose of that site is to support BSL and it touts the 'successes' of BSL in local areas. They're anything but understated about that goal.

Guns dont get out of a poorly contained area and roam the streets shooting people. They dont turn on their owners or owners family and kill them after years of ownership. Guns arent at a shelter after their untrained owners couldnt handle them for the next unsuspecting family to adopt.

As I see it, it goes one of two ways;

Dogs have agency of some kind, and each one is an individual that can't and shouldn't be judged solely on its appearance, weight, breed, etc. That makes pit bull bans/bigotry/biases etc or any other BSL morally wrong at a fundamental level. Which, again, is the stated goal of that website you cited in the OP.

Or

Dogs are legally the property and responsibility of their owners, full stop.
Which means negligent/abusive/stupid/etc owners are 100% responsible for the actions of their dogs, good and bad, regardless of what they intend or thought would happen or 'OMG, she's never bit anyone before' moments. That makes every instance you've ever experienced of an off-leash pitbull or any other dog acting dangerously the full responsibility of that owner, not the dog itself. No different than how we hold a gun owner responsible when the 'I thought it wasn't loaded' kind of oh-shit moment happens.
In which case a ban of a specific breed serves only to punish all owners, responsible and irresponsible, no different than banning certain guns based on perceptions of predisposition to criminal or evil use.
As a non-pitbull owner you'd lose nothing to such a ban, and thereby you probably don't give a crap if they're banned - no different than folks who don't give a crap about gun bans because they don't have any guns and don't want any. That doesn't mean the rights of responsible people to own whatever gun -or dog- they want should be forfeited to appease people's biases and preferences.


Just as a thought exercise, let's say that anti-pitbull site you linked gets their big dream and there's a 100% ban on all Pitbulls across the board at a Federal level. All must be spayed/neutered immediately, and any Pitbull without proof of being fixed is to be shot on sight by all LE, and in 10 years all Pitbulls or dogs that even passingly look like Pitbull mixes get shot on sight. Yay, those dogs are all gone now, dangerous or otherwise.

But wait, shitheads are gonna shithead, so now they're irresponsibly breeding Bull Terriers or Boxers or Bulldogs or whatever other breed to deliberately reinforce aggression and strength because that's how they did it with Pitbulls for decades. Give that cycle another 15-20 years and then that new trendy breed is suddenly the evil breed all over again. Since Pitbulls got banned x years back, the precedence is set, so let's just ban that breed too, right?
Then the slippery slope sets in; after a few cycles of banning by breed, the legislators get wise and skip the breed specifics and just set size/weight limits now. First 40lbs, then 30lbs, then 20lbs, because nobody needs a dog heavier than 20lbs to enjoy its company. Except that military and LE working dogs can still be full size Mals and GSD's of course. But it's for the safety of the children, so it's all okay, right?

Personally, I hold people accountable for what they do, either by their actions or their failure to act. I don't blame the dogs if the owners are stupid enough to let them run loose or don't have them properly contained and trained. I don't blame guns or knives for murderous assholes that happen to use guns or knives. I don't blame swimming pools when kids drown in swimming pools. I don't blame cars or trucks for people who drive them drunk or carelessly. I don't blame alcohol for people who abuse it or abuse other drugs. I don't blame the mountain or the hiking trail or the ski hill or the wilderness when some dumbasses fail to assess & prepare for reality and get lost/freeze to death/heat stroke/etc.
People are at fault for those bad outcomes. So I hold the people accountable. Not the circumstances, the mechanism, or the means. I'd humbly suggest everyone to do the same in all things.

[Borderland]

I've owned a number of dogs in my life, I think 6 or 7. All came to me at a trainable early age.

From all those many dogs and the way they all turned out I have to say a dogs training and social interaction with people and other dogs is much more important than the breed. My social circle was hunters and trainers for about 10 years. A few of those trainers had some pretty impressive accolades, were breeders and trained professionally.

I know of two incidents where Pit Bull Terriers had to be destroyed because of attacks on people or other dogs. I didn't know the owners in either situation but I'm betting the owners had more to do with that than the dog breed. My brother had a Pit Bull Terrier that was a real sweetheart. Never any issues with aggressive behavior.

All of the dogs I've owned were hunting breeds and were purchased for that work. I've never had a reason to own a dog for protection or home security. After all those years of owning dogs I don't have one today and have no plans of getting another one.

[Robert Mitchum]

My Wife was bitten by a GSD, I have zero use for the breed, but I would never paint a board brush on how dangerous they are.
The dog got away from the owner so who is at fault? in my book the owner.
My son loves game bread Pits he has never had any problems with them.

I spend a lot of money for dogs from top-of-the-line breeders that know their business.

The breeder I get my dogs from

"Temperament"
"The temperament of the Presa Canario is much misunderstood in this country. The breed is specifically described as "dog of guard." This means a defensive posture. Many people believe the Presa Canario should be unapproachable by strangers. THIS IS NOT TRUE! The Presa Canario should be watchful and alert at all times, but accepting of a friendly stranger. Calm, confidence in all settings, ready to protect or interact, whichever the situation might warrant. Presa's are capable of getting Canine Good Citizen Titles, doing Therapy Work, working in nursing homes, doing all manner of service work all while having gone thru a rigorous course of Personal Protection training. The breed is very versatile and should be neither outwardly vicious or excessively shy. The breed has a loyalty to family that is extraordinary. They bond to family like few breeds I've met.

The Myth of the Natural Protector.

A lot of breeders claim their dogs are 'natural protectors' and need no training. This is, in my opinion one of the most dangerous advertising ploys out there. It allows breeders to sell their product as guardians without any training. It attracts an unseemly customer. It lulls people into a false sense of security about their safety and the safety of the supposed protector. And it allows the dog, with the mentality of a 3 year old at best, to make decisions on its own about who needs to be dealt with. ALL dogs need to be trained, obedience at least. But if you plan on having your dog for protection, it needs advanced obedience first then protection training that continues with obedience that teaches the dog how to bite, when to bite and most importantly when not to bite! All of this should be topped off with an absolute out command under any and all distractions.

So you think you want a sport dog?

My suggestion to you is to find a good working line German Shepherd or Malinois and save yourself the heartache and stress of attempting to compete with a non traditional breed like the Presa Canario. You will run into some significant problems if you try to work this breed in the sports more suited to herders. First, you will have a hard time finding a trainer willing, much less able to train your dog to a sport title. Secondly, you will have to have way more patience and persistence to train your Presa to a sport title than you would if you just went out and got a herder. Third, its very hard to find breeders who understand enough about sports to be able to identify a proper potential candidate for sports work. Many may think they need to just pick you the hardest pup in the litter and that will be what you need. That will get you a dominant, hard ass protective Presa but it usually will not get you a sport dog. You need a breeder who is able to select you a dog that not only has nerve and courage but also has train ability and drive for a reward (food specifically).
While I do not think this breed is traditionally suited for sports, there are puppies within specific pairings that I do think may have the potential to excel in protection sports. Those puppies can be purchased with that goal in mind, but no guarantee of a title is offered. There are way too many variables in training, raising and socialization to guarantee that.

A Small Gene Pool and Test Breeding.

The Presa Canario has a very small gene pool. From its reclamation, many distinct lines emerged and are what we see in the US today. With that in mind, the importance of test breeding becomes abundantly clear. Dogs with type faults (not lacking type) bred to dogs with excellent type......dogs lacking strong character (not cowards or maniacs) bred to dogs with excellent character......dogs with minor health issues bred to dogs of excellent health. All these pairings become necessary to improve and add to a small gene pool. This is where test breeding comes into play. While I will be the first to say NO German Shepherd should be bred that is failing in one of the three big issues, type, temperament and health, it does become necessary to use a dog that has excellent qualities but may lack in one area. There are thousands of German Shepherds so finding one that excels in all three areas, should be easy. Unfortunately with the state of dog breeding in general, this is not always the case either. At .... Kennel, we favor this test breeding as long as people are willing to keep track of the progress of the progeny and remove a problem dog from their breeding program. With breed improvement as a primary goal, this is how it should be.
Our Goal.

The Presa Canario is first and foremost, a working breed. l, we strive for strong working temperament, soundness of body and as typically accurate dogs as possible. One of the first priorities we have as working dog owners, is control. No dog is worked or trained for PP or any other protection sport until advanced obedience has been completed. Our dogs are good workers, but not something the public needs to be afraid of. The essence of a true working dog is calm, confidence in crowd settings, watchful of strangers but accepting of those who mean no harm. Don't fall for the myth of the natural protector, ALL dogs need training to become effective and SAFE. We also welcome any requests to see our dogs work. While we don't feel the Presa Canario always makes for a great competition sport dog, we do believe they make the perfect companion guardians. Stable temperaments GUARANTEED!

[WobblyPossum]

I dont know what makes you think I would accept that.

You’re expressing a bias against pitbulls but choose to own a high strung dog that needs firm structure and proper training. The pitbulls need the same structure and training in order to be good family dogs. They’re just less likely to get it than Mals and GSDs. I’ve seen that Mals and GSDs are more likely to be owned by people who will at least get them some training and structure compared to pits.

Your OP had pitbulls making up something over 6% of dogs owned in the US. That’s a HUGE percentage. It’s something like 1 in 15 dogs are pitbulls. There are how many breeds of dogs out there? AKC recognizes something like 197. Imagine if there were as many Mals or GSDs owned as pitbulls. A substantial percentage of them would be owned by people who wouldn’t provide the necessary structure or training. You’d be seeing a lot of aggressive Mals and GSDs running around and attacking people. Honestly, with how many people own pitbulls compared to how many people are responsible dog owners, I’m surprised the numbers of wounded and killed aren’t higher.

[UNK]

I would have responded to each of your posts, @UNK, but each response would basically have been re-phrasing each of your arguments as an anti-AR15 argument. It's the same playbook of appeal to emotion followed by massive oversimplifications and sweeping judgement and bias. Lots of old man Ruger and Zumbo-esque sorts of claims and parallels to be made, even the old 'if it prevents one tragedy' argument. I implore you to take a step back and re-read your arguments with that in mind and see the parallels I'm talking about.



Then why did you start a thread with a bunch of links to a website that's calling for exactly a one-size-fits-all blanket ban on Pitbulls everywhere? The whole purpose of that site is to support BSL and it touts the 'successes' of BSL in local areas. They're anything but understated about that goal.



As I see it, it goes one of two ways;

Dogs have agency of some kind, and each one is an individual that can't and shouldn't be judged solely on its appearance, weight, breed, etc. That makes pit bull bans/bigotry/biases etc or any other BSL morally wrong at a fundamental level. Which, again, is the stated goal of that website you cited in the OP.

Or

Dogs are legally the property and responsibility of their owners, full stop.
Which means negligent/abusive/stupid/etc owners are 100% responsible for the actions of their dogs, good and bad, regardless of what they intend or thought would happen or 'OMG, she's never bit anyone before' moments. That makes every instance you've ever experienced of an off-leash pitbull or any other dog acting dangerously the full responsibility of that owner, not the dog itself. No different than how we hold a gun owner responsible when the 'I thought it wasn't loaded' kind of oh-shit moment happens.
In which case a ban of a specific breed serves only to punish all owners, responsible and irresponsible, no different than banning certain guns based on perceptions of predisposition to criminal or evil use.
As a non-pitbull owner you'd lose nothing to such a ban, and thereby you probably don't give a crap if they're banned - no different than folks who don't give a crap about gun bans because they don't have any guns and don't want any. That doesn't mean the rights of responsible people to own whatever gun -or dog- they want should be forfeited to appease people's biases and preferences.


Just as a thought exercise, let's say that anti-pitbull site you linked gets their big dream and there's a 100% ban on all Pitbulls across the board at a Federal level. All must be spayed/neutered immediately, and any Pitbull without proof of being fixed is to be shot on sight by all LE, and in 10 years all Pitbulls or dogs that even passingly look like Pitbull mixes get shot on sight. Yay, those dogs are all gone now, dangerous or otherwise.

But wait, shitheads are gonna shithead, so now they're irresponsibly breeding Bull Terriers or Boxers or Bulldogs or whatever other breed to deliberately reinforce aggression and strength because that's how they did it with Pitbulls for decades. Give that cycle another 15-20 years and then that new trendy breed is suddenly the evil breed all over again. Since Pitbulls got banned x years back, the precedence is set, so let's just ban that breed too, right?
Then the slippery slope sets in; after a few cycles of banning by breed, the legislators get wise and skip the breed specifics and just set size/weight limits now. First 40lbs, then 30lbs, then 20lbs, because nobody needs a dog heavier than 20lbs to enjoy its company. Except that military and LE working dogs can still be full size Mals and GSD's of course. But it's for the safety of the children, so it's all okay, right?

Personally, I hold people accountable for what they do, either by their actions or their failure to act. I don't blame the dogs if the owners are stupid enough to let them run loose or don't have them properly contained and trained. I don't blame guns or knives for murderous assholes that happen to use guns or knives. I don't blame swimming pools when kids drown in swimming pools. I don't blame cars or trucks for people who drive them drunk or carelessly. I don't blame alcohol for people who abuse it or abuse other drugs. I don't blame the mountain or the hiking trail or the ski hill or the wilderness when some dumbasses fail to assess & prepare for reality and get lost/freeze to death/heat stroke/etc.
People are at fault for those bad outcomes. So I hold the people accountable. Not the circumstances, the mechanism, or the means. I'd humbly suggest everyone to do the same in all things.

2 questions:
1) Is there a debate as to whether pit bulls are even in the top five most popular breeds in America with regards to total numbers of dogs in America?

2) Is there a debate as to whether pit bulls cause more deaths and serious injuries in America in terms of raw numbers of attacks than any other breed?

If there is no debate on those numbers, then there can only be 2 possibilities:
1) Pitt bulls cause disproportionate numbers of deaths and serious injuries.
2) Pit bulls disproportionately attract shithead owners who cause their dogs to be dangerous.

Personally, I don’t think the 2 options are mutually exclusive, so I avoid pit bulls and people who own them like the plague.