Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage
of reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets
that just snapped and went wild.


For the most part, seemingly gentle family pets of all breeds are
untrained. ALL dogs should be trained. ALL large dogs should be
professionaly trained.

Too bad that few dogs received knowledgeable training, much less
professional training. Makes you question the sanity of allowing dangerous
breeds into residential neighbourhoods.

"mp" wrote in :

Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large
percentage of reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle
family pets that just snapped and went wild.


For the most part, seemingly gentle family pets of all breeds are
untrained. ALL dogs should be trained. ALL large dogs should be
professionaly trained.

Too bad that few dogs received knowledgeable training, much less
professional training. Makes you question the sanity of allowing
dangerous breeds into residential neighbourhoods.




Also too bad that most owners have never been trained and don't have a
clue. There's always shock and amazement when Fluffie the Yorkie rips a
squirrel to shreds in the back yard.

You were doing OK until this last little bit which succeeded in removing any
credibility you had.

"Jay Knepper" wrote in message
...
Now the original poster, apparently distraught at not being able to use
his
".44" in what is apparently a suburban neighborhood, unwittingly presents
an
argument for gun control. But that's another OT for this group.

Sounds like you had a really nasty experience. I'm not sure why someone
whose dog had to be muzzled would take it to a dog park, let alone let it
run. The owner is an idiot, and it sounds like the dog might be a real
threat. But note that we remember and discuss the breed, not the owners.
That's always the way it is.

I was walking in a dog park with a husband and wife their dog, and my dogs a
few years ago. The wife was chatty but the husband was rather quiet. At one
point she told me that her husband "had a thing" about pit bulls. I asked
him about it, and he said he was OK with my dogs, but he his forearm had
been seriously injured when his neighbour's dog attacked him. It turns out
that the neighbour had trained the dog by having it hang by its teeth from a
suspended 2x4, while beating it with a wire coat hanger. Otherwise it was
kept isolated outside on a short chain. The chain trick alone tends to make
dogs agressive toward people.

Dave Mundt has posted a URL later in this thread that gives a fair picture
of the breed and its characteristics,
http://www.rescueeverydog.org/pitbull_breed.html. I hope that a few others
in the group take a look at it, or will do their own research. Some of the
salient points of the URL are that pitt bulls were originally bred to be
VERY people friendly, but agressive to other animals. I'm sure that there
are breeders that still work for dog-agressive qualites because I understand
that dog fights are remain popular in some parts of the country. What I
hate is painting all of these animals with the same brush.

Jay



"Peter De Smidt" pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message
...



We've been dog owners for a good number of years. Our first dogs were
Bernese Mountain Dogs, both of whom have sadly passed away, and now we
have a 14 month old Leonberger name Murphy. Our dogs go on three long
walks a day, at least one of which is usually a woods ramble or an
adventure to a dog park. Unfortunately we don't go to dog parks anymore
since our dogs have been attacked too many times, and I've gotten bitten
pulling other people's dogs off of mine. Our dogs have been attacked by
golden retrievers and akitas, but the biggest offenders have been german
shepherds, rottweilers and pit bulls.

A pit bull made the scariest attack. He charged Murphy from 100 yards
away and lunged for his throat. Luckily, the pit was wearing a muzzle.
Nonetheless, he keep lunging and doing what he could to get at Murphy. The
raging noises the pit bull made were unbelievable. During the roughly 5
minutes that it took the owners to get a hold of their dog, they spent the
first minutes just watching, the muzzle almost slipped off. If that had
happened, Murphy would be dead, and then either I or the pit bull would
also have been no more. I could grab Murphy, but that just made him a
stationary target.

People with aggressive dogs should never put that dog in a situation where
he can harm anyone or any dog, and people who have dogs that were
historically bred for fighting have to be very careful even if their dog
hasn't shown any aggression. There are a great number of incidents were a
supposedly perfectly behaved pit bull, akita, mastiff... went berserk and
hurt or killed something. I'm not saying that people shouldn't own these
breeds, but if they do they should very pro-active dog owners with
significant experience in dog training, and they should be responsible for
what their dog does. In my experience, this is often not the case.

-Peter De Smidt

Well, Searcher reported seeing two sets of people walking dogs during his
encounter. That does not sound like an area where one should be firing a
large handgun. But you're right, that comment was OT squared.

Jay
"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
You were doing OK until this last little bit which succeeded in removing
any
credibility you had.

"Jay Knepper" wrote in message
...
Now the original poster, apparently distraught at not being able to use
his
".44" in what is apparently a suburban neighborhood, unwittingly presents
an
argument for gun control. But that's another OT for this group.

Mark Hopkins wrote:

Your "friend" ought to have HIS ass whipped.

Just to set the record straight, he was an acquaintance. No way would a call
him a friend.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Mark Hopkins wrote:

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

[......]

I am generally of a live and let live philosophy on most issues, but to me
there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these dogs,
particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault
weapons,
and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around one, except
for the owner.

To let one run loose in an urban situation, even accidentally, is akin to
assault with a deadly weapon and should be treated as such.


This is like saying anyone who uses Dewalt tools is a poor woodworker
without knowing anything about them.

Not exactly. It's more like saying anyone who has a high-powered shaper and
misuses it is a poor woodworker.

I've never owned a pit bull, but I have several friends who have them and I've
spent a lot of time around them. I have found them to be loving, affectionate,
even-tempered and easy to handle. What's more, any sign of aggressiveness
towards humans was systematically bred out of them. They are outstanding dogs.

But they are outstanding dogs in exactly the same way a powerful shaper is an
outstanding tool. If you do not know what you're doing, the consequences of
having one can be pretty horrendous.

Pit bulls are extremely strong and very, very quick dogs. While aggression
towards humans was bred out, they have the normal terrier aggressiveness toward
other animals their size or smaller. They need to be carefully socialized to
both humans and animals. Further, they require owners who understand them, will
work with them, discipline them wisely and above all keep them under
psychological control.

Having watched several people raise them from puppies, I firmly believe pit
bulls, rewarding as they are, are not dogs for novices.

Beyond this, pit bulls have a bad reputation and are discriminated against
because of it. Many animal control departments, humane societies, etc., will
automatically euthanize any pit bills they acquire. If the dog is running free
(which is a strong condemnation of any dog owner) animal control will typically
keep it for, say, three days and then put it down.

Pit bull owners are also under legal disabilities. If the dog does bite another
animal or a person, there is in effect a strong presumption that the dog is
'vicious' that works against the owner in court. And of course in some places
they are classed as 'dangerous breed' by law and require special bonds,
enclosures, etc. if they will let people keep them at all.

You can argue that this kind of action against pit bulls is another example of
fools confusing the thing with the person behind it. In my opinion you'd be
correct.

But the fact remains that anyone who allows a pit bull to run free (or get into
a situation where they can get free) is a bad owner and should be sanctioned.

--RC



Having owned several dogs of this breed, have found them to be very playful,
loyal, LOVING animals. Nothing vicious about them. My most recent pup sleeps
under a blanket, loves honey buns and is very partial to cherry, but would
never harm anyone unless you looked like a tennis ball or a squirrel. He
even loves cats.

Any dog can be made to be a vicious, anti social assault weapon, even a
chihuahua. It is the owner who trains the animal that is the problem.

[Image]

Peter De Smidt wrote:

Dave Mundt wrote:

snip
Now...as the above points out, they [pit bulls] WERE bred for fighting,
whichs means that they WILL have a tendency (hard to overcome) to
fight with other DOGS. However, again, with proper training, it
is possible to overcome this, so the pit bull will not automatically
attack on sight...but...it does require training.
snip

That's quite scary, though, isn't it?

Not if you've ever been around pit bulls. Mostly what they are bred to do is please
their owners.

Clearly most owners are not
knowledgeable or equipped to do such training,

Well, no. It takes works and a little knowledge, but it is not at all beyond the
ability of the average person. You're simply wrong.

and it's a leap of faith
that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency.

No, it's a clearly demonstrated fact that pit bulls are readily trained not to be
aggressive toward other dogs. They are no more difficult in this respect that
terriers in general. Yes, it takes training. But it is neither rocket science nor
any great mystery. I've seen it done repeatedly and the dogs were perfectly safe
around everything from other dogs to new-born kittens. (Whether the pit bull was
safe from the mother cat was another question.)

You might make it
less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
remove that urge? I doubt it.

You may doubt it all you want. But it is still a fact and easily demonstrable. In
fact a well-trained pit bull is quite capable of standing there and taking it
without retaliation when attacked by another dog.



Consider Siegfried and Roy. Clearly they trained and socialized their
animals much, much more than the average dog owner, but nonetheless
tragedy struck.

Let me let you in on a little secret. Dogs, any dogs, are not tigers. They are the
products of thousands of years of selective breeding to socialize them to human
beings. Tigers haven't been and they are an infinitely dicier proposition to
handle.

Training can mitigate inborn tendencies, but that's not
the same thing as removing them.

The behavior of ANY dog
completely depends on the training and level of attention
that the owner gives to the dog.

That's not true, the behavior of any dog completely depends on it's
training, and on it's genetic pre-dispositions and the environment.
Otherwise you could train a newfoundland to be as good a sheep herder as
your average border collie.

For our purposes it comes down to the same thing.

--RC



-Peter De Smidt

Swingman wrote:

"Peter De Smidt" wrote in message Dave Mundt wrote:

snip
Now...as the above points out, they [pit bulls] WERE bred for fighting,
whichs means that they WILL have a tendency (hard to overcome) to
fight with other DOGS. However, again, with proper training, it
is possible to overcome this, so the pit bull will not automatically
attack on sight...but...it does require training.
snip

That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of faith
that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might make it
less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
remove that urge? I doubt it.

Precisely!

Precisely wrong! Do you have ANY experience whatsoever with being around pit
bulls? Have you ever trained one or tried to train one?

It's pretty clear you're talking from a near-complete lack of knowledge.

--RC





Consider Siegfried and Roy. Clearly they trained and socialized their
animals much, much more than the average dog owner, but nonetheless
tragedy struck. Training can mitigate inborn tendencies, but that's not
the same thing as removing them.


The behavior of ANY dog
completely depends on the training and level of attention
that the owner gives to the dog.

That's not true, the behavior of any dog completely depends on it's
training, and on it's genetic pre-dispositions and the environment.
Otherwise you could train a newfoundland to be as good a sheep herder as
your average border collie.

Absolutely correct ... and particularly with a breed like the pit bull, it's
damn scary that anyone can actually think otherwise.

What is scary is the level of arrogant ignorance we're seeing demonstrated here.

--RC



--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:12:30 -0400, Tom Watson
scribbled:

It's time to call up BARK (Brotherhood of All Restaurants Korean) and
petition them to look into this situation.

We had a similar problem with marauding felines and made one phone
call to CAT (Chinese-Asian-Thai restaurant group).

They sent out a SWAT (Small Wild Animals Tasty) Team and we haven't
heard so much as a meow in months.

(If there is anyone who has not been offended by this post, please
forward your name and ethnicity via email, and an every attempt will
be made to insult you personally.)

That should have CATI (or CATV - sorry to undermine your cool
acronym), as the people from Vicenza (vicentini) are renowned for
eating cats. Luckily, few of them immigrated to North America, so we
get pizza & spaghetti rather than cat polenta.

Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html

Peter De Smidt wrote:

Peter De Smidt responds:


You might make it
less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
remove that urge? I doubt it.

Consider Siegfried and Roy. Clearly they trained and socialized their
animals much, much more than the average dog owner, but nonetheless
tragedy struck. Training can mitigate inborn tendencies, but that's not
the same thing as removing them.



Charlie Self wrote:

Sorry. The analogy doesn't work. Tigers are NOT dogs and no attempt has ever
been made to domesticate them.

snip

I never claimed that tigers are dogs. My point was that socialization
and training do not remove inborn tendencies, and my example
demonstrates that. Behavioral training and socialization of tigers,
dogs, hawks (which I've done), killer whales,..., are all very similar,
and use well established behavioral conditioning, even though the
specific inborn tendencies are quite different.

Yeah and some of those inborn tendencies relates to degree of socialization and
aggression. Keep in mind that pit bulls as a breed are perhaps 200 years old at
most. (Actually only about 100, but the difference is nugatory.) Dogs split off
from wolves about 10,000 years ago and for all that time they were bred to
socialization with humans, obedience and away from wolf-like aggression.

Terriers in general have a tendency to attack other animals. The differences in
pit bulls relate more to their size and strength and to any 'killer instinct'.
(BTW: As near as I can see, pit bulls have no more killer instinct that other
terriers. What they do have is 'gameness' -- the unwillingness to quit. That and
an extreme willingness to do anything to please their owners.)

If you'd spent as much time around pit bulls as you have around hawks you'd
understand that.




But in any case we seem to agree on the overall point.

-Peter De Smidt

And neither of you apparently has any experience with the animals in question.
Sheesh!

--RC

Swingman wrote:

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
Greetings and Salutations....

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:18:37 -0500, "Swingman"wrote:

*snip*

I am generally of a live and let live philosophy on most issues, but to
me
there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these dogs,
particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault
weapons,
and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around one,
except
for the owner.

I have to take some issue with this, as it is exactly like
saying all African-Americans are shiftless, promiscuous drug dealers.

Tsk tsk ... next we're going to advocate civil rights to animals?

No, actually he's pointing up the irrationality of your position.



You certainly CAN make that generalization about ANY animal that was
_specifically_ bred to attack and kill ... just as you can safely say that
any dog running loose in an urban setting is NOT receiving the proper
attention. Put the two together, particularly with an American Pit Bull, and
you're asking for trouble.

AAMOF, if you have a dog you love, _you_ damn well better make that
generalization the next time you see a pit bull running loose close by.

Here is a fairly good look at the breed and its characteristics

I grew up with one. I've no doubt there are many that are lovable creatures
in the breed (we owned a Staffordshire Terrier - given to my Dad as a gift
by the CEO of Chevron Oil Company of those days - which was basically the
same breed as American Pit Bull at the time, and while well trained and
lovable to humans and children, would attack and kill another dog in a
heartbeat, and did on more than occasion).

In other words the person wouldn't know a pit bull if he saw one. A Staffy is
NOT a pit bull and the differences are pretty obvious if you do know.

Now it is true that Staffys were also fighting dogs and one time and have the
terrier aggressiveness. What your story proves is that the owner didn't take the
time to properly socialize the dog so that it would not attack other dogs. That
can be a problem with any breed and its especially likely to be a problem with
terriers. Even very small terriers are notorious for picking fights with other
dogs.



THe bottom line for me is that it is a bad thing to
label ANY breed of dog as "evil". The behavior of ANY dog
completely depends on the training and level of attention
that the owner gives to the dog.

Sounds good ... but I still have the scars on my hand to prove, inarguably,
that this is not correct. The pit bull that got me years later, and the
little boy, was a well trained family pet that was following his inherent
instinct to attack and kill the other dog.

You have the scars on your hand to prove you got in the middle of a dog fight --
albeit for good reasons -- and you got bit. This somehow makes the dog that bit
you unusually vicious?

Swing, I've got news for you. If a dog -- any dog -- is out to hurt you, you
don't just get bit on the hand.


I've been around dogs all my life and have never seen another domestic
animal with the instincts of the pit bull.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention.

Look, I'm sorry you got bit. I'm even sorrier the dog that bit you was a pit
bull. (If in fact it was. There's a tendency to claim any medium-size
short-muzzled dog that bites someone is a pit bull. A lot of people can't even
recognize them.)

But your position is something like claiming that all African-Americans are
dangerous criminals because you were once mugged by an Africian American.

--RC



--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

Also too bad that most owners have never been trained and don't have a
clue. There's always shock and amazement when Fluffie the Yorkie rips a
squirrel to shreds in the back yard.

Better a ripping squirrel to shreds than the face of your neighbours kid.

Charlie Self wrote:

Swingman responds:

You certainly CAN make that generalization about ANY animal that was
_specifically_ bred to attack and kill ... just as you can safely say that
any dog running loose in an urban setting is NOT receiving the proper
attention. Put the two together, particularly with an American Pit Bull, and
you're asking for trouble.

AAMOF, if you have a dog you love, _you_ damn well better make that
generalization the next time you see a pit bull running loose close by.

I agree. Our little mutt--15 pounds of wiggle and wag, basically--was in the
yard last week, and I got her in the house in a hurry when two pit bulls ambled
down the drive. I'd never seen them before, but shut the doors and drove to
town to borrow a shotgun.

I'm not about to give two dogs that size a chance to show much more than a
frigging HINT of agressive behavior on my property.

Nor should you. With any breed of dog. Two dogs running loose together compounds
the problem.

But don't blame it on the dogs being pit bulls.

--RC

There is no leash law in
this county, something I consider a bad mistake as population grows and
wandering canines increase in number. Sooner or later, something serious is
going to happen to a child, rather than another dog. Then action will be taken,
too late for the child.

That won't happen on my two acres.

Charlie Self
"Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Lobby Dosser did say:


For the most part, seemingly gentle family pets of all breeds are
untrained. ALL dogs should be trained. ALL large dogs should be
professionaly trained.

All Usenet posts should be professionally edited before being posted.

mp wrote:

The bottom line is that with pit bulls, as well as every other
breed of dog, the behavior of the dog is directly related to the
training given it by the owner. If the owner trains it to promote
its aggressive tendencies, then, it will be aggressive. If it is
trained to attack...it will attack. On the other hand, if the owner
has treated the dog with love and promoted its friendlier side, then
it will not endanger any human.

Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage of
reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets that just
snapped and went wild.

"Snapped and went wild"? What utter nonsense! Absent psychosis, dogs simply
don't do that. Dog behavior is actually quite predictable, including a
potential attack, if you speak dog fluently enough.

One of the problem here is that dogs of any breed tend to behave differently
around their owners and families than they do around strangers or other dogs.
Most dog owners, unfortunately, are content if their dog is reasonably well
behaved around the family. And of course none of them will admit that their
dog had behavior problems after a dog bite incident.

--RC

Nova wrote:

mp wrote:

Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage of
reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets that just
snapped and went wild.

I knew an acquaintance that had three pit bulls. He used to fight them every
weekend. When anyone asked they were just "family pets" too.

People who fight dogs are a pretty low form of life. It's one of the things most
pit bull owners hate. Not that that stops the dog fighters.

(If you've ever seen the 'winner' of a tough dog fight you'll know why most pit
bull owners hate dog fights so much. A battle sick dog is an awful sight.)

--RC



--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Jay Knepper wrote:

Your aquaintance is a scum bag. The breed was originally developed to be
agressive to animals, but very people-friendly.

In fact a fighting pit bull that showed aggressiveness towards humans was killed
out of hand.

In my research I read of how
owners of fighting dogs would regularly stay in the ring with their dogs,
get down beside them, and urge them on as they ripped each other apart.

The rules of American dog fighting require that the owners stay in the ring
while the dogs are fighting. Further, they have to wade in an separate their
dogs at the referee's command. They can't afford to have a dog which is
aggressive towards humans because they're the ones most likely to be bitten.

In fact you're less likely to be bitten by a pit bull in breaking up a dog fight
than just about any other breed. Which does not make it a good idea to try to do
it.


So it is possible that his dogs were not a threat to you or to his family.
However he was participating in a criminal activity, and probably not
someone you would like to sit down and have a beer with.

As you say. A scum bag.

--RC



Jay

"Nova" wrote in message
...
mp wrote:

Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage of
reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets that
just
snapped and went wild.

I knew an acquaintance that had three pit bulls. He used to fight them
every
weekend. When anyone asked they were just "family pets" too.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

mp wrote:

Ideally, one would like to think so. Unfortunately a large percentage
of reported pit bull attacks were from seemingly gentle family pets
that just snapped and went wild.


For the most part, seemingly gentle family pets of all breeds are
untrained. ALL dogs should be trained. ALL large dogs should be
professionaly trained.

Too bad that few dogs received knowledgeable training, much less
professional training. Makes you question the sanity of allowing dangerous
breeds into residential neighbourhoods.

Reality check: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DANGEROUS BREED" of dog. All
breeds of dogs are potentially dangerous and the danger increases in
proportion to their size and strength. This is not because larger dogs are
more aggressive. It is because they can do more damage.

--RC

How about. "Get the county to pass a leash law" time?

--RC

AAvK wrote:

I see what you mean, But from my point of view (at the time) that dog was
making a bee line at my child. When the dog was coming at him I did not have
my gun. I think that if that other couple had not been there, the dogs
attention would have still been on my son. My child was ushered into the
house while I finished cleaning up. I had the gun for my protection at that
point. I most certainly would not have shot the dog just for coming near my
yard, it would have to have been showing aggression toward me.

I don't blame you for the way you feel. At all. But, "build a picket fence time"?
Alex

Agree -- except for specifying a pit bull.
--RC

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

Joseph Connors wrote:
From your story, it sounds like the dog did not attack anyone. I understand
being prepared to defend yourself and others, but if it were my dog
(unlikely since I keep mine inside always) and you killed him just because
you thought that he was a danger, it would be you that "would have been
hauled off in a bag!"
A dog, like anyone else, doesn't deserve to be shot for what he MIGHT do!

If an aggressive pit bull comes charging at me, I'm not going to feel bad about
killing it. If you own one, you have a responsibility to keep it safe. That
does not include allowing it to run free.

I will defend myself... against man or beast... if I have to. Somebody else can
wait to be chewed up. I won't.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Prometheus wrote:

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 02:51:08 GMT, "Searcher"
wrote:

A dog here almost became filled with lead today, I was out in my yard with
my 3 year old son, doing a little yard work. Luckily, my siter in law was
close to my son when from around the garage came a pit bull at full charge.
After my siter in law grabbed up my son the dog took off after another
couple walking thier dog, it was then that I retrieved my .44 with every
intention of dispatching that animal. The dog was still roaming as I was
cleaning up our garden tools and I was ready. I saw the dog take off after
another person walking his dog. I kept cleaning up and went in. I have not
seen that dog before or again. But if that dog had come near my yard it
would have been hauled off in a bag!

I love dogs, but those pit-bulls are nasty creatures.

Wrong. For the most part they are gentle and loving dogs.

I never
understood why the people who own them seem to like to let them roam
around loose all the time.

People who own dogs of any sort and let them roam around loose aren't going to
have them very long. This is doubly true of pit bulls because of the prejudice
against them. (Which we have seen amply demonstrated here.)


--RC

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , (Greg) wrote:
The most popular breeds
tend to be overbred and thereby create some nasty animals.

Truer words were never spoken. Bad dogs are caused by bad breeders ans bad
owners.

Up to a point, yes. The fact still remains that some breeds are much more
easily made into bad dogs than others. You'd have to work at it a *lot* harder
to make an attack dog out of a golden retriever, than out of a pit bull.

Well no. Or not nearly as much as you think. Retrievers aren't terriers, but they can be
trained to be just as nasty and aggressive as any other kind of dog. They don't have the pit
bull's reflexes or strength so they wouldn't be quite as much of a threat, but it absolutely
would not be for lack of trying.

--RC



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Rick Cook" spewed in message


Swingman wrote:

"Peter De Smidt" wrote in message

That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of
faith
that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might make it
less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
remove that urge? I doubt it.

Precisely!

Precisely wrong!

Do you have ANY experience whatsoever with being around pit
bulls? Have you ever trained one or tried to train one?

Can you read? Do you? According to your own words in a previous message, you
havent had any of the above.

It's pretty clear you're talking from a near-complete lack of knowledge.

Had you made the smallest effort to read this thread, you wouldn't have made
such a fool out of yourself by jumping to that erroneous conclusion. You
also made clear that your qualifications were limited to having "never owned
one" and only "having several friends who own them ..."

Not exactly what I'd call expert opinion that justifies such, well ...
"arrogance" ... another one of your words in this thread.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

Swingman wrote:

"Jay Knepper" wrote in message

To make the bald statement that "...those pit-bulls are nasty
creatures..."
is wrong.

See my other post on the subject.

In which you displayed both prejudice and a near complete ignorance.



It is smart to be cautious about any dog. Large, athletic breeds
especially
can do damage if they have been trained to do so.

Not true at all of the pit bull

True of any dog.


.. inarguably, the pit bull does not have to
be "trained to do so" ... it was bred _specifically_ "to do so".

Wrong again. While terriers in general tend to be aggressive toward other
animals, pit bulls have to be very specifically trained to fight. Some of the
training methods are pretty horrendous.


Too the contrary, as general rule thay have to be trained NOT to do so

No. Like any terrier they need to be socialized around other dogs, cats, etc.
But they do NOT have to be trained not to attack them. The statement simply
demonstrates further your lack of knowledge.


... a
circumstance I don't necessarily relish with the number of idiots running
loose in this culture, and certainly not one I would rely upon to safeguard
my dogs, or even the children in the neighborhood, particularly if they are
walking a dog.

I like dogs, have been around them all my life, and have owned many breeds
... I've yet to see a dog with the propensity, and the tools/physique
necessary, to do "damage" to another dog, or human if they get in the way.

Then you haven't been around many medium to large dog breeds.

--RC



You can argue all you want, and I would own another pit bull ... but not in
an urban setting, and damn sure not without kicking my umbrella policy up a
few more million.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

WoodMangler wrote in
news
Lobby Dosser did say:


For the most part, seemingly gentle family pets of all breeds are
untrained. ALL dogs should be trained. ALL large dogs should be
professionaly trained.

All Usenet posts should be professionally edited before being posted.


Quite true, but I've yet to be bit by one. )

In article , Rick Cook wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:

In article ,
(Greg) wrote:
The most popular breeds
tend to be overbred and thereby create some nasty animals.

Truer words were never spoken. Bad dogs are caused by bad breeders ans bad
owners.

Up to a point, yes. The fact still remains that some breeds are much more
easily made into bad dogs than others. You'd have to work at it a *lot*
harder
to make an attack dog out of a golden retriever, than out of a pit bull.

Well no. Or not nearly as much as you think. Retrievers aren't terriers, but
they can be
trained to be just as nasty and aggressive as any other kind of dog. They don't
have the pit
bull's reflexes or strength so they wouldn't be quite as much of a threat, but
it absolutely
would not be for lack of trying.

I did not say that goldies could not be made "nasty and aggressive".
I said that it's much harder to do with that breed than with pit bulls.
Not impossible, just much more difficult.

If you dispute that, if you really believe that a golden retriever can be made
into an attack dog as easily as can a pit bull, then your comments on this
subject do not deserve to be taken seriously.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...


Swingman wrote:

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
Greetings and Salutations....

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:18:37 -0500, "Swingman"wrote:

*snip*

I am generally of a live and let live philosophy on most issues, but
to
me
there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these dogs,
particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault
weapons,
and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around one,
except
for the owner.

I have to take some issue with this, as it is exactly like
saying all African-Americans are shiftless, promiscuous drug dealers.

Tsk tsk ... next we're going to advocate civil rights to animals?

No, actually he's pointing up the irrationality of your position.



You certainly CAN make that generalization about ANY animal that was
_specifically_ bred to attack and kill ... just as you can safely say
that
any dog running loose in an urban setting is NOT receiving the proper
attention. Put the two together, particularly with an American Pit Bull,
and
you're asking for trouble.

AAMOF, if you have a dog you love, _you_ damn well better make that
generalization the next time you see a pit bull running loose close by.

Here is a fairly good look at the breed and its characteristics

I grew up with one. I've no doubt there are many that are lovable
creatures
in the breed (we owned a Staffordshire Terrier - given to my Dad as a
gift
by the CEO of Chevron Oil Company of those days - which was basically
the
same breed as American Pit Bull at the time, and while well trained and
lovable to humans and children, would attack and kill another dog in a
heartbeat, and did on more than occasion).

In other words the person wouldn't know a pit bull if he saw one. A Staffy
is
NOT a pit bull and the differences are pretty obvious if you do know.

Now it is true that Staffys were also fighting dogs and one time and have
the
terrier aggressiveness. What your story proves is that the owner didn't
take the
time to properly socialize the dog so that it would not attack other dogs.
That
can be a problem with any breed and its especially likely to be a problem
with
terriers. Even very small terriers are notorious for picking fights with
other
dogs.



THe bottom line for me is that it is a bad thing to
label ANY breed of dog as "evil". The behavior of ANY dog
completely depends on the training and level of attention
that the owner gives to the dog.

Sounds good ... but I still have the scars on my hand to prove,
inarguably,
that this is not correct. The pit bull that got me years later, and the
little boy, was a well trained family pet that was following his
inherent
instinct to attack and kill the other dog.

You have the scars on your hand to prove you got in the middle of a dog
fight --
albeit for good reasons -- and you got bit. This somehow makes the dog
that bit
you unusually vicious?

Swing, I've got news for you. If a dog -- any dog -- is out to hurt you,
you
don't just get bit on the hand.


I've been around dogs all my life and have never seen another domestic
animal with the instincts of the pit bull.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention.

Look, I'm sorry you got bit. I'm even sorrier the dog that bit you was a
pit
bull. (If in fact it was. There's a tendency to claim any medium-size
short-muzzled dog that bites someone is a pit bull. A lot of people can't
even
recognize them.)

But your position is something like claiming that all African-Americans
are
dangerous criminals because you were once mugged by an Africian American.

Rick, your a TOTAL dork! ... go **** yourself!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

..

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 20:04:20 -0700, "Joseph Connors"
wrote:

From your story, it sounds like the dog did not attack anyone. I understand
being prepared to defend yourself and others, but if it were my dog
(unlikely since I keep mine inside always) and you killed him just because
you thought that he was a danger, it would be you that "would have been
hauled off in a bag!"
A dog, like anyone else, doesn't deserve to be shot for what he MIGHT do!

For many years I lived on a farm. We raised cattle, as did most of the
neighbors. It was standard practice to immediately kill any dog that
wandered onto your property because it might start chasing or
harassing the cattle (or deer, but that's another thread). A single
dog running a beef steer around the pasture one day can traumatize the
steer so that it takes weeks of additional feeding to finish it. The
cost is not insignificant.

People who work with food animals tend to have a little different set
of values.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
I did not say that goldies could not be made "nasty and aggressive".
I said that it's much harder to do with that breed than with pit bulls.
Not impossible, just much more difficult.

If you dispute that, if you really believe that a golden retriever can be
made
into an attack dog as easily as can a pit bull, then your comments on this
subject do not deserve to be taken seriously.

My neighbor has a 1 1/2 pound chihuahua that is mean as a snake around
larger dogs and has a heart the size of a mountain. It is very gentle around
kids too. He trained it to be mean around his other dog which is a pitbull,
female and very tame. The chihuahua is the alpha dog and the pitbull the
subordinate. It is quite funny to watch them sometimes.

OT bad experience today

Group: rec.woodworking Date: Sat, Oct 2, 2004, 10:18am (EDT-1)
(Swingman) says:
snip I had my right hand completely bitten through by a pit bull
snip

I've seen videos of them blowing out tires on vehicles (people
taking refuge in them), so the dogs took it out on the tires.

struggling to get my right hand from those jaws snip

A lot of days late, and several dollars short, but kicking it in
the stomach, or other areas, might have done it. But, getting your hand
bitten, and thinking clearly enough to remember something like that,
might not go together.

but to me there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these
dogs, particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault
weapons, and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around
one,

That seems to be the reason most people own them.

except for the owner.

Sometimes.

To let one run loose in an urban situation, even accidentally, is akin
to assault with a deadly weapon and should be treated as such.

Got to go along with that. I like dogs in general, but tend to
draw the line at those little yapping rat dogs, and the ones willing to
try to eat me.

Waay back, when I was a kid, I used to read a lot of books on
hunting in Africa. I remember one, a hunter remained in camp, and was
shaving his head (he didn't like going bald), and was attached by a
leopard. He wound up with one fist in the leopard's mouth, and
eventully killed it. I don't recall if he strangled it (well, actually
I think it was shoving his fist down its throat, which changed its
concenration on trying to get away, from killing the guy), or cut its
throat, with his straight razor. Supposedly that was the only known
case of anyone killing a leopard with his bare-hands. This was in the
20s or 30s, I think.

I took a quick look on google, to see if I could come up with it.
Instead, came up with this. It doesn't exactly seem true, to me. I
can't imagine anyone getten chewed up by a leopard, and wanting someone
to film it.
THE ARTFUL DODGER
The records of accidents with leopards are high. Most of the well-known
professional hunters of recent years have all been savaged by leopards,
and many of the old-timers, too. Foremost was Charles Cottar, who
strangled a live leopard with his bare hands. Whilst doing so, he had
one of his sons turn the handle of the movie camera! On seeing his
father pouring blood from the deep scratches the leopard was inflicting
upon him, his son stopped turning the hand

Came from here.
http://www.sycamoreisland.com/biggame2.htm

This name seems familar to me, but in the story I read, the guy was
suppoedly in camp alone.



JOAT
We will never have great leaders as long as we mistake education for
intelligence, ambition for ability, and lack of transgression for
integrity.
- Unknown

Swingman wrote:

"Rick Cook" spewed in message


Swingman wrote:

"Peter De Smidt" wrote in message

That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of
faith
that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might make it
less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
remove that urge? I doubt it.

Precisely!

Precisely wrong!

Do you have ANY experience whatsoever with being around pit
bulls? Have you ever trained one or tried to train one?

Can you read? Do you? According to your own words in a previous message, you
havent had any of the above.

As far as I can see your experience with pit bulls consists of getting bitten by
one when you tried to break up a dog fight. This seems to have led you to a
phobic reaction against this particular breed of dog -- irregardless of the fact
that anyone attempting to break up a dog fight between _any_ breeds of dogs runs
a high risk of being bitten. (And if anything I'd argue the risk of being bitten
by a pit bull in that situation is less than with most other breeds because
aggression towards humans was stringently de-selected.)


It's pretty clear you're talking from a near-complete lack of knowledge.

Had you made the smallest effort to read this thread, you wouldn't have made
such a fool out of yourself by jumping to that erroneous conclusion. You
also made clear that your qualifications were limited to having "never owned
one" and only "having several friends who own them ..."

I have obviously spent far more time around pit bulls than you have. I have seen
them raised from puppyhood to old age. I have had the opportunity to observe a
number of specimens of the breed at very close range. And I have friends who
have spent literally years raising them. And of course, some of my best canine
friends are pit bulls.

So, yes. I have more than ample experience to comment when faced with the kind
of ignorance and phobias you've displayed in this thread.



Not exactly what I'd call expert opinion that justifies such, well ...
"arrogance" ... another one of your words in this thread.

Call it rather 'experience.' Far more than you have with pit bulls, apparently.

However beyond that, don't you see the arrogance implicit in labeling an entire
breed of dogs, or anything else, as 'dangerous'?

--RC




--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

Swingman wrote:

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...


Swingman wrote:

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
Greetings and Salutations....

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:18:37 -0500, "Swingman"wrote:

*snip*

I am generally of a live and let live philosophy on most issues, but
to
me
there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these dogs,
particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault
weapons,
and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around one,
except
for the owner.

I have to take some issue with this, as it is exactly like
saying all African-Americans are shiftless, promiscuous drug dealers.

Tsk tsk ... next we're going to advocate civil rights to animals?

No, actually he's pointing up the irrationality of your position.



You certainly CAN make that generalization about ANY animal that was
_specifically_ bred to attack and kill ... just as you can safely say
that
any dog running loose in an urban setting is NOT receiving the proper
attention. Put the two together, particularly with an American Pit Bull,
and
you're asking for trouble.

AAMOF, if you have a dog you love, _you_ damn well better make that
generalization the next time you see a pit bull running loose close by.

Here is a fairly good look at the breed and its characteristics

I grew up with one. I've no doubt there are many that are lovable
creatures
in the breed (we owned a Staffordshire Terrier - given to my Dad as a
gift
by the CEO of Chevron Oil Company of those days - which was basically
the
same breed as American Pit Bull at the time, and while well trained and
lovable to humans and children, would attack and kill another dog in a
heartbeat, and did on more than occasion).

In other words the person wouldn't know a pit bull if he saw one. A Staffy
is
NOT a pit bull and the differences are pretty obvious if you do know.

Now it is true that Staffys were also fighting dogs and one time and have
the
terrier aggressiveness. What your story proves is that the owner didn't
take the
time to properly socialize the dog so that it would not attack other dogs.
That
can be a problem with any breed and its especially likely to be a problem
with
terriers. Even very small terriers are notorious for picking fights with
other
dogs.



THe bottom line for me is that it is a bad thing to
label ANY breed of dog as "evil". The behavior of ANY dog
completely depends on the training and level of attention
that the owner gives to the dog.

Sounds good ... but I still have the scars on my hand to prove,
inarguably,
that this is not correct. The pit bull that got me years later, and the
little boy, was a well trained family pet that was following his
inherent
instinct to attack and kill the other dog.

You have the scars on your hand to prove you got in the middle of a dog
fight --
albeit for good reasons -- and you got bit. This somehow makes the dog
that bit
you unusually vicious?

Swing, I've got news for you. If a dog -- any dog -- is out to hurt you,
you
don't just get bit on the hand.


I've been around dogs all my life and have never seen another domestic
animal with the instincts of the pit bull.

Then you simply haven't been paying attention.

Look, I'm sorry you got bit. I'm even sorrier the dog that bit you was a
pit
bull. (If in fact it was. There's a tendency to claim any medium-size
short-muzzled dog that bites someone is a pit bull. A lot of people can't
even
recognize them.)

But your position is something like claiming that all African-Americans
are
dangerous criminals because you were once mugged by an Africian American.

Rick, your a TOTAL dork! ... go **** yourself!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

In other words, you have nothing whatsoever to support your position with. The
best you can come up with is a nasty personal experience that happened to
involve a pit bull (and could just as easily have happened with another dog)
and a story about a different breed of dog altogether.

--RC

.

Well, it wouldn't hurt to have any large breed of dog professionally
trained. But the point is that any medium to large dog needs to be well
trained and properly socialized.

--RC

WoodMangler wrote:

Lobby Dosser did say:


For the most part, seemingly gentle family pets of all breeds are
untrained. ALL dogs should be trained. ALL large dogs should be
professionaly trained.

All Usenet posts should be professionally edited before being posted.

J T wrote:


OT bad experience today

Group: rec.woodworking Date: Sat, Oct 2, 2004, 10:18am (EDT-1)
(Swingman) says:
snip I had my right hand completely bitten through by a pit bull
snip

I've seen videos of them blowing out tires on vehicles (people
taking refuge in them), so the dogs took it out on the tires.

struggling to get my right hand from those jaws snip

A lot of days late, and several dollars short, but kicking it in
the stomach, or other areas, might have done it. But, getting your hand
bitten, and thinking clearly enough to remember something like that,
might not go together.

but to me there is no reason a sane individual would own one of these
dogs, particularly in an urban environment. They are anti-social assault
weapons, and no other animal, child, or human is ultimately safe around
one,

That seems to be the reason most people own them.

Actually no. Most people own them because they are fun dogs and they're
so friendly they're almost goofy. There are a few people who want a
four-legged assault weapon and train and socialize their dogs accordingly.
Like I say, a pit bull's major drive is to please its owner. And there are
some people out there who shouldn't be allowed to own a goldfish.

That's the reason I find these fairy tales about pit bulls so infuriating.
(And you may have noticed I've gotten a, ah, 'trifle heated' over this.)
This nonsense about 'anti-social assault weapons' is so completely at odds
with the breed's real personality.

--RC
snip

JOAT
We will never have great leaders as long as we mistake education for
intelligence, ambition for ability, and lack of transgression for
integrity.
- Unknown

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Rick Cook wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:

In article ,
(Greg) wrote:
The most popular breeds
tend to be overbred and thereby create some nasty animals.

Truer words were never spoken. Bad dogs are caused by bad breeders ans bad
owners.

Up to a point, yes. The fact still remains that some breeds are much more
easily made into bad dogs than others. You'd have to work at it a *lot*
harder
to make an attack dog out of a golden retriever, than out of a pit bull.

Well no. Or not nearly as much as you think. Retrievers aren't terriers, but
they can be
trained to be just as nasty and aggressive as any other kind of dog. They don't
have the pit
bull's reflexes or strength so they wouldn't be quite as much of a threat, but
it absolutely
would not be for lack of trying.

I did not say that goldies could not be made "nasty and aggressive".
I said that it's much harder to do with that breed than with pit bulls.
Not impossible, just much more difficult.

Not nearly as much more difficult as you think. I have friends with goldies too and I know they're
also eager to please their owners.

If you dispute that, if you really believe that a golden retriever can be made
into an attack dog as easily as can a pit bull, then your comments on this
subject do not deserve to be taken seriously.

Why? They're both dogs and they both have the same sets of instincts. Do you know what is involved
in attack dog training and how it is done? It simply involves reinforcing the instincts in any
dog. (And yes, I have worked as a dog handler -- not a trainer! -- for a company that had both
guard and attack dogs.) In principle it's no different than teaching a dog to chase a stick --
which is what it looks like in the early stages.

Training an attack dog not a matter of finding a dog with some special 'killer instinct' waiting
to be unleashed. It is simply a matter of conditioning the dog to apply its natural behavior in a
particular way in a particular situation. And in fact In fact one of the reasons some breeds are
preferred for attack dog training has nothing to do with an aggressive temperament. Quite the
opposite. For attack training you want a dog which is extremely stable temperamentally.

Now if by 'attack dog' you simply mean making a dog vicious, that's also the same for any breed.
Fundamentally you drive the dog crazy by mistreatment until it is deathly afraid of people and it
takes out that fear as aggression. You may or may not let the dog bond to you, but you end up with
a very mentally ill animal.

--RC





--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:49:38 +0000, Rick Cook wrote:


However beyond that, don't you see the arrogance implicit in labeling an
entire breed of dogs, or anything else, as 'dangerous'?

Errr, aligators, piranah, west nile carrying mosquitos, ....?

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

NOW You've gone too far!!! Our fine Florida state bird, the mosquito,
seldom carries West Nile or any other virus. Don't let a gross
exaggeration born of fear and ignorance ruin the reputation of an entire
species.
And Alligators?!?! And Piranha?!?! How come you're picking on Florida?

Excuse my ignorance, but what's an Errr? If it's slang for another Florida
species, well, that'll just seal it!!!


Doug Winterburn did say:

However beyond that, don't you see the arrogance implicit in labeling an
entire breed of dogs, or anything else, as 'dangerous'?

Errr, aligators, piranah, west nile carrying mosquitos, ....?

-Doug

Okay, some things :-) But labeling a whole breed of dog as dangerous is still
arrogant.

--RC

Doug Winterburn wrote:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:49:38 +0000, Rick Cook wrote:

However beyond that, don't you see the arrogance implicit in labeling an
entire breed of dogs, or anything else, as 'dangerous'?

Errr, aligators, piranah, west nile carrying mosquitos, ....?

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

I realize it verges on tasteless to introduce facts into an off-topic argument
in this newsgroup, but if anyone is interested, here are some references on the
'dangers' of pit bulls that I turned up in a quick google search.

An article on pit bulls and the problems involved in pit bull rescue.
http://www.forpitssake.org/chronicle.html

A FAQ on what pit bulls are really like
http://www.pbrc.net/misc/pbrcbrochure.pdf

A report on an Alabama Supreme Court ruling finding no evidence pit bulls are
inherently more dangerous than other breeds.
http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/doghol...ourdogs18.html

Long experience with pit bulls.
http://www.richardfstratton.com/main.htm

A good discussion of pit bulls and aggression.
http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm
(IMHO, this source makes too much of the fatality statistics. While pit bulls
probably less likely to attack a human than other breeds, there is no question
that a pit bull's
strength and quickness means it can do a lot more damage when it does attack.)

Swingman wrote:

"Rick Cook" spewed in message


Swingman wrote:

"Peter De Smidt" wrote in message

That's quite scary, though, isn't it? Clearly most owners are not
knowledgeable or equipped to do such training, and it's a leap of
faith
that it's possible to overcome this inborn tendency. You might make it
less likely that your dog will attack others, but will you totally
remove that urge? I doubt it.

Precisely!

Precisely wrong!

Do you have ANY experience whatsoever with being around pit
bulls? Have you ever trained one or tried to train one?

Can you read? Do you? According to your own words in a previous message, you
havent had any of the above.

It's pretty clear you're talking from a near-complete lack of knowledge.

Had you made the smallest effort to read this thread, you wouldn't have made
such a fool out of yourself by jumping to that erroneous conclusion. You
also made clear that your qualifications were limited to having "never owned
one" and only "having several friends who own them ..."

Not exactly what I'd call expert opinion that justifies such, well ...
"arrogance" ... another one of your words in this thread.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04