Rick is obviously quite emotionally incensed by this discussion. Well,
that's fine. It doesn't follow from one's being emotionally involved
that one's mistaken, although clearly one should be careful. He claims
that pit bulls, as a group, aren't more dangerous or aggressive than
other dogs.

Notice that this is a different question than whether or not other
breeds of dogs can be trained to be aggressive. Of course they can.
Other breeds can also have individuals that are naturally aggressive,
either towards other dogs or whatever.

That fact is that statistical studies have been run that correlate
aggression and damage inflicted by various dog breeds. I don't have
them at hand, and I don't remember where the pit bull ranked.
Nonetheless, the studies clearly proved that some breeds are more
dangerous than others, and the fact that one might know a number of
examples of non-aggressive dogs of a more aggressive prone breed does
nothing to undermine the statistics. If I remember correctly, german
shepherds were the breed most likely to bite a person. Someone will no
doubt respond, "But I've known tons of g. shepherds and they've all been
goofy little pudd'n pops! They wouldn't bite anyone!" That doesn't
change the statistics, or the fact that breeds vary in there general
aggressiveness.

The fact is that dog breeds very quite considerably in their behavior. I
would not take a full grown intact male Great Pyrenees to a dog park,
and it doesn't matter how well socialized the dog was. These dogs,
which are great dogs by the way, were bred to see other large animals as
a threat to the flocks of sheep that the great pyrs guarded. As such,
they tend to be very aggressive towards other dogs, and they will not
back down, as they were bred and trained to defend their flocks with
their lives. This tendency towards aggression is recognized in the breed
standard, and a person ignores this genetic predisposition at their
peril, or, more correctly, at the peril of other people's dogs.

Let's stay with Pyrs. All of the major Pyr sites, books and breeders
will tell you not to walk your Pyr off-leash. Why? Because they were
bred to be independent and to roam with their flock of sheep. This
required patrolling a very large territory. As a result, when given the
chance, they often take off. There are are even stories of obedience
champions who get loose, and despite their very good training they
nonetheless take off. How many people do you think have lost a dog
because they thought that _their_ dog wouldn't do that, and hadn't taken
off the prior times when they were let loose? Training, even very
conscientious training, does not guarantee the extinction of a genetic
behavioral predisposition.

Let's get back to the American Pit Bull Terrier. They were bred to hurt
and kill other dogs. While it's true that their jaws don't "lock",
consider this from the American Pit Bull Terrier Faq:

"Those of you who frequent dog shows for the APBT will no doubt
eventually be witness to dogs getting loose and starting a fight. So,
what happens when they are serious? Well, each dog will bite the other,
take hold and start to shake its head punishingly. It is so serious that
in most cases nothing you do will cause the dog/bitch to give up that
precious hold! Nothing! Choking, shocking, etc...It just doesn't matter!"

This is different behavior than a large number of other dogs. These dogs
were bred to be killers, just like other dogs were bred to be
retrievers, herders, working dogs, or companion animals. Each of these
classes has dogs with unique behavioral instincts. Why then would the
pit bull be any different? There's no reason to think so. Does this
mean that they aren't good dogs? No! But it does mean that special care
need to be taken with them, just as it does with a number of other
breeds of dogs, such as mastiffs, rottweilers...

So you're upset by people being wary of pit bulls? Get over it! My dog,
a Leonberger, was bred to be a companion dog, which is the reason that
the breed was created. Nonetheless, he's a very big dog, roughly the
size of a great dane. He's goofy and lives for playing with people and
other dogs. Nonetheless, he often scares people. Take the UPS guy. He
won't come into are yard. Now I could get all ****ed off about how
Murphy is being ignorantly maligned, but then I realize that he's a very
big dog who could be very dangerous if he wanted to be, and I recall all
of the idiot's I've met who've had dogs. Example, I once pulled a husky
off of another dog. Luckily, there was only a little blood. The owner of
the husky said, "I don't know why, but every time I come to the dog park
Klondike picks out one other dog to attack."... A person should be
wary of an unknown large dog, especially one that might have aggressive
predispositions, and that certainly applies to pit bulls.

By the way, the angrier pit bull fanciers get,the more dismissive they
become of the worries of others, and the more they brush off the dangers
of the breede, the more likely it will be that ownership of the dogs
will be restricted.

-Peter De Smidt

Rick Cook wrote:

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

--RC


It's not if they really are dangerous. In fact, it wouldn't be arrogant
even if they're not. There's a difference between being wrong and being
arrogant, at least sometimes.

-Peter De Smidt

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in news:415fa764$1_2
@newspeer2.tds.net:

That fact is that statistical studies have been run that correlate
aggression and damage inflicted by various dog breeds. I don't have
them at hand, and I don't remember where the pit bull ranked.


Number one in deaths, Rottweiler number two, other large dogs dominating
mist of the list. Surpisingly, a Yorkie gets a mention! Less than 1%
involved a leashed dog off the owners property.

www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

Greetings and salutations....

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:47:59 -0500, "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!

Frankly, I (and every other human) have urges at times to
strike out and destroy other humans...but I do not give into those
urges because I was trained from birth not to. The urge is not
removed...just overridden.

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.

Bad example because it is apples and cantelopes. S&R were
dealing with tigers...Wild Animals that were not pets in any way,
shape or form. They were more like bad-tempered, dangerous partners.
Dogs, though, have been socialized to mankind for thousands of years,
and, have developed into a creature that works well in a symbiotic
relationship with mankind. It's called domestication, and, has quite
a range..If it is 1 to 100, Tigers are at about 0. Dogs are at about
90-95 (cats are probably 50).


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.

Not absolutely, but breeding does make a difference. After
all, you would not want to send a dachshund out into a lake to
retrieve a downed duck, nor would you send a Lab down a hole to
hunt a badger. Ever since the first wolves joined mankind at the
fire, mankind has manipulated the gene pool to create an animal
that is suited to the hunting task at hand. Speaking of which...
have you ever seen a badger? they are one of the nastiest fighters
one could come across...so by this logic, dachshunds should be
restricted because they are tough enough fighters to take on
such an opponent. However, nobody is scared of a dachshund...
mostly because they have not been the subject of so much
bad press over the past few years.
Regards
Dave Mundt

In article ,
WoodMangler wrote:
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!!!

OF *COURSE* it is! The long-form name is the T-errr-til.
Cousin to the tortise.

Greetings and Salutations....

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 22:16:41 -0700, 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, ....?

LOL! a good point...however, again, apples and cantelopes.
All those are wild animals...not ones that have thousands of years
of close association with humans and the domesticating effects
thereof.

Regards
Dave Mundt

Greetings and Salutations...

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:28:06 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in news:415efe92$1_3
:


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.

ANY dog will attack any other, or anything else. They are predators.
Predators are aggressive. The only differences among dogs is size and
ability to do damage.

Reminds me of a great story about Winston Churchill... One day
he and another fellow (I don't recall who just now) were in the
garden, when his dog (an English Bulldog, by the by...) came
staggering back in through the gate, all torn up and the worse for
wear. The guest observed that Churchill's dog did not seem to be much
of a fighter. Churchill replied that the dog was an excellent
fighter...just a very bad judge of opponents.

Regards
Dave Mundt

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:05:25 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

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


The owners who don't train them properly and let them run loose are the
nasty creatures. The dogs are dogs and every dog is a bite threat.

Shoot the owners!

Okay, I'll give you that. I guess it is true that *most* of the
pit-bull owners I've met (not all, mind you) are worse than the dogs
themselves. Could be that the wrong folks are attracted to the breed,
but I've seen and heard of more than a couple horror stories with
terriers in general and pit-bulls specifically. (Though, of course,
"horror" is kind of an overstatement when talking about something like
a rat terrier or a jack russel.)

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:54:48 -0400, "Jay Knepper"
wrote:

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

I did agree with a previous poster's sentiment to that effect a few
minutes ago. The original statement was a gut reaction to several
very bad encounters with that particular breed, most of whom were kept
by people who could also reasonably be called "nasty creatures".

However, I can sympathize with this view having once lived in Denver for
several years. Now Colorado is a wonderful place, but one that attracts some
unique "individuals" who live in the country for good reason--they don't
belong around people. This type, along with drug dealers and gang lords,
fancy having the meanest creatures around. A pit bull is an awesome, and
beautiful, physical specimens that, along with many breeds, can be made into
deadly weapons (If you have the stomach you might do a little reaserch to
find out what this takes). The upshot of this is that several of these
individuals owned pit bulls that were trained to be aggressive, let to run
free, and did some horrendous things to people, including children. The
Denver newspapers played the horror up to the hilt, underplaying the less
interesting fact that irresponsible oweners, and breeders, are responsible.
Denver then enacted a law that banned the breed. In my ignorance I agreed
with the law at the time. (Colorado has very recently passed a law making it
illegal to ban dogs based on breed alone, and Denver is fighting it. )

I'm not positive, but I believe that the breeders are sticking to
tradition when they breed pit-bulls (or any other terrier) to be tough
and mean. I think the original purpose of the [terrier] breed was to
hunt down and kill big sewer rats in Europe. The story I had heard
was that for many, many generations, a new litter was thrown into a
barrel with a weasel (or a badger, I can't remember), and the last
pups to survive were used for breeding.

Of course you're right, that does lead to awesome physical specimens,
but it also breeds an agressive streak into the animal. That being
said, I emphatically do not believe in banning breeds- I would simply
like to see agressive animals either kept at home, or taken (after
more than say, two offences) to a local shelter where they may or may
not be able to be rehabilitated. (I get all my pets from the shelter,
and they are often wonderful once they are in a better environment)

Several years after leaving CO for the Chicago suburbs, my adult daughter
was living with us and fell in love with a dog at a local humane society. It
was a pitt bull. Crunch time. I began a program to educate myself on the
breed. The library and the internet turned up a number of very enlighening
articles that made me open to the idea. The clincher was a neighbor who owns
a large, well known dog training school. She, an owner of three golden
retrievers, proclaimed that pit bulls were among her favorite dogs, and make
wonderful pets.

We adoped Mo. By the time my daughter moved out we decided that we could not
be without a dog. We now have two pit bulls. The first was bought from a
breeder and the second was rescued (a Chicago cop "took " her from a drug
dealer as a young puppy). Our dogs have been trained, loved, walked daily,
and in five years have never bitten any person, any other animal, or our
cats. We aren't unique in having great pit bulls. Most of them are cherished
family pets, and they have served our country in war, and have been owned by
individuals such as Helen Keller and Theodore Roosevelt.

It is smart to be cautious about any dog. Large, athletic breeds especially
can do damage if they have been trained to do so. The most popular breeds
tend to be overbred and thereby create some nasty animals. Remember Cocker
Spaniels of 10-20 years ago, and now, I fear, Labs are suffering from this.
But do advocate responsible ownership and don't make the mistake of
condeming a dog based on breed alone.

I know German Shepards are demonized as well, and I love those dogs.
But it does seem that pit-bulls are particularly prone to turning, and
their bites are far worse than most other animals, with that muscular,
locking jaw.

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.

Jay

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:17:08 GMT, (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.

ROFL!! You just made me imagine trying to turn my 70-lb. Collie into
an attack dog- he'd much rather sleep on the couch than eal someone
alive.

Prometheus writes:

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:54:48 -0400, "Jay Knepper"
wrote:

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

I did agree with a previous poster's sentiment to that effect a few
minutes ago. The original statement was a gut reaction to several
very bad encounters with that particular breed, most of whom were kept
by people who could also reasonably be called "nasty creatures".

This discussion sounds suspicoiusly like that about overpowered cars:
Their defenders tell you "just because my car has 400 horsepowers and
can go 300km/h does not mean that i need to drive too fast...:

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Robert Bonomi did say:

In article ,
WoodMangler wrote:
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!!!

OF *COURSE* it is! The long-form name is the T-errr-til.
Cousin to the tortise.

I KNEW it!!! He's a Florida-phobe. Next thing you know he'll be bringing
up that silly voting thing...
It wasn't my fault.
Regards,
Chad

Prometheus responds:


ROFL!! You just made me imagine trying to turn my 70-lb. Collie into
an attack dog- he'd much rather sleep on the couch than eal someone
alive.

LOL. Yeah. I can imagine my 15 pound terrier (one of the smaller non-yappers)
and dachshund might do as an attack dog. She's hell on moles and baby rabbits,
which delights me, but her favorite exercises are sitting up (which she can do
for a long time) begging for attention or food, or rolling onto her back to
show she absolutely has to have a belly rub.

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

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:28:06 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in news:415efe92$1_3
:


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.

ANY dog will attack any other, or anything else. They are predators.
Predators are aggressive. The only differences among dogs is size and
ability to do damage.

Wrong, most domestic dogs will only attack after pretty severe
provocation. I favor Collies and Irish Setters, and I've never, ever
seen one show an agressive side unless someone they don't know is
trying to force their way into their home. No doubt it is *possible*
to train one *to* attack, but I've never seen it done. On the other
hand, it seems that anything in the terrier family will attack unless
well trained *not* to do so. It's not even a fine distinction, it's a
major one, IMO. Size has nothing to do with it- when was the last
time you heard of a Great Dane or St. Bernard attacking someone
without provocation? I hear about Pit-bulls attacking people all the
time, and they're smaller than either of those breeds.

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:00:02 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

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.)


I know you love pit-bulls, and from the fervor you're showing in
defending them, and the links you've gone through the trouble to find,
I've no doubt that you have good dogs. I've no doubt that your
friends are good dog-owners as well. You've probably never met a pit
bull you didn't like- believe it or not, I get it.

On the other hand, I have never met a responsible pit bull owner. I'm
not saying that there are none, or even that it is very uncommon- but
it is not possible to draw a conclusion that is completely
inconsistant with every experience you've ever had. If I were to tell
you Black and Decker made THE BEST woodworking tools on earth, and
posted links to pictures of masterfully crafted furniture, and
hundreds of testimonials saying the same, would you believe me? Even
though your experience had shown you that that brand was inadequate
for almost every task you tried to apply it to? Could you change your
mind because I said so, or because someone put up a website that said
so?

I don't want to prevent anyone from owning dogs of any breed. I just
would like to see those dogs taken care of properly. If you have a
pit bull, and love it as a part of your family, great. Just don't
assume that it acts the same when you are not around, and let the
animal go roaming about the neighborhood. That's all I or anyone else
has the right to ask of you. Do what you like on your own property-
hell, keep an elephant in your backyard and an alligator in your
bathtub for all I care. But if said elephant steps on my car, don't
expect your assertion that the elephant is a noble, wise and gentle
creature to change the fact that I can't get to work that day! And
don't expect the fact that not all pit bulls are the devil incarnate
to change the fact that it is damn scary when a muscular, viscious
animal corners you in your own yard.

I've got a friendly little pooch that doesn't seem to be a danger to
anything but table scraps, but I don't let him wander around on his
own- not only because he could be a danger to someone who is strange
to him, but also because he lacks the discernment to look both ways
before crossing the street, or to prevent himself from crapping in the
neighbor's yard. So the breed of dog is not all bad; fine, I'll agree
to that- but the overwhelming tendancy in my experience is for the
wrong kind of people to adopt that breed, and that- more than anything
else, is what makes them dangerous. I've seen other kinds of dogs
cause problems, but all of those others put together do not add up to
even 1/10 of the trouble I have personally witnessed when a pit bull
is present. The statistics [in the link another poster provided] show
that pit-bulls and rottweilers (which I have seen to be friendly,
gentle dogs) cause over 50% of all dog-related deaths. There must be
*something* there, even if the statistics are skewed.

You could argue that not all bites lead to death, and you would be
right. I don't have any statistics showing the tendancy of each breed
of dog to bite- but for my buck, I'd rather get a superficial flesh
wound from a spaniel than be killed by a pit bull.

Again, I do not believe that people should be prevented from owning
pit bulls- I just don't want them growling at me on my property.
That's all.

"J T" wrote in message

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.

Actually, both my hands and legs were 'otherwise engaged'.

In retrospect I probably should have made more of an effort to grab the kid
instead of trying to pull the dogs off him, but he was under them and it
just happened too fast ... then again, it might have been my arm in those
jaws, instead of a hand.

As it is, every time I see two dogs squaring off now, I instinctively put my
hands in my pockets.

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

Not that I want one but....

It would be illegal for me to have a pet pot bellied pig, but okay for
me to have a pitbull!

Substitute chicken for pig if you prefer.

What a mess.

Eddie Munster writes:

Not that I want one but....

It would be illegal for me to have a pet pot bellied pig, but okay for
me to have a pitbull!

Substitute chicken for pig if you prefer.


A pot bellied chicken?

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

In article ,
WoodMangler wrote:
Robert Bonomi did say:

In article ,
WoodMangler wrote:
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!!!

OF *COURSE* it is! The long-form name is the T-errr-til.
Cousin to the tortise.

I KNEW it!!! He's a Florida-phobe. Next thing you know he'll be bringing
up that silly voting thing...
It wasn't my fault.
Regards,
Chad


You mean you _don't_ have dimples, Chad?

And _nothing_ 'hanging', Chad?

Prometheus wrote:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:00:02 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

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.)

I know you love pit-bulls, and from the fervor you're showing in
defending them, and the links you've gone through the trouble to find,
I've no doubt that you have good dogs. I've no doubt that your
friends are good dog-owners as well. You've probably never met a pit
bull you didn't like- believe it or not, I get it.

On the other hand, I have never met a responsible pit bull owner. I'm
not saying that there are none, or even that it is very uncommon- but
it is not possible to draw a conclusion that is completely
inconsistant with every experience you've ever had. If I were to tell
you Black and Decker made THE BEST woodworking tools on earth, and
posted links to pictures of masterfully crafted furniture, and
hundreds of testimonials saying the same, would you believe me? Even
though your experience had shown you that that brand was inadequate
for almost every task you tried to apply it to? Could you change your
mind because I said so, or because someone put up a website that said
so?

I would say that the responsible pit bull owners far out-number the irresponsible
owners. But that doesn't mean the irresponsible/psycho owners don't exist and that
they don't produce some very dangerous dogs. (Hell, there are creeps out there who
fight their dogs.) As I say, some people shouldn't be allowed to own a goldfish.

But those are the owners, not the breed.



I don't want to prevent anyone from owning dogs of any breed. I just
would like to see those dogs taken care of properly. If you have a
pit bull, and love it as a part of your family, great. Just don't
assume that it acts the same when you are not around, and let the
animal go roaming about the neighborhood. That's all I or anyone else
has the right to ask of you.

No one should let their dog of any breed run around loose. That is irresponsible and
dangerous to the dog and everyone else. Dogs that run loose tend to have real short
life spans. I can't understand how anyone who claims to care for a dog can allow it.

Do what you like on your own property-
hell, keep an elephant in your backyard and an alligator in your
bathtub for all I care. But if said elephant steps on my car, don't
expect your assertion that the elephant is a noble, wise and gentle
creature to change the fact that I can't get to work that day! And
don't expect the fact that not all pit bulls are the devil incarnate
to change the fact that it is damn scary when a muscular, viscious
animal corners you in your own yard.

Well, if the dog is viscous, it's not going to be moving very fast. :-)
Seriously, being confronted by any dog that is acting aggressively is scary. It
shouldn't happen and it is a sign of an irresponsible owner to let a dog run loose.

The fact that are no inherently dangerous breeds doesn't mean there aren't any
dangerous dogs.



I've got a friendly little pooch that doesn't seem to be a danger to
anything but table scraps, but I don't let him wander around on his
own- not only because he could be a danger to someone who is strange
to him, but also because he lacks the discernment to look both ways
before crossing the street, or to prevent himself from crapping in the
neighbor's yard. So the breed of dog is not all bad; fine, I'll agree
to that- but the overwhelming tendancy in my experience is for the
wrong kind of people to adopt that breed, and that- more than anything
else, is what makes them dangerous. I've seen other kinds of dogs
cause problems, but all of those others put together do not add up to
even 1/10 of the trouble I have personally witnessed when a pit bull
is present. The statistics [in the link another poster provided] show
that pit-bulls and rottweilers (which I have seen to be friendly,
gentle dogs) cause over 50% of all dog-related deaths. There must be
*something* there, even if the statistics are skewed.

Don't confuse dog-related deaths with dog bite incidents. Problems with
identification aside, dogs like Rotts and pit bulls are strong, fast animals and
when they do bite they tend to do a lot of damage. I'm not surprised they account
for a disproportionate number of deaths. But apparently, as best we can judge from
the dog bite reports, the _number_ of biting incidents pretty much tracks the
popularity of the breed.


You could argue that not all bites lead to death, and you would be
right. I don't have any statistics showing the tendancy of each breed
of dog to bite- but for my buck, I'd rather get a superficial flesh
wound from a spaniel than be killed by a pit bull.

Again, I do not believe that people should be prevented from owning
pit bulls- I just don't want them growling at me on my property.
That's all.

You should not have to tolerate _any_ dog growling on your property. Any dog that
does is a candidate for removal -- either by animal control in a reasonably
well-policed county or by more direct means if you don't have that option.

--RC

(Dave Mundt) wrote in
:

Greetings and Salutations...

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:28:06 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in
news:415efe92$1_3 @newspeer2.tds.net:


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.

ANY dog will attack any other, or anything else. They are predators.
Predators are aggressive. The only differences among dogs is size and
ability to do damage.

Reminds me of a great story about Winston Churchill... One day
he and another fellow (I don't recall who just now) were in the
garden, when his dog (an English Bulldog, by the by...) came
staggering back in through the gate, all torn up and the worse for
wear. The guest observed that Churchill's dog did not seem to be much
of a fighter. Churchill replied that the dog was an excellent
fighter...just a very bad judge of opponents.

Regards
Dave Mundt




And probably got nailed by a cat!

Prometheus wrote in
:

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:28:06 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in
news:415efe92$1_3 @newspeer2.tds.net:


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.

ANY dog will attack any other, or anything else. They are predators.
Predators are aggressive. The only differences among dogs is size and
ability to do damage.

Wrong, most domestic dogs will only attack after pretty severe
provocation. I favor Collies and Irish Setters, and I've never, ever
seen one show an agressive side unless someone they don't know is
trying to force their way into their home. No doubt it is *possible*
to train one *to* attack, but I've never seen it done. On the other
hand, it seems that anything in the terrier family will attack unless
well trained *not* to do so. It's not even a fine distinction, it's a
major one, IMO. Size has nothing to do with it- when was the last
time you heard of a Great Dane or St. Bernard attacking someone
without provocation? I hear about Pit-bulls attacking people all the
time, and they're smaller than either of those breeds.


What's provocation to a dog may not be provocation to us. The Collie,
BTW, is up there with the other larger breeds on the CDC list I posted.

"mp" wrote in :

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.




According to the CDC, Fluffy The Yorkie killed at least one person. Had to
have been an infant, or the Yorkie From Hell.

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
I would say that the responsible pit bull owners far out-number the
irresponsible
owners. But that doesn't mean the irresponsible/psycho owners don't exist
and that
they don't produce some very dangerous dogs.

You are probably correct, but you can't prove it by my real life experience.
I've known of a half dozen pit bulls that are downright vicious. So are
their owners. I just don't happen to know of any good dogs and good owners
no matter how many exist.

The Pit Bull has become a status symbol for punks, gander members and other
unsavory character. Cruise through a major city in the "lesser"
neighborhoods and you will see them. The hoodlum wannabe walking his pet
pit bull. He may not be able to flaunt a gun, so he does the next best
thing for status.

IIRC correctly, the dog in Our Gang Comedy was a pit bull. Dobermans are
also docile when bred properly, nasty when not. Probably other breeds too.

OT bad experience today

Group: rec.woodworking Date: Sun, Oct 3, 2004, 8:27am (EDT-1)
(Prometheus) says:
ROFL!! You just made me imagine trying to turn my 70-lb. Collie into an
attack dog- he'd much rather sleep on the couch than eal someone alive.

Dunno. There was a story about an attack rabbit, a few years back.
Seems some young idiots had constantly teased it, over a period of time.
It would actually jump at people and try to bite them. I didn't bother
to check to verify it, but sounds like something that could happen. I
do remember reading about it, and believe I saw something on it on TV.
But, you know how true those TV news stories are.



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

According to the CDC, Fluffy The Yorkie killed at least one person. Had to
have been an infant, or the Yorkie From Hell.

I'd imagine if you let a Yorkie chew on your flesh over an extended period
of time it'll eventually kill you. Maybe.

JOAT notes:

Dunno. There was a story about an attack rabbit, a few years back.
Seems some young idiots had constantly teased it, over a period of time.
It would actually jump at people and try to bite them. I didn't bother
to check to verify it, but sounds like something that could happen. I
do remember reading about it, and believe I saw something on it on TV.
But, you know how true those TV news stories are.

Oh, I dunno. Might be the same attack rabbit Jimmy Carter saw.

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

(J T) wrote in
:


OT bad experience today

Group: rec.woodworking Date: Sun, Oct 3, 2004, 8:27am (EDT-1)
(Prometheus) says:
ROFL!! You just made me imagine trying to turn my 70-lb. Collie into
an attack dog- he'd much rather sleep on the couch than eal someone
alive.

Dunno. There was a story about an attack rabbit, a few years
back.

There was the one that jumped in Jimmy Carter's boat. That got big press
for a while.

Gaugung from the replies here to this OT post- 92 in three days - we
need to start a rec.WWG.pitbull group.

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!

Searcher1

That's the key. Owner's the influence.

We've a large but well-behaved German shepherd, and some of my daughter's
college friends from Chicago wouldn't come close even when he was showing
all the "friendly" signs. Reason was "where we come from the only people
who have dogs like that are people who want vicious dogs."

Personally, I believe the larger the dog, the better he must behave.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
The Pit Bull has become a status symbol for punks, gander members and
other
unsavory character. Cruise through a major city in the "lesser"
neighborhoods and you will see them. The hoodlum wannabe walking his pet
pit bull. He may not be able to flaunt a gun, so he does the next best
thing for status.

IIRC correctly, the dog in Our Gang Comedy was a pit bull. Dobermans are
also docile when bred properly, nasty when not. Probably other breeds
too.

Charlie Self wrote:

JOAT notes:

Dunno. There was a story about an attack rabbit, a few years back.
Seems some young idiots had constantly teased it, over a period of time.
It would actually jump at people and try to bite them. I didn't bother
to check to verify it, but sounds like something that could happen. I
do remember reading about it, and believe I saw something on it on TV.
But, you know how true those TV news stories are.

Oh, I dunno. Might be the same attack rabbit Jimmy Carter saw.

Or the one that Arthur, King of the Britons slew with the Holy Hand Grenade
of Antioch.

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

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"WoodMangler" wrote in message
news
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!!!




Well, where I live in upstate NY, the whitetail deer is an extremely
dangerous animal and considered by some to be a very real threat to human
existence. It is for this very reason, and the deep and abiding concern I
hold for my fellow man that I devote myself unselfishly to the annual
pursuit of this animal in the name of eradicating this particular threat to
humanity.
--

-Mike-

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
That's the key. Owner's the influence.

We've a large but well-behaved German shepherd, and some of my daughter's
college friends from Chicago wouldn't come close even when he was showing
all the "friendly" signs. Reason was "where we come from the only people
who have dogs like that are people who want vicious dogs."

Personally, I believe the larger the dog, the better he must behave.


This entire thread boarders on a religious war so I was going to stay out of
the thick of it, but at one point while reading all of the overstatements on
both sides of the issue the thought did occur to me that it was not that
long ago that German Shepherds and Dobermans were spoken of exactly the way
the Pit Bull is today. Especially the Doberman - it was common folk lore
and fire talk to rag on how they turned on their owners with no warning or
provocation. Stay tuned - someone is yet bound to introduce the Rottweiller
into this thread...

--

-Mike-

Sorry, can't buy it. I had a pit bull and spent a great deal of time with
it hunting and just being out in the woods. I noticed that even in the
house, there was agression I didn't care for. One day, he almost took out
the front door of the house trying to get at a horse that was walking down
the street. About a month later, we were in the country and a 900 lb steer
grunted at him during a staredown. I saw it coming but was too late - the
dog attacked the steer in the throat and was then tossed outwardly by the
steer turning in circles. The dog couldn't hang on and hit a post through
centrifugal force when the grip gave way. He shook it off and went back
after the running steer and went under and grabbed the underside with the
steer hitting it with its hooves while running. I aimed to shoot the dog
but couldn't get a good shot without possibly hitting the steer. The steer
finally collapsed on top of the dog which still wouldn't let go. I ran to
the dog and turned the collar enough to make him let go and then took him to
the truck. Drove immediately to the vet and had the dog put down and then
the vet and I went to the steer. He said it almost died but not from the
wounds which didn't penetrate the leather but rather exhaustion.

I miss the dog because he was loyal but he couldn't be trusted. You're
probably going to assume it's something I did but all I can do is assure you
that he lived in a normal household enviornment with no teasing or tauting
and lots of human contact. While I don't think he would have ever attacked
a human, I couldn't take the chance because if he would have, there wouldn't
have been a chance in hell. A 40 lb dog against a 900 lb steer and the
steer didn't have a prayer - that dog made sounds during the attack I hadn't
heard in an animal before.

Don

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...


Prometheus wrote:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:00:02 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

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.)

I know you love pit-bulls, and from the fervor you're showing in
defending them, and the links you've gone through the trouble to find,
I've no doubt that you have good dogs. I've no doubt that your
friends are good dog-owners as well. You've probably never met a pit
bull you didn't like- believe it or not, I get it.

On the other hand, I have never met a responsible pit bull owner. I'm
not saying that there are none, or even that it is very uncommon- but
it is not possible to draw a conclusion that is completely
inconsistant with every experience you've ever had. If I were to tell
you Black and Decker made THE BEST woodworking tools on earth, and
posted links to pictures of masterfully crafted furniture, and
hundreds of testimonials saying the same, would you believe me? Even
though your experience had shown you that that brand was inadequate
for almost every task you tried to apply it to? Could you change your
mind because I said so, or because someone put up a website that said
so?

I would say that the responsible pit bull owners far out-number the
irresponsible
owners. But that doesn't mean the irresponsible/psycho owners don't exist
and that
they don't produce some very dangerous dogs. (Hell, there are creeps out
there who
fight their dogs.) As I say, some people shouldn't be allowed to own a
goldfish.

But those are the owners, not the breed.



I don't want to prevent anyone from owning dogs of any breed. I just
would like to see those dogs taken care of properly. If you have a
pit bull, and love it as a part of your family, great. Just don't
assume that it acts the same when you are not around, and let the
animal go roaming about the neighborhood. That's all I or anyone else
has the right to ask of you.

No one should let their dog of any breed run around loose. That is
irresponsible and
dangerous to the dog and everyone else. Dogs that run loose tend to have
real short
life spans. I can't understand how anyone who claims to care for a dog can
allow it.

Do what you like on your own property-
hell, keep an elephant in your backyard and an alligator in your
bathtub for all I care. But if said elephant steps on my car, don't
expect your assertion that the elephant is a noble, wise and gentle
creature to change the fact that I can't get to work that day! And
don't expect the fact that not all pit bulls are the devil incarnate
to change the fact that it is damn scary when a muscular, viscious
animal corners you in your own yard.

Well, if the dog is viscous, it's not going to be moving very fast. :-)
Seriously, being confronted by any dog that is acting aggressively is
scary. It
shouldn't happen and it is a sign of an irresponsible owner to let a dog
run loose.

The fact that are no inherently dangerous breeds doesn't mean there aren't
any
dangerous dogs.



I've got a friendly little pooch that doesn't seem to be a danger to
anything but table scraps, but I don't let him wander around on his
own- not only because he could be a danger to someone who is strange
to him, but also because he lacks the discernment to look both ways
before crossing the street, or to prevent himself from crapping in the
neighbor's yard. So the breed of dog is not all bad; fine, I'll agree
to that- but the overwhelming tendancy in my experience is for the
wrong kind of people to adopt that breed, and that- more than anything
else, is what makes them dangerous. I've seen other kinds of dogs
cause problems, but all of those others put together do not add up to
even 1/10 of the trouble I have personally witnessed when a pit bull
is present. The statistics [in the link another poster provided] show
that pit-bulls and rottweilers (which I have seen to be friendly,
gentle dogs) cause over 50% of all dog-related deaths. There must be
*something* there, even if the statistics are skewed.

Don't confuse dog-related deaths with dog bite incidents. Problems with
identification aside, dogs like Rotts and pit bulls are strong, fast
animals and
when they do bite they tend to do a lot of damage. I'm not surprised they
account
for a disproportionate number of deaths. But apparently, as best we can
judge from
the dog bite reports, the _number_ of biting incidents pretty much tracks
the
popularity of the breed.


You could argue that not all bites lead to death, and you would be
right. I don't have any statistics showing the tendancy of each breed
of dog to bite- but for my buck, I'd rather get a superficial flesh
wound from a spaniel than be killed by a pit bull.

Again, I do not believe that people should be prevented from owning
pit bulls- I just don't want them growling at me on my property.
That's all.

You should not have to tolerate _any_ dog growling on your property. Any
dog that
does is a candidate for removal -- either by animal control in a
reasonably
well-policed county or by more direct means if you don't have that option.

--RC

eminem responded reasonably -

This entire thread boarders on a religious war so I was going to stay out of
the thick of it, but at one point while reading all of the overstatements on
both sides of the issue the thought did occur to me that it was not that
long ago that German Shepherds and Dobermans were spoken of exactly the way
the Pit Bull is today. Especially the Doberman - it was common folk lore
and fire talk to rag on how they turned on their owners with no warning or
provocation. Stay tuned - someone is yet bound to introduce the Rottweiller
into this thread...

el correcto...
as the owner of a number of dobies over the past 20+
years, friend of many others, and having known a
number of rottweilers, etc, i know there are all kinds
of factors which determine a dog's personality, how
it will *tend* to react in various stressful situations,
and how it *might* react under extreme situations...

dogs are people too: they have definite individual
personalities, quirks, habits, and tendencies; our
training, discipline and interaction can all obviously
influence how their personalities are expressed...

of course, *any* breed can be made more viscious
if that character trait is bred for (purposefully, or
as a result of coexisting with some other trait being
bred for), or trained for... obviously, the bigger/stronger/
more agressive breeds are going to make that much
more of a threat when they 'go bad'...

i'd be willing to bet dollars to donut holes that
there are *really* far more dog bites from chihuahua's
than any other breed; its just that while 90% of the
doberman/etc bites may get reported in some fashion,
i bet 90% of the chihuahua 'bites' don't get reported
because A. it's embarassing B. what's to report ?
ow, i got four little dents on my ankle...

some of the most consistently agressive, badly
behaved, and snappy dogs i have met, are the
yipyap breeds; the thing is, because they can be
swept aside with your foot, their 'agression' is
not as threatening as a pit/dobie/etc, and thus
is often not recognized as the nasty behavior it is...

some very few dogs are just born mean, a
bunch more are made mean by willful or casual
mistreatment, and *any* dog -regardless of training-
can 'go postal' if it is in circumstances where
it feels threatened and can't escape...

same goes for people...

dogs is people too...

charley

eof

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:00:41 -0400, firstjois wrote:
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.

(snip story of dog endangering people)

Did you call police? Someone is going to have to deal with that dog.

Over in misc.rural, I've seen the "3 S's" - Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.
If the dog goes after my kid, the dog will be dead, and the backhoe
will make noise for a minute or three.

George wrote:

That's the key. Owner's the influence.

We've a large but well-behaved German shepherd, and some of my daughter's
college friends from Chicago wouldn't come close even when he was showing
all the "friendly" signs. Reason was "where we come from the only people
who have dogs like that are people who want vicious dogs."

Personally, I believe the larger the dog, the better he must behave.

You certainly got that right! Owning a large dog carries with it special
responsibilities.

--RC



"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
The Pit Bull has become a status symbol for punks, gander members and
other
unsavory character. Cruise through a major city in the "lesser"
neighborhoods and you will see them. The hoodlum wannabe walking his pet
pit bull. He may not be able to flaunt a gun, so he does the next best
thing for status.

IIRC correctly, the dog in Our Gang Comedy was a pit bull. Dobermans are
also docile when bred properly, nasty when not. Probably other breeds
too.

You're not gonna like this, but. . .

The reason the dog displayed unacceptable levels of aggression is that it wasn't
properly trained. Just being around people (socialization) is important, but it
is not enough for any dog. You have to train them in what you want them to do.

This is especially important with a large, strong dog. You _have_ to train them
or you're going to have trouble.

For example, charging the door at a stimulus outside is a very common dog
behavior. Everything from Yorkies on up does it and I have a friend who ended up
with a huge vet bill because his Irish Setter charged through a glass storm
door. However when a Yorkie does it you may not notice. When a pit bull does it,
the dog is likely to break the door.

The incident with the steer doesn't surprise me either. When a dog like a pit
bull attacks it can do a lot of damage and pit bulls do not quit.

But the real point is that you simply did not have control over your dog because
you had not trained it properly. You can see equivalent behavior from just about
any breed of dog in the local park on the weekend. And in all cases the cause is
the same.

As I say, pit bulls are not for everyone and they most certainly need to be both
trained and socialized. If you don't do both, you're going to have trouble.

--RC



"D. J. Dorn" wrote:

Sorry, can't buy it. I had a pit bull and spent a great deal of time with
it hunting and just being out in the woods. I noticed that even in the
house, there was agression I didn't care for. One day, he almost took out
the front door of the house trying to get at a horse that was walking down
the street. About a month later, we were in the country and a 900 lb steer
grunted at him during a staredown. I saw it coming but was too late - the
dog attacked the steer in the throat and was then tossed outwardly by the
steer turning in circles. The dog couldn't hang on and hit a post through
centrifugal force when the grip gave way. He shook it off and went back
after the running steer and went under and grabbed the underside with the
steer hitting it with its hooves while running. I aimed to shoot the dog
but couldn't get a good shot without possibly hitting the steer. The steer
finally collapsed on top of the dog which still wouldn't let go. I ran to
the dog and turned the collar enough to make him let go and then took him to
the truck. Drove immediately to the vet and had the dog put down and then
the vet and I went to the steer. He said it almost died but not from the
wounds which didn't penetrate the leather but rather exhaustion.

I miss the dog because he was loyal but he couldn't be trusted. You're
probably going to assume it's something I did but all I can do is assure you
that he lived in a normal household enviornment with no teasing or tauting
and lots of human contact. While I don't think he would have ever attacked
a human, I couldn't take the chance because if he would have, there wouldn't
have been a chance in hell. A 40 lb dog against a 900 lb steer and the
steer didn't have a prayer - that dog made sounds during the attack I hadn't
heard in an animal before.

Don

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...


Prometheus wrote:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:00:02 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

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.)

I know you love pit-bulls, and from the fervor you're showing in
defending them, and the links you've gone through the trouble to find,
I've no doubt that you have good dogs. I've no doubt that your
friends are good dog-owners as well. You've probably never met a pit
bull you didn't like- believe it or not, I get it.

On the other hand, I have never met a responsible pit bull owner. I'm
not saying that there are none, or even that it is very uncommon- but
it is not possible to draw a conclusion that is completely
inconsistant with every experience you've ever had. If I were to tell
you Black and Decker made THE BEST woodworking tools on earth, and
posted links to pictures of masterfully crafted furniture, and
hundreds of testimonials saying the same, would you believe me? Even
though your experience had shown you that that brand was inadequate
for almost every task you tried to apply it to? Could you change your
mind because I said so, or because someone put up a website that said
so?

I would say that the responsible pit bull owners far out-number the
irresponsible
owners. But that doesn't mean the irresponsible/psycho owners don't exist
and that
they don't produce some very dangerous dogs. (Hell, there are creeps out
there who
fight their dogs.) As I say, some people shouldn't be allowed to own a
goldfish.

But those are the owners, not the breed.



I don't want to prevent anyone from owning dogs of any breed. I just
would like to see those dogs taken care of properly. If you have a
pit bull, and love it as a part of your family, great. Just don't
assume that it acts the same when you are not around, and let the
animal go roaming about the neighborhood. That's all I or anyone else
has the right to ask of you.

No one should let their dog of any breed run around loose. That is
irresponsible and
dangerous to the dog and everyone else. Dogs that run loose tend to have
real short
life spans. I can't understand how anyone who claims to care for a dog can
allow it.

Do what you like on your own property-
hell, keep an elephant in your backyard and an alligator in your
bathtub for all I care. But if said elephant steps on my car, don't
expect your assertion that the elephant is a noble, wise and gentle
creature to change the fact that I can't get to work that day! And
don't expect the fact that not all pit bulls are the devil incarnate
to change the fact that it is damn scary when a muscular, viscious
animal corners you in your own yard.

Well, if the dog is viscous, it's not going to be moving very fast. :-)
Seriously, being confronted by any dog that is acting aggressively is
scary. It
shouldn't happen and it is a sign of an irresponsible owner to let a dog
run loose.

The fact that are no inherently dangerous breeds doesn't mean there aren't
any
dangerous dogs.



I've got a friendly little pooch that doesn't seem to be a danger to
anything but table scraps, but I don't let him wander around on his
own- not only because he could be a danger to someone who is strange
to him, but also because he lacks the discernment to look both ways
before crossing the street, or to prevent himself from crapping in the
neighbor's yard. So the breed of dog is not all bad; fine, I'll agree
to that- but the overwhelming tendancy in my experience is for the
wrong kind of people to adopt that breed, and that- more than anything
else, is what makes them dangerous. I've seen other kinds of dogs
cause problems, but all of those others put together do not add up to
even 1/10 of the trouble I have personally witnessed when a pit bull
is present. The statistics [in the link another poster provided] show
that pit-bulls and rottweilers (which I have seen to be friendly,
gentle dogs) cause over 50% of all dog-related deaths. There must be
*something* there, even if the statistics are skewed.

Don't confuse dog-related deaths with dog bite incidents. Problems with
identification aside, dogs like Rotts and pit bulls are strong, fast
animals and
when they do bite they tend to do a lot of damage. I'm not surprised they
account
for a disproportionate number of deaths. But apparently, as best we can
judge from
the dog bite reports, the _number_ of biting incidents pretty much tracks
the
popularity of the breed.


You could argue that not all bites lead to death, and you would be
right. I don't have any statistics showing the tendancy of each breed
of dog to bite- but for my buck, I'd rather get a superficial flesh
wound from a spaniel than be killed by a pit bull.

Again, I do not believe that people should be prevented from owning
pit bulls- I just don't want them growling at me on my property.
That's all.

You should not have to tolerate _any_ dog growling on your property. Any
dog that
does is a candidate for removal -- either by animal control in a
reasonably
well-policed county or by more direct means if you don't have that option.

--RC

Prometheus wrote:

Wrong, most domestic dogs will only attack after pretty severe
provocation.

That statement is technically correct, but you have to look at things from the
dog's perspective. A dog, any dog, may be moved to attack by things that seem
utterly innocuous to humans. The resulting aggression may seem utterly
unprovoked to humans unless they speak dog pretty fluently. Simply looking at
a dog, or walking close to it may appear to the dog to be an attack under the
proper circumstances. (This is why it is dangerous to approach any dog that's
running loose, btw. The dog is most likely out of its comfort zone and prone
to nervous aggression. This can be true of even the most docile, well-behaved
dogs.)

Here is a good discussion of aggression in dogs, what causes it and how to
prevent it.
http://www.accesskent.com/Health/Hea.../kcas_bite.htm

I favor Collies and Irish Setters, and I've never, ever
seen one show an agressive side unless someone they don't know is
trying to force their way into their home.

In an earlier post I mentioned the Irish Setter who charged through a storm
door. The reference above mentions collies as a breed that can bite.

The next time you go to your vet, ask him or her about what breeds of dogs are
most likely to bite. The answer is 'all of them'.


No doubt it is *possible*
to train one *to* attack, but I've never seen it done. On the other
hand, it seems that anything in the terrier family will attack unless
well trained *not* to do so. It's not even a fine distinction, it's a
major one, IMO. Size has nothing to do with it- when was the last
time you heard of a Great Dane or St. Bernard attacking someone
without provocation?

Happens fairly frequently. In fact St. Bernards figure on the list of breeds
involved in dog bite fatalities. It's true that terriers of all sizes and
breeds have a tendency to aggression, but the difference is not nearly as
great as you make it out to be.

I hear about Pit-bulls attacking people all the
time, and they're smaller than either of those breeds.

Can you say 'media artifact'? If the dog even looks vague like a pit bull, it
will be described in the media as a 'pit bull' or a 'pit bull mix'. Otherwise
the breed of dog is quite likely to go unreported.

--RC

mp wrote:

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.

Better neither. That's why you train your dog. The kid you save may be your
own.
(According to the statistics family members are more likely to be harmed by
dogs than outsiders. The statistics also show that children are more likely
to be attacked than adults and in children most of the bites are to the
face.)

--RC