Pit Bulls attack 5-year-old boy

“Pit bulls fall right in there with rappers, gangbangers, tattoos, piercings and baggy pants. I have no use for any of them.”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

How offensive. I am a college-educated, happily married WOMAN that owns a house in a nice neighborhood. I don’t own spike collars, I don’t let my dogs run loose, and I certainly wouldn’t allow my pets to behave as the dogs in these stories do. They are spayed/neutered, socialized, and trained. They are not vicious. They have lots of energy, and need a job. They need a confident owner. They are just like any other dog, save for the fact that the media and a bunch of idiot thugs somehow believe they are supernatural beings.

I would not adopt a border collie to a family with young children in an apartment. It doesn’t mean I think border collies are dangerous, but I do know that dogs that need jobs can become very destructive when they aren’t allowed an outlet for that energy. I have personally witnessed border collies that were vicious and scary, simply due to lack of exercise that ferments into anxiety, obsessiveness, and neurotic behaviors. The same could be said for many working type dogs, as it is true for pit bulls.

FYI, public health records are showing that two thousand people end up in the hospital every day in this country due to dog attacks. The media reports a couple of these attacks, but leaves out the rest. Why do you think that is? I was attacked, and it was pretty bad, but no news reporter thought it was newsworthy. I wasn’t attacked by a pit bull, but a pack of dogs, one of which was a lab. It simply wasn’t going to make them any money, so they moved on.

Anyone who says a Pit Bull is not a biter is fooling themselves; do not let them fool you.

Finding their favorite breed under attack by the media, many Pit Bull owners have responded by irrationally downplaying the Pit Bull breeds tendency towards violence and their capability for violence.

I have a Bull Mastiff. She is both more likely to attack than a non aggressive breed, as she was bred for the FUNCTION of being an aggressive guard dog - and more likely to cause extreme damage once engaged in violence. Because I recognize these two facts, and keep them foremost in my mind, the possibility of her actually attacking anyone and/or their dog goes way down.

Now if I wanted to try to claim that Bull Mastiff's don't bite (they usually tackle), that my Bull Mastiff wasn't any more likely to attack than a Labrador, or that the result of her aggressive behavior wasn't any more of a concern than the aggression of a Labrador..... the likelihood of her getting herself (and me) in trouble just increased EXPONENTIALLY.

Your bullmastiff wasn’t bred for the same job as pit bulls were. Stopping poachers and attacking on command ARE going to be aggressive behaviors, directed towards people. But what about a breed of dog that has never been bred for human aggression, but high drive, gameness, and dog aggression? It doesn’t mean they won’t bite people, or that when they do it won’t be bad. It means that they are not more predisposed to do so than other breeds. Any breed of dog is capable of biting, mauling, or killing someone, as is evidenced by the fact that several small and toy breeds have taken young lives.

Pit bulls might be stronger and larger than these, but they are not a large breed of dog. They should not reach 90 plus pounds, even overweight. Most fanciers agree that 60 pounds is the heaviest they should get. Of course, many large dogs are being called pit bulls in the news, but those of us that know the breed know that either the dogs are purebred but grossly out of standard (probably intentionally, which brings into question what purpose the breeder had for this), mixed with some larger breed, or an entirely unrelated breed that has simply been misidentified as a pit bull.

Either way, anyone with a dog should know that it’s not going to follow the same rules as we do. Dogs can only communicate in a limited way. Biting IS one of the ways they do that, especially if you don’t pay attention to their body language beforehand. Most of the attacks taking place are not guarding attacks. They are dogs running loose, chained up, or in packs, or worse, dogs interacting with children when no parent is in sight. These are all things that affect the personality of a dog, and are completely preventable. I am sure you would agree that many of the dogs would not have had a chance to do something like this if they were owned by responsible people. I know my dogs aren’t running around the neighborhood. They’re not even outside in my fenced yard unattended. But if one of them started acting out, and presented any behavior consistent with human aggression (or even intent), that dog would be pushing up daisies. That is what a responsible person does. My dogs, no matter what I or anyone else thinks of their temperament, have to obey the rules. If they can’t for some reason, and they present a danger, they are gone, without hesitation. Do I think they are more likely to be that way, regardless of their socialization or training? Absolutely not.

Pit bulls were bred for a much more aggressive job. Your human aggressive/ dog aggressive dichotomy is ludicrous; as most dogs are unsure where in the pack they fit and are equally “game” or “aggressive” towards any member of the pack; human or dog - that they think they should strive to dominate: and the fact that many Pit Bulls are bred for, trained as and used for Guard dogs BECAUSE they ARE human aggressive.

Any Pit Bull owner who thinks “My dog wasn't bred to attack humans, so it probably will not” is an idiot. Pit Bulls do attack humans, many were bred with that characteristic in mind.

A dog bred for an aggressive purpose is more likely to be aggressive than a breed bred for retrieving ducks. Moreover despite your claims that the size of a Pit Bull precludes it from being one of the more dangerous dogs once it DOES engage in aggression - the purpose that they were bred for (fighting maiming and killing) means that they have the tools to do EXTREME amounts of damage- maiming and killing.

Moreover, as to the purpose that Pit Bulls were bred for: they were bred to fight, and to fight to the death.

Most social animals have an ingrained tendency to avoid inflicting serious injury or death during rivalry struggles. One combatant ‘submits’ the other ‘dominates’ and then they go on about their business.

This instinct has been reduced in most Pit Bulls, in order for them to continue the fight until death. Once they turn on the aggression, they literally do not know when to stop. You hear that all the time in Pit Bull attacks ‘they did not stop!’. No amount of submitting will get them to stop, they are going for a kill.

Now a Bull Mastiff has a ‘snub nose’ muzzle for the purpose of HOLDING a man by the throat, subdued. My Bull Mastiff will tackle and hold, and NOT tear a throat out. That was what she was bred for, to beat them up and then hold them down.

A Pit Bull was bred to beat them up and KILL them.

“Pit bulls were bred for a much more aggressive job. Your human aggressive/ dog aggressive dichotomy is ludicrous; as most dogs are unsure where in the pack they fit and are equally “game” or “aggressive” towards any member of the pack; human or dog - that they think they should strive to dominate: and the fact that many Pit Bulls are bred for, trained as and used for Guard dogs BECAUSE they ARE human aggressive.”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I agree that many dogs are unsure of their place, and because of this, they may act out. That’s a sign of an uneducated dog owner letting the dog run around without a strong leader, and that issues will manifest later on. As for the aggression issue, many well-bred pit bulls will absolutely never bite a person. They are bred to trust their handlers, as this was a must during dog fighting days, so that during a fight, the dog would be able to tell the difference between the other dog and the handler, and not redirect a bite in the confusion.

Dogs that do BEST as guardians are naturally suspicious of strangers. This is not the case with pit bulls, and they are often stolen because of this misguided belief. Just because some idiot thugs decide to chain their undersocialized, juiced up dog in the yard as a theft deterrant, doesn’t mean it garners the desired results. They are apparently not experts, or they would be doing something more constructive with their time, and their dogs wouldn’t be getting stolen on a regular basis.

If one were to come into my yard,(not that they’re ever alone but just to see what happens) they would see that my pit bull-type dog (female) will welcome you with an entire wagging body and matching goofy smile, whereas my GSD (male) will have stopped you at the gate, silently but convincingly. He trusts no one, she looooooves everyone, and that is what each was bred for.

Not that all of this matters when it comes to dog bites. Considering every single breed out there has most likely bitten people, we have to look past that into the cause. Statistics show over and over again that horrible pattern in dog bites and fatalities. It goes beyond breed. It’s almost always traced right back to the owner and how they chose to handle the dog, which is why every single year, no matter what tough breed comes into popularity, you will always have about half of the fatalities coming from breeds no one would suspect. There is a correlation between these “friendly” dogs and pit bulls, rotties, etc. and that is the care/control the dog receives from the owner.

One thing I find interesting, on a side note, is the amount of coverage each situation gets. If it’s a “bad” breed, the story might be repeated on over a hundred stations! If it’s a “friendly” breed, it might be anywhere from one local report to twelve, at most, unless the situation is bizarre, like the golden that accidentally strangled a girl. I say this because reading through the last few years of fatalities, I have found husky/malamute/sled type dogs have been causing quite a bit of fatalities (in Canada they are number one, obviously due to their popularity, but also due to their care, as many are outside only dogs, and are allowed to remain chained up in packs at all times), but no one even seems to acknowledge them as a dangerous type. Honestly, I wonder why that is.

I have encountered numerous Pit Bulls used as guard dogs that were immediately and unambiguously human aggressive and they would most certainly bite a person. This is the primary function of the breed these days; as a guard dog. The only other function the breed has ever had was as a gladiator fighting to the death in the “pit”.

A Pit Bull, like any dog bred for an aggressive purpose, is more likely than most other breeds to be aggressive. Trying to claim they always know “bite and kill dogs only, never humans” is a bizarre rationalization that has very little resemblance to actual reality.

Moreover, despite its size (my Bull Mastiff isn't more than 90 lbs either) it has the tools at its disposal to kill and maim MUCH better than almost any other breed of dog: its size or larger.

So besides being more likely to BE aggressive, it is more likely to do damage (maiming and killing) when it IS aggressive.

And as a breed for “pit” fighting - it doesn't know when to stop its aggression and even after it has “won” the fight, it goes on to kill.

My dog might well do some damage getting the person into the submit position with her mouth on their throat; but she will stop at that point.

Pit Bulls are bred to fight to the death.

“Moreover, as to the purpose that Pit Bulls were bred for: they were bred to fight, and to fight to the death.

This is true for any other attack resulting in extreme damage or fatality. I do not agree that this is a pit bull-only thing. Any dog that kills someone obviously didn’t stop until the job was done, and I think this is a direct result of insufficient training/socializing, or ignoring some pretty serious warning signs that the dog was already unstable. Also, submitting a dog is not going to do the job if you’re just putting them on their back. They have to BELIEVE you are the boss and submit on their own, or it means nothing.

I also think that people tend to be more fearful of dogs with reputations, and I do believe they often attribute abilities to a dog that simply aren’t there. Because of this, I think many make it a self-fulfilling prophecy, thinking there’s no stopping that dog, and trying in futility to stop it, just falling short. I have had several dog-aggressive dogs before, and it isn’t pretty when they try to fight, but being firm and making sure the dog knows who is boss is the only way to stop it.

BUT the dog has to already know this, or it won’t work, which is why in these situations, we have issues. People get dogs they can’t or won’t bother to handle, ignore all the warning signs, maybe even encouraging the bad behavior out of ignorance, refuse to do something when it’s evident that the dog is not right, then feign surprise when something bad happens, always pointing the finger to the dog that “just snapped”. I can’t in good faith blame a dumb animal for my oversights, soft-mindedness, or outright apathy. I think people in this day and age are just not accustomed to accepting responsibility. I remember a time when I was young that if you got bit, YOU were blamed, because you must have done something to that dog, and if not, it was probably sick, and was shot before it could do worse harm. Now, we have people trying to treat their dogs like kids, appeasing them by letting them run amok. It’s just bizarre.

“My dog might well do some damage getting the person into the submit position with her mouth on their throat; but she will stop at that point.”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Your bullmastiff might stop, but the breed has been involved in a few fatalities. Not every dog is going to behave according to breeding/genetics, especially when people are around to mess it up. The same can be said for the pit bulls you encounter that are used to guard. Are they bigger dogs? Many people are using other breeds to make larger, human aggressive dogs, and calling them pit bulls when they are just mutts at that point. Many are also getting dogs and doing things to them to GET them to the point that they don’t trust, but suspicion is not something ingrained in the breed. It has never had a use, as the breed has always worked alongside its master as well as strangers. That doesn’t mean you can’t mess one up enough to have a vicious dog on your hands, but if you do right by the dog, you most likely will have a trusting, loving, energetic dog that would not bite any human.

One thing I always forget to mention is how the whole breeding thing worked with dog fighters. You need to train a dog to do what it does in the ring. Some might be born with a desire to fight other dogs, but training and conditioning are necessary. Even then, you could take two champion fighters and breed them and get nothing but curs. You could take two curs and out of that, get a champion. It seems to have much more to do with the “perfect storm” combination of good breeding and training than just genetics, just as the same is true for a dog bite fatality today.

Most of the dogs involved in these situations are not cherished family pets. Many are dogs that were purchased from some shady individuals or backyard breeders, then left untrained and undersocialized, were eventually left chained outside or even allowed to just run free, where they could do whatever comes to mind with no consequences. Dog attack stories aren’t coming from nice places with educated, responsible people.

The same crowd that now agitates and inflames to push for pitbull bans will most assuredly do the same for your mastiffs someday. Your informed opinions will matter not when everybody is convinced that a few hyped anecdotes speak for the whole breed.

I don't own, never have owned, and likely never will own a pit...I'm a fan of German and Belgian shepherds, but I know how the left operates, and once they set a precedent by banning pits, they will move to the next "deadly" breed, eventually coming for my dogs, and yours. Their (PETA. ALF et al) stated aim, after all, is the banning of pet and animal ownership altogether. Do I think everybody who hates the breed is for the banning of all pets? Of course not, but many have come to that conclusion based on inflammatory media accounts, and near hysteria, and at least in this regard they have made themselves useful idiots by giving the movement a credible, moderate face. After all, who could be against banning pitbulls if it saves just one child? The far left's influence behind this should be obvious when you consider how they remove human accountability and personal responsibility from the argument. Pitbull ownership, like any other freedom, entails responsibility that can be rightfully exercised, abused or abandoned altogether.

Having said that, there are irresponsible pitbull owners, and their negligence all too often leads to tragedies like the subject of this thread. However, as solosmoke has already pointed out, when you look to the lowest common denominator in virtually any dog attack, regardless of breed, you will find a gross abandonment of responsible ownership and supervision.

Yes, but also a common thread I have seen, over and over again, in real life and in these accounts; is the Pit Bull owner who has (for whatever reason) a rather distorted view of both their dogs potential for violence and their capacity for violence.

I know that the community is under attack, and that the attack is often irrational - leads many to a bit of irrationality of their own.

The number one irresponsibility of an irresponsible Pit Bull owner is in not recognizing that their breed is MUCH more likely to attack than most other non-aggresive breeds; and MUCH more likely to inflict serious harm when it does attack, and MUCH LESS likely to stop the attack until the victim is dead.

And yes, I agree completely that any sort of call for banning the breed is shortsighted. HOWEVER, what I call for is much greater criminal and civil liability for irresponsible dog owners, and greater enforcement of animal laws.

Another common thread in these attacks is multiple animals running loose that nobody does anything about, and numerous complaints of an aggressive dog that nobody does anything about until someone is SERIOUSLY mauled or killed.

What you've written is no different than what the overwhelming majority of pitbull breed advocates on this forum have written and heartily endorse. Pitbulls are, in a sense, property. Just as an irresponsibly owned, maintained and operated AR15 is far more potentially lethal than a blackpowder musket, and just as an irresponsibly owned, maintained and operated SUV is far more potentially lethal than a VW Bug, an irresponsibly owned, maintained, and "operated" pitbull is potentially far more lethal than a dachshund. What many so-called conservatives here advocate is counter-intuitive and removes the human element and personal responsibility from all these equations when it comes to dogs. Certainly, dogs can, and do act on their own instinctual drives, unlike a rifle or a vehicle, and so the parallel isn't perfect, but it still bears weight regarding the responsibilities of the owner. Pitbulls are not the optimum dog for all people, some of whom should not own any dog...but the same case can be made for shepherds, border collies, mastiffs, etc.

And when it comes to loose/feral dogs, I've never seen a "pro-pitbull" FReeper even come close to suggesting that humans do not have a right to defend themselves or their pets by any means necessary. The pro-ban people are relying on the same animal control folks who currently fail to police loose dogs to solve the problem altogether.

You think Conservatives would know better about unintended consequences, the slippery slope, and the overall ineffectiveness of such government power.

If every Pit Bull in America were erased, rapture like. In ten years people might wonder, ‘why was there no drop in dog maulings and fatalities?’.(the ineffectiveness)

Uhhhh, because instead of Pit Bulls the same type of people that are the problem got a different type of dog and trained and bred the worst possible traits into it (unintended consequences).

Leading to.... banning different breeds (the slippery slope)!

Well what I wrote is a bit different than most PB advocates; I didn't suggest that because Pit Bulls were bred to fight and kill other dogs, they simply were not prone to bite humans (contrary to easily observed reality, personal experience, knowledge of dogs, genetics, statistics, etc).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.