scrymettet wrote:

she must feel safe with you protecting her.

He does! He hides behind me and Tim when new people come around

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Get your facts correct, please!  The Pitbull has NOT been with us for thousands of years.  The dog breed was developed in the United Kingdom for hunting a little a bit over 200 years ago.  It's only been in recent times that the breed has been recognized by American and UK kennel Associations.  So you are completely wrong about developing the breed thousands of years ago, or for that particular breed of dog to be meant for killing people. 

I know from experience of being around dogs all my life that Pitbulls are not by far more likely to bite than most any other breed of dog.  The Chihuahua is most likely to bite than any other breed, followed closely by the Chow Chow.  Not all pitbulls are alike, but pits are far more likely to kill cats, other smaller dogs, rodents, or other smaller animals as well because they are a hunting dog. 

From what you are saying ... "I've met sweet pits.  I'd bet most will live out their lives without maiming or killing because nurture can often overcome nature." nearly contradicts your misinformed following statement.

You should read more closely.  I didn't specify pits as being thousands of years old.  I was speaking generally of war dogs like mastiffs and the mosler breeds from which the pits or Am. Stafforshire or whatever descended.  I also didn't write killing people, I just said killing; (or bull-baiting or killing the game and not retrieving it).  I agree there are many breeds that bite, again, my problem is with the severity.  Something tells me if that woman with no arms and one eye were attacked by a pack of chihuahuas the outcome would have been a bit different.  And I see no contradiction in my statements.

Solacium wrote:
I haven't been able to read through the many replies, but the OP makes me very, very happy as a pittie owner who is on a crusade to change the stereotype. Much kudos to Nicolette and her dog and those are gorgeous photos!!!

I have my very own pit bull and he's a great breed ambassador. When we first moved to the neighborhood, all the other dog owners avoided us. But slowly I made sure every chance the got, they saw my dog being obedient, good dog, like any other.

Now, they greet us BOTH by name and always ask how he's doing. One, whose dog was previously attacked by two pit bulls, has even complimented us on my dog's obedience progress.

I know it's a hot topic, but one dog at a time, people can slowly begin to change their views on the breed and that is exactly what me and my dog are setting out to do.

Thanks Beast is a great dog. He's scared of just about everything, very shy, and a little uncertain... but I've never seen him so much as growl. He'll hear the doorbell ring and run into the other room before he starts barking at it! He's such a silly bastard.

He's not so great with commands all the time. We think he's a little slow because of his past owners [like I said, they were breeding him out and we suspect some serious abuse due to his mannerisms and scars], but he's very eager to please and we can tell he's trying. He's awesome. Lots of people who were afraid of pitbulls warmed up to Beast pretty much instantly.... including my hyperactive MR 13 year old sister!

ELiffmann wrote:

You should read more closely.  I didn't specify pits as being thousands of years old.  I was speaking generally of war dogs like mastiffs and the mosler breeds from which the pits or Am. Stafforshire or whatever descended.  I also didn't write killing people, I just said killing; (or bull-baiting or killing the game and not retrieving it).  I agree there are many breeds that bite, again, my problem is with the severity.  Something tells me if that woman with no arms and one eye were attacked by a pack of chihuahuas the outcome would have been a bit different.  And I see no contradiction in my statements.

Labs and Spaniels attack with that severity.
You don't hear about it because they're "cute" and "cuddly" and everyone would immediately blame the owner.
Pitties look more muscular and tough [because they are] so people are quick to blame the dog, instead of the shitty owner.

Nicolette wrote:
Labs and Spaniels attack with that severity.
You don't hear about it because they're "cute" and "cuddly" and everyone would immediately blame the owner.
Pitties look more muscular and tough [because they are] so people are quick to blame the dog, instead of the shitty owner.

Oh come on now...  Did you see the story?  You said you read it.  It was a video where a woman lost both arms and an eye....  had her head bandaged?  I've never, ever heard of labs doing such a thing and they are far and away the most popular breed.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_ … ted_States
There are apparently some instances but considering the small numbers of death via Labs vs. their popularity, I don't think that holds true.

ELiffmann wrote:
Oh come on now...  Did you see the story?  You said you read it.  It was a video where a woman lost both arms and an eye....  had her head bandaged?  I've never, ever heard of labs doing such a thing and they are far and away the most popular breed.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_ … ted_States
There are apparently some instances but considering the small numbers of death via Labs vs. their popularity, I don't think that holds true.

I did read it. But that doesn't mean I believe the woman was totally innocent in what happened to her. Dogs, like people, don't just lash out for no reason. Dogs are like children, they act the way they were raised. She got attacked by her dogs? Maybe she shouldn't be neglecting/abusing them. And yes, keeping them in a back yard for a shitty breeding/fighting operation IS abuse.

You not hearing about it doesn't mean it does not happen. Seriously.

But, that's cool. You have your vendetta. Own that shit. But... understand that some of us realize how stupid and false it is... because we have had bully breeds.

Nicolette wrote:

I did read it. But that doesn't mean I believe the woman was totally innocent in what happened to her. Dogs, like people, don't just lash out for no reason. Dogs are like children, they act the way they were raised. She got attacked by her dogs? Maybe she shouldn't be neglecting/abusing them. And yes, keeping them in a back yard for a shitty breeding/fighting operation IS abuse.

You not hearing about it doesn't mean it does not happen. Seriously.

But, that's cool. You have your vendetta. Own that shit. But... understand that some of us realize how stupid and false it is... because we have had bully breeds.

stupid and false, eh?  The story said "like family"...  or are they guilty of dog fighting b/c they are poor and black?  Do me a favor and click on that wiki link.... scroll down to the 2000's(pits have gotten more popular) and read through all of those child deaths for me, would you?  Or I can summarize, 3 yr. old wanders into neighbors' yard, killed by pit bull.... I'm sure yours is great.  Oh, I know abuse and fighting happen.  It's awful.  That still doesn't mean every dog that attacks has been brought up badly.  My mom's dachsund, well socialized, well mannered, etc. bit the postman because my mom was out of town too long.  I've got friends who's lab bit their two-year olds nose off.  12 years old, never had bitten anybody. The difference is the postman can still walk and the girl lived.  And it's not your dog I'm worried about but those who you'll influence.  Say some do-gooder knows you, knows your(submissive) dog and decides to get a pit from the shelter... neighbors kid wanders into the backyard and....

Skydancer Photos wrote:
Did you know that when law enforcement and the media report "pit bull" attacks, they include over 30 different breeds inh that category... nearly all of which are not pit bulls?

Did you know that German Shepherds are responsible for more human deaths and violent attacks than any other dog breed in history?

But, who cares about facts, eh?

let's ban them.

Skydancer Photos wrote:
Did you know that when law enforcement and the media report "pit bull" attacks, they include over 30 different breeds inh that category... nearly all of which are not pit bulls?

Did you know that German Shepherds are responsible for more human deaths and violent attacks than any other dog breed in history?

But, who cares about facts, eh?

Seems to happen a lot on this site.

Skydancer Photos wrote:
Did you know that when law enforcement and the media report "pit bull" attacks, they include over 30 different breeds inh that category... nearly all of which are not pit bulls?

Did you know that German Shepherds are responsible for more human deaths and violent attacks than any other dog breed in history?

But, who cares about facts, eh?

BUT PIT BULLS ARE VICIOUS LITTLE DEVILS AND SHOULD ALL BE EUTHANIZED.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
In most jurisdictions, laws bar citizens from keeping dangerous animals as pets, without a specific license, e.g., lions, tigers, wildcats, bears, wolves, coyotes, etc.  It's surprising that dogs are not on that list, considering the carnage they cause.  Maybe that's something to consider.  Of course, all existing dogs should be grandfathered in.

where have you been? states and counties across the USA do have dogs, most often specifically bully breeds, on the dangerous/vicious animals list/ Often making it hard for some families to relocate with their beloved family pet, and making insurance prohibitively expensive and precluding them from a lot of rental accommodation... that's whys so many pitties are in shelters, not because the owners couldn't handle them. The media hysteria over there even resulted in breed specific legislation as far away as here in Aust, so if any pittie owner want to move down under, they have to leave their dog behind!

Yes, big strong dogs are capable of inflicting more harm when not raised and treated correctly, but it's amazing to me that a country that will defend gun ownership  - insistent that people kill people, not guns, don't see the co-relation.

So yes, i do laugh when people make judgement about my big whimp of a dog..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jirrupin/s … 706320449/
but its not funny when those ignorant attitudes result in legislation that causes great expenses to the owners

Jirrupin wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jirrupin/s … 9706320449

Great photos and what a face your pup has

Nicolette wrote:

Thanks Beast is a great dog. He's scared of just about everything, very shy, and a little uncertain... but I've never seen him so much as growl. He'll hear the doorbell ring and run into the other room before he starts barking at it! He's such a silly bastard.

He's not so great with commands all the time. We think he's a little slow because of his past owners [like I said, they were breeding him out and we suspect some serious abuse due to his mannerisms and scars], but he's very eager to please and we can tell he's trying. He's awesome. Lots of people who were afraid of pitbulls warmed up to Beast pretty much instantly.... including my hyperactive MR 13 year old sister!

My pittie is a big baby too! The other day I dropped a small plastic tupperware container when i bent to greet him and he thought the world was ending. I had to comfort him so much. Scary little mini tupperware attack!

This makes me need to go hug my dog!

Beast sounds precious!

Jirrupin wrote:

where have you been? states and counties across the USA do have dogs, most often specifically bully breeds, on the dangerous/vicious animals list/ Often making it hard for some families to relocate with their beloved family pet, and making insurance prohibitively expensive and precluding them from a lot of rental accommodation... that's whys so many pitties are in shelters, not because the owners couldn't handle them. The media hysteria over there even resulted in breed specific legislation as far away as here in Aust, so if any pittie owner want to move down under, they have to leave their dog behind!

Yes, big strong dogs are capable of inflicting more harm when not raised and treated correctly, but it's amazing to me that a country that will defend gun ownership  - insistent that people kill people, not guns, don't see the co-relation.

So yes, i do laugh when people make judgement about my big whimp of a dog..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jirrupin/s … 706320449/
but its not funny when those ignorant attitudes result in legislation that causes great expenses to the owners

I'm sympathetic to the dog-owners and the expense they must bear because some owners are irresponsible.  As I said, current dogs should be grandfathered in, and therefor their owners should be exempt from any special financial burdens.

But I'm more sympathetic to the victims of maulings.  I would like to reduce the number of such maulings.  Wouldn't you?  Obviously, current laws are insufficient, since maulings still occur, including maulings of innocent people, including children.  So, let's let everybody keep their dogs, but any new possession of dogs should be allowed only to those who pay a license fee, maintain insurance, agree to submit to inspections, and agree to pay a fine if their dogs are off a leash outside the house, or get free.  And upon a second or third violation, the dog shall be seized.

And I have made no judgment about your dog.  Try to stay focused.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
I'm sympathetic to the dog-owners and the expense they must bear because some owners are irresponsible.  As I said, current dogs should be grandfathered in, and therefor their owners should be exempt from any special financial burdens.

But I'm more sympathetic to the victims of maulings.  I would like to reduce the number of such maulings.  Wouldn't you?  Obviously, current laws are insufficient, since maulings still occur, including maulings of innocent people, including children.  So, let's let everybody keep their dogs, but any new possession of dogs should be allowed only to those who pay a license fee, maintain insurance, agree to submit to inspections, and agree to pay a fine if their dogs are off a leash outside the house, or get free.  And upon a second or third violation, the dog shall be seized.

obviously?? I disagree. Car accidents still occur, are car laws insufficient? would you advocate a nationwide speed limit of 40mph, that would save lives and horrific injury. I never really thought the number of maulings was that high, if you compared serious injuries by dog to the number of dogs in the country, to serious injuries/death attributable to gun against number of guns, or by cars to the number of cars in the country i doubt there is a real issue. If an objective analysis showed there was a problem then yes, the ownership should be targeted, licensing, compulsory training - for all breeds. Its easy to manipulate people withfootage of horrific injuries, but guns and cars cause far more, so if your priority is to save precious lives and suffering perhaps a lot more things need to be addressed before worrying about dogs anyway.
i don't recall accusing you of judging my dog, try to keep focus.

Jirrupin wrote:
obviously?? I disagree. Car accidents still occur, are car laws insufficient? would you advocate a nationwide speed limit of 40mph, that would save lives and horrific injury. I never really thought the number of maulings was that high, if you compared serious injuries by dog to the number of dogs in the country, to serious injuries/death attributable to gun against number of guns, or by cars to the number of cars in the country i doubt there is a real issue. If an objective analysis showed there was a problem then yes, the ownership should be targeted, licensing, compulsory training - for all breeds. Its easy to manipulate people withfootage of horrific injuries, but guns and cars cause far more, so if your priority is to save precious lives and suffering perhaps a lot more things need to be addressed before worrying about dogs anyway.
i don't recall accusing you of judging my dog, try to keep focus.

"IF" objective analysis shows there is a problem?  You mean you're still not sure?  How many maulings will it take for you to say there's a problem???

Feel free to open a thread about cancer, heart disease, diabetes, car crashes, suicide, gunshot murders, or whatever.  But this thread is about dogs.

IMO, almost no one has an entitlement to own dogs.  Some exceptions would be police and military K-9 units, shepherds, etc.  That's a small percentage.  Everyone else just "wants" one.  Or 5, or 10, or whatever.  But the Wild West days of dog ownership is a train that left the station long ago.

BTW, I'm not picking on dogs.  I'm only posting about dogs because that's the thread subject.  I also think we should not allow - or restrict - coyotes, wolves, pumas, crocodiles, and lots of other predators, in residential areas.  All I'm saying is that it's long since time to add dogs to the list.

And if you don't want to see posted images of people who have been viciously shredded by dogs, fine.  You feel that's manipulation?  Fine.  Then how about no more cutsie-pie pictures of dogs that haven't mauled anyone?  I realize that some may think posting images of their adorable pets constitutes a cogent argument in this discussion.  But it's not.

And please remember, I don't want to harm a hair on your dog's head.  I hope you and your dog both live a long, happy and fulfilling life.  But as long as there are dogs, there will be dog-bites.  So let's talk about how to stop the dog-bites.

Ps - I oppose breed-specific legislation.  In this area we should legislate based on the animal's capacity and/or instinct to cause great harm or death.  In most cases, species-specific legislation will do for dogs, as it has for other predatory animals.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Then how about no more cutsie-pie pictures of dogs that haven't mauled anyone?

Maybe you are confused.  That is what this thread is about.  We get it, you hate pit bulls.  Maybe you've bought into the propaganda.  Cool. 

different thread.

Nicolette wrote:

BUT PIT BULLS ARE VICIOUS LITTLE DEVILS AND SHOULD ALL BE EUTHANIZED.

with bullets.

Damon Banner wrote:

Maybe you are confused.  That is what this thread is about.  We get it, you hate pit bulls.  Maybe you've bought into the propaganda.  Cool. 

different thread.

Given that there seem to be pro and con arguments.....does anyone know of any actually studies on this? I'm interested in what the data has to say...

Damon Banner wrote:

Maybe you are confused.  That is what this thread is about.  We get it, you hate pit bulls.  Maybe you've bought into the propaganda.  Cool. 

different thread.

SOMEONE GETS IT. Bless you.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Feel free to open a thread about cancer, heart disease, diabetes, car crashes, suicide, gunshot murders, or whatever.  But this thread is about dogs.

This is a thread about a specific dog. My dog.
This is a thread about a person realizing that the preconceived notions about my dog [and his breed in general] were absolutely false. This was about my dog being a breed ambassador and PROVING that Pit's are not vicious, psycho killers.

And if you don't want to see posted images of people who have been viciously shredded by dogs, fine.  You feel that's manipulation?  Fine.  Then how about no more cutsie-pie pictures of dogs that haven't mauled anyone?  I realize that some may think posting images of their adorable pets constitutes a cogent argument in this discussion.  But it's not.

Not even the same. Posting pics of people being mauled by dogs [especially since those owners likely abused their dogs] is not the same as posting a photo of my loving family dog. Not only is that on a different page, that's a whole different bookstore.

And please remember, I don't want to harm a hair on your dog's head.  I hope you and your dog both live a long, happy and fulfilling life.  But as long as there are dogs, there will be dog-bites.  So let's talk about how to stop the dog-bites.

Yes, and that's got nothing to do with Pit's as a breed. Labs/Sheltie's/Corgies/Chows/Pomeranians... they bite too. Let's talk about how to stop dog bites without targeting one breed.

Ps - I oppose breed-specific legislation.  In this area we should legislate based on the animal's capacity and/or instinct to cause great harm or death.  In most cases, species-specific legislation will do for dogs, as it has for other predatory animals.

We agree on something. Breed specific legislation is doomed to fail.

But you're talking about how you're against breed specific legislation... while basically saying you think there should be breed specific legislation....

Virtual Studio wrote:
Really there are no bad dogs, just irresponsible owners.

You can train any dog to be a loving family pet given time and patience.

THIS!

Solacium wrote:
My pittie is a big baby too! The other day I dropped a small plastic tupperware container when i bent to greet him and he thought the world was ending. I had to comfort him so much. Scary little mini tupperware attack!

This makes me need to go hug my dog!

Beast sounds precious!

Tim sent me this pic of Beast today with a text saying, "My phone rang too loudly for him to handle... so he ran into the room and sat in that spot for like an hour lol"



He's a silly guy. His lazy eye cracks me up.
He has to go to the vet tomorrow. Poor baby got some form of skin infection on the pads of his paws, on his lip, and under his eye

Damon Banner wrote:

Maybe you are confused.  That is what this thread is about.  We get it, you hate pit bulls.  Maybe you've bought into the propaganda.  Cool. 

different thread.

You're having boundary issues.  How about you post about what you hate.

Nicolette wrote:

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Feel free to open a thread about cancer, heart disease, diabetes, car crashes, suicide, gunshot murders, or whatever.  But this thread is about dogs.

This is a thread about a specific dog. My dog.
This is a thread about a person realizing that the preconceived notions about my dog [and his breed in general] were absolutely false. This was about my dog being a breed ambassador and PROVING that Pit's are not vicious, psycho killers.

And if you don't want to see posted images of people who have been viciously shredded by dogs, fine.  You feel that's manipulation?  Fine.  Then how about no more cutsie-pie pictures of dogs that haven't mauled anyone?  I realize that some may think posting images of their adorable pets constitutes a cogent argument in this discussion.  But it's not.

Not even the same. Posting pics of people being mauled by dogs [especially since those owners likely abused their dogs] is not the same as posting a photo of my loving family dog. Not only is that on a different page, that's a whole different bookstore.

And please remember, I don't want to harm a hair on your dog's head.  I hope you and your dog both live a long, happy and fulfilling life.  But as long as there are dogs, there will be dog-bites.  So let's talk about how to stop the dog-bites.

Yes, and that's got nothing to do with Pit's as a breed. Labs/Sheltie's/Corgies/Chows/Pomeranians... they bite too. Let's talk about how to stop dog bites without targeting one breed.


We agree on something. Breed specific legislation is doomed to fail.

But you're talking about how you're against breed specific legislation... while basically saying you think there should be breed specific legislation....

I just did talk about how to stop dog-bites without targeting one breed.  I posted some specific suggestions.  Scroll up.

And now you're telling me that "basically" I'm saying I think there should be breed-specific legislation.  I think nothing of the sort, and I posted nothing of the sort.  Where are you getting that from?

j3_photo wrote:

Great photos and what a face your pup has

+1
what a cuuuutie

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

I just did talk about how to stop dog-bites without targeting one breed.  I posted some specific suggestions.  Scroll up.

And now you're telling me that "basically" I'm saying I think there should be breed-specific legislation.  I think nothing of the sort, and I posted nothing of the sort.  Where are you getting that from?

Targeting by an animals capacity to kill/cause harm would turn breed specific. It just would. Because no one wants to think that their cute little lab, or their awesome husky, or whatever else, has the capacity to kill/maim/maul.
By saying that, you are saying breed specific without saying it.

Nicolette wrote:

Targeting by an animals capacity to kill/cause harm would turn breed specific. It just would. Because no one wants to think that their cute little lab, or their awesome husky, or whatever else, has the capacity to kill/maim/maul.
By saying that, you are saying breed specific without saying it.

No.  What I'm saying is what I posted.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

No.  What I'm saying is what I posted.

And that's what you said, just without using those exact words.
Not all dogs have the same "capacity" so.... you wouldn't be able to lump in all dogs like you can wolves/coyotes/tigers/ect.
So... it would be breed specific.

Nicolette wrote:

And that's what you said, just without using those exact words.
Not all dogs have the same "capacity" so.... you wouldn't be able to lump in all dogs like you can wolves/coyotes/tigers/ect.
So... it would be breed specific.

I think what you're saying is you don't care how many children get mauled.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

I think what you're saying is you don't care how many children get mauled.

YUP. YOU GOT IT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

Nicolette wrote:

YUP. YOU GOT IT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

"just without using those exact words"

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
"just without using those exact words"

Not the same. But... good try.

Nicolette wrote:



Not the same. But... good try.

Here's today's mauling:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/us/oklaho … ?hpt=hp_t3

Poor little kid.  Terrible way to die.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

I think what you're saying is you don't care how many children get mauled.

Appeal to emotion.

You simply need to be honest here, you do support breed specific legislation.  You hate bull dogs, regardless of anything else presented to you.  You should start a thread about that.  You can present your pros and cons and talk about babies and such.