Am I in the wrong? (Pit Bull debate thread)

[JacksonsMom]

On another forum, there was a thread made about Pit Bulls...

This was a post made:

I know it is very unpopular to say but I still believe the only right thing to do is enforce spay and neuter on all pit bulls and maybe some of the other more dangerous dogs. I KNOW it is not the dogs' fault. Man bred them to be killing machines and then MAN continues to leave them unattended, untrained, and often uncared for themselves. Since we cannot trust man to take the necessary precautions, we really need to stop this breed. There is no need for it to continue. They were bred to kill and kill they will until we spay & neuter them all and end the blood lines there. I do not want to put them all down, although that is what happens in most cases where they attack humans. But I do want to stop the breeding of dangerous breeds. I know many are as sweet as can be right up until the day they aren't! After most attacks, people describe the dog as friendly an would never hurt anyone before that day. We should never have bred for these characteristics in the first place -- but there is NO REASON to continue to do it. We should spay & neuter all and people could replace their next dog choice with a less dangerous dog. They just have the propensity to kill where so many other agressive dogs do not. yorkies sure are feisty little things and I am sure nip often, but they would have a pretty hard time opening their little mouths enough to really hurt anyone.

So, there it is -- my controversial opinion. Sorry pit bulls -- man has let you down! But there just is not other logical answer that will save all the lives that will be lost otherwise.

You can get statistics to prove just about anything you want if you know how to selectively collect and collate them. I worked in statistics for quite a while. In fact, I am embarrased to say, I was known for being able to "work" the statistics. Never lying, mind you -- but you can bend a LOT! The things you need to remember are the photos of poor children that are marred forever, or the gravesites of those who won't draw another breath. You can't bend those facts! WHY would we want to continue breeding dangerous dogs when there are plenty of other breeds to choose from? What can be gained by breeding a pit bull that cannot be from another breed? Unfortunately it has become a macho thing to have a big, bad, dog with a big, bad reputation. Immature people are drawn to them -- people who do not care for their dogs or train them tobehave. It makes it horrible for those who truly love the breed for the good traits.

OK, those were two of the posts....

I wrote back this:

I agree that man has definitely let these innocent dogs down... did you see the photo of the ShihTzu attack? Surely that was not just a little "nip" and they are not that much bigger than Yorkies.

The main reason ban legislation doesn't work is because it's never a black or white issue. So, if we are allowed to ban Pitties because they were "bred to kill" that also makes it able to ban Yorkies because they were ALSO bred to kill. Both are terriers. Who is to say we can ban one, and not the other? (Btw, Pits were bred to kill dogs. NOT people. Any Pit that showed human aggression in the early stages of the breed were killed). Pugs are banned in a certain area for goodness sake. I can't imagine being told I am no longer allowed to have keep a Pug. Or if suddenly, Yorkies became super vicious because of stupid breeders, and suddenly, Yorkies were banned and were no longer allowed to have them.

I just try to put myself in their shoes. These Pitties are peoples PETS. As passionate as we are about Yorkies -- they are a very passionate crowd about their breed. They like certain traits to them and characteristics that no other breed possesses. It's not that easy to just be like "Oh, I'm gonna pick another breed..." just like so many of us here will always have Yorkies.

Responsible Pit owners never bring their dogs to dog parks, for example. Because they know the risk involved. They know that even IF another dog starts something with them, the Pit will get blamed.

I don't believe that the breed will ever cease to exist. It's just not realistic. I wish that every one would have to pass some sort of test before owning one... shoot, I wish EVERY person that was going to get a dog had to go through some kind of course first or something. But THAT will never happen, either.

Then I posted some stats about BSL not working and how bites have actually risen, etc... then it went on for 6 pages and I posted this and actually used an analogy that I had read here on chaz a while back (I can't remember now who posted it... but I liked it and posted it, if you were the one, hope it's ok I used it, I didn't take credit for it -- just agreed with it!)

I posted this above but everyone that is for BSL seemed to pass by some of the facts I posted. In the ten years since the Dangerous Dogs Act banned the last 4 dogs in the UK, dog bites have increased by 50%. Clearly... something is NOT working.

Thanks to BYBers and puppy millers, Golden Retrievers have been on the rise over the last decade or so for dog bites. However, subjecting them to BSL would be... idiotic, right? A fast reaction to a huge problem that can not just be fixed by banning them.

I saw this posted somewhere else and totally agree:
Why don't you just go ahead and ban all black people? After all, black people are the cause of violent crime and it's well known that having a group of black people around means that sooner or later, someone is going to get killed, because that's what they do. Black people are vicious killers and are a menace to society.

See how dumb that sounds? Now just replace black person with pit bull.

I don't particularly like Jack Russel Terriers. Most of them I meet are annoying, barky, hyper spazzes who constantly start trouble and get into fights. That's my generalization of them from all the ones I've had experienced with (and lived with). I've only met one JRT that I liked. So because I've had bad experiences with them, I'm going to support that they all be banned? No... that would be silly.

OK, was I wrong? I am the first to admit, I am not an expert on Pit Bulls but it makes me sooo sad to read when people feel that they need to not even exist anymore... and I just know from what I've read how wrong BSL is and I just don't agree with it at all so I wanted to get a point across to some of these people who are misinformed or don't understand the Pit Bull at all.

Well, a few took huge offense to the analogy. I don't really see how it's ANY different than them saying what they were saying about Pit Bulls... to me, blaming something on an entire race for something a few of them did, is the same as blaming an entire breed for something a few of them did so I was trying to prove a point. I also used a Hitler analogy in one of my posts. I did apologize because I never wanted to turn into a personal attack, I think my post was misunderstood and I am often not good at saying what I mean to say in arguments but it's something I feel strongly about .... Am I in the wrong here, could I have worded things better? I just feel the need to stand up for Pitties but want to give them justice and do it properly.

 

[JacksonsMom]

This was another one written back to me (I used that list of 75 banned breeds without researching it further which was my stupid fault for not knowing how credential it was).

I explained in the very post you quoted why I think it is a crock. The list is compiled by a self-proclaimed group with no credentials -- the "Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States" and they say there are two ways to get on the list: either by the breed being named or a description fitting the breed being banned. They are using their very broad and loose interpretation of the description fitting these breeds to put them on the list. The states are not putting all of these breeds on a banned list. This group is trying to over-generalize the description so that they can say all of the breeds are banned when they know full well the intent of the law was never to ban all of them!!

You say that the list means the breeds listed are banned somewhere. I say that is NOT TRUE. By their own admission, they have included dog breeds that THEY believe meet a "description" listed somewhere of dogs that are banned. In other words, in trying to further define a pit bull, authorities have included descriptions and then this group has wildly exaggerated the description to include most of the breeds they listed on their list. You have to be very careful when you start believing everything written on an internet site is true! If they did the actual research to show all of these breeds were really banned, don't you think they would list the law/municipality/etc. to back up their accusations? They don't list them, because they have exaggerated this article so much, that it no longer has any resemblance to the real laws on the books.

I am guessing that you are using an analogy of the Jack Russell Terrier since I own one. But your analogy is not fitting the situation. There is a HUGE difference in a dog being annoying and a dog being a KILLER! My JRT's mouth will not open enough to be any real threat. As far as starting fights? What are you using to substantiate that accusation? I have not seen any JRTs that start fights, and have seen no statistics verifying that. For a dog lover to say to another dog lover that a breed they own are "annoying, barky, hyper spazzes" seems very insulting, disrespectful, immature, rude, and not very animal-loving at all. I am sure you are doing it intentionally so you can say, "now you know how pit bull owners feel" but I have NOT insulted the pit bulls or any other breed. I have made it quite clear I thought MAN was the problem. So, why would you do this to me? Truthfully, I find this beneath you.

I will reiterate that the main difference is that of fatalities! Those who do not want any bans or restrictions on pit bulls usually like to bring up another breed that has bitten ..... but it is not a simple dog bite that makes a dog a danger to humans! It is the fact that some can kill. That is my objection to continuing breeding programs for pit bulls. They kill people! There are verifiable statistics that are legally mandated to show when human lives are taken by dogs. These are not some made up crap from a group calling itself "Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States," these are government-kept statistics which have been put in the system by doctors who are legally responsible for doing so. We do not treat assassins/murderers the same way we treat someone who got into a high school fistfight, do we? Of course not! We MUST have laws that fit the situation. We cannot have the same penalty for a man who murders as we do that high school boy who punches his buddy. So, we cannot have the same penalty for a dog who KILLS PEOPLE as we do for one that occasionally bites someone.

Concerning the analogy of a black person.....you are right in that it does "sound dumb" but I will NOT further dignify such preposterous words with a reply! Same with the Hitler comparison. Using them to compare with the subject of spay & neutering for pit bulls is just a horrible racial insult! We are so far off track here......and that is usually what happens when there are no intelligent answers to a problem other than what the writer is against.

I am saddened that you have decided to personalize this debate. There are always going to be two sides to this topic. Each can feel strongly and relate their beliefs WITHOUT insulting one another, their dogs, or entire races! I think of you as too good of a friend to continue down this path. I know you are passionate about your stance as I am about mine. I think most who have seen the horrible disfiguring results of a pit bull attack on an innocent child feel as I do. But let's agree to disagree, state our beliefs maturely and leave the insults and disgusting, far-fetched comparisons behind.

 

[Sweet72947]

Here's a few things you can present to them.

One of the main issues with BSL is breed identification. Many different breeds have been incorrectly identified as "pit bulls". You have dogs being taken and killed for being pit bulls when they are not pit bulls.
findpitbull_v4

The media often misdentifies breeds as well, so some of those "pit bull" attacks weren't done by pit bulls at all.
Punish the Deed, not the Breed!

And here's a posting from KC Dog Blog about a boxer and a boxer mix being mistaken for pit bulls and their owners being dragged through a court case to determine whether their dogs (who were not aggressive and had never hurt anyone) should be killed under the current ban.
The Problems with BSL - Brampton, Ontario Edition - KC DOG BLOG

Another post from KC Dog Blog about how the UK has introduced a bill to repeal their nationwide breed ban: UK introduces bill to repeal nationwide breed ban - KC DOG BLOG

It hasn't passed yet, but you could ask, if breed bans are so effective at protecting the public, why is the UK considering repealing it?

I would also refrain from any more comparisons between dog breeds and human races, some people can get huffy because they think you are saying that dogs and people are equal or something, even if that was not your intent at all.

Hope those links help!

 

[sillysally]

If this poster's criteria for eliminating domestic animals is that they have killed people, what about horses? Horses have been involved in far more human deaths than dogs...

 

[elegy]

If this poster's criteria for eliminating domestic animals is that they have killed people, what about horses? Horses have been involved in far more human deaths than dogs...

And cows are right about equal.

And coconuts, for that matter.

 

[~Dixie's_Mom~]

I don't think you worded anything wrong. I completely agree with you. Saying that all pit bulls are killers just because pit bulls have killed, is just like saying people of any certain race are killers, just because they have killed. In both situations, it has a whole lot to do with what kind of environment the dog or person is raised in, and has nothing what-so-ever to do with what "race" of dog/person they are.

 

[lizzybeth727]

I agree with what you're trying to say, and I know you well enough to know what you meant to say.

But honestly, the black people comparison was a little harsh:

Why don't you just go ahead and ban all black people? After all, black people are the cause of violent crime and it's well known that having a group of black people around means that sooner or later, someone is going to get killed, because that's what they do. Black people are vicious killers and are a menace to society.

The first sentence put people on the defensive. And probably completely alienated all black people reading it. You could've softened it a little by saying something like, "Saying an entire breed should be banned just because of what a few individuals of that breed have done is rediculous. It would be like saying "because a large number of violent crimes are committed by black people, we should ban all black people." It's rediculous." The statement is still there, but it's softened, and then you've immediately reiterated that it's a horrible idea.

Basically, even if you're super careful, it's a very difficult statement to make without making people mad.

I thought the JRT comparison was just fine, though, I think that other person's reaction to it was a little huffy.

 

[Chewbecca]

What kind of dog does this person own??

 

[Chewbecca]

And, heh, I've owned three pit bulls and NONE of them would even consider harming a human.

See, really, Luke was just going in to taste the child in this photo so that he could store the memory into the back of his head for when he decides to turn on us and eat babieeeezzz.

Yep, looks like a marred child.

 

[milos_mommy]

Most of your facts are correct.

Do I think you were wrong, offensive, or inappropriate? Nope. Would I compare a racial category of human beings to a breed of dog? No, I wouldn't, personally. It's a similar idea, sure....the logic behind BSL is the same logic that was behind the holocaust and other genocides, but it is far from the same thing.

I'd stick to sharing educational links, reminding people there are NO such thing as reliable dog bite statistics, pointing out the media's effect on the perception of the pit bull (how pretty much daily in this country people are severely injured or killed by dogs of a wide variety of breeds that usually has nothing to do with the breed, you just don't see it on the newspaper cover or TV...that a westie or pug or jrt or cocker spaniel often lands someone in the ER getting 150 stitches and large breed dogs of all types kill people about as often as pit bulls do, etc.), show them temperament test statistics, the FAQ on badrap is pretty good.

 

[milos_mommy]

oh, I hear the "bite vs. fatality" argument a lot. Mention JRTs kill multiple children each year, and huskies, border collies, cattle dogs, a golden retriever, and even a pekinese are among the articles about fatal dog bites on children and adults I've seen in the past couple of years. Just because you don't see it on the cover of the newspaper or no one steps into your law office to sue the owner of the beagle who took your face off doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Renee750il]

Not to mention all of the mislabeled dog bite cases. "Labrador Retriever Kills Toddler" just doesn't have the same sex appeal for a headline that "Pit Bull Mauls Baby" does.

 

[milos_mommy]

Renee is right. Many times a newspaper article will be front page stating a "pit bull" killed someone, and a few days later, run a much, much smaller article in the back of the paper or stick it in editorials that either "the pit bull was actually a black lab/beagle/chow mix/shepherd/boxer/whatever" or "just kidding, the guy died of a heart attack and the dog pawed at him trying to wake him up, causing scratches the police mistook for fatal bite wounds" (the latter happens at least three times this past summer).

Or the fact that in various studies, about 3% of the general population can identify a pit bull when they see one. Animal control officers have absolutely no training in identifying dog breeds, and even if they did, many many times a mix breed of two drastically different dogs can come out looking similar to a pit bull.

The only proven way to lower the frequency and severity of dog bites is by dog bite prevention education and educating the public on dog behavior.

 

[*blackrose]

Just my own personal experience on breed identification.

Aggressive/Psycho Boxer/Mastiff mix -> Pit Bull via coworkers
Barking/aggressive Doberman Pinscher -> Pit Bull via my brother
Kiba (who is a Pit Bull) -> Rottweiler mix via my dad

A Rottweiler looks nothing like a Pit Bull. A Doberman looks nothing like a Pit Bull. A 100+ pound dock tailed, huge headed, black Boxer on steroids looks nothing like a Pit Bull. Surely if people can misidentify dogs in every day to day situations without any stress or adrenaline clouding their judgement, breeds can be misjudged in a hairy situation, too.

 

[milos_mommy]

I also think a lot of people simply confuse pit bull and rottweilers. Like, they think a rottie is a pit bull, and a pit bull is what a rottie is. I guess that's a whole other story but a couple of times I've seen things like small, brindle pit bulls being pointed out as "look at that rottweiler" and someone will say "oh, so and so has a pit bull" and when I get to so and so's house they actually have a rottie.

 

[JacksonsMom]

Thanks, I actually had a few members on this other forum stick up for me and say they understood what I meant completely and made "amends" with the main person arguing for the other side.

I agree- I know better now than to use such analogies and won't in the future. I just didn't think it'd be a big deal. I copied and pasted it from this forum, as I said, because it was a statement I agreed with. So I didn't actually write it. I can't remember who did.. it was on one of the many pages on BSL.

 

[Kristie223]

I haven't read through all the posts.. maybe I should, but I think that you were spot on. In fact it took real cahuna's to post what you did. I think LOTs of people would have been to afraid to do so.

I own two dogs that are on the CDC's list of most dangerous dogs. The only reason the third dog is not on the list is because most people don't even know what she is...

My Great Dane is on the list... what a bunch of hoooey... that big ole dummy wouldn't intentionally hurt a soul. He is sooo loving and smoochy and caring he might crush you with his giant body or run you over by accident running willy nilly around the yard. But I can tell you he is such a huge baby that if he could know that he hurt you he would die of shame.

Of Course my Lonnie (GSD) is on the list. I love those lawyer commercials that show the mean slavering GSD ready to kill and eat you... bah bahaabahh ahaa .. by the way Lonnie has eaten his share of bad guys but, he never ate a person that didn't deserve it.

and that leaves Gwen.. my intense hunt you down and squash you like a bug Dutch Shepherd... maybe she should be on the list.

I would like to know why they don't make a list of BAD owners? I mean ya know, as if the dog is to blame in all this stuff. They are only doing and operating within the boundaries set for them by their people. So..... left to their own devices they make choices and decisions based on the fact that they ARE dogs...

I think you made and excellent post in response to the @#$#% who wants to support BSL...

 

[Kristie223]

I forgot to mention that cars kill people, guns kill people... OMG people kill people...Lets ban PEOPLE! stop breeding people kill people...

sorry just had to respond to the idiocy...

 

[JacksonsMom]

And, heh, I've owned three pit bulls and NONE of them would even consider harming a human.

See, really, Luke was just going in to taste the child in this photo so that he could store the memory into the back of his head for when he decides to turn on us and eat babieeeezzz.

Yep, looks like a marred child.

He looks soooooo vicious!!!

And she owns 2 or 3 yorkies and a JRT.

 

[Pops2]

FTR at least one yorkie has mauled an infant to death.