Thoughts about pitbulls/pit chat!

[ChunkyChad]

Disagree. Personally where I live Pitbull's are not the largest contributor to serious dog bites, that actually goes to Rottweilers and sled-dogs which I think is important to note since this shows that it might not be inherently linked to the breed since they don't seem to showcasing these aggressive habits in all environments( I can't find data on how many Rottweilers vs Pitbull's live in Canada but I've personally seen about both of them equally so I'm assuming they are equally as popular). I think a major issue is not the breed but the breeders and those that are buying puppies from them as sadly many backyard breeders and owners do not know or care that genetics plays a large rule in personality and thus they breed dogs that have behavioral issues creating puppies that also have issues as the genetics are passed down. I think if backyard breeding was more regulated or people were more educated around proper breeding practices than there would be a significant decline in dog bites.

In my opinion Pitbull's make great pets, I think banning them isn't fixing the problem it's simply "fixing" a symptom that will eventually be replaced, for example look at Toronto vs Calgary. In Toronto they banned Pitbull's back in 2005 and now the breed is almost non-existent there however they have only seen an increase in bites, with them seeing their highest numbers recorded long after the ban. All the ban ultimately did was remove Pitbull's from the city but didn't fix the problem of poor education and breeding practices that has only lead to different breeds like German shepherds and Labradors becoming the new symptom of the issue. Meanwhile Calgary didn't ban the breed but instead invested in licensing and educating owners on how to prevent dog bites has seen a significant decrease in dog bites. Thus I think banning fails to solve anything while the much better option of improved licensing and education has proven to actually decrease bites.

[Springles1987]

I think you should have to take a class in learning how to handle/train them and to be trained on how to handle the situation if the dog gets aggressive

[Silent Raven]

I dont think they should be banned. While yes some breed display tendencies that can be difficult or impossible to break, such a guarding or herding instinct, the reaction of banning a breed is a knee jerk reaction and doesn't do anything.

Pits were originally called nanny dogs because they were so good with kids and protecting them. Much of a dogs behavior has to do with the environment and training they have. I have met some of most wonderful pifs and other "agressive" breeds and have been attacked my smaller "safe" breeds. These dogs like many others can be good dogs with the proper environment and training.

For that there needs to be training for humans. Too many people get a dog without understanding its breed or temperament. Would you expect a toddler to act like an 18 year old? Or a 30 year old? No. People need to be taught how to care for a dog, know how to approach and identify dog behavior, and general all around care.

There also needs to be stricter enforcement on backyard breeding, animal abuse, and dog fights.

[eff]

i come from uk so the dangerous dog act is a thing. even though these dogs are banned, my neighbours still had them for dog fighting. banning or making anything illegal will not prevent it from happening, it'll just breed more dangerous methods of doing something (which is the case for various other illegal activities and countries). even though these dogs were banned, this man still acquired them twice. he was put in prison after ten~twenty or so dogs were found on his property. he was then released very soon after (<1 year) & just did it again. there isn't a way of stopping people from owning these dogs, so i'd personally put my bets on mandating it better. having a license to own them for people who want them, where they are checked for criminal activity or abuse against animals would be a better method of stopping these 'dangerous dogs' than outright banning them.

it's my belief that if someone makes a dog like that aggressive, then changing the law around the dog won't stop them. they seem quite keen on hurting animals, and further breaking the law. what makes banning the dogs stop the sick-minded people? it doesn't change anything. it just means the country needs to put money into euthanising abused animals.

[PetiteDoggo]

I think you should have to take a class in learning how to handle/train them and to be trained on how to handle the situation if the dog gets aggressive

I feel that this should apply to any dog breed.... not just Pitbulls. All dogs deserve proper training/handling, and every dog owner should know how to handle a situation where their dog may behave aggressively. It's honestly part of your responsibility as a good dog parent regardless of what breed you have/plan on getting.

[Birdy]

Heyo!

As somebody who has worked in an animal shelter for roughly 2 years now, thought I would pop in with my perspective. I'll start by addressing some of the ideas thrown out in the past couple of pages:

[response to this first one ended up being longer than I thought, so I'll keep it at this for now]

1. Pitbulls should be banned

Personally, I strongly disagree with this for several reasons. It'll probably become apparent quickly, but to clarify: I'm very much on the side of pitbulls, here. But for the sake of keeping things relatively simple, I'll set things like nature v. nurture and behavioral psychology aside. Instead, I'd like to pose a few questions. For starters: what exactly are we/the lawmakers going to consider to be pitbulls? Pulling from Merriam-Webster, "a [pitbull is a] muscular, short-haired, stocky dog (such as an American pit bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier) of any of several breeds or a hybrid with one or more of these breeds that was originally developed for fighting and is noted for strength, stamina, and tenacity". However, if you were to survey a group of 100 people, you'd likely get a few different answers. Heck, just browsing through this thread, there appears to be a few debates about what exactly a pitbull is.

This matter gets complicated even further when you look at places that actually have banned pits. Take, for example, Kentucky. Not only have several cities in Kentucky banned them, but they've even provided a(n) (extremely vague) definition: "Any dog which exhibits those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club for American Staffordshire Terrier, or Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or substantially conform to the standards established by the United Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers, including any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or American Pit Bull Terrier." Notice that the last part goes as far to include mixed breeds.

The trouble with this? Without doing DNA kits (not to mention the immediate outcry of skeptics even when a DNA kit is used), it's nearly impossible to tell what breed(s) most shelter dogs actually are. In fact, at the shelter I are work at, we make it a point to label everything as a "mixed breed" (including on rabies certificates) unless given concrete proof otherwise (breeder info/dna test/etc.)

For fun, let me go ahead and give you a quiz! This is my dog, Beau, who I adopted from the shelter I work at (picture taken on Christmas- look at his little bow!). Before you click on the answer, go ahead and take a guess at what breed(s) he is. Whenever we get an adopter who asks why we don't label breeds, I like to show them a picture of him and ask them to guess what breed he is. The most common things I get told are: golden retriever, husky, collie, lab, etc. Here are his DNA results, through Embark. Notice any interesting results? By Kentucky's definition, Beau is over 30% pitbull. If they went as far as to include American Bulldog, he would be bumped up to 50%. This means that Beau, who would have never in a million years been labelled as a 'pitbull' by anyone walking through our shelter, would be included in Kentucky's ban. To anyone who has a shelter dog and not done a DNA test/been given breeder info, I ask you to think long and hard before jumping to a pitbull ban for this very reason.

This brings me to my next question: what are we to do with "pitbulls" if they are banned? Before tackling this conundrum, let me give you some details about what it's like to work in a shelter. For starters, at my specific shelter, we took in roughly 5,000 animals last year (between transfers, surrenders, returns, and live-births.) Of those 5,000, I'd estimate roughly 2000-2500 were dogs. And yes, at least in my area, most of the dogs we take could easily be argued to have some type of bully breed in them. Assuming a ban gets passed, those 2000-2500 dogs don't just disappear. Even if 100-200 of them are lucky enough to pass as a non-bully breed, we're still looking at thousands of dogs in one shelter that have now been banned. So what are we to do?

Before you hit me with a "transfer them to another, pitbull-friendly state" let me give you some statistics. According to the ASPCA, roughly 6.3 million animals enter the U.S. shelter system each year, with roughly 3.1 million being dogs. And according to this source, there are roughly 3,500 animal shelters in the U.S. Of course the math here isn't black and white, but that's roughly 885 dogs to a shelter. In my state, our shelters are responsible for roughly 2% of the U.S. shelter animal population, or ~62,000 dogs (not gonna cite this one for fear that I'll be revealing too much personal info/unsure of CS rules). If 90% of those dogs pass for some type of bully breed, the number is 55,800. I don't know about you, but if my state suddenly banned pits and we were left with 55,800 dogs to try and transfer, I would view it as nearly impossible (without any euthanizations, mind you.) This isn't even taking into consideration the incredible strain that animal shelters are already facing with overpopulation vs. lack of space and resources. The truth is, we would not be able to safely transfer all of those 55k dogs. We'd be lucky to transfer half of that in any reasonable amount of time.

So what's the alternative? Euthanization? In my state, 15% of dogs will already die in-shelter- and that's without going up against a state-wide ban on the "breed" of dog that makes up a majority of it's population. And don't forget, with Kentucky's definition, even dogs like my Beau- or perhaps even your shelter dog (if you have one) would be included in that. When you say "ban all pitbulls" is this really the outcome that you're wanting?

I get that it's easy to clump a group of dogs together and claim they're 'dangerous', 'vicious', 'deadly', etc.- especially if you or a loved one has had a bad experience. But throwing around phrases like "ban all pitbulls" is nothing short of dangerous, vicious, and deadly in itself. Take it from someone who has spent the last ~2 years saying goodbye to countless dogs, most of whom were passed up for looking 'too much like a pitty'- nothing makes me shudder quite like the uninformed public.

[Serayariverstream]

They are cute 🥰

[XoClementine]

pitbulls are one of the very few dogs i think arent ugly. i still wouldnt ant to have one though, i just dont like dogs... sorry if i made anyone upset/mad by saying that but its just my opinion

[horror grl]

they are such babies, and have an awful rep for no reason. I love them very much

[×Seven of Nine×]

like any animal, if taken care of properly, will not be "deadly" and "dangerous".

if someone is new to dogs, i would recommend finding guides on how to take care of one, like any animal.

sincerely, a cat person that took care of a wonderful boxer/dalmatian mix. (pits are just as great.)