Pitbull Debate...

[Carmen Von Monroe]

Pit bulls are strong dogs, but so are German shepherds, rottweilers, great danes, labs, golden retrievers, Burmese Mountain Dogs and many others, a lot of which pit bulls scored higher on the temperament test. In fact pits were once nicknamed the nanny dog because their so great with children although they do tend to be little dog aggressive but they can be trained.

And that whole locking jaw thing makes no sense (I know you didn't mention it but I think it is important) they have the same bone structure as any dog because if they didn't they would be considered a different species. They do however have the bite and shake that terriers have because if you have noticed their full name is American Pit Bull Terrier.

I've kinda lost sight of the point you're trying to make. I just think you should have a license to own pits and other agressive dogs.

so basically, you think people should have a liscense to own a dog at all. any dog can be aggressive.

[Ourpawprints]

Well I started off talking about that and ended up just venting about stuff pit bull haters say. My point is that there really is no such thing as an aggressive dog breed, just aggressive dogs and bad owners.
So I think you should have a license to breed any dog because I hate it when people breed dogs not thinking at all about temperament at all.

[van]

Wellp, my opinion has been pretty influenced. TIME TO POST AGAIN. /brick’d
/ehem/
Anyway, I think pit bulls are the same as any other dog. They definitely aren’t the only breed that can snap and/or be aggressive.
However, I do think that they are a harder dog to own.
I suppose you could say they aren’t so laid back, and can be dangerous. [Physically. They are big dogs, they were bred to be big.]
I feel like that is where a lot of people go wrong. They think they are just getting another pet, and honestly don’t know what they are getting themselves into.
Pit bulls can be pretty high maintenance dogs, and people probably won’t react to them like they would any other dog, due to a bad reputation. Some people might try to stay away from the dog, ect ect.
Pit bulls can also be very easy to own though, it depends on the dog, but I think the main reason that they have a bad rep is because when they attack, they generally do a lot of damage, but the owner/victim usually made a mistake to provoke aggression.
I honestly don’t think they should be ban anywhere, just the dangerous ones should be eliminated and the owner who caused the aggression [usually it’s an owner,] should not own any more dogs.
I feel that the whole ban situation could be a lot simpler, because pit bulls aren’t the only ‘dangerous’ dogs. Yet not many other breeds are getting ban… :/ People just felt the need to make it so complicated.

/Probably a fail explanation, I’m tired. I might get more detailed and better at explaining tomorrow.

[ReadingIndigo]

Pit bulls are strong dogs, but so are German shepherds, rottweilers, great danes, labs, golden retrievers, Burmese Mountain Dogs and many others, a lot of which pit bulls scored higher on the temperament test. In fact pits were once nicknamed the nanny dog because their so great with children although they do tend to be little dog aggressive but they can be trained.

And that whole locking jaw thing makes no sense (I know you didn't mention it but I think it is important) they have the same bone structure as any dog because if they didn't they would be considered a different species. They do however have the bite and shake that terriers have because if you have noticed their full name is American Pit Bull Terrier.

I've kinda lost sight of the point you're trying to make. I just think you should have a license to own pits and other agressive dogs.

so basically, you think people should have a liscense to own a dog at all. any dog can be aggressive.

Sure. It would definitely help keep track of dog attacks.

[Dakonic]

ourpawprints, here this is the organization that does the temperament testing. I plan on getting my dogs tested through them, they do very nice temperament tests compared to others.
http://atts.org/

In case we have lazy folk
American Pit Bull Terrier 86.4%
Border Collie 81.2%
Collie 79.9%
German Shepherd Dog 84.4%
Golden Retriever 84.9%
Labrador Retriever 92.4%

[Imzadi83]

The problem with requiring a liscense for "agressive" dogs (were I live all dogs are required to be liscensed, it's like five dollars but there's a fine if you are caught with an unliscensed dog) is that it implies that they are more agressive then other breeds which testing (and the fact that there isn't a high rate of attacks on shelter workers and volunteers) proves they aren't. Can certain breeds to more damage more quickly than other breeds, yes, but even very small dogs have attacked and killed infants. But the ability of a dog breed to cause a significant amount of damage is not the same as agression which is the likely hood of them biting/attacking. With liscenses for speacial "agressive" breeds people will think you have to be some tough guy dog expert to handle them and they will pass them by without even bothering to research to see if they might be the right dog for them. I saw it all the time in the shelter, people would push their kids right past and not let them even look at the Pit Bulls then let them stick their hand in the cage with other dogs. Even the little ones that nipped cause aw itsn't that cute /end scarsam

Education is so important here. Both to potential and current dog owners and the public. Many people don't even know the basic signs of dog agression (ie don't approach a growling dog), or things not to do that can provoke it such as trying to take food away from them, etc. Also even basic dog obedience classes lowers the risk of dog bites. I also read somewhere that at one point in time (I think it was a few years ago so I'm not sure if it's still true) there had never been a fatal dog attack where the dog was altered (spayed/neutered) so free/low cost spay/neuter clinics would help also.

I do like the idea of a breeder liscense though. I don't think it should be ridiculsy (sp?) expensive but it might discourage backyard breeding. And the money could be spent on the things I mentioned above that would lower the risks of bites from all breeds and would also help owners handle their dogs. That would also lower the chances that they get dumped in shelters for behavior problems too.

[satuurnity]

Even though I am not in America, I agree. There are many dogs considered 'dangerous' or to 'ruthless' to be kept, most of all the pitbull (I think). How do you think the dog feels? Is it really fair on them? No, its not.
What has the breed acctually done to you? Have you ever acctually owned one? These dogs are just misunderstood. They get the blaim when it is acctually the owners fault.

[Carmen Von Monroe]

Every dog is agressive, pitbulls are no more agressive to the rest. I've never in my life been bitten by a pitbull, but when I was younger my neighbors had this little....actually I don't know what she was, but her name was Ginger. Every time I came over Ginger would attack me. It may not seem like an attack because she's a small dog & she wouldn't reach higher than my calf, but it was.

[IAmLink]

Frankly, I don't understand the fear that people have towards a WHOLE breed just because they had a bad experience, or were even attacked, by a dog. Not just with pit bulls, but with any breed, when someone gets bitten, most people just HATE all other dogs of that breed. I don't understand this. I mean, hate the dog that bit you, not ALL of them.

And I'm not just saying this for the heck of it. I, too, was mauled by a dog at a young age and I've got the scars to prove it. I think I was about six and it was a huge white Shepherd....Do I hate the breed because of this? No, of course not. In fact I think they are beautiful dogs. I hated that one dog in particular though for sending me to the hospital.

I just think that even people who have had tramatic incidences should take a step back and realize that their hatred and/or fear is likely unfounded. Sure you should be wary of any strange dog you meet. But I get so tired of hearing from people that they were "attacked" as a child by a very specific dog and that's their only reasoning for hating a whole breed.

For instance, I am currently fostering an adult Great Dane. And I had a candidate that was going to adopt him. Turns out that she couldn't though because apparently her boyfriend lives with her and he threw a fit. This guy was apparently attacked by a big dog as a child......So?? This Dane is one of the most gentle and lovable oafs I have ever seen lol. And this dog has been with me long enough that I completely understand his personality, he doesn't have a mean fur on his body. But the guy wouldn't even come to meet the dog. I just don't understand...I would think people would want to try and get over their fear

[Dakonic]

When I was young I disliked Pit Bulls, fueled by family comments and such. And like the others in my family who fueled it I had no real experience with the breed.
Then I started volunteering at a shelter, hatred ended there. I'd be a dumb human being to still believe what I thought before despite having worked with hundreds. The only one that ever acted out in a aggressive manner was in protective custody from an abusive situation, and we've had even more from abusive situations that were still extremely friendly.