News Nov 26, 2008 at 11:57 am

Comments

1
That article uses the word, "flibbertigibbet".

Huh?
2
Interesting post and I assume you were trying to be witty stating your fear of Staffordshire bull terriers based on one incident. Again, it all comes down to owner responsibility. I hear news reports of people being attacked by pit bulls or alleged pit bulls, however, I own two who happen to be the sweetest breed of dog that I have ever owned. Oh, and both of my dogs have earned their Canine Good Citizen titles and my Zoe is now certified as a therapy dog. It all comes down to the human - yet again.
3
Whatever you say, Pit bulls were BRED SPECIFICALLY for dog fighting. That means that the killing instinct was bred into their genes just as bird soft bite and retrieving was bred into labs.
Try this. Google NEWS these words "Pitbull Attack". You will get hundreds of very tragic stories that have happened within the last few weeks. Family pit bulls who bite off their owners noses or worse etc.
4
WTF? eb30 And Irish Wolf Hounds were bred for what?
5
eb30 responding to your post,

while I agree that they have been bred for that purpose and the instincts were bred for as well, I do not believe that that is the last word in behavior. Dogs act like dogs first, before breed behavior. My point is that as dogs they must be properly socialized trained and be taught to be submissive to their owners and other humans. Many people I have met who have dogs any kind of dog do not take the time or have the knowledge to do these things regardless of breed. Often owners simply leave their dog at home only walking it for a short time each day if the dog is lucky. You can't do this with a high energy dog intelligent dog (well maybe a lab), not really the way to treat any dog though. Think it's the breed problem, then think of the spoiled overprotected chihuahua, daschund, poodle, terrier, etc. that I'm sure you've experienced, that becomes overprotective itself. No one says anything because it's not likely that one could kill you or even severely injure you.
Dogs need to know what is a threat and what isn't and how to react properly to different situations, they can't get that by staying home. Dogs need to learn these things early by proper exposure and training. The problems are worse if a dog is allowed to feel dominant to their owners.

But in regards to trends, there is a clear change in "dangerous breeds" as one tough dog fad changes to the next. In the '70s as the writer pointed out '72 to be exact the Doberman gang was released, and instantly the Doberman became the tough dog, this lasted into the 80's as movies such as Magnum PI and others such as the media continued to portray the Doberman as a vicious dog. In the '90s the tough dog to have as an ornament in the back of your pickup truck was a Rottweiler, and about that time too, the Pittbull was picking up in popularity as it was portrayed in hip hop culture and even the news report of attacks promoted these dogs as "the" tough dog to own. Also as the numbers of a breed increase because of popularity the number of bites will should increase too due to simple probability. Pittbulls are more common now then in the 70's and Dobermans are less common, so stands to reason simply based on that the bite numbers for the breeds would change.

So why do people want the "tough dog"? Ego of course, besides believing it makes themselves look tough, or feeling they have a weapon in their backyard (these owners actually want a dog that would attack people), or it's the idea of being able to tame the urban equivalent of a lion. Ego is not always bad either, and doesn't always make the owner a bad owner, nor am I saying that all tough dog owners have their dog for ego inflation, but many do. People need choose a breed base on compatibility with their lifestyle compromises they are willing to make raise a dog, and not based on which dog makes them feel tougher, cooler, more attractive, etc. Tough breeds and working breeds often need a lot of exercise and mental stimulation for them to relax properly and be happy, if you can't make that commitment, then maybe it's either its time to look at other breeds or maybe get a plant. Dogs make a horrible fashion accessories.
6
Kirpatty, THe other breeds you mention are also on the 5 most dangerous dog list which will deny you home owner's insurance. They should be banned as well. What is it to ban a dog breed? Dog breeds are MAN MADE just as gun types or cars or trucks. Dog breeds are NOT natural races like humans so to equate banning certain breeds is equivalent to banning a certain type of gun and NOTHING MORE. It is an insult to humanity to equate it to genocide. AK-47 's are banned for ownership because of their inherent danger as certain dangerous dog breeds should be.
7
eb30 - I think you were missing the point entirely and that it is the human behind the dog that causes it to act dangerous or not. Dogs, of any breed, raised with owners who love and train them WILL BE great dogs to have around. Likewise, thugs, negligent and just plain irresponsible dog owners (ie. those who buy a dog because the kids want one only to leave it neglected in the yard) will raise these dogs that end up being a menace in our societies. You use the argument about pit bulls were bred to fight. So maybe we should target all terriers who were bred to chase/kill and bulldogs who were bred to take down large prey, or the newfoundlands who were also bred to protect livestock, as were many other breeds you don't feel the need to address. I assume retrievers are dogs that you would also deem as safe dogs since they were bred to retrieve, then why are they number 2 for dog bites in Seattle, WA. Obviously their breeding has not prevented these dogs from biting, again, it gets back to owner responsiblity. Oh, and please show me the gene that makes a dog aggressive. If this is in fact true, then we would have a hell of a lot more pit bull attacks since they are a highly popular dog. Yes, your argument doesn't fly and rather than knowing dogs you are obviously just re-hashing someone else's weak argument.

Is not a chihuahua that kills a new born just as dangerous as an alleged 'pitbull' who ravages a person? So why don't we make blanket legislation that deems all dogs as dangerous. Yes, this sounds stupid, doesn't it. Just as stupid as deeming an entire breed or a few breeds as dangerous!

Faith
Families Against Breed Bans
www.FABBSeattle.org
8
Does anyone know of any organization fighting the politicians trying to make a name for them selves banning a breed of dog? I would like to join.

If our leaders spent more time balancing the budget or creating more jobs maybe they would spend less time on dogs. Councilwoman-elect Ann Ogan should try thinking about responsible legislation instead of sideline issues like dogs. Educate yourself and avoid ignorant leadership.

Sincerley,

Just another dog owner

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.