No such thing as a bad owner – just bad breeds

The most common like by pit bull advocates – its the the dog its the owner , blame the deed not the breed however –

Pits bulls are naturally more prey driven and aggressive than ‘most’ other dog breeds. That is why they were bred in the first place. Anyone that believes otherwise is deluding themselves. These dog were designed to entertain by fighting other animals.

A properly socialized pit bull can be a good dog. I have personally seen examples. Unfortunately, not all of them are capable of responding to this type of training. Even more unfortunate is the fact that a lot of owners do not even try.
So, we end up with a fair number of these dogs that are not acceptable pets. And as a result we see communities that do not wish these dogs around. This is not the dogs fault; this is the fault of owners and breeders who do not educate themselves about these dogs.
We have owners that are under the impression that their dog is the same as any other dogs and we have breeders that are more interested in selling the dogs than they are in educating the public about the breeds specific needs and training requirements.

Most “Bad Breeds” were originally bred to be guard or fighting dogs. A famous diamond mine was guarded by a stain of Bullmastiffs in Africa.  Considered by some to be a good family guard dog, who are good with children, and not too aggressive, the entire breed is banned in Denmark.  Why don’t the Danes want this breed in their country?  You decide. To own a Neo, which is an Italian Mastiff made famous in Harry Potter films, you must be certified as being psychologically fit in Romania. They are flat out illegal in Singapore.

Banned breeds run the gamut, but are found to be potentially dangerous, and therefore are banned.  Generally speaking, dogs which are found to be genetically predisposed to attacking were indeed originally bred to have those exact characteristics.  Some breeds which are banned throughout the world were intended to hunt and tackle larger game such as the Dogo.  This breed is currently banned in over 10 countries,some of which  include Australia, New Zealand and Portugal.

Probably the most controversial dog breed is the American Pit Bull Terrier.  Fiercely defended by their loving owners who claim the Pit Bull is just  misunderstood, there are two definite sides in the argument of banning Pit Bull dogs.  It’s not the breed, it’s the owner. While undoubtedly the breed can be a loving family dog, it is also among the breeds more often involved in fatal dog attacks.  Some of the reasons for the overly aggressive behavior of the modern Pit include improper breeding standards and owners who intentionally train their dogs to be vicious.  They have become status symbols among certain pop cultures, and are perceived to be macho to own.  Pit Bulls have been banned in many countries

around the world, as well as many municipalities through the United States.  In the US, it is becoming more and more difficult to rent a home or obtain homeowner’s insurance if you own certain breeds of dogs.  Insurers don’t want to take the risk, as the odds are high that one of these dogs may be involved in a dog attack where serious injuries have been sustained by the dog attack victim.

Blame the Breed – Not the deed


Give out free pit bulls they said , nothing bad will happen they said… Don’t “bull-ieve” everything about pit bulls

On October 6 San Diego County Animal Services, San Diego Humane Society and Chula Vista Animal Control kicked off a “Dare to Bull-ieve” adoption special, waiving adoption fees and giving away Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixes free to local residents for the month of October.

An announcement posted on San Diego County Center News on October 3 is headlined, “Don’t “bull-ieve” everything you’ve heard about pit bull dogs. They can be affectionate, charming pets. And October is the time to get one of your very own – for free.”

Residents in San Diego’s National City might not share this confidence after two Pit Bulls chased a group of children near an elementary school on Tuesday and were later shot as they tried to attack a police officer. A 4-year-old girl was bitten and seriously wounded in a separate pit bull attack in National City on that same day, according to

National City is in San Diego County and is bounded by San Diego on the north and Chula Vista to the south.

A National City Police officer responded around 12:35 p.m. to frantic calls from local residents that two Pit Bulls were running loose and chasing children near Palmer Way Elementary School on East Plaza Boulevard, reports.

The officer located the Pit Bulls and followed them into a canyon behind the school, according to the report. The police officer then contacted animal control to come and capture the dogs.

However, while waiting for animal control to respond, the Pit Bulls charged the officer and he opened fire, killing both dogs, police stated.

Two hours earlier a 4-year-old girl was bitten and seriously wounded in a pit bull attack about a mile away. The young child suffered severe wounds to her face and shoulder. She was taken to Rady Children’s Hospital, where she underwent surgery and was listed in serious but stable condition on Wednesday, reports.

The dog owner in this second incident was arrested on a charge of felony child endangerment and other charges. The woman, who was not identified, relinquished ownership of the animal and it was taken to a shelter for an eight-day quarantine, after which a decision will be made on its fate, National City police stated.

The San Diego County News “Dare-to- Bull-ieve” page states that 55 Pit Bulls or Pit Bull mixes are waiting at the San Diego animal shelter to be claimed by their owner or adopted into a new forever family, with the $69 adoption fee waived.

“While many people have a predetermined belief regarding the breed, pit bulls can be and, in fact, are very loyal and lovable pets,” said Dawn Danielson, Director of Animal Services. “It is our hope that people will look past the stereotypes and come and visit our dogs and see for themselves, and then take one home.”

Barbara Kay: Study proves pitbull ban is justified – PRO BSL ARGUMENTS AND TALKING POINTS

There’s nothing more humiliating for a journalist than pontificating on a subject with ardent conviction, and then being proved wrong. But there’s nothing more gratifying for a journalist than pontificating on a subject with ardent conviction and being proved right.

At the moment I am doing a modest little victory dance as I type. One of the first columns I ever wrote for the Post (December 10, 2003) argued that pit bulls were a danger to society because of their nature. Naturally I backed up my claim with plenty of statistical ammunition. And today I feel vindicated.

I was, even as a newbie, aware that readers who disagree with you can get pretty hot under the collar, but I had no idea how exponentially explosive the response is when you diss a dog breed. My column was distributed to dog-owner sites and I received a tsunami of hate mail the like of which I have never seen before or since. I was called unprintable names – and more than one pitbull owner spelled out in graphic detail what he would like to see a trained pit bull do to me. (One responder, curiously enough, expressed the hope that I would get all my fingers chopped off while playing the piano. Not sure what the connection to pitbulls is there.)

Anyway, reasonable people shared my opinion.

Well, all those pitbull owners can now turn their wrathful attention to Dr. Malathi Raghavan, a University of Manitoba epidemiologist, and author of a new study of dog bite cases between 1984-2006 in the journal Injury Prevention that suggests the controversial bans are having a positive effect. After “breed-specific legislation” was passed, Manitoba’s overall provincial rate of bite-related hospitalizations dropped from 3.5 to 2.8 per 100,000 people. A spokeswoman, commenting on the study, conceded that pitbulls “genetically hard-wired” to be combative, but diplomatically added the usual refrain that all dogs have the capacity to be nasty if they are ill-trained.

The idea that pitbulls owned by nice people are no more dangerous than any other breed is a myth, of course. Dogs bite four to five million Americans every year. Serious injuries are up nearly 40% from 1986. Children are victims of 60% of bites and 80% of fatal attacks. Nearly half of all American kids have been bitten by the age of 12. Pitbulls or crosses alone account for more than a third of dog bite fatalities.

Sure all dogs bite, but most dogs let you know before they bite that they have hostile intentions, and they let go after they bite. As I noted in my previous column, “Unlike other biting dogs, pitbulls don’t let go. They are impervious to pain. Neither hoses, blows or kicks will stop them. Other dogs warn of their anger with growls or body language like terrorists, pitbulls attack silently and often with no perceived provocation.

The breeders, trainers and Kennel Clubs know all this. Yet dog civil libertarians resist “profiling” or penalties that impinge on the dog’s “right to due process” (their actual words). Gordon Carvill, (at the time of my 2003 column), president of the American Dog Owners’ Association, is implacable on breed profiling, falsely claiming, “There is no dog born in this world with a predisposition to aggression.” This is canine political correctness run amok. Disinterested experts overwhelmingly disprove this claim with ease.

Just so pitbull owners shouldn’t feel lonely, Rottweilers aren’t always so cuddly either. In 1998 there were 1,237 reported dog attacks in Canada, and a full half of them were accounted for by pitbulls and Rotties. Some jurisdictions in Quebec ban both, and it doesn’t cause me a single minute’s loss of sleep.

It’s a pretty strange society that imposes speed limits on cars (because we all know it isn’t cars that kill, it’s bad drivers) and doesn’t allow guns to be carried in the street (because we all know it isn’t guns that kill, it’s bad people), but (even though we all know it’s pitbulls that kill, whether their owners are good or bad), won’t take the simple step of reducing harm to our citizenry, especially children, their easiest prey, by banning high-risk dogs.

National Post