Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Caution is good, but it is also good when around any animal, especially the human animal, which happens to be the most unpredicatable of all.
Again, in total agreement. Animals take far, far more abuse from humans than humans EVER do from animals. And therein lies the tragic irony of the indignance on the part of people who wish to eliminate all of one breed of animal: they can't take even the specter of karma.
So Tasha was food-aggressive. Which means that your two-year-old grandson should not have been allowed near Tasha while she was eating. AND that Tasha had not been properly assessed and trained regarding her food aggression.
Do you have a clue what these dogs were bred to do? They were bred to kill another dog in a pit. That's where the name comes from.
People seldom want to assign the responsibility to the owner. They prefer to demonize the animal. It's just so much easier. Unless the owner is a monster or a dog fighter, of course. Every other kind of irresponsible behavior on the part of the typical owner is ignored. The problem is that most people don't have a clue about how dogs think or how to properly raise and train a puppy. As one trainer told me: "Oh, it's easy to train the dogs. It's training the owners that's the difficult part."
Assign responsibility to the owner for genetic predispositions that can't be removed from the organism (training...........ha!)? I thought you guys might be, say, if not geneticists, at least decent evolutionists?
But the topic of the thread is the pit bull as a breed. And the behavior of the dog in question is what I was responding to. Many dogs--of many breeds--exhibit food aggression, and it is up to the parents to ensure that their dog is properly trained and their child properly supervised when with the dog. In every case of a child being attacked by a "nice" dog, as far as I am aware, the attack happens because the dog is poorly bred and trained, the owners are not properly trained on dog behavior, and/or the child is not adequately supervised in the dog's presence.
These dogs are bred for only one purpose, to kill. Every thing that did not make these dogs killers was bred out of them hundreds of years ago. Perhaps this better explains it.
If a dog is "food aggressive" then it doesn't belong in the same house as a 2-year-old. As a matter of fact, if a dog is "anything agressive" it doesn't belong in the same house with children.
These dogs are bred for only one purpose, to kill. Every thing that did not make these dogs killers was bred out of them hundreds of years ago. Perhaps this better explains it.
Thanks for proving my point that people who hate pit bulls simply want to hate them, and have no interest in understanding the facts. The link I posted was not from MY veterinarian--which you would know if you had bothered to read it.
If you had read the article I posted, you would know that--for the year 2006--other breeds killed more people than did pit bulls. Furthermore, a beagle and a pomeranian each killed one human. Were they "bred to kill," too? Why aren't you arguing for the elimination of beagles and pomeranians, as well?
I've seen that site. It's perfectly ridiculous. There is no way that dog breeds can be ranked as biters. There are too many variables involved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.