Another pitbull kills, this time a little girl

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1735814

It's funny how every single time something like this happens, there are boats of people who rush in the defend the dog, saying ridiculous statements like "it wasn't the dogs fault", or "the dog shouldn't be put down", or better yet "it's the girl's fault".

Yet, when once in a blue moon you hear about a python attacking somebody, the snake is demonized, and everyone demands that it's a public safety hazard and that all snakes should be banned.
Your thoughts?

While I'm no fan of the APBT breed, when a news report lists one as weighing 130# I'm going to doubt everything else stated in the article.

130 pound pitbull is a huge pitbull so idk if im buying that it was full bred pitbull.
Second I think not as many people own snakes so just like a story about pitbulls facts get skewed and theres not as many people to defend them. And when a pitbull attacks someone I always blame the owner hahahaha. I dont believe the owners when they say it was never aggressive and i certainly dont believe the news. 130 pound pit is severely overweight and was probably getting mistreated anyway. But its a sad story.

But just like other dogs that are complicated to raise and harder to train, Pitbulls arent for a first time owner or for someone who doesnt discipline there dogs. I was in petco the other day and this guy had a Siberian Husky and it was sitting there and I went over to pet it and he said dont he's not nice and he bites. (why you would bring an unfriendly dog to a public place is beyond me) Point is dogs need discipline any dog that is undisciplined is a wild animal and can attack. You see those dogs pullin your neighbor down the street mhm mhm theyll rip your hand right off. If you are not a disciplinarian with a pitbull, a doberman, a boxer for that matter they can all FSU.

I'm not sure if you are calling out the breed here or just asking for an opinion, so please clarify. My opinion is that animals are just that animals. Is it sad that someone died, yes, however weather is a dog, cat, snake, horse whatever, it isn't the animals fault. An snake is a wild animal, they are not domesticated, so demonizing a snake for constricting something is a little rediculous. On that same note even though dogs are "domesticated" they are still dog and are a product of their owner. I have a pitbull that I rescued. She was a bait dog, she came to me with burns from cattle prods and bite scars, she was thrown in a yard to die, now she is the sweetest dog I have ever owned, I would never hesitate to let my son play with her. So yes in my opinion I don't even need to read the article it is the owners fault. I also have a Wolf Hybrid that was beaten and left in a dumpter in East LA, he came to me terrified. He chomped my arm once because he was scared and I overstepped my bounds. COMPLETELY MY FAULT. Its never the breed that is the problem! It's the owners.

My thoughts on this and every other similar situation (be it dog, snake, etc), I want to know more details. There's a lot left out of that article, just as there's a lot left out of "snake attack" articles. What were the circumstances leading up to this attack? Has the dog ever shown any signs of any kind of aggression, no matter how small, including but not limited to food aggression or resource guarding? Was the child doing anything, no matter how seemingly innocent, to provoke the dog? Did something frighten the dog? Was there some other factor, such as a health problem? Same things with snake attacks: What were the circumstances leading to the attack, how was the animal handled before the attack, how was it housed, how well was it cared for, were there some other circumstance leading to the incident, etc?

Another thing to note about this particular incident: "pit bull" is not a specific breed of a dog, but a type of dog, much like "terrier" or "shepherd" or "mastiff". The "pit bull" type can include a number of breeds including but not limited to American Staffordshire terrier, American pit bull terrier, bull terrier, American bulldog, and others. As a "type" and not a breed, it is misleading to demonize entire populations of dogs due to the actions of just one. That'd be like saying all "shepherd" type dogs are aggressive and vicious because one single dog belonging to the group (i.e. an Australian shepherd, border collie, or German shepherd) attacked someone. Likewise it is misleading to demonize all constricting snakes because one constrictor injured a person (who may or may not have been properly housing, caring for, or handling that snake). It is likewise misleading and ignorant to demonize all snake keepers, or exotic animal keepers in general, because one individual did not properly care for or handle their animals.

Unfortunately the general public, and our lawmakers, don't think like this. They think in terms of generalities and knee jerk emotional reactions to incidents.

Additional thoughts:
Furthermore I'd like to know what circumstances lead up to the girl's death. Although the article indicates it was the injuries that caused her death, I want to know in what way? Was there damage to her brain that caused her death? Or did she bleed out from the injuries? What was the response time of emergency aid? I'm not going to blame any particular person in this circumstance, because I do not know the details and there is no point in playing the blame game any way, but I can't help but to wonder if a few details were different, could the results have been different. Did the mother panic (sounds like it in the article), could she have administered first aid that could have prevented some bleeding and saved the girl's life, or did she attempt to? (Answers aren't any of my business, and we'll never know, but I can't help but to ask them.) Were emergency responders some how delayed in arriving, and could that have saved the girl's life? How far away was the hospital? Etc etc etc. The incident may not be a simple "dog attack lead to death", but other details could have been what contributed to the ultimate demise of this unfortunate girl. It is truly a sad situation, regardless. As a mother of a 2 year old, I couldn't imagine being put in that situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheaversg

130 pound pitbull is a huge pitbull so idk if im buying that it was full bred pitbull.
Second I think not as many people own snakes so just like a story about pitbulls facts get skewed and theres not as many people to defend them. And when a pitbull attacks someone I always blame the owner hahahaha. I dont believe the owners when they say it was never aggressive and i certainly dont believe the news. 130 pound pit is severely overweight and was probably getting mistreated anyway. But its a sad story.

But just like other dogs that are complicated to raise and harder to train, Pitbulls arent for a first time owner or for someone who doesnt discipline there dogs. I was in petco the other day and this guy had a Siberian Husky and it was sitting there and I went over to pet it and he said dont he's not nice and he bites. (why you would bring an unfriendly dog to a public place is beyond me) Point is dogs need discipline any dog that is undisciplined is a wild animal and can attack. You see those dogs pullin your neighbor down the street mhm mhm theyll rip your hand right off. If you are not a disciplinarian with a pitbull, a doberman, a boxer for that matter they can all FSU.

---

It's just like when people say a "20 foot python" which probably was more like 11 feet. Maybe the pitbull was 130 lbs, maybe it wasn't. But that's irrelevant. The fact is that it killed an innocent girl unprovoked. I agree that there are too many irresponsible pit bull owners. There need to be laws and regulations. Why is it that harmless snakes face bans all over the US, but there are so few laws for dangerous breeds of dogs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

It's just like when people say a "20 foot python" which probably was more like 11 feet. Maybe the pitbull was 130 lbs, maybe it wasn't. But that's irrelevant. The fact is that it killed an innocent girl unprovoked. I agree that there are too many irresponsible pit bull owners. There need to be laws and regulations. Why is it that harmless snakes face bans all over the US, but there are so few laws for dangerous breeds of dogs?

---

Actually many cities, towns, counties have placed bans on "pit bulls."

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

It's just like when people say a "20 foot python" which probably was more like 11 feet. Maybe the pitbull was 130 lbs, maybe it wasn't. But that's irrelevant. The fact is that it killed an innocent girl unprovoked. I agree that there are too many irresponsible pit bull owners. There need to be laws and regulations. Why is it that harmless snakes face bans all over the US, but there are so few laws for dangerous breeds of dogs?

---

Just today I saw an article on Facebook about a 49 foot 780 pound reticulated python caught in Floride. :rolleyes:


In terms of irresponsible pit bull owners and the need for legislation on "dangerous breeds", I personally believe there are too many irresponsible dog owners in general. In my personal experience, many of these "pit bull" issues come from ignorance. In my experience, any dog that shows the slightest bit of aggression is automatically labeled a "pit bull". Similarly, because of the few attacks you hear about involving a Burmese or reticulated python, people automatically think 20 foot giant when they hear the word "python" or "boa", even though many species aren't that big. The general population also doesn't know how to identify dog breeds, especially when it comes to mutts. Many dogs labeled "pit bull" are in fact mutts that include boxer, bulldog, mastiff breeds, or labradors. My dad's border collie/lab mix has been called a pit bull, while one of my dogs has been called almost everything under the sun!

And there is legislation against certain breeds of dog, it just isn't nationwide. Certain states, counties, and cities have ruled that certain breeds of dog are "dangerous" and have either put in place restrictions on how those animals can be kept or brought into public, or outright banned those breeds. Other states have ruled it is "unconstitutional" to place such bans on breeds of dog (California being one such state), but have allowed other forms of discrimination (i.e. requiring that certain breeds be spayed or neutered unless someone keeps a special kennel license). Yet other states are starting to remove their breed bans because they've found such legislation doesn't work, compared to vicious dog laws which work better. Also insurance companies tend to discriminate against certain breeds of dog, refusing to insure people who have those breeds. Not all insurance companies do this (mine doesn't, instead my insurance company discriminates against dogs who actually have a history of aggression, regardless of breed). In most cases, those breeds ending up on these types of lists include "pit bulls" (APBT, AST, and bull terriers), akitas, dobermans, German shepherds, rottweilers, and mastiffs. Sometimes chows, shar peis, huskies, and a few other breeds are also included.

I'm sorry but to complain about legislation against snakes, but promote legislation against dog breeds is ignorant. The government shouldn't have the right to tell me what pet I can/cannot own as long as I can provide the proper requirements to take care of said animal. Outlawing dog breeds is just like outlawing Burms, you are punishing the animals because of the ignorance of owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

It's just like when people say a "20 foot python" which probably was more like 11 feet. Maybe the pitbull was 130 lbs, maybe it wasn't. But that's irrelevant. The fact is that it killed an innocent girl unprovoked. I agree that there are too many irresponsible pit bull owners. There need to be laws and regulations. Why is it that harmless snakes face bans all over the US, but there are so few laws for dangerous breeds of dogs?

---

I was going to comment on this, but I really don't have time to right now, so I'll just say the ignorance is amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

I was going to comment on this, but I really don't have time to right now, so I'll just say the ignorance is amazing.

---

Given your username and your snarky ad hominem response, I hope you are not calling me ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jclaiborne

I'm sorry but to complain about legislation against snakes, but promote legislation against dog breeds is ignorant. The government shouldn't have the right to tell me what pet I can/cannot own as long as I can provide the proper requirements to take care of said animal. Outlawing dog breeds is just like outlawing Burms, you are punishing the animals because of the ignorance of owners.

---

Why? Because species of harmless snakes are regulated, whereas dangerous dog breeds are not?

FYI I am in favor of regulations and requirements for both big dogs and big snakes. I agree with the sentiment that the government shouldn't have the right to tell you what pets you can and cannot keep-unfortunately there are boatloads of restricted animals such as asian arowanas, freshwater stingrays, piranhas, ferrets, cat hybrids, lions, tigers, etc.

If there are no regulations, ignorant people buy burmese pythons and pitbulls, don't care for them, and they end up harming people and the whole community gets a bad rap. If we have some sort of competency test/license, then hopefully only qualified people will care for these animals.

Quote:

---

Outlawing dog breeds is just like outlawing Burms, you are punishing the animals because of the ignorance of owners.

---

No, you are not punishing animals, you are simply outlawing their being kept as pets. You are punishing good owners because of the ignorance of bad owners.

Let me ask you, do you think there should be laws on keeping tigers? Or Rhinos?

I can't go through all of the comments but be very careful how you place blame O/P. I've competed with protection trained pit bulls and presa canarios for 14 years. Simple way to look at this is to Blame the Deed Not the Breed. These are excellent dogs I have owned 2 of each with young kids. The ONLY dog to ever bite one of my kids was a friend's dachshund.

In any effort (not specifically you) to focus things like this away from snakes by bringing up another animal, really comes right back around. Everybody knows the media is 100% happy to jump on pit bulls just like snakes. If you are old enough to remember the kids show "Our Gang" or "Little Rascals" you'd know that Pete the Pup was the 1st dual registered Amstaff AKC / Pit Bull UKC. At the time they were considered the ultimate kid's dog. Then people that shouldn't own pit bulls, let alone any animal got into them.

We can do this with a lot of animals. Shifting from one to the next. Sadly when it comes time for YOUR (any of our) favorite animals, once the hype hits and the media decides to jump in we can add another animal to the "ban list".

As snake owners we are a small group in the big picture. Nobody cares about us, but wait until it comes their way. I've been on the news defending pit bulls, presa canarios and protection dog training in the past.

The media will leave out many facts. Do you believe the WHOLE story?

99% of all dog issues can be solved by people ALL people with dogs obeying the leash laws. The other percent can be solved by responsible ownership.

Unfortunately people will find a way to screw things up.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised I'd find something like this on a snake board since most of us are concerned about legislation and bad press.

http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/y...a/DSC00058.jpg

This dog here is a presa canario male. He operates perfectly on and off leash and can be re-called from a bite. He can also be sent to bite.

When I walk this dog in my neighborhood (a nice suburb) it's always the golden retrievers and poodles that are lunging and barking. Our presa and pit bull just walk. Not because they are better than the other dogs, but because we actually are responsible enough to train our animals.

How many times have you heard boa constrictor attack and its actually a burmese and not an attack but a feeding mistake? The media does not care.

See what I'm getting at? Once people decide to start picking specific animals to ban, it's only a matter of time before somebody narrows the sights and picks YOUR favorite animal.

I read your response of "harmless snake and dangerous dog" and stopped yes that statement is ignorant and I am done with this thread. You are entitled to you opinion, but don't get upset when people call you out on bs remarks like that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gio

I can't go through all of the comments but be very careful how you place blame O/P. I've competed with protection trained pit bulls and presa canarios for 14 years. Simple way to look at this is to Blame the Deed Not the Breed. These are excellent dogs I have owned 2 of each with young kids. The ONLY dog to ever bite one of my kids was a friend's dachshund.

In any effort (not specifically you) to focus things like this away from snakes by bringing up another animal, really comes right back around. Everybody knows the media is 100% happy to jump on pit bulls just like snakes. If you are old enough to remember the kids show "Our Gang" or "Little Rascals" you'd know that Pete the Pup was the 1st dual registered Amstaff AKC / Pit Bull UKC. At the time they were considered the ultimate kid's dog. Then people that shouldn't own pit bulls, let alone any animal got into them.

We can do this with a lot of animals. Shifting from one to the next. Sadly when it comes time for YOUR (any of our) favorite animals, once the hype hits and the media decides to jump in we can add another animal to the "ban list".

As snake owners we are a small group in the big picture. Nobody cares about us, but wait until it comes their way. I've been on the news defending pit bulls, presa canarios and protection dog training in the past.

The media will leave out many facts. Do you believe the WHOLE story?

99% of all dog issues can be solved by people ALL people with dogs obeying the leash laws. The other percent can be solved by responsible ownership.

Unfortunately people will find a way to screw things up.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised I'd find something like this on a snake board since most of us are concerned about legislation and bad press.

[IMG]http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy6/primolilla/DSC00058.jpg[/MG]

This dog here is a presa canario male. He operates perfectly on and off leash and can be re-called from a bite. He can also be sent to bite.

When I walk this dog in my neighborhood (a nice suburb) it's always the golden retrievers and poodles that are lunging and barking. Our presa and pit bull just walk. Not because they are better than the other dogs, but because we actually are responsible enough to train our animals.

How many times have you heard boa constrictor attack and it actually a burmese and not an attack but a feeding mistake?

See what I'm getting at? Once people decide to start picking specific animals to ban, it's only a matter of time before somebody narrows the sights and picks YOUR favorite animal.

---

Hey, thanks for your well written and courteous response. Let me start off by telling you that I have worked with pitbulls and have never had a problem with them. It doesn't matter how many times you can say "My pitbull is so nice and caring", the bottom line is that there are pitbulls that kill people.

They are dangerous animals though, just like venomous snakes. But how often do you hear about somebody's pet venomous snake biting and killing another innocent person? Pretty much never. Why? Because most of them require permits and you have to go through a set of laws in order to keep one. I am merely suggesting that pitbull owners should go through the same hoops, not that they should be banned. I hate pets getting banned.

Quote:

---

How many times have you heard boa constrictor attack and it actually a burmese and not an attack but a feeding mistake?

---

Not many times compared to pitbull attacks. If a snake is actually dangerous to local human beings, then there should be regulations that allow only knowledgeable people to keep them, not any old joe shmoe who ruins it for everybody else.

My whole reason was for pointing out the hypocrisy of people who always defend the dogs when they kill people-yet simultaneously demonize snakes when the same thing happens.

And Gio and others, not once did I say that I wanted to ban pitbulls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jclaiborne

I read your response of "harmless snake and dangerous dog" and stopped yes that statement is ignorant and I am done with this thread. You are entitled to you opinion, but don't get upset when people call you out on bs remarks like that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

---

LOL BS remark? Please tell me how it was a "bs remark". It was a perfectly legitimate statement. If you're going to do nothing but insult my posts and not argue why then fine. Leave.

[QUOTE=omnibus2;2234950]Hey, thanks for your well written and courteous response. Let me start off by telling you that I have worked with pitbulls and have never had a problem with them. It doesn't matter how many times you can say "My pitbull is so nice and caring", the bottom line is that there are pitbulls that kill people.

They are dangerous animals though, just like venomous snakes. But how often do you hear about somebody's pet venomous snake biting and killing another innocent person? Pretty much never. Why? Because most of them require permits and you have to go through a set of laws in order to keep one. I am merely suggesting that pitbull owners should go through the same hoops, not that they should be banned. I hate pets getting banned. """"






The problem is they are NOT dangerous animals but because every story about them gets slanted,,, people actually believe they are.

The leader on the dog bite list is not the pit bull.

Far more people kill other people than dogs. Guns in the hands of idiots, drunks behind the wheel, horse riding accidents, smoking, I could go all day here.

Why on earth should I or anybody else who is responsible enough to own a dog have to be regulated, hit with more insurance, and forced to say MY dog is dangerous? I've done nothing wrong and neither have the dogs I've owned or own.

That report left out so much it's unbelievable. Dog behavior is quite complex and rule #1 is NEVER leave a small child unattended with ANY dog.

Pit bulls are just dogs. They don't have a "locking jaw", they aren't able to fly or anything else much different than other dogs, they actually were first bred to NOT in any way be aggressive toward people.

I understand what point you were trying to make, but it comes at the expense of another animal.

Big government is out of control and sometimes stupid people do stupid things. We can't babysit everybody by making rules each time something goes wrong.

Eventually there will be nothing left.

I also respect the way you replied to me, so thank you for that.

I know, for one thing, a majority of pit bull attacks that are reported are actually not pit bulls at all. It's either a mutt or a dog that isn't a pit bull at all, most notably because police officers are not certified dog breed experts. (Or anywhere near being one.) The term 'pit bulls' is essentially thrown around as 'cover-all' for just saying killer dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gio

The problem is they are NOT dangerous animals but because every story about them gets slanted,,, people actually believe they are.

The leader on the dog bite list is not the pit bull.

Far more people kill other people than dogs. Guns in the hands of idiots, drunks behind the wheel, horse riding accidents, smoking, I could go all day here.

Why on earth should I or anybody else who is responsible enough to own a dog have to be regulated, hit with more insurance, and forced to say MY dog is dangerous? I've done nothing wrong and neither have the dogs I've owned or own.

That report left out so much it's unbelievable. Dog behavior is quite complex and rule #1 is NEVER leave a small child unattended with ANY dog.

Pit bulls are just dogs. They don't have a "locking jaw", they aren't able to fly or anything else much different than other dogs, they actually were first bred to NOT in any way be aggressive toward people.

I understand what point you were trying to make, but it comes at the expense of another animal.

---

But they are dangerous animals. It scares me how some people-not necessarily you-refuse to accept this.
For example, I accept that reticulated pythons are dangerous animals. I am not stupid, nor am I ignorant. I listen to the facts and the biology. I also know that pitbulls are dangerous. This doesn't mean you can't love your python or pitbull! It just means that just like any potentially dangerous animal, there need to be regulations-perhaps a license and a competency test.

Don't you agree with that? That way we can prevent idiots from buying and mishandling pitbulls and pythons-because if they do, things like this happen and you get a bad rap! And that leads to a full ban! Just like tigers and lions-should everyone and anyone be able to buy a lion, a tiger, or even, a gabon viper? No, that's silly. Only people who prove they are able to handle these animals should.

Quote:

---

Big government is out of control and sometimes stupid people do stupid things. We can't babysit everybody by making rules each time something goes wrong.

Eventually there will be nothing left.

I also respect the way you replied to me, so thank you for that.

---

I agree with you very much here. I am tired of the babying and micromanagement that our government does.

First though your comparison to humans being dangerous is not a right one. Yes of course humans are more dangerous but that is irrelevant-it still stands that pitbulls are dangerous and have killed many people.

Pet owners all over the world are facing bans on their favorite pets-ferrets, piranhas, arowanas, snakes, lizards, dogs! I think it's ridiculous. But I also am a man who listens to logic and reason-I understand that there have been multiple attacks by pitbulls on people and once again, they should be regulated but not necessarily banned. What's worse is reptile and fish owners face worse discrimination (bills such as HR669) simply because of the fact that their pets are not as "cute" and people who own reptiles/fish are seen as "creeps" or "weirdos".

It makes me happy to see people on this forum defending their right to care for their pets. Unfortunately the reality that you will find is that most pitbull extremists (not you guys) are just as supportive as anyone else to ban snakes. They only care about their own dogs and they will turn the blind cheek when it comes to reptile owners. They are hypocrites and will not hesitate to support a ban on any reptile or fish-these are people who will not listen to reason and will always support their dogs no matter what they do-even if it was the killing of an innocent child. It comforts me that people on this forum do not fall into the spectrum of such extremists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

I know, for one thing, a majority of pit bull attacks that are reported are actually not pit bulls at all. It's either a mutt or a dog that isn't a pit bull at all, most notably because police officers are not certified dog breed experts. (Or anywhere near being one.) The term 'pit bulls' is essentially thrown around as 'cover-all' for just saying killer dog.

---

Thank you for bringing this to my attention as it is a valid point. Then, perhaps, whichever dog encompasses the "pitbull" should be regulated-whichever mix of breeds these are, that have been recorded attacking people, should be regulated.

They are unbeatable dogs IMO!

This was a model citizen.

Our Beautiful Lilla.

http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/y...a/IMG_1897.jpg

June 26 2001 to February 26 2013. Cancer was the only dangerous thing in this dog's life.


Missed and loved by 2 kids and Mom and Dad.

R. I. P. sweet girl,,,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

It's just like when people say a "20 foot python" which probably was more like 11 feet. Maybe the pitbull was 130 lbs, maybe it wasn't. But that's irrelevant. The fact is that it killed an innocent girl unprovoked. I agree that there are too many irresponsible pit bull owners. There need to be laws and regulations. Why is it that harmless snakes face bans all over the US, but there are so few laws for dangerous breeds of dogs?

---

There are plenty of cities that infringe on my rights to allow you yours.
You cannot pick what you want regulated and then choose not to regulate another part of it.
Before this gets sent to QT for people stirring the pot, let me ask you this:
Can you prove to me it was a true APBT?

130#, I call media bull!! The term pitbull is just plain money for the media and the sheep that follow.

I would like to see a picture of the dog in question. A 130# pit bull sounds a little ridiculous. I agree that it's likely a mix or another breed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gio

Cancer was the only dangerous thing in this dog's life.

---

Beautiful girl. I only thing I differ with is cancer AND the human race. :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PitOnTheProwl

There are plenty of cities that infringe on my rights to allow you yours.
You cannot pick what you want regulated and then choose not to regulate another part of it.
Before this gets sent to QT for people stirring the pot, let me ask you this:
Can you prove to me it was a true APBT?

130#, I call media bull!! The term pitbull is just plain money for the media and the sheep that follow.

---

I would appreciate it if you had read my previous responses.VVVV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

But they are dangerous animals. It scares me how some people-not necessarily you-refuse to accept this.
For example, I accept that reticulated pythons are dangerous animals. I am not stupid, nor am I ignorant. I listen to the facts and the biology. I also know that pitbulls are dangerous. This doesn't mean you can't love your python or pitbull! It just means that just like any potentially dangerous animal, there need to be regulations-perhaps a license and a competency test.

Don't you agree with that? That way we can prevent idiots from buying and mishandling pitbulls and pythons-because if they do, things like this happen and you get a bad rap! And that leads to a full ban! Just like tigers and lions-should everyone and anyone be able to buy a lion, a tiger, or even, a gabon viper? No, that's silly. Only people who prove they are able to handle these animals should.

---

Not once did I pick and choose like you accuse me of. I am asking for an equal treatment of all potentially dangerous animals-be it tigers, reticulated pythons, or dogs.

Quote:

---

Can you prove to me it was a true APBT?

---

All of the media outlets say that it was a pitbull. But no, I guess I can't prove 100% with empirical evidence that it was a pitbull. Just like we can't prove that those giant snakes were actually anacondas or burmese pythons. Also see the following:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

Thank you for bringing this to my attention as it is a valid point. Then, perhaps, whichever dog encompasses the "pitbull" should be regulated-whichever mix of breeds these are, that have been recorded attacking people, should be regulated.

---

Quote:

---

There are plenty of cities that infringe on my rights to allow you yours.

---

I would appreciate seeing any examples.

I do not see why this needs to be moved to the QT, as we are having legitimate, respectful discussions. Nevertheless you are the moderator and it's up to you. I personally look forward to discussing this issue with fellow forum members as most people here appear to be smart, reasonable people who love their pets-just like I do.

Just because something has killed does not make the whole breed dangerous.

How many pit bulls are out there and how many have killed somebody?

You really need to look deep into the history of the breed before you say they are dangerous. Then we can apply it to rotties, dobeis, GSD's presas, mastiffs, giant schnauzers, Big, black labs, golden retrievers and they have all done a number on somebody, trust me. We could apply it to stupid people that should not be allowed to reproduce.

You are insisting that pit bulls are dangerous based on the fact that a limited number have had incidents. So have many other dogs and pets.

You think homeslice, dog fighter is going to get a permit?

My current pit bull is a 1 year old rescue/stray dumped and recovered in North Minneapolis.

If we didn't adopt her they would have put her down.

Once again, I own another great dog.


Tigers and lions and the other animals you mention are not domesticated, they are not native, they are not trainable to the extent a dog is, and they actually will view us as food. Even if they don't their playing is so physically strong they could do major damage just by playing rough.

That issue really doesn't relate here because the requirements of such animals are so far off from dogs.

The fact that snakes ARE easy keepers and require a lot less than the huge mammals you mentioned negates them from the tigers and lions list. Snake in cage, stored in safe area. And if owner has a problem they know what they are into.

My current pit weight 50 pounds. A male Siberian tiger is well overt 500 pounds.

You can't really turn a pit bull into something it's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

I would appreciate it if you had read my previous responses.VVVV.

---

I did and made the choice not to respond to those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

I would appreciate seeing any examples.

I do not see why this needs to be moved to the QT, as we are having legitimate, respectful discussions. Nevertheless you are the moderator and it's up to you. I personally look forward to discussing this issue with fellow forum members as most people here appear to be smart, reasonable people who love their pets-just like I do.

---

Examples of what? Dog bans or ignorance? Colorado and Florida are the first two that come to mind.

And yes this is going to be a warning straight out to everyone to keep this civil in public so it wont need to be moved. (just to make sure no one thinks I am directing this at any one person)

Border collies, huskies, pomeranians, presa canarios, German shepherds, Australian shepherds, labradors, golden retrievers, just to name a few, are all responsible for killing and seriously maiming people. To be consistent, I would like to see you include those breeds in your arguments to regulate who can or can't own a certain dog.

Personally I am not in favor of banning any dog breed. Can a dog be dangerous? Yes they can. And some dogs have more potential to be dangerous than others, however I believe the reasons for that are factors other than breed. Size, training, socializing, handling, housing, and general care are factors that help determine a dog's potential to be dangerous. Those are regardless of breed.

And like others, I doubt it was even a real pit bull responsible for this attack. I suspect it was more likely a mastiff, but we will likely never know. Regardless, number one rule about dogs and children: never leave them together unsupervised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PitOnTheProwl

I did and made the choice not to respond to those.





Examples of what? Dog bans or ignorance? Colorado and Florida are the first two that come to mind.

And yes this is going to be a warning straight out to everyone to keep this civil in public so it wont need to be moved. (just to make sure no one thinks I am directing this at any one person)

---

Yep Denver has a no pit bull policy. Ohio is if not as a state banning them, the municipalities in the metro have done their best.

I'd like to know just when Pit Bulls were deemed dangerous because these dogs have been around since before the USA was even settled.

It's not the dogs, but the owners. Unfortunately just like guns, you can't control what idiot is going to own the dog.

Mind you I have a close friend that never should have owned a pit bull or any dog, but he felt he and his family needed one.

They put the dog down because it was "hyper",,, I could barley speak to him for months after that.

Stupid human tricks!!!

Wow never would i expect to see this on a reptile forum. Pit bulls are no more dangerous then any other dog. It is how they are raised. To be against exotics bans and be for banning a breed of dog is probably the most hypocritical thing i have ever herd.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PitOnTheProwl

I did and made the choice not to respond to those.

---

Okay.

Quote:

---

Examples of what? Dog bans or ignorance? Colorado and Florida are the first two that come to mind.

---

Examples of this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PitOnTheProwl

There are plenty of cities that infringe on my rights to allow you yours.

---

Coming from when you said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PitOnTheProwl

There are plenty of cities that infringe on my rights to allow you yours.
You cannot pick what you want regulated and then choose not to regulate another part of it.
Before this gets sent to QT for people stirring the pot, let me ask you this:
Can you prove to me it was a true APBT?

130#, I call media bull!! The term pitbull is just plain money for the media and the sheep that follow.

---

When you accused me of favoring my pets over pitbulls which I never did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gio

Just because something has killed does not make the whole breed dangerous.

How many pit bulls are out there and how many have killed somebody?

You really need to look deep into the history of the breed before you say they are dangerous. Then we can apply it to rotties, dobeis, GSD's presas, mastiffs, giant schnauzers, Big, black labs, golden retrievers and they have all done a number on somebody, trust me. We could apply it to stupid people that should not be allowed to reproduce.

You are insisting that pit bulls are dangerous based on the fact that a limited number have had incidents. So have many other dogs and pets.

---

Yes, I am. How many attacks and killings do there have to be for you to accept that they are dangerous? Also please answer: Do you believe gabon vipers are dangerous?

Remember folks: By saying that pitbulls are dangerous I am NOT saying they are evil monsters. I am merely, as a Biologist, stating the facts which means that certain considerations must be taken when dealing with these animals. Not just pitbulls-any dog, any animal that has numerous reported incidents of killing/attacking people.

Quote:

---

My current pit bull is a 1 year old rescue/stray dumped and recovered in North Minneapolis.

If we didn't adopt her they would have put her down.

Once again, I own another great dog.

---

Every single time I am flooded with people saying they have pitbulls and love them. Great. I've worked with pitbulls, I even had to restrain them, and not once did they give me problems. But that doesn't mean it is not a potentially dangerous breed/breeds.

Let me tell you: Not every lion has attacked humans. There are people who keep lions in captivity and have no problems. Therefore according to such logic, lions are not dangerous.

Quote:

---

Tigers and lions and the other animals you mention are not domesticated, they are not native, they are not trainable to the extent a dog is, and they actually will view us as food. Even if they don't their playing is so physically strong they could do major damage just by playing rough.

That issue really doesn't relate here because the requirements of such animals are so far off from dogs.

The fact that snakes ARE easy keepers and require a lot less than the huge mammals you mentioned negates them from the tigers and lions list. Snake in cage, stored in safe area. And if owner has a problem they know what they are into.

My current pit weight 50 pounds. A male Siberian tiger is well overt 500 pounds.

You can't really turn a pit bull into something it's not.

---

Tigers and Lions aren't native? Neither are pitbulls.
How can you say they are not trainable to the extent a dog is? What you are saying about lions is exactly like ignorant people who say "pitbulls are untrainable violent monsters!"

Look here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFThnP8ts6s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sorraia

Border collies, huskies, pomeranians, presa canarios, German shepherds, Australian shepherds, labradors, golden retrievers, just to name a few, are all responsible for killing and seriously maiming people. To be consistent, I would like to see you include those breeds in your arguments to regulate who can or can't own a certain dog.

Personally I am not in favor of banning any dog breed. Can a dog be dangerous? Yes they can. And some dogs have more potential to be dangerous than others, however I believe the reasons for that are factors other than breed. Size, training, socializing, handling, housing, and general care are factors that help determine a dog's potential to be dangerous. Those are regardless of breed.

And like others, I doubt it was even a real pit bull responsible for this attack. I suspect it was more likely a mastiff, but we will likely never know. Regardless, number one rule about dogs and children: never leave them together unsupervised.

---

If any dog has a lot of reported incidents of killing people, there should be regulations on that breed for public safety. Not bans, regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigt0006

Wow never would i expect to see this on a reptile forum. Pit bulls are no more dangerous then any other dog. It is how they are raised. To be against exotics bans and be for banning a breed of dog is probably the most hypocritical thing i have ever herd.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

---

Hi bigt0006, I am very upset that you would make such an ignorant statement. I was never for banning a breed of dog and I never said such a thing. Please read the previous posts before accusing me of something I did not do.

Any dog can be dangerous. I have a akc cert lab that is registered as a dangerous dog that proves this point. He loves me and only me knows close to 80 commands but if he does not like you and I am not around things will go south. He is a great dog but to use your venomous snake analogy he must be handled with care.

To top that off he now lives with my parents (he respects my father as well as he does me)...the evil pit bull lives with me my wife and my 3 month old daughter...If you need pics the only ones I have are of her cuddling and sleeping beside my daughter....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

It's just like when people say a "20 foot python" which probably was more like 11 feet. Maybe the pitbull was 130 lbs, maybe it wasn't. But that's irrelevant. The fact is that it killed an innocent girl unprovoked. I agree that there are too many irresponsible pit bull owners. There need to be laws and regulations. Why is it that harmless snakes face bans all over the US, but there are so few laws for dangerous breeds of dogs?

---

Nuff read and said.

I'm a biologist too. For me I look at it this way: a dog is a species, and needs to be treated as such. All dogs, as a species, are potentially dangerous, and need to be handled a certain way. Some dogs, such as those that are larger, have more potential to cause harm. Likewise horses are a species and all are potentially dangerous. Some horses, due to size, have more potential to cause harm. Different snakes are different species, as such have different requirements, different temperament, and different potentials to cause harm. In all of these different species you need to approach them a certain way, to handle and care for them properly.

There are people out there who shouldn't keep ANY dog. Those people can turn ANY breed into a killer. Following what you seem to be suggesting, all dogs should be regulated. Perhaps all species should be regulated for that matter. Cats spread disease, livestock kill people, rodents can kill people through disease.

Ive owned a lot of different breeds even pits. The only aggressive pit ive ever came in contact with belong to a horrible excuse for a human being im sure that helped. That aside, IMO, its reckless to have small children and own animals with the capablity to doing serious harm. I want a retic pretty bad and will more than likely get one but when i have a child the animal will be relocated to a safe home. I know you cant control everything but you can control what risk you allow yourself to take. ORM anyone :D

Quote:

---

Remember folks: By saying that pitbulls are dangerous I am NOT saying they are evil monsters. I am merely, as a Biologist, stating the facts which means that certain considerations must be taken when dealing with these animals. Not just pitbulls-any dog, any animal that has numerous reported incidents of killing/attacking people.

---

If you are a biologist I will eat my hat. Your argument scrupulously avoids scientific methodology and empirical evidence.
If you are a biologist, the school that granted the degree school be ashamed.
Pitbulls(besides not actually being a breed) are not the dog most likely to bite.

If you look here:
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...lation-bsl-faq
you will find:
"All of the following national organizations oppose BSL: American Animal Hospital Association, American Dog Owner's Association, American Humane Association, American Kennel Club, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Veterinary Medical Association, Association of Pet Dog Trainers, Best Friends Animal Society, Canadian Kennel Club, Humane Society of the United States, International Association of Canine Professionals, National Animal Control Association, National Animal Interest Alliance, and National Association of Obedience Instructors."
All groups whose opinion I find more reliable than that of a "biologist" that doesn't even adhere to scientific methods and evidence.

"Q. Aren't certain breeds of dogs more likely to injure or bite than others?
No. There is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely than any other to injure a human being.[1] In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.[2] A recent survey of the controlled study of dog bites covering 40 years and two continents concluded that no group of dogs should be considered disproportionately dangerous.[3]



Q. Does BSL reduce dog bites?
No. BSL has not succeeded in reducing dog bite-related injuries wherever in the world it has been enacted.

• 
  
  • 
    
    • 
      
      • 
        
        • 
          
          • • An analysis published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association explains why BSL does not reduce serious dog bites. The authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community in order to prevent even one serious dog bite-related injury. For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to remove more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted group. To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number.[4]
      
      

• Denver, CO enacted a breed ban in 1989. Citizens of Denver continue to suffer a higher rate of hospitalization from dog bite-related injuries after the ban, than the citizens of breed-neutral Colorado counties[5]"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sorraia

I'm a biologist too. For me I look at it this way: a dog is a species, and needs to be treated as such. All dogs, as a species, are potentially dangerous, and need to be handled a certain way. Some dogs, such as those that are larger, have more potential to cause harm. Likewise horses are a species and all are potentially dangerous. Some horses, due to size, have more potential to cause harm. Different snakes are different species, as such have different requirements, different temperament, and different potentials to cause harm. In all of these different species you need to approach them a certain way, to handle and care for them properly.

There are people out there who shouldn't keep ANY dog. Those people can turn ANY breed into a killer. Following what you seem to be suggesting, all dogs should be regulated. Perhaps all species should be regulated for that matter. Cats spread disease, livestock kill people, rodents can kill people through disease.

---

This is a great post and I thank you for it. Indeed, some dogs pose a threat to humans and some do not. Same thing with snakes.

But you lost me on the latter part of your post. I think that all dangerous animals should be regulated. Cats need to be regulated too. In fact feral cats are a gigantic problem as they not only spread disease but annihilate native bird and reptile populations. Interestingly enough, people don't seem to care about the cats that are ruining Florida's ecosystem-but they go crazy about feral snakes (which as ectotherms eat far less birds). Why? Because some people love their furry friends and hate snakes.

Livestock are regulated-you can't just buy a horse or a cow in an urban neighborhood and keep it in your backyard. But we're getting too off topic-this post is about "pitbulls" and how they should be regulated.

Quote:

---

There are people out there who shouldn't keep ANY dog.

---

You know what sorraia? I agree! But how can we stop terrible owners from messing up these poor innocent dogs? Regulations. Licenses and competency tests, just like those required to keep many hot snakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KING JAMES

To top that off he now lives with my parents (he respects my father as well as he does me)...the evil pit bull lives with me my wife and my 3 month old daughter...If you need pics the only ones I have are of her cuddling and sleeping beside my daughter....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

Every single time I am flooded with people saying they have pitbulls and love them. Great. I've worked with pitbulls, I even had to restrain them, and not once did they give me problems. But that doesn't mean it is not a potentially dangerous breed/breeds.

Let me tell you: Not every lion has attacked humans. There are people who keep lions in captivity and have no problems. Therefore according to such logic, lions are not dangerous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven01

If you are a biologist I will eat my hat. Your argument scrupulously avoids scientific methodology and empirical evidence.
If you are a biologist, the school that granted the degree school be ashamed.
Pitbulls(besides not actually being a breed) are not the dog most likely to bite.

If you look here:

you will find:
"All of the following national organizations oppose BSL: American Animal Hospital Association, American Dog Owner's Association, American Humane Association, American Kennel Club, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Veterinary Medical Association, Association of Pet Dog Trainers, Best Friends Animal Society, Canadian Kennel Club, Humane Society of the United States, International Association of Canine Professionals, National Animal Control Association, National Animal Interest Alliance, and National Association of Obedience Instructors."
All groups whose opinion I find more reliable than that of a "biologist" that doesn't even adhere to scientific methods and evidence.

"Q. Aren't certain breeds of dogs more likely to injure or bite than others?
No. There is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely than any other to injure a human being.[1] In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.[2] A recent survey of the controlled study of dog bites covering 40 years and two continents concluded that no group of dogs should be considered disproportionately dangerous.[3]



Q. Does BSL reduce dog bites?
No. BSL has not succeeded in reducing dog bite-related injuries wherever in the world it has been enacted.

• 
  
  • 
    
    • 
      
      • 
        
        • 
          
          • • An analysis published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association explains why BSL does not reduce serious dog bites. The authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community in order to prevent even one serious dog bite-related injury. For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to remove more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted group. To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number.[4]
      
      
    • 
      
      
    • 
      
      • 
        

• Denver, CO enacted a breed ban in 1989. Citizens of Denver continue to suffer a higher rate of hospitalization from dog bite-related injuries after the ban, than the citizens of breed-neutral Colorado counties[5]"

---

You know what? There's nothing I can do to change your opinion. You refuse to accept the fact that pitbulls are biologically distinct, and then you say that certain breeds are not more likely to attack then others. You are being ignorant of biology and zoology. You bring up irrelevant articles that aren't even peer reviewed by a reputable source. According to you, a poodle is just as likely to kill someone as is a german shepherd. This scares me.

Any dog can do serious harm to a child...heck a ferret can do serious harm...anything can do harm if the parent is not on their a game

For the record I am not sure how you are taking my statement when you quoted me. My quote is listed under your terrible owners section...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KING JAMES

Any dog can do serious harm to a child... heck a ferret can do serious harm...anything can do harm if the parent is not on their a game

For the record I am not sure how you are taking my statement when you quoted me. My quote is listed under your terrible owners section...

---

No! I did not ever call you a terrible owner, in fact you are a fantastic one for having an akc certified lab. The "terrible owners" was directed at nobody here.


All I did was respond to your quote with another one of my previous posts-the lion example.

Pit bulls have been banned and regulated in entire countries, provinces, cities. This has done nothing to stop irresponsible people from acquiring and breeding them and nothing to change dog bite stats. Jack russels, Pomeranians, Dachshunds, etc have all killed small children, it's not a vicious dog issue so much as owner responsibility in most cases. Whatever the popular "bad dog" is, has more attacks and bites because of rampant breeding and poor ownership. Rottweilers, GSDs, Dobermans, Bloodhounds all went through the same thing in various decades, The Pit Bull Placebo has some very interesting info on how registration numbers jumped crazily for those breeds during their vicious dog phase and we all know only a small percentage of dogs bred are registered with a reputable org. anyways. Any dog can cause damage, they have teeth after all but the number of people killed by dogs yearly is extremely low and if you look into such cases, most of them had red flags all over and were preventable. The last child killed by a "pit bull" in my state was an intact dog with a long history of vicious attacks that they had chained up in their basement with no food or water along with their female and litter, the kid went down to pet the puppies. Anyone in their right mind would have taken those pups and euthed them as well but doubt that happened and it's hardly a rarity that people breed their human aggressive or unstable dog, especially the type that want a "guard" dog.

FWIW I have 3 pit bull mutts, all adopted as adults with unknown pasts who love people and children as the breed should. They have a combined weight of 150#, APBT are not a large breed dog. They are fixed, utd on shots, licensed with my city and yet you are saying should be further regulated. Kind of amusing considering in my neighborhood I have one guardy EM, a human aggressive Chi, a doxie mutt who has attacked other dogs, charged me and my friends on multiple occasions barking and growling, a Weim who is never leashed that chases and barks at people besides crapping wherever it wants. I'm the only responsible law abiding dog owner on the block, with friendly dogs but you feel they should be judged on their appearance instead of behavior. Who is going to pay for and enforce such laws exactly? Are the current dog laws enforced where you live?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

This is a great post and I thank you for it. Indeed, some dogs pose a threat to humans and some do not. Same thing with snakes.

But you lost me on the latter part of your post. I think that all dangerous animals should be regulated. Cats need to be regulated too. In fact feral cats are a gigantic problem as they not only spread disease but annihilate native bird and reptile populations. Interestingly enough, people don't seem to care about the cats that are ruining Florida's ecosystem-but they go crazy about feral snakes (which as ectotherms eat far less birds). Why? Because some people love their furry friends and hate snakes.

---

At least you are consistent in that statement.

Quote:

---

Livestock are regulated-you can't just buy a horse or a cow in an urban neighborhood and keep it in your backyard. But we're getting too off topic-this post is about "pitbulls" and how they should be regulated.

---

Livestock aren't regulated like that. What you are describing are municipal and zoning ordinances. Its not quite the same as licensing or competency testing. Also, municipal ordinances vary across the nation. I live in a urban neighborhood, but the ordinances in my city allow me to keep livestock, within certain limits. In fact I have 2 horses, 2 goats, and chickens living in my urban backyard, legally.

I don't see it exactly as off topic either. There's a slippery slope when it comes to regulations ands policies. Cities have banned or regulated pit bulls in the interest of public safety, but have seen no decrease in the number of hospitalizations due to dog bite incidences. a better set of regulations would be to punish the actual people and dogs responsible, instead of all.

Quote:

---

You know what sorraia? I agree! But how can we stop terrible owners from messing up these poor innocent dogs? Regulations. Licenses and competency tests, just like those required to keep many hot snakes.

---

I'll disagree. One problem with this sort of tactic is it makes a criminal out of everyone. If we require competency tests and licensing of all dogs, how do we make sure everyone is abiding by the laws? Go door to door asking for proof? How do we stop the bad owners from keeping and ruining any dogs? In my state there are leash laws requiring all dogs be kept on a leash. People still take their dogs off leash, and there are not enough enforcement officers to stop them, and not enough funding to hire more. There are laws that require all dogs be licensed, and higher fees for unaltered dogs to encourage people to spay and neuter. Many people still don't spay, neuter, or license their dogs. Even door to door checks don't catch everyone breaking that law. Many times those who violate these laws aren't caught until something happens involving their dog, then its too late. More laws aren't going to stop those people, more laws will just make it harder for us responsible pet owners to keep our pets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonkeyShuttle

Ive owned a lot of different breeds even pits. The only aggressive pit ive ever came in contact with belong to a horrible excuse for a human being im sure that helped. That aside, IMO, its reckless to have small children and own animals with the capablity to doing serious harm. I want a retic pretty bad and will more than likely get one but when i have a child the animal will be relocated to a safe home. I know you cant control everything but you can control what risk you allow yourself to take. ORM anyone :D

---

Why is having a child and owning a retic not compatible? I have 7 retics, all mainland, most females, and 2 being adults. I also have 3 children. Saying it isn't smart or advisable to have both in the same household implies that you cannot forseeably control the interaction between the two.

Like everything on this planet, we cannot safeguard ourselves from every percievable danger to our lives, but we can however take appropriate measures to limit the chances of any accident from happening. Obviously abstinence from owning a retic would drastically reduce the chances of a retic related accident from occuring. On the same token, I too have virtually eliminated any changes of an accident by putting in place safeguards against let's say for example, my 2 year old daughter coming into contact with any of my snakes capable of dealing any serious damage. Does she handle the BABIES? Absolutely. I want her to be involved in my hobby. However she does not, and will not interact with any snake I have deemed a potential danger to her well being.

For instance my snake room is locked with a keyed lock which only myself and my wife posses a key. On top of that there is a latch lock at the top of the door where the children cannot reach. Inside the room all of the larger snakes are kept in enclosures with locking doors. Even if a snake escapes an enclosure the room is sealed. The Window has been eliminated, the HVAC vent has been eliminated, the attic access door has been locked, and every conceivable access to or from the room has been secured.

Ok so there is a loose snake in the room that can't get out. What then? When I open the door I crack it only enough to peer in to make sure it is clear and safe, my snake hook for the big snakes is kept at the door, and I check to make sure everything is where it should be(the rooms occupants) and then people are allowed to enter.

Virtually everything can be made safe. And virtually everything can kill you. More people die every year in their own showers. I'm all about assessing risk, and mitigating it while being able to keep the things I enjoy. My children, my snakes, and my mustang.

Sorry for the rant. Just had to get that one out there.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3

Pit bulls kill about 25 people a year and of those 25 the individual owner is always to blame. This is your big moral crusade? I feel that this is a little absurd considering the vastness of problems we are facing in the current age. Statistically the animals don't even register on the human fatality dangerous scale.

You advocate using the state to solve these problems but the state has been directly responsible for murdering 250 million people in the last century not even counting wars or prison. It seems like your trying to solve a paper cut by amputating an arm.

Terrible argument. Sorry, biologist or not.

Let's play dirty.

How many more black males have been arrested for violent crimes than white females??


So are black males dangerous?? Absolutely ridiculous!!!! But this is what you are saying believe it or not.

You are picking and choosing here. Your point is so under thought and so far off from what the problem is.

It is poor ownership, and idiots breeding unstable dogs to each other fighting them and dumping them. It's people who THINK they want a dog and then do NOTHING with it and fail to recognize any signs of a problem.

You think you are singling out a problem breed based on WAY over hyped media info and tales that seem to stick no matter what evidence there is to the contrary. Keep in mind this is just what they want to do with snakes. "Constrictor" is now associated with death and danger thanks to the media.

We can do this with certain races, religions, males, females. It's pretty sad that you are convinced of this with a certain breed of dog.

With a science background I'm even more surprised. You are losing credibility holding onto your argument. Again, MILLIONS of pit bulls have existed for hundreds of years. How come we only started hearing about the problems when drugs, violence and gang culture started becoming more apparent?? That's not the dog's fault.


I have a deep knowledge of pit pulls. Trained and competed with them, and sorry but they have done more than the lion in the story you posted. That particular lion was not the rule VS the MILLIONS of pit bulls that are domesticated and have been HERE since the US was established. They also set the lion free because he was not manageable and after there second visit to see him he never returned.

Pit bull and viper?? Really?? That's ridiculous! How can you compare the 2?

Your continued argument has hints of completely regulating any animal anybody has an issue with.

There are pit bulls working as bomb and drug dogs with federal and municipal law enforcement. There are law enforcement officials that rescue and re-home pit bulls from their terrible situations.

You are also ignoring the fact that the dog in the report, which is full of empty info was NOT a pit bull. Pits do not weigh 130 pounds. Sorry to break the news.

And the "game bred" pit bulls were rarely if ever over 80 pounds.

Seeing any of this on a reptile board, with like minded people worried about the future of reptile keeping really is shocking.

Thinking that upstanding, responsible people should give in and have to pay and obtain a special permit for any breed of dog is really sad. I certainly wouldn't want you on any city council near me. Once the pit bulls are regulated, on to the next thing deemed unsafe by somebody that knows so little about the breed.

My family and I are VERY responsible dog owners and I've been proving pit bulls and like breeds are every bit as good as any other dog since the 1990's.

Whatever point you were trying to prove with your thread really went the opposite direction.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that 90% maybe more people on this board are afraid of.

sad man, I remember a little 4 year old boy getting killed by a pit on Camp Lejuene.

Regardless a child died a really crappy death.

I understand snakes killing because well....they aren't playing the same game...but a dog? :(

I couldn't imagine a more terrible suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sorraia

I'm a biologist too. For me I look at it this way: a dog is a species, and needs to be treated as such. All dogs, as a species, are potentially dangerous, and need to be handled a certain way. Some dogs, such as those that are larger, have more potential to cause harm. Likewise horses are a species and all are potentially dangerous. Some horses, due to size, have more potential to cause harm. Different snakes are different species, as such have different requirements, different temperament, and different potentials to cause harm. In all of these different species you need to approach them a certain way, to handle and care for them properly.

There are people out there who shouldn't keep ANY dog. Those people can turn ANY breed into a killer. Following what you seem to be suggesting, all dogs should be regulated. Perhaps all species should be regulated for that matter. Cats spread disease, livestock kill people, rodents can kill people through disease.

---

I strongly disagree with your statement on larger dogs. I've been seriously harmed more by chihuahuas, Pomeranians and dachshunds than anything, and have never been attacked or harmed by a "large breed." I currently own a pitbull and a Great Dane, and they have never shown any signs of aggression. Sure, they may be stronger, but they are not predisposed to aggression anymore than a small dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eramyl

I strongly disagree with your statement on larger dogs. I've been seriously harmed more by chihuahuas, Pomeranians and dachshunds than anything, and have never been attacked or harmed by a "large breed." I currently own a pitbull and a Great Dane, and they have never shown any signs of aggression. Sure, they may be stronger, but they are not predisposed to aggression anymore than a small dog.

---

I did not say larger dogs are predisposed to aggression. I said the potential to cause harm is greater. This simply means a larger dog can hurt a person more easily than a smaller dog. The larger dog doesn't have to be trying either. I've been hurt by larger dogs when they've jumped on me or run into me, I've never been hurt like that by a smaller dog. A bite from a larger dog is likely to be more serious than a similar bite from a smaller dog, just by virtue of size. That does not mean the larger dog is going to be more aggressive, bite more often, or always cause worse injury if it does bite. All I'm saying is pound for pound a larger dog has potential to cause more harm than a smaller dog.

Now speaking of personal experience and preference, the most aggressive dogs I've met have been smaller dogs. I've only ever owned larger dogs, and while I've been knocked over and jumped on (not necessarily my dogs, but ill behaved dogs owned by other people) I've not been bitten by a larger dog. But behavior and temperament don't change the physiological potential of a larger dog. Note, I'm not advocating stricter controls or regulations, its just an observation and comparison.

To those of you who judge a breed by news like this, please educate yourself on the breed. I'm currently in a court battle because some uneducated biased horrible man shot and murdered my baby. My life crumbled from beneath me and after 3 months there is no sign of healing. Please, educate yourself before you pass judgement. I couldnt read all the comments :( http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/qahyvu7e.jpghttp://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/uge7aha7.jpghttp://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/evu7yny3.jpghttp://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/3ybaza3y.jpghttp://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/3emybybe.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RissaEst

To those of you who judge a breed by news like this, please educate yourself on the breed. I'm currently in a court battle because some uneducated biased horrible man shot and murdered my baby. My life crumbled from beneath me and after 3 months there is no sign of healing. Please, educate yourself before you pass judgement. I couldnt read all the comments :( http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/qahyvu7e.jpghttp://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/uge7aha7.jpghttp://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/evu7yny3.jpghttp://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/3ybaza3y.jpghttp://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/28/3emybybe.jpg

---

I'm so very very sorry for your lose
:( my heart and soul go out to you and your family. I can't even imagine what you guys are going through. I'm so sorry once again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pit bulls can make wonderful family companions. I have a Staffordshire bull terrier and Iove her to death AND she loves children. She is the best companion dog I ever had next to my German Shepards and Rottie. My sisters and I grew up with a Rottie and two German Shepards and let me tell you their temperment was much better then my moms two shi-tzus. I bled a few times from the shih-tzus playing too rough, being defensive over food or even being picked up. My two GS, Rottie, and SBT have never once even snarled at me and were much more loving then any toy dog. A dog, cat or any pet can harm you. It is all how the animal is raised and treated. My friend suffers from seizures and her service dog is a red nose APBT. You cannot be biased and group all Pitt bulls as dangerous. Most bullies who attack people were fighting dogs at one point or got loose and were mistreated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My questions:

Was the child interacting with the dog, or anything that 'belonged' to the dog? How old was the dog? Was the dog sterilised? What training did the dog have? When was the dog last taken to the vet? What breed was it *really* because a 130lb pitbull would be too fat to move.

My catahoula/lab mix snarled once at my cousin when he was 9 months old. He was allowed to physically interact with my dog (who was staying at my grandparents while I dormed) with minimal supervision. My uncle initially demanded I euthanise my dog. I countered with questions about Nathan's interactions with my dog and learned that he would grab my dog by the face and ears, but they thought it was okay because my dog would groan happily when I *rubbed* his ears. Aussie loved kids. He put up with this daily for a month before reacting at all, but to my uncle it was "unprovoked".

Hypothyroidism can lead to aggression due to hormonal imbalances. Pain from arthritis or chronic pancreatitis can cause aggressive responses. Senility, decreased eyesight and decreased hearing can all cause aggressive responses. Brain tumors and temporal lobe seizures can also cause episodes of aggression.

Threatening body language (unintentional from a child), quick movements, or attempting to 'take' something the dog considers to be theirs can all cause fear/possessive aggression responses.

Most pitbulls that attack people are intact. They are also rarely trained, and often spend most of their time outdoors and away from people.

I would bet, from the weight listed, that this dog was actually an American bulldog. Unfortunately, most of the ones I've met through work (registered veterinary technician) have been... unstable. Most people don't know what to do with a large, stubborn, sensitive dog resulting in a poorly socialised mess that is unpredictable. The few truly aggressive pitbulls I've met have been a- incredibly fearful (poorly, or completely unsocialised), b- badly bred (and yes, folks, genetics play a part in personality....), or c- made that way on purpose.

Also, OP? Your stat of 25 people a year is utter BS. The actual number is about 3. To quote the most recent study about dog attacks, and their causes... "For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24299544


One of my good friends and former coworker used to have a boxer-lab mix. A *known* boxer-lab mix that a neighbor thought was a pitbull. That neighbor even called animal control once saying that the dog had broken out of the backyard and attempted to attack her, and she had photos for proof! When animal control came by, she refused to give them said photos... and the dog was inside the house, where my friend left her pet, and the fence was intact.


And for fun-

Kisses, my oh-so-vicious foster pibble puppy from last year. Death by licking. He's also only 15 pounds and 3 1/2 months in this photo.

http://imageshack.com/a/img20/7531/aswg.jpg

This whole argument reminds me I can't get an apartment because of my golden retriever chow chow mix because he's part chow. Because they're considered dangerous. Yet he is perfect around people and I've worked with him around other dogs.

And when I go to the dog park, who's dog is starting the fight and being threatening? Not mine. Who's owner is shrugging the behavior off, not controlling their precious angel, and ignoring their dog? Not me.

Its the owner. Not the animal.

Sent from my XT897 using Tapatalk