He'll figure it outt innna few weeks easy....

Is the owner lazy or does he/she just want to build up the muscles on an already intimidating fighting dog. ALL fighting dog breeds should be banned. And before you say; "It's the owner who makes them vicious, they are really cuddly, cute and so friendly," look at the figures on attacks by these breeds on adults/kids/dogs. Look at all the sickening videos.The latest statistic is the number of seeing eye dogs being attacked. There are 5 of these dogs in my area and ALL are a problem to people and other dogs. Their owners want them for the wrong reasons, reasons that are obvious. Of course any dog can be made violent, but these breeds have innate aggression, unpredictability, terrific strength and sheer tenacity. In the wrong hands they are lethal and, be honest, it is usually the wrong hands who own them. I have had three German Shepherds and currently have a Tamaskan (mighty Wolf) so please don't tell me I am anti-dog.

You may not be anti-dog, but you're still wrong. I've known pits that were just as sweet as could be...it -is- the owners that make the difference.

If the problem is caused by the dog being in the wrong hands, then deal with the hands, don't blame the dog. I'll support a public hanging for anyone who raises/trains any dog as an "attack dog".

I'm trying to remember something. Maybe someone can help out. Given various forms of data to make a choice, what should we weigh more heavily? Personal anecdotes, or statistics?

It was a cute puppy though.

If there's one sure fire way to build massive amounts of muscle, it's walking at a moderate pace.

First off, the treadmill is healthy for the dog, and burns off energy, making the easier to control let alone giving him "something to do". Some people just don't have the time to exercise their dog for the hour or so every day like every dog NEEDS to, no matter what the breed. You have 7 acres of squirrels? Good for you! There's a lot of people who live in condos and apartments where taking the dog for a walk is more dangerous to this dog AND handler than this pit probably is to anyone else.

Your statistics aren't complete...

There are more "vicious" attacks on people by Shepherds worldwide then there are actual pitbull dogs. THAT'S a statistic too.

Dogs can be looked at like guns.

Chihuahua = Ether gas BB gun
Jack Russell = .22 target pistol
Shepherd = .308 bolt action hunting rifle
Pitbull - AK47

If the gun is taken care of, and used properly, it won't suddenly take off and kill a seeing eye dog any more than a properly cared for pitbull.

Interesting. The dog on the treadmill doesn't want to be there so it has to be leashed to it. However the puppy sees the big dog on there and desperately wants to have a go. Could this meme, a preference to exercise on treadmills rather than running around and stuff, spread through successive generations of dogs? Healthy for their body, but not for their mind me thinks...

1. The pup would be what we Australian's lovingly refer to as "a little battler" (typically someone who is deficient in some way but gives it their all).

2. Pit's can be as vicious or as gentle as you make them. The reason they make great fighting dogs is because they are almost undying in their loyalty to their master. They can be treated far harsher than most other dogs, who would either turn or break, and so can be trained to reach heights of viciousness other breeds can't hope to match. This obviously involves a lot of cruelty and it's something I abhor particularly, considering just how loving this breed can be.

3. Our half pit has only snapped at me once (during bone training, where I would force her to surrender a meaty treat frequently to establish dominance so that if someone came close to her while she had one, she wouldn't snap at them). My wife had half her face mauled by a shepherd when she was young even though the thing had always been completely docile. My son was bitten by his great grand fathers yippy mini dog who we had to chain up because it kept coming at him. My aunty had a horse who was so gentle blind kids rode it who tried to kick and bite me... What does this prove? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing, dogs are animals and animals may turn, often without an obvious reason why. It's part and parcel of owning pets, acknowledging there is a risk.

4. People who can't watch a harmless video about a puppy (typically videosift gold) without bitching about dog breeds really need to watch the video again and appreciate teh funneh...

It really is tiring having to explain a succinct comment. I suggest you try reading my comment again, s l o w l y, and you will, hopefully, see that i addressed your "points."

It would be really tedious picking apart your comment in full. Suffice it to say you demonstrate that you have no clue regarding animal psychology. A couple of points though; Pit bulls, as with ALL fighting dogs were bred for, guess what, fighting. And, though any animal can "turn," fighting dogs have a higher propencity to attack with no warning, which is why so many countries have banned them. You say that you "established dominance" with force (wrong). However, just because you are the alpha, it does NOT apply to other people. I don't suggest you get a child to take its bone away. Dogs, you should know, have a heirarchy structure. Finally; your wife was, you say, maulled? Circumstances? Your son was bitten so the dog was "chained up?" You were attacked by an otherwise docile horse? Well, you ask, what does this prove? My friend, it goes a long way in demonstrating that you, and yours, should keep away from animals.

1)Treadmills burn off energy, but create more muscle creating an animal with staying power and more energy (why do you think athletes use them?)
2)if you "don't have the time" to exercise your dog, don't get a dog. Oh, and an hour or so a day is NOT enough for breeds like this. 3) My dogs have all been big and, guess what, I live in an apartment and your "argument" that taking it for a walk "is more dangerous to this dog and handler" is sheer stupidity. In fact, sorry to be personal, but you're an idiot, so any further explanation is pointless, I'm done.

It actually is, if the time is long enough.

What we should "weigh more heavily." in making a choice, is the experience of people on the front line. The people who, daily, are called to yet another attack by a fighting dog. The professional people who see these dogs in the wrong hands and, unable to lawfully restrict ownership, see no alternative to a ban on breeds whos origin was specifically for fighting. I shouldn't need to point out that, though other dogs can be vicious, their origins were NOT ripping other animals to bits, and are not the preferred choice of certain anti-social people.

"In the wrong hands they are lethal and [...]", A10anis.
"If the problem is caused by the dog being in the wrong hands, [...]", Stormsinger.
"If the gun is taken care of, and used properly, it won't suddenly take off and kill a seeing eye dog any more than a properly cared for pitbull.", Payback.
"Pit's can be as vicious or as gentle as you make them.", Asmo.

Are any preventive action possible? Maybe people with criminal record or mental issues shouldn't be allowed to have those dogs?

Maybe you should reconsider just what "succinct" means, before you start insulting people who disagree with you.

The entire thrust of your comment was an implication that it's perfectly reasonable to outlaw pit bulls. And you're wrong, it's as simple as that. public flogging or pillorying the people who abuse them, and make that action widely known, and you'd have a lot few abused dogs who are vicious (of any breed).

In the meantime, I don't have time to spare on assholes, so if you intend to continue behaving like one, please let me know.

That's why body builders spend so much time walking at a moderate pace.

That's ok. I forgive you for being unable to disagree with someone without resorting to ad homs.

Not being even remotely sarcastic.

(edited out "immediately" cuz, after all, it wasn't immediate, it took you a few seconds, at least)

I'm sorry you don't know what succinct means. It means clearly expressed. And you are being succinct when you advocate flogging for people who abuse dogs. This is not the middle ages, though your comments clearly reflect that you wish it were. Of course, if it were the middle ages, we could use fighting dogs for the reason they were bred.

Interesting that A10anis keeps citing "the data and statistics", and yet hasn't cited a single datum or statistic. Although completely unrelated to knowledge of dog attacks, his shocking ignorance of exercise physiology (the relationship between long duration aerobic exercise and muscle catabolism is pretty well established -- exhaust your Glucose stores, and your body starts breaking down muscle and fat to keep your body moving) doesn't help his case much.

I haven't studied the "inherent violence" of the American Pit Bull Terrier to any great extent, so without any actual data, who knows whether or not they truly are "inherently violent". What I can say is that there are a number of breeds that are commonly mistaken for the Pit Bull, and dog attacks by any breed that vaguely looks like a Pit Bull often get called a "Pit Bull Attack" in the media. I have never owned a Pit, but my interactions with the breed suggest that they are very mellow and gentle: the polar opposite of, say, the highly strung, yappy, and territorial Chihuahua. The difference however is that if you piss a Chihuahua off it's not going to be able to do much to hurt you, whereas an angry Pit Bull can kill you. Of course, this is all just conjecture from anecdote, but until someone actually posts some data, that's all we have to go on.

No, it doesn't.

succinct: expressed in a very short but clear way
(Source)

Agreed.

Dear me you are sad.I said clearly expressed = succinct. You say not, yet you agree it means expressed in a short but clear way. You have nothing to say my friend, however you are clearly a pedant. I'm sure you will dispute the contextual merit of this word too. I suggest you get a life, and an education. I'm done.

Your comment was clear but not short.

Oh ya poor dear, dealing with all the tedium... Well how about the tedium of reading a report from the ASPCA recommending against breed specific bans...

http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation-1.aspx

See, I've yet to see any hard scientific data proving that nature > nurture in terms of dogs, and it seems like the ASPCA (who you'd think would know a thing or two) agree with me... The biggest factor they estimate? Male dogs that aren't neutered (not breed specific), which is a nurture issue.

Oh yeah, my dog has been around my 3 year old son since he was an infant and has never even been vaguely aggressive. My son can also order the dog off a bone and she'll obey because (surprise surprise) I've trained her that he sits higher in the hierarchy. You know, the sort of thing a responsible dog owner does.

It speaks volumes, though, that a person so concerned with banning supposed vicious breeds can't spend their time contributing to the discussion without attacking other posters who disagree with them. And while animals might turn on people, they are animals without the benefit of higher sentience. What's your excuse?

There are many organisations which have conflicting views, (my Tamaskan is 5 years old, male, un-neutered, and non violent) you happen to support the one that supports your extremely slim argument. I support the testimonies of people who deal, on a daily basis, with the terrible effects these breeds can have. Why do you think so many countries ban fighting dogs? Don't you think they have studied all the literature? Your 3 year old is very advanced for his age knowing how to control a fighting breed, how did you get the dog to respect a 3 year olds authority? I suspect, as you did for yourself, with force. You are certainly not a responsible person taking such a risk with your child in allowing the child to take a bone off such an animal. You cannot be 100% sure it will not react, yet you are incomprehensibly willing to take that risk. Regardless of the breed, no one in their right mind would risk their child in such a cavalier fashion. I could point you in the direction of myriad reports and videos on the dangers of fighting breeds but, obviously, it would be a waste of time. I wish you good luck with your child, and sincerely hope you do not live to regret your words.

So let's sum up your post quickly...

-The ASPCA is wrong because you know better.
-I'm a bad parent because I won't wrap my son in bubble wrap and hide him from a world that is inherently risky.
-By saying "force the dog to give up the bone" you assume that I'm mistreating it (using force) rather than teaching the dog to leave something (like a chew toy) then migrating that lesson to something it really doesn't want to give up like a meaty bone. Similarly, transfer of higher standing in the pack is not hard and does not require cruelty.
-You won't provide any supporting information apart from citing numerous anecdotal testimonies, which you also won't provide.
-Ban them because everyone else does (because humans never make knee jerk decisions based on headlines rather than science)

Your post is littered with ignorant and arrogant assumption and presumption. You're not interested in backing up your claims with any actual evidence and seem more interested in snide little ad hominem attacks. As I said, it's ironic that the person arguing against dangerous breeds is less well behaved then a member of the breed in question...

Your belief that the breed should be banned might have the slightest bit of credibility if you were able to muster up the civility to act with common courtesy.

Look up for yourself the data,videos, and testimonies from the experts and victims. The myriad accounts, and devastating injuries, i can assure you, are NOT anecdotal. But by your reasoning that "all is conjecture" you will not take the danger of fighting dogs seriously until one bites you in the ass.
I am well aware of the physiological effects of exercise my friend. Exercise promotes strength, staying power, and fitness, that is its prime function. The muscle breaks down and builds up again stronger. You seem to be saying that putting the dog on the treadmill on a daily basis will result in it getting weaker, slimmer, and having less energy. I'm afraid it is you who shows "shocking ignorance."

You are truly tiring me out. This is my last post on the subject.
1; Where did i say I knew better than the ASPCA? read my previous post again s l o w l y.
2; Yes, you are a bad parent. Exposing a 3 year old to even the slightest possibility of serious harm, is beyond comprehension.
3; In your first post you said you forced the dog to give up the bone (try reading your own comments), what exactly do you mean by "force?
4; I told you to look for the information on fighting breeds. And what anecdotes did I quote? (again, read my comment)
5; I did not say "ban them because everyone else does" I said countries have banned them based on their own research. (read my comment again)
6; I make no "arrogant, ignorant, assumptions." (read my comment again and point them out).
7; Whatever personal attack you perceive is groundless. My comment was based solely on evidence provided by experts (look it up yourself), and your attitude regarding your child's safety. Your only concession is the mind numbingly stupid approach of; "I won't wrap my son in bubble wrap." The fact that you have such an opinion negates you from serious debate. I'm done.

Ahh ya big fucking sook, have a cup of concrete and harden the fuck up. You haven't even provided a single link to this mountain of supporting evidence and you're already exhausted? /eyeroll

1. "There are many organisations which have conflicting views, (my Tamaskan is 5 years old, male, un-neutered, and non violent) you happen to support the one that supports your extremely slim argument." <-- Having my "extremely slim" argument supported by the biggest animal protection agency in the US tends to lend it some credibility... Your dismissal of my argument is a dismissal of the ASPCA's similar argument. If you're too pig ignorant to understand that, not much I can do about that.. =)
2. I take it you don't have kids? Or are you one of those sad cunts who never let your kids actually do anything? Life is a risk. Going to the beach is a risk. Going to the park is a risk. Living is a risk.

3. Forced as in "made to give up the bone against her will"... Already explained it, you train them on the "leave it" command on something they are more willing to drop without aggression then migrate them progressively to things that are more likely to get a reaction. Reward good behaviour, punish bad. And before your asshole starts weeping tears of blood about punishment, it's a thwack on the bum with a thong (I guess what yanks call a flip flop). Don't overstress the dog and once you've asserted that you can get them off the bone, let them have it undisturbed.

4. So you're going to pick a position and be too fucking bone idle to bother supporting it with your own research?

5. Many bans are knee jerk reactions to situations rather than considered actions.

6. Yes, you did. Commentary on my parenting (which you know almost nothing about), assuming "force" meant something rather than clarifying. Your entire tone is bombastic and condescending and it's not just to me. Everyone else in the thread that has disagreed with you has been dished up a serve of your sneering lip.

7. Expert evidence that is so freely available you can't even cite one example. So yeah, you're done. Dismissed. ; )