Pit Bull Terrier, why?

[libby lou lou]

Absolutely not! But then I wouldn't trust any dog to be alone with a child.

Other half took our grandson round her brothers the other day and his mongrel dog started sniffing his face, for a split second as the dog appeared from round the settee, missus was up like a shot, (still could be too late) and snatched the lad up, how many times do people need to see this in the paper ?? and that's only what we hear about.

Just like the balcony hoppers in spain, at least a couple a year.

 

[noseall]

The trouble is you are not thinking, you're trying to play the gd game that you so despise

Hmm, probably the answer I should have expected.

Anyone else? Any takers?

 

[Deleted member 63160]

mitch, I no longer live on a council estate and haven't for some 37 years. But as they say 'you can take the boy out of the council estate, but you@ you know the rest.

I don't have two penny's either

That wasn't aimed at you, genuinely. You've explained why you have the dogs and you don't sound like a waynkerr
Sadly my post although sounding opinionated is true to what I've seen in general.

 

[longdogs]

The trouble is you are not thinking, you're trying to play the gd game that you so despise

Hmm, probably the answer I should have expected.

Anyone else? Any takers?

I have cats so could not have a dog at the moment, but I would certainly be prepared to own a staff. My sister had a pit/staff cross for 14 years and he was never aggressive towards anyone including children. Having said that, I would not have ANY dog if I had young children. Infact, I would not have cats either.

What happened to the little girl is very very sad, but you have to blame the owners as much as the dog.

An elderly woman had her face beaten to a pulp recently but there is no campaign to ban human beings.

 

[noseall]

What happened to the little girl is very very sad, but you have to blame the owners as much as the dog.

Quite so and is the reason why I mentioned it in the very first post.

An elderly woman had her face beaten to a pulp recently but there is no campaign to ban human beings.

Er, no. That would be silly wouldn't it because it will be a human that nurses her back to health and a human that investigates the crime and a human that provides support.

What good do dangerous dogs do? What harm would it do to destroy the entire breed?

 

[Bodgeitandleggit]

Got to agree with noseall here... I have no problems with dogs but why not get a little mongrel but that does not go with the image.. in my days the must have dog to look tough was a Doberman but now the walking brain dead it must be a tougher looking dog to make them look tough,, one thing I have noticed though is that the owners of these type of dogs appear to be complete thickos .... did you see the picture on the news one with the mother and baby,lovely photo of mother and child sad indeed,, then showed the father

 

[JBR]

What happened to the little girl is very very sad, but you have to blame the owners as much as the dog.

I agree. So why aren't the owners put down?

An elderly woman had her face beaten to a pulp recently but there is no campaign to ban human beings.

And they yobs who did that should be put down too.

 

[jockscott]

I think the point AJS is trying to make, is,,, The only way to find out if a dog is dangerous, is when it does something like has happened, so why put down, what could turn out to be a perfectly safe dog, just because the breed is considered dangerous?
It's often been said, there's no such thing as a bad dog,, but there are bad dog owners.
My late mother in law owned an American Pit Bull, dog from when it was a puppy, and I can honestly say, I've never met such a well trained and behaved dog as that one. My kids used to tease it something chronic whenever we were round her house and the dog behaved impeccably. Never once baring it's teeth or growling at them. FFS let's get a sense of proportion here.. As a responsible dog owner, I must agree with AJS, there's absolutely no need to tar all pit bulls with the same brush.

BTW, my dad had a Yorkshire Terrier, that I wouldn't let my children near,,, (vicious little bleeder, which would have yer bloody fingers off in an instant)

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think the point AJS is trying to make, is,,, The only way to find out if a dog is dangerous, is when it does something like has happened, so why put down, what could turn out to be a perfectly safe dog, just because the breed is considered dangerous?

Because it may turn out to be a dangerous one, of course.

It's often been said, there's no such thing as a bad dog,, but there are bad dog owners.

So, if the punishment were destroying the owners as well, would they still be kept - probably.

My late mother in law owned an American Pit Bull, dog from when it was a puppy, and I can honestly say, I've never met such a well trained and behaved dog as that one. My kids used to tease it something chronic whenever we were round her house and the dog behaved impeccably. Never once baring it's teeth or growling at them. FFS let's get a sense of proportion here..

Ok. Is there an infallible way of telling it will never attack anyone?

As a responsible dog owner, I must agree with AJS, there's absolutely no need to tar all pit bulls with the same brush.

But we can't tell which is which.

BTW, my dad had a Yorkshire Terrier, that I wouldn't let my children near,,, (vicious little bleeder, which would have yer bloody fingers off in an instant)

Has a Yorkshire Terrier ever attacked a child?



We know the point ajs is making: it's just a false argument.
"My dog won't attack anyone but it could".

As there are many other breeds of dogs which people can have, these risky ones don't need to be kept.
It would be no loss if this breed did not exist.

Why would anyone want to take the chance?



You can ban Yorkshire Terriers as well if you want.

 

[EFLImpudence]

What you are saying is that not enough kids have been eaten yet.

As long as we destroy the ones that do, it's alright.

 

[jockscott]

Take the argument about dogs to it's logical conclusion then, and there will be no dogs. What's the next animal which will be deemed "dangerous"? Ahh cats... Yeah, they can give you a nasty scratch which could become infected and kill.
Man is certainly the most dangerous animal on this planet, so perhaps it's time the human race died out. ??????

 

[jockscott]

Has a Yorkshire Terrier ever attacked a child?.

In my personal experience,,, yes.. Perhaps you should be asking "Has a Yorkshire Terrier ever killed a child?" Who knows what the answer to that is??
Would you know if a child contracted toxicariasis from Yorkie poo or Doberman poo , or Spaniel poo? Hmmmmmm

 

[jockscott]

We know the point ajs is making: it's just a false argument.

Just as false as the argument that states All (supposedly) dangerous breeds must be eliminated.. FFS Lions and tigers are bloody dangerous, (I'm sure you'll agree) but does that mean we should go out and kill all lions and tigers? (wherever there's a risk they may come into contact with humans)

 

[ajstoneservices]

EFLImpudence, Are you aware that the dangerous dogs act that was rushed in after a child was killed in 1991 has failed miserably to do what was intended. Namely, eradicate a dangerous breed.

Do you know that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent trying to prove or otherwise that a dog is of a "dangerous type" in our courts of law because "experts" cannot agree on what is or isn't a dangerous breed.

Do you know that some cases have gone before the highest courts in our country and that those same courts have declared some dogs are not in fact "dangerous types" and have ordered them to be returned to their owners. While others, with no history of being dangerous have been declared to be "a dangerous type" and destroyed.

Rushed laws driven by public emotion and politicians ill equipped to understand their own argument never achieve their intended aims.

The truth is, whether you like it or not, is that all dogs have the potential to be a dangerous and you would have to look long and hard to find a breed of dog that hasn't' seriously injured, or worse still, killed a child or an adult.

Responsible owners are aware of that and do not allow their dogs to become out of control and consequently dangerous.

At last we have a government has realises what others have failed to. That it is the irresponsible owners that cause/allow their dog to be dangerous. And as a result an owner can now be imprisoned for up to 14 years for allowing their dog to be dangerously out of control. Sadly it took the death of another young girl to bring that law about.


Edit: we could of course, given your arguments above, ban every type of dog. A simple remedy for the simple minded.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Just as false as the argument that states All (supposedly) dangerous breeds must be eliminated.

Well, the 'supposedly' doesn't apply, does it?
Without the 'supposedly' your argument would seem to fail.

FFS Lions and tigers are bloody dangerous, (I'm sure you'll agree) but does that mean we should go out and kill all lions and tigers? (wherever there's a risk they may come into contact with humans)

Both are in danger of extinction.
I wonder why that is.

The point, though, is that this breed of dog, like lions and tigers, is not suitable as a pet; alternatives are available and it would be no loss if it did not exist.
It is a mutant bred for a purpose which does not exist.

The original question of "Why would anyone want these as pets?" has not been answered.


Perhaps ajs will progress and decide he wants a hyena or two.