Pit Bulls Are Bad For Children And Other Living Things

Still think they’re just poor misunderstood pooches?dogbite.jpeg

Deputies said the dog ran into the yard and clamped onto [8-year-old] Annette’s face. Her mother, Norma Flores, who was inside the house, and two male neighbors working on a car nearby heard the girl’s screams and ran into the yard. The men, Hector Preciado, 24, and Jesse Revas, 20, hit the dog numerous times with a crowbar and a pool cue and used their bare hands to pry him from the girl, deputies said.

The dog then went after the girl’s mother, biting her arm and legs, deputies said.

After pulling the dog off the 37-year-old mother, the men trapped the pit bull in a garage on the property, and they and Annette and Flores took refuge inside the house. But the dog managed to escape the garage and enter the house through an open door, at which point the four locked themselves in the bathroom and called police.

Why defend these animals? I assure you, loyal pit bull owner, you could learn to love another type of doggy too – one that won’t put your children or your neighbors children at risk.

After living in West Virginia, I became ever-so-slightly more understanding about gun ownership (in the proper context, with the proper safety precautions and training – i.e. hunters in WV with guns, okay, but no one in heavily urban areas really needs one – but I digress). I can’t imagine, however, ever warming up to these animals. They are like guns with A.I. The obvious metaphorical time bombs. And, again, no b.s. about proper training of animals – it’s genetics kids, they were bred to be a certain way, and a certain way they shall be.

Look at that little kid. Are a dog’s, or a dog owner’s, rights really paramount to her health?

(photo: Santa Rosa Press Democrat/Christopher Chung via AP)

54 Comments so far

  1. courtney (unregistered) on June 23rd, 2005 @ 4:38 pm

    I’ll continue the discussion from my earlier post here…

    It is most certainly disturbing to hear of this recent attack. It angers me that this continues to happen.

    I know I am making a generalization, but I do feel that in so many of these attack cases, the owners are directly at fault. A lot of the owners of pitbulls raise them to be attack dogs, and raise them so they can “feel safe”. They get pitbulls because of their reputation. No one (I think) adopts a pitbull because they think it will make a good pet. They want a weapon.

    In this recent case, no one was keeping tabs on the dog and allowed it to get loose. The owner did not neuter the dog. These are two key factors, along with the “vicious breed” label.

    Yes, we can ban pitbulls, but we can’t ban irresponsible pet owners, which are a big part of this problem as well. We need to address the problem as a whole.

  2. Clay (unregistered) on June 24th, 2005 @ 12:08 am

    I’m curious if anyone has ever looked at the statistics about the percentage of pitbulls that attack people. Is it 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000?

    And just because YOU can’t imagine yourself warming up to a pit bull, doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t be able to. When I was 10 years old, my parents got a pit bull. NOT as a weapon, but as a pet, and we raised it as such, and he was a wonderful, loyal, loving pet. A pet, I might add, that never bit me or anyone else. Unlike our Lab, and our German Shepard, and my sisters Weiner Dog.

    Is this attack horrific? Yes. Should it have happened? No. Should someone be punished? Yes. But punish the dog owner. The specific dog owner. Not all dog owners.

    When you take away people’s rights to own a certain type of animal, you’re just one step away from folks even being able to BREED such an animal. And once one animal is intentionally forced into extinction, others aren’t far behind.

  3. cd (unregistered) on June 24th, 2005 @ 1:48 am

    I don’t know what percentage of pit bulls attack, but here’s an article on the percentage of fatal and serious maulings by pit bulls: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGRODDH561.DTL

    We agree: the dog owner should be punished. By not allowing the dog owner to own another pit bull. And while we’re at it, why not save later owners the worry and prevent them from owning one too? Seems fair to me.

    Punishing the specific dog owner accomplishes what? Tick. Tick. Tick. Ding! Time’s up – it accomplishes nothing. If you look at the law as it currently stands – for the most part, dogs get one bite free as it is. For the ankle biter breeds, this is okay, but for pits, that one bite can be your throat, so it’s one bite too many.

    I have no problem with this dogs no longer being bred. They aren’t essential to the food chain. They were created via human engineering and like the old Bill Cosby stand-up routine goes: “I brought you into this world, and I can take you right back out again.” Dog breeding is all about f-ing around with nature as it is. So why keep breeding little killers – or potential killers, if you prefer – needlessly?

    I think you may be confusing “extinction.” Letting elephants go extinct = bad. No longer breeding an aminal that humans bread into the uncertain beasts that they are = totally fair use of science.

    It isn’t the dogs fault, that much is true. They can’t help doing what nature tells them to do: be territorial, protect what is theirs, protect what they are taught to protect. And again- don’t round them up and shoot them, but don’t make more.

    Plenty of other dogs bite. My dog snapped at someone once who had scared her. Little yippy dogs are always gnawing on kids. That’s bad, but it seldom kills.

    No one is likely to outlaw driving at 35 mph even though there have been serious, probably even fatal, accidents at that speed. Outlaing driving 100mph, however, is something few really argue against since the odds of death in an accident at that rate of speed are very, very high.

    No one will outlaw Old Yeller the faithful Lab. But psycho killer dog isn’t serving much of a purpose and he’s very, very dangerous.

  4. Morey (unregistered) on June 24th, 2005 @ 10:07 pm

    I’m with Courtney on this one. I’ve never owned a pit, and I don’t have any desire to. I’m more of a Newfie guy. But I really think a ban would just lead to mass production of another fighting breed, probably the Mastiff or Akita. I don’t have the stats handy now, but I looked them up a couple of weeks ago, and saw that Pits are responsible for about a third of fatalities. Another third belonged to German Shepherds, and I can’t remember what else. For whatever reason, those other deaths don’t make the news.

    Regardless, the problem is the owners. The thug is attracted to breeds that are capable of more damage. They encourage “Get ’em” games, leave them unfixed, and are generally irresponsible people. Take THEM off the streets.

    Don’t even get me started on the firearm comment…

  5. cd (unregistered) on June 25th, 2005 @ 1:17 am

    Again – read this article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGRODDH561.DTL

    Pits are responsible for 32% of killings. the next highest are rotweilers at 18.5%. i didn’t pay too much attention in stats, but i think that’s statistically significant.

    And if they start breeding other killer dogs, we can outlaw them too, that’s fine with me. You used the operative language – “breed.” they’re made. it’s not like we’re scavanging the rainforest for unsuspecting species to anhialate.

  6. renegade (unregistered) on June 27th, 2005 @ 9:15 am

    Let’s just outlaw everything while we’re at it. Cars kill people, guns kill people, corporate polluters kill people, too much fatty food can kill people, people kill people, the Bush regime is killing people. Yeah. Ban everything.

    It’s all about responsible ownership, people. Each tragic case is an individual issue. Jumping on the sweeping generalization bandwagon will only lead to fascism. Remember that in the Faibish case there was more to the story, and looking further we discovered that the mother was responsible for child endangerment and lacked good judgement. Responsible ownership means spaying and neutering, knowing and socializing your pet, and keeping everyone feelling safe and happy.

    We all know that some owners raise and sell this breed to fight. We also know that many Pits are raised to be sweet and loving creatures, many have been rescued from the thug life or dumped at birth for not being tough enough or baited-out and need TLC. I have a pit bull mix that was dumped on the beach as a puppy, and I can tell you that my pit bull is a pussycat. I wish that people would stop singling my dog out for their latest witchhunt.


  7. cd (unregistered) on June 27th, 2005 @ 2:14 pm

    Wohoo – that was some stream of rhetoric there. The “slippery slope” argument, as lovely as it rolls off the keyboard, really doesn’t win any points with me.

    I suppose, were I to be really callous, I’d say – you’re right, and as long as the offending pooches only gnaw on their owners or their owners’ immediate families, then that’s fine. But that’s not how it works always.

    Banning a lot of what you list would be nice – except that fatty food is a personal choice harming only the consumer. I’d be fine with banning guns in urban areas. Same for dogs that chew up little kids.

    I’m very happy for you that your dog is so well behaved. Hope it never gets in a bad mood. And for the 8-billionth time, I’m not saying the city should come take your dog away. But you shouldn’t breed it and later generations shouldn’t own ones either.

  8. Bronwyn Jones (unregistered) on June 29th, 2005 @ 5:52 pm

    Actually, what made me angriest about this attack was not so much the breed of dog but the fact that the dog HAD NOT BEEN NEUTERED.

    No residential, non-breeder pet owner should be allowed to have a pet that isn’t spayed or neutured. Dogs, cats, hedgehogs…I don’t care. You should be fined out the ass for not spaying and neutering your pets. It’s fucking criminal.

    And while I do believe that some pit bulls can be sweet pets, this breed clearly requires even more than the average amount of training and socialization–and even the average amount is a huge chunk of time. Someone having his or her neighbor “watch” the dog probably isn’t spending enough time with it to train it properly.

    But, to be fair to Christiana, (this from an earlier Chron article): pit bulls “were bred for intolerance and the prey drive. Those two things, in combination, can cause tragedies. The prey drive is an instinct. A reflex. It can be sparked by movement. If something causes the pit bull to become overexcited, it might become angry. They can over-respond to stimuli.”

    Who wants to risk that, even with a well-trained dog? How do you know if your dog has outtrained his instinct…until he bites someone’s face off?

    Full disclosure: I love dogs but only own cats, and I boast a dog-bite scar on my cheek from an incident with a dog (not a pit bull) when I was four. But it’s a paper cut compared to what this poor girl has suffered–and will suffer for the rest of her life.

  9. billy boy graceffa (unregistered) on July 5th, 2005 @ 8:27 pm


  10. Daniel (unregistered) on July 8th, 2005 @ 11:24 pm

    No wonder everything thinks people from San Francisco are gay. It isn’t the whole breed of dog. I have been bitten by a dog only once in my life, and I it was dalmation. The friendly fireman’s dog you see on t.v. It’s not the breeding of a dog that counts, it is how that dog is treated. Don’t stereotype something just because one terrible thing happens. And yes, it was a terrible thing. Remember when all black people were niggers? All homosexuals were child molesters? If America stands for anything, it needs to stand for not being sterotypical to people, or pets for that matter. We, as a society, need to teach people to treat their animals properly, and other people for that matter. Until then, I think people need to mind their own business, and stop trying to bull things around. pun intended.

  11. cd (unregistered) on July 10th, 2005 @ 12:04 pm

    Daniel – didn’t you ever take biology in school?

  12. ken (unregistered) on July 23rd, 2005 @ 9:25 pm

    I just recived a pitbull as a birthday gift, at the same time my 3 year old neice was given a pitbull puppy, is their a risk of her getting bitten even if she grows up with the dog.

  13. S. Taylor (unregistered) on August 4th, 2005 @ 10:51 am

    I am a young married woman who teaches elementary school and volunteers with the church youth group. In no way am I, or my husband, a “thug” or a person desiring a “weapon” in our household. We are proud to own two VERY well-behaved, sweet-tempered dogs — a German Shepherd/ Chow Chow mix and a Pit Bull type dog. Both were adopted from animal shelters, both are excellent with other people — the Pit Bull is especially good with children — and both co-habitate peacefully with a small cat (they’re actually a little afraid of the cat!).

    I’ve always been a dog-lover, although I was attacked as a child by two dogs — one was a Yellow Labrador and the other was a Weimeraner. Both were supposed to be contained on the owner’s property because they had been involved in multiple biting incidents. I’ve known many Pit Bull type dogs and never known any to attack a person. I see the headlines, too… the people who own those vicious animals are irresponsible pet owners. They would make anything mean, unfortunately. ANY dog can be made mean — Pit Bulls and Shepherds, sadly, are prime targets for this sort of cruel training because they’re such powerful dogs and because they are SO loyal to their beloved humans. They will truly do anything that they are taught. Ask yourselves: why are so many Shepherds, and, increasingly, Pits, used as search-and-rescue, drug-sniffing, seeing-eye and hearing-ear dogs? Certainly not because they are scary ticking time bombs, as is so often suggested. It’s because they’re loyal and easily trained.

    Please bear that in mind. I agree that vicious and abused dogs should be taken from their owners, and, sad as it may be, euthanised. However, don’t blame a breed — racial profiling is a disgraceful policy when applied to humans, and no less so for dogs.

  14. breianna (unregistered) on August 9th, 2005 @ 11:17 am

    i think this is a b.s. story i have a pit named zoey and she has NEVER EVER bitten or even struck at another dog or human so i am sorry about the little girl but not all pits are mean most of them are trasined to be fighters and i think thats what happened here someone trained this dog to be a trainer and it attacked if people would quit trainig them to fight shit like this would not happen!!!!!!


  15. jim vanderbush (unregistered) on August 12th, 2005 @ 12:11 am

    ya well i love my pitbull and most dogs for that matter its the fukin ppl that i hate and u guys all bashing these dogs is bull shit

    u know what black ppl are responsible for over 40 percent of all homicides but we dont tell big mama to zip up her fukin pants do we

  16. Andy (unregistered) on August 13th, 2005 @ 1:58 pm

    Obviously if a pit bull was running loose on the streets the owner is not taking care of the dog. I own a 2 year old APBT and he is the best dog ever. I even got him from an animal shelter, and with proper training and some care, he is great. Just last week my brother in law and sister brought over their newborn baby, my dog just walked up to her and layed right in front of her, didn’t even pounce or run. I think whoever wrote this story needs to do some god damn research on this type of dog before she goes and badmouths this breed of dog.

  17. Shannon Cross (unregistered) on August 18th, 2005 @ 6:49 pm

    “I just recived a pitbull as a birthday gift, at the same time my 3 year old neice was given a pitbull puppy, is their a risk of her getting bitten even if she grows up with the dog.”

    Yes. In fact, there’s a risk of her being mauled or killed. Pit bulls are responsible for fully a third of all dog attacks in the US. Consider how many dog breeds there are in this country. Maybe you think that’s a risk worth taking with a child. If so, I think DCFS owes you a visit.

    Were I you, I’d take that dog to a shelter. Tell them you think it too risky to have it around a child. Then adopt a dog of a less agressive breed. The hounds tend to have little aggression as do the sporting breeds. Do a little research, and find a dog that’s safe around a child.

  18. Mackitraz (unregistered) on August 21st, 2005 @ 7:19 am

    Wow. So much hate, so much controversy. The amazing thing about the pit bull debate is the ignorance of the greater non-dog knowledgable world. The fact of the matter is, dog life spans happen so fast, that breeding for many qualities can be accomplished relatively fast. Most people don’t know much about the history or purpose of the breeding of the Bull and Terrier dogs, and are also generally unaware of the potential for so many other dog breeds to be destroyed by aweful people. Imagine your lovable Newfoundland, St. Bernard (rescue dogs to go for an opposite stereotype), Mastiff, Lab, Golden Retriever, etc… being turned into a killer. “CD,” you argue against the ‘slippery slope’, casually turning it aside as nonsense. I disagree. Is it that dogs have co-existed for thousands of years of domestication with humans in relative peace until recently our eutopian bliss was destroyed by the Pit Bull, Rottweiler, Akita, Doberman, German Shepard Dog and the like? Many of these dogs are very very old (i.e. Rottweiler and Akita) and have been fine until now. What is different? People. People make the dogs different. People can make your dog different. Sounds somewhat Orwellian perhaps, but quite frankly, dogs got big and dogs got small and dogs got rediculous because of people. So please don’t attempt to tell me that there is no possible slippery slope. The problem here is ignorance. The same study you’re sooooo happy to quote, you aren’t fully quoting. Why is that you didn’t feel the need to include the fact that the director of the SPCA in San Francisco also talked about the fact that you have statistically much higher chances of dying to many more common things such a car accident which claim more than 38,000 people per year compared to the 238 people spread over 20 years….? Perhaps you’re concerned over what you may perceive as “unnecessary risk.” I’m not hearing any complaints or proposed legislation to protect me from the things that are statistically 3193.2% more likely to kill me per year than ANY dog. Seriously. Lets try to put some perspective on the situation. Much of the problem here is how much we’re told we NEED to fear this situation. Media attention in other words. Many Pit Bull attacks aren’t even made by Pit Bull dogs. Also, and in this situation this must be made crystal clear, dog aggression is not human aggression. Try reading the description of a traditional dog fight some time. You’ll quickly discover that the Pit Bull Terrier was created to be handled in the most extreme of circumstances by a human and not to be injured or killed by it. They weren’t created to be the way they are currently portrayed. Nor have we as Americans traditionally thought of them this way, Pit Bull Terriers being used as a symbol of America during World War I propaganda for instance. Think of it this way, the average Pit Bull dog weighs in at somewhere between 40-70 pounds. The average Newfoundland weighs in at between 100-150 pounds. The average Tosa-Inu even higher at between 90-240 pounds. Still think that any other dog can’t be manipulated?

    As for comments regarding banning breeds as necessary, get ready to make a list. Because it will get longer and longer and longer and longer and longer. You talk about dogs about being weapons with A.I. What else will you get rid of in the quest to finally be insulated against all risk, all possibility of hurt and worry? “CD” you seem perfectly content to quote dog statistics that suit you, because you’ve obviously made up your mind. But much of life is about managed risk is it not? You could get killed walking out your front door. You might get injured driving to your grocery store, and lets not even discuss that the occupant has a cell phone, and is currently occupying a immense SUV because they wanted to be “protected” from injury themselves. Quite frankly, dog statistics don’t hold much water when placed in the framework of life in general. This isn’t much of a risk at all. And most agree that dogs, cats and other domesticated animals provide so much love and satisfaction to our lives. Why promote a witch hunt? Looking into most cases of dog violence, there is an ownership issue at stake, and a responsibility issue at stake. Animals are for most intents and purposes your kids, and you teach them right from wrong, and it’s your responsibility if you let them get into a situation in which they get into trouble. With more education, this wouldn’t be the issue it is. So if you’re scared of something, not just dogs, educate yourself, and not just through the media, which in many cases (certainly the Pit Bull) is not your friend. Remember, the media does not exist to inform you, protect you, or keep you safe. The media exists to provide a product, which they hope you’ll buy, and if you find it sensational, they’ll make it more sensational because they’re hoping you’ll buy sensational. Sensational isn’t education.

  19. Chris Kelley (unregistered) on August 21st, 2005 @ 8:49 pm

    I think you are all fucking morons. Lets ban something because of one attack. you know, you really need to be watching out for the owners who lead their dogs to become this way by mistreating them, malnourishing, and beating their dogs. These are the dogs that attack. Its really sad how you think its okay to ban a breed.

  20. cd (unregistered) on August 22nd, 2005 @ 7:42 pm

    Now, kids, let me make a comment here not on the underlying controversy, but on some of your comments.

    See, when you comment on a post that’s a specific length of time old or if you’re a first-time commenter, I get a notice requiring me to approve it or our spamblocker won’t let it post.

    As you can see – I’ve approved everything that’s come in. DESPITE the fact that some of you – Christ Kelley, I’m looking at you – resort to ad hominem attacks, needless, artless profanity, and foolishly reasoned attacks on me and other commenters.

    That’s not a nice way to roam the ‘sphere.

    Oh – and for the record, don’t ever, ever refer to me as “CD.” I’m not “CD” – it’s not a fake name or an alias. It’s a nickname and as such, derives from my name, which should never appear with scare quotes. So don’t do it. It’s condescending and grammatically incorrect to boot.

    So behave yourselves, please.

  21. *Bellz* (unregistered) on September 4th, 2005 @ 8:08 pm

    I do not think Pit Bulls are vicious, I think it is the owners fault because yes, so many people find out about these dogs and know what they can do,so they buy a Pit will to “protect them”.
    I dont think banning the Pit Bull is the right way to go. People shouldn’t be so negative towards these dogs. Its the people that are at fault. I know that these dogs can do a lot of damage but it isnt right to ban because that wont stop the problem..people will find ways to breed and sell interbred dogs. A lot of people are only blaming the problem on Pits! thats wrong. So many other dogs do the same thing..Rotti’s, German shepards, Mastiffs etc. and you dont see them on the news! why? because people are giving so much negativity towards these dogs because they think they are just another problem to get rid of..People shouldn’t say that you would never warm up to a Pit Bull…THERE NOT NATURALLY VICIOUS! yes they were bred for fighting and guarding but so are so many of breeds that do the same thing and they dont turn out like this. People need to see other sides of the problem! I know a Pit Bull and he is the sweetesr thing! he loves everybody and everything! he is gentle and played with my friends puppy! the puppy even got to lie on his back! thats a pretty damn good dog if you ask me! I have a Boxer and he is a working dog and this breed was used for fighting in the past years but there GREAT DOGS! and there like PITS! so dont judge a dog by its cover! we just need stricter laws and more responsible people…the dog is not to blame…the human is! Theirs just more soclizing in a Pit Bull because they have a high prey drive but thats why experience people should own these dogs. Boxers are great dogs. if you dont want to worry bout Pits because you think they are dangerous then buy a Boxer…..you wont be unhappy with ur decission. But pleae don’t dont look at a Pit Bull in disgust, you might find out that one day you found a best friend..:)

  22. Heather (unregistered) on September 14th, 2005 @ 3:06 pm

    I am an owner myself, and its funny that people think that by removing the pit bull you are removing the problem, owners will own other dogs, and soon we will find ourselves in the same arguement with a different breed, I love my dog and for anyone to tell me I dont have a right to have it or it doesnt have a right to live is absolutely in humane. How come Everyone has failed to mention that the top dog for attacks is not the pit bull, The pit is 3rd. All of you and your biased media. I bet after 9/11 you had different thoughts about different races because of what a group of men did. Good for you in having your own thoughts and opinions, I’m sure the news doesnt have anything to do with it.. Anyways back to my point, I love my dog, And my dog loves all four of my nephews, one of which is a newborn baby.

  23. QT PIE (unregistered) on September 14th, 2005 @ 6:21 pm

    A child goes into a store and ruins thousands of dollars of lets say furniture, who pays for that…THE PARENTS, because why? you would say they should have been watching thier bad ass kid who obviously has no rules and restrictions, but when it comes to the pit bull your simple and only solution is to have them ban. What a smart bunch of politics. our really resolving the problem. the way things are going, it probably will be the kid they ban next.
    P.S I love my pit bull.

    I leave you with one question, when a Child is bad who do we blame?

  24. Tristan (unregistered) on September 15th, 2005 @ 5:27 am

    Pit bull terriers make quality pets for responsible families. One of the “pit bull” breeds the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is known in Britain as the nanny dog due to their superb tolerance and kindness displayed towards children. Contrary to popular myth, they are an extremely stable and dependable breed and over 92% pass the American Temperamant Test, on par with Labradors. For this reason, they were recommended to us by our vet. Both our Pit Bull and Staffordshire Bull Terrier are wonderful with children. I would never trust any other breed more.

    Breed specific legislation will not protect the community. It has been tried and tested and has failed miserably in the past. The Winnipeg laws have been an example of this. Pit bulls were banned in 1990 and by 1994, total attacks had increased by over 39%. Sure there were far fewer pit bull attacks, but attacks by a number of other breeds, particularly rottweilers increased hugely. This is becuase the negligent owners who originally bought into the pit bull “fad” and trained these dogs to stray from their natural temperaments and become weapons, simply moved to other breeds, which can cause similar damage. However, legislation that target these thugs in the first place have been highly effective. After increasing penalities for irresponsible owners of all breeds and introducing greater owner education, Calgary recorded a 38% reduction in total dog attacks.

  25. John (unregistered) on October 1st, 2005 @ 10:22 am

    Do you think just saying “All dogs can be dangerous” actually means something in regards to the discussion of pitbull attacks?

    22 percent of all fatal dog attacks are the result of pitbull attacks. Feel free to go check that number, it was the statistics from 2003. This is an outrageously high percentage and I would love to know but have been unable to find any statistics, probably because it would be too much work to compile, the percentage of incidents with pitbulls (attacks, confrontations, etc) compared to other dogs.

    I’m sick of hearing people go on about how it’s the way the dog is raised. Sure, there are lots of morons out there who mistreat pitbulls and make the problem worse but there are also many cases where these dogs just snap and go insane.

    Maybe they aren’t fully domesticated yet, maybe they have some mental flaw, maybe it’s just instinct but regardless of why, to just shrug off the rather large issues regarding pitbulls to “it was the owners fault” and “all dogs can be dangerous” is just plain ridiculous.

    My fathers best friend at his job owned a pitbull. One day he came home to find their loved family pet standing over the dead body of their 18 month old baby while the wife was cornered in the bathroom cowering for her life.

    This was a dog they had for years and treated it like part of the family.

    The problem is two fold, the number of incidents with pitbulls is way out of proportion to other dogs and because the dogs are so strong and powerful they do more damage when they do attack.

    “Punish the owners” , that’s something that is done after the fact. It doesn’t help the person who was just killed or mauled and certainly is not the only answer in responding to the problem of pitbull incidents.

    Hopefully you will never have to deal with your dog turning against you but rest assured, the possibility is much greater if it’s a pitbull.

  26. Marilyn (unregistered) on October 2nd, 2005 @ 9:13 am

    Pit Bulls: Nature or nuture???

    It is true that if a dog is trained to attack, poorly socialized, living at the end of 6 ft chain its entire life, rarely given attention, healthful food, or vet care, and is not spayed or neutered the dog is more likely to bite someone than if the same dog was loved and cared for the way any dog should be.

    It is also true that when a dog breed is mass-produced and over-bred, with unsound dogs used as breeding stock when they would have been traditionally culled, the risk of poor temperaments and biting incidents increases. This has been true of labradors, dalmations, cocker spaniels, german shepherds, and pit bulls.

    Pit bull biting incidents are caused by bad owners and bad breeders. Pit bulls are by nature loving family pets and all-around working dogs. If you go to the UKC (United Kennel Club) or ADBA (American Dog Breeder’s Association) and read the American Pit Bull Terrier breed standard (the breed standard describes the ideal dog for that breed) you will find that human-focused aggression is emphatically discouraged and is a disqualification.

    As far as statistics showing 22% of fatal dog bites are caused by pit bulls, I would take this information with a grain of salt. Such records are often poorly kept, and many times the breed of dog is difficult to identify. Many mixed breeds, as well as pure-bred labs and American Bulldogs can look alot like pit bulls to the trained and untrained eye.

    The CDC no longer keeps records of breeds when compiling dog-bite statistics. Why? Because they don’t feel the information is relevant, and it’s not.

    Communities do not face “pit bull problems” or any dog breed problems, they face responsible ownership problems. Many breeds are mass-produced to feed the public’s demand for “fashion-accessory” dogs, and this needs to stop.

    I don’t support breed-specific legislation for any reason. Laws should focus on responsible breeding and ownership of all dogs.

    I feel for the victims of dog attacks, it’s sad and scary. I was badly mauled by a German Shepherd as a child. However, banning a breed of dog is not going to solve the problem.

  27. Callie (unregistered) on October 4th, 2005 @ 2:32 pm

    I’m so pissed that this little angel was attacked! As for Pit Bulls I absolutely love them and think the people who raise them to be vicious animals need to be strung up by thier balls, as well as the ones that think raising a Pit Bull is just like raising any other dog!! They are the strongest dogs in the world bar none. A dog like that is a HUGE responsibility. You have to raise them to be well behaved and gentle. A Pit Bull wasn’t bred to be a fighting dog, it was bred to gaurd Roman army encampments. Gaurding thier territory is instinct to them. If you try to “train” them to be a gaurd dog you only make them aggressive, cruel animals. When that happens, people like that sweet little girl get hurt. I have owned 3 Pits since I was 6 years old. One of them was a 95 lbs. un-neutered male. He NEVER bit anybody, and was never put through the so called gaurd dog trianing. Still, when a man entered our home and had a gun to my face he did his job. He got between me and the man, and he lunged at him. Bogie was shot, but the man ran off. After being shot he checked on everyone in the house,gave me doggie kisses on my cheek, and watched out the window to make sure the man didn’t return. He died less than 5 minutes after being shot, and was the best dog I ever owned. As a final note, although I blame the owner, the dog that bit that child needs to euthanized IMMEADIATELY!

  28. Jessica (unregistered) on October 19th, 2005 @ 1:01 pm

    Listen, I understand that people get upset when a child gets bitten by a dog. Hell, it pisses me off too. But that dog could have easily been a Rottweiler or any other dog for that matter. Just because it was a pitbull that attacked this time, doesn’t make them all bad dogs. I have had pitbulls my entire life, because they are loyal. In fact, the only dog that has ever bit me is a little Chihuahua. So, I guess we should just ban all of those little dogs, huh? Pitbulls can be friendly, loving, loyal animals. Their attitude and aggressiveness comes in how they are raised, not in their bloodline. None of my dogs have ever hurt anybody, bit anybody, or chased anybody. My oldest is the friendliest dog you will ever meet. Discriminating against all pitbulls because a few are raised to be mean is like discriminating against an entire race because you were attacked by one man from that race. Either way you look at it, its wrong. Judge the dog, judge the owners, but do not the breed.

  29. cd (unregistered) on October 19th, 2005 @ 1:51 pm

    No, it’s nothing like discriminating against and entire race because you were attacked by one man from that race. This is because – you might want to sit down for this – dogs and humans are different.

    Thumbs, the ability to reason – either of those sound familiar from high school biology?

    The nature/nurture debate for dogs falls much more heavily on the nature side of things.

  30. Denise Preuss (unregistered) on October 20th, 2005 @ 4:47 am

    Question for those who own Pitties and have small children. We are considering adoption of a female-Pittie. She was found tied up in a yard, nipples to the ground and callouses on her legs. She was obviously a “breeder”. My friend “assisted” her out of the yard and brought her home to her husband and their four dogs. The dog is about 2-3 yrs. old, completely NON-dog and cat aggressive. And her personality is sweet, docile and loyal…she follows my friend, HER rescuer, around everywhere. She always has one or two stuffed animals in her mouth. We have a 6 yr. old son…typical, active boy.
    My question is..is this a good “mix”? Or are the “unknowns” too risky?


  31. ken (unregistered) on October 23rd, 2005 @ 1:20 pm

    get a female pit bull if you want a high evergy dog and a male pit if you want a more laid back dog that is the general rule of thumb.

  32. Charles Mund (unregistered) on October 28th, 2005 @ 10:12 am

    I am a soon to be proud owner of a pit bull. First and fore most I love dogs. As a child I was refused the right to ever know the love a dog brings to a family but all of my friends had dogs. Big ones, which they loved so much. And the dogs in turn loved them. I am also a soon to be father and I know more than anyone my families well being comes first. My decision in buying a “savage beast” as some so call them is not one of blind want for just love from an animal. But the joy and comfort I have seen many dogs give to their owners. The decision of a pit bull was my own love for the breed. I have seen a pit bull mean as all hell and another one love anything that loves him back. I’ve come to the conclusion that the hereditary line and the owner make the dog. If you break the line the only thing to rebuild it is the owner so i suggest everyone interested in getting one check the background of the animal whether it be pit or poodle. Than commit yourself to raising the dog as a loving companion. Its up to us to be the “bigger man” and not try to make such a wonderful animal extinct.

    With hope

  33. jarrad elzy (unregistered) on November 1st, 2005 @ 6:36 pm

    I will start off by saying i am the proud owner of a APBT, and he is great with my wife and two kids(6 month old and 3 year old).I have been a dog owner my whole life ranging from old english sheep dogs, rottweilers, and basset hounds.And my expeirence has left me with this my pit is by far the best behaved dog breed i have ever owned.Now on with my point, i think a lot of these high attack percentages are in fact because in the world we live today like it or not the APBT is the most popular of breeds, now common sense would suggest that if 40% of society owned a poodle than it would be safe to say that poodles would be responsible for 22% of all dog attacks. Common sense people!!!!!

  34. Jessica Elzy (unregistered) on November 1st, 2005 @ 7:11 pm

    I would like to start off by saying that what my husband just wrote was absoultly right. I was so against having a pitbull because we have children one of which has cerebral palsy, but I have to say our APBT is the most attentive dog that has ever been around them. Our daughter spends alot of time on the floor and sometimes she will sit up right on top of him. Do you know what he does?????? He gets up and moves all the way across the room not bothered at all. She doens’t realize what she does and it’s like he understands. He is the most LOYAL dog– not only to my husband but to our WHOLE family I cannot beleive how he really is a HUGE part of our family, we include him in everything we can and I beleive that this is what has made him so aware of our children. He has a mean bark but I beleive that he is the biggest baby. Our neighbor had a bulldog and we witnessed the bulldog bite her numerous times even go after our APBT a couple of times through the fence, after our dog had been bitten by theirs our APBT still NEVER bit that dog back. He has been bit by other dogs rangeing from basset hounds to rottweilers sometimes while in the park walking on a leash, and he still has never shown any aggression. I love our dog and I beleive you shouldn’t punish the whole race, you should punish those owners who are ignorant.

  35. Camille (unregistered) on November 4th, 2005 @ 9:32 pm

    First off, let me just add. I’m a sixteen year-old girl who’s always loved dogs ranging from German Shepherds, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, etc. I’m getting a Rott as soon as I move out of the house, or maybe even a Pit myself, and there’s no way in HELL I’m going to let any of you who think a pit bull is a naturally vicious dog change my mind. That honestly is the biggest load of bullshit I’ve ever heard. My mom showed dogs until I was born, I’ve grown up around dogs all my life. Sure, you’ve all heard stories about a pit “snapping” or “going insane”. It can happen to any dog. I knew a black lab that was the sweetest dog on earth. One day, a girl who knew the dog went up to pet it, the dog lunged at her and bit her in the face. You want to say now that only pits do something like that? It DOES go off of how the dog’s raised, and I do agree. A Pit is NOT like raising another dog, because first off, it’s built like a friggin’ mac truck, and no, I wouldn’t trust one around a small child no more than I would trust any large dog. They don’t realize how much bigger they are than this kid, and even if they’re sweet, they could easily unintentionally hurt it by knocking it over. And second, Denise, about the female pittie, I would strongly suggest her over a male. Females are technically calmer, but more possessive of those they love and the members of their family. A male is pretty much like a load of testasterone packed into one 90 lb package. A female is easier going, and would watch that kid with her whole heart. It’s disgusting that people would even think for a second that this breed should be banned for the owner’s mistake. Hell, why don’t we just ban EVERY dog breed that’s bitten someone? That would add up to every single breed in the book. Is this fair? Not one bit.

  36. kraig (unregistered) on November 7th, 2005 @ 8:54 am

    I’m doing a story today on SF supes consideration of restrictions on Pit Bull breedind. Anyone out there in SF that can talk to me? 11/07/05.

  37. Maricela Beal (unregistered) on November 8th, 2005 @ 10:38 am


  38. MARICELA BEAL (unregistered) on November 8th, 2005 @ 10:48 am


  39. MARICELA (unregistered) on November 8th, 2005 @ 10:49 am


  40. cd (unregistered) on November 8th, 2005 @ 11:01 am

    Cute is as cute does.

    And cute don’t eat children.

    The “breed” is not being punished. Frankly, it would be in the interest of all breeds to force spay/neutering if the animal isn’t going to breed puppies destined for loving, committed homes, rather than sentencing thousands of animals to neglect, abuse, and eventual death in a shelter for lack of an adequate home.

    The breed has been bred to a certain personality and disposition that doesn’t match city life terribly well. No, every pit bull might not eat a kid, but their danger outweighs their usefulness in a city like San Francisco.

    This constant anecdotal evidence of “but my dog is the sweetest, bestest, most loving animal ever” just isn’t convincing. I don’t care if your dog bakes cupcakes – your dog might still eat my kid. Or my dog. Or your kid.

    Knee-jerk defending of pits does no one any good at all. And it denies the statistical evidence against the breed. Pits are NOT a majority of dogs right now. And golden retrievers/poodles/etc don’t make the news often because they don’t cause serious injury or death as often.

    My best advice remains: revisit your high school biology class and start cross-breeding your own bean plants until you get it.

  41. Heather (unregistered) on November 9th, 2005 @ 8:24 am

    I just got my first dog and I fell in love with her, I didn’t even stop to think about her resembling a pit, until my family and everyone else who sees her gives me dirty looks because of the breed’s overblown bad rap. In order to do my part, I’m doing a little research project on pitbulls.
    Just some quick facts I’ve learned from credible sources:
    According to the United Kennel Club, pit bulls (there are at least three types of the “pit” breed) were born for strength, courage, and gentleness with loved ones. They were bred to help in farming, with their strength they could help grab the nose of a bull and take it down. But their mix between bulldogs and terriers was engineered to make them loving and very obedient to humans.
    Also, If you look at the stats of the American Temperment Society, which does tests on different breeds to determine thier “temperment”, they crank out percentages for ea. breed based on how many tests they pass over the number of tests total. Here are two breeds of pits and their results: staffordshire bull terrier 93.2%
    american pit bull terrier 83.4%
    not good enough? well, consider the golden retriever, a family favorite has a passing rate of 83.6%
    If you want to look at their importance in our American History, think back to the Little Rascals; Pete was a pit. Helen Keller owned a Pitbull. Stubby, America’s First War Dog, was a Pit Bull and is one of the most highly decorated dogs in U.S. history. Dog Jack, a canine war hero during the Civil War, was a Pit Bull. And Alaska’s first certified hearing dog was a Pit Bull.
    It’s unfortunate that this dog has been subject to such a horrible stereotype, but it is due to bad ownership. Because they have such great strength (the “lock jaw” attribute is a myth) they do require more training than some, but if you give it the time and love any living creature needs, its one of the most loyal and friendliest pets ever. If you don’t believe me, visit a dog park. Some of the best behaved dogs I’ve seen there are pit bulls.

  42. Sanya (unregistered) on November 10th, 2005 @ 6:23 pm

    You cannot deny the facts. Pitbulls were indeed bred to fight. However, they were not bred to fight humans, but to fight other dogs. All dog breeds were bred for something specific. But owning that breed doesnt mean it will do what it was bred for. Heres an example: Jack Russel Terriers were bred to help hunters by taking down foxes and badgers. Owning a Jack Russel Terrier does not mean your dog is guarenteed to do this. He may see a fox and look the other way. The same can be true for Pitbulls. They may be around other dogs and be just fine. Heres my point; Pitbulls were bred to fight other dogs. When they attack people, they were mistrained and their natural tendancy to fight was exploited. A good owner can have a good pitbull. End of story.

  43. Kayla (unregistered) on November 11th, 2005 @ 5:29 pm

    “pit bull” is a slanderous term thought up by the criminals that have marred their once honored reputation. Also, Staffordshire/American Pit Bull Terriers were bred in the 19th century for the cruel sport of bull baiting. The dog entered the ring with a bull that was about to be slaughtered and attempted to grasp onto the bull’s nose until it collapsed. Any other bites landed were considered good for the bull’s meat, tenderizing it. The desired trait that they were formed for is the desire to never quit. Any human-aggressive behavior was immediately culled, as the handler had to trust the dog in a ring with a 2,000lb beast with horns. They were bred to never quit, reguardless of the odds, in whatever they did. A human pleasing dog is what Staffordshire/American Pit Bull Terriers are. They are not bred to fight, they are not fighting dogs, as I can safely say neither are mastiffs or akitas or dobermans or rottweilers. Also all statistics that have been presented are flawed, dogs are genetically the same, so breed has almost no weight, just a different dog suit. It is also important to note that dog bite statistics are wrong because you need total number of dogs and the dog that did bite, its breed needs to be reported correctly. The average person cannot distingush between a bull terrier(spuds mckenzie) a american bulldog(chance from homeward bound the incredible journey) a preso canario(the lawyers dogs that mauled the woman in San Francisco) or a Staffordshire/American Pit Bull Terrier. This does not inculde Staffordshire/American Pit Bull Terrier mixes, which there are many. So all statistics anyone presents are flawed. Dogs are lumped together into a slang term with “breed” completely thrown out. Therefore, if breed specific legislation named “pit bulls” as illegal to own, well then, I’m good as a “pit bull” does not exist.

  44. Kayla (unregistered) on November 11th, 2005 @ 5:42 pm

    Also, anyone who wants to limit my rights or what I can own, do or wear I consider “Bad For Children And Other Living Things” It is wrong to limit how someone else should live because of isolated incidents. How far is this going to go? If one thing is regulated and mandated, that means that we are just making it okay for more of our lives to be controlled by outside influences, something I personally do not desire. Another thing that seems to be forgotten in this whole arguement of Breed Specific Legislation, is that the thing that attacked this little girl was a D-O-G. Any D-O-G could decide that children suddenly taste good again, remembering back to its ancestoral wolf days. This is not breed specific, dog size also does not matter, so by that logic all dogs should be illegal. Is that how you want to live in America, the supposed Land of the Free? Or should I say, Land of Regulated and No Longer Free? Make a choice. It is possible to pass a one bite, dog’s dead law to ensure that any dog reguardless of breed or size isn’t out there to maul the next little unsupervised girl. Why just pit bulls? Or are we waiting for the next wave, the next fad, so we can just make everything illegal, so we live completely safe, closed off, boring lives where suicide is more exciting than walking down the street. I personally loathe the thought of being “protected” I think I can gauge for myself what is safe and what is not. I do not need to be told what is okay to own and what is not. Bring me back to the Land of the Free; this Land of the Enslaved isn’t any fun anymore.

  45. Kayla (unregistered) on November 11th, 2005 @ 6:06 pm

    “Her mother, Norma Flores, who was inside the house”
    Should I dare comment on how right I was about the little girl being unsupervised? Everyone is so quick to blame a dog, when the parents weren’t there to help the situation. If the mother had been with the child, she would have pulled her into the safety of the house preventing any such tragedy. But NOOO it’s the dog’s fault. The majority of bites, breed not involved, are caused by parents leaving their child unsupervised with a dog. Children need to be supervised outdoors and around all dogs. I imagine the owner of the attacking dog is guilty as well, probably had the dog on a tether, chain, or zip line mechanism that CAUSES aggressiveness. If we should outlaw anything, it should be chains, tethers, etc. Tying your dog up is directly related to aggressive behavior. The dog owner and the parent are BOTH GUILTY but when was the mother’s ability to parent questioned? She allowed her little girl to get attacked because of her lack of supervision, but she’s an innocent in all of this isn’t she? Crying to the media about “vicious dogs” and the importance of Breed Specific Legislation. I hope she sleeps well at night, knowing that a load of dishes was more important that watching her young daughter. I hope the nightmares of her daughters attack keep her up late. I hope insomnia by way of guilt keeps her up very late indeed. Then maybe she won’t let the eye rove away to supposed more important domestic tasks. We in the United States are so quick to point fingers that we forget that there are three more fingers pointing back at ourselves. Wouldn’t it be nice if for once an American actually accepted responsibility for a mistake? When was the last time we have done so? We are so quick to blame terrorists for being evil when it really was OUR evildoing after WWII that has fed their hate and desperation. We meddled and we meddled and when it blew up in our faces, we blame their religon, without stopping to notice those other three fingers. Damn those fingers!! It is the same thing all over again with Staffordshire/American Pit Bull Terriers. We blame a dog, which has little choice in its fate, as they are DOMESTICATED(ie- not wild, reliant upon humans for basic needs), and force beliefs and regulations on everyone, simply because we are too good at the old witch-burning act, too good to notice that THE MOTHER WAS IN THE HOUSE, THE DAUGHTER WAS OUTSIDE. Maybe if we questioned THE MOTHER, held her accountable we would actually get somewhere. Blaming a dog makes no sense, just like making them illegal will only increase their popularity among the criminals that have marred them. HELLO DRUGS?!?!! Since when has the War on Drugs actually stopped drug use? How well will this ban work then, because I well as I can remember, there are also still terrorists, even though we are fighting the Global War on Terrorism. This is supposed to work with “pit bulls”? By making something illegal, we only make it more desirable, simply because it is forbidden. Is that what we want for our country? I know that I do not want another costly regulation on my life that prevents me from enjoying something. I love freedom and I loathe to give it up.

  46. Kayla (unregistered) on November 11th, 2005 @ 11:03 pm

    “later generations shouldn’t own ones either.” Hello Nazi Germany!! Since when is it your right to decide what the future should see and not see? Are you GOD? Are you in the business of deciding what my son will experience in 20 years? I THINK NOT!! This is what I don’t understand about this whole situation, how can you think that it is right to tell people what they should and should not own, what they should and should not do? Have you even thought slightly about what you are saying? GENOCIDE! And for what purpose? What purpose does killing off all American Pit Bull Terriers/Staffordshire Terriers and their mixes serve? Will you sleep better at night? If you will sleep better at night, are you also in the facism business for exterminating cocker spaniels, labador retrievers, old english sheepdogs, and german shephards? All of these dogs have bitten people in the past. No, SCRATCH that. I challenge you to find a breed of dog that hasn’t bitten a human, EVER. That is my challege. I mean, “pit bulls”(slang generalization – excuse me while I vomit out of disugst of ignorance and uneducation) are not the first dogs out of the shoot to eat a human, find me one that hasn’t. Find me one that hasn’t. Please avoid the whole BS line that “pit bulls”(more vomit, some tears, pit bull is not a breed only a slang term)are MORE vicious than other dogs, or have lockjaw(LIE) or scissorjaw(LIE) or some other rare trait(which would also be a lie) that would make them more of a danger to a human than say, any mastiff, a mastiff like the dogue de bordeux in “Turner and Hooch” that has much more body weight than any pure bred American Pit Bull Terrier/Staffordshire Terrier. Or how about the much loved Newfoundland? I had one when I was younger, I used to ride him around like a pony, until he took my older sisters best friends shoulder into his mouth and almost ripped her apart. Yes, he took his “Peter Pan” Nana role a bit far that one… Find me a dog breed that hasn’t bitten a human and then I will stand amazed and might think of you as less a facist.

  47. Kayla (unregistered) on November 11th, 2005 @ 11:37 pm

    “And it denies the statistical evidence against the breed.”
    All statistical evidence ever presented will slanted by the presenters bias, making it only opinion based.
    All bite data is inaccurate, it requires total number of dogs, which is unknown and that the breed was reported correctly. This does not happen.
    “And golden retrievers/poodles/etc don’t make the news often because they don’t cause serious injury or death as often.”
    That is a bold faced lie. Statistics are inaccurate, and those breeds have just as much likelyhood of killing a human as anything else. The attacks by “golden retrievers/poodles/etc” is not sensationalized by the media because it is not sensational. Everyone knows that dogs bite and the rule of the news is “If it bleeds, it leads” But “golden retrievers/poodles/etc” are BORING incomparsion to a “pit bull”(slang term, there is no such thing as a pit bull)The media is controlled by companies which mold opinions and what we see. They need stories that sell. A retriever killing a child will not sell because people do not want to think that Rover next to the kitchen table would do such a thing. Rover would. However, the news networks are not going to make a big to do over Rover the retriever, it was an accident after all, a temporary lapse, perhaps rabies. I know this because I am in the news, I have to deal with BIAS daily. The mass of America is feeding on the fear the the news presents. Does anyone do research anymore or are we basing our opinions off of news stories(ahem, cough cough Christana Dominguez)? How about doing some research into this and proving me wrong. I am a big girl, I can accept it. I cannot accept someone basing their opinions off of a system that can no longer be trusted, the news media. I cannot feel sorry for your little eight year old girl that is zooming her way out into the heartland, and molding opinions using shock value, not allowing people to think for themselves, or even attempt at having an original opinion, just going off a picture. Why are we pushing the “pit bull”(gag, GASP! I hate slang American Pit Bull Terrier/Staffordshire Terrier)when humans do worse things to other humans everyday? How about abused children? Are you going to exterminate their abusive parents? Are we bringing back to guillotine and the gallows? Perhaps it would shed some light on the subject if we understood why you have such an affront to a DOG? A dog? Seriously, a dog? No other effort or cause where you could better lend forth your opinions, time and effort? You pick on a DOG? All because of one picture abusing your sensativties to a hurt young child. Have you seen pictures from palestine or the gaza? the children the United States put into their current situation because of our meddling, very similar to your meddling in American Pit Bull Terriers/Staffordshire Terriers owners lives. What right do you have? Simply because you are offended by a picture? What if there was no picture to that story, there was no damaged girl, would you care that a grown woman got bitten or not? Would it be the grownups fault? Perhaps if you were more informed, or less witch-burning I could understand. Don’t you understand that they are using that picture specifically to get the response that you gave? Don’t you understand that? It’s the same reason that they will not allow, however illegal it may be, pictures of soldiers caskets arriving back from Iraq or Afghanistan? Wouldn’t you be a bit fed up after seeing photographs of 2,000 + caskets? Wouldn’t it chip away at you until you threw Bush out of the White House? That is the point of them publishing such a picture. So you will jump to conclusions uninformed and allow for their silly legislation to pass. It will help nothing, exterminating “pit bulls” Did it help the nazis when they tried to exterminate gypies, homosexuals, miscreants, anti-nazis, and jews? I don’t think it did. They suffered long and hard for it, and are still suffering. The United States still maintains a military presence, ahem occupation, there to this day. I don’t think that extermination helps anybody, you never know what a future American Pit Bull Terrier/Staffordshire Terrier may do in the future. To call for their demise because of a graphic photo used specifically to toy with your emotions, I think that is very wrong. It is hasty and uninformed.
    By the way, I do not own a “pit bull” and never have. I am a fan of freedom and honesty in the press. It is things like this that make me speak out, to allow people to think for themselves, not just blindly absorb what the media has to say or makes you see. I am not “Knee-jerk defending of pits” at all. I am defending the freedoms we booted out those obsinate Brits for. The freedom of choice, don’t kill it over a damn dog, it isn’t worth it. FIGHT THE MAN!!

  48. Kayla (unregistered) on November 11th, 2005 @ 11:41 pm

    ‘Pitbulls were indeed bred to fight”
    Not true, they were bred for their ability to never quit, reguardless of odds or obstacles and for human pleasing. They had to be trusted. And there is no such thing as a “pit bull” it is a slang term originated from criminals to describe the actions they torture these poor dogs with. The correct term is American Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Terrier. Using slang only perpetuates the myths and lies that surround the breed. It makes the dog fighters more right for using these dogs to fight.

  49. Kayla (unregistered) on November 11th, 2005 @ 11:51 pm

    “For the ankle biter breeds, this is okay”
    Hello RETARDED!! How is that right or okay? A pomeranian has recently killed a baby and it is alright to let them bite but a American Pit Bull Terrier it is wrong? American Pit Bull Terriers have to go a long ways to get to a human’s throat. They are short dogs that are close to the ground. They are not tall, that is a mutation Back Yard Breeders have made for the gangster/macho folks who don’t like that they are short. It is not breed standard to have a tall American Pit Bull Terrier. That means that they are a MIX, meaning that they have NOTHING more to do with the purebreeds, and their actions cannot be attributed to the purebreeds because they are a MIX, meaning that any one of the dogs that they used to get the height could have caused the behavior, let’s not get into nature vs. nuture here. It is generalization lumping action there. I understand that these dogs are athletes and all but still, its silly to justify pomerainens and not American Pit Bull Terriers. All dogs that bite should be punished. It should not be breed or bite or size specific. It’s plain silly to say something like that.

  50. Kayla (unregistered) on November 11th, 2005 @ 11:59 pm

    “So why keep breeding little killers – or potential killers, if you prefer – needlessly?”
    Why breed any dog, they are all killers at heart, or wait did you forget conviently that all dogs came from wolves? Yeah, all dogs are killers, hence the eating of meat. Are all dogs illegal now because of this? What about cats? They also eat meat and kill routinely, are they also evil and need extermination? Why limit yourself to just one animal? How about lions, tigers, sharks? Sharks are pests to surfers, they just get in the damn way, shouldn’t we exterminate them because of thier inconvienance and killing instincts? I mean if we are going to start with making annoyances extinct let’s get rid of sharks, they are such big annoyances when I want to surf, seriously. Kill all potential threats and a new one will spring up. Remember genetically engineered corn in Germany? Yeah fucking with nature didn’t really work there did it? Let’s just fuck with the ecosystem and start exterminating because we can! We’re humans damnit and far superior to some little pissant dog, right? RIGHT, I’d hate to see you in any authority position, any inconvienance in nature would be eliminated but we’d still have ankle biters. And genetically engineered corn. yum.

  51. Kayla (unregistered) on November 12th, 2005 @ 12:23 am

    “but their danger outweighs their usefulness”
    Silly statement, all dogs are dangerous, cats are dangerous, walking to work is dangerous. You never know with life and to take away all danger is to take away life. It it to purify into a boring mundane state that will only produce something worse than GD American Pit Bull Terrier/Staffordshire Terrier.

  52. Kayla (unregistered) on November 12th, 2005 @ 9:00 am

    “it was bred to gaurd Roman army encampments.”
    Its anecestors back and back and back were bred by romans, however not American Pit Bull Terriers. The were bred about in the 19th century for the cruel sport of bull baiting. They were bred to never quit and to be human-pleasing. They were not bred for fighting, or human-aggression.

  53. joe (unregistered) on November 13th, 2005 @ 5:43 pm

    it’s not always the dogs fault i love pit bulls there great loyal dogs i’d never give up my dog i’d kill for him

  54. cd (unregistered) on November 13th, 2005 @ 8:27 pm

    Kayla – your comments may have started as a reasonable expression of your views – but you let them turn goofy by your inability to limit your response to a reasonable amount of space.

    I’m closing this post to comments because enough is enough. Everyone knows my opinion and the opinions of those who like pit bulls. So I think this discussion has run its course.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.