also this

voyamatarte, you bag on anecdotes then proceed to lay out 4 paragraphs about your great your dog is. No one is saying responsible owners can't raise good pitbulls. We're saying they're loaded weapons in the wrong hands. Which unfortunately right now is just a lot of people since they're so popular with dumbass dudes who want to have a macho dog (in addition to plenty of responsible owners like you). They stalk, they bite w/o warning, they hang on with a death grip, they have some of the have some of the strongest jaws. They are simply a lot more dangerous than other dogs when they do go bad.

Do you mean least likely dog breed or least likely animal. Because there are a million animals least likely to bite people. And if you mean dog breed, you are also wrong, but less so.

The statement above made me assume every thing else you said was ******ed.

I like how his superhero pit bull won't ever bite and just pushes would be attackers down with his paws.

Of course, this wonderful dog still needs an owner with a crowbar to pry it off of another dog.

I was told recently that kicking them in the ribs is the best method to get them to let go. Something worth remembering. I can attest that a dozen full force punches to the skull by the owner had no effect.

At the end of my paragraph about anecdotes I say "But here are some of my own" meaning, even though I just said anecdotes are silly, here are some of my own to combat the negative ones here. For some people thats all that works, and its probably human nature to create prejudices. Remember racism?

I agree that it is super unfortunate that a select group of ******s sully the name of this entire type of dog, but banning the breed is not the answer. This argument kind of follows the lines of the gun law debates. Guns can be dangerous, but most people who have guns are very responsible with them. We can make guns illegal, but the people who still want them would get them. Banning guns would make it harder for responsible people to be armed, but probably not deter many criminals. I don't want this to degenerate into a gun law discussion, but Im using this metaphorically.

For the rest of your post: well, some CAN stalk, sure, and some DO bite without warning but so do many dogs. Should we just ban dogs? Of course not. Are pitbulls more powerful than border collies and chihuahuas? Of course, but 99% of men and 80% of women can stop a lunging pit bull at the end of their leash, and simple cheap tools can break up a fight easily when its a stray dog.

Pit Bulls DO have powerful jaws, but they are not any more powerful than many other powerful dog breeds. Heres a quote from a website from a cursory google search:

“Pit Bulls have more bite pressure per square inch (PSI) than any
other breed.” This is absolutely false.

Tests that have been done comparing the bite pressure of several
breeds showed pressure PSI (per square inch) to be considerably lower
than some wild estimates that have been made. Testing has shown that
the domestic dog averages about 320 lbs of pressure per square inch.
Recently Dr. Brady Barr of National Geographic conducted a comparative
test between a Pit Bull, a Rottweiler, and a German Shepherd. The Pit
Bull had the LOWEST PSI OF THE THREE.

The highest pressure recorded from the Pit Bull was 235 lbs PSI. The
highest from the GSD was 238, and the highest from the Rott was 328.
Dr. Barr states that as far as he knows, the PSI tested in the Rott is the
highest on record for any domestic canine.

What happened to the supposed 10,000 pounds PSI pressure that the
breed supposedly has??? It's a MYTH, pure and simple.

Pit Bulls do clench, but they dont have any special mechanism to do so, and unless the clench is on the windpipe (which is rarely because its hard to get to a dogs throat in a fight) they other dog will be in BETTER shape because he will have a single bite wound instead of multiple multiple bite wounds. If we are talking about an unsupervised fight, or a fight to the death, then the clench strategy becomes more dangerous for the other dog in the fight/attack.
Yeah I meant least likely dog breed, not animals. But I am right about that: a pit bull SANS training or a history of mistreatment is MUCH MUCH less likely to bite than even a golden retriever because of the way they were bred. If we are talking about serious bite injuries vs bites in general there are probably more pit bulls in those numbers, but then we are looking at animals who are basically mentally tortured throughout their painful lives either through isolation, malnourishment, beatings, exposure to the elements, etc. Take any dog and limit their existence to a 6 foot chain and a leanto to hide under during a winter storm, and they will become aggressive. Pit Bulls get the media attention because its more tragic if they get loose and attack a person or an animal.

"Out of the 25 dogs who have earned UKC "superdog" status (by gaining championship titles in conformation, obedience, agility, and weightpull), fourteen have been pit bulls[citation needed], almost 60%

Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a coconut than a pit bull.

The American Temperament Testing Society shows a pass percentage of 84.1% for pit bulls, which is slightly higher than the Golden Retriever at 83.8%.

Pit Bulls represent 5% to 9.6% of the total US canine population of roughly 55-60 million dogs."

Oh I think he would have bit the guy but I think he realized that my dog and I were not marks, and he ran off after my dog pushed him back. He wanted to chase the guy but 15 seconds later acted as if he forgot it happened.

The crowbar isint necessary, its just humane. For example ...

If you are trying to save a loved one (animal or otherwise) from a loose stray terrier breed (who will all clench, not just pit bulls, your jack russel wants to do the same thing) you can slowly compress your thumb into its eye to get it to release its grip. That should be enough to encourge it to peel away, allowing you and whoever you are with to leave the area and call the police.

I am not trying to say that Pit Bulls aren't powerful and can't be dangerous, but breed wide legislation is misguided at best, and ignorant and evil at worst. Make owners responsible for their dog's actions, remove animals from owners with repeat animals and BAN THEM from owning animals ever again, spay and neuter your pets so they aren't overbred, and rescue your dogs and cats from animal shelters to discourge breeders, thats what I think would work. To answer OPs original question: should Pit Bulls be allowed to breed?

No. I don't think they should, but I also don't think that anyone should be breeding companion dogs until the terrible overcrowding problem at local shelters is solved. 9.6 million animals are euthanised annually at local shelters. Of the dogs, a huge portion are pit bulls. Basically, every time a dog is born, it dooms another in a shelter.

I don't live under a coconut tree and even if I did, you need a fact checker.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...lling-coconuts

How about all your other facts?

edit: I'm sure you have a sweet dog, but you might not be the most objective person - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

If you need to carry a stick to pry your dog's jaws open something is very wrong.

At best you havent heard of a muzzle, at worst you are just another idiot with an out of control dog who doesnt realize it yet. Probably somewhere in the middle.

This is a great site.

Btw those of you think women have the market cornered on irrational thought when loved ones or strong emotions are involved, take notice of a lot of the pit owners itt. Many of them are basically making contradictions right and left and (otherwise presumably smart poker players) are unable to make fairly straightforward logical connections. IE - owners are at fault when dogs go bad, so let's completely ignore the much greater bred-in danger of pits to other breeds.

Truth is I would probably be the exact same way if I had a pit I loved. Dogs are powerful like that. My point is men are often nowhere near as rational as we think.

/condescending-but-true

wow it took a long time for someone to post this

A few days ago someone let their pit bull outside while I was walking by on the sidewalk. The dog immediately came after me, growling, and chased me down the street. Had it attacked me, I would've stabbed it. This breed is dangerous, no doubt.

I've never had to use my break stick. I walk outside with my dog about 1-2 hours a day. It is a last resort and is only used to break up serious fights. However, my dog does not get into fights because he is never loose and he is always on leash. Unless I have a heart attack while I am walking him there would never be a problem. The stick is to save stray dogs that attack my dog, not as a go to problem solver whenever there is a dog on the block.

before I made my previous posts I wanted to write a diatribe about all the ignorant ****s on here who are just parroting information they have heard from sensationalized news outlets. I decided to try to be productive and offer objective information. I love my dog, that doesn't change the fact that what I am saying about the breed is true. Where in my posts is my logic tainted by "irrational feminine subjectivity"?

"IE - owners are at fault when dogs go bad, so let's completely ignore the much greater bred-in danger of pits to other breeds."

What do you mean? I'm confused. Not trying to pick a fight but I just don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that I am ignoring the "greater bred-in danger" of having a pit bull because I believe that owners should be responsible? Because I'm not. Im saying that pit bull owners should be careful with their powerful animals, but this is a problem across the spectrum of ALL dog owners. 9/10 people are irresonsible with their dogs.

I'm trying to be objective as possible here. Where did I go wrong?

Didnt we already agree in this thread that pit bulls are dangerous, but banning them is unreasonable for practical reasons?

That's a much better argument to me. But England seems to be doing it somehow. Maybe it helps to be an island.

The thing is you could make the same argument about bazookas. Yeah if someone kills their neighbor with a bazooka, it's the person's fault not the weapon. But since they're so dangerous, we don't let just anyone have them w/o a very special license.

I would be cool with allowing pits if their owners had to pass some certification course, which also means they are personally criminally liable if their dogs maul another dog or person. And don't say "oh why don't we make golden retriever owners take a class?" Golden retrievers aren't as dangerous as pits.

Sorry suzz, our ban on Pits doesnt work. You would need to ban all breeds that look like Pits and that is certainly unreasonable. I mean its illegal to buy drugs too but that doesnt stop people wanting to get high and there is only so far you can go to claim the white powder if flour or the bag of weed is oregano.

Well that would be an argument against trying to ban. But I have read some cases in England where they do DNA testing of dogs who kill people or other dogs, and if it's found to be a pit the owner is criminally liable. That would at least make all the morons think twice. Maybe.

Personally i think all owners should take such a course.

(we have a dog and im a dog person, this isnt an anti dog position im taking, quite the opposite)

Ive seen more crazy aggro dogs when out walking ours from the little runts than the big dogs and its always the owners who dont give a **** who have them. They bark at our dog who barks back and they laugh about their little rat dog having a go at our Border Collie yet if i want paying attention and they got into a fight our Bob would eat them for lunch.

So the average is 320, and the strongest dog tested is 328, and the pitbull falls well under average at 235? Do you realize how dumb this looks.

To some degree this is true, but a trend of late is for people to buy dogs specifically as weapons instead of carrying knives. I mean if someone is of the disposition to get a dog specifically to "defend themselves" then they dont much care and the law is much kinder to someone with a dangerous dog than with a kitchen knife on them.

Also they are on the lookout for a more dangerous and more aggro breed than the Pit. I mean whatever the solution, if there is one, i dont believe banning the Pits is the answer and im not a fan of them as a breed at all.

just curious and forgive me because i havent read the whole thread... but is anyone here that advocating trying to ban pitbulls actually owned one?

fwiw we have a few in our family, never had a problem with them and they're loving dogs. We're also involved with a pitbull rescue shelter in our area and have seen dozens of pits go through there. Unless theyve specifically been brought up in an aggressive environment theres never been a problem....and even the "bad dogs" are for the most part reprogrammable. Theres a few exceptions of course but you can say that with all dogs. Hell you want to see a mean little **** dog buy a min pin.

I can see why pits are so feared...i mean they're muscular and energetic dogs, but imo I think theres a lot of BS science thats been made up to "prove" some sort of naturally occuring "killer gene" in them. Its just not true from my experience...and for every scientific report that says they are theres just as many saying they arent. fwiw the top 4 or 5 meanest and most aggressive dogs ive ever ran into werent pits.

hell just last night i was at my friends house with his pits with my newborn and he was pulling on their ears, smacking them over and over and what did the ferocious animalsdo? wagged their tails and loved every minute of it.

Yeah it was a single test done but as far as I know it was the only test that has been done like this comparing bite pressure of dogs. It suffers from sample size hugely ldo, but it does a good job of raining in the rediculous myths about pit bulls. Someone called me a "fool" for owning a pit bull when I was out on a walk. "Don't you know they can generate more than 1000 PSI when they bite?" I lol'd irl.

I totally agree that all dog owners should be forced to go through some accredition, but I think if that was implemented it would cause the destruction of probably 100's of millions of dogs over the course of a decade that would have to languish in shelters because people weren't able to adopt them, ignorant or otherwise.

Sometimes I just wish people would think more. Im talking about the ignorant dog owners, not the people who are disagreeing with me here on these boards. Its really hard to understand the truth about these animals when people are poisoned with sensationalized and lopsided media coverage.

Also, dog owners, admit that you just plain never pick up the poop when no one is looking.