Quote: Connie Sutherland

I have posted this before, but it still stuns me when I think about it: One of my dogs is a big Pug -- he's 100% Pug, and looks exactly like all Pugs, except he's at the bigger end of the range (tall, long). A couple coming towards us on a walk pointed to the Pug and asked if he was all Pit Bull or a Pit mix.

Seriously.

This is when you smile, correct them about the breed of your dog, and ask if THEY'RE full blooded, or PART CHIMP!! (it can be hard to tell these days... )

~Natalya

 Quote: connie sutherland

 Quote: heather williams

I read somewhere, a long time ago, that someone investigating the breed ban somewhere in Ohio found that everything from labs to boxers to great danes were subject to the law because the enforcers couldn't tell them apart from the breeds banned. ...

I have posted this before, but it still stuns me when I think about it: One of my dogs is a big Pug -- he's 100% Pug, and looks exactly like all Pugs, except he's at the bigger end of the range (tall, long). A couple coming towards us on a walk pointed to the Pug and asked if he was all Pit Bull or a Pit mix.

Seriously.

I found this on Wikipedia RE Denver: "The ordinance defined a pit bull as:

Any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying a majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds." Now isn't this the biggest bunch of crap??

Regarding Ohio: "Ohio became the first state jurisdiction to find its breed specific legislation unconstitutional on due process grounds. In Toledo v. Tellings (March 3, 2006), a 2-1 decision, the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals struck down breed specific legislation that restricted pit bull ownership in Toledo, Ohio. The law had relied on a state definition of a vicious dog as one that has bitten or killed a human, has killed another dog, or "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog." The court held that the legislation was void for violation of a pit bull owner's right to due process, because the owner could not appeal a designation of his pet as a vicious dog. For the majority, Judge William Skow wrote: " Since we conclude that there is no evidence that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or vicious, then the city ordinance limitation on ownership is also arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory ." The court found no rational basis for the law. The case is currently before the Ohio Supreme Court and a final determination on the constitutionality of the law is due between October and December of 2007." I'm interested in seeing what happens in a few mos. Let's hope for the best!

Also: "Pit bulls were not the #1 biting breed in Winnipeg's dog bite statistics, prior to the ban being implemented in 1990. After the ban, overall bite numbers increased by an average of almost 50 per year for the following decade. Bites by other breeds increased dramatically, including the #1 breed reported for biting, German Shepherds and their crosses, at close to 100 annual bites by 1992."

So basically, discriminating against "pit bull type breeds" or ANY breed and BSL has done NOTHING to protect the public from dog bites. On the contrary, it has INCREASED bite numbers!!

Wow, crazy. I don't know breeds very well so it took me about 8 tries to get the American Pit Bull Terrier.

Anyways, Jenni...stripper driver huh? That'd be an...interesting area to work in. o_O And to add to it, you do sound a little scary

Jenni, I love Diane's site! I read it almost as much as Leerburg! She is an awesome lady.

Btw, I picked the right dog on the 1st try!!

I just picked it on the first try. Don't ask me how! One thing I noticed is that the dog is really not that muscular.

Well, gosh...here I am a newcomer to this site and I've gone and put my foot in it and offended others. So sorry about that. Connie's quite right that I made a blanket statement and that was just wrong. I believe that I reacted quickly being as I'm terribly sensitive about this because I worked as a chaplain in a hospital where a child was seriously mauled by a PB (at least the media said it was a PB...maybe it wasn't even, eh?) I remember having to look after the staff who were very shaken up about having to treat this child. There was just something about it that upset them more than other accidents that happen to children.

What I meant to say, and should have said, is that it just seems to me that if say a Golden Retriever were to have a bad owner and did something unexpected, or even not typical for its breed, it probably wouldn't hurt a kid. Maybe I'm totally wrong about that and just ignorant because of media reports. Granted, I don't know this for a fact.

In my over 25 years of dog training for personal sport, I have seen an incredibly huge number of idiot Golden and poodle owners,etc. They don't train or take any time with their dogs. But it's almost like with most breeds it just doesn't matter. Yet with a breed that has sometimes been reported as dangerous, it really does matter if the owners are idiots.

But I wasn't thinking about criminals owning the dogs that many esteem to be "dangerous". Just thinking about your regular fools. The people who owned the PB who attacked the kid at my hospital were not criminals, as far as I remember. Just plain old regular idiots who left it in a yard tied up, and it broke the rope and ran off to where a kid was playing in the neighboring yard.

Anyway, I'm not trying to defend myself because I did indeed overreact with my post. I am indeed very sorry if it appeared as though I was making a statement that all PBs are dangerous. I don't think that at all. I would make much more of a blanket statement about dogowners than dogs.

Jenni, I hope you'll forgive me even though we might disagree on this issue. I agree that I got emotional and typed something far too quickly - it should never have been a broad-sweeping statement, and so blunt. Now I've even failed your dog-owner IQ test. Rats! I was really hoping that such failing grades would be reserved for people who described stupid things they've done with their own dogs...lol.

 Quote: anna christie

What I meant to say, and should have said, is that it just seems to me that if say a Golden Retriever were to have a bad owner and did something unexpected, or even not typical for its breed, it probably wouldn't hurt a kid. Maybe I'm totally wrong about that and just ignorant because of media reports. Granted, I don't know this for a fact.

First off, "...did something unexpected,..."

Without proper handling, crazy behavior is not unexpected, it is inevitable.

"...not typical for it's breed..."

These issues are not breed specific. Breeds may display different charachteristics, but they are all dogs.

 Quote: anna christie

In my over 25 years of dog training for personal sport, I have seen an incredibly huge number of idiot Golden and poodle owners,etc. They don't train or take any time with their dogs. But it's almost like with most breeds it just doesn't matter. Yet with a breed that has sometimes been reported as dangerous, it really does matter if the owners are idiots.

Really? I can't believe someone who trains would say that. I don't understand why you can only seem to make broad sweeping generalities, here. It just doesn't line up with a proper understanding of dog behavior. I was bitten by a miniture schnauzer. Why on earth did that happen? I mean, it wansn't one of those nasty PBs, was it? (...Or is that a PB? I can't tell. ) Well, I was probably bitten because I came right up to the dog and stuck my hand in it's face. (I was a dum-dum when I was a kid.) Or, because the owners were not in the same room to control the dog, they just let it roam free. Or, maybe it was because the owners didn't train the dog, or really do anything at all with it. Probably, all of the above.

 Quote: anna christie

But I wasn't thinking about criminals owning the dogs that many esteem to be "dangerous". Just thinking about your regular fools. The people who owned the PB who attacked the kid at my hospital were not criminals, as far as I remember. Just plain old regular idiots who left it in a yard tied up, and it broke the rope and ran off to where a kid was playing in the neighboring yard.

Why does someone being "criminal" make them a bad dog owner? Another generality. Bad owners are bad owners, period. They can be from the north part of town, or the south. Black, white, brown, rich or poor. $2,000 pedigree, or adopted stray. Do you get it?

And last but not least-"Just plain old regular idiots who left it in a yard tied up..." This should be criminal.

These assumptions are what cause people to buy into the idea of a "breed specific ban." This is like falsly convicting someone to death, IMO. Unforgivable.

 Quote: Anna Christie

What I meant to say, and should have said, is that it just seems to me that if say a Golden Retriever were to have a bad owner and did something unexpected, or even not typical for its breed, it probably wouldn't hurt a kid. Maybe I'm totally wrong about that and just ignorant because of media reports. Granted, I don't know this for a fact.

When I was 7, a golden retriever lunged at me and the only reason I wasn't attacked is because the owner had the dog on a drag line and stopped it about 6 inches before my face. It managed to nip my hand as she was pulling him back, but it would have been a lot worse if she had not interfered. The dog was known to dislike kids, I guess the owner underestimated him and thought just having him on a drag line was safe enough.

When I was 9, our family dog, a golden retriever, bit me on the hand when I was trying to coax her out from under a bed. Granted, that one was my fault for reaching in when she was terrified...but I was only 9 and didn't know not to do that. The point is, she did bite me and drew blood.

Goldens can be dangerous, just like any other breeds.

 Quote: rick miller

 Quote: anna christie

But I wasn't thinking about criminals owning the dogs that many esteem to be "dangerous". Just thinking about your regular fools. The people who owned the PB who attacked the kid at my hospital were not criminals, as far as I remember. Just plain old regular idiots who left it in a yard tied up, and it broke the rope and ran off to where a kid was playing in the neighboring yard.

Why does someone being "criminal" make them a bad dog owner? Another generality. Bad owners are bad owners, period. They can be from the north part of town, or the south. Black, white, brown, rich or poor. $2,000 pedigree, or adopted stray. Do you get it?

I will only stick my nose in on this part i think what he meant by Criminal is people with criminal intent, i.e. dog fighting or using the dog to attack someone. i *think* thats what he meant

Edit: Of course bad owners are the problem not breeds. Yes some breeds are more of a risk but that lies on the faults of owners.

 Quote: Michael West

I will only stick my nose in on this part i think what he meant by Criminal is people with criminal intent, i.e. dog fighting or using the dog to attack someone. i *think* thats what he meant

Well, if your dog bites someone, that is a crime, so wouldn't neglecting to control your dog be criminal intent, anyway?