Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, January 05, 2012

Miami Herald: [Buehrle] is a Marlin, but not in Miami

Are we sure this wasn’t just Animal Services seeing this?

The Miami Marlins really wanted left-handed pitcher Mark Buehrle.

But a member of his family isn’t welcome in Miami-Dade County.

Eighteen-month-old Slater Buehrle is an American Staffordshire Terrier — a type of pit bull — and keeping one is illegal in Miami-Dade…

Buehrle, 32, said that “if it came down to not finding a house’’ where all his canines could live, he might not have signed with the Marlins, “but I knew we’d eventually find a place.’’

They did, in a south Broward development without the restrictions that some Broward homeowners’ associations impose.

The District Attorney Posted: January 05, 2012 at 11:55 PM | 56 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: miami, special topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. TerpNats Posted: January 06, 2012 at 12:50 AM (#4030081)
That's absurd. Bred and trained properly, some pit bull breeds make fine, friendly dogs. You want to fight the horrid actions that got Michael Vick in the slammer? Fine. But you don't need to impugn the entire breed in order to do it.
   2. andrewberg Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:29 AM (#4030094)
It's not just Vick. Having untrained, stray pits running around can be a serious public health issue. There are much better ways of policing it than banning them, though. That's asinine.
   3. cardsfanboy Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:34 AM (#4030103)
Having untrained, stray pitsDogs running around can be a serious public health issue.


that is probably a bit more accurate. Breed shouldn't be the criteria.
   4. Srul Itza At Home Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:45 AM (#4030111)
The solution is obvious. If a pit bull attacks someone, put the dumb animal down. Then find the dog a new owner.
   5. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:49 AM (#4030112)
that is probably a bit more accurate. Breed shouldn't be the criteria.


I think the problem isn't that pitbulls or others of that ilk are more prone to attack. They're just better at it.

   6. andrewberg Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:51 AM (#4030116)
I think the problem isn't that pitbulls or others of that ilk are more prone to attack. They're just better at it.


Yup. If my beagle ever attacked a stranger, they would only risk being paralyzed by cuteness.
   7. Bhaakon Posted: January 06, 2012 at 02:54 AM (#4030137)
I think the problem isn't that pitbulls or others of that ilk are more prone to attack. They're just better at it.


And, on a related note, people who are interested in training their dogs to attack tend to pick it (and a few other breeds) to the exclusion of all others. While a chocolate lab (to pick common large breed without a stigma) would be nearly as effective at tearing a human apart, virtually no one trains them to be aggressive.
   8. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 06, 2012 at 03:03 AM (#4030138)
Homeowners' associations are pure evil.
   9. Squash Posted: January 06, 2012 at 03:36 AM (#4030143)
I think the problem isn't that pitbulls or others of that ilk are more prone to attack. They're just better at it.

This is completely true. There are many small dogs that are very aggressive, in fact a lot of them are. The difference is when a 8 lb. dog bites you everyone laughs. When an 80 lb. dog bites you it's a major issue.
   10. The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward Posted: January 06, 2012 at 04:05 AM (#4030148)

I just don't understand why people won't leash their dogs. And I'm not talking about rural areas where there's only grass & trees for miles- that's fine if you want your pet to run free. I walk to & from work each day in one of the busier parts of Chicago and almost every other day I'll see an unleashed dog with his owner walking 15-20 feet behind. I'm sure these dogs are well-trained, but I'm always worried that the slightest object will set the dog running into the street or something like that.
   11. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2012 at 07:21 AM (#4030168)
The solution is obvious. If a pit bull attacks someone, put the dumb animal down. Then find the dog a new owner.

rimshot


You know your dogs love people when they let you take this picture without killing you and the four or five people closest to you. Although they seem to be considering it.


I wonder what Ray DiPerna thinks.

   12. bunyon Posted: January 06, 2012 at 09:32 AM (#4030187)
Primey for #8. Greatest BBTF post in history.
   13. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 06, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4030209)
You know your dogs love people when they let you take this picture without killing you and the four or five people closest to you. Although they seem to be considering it.

Exactly what I was thinking.
   14. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: January 06, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4030212)
"It's the trainer, not the breed" is a common mantra from people who own pit bulls, and who find their pit bulls to be lovely, friendly dogs. This includes people who then suddenly find themselves confronted with the fact that their lovely, friendly pit bull has ripped the face off of a child.

This seeming dichotomy is for at least two reasons: First, many or even most pit bulls won't attack (although note that this does not imply that they attack at the same rate as other dogs, nor that the results of an attack tend to be similar to those by other dogs).

Second, get this: Pit bulls weren't just bred to be killing machines who would be totally willing and able to plunge themselves into a no-hold-barred fight with no reservations concerning their own well-being; they were also bred to be lovely, friendly dogs to their masters and families. Of course they were; virtually no breeder is going to tolerate a breed that will be an extreme danger to his or her child.

The "It's the trainer, not the breed" people are deluding themselves, and unfortunately some significant percentage of them will one day find reality producing an extreme refutation for their delusion.

Here is a good article by a man who actually has trained thousands of dogs, including many pit bulls. Small excerpt:
(...) take a Pointer whose parents are good hunting dogs. Raise him for a year without ever letting him see a bird. Now put him in a field full of pheasants and see what he does. He'll point. (...) Try telling a hunter that he paid $10,000 for a finished field Pointer that had to be taught to point. He'll laugh at you. (...)

Now, virtually every Heeler heels, instinctively. If you tell an Aussie drover that his dog had to be taught to heel, he'll laugh at you too, mate. Like his Pointer counterpart, the Heeler displays a trait that is transmitted genetically. It requires no training or encouragement. To assert that Pit Bulls are only aggresive if you train them to attack contradicts the existence of every other behavior-specific breed on the planet.
Another:
For the last 25 years I have trained and rehabilitated Pit Bulls as a regular part of my business. I have found them to be bright, affectionate and loving. I've also seen what they can do to other dogs, livestock and people. They were bred to do one thing - attack with no reservations. Like a hand grenade, they are inert until you pull the pin. Once the pin is pulled, there is nothing you can do to stop the explosion. (...) they differ from grenades in one very important aspect - the dog controls the pin.
   15. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 06, 2012 at 10:27 AM (#4030215)
And, on a related note, people who are interested in training their dogs to attack tend to pick it (and a few other breeds) to the exclusion of all others. While a chocolate lab (to pick common large breed without a stigma) would be nearly as effective at tearing a human apart, virtually no one trains them to be aggressive.

It's more than that. They're incredibly powerful dogs.
   16. ray james Posted: January 06, 2012 at 10:37 AM (#4030225)
I think the problem isn't that pitbulls or others of that ilk are more prone to attack. They're just better at it.


I don't think this is true. Some breeds have been bred for their aggressiveness and, unforutnately, pit bulls fall into that category.

Having said that, a pit bull can make a perfectly acceptable family dog, if the aggressive behavior is not encouraged.

Great danes are a good example of responsible breeding. They used to be holy terrors but the attack instinct has been bred out of them and they are now good family dogs, if you can afford the food bills and don't mind cleaning up droppings the size of a Buick.
   17. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 06, 2012 at 10:38 AM (#4030226)
So, if you wanted a legitimate guard dog type, why would you pick a pit bull (or another aggressive breed like a Doberman) over a German Shepherd?

I'm not a dog owner, but it seems like German Shepherds are the fricking perfect dog. Smart and trainable, but will go apeshit on anyone who threatens their family.
   18. Bourbon Samurai Posted: January 06, 2012 at 10:54 AM (#4030242)
We had an enormous German Shepherd husky mix growing up. He was huge wuss but he sure looked intimidating.
   19. ray james Posted: January 06, 2012 at 11:01 AM (#4030251)
My mom sued to tell me of a story when I was a baby, a friend was babysitting me and when she tried to change my diapers, our German shepherd positioned himself between me and sitter for protection.

I wasn't old enough to remember but we had to get rid of him when he attacked the mailman.
   20. ray james Posted: January 06, 2012 at 11:02 AM (#4030252)
I'm not a dog owner, but it seems like German Shepherds are the fricking perfect dog. Smart and trainable, but will go apeshit on anyone who threatens their family.


Another good idea by the Nazis that never grew legs. :)
   21. BDC Posted: January 06, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4030254)
Pit bulls weren't just bred to be killing machines who would be totally willing and able to plunge themselves into a no-hold-barred fight with no reservations concerning their own well-being; they were also bred to be lovely, friendly dogs to their masters and families

That's the truth. I was visiting friends once and their son brought his pit bull over. I was rolling around on the floor with the dog licking my face, and the guy casually says to his mom in the other room: "Can't leave Sparky with another dog. He goes into total kill mode. Blood all over the place." I look up into Sparky's cute little eyes. Jeebus.

The only dogs I've ever owned were basset hounds. The breed standard is "mild and devoted," and like all hunting dogs they have very soft mouths. But they are heavyset, powerful, and hard to control, and their mouths are huge. We never let them just play uncontrolled around small children.
   22. Cris E Posted: January 06, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4030257)
I don't know. I mean, breeds have certain aspects hammered into them very deeply, and I know that for some breeds I wouldn't feel comfortable trusting *my* training much less a complete stranger's. There's a lot to get out of a dog's head in some of these cases, and the repercussions for error, especially when children are around, are horrible. I'm not sure banning is the answer, but I'd put in a huge leash law penalty for some of these breeds (>$1000) to help owners focus on the potential for tragedy.

On the other hand, I have a relative that's always had huge dogs: malamutes, lots of Tibetan mastiffs, a couple bouviers. If you're comfortable working with them and you're good about training every day (and you're good about controlling their interactions with kids to make those around you comfortable) then it's possible this can work. But even he knows the truth. After they suffered a particularly nasty home invasion a few years ago he got a very large and bad tempered rottweiler. His remark was "I had a choice between a handgun and this dog, and I'm pretty sure this dog is more dangerous."
   23. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4030414)
I think the laws should just enforce any violence committed by dogs as if they were committed by their owner. A murder is a murder. Biting a face is attempted murder. Lets see how much these people really want a pit bull.
   24. valuearbitrageur Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4030456)
Homeowners' associations are pure evil.


they are the smallest and most voluntary form of government, so you might be right.

And all you delusional pit bull defenders are iFOS because you ignore bite strength.
   25. PerroX Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4030477)
My dog is a pit mix and shows no aggressiveness towards humans unless they are dressed as squirrels. Well, not exactly true, when he gets wound up he will race around the house and lunge at you and start foaming at the mouth.

A very strong dog, but I'd rather run across one of them than a Shepherd or a Rott. They're sweethearts and their aggressiveness is mainly towards other dogs, not people. My little 16-pounder dominates him and is the more aggressive dog.
   26. PerroX Posted: January 06, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4030481)
An American Staffordshire Terrier is even more docile. I used to wrestle one for its chewtoy all the time and the only time I was injured was from its claws.
   27. geonose Posted: January 06, 2012 at 03:08 PM (#4030606)
An American Staffordshire is not a variety of pit bull, although AmStaffs and pits share common ancestors. The American Staffordshire was recognized as a breed by the AKC in 1936 and as such has strict breed standards. The pit bull is not a breed per se and does not have standards at all.

That said, many municipalities that prohibit pits also prohibit AmStaffs, probably based largely on their similar appearance. They can be easily confused.
   28. cardsfanboy Posted: January 07, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4031206)
I'm not a dog owner, but it seems like German Shepherds are the fricking perfect dog. Smart and trainable, but will go apeshit on anyone who threatens their family.


relatively short lifespan and major hip problems is the hindrance to the Sheppard. There is a reason that many military services and police forces are supplementing their Sheppards with Malinois, even though Malinois are smaller dogs.
   29. caprules Posted: January 07, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4031225)
The Caucasian Mountain Dog is awesome. I saw a piece on them once that showed a 150 lb guy trying to walk the dog in his neighborhood. A small car went by and the dog started chasing after it, literally dragging his owner on the ground.
   30. Lassus Posted: January 07, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4031229)
The Caucasian Mountain Dog is awesome.

The name is very very bourgeois and annoying, but as far as big dogs go, I've had my eye on the Bouvier de Flandres. I very much like the cut of its jib, and when there's a big yard to be had, and it isn't too stupid expensive (I'm generally a shelter/pound guy) I believe I will pick one up.
   31. asdf1234 Posted: January 07, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4031245)
I bought my first collie (scottish, not border) about ten years ago. I'll still adopt shelter dogs in the future, but you'd have a hard time convincing me that there is or ever will be a better dog. Germans and labs are great, but I've seen enough cases of hip dysplasia in those breeds to make me lose my religion.
   32. cardsfanboy Posted: January 07, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4031255)
I love mutts the most, but my current dog is a Belgian Malinois, good combination of tons of energy, friendliness, and trainability that makes him a great dog(just need to get rid of his massive separation anxiety). And the size is about perfect also, 45-50 pounds and 25 inches tall is a near perfect size for a dog(imho)

agree about the hip problems, it's sad to watch a great young dog get old and hobbled.
   33. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: January 07, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4031266)
I've had my eye on the Bouvier de Flandres

Stupid Flandres.
   34. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: January 07, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4031349)
I've had three rescue Greyhounds in the past. I'll probably get a couple more in the spring.
   35. Lassus Posted: January 07, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4031355)
I've had three rescue Greyhounds in the past. I'll probably get a couple more in the spring.

Just subjectively, I really prefer rescue pits. Greyhounds are so, so thin, it unsettles me.
   36. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: January 07, 2012 at 07:26 PM (#4031383)
Barking dogs should be banned from everywhere they can be banned from. It's among the worst sounds on earth. Hey dog owners, if you put your dog in the back yard and let it bark all day, you are a ####### ####### and we all hate you. Lastly, if one of my neighbors owned a pitbull I would find a way to poison it. And no, I'm not kidding. I choose my daughter's face over that dog, sorry.
   37. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: January 07, 2012 at 07:33 PM (#4031387)
Just subjectively, I really prefer rescue pits. Greyhounds are so, so thin, it unsettles me.


At their racing weight, yes. But after adoption they usually put on 10-15 pounds and look just fine. Still thin by dog standards, but just fine. My last male weighed ~90 pounds at his peak.
   38. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: January 07, 2012 at 08:05 PM (#4031401)
Barking dogs should be banned from everywhere they can be banned from. It's among the worst sounds on earth. Hey dog owners, if you put your dog in the back yard and let it bark all day, you are a ####### ####### and we all hate you. Lastly, if one of my neighbors owned a pitbull I would find a way to poison it. And no, I'm not kidding. I choose my daughter's face over that dog, sorry.

Actually, you sound way more annoying than a barking dog.
   39. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: January 07, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4031426)
#38 - Not that clever, you could do better.
   40. Dudefella Posted: January 07, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4031431)
Pitties aren't bred to attack humans. They're bred to be game with other animals -- bears, other dogs maybe. They're not going to bite your daughter's face off unless they're trained to be attack dogs.

Look, a lot of people own pit mixes who have no business owning them: they want a dog that looks badass or who can defend the house, and wind up turning a good dog into a nuisance or worse. But, properly raised and trained, they are good dogs; no more aggressive or harmful than any other large breed.
   41. base ball chick Posted: January 07, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4031438)
first of all staffordshire terriers are NOT pit bulls

second of all, as someone who had them and bred them (NOT as killah dogz neither), pit bulls are wonderful family Dogs, incredibly tolerant of babies and small children and protective of them too. they have to be trained to attack. all that stuff about comparing them to pointers is the biggest pile of crap like evah. they are not natural born killaz, like a ticking time bomb.

pit bulls who are raised to be family Dogs do NOT just go attack every person or other animal they happen to spot.

black labs are a lot more likely to bite - and so are those little snappy Dogs.

a lot of people have no business owning Dogs. PERIOD. tying up your Dog in the back yard is despicable. especially here in tejas.
   42. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: January 07, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4031441)
black labs are a lot more likely to bite - and so are those little snappy Dogs.

Other dogs may be more likely to bite than pitbulls, but no other breed is as likely to kill.

I used to work where employees were allowed to bring dogs to work. We had a nice campus adjoining a nature reserve and many would let their dogs roam. One colleague had a pit bull. Like everyone notes, it was sweet, gentle, loving. It had cancer, and recovered. We were all fond of the dog. One day, it went berserk on some wild animal. I've never heard a sound like that. I wouldn't let anything that could do that near my kids.
   43. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: January 07, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4031445)
Yeah, my oldest son has a pit. She's sweet and nice (but dumb as a box of rocks), and adores attention. She'll just crawl up on someone's lap if you let her and roll onto her back so you'll rub her stomach.

Like 'zop, I did once see her take off after some wild animal. She destroyed it in short order. My son loves that dog, but if he and his fiancee ever decide to have kids, he's aware that he'll need to find her a new home first. It only takes once. It's not a risk worth taking.
   44. Lassus Posted: January 07, 2012 at 10:07 PM (#4031447)
astly, if one of my neighbors owned a pitbull I would find a way to poison it. And no, I'm not kidding. I choose my daughter's face over that dog, sorry.

Enjoy prison and/or that crippling lawsuit!
   45. Dudefella Posted: January 07, 2012 at 10:08 PM (#4031448)
We were all fond of the dog. One day, it went berserk on some wild animal. I've never heard a sound like that. I wouldn't let anything that could do that near my kids.


Man, I've seen my cat -- my ten pound, domestic shorthair, lovemuffin kitty cat -- go the #### to town on a mouse. It wasn't much fun to witness. But here's the thing: animals are ANIMALS. All animals can attack, given the proper stimulus. And, most likely, all but the smallest of animals could probably wreck you in a one on one fight, given the proper stimulus.

Pitties are sweet dogs. They get a lot of attention because they're often trained poorly, and because they look like Cujo. That's not their fault. If you've had a bad experience with one of the bully breeds, don't get one, but that doesn't make them bad or dangerous dogs.
   46. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: January 07, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4031452)
.They get a lot of attention because they're often trained poorly, and because they look like Cujo.

And, lets not forget, kill more people in this country than all other breeds combined, I believe.
   47. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: January 07, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4031453)
Man, I've seen my cat -- my ten pound, domestic shorthair, lovemuffin kitty cat -- go the #### to town on a mouse. It wasn't much fun to witness. But here's the thing: animals are ANIMALS. All animals can attack, given the proper stimulus. And, most likely, all but the smallest of animals could probably wreck you in a one on one fight, given the proper stimulus.

Please tell me you're not suggesting that a 10-pound cat presents the same risks as a 90-pound pit bull.

I own four cats, and I have to tell you, I can't see it. Yes, if one of my cats attacked, it could cause pain, draw blood...but it's still a ten-pound cat. I'm pretty sure I could fight it off. I'd be bleeding, but other than that, OK.

If my son's pit bull attacked me, I'd be in a lot of trouble. I can pry a cat's jaws apart, but my son's pit has the strongest jaw I've ever seen on an animal (excepting the Cockatoo we owned years ago). Add the size and weight in, and I'm pretty sure a pit bull could kill me, were it so inclined.
   48. cardsfanboy Posted: January 07, 2012 at 11:04 PM (#4031461)
I used to work where employees were allowed to bring dogs to work. We had a nice campus adjoining a nature reserve and many would let their dogs roam. One colleague had a pit bull. Like everyone notes, it was sweet, gentle, loving. It had cancer, and recovered. We were all fond of the dog. One day, it went berserk on some wild animal. I've never heard a sound like that. I wouldn't let anything that could do that near my kids.


Pit Bulls are bred to be intolerant of other animals. They don't have bred instincts to attack humans. Contrary to popular perception, a pit bull will be just fine with humans if raised properly, but it's very likely, regardless of rearing, that at some point in time a pit bull will get aggressive on another animal, it's in their nature.
   49. Dudefella Posted: January 07, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4031463)
Both #46 and #47 missed my point almost completely.

#46: I reckon that driving is considerably deadlier than bully breeds are, but we don't consider banning driving. Rather, we punish dangerous drivers.

#47: Nope, not suggesting that my cat is as dangerous as a pitty. But she's as likely to attack you. That is, not very, but there's a chance. And if the criterion for pet ownership is, as number #42 suggested, that our pets never do anything to another animal that makes us feel uncomfortable, then we'd better stick with obligate herbivores.
   50. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: January 07, 2012 at 11:33 PM (#4031472)
#47: Nope, not suggesting that my cat is as dangerous as a pitty. But she's as likely to attack you. That is, not very, but there's a chance. And if the criterion for pet ownership is, as number #42 suggested, that our pets never do anything to another animal that makes us feel uncomfortable, then we'd better stick with obligate herbivores.

Fair enough, but I don't think this is about comfort level. We didn't have any small pets when my kids were small as it wasn't a risk we wanted to take. When they got bigger, we added a cat or two and a Pomeranian (which couldn't even threaten the cats, let alone a human).

I'm not saying this is what everyone should do; perhaps if I was more knowledgeable about dogs and canine behavior/training I would take a different stance. I dunno.
   51. Lassus Posted: January 07, 2012 at 11:54 PM (#4031481)
I've been around dogs my whole life, and seen pits fighting. I'm still way more cautious around unfamiliar humans.
   52. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: January 07, 2012 at 11:58 PM (#4031484)
I reckon that driving is considerably deadlier than bully breeds are, but we don't consider banning driving. Rather, we punish dangerous drivers.

We don't ban driving because the benefits of driving outweigh the disadvantages. In contrast, when something causes deaths without any tangible benefit, we do ban it.

Pit bulls offer nothing that isn't offered by other breeds. Even when wearing their gentle, good companion hat, there are other breeds which are also gentle and good companions that don't have a disproportionate tendency to kill people (and, of course, other dogs). Given that, statistically, pit bulls cause so much more harm than other breeds, whats the argument against banning them or hampering attempts to breed them? Would the world be worse off without pit bulls, or with 10% as many pit bulls?
   53. base ball chick Posted: January 08, 2012 at 12:00 AM (#4031485)
pits are what/who you train them to be. they ARE terriers, and ALL terriers are hunters. even the little tiny ones kill rats and mice and squirrels. my gf had an apartment had rodents in it but her place was rodent-free the minute she brought home suzie who didn't never weigh more than bout 6 pounds. no roaches neither.

i had pits before i got married. babe ruth Dog had good taste. she didn't like a guy i was gonna date, he was gone. well, not because she ate him, i mean.

i never EVER had trouble training them - they are Dogs who are WANT you to train them and are eager to obey and please you - unlike, say, lots of other dumb Dogs. you can train Dogs not to go after other animals except on command. and pits are easy to train.

in your home, your pits will certainly protect you. mine saved my life. and they treat your babies and small kids as if they were their own - i didn't hesitate to leave my kids with babe and barry lamar.

and pits are NOT no 90 lbs. babe was 60 lbs, which is enormous for a grrrl pit bull (that's the top size of most males) although i must admit she had a much, uh, slimmer figure when she was younger.... and i DID get her spayed after husband and i decided to have kidz. when she came in heat, i didn't trust her around my husband, let alone little kidz. poor Dog, she had the worst Dog PMS like evah.

i really want another Dog. i wish i had the $$$. and the time!!!!

i'd say either that or another baby, but you KNOW this would be the ONE time husby be lurkin...

   54. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: January 08, 2012 at 12:38 AM (#4031500)
Lastly, if one of my neighbors owned a pitbull I would find a way to poison it. And no, I'm not kidding. I choose my daughter's face over that dog, sorry.


You're a complete ####### piece of ####.

I adopted a pitty a bit over 4 years ago. She has never once shown any aggression to any person. We can literally reach our hands into her food dish while she's eating and take away her food and she just sits calmly waiting for it back. I would never take her out unleashed because most dogs, and pitties especially, have a strong prey drive. I would not worry about her attacking a person, but I'm also not a #########, so I make sure there will never even be an opportunity for it (nor could I blame a kid or parents freaking out if they see an unrestrained pit bull running around). The first time one of my friends came over, after thoroughly licking him, she fell asleep with her head in his lap.

Pit bulls offer nothing that isn't offered by other breeds. Even when wearing their gentle, good companion hat, there are other breeds which are also gentle and good companions that don't have a disproportionate tendency to kill people (and, of course, other dogs). Given that, statistically, pit bulls cause so much more harm than other breeds, whats the argument against banning them or hampering attempts to breed them? Would the world be worse off without pit bulls, or with 10% as many pit bulls?


Because banning pit bulls does not prevent dog attacks or fatalities. Any dog that attacks and looks like a pit bull is then classified a pit bull, so the number of pit bull related fatalities, though I'm sure still the highest of any breed, is inaccurate and actually the total of a number of different breeds. Pit bulls, properly trained, actually pass obedience and disposition tests at a higher rate than the average dog. The problem is that because of their potential, they attract a lot of scum bag owners who mistreat them and encourage aggression. Without access to pit bulls, these people will just get other potentially dangerous breeds like German Shepherd, Rottweillers, etc.

I would prefer there be only about 10% of the current pit bull population though. There are way too many in shelters, and are the likeliest to be killed. There are few instances where I'd buy any dog from a breeder anyway, but I absolutely would never buy a pit bull from a breeder (nothing against you BBC just that there are a lot of irresponsible breeders of all breeds and even more irresponsible owners). I'd like to see tougher leash laws, laws against tethering/chaining, and against people encouraging aggression as well as restrict breeding and owning unaltered pets.
   55. base ball chick Posted: January 08, 2012 at 01:08 AM (#4031508)
tom cervo

there are waaaaayyy too many pits and pit crosses in shelters because too many people have this fantasy about having a Dangerous Dog - and then they don't bother to train it and they can't control it, or the poor thing goes crazy because he/she is tied up in the back yard for hours. and LOTS of owners don't want to even walk their Dog for a few minutes.

ther ARE a lot of irresponsible breeders around. there are plenty of pit bull preeders who actually breed bait Dogs. they should be thrown into the pit their own self. i was very young when i let my Dogs breed. i stopped when i lost one of my Dogs - she died after giving birth. I didn't know i had to help a Dog deliver or even that i needed to feed her something special after she finished. Her only surviving pup was barry laamr Dog. but i DID take very good care of the babies after they were born and i socialized them even before i knew i was supposed to do that. i mated my Dogs to get good personality and smarts not just size and head size like so many others.

but you know, i'm grateful to my grrrl Dogs because they taught me a few tricks about how to take care of my own babies

and yes, you can teach LOTS of other Dogs to be aggressive - rotties (which i also have) and shepherds and labs, which are the most aggressive big dog i've ever seen. and they are a LOT harder to train than a pit or a rottie. part of their nature is to serve a Top Dog-ette. like, say, me. and like i said, some of the most aggressive Dogs i've seen are those little snappy Dogs who will come at you - the owners think it's cute
   56. CrosbyBird Posted: January 08, 2012 at 05:46 AM (#4031532)
I'm not saying this is what everyone should do; perhaps if I was more knowledgeable about dogs and canine behavior/training I would take a different stance. I dunno.

Unless a non-feral dog has some sort of mental or physical illness, it can be trained from a puppy to be non-aggressive enough to be a remarkably safe pet. A well-trained dog (specifically, well-trained to be non-aggressive) will not bite someone who accidentally hurts it, it will not respond aggressively to a person touching its food while it eats, and it will display submissive behavior on demand from its owner. Every responsible dog owner takes this responsibility. That's fairly easy training for a layperson, because dogs have been artificially selected for submissive behavior for centuries. They are easy to train so long as you know some pretty basic rules and some pretty basic techniques. Dogs learn quickly and are genetically programmed to acknowledge an dominant alpha. If you establish that dominance consistently early on in a dog's life, bad behavior is pretty uncommon. If the dog can't be made submissive, it is the responsibility of the owner to give up that pet, either to someone with more experience training aggressive animals, or, if necessary, euthanize (my very last option).

And like BBC says, small dogs are often more dangerous than large dogs, because it's easier to overlook aggressive behavior with a tiny dog, thinking that it can't do serious damage even if it goes crazy. I knew pretty early on that my dog was going to be between 50-75 pounds, so it was pretty clear that she would be uncontrollable if I had not been a responsible trainer.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3736 - 12:23am, Oct 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(19 - 12:08am, Oct 25)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(382 - 12:03am, Oct 25)
Last: steagles

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(14 - 11:59pm, Oct 24)
Last: Zach

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(513 - 11:58pm, Oct 24)
Last: Snowboy

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(78 - 11:54pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(10 - 11:46pm, Oct 24)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(915 - 7:37pm, Oct 24)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(15 - 5:31pm, Oct 24)
Last: zonk

Page rendered in 0.7659 seconds
52 querie(s) executed