Man kills pit bull who attacks his wife & dogs

[Denholm]

Wow, great kid. If it were me I'd over-react and use the knife. I'm not confident enough in my flexibility to constantly kick the thing away preventing it from digging into me.

[indy007]

http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=5857

Here's the kid that choked out the pit, it happened in Cali but I think I heard it miss reported as houston also.

Right on. I was just waking up when it came on the morning news. I find it interesting because it's not really an air choke. On a human, it pinches the arteries in the neck shut, blacking you out in under 10 seconds. Not sure exactly how a dog's circulatory system is laid out.

[whiteman]

Right on. I was just waking up when it came on the morning news. I find it interesting because it's not really an air choke. On a human, it pinches the arteries in the neck shut, blacking you out in under 10 seconds. Not sure exactly how a dog's circulatory system is laid out.

yea I heard he choked the dog out, but I was also working while listening so might have missed something.

Denholm, over react with a knife? I would have used a chain saw if I had one.

[Denholm]

Knife is the worst I've got, unless I pick up my PC and drop it from the roof.

[texasmom]

Knife is the worst I've got, unless I pick up my PC and drop it from the roof.

How, then, would you be able to play AH???

[Denholm]

Offline. With very quick drawings.


GET ME SOME MORE CRAYONS!

[VonMessa]

Coming from someone whose mother breeds dogs, lived with them their whole life and has trained them (in Schutzhund) for half his life, I will tell you that it is, without question, the owner and not the breed of dog.

Yes, some dogs are bred for certain purposes, but how they are trained (or in most cases, NOT trained) dictates how the dog will behave.  Also, not all dogs are good for a the purpose they were bred for.  I, personally have had 3 good Schutzhund (personal protection) dogs (German Shepherds, of course    ) that made the grade, out of about 6 or 7 that I have tried to train.  Some dogs just do not have the drive, or temperament for the job.  They are either too aggressive and you cannot control them instantly with a command, they have no drive and do not train well, and some are just crap at tracking and get distracted when trying to follow a scent.

You can tell right away by the neighbor walking his/her dog who is in charge.  It could be a doberman or a pug, it doesn't matter one bit.  Some people should not own dogs, period.  This is especially the case with dogs that are large enough or strong enough to pose a danger to another human.  People get them as "pets" and let them do whatever the hell they want.  And in most cases, they NEVER listen to the owner.

On the other hand, I have seen some of the dogs I've owned do some amazing things such as: track a person for miles (even across running water), engage and disengage an agressor (the guy with the "sleeve") on command, and even walk across a 2x4 across saw horses like a dang cat.

I have never had a need for a leash on any shepherd that I've owned, EVER, after they have been trained.  I tell the dog "Foose" (all commands are in German, of course    ) and it will walk one step behind and to the right of me, wherever I go, regardless of distractions.  I could also go to the store, tell the dog to sit outside, be in the store for an hour, and come back and the dog wouldn't have moved an inch.

But to sum it up, obedience is mostly about the training and the owner/handler, not the breed of dog.

Don't believe me?  Can your dog do this?

[gusman]

^^^^^
 l l  l  l l



Some of those shepherds were drooling though

I have to agree it's the owner not the dog but some dogs unfortunately are very hard to train.

Cheers,
gusman44

[VonMessa]

Of course they are drooling 

It's the training that supercedes  the instinct 

[Simaril]

Gotta call you on this one, bud.

There's NO doubt that training and owner interaction make huge difference in outcomes. BUT -- and its a big BUT (no offense intended to those with ample cushions) -- genetic influences also play a major role. I mean, just about anyone would agree that certain breeds have certain characteristics. Poodles are generally high strung. Huskies benefit from lots of exercise, and will get antsy if they're left inside all the time. Golden Retrievers are mellow and love their packs to death. Even dog groups have characteristics, so that if you take a sheep dog on a hike with a group it will keep checking to see that the group is all together.

All those characteristics are genetically derived. They are not trained, they are inbred. Thats why even you say:

Some dogs just do not have the drive, or temperament for the job.  They are either too aggressive and you cannot control them instantly with a command, they have no drive and do not train well, and some are just crap at tracking and get distracted when trying to follow a scent.

Now, if groups of dogs share genetic material (ie they're a BREED), it only stands to reason that they can share behavioral characteristics. And yeah, some dog breeds are more prone to aggressiveness, territoriality, and comfort with strangers. Why WOULDN'T there be those differences? No doubt that within a genetic line there will be considerable variation, and even with similar genes there will be huge behavioral differences based on the environment dogs are brought up in. A bad owner can ruin a good dog, and a good owner can get control of a difficult one.

But I think you'd have to admit that there ARE differences in average temprament, so some breeds are simply going to be more aggressive -- on average. And wouldnt you agree that experience has shown that pit bulls are more likely to react aggressively than, say, Pekingese? And that they are equipped with more dangerous tools to be aggressive with?

[CAP1]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/dog-pit-perry-2275294-bull-wife

This man ran to the neighbors house, borrowed a kitchen knife & killed the attacking dog. I don't think I would have thought to do that. I would have continued to wrestle with the thing, jam my fist down it's throat until it suffocated or asked an onlooker to bring me back a knife instead of leaving. I don't think I would have left & came back with a knife. 

So, would you stay or would you go, or do you carry a knife on family walks?

the only time i am without a knife in my pocket is when i'm flying by airlines.

[CAP1]

It's just a matter of time before you're relieved of those as well - for your own good...

absolutley. they don't need to carry anything over there. the camera system there will protect everyone.

[dkff49]

Gotta call you on this one, bud.

There's NO doubt that training and owner interaction make huge difference in outcomes. BUT -- and its a big BUT (no offense intended to those with ample cushions) -- genetic influences also play a major role. I mean, just about anyone would agree that certain breeds have certain characteristics. Poodles are generally high strung. Huskies benefit from lots of exercise, and will get antsy if they're left inside all the time. Golden Retrievers are mellow and love their packs to death. Even dog groups have characteristics, so that if you take a sheep dog on a hike with a group it will keep checking to see that the group is all together.

All those characteristics are genetically derived. They are not trained, they are inbred. Thats why even you say:

Now, if groups of dogs share genetic material (ie they're a BREED), it only stands to reason that they can share behavioral characteristics. And yeah, some dog breeds are more prone to aggressiveness, territoriality, and comfort with strangers. Why WOULDN'T there be those differences? No doubt that within a genetic line there will be considerable variation, and even with similar genes there will be huge behavioral differences based on the environment dogs are brought up in. A bad owner can ruin a good dog, and a good owner can get control of a difficult one.

But I think you'd have to admit that there ARE differences in average temprament, so some breeds are simply going to be more aggressive -- on average. And wouldnt you agree that experience has shown that pit bulls are more likely to react aggressively than, say, Pekingese? And that they are equipped with more dangerous tools to be aggressive with?

There are genetic differences, but as a dog owner it is your responsibilty to recognize this and train your dog accordingly. Sorry it is the owners fault and not the breed of dog in the aspect that some dogs require less aggressive training and others don't. On the same note though you can have any breed of dog be aggressive by nature and require a more rigorous training as well. I have had several family members have pits and I myself have had a rot and sheppards and none of the ones that I have seen have been anywhere near being considered a vicious dog.

Dogs that are bred for fighting also have those aggressive tendancies reinforced to get them to level they need for fighting. The methods used by the owners of these dogs is terrible and if there is a hunting season needed it is on those that breed and train dogs for fighting.

As far as not trusting pits, this is probably a good idea but not because they are a bad breed but because you might not know if the owner is a responsible owner and took the time to train the dog properly or not. Again it's not the breed you need to fear as much as it is the owner.

My family has always been dog people and I now have the smallests dogs in the family with a australian sheppard and an old chow. The chow by the way is probably the least people friendly of all them and are known for their aggressiveness also, but I have never had a time where I could not control her with the sound of my voice.

[VonMessa]

Gotta call you on this one, bud.

There's NO doubt that training and owner interaction make huge difference in outcomes. BUT -- and its a big BUT (no offense intended to those with ample cushions) -- genetic influences also play a major role. I mean, just about anyone would agree that certain breeds have certain characteristics. Poodles are generally high strung. Huskies benefit from lots of exercise, and will get antsy if they're left inside all the time. Golden Retrievers are mellow and love their packs to death. Even dog groups have characteristics, so that if you take a sheep dog on a hike with a group it will keep checking to see that the group is all together.

All those characteristics are genetically derived. They are not trained, they are inbred. Thats why even you say:

Now, if groups of dogs share genetic material (ie they're a BREED), it only stands to reason that they can share behavioral characteristics. And yeah, some dog breeds are more prone to aggressiveness, territoriality, and comfort with strangers. Why WOULDN'T there be those differences? No doubt that within a genetic line there will be considerable variation, and even with similar genes there will be huge behavioral differences based on the environment dogs are brought up in. A bad owner can ruin a good dog, and a good owner can get control of a difficult one.

But I think you'd have to admit that there ARE differences in average temprament, so some breeds are simply going to be more aggressive -- on average. And wouldnt you agree that experience has shown that pit bulls are more likely to react aggressively than, say, Pekingese? And that they are equipped with more dangerous tools to be aggressive with?

Not much to call me out on.

I'm not denying that certain breeds have certain traits.  Northern dogs like to run, certain breeds are better with children than others, etc, but in most cases, these instincts can be tempered through training.  Not in all cases, of course.

I'm not trying to  =say that certain breeds of dogs do not exhibit certain characteristics, but rather it's mostly (I'll repeat mostly) poor ownership or handling.

It's a shame certain breeds get a bum rap.  Especially when the "breed" doesn't even exist.

There is no recognized SINGLE or PURE breed of dog, known as a pit bull.  The AKC certainly recognizes a Bull Terrier as the following:

"The Bull Terrier must be strongly built, muscular, symmetrical and active, with a keen determined and intelligent expression, full of fire but of sweet disposition and amenable to discipline"

There are actually about a half dozen breeds of terrier that are referred to as a "Pit" bull, and most of them are not mean or aggressive by nature.  There are so many breeds called this because, at one point, almost every county in England had it's own breed of terrier.  Once they imported them and started cross breeding them with other dogs for fighting is where the term "Pit Bull" came from.

So...  the trait of being aggresive is really not the "breed" of dog, but the "breedING"

Remember Petey, from Our Gang (The Little Rascals)?

Genuine American Bull Terrier  

[ink]

the American Pitt Bull Terrier, is the greatest dog man has ever created, as a breed they were breed to fight DOGS not people, any "man fighters" were put down, or in the least not breed, they were never to be used as "Home protectors" for they love people to much, and if you have ever met a "true" APBT, you would know what I am talking about.

 you dont need to train a APBT to fight, you have to de-train them, it is in there breeding.

now saying that, what are called "Pittbulls" today are not "true" APBT, they have been breed with so many other types of dogs, to get a bigger and more impressive "scarier" looking dog, a "true" APBT, will not be over 65 pounds,(many fall into the 45-50 pound range) it is a small to medium build dog, with a zest for life second to none, and an unwavering love for his master and pack.

I have had dogs a good portion of my life and I was fortunate enough to have an amazing "APBT" in my life, I have also had "shepherds",  my "shepherd" growled at my kids, a "lab" I had also growled at my kids, but "Mia" my APBT, would allow my kids to do anything to her, they would use her as a step to climb into bed, pulled her ears, her lips, poke her eyes, whatever, it did not matter what they did, she took it happily.
   
I would bet my bottom dollar that 99% of these "pittbull" attacks are done by dogs that have been breed so much out side of the true "APBT" lines, that they are NOT APBTs. they may "look" like them but they are not.
 I have seen so many so called "pitbulls" that are 80 to 90 pounds even heaver than that, ask the owner what kind of dog? they say "pittbull"  ya they may look similar, but if you do a little research they would know the truth of the matter, they most likely own whats called  an "American Staffordshire terrier"
a dog that was breed from the "American Pitbull terrier", 

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanstaffordshire.htm

there is so much untruth out there around this breed, it saddens me to see the Hostility to one of Mans greatest "best friends"

Not much to call me out on.

I'm not denying that certain breeds have certain traits.  Northern dogs like to run, certain breeds are better with children than others, etc, but in most cases, these instincts can be tempered through training.  Not in all cases, of course.

I'm not trying to  =say that certain breeds of dogs do not exhibit certain characteristics, but rather it's mostly (I'll repeat mostly) poor ownership or handling.

It's a shame certain breeds get a bum rap.  Especially when the "breed" doesn't even exist.

There is no recognized SINGLE or PURE breed of dog, known as a pit bull.  The AKC certainly recognizes a Bull Terrier as the following: Yes there is, the UKC was founded exclusively for the APBT

"The Bull Terrier must be strongly built, muscular, symmetrical and active, with a keen determined and intelligent expression, full of fire but of sweet disposition and amenable to discipline"
a none fighting version horribly disfigured

There are actually about a half dozen breeds of terrier that are referred to as a "Pit" bull, and most of them are not mean or aggressive by nature.  There are so many breeds called this because, at one point, almost every county in England had it's own breed of terrier.  Once they imported them and started cross breeding them with other dogs for fighting is where the term "Pit Bull" came from.
they where breed for fighting long before they came to America
So...  the trait of being aggresive is really not the "breed" of dog, but the "breedING"

Remember Petey, from Our Gang (The Little Rascals)?
he was a true APBT.
Genuine American Bull Terrier