Man kills pit bull who attacks his wife & dogs

[Shuffler]

This is England.....the only weapon I'm allowed to carry are the steel toe caps on my size 12s. 

However, they are very effective and that dog would have had a serious headache.

lol swoop 


Keep in mind folks.... a pit bulls biting capacity is amazing 2000 psi. All it takes is once. I saw one in a shipyard bite a 4 x 4 wiggle it and snap it in half.

[dentin]

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.

g.

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

(Image removed from quote.)

Yup, MY dogs can. 

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

 

[VonMessa]

I generalize, and I apologize.

There is no breed known SIMPLY as a "Pit Bull" like a Samoyed, for instance

American Staffordshire Terrier

American Bull Terrier

American Pit Bull Terrier

Pit Bull is a generalized term that the media uses to demonize any type of mutt that resembles any of the above breeds.

They are a cross breed from Terrier and Bulldog stock.

They were not bred for fighting inasmuch as they were bred for their ability to aggressively handle cattle, etc on the farm as well as, to be a gentle home companion at the same time.  Only twisted folks, who should not be allowed to own dogs, train them for fighting.  Yes, an amount of aggressiveness is a characteristic of the breed, but the level of aggressiveness needed for dog-fighting is almost always from human intervention.

There is nothing "horribly" disfigured about a purebred American Bull Terrier.  It is what it is.

[ink]

I generalize, and I apologize.

There is no breed known SIMPLY as a "Pit Bull" like a Samoyed, for instance

American Staffordshire Terrier

American Bull Terrier

American Pit Bull Terrier

Pit Bull is a generalized term that the media uses to demonize any type of mutt that resembles any of the above breeds.

They are a cross breed from Terrier and Bulldog stock.

They were not bred for fighting inasmuch as they were bred for their ability to aggressively handle cattle, etc on the farm as well as, to be a gentle home companion at the same time.  Only twisted folks, who should not be allowed to own dogs, train them for fighting.  Yes, an amount of aggressiveness is a characteristic of the breed, but the level of aggressiveness needed for dog-fighting is almost always from human intervention.

There is nothing "horribly" disfigured about a purebred American Bull Terrier.  It is what it is.

we humans created the "Bulldog" over 4 hundred years ago, yes they were created to fight, it was called "bull baiting" or "bear baiting" (and some were forced to fight lions) they were made to fight plain and simple, these dogs were large breeds with no one look, when they outlawed bull and bear baiting, in England, they turned the dogs on each other, but they were to slow not enough action, so this is when they introduced the terrier into the lines, the terriers are notorious killers, much smaller and faster dogs,
 this is were the name "bull-terrier" comes from, these are the Dogs that came to America, and became the "American pit-bull terrier"  the cattle dogs you refer to are most often "American bulldogs"
 which ironically some people say are the original "bulldogs" from England, that were never crossed with terriers.

so to think that these dogs were not breed to fight, is out right wrong, and to think you have to train them to fight is also wrong,
You have to train them to NOT fight.

[VonMessa]

From the UKC site

http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/AmericanPitBullTerrierRevisedNovember12008

I am confused by the first line here.......

"Sometime during the nineteenth century, dog fanciers in England, Ireland and Scotland began to experiment with crosses between Bulldogs and Terriers,"

 

And you are correct.  I meant not bred to fight other dogs

[Simaril]

While I absolutely agree that the "fault" is with the owner -- the dog is just following through on instinct, which the owner should harness with training -- the fact remains that some dogs are more likely to attack than others.

Here's what I mean: There are millions of dog owners in America, ranging from the excellent to the absolute...ummm...knucklehead ed. Taken as a group, IN GENERAL, they will average out so that owners of any given breed have more or less similar skill in dog handling. (I know that's a generalization, and that in reality some breeds attract different kinds of people, and maybe even different skill levels in ownership.)

I'm a bottom line kind of guy. And bottom line is that "Pit Bulls" (and while that is not a breed, it DOES have meaning -- it means the kinds of dogs people call pit bulls!) account for more human deaths than any other group. They ARE more dangerous to have around, regardless of whether you blame it on crappy owners or on the dogs' genes.

Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are implicated in over half of the 283 human DEATHS from dog bites in the past 20 years. Pit bulls and pit bull crosses account for 20% of serious bites, Rotties and Chows account for 10% each, and German Shepherds another 7%. These are statistically significant differences from the "average" dog's chance of being involved in serious bites.

So you can't say it's "ALL" the owner, not the breed.



But notice what I'm NOT saying. I'm not saying that Pits ought to be outlawed, or that they should be treated differently from Rottweilers or Chows. I'm not saying that this breed or that ought to be banned. Dogs are more likely to bite when they haven't been trained, when they've been mistreated, or when they haven't had appropriate socialization -- and those things are true regardless of breed.

I just think it's misguided to claim that the breed has no part to play in likelihood of aggression. Although the anti-Pit Bull fanatics have an agenda that pushes them to warp the truth, we dog lovers can let our agenda try to cover up the unpleasant fact that some dogs are more dangerous to have in the neighborhood than others.

[dkff49]

While I absolutely agree that the "fault" is with the owner -- the dog is just following through on instinct, which the owner should harness with training -- the fact remains that some dogs are more likely to attack than others.

Here's what I mean: There are millions of dog owners in America, ranging from the excellent to the absolute...ummm...knucklehead ed. Taken as a group, IN GENERAL, they will average out so that owners of any given breed have more or less similar skill in dog handling. (I know that's a generalization, and that in reality some breeds attract different kinds of people, and maybe even different skill levels in ownership.)

I'm a bottom line kind of guy. And bottom line is that "Pit Bulls" (and while that is not a breed, it DOES have meaning -- it means the kinds of dogs people call pit bulls!) account for more human deaths than any other group. They ARE more dangerous to have around, regardless of whether you blame it on crappy owners or on the dogs' genes.

Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are implicated in over half of the 283 human DEATHS from dog bites in the past 20 years. Pit bulls and pit bull crosses account for 20% of serious bites, Rotties and Chows account for 10% each, and German Shepherds another 7%. These are statistically significant differences from the "average" dog's chance of being involved in serious bites.

So you can't say it's "ALL" the owner, not the breed.



But notice what I'm NOT saying. I'm not saying that Pits ought to be outlawed, or that they should be treated differently from Rottweilers or Chows. I'm not saying that this breed or that ought to be banned. Dogs are more likely to bite when they haven't been trained, when they've been mistreated, or when they haven't had appropriate socialization -- and those things are true regardless of breed.

I just think it's misguided to claim that the breed has no part to play in likelihood of aggression. Although the anti-Pit Bull fanatics have an agenda that pushes them to warp the truth, we dog lovers can let our agenda try to cover up the unpleasant fact that some dogs are more dangerous to have in the neighborhood than others.

you are right in the fact that some dogs are more prone to aggressive behavior than others and some breeds are more likely to be as well. However as a dog owner it is your responsibility to recognize this and train your dog accordingly.

I think a big part of the reason that the numbers point in this direction are like you said certain breeds tend to attract certain types of owners, in which case it is still the owners responsibility.

I do remember reading a study once though I am unable to find it now, that most dog bites are by dogs that are tied up or kenneled and given little to no attention. This has a tendency to create severe territorial issues as well as other problems and I think the level of aggressiveness and energy levels that these dogs have are a big part of the reason they are treated this way, which could lead to higher percentage of bites you show in your numbers. This still makes it an owner issue.


I tell you the dogs I associate with dog bites more than any other dog and it probably does not make the numbers because of lack of reporting,is the Chihuahua or any other ankle biter. They just are not usually serious enough or not reported because of their size maybe because most people would be embarrassed for reporting such a bite.

edit: There was a specific question asked in the OP that many have not even addressed here, myself included.
I don't carry a knife or any other normal weapon on family walks and I can not say for sure if I would have thought to go to a neighbor for a knife. I really think I would have stayed and beat the living crap out of the dog with anything I find lying around. I also think that man was in the right for stabbing that dog until it left and fell over dead, I would have with out reserve. That said though I would definitely blame no one but the owners of the dog for having such an aggressive dog and taking the proper steps to train the dog appropriately.

[ink]

From the UKC site

http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/AmericanPitBullTerrierRevisedNovember12008

I am confused by the first line here.......

"Sometime during the nineteenth century, dog fanciers in England, Ireland and Scotland began to experiment with crosses between Bulldogs and Terriers,"

 

And you are correct.  I meant not bred to fight other dogs

it must be the "dog fanciers" part, you gotta remember times were so different than, people had no respect for Human life, let alone a dogs life,

on a side note "pittmen' those who fought and breed "pittbulls" in the early 20s and earlier, were the first to keep track of there dogs pedigree,
and in those days the dogs did not have to fight to the death. that's more of a modern "human" trait.

[VonMessa]

you are right in the fact that some dogs are more prone to aggressive behavior than others and some breeds are more likely to be as well. However as a dog owner it is your responsibility to recognize this and train your dog accordingly.

I think a big part of the reason that the numbers point in this direction are like you said certain breeds tend to attract certain types of owners, in which case it is still the owners responsibility.

I do remember reading a study once though I am unable to find it now, that most dog bites are by dogs that are tied up or kenneled and given little to no attention. This has a tendency to create severe territorial issues as well as other problems and I think the level of aggressiveness and energy levels that these dogs have are a big part of the reason they are treated this way, which could lead to higher percentage of bites you show in your numbers. This still makes it an owner issue.


I tell you the dogs I associate with dog bites more than any other dog and it probably does not make the numbers because of lack of reporting,is the Chihuahua or any other ankle biter. They just are not usually serious enough or not reported because of their size maybe because most people would be embarrassed for reporting such a bite.

Owning a dog can be as dangerous as owning a gun.  It also carries as much responsibility..

I've told my friends, many times.  If someone pulls a gun out to rob me, while I have dog with me, he had better hit the dog first because if I go down, there won't be anyone else left to make the dog stop.

[dkff49]

Owning a dog can be as dangerous as owning a gun.  It also carries as much responsibility..

I've told my friends, many times.  If someone pulls a gun out to rob me, while I have dog with me, he had better hit the dog first because if I go down, there won't be anyone else left to make the dog stop.

Agreed. 

[Rich46yo]

Unfortunately many Pits are owned either by drug dealers or circuit fighters. The ones Ive had to deal with were usually both. Ive seen them in such horrible condition after they've been abandoned by ghetto dog fighters. Just imagine the worst condition a dog could be in and still be alive.

Ive had friends who have owned some really nice ones. I myself would never have one with small kids around but then again any dog is an animal and you have to be careful. Its really unfortunate so many screwballs have caused these animals to be demonized like they are. A good Pit with the right kind of owner makes for a fine companion.

[Roundeye]

Articles like this are why I carry a pistol.  Not only for protection from stupid people, but animals as well. 

We need laws to hold owners (and custodians) of such beasts accountable.  The "my friend had it" just does not work.  You can't tell me the owners "friend" did not know a PIT BULL was dangerous.  Letting one of those run loose is no different than firing a gun at random in different directions.

[Denholm]

We have a few moronic pit bull owners around here, also. One of those owners wouldn't care if their dog got out or not. In fact, that same owner had to pick up his dog from animal services around 8 times before he finally got fed up and moved some place else. Rather strange these ignorant individuals are.

[Babalonian]

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?

<- 6'4", 280 lbs

It's not as sharp as a knife but almost as effective against a dog, it's called my size 14 foot and fists of fury.

My little town has banned pittbulls in the city limits after one attacked a mail carrier. I've hated those things with a passion ever since my sisters killed my Red Bone coon hound puppy. Alot of young adults want these pittbulls because they think they're "cool". I personally would like to see a huntin' season on them.

It's unfortunate that pitbulls have such a bad wrap because they have such horrible owners.  I've met some really sweet ones though, and each one comes from a loving family/owner that looks after their dog (giving it a treat when it does good and giving it a strong hand when it does bad).  I'll believe that some breeds of dogs are more prone to being this or that, but if you've ever been around dogs for most of your life like me, you know good dogs have good owners, bad dogs have bad owners.  I'm only 25, but most of my peers I honestly don't think could clean their own toilet bowl if their life depended on it, noneless take after another living thing such as a dog.

[smkelly13]

I'm glad the man rescued his family, but leaving for even a moment could have led to disaster.  The manner in which he killed the beast is weird as well, but that's not going to be the point of my post.

Pitbulls should be exterminated.  Many will disapprove of this statement, the bleeding hearted liberals, and the animal rights activists.  Those types of people will only change their tone of voice when a loved one or friend, or worse yet, their own child is mauled to death or so hideously disfigured they'll never be able to enjoy life.  Only then will they see the light of their misguided and blind ignorance. 

It's not uncommon for animals to be completely exterminated in the United States, like the wolverine, or wolf, granted, they still exist, but were pushed to near extinction levels because of either human/livestock/fur issues.  Imagine a wolverine mauling and killing a child in any state, what would happen?  Imagine if it had a few more times.  Imagine if it had a few times a year, for a decade.  They would be hunted, killed, and their coats used to line jackets.  Just because a pitbull is a "domesticated" pet doesn't mean it shouldn't be destroyed.  Pitbulls are listed with rottweilers as the two species of canine that are responsible for the highest rate of homicides.  http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html That's one source for my claims, and opinions.

http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2009/01/2008-us-dog-bite-fatality-statistics.html
http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2007/12/grim-2007-dog-bite-fatality-statistics.html
http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2008/08/2006-dog-bite-fatality-statistics.html
http://www.dog-bite-law-center.com/pit_bull_attacks.html
http://www.pitbulllovers.com/pitbull-attacks-deadly.html

Read through those sites, Pitbulls take the prestigious title of most people killed for three straight years.  They are the USC of canines.

People will come crying to their defense, that it's not their fault, its about their upbringing, and what not.  The fact they never see is that they are an animal.  No animal can ever be completely domesticated, its virtually impossible.  Its like those When Animals Attack shows, I always wonder what those people are thinking when they say "I've been training this lion for years, I wonder why it attacked me".  BECAUSE ITS A LION!  Look at how many people died when that elephant went on a rampage at a circus, people were absolutely confused that an elephant would go on a rampage.  It's those same people that will blindly defend the pitbull.

It has gotten to the point that people should be required, by LAW, to register their pitbull with the state.  For all intents and purposes, pitbulls are lethal weapons.  A male pitfull could easily kill or maul an (un)suspecting person.  No matter how tough you think you are, when a dog with powerful jaws and sharp teeth latch onto you, it'll take the wind out of your sails.  Strict guidelines should be enacted, and through ALL 50 states.  Fines should be levied, and should be harsh, think pirating a DVD fine.

I've been attacked by three dogs in my lifetime.  One was a rottweiler, the dog was a full grown male, it was coming after my 6 month old king German shepherd.  I had to defend my dog, he was still a puppy.  I got bite twice, once on the arm, and once on leg.  Unfortunately for the dog, my friend was within earshout and came out with a baseball bat.  The second time was by a bullmastiff, I was about 8 years old and was playing with some of the neighborhood children, it was their dog.  I was playing touch football, and ran past the dog, who was normally chill as ice with me, but he decided to bite me this time around.  He bite me on my chest, puncturing about an inch into my chest.  The dog got shot by the owner latter on in the day, after the dog had bitten him as well when he started to discipline it after it had bitten me.  The last, to no surprise, was a pitbull.  I was in Jacksonville, North Carolina, at a friends house who lived next door to a guy who owned a pitbull.  For whatever reason, the dog disliked me from the get go, it wouldn't stop growling and staring at me from underneath the dinning room table.  I figured the dog would do something stupid, so I called the evening short and went to leave.  As I was bending down to grab my boots, the dog lunged at me, but was surprised when I caught it in mid-air and slammed it into the wall.  I did end up getting bite after a struggle until my friend pulled it away.  I ended up breaking three knuckles and denting in my steel toed boots on the dog and it wouldn't stop.  Pitbulls are like a Timex, they'll take a lickin and keep on tickin. 

I'm just wondering how many pitbull attacks go unrecorded, or if in another country, won't make international news if it's a fatality.  I'm sure the stats would increase exponentially.