babyreba wrote:Thought I'd see what you think of this recent post . . .
I'd love to know what pit bull "community" he's found that actually agrees on the points he's making . . . I've had a hell of a time finding a pit bull "community" that will even agree to disagree . . .
DemoDick wrote:He's off his rocker. Too bad, as he is right on with his criticisms of breeding for aesthetics over ability. I think he's in love with his own notoriety and is going to continue to seek publicity however he can.
I posted a reponse to his blog a few months ago on this issue and (surprise!) it never saw the light of day.
You have some interesting points in your post, but the overall tone is the same as every other piece of anti-Pit Bull propaganda. Half truths and hype make for interesting reading when you want to fuel the fire, but those of us who are the targets have weathered far worse and will continue to do so. I doubt you will allow this post to go up, but I'm going to write it anyway; and I'm going to post it on my forum - http://www.PitBullTalk.com - so that it will be public even if you choose to pretend it doesn't exist.
“On the one hand, these folks will tell you their dogs have been bred for hundreds of years to battle other dogs, catch wild pig and cattle, kill escaping slaves, and guard prisoners and farm stock.”
I know of no Pit Bull owner who knows anything about the true history of the breed who states that they were used to kill escaping slaves or guard prisoners. Before they were pit dogs, they were farm dogs, butcher dogs, catch dogs, all around “general purpose” dogs.
Eventually, as people decided that their purpose was to fight other dogs, they were bred with that goal in mind – to be an athlete that didn’t know the meaning of the word quit, no matter what the odds. However, pit dogs were not guard dogs, they were not man stoppers; they were not even reliable enough to keep strangers from stealing themselves... and dog fighters usually had an actual guard dog to protect their fighting dogs from being stolen.
“To hear breed-blind Pit Bull defenders tell the story, however, a Pit Bull is no more likely to savage the neighbor's dog or maim a small child than any other dog.”
And here you are wrong… and right. You have a much higher chance of a Pit Bull being dog aggressive than many other breeds. However, it is the responsibility of the OWNER to keep that dog aggression in check, so if another DOG gets maimed, that owner is responsible. But no, a Pit Bull is NOT more likely to maim a small child than any other breed, no matter how much the media wants you to believe that. The CDC is the source of the statistics used to support that claim, and the CDC states that their own statistics are flawed.
“Yes, any large breed can do horrible damage. But in fact, Pit Bulls are currently implicated in more serious bite cases in the U.S. than all other guarding and molosser breeds combined.”
You keep talking about inconvenient facts, but here is one that you are keep alluding to. Pit Bulls are actually NOT implicated in more bite cases in the US, the statistics (flawed as they are) group “pit bull type dogs” as one group, meaning any dog that resembles a pit bull or has pit bull characteristics or might be a mix of pit bull. That would be like lumping Jack Russell Terriers, Fox Terriers, Parson Russell Terrier, Airedale Terrier and every other Terrier that looks kind of the same in one big group. I’m guessing you’d have an issue with that.
“But let's be honest. A Pit Bull is not the same as a couch-potato greyhound, is it? We want the folks who adopt Pit Bulls to do so with their eyes wide open, don't we? A Pit Bull is not the right dog for every person.”
Yes, let’s be honest. A Pit Bull is not the right dog for every person, any more than a correctly bred Jack Russell is. I don’t know what the answer is, but those of us who own the breed responsibly don’t appreciate people like you who want to legislate our rights as responsible dog owners away.
Personally, I don’t particularly like Jack Russells. I know someone who breeds the real deal, and though I appreciate them for what they are, I wouldn’t take one if it was a gift. However, I don’t begrudge her – or you – the right to own them, as long as you own them responsibly. If you lived next door to me, I would expect my cats to be safe from your dogs, just as my neighbors dogs are safe from my Pit Bulls.
No matter what breed of dog someone owns, it is that person’s responsibility to handle their dog appropriately. Personally, I have no issue with mandatory spay and neuter laws – for ALL breeds. I have no issue with very strict breeding regulations – for ALL breeds. I have no issue with very strict laws regarding ALL sales of domestic animals, private and retail. I think breed registries should stop thinking of the bottom line and start thinking about the quality of the dogs on the papers.
But it’s easy for you to point fingers at the “bad” breed and pretend that there is nothing wrong with any other dogs out there, isn’t it?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]