Pit bulls are safe around children!

[WinterBorn]

The breed was developed to the point that a total stranger could handle the fighting dog without fear of being bitten.

Is honesty simply out of the question for you? Why do you constantly make up bullshit? Don't you even realize how fucking stupid you look when you make statements like that?

When he states something that is true and you make the statement you did, it makes you not only look stupid, but like an asshole as well.

2 birds with one stone.

The only stupid asshole here is you. Just ask around.

If you will read the information in post #452 you will see you were wrong. And I am not an asshole for taking jerks to task for their ignorance and their hostility.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

From 2005 to 2013 Pitbulls and Rotweillers accounted for 74% of all dog biting deaths in America according to the CDC.
So anyone saying that Pits and other large bull terrier breeds are not more dangerous than other breeds are fooling themselves. The facts do not lie. And the above is the facts.
The biggest problem with Pits are still the owners however.
They are not for the inexperienced or beginner dog owners. And should not be allowed to be given to anyone other than people who can prove past experience.
I fully support that all Pit/Rott owners to have to carry liability insurance and there should be increased criminal penalties for all owners if they injure anyone.

I agree with most of your post but the problem is that most people have no clue what a pitbull is. Most experts have a hard time figuring it out.

Semantics. What you are saying is not important.
The American Staffordshire, the "true" Pit bull is not what is being talked about, yes it is true that many "bully breeds" are not technically pit bulls - but the name "Pitbull" is commonly used to describe "bullies".
What is important is for everyone to know that "pitbulls" should only be for experienced dog owners.

 

[emilynghiem]

No one is buying your retarded fake history You cant just make shit up and not expect to be called out on it.

I am amused you are this dumb. I bet you couldnt point out a pitbull if your life depended on it.

I bet you cant provide real proof of your claim if your life depended on it.

It's always fun proving you to be the idiot everyone already knows you are.

Pit Bull Rescue Central

As Malcolm Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers) explains in an article published in The New Yorker in 2006: “Pit bulls were not bred to fight humans. On the contrary: a dog that went after spectators, or its handler, or the trainer, or any of the other people involved in making a dogfighting dog a good dogfighter was usually put down. (The rule in the pit-bull world was ‘Man-eaters die.’)”

10 Common Misconceptions About Pit Bulls

"Since Pits were bred to fight dogs in a ring, the owners had to make certain they would not turn on them when they went in to stop the fight. Imagine a dog, so riled up from fighting and very aggressive, who was able to then turn it off when his human appeared in the pit. "

Sorry Aclepias but there is not enough guarantee of the competence of owners and breeders
to make sure they pick, breed and train their pitbulls to be this type.

I would trust the pro's who handle the Veteran group pit rescues
and are training the best dogs to be obedient.

They sound like they know what they are doing, and are committed to the Vets' care FIRST
and NOT trying to promote an agenda with pitbulls. They are rescuing pitbulls also, but not at the expense of
the integrity of their program.

There cannot be a conflict of interest, on either side, or the propaganda can fly back and forth.

It depends on the dog, if it can be trained or not, or if it has a problem or poses a risk.

The Veteran program recognizes this, and screens the pitbulls carefully they select for training for Veterans.
They don't expect the Veterans to be able to train the dogs, they use professional trainers and screeners for that.

I'm not getting your point? What does that have to do with the dogs being bred specifically not to attack strangers have to do with incompetent owners?

Not everyone should own a pit unless they know their history as a breed and know how to handle dogs period regardless of breed. A Chihuahua with incompetent owners is one thing. A pit bull with incompetent owner is a entirely different story as they are capable of killing an adult and keeping up a sustained attack long enough to do major damage. Just like German Shepherds, Rotties, and Dobermans people over breed them due to popularity and dont cull the ones with bad temperaments. A psychotic dog is dangerous no matter what the breed.

I'm just saying that if pitpulls were required to go through the same screening and
training as those approved for the Veterans' program, I personally would trust those pitbulls to be safe and trained.
So any person can handle that pitbull, knowing it's not going to have risks that would have gotten it screened out.

If you have different standards, and would require this training and screening for ALL dogs
great! I"m sure your neighborhood would be even safer.

I think districts can decide for themselves what level of screening to require.

some may be okay with pitbulls with or without screening.

But some with small kids or elderly, or residents afraid of dogs,
may require screening and training to meet their local ordinances.
If someone complains it isn't fair to profile pitbulls, I totally agree
with your idea to screen and train ALL dogs or ALL pets for dangerous risks.

I know a couple who keep boa's and other snakes, so yes, I would require residents like them to be registered and knowledgeable, and not irresponsible amateurs who don't know poisonous snakes from this one or that one, and who aren't committing any kind of animal abuse either.

Instead of trying to make one policy fit all people or neighborhoods,
I recommend organizing it through the local home owners or civic associations.
People have a right to security in our houses, papers and effects, and the
right to assemble peaceably in our communities without fear or threat to our safety.

Any conflicts can be identified and resolved on that level of local communities.
So if the issue really is bad owners, that can be screened out as well.

Whatever people agree will make them feel safe and secure in their homes
and communities, they have the right to decide and enforce by consensus of those affected.
So if it varies, let it vary. But the better solutions will catch on as models for others to replicate.

If everyone organized that way, we'd go live and form communities around
safer standards, and raise the standards by enforcing them ourselves.

if we disagree, well, different apts have different policies on pets.
So organize and find where you agree on policies and live there.

 

[WinterBorn]

From 2005 to 2013 Pitbulls and Rotweillers accounted for 74% of all dog biting deaths in America according to the CDC.
So anyone saying that Pits and other large bull terrier breeds are not more dangerous than other breeds are fooling themselves. The facts do not lie. And the above is the facts.
The biggest problem with Pits are still the owners however.
They are not for the inexperienced or beginner dog owners. And should not be allowed to be given to anyone other than people who can prove past experience.
I fully support that all Pit/Rott owners to have to carry liability insurance and there should be increased criminal penalties for all owners if they injure anyone.

I agree with most of your post but the problem is that most people have no clue what a pitbull is. Most experts have a hard time figuring it out.

Semantics. What you are saying is not important.
The American Staffordshire, the "true" Pit bull is not what is being talked about, yes it is true that many "bully breeds" are not technically pit bulls - but the name "Pitbull" is commonly used to describe "bullies".
What is important is for everyone to know that "pitbulls" should only be for experienced dog owners.

Calling different breeds pitbulls is not a matter of semantics. It is simply inaccurate.

No, it is not the true pitbull that is being talked about. Many witnesses to attacks have simply been taken at their word that it was a pitbull, since that is the terror dog of the moment. Dobermans and Rottweilers have held that post in the past.

 

[Asclepias]

From 2005 to 2013 Pitbulls and Rotweillers accounted for 74% of all dog biting deaths in America according to the CDC.
So anyone saying that Pits and other large bull terrier breeds are not more dangerous than other breeds are fooling themselves. The facts do not lie. And the above is the facts.
The biggest problem with Pits are still the owners however.
They are not for the inexperienced or beginner dog owners. And should not be allowed to be given to anyone other than people who can prove past experience.
I fully support that all Pit/Rott owners to have to carry liability insurance and there should be increased criminal penalties for all owners if they injure anyone.

I agree with most of your post but the problem is that most people have no clue what a pitbull is. Most experts have a hard time figuring it out.

Semantics. What you are saying is not important.
The American Staffordshire, the "true" Pit bull is not what is being talked about, yes it is true that many "bully breeds" are not technically pit bulls - but the name "Pitbull" is commonly used to describe "bullies".
What is important is for everyone to know that "pitbulls" should only be for experienced dog owners.

No its not semantics. What people are doing is claiming something that is not factual. You cant indiscriminately group up to 10 different dog breeds and claim they all are dangerous because someone cant tell the difference.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Pit Bulls Pass ATTS Temperament Test With 86.4

"According to the American Temperament Test Society (2010-2011), 804 American Pit Bull Terriers were tested and 695 passed. This means that 86.4% of Pit Bulls tested by the ATTS had a good temperament. Pit Bulls pass rating was above 121 other breeds of dogs, including Golden Retrievers!"

See my post above....sorry Charlie.

Your post above speaks only to the number of fatal attacks. The pit is bred to have a very high pain tolerance and to have incredible jaw strength. This does not mean they attack more often. Only that their attacks, even though they are infrequent, tend to be far more serious.

Pits are no where near the top of the most aggressive breeds or most likely to bite.

Again semantics.
One of the more aggressive breeds is the Chihuahua. But so what? Other than being a pain in the ass they are relatively harmless.
Pits are not dangerous because of their aggressiveness, they are dangerous because of their nervous/high strung nature. A nervous/insecure dog IS a dangerous dog.
A nervous/insecure dog raised by a moron that puts it into a role of where it believes it needs to protect the pack? You have a ticking time bomb.
A nervous/insecure dog that is raised properly, trained to know it is not the "family protector" - and the breed is actually very loving and affectionate, and easily submits to others.

 

[emilynghiem]

From 2005 to 2013 Pitbulls and Rotweillers accounted for 74% of all dog biting deaths in America according to the CDC.
So anyone saying that Pits and other large bull terrier breeds are not more dangerous than other breeds are fooling themselves. The facts do not lie. And the above is the facts.
The biggest problem with Pits are still the owners however.
They are not for the inexperienced or beginner dog owners. And should not be allowed to be given to anyone other than people who can prove past experience.
I fully support that all Pit/Rott owners to have to carry liability insurance and there should be increased criminal penalties for all owners if they injure anyone.

I agree with most of your post but the problem is that most people have no clue what a pitbull is. Most experts have a hard time figuring it out.

Semantics. What you are saying is not important.
The American Staffordshire, the "true" Pit bull is not what is being talked about, yes it is true that many "bully breeds" are not technically pit bulls - but the name "Pitbull" is commonly used to describe "bullies".
What is important is for everyone to know that "pitbulls" should only be for experienced dog owners.

No its not semantics. What people are doing is claiming something that is not factual. You cant indiscriminately group up to 10 different dog breeds and claim they all are dangerous because someone cant tell the difference.

Nor can you use that argument to excuse dogs that DO turn out to be dangerous, enable someone to get hurt,
and not be criticized as being partially liable and negligent.

What I see wrong is when someone DEFENDS the pitbulls on the side of freedom, but takes NO responsibility if something goes wrong and someone gets hurt.

So if you set it up where the responsibility is shared locally, people can come up with whatever policy
or threshold standard/requirement they WANT for their association around their property,
and they have every right to implement that by consent of the property owners.

I checked with a property rights consultant,
and for Houston, he said it could require
an ordinance to be passed on the city level, where each district or association could opt into the ordinance.

And then it could be structured however they wanted as long as the owners agree.
In Houston for historic preservation I think the cut off was 2/3 had to agree.

For this level I would recommend 100% consensus so there is no discrimination against minority interests.
The ordinance would have to be written to accommodate those differences, and I would recommend
assistance with conflict resolution, mediation and consensus to help citizens learn that process anyway.

Because if people can or cannot negotiate a consensus on that level, that will also help
screen out problems in advance with conflicts that could lead to worse issues. It would help with screening on many levels.

I would recommend that people who want 100% consensus must be willing to resolve any and all conflicts to get to 100%.
And if people refuse and just want to input an opinion, then mediators would be required to get a consensus out of that.
if the conflict is so bad that people can't agree, and there is going to be a lawsuit over a pitbull or other dangerous pet,
I would recommend separating jurisdictions and not having those neighbors live together if it's going to jeopardize safety.
I'd rather them save their dogs and not risk children, then to have something go wrong and it's too late after the fact.
but that's for the neighborhood I would live in, where I need to have consensus to feel safe.

If other people have lower standards, and want to sue or take risks I wouldn't, that's up to them.

 

[emilynghiem]

Pits are not dangerous because of their aggressiveness, they are dangerous because of their nervous/high strung nature. A nervous/insecure dog IS a dangerous dog.
A nervous/insecure dog raised by a moron that puts it into a role of where it believes it needs to protect the pack? You have a ticking time bomb.
A nervous/insecure dog that is raised properly, trained to know it is not the "family protector" - and the breed is actually very loving and affectionate, and easily submits to others.

Thanks iamwhatiseem
That is why I personally would want to know that pitbulls are screened and trained by professionals first,
where anyone can handle them after that. Even a complete moron!

 

[Asclepias]

Pit Bulls Pass ATTS Temperament Test With 86.4

"According to the American Temperament Test Society (2010-2011), 804 American Pit Bull Terriers were tested and 695 passed. This means that 86.4% of Pit Bulls tested by the ATTS had a good temperament. Pit Bulls pass rating was above 121 other breeds of dogs, including Golden Retrievers!"

See my post above....sorry Charlie.

Your post above speaks only to the number of fatal attacks. The pit is bred to have a very high pain tolerance and to have incredible jaw strength. This does not mean they attack more often. Only that their attacks, even though they are infrequent, tend to be far more serious.

Pits are no where near the top of the most aggressive breeds or most likely to bite.

Again semantics.
One of the more aggressive breeds is the Chihuahua. But so what? Other than being a pain in the ass they are relatively harmless.
Pits are not dangerous because of their aggressiveness, they are dangerous because of their nervous/high strung nature. A nervous/insecure dog IS a dangerous dog.
A nervous/insecure dog raised by a moron that puts it into a role of where it believes it needs to protect the pack? You have a ticking time bomb.
A nervous/insecure dog that is raised properly, trained to know it is not the "family protector" - and the breed is actually very loving and affectionate, and easily submits to others.

You must have missed the temperament test I posted a few posts back. Pits are not tempermental dogs. You must have only owned one or never owned any to say something like that.

Pit Bulls Pass ATTS Temperament Test With 86.4

"According to the American Temperament Test Society (2010-2011), 804 American Pit Bull Terriers were tested and 695 passed. This means that 86.4% of Pit Bulls tested by the ATTS had a good temperament. Pit Bulls pass rating was above 121 other breeds of dogs, including Golden Retrievers!"

 

[Asclepias]

From 2005 to 2013 Pitbulls and Rotweillers accounted for 74% of all dog biting deaths in America according to the CDC.
So anyone saying that Pits and other large bull terrier breeds are not more dangerous than other breeds are fooling themselves. The facts do not lie. And the above is the facts.
The biggest problem with Pits are still the owners however.
They are not for the inexperienced or beginner dog owners. And should not be allowed to be given to anyone other than people who can prove past experience.
I fully support that all Pit/Rott owners to have to carry liability insurance and there should be increased criminal penalties for all owners if they injure anyone.

I agree with most of your post but the problem is that most people have no clue what a pitbull is. Most experts have a hard time figuring it out.

Semantics. What you are saying is not important.
The American Staffordshire, the "true" Pit bull is not what is being talked about, yes it is true that many "bully breeds" are not technically pit bulls - but the name "Pitbull" is commonly used to describe "bullies".
What is important is for everyone to know that "pitbulls" should only be for experienced dog owners.

No its not semantics. What people are doing is claiming something that is not factual. You cant indiscriminately group up to 10 different dog breeds and claim they all are dangerous because someone cant tell the difference.

Nor can you use that argument to excuse dogs that DO turn out to be dangerous, enable someone to get hurt,
and not be criticized as being partially liable and negligent.

What I see wrong is when someone DEFENDS the pitbulls on the side of freedom, but takes NO responsibility if something goes wrong and someone gets hurt.

So if you set it up where the responsibility is shared locally, people can come up with whatever policy
or threshold standard/requirement they WANT for their association around their property,
and they have every right to implement that by consent of the property owners.

I checked with a property rights consultant,
and for Houston, he said it could require
an ordinance to be passed on the city level, where each district or association could opt into the ordinance.

And then it could be structured however they wanted as long as the owners agree.
In Houston for historic preservation I think the cut off was 2/3 had to agree.

For this level I would recommend 100% consensus so there is no discrimination against minority interests.
The ordinance would have to be written to accommodate those differences, and I would recommend
assistance with conflict resolution, mediation and consensus to help citizens learn that process anyway.

Because if people can or cannot negotiate a consensus on that level, that will also help
screen out problems in advance with conflicts that could lead to worse issues. It would help with screening on many levels.

I would recommend that people who want 100% consensus must be willing to resolve any and all conflicts to get to 100%.
And if people refuse and just want to input an opinion, then mediators would be required to get a consensus out of that.
if the conflict is so bad that people can't agree, and there is going to be a lawsuit over a pitbull or other dangerous pet,
I would recommend separating jurisdictions and not having those neighbors live together if it's going to jeopardize safety.
I'd rather them save their dogs and not risk children, then to have something go wrong and it's too late after the fact.
but that's for the neighborhood I would live in, where I need to have consensus to feel safe.

If other people have lower standards, and want to sue or take risks I wouldn't, that's up to them.

Where did I excuse dangerous dogs? People are claiming the breed is the problem. Lets get our facts straight. The breed isnt dangerous. Specific dogs are dangerous regardless of breed. A St Bernard can kill an adult but there is no call for a ban on that breed.

 

[Asclepias]

Pits are not dangerous because of their aggressiveness, they are dangerous because of their nervous/high strung nature. A nervous/insecure dog IS a dangerous dog.
A nervous/insecure dog raised by a moron that puts it into a role of where it believes it needs to protect the pack? You have a ticking time bomb.
A nervous/insecure dog that is raised properly, trained to know it is not the "family protector" - and the breed is actually very loving and affectionate, and easily submits to others.

Thanks iamwhatiseem
That is why I personally would want to know that pitbulls are screened and trained by professionals first,
where anyone can handle them after that. Even a complete moron!

There is no such thing as a dog that can have a complete moron for an owner and it be all right

 

[emilynghiem]

Pits are not dangerous because of their aggressiveness, they are dangerous because of their nervous/high strung nature. A nervous/insecure dog IS a dangerous dog.
A nervous/insecure dog raised by a moron that puts it into a role of where it believes it needs to protect the pack? You have a ticking time bomb.
A nervous/insecure dog that is raised properly, trained to know it is not the "family protector" - and the breed is actually very loving and affectionate, and easily submits to others.

Thanks iamwhatiseem
That is why I personally would want to know that pitbulls are screened and trained by professionals first,
where anyone can handle them after that. Even a complete moron!

There is no such thing as a dog that can have a complete moron for an owner and it be all right

Okay so for your ordinance in your neighborhood,
you might have a screening process to make sure no morons leak through.
Very good!

I even sympathize with the police in NY
and want to offer this idea that they go on strike unless
their home districts all sign agreements to follow the laws
and agree on SPECIFIC procedures if a confrontation occurs.
So police and community members AGREE what the procedures
are. And if they all sign, then police agree to work those areas.

So for people who don't trust certain police, they can hire
ones they do have good faith relations with and can agree
on procedures to follow. And don't hire police or don't work for districts
where you already know you have conflicts.

This would provide mutual screening.
If cops have bad reps, they might end up in an area that wants them there.

 

[Iceweasel]

btw, no disrespect meant to the guy above but how did a pitbull maul an adult man? Was he asleep?

If you are going to survive an attack by an adult pitbull, you better be prepared from the beginning. Otherwise you will lose.

I don't agree. I'm not going to test it out to prove you wrong but a dog only has one weapon. If I was attacked unarmed I'd poke both his eyes out if he had a hold of me and wring his neck.

Wringing the neck of a pit bull would be almost impossible for one person, unless you got on his back. And usually, an arm is what is grabbed first. So one arm is useless, since the pit will have crushed those bones.

Going for the eyes requires getting by the one weapon. One of the things we were taught in a class some years ago is that dogs hate having their feet hurt. But this was a pet that lost it. So the dog gets at least one shot before you know you are being attacked for real.

I would do whatever I needed to do to win and I would win. I've seen many pitbulls and pitbull necks, they are not supernatural. I think many people have an emotional overreaction to the breed.

 

[emilynghiem]

btw, no disrespect meant to the guy above but how did a pitbull maul an adult man? Was he asleep?

If you are going to survive an attack by an adult pitbull, you better be prepared from the beginning. Otherwise you will lose.

I don't agree. I'm not going to test it out to prove you wrong but a dog only has one weapon. If I was attacked unarmed I'd poke both his eyes out if he had a hold of me and wring his neck.

Wringing the neck of a pit bull would be almost impossible for one person, unless you got on his back. And usually, an arm is what is grabbed first. So one arm is useless, since the pit will have crushed those bones.

Going for the eyes requires getting by the one weapon. One of the things we were taught in a class some years ago is that dogs hate having their feet hurt. But this was a pet that lost it. So the dog gets at least one shot before you know you are being attacked for real.

I would do whatever I needed to do to win and I would win. I've seen many pitbulls and pitbull necks, they are not supernatural. I think many people have an emotional overreaction to the breed.

Hmmm now that's an idea IW.
Let's start adding this to self-defense training.

I think that's a good idea, to encourage more people
along with learning CPR, how to swim, gun safety,
police procedures. We should learn what is the
best defense in case of a dangerous dog attack instead of waiting for this to happen to improvise.

 

[Iceweasel]

Hmmm now that's an idea IW.
Let's start adding this to self-defense training.

I think that's a good idea, to encourage more people
along with learning CPR, how to swim, gun safety,
police procedures. We should learn what is the
best defense in case of a dangerous dog attack instead of waiting for this to happen to improvise.

The bottom line is, like with any fight, if you are on the defense, you'll loose. If I was attacked by a dog I would kick him hard in the nose, they have very sensitive noses. If he stuck up on me and got me down, I would wrap my legs around him and gouge eyes, get an arm around his neck and break the fucking thing. It's muscle and bone, not titanium.

 

[Roudy]

How many times are we going to see these stories of people being mauled by pit bulls? You always hear the same thing from pit bull enthusiasts, "it depends on how they are raised. My pit bull is as gentle as can be!". Its funny how the owners of the pit bulls that attack people always say "I cant believe it, my pit bulls played with my children." Well guess what, this kid was around these pit bulls before without incident, then suddenly one day these "peaceful" dogs killed a child and mauled his pregnant mother.

These dogs are ticking time bombs, therefore they aren't fit for domestication. They should be outlawed!


Police identify boy, 4, killed in dog attack

I have adopted a German Shepherd and I heard the exact same thing from a lady in the adoption agency, with over 25 years experience training and finding homes for all kinds of dogs. In fact in her opinion, breeding pitbulls should be made illegal until they become extinct. I was very surprised to hear that from someone who is active in dog adoption.

Like your article mentions the few pitbulls that I have encountered, seem to be very friendly, happy dogs. Although they're probably the most muscular dogs I have seen.

Bottom line with dogs is, you have to be racist choosing what you want. Certain breeds have certain behavioral characteristics, some are faster, while others are smarter, some like my shepherd have an extremely stable personality, while others like poodles smarter than shepherds, but very moody. Yet others are work dogs with lots of energy, and need to go on long walks or hikes otherwise they get very anxious.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hmmm now that's an idea IW.
Let's start adding this to self-defense training.

I think that's a good idea, to encourage more people
along with learning CPR, how to swim, gun safety,
police procedures. We should learn what is the
best defense in case of a dangerous dog attack instead of waiting for this to happen to improvise.

The bottom line is, like with any fight, if you are on the defense, you'll loose. If I was attacked by a dog I would kick him hard in the nose, they have very sensitive noses. If he stuck up on me and got me down, I would wrap my legs around him and gouge eyes, get an arm around his neck and break the fucking thing. It's muscle and bone, not titanium.

The worst thing is to go down on the ground. stay on your feet.

And if you have an arm around his neck his mouth is at your neck or belly. No, it is not titanium, but his pain tolerance is far higher than yours.

The nose is not a bad shot, but if he sees it coming he could catch your foot.

The feet are a sensitive spot that can also put them off balance. Kick the legs, especially the rear legs. And be aware that you may have to lose something to win the fight. Those jaws will crush arm bones easily.

 

[Iceweasel]

Hmmm now that's an idea IW.
Let's start adding this to self-defense training.

I think that's a good idea, to encourage more people
along with learning CPR, how to swim, gun safety,
police procedures. We should learn what is the
best defense in case of a dangerous dog attack instead of waiting for this to happen to improvise.

The bottom line is, like with any fight, if you are on the defense, you'll loose. If I was attacked by a dog I would kick him hard in the nose, they have very sensitive noses. If he stuck up on me and got me down, I would wrap my legs around him and gouge eyes, get an arm around his neck and break the fucking thing. It's muscle and bone, not titanium.

The worst thing is to go down on the ground. stay on your feet.

And if you have an arm around his neck his mouth is at your neck or belly. No, it is not titanium, but his pain tolerance is far higher than yours.

The nose is not a bad shot, but if he sees it coming he could catch your foot.

The feet are a sensitive spot that can also put them off balance. Kick the legs, especially the rear legs. And be aware that you may have to lose something to win the fight. Those jaws will crush arm bones easily.

It would help if you actually read the posts. I said if a dog knocked me down unexpectedly. You are in no position to dictate what everyone's survival or skills are. If you want to fold up and be eaten so be it. I keep in shape for numerous reasons, improving my odds is one of them. The nose is a great shot to back a dog off according to people that have done it. I'm aware of all kinds of things, including people who know "best".

 

[Roudy]

I think dogs get very confused when they see smaller sized humans like children, who are almost their height and are looking at them at almost eye level. And in some breeds, the confusion leads to aggression. I know my dog starts barking when a little kid is passing by the front yard of our house. I know it's because as a shepherd his protective and herding instincts kick in and he's worried for the child (he barks when I go and come as well). Maybe with pitbulls, because the child is almost their height and at times showing teeth, they look at it as another animal who might harm those in it's territory. Who knows. All I know is that pitbulls and kids are a very bad mix.

 

[Asclepias]

I think dogs get very confused when they see smaller sized humans like children, who are almost their height. And in some breeds, the confusion leads to aggression. I know my dog starts barking when a little kid is passing by the front yard of our house. I know it's because as a shepherd his protective and herding instincts kick in and he's worried for the child. Maybe with pitbulls, because the child is almost their height and at times showing teeth, they look at it as another animal who might harm those in it's territory. Who knows. All I know is that pitbulls and kids are a very bad mix.

Thats absolutely false. No dog of any breed should see a small child as a threat. If your dog show aggression towards a child you should have it put down immediately. Pit bulls had the nick name of "nanny dog" in the past before all the hype. Thats how bad of a mix they are with children. I know from my own personal experience that pit bulls love kids and can take all the mauling kids give out due to their high pain tolerance and unflappable temperament.