City of Chicago - Pit Bull Petition
 

Please go to this website and sign this petition to help out owners of pit bulls in Chicago. It seems as though the city wants to ban ownership of pits. More information can be viewed on the site.

Pit Bull Petition

Thanks.

Hmmm. Are pitbulls dangerous though? Or more correctly easier in comparison to other breeds to train to be so, by irresponsible owners?

The plan incidentally reminds me of the Dangerous Dogs Act. This was a law passed in England a few years back. Might've been 1994 (this is all from memory). It was in response to some attacks by dogs on people - the politicians then acted. So it stipulated certain dogs were no longer allowed. Which meant rottweilers, pitbull terriers, tozers (sp?), etc had to be put down. What happened, was that nationwide vets ('veterinarians' :p) refused to do this, as they didn't want to put down healthy animals that were also loved family pets.

As the law was then unenforceable it (though it was already passed and had become law) was defeated and had to be repealed and the people could then keep their dogs.

I hope they ban them.

-Rudey

The thing with Pits and Am Staffs is that they're considered an agressive breed. But it's all about who owns them and how they are raised. My boyfriend and I have a 4 month old Am Staff (pics are in the what kind of pet do you have thread) and he's the most loveable dog in the world. It's the stereotype that brings the breed down. My aunt works as a nurse in the ER and she told me the other day that she gets more dog bites and dog attacks from labs and dalmations put together then pit bulls. So it's just about that specific dog and owner, not the breed that makes them who they are.

Why?

Stop crossposting.

And I answered your question in the other forum.

-Rudey

Whatever - I read it and I think you need to look up some more info on the breed first.

I have a pit bull mix and its one of the nicest dogs I've ever encountered. Its real smart compared to most other breeds and fun to be around.

i have to deal with this everyday in my work. ohio has a ban on county shelters adopting out pits, pit mixes, am staffs, AND am bulldogs. i work at a non county shelter, but we still are not allowed to adopt them out. you are also required to have a $100K insurance policy on this breed.

most crazy thing is that the american pit bull terrier represented the united states for many many years. you can see this in old political cartoons from ww2. to this day they are still considered the best family dog by the american kennel club. the reason these beautiful dogs have been given such a bad name is b/c of how they have been used in recent years. they are used for fighting b/c they are so good at it. a pit bull's bite is extremely damaging. more so than most other breeds. they lock down when they bite and usually bite to the bone.

regardless of how vicious or sweet they are, they should not be banned and they should not force owners to 'dispose' of their dogs like that. it's outrageous!

shelley j
sigma k

I am heavily involved in animal rescue and have seen this issue from both sides.

The "bully" breeds have a horrible reputation, sometimes deserved and sometimes not. Depending on their breeding, they can be wonderful, loyal, and safe family dogs when raised in a loving home.

Unfortunately, this is far too often NOT THE CASE! You know that bullies are commonly raised and trained by the most evil of our society to fight and kill.

These dogs are very commonly specifically bred to be vicious attack dogs, baited & trained to fight and inflict the worst possible damage. The worst, most aggressive dogs are chosen by dog fighters to breed, so these "bad" genes are perpetuated throughout the breed. Even the ones that wash out because they aren't mean enough are never safe enough to be placed in a pet home.

Yes, people are responsible for ruining this breed. Unfortunately, there is no way to really know if these dogs are safe unless you know the pedigree for many generations.

A related issue is that it is very common for dog fighters to steal pets to use them to "blood train" their fighting dogs. Aggressive bullies are also used to guard drug houses, creating danger for everyone in the community.

It is almost impossible to find and close down the dog fighting rings. Unfortunately the only way cities have to try to end this problem is to ban the breed.

So it's not ok to own guns but this is right? I mean hey you kill someone with that gun...the dog is trained by you to kill...same deal.

-Rudey

WHOA, did someone say it wasn't OK to own a gun?? I must have missed that.

Unlike a gun, a dog can attack & kill without human involvement. Not the same deal at all.

Guns are not dangerous all by themselves. They do not escape from the house & shoot people. Many of these dogs can and do escape and maul other animals and people. They often cannot be safely placed into adoptive homes. Pit bull rescue groups do re-home pitties, but they must be incredibly vigilant to ensure the dogs are not being released to the drug dealers & dog fighters who covet the breed.

I feel so badly for the people who have perfectly lovely pitt bulls. It's not the dog's fault.

I signed it.

I signed it too.

I've met some AmStaffs and pit bulls at the shelter down the street, at the local PetSmart, and at the dog park where I take Barney. They've been very sweet and very kissy! I agree, the dog is not born being vicious. It's the owners training them to attack and fight. It's the bad owners that should be cracked down on, not the dogs.

And I can't even tell you how upset the proposed order to dispose of the dogs within 30 days of enactment makes me. :mad:

I love all dogs. I don't think any breeds should be banned and I think all dogs can be friendly and loving rpovided they are treated properly and properly trained.

That being I said, I can't sign this petition. Unfortunately, these are vicious dogs by nature and many of the people who own these animals use them for fighting. They are not properly trained and that's when they attack people. So until everyone who owns one of these dogs can be responsible for them I can't sign the petition.

It's unfortunate and I'm not saying ztabchbum is irresponsible. It's just that the ones who are irresponsible have ruined for the responsible owners.

Nobody is signing up to protect all guns the way I see it. Anyway, I think that there is a strong potential of danger with these dogs that there isn't with smaller breeds. They are bred that way I'm assuming since most traits of dogs have been highly manipulated (without the religious right even once saying anything about that genetic manipulation). It's not the dog's fault, but if his genes have a potential - why not just prevent that and stop breeding them?

-Rudey

I agree.

A few years ago, my boyfriend's roommate (before he lived w/ my bf) let a friend his stay with him for about two weeks. The guy had a pitbull. It was a sweet dog and they didn't train the dog to be mean or to attack. He was just a pet. My sorority sister was living with him at the time and she had a cat. They're unsure what exactly happened between the cat and the pitbull but my boyfriend's roommate came home to find...well...let's just say they were lucky to have two women who worked for the Humane Society living next door who were efficiently able to get rid of the...errrr...debris. They got rid of the dog after that incident because they feared what could happen if he were to snap like that on a human. This dog was a sweetie but, because of genetics, he was more likely to snap and put a hurting on its victim more so than a cocker spaniel or a Boxer. It's kinda like the tiger that attacked Roy a few months back. The tiger had been trained since birth to be a "show tiger" and a pet but it just snapped one day and almost killed its victim.

*edited because I was having a bad grammar day

actually guns and the right to carry guns is trying to be protected. that's what the nra is all about. (of which i'm a proud member)
secondly, it definitely a matter of treatment. the akc is basing their statement of pit bulls on pure bred pits. when they are inbred and treated improperly they will definitely get vicious, but so would any dog. the pits are just more vicious than other breeds. it kills me that people do this to dogs, but that's why we need to come up with another way to fix the problem. not by banning an entire breed. that's just an uneducated way to fix this problem.
are you kidding me about small breeds?! we've had to euthanize many small breed dogs b/c they bite. you'd be surprised what kind of bite a small dog can inflict.
just recently on one of our local radio stations, the dj's son was mauled by a dalmation. a dalmation!! cute lil dalmation from the movie. well, the dog was food aggressive and dalmations in general don't care for kids. they are not a good family dog. but there isn't a ban going out on all dalmations b/c this one (and many others) bit a child.

shelley j
sigma k

That is a very common misconception. What you are describing in called "lock jaw" and pits/am staffs...do not have it!

Do you know why it's called a pitbull and what it's derived from?

"His ancestors were brought to the Unites States in the mid - 1800's by Boston-Irish immigrants. Originally bred from a variety of bulldogs and terriers, American breeders increased his weight and gave him a more powerful head. A forbearer to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, they were originally bred to be a fighting dog. "

After a while they didn't breed the best fighters to get better ones (well most people don't). But the traits are still there. This is a genetic game that people have played as they have with most dogs. Put an end to the game. Stop breeding them.

-Rudey

There has been a spate of Pit Bull attacks here in the Denver area, and they seem to come in waves.

My impression (from no expertise) is that they are unreliable and dangerous -- even if not specifically bred as fighters.

signed it!

Another thing. Banning pitbull won't solve the problem anyway. Those that have pitbulls for fighting/killing will just use another breed like Rottweilers.

What there needs to be are harsher punishments for those caught breeding/owning these more violent breeds if they are caught using them for fighting/killing.

But these are all violent breeds is what you don't get. Some are used as family dogs and some are used to fight. They still carry the same history and breeders should be prevented from breeding them.

-Rudey

Rudy, all dogs are violent. All dogs have violent tendencies. All dogs can turn on their owners at any given time, for no apparent reason.
If you're going to ban one breed, you've got to ban them all. I've been bitten by dogs for no reason. Dogs that are considered suitable family dogs.
I don't know if you've ever been a dog owner or not, but all dogs can be gentle if they are trained properly and taken care off properly, but don't ever become complacent (sp?) because that dog can turn on you at any given time.

well said lady. that's very true.

shelley j
sigma k

All dogs have the potential to turn violent just like ANY HUMAN.

All dogs however were not bred for attacking and fighting.

-Rudey
--And yes I've had a dog (doberman pinscher) and been around many since

Not every pit bull breeder breeds them to be attack dogs. There are some very respectible breeders out there that breed pure breds because they love those dogs.
Pure breds are not bred to be attack dogs.

Actually read earlier on the history of the pitbull. All dogs are pretty much genetic games - history has created a dog for every taste. The pitbull was bred to fight. Most places no longer breed the best fighters to get good fighting offspring, but those traits are still there.

-Rudey

well then, if you ban pit bulls and other violent breeds, breeders will find some way around it. They'll start breeding poodles and german sheppards together. We'll have a poodle sheppard. The worlds new fighting machine.

(obviously I'm being sarcastic, but like I said before, and dog is violent, wich in turn means it can be bred for fighting or it can eb trained to fight. The only real solution is getting rid of all dogs...except Lady...my friends tiny and very old Chiuaua with no teeth and then even then she's a real bitch!)

actually a poodle shepherd would be a not nice combination. poodles are not very nice dogs.

they'd be the foofoo fighters!!! lol

shelley j
sigma k

You make NO sense. Certain dogs were bred for fighting and others weren't. This doesn't mean all are and the solution is to get rid of all of them.

-Rudey

I make perfect sense. It's you who doesn't know what you're talking about.

I know pitbulls were bred for fight. But WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY...
is that this doesn't preclude other breeders from trying to breed other dogs for the same purpose.

BANNING ONE BREED DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

OK no you're retarded. You lack total common sense and logic and I just won't post again about this. Banning any breed meant for fighting WILL HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

-Rudey

Banning breeds that are meant for fighting include dobermans. How would you like it if as a child some authority came and said, hey we have to take your dog away because it's a fighting dog. I don't think you'd be too happy. But then again I don't know you. You might not care.


Rudy you're juvenille behaviour is really starting to irritate me. When you know you're wrong you have to result to name calling. Sometimes Rudy you can't have the last word.

And I do not think people should be given the option of owning a Doberman. A Doberman was not bred to fight however like pitbulls but were bred as police dogs.

-Rudey

As far as I'm concerned, you haven't made one good point in this thread or any other. I have a right to express my opinion, as do you, and everyone else. No, I don't think that I'm smarter than anyone - I do have a good degree from a good school and a great job but what does that matter? You're posts are worthless - just go away already!

Rudey, This is for you!


History (Amstaff.Ws Version)
Written by Imad Birkholz
Some people only take the history as far back as 1936, when the Staffordshire Terrier was first registered with the AKC (American Kennel Club). It goes back a lot further though. It's possible to trace it back to the early 1800's. Migrants from England (and surrounding areas) which settled in America brought with them dogs
that were basically the smaller Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

Those Staffordshire Terriers were used in older times in the dubious sport of Bull Baiting. This was eventually banned in 1835, and many punters were left in the lurch. This started a
trend in dog fighting. After all, they already had tough dogs that were willing to please the owners any way they could. Eventually they mixed them with larger Bull Dogs, which ended up giving them a slightly bigger dog that was the forerunner to the American Staffordshire of today. Some of the dogs were used
for dogfighting, yet they had to be friendly towards humans. Any dogs which didn't conform to this were destroyed. This meant that the breed was never really a threat to people, and hence became known as a people friendly dog, sometimes getting the term "nanny dog". Unfortunately this fighting heritage is what most people think of when talking about American Staffordshire Terriers, and related breeds. It is also very likely that this history is also shared with the American Pit Bull Terrier. Some people will not like this comparison, but it's clear when reading about the two breeds.

An interesting example of this is a dog called "Pete", from "The Little Rascals". Some Amstaff siteswill tell you that Pete was an American Staffordshire Terrier, yet some sites refer to him as an American Pit Bull. I have also seen a site where it's claimed he is an American Bull Dog. They can't even be sure where exactly
the dog is buried, so the mistery continues. If anything, it proves that the early Amstaff and APBT (and perhaps even the American Bull Dog) must have been very similar dogs at that time, and by nature were not aggressive toward humans.

In 1936 the American Kennel Club recognised the Staffordshire Terrier. And finally in 1972 the name was changed to American Staffordshire Terrier, to distinguish it from the English Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The dog of that time was a superb farm dog. It was treated as such, and was also used on pig hunts and other farm duties. Basically it was an allround utility dog, that had earned the respect of the people of its time.

Since the early 1900's breeders moved away from the dog fighting heritage, and now concentrated on dogs with good stable temperaments, although it's the dogs history which gives the American Staffordshire of today it's admirable qualities.

The breed has suffered many set backs in recent times due to a minority of selfish breeders/owners who use this breed for fighting purposes, and other similar ones, as a vehicle to pursue their own personal narrow minded path to self gratification and glory. A minority of people use this dog in an agressive fashion,
and unfortunately also in underground dog fighting competitions. This could prove a major hurdle for those people who treat this breed with respect, as very strict laws, regarding dog ownership, are coming into place all over the world. The future of this breed requires the help of dedicated owners/breeders, who treat the American Staffordshire Terrier with respect and love, and who are willing to educate the public about this breed.

Note:

Many breeders really go out of their way to seperate themselves from the Pit Bull Terrier tag, while others ignore it all together, and don't even mention anything about that in their history. That's fair enough, but is probably more of a business decision, rather than a decision based on genetics.

I have absolutely nothing against American Pit Bull Terriers by the way...in the right hands they are great dogs, just like the Amstaff. I'm one of those people that actually believes they are very very similar. (I will refrain from using "the same", as over the past 70 odd years there are probably some differences, but I don't think enough to warrant the phrase "Totally different breed".) If you disagree, go to the Forum and voice your opinion.

Nearly all breeders will say in their history that the Amstaff is a totally different breed,(or dog).

Here are some of the reasons given (from various breeder sites):

"...Amstaff has been bred along completely different lines than its predecessor the Pit Bull."

"...has been bred as a pet, family dog, guardian, show dog and for obedience and agility competition."

I even came across the same phrase on different sites! As if it was coppied completely!
Well, what lines exactly are they, and what exactly differentiates them from the APBT (American Pit Bull Terrier)?

I understand it's difficult for breeders to make this breed "pallatable" to the general public. The average person on the street may already have a pre conceived idea of American Pitbull Terriers, and other similar dogs. We can thank the media for this.

Don't get me wrong, throughout all this you must be thinking, that I'm totally against these dogs. I'm not, I love them to bits, and I am a loyal Amstaff owner.
I'm just trying to give as much information to a possible owner. As an owner you should be armed with as much information as possible, so that you are in the best possible shape to understand your dog, grow with it, train it, and maybe ready yourself against possible prejudice.

Last Updated (17 October 2003)





And Another

Introduction
The City of Cincinnati and some surrounding communities have banned them. The City of Fairfield, Ohio first declared them vicious and then banned them, and the State of Ohio lumps them in with breeds “commonly known as a pit bull dog” and calls them vicious.

The media stirs the pot with stories about rampaging pit bulls and deadly attacks, and the public is frightened.

The object of all this attention is a group of dogs loosely referred to as “pit bull dogs” or “pit bull terriers” and specifically including three or four breeds that have not been bred for fighting for decades and that were not aggressive to humans even when they were bred for fighting. The reason for the attention is the irresponsible actions of some owners of these dogs — owners who fail to properly socialize and train their animals or who actually use them for criminal purposes.

The American Staffordshire Terrier takes the brunt of the criticism, but the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier, and even the Bull Terrier share the notoriety.

These breeds come from the same basic stock in England. After bull and bear baiting were outlawed in 1835, gamblers promoting blood sports turned their attention to dog fighting and to development of a breed with the tenacity and valor of the Bulldog (then resembling the modern American Staffordshire Terrier, now evolved into a squat, bowlegged sourpuss) and the agility of a terrier. Known originally as bull and terrier dogs, the crosses eventually produced the Staffordshire Terrier, a fierce fighter in the pit but easy to handle during training and when injured, and the Bull Terrier, a breed with a Roman nose and equal talent in the pits.

The first Staffordshire Terriers came to America as early as 1870, where they evolved into two separate breeds: the American Pit Bull Terrier breed first registered by the United Kennel Club in 1898 and the non-fighting dogs that eventually gained recognition with AKC under their British name. For a few years, UKC regulated dog fighting, but ceased its support decades ago and will expel members suspected of involvement in this illegal activity.

American pioneers enjoyed the versatility of the Staffordshire Terrier as vermin dog, homestead protector, and even hunting companion and herder. However, although it recognized the related Bull Terrier in 1885, AKC stalled recognition of the dog known in the US as the American Pit Bull Terrier until 1936, when it accepted the breed as the Staffordshire Terrier.

Meanwhile, back in England that same year, The Kennel Club recognized the original bull and terrier dog as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

As often happens, selective breeding in the US produced a bull and terrier dog larger than its British forebears. So, although the Staffordshire Terrier of the AKC and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier of England were virtually the same dog in the beginning, they now differed enough that AKC renamed its breed the American Staffordshire Terrier. Then, in 1974, AKC accepted the Staffordshire Bull Terrier into its ranks.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Days of infamy
Because of their fighting heritage, three of the four American bull and terrier breeds were destined to be misunderstood and maligned even decades after the breeds' fighting days were ended. Tales of unprovoked vicious attacks, jaws with the strength of Hercules, and dogs climbing on cars and even into trees to reach frightened victims seem to occur in bunches in newspapers all over the country, and each such spate of stories is often followed by a ban on the breeds.

However, just as with other breeds and mixes, the attacks by these dogs can be traced to human error or malfeasance — the dogs involved were likely to be poorly trained and socialized or deliberately trained to attack humans.

The majority of American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and American Pit Bull Terriers have responsible owners who do not allow their pets to run loose and terrorize the neighborhood, yet these folks and their dogs suffer along with the irresponsible owners when a ban is imposed. The publicity given “pit bull” cases suggests there is a plethora of these dogs around, but AKC registered only 1810 individual Staffordshire Bull Terriers and 549 litters in the six years from 1990-1995, and 6588 American Staffordshire Terriers and 1803 litters in the same period. People who breed these dogs for fighting or criminal purposes do not register with either AKC or UKC.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Care and training
These breeds are easy care. The incidence of hip dysplasia is relatively low, and dogs are generally healthy. Coat care is minimal, and need for exercise is moderate. However, training is an absolute, no-excuse requirement, for like most other terriers, they can be stubborn and independent.

As with other hard-headed breeds, training begins with selection of a breeder who chooses only dogs of good temperament to produce puppies and accustoms the puppies to handling before they go to new homes. A breeder with an belligerent bitch or dog and fearful or aggressive puppies is to be avoided at all costs. Puppies should remain in the litter until they are eight weeks old to get the full benefit of interaction with brothers and sisters.

Training continues when you get the pup to your home. Good manners commands such as sit, stay, down, and come are essential for good control. Tug-of-war games are strongly discouraged as they tend to make the dog use his mouth to get his way. When puppy shots are completed at about 16 weeks of age, you should begin instruction in a puppy kindergarten class. If you do not have the time to put into training a guardian breed, don't get an AmStaff or Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

[More on obedience training]
AmStaffs and Staffordshire Bull Terriers kept as pets should be spayed or neutered to moderate territorial behavior and discourage the tendency to escape in search of a mate. As with other guardian breeds, these dogs should never be tied or chained outside unattended, and they should never be subjected to teasing by children or adults who want to goad them into growling or “attacking.”

Even with all these common sense precautions, dogs of these breeds can become aggressive or vicious just as dogs of all breeds and mixes can. However, the great majority of AmStaffs and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are loyal, courageous, and fun-loving companions, good with considerate children, guardians of home and hearth, and affectionate to family relatives and friends.

See also Ozzie Foreman's article “My dog was banned in Cincinnati”
[More on finding a dog]
Norma Bennett Woolf


Let me know if you want more.

You posted what I said. Yes the caretakers, if attacked, were supposed to kill the dogs so they would never attack a human. They were still bred to fight. There is a potential in these dogs that many who are not bred to fight don't have. You can't seem to respond to that and I'm sure you'll cure and insult me again.

-Rudey