Anybody see the pitbull bash in the gazette?

[Prin]

Thursday in the Montreal Gazette, somebody sent in a letter saying his cat was killed by a pitty and pitties shouldn't be allowed in the city. I can't find it on the net, but I'll type it up later...

I'm gonna write back.

[technodoll]

oh you're kidding,.. WTF! bet his alley cat was loose without a collar, peeing in somebody's garden, and the dog got upset and nature took its course? grumble grumble. as if labradors, dalmations and even spaniels can't kill cats!!

[Prin]

Thursday September 14th, 2006
page A30 of the Montreal Gazette

Originally Posted by Letters to the editor, The Gazette

Last month, an unlicensed pit bull running loose invaded our home, mangling and killing our daughter's 10 year old cat.

My wife, recovering from an operation, was in danger but tried to beat the animal off with a crutch. It would not let go of the cat. The police captured the animal and returned it to its owner.

We were told the owner was charged with several offences - possible penalties amount to a few hundred dollars.

The authorities refuse to tell us the name(s) and address of the owner(s) despite our official request for a copy of the police report.

We wish to warn N.D.G. residents near the intersection of Hampton and Terrebonne that there is a vicious dog in the neighborhood. It will eventually escape again and its next victim could be your child.

The dog is dangerous and should be put down. Owning a pit bull should not be allowed in densely populated areas.

Charles Aronowitz
Notre Dame de Grāce

Send letters to: letters@thegazette.canwest.com

[Cygnet]

Most dogs aren't going to kill other domesticated animals. People who own dogs who have the propensity to kill other people's pets should understand that most other people don't see a dog who kills their pet as "nature taking it's course." They see that as a dangerously aggressive animal who has just killed one of their family members.

High levels of aggression directed at domestic animals is a temperament flaw. It should be no more acceptable for a pit bull breeder to breed a pit bull with killer levels of dog (or cat) aggression because "it's just part of the breed" than it is for a golden retriever breeder to breed a golden retriever with hip dysplasia because "it's just part of the breed" . At least there aren't any golden retriever breeders who are breeding FOR hip dysplasia. Unfortunately we can't say the same about pit bull breeders and dangerous levels of dog aggression.

If pit bull people want to serve pit bulls, they should stop thinking that people who object to the temperament flaw of animal aggression are unfairly "bashing" pit bulls and think of ways to eliminate it (at least among pit bulls not bred for fighting--obviously there is a huge contingent of pit bull breeders who LIKE animal aggression). A good place to start would be to make dog aggression a disqualification in the AKC AmStaff and staffordshire bull terrier standards and in the UKC American pit bull standard. Think of how much GOOD would come if these standards added a "Temperament" section that read:

"A gushingly friendly temperament is characteristic of the breed. Dogs should wag their tails enthusiastically upon being approached by the judge (or any other human being). A dog who moves slightly because he is wiggling with happiness upon being touched should not be faulted, but a dog who is aloof or uninterested in the judge is not displaying proper temperament and shall be faulted accordingly. A dog who displays any degree shyness whatsoever shall not place. A dog who displays any aggression toward any person in the ring shall be disqualified. While American Staffordshire terriers was historically known as dog aggressive, dog aggression is completely incompatible with the modern role of the American Staffordshire terrier as a working companion animal. Consequently, any AmStaff who shows any dog aggression in the ring shall be disqualified."

Think of the GOOD publicity that this would give "pit bulls" when the television announcer at Westminster says every year "AmStaffs and Staffordshire bull terriers are the only two breeds where failure to wag their tail at, and be happy to see, the judge is a fault." People would start to see pit bulls as FRIENDLY dogs (which they properly should be) rather than as menacing dogs.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by cygnet

Most dogs aren't going to kill other domesticated animals.

I don't agree. It is in ALL dogs' natures to have a predator instinct. It can be trained out of them to some extent through exposure while young to different animals and through obedience training.

I once brought home a lab/beagle cross from the humane society and the first thing it did was kill my sister's kitten. We were so upset that I had to bring the dog back to the humane society (I ended up with a puppy instead from them)- but that was not a vicious dog at all; she just didn't know that the cat was a part of the family that she was to tolerate. It was my fault because I didn't train her or acclimatize her to the rules of her new home, I assumed that she would be ok with the cat.

Just the other day my labx Sam just killed a mouse out of the woodpile. Does this mean he is an aggressive dog? Not in the least.

I think it is right to blame the owner for letting his dog out of his control (ie loose and on someone else's property)-

[Prin]

Well, the part about letting the dog roam free definitely tells us right away that this owner is less than responsible. It could have been any breed after that.

[OntarioGreys]

High levels of aggression directed at domestic animals is a temperament flaw. It should be no more acceptable for a pit bull breeder to breed a pit bull with killer levels of dog (or cat) aggression

For crying out loud, that has nothing to do with temperament, it is call instinct, the same reason birds fly south for the winter. Natural instinct for a dog is to chase and kill prey, in some dogs that instinct is stronger than in other, it can't simply be bred out, I had 2 greyhound that bother spent a couple years on the track, they both share some of the same ancestors in their pedigree, one has a strong prey drive the other had no interest in chasing live animals but her sister did. Most dogs are not going to know the difference between a cat and rabbit unless they were raised around cats. My dogs know the cats in the house are part of their pack and they learned to accept them as such, but if a stray cat came into my yard and it started running the dogs would chase and attempt to kill it , not knowing what it is from a distance to them it would be simply prey. and one of the current 2 of mine is extremely shy and sensitive she will run and hide from a toddler and the other loves kids and will let little tot look in his mouth and lay on him.

And my 27 lb eskie with also chase and try to killed animals, she has caught birds and even managed to get hold of a full grown rabbit in the yard but was unable to hold it and she also is afraid of toddlers to the point of avoiding them rather than running and hiding, having a prey instinct does not mean a dog will go after people, Even my mom's shih tzu used to chase after rabbits and cats that were bigger than her.

[jawert1]

Originally Posted by Cygnet

Most dogs aren't going to kill other domesticated animals. People who own dogs who have the propensity to kill other people's pets should understand that most other people don't see a dog who kills their pet as "nature taking it's course." They see that as a dangerously aggressive animal who has just killed one of their family members.

My English Pointer almost shook a Bichon Frise puppy to death last fall, as said pup was running amuck and charged my dogs barking and growling. You've made a gross assumption about a dog's propensity to kill based on breed, since technically, my Simon should classified as "dangerously aggressive" according to that statement.

Originally Posted by Cygnet

"A gushingly friendly temperament is characteristic of the breed. Dogs should wag their tails enthusiastically upon being approached by the judge (or any other human being).

If you met Simon on the street, you'd get that exact response from both him and my Shepherd/Chow mix Peaches. You'd never guess that he darn near killed another dog.

Looks are deceiving, I challenge the author of the letter to prove this was indeed a pitbull. I had a neighbor (not the sharpest tool in the shed mind you) ask me if Simon was a pittie, seriously, a pitbull. It occurred to me then and there, that there are folks willing to classify anything shorthaired and of medium build (30lbs+) as a pitbull if it serves a purpose to do so, mentally biased or just plain ignorant of what different breeds of dog actually look like.

Also, you have to actually *get* ppl to either watch or attend dog shows en masse in order to change the mass opinion folks have of pits, AmStaffs and Bull terriers if it were as simple as an announcer;s/judge's verbiage

[seeker]

It seems that as soon as a dog attacks anything either human or animal it is immediately deemed a pitbull . Did we not have at least 3 mistaken IDs just before this pitbull ban came into effect ? The "less than Honourable" Mr Bryant even went on TV after 2 of these misIDs and stated that these attacks are why we need a ban . The problem was just after he went on his usual rant the dogs were properly ID'd and the public{at least any that were watching} seen him for what he is a grandstanding polititian{not the first}.
On another note my niece has a jackrussel terrier that has attacked many cats and killed at least one that i know of. Yet no one has called this dog a menace or that he should be banned from living in the city of Hamilton. If he was a pit I am sure that by now he would have been PTS.
And I agree this storey is very incomplete . People as dog owners have a responsibility to keep their dogs from running at large . But in the same note if your door is left open who knows what might wander in or out ? As for the letter stating that the dog is likely to escape again and is dangerous . That is fair warning to the nieghbourhood . But stating that the next victim could be your child is "fear mongering" there is no basis for this statement . The dog attacked an animal not the woman that tried to get it off the cat . Even after she hit the dog there is nothing stating the dog turned on her or showed any human aggression whatsoever to her or the police.

[Cygnet]

Originally Posted by jawert1

My English Pointer almost shook a Bichon Frise puppy to death last fall, as said pup was running amuck and charged my dogs barking and growling. You've made a gross assumption about a dog's propensity to kill based on breed, since technically, my Simon should classified as "dangerously aggressive" according to that statement.

If you met Simon on the street, you'd get that exact response from both him and my Shepherd/Chow mix Peaches. You'd never guess that he darn near killed another dog.

I certainly agree that dog aggressive dogs come in many breeds. I don't know the specifics of your pointer's attack on the bichon puppy, but if it was aggressive, (you seem to be saying it was defensive, and that he was "charged" by the puppy) I'd say that your dog doesn't have a proper pointer temperament. That isn't a crime, and it doesn't mean you can't love him, it just means that he shouldn't be bred. REsponsible pointer breeders would not breed a pointer who was dog aggressive, because pointers in the field need to be able to work cooperatively with a bracemate (often another unneutered male) whom they have never met before. They also should ignore small critters who might run in front of their noses, in favor of finding and pointing (not trying to catch and kill even then) birds. Dog aggression is a completely negative trait in a pointer, as it is in every breed. (The only possible exception I can think of is livestock guarding dogs). The difference is that responsible pointer breeders know that dog aggression is a negative trait. Pit bull breeders? Um...discouragingly, a lot of them say it is "just part of the breed."

[pitgrrl]

Cygnet, I really must respectfully disagree with many of your points, and I do so as an owner of two pitbull crosses who would love to see the day when people stop crossing the street to avoid me, who's dog's have only ever had to fight for couch space and who's never allowed their dogs to hurt a fly, as much as they'd love to chase down all the cats in the area.

Originally Posted by Cygnet

Most dogs aren't going to kill other domesticated animals. People who own dogs who have the propensity to kill other people's pets should understand that most other people don't see a dog who kills their pet as "nature taking it's course." They see that as a dangerously aggressive animal who has just killed one of their family members.

Although I have the deepest sympathy for those who have ever lost a pet, especially due to other's negligent behavior, I actually see it as a problem that we have so lost touch with the fact that our "fur babies" are, in fact, still animals, that we would be horrified at any expression of their instincts. Dogs are dogs, they hunt, rollin dead stuff, lick thier butts when guests are over, and in the attempt to live with them in very populated urban areas, we should not forget that they are what they are, even while we act responsibly and keep them out of trouble.

Originally Posted by Cygnet

High levels of aggression directed at domestic animals is a temperament flaw. It should be no more acceptable for a pit bull breeder to breed a pit bull with killer levels of dog (or cat) aggression because "it's just part of the breed" than it is for a golden retriever breeder to breed a golden retriever with hip dysplasia because "it's just part of the breed" . At least there aren't any golden retriever breeders who are breeding FOR hip dysplasia. Unfortunately we can't say the same about pit bull breeders and dangerous levels of dog aggression.

Prey drive is not a temperment flaw, and in the breed in question, as with many others, neither is dog aggression. In pitbulls neither speaks to the stability of the dog's temperment in regards to people, and are manageable with some training and effort on the part of the owner. One of my dogs is extremely prey driven and is dog aggressive. We live in an very busy area, yet he has never so much as laid a paw on a cat and is trained to ignore passing dogs. Although I don't love the fact that he would love to chase cats and fight with other dogs, it would be a sad day, to me, when we would start producing dogs with no drive to do anything because they're easier for John Q Public to own with little effort.

Originally Posted by Cygnet

If pit bull people want to serve pit bulls, they should stop thinking that people who object to the temperament flaw of animal aggression are unfairly "bashing" pit bulls and think of ways to eliminate it (at least among pit bulls not bred for fighting--obviously there is a huge contingent of pit bull breeders who LIKE animal aggression). A good place to start would be to make dog aggression a disqualification in the AKC AmStaff and staffordshire bull terrier standards and in the UKC American pit bull standard. Think of how much GOOD would come if these standards added a "Temperament" section that read:

"A gushingly friendly temperament is characteristic of the breed. Dogs should wag their tails enthusiastically upon being approached by the judge (or any other human being). A dog who moves slightly because he is wiggling with happiness upon being touched should not be faulted, but a dog who is aloof or uninterested in the judge is not displaying proper temperament and shall be faulted accordingly. A dog who displays any degree shyness whatsoever shall not place. A dog who displays any aggression toward any person in the ring shall be disqualified. While American Staffordshire terriers was historically known as dog aggressive, dog aggression is completely incompatible with the modern role of the American Staffordshire terrier as a working companion animal. Consequently, any AmStaff who shows any dog aggression in the ring shall be disqualified."

Think of the GOOD publicity that this would give "pit bulls" when the television announcer at Westminster says every year "AmStaffs and Staffordshire bull terriers are the only two breeds where failure to wag their tail at, and be happy to see, the judge is a fault." People would start to see pit bulls as FRIENDLY dogs (which they properly should be) rather than as menacing dogs.

So you've just described a pitbull, minus dog aggression. Again, I'm not really arguing for dog aggression, but rather for drive in general. I love my dog's drive, they put it into almost everything they do. Why would I want that watered down? The same thing that makes them want to chase cats can be channelled into more appropriate behaviors, and frankly, it's awsome when you accomplish that. If one doesn't like that kind of dog, or isn't prepared to deal with all that comes along with responsibly owning one, why not just get another breed?
Why should those who enjoy having drivey dogs, of whatever specific breed, be denied that becuase other's find the idea of chasing a squirrle up a tree distasteful?

[wdawson]

well said pitgrrl

[Cygnet]

Originally Posted by pitgrrl

Cygnet, I really must respectfully disagree with many of your points, and I do so as an owner of two pitbull crosses who would love to see the day when people stop crossing the street to avoid me, who's dog's have only ever had to fight for couch space and who's never allowed their dogs to hurt a fly, as much as they'd love to chase down all the cats in the area.



Although I have the deepest sympathy for those who have ever lost a pet, especially due to other's negligent behavior, I actually see it as a problem that we have so lost touch with the fact that our "fur babies" are, in fact, still animals, that we would be horrified at any expression of their instincts. Dogs are dogs, they hunt, rollin dead stuff, lick thier butts when guests are over, and in the attempt to live with them in very populated urban areas, we should not forget that they are what they are, even while we act responsibly and keep them out of trouble.



Prey drive is not a temperment flaw, and in the breed in question, as with many others, neither is dog aggression. In pitbulls neither speaks to the stability of the dog's temperment in regards to people, and are manageable with some training and effort on the part of the owner. One of my dogs is extremely prey driven and is dog aggressive. We live in an very busy area, yet he has never so much as laid a paw on a cat and is trained to ignore passing dogs. Although I don't love the fact that he would love to chase cats and fight with other dogs, it would be a sad day, to me, when we would start producing dogs with no drive to do anything because they're easier for John Q Public to own with little effort.



So you've just described a pitbull, minus dog aggression. Again, I'm not really arguing for dog aggression, but rather for drive in general. I love my dog's drive, they put it into almost everything they do. Why would I want that watered down? The same thing that makes them want to chase cats can be channelled into more appropriate behaviors, and frankly, it's awsome when you accomplish that. If one doesn't like that kind of dog, or isn't prepared to deal with all that comes along with responsibly owning one, why not just get another breed?
Why should those who enjoy having drivey dogs, of whatever specific breed, be denied that becuase other's find the idea of chasing a squirrle up a tree distasteful?

I don't "find the idea of chasing a squirrel up a tree distasteful." I find the notion that I might find myself living next door to one of the ten percent of pit bulls (according to this poll of RESPONSIBLE pit bull owners http://www.pitbulltalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=3833 )whose dogs want to "kill every other dog on sight" slightly worrisomel, though. Wouldn't you? It doesn't make me feel better for you to tell me to "just get another breed" since I am not worried about the dog I get. I am worried about the dog my neighbor gets and its capacity and desire to kill my dogs.

I realize that (in most cases) it takes a screwup for a dog to kill another dog. But most of us are human and we DO screwup. And if you doubt that lots and lots of pit bull owners are at least as apt to screw up as other dog owners, take a trip to death row of the nearest urban shelter and you will see all the living (at least until their time is up) evidence of pit bull owner irresponsibility.

I love high drive dogs. (I have one). But I don't agree with the notion that aggression=drive. Some of the highest drive dogs I know are field bred labradors. They love to work, they don't quit and they are TOTALLY non aggressive toward man or beast. I know plenty of aggressive, sometimes dangerous, low drive dogs (many akitas and chows fit that description) as well.

[Schwinn]

I think the problem, Cygnet, is that while your posts are written quite eloquent, it's the thoughts and ideas behind them that are not. Reading through them, I can't help but think of the kids in my neighbourhood driving thier Hondas with the fake after-market body panels and such--nice looking car, not much power under the hood, though. Your posts are those of someone who has not actually done much research, other than on bulletin boards (at least one) and perhaps some newspaper headlines.

The first issue, "pitty people" being defensive. You are right. Many of us are quick (perhaps sometimes too quick) to blindly defend any pitbull accused of wrong. However, I don't know how familiar you are with the Ontario issue (I would gather not really), but many of those who are the most defensive are the same people who have been ostracized and accused, and in a couple of cases, physically attacked for having what someone thought was a pitbull (more on that in a moment). You see, in Ontario, we no longer have dog attacks, we have pitbull attacks. For example, while I was off, five minutes from my home within a month were 3 dog attacks. Not one made the major newspapers, including the border collie which had to be shot by police. In another case, the dog had a muzzle order. When the dog, unmuzzled, attacked yet again, the police gave the dog back. When the officer was questioned why he wasn't doing more, he replied, "The dog isn't a pitbull, so there is nothing I can charge him with". Ironically, five minutes down the road, where my dog lives(who's been called a pitbull mix), who is hand fed biscuits by my one-year old daughter, if a vindictive neighbour hears me playing with her and decides that her "grumbles" are growls of aggression, the police could be called, and under the law, Daisy will be destroyed, and I will be eligible for a $50 000 fine.

My other point, about being accused of being a pitbull. One of the attacks by a member on the board (I'll let her identify herself if she wishes) was attacked by individuals in a car throwing a vodka bottle at her and her dog, which is not a pitbull, but a breed that averages about 150 lbs. Any person who cares to educate themselves knows that pitbulls are at most 85-90 lbs. And has also been mentioned, there have been several proven cases where a dog was labled a pitbull (twice by our illustrious Attorney General), and experts later said no, it wasn't. So, yea, sometimes we get a little defensive.

But back to this "dangerous" breed. Most attacks are determined to be a "pitbull mix" (if you chose to read past the headlines), which leads one to wonder...if the breed is so dangerous on it's own, why is it necessary to mix it? Could it be that it is the strength of the pitbull that the BYB'er is looking for, and not the tempermant? So, is this a pitbull problem?

You mention the high number of pitbulls in shelters. Again, I can only speak from the Canadian point of view (I don't know if you are Canadian or not, but I do know that your stats, if true, aren't). Many pitbulls (before the ban) are found wandering the streets (mine included). And most are determined to be gentle dogs. Speaking to the shelter workers, the common thought has been that the dog wasn't vicious enough, and was abandoned. After all, any pitbull expert will tell you that pitbulls make notoriously bad gaurd dogs (as one owner found out in Peel region, when he returned home to an ransacked house, a package of hot dogs with only one wiener missing, and a 7 year old pit. Police determined that the hot dogs were originally to keep the dog busy, but the crooks found out that they weren't necessary given the friendliness of the dog. I suspect the amiacable pooch even offered to hold the flashlight).

I find your idea of having the kennel associations mandate a "wagging tail". I won't get into the absurdity of that, but rather let me say this. First of, using the Staffordshire Terrier, one of the banned breeds, as a pitbull. In Canada, there is no recorded case of one single staffie killing, maiming, mauling, etc of anyone. Yet, they are banned. Using the same example, these dogs are called "nanny dogs" in the UK because of their temparmant, but that has not stopped them being labled "vicious pitbulls". And if you look up breed temparmants, you'll find that the staffie is listed as "great family companion, good with children". But lets suppose they did implemant some sort of test for temparmant? I would suspect that most people who are involved with any kennel club would already know the bogusness of these claims. And while I don't often watch dog shows, the ones I have seen, almost everytime these dogs are on, the announcers have talked about the "bad rap" of these "friendly dogs". No, I suspect that anyone who would take the time to consult the AKC, CKC, etc, would have already consulted the experts and other resources and would already be aware of the true temparmant of the breed.

Which brings me to my next point. You suggest that "pitty people" make thier own recommendations. Perhaps you should research the issue a little more. More specifically, I direct you to the Provincial Government Hansard that has the minutes from each of the four public committee meetings, where many alternatives were presented. As a matter of fact, there were no experts who were supportive of the BSL, only people who said that thier neighbours pitbull growled at them, and a municipal employee from Winnipeg who, while proving that the BSL in that city did indeed lower the rates of pitbull attacks, neglected to mention that the three years following, overall dog attacks increased. Then maybe take a look at the minutes from the parliamentary vote. Not one member of the current ruling party voted against the BSL, despite several constituents (including several on this board) being told that they didn't necessarily agree with it, but it was not an open vote. So, alternatives were suggested, and ignored. Even a member from Calgary was invited by the oppostion government to speak at the comittee meetings (Calgary has been listed as a success story for reducing dog attacks, including pitbulls, with no breed restrictions whatsoever), and the ruling party denied the request.

Lastly, as has been stated. This whole issue smells funny. How did the dog get the cat? Did it tip-toe in, or was the door left open? While, at the end of the day, it is probably fair to say that the dog's actions can not necessarily be excused, the lack of details is quite suspicious. And when you're told that "a pitbull killed my cat, so yours should be outlawed" without any details, you'll forgive one for being a little more than slightly defensive.

No, Cygent, I don't think you're a troll. But I do think you are a little less educated about the issue then you give yourself credit for.