ADVERTISEMENT

Georgia girl fighting for her life after Pit Bull attack

So, pass a law that all of them must be registered and chiped, and if the dog attacks or kills anyone, the OWNER is charged with the assault or murder.

By them, I assume you mean pitbulls, but I would say it would make more sense to do that for all dogs. Should an owner of other breed get a pass? But could see the value if forcing all dog owners to be more responsible.

I've put two dogs down for the exact reasons @Whiskeydeltadeltatango mentioned. But that was based on the dog's behavior and not the breed. Aussie Cattle dog and Visla. Zero concerns with my Am Staff.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: McLovin32
So you think they should take the time to DNA test the pit bulls that kill old people and children and see if they're a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Staffordshire Terrier, or some bastardization of the two?

This is from the AKC's history of the American Staffordshire Terrier:

"Years ago in Great Britain, several dog breeds were created to excel in blood sports. They were expected to fight one another, or they were turned loose in packs against a staked bear or bull, with spectators betting on the grisly outcome."

Bulldogs have had it bred out of them, while Staffordshire Terriers were bred to be stronger and bite harder (by the Brits) and then to be bigger (by the Americans).

Killing things better has been bred into them from the beginning.

https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/american-staffordshire-terrier/

Apples to apples. Lack of accurate concise data allows the results to be manipulated to paint the desired picture. Your details above even outline that they are different breeds. If we could get a chart that shows "hunting dogs" and "working dogs", that would be more accurate. And I am not debating the history of the breed. It was a big part of my research once it became clear what he was. I am confident and comfortable with my training and judgment.
 
Last edited:
Apples to apples. Lack of accurate concise data allows the results to be manipulated to paint the desired picture. Your details above even outline that they are different breeds. If we could get a chart that shows "hunting dogs" and "working dogs", that would be more accurate. And I am not debating the history of the breed. It was a big part of my research once it became clear what he was. I am confident and comfortable with my training and judgment.

To clarify, someone has put a statistic out that you disagree with. It's on a subject that you indicate that you have researched and you want someone else to help prove your point because you want to be a contrarian? Seems reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkMD and littlez
Miniature Goldendoodles are wonderful critters. I also have a Cockapoo. She has her learner’s permit. You can see how attentive she is.

LsSRhlz.png
Jesus Christ, get that killer under control!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nipigu
To clarify, someone has put a statistic out that you disagree with. It's on a subject that you indicate that you have researched and you want someone else to help prove your point because you want to be a contrarian? Seems reasonable.

No, I am saying in the details of the statistical analysis, they are indicating that it isn't an apples to apples comparison. So if we want to have reference materials to prove a point then use actual, correct analysis. It wasn't a complex statement.
 
Apples to apples. Lack of accurate concise data allows the results to be manipulated to paint the desired picture. Your details above even outline that they are different breeds. If we could get a chart that shows "hunting dogs" and "working dogs", that would be more accurate. And I am not debating the history of the breed. It was a big part of my research once it became clear what he was. I am confident and comfortable with my training and judgment.
I don't think that it's disingenuous to call them "pit bulls" or "pitbulls". The breeders themselves do that. They specifically sell extra large "pitbull" puppies.

Further, they make up further delineated breed types. Look at this site, advertising "The largest XL pitbull puppies on Earth!". They also advertise selling not just XL puppies, but also XXL puppies.

They advertise owning "champagne pitbulls" and "bluenose pitbulls".

https://www.manmadekennels.com/

The point is, if the owners and breeders are referring to these dogs as pitbulls and not recognized breeds, then why should anyone else?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tenacious E
I don't think that it's disingenuous to call them "pit bulls" or "pitbulls". The breeders themselves do that. They specifically sell extra large "pitbull" puppies.

Further, they make up further delineated breed types. Look at this site, advertising "The largest XL pitbull puppies on Earth!". They also advertise selling not just XL puppies, but also XXL puppies.

They advertise owning "champagne pitbulls" and "bluenose pitbulls".

https://www.manmadekennels.com/

The point is, if the owners and breeders are referring to these dogs as pitbulls and not recognized breeds, then why should anyone else?

Im an owner. I don't. Because I understand the consequences. See previous statement
"Unfortunately, the breed does have an ownership type correlation and I think that plays as much of a role."

And you know they are separate breeds, you have said so. You just refuse to parse the breeds because it makes your position "stronger" when they are lumped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDallasRuss
Interesting that you'd single me out. Others are all over you and I'm not.
Cool.

It was because of your two comments on separate topics but the relationship between the twos. One being a sweeping generalization and the other saying sweeping generalizations are bad. Generally speaking. Nothing more. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudolph
Im an owner. I don't. Because I understand the consequences. See previous statement
"Unfortunately, the breed does have an ownership type correlation and I think that plays as much of a role."

And you know they are separate breeds, you have said so. You just refuse to parse the breeds because it makes your position "stronger" when they are lumped.
There's a whole industry that profits from selling the biggest and baddest pitbulls. And you're right, there are a large number of owners that own the biggest and baddest pitbulls as a status symbol. Some of them want to use their dogs for fighting, some just want to lead them around on chain-link leashes, looking like the BSD. Neither of those groups are interested in delineating which specific breed their dogs belong to (I'm guessing they're not a pure breed anything at this point).

The American Pit Bull Foundation also doesn't seem to want to declassify "pitbulls" and separate them out into specific breeds. This isn't a fringe group of "badass pit owners" - it's an advocacy/education group. https://apbf.dog/

Another rescue group - Pit Bull Rescue Central https://www.pbrc.net/ - includes "”Pit Bull” is NOT a breed. It's a generic term often used to describe all dogs with similar traits and characteristics known to the public as "pit bulls." When we use the term “pit bull” here, it should be understood to encompass American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and mixes of those breeds.". They lump all of them into their program, rather than separating them out and saying "we're an American Staffordshire Terrier rescue group".

At this point I would say that "pitbulls", functionally, are a specific breed of dog. You might not like it because it does a disservice to your American Staffordshire Terrier, but I don't think the majority of these pitbulls are pure bred anything. And if they are, their appearance and characteristics make it impossible (or at least impractical) to try and differentiate them.

I don't know how you swim upstream against everything else that says that these dogs are pitbulls. And, as a group, pitbulls are responsible for >50% of dog attack fatalities, despite making up only 6% of the dog population. Lots of things have been outlawed because they do a disproportionate amount of damage - even if not every one of them is responsible.
 
A good pitbull is a dead pit bull. Period. Full stop.

Been around 4 of them so far. First one shot and killed by cop after attacking an elderly woman. Second one, shot by cop and euthanized after attacking a neighbor kid. Kid had facial damage but lived. Third one's still alive, an in-law owns. Fourth one, a neighbor owned and it was euthanized after it attacked the neighbor's friend, flaying his arm.

A specific person wants to own a pit bull, and it ain't because they're cuddly teddy bears.

Edit: Want-of-bee noticed and corrected.
 
Last edited:
There's a whole industry that profits from selling the biggest and baddest pitbulls. And you're right, there are a large number of owners that own the biggest and baddest pitbulls as a status symbol. Some of them want to use their dogs for fighting, some just want to lead them around on chain-link leashes, looking like the BSD. Neither of those groups are interested in delineating which specific breed their dogs belong to (I'm guessing they're not a pure breed anything at this point).

The American Pit Bull Foundation also doesn't seem to want to declassify "pitbulls" and separate them out into specific breeds. This isn't a fringe group of "badass pit owners" - it's an advocacy/education group. https://apbf.dog/

Another rescue group - Pit Bull Rescue Central https://www.pbrc.net/ - includes "”Pit Bull” is NOT a breed. It's a generic term often used to describe all dogs with similar traits and characteristics known to the public as "pit bulls." When we use the term “pit bull” here, it should be understood to encompass American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and mixes of those breeds.". They lump all of them into their program, rather than separating them out and saying "we're an American Staffordshire Terrier rescue group".

At this point I would say that "pitbulls", functionally, are a specific breed of dog. You might not like it because it does a disservice to your American Staffordshire Terrier, but I don't think the majority of these pitbulls are pure bred anything. And if they are, their appearance and characteristics make it impossible (or at least impractical) to try and differentiate them.

I don't know how you swim upstream against everything else that says that these dogs are pitbulls. And, as a group, pitbulls are responsible for >50% of dog attack fatalities, despite making up only 6% of the dog population. Lots of things have been outlawed because they do a disproportionate amount of damage - even if not every one of them is responsible.

Interestingly, in your own statement, you agree they are different breeds, but feel that they SHOULD be lumped together. For the same reason, it supports your position.

<shrug> don't know what to tell you.

Agree to disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDallasRuss
These dogs were bred for hundreds of years to be aggressive fighting dogs. You don't breed it out of them in a couple generations. Are there good ones? You bet. Why take the risk with such an aggressive breed that can cause that kind of destruction though? Call your insurance company and tell them you have one. See how excited they are to insure you.
 
It's not a breed, it's a generalization.



The dog is fine, it's the owner.

Damnit, I have now had to become a defender on this topic. We adopted a mutt who ended up being full blood Am Staff. He is the most gentle and tolerant dog with my kids. My personal sample size of 1 says they can be great dogs.

They can be great dogs and a mountain lion can be a great pet too. The problem is, as a former pit owner, they have crazy in them and the power to do damage.

Every bad pit bull story start with “he’d never harm a fly, I don’t know what triggered him.” He’s a ****ing pit bull. My pit bull was just crazy, most are docile. However, when the switch kicks they’re killers. Not saying any dog can’t be, but a pit bull is a powerful animal that is like pig smelling blood.
 
Last edited:
These dogs were bred for hundreds of years to be aggressive fighting dogs. You don't breed it out of them in a couple generations. Are there good ones? You bet. Why take the risk with such an aggressive breed that can cause that kind of destruction though? Call your insurance company and tell them you have one. See how excited they are to insure you.

Sure, I bet everyone would love to sign up for this approach of risk assessment in their lives. To be conducted by a company with one goal, minimize risk and maximize profits. I presume you have the same approach with all other facets of your life? Open book? No secrets?
 
Interestingly, in your own statement, you agree they are different breeds, but feel that they SHOULD be lumped together. For the same reason, it supports your position.

<shrug> don't know what to tell you.

Agree to disagree.
Yeah, sometimes people just disagree - that's all right.

I agree that there are different breeds. I don't know what the percentage of pure bred American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers make up the dog attack fatality statistics - there's no way to know without DNA testing every "pitbull" that kills someone. I'm guessing that number is pretty low though - if only because it seems more likely that someone knowing they own a pure bred dog would also focus on the controllable "environmental" factors that could create a bad dog.

The only problem I have with your position is that you seem to use the lack of ability to differentiate if a dog is a American Staffordshire Terrier, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or some combination of the two, so you shouldn't hold the dogs responsible - despite the characteristics that have been bred into the breeds, and their pitbull variations, for hundreds of years. (yes, I feel like that's a terribly formed sentence)

Yes, it's profiling, and profiling is wrong. Nonetheless, from a risk mitigation standpoint that profiling is an effective way to identify the cause of >50% of dog attack fatalities, and craft an effective mitigation strategy.

Now, if you can find a way to separate out American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers and still allow good breeding (encouraging bloodlines that don't want to eat old people and kids) and dog ownership practices (not fighting them or leashing them to a stake in the ground and leaving them all day), while outlawing the propagation and ownership of bastardized "badass pitbulls", then you'd really have something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: funksouljon
I don't see the issue. A few people over the course of - what - a dozen years? And I'll bet most of them have some underlying condition...too young...too weak...too stupid. I see no reason to ban a breed or even require their restraint based on these paltry numbers. The flu kills more people, amirite?

</eye-rolling sarcasm>
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
All dogs have the potential to lash out. But only a few have the ability to f/-k up an adult human. There are so many great breeds that do not have the potential to this
This is very true. If rocky were to attack you would have to kill him before he stops. I often half joke that if you walk into my house at night you would be better running into me with my .45 than rocky because there is a chance I might talk you into laying down and giving up, he is going to **** you up and not stop until he is pulled off or killed.


I'm making light of a not funny situation but I've seen glimpses of it and if he ever thought I or my wife were in actual danger it would be ugly how much damage he could do. If he wanted to he could easily fvck my wife up and probably kill her.
 
Last edited:
Sure, I bet everyone would love to sign up for this approach of risk assessment in their lives. To be conducted by a company with one goal, minimize risk and maximize profits. I presume you have the same approach with all other facets of your life? Open book? No secrets?
I don't mind telling my insurance what kind of breed my dogs are. Why would i? I honestly couldn't cope with my dogs attacking some 15 year old and damaging her for life. You are absolutely lying to yourself if you don't think your dog is capable of this. It is. All dogs can bite under the right circumstances including yours. I was a meter reader and that is the first thing we were taught in our week of dog training.
 
I don't mind telling my insurance what kind of breed my dogs are. Why would i? I honestly couldn't cope with my dogs attacking some 15 year old and damaging her for life. You are absolutely lying to yourself if you don't think your dog is capable of this. It is. All dogs can bite under the right circumstances including yours. I was a meter reader and that is the first thing we were taught in our week of dog training.

Sorry, did I say he wasn't capable? Or anything in the vein of what you are imlying, esp "under the right circumstances"? If so, please quote that.


And no, my dog is NOT capable of doing that specifically to a 15 yo. He is too small.

And you glossed over the rest. You offer up telling insurance what breed dog. I offer we all tell our insurance company about every aspect of our lives, just for sake of open critique. Why not divulge all behaviors for evaluation? You ever smoke? You ever speed (did you sign up for the driver monitor program from your auto insurance)? You ever have unprotected sex? Any firearms? Ever drink at all? You are interested in just canine ownership but left out all the more statistically impactful behaviors that a company based on risk aversion would love to hear. So, do you support a 10 page questionnaire for a full risk analysis or only think we should divulge dog ownership? If you don't understand why I am asking, go back and start with your post suggesting.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, sometimes people just disagree - that's all right. :) agreed

I agree that there are different breeds. I don't know what the percentage of pure bred American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers make up the dog attack fatality statistics - there's no way to know without DNA testing every "pitbull" that kills someone. Guess you could start with the owners, and if they don't know or say pitbull, perhaps we have started to identify where the issue rally lies (which is what I said in the beginning). I'm guessing that number is pretty low though - if only because it seems more likely that someone knowing they own a pure bred dog would also focus on the controllable "environmental" factors that could create a bad dog. And mitigate, yes, likely. Or know because the care enough. Again, those are the dogs and owners that are NOT a problem.

The only problem I have with your position is that you seem to use the lack of ability to differentiate if a dog is a American Staffordshire Terrier, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or some combination of the two, so you shouldn't hold the dogs responsible - despite the characteristics that have been bred into the breeds, and their pitbull variations, for hundreds of years. (yes, I feel like that's a terribly formed sentence) yes it is, but I follow. I only call out the lack of distinction, as it allows the math to make them appear grossly more violent and rampant. And, if a dog even looks like it is, they get the label and the stigma continues.

Yes, it's profiling, and profiling is wrong. Nonetheless, from a risk mitigation standpoint that profiling is an effective way to identify the cause of >50% of dog attack fatalities, and craft an effective mitigation strategy.

Now, if you can find a way to separate out American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers and still allow good breeding (encouraging bloodlines that don't want to eat old people and kids) and dog ownership practices (not fighting them or leashing them to a stake in the ground and leaving them all day), while outlawing the propagation and ownership of bastardized "badass pitbulls", then you'd really have something.

Controlling the owners, esp ones who have shown the propensity to allow / encourage / train the behavior would be a great step. But it is reactive and animal violations of any kind are under monitored. Now, if they investigated and enforced more white collar crimes, we could find the funding for the underfunded comes most people feel bad about but we don't manage enough.

I told my kids some jerk in Dallas wanted to take Scout away from them cause he MIGHT be mean. They are not happy with you. ;)

We thought he was a Mexican Hairless when we adopted him, when we found out what he actually was after DNA testing, it was a bit of a "crap, what now". But he has convinced me to soften my opinions on the breed as a whole. There are est 4.5M "pitbulls" in the US (est 20% of total dog population). All you worry warts better hope they don't get wise and unite. (I've been drinking, excuse the flippant tone).

I found this interesting.
https://dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures

Scroll down to the part "Pit bull owners are more likely to be irresponsible" That seems to be a location to start with the issue as I even indicated previously. Using the math backwards, fix the owners (metaphorically or literally) and you can begin to resolve the "killer dog problem".
 
Sorry, did I say he wasn't capable? Or anything in the vein of what you are imlying, esp "under the right circumstances"? If so, please quote that.


And no, my dog is NOT capable of doing that specifically to a 15 yo. He is too small.

And you glossed over the rest. You offer up telling insurance what breed dog. I offer we all tell our insurance company about every aspect of our lives, just for sake of open critique. Why not divulge all behaviors for evaluation? You ever smoke? You ever speed (did you sign up for the driver monitor program from your auto insurance)? You ever have unprotected sex? Any firearms? Ever drink at all? You are interested in just canine ownership but left out all the more statistically impactful behaviors that a company based on risk aversion would love to hear. So, do you support a 10 page questionnaire for a full risk analysis or only think we should divulge dog ownership? If you don't understand why I am asking, go back and start with your post suggesting.
Typically for life insurance, these questions are asked. And many home insurance policies ask about animals, or will have a special animal insurance for exotic / banned animals. Pits can fall in that category.
 
This is very true. If rocky were to attack you would have to kill him before he stops. I often half joke that if you walk into my house at night you would be better running into me with my .45 than rocky because there is a chance I might talk you into laying down and giving up, he is going to **** you up and not stop until he is pulled off or killed.


I'm making light of a not funny situation but I've seen glimpses of it and if he ever thought I or my wife were in actual danger it would be ugly how much damage he could do. If he wanted to he could easily fvck my wife up and probably kill her.
Update: Rocky has gotten worse with time not better, he turned and went after my wife this weekend when she attempted to pull him away from the front door. Rocky will be taking his final trip to the vet today at 445. It stinks because I feel like I have failed him but I can't put my family in danger because I'm not willing to make a tough decision. This ****ing sucks.
 
Who woulda thought a piece of shit dog breed would turn out to be a piece of shit.

really a mystery I tell ya
 
Update: Rocky has gotten worse with time not better, he turned and went after my wife this weekend when she attempted to pull him away from the front door. Rocky will be taking his final trip to the vet today at 445. It stinks because I feel like I have failed him but I can't put my family in danger because I'm not willing to make a tough decision. This ****ing sucks.


Bummer. We had to do that to a Visla. She was young when we got her, but not a puppy, so there was some things we felt like she went thought before we adopted. End result though, we couldn't help her settle down and she went after our lab for getting pets and that was not the first time, but first time we had to take the lab to the vet.

I felt the same way you did, I failed the dog and didn't have a way to fix her/us. So off to the dog park in the sky. Seems like you are doing the right thing for everyone. I also didn't want to hand her off to some adoption group and have them try to rehome where she might attack another dog and do serious damage or worse a kid.
 
It can be a wonderful dog up until it isn't. If a small child jams a pencil in the ass of my Shih Tzu, odds, are she'll live. Can't be said if that happens with a Pit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
Bummer. We had to do that to a Visla. She was young when we got her, but not a puppy, so there was some things we felt like she went thought before we adopted. End result though, we couldn't help her settle down and she went after our lab for getting pets and that was not the first time, but first time we had to take the lab to the vet.

I felt the same way you did, I failed the dog and didn't have a way to fix her/us. So off to the dog park in the sky. Seems like you are doing the right thing for everyone. I also didn't want to hand her off to some adoption group and have them try to rehome where she might attack another dog and do serious damage or worse a kid.
It stinks real bad. If I were a single guy he would be a great pet. I'm the only thing he has ever trusted, the problem with that is I'm the only thing he has ever trusted.


Gonna be a big glass of Whiskey before bed tonight.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: funksouljon
I think I posted this before, but I dated a woman for about a year after my divorce. Before we actually met, one of the last things I learned about her was that she had a pit mix. I’m not a dog person at all so needless to say, I was a little leery to interact with the dog.

After meeting her, I couldn’t believe how sweet and well behaved the dog was. She had to have permission to go up and down stairs, permission to go inside and outside of the house. Permission to get on or off the couch and so forth. For the sake of the narrative that all pit owners are pieces of shit, this woman (no pics but so hot) had her masters, a great job, and was the antithesis of white trash.

Here’s the thing though. Her dog had anxiety around other dogs and couldn’t be boarded, go to dog parks, etc. At roughly 80ish pounds of twisted steel, if she snapped and wanted to fug something or someone up, there would be no stopping her without lethal force. I always had that in the back of my head and it scared the hell out of me.
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of other ways to signify your white trashness. Just get a neck tattoo and call it a day

No, the sort of alternative latte sipping crowd loves them now. Especially as rescue dogs.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT