</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
gtrplayer said:
I'm a dog lover for sure, but pit bulls have been inbred for generations and mistreated to promote the fighting and killer instinct like no other contemporary breed.
I would not trust them, no matter how special or gentle one or two of them may appear.
They are not like other breeds.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Do you know how MANY breeds are inbred to keep them pure? It is NOT just pitties...

I love them sooooo much. My sister has always had them or them crossed with other breeds.

Her baby got put down by the dog ranger after he 'apparently' tried to snap at a 12 year old. Who incidentally was on his bicycle and trying to run over the dog's TAIL. I would have shot the child, not the dog. I am not joking. A 12 year old is old enough to know better.

Part of the problem is people just not controlling their children around animals. You do not walk up to a dog and stare it in the eyes. You do not approach a strange dog from the front and try and pat it. You do not pull it's tail, legs, or ears. You do not throw things at it or attempt to run it over on your trike, bike, or other apparatus.

I see it as being parents' responsibility to control their kids around animals and teach them gentle behaviour and ways to make the animal trust and like them.

You wouldn't leave your child by a swimming pool with no supervision, would you? It is exactly the same with dogs. They are not people, they cannot come and tell you a child has been poking them with a stick and please can you make them stop.

My view is consistent with MANY people's views that I have already read - it is owner behaviour and temperament that shapes the dog's behaviour and temperament.

When you read about dog attacks, you read often read 'statistics'. You get the story from the 'poor victim' perspective.

I like this excerpt from a university paper on the subject. Essentially, it says dogs that inflict seious damage on people do so more because of their size and strength - not because of inherent aggression.

Funnily enough, labradors are often viewed as 'passive-natured' doggies, but in reality, they can bite too.

Also need to remember that the type of person who owns something like a pitty is often someone who perceives the dog as a 'tough' accessory, and they might not be the nicest to it either ... so if it gets kicked or made to fight (and the way they are trained etc is HORRIFIC) it is going to develop aggressive tendencies to protect itself.

It is sometimes said that pitbulls are the MOST LOYAL DOG you can get. They also have that ugly cuteness - esp the little browny ones. You look at a litter of babies all snuggled up like lil peas in a pod ... I always melt :>

OK the article excerpt is below ...

An analysis of children treated in A & E departments for dog bites found that the dogs involved were usually of the larger and more powerful breeds. Bites from pitbull terrier-type dogs are more often associated with serious injuries or fatalities. This is probably a consequence of the physical structure and abilities of these dogs, but is perhaps also influenced by the fact that these dogs may lunge, become airborne and injure the head and neck of the victims. The severity of injury influences the likelihood of its being treated and recorded and so there is a tendency for data to show large dog breeds as being involved in attacks. This does not prove that large dogs are more aggressive than small breeds, but that they are potentially more dangerous.