Another epidosde with Pit Bull - Page 16

Most of the stats regarding dog bites are taken from newspaper stories. This means that we are depending on the media to know the difference between a pit bull and a....lab mix, or a catahoula, for example. Here in town, there was a recent story of a mob of pits attacking somebody...well, in fact, there were two dogs of other breeds and one that seemed part pit. But the media reported them as 3 pits. NOT a reliable source of data.

Also,  how come they never pick on the OTHER breed in the mix? That's why it's flawed data. A pit bull mix should only statistically count as, say, 1/4 or 1/2 of a pit. Count the other part in its own breed category.

Well said VM!

Inbred dogs make btter fighters, I have been told and have seen inbred pits first hand, So how do you explain that!!!

You cannot believe everything you hear. Seeing a pit bull that is inbred does not mean it is a pit dog.

Some inbred dogs may make better fighters, however many are cold and that is why they are used for breeding with outcrosses. To produce fighting dogs. Maybe you are mixing up inbreeding with linebreeding.

Stacy, VM's comment was also stated in the links I posted to. That is the reason the CDC is no longer recording breeds/bites. Arguing with Duval will get you nowhere. Speaking of inbred...

I'm not at all in denial due to love of the breed. Facts are facts, and the fact is, that it is incorrect to say that fatal dog attacks and dog bites are increasing. Media coverage (due largely in part to the internet)  and irresponsiblity, and failure to admit humans had any role in these incidents is what's increasing. People used to look at a dog bite and say "Gee, I f'd up. " Now, they look at getting bitten by a dog like "Oooh, I can sue!" As I also stated in my loooong posts in the middle of the night, culpability is a dying trait. Add all these things to lack of common sense, and you have disaster- Pit Bulls or not.
When you look at the number of Pit Bulls in existence, the fatalities caused by them are hardly significat statistically- of course they're significant because of loss of life, but from a sheer numbers perspective, they are not terribly significant. If ANYTHING had the kind of increase in population that Pit Bulls have had, I think it would be the same thing. In fact, it's been proven- look at history of dog trends and look how the dogs' reputations/temperaments have changed as a result.

My buddy raises pitts,and he has a few that he has kept that are inbred and keeps them away from the other ono-inbred pitts cause they are not right in the head. We have used these dogs hog hunting and they are way more agrressive then the non-inbred pitts. They a harder to trian and are stubbern as hell. So i have seen them first hand and know what they can do..I'd my self never own a pitt again since GSD's have taken my heart and i see the difference in both dogs, But you gotta see if to believeit...

vomruiz,


I speak the truth....................

Duval, you and your buddy are not right in the head, would be my best guess.  If you take highly aggressive dogs from the same family and breed them together tight enough to be considered inbreeding and not linebreeding, then of COURSE you have more aggressive dogs. Being inbred isn't what magically turns them aggressive! Breed 2 closely related dogs of any breed together and you will see an exacerbation and exaggeration of their prominent traits- aggression, big ears, short legs, whatever!

You know diddly about old time dogmen and what they did or didn't use/breed. You're not helping the breed any by trying to defend them. You're as bad as the "Pet Bull" crowd.

pit bull pit bullll, watcha gonna dooooo,
watcha gonna do when they come for youuuuu...

JPTAGAS