the question was: "Are Pit bulls Dangerous."

Are you having trouble getting your head around the subject.

The answer is either yes or no in relation to the question asked.

Jiff - I am more than happy to debate this issue on an open forum but I see little point in discussing it privately.

In answer to the question you posed in your message to me - the likelihood of competency testing being implemented depends on the foresight and wit of our legislators and it is these that fail to inspire confidence.

OK jiff we can agree pitbulls are dangerous.
do you believe they should be banned? please answer my question

My last comment on the subject.

The funny thing about the replies to my statement that Pit Bulls are dangerous, not one person has stated they are not.

You gotta laugh at Pit Bull owners.

Where I stand on APBT's is that they can be the lovely dogs in the right homes, but we now adays we would probally never see a APBT in the uk, just pit types, which can still be lovely dogs, in the right home, which is just like any dog really, they just need a owner who understands and them, and doesn't hide from what they were bred for, which is DA, and the majority in the fighting ring would not be allowed to bite a person, if they were they would be disposed off, which is really sad, a few got through that did bite people though, but I would say that a bully breed would normally be one of the most friendly types of dogs to people around. And I will be honest, and say that if everything in the uk changed, I would go out and get a Pit bull, I'm a distant admirer to them.

And do I think that PB's are dangerous, no more so then any other type of dog, and also what do people mean when they are saying that a dog is dangerous, is it a dog that has the intent to harm, or is it a dog that has the power to harm? because I would class it as the first, and to me I see many dangerous dogs, but they don't always have the power to do any real damage, so they are allowed to get away with it, I also see many powerful dogs, but most of these just want a cuddle and a play.

How we percieve dangerous is in the eye of each person, and a dog has more of a chance of being 'dangerous' if it was brought up and not properly socailised, and not given the things that most pets are given without their owners even thinking about it, things like the basic needs of food, water, shelter, and excercise, and then if a dog is not given enough of these and it bites someone around food, or in barrier fustration because they come into their garden or the dog just escapes and is over welmed with everything whose fault is that really? I know who I would blame.

There are also people breeding aggression into certain lines and breeds, maybe not intentionally, but maybe they are, just like certain traits can be bred into dogs, I believe that so can things like aggression if the dam and sire are not of good temperment, which is why everyone knows everywhere that you should look at the temperment of the dam and sire before you take a puppy, but in the uk people who breed pit types have gone underground, they are not selecting animals that have a good temperment, they are there to make money, they know what sells, and unfornatly we know what the majority of people do buy these dogs for.

So no, I don't believe that Pit bulls are dangerous, but I know that people are, and instead of realising that many reflect the blame onto the dog.

My dear, the question was: "Are Pit bulls Dangerous."

Are you having trouble getting your head around the subject.

The answer is either yes or no in relation to the question asked.

Whether you believe or not, that greyhounds chase and kill smaller dog's is totally off topic to the question asked. I suggest you start the relevant thread.

The term 'dangerous', given the context of a breed-specific discussion on a dog owners' forum, can be taken as a relative term.

The full meaning of the question, had the writer thought it necessary to expand, is "Is it possible to make a reliable, generalised comment about the aggressive tendencies of the APBT and do those tendencies, if they exist, present a greater risk than other breeds and is that risk, if it exists, of such a magnitude that it is unacceptable in our society?"

The question does not ask about danger in absolute terms (such as whether a fatality has been caused) because it is patently obvious than any breed can present a danger in the right (or wrong) circumstance. By posing the question as breed specific one it asks a relative question. To take an absolute interpretation, universal to all dogs, and apply it to one specific breed is neither illuminating nor helpful.

In absolute terms of 'fatalities caused', all breeds and crosses are dangerous as are slippers, lawnmowers and balloons.

In relative terms of risk all breeds present a risk relative to their size, (heavier dog = greater risk), their temperament (aggresive/unstable dog = greater risk) and their owner (poor handling = greater risk). Of the three factors the last, the handler, is the most pivotal. We can see this by the facts that dogs which have been both small and non-aggressive have still killed when coupled with bad owners and that even large, aggresive dogs can be successfully and safely managed by highly skilled handlers.

When considering 'acceptable risk' it is clear that some dogs with some owners presents a totally unacceptable risk to society. The error is the notion that we can manage that risk by restricting the dogs to which this owner has access.

The key to reducing dog attacks is to target the principle agent - poor ownership. IMO only competency testing can achieve higher average standards.

I gather from the irrelevancy's you keep posting on this forum, that you are of the opinion Pit Bulls are not dangerous in any way, shape or form.

However, I will be instigating a thread within the near future, to try and make sense of a modern day phenomena that is blighting our land. I.E. "Why are babies and small children committing suicide by recklessly throwing themselves into the jaws of the gentle, passive misunderstood Pit Bull.?

Unfortunately John, I wouldn't discuss anything with you, private or otherwise. Your posted argument is just pretentious nonsense and only has merit at the very end.

The Pit Bulls biggest enemy is the person who controls the leads blunt end. That is where we are in agreement.

If we are in agreement that Pit Bulls are dangerous, wouldn't it be foolhardy not to ban them.

My last comment on the subject.

The thread will miss your insightful contributions.

The only yardstick a pit bull can be judged by are facts:

Have Pitbulls killed other dog's. Yes

Have Pitbulls killed babies, Yes

Have Pitbulls killed children, Yes

Have Pitbulls killed adults. Yes

Irrespective of who controls the other end of the lead, they are without a shadow of a doubt, a very dangerous dog.

To come to any other conclusion can only be from self denial. To use the argument that other dog's are dangerous too is irrelevant, the question asked was: "Are Pitbulls dangerous" the answer can only be yes.