# What do you think ?



## Leo Hinojosa (Sep 4, 2007)

On other boards some debates have been discussed regarding the Pit Bull as a breed. While im do not condone banning any breed because of the breed itself.

I have come to the conclusion many breeds are owned by individuals because of the stereotype that comes along with owning such breeds. Unfortunately, the pit bull breed is often owned by thugs, dealers, gangsters, and perceived or not perceived tough guys....

The breed that i know as the Pit bull is not one that is often depicted in the media. It is unfortunate the media controls the populous, and then in turn control the politicians who make decisions based on the slanted views of PETA, and the Media.

So I had an ingenious idea, what if the stereo type was changed. What if owning such a breed no longer gave one street cred. What if there was a concentrated effort to place the breed with openly homosexuals, or some other group that is not associated with the current stereotype.

Imagine, reputable breeders contacting certain celebrities, and placing a well balanced pup. And in turn, some known trainers who are both breeders and trainers offering to train the pup to adult hood. 

In time if owning a pit bull was no longer associated with gangs, thugs etc...but it was the breed primarily owned by homosexuals (as an example). I believe in time the breed will be better off.

This is in no way, a means to degrade the homosexual community....In fact I believe they could have a great impact in saving the breed from becoming illegal to own. 

And at the same time those in the law enforcement community who have pit bulls as their partners would also make a concentrated effort to inform the media of their dogs abilities. Demonstrate to the media they are wrong to portray the breed as a savage dog...When in fact many bites that often occur are not by the pit bull breed rather a mix. How many of those bite incidents occur with a registered dog, one that has had training, one that has been socialized ? 

I believe with the help of certain segments of our population, and with a very concentrated effort by ALL OF Those IN THE DOG COMMUNITY. We will be able to change the media's role in trying to ban the breed.

Trainers, for your part...when a person with a pit bull as a pet comes to you for training, do not turn them away. The owners are doing what we are preaching but some trainers are turning them away because of the breed they own...

I for one do not want to see the Malinois as a breed being the next one to be targeted by the Media. I believe if we help those who are in the pit bull breed will come to our aide when they come after my beloved breed.

Leo Hinojosa


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

So what happens when thugs start wanting malinois???? Do we give Mal's to ga.. er, homosexual people to?? :lol:


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

While you may well change the stereotype, it's the reality that affects many. The reality is; if it's a thug, if it's a drug house the dog is going to be a pit. In my experience, rarely is any other breed used. Irrespective of breed, what needs to be done is not politically correct. That of course is; hold the person responsible. The concept of expecting someone to accept responsibility for their actions has somehow become policitally incorrect. The "fix" is not something that can be mandated, legislated or taxed. The fix is in holding the person responsible, accountable. 

DFrost


----------



## Leo Hinojosa (Sep 4, 2007)

I have not thought it out completely...

I just think it is sad when people like Howard Burgess, Art O' Keefe, and Leri H, among many others have put so much time and effort into the breed that a select few empty minded individuals become the stereotypical owner of the breed.

It is even worse that the sensationalism given by the media fuels the flames to sell advertizement space. The victim is the breed, and in truth, I did not come up with this half hazzardly. 

I saw a DMX video and saw how the dogs were portraid in the video. I thought to myself, this is why young people want this breed and why something must change now in order to try and save it.

Thus, I thought the connotation of owning the breed no longer belonging to thugs, etc...but a different stereotype all together...

At least that was my intent for the posting....

I love the breed, I once owned one before I knew what a Pit bull was...My parent purchased a nice male pup and i raised him until he died a ripe old age. Not once did this dog fight, nor was he dog aggressive...
I remember seeing one on tv and it had did something, and I looked at the dog and looked at my dog and was astonished to see a dog like my dog on tv.
Mind you I was young at the time...

I have always held a special place for the breed, it was not my first breed but it was a great experience owning a good one. 

That is why I am so adament in stating this is NOT a knock on homosexuals and if it appears to be, I am truly sorry, it is not my intention.

I am tired of reading about the Pit Bull should be extinguished because it has no value. I see value in the breed, and people have provided great representatives of the breed doing all forms of work from PSD work to Frisbee Catching.

Let the thugs come and mess with the Malinois...Once they do enough damage in their Mom's house, or Granny's house they will have to select a different Breed


----------



## Leo Hinojosa (Sep 4, 2007)

Amen 
D Frost...

Accountability is no longer the NORM rather the exception to the rule.
This country is digging a hole that we will not be able to dig out of, if we continue on the road of Political Correctness


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

You wouldnt believe how hard it was to try and find a toy cap gun a few months ago :roll: Toys r Us no longer carries them. Of all places, I found one buried behind a bunch of other crap at WalMart, and it wasnt even a cool one.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Just to be clear, I'm not saying anyone that owns a pit is a thug. I don't like legislation. I think we have about all we need in this country. The remains however, if it's a drug house, if it's a thug, if they own a dog, it's going to be a pit.

DFrost


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

So what you're saying is, you've never come into a drug house protected by a standard poodle? Interesting.....


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> So what you're saying is, you've never come into a drug house protected by a standard poodle? Interesting.....


Or a Maladjusted, or a GSD, on very rare occasions it might be a Rott, have not seen a poodle yet. 

DFrost


----------



## Jessica Fry (Jan 4, 2007)

David Frost said:


> Just to be clear, I'm not saying anyone that owns a pit is a thug. I don't like legislation. I think we have about all we need in this country. The remains however, if it's a drug house, if it's a thug, if they own a dog, it's going to be a pit.
> 
> DFrost


The question is then: why is it always a pit? I think Leo has a point here, it's the image that draws certain people to the breed, which in turn creates an image for the breed, which then attracts more drug-dealing types, etc., etc.

Legislation isn't the answer, I'll second that... People have tried, including the Dutch government. Pit bull 'type' dogs are illegal in The Netherlands, if you own one or anything that looks like it and doesn't have an FCI pedigree it can be impounded by police and put down by the government. Does it work? Nope. Bite incidents are as high as they've ever been (majority by other breeds than pit bull 'types'), dogs get impounded at incredible rates (with accompanying bawling owners on tv who want their family dog back), and it is estimated the number of non-pedigree pit bull type dogs in the Netherlands is still on the increase. It's stupid, doesn't work and is (IMHO) morally flawed.

The pit bull made the switch from America's family dog to the thug's dog in a few decades, there's no reason to assume this process can't be reversed, right? It'll probably take years of careful media exposure... In a media culture that is inclined to lean the opposite way... But that's not to say it's impossible.


----------



## Alex Corral (Jul 10, 2007)

Lol...I've yet to see a Poodle myself. Anyways, it's all about educating the others and punishing the offenders. And I mean seriously punishing the offenders. Like strict fines, losing the priviledge to own another dog for some time and eating Ol' Roy.


----------



## Leo Hinojosa (Sep 4, 2007)

While not exactly the most popular suggested I have presented, I have felt the ownership of certain distinct breeds or mixes thereof should only be done so under certain requirements and proof the requirements have been met.

Those requirements are:
Regular Scheduled Veterinarian Care....Most save on costs by giving your own shots...but perhaps one could purchase the shot, and it be administered by a veterinarian in the program for free. This will allow others to view its history and maintain contact with the owners during the dogs life span.

Enrollment in an Obedience Training Courses...
One at 12 Weeks of age to be completed....
and again One at any time under a year....
and again One at any time under three years of age...

Participiation in a County Registration System where the dogs may be tracked via Micro chip, or tattoo...Just in case the dog is wandering the streets.

No owner shall be a convicted criminal...

Owner will go through a dog owners class taught by local trainers, or the county.

If owner and dog move to a different county the dog must be then registered within that county...so a constant record of the dog and its movements are on file, and able for review.

Failure to participate or Failure to meet these minimum guidelines would result in fortfeture of the animal and it be evaluated, and determined whether it is safe for adoption or not...If so the new owner would also have to meet those requirements....

Yeah not the best system in the world but it might make it a pain in the ass to own one...I would also include the Rott, Mastiff, Bull Mastiff, GSD and mixes of these breeds to go through this process...

But leave my malinois alone


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Leo, with the above suggestions, you're punishing me because of the actions of others. I think that is wrong. My dog ownership, regardless of the breed I prefer, should not be limited by the actions of others. Make those responsible pay, not the innocent. It's why I object to government intervention. As Jessica pointed out, the Dutch have some very strict regulations including confiscation of a breed if it doesn't meet certain requirements. That, according to her, has not reduced the rate of bites. I hate to use a cliche' and I personally don't even like Pitties, but "punish the deed, not the breed." We have enough government intervention in our society. There are adequate laws to handle the situations; enforce them.

DFrost


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

There's an underground campaign going on around here trying to get "old" people owning pits.


----------



## Jessica Fry (Jan 4, 2007)

@Leo: what you're proposing here is different from the ideas in your first post. It's breed specific legislation and I believe this is not only uneffective but also poses the problem of breed definition. How are breeds defined? Usually by external characteristics that members of such a breed should have. 

But what if...? Consider the following: breed specific legislation is introduced that includes the restrictions you mention for pit bulls, molossers, and rottweilers (just as an example).

And I'm walking the street with this dog:
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/GroteFoto-666FLICL.jpg

I get stopped by an animal control officer who fines me for being in violation of all appliccable laws because I haven't registered the dog, haven't attended (lame) obedience classes, etc, etc. which I should have done because the dog is supposedly a rottweiler mix. The dog is impounded, I'm in panic, and I'm broke because I get fined something insane for all of my so-called violations.

How on earth am I going to prove to the court (where I would go to fight this) that the dog in question is neither a rottweiler nor a rottweiler mix but in fact a Malinois x Appenzeller Sennenhund mix and that I have been wrongly accused and am entitled to have the dog back before it is 'humanely destroyed'? 

There aren't any DNA tests available that could conclusively show a dog's genetic makeup as far as parent breeds go. I don't have a pedigree for the dog because it is a mixed breed. The dog looks like a Rottweiler mix and that's what they go on. Injustice all around, I lose the dog, the dog is tested for adoption and found slightly 'off' (he is, he's a nutcase but nevertheless he's my pal) so it's euthanized and the laws that were designed to make the streets safer for me (a member of the public) have instead robbed me of my friend for no better reason than that he LOOKED like a restricted breed.

This sort of thing is what happens regularly in The Netherlands. People have lost their Boxer x Labrador Retriever because it resembled a restricted pit bull type dog. There's no way to prevent such mishaps with this type of legislation because there is no way of clearly defining dog breeds or mixes thereof other than external characteristics, and those can be misleading.

I liked the idea of homosexuals or senior citizens as advocates for the pit bull though.


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

*The Way I See It...*

It's going to take the dog world, and more specifically, the working dog community, to come together as one voice to inform the public that this is a PEOPLE problem, not a dog or breed problem.

And it's about damn time for the bulldog community to stand up and start doing something about BSL ourselves. Owners and advocates of these dogs should be taking every opportunity to get ourselves involved in educating the lay public about this breed; history, common myths, current use, etc. And if we are really going to preserve these dogs for posterity, then it is my firm belief that it is every owner's responsibility to push towards the reestablishment of 'pitbulls' as a legitimate working breed. There *must* be immediate and persistant growth in the number of APBT involved in service work here and abroad or we're going to lose the fight against BSL once and for all. I mean, how many 'responsible' owners worldwide have so much as a CGC title on their dogs right now? What would happen if their was a sudden surge in the number of 'pitbulls' serving as therapy/physical assistance dogs? Would the the veil of BSL continue to cloud societal judgement? What if we began to see a rise in APBT seen/used as canine ambassadors in school/community education workshops? Would soccer moms still have a reason to fear for their children's safety? 

Lastly, an initiative must be taken to capture the attention of legislators, so that we can force the issue of personal accountability. The criminal element that perpetuate stereotypes need to be judged for their actions; it's also not *just* an American problem, either. It's a pandemic that continues to find sanctuary in areas outside the reach of animal welfare organizations. Also, there has to be stiffer penalties across the board for those who qualify as habitually negligent. I don't have all the answers, but to me, it boils down to mandatory fines and jail-time for incidents of unprovoked attack. In FL, we have a 10-20-Life policy for gun related crimes. Mandatory 10yrs if you use a gun in the commission of a crime; Mandatory 20yrs if you fire a gun in the commission of a crime; Mandatory life if you shoot someone in the commission of a crime. I suggest similar penalties for incidents of unprovoked attack. And to be clear, I define 'unprovoked' as incidents such as bites resulting from dogs running at large, not instances where someone(including a child) has trespassed onto your property or coerced your animal into biting them. 

The penalty phase could be as such; Mandatory 2yrs/$2500 fine and surrender(rehome or euthanasia) of dogs with more than one incident of unprovoked aggression/attack; Mandatory 5yrs/$5000 fine and surrender of dogs which result in heinous injury of adults and children over the age of 12; Mandatory 10yrs/$10,000 fine and surrender of dogs which result in attacks on children under the age of 12 or the death of an adult; Mandatory 15yrs-Life/$50,000 fine and surrender of dogs in incidents which result in the death of a child.







Andy.


----------



## Jennifer Sider (Oct 8, 2006)

*Gangs around here*

in my li'l ole neighbourhood (we are speaking of Hell's Angels affiliates) seem to have turned to the Cane Corso.
I've seen many members wives walking these dogs; there are now 2 or 3 byb of these dogs in the area. I live in the Province of Ontario, we have the dubious honour of being the largest land mass (maybe largest population) to have banned the entire APBT spectrum (AST/SBT/anythingthatresembles).

I can('t) wait until the asshats who now own these larger bull breeds who require a responsible owner start to have their dogs bite people; perhaps that will prove to our douchebag of a premier of the province that his heinous BSL "pitbull" ban is ridiculous.

Hopefully said douchebag will be out on his rear as of October.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Jessica Fry said:


> The question is then: why is it always a pit? I think Leo has a point here, it's the image that draws certain people to the breed, which in turn creates an image for the breed, which then attracts more drug-dealing types, etc., etc.
> 
> 
> Back when I was growing up, the toughest dogs around were GSDs and Dobes. I'd never heard of pitbulls.
> ...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Ever notice that they don't have the gigantic pits that you see occasionally???? Pussies LOL.

My thing is the pit is the MOST abused purebred dog out there. I see/have seen more atrocities with this breed whether it be tv, or personal experience than is right.

Until people really start realizing that their votes count, as I do not think that many people believe media all that much, nothing is gonna happen.

I also believe that the people whose dogs get loose and hurt people should get fairly large fines and jail. Look at all the DUI cases were nothing happened, but these people are treated like something did. Most people that have incedents are not held to the same standard as a stinkin traffic violation.

AND NO I am not talking about the guy that passes out and kills someone. Most of the many people I know that got a DUI were pulled over, and had damaged nothing but their wallets.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

> Leo, with the above suggestions, you're punishing me because of the actions of others. I think that is wrong. My dog ownership, regardless of the breed I prefer, should not be limited by the actions of others. Make those responsible pay, not the innocent. It's why I object to government intervention.





> this is a PEOPLE problem, not a dog or breed problem.


I don't know much about pits, but notice the resemblance to arguments about "gun rights", and have to agree; it's not a breed-specific problem. I can recall a few dogs of "trusted" breeds that have fallen into the hands of the wrong PEOPLE. Any breed can become dangerous in the care of the wrong person. Any driver behind the wheel of the "highest-safety-featured" automobile can still cause a collision.


----------



## Leo Hinojosa (Sep 4, 2007)

Your absolutely correct...D, We do have adequate laws that are NOT enforced, as your well aware there isnt enough money in the coffers to make certain we have enough qualified personnel to enforce the current laws...

Is owning a dog, a right or a privledge ? As much as driving a car is a privledge. We have certain requirements that we must achieve prior to obtaining our license to drive an automobile, or for that matter purchase a weapon legally. Would requiring some form of tracking system for owning a particular breed or any breed for that matter be so restrictive that it would take away the joy of owning a dog ? 

For example I had a perspective client come for an evalution with their pit bull. A young dog, approximately 9 months old. The man ranted about the sire and grand sire and how they were from very strong game lines. He and his wife were very proud of the fact the dog was from famous game lines. 

I brought out our dog Joker and proceeded to do a short demo, and the dog showed no interest in my dog at all. Until the moment I gave the down command with my dogs back to the owners. Their dog lunged and grabbed my dog (my wife's dog technically). And shook his tail, the man had a big smile on his face, that i did notice. I took the lead and corrected the dog, and our dog turned to bite and I corrected him for breaking the last command. 
The married couple were upset that I stepped in and corrected their dog for the behavior. In my opinion this couple did not deserve to own this dog. I spent some time in discussing the problems with having a dog aggressive dog and how they should maintain control of the dog through training..Whether it was with me or someone else but the dog needed to learn obedience. Needless to state they did not hire me.

A few weeks later, I had another person, who had 2 pit bulls, A 4 month old female puppy and a year old male dog. The male dog wanted to fight the little dog and he could not keep the dogs together as he had wished. The Owner in his mid 20's, dressed in the Hip Hop fashion. He was in my opinion a "wanna be gangsta" I spent some time with a demo, again using Joker and then I took his year old dog and did some basic heeling and such. The man did not want to promote the gameness his dog had. He wished to have an obedient dog that could live with his wife's puppy. I did suggest neutering, and told him there was a chance the dog would still bite the puppy if it had an opportunity. We could do a lot of distraction training, and control work but he would always have to be in control of the dog. And even then, free will may apply and an accident might occur. The Man still trains his dog in obedience, and while the dog is still dog aggressive it has never been in a dog fight. Never in my wildest dreams did I believe this individual would be good for the breed. He is the type of owner the breed should have, in fact any breed for that matter. The female dog was well socialized at an early age and she is not dog aggressive, she is exactly what they wanted in a dog.

One day I questioned him the reasoning for keeping the male dog, and why he purchased the male dog. His answer astonished me, he rescued the male dog from his irresponsible brother a week before contacting us. The reason he kept it is because he loved the little rascals and wanted a dog like Petey.

Two separate cases, one where the dog was a symbol of toughness and bravado for the married man. The second dog was to be a part of the family. Yes I admit I had reservations because of outward appearances, but the Man proved me to be wrong.

I can not understand why this great breed needs to be associated with some of the worst man kind has to offer. Especially since the real good dogs are such an asset. 

Leo Hinojosa.


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

This is a hot topic here in the UK as well.

Pit-bull 'type' dogs have been banned here in the UK for over ten years, so theoretically there should be none on the streets and no-one would ever get bitten by a dog???

WRONG!!

-Mistake number 1 is that there is no-one to enforce the legislation and how do you tell the difference between an out of standard Staffordshire Bull Terrier (or various mixes) and a Pit-bull (which is not even a recognised breed here!).

-Mistake number 2 is that a dangerous dog can come in any shape or size. To ban breeds ignores this fact. Dangerous dogs need to be fined and their owners destroyed ;-) 

-Mistake number 3 is to expect criminals to take any notice of the law. The only people who are punished are law abiding citizens, normally with well behaved dogs. Pit-bulls are still common place among the drug dealing and dog-fighting communities.

There is a push here in the UK to throw out the existing legislation and start again with defining a dangerous dog by it's behaviour, policing thoroughly and imposing harsh penalties on irresponsible owners.....will never happen though :-x


----------



## Leo Hinojosa (Sep 4, 2007)

Ah now we are actually getting somewhere.....

Defining a dangerous dog by ITS Behavior and imposing harsh penalaties on irresponsible owners....

Perhaps just perhaps, here in the US...where I often see HSUS representative speaking of fighting dogs. Perhaps, we can all enlighten FOX NEWS, CNN and others who bring this person to speak on the behalf of HSUS. How this individual and others like him are really against owning any dog, especially some specific breeds like the pit bull. 

The call for funds to aide the dogs previously owned by Mr. Vick did not go towards aiding one single dog, as the ads implied. Why doesnt FOX News report that ? Why do they not report some of the leaders of the HSUS are former Animal Rights Terrorists.

Why is it such a crime to own a specific breed when in fact, the UK as mentioned above have banned specific breeds and nothing has changed. Why do they not report that ?

I will tell you why...HSUS has CASH and LOTS OF IT....
FOX NEWS NEEDS TO SELL AD SPACE, and Something, Some where must be EVIL...Unfortunately it is the Pit Bull that wears the Bulls Eye on its CHEST.

It must be evil, those who are involved in Gangsta Rap have those dogs...Look honey, the police had to shoot a pit bull guarding some dope during a raid. Those dogs are evil, see I told you. OMG, did you hear about that pit bull that bit that baby, see those dogs are dangerous around children.
Pit Bulls fight to the Death, so they must be evil...

Im sorry but in every one of those examples...some person was responsible for the dogs actions...Yet we do nothing to them...How can someone leave a dog alone with an infant ? That is just plain stupid, regardless of the breed.

Hey FOX NEWS....More dog bites occur from Cocker Spaniels and Labs than the Pit BULL...FACT not FICTION....

Leo


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"Hey FOX NEWS....More dog bites occur from Cocker Spaniels and Labs than the Pit BULL...FACT not FICTION...."

Technically, that may be true. From personal experiance, I've never had the hair go up on the back of my neck when serving a warrant on a house guarded by a Cocker. If given the choice between being bitten by a cocker or a pittie, well you see where I'm going with this. It really has nothing to do with a debate however. As far as the media, well the old axiom holds true; If it bleeds it leads. Enforcement of law should have nothing to do with breed any more than it should with religious conviction or color of a persons skin. It should be directed at the offense.

DFrost


----------

