[LILLY]

Originally Posted by angiesample

i actually love Australian Shepard and Siberian Husky's. Although recently ive discovered catahoulas and i really like them too.

Catahoula Leopard dog !


A little history on the Catahoula! Origin: United States. Date of origin: 1700s. first used as deer hunting and herding, today herding and companion. The Catahoula Leapord dog developed in the deep south of the United States, and probably decends from war dogs brought there by Spaniards and from Native Americans. In 1979, the breed was designated the state dog of Louisiana !
They are nice looking dogs !

[Yogi]

[quote=LILLY;85333]Hey Yogi ! Thanx great info! pinscher is German for yes Terrier or biter . They apparently will happily challenge a larger dog and have the tendency to snap first and ask questions later lol . I have had the experiance of many terriers and other breeds as I am a former trainer and my mum a vets assistant, and father a breeder of Shepherds and Vizsla's ! OMG it runs in the family apparently lol lol, been around alot of different breeds of dogs all my life , just merley stating from our experiances, of some of the different terriers, not being a smart ass lol to old for that stuff these days lol or triing to offend anyone ! and maybe help a bit to our doggie friends here !

Originally Posted by Yogi

Hi! I hear ya about the holes and the mine fields around the yard, lol I have now a mixed, now a days I prefer them, and she digs! OMG! we had to build her a kennel because of her digging lol she digs like she trying to reach china lol and it seems the bigger the dog the bigger the holes lol shes mixed with Schnauzer, Border Collie, Shepherd and Golden Retriever !

In actuality the word Pinscher in German does not translate to "terrier" but to biter to describe their biting action and is taken from the English word "pincher". Too many people have posted erroneous info on the net and on their sites for years and it is directly attributed to taking from others. There is so much false information on the Zwergpinscher and has been for years since most breeders in actuality never really bother to go beyond the boundaries of North America when thinking they know their breeds when in fact they need to research the land of origin for facts at which time I discovered that what has been printed in the States has been just hand me down mis information. Even the MPCA (Miniature Pinscher Club of America) still makes some reference that the Miniature Pinscher is related to the Deutscher Pinscher (German Pinscher) which is garbage. What started that whole idea was a sentence taken out of context in a book years ago that stated the "Miniature Pinscher is from the German Pinscher family of dogs". It did not mean it was from the German Pinscher only from the family of German dogs known as Pinschers. The only writing on the breed came in 1836 (not 1936 as the MPCA home page notes and after years of study Reichenbach noted that the breed was the result of crossing a smooth coated Dachshund with an Italian Greyhound. Ironically, majority of the show breeders I have ever known have confessed to me that in fact they really do not know that much about their breeds actual history as it pertains to the land of origin. Instead have primarily relied on those in the states that have written about them and felt secure it was fact when much is not. Most in turn do not care that much and are more interested in comply to breed club standards and less of their history as it actually is. Too bad, had they then maybe they would revisit how the breed was originally. I do not breed mine to the diminutive standard though do try to stay no larger than 12 to 13 inches. Mine are bred not for show but are bred as terriers and go to farms and acreages. The shame here is that the breed is in fact a terrier and in 1925 was actually shown in the terrier group of the AKC. Unfortunately the MPCA was formed in 1929 and they petitioned for it to be placed in the toy category without realizing how destructive they can be.
The other note is that the German Pinscher (not even recognized as such until 1895) is actually nothing more than a smooth coated standard Schnauzer. In the mid 1700's approx 100 or so years after recorded information ie: paintings of the Miniature Pinscher, Schnauzers started throwing smooth coated pups. To this day no one knows why. Finally in 1895 with the inception of the Pinscher/Schnauzer Klub of Germany they officially recognized the breed so long as there was 3 generations of pedigree to support it and gave it the name Deutscher Pinscher (German Pinscher). Near extinction during WWII, Werner Jung was able to escape Germany with what has been purported to be 3 registered bitches. Whith no males available he turned to what was said to be 5 oversized Miniature Pinschers he found on German farms and used them as breed stock. By the late 1950's he had re-established the GP as we know it today.
If you look at a GP and a Miniature Pinscher and disregard the ears and docked tail and colors you will see they look literally nothing alike. They do not share any head shape resemblance as GP's have a wedge shape where MP's actually have cheeks. The torso is different with the only common resemblance is the tuck. The legs and hind quarters share really no commonality. Unfortunately what throws people off is that cannot see past the black & tan or the cropped ears and docked tail. If they could they would see they have share no resemblance. Herr Jung took nearly 15 years of breeding to bring back the GP so that it did not carrying any of the MP characteristics.

[Yogi]

[quote=Yogi;85350]

Originally Posted by LILLY

Hey Yogi ! Thanx great info! pinscher is German for yes Terrier or biter . They apparently will happily challenge a larger dog and have the tendency to snap first and ask questions later lol . I have had the experiance of many terriers and other breeds as I am a former trainer and my mum a vets assistant, and father a breeder of Shepherds and Vizsla's ! OMG it runs in the family apparently lol lol, been around alot of different breeds of dogs all my life , just merley stating from our experiances, of some of the different terriers, not being a smart ass lol to old for that stuff these days lol or triing to offend anyone ! and maybe help a bit to our doggie friends here !



In actuality the word Pinscher in German does not translate to "terrier" but to biter to describe their biting action and is taken from the English word "pincher". Too many people have posted erroneous info on the net and on their sites for years and it is directly attributed to taking from others. There is so much false information on the Zwergpinscher and has been for years since most breeders in actuality never really bother to go beyond the boundaries of North America when thinking they know their breeds when in fact they need to research the land of origin for facts at which time I discovered that what has been printed in the States has been just hand me down mis information. Even the MPCA (Miniature Pinscher Club of America) still makes some reference that the Miniature Pinscher is related to the Deutscher Pinscher (German Pinscher) which is garbage. What started that whole idea was a sentence taken out of context in a book years ago that stated the "Miniature Pinscher is from the German Pinscher family of dogs". It did not mean it was from the German Pinscher only from the family of German dogs known as Pinschers. The only writing on the breed came in 1836 (not 1936 as the MPCA home page notes and after years of study Reichenbach noted that the breed was the result of crossing a smooth coated Dachshund with an Italian Greyhound. Ironically, majority of the show breeders I have ever known have confessed to me that in fact they really do not know that much about their breeds actual history as it pertains to the land of origin. Instead have primarily relied on those in the states that have written about them and felt secure it was fact when much is not. Most in turn do not care that much and are more interested in comply to breed club standards and less of their history as it actually is. Too bad, had they then maybe they would revisit how the breed was originally. I do not breed mine to the diminutive standard though do try to stay no larger than 12 to 13 inches. Mine are bred not for show but are bred as terriers and go to farms and acreages. The shame here is that the breed is in fact a terrier and in 1925 was actually shown in the terrier group of the AKC. Unfortunately the MPCA was formed in 1929 and they petitioned for it to be placed in the toy category without realizing how destructive they can be.
The other note is that the German Pinscher (not even recognized as such until 1895) is actually nothing more than a smooth coated standard Schnauzer. In the mid 1700's approx 100 or so years after recorded information ie: paintings of the Miniature Pinscher, Schnauzers started throwing smooth coated pups. To this day no one knows why. Finally in 1895 with the inception of the Pinscher/Schnauzer Klub of Germany they officially recognized the breed so long as there was 3 generations of pedigree to support it and gave it the name Deutscher Pinscher (German Pinscher). Near extinction during WWII, Werner Jung was able to escape Germany with what has been purported to be 3 registered bitches. Whith no males available he turned to what was said to be 5 oversized Miniature Pinschers he found on German farms and used them as breed stock. By the late 1950's he had re-established the GP as we know it today.
If you look at a GP and a Miniature Pinscher and disregard the ears and docked tail and colors you will see they look literally nothing alike. They do not share any head shape resemblance as GP's have a wedge shape where MP's actually have cheeks. The torso is different with the only common resemblance is the tuck. The legs and hind quarters share really no commonality. Unfortunately what throws people off is that cannot see past the black & tan or the cropped ears and docked tail. If they could they would see they have share no resemblance. Herr Jung took nearly 15 years of breeding to bring back the GP so that it did not carrying any of the MP characteristics.

To better show...
Here is a Red GP...this is my Zeke and here is a pic of Reba my Red MP and Podo my Stag Red MP.
Look closely at the shape of their heads. Not the ears or lack of tail.
You can clearly see that the head shape is totally different.
note: Zeke's ears do stand...caught him with his left ear partially down.
Reba's are cropped and Podo's are button ears. To note, GP's ears do not and cannot stand naturally where in MP's, they can and often do.

[cigwyllt]

Here in the UK there are a lot of us who stand up against the craze for miniature Jack Russells. The thought that someone could petition for a working dog like that to become a toy is frightening! No wonder they are destructive - terriers are far too clever for their own good and will find their own entertainment if left to their own devices.

[Lara's mom]

Why are people in the U.K. against shorty Jacks? There is certainly no reason for them to be any more destructive than any other terriers. I personally have two and neither of them has ever destroyed anything of mine. They're lovely friendly little dogs. Admittedly, they love to chew and can work a foot long bully chew down to a nub in under a week but, neither one of them has ruined my furniture.

As for digging, of course they like to dig. What terrier doesn't? They don't dig any more than other terriers I've had in the past. Why are my babies being discriminated against in the U.K.? The shortys are very much in demand in Canada.

They are by no means "toy" dogs. They stand 10 - 12 inches at the withers.

[cigwyllt]

No - the problem isn't with short legged dogs but the craze for breeding/selling ever smaller miniature/teacup Jack Russells. I prefer the short legged Jack Russells over the longer legged Parsons (the KC registered breed) although in character they are pretty much identical. But the fashion seems to be to create smaller and smaller dogs by breeding runts or cross breeding with chihuahuas. I would hate to see the Jack Russell got the same way as the Pinscher and squeezed into the Toy category instead of being a working dog.

[Lara's mom]

Good grief! They are actually trying to breed teacup Jacks? How utterly ridiculous! I think the kind of people who would want something like that are looking for a fashion accessory, not a dog. That moron Paris Hilton started the trend by carrying around a horrible tiny dog that resembled a rat. It would be a shame if Jacks lost their wonderful personalities and instincts. That's what makes them special.

[Ozzy29]

Not just Paris.. take a look at the film Legally Blond, that poor dog gets carried through out the film and is an accessory. Put it down it has legs!

[cigwyllt]

Sadly teacup and miniature Jack Russells are a reality. There is nothing wrong with a smaller than average dog - 10" - 12" inches is the norm - but to try and breed miniatures and advertise them as perfect lap dogs just goes against everything I love about the Jack Russell.

[pinsnpugs]

Yes, there are major difference between the physical attributes of the German Pinscher as opposed to a Miniature Pinscher. Head, topline, movement are the first things that come to mind.

[LILLY]

Yes, I agree about these silly little tea cup dogs ! I refer them as( a rat on a rope) ! I cant believe some one would actually do this to any breed of animal, and you wonder why genetics are so screwed up! I mean I wouldnt even refer these creatures as dogs, to me a dog is bigger then a rodent by far ! If ya want something that small then by all means get a rodent to show off and dress it up! good lord whats the human world comming to !!!!!

Originally Posted by reeskujo

Thanks Yogi....You saved me the time by pretty much summing up all I was going to say...You're definitely right that most people wouldn't know a true APBT if it was right in front of them....As sad as it is when a child gets attacked it's the parents fault for leaving the child unsupervised with a large dog and it's the owners fault when the dogs turn out that way...In all my years of breeding and owning Akita's I never left my kids alone with them until they were teenagers....None of my dogs ever posed a threat to a child and were extremely tolerant of the annoying things they would do but as a responsible parent I was not willing to take that chance...Any dog can pose a threat to a child if left alone with them and not supervised properly...That is all part of being a responsible parent/dog owner!

I agree 100%! Thankyou finaly someone I fully agree with on this subject! No breed of dog and children should be left unsupervised! children tend to move fast and jerky around dogs and they dont realize that the constant raising of their arms and hands yelling or screeming or getting to the dogs level can pose a threat to a dog and there fore the dog will attack due to feeling threatened .We as humands dont really know what can set a dog off to attack, each dog is different as to what a threat to them is !

[Lara's mom]

There seems to be a common thread running through just about every pit bull attack that is reported. The dogs are running at large and they attack entirely unprovoked.

What really angers me is that the owners of these dogs then attempt to deflect the blame for their dogs behaviour. They'll blame the small dog who got killed because it barked and "upset" the pit bull or the child for simply doing what kids do. The laws in the U.S. seem to favour the pit bulls rather than their victims. That simply isn't fair.

[Yogi]

Originally Posted by Lara's mom

There seems to be a common thread running through just about every pit bull attack that is reported. The dogs are running at large and they attack entirely unprovoked.

What really angers me is that the owners of these dogs then attempt to deflect the blame for their dogs behaviour. They'll blame the small dog who got killed because it barked and "upset" the pit bull or the child for simply doing what kids do. The laws in the U.S. seem to favour the pit bulls rather than their victims. That simply isn't fair.

Unfortunately that statement with regards to the States is not true at all. There is no favoritism otherwise we would not continually see so many press and news reports daily about the attacks and the dogs being put down. On the other hand, a few bad apples should not spoil the barrel as it has in your neck of the woods. I will state this again, I have been around far more dogs than in all likelihood anyone here. Over the past 50 plus years I have come across more than 100 pits and not one, let me repeat not one has been aggressive in any manner. Any breed of dog that is left to run can resort to pack tactics thus leaving them to fend for themselves. This is not predicated on Pits only but on nearly all breeds especially the terriers ie: Parsons, JRT's and even my Miniature Pinschers. The unfortunate mistake that most make and I see it here repeatedly is that nearly all your education regarding the breed comes from the press reports not actual hands on. I would think we are more intelligent than this and have enough adult sense that we do not blindly fall into the over emphasized press' view when it is documented all the time that the press whether written or oral continually leans towards bias for the sake of ratings. If you think your press in Canada is any different than in the States, I can assure you, you would be mistaken. Ratings whether in newspapers of local tv are what inevitably drive what is published or reported, not actual facts. Even here we have discovered that in most cases the breed responsible was in fact not a Pit but a mix or one that resembled a pit. This is not to say that there are in fact Pits that attack but randomly singling out a breed just because of what you read or hear on the news or from another unreliable source that lacks the ability to actually tell the difference between a pit and a bull dog is simply lack of intelligence and compassion. One cannot be an animal lover part time or when it suits them. Either one is or one is not. Unfortunately there are some who seem to think it is ok. Those are the ones who I find fit the definition of a PETA follower.
Of those that I personally know who have had a negative attitude about the Pit, all confirmed it came from the press and local news reports. Ironically of those that I know who actually had the opportunity to meet a real Pit Bull, their views totally changed and confessed they had no idea the breed could be so playful and gentle. We owe it to all who claim to be animal lovers to stop the constant attack on a breed just because we hear it is bad when in fact most cannot even count on their hand the number they have met let alone how many are in any way considered aggressive. If you meet 10 of them and one is aggressive, does this mean we ban the breed? If so, add the JRT's the Yorkies, Parson's, Miniature Pinschers etc to the ban because I can assure you I have come across more of them with aggression issues far more often than the Pits I have met. To those who note the ability of a Pit as if some legendary myth. Please confirm fact and separate it from the myth once and for all. A Cane Corso is over twice the size of a Pit and can easily do far more damage and has. The same holds for Mastiffs though prone to being somewhat gentle by nature as the Pit, it has been reported to have done more damage, as with the Rots, Dobes and even GSD's. The only difference is the press with the urging of ignorant frightened people have decided the Pit is the only real culprit capable of excessive attacks that leave other animals of people severely damaged. The truth is, you cannot have it both ways. If you are going to ban a breed, you can damn well be sure that in time another breed and another will be banned when in fact the owner is the one who should be banned, from ever owning a dog in the first place.
lara's mom, as usual this is not directed at you but at those who simply are quick to judge without having the actual facts but put so much trust in their local press that they are prone to believe anything they read or they hear on the local news channel. Ask yourself, was the reporter there when it actually occurred, no. They are taking what people who claim to witness it state. The truth is that if you were to give them a test which one is the Pit, ask yourself, could they actually pick it out of a line up? Be serious since most here could not so why should a non dog owner be able to.
It is time to step up and either be one who cares for animals or not. But in the interim each person needs to evaluate their feelings since there is no middle ground. We all have favorite breeds but to dislike one based on simply nothing more than others opinions is showing the signs of being a sheep and not a ram. No offense, I will not be led around by anyone. I prefer to be in the lead where at least the scenery changes occasionally instead of in the rear where all you ever see is, well I leave that you ones imagination.
As with most things written or reported, I prefer to see with my own eyes not through those of one who wouldn't have a clue how to find their a** without a map. These are the kind of people that generally are never animal lovers and will be the first to tell you if it was up to them there would be all types and breeds of dogs banned or shot if left to them.

[Lara's mom]

I know the pit bull ban here in Ontario is unpopular with some people but, dog attacks have become a rarity since the ban was enacted. Unfortunately, in Canada, pit bulls became the "dog of choice" for the thug element.

You needn't look further than YouTube to see hundreds of American news reports about pit bulls that have attacked unprovoked and disabled or even killed people and other companion animals. There are many incidences where these dogs have turned on their owners.

I really don't blame the dogs. They are the product of the way they were bred. Unfortunately, there are far too many irresponsible people who own these dogs and the result is often tragic. Nobody deserves to be victimized by vicious dogs running at large.

My Jack Russells and your Miniature Pincers certainly have the capability of biting. However, when was the last time you heard of Jacks or Min Pins running at large who attacked a pedestrian and sent them to intensive care?

Is it not only fair that if you choose to own a potentially vicious breed of dog that you should at least have to carry insurance so that in the event of an attack the victim isn't left with thousands of dollars in medical expenses? One of the reasons that so many pit bulls were surrendered here when the ban went into effect is that pit bull owners were deemed 100% liable for any harm their dogs did. Apparently, these people didn't trust their dogs so much when their actions could lead to the owner losing a huge amount of money. If the owners themselves don't trust their dogs, why should I? The shelters were filled with abandoned pit bulls. As many as possible were adopted out of the province.

[Yogi]

Originally Posted by Lara's mom

I know the pit bull ban here in Ontario is unpopular with some people but, dog attacks have become a rarity since the ban was enacted. Unfortunately, in Canada, pit bulls became the "dog of choice" for the thug element.

You needn't look further than YouTube to see hundreds of American news reports about pit bulls that have attacked unprovoked and disabled or even killed people and other companion animals. There are many incidences where these dogs have turned on their owners.

I really don't blame the dogs. They are the product of the way they were bred. Unfortunately, there are far too many irresponsible people who own these dogs and the result is often tragic. Nobody deserves to be victimized by vicious dogs running at large.

My Jack Russells and your Miniature Pincers certainly have the capability of biting. However, when was the last time you heard of Jacks or Min Pins running at large who attacked a pedestrian and sent them to intensive care?

Is it not only fair that if you choose to own a potentially vicious breed of dog that you should at least have to carry insurance so that in the event of an attack the victim isn't left with thousands of dollars in medical expenses? One of the reasons that so many pit bulls were surrendered here when the ban went into effect is that pit bull owners were deemed 100% liable for any harm their dogs did. Apparently, these people didn't trust their dogs so much when their actions could lead to the owner losing a huge amount of money. If the owners themselves don't trust their dogs, why should I? The shelters were filled with abandoned pit bulls. As many as possible were adopted out of the province.

If the owners themselves don't trust their dogs, why should I?

I can think of a million or so reason's.. If one is truly an animal lover, they would care and it may not have been necessarily a trust issue as much as the bad press they received had they continued to own the breed. People in general are weak minded more concerned about what others may think of them instead of concentrating on caring about themselves and those things they love first, no matter what others think. This remark could be used for any and all dogs in shelters today. Are we then just suppose to close our eyes to the incompetent owners of dogs who own them for the wrong reason thus putting all the blame on the dog. There are local shelters here that have dogs other than Pits where the owners surrender notes indicate they did not trust the dog with people, or small animals etc. Lets just euthanize all of them if that is how we are expected to feel. Facts are as you noted, the breed has in many cases ended up in the hands of the wrong element but for that matter, so have Rots, Dobes etc. and it would be naive to think that these dogs are any less capable of doing the same damage to a person or pet. The problem is that you do not read about those since they are not necessarily press worthy. Why should they waste time on those when all the public wants to hear about is Pits attacking or in fact Pit mixes attacking. The breed has been overly bred, improperly bred with no regard to disposition or temperament. These traits due to poor breeding have only been fueled by those said "thugs" that are responsible not the general public. At the same time there are properly bred Pits out there that comprise the many not the few and we are putting blame on them when they are not the problem. You do not ban a breed, you ban the idiot breeder or the ignorant owner who have turned this dog into something that it is not. Each time you do this only opens the door for more ignorant legislation and before long everyone is asking why? why can't I have this or that. All because of a few idiots who ran amok using their elected power to dictate to others. In the States we are not against euthanization any dog that is so aggressive that if can no longer be controlled but we are sensible enough on the whole to realize that you do not do this to a breed but on an individual basis just like we expect it should be for any of us. To blame the whole for the actions of a few simply is a sign of ignorance and mass fear.
As for insured ownership requirements, I agree and have been a proponent of this for years. Not just for Pits though but for several breeds where the potential to cause serious injury is there. In most cases even in the APBT, the problem is not just the breeding but failing to socialize the dog, with instead the intent to create an aggressive dog to make up for the owners short comings. As for YOUTUBE, I don't get any information from this source.
All I have to do is read the over glorified crap in the newspapers or listen to the evening news. So long as there is a continued outcry by ill informed little knowledge people calling for the end of this breed, the press will stay hooked on it. But if there was no outcry by these self serving morons, the press would give these dog attacks the time of day. The fact is they only publish or report that worst in things because that is what the public wants, the gory, bloody etc. Heaven forbid that the public's perception should ever focus on the nice in the world. If it did, you would see that there are thousands of Pit Bulls that are loving family dogs and thousands used in the service industry world wide. You do not see these reported in the news though, do you? Maybe we should ask ourselves why this is. Bias reporting is excepted because that is what the public wants and there is no reason to justify or report accurately. Especially when it comes to this issue. Why should they. Even if the witness does not know the difference or not, so long as they say it was a Pit Bull, the reporter will comply with it. Yet if it was you are me and they failed to actually confirm before reporting, we call it slander and false reporting. It has been discovered on far more than one occasion that the dog responsible was not a Pit Bull at all. Unfortunately though the idiots witnessing couldn't tell a Pit from a Boxer so that is what was reported only to find the dog responsible and to discover it was not even a Pit. Do they correct themselves, no. So it stays on the books as a Pit attack. In North America, if a dog attacks someone the first thought is that it must be a Pit Bull. Where is the facts confirming this. Everything is hearsay and no one bothers to take the time to confirm. I am not saying nor ever will that Pits Bulls do not attack because they do but so do nearly every breed of dog when left un-socialized or improperly bred or simply in the hands of an idiot. Be reminded, a Pomeranian mauled and killed an infant while it was in is crib. Do you put a ban on Poms. Remember, just because they are small does not mean they also do not have the ability to kill. I have seen far more aggressive JRT's and Miniature Pinschers than Pits. To be reminded, that as terriers all were bred to do one thing, Kill. But in the case of the Pit, you can really blame no one but the owner and breeder who did not set ground rules into effect. Some breeds should simply not be owned by some individuals. Not every person is a dog person otherwise why would there be forums for the layman to come to pointing out "this is my first dog" or I just got a puppy and never had one before" etc. I turn down nearly as many people as I have accepted when finding homes for my pups. You do not answer the question properly or show no real knowledge of the breed or want it simply for all the wrong reasons, you don't get one. This should be the mandate set down for anyone one breeding or purchasing a Pit and the other breeds that I am concerned with. But in no way would I ever not own one. I was offered a 2 year old female just recently but being the number of dogs I currently have, it would have made no sense to take in another dog. But it was not her breed that stopped me from taking her. It is just time that people open their eyes to solutions that actually make sense instead of panicking and running off half cocked assuming that a ban is the only answer. There are other ways and it is time they be explored and implemented.

[Lara's mom]

Yogi, if you know a better way, I'm listening.

[Yogi]

Originally Posted by Lara's mom

Yogi, if you know a better way, I'm listening.

You covered part of it in your post. Holding owners totally liable, in addition to regulating breeders and requiring those who wish to own cover the cost and attend dog training classes. These are starts and should be applied not just to a specific breed but many breeds. I am no opposed to limiting ownership to rural areas or the suburbs and restrict in city limits. But again, this is not Pit specific. I how found that there are many breeds that are kept confined in space and not permitted a large enough area to free run causes aggression issues, whether small or large makes no difference. Some breeds simply do not do well tethered to a chain all day or left with very little time to free run. The assumption that daily walks is sufficient is simply not true. By restricting where certain breeds can be permitted would be a start with emphasis on the breeders being held liable to whom they sell the dog to as well as the owner if they fail to properly socialize the dog. Pits when socialized like most breeds are rarely if ever aggressive. The problem stems from those who have failed in this or have abused the dog in hopes of creating the image of an aggressive dog that they have heard so much about. But to simply ban an entire breed because you have no first hand knowledge but instead just believe what you are told makes no sense. For every one the press claims is bad there are thousands that are not. Do we condemn all peoples if one is an idiot and goes off killing people, no. We have them held liable for their actions. I agree that there needs to be set of rules and regulations in place and with this less people will be wanting to own the breed thus in turn less breeding as there will not be the market for them. It is like everything else we want or purchase, majority is off a whim or for appearance with no regards as to what we are getting into or even if we need it. Logically, the average person buys what looks good in their eyes. The biggest mistake we make on a regular basis and when it comes to dogs, this is one of the biggest of all mistakes. The number of people who own dogs that never bothered to read up on or research a breed before purchasing far out numbers those that have. Had these done their research, the dogs most likely would have never ended up in shelters or abandoned all because people simply are stupid when it comes to how they purchase. The idiots out there believing "teacup" anything exists only continues to prove this. How did you get into JRT's. Realistically you probably saw one, thought it was cute and a fun small dog. But did you really read up thoroughly before you got your first one. If you did, congrats and taking the rights steps but I deal with the people who did not which is where the majority of mine come from. The whole philosophy of purchasing a dog needs to be revamped based on simply that too many people assume far too much with little knowledge even when it is at their fingertips. I want a small dog because it takes less time and will just lay around all day and does not require as much exercise as a big dog or the person who assumes that having a big dog will help automatically protect them. Far too mush assumption when both of these cases is proven to be incorrect when it comes to people perception. The Pit has fallen into a category of assumption. This that it is a guard dog which it is not and never was. In turn, people try to make it so and thus take a dog that normally is not aggressive towards people and turn it into one. Of those that are aggressive with no explanation, this can directly be linked to breeding. You do not breed ill tempered dogs to ill tempered dogs. In most cases, you do not breed them at all. So the onus falls first on the breeder, then on those who wish to own them. With this stipulate rules of ownership with emphasis on training classes etc. I have no problems requiring certain breeds be muzzled while in public. The other alternative is to have their K9's removed. It has been proven that removal does eliminate a dogs willingness to bite but does not hinder it ability to eat. Perfect example are senior dogs who have lost their teeth. You do not hear of them attacking people. Spay neuter before 6 months a requirement. No breeding unless you are licensed and bonded. Simply put, make it difficult so that people who really care about the breed will be the only ones having them because you can be sure, theirs will not be left to run around freely and will not be pack oriented dogs but will be the ones that most of us remember from our youth. Fun family dogs.

[Lara's mom]

You make a lot of excellent points which I will seriously think on.

I did a lot of research before I got my first Jack, Lara. I'd had terrier X's in the past but, Lara was my first pure bred dog. As it turned out, Lara is not very "Jack-like" at all. Lance, on the other hand has all the traits associated with his breed. I fully agree that there would be an awful lot fewer dogs abandoned in shelters if the owners had actually known what their dog would be like before purchasing.

Realistically, the fair and just thing would be for every owner to be held 100% liable for their dogs, regardless of breed. If one of my dogs were to injure someone, I don't think it's fair that I get a "get out of jail free" card because I have small dogs. I have often thought that instead of licencing dogs, we'd be better off licencing the owners.

There is something about pulling perfectly healthy teeth from a dog that just doesn't sit quite right with me. I'll have to think on that one some more...

[Yogi]

Originally Posted by Lara's mom

You make a lot of excellent points which I will seriously think on.

I did a lot of research before I got my first Jack, Lara. I'd had terrier X's in the past but, Lara was my first pure bred dog. As it turned out, Lara is not very "Jack-like" at all. Lance, on the other hand has all the traits associated with his breed. I fully agree that there would be an awful lot fewer dogs abandoned in shelters if the owners had actually known what their dog would be like before purchasing.

Realistically, the fair and just thing would be for every owner to be held 100% liable for their dogs, regardless of breed. If one of my dogs were to injure someone, I don't think it's fair that I get a "get out of jail free" card because I have small dogs. I have often thought that instead of licencing dogs, we'd be better off licencing the owners.

There is something about pulling perfectly healthy teeth from a dog that just doesn't sit quite right with me. I'll have to think on that one some more...

I agree, the owner should be licensed more so than the dog.
As for pulling healthy teeth of a dog, you can look at it this way. Is it not better than euthanizing a dog when pulling its teeth would eliminate the reason for euthanizing? At the same time, we de-claw cats but this has not effected their abilities and they can live healthy normal lives. I have seen de-clawed cats actually climb trees and descend with no problems. Their claws were healthy and it is their primary weapon of choice when showing aggression or defending where in the case of a dog it uses its teeth ie: K9's.

[Lara's mom]

You're absolutely right. It's a far better option than euthanasia. Is the declawing of cats still common in the U.S.? In Canada it has become somewhat taboo. Some vets flat out refuse to do it. I often wonder how many cats don't get homes because people are afraid of having their furniture damaged. Declawing is much better than the alternative.