On the above comment, I had no idea that I had bought a crackhouse from a man that owned a pit bull. I thought he went to work everyday to his job, came home, fed his dog, played with the dog, and went to bed. He seemed very nice....and the dog (the Pit Bull) did also. I lived next door at that time and fed this very nice dog through the fence lots of treats and she played through the fence with my Cocker Spaniel and my husband's Boxer. Wow...little did I know I was living next to a crackhouse, feeding a dog that was going to kill me and our dogs and what did I do...I turned around and bought the house that you claim was a crackhouse (surrounded by DEA agents). I sure am glad to know this but it's too late now. The damage has been done. I'm not an expert like you Betsy...I'm just the everyday dog lover, cat lover, all animal lover...and yes, I was bitten by a dog one time...a very tiny toy dog. That dog apparently was in a bad mood though. I had a Rottie one time...did he bite me...or anyone else..NO. I would guess that you would have something bad to say about my current dog..she is a Cockalollie.......and she has been arrested for biting me when she was only 11 weeks old. I have yet to find any information on this breed as far as aggression though, racing across pits, killing other dogs but I can say she loves to dig holes and run around the yard in circles at high speeds. It is great to know this information about the former Crackhouse that I purchased 10 years ago and I suppose I am very lucky to have been spared my life after feeding the Pit Bull through the fence. If you come across any negative information about Cockalollies, please let me know. It's bad enought that she already has a "Rap Sheet" at such a young age....I'm now wondering if she could have a little Pit Bull in her and I wasn't told. She might...right now she's trying to bite through her new squeaky toy that I bought her today...that is probably a sign of aggression....I think she is trying to kill the toy.

Yes, I DID mean to imply that. It's not irresponsible, nor is it a disservice. Neither of my pitts, nor those of my friends show any dog agression whatsoever. Co-incidentally, they were all raised in loving homes. That seems to be a pretty universal result when looked at broad spectrum.

"Go to ANY responsible pit bull bulletin board (for example, Pit Bull Talk or Pit Bull Forum) and announce that you are intending to get a pit bull and take him on a daily basis to the local dog park for socialization and exercise. You will be immediately told that mature pit bulls (regardless of the level of socialization) do NOT belong at dog parks. They are an accident waiting to happen because at some point they are likely to remember what they were bred to do, which is kill other dogs."

Actually, the main reason us pit bull types avoid some dog parks is because of judgemental hysterical people like you. If a yellow lab attacks pit bull without provocation, it is the fault of the pit bull. Seen it happen. I actually DO take my pits to the private dog park in Salem, and they frolick and play happily with dozens of other dogs, some of which are pits.

I'm sorry to come right out and say it Betsy, but come across as a reactionary nut job. Your grasp of the facts seems to be partial at best, as you're only grasping and manipulating those facts which suit your argument that pit bulls are dangerous.

The funny thing is in principle, I don't disagree with your your position on microchipping and MSN. All responsible owners should have their animals chipped and spayed/neutered (I have no clue what you were talking about when responding to Erin stating the same thing, pretty sure she meant NON breeders when she said all, as do I)

However, in PRACTICE, a law of that nature would be a colossal waste of whatever paper it's printed on. Why, you wonder? Because, by your own ascertations, CRIMINALS own pit bulls. Last I checked, criminals don't give a rip how many laws they're breaking. A breed specific MSN law would be nothing more than a hassle for responsible owners who have to prove compliance. It's really a lot like gun control, which I suspect is also an isue you'd be able to write pages about...you know the main reason they let the Brady Bill expire? Mostly because it was nothing more than a hassle for responsible citizens and did noting to stop criminals.

At the end of the day, other than thinking you have a stupid idea, I don't think anyone really cares about the "law you advocate" (where and to whom do you advocate by the way, just the Internet?). Really though, your blanket statements, stereotyping, and twisting of facts and data to suit your purpose do little to help you or your "cause", you're just ticking people off. Speaking of which, there are TWO "R"s in my last name. Heh, and *I* need to read more carefully.

And what do we do with the millions of pit bulls already in the hands of irresponsible owners like myself? I suppose we should round up the pit bulls and euthanize them. Great solution! Because I'm sure the thugs will be more than happy to turn over their animals when the anilmal control officer comes knocking at the door.

*sigh* this is why I like dogs more than people.

Hey, I am very happy to "sterotype" pit bull breeders who breed dogs other than AKC registered or UKC-PR registered show dogs. They are irresponsible. And I am happy to pass laws that protect pit bulls and communities from the actions of these irresponsible breeders.

The question is why you aren't willing to pass laws to protect pit bulls and communities from the actions of irresponsible pit bull breeders?

No, I don't support warehousing thousands (and eventually, probably, millions) of pit bulls in "no-kill shelters" (where conditions are often horrible) just to make it possible for the glut of irresponsible pit bull breeders to continue to make money off cranking out more and more pit bulls. I advocate passing laws to prevent people from exploiting pit bulls and endangering communities.

Uh, no...I don't want to tell your employer that you are a criminal because you own a pit bull. You, however, might want to ask your employer to send you to a remedial logic course so you can better understand that if somebody says that a higher percentage of pit bull owners are criminals than are owners of other breeds, that doesn't necessarily translate to saying that all pit bull owners are criminals. In fact, it doesn't even imply that.

And, sadly for pit bulls, it is a FACT that more pit bull owners are criminals than are owners of other breeds. Nobody who is familiar with the crisis pit bulls are in and the causes of that crisis would have doubted that, but there has been a study in Ohio that confirmed it.

It is absolutely untrue that all responsible pet owners alter and microchip all their dogs. Some dogs SHOULD be bred. In fact, unless some dogs are bred, dogs would cease to exist. I'm not for that. Are you? We know, however, that the VAST majority of pit bulls being bred right now should never have been bred. (One concrete indication of how true that is is the pathetically small percentage of pit bull breeders who do ANY health screening of their breeding stock) Many, if not most, of pit bulls puppies being born will lead short, brutal, tragic lives.

The glut of irresponsible pit bull breeding in this country has tragic consequences for pit bulls and, occasionally, for children who die in their jaws. It even has bad consequences for responsible pit bull owners and breeders (not that there are many of the latter). The only people who benefit from irresponsible pit bull breeding are irresponsible pit bull breeders. Strangely, however, even people who consider themselves to be responsible pit bull owners want to protect the "rights" of irresponsible pit bull breeders to exploit pit bulls.

Pit bulls deserve a lot better than they get from pit bull owners.

Her biggest problem—the problem of everyone on here who is advocating BSL—is stereotyping. Not generalization, which acknowledges that individuals should be judged on their own merits, but stereotyping, which draws inappropriate and incorrect assumptions about an entire group of animals or people. Betsy and others assume that defining and identifying a pit bull is easy: just look for the dog-aggressive, human-aggressive, badly bred dog with a spiked collar, a chain for a leash, and a poor, drug-dealing, illegal immigrant owner. Right?

And here's where BSL fails miserably on an ethical level. Because "pit bull" actually encompasses an extremely diverse group of dogs, so diverse that "mutt" might be a more appropriate definition. There are so many "pit bulls" out there of all different sizes, shapes, and temperaments that it is almost impossible to define what a "pit bull" is. It's ridiculous to assert that "most" pit bulls want to kill other dogs, or that "most" pit bulls are being bred for human-aggression, etc. There's no evidence for that; it's pure fearmongering and stereotype-building, nothing more.

Sure, you can go on a "responsible" pit bull owner board and hear people say things like "pit bulls tend to be dog-aggressive," but that's just another generalization, another stereotype being perpetuated. Lots of different types and breeds of dogs actually tend to be dog-aggressive, including most of the terrier breeds. In fact, put two unneutered male dogs and one unspayed female dog together and you'll probably have a dog fight on your hands. So what? Personally, if people want to say such things about pit bulls on a pit bull owner board, that's fine with me; at least that way, owners will know to prepare and watch for dog-aggression, and maybe even do some socializing/training with their dog, instead of plunging in cluelessly.

Responsible dog owners of all breeds acknowledge that any individual dog may be dog-aggressive, human-aggressive, child-aggressive, fear-aggressive, whatever-aggressive. Responsible dog owners of all breeds prepare for all these possibilities. They raise, train, and socialize the dog. They monitor the dog for behavior issues, and they manage those issues if and when they occur. Every dog owner should be aware of their dog's potential for aggression, their dog's triggers and thresholds. Sometimes, novice dog owners have a Lassie-like image in their head, and it takes someone saying "Hey, you need to be proactive when it comes to dog-aggression, ok?" before they even consider that they aren't socializing their Lassie enough.

Betsy and others also support BSL because they see pit bull owners as a dangerous minority group, a group of outsiders to be protected from. Again, this is a stereotype. I highly doubt that anyone who meets me would think I was a pit bull owner, unless I tell them. I think that probably holds true for most pit bull owners. That farcical study that Betsy cited to suggest that most pit bull owners are criminals is seriously flawed in multiple ways.

In fact, consider the sheer population of "pit bulls" and pit bull owners in this country. There are, literally, millions of them. If pit bulls were all truly aggressive and their owners all criminals, why isn't our society dissolving into chaos and lawlessness? Even if "most" of these dogs and owners were such, why aren't they out there doing misdeeds right now? Because it's a stereotype. Most pit bull owners have steady jobs, homes, kids; most pit bulls sit at home watching out the window for their owners.

And most people probably wouldn't recognize a pit bull if it jumped up and licked them on the face. A person living next to a quiet, well-cared-for pit bull may never even know the dog is a pit bull. For some reason, people only see a dog as a "pit bull" when it becomes aggressive or problematic. Just ask pit bull owners about their experiences with their dogs in public. This one's universal: A stranger pets and loves all over the pit bull, then asks what kind of dog it is. When they hear it's a pit bull, they are shocked, and either they move away, or they say (in a surprised voice) that they never knew pit bulls could be so nice.

As for any form of mandatory spay/neuter such as Betsy would like to see, I suggest reading Nathan Winograd's book (Redemption). No-kill for pit bulls is a possibility, and Winograd has done it. It requires a change within the animal rescue/animal control culture, but it can be done if people are willing. And guess what? It doesn't require any additional laws, like mandatory spay/neuter (breed-specific or otherwise) or breeder regulations.

wow....just WOW.

Betsy, then perhaps someone should tell my employer, The Department of Justice, about my pit bulls. Sounds like I'm a criminal waiting to happen.

But you know what....I really don't care what you have to say about my dogs. You wanna know the reason that people don't take their pit bulls to dog parks? Because people like you immediately make us feel unwelcome. And that shouldn't be my problem...but you can only smile and placate the uneducated so long before you want to pull your own hair out! I pay to take my dog to a dog park (I'm not a fan of ANY public dog park) and that's why my dog park has breed specific and size specific play times. But I guess you would just say that's an accident waiting to happen as well.....

And for the record...ALL of my dogs are altered and micro-chipped. Because THAT'S what responsible pet owners, regardless of the breed, do to ensure the well being of their pet.

It has to be said that there is some truth to that. People attracted to pit bull ownership are far more likely to be wanting the dog to use as a weapon than are people attracted to golden retriever ownership. There actually was a study that showed that pit bull owners are far more likely to have criminal records than were the owners of other breeds. That fact, coupled with a breed of dog with a high level of inbred aggression, is obviously not a good thing.

But so what? If you say that pit bull owners are so much more likely to be irresponsible than owners of other dogs, that just makes it MORE important to pass breed specific laws laws aimed at them. The law I advocate is that all pit bulls must be microchipped and all pit bulls except AKC or UKC-PR registered show dogs must be spayed/neutered. That law would be good for pit bulls, good for responsible pit bull owners and very, very good for communities and children

Do you really mean to imply that pit bulls don't tend to be any more dangerous to other dogs than "almost any breed" who doesn't have "the proper degree of socialization?" That implication is irresponsible and a huge disservice to pit bulls.

The truth is that all the "socialization" in the world won't make many pit bulls safe with other dogs. Go to ANY responsible pit bull bulletin board (for example, Pit Bull Talk or Pit Bull Forum) and announce that you are intending to get a pit bull and take him on a daily basis to the local dog park for socialization and exercise. You will be immediately told that mature pit bulls (regardless of the level of socialization) do NOT belong at dog parks. They are an accident waiting to happen because at some point they are likely to remember what they were bred to do, which is kill other dogs.

Many pit bulls (even some of those who want to kill every other dog they see) are fine with people. Unfortunately, the same lowlifes who breed for dangerousness to other dogs, often also breed for dangerousness toward people. Hence a growing problem with pit bulls who are outright dangerous to people. And when you get an exceptionally strong, exceptionally tenacious dog who has been bred for bite strength who wants to kill a toddler, that toddler is likely to be in a lot of trouble.

Of course, not all pit bull owners got their dogs because they wanted a dog that would kill other dogs. I know some wonderful pit bull owners, including a very nice couple who rescued an adorable pit bull puppy. They took her to puppy kindergarten, and continued obedience classes and intensive socialization as she matured. Unfortunately, the dog aggression so common in the breed began to be evident and gradually got to be so problematic that they were driving a hundred miles to take her to a dog behaviorist. (To no avail, I am sorry to say). Where they once dreamed of fostering other dogs, they sadly knew that it would be impossible with this dog in the house. It would be far too dangerous to have another dog in the house.

Although in many ways this dog has been very disappointing to them (they are VERY motivated dog owners), they stuck by her. She will be their dog for life and they have to live with the daily fear that if they are somehow imperfect (accidentally leave a gate unlatched, dont' shut a door precisely tight) the hassles of owning a dog aggressive dog could become nightmares.