Are pit bulls inherently dangerous? Maryland Court ruled yes -.-

[Lenus]

Not sure how to make a poll looked through BG's BB code and didn't see it. Would have liked one. Either way whats your stance BG.

I have a pit mix so my answer is obviously no, seeing everyday how loveable she is, but MD court has ruled them as dangerous so now the owner is liable for any bite that the dog may cause. Which I have no problem with its just that for ALL the other dog breeds in this state the owner is given 1 "free bite" to consider the dog dangerous.

Also this ruling now puts landlords responsible for thier tenates pit, if a bit should occure. Which will eventually lead to changing of leases stating that renters may not be allowed to live there if they own a pit bull/pit mix. So give up your dog or find somewhere else to live. Not to mention some of the animal shelters arent adopting pits out in fear of with this new ruling that they might end up responsible for a dog bite.

I'm not against the part with being responsible for your dogs actions/bite if one should occure just it shouldnt be with just pit/pit mix, it should include all dog owners. Also seen some rules trying to be passed for pits that if you wanted to walk them, no matter thier temperment, they would have to be leashed (duh) and muzzeled =/.

[Ksandra]

Inherently dangerous = yes

Able to be trained otherwise if your attentive = absolutely

There in lies the problem. Pits need a lot of attention and training so they don't show signs of aggression. The problem is, too many idiots buy these dogs without realizing or taking the time to train them right, making generations of behavioral training take over. This is what ruins it for those that do know what to do. I would prefer laws that require professional training for certain breeds for safety reasons, rather than stuff like this.

[Dimmauk]

I voted no. The problem with certain breeds is inbreeding. Dalmatians are one of the worst dogs because of inbreeding.

[miokomioko]

Voted yes because the breed was originally meant to be dangerous, albeit mostly just to other dogs. This would be a bit more relevant to dogs that were bred to protect/guard (German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, etc.), but with how common it is to bring dogs to socialize with each other at parks, the average Pit Bull can be a potential problem.

I have nothing against any individual breed of dog in general myself because that doesn't necessarily determine temperament... but I can't lie. More often than not, I've encountered incredibly aggressive pit bulls (bull terriers too) that harass my 100% friendly dog. What's being skewed here is that they are mostly only trouble with socializing with other dogs, and they are rarely aggressive with people. It's just the unfortunate result of the features/temperament they are bred to have by most of the douchebags who breed them. You have them, and only them, to blame for how the breed of dog is seen by the general public. You having one of the many friendly pits out there has no real impact on the fact that they are often trouble, mostly so with attacking other people's dogs.

Wishing everyone with a dog to be inconvenienced by this law instead of just those who specifically chose a pet that was originally bred to fight... is a little naive.

I'm almost in the same boat because I have a wolf hybrid... which I constantly have to lie about because I never know how some moron is going to react about it when their kid is petting my otherwise obnoxiously friendly dog that doesn't have an aggressive bone in her body.

(Also, thank the fucking dipshits who deck out their friendly/lovable pits in leather gear with metal studs and spikes all over them, then bitch about how Pit Bulls are unfairly labeled as aggressive. Fucking retarded.)

[Fievel]

Voted no, I have a pitbull aswell and he is the sweetest dog I've ever had. He's a 60 pound lap dog who doesn't even get aggressive with strangers.

Honestly, he's probably the worst guard dog on the planet too, he's more likely to hide from an intruder than attack.

Don't get me wrong though, I know there are pitbulls out there who are aggressive and who do attack, but I think this is true of any breed, not just pits.

[TacoTaru]

Inherently dangerous seems, for lack of a better word, dangerously loaded. Any dog 50lbs and up is inherently dangerous if it turns aggressive towards you. Just substitute pitbull with any of the other "top 10 deadliest breeds" with the same crappy owner and they're all going to be dangerous, aggressive dogs. I do agree with Ksandra about the training though and would prefer that to be mandated by law than something stupid like this.

[Xno Kappa]

Problem with pitbulls is that they're way too loyal, if you don't train them properly they tend to just flat out hate anything that's not part of the family. I'd just stick to German shepherds if anyone wants a reliable guard dog.

[Seraph]

Inherently dangerous = yes

Able to be trained otherwise if your attentive = absolutely

There in lies the problem. Pits need a lot of attention and training so they don't show signs of aggression. The problem is, too many idiots buy these dogs without realizing or taking the time to train them right, making generations of behavioral training take over. This is what ruins it for those that do know what to do. I would prefer laws that require professional training for certain breeds for safety reasons, rather than stuff like this.

Bingo. This has been my experience with the several people I know who own pit bulls. Of all the ones I have met, a single one passed for what I would call well behaved around strangers. Unfortunately though, the exception proves the rule (or at least the perception) because everyone who met the dog at the event i attended was utterly shocked at how well behaved he was. I would say the owners were quite responsible for that situation though, and good for them.

With that said, I am also hugely biased though, since my dog was attacked and bitten unprovoked by a neighbors loose pit bull that ran down the street. Quick action kept our poor little miniature dachshund from getting obliterated (I know I know, sad dog but he is a family pet), but my neighbor was a complete irresponsible asshole who would not accept responsibility for having his dog out without a leash. So yeah, pit bulls often have a reputation for often being violent, overprotective and vicious, and pit bull owners often have a reputation for being stupid raging assholes. >=( With all things though, your millage will vary.

[zoobernut]

If pitbulls are inherently dangerous than all dog breeds above a certain size are inherently dangerous because they have teeth and the capacity to bite. Even then you could argue that smaller breeds are inherently dangerous too if they are with someone smaller and could inflict serious damage should they choose to bite.

Are dogs inherently dangerous? Yes they are animals and can bite very hard with their jaws.

Are pit bulls inherently dangerous? Not any more than other dog breeds.

[Seanr]

Did they recently make another ruling? We have a female pit over at my deceased Grandma's house that about 6 months old, not aggressive, just very very playful since they keep her caged a lot.

[miokomioko]

Are pit bulls inherently dangerous? Not any more than other dog breeds.

Yeah, they are.

What's more inherently dangerous (to either humans or other dogs)?

• A dog specifically bred to dig small creatures out of holes in the ground
• A dog specifically bred to retrieve hunted small game
• A dog specifically bred to fight other dogs
• A dog specifically bred to protect or guard their family

They all have a chance at being shitty, but some more than others. You can easily prevent it with proper training and care, but the odds are stacked against some breeds a little more than others (compounded by the stupidity of the average dog owner). It's an unfortunate fact, and as avoidable as it may be, it's there and you have shitty dog-fighters, puppy-mills, and ghetto families to blame.

[Rhyis.]

Inherently aggressive is how I would describe them. Proper training and care is more important then if you were say raising a lab. Pitbulls jaw strength alone is something to be wary about.

[Azull]

I dont own one myself but my mom does. He has shown no signs of agression outside of situations where he has been provoked by idiots or felt my family was threatened. As with any dogs they are as much as a danger as they are taught to be.

We also owned a Dalmatian when i was younger. I am not sure about being a danger but good god that was a stupid dog.

[zoobernut]

Yeah, they are.

What's more inherently dangerous (to either humans or other dogs)?

• A dog specifically bred to dig small creatures out of holes in the ground
• A dog specifically bred to retrieve hunted small game
• A dog specifically bred to fight other dogs
• A dog specifically bred to protect or guard their family

They all have a chance at being shitty, but some more than others. You can easily prevent it with proper training and care, but the odds are stacked against some breeds a little more than others (compounded by the stupidity of the average dog owner). It's an unfortunate fact, and as avoidable as it may be, it's there and you have shitty dog-fighters, puppy-mills, and ghetto families to blame.

No they are not. They have the potential to be dangerous dogs because they are muscular and strong and can be in a weight range that poses a serious threat to an adult but they are not inherently more dangerous to an adult than any other breed of a similar size or build.


Also this thread is inherently flawed in how it asks the question because it doesn't mention who the dog is dangerous to at all which makes a huge difference. A rat terrier or a Jack Russel could seriously maim or kill a small child just as easily as any other breed but it will probably only hurt an adult with little chance of killing them.

[Seraph]

I think I would feel comfortable saying that terrible owners are a larger problem as opposed to the breed itself. I'm sure you occasionally just get that legitimate 'evil dog' that can't be helped, but I think more often you just have shitty people raising shitty dogs. When those dogs have the ability to cause damage you start to have problems. That has been my anecdotal experience.

[dejet]

the fuck is there to talk about? you train them nice or mean; owners are the cause of whatever your dog turns out to be. Any animal will act like one if left alone dogs are the same.

[miokomioko]

No they are not. They have the potential to be dangerous dogs because they are muscular and strong and can be in a weight range that poses a serious threat to an adult but they are not inherently more dangerous to an adult than any other breed of a similar size or build.

There is such a thing as temperament and it does vary between breeds. When a breed's existence is just to be aggressive, they are more likely to be aggressive.

Again, the thing that sucks about Pits is that they are primarily aggressive towards other dogs, because that's what they were bred to do. German Shepherds, on the other hand, were bred to be aggressive to intruding or attacking humans... thus, they are more likely to dangerous to humans than something like a Newfoundland, regardless of size.

Go to the pet store and try to handle all the different breeds of dwarf hamsters they have. You'll see a very blatant display of varied temperament regarding how aggressive they can be towards hands trying to catch/hold them with pretty much zero difference in how they were raised or treated. They all have some potential to be awesome and chill, but we're talking about the AVERAGE.

[Tajin]

Voted yes but mostly because that can be said of most (all?) dog races big enough to bite like a boss; and of course because it depends on the owner/training.

[altwight]

Spoiler: show

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/phot...-1331-2000.jpg

Says otherwise.

The problem ALWAYS, ALWAYS lies with the owner.

[Rhyis.]

Cesar turned those dogs gay.