Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue
CatKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Cat Forum / General Topics / April 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

cat haters

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Not so quick - 20 Nov 2003 22:05 GMT
I used to be a typical cat hater.
I never did anything mean to cats
but I laughed at the jokes where
cats were made fun of and laughed
at the idea of turpentine on a cat's
butt, etc. I didn't think it was a big
deal that a friend at work strangled
a cat (I didn't eat lunch with him
any more though).

But since I've gotten to know cats
it seems impossible that anyone but
the sickest would hate cats once they
got to know one that was nice. Maybe
a feral cat or a disagreeable cat might
give someone a bad impression but
when you look at pit bulls as pets it
makes one wonder what standards
people use to measure suitability of
a pet.

Our cats sleep with up. One can find
a way to sit on your shoulder, at least
twice a day (there is no defense). Another
takes care of the other cats and nurses
two even though she has never had
kittens of her own and is spayed. They
all get along with our new chickens (finally).
They are all individuals with separate and
unique personalities and they all have
taught me something, one profound about
not be concerned about physical
appearances (she has a marking that looks
like a bugger under her nose and I called
her moco for a while. She's also the one
who nurses the other cats.

I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm
wondering if you are of the same opinion
that the cat haters just haven't really had
any experience with cats. It's hard for me
to believe that there harsh words are based
on something other than identifying with
other people who had no experience either.
Iso - 20 Nov 2003 22:54 GMT
Not so quick,

   Regarding your measure of suitability of a pet, why did you choose the
breed Pit Bull? Why not Presa Canario, Rottweiler, or Doberman? I am by no
means attacking your post, I am just curious.
Not so quick - 21 Nov 2003 08:55 GMT
> Not so quick,
>
>     Regarding your measure of suitability of a pet, why did you choose the
> breed Pit Bull? Why not Presa Canario, Rottweiler, or Doberman? I am by no
> means attacking your post, I am just curious.

A friend was bitten on the face by hers.
Two of my daughters friends have small
children and a pitbull. And probably
because of all of the horrible stories I've
read that may or may not be media
exaggerations... well not exaggerations
but not complete in not naming the other
dogs as well if they are as prone to sudden
changes in behavior that are so violent.

I guess Chow Chow falls into that class too,
although they seem like lovely dogs.
Sherry - 21 Nov 2003 13:06 GMT
>A friend was bitten on the face by hers.
>Two of my daughters friends have small
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>I guess Chow Chow falls into that class too,
>although they seem like lovely dogs.

I think you'll find other breeds in dog attacks, but I'd guess a very
hiighpercentage *are* pits. After all, they're bred for aggressiveness, since
dog fighting is alive and well in the US.
Agua Girl - 21 Nov 2003 15:10 GMT
> >A friend was bitten on the face by hers.
> >Two of my daughters friends have small
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> hiighpercentage *are* pits. After all, they're bred for aggressiveness, since
> dog fighting is alive and well in the US.

The problem is not with how often pits attack..the problem is
with the damage they can do.  The number one biter is actually
the Cocker Spaniel.  Logical since the dog was bred to herd
sheep and the way they do that is to nip at the heels of the sheep.
Pits have strong locking jaws.  They are not naturally more
aggressive but they are used by the scum that like to fight dogs or
want a vicious animal because of their strength.  They teach the dog
from day one to be mean or vicious.   The only problem with the
breed itself is when it does bite, it does serious damage unlike
a Cocker Spaniel.
I know a lot of pits that are sweet loving family dogs and are not
any more likely to turn on someone than my Golden Retriever was.
It's not in the "nature" of the breed...it's in the nature of the owners.

And Dog fighting isn't legal in the US..it's just a really big place with
a lot of dogs and not enough Animal Cops so it's hard to control.

AG
Torllorllorllorllski Blueprinting & Balancing - 21 Nov 2003 17:28 GMT
Agua Girl aka Blonde DumbAss flushed and wrote :

>> >A friend was bitten on the face by hers.
>> >Two of my daughters friends have small
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
>AG

You don't know a fuhking thing about dogs either, Blondy.  No one will
ever know that you've had a lobotomy, if you wear a wig to hide to the
scars and learn to control the slobbering.
Not so quick - 21 Nov 2003 19:38 GMT
> Agua Girl aka Blonde DumbAss flushed and wrote :
>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> ever know that you've had a lobotomy, if you wear a wig to hide to the
> scars and learn to control the slobbering.

Just curious. How old are you?
Nadine - 21 Nov 2003 18:39 GMT
AG wrote:
>The problem is not with how often pits
>attack..the problem is with the damage they can
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>not in the "nature" of the breed...it's in the
>nature of the owners.

>And Dog fighting isn't legal in the US..it's just a
>really big place with a lot of dogs and not
>enough Animal Cops so it's hard to control.

I agree 100% with this!  Very well said.
Orchid - 21 Nov 2003 19:22 GMT
>The problem is not with how often pits attack..the problem is
>with the damage they can do.  The number one biter is actually
>the Cocker Spaniel.  Logical since the dog was bred to herd
>sheep and the way they do that is to nip at the heels of the sheep.

    Are you out of your mind?  Cocker spaniels are sporting dogs,
like every other spaniel.  They are bred to work through heavy brush
to flush birds, and then to retrieve them after they are shot down.
The cocker biting issue comes from poor breeding practises in the 50's
that introduced rage syndrome into the breed.

>Pits have strong locking jaws.  

    This is a complete myth.  Neither American Pit Bull Terriers,
American Staffordshire Terriers, nor Staffordshire Bull Terriers have
'locking jaws'.  Their jaws are no different than any other dogs' in a
mechanical sense.  No extra muscles, no 'lock', nothing.

>They are not naturally more
>aggressive but they are used by the scum that like to fight dogs or
>want a vicious animal because of their strength.  They teach the dog
>from day one to be mean or vicious.   The only problem with the
>breed itself is when it does bite, it does serious damage unlike
>a Cocker Spaniel.

    Pits and pit bull type dogs are extremely DOG aggressive.  A
well-bred one is extremely HUMAN submissive.  Unfortunately, because
they are the currrent fad in ''ghetto dogs", you get atypical
behaviours and temperaments such as human aggressiveness.

    And cockers are well known to do very serious damage in
attacks.  Usually to the face.

Orchid

Orchid's Kitties: http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage
Orchid's Guide: http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid
Not so quick - 21 Nov 2003 19:40 GMT
> >The problem is not with how often pits attack..the problem is
> >with the damage they can do.  The number one biter is actually
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Orchid's Kitties: http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage
> Orchid's Guide: http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid

Something makes it necessary, in some cases, to pry
their mouths open in cases where they have been
hanging on to their victims.
Orchid - 21 Nov 2003 19:55 GMT
>Something makes it necessary, in some cases, to pry
>their mouths open in cases where they have been
>hanging on to their victims.

    Stubborness.  We *are* talking about terriers here.  I am a
groomer and a trainer/behaviourist, and I've had to pry open the
mouths of Yorkies, Westies, and Airedales before.  All dogs have very
powerful jaws.  Just look at the tug of war games that people play
with their dogs.  An excited dog will clamp down on that rope (or
whatever) and people can lift their dogs off the ground if they're
strong enough.
    Dogs are predators, and they are predators designed to get a
grip on something and not let it go.  Their physiology reflects this.
Pit bull type dogs have been bred to have an extremely high prey
drive.  They have also been bred to view other dogs as prey.  This is
where dog aggression comes in.  Guarding breeds have been bred to have
high prey drives and to see humans other than those in their pack
(family, a handler, whoever) as prey.
    Pit bull type dogs, by the way, are lousy guard dogs.


Orchid

Orchid's Kitties: http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage
Orchid's Guide: http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid
Agua Girl - 22 Nov 2003 07:25 GMT
> >The problem is not with how often pits attack..the problem is
> >with the damage they can do.  The number one biter is actually
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> The cocker biting issue comes from poor breeding practises in the 50's
> that introduced rage syndrome into the breed.

No, not out of my mind, merely repeating what was reported.  I know
Cockers are sporting dogs..I do watch Westminster..but the report
that stated there were more "dog bites human" reports against Cockers
than any other breed went on to state the dog was originally bred to
herd hence the propensity to bite.  I took it at face value, assumed they
must have been working dogs some time in the past.  I appreciate your
clearing up the misnomer even if you chose a particularly bitchy way
of doing so.

> >Pits have strong locking jaws.
>
> This is a complete myth.  Neither American Pit Bull Terriers,
> American Staffordshire Terriers, nor Staffordshire Bull Terriers have
> 'locking jaws'.  Their jaws are no different than any other dogs' in a
> mechanical sense.  No extra muscles, no 'lock', nothing.

So sue me for buying into a really common myth.  There are 100's
of newsreports each year that make that claim.  I am not a vet, haven't
studied canine anatomy..so I believed what I read, heard and saw.

> >They are not naturally more
> >aggressive but they are used by the scum that like to fight dogs or
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> they are the currrent fad in ''ghetto dogs", you get atypical
> behaviours and temperaments such as human aggressiveness.

I disagree with this.  Your statement says they are genetically dog
aggressive..which would mean they all were automatically.  Two
of the pits I know are not necessarily well trained or well bred..
but they are both quite passive to dogs, cats and humans.  I don't
believe it's a genetic trait and since the jury is still out on genetic
versus environment on humans I find it hard to believe we know this
for sure about dogs.  Of course if you want to point me to a
link that scientifically proves it.......

> And cockers are well known to do very serious damage in
> attacks.  Usually to the face.

Yeah....we hear about people being seriously mauled and killed
by Cocker Spaniels all the time.  Pit Bulls have been scientifically
proven to provide more pressure per sq inch in their jaws than
most (not all, most) other breeds.  This is a known...which is
probably where the 'stronger and even the 'locking belief comes
from.  You can pry a Cockers mouth off your arm...good luck
doing that with a pit.

AG
Nadine - 22 Nov 2003 11:27 GMT
AG wrote:
>   I disagree with this. Your statement says
>they are genetically dog aggressive..which
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>dogs. Of course if you want to point me to a link
>that scientifically proves it.......

    AG,  the vast majority of Pits are dog aggressive, it's one of the
draw backs of the breed.  All of the Pit Bulls I have met are, and
that's quite a few.
     Mine is fine with my other two dogs (she was 6 weeks old when
introduced to them) but she absolutely hates other dogs, and has since
she was around 6 months old (went after my brothers 11 yr old Chow mix).
I  raised her the same as my other dogs and with them I have always been
able to introduce other dogs to them, but not her.   I knew this about
the breed before I got her and expected it, but I thought maybe I could
get around it with proper training/socialization/introductions,  but no
go.  I tried introducing her to a few different dogs, including puppies
and if I had let her she would have attacked them.  As for people and
cats, well she adores both doesn't matter if they are children/adults or
kittens/cats.  Liking cats isn't what I would call the norm for the
breed, but she does.  
    LOL, as I am typing this all 5 of my 5 week old foster kittens are
playing on her, one has it's head in her mouth having a good old time,
and she is loving it.
Nice Guy - 22 Nov 2003 13:44 GMT
Agua Girl flushed and wrote :

>> >The problem is not with how often pits attack..the problem is
>> >with the damage they can do.  The number one biter is actually
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
>
>AG

Wouldn't clues have more room to fit in your head if you got rid of
some of the sh.t in there?  Do the human race a favor: never breed.
Terri Gouge - 28 Nov 2003 23:56 GMT
I attended a lecture last week on dog t dog aggression, and the lecturer who
is a professional dog trainer, stated that dogs are not born with a gene
that makes aggressive, its in the way they are raised that makes them
aggressive and in how they are socialized when they are puppies.
> Agua Girl flushed and wrote :
>
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
> Wouldn't clues have more room to fit in your head if you got rid of
> some of the sh.t in there?  Do the human race a favor: never breed.
oldmolly - 29 Nov 2003 13:23 GMT
> I attended a lecture last week on dog t dog aggression, and the lecturer who
> is a professional dog trainer, stated that dogs are not born with a gene
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> > >clearing up the misnomer even if you chose a particularly bitchy way
> > >of doing so.

I am amazed that a report from your top dog show is completely wrong.
Cockers, originally an English working gundog, and *still* used as such
today, were bred to 'cock' game birds. I.e. flush them up into the air sor
that they can be shot.
*Corgis* however, were and are, cattle droving dogs, bred to rush in and
bite the hells of cattle to get them moving.
The fact that one of your top dogs shows has got the 2 breeds confused
makes me wonder how much more misinformation is spread over there by an
organisation which should know better.

> > >> >Pits have strong locking jaws.
> > >>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > >of newsreports each year that make that claim.  I am not a vet, haven't
> > >studied canine anatomy..so I believed what I read, heard and saw.

The jaws of certain breds are stronger, and can exert more PSI pressure
than others. Rottweilers, and most of the bull breeds could be thus
described.

> > >> >They are not naturally more
> > >> >aggressive but they are used by the scum that like to fight dogs or
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> > >>
> > >> Pits and pit bull type dogs are extremely DOG aggressive.
Sadly you are correct in this. Generally unless a bull breed is extremely
well socialise as a pup it will always be a risk to other dogs and small
animals. The same is true though of any terrier.

>A
> > >> well-bred one is extremely HUMAN submissive.  Unfortunately, because
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> > >for sure about dogs.  Of course if you want to point me to a
> > >link that scientifically proves it.......

There is no science involved I'm afraid. Just simple genetics. Study any
purebred dog with a specific use.

A collie will still work and herd even if it has been a house pet all of
its life.
A spaniel will still quarter a field and retrieve game, even if it  has
lived in a city all its life.
A rottweiler, G.S.D., dobermann, boxer, bullmastiff, will still protect
it's humans and their home, even to giving its own life.
Terriers, even little pampered yorkies, are still keen and capable  of
killing small vermin.
pitbulls, staffordshire bulls and similar breeds still have an inate
bravery, resistance to pain, and the urge to fight because genetically, that
is what men designed the breed for.
Anyone with common sense and a basic knowledge of dogs, would understand
this.

> > >> And cockers are well known to do very serious damage in
> > >> attacks.  Usually to the face.
*Some* cockers.
The problem, as with any breed, lies frmly at the feet of man.
Cockers (English) were popular as pets in the 1950's over here. They
remained popular and as such, were regarded as a good source of income by
puppy farmers. They were bred with no regard to temperament as are all
farmed puppies. People buy them because they look sweet, forgetting that
they are active dogs, bred to work. So, you have a poor quality pup, bred
from substandard parents, both tempermentally and possibly physically, and
fussed and babied, and because they look so sweet, are given little or no
training, and hardly any exersize. In any breed this is a recipe for
disaster.
Then you have cocker rage syndrome,which is a mental illness. Also appears
in golden retrievers and dachshunds incidentally.
You see, if people get a big dogs, they usually give some obedience
training, and do not allow it to become dominant. But cute little pretty
cockers (awwww sweeeeet) get little or none, and become horrid little dogs
who will bite.
I have kept and bred cockers since 1972 (no longer breed) and know the
breed. They are delightful, if given training, and as long as they come from
sound stock. If you buy from a pet shop, a puppy farmed dog, then you are
going to buy yourself a heap of trouble no matter what the breed is.
The only cocker I have now, is a little red bitch, from puppy farmed stock
initially. She is great. She had an acre of land to play one, and several
other dogs to play with, plus *I* know what I am doing and make sure she
never gets the chance to increase her position within the pack. If I pick
her up and pet her, as soon as I put her down again, she will attack one of
the other dogs. If I was a weak and silly owner who babied her, 100% she
would be put down as a biter. I am completely sure of this fact.By the way,
throughout the post I refer to the original English cocker.

> > >Yeah....we hear about people being seriously mauled and killed
> > >by Cocker Spaniels all the time.  Pit Bulls have been scientifically
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > >from.  You can pry a Cockers mouth off your arm...good luck
> > >doing that with a pit.

Exactly.
Orchid - 22 Nov 2003 22:08 GMT
>No, not out of my mind, merely repeating what was reported.  I know
>Cockers are sporting dogs..I do watch Westminster..but the report
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>clearing up the misnomer even if you chose a particularly bitchy way
>of doing so.

    My apologies for perceived tone, but there's very little more
that I loathe more than falsehood presented as fact.  A modicum of
research into the Cocker Spaniel breed would have given you the truth.

>> This is a complete myth.  Neither American Pit Bull Terriers,
>> American Staffordshire Terriers, nor Staffordshire Bull Terriers have
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>of newsreports each year that make that claim.  I am not a vet, haven't
>studied canine anatomy..so I believed what I read, heard and saw.

    So you believe everything the media tells you?  Every
information site about pit bull type dogs dispels this myth, and it
does the breed a huge disservice to continue to spread this falsehood.

>> Pits and pit bull type dogs are extremely DOG aggressive.  A
>> well-bred one is extremely HUMAN submissive.  Unfortunately, because
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>for sure about dogs.  Of course if you want to point me to a
>link that scientifically proves it.......

    Just as Labs were bred to retrieve, pit bull type dogs were
bred to fight other dogs.  Temperament has a strong genetic component,
which is believed to be passed through the paternal side of the genes.
While there are pit type dogs that are not dog aggressive, they are
the exceptions, not the rules.  There are Labs out there that don't
like to retrieve -- they also are the exception.
    I am a professional trainer/behaviourist.  Around 12-18 months
of age is when pits generally (but not always) 'turn on'.  At this
age, you find out if your dog is going to be highly dog aggressive,
somewhat dog aggressive, or not dog aggressive.  To acknowledge that
pits are dog aggressive is not being hostile towards the breed, it's
all about knowing the truth about the breed so you are prepared for
it.  Responsible breeders of AmStaffs and Staffordshire Bull Terriers
are beginning to try and breed away from the dog aggression, but it's
going to take years, if not decades.

http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/americanstaffordshireterriers.html
    "Animal aggression. Like the Pit Bull Terrier, most American
Staffordshire Terriers are aggressive toward other dogs. Many have
strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures,
including deer and livestock. If anything goes wrong in the breeding,
socializing, training, handling, or management of this breed, it is
capable of seriously injuring or killing other animals."

http://gremlinpitbullrescue.2itb.com/about_pitbulls.html#key-traits
http://www.realpitbull.com/agg.html

>> And cockers are well known to do very serious damage in
>> attacks.  Usually to the face.
>
>Yeah....we hear about people being seriously mauled and killed
>by Cocker Spaniels all the time.  

    According to the media, pretty much any dog attack is
perpetrated by a 'pit bull'.  This is because most people have no idea
how to identify a pit type dog.  In a local paper where I live
(Norther VA), a pit bull attack on a small child story was accompanied
by a photo of the 'pit bull'.  Which was a black and tan shaved-down
cocker spaniel.  The story was on page one.  The retraction correcting
the breed type was a week later on page 10, at the bottom, in small
print.

>Pit Bulls have been scientifically
>proven to provide more pressure per sq inch in their jaws than
>most (not all, most) other breeds.  This is a known...which is
>probably where the 'stronger and even the 'locking belief comes
>from.  

    Cite please!

>You can pry a Cockers mouth off your arm...good luck
>doing that with a pit.

    Tell you what.  Go to a dog park and rile up a cocker and get
it to fully engage a bite on your arm.  Then try to pry it off.  Let
us know how it goes, but I'll put in a prediction here.  You'll be
unsuccessful as long as the cocker stays fully engaged.  When it gets
bored you'll get it off, and not before then.

>AG
Agua Girl - 23 Nov 2003 04:18 GMT
> >No, not out of my mind, merely repeating what was reported.  I know
> >Cockers are sporting dogs..I do watch Westminster..but the report
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> that I loathe more than falsehood presented as fact.  A modicum of
> research into the Cocker Spaniel breed would have given you the truth.

Was that an apology??????

> >> This is a complete myth.  Neither American Pit Bull Terriers,
> >> American Staffordshire Terriers, nor Staffordshire Bull Terriers have
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> information site about pit bull type dogs dispels this myth, and it
> does the breed a huge disservice to continue to spread this falsehood.

I don't buy into everything I read on the internet more than I buy into
everything I read in the news...although I will trust 20/20 before
I trust some random internet site.  There is more truth to it than you
are letting on.  They do have a stronger jaw measured pressure per
square inch than a comparable sized dog.  Their jaws are stronger
than most..that is a reportable scientific fact.

> >> Pits and pit bull type dogs are extremely DOG aggressive.  A
> >> well-bred one is extremely HUMAN submissive.  Unfortunately, because
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Just as Labs were bred to retrieve, pit bull type dogs were
> bred to fight other dogs.

For how many years???   Temperament is only partially genetic
at least in humans and most temperment type behaviours are
directly related to survival.  It's unlikely that a genetic trait
tied to temperment would become common in a breed after only
a few decades.  Especially since it's a geographical issue as well.
In Detroit they don't even try and re-home pit-bulls but that's not
true in hundreds of other cities so to say the breed has a genetic
disposition seems far fetched.  And...since it absolutely can not
be proven scientifically it's basically a matter of opinion.  My opinion
is that problem is not specific to the breed.

>Temperament has a strong genetic component,
> which is believed to be passed through the paternal side of the genes.
> While there are pit type dogs that are not dog aggressive, they are
> the exceptions, not the rules.  There are Labs out there that don't
> like to retrieve -- they also are the exception.

Labs have been breed to retrieve all over the country for a hell of
a lot longer than pits have been breed to fight in specific geographical
regions.  Big difference.

> I am a professional trainer/behaviourist.

That only tells me where your opinions come from..it in no way
makes you an expert on genetics.  I can bet that what you see
in the breed is specific to your area since they don't tend to
fly in dogs for breeding purposes when it comes to fighting dogs.
Not like they have a special ring for them at Westminster.

> >> And cockers are well known to do very serious damage in
> >> attacks.  Usually to the face.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> the breed type was a week later on page 10, at the bottom, in small
> print.

That may be true in a small small number of cases but the fact of the matter
is that pit bulls, (as well as a few other breeds) do have stronger jaws.  I
don't care if you want to believe it but unlike genetic tendencies it's a
simple
matter to test psi.  Pits do more damage when they bite because they
can.  Cockers do bite more often (although I guess I don't know why..but
they were the number one reported breed for it) but obviously don't do as
much damage or there would be 20/20 investigations on them.

> >Pit Bulls have been scientifically
> >proven to provide more pressure per sq inch in their jaws than
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Cite please!

Just as it's simple for me to look up facts about pits, it is also simple
for you...but ok.   Since I don't have the original Time Life article from
15 years ago when I was looking for my first dog I did a quick yahoo
search.  Here....
http://www.edba.org.au/courier.html

and from this site,  http://www.dogtraining.co.uk/education.htm

"Since large dogs are capable of bone-snapping jaw pressures of 200 to 450
pounds (91 to 204 kilograms) per square inch, it is critical that they be
properly socialised and trained.

(Pit bulls, renowned for their courage and aggressiveness, can clamp down
with steel-trap jaws capable of exerting nearly 1,500 pounds (680 kilograms)
of pressure; several times that of a German shepherd).  "

http://www.iacuc.arizona.edu/training/dogs/domest.html
"The dog is equipped with one efficient weapon system-its teeth. Even the
smallest dog can do great damage to a human if they feel threatened or if
they become frightened. A mutt's powerful muscles of the jaw can exert a
bite of 165 kg pressure, compared to the gnaw of a human at 29 kg! Some
breeds, such as the Pitbull or Mastiff can bite even harder!"

I'm sure you could come up with a few dozen sites that state otherwise...
that is the nature of the internet and why I didn't do a search before

> >You can pry a Cockers mouth off your arm...good luck
> >doing that with a pit.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> unsuccessful as long as the cocker stays fully engaged.  When it gets
> bored you'll get it off, and not before then.

You know...perhaps this really is a geographical problem.  You cited a
story early about someone mistaking a cocker for a pit and now you seem
unwilling to recognize what is considered as fact by the rest of the nation.
Maybe they are cross breeding Cockers with pits in your area.  That would
explain the mistaken identity (since the only thing in common the two breeds
have are that they are both dogs) and your experience with Cockers who
bite as hard as Pits.

AG
Zake - 23 Nov 2003 12:43 GMT
Agua Girl aka ShitForBrainz flushed and wrote :

<snip boring crapola>

Next time Cheryl, give us the short answer.  You can lie in one
sentence.
Orchid - 23 Nov 2003 14:48 GMT
>> Just as Labs were bred to retrieve, pit bull type dogs were
>> bred to fight other dogs.
>
>For how many years???  

Well, since England banned bull-baiting in 1835, which was the
beginning of serious dogfights and the pit bull-type dogs, that'd be
168 years, which is around 85 generations. Temperament is one of the
easiest traits to lock in to a breeding program -- in Russia there was
an experiment in domestication.  They took silver foxes, bred them
solely for temperament, and in _five_ generations they had completely
domestic foxes that were often mistaken for small dogs.  So locking in
dog aggression, which is merely a modification of the prey drive,
would have been accomplished in relatively few generations.  (Belyaev,
1979)

Labs, by the way, have also existed since the early 1800's.  Why is
one behavioural predisposition acceptable to you and the other not?

Dog aggression does not make pit types bad dogs.  They are good dogs
with an aspect to their temperaments that owners should be aware of.
Huskies are cat-killers, Greyhounds are runners, PRTs are diggers, pit
types are dog aggressive.

>Temperament is only partially genetic
>at least in humans and most temperment type behaviours are
>directly related to survival.  It's unlikely that a genetic trait
>tied to temperment would become common in a breed after only
>a few decades.  

Actually, full domestication occurs in five generations which is,
conservatively, ten years, or a single decade.  An aspect of
temperament is going to be easier to lock in.

>Especially since it's a geographical issue as well.
>In Detroit they don't even try and re-home pit-bulls but that's not
>true in hundreds of other cities so to say the breed has a genetic
>disposition seems far fetched.  And...since it absolutely can not
>be proven scientifically it's basically a matter of opinion.  My opinion
>is that problem is not specific to the breed.

Dr. Dmitry Belyaev, geneticist and Director of the Institute of
Cytology and Genetics in Novosibirsk, Siberia. Belyaev’s study began
in 1956, and by 1962, changes consistent with domestication
were found in the tamed offspring. In 1969, “after only seven years of
selective breeding” even greater changes were found, indicating that a
domestication process was occurring (Belyaev, 1979).

It's not opinion.  It's scientific fact.

>>Temperament has a strong genetic component,
>> which is believed to be passed through the paternal side of the genes.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>a lot longer than pits have been breed to fight in specific geographical
>regions.  Big difference.

Not at all.  Pits began as a breed as dogfighting dogs in 1835 in
England.  They are 'Pit Bull Terriers' because dogfights take place in
pits, and they originated from crossing bulldogs and terriers.
Originally know as 'bull and terriers', that was shortened to 'bull
terrier' and then modified to 'pit bull terrier'.  Labs have been bred
as water retrievers since the early 1800's as well.

>> I am a professional trainer/behaviourist.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>fly in dogs for breeding purposes when it comes to fighting dogs.
>Not like they have a special ring for them at Westminster.

I'm not discussing geographic changes in a breed, I'm talking about
the breed itself.  My 'opinions' come from years of study in canine
behaviour and studying genetic research.  For the gods' sake, I own
*Bengal Cats* -- I have to know what I'm talking about regarding
temperament inheritance to defend my own breed.

>That may be true in a small small number of cases but the fact of the matter
>is that pit bulls, (as well as a few other breeds) do have stronger jaws.  I
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>they were the number one reported breed for it) but obviously don't do as
>much damage or there would be 20/20 investigations on them.

20/20 is interested in the 'shocking' story.  Pit bulls are the
'shocking' dog these days.  15 years ago it was Rottweilers, 25 years
ago it was Dobermans.

>I'm sure you could come up with a few dozen sites that state otherwise...
>that is the nature of the internet and why I didn't do a search before

So why believe one set of sites and not the other when citing? (sorry,
couldn't resist the homonym game).  Yes, pits have very powerful jaws
-- that comes from the bulldog side of their ancestry where the dogs
took a hold on a bull's nose/face and hung on through all the
thrashing and gyrations that ensued.  I guess the point I was trying
to make is that many many breeds have extremely powerful grips --
American Bulldogs, Airedales, GSDs, Newfoundlands, and Saint Bernards
are just a few of them that come off the top of my head.  But none of
these breeds have people spreading myths about them and their 'locking
jaws'.

>You know...perhaps this really is a geographical problem.  You cited a
>story early about someone mistaking a cocker for a pit and now you seem
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>have are that they are both dogs) and your experience with Cockers who
>bite as hard as Pits.

You misunderstand the point I was trying to make.  No, Cockers do not
have the jaw strength of pit type dogs.  However, Cockers do have a
significant jaw strength, enough that a human is not going to see a
appreciable difference in ability to manually open the jaws of a fully
engaged Cocker vs. a fully engaged pit type.  Now, the cocker is going
to let go more readily if beaten about the head while fully engaged,
whereas the pit type has the terrier tenacity to hang on.  This is why
all responsible pit type owners should have a break stick and know how
to use it.
The Charmed One - 23 Nov 2003 14:50 GMT
Orchid <neko@ascendancy.net> wrote in message
<1nf1svcl1po1h29kbhtftg9t0rpdccl1ub@4ax.com> :

>>> Just as Labs were bred to retrieve, pit bull type dogs were
>>> bred to fight other dogs.
[quoted text clipped - 121 lines]
>all responsible pit type owners should have a break stick and know how
>to use it.

Please post on topic or I may have to take action.
Fred - 23 Nov 2003 15:06 GMT
> Please post on topic or I may have to take action.

You really didn't need to, nor should you quote everything for a one line
reply.
Learn about Usenet before you try to police it.
The Charmed One - 23 Nov 2003 15:16 GMT
"Fred" <fred@sickofspam.tv> wrote in message
<U14wb.3261$Pm4.889@nwrddc03.gnilink.net> :

>> Please post on topic or I may have to take action.
>
>You really didn't need to, nor should you quote everything for a one line
>reply.
>Learn about Usenet before you try to police it.

I have been on Usenet for many years and consider myself an expert.
You should follow your own advice.  Learn where to put the '--'.
Fred - 23 Nov 2003 15:33 GMT
"The Charmed One" <nat2sim@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >
> I have been on Usenet for many years and consider myself an expert.
> You should follow your own advice.  Learn where to put the '--'.

Then you should know that excessive quoting is lame, especially when your
telling others how to conduct themselves on Usenet by being a self appointed
net cop.

Are you also the hall monitor in school? lol
The Charmed One - 24 Nov 2003 16:39 GMT
"Fred" <fred@sickofspam.tv> wrote in message
<Er4wb.3306$Pm4.708@nwrddc03.gnilink.net> :

>"The Charmed One" <nat2sim@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >
>> I have been on Usenet for many years and consider myself an expert.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>telling others how to conduct themselves on Usenet by being a self appointed
>net cop.

You are the self appointed net cop here.  You do not tell me or anyone
else for that matter how to post.  It is quite clear that you are new
to Usenet.

>Are you also the hall monitor in school? lol

Sometimes people like you, of less intelligence, need to be kept in
line by intellectuals like myself.
nimue - 26 Nov 2003 12:25 GMT
> "Fred" <fred@sickofspam.tv> wrote in message
> <Er4wb.3306$Pm4.708@nwrddc03.gnilink.net> :
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Sometimes people like you, of less intelligence, need to be kept in
> line by intellectuals like myself.

Myself is reflexive.  You have used it incorrectly.  You should have written
"intellectuals like ME" NOT "intellectuals like MYSELF."  One would think
that an intellectual would know that.  Now, to keep this on topic, since I
know that is your little hobgoblin (although you seemed to ignore it with
your "myself" post) I will ask a cat question.  Why are my cats so adorable?

Signature

nimue

"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of
course, but after that.  Every night after that...every night I save
you." Spike to Buffy After Life

Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things
straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women
are crazy about him, doesn't it?

The Charmed One - 26 Nov 2003 14:51 GMT
"nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<qZ0xb.139841$ri.19699168@twister.nyc.rr.com> :

>> "Fred" <fred@sickofspam.tv> wrote in message
>> <Er4wb.3306$Pm4.708@nwrddc03.gnilink.net> :
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>know that is your little hobgoblin (although you seemed to ignore it with
>your "myself" post) I will ask a cat question.  Why are my cats so adorable?

Thank you.  You have shown justification demonstrating the irrelevance
of your contributions.  Perhaps English 101 might progress your
writing and comprehension competence.
nimue - 26 Nov 2003 23:24 GMT
> "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> <qZ0xb.139841$ri.19699168@twister.nyc.rr.com> :
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Thank you.

>You have shown justification demonstrating the irrelevance
> of your contributions.

Do you think the above sentence makes any sense?  It doesn't.

>Perhaps English 101 might progress your
> writing and comprehension competence.

That was another terrible sentence -- really, really awful.  I wonder if
English is your first language.  If it's not, I could excuse your mangled
syntax, but not your rudeness.  I have never heard a native English speaker
use the word "progress" the way you do in that sentence.  I don't have the
time to begin to address the other problems in your writing.  One more
thing -- you forgot to stay on the topic of cats.

Signature

nimue

"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of
course, but after that.  Every night after that...every night I save
you." Spike to Buffy After Life

Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things
straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women
are crazy about him, doesn't it?

The Charmed One - 26 Nov 2003 23:26 GMT
"nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<rCaxb.286420$pT1.131623@twister.nyc.rr.com> :

>> "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> <qZ0xb.139841$ri.19699168@twister.nyc.rr.com> :
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>time to begin to address the other problems in your writing.  One more
>thing -- you forgot to stay on the topic of cats.

Sorry, of course you are correct.  Please accept my apology for being
so rude here.
Daz. - 27 Nov 2003 00:53 GMT
> "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> <rCaxb.286420$pT1.131623@twister.nyc.rr.com> :
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> Sorry, of course you are correct.  Please accept my apology for being
> so rude here.

Do I detect irony here??

Daz
Catski - 27 Nov 2003 14:31 GMT
"Daz." <melchett@*underwear*the18th.com> wrote in message
<bq3hs2$kks$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> :

>> "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> <rCaxb.286420$pT1.131623@twister.nyc.rr.com> :
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>
>Do I detect irony here??

No, that's just me butt fuhking you without KY.
:-)
Daz. - 27 Nov 2003 18:52 GMT
> "Daz." <melchett@*underwear*the18th.com> wrote in message
> <bq3hs2$kks$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> :
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> No, that's just me butt fuhking you without KY.
> :-)

You seem to have the same command of the Queens English that nimue
has .... God save America!! ....    please!! ... ;o)

Daz
nimue - 27 Nov 2003 19:38 GMT
>snip
>
> You seem to have the same command of the Queens English that nimue
> has .... God save America!! ....    please!! ... ;o)
>
> Daz

Do you mean the Queen's English?  Why don't you stay in my killfile?  You
are pathetic -- now stay in that killfile!
Signature

nimue

"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of
course, but after that.  Every night after that...every night I save
you." Spike to Buffy After Life

Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things
straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women
are crazy about him, doesn't it?

Daz, - 28 Nov 2003 01:46 GMT
> >snip
> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> course, but after that.  Every night after that...every night I save
> you." Spike to Buffy After Life

When I want a lecture from someone who uses a bastard variation of the
"Queen's English" as their mother tongue and is obsessed with inane rubbish,
i.e. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (and you call ME pathetic!!) I will ask.
Until then please try and learn how to use the computer and it's kill file
facility.

Daz
nimue - 28 Nov 2003 03:49 GMT
>>> snip
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Daz

I don't think you can lecture me on English until you learn how to use
apostrophes.   Even if you did learn how to use apostrophes, you still
couldn't lecture me about English, but at least you wouldn't look so stupid
when you tried.  Oh -- you might also want to investigate the difference
between "try and" and "try to."  You know, there is nothing pathetic about
liking Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  There IS something pathetic about the way
you keep trying to evade my killfile.  I am sure you don't know this, but
many highly educated people admire and respect BTVS.  If you don't believe
me, just check out all the academic criticism at http://www.slayage.tv/, the
website of Slayage, the online International Journal of Buffy Studies.
Slayage's contributors are professors and people in the process of getting
their doctorates -- and they think that Buffy is worth their time and their
effort.  There is some great academic criticism on that site -- but I think
it will be too challenging for you.

Signature

nimue

"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of
course, but after that.  Every night after that...every night I save
you." Spike to Buffy After Life

Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things
straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women
are crazy about him, doesn't it?

Daz_ - 29 Nov 2003 00:50 GMT
> I don't think you can lecture me on English until you learn how to use
> apostrophes. Even if you did learn how to use apostrophes, you still
> couldn't lecture me about English, but at least you wouldn't look so
> stupid when you tried.

You're the one doing the lecturing and that in itself I find amusing for the
simple reason you only do it to "get back" at comments I have made to you in
previous posts.
Try a sensible argument for once instead of criticising what is after all
only a means of communication that I assume even you don't have too much
difficulty in understanding.
The last thing on my mind is to lecture you on English. You obviously think
you have that all wrapped up so your arrogance wouldn't allow any helpful
pointers from yours truly.

>  Oh -- you might also want to investigate the difference between "try and"
> and "try to."

Nope, unless you intend asking questions later.

> You know, there is nothing pathetic about liking Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Really? Well I guess not if you have just rushed home from school hoping you
haven't missed an episode.

>  There IS something pathetic about the way you keep trying to evade my
> killfile.

You keep harping on about this, don't flatter yourself by thinking that I am
in any way trying to evade YOUR kill file. As I have said before, the kill
file is a tool for the closed mind.

>  I am sure you don't know this, but many highly educated people admire and
> respect BTVS. If you don't believe me, just check out all the academic
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> great academic criticism on that site -- but I think it will be too
> challenging for you.

Nimby, you little minx, you're having me on, right?
If not please don't try and justify your obsession with one of the
characters by likening yourself to academics who have gone for the soft
option in their studies.
I can imagine those students in a bed-sit at 3 in the morning drinking
cider, fingering their wispy chin growth and discussing post modern culture,
the cultural history of childhood education and the moral implications of
Buffy showing her knickers when doing a karate kick while wearing a short
skirt. Yet another example of falling standards in the closeted and cosseted
world of academia.

Here is a scenario if you are into mass TV tripe. Picture this, a would-be
employee at an interview... possibly played by James Marsters.

Drooling female Interviewer: "What was the subject of your dissertation at
university?"
James: (Trying to keep a poker face and speaking straight from his full
heart) "Hem, The Sopranos, The X-Files and Buffy the, hem, vampire slayer"
Interviewer swooning: "WOW! Who cares if you cant act, your the kind of
person we need here at the Bank, when can you start?"

Nah, probably already been done. Maybe in "Sex in the city" or "Ally McBeal"
another couple of gems from your side of the world.

Daz
nimue - 29 Nov 2003 01:23 GMT
>>> "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
snip

>>  I am sure you don't know this, but many highly educated people
>> admire and respect BTVS. If you don't believe me, just check out all
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Nimby, you little minx, you're having me on, right?

No.  I am not.  You could discover this for yourself if you would just check
out the website.

> If not please don't try and justify your obsession with one of the
> characters by likening yourself to academics who have gone for the
> soft option in their studies.

Daz -- you should write "try to," not "try and."  I like BTVS.  There is
nothing wrong with that.  Many educated, intelligent people like it.

> I can imagine those students in a bed-sit at 3 in the morning drinking
> cider, fingering their wispy chin growth and discussing post modern
> culture, the cultural history of childhood education and the moral
> implications of Buffy showing her knickers when doing a karate kick
> while wearing a short skirt. Yet another example of falling standards
> in the closeted and cosseted world of academia.

Go check out the website.  Here is a brief sample of the kind of writing you
might find (and not be able to understand):
<< [1] The transgression (or lack thereof) of conventional gender roles in
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a recurrent theme in Buffy criticism. Zoe-Jane
Playden argues that Buffy challenges traditionally masculine definitions of
autonomy by developing empowering models of community-based action (138). In
contrast, Farah Mendlesohn points to the limits of the show's
transgressiveness, exploring the mechanisms through which a queer reading of
the Buffy/Willow relationship is systematically denied. >>

You might want to check out the credentials of the academics before you pass
judgment.  One of the contributors (and there are almost 50)  is an English
acadmic named Zoe Jane Playdon.  Here's her bio:
Zo?-Jane Playdon is Head of Education at Kent, Surrey and Sussex
Postgraduate Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London.  She was
educated at the universities of  Newcastle on Tyne, Leicester, Warwick and
at Henley Management College, and holds doctorates in contemporary Irish
literature and in management.

Oh, here's another contributor from the UK.

Alice Jenkins teaches English at the University of Glasgow. Her research
focuses on Victorian and twentieth-century British literature, particularly
literature and science, fantasy and science fiction, and literature and
geography. She co-organised two major international conferences, Victorian
Studies: Into the Twenty-First Century (University of Liverpool, 1996) and
The 1830s (University of Salford, 2002), and with Juliet John has co-edited
Rereading Victorian Fiction (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000) and Rethinking
Victorian Culture (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000).

Here is yet another contributor from the UK.
Robert A. Davis is Director of Inservice Education and Senior Lecturer in
Curriculum Studies in the Faculty of Education of the University of Glasgow.
He was educated at the Universities of Strathclyde and Stirling, where he
completed his doctoral studies in Literarture and Anthropology. He worked
for several years as a teacher of English in a number of secondary schools
across Scotland, entering the Faculty of Education in 1991. He has been a
visiting lecturer in several institutions of higher education, including
Fordham University, Australian Catholic University, Copenhagen University,
and St Patrick's College, Dublin. In addition to ongoing research in
critical theory and media education he has lectured, written and broadcast
widely on literature and myth, literature and religion, early education, and
the cultural history of childhood. He is a consultant to children's
television, and serves on the editorial boards of several academic journals.
His recent publications include studies of the poetry of Robert Graves, the
uses of fear in childhood, and approaches to the teaching of literature and
values education in multicultural contexts. He is also preparing a full
length critical history of the English lullaby.

Now, try TO educate yourself -- go visit the website.  You look foolish when
you pass judment on things you know nothing about.

Signature

nimue

"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of
course, but after that.  Every night after that...every night I save
you." Spike to Buffy After Life

Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things
straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women
are crazy about him, doesn't it?

Daz_ - 29 Nov 2003 02:36 GMT
> >>> "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> snip
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> No.  I am not.  You could discover this for yourself if you would just check
> out the website.

I did give it a brief coat of "looking at" and am not in the least bit
interested. You it seems would appear to be impressed with people who use
long words. Must be an age thing.

> > If not please don't try and justify your obsession with one of the
> > characters by likening yourself to academics who have gone for the
> > soft option in their studies.
>
> Daz -- you should write "try to," not "try and."

Why? there is nothing wrong with colloquial expressions unless you are a
purist.

I like BTVS.  There is
> nothing wrong with that.  Many educated, intelligent people like it.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Go check out the website.  Here is a brief sample of the kind of writing you
> might find (and not be able to understand):

Meow!

> << [1] The transgression (or lack thereof) of conventional gender roles in
> Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a recurrent theme in Buffy criticism. Zoe-Jane
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> Now, try TO educate yourself -- go visit the website.  You look foolish when
> you pass judment on things you know nothing about.

"go AND visit the website"

> --
> nimue

I notice they are mostly women .....

"Sorry, of course you are correct.  Please accept my apology for being
so rude here."

Daz IMechE MCGI
nimue - 29 Nov 2003 03:23 GMT
> "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
snip

> "go AND visit the website"

No.  There is no need for that "and."

> I notice they are mostly women .....

21 of the 49 contributors are men.  In other words, men contribute nearly
half of the articles.  One of the two editors is a man.

http://www.slayage.tv/
Here is another sample of the style of writing you will find.  This was
written by Alice Jenkins: <<2) The remarkable stylistic feature of "Hush,"
of course, is that utterances are not spoken, but written, despite the fact
that both the "speaker" and the "listener" are present at the moment of
utterance. Classically, writing has been thought of as a mediation or
extension of speech, to be substituted for it in circumstances where the
speaker and listener are not both present at the same time. Such a model has
tended to conceptualize speech as primary and writing as secondary. Thus,
Saussure argued that "language and writing are two distinct systems of
signs; the second exists for the sole purpose of representing the first"
(23). This is characteristic of the privileging of speech over writing that
Derrida identifies as phonocentric and hence logocentric, that is, as
privileging presence over absence. Writing, in the classical model, is for
situations determined by absence and, Derrida suggests in "Signature Event
Context" (1971), therefore "carries with it predicates which have been
subordinated, excluded, or held in reserve [.]" (329)[1]  [2][1][3] The
iconic moment of writing in "Restless" (the final episode in season four),
when Willow inscribes--or, to use Derrida's term, iterates--one of Sappho's
odes on Tara's skin, puts the eeriness of writing in the context of presence
to erotic use. >>

snip

> Daz IMechE MCGI

Signature

nimue

"...but I want you to know I did save you... not when it counted of
course, but after that.  Every night after that...every night I save
you." Spike to Buffy After Life

Gosh, when Spike says heartfelt, sincere things like that -- things
straight from his full heart, well, it just makes you wonder why women
are crazy about him, doesn't it?

M.C. Mullen - 23 Nov 2003 04:47 GMT
http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/americanstaffordshireterriers.html
| "Animal aggression. Like the Pit Bull Terrier, most American
| Staffordshire Terriers are aggressive toward other dogs. Many have
| strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures,
| including deer and livestock. If anything goes wrong in the breeding,
| socializing, training, handling, or management of this breed, it is
| capable of seriously injuring or killing other animals."

What gets me about these dogs is that they often end up unwanted in
shelters.
There is only one dog in the shelter that cannot find a home - a beautiful
Staffordshire Terrier!

Carola
Nadine - 22 Nov 2003 10:54 GMT
>This is a complete myth. Neither American Pit
>Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers,
>nor Staffordshire Bull Terriers have 'locking
>jaws'. Their jaws are no different than any other
>dogs' in a mechanical sense. No extra muscles,
>no 'lock', nothing.

While the locking jaw thing is a myth, a Pits jaw muscles are stronger
then most.  They don't have "extra" muscles just extra strong ones.

>Pits and pit bull type dogs are extremely DOG
>aggressive. A well-bred one is extremely
>HUMAN submissive. Unfortunately, because
>they are the currrent fad in ''ghetto dogs", you
>get atypical behaviours and temperaments
>such as human aggressiveness.

Yes, you're correct most pits are dog aggressive and human submissive.
There are exceptions to every rule but this is the norm for the breed.
Bad owners/breeders=bad dogs.
Not so quick - 21 Nov 2003 19:38 GMT
> I know a lot of pits that are sweet loving family dogs and are not
> any more likely to turn on someone than my Golden Retriever was.
> It's not in the "nature" of the breed...it's in the nature of the owners.

This is where I have a big disagreement. It is my understanding
that pitbulls are, in addition to what you said in you post, also
very unstable, and that a loving family pet may turn, without
warning against a child in the family, or anyone else.
Dot S - 23 Nov 2003 01:28 GMT
In the town where I come from, it is illegal to own either a pit bull or
a rotweiller.  Period.

Dot
Fred - 23 Nov 2003 03:08 GMT
> In the town where I come from, it is illegal to own either a pit bull or
> a rotweiller.  Period.
>
> Dot

What town is that?
Army_wife - 09 Apr 2006 06:20 GMT
It is anatomicly impossible for a pitt to "lock" its jaws.  It's a stubborn
thing not a biological thing.  Get a little education before degrading a
gentle breed.
>> >A friend was bitten on the face by hers.
>> >Two of my daughters friends have small
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>AG
Orchid - 21 Nov 2003 19:27 GMT
>I think you'll find other breeds in dog attacks, but I'd guess a very
>hiighpercentage *are* pits. After all, they're bred for aggressiveness, since
>dog fighting is alive and well in the US.

    Hi Sherry!

    Pit Bull type dogs (American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire
Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers) used to be bred for DOG
AGGRESSIVENESS, not human aggressiveness.  In fact, as loathesome as
people who fight dogs are, they are still breeding for human
submissiveness in these dogs.  Why?  Because dogfights happen in pits.
The owners of the dogs must be able to hop into those pits and stop a
fight or remove the dogs from the pits without dying.  Where you see
the problem is in the people who want a vicious dawg to walk around on
a truck chain.  They are the ones breeding without thought to
temperament, and thus bringing forth the idea that pit bull type dogs
are vicious.

Orchid

Orchid's Kitties: http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage
Orchid's Guide: http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid
Sherry - 21 Nov 2003 21:04 GMT
>Hi Sherry!
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Orchid

Pit Bulls are a nightmare here. Organized fightsexist; everybody knows who does
it but as soon as they bust up a ring, they just move somewhere else. It's a
catch-22 at the shelter. When we get them, even as puppies, the *only* people
who are interested in adopting them are the viscious-dawg-on-a-truck-chain
types and we don't adopt to them. It's sad for the dogs. Most end up
euthanized. Maybe it's just this particular (rural) area, or bad press. But
most "normal" families, the ones who would be suitable adoptors, don't want
them.

Sherry
Fred - 21 Nov 2003 22:15 GMT
Here is a good web page for some correct information about pit bulls.

http://www.pitbullrescue.org/about.html

I have seen both sweet pit bulls and some of the very very dangerous ones.
I blame the owners of the bad pit bull dogs.
Not so quick - 22 Nov 2003 03:18 GMT
> Here is a good web page for some correct information about pit bulls.
>
> http://www.pitbullrescue.org/about.html
>
> I have seen both sweet pit bulls and some of the very very dangerous ones.
> I blame the owners of the bad pit bull dogs.

No offense but a PR page for Pitbulls
isn't too objective. The part about
breeding out biting people is unbelievable.
Last month there was a story about a pit
bull puppy that chewed off the fingers of
a child who had been in a car accident and
had no feeling in his hand.
Nadine - 22 Nov 2003 10:59 GMT
 
>   No offense but a PR page for Pitbulls
>isn't too objective. The part about
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>been in a car accident and had no feeling in his
>hand.

Not unbelievable, it's a fact.  As for the finger chewing, I've heard of
other dogs (different breeds, including mixes) doing the same thing.
Army_wife - 09 Apr 2006 06:23 GMT
I own a beautifle female Am Staff and she is kind, loving, and gentle with my
4 and 6 year old boys.  She licks the youngest and gets him laughing.  The
more he giggles the more she licks.  The more she licks the more he giggles.
He has actually wet his pants laughing so hard.  Does she sound horrible to
you?

>>Hi Sherry!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Sherry
Ted Davis - 21 Nov 2003 01:02 GMT
>I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm
>wondering if you are of the same opinion
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>on something other than identifying with
>other people who had no experience either.

Control freaks dislike cats - the more they associate with them the
more they dislike them (usually).  The reason is that people who must
control everything in their environment dislike what they cannot
control, and controlling cats is nearly impossible.  On the other
hand, people who like cats and come to know them well, often avoid
using the word "own" in connection with their cats: I have thirteen
cats, but I don't claim to own them.  I own the dog.

T.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu - e-mail must contain "T.E.D." or my .sig in the body)
Daz - 21 Nov 2003 12:29 GMT
> >I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm
> >wondering if you are of the same opinion
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> control everything in their environment dislike what they cannot
> control, and controlling cats is nearly impossible.

Much like "trying" to control rats/mice etc, right Ted?

On the other
> hand, people who like cats and come to know them well, often avoid
> using the word "own" in connection with their cats: I have thirteen
> cats, but I don't claim to own them.  I own the dog.

Lost a dog and gained ANOTHER cat!!

Daz
Ted Davis - 21 Nov 2003 14:34 GMT
>Lost a dog and gained ANOTHER cat!!

I forgot to update the filter on this instance of the client - but
I'll fix that now.

Two suggestions: learn to count - 13==13 all day long ... even from
day to day and week to week; and don't jump to too many conclusions -
there are several reasons why animal counts may change - in this case,
the beagle was stolen (both were, but the mutt got away or was
released - after somebody over tightened her collar).

T.E.D. (tdavis@gearbox.maem.umr.edu)
SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D."
somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.
Daz. - 21 Nov 2003 19:00 GMT
> >Lost a dog and gained ANOTHER cat!!
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> day to day and week to week; and don't jump to too many conclusions -
> there are several reasons why animal counts may change -

Senility?

in this case,
> the beagle was stolen (both were, but the mutt got away or was
> released - after somebody over tightened her collar).

Not your fault then?

And there was me thinking you had lost it Ted.... what on earth must I have
been thinking??

Daz.
M.C. Mullen - 21 Nov 2003 13:25 GMT
| I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm
| wondering if you are of the same opinion
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
| on something other than identifying with
| other people who had no experience either.

Some people *are*  really terrified of cats.
I can understand that they go out of cat's ways.
A friend who grew up on a farm is terrified because
her older brothers threw the kittens at her when she
was small, of course they dug their claws into her skin.

Carola
Nadine - 21 Nov 2003 18:35 GMT
<snip>
>But since I've gotten to know cats
>it seems impossible that anyone but
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>people use to measure suitability of
>a pet.

Just wondering what standards do you mean?  What suitability?

>Our cats sleep with up.

As do some of mine, along with one of my dogs, the Pit Bull.  Of course
if it's cold they would rather snuggle up to the dog, which she loves.

> Another takes
>care of the other cats and nurses
>two even though she has never had
>kittens of her own and is spayed.

That's what my Pit Bull does, except the nursing part, as she is spayed
and spayed animals can't nurse anything.  But she has helped me raise
many orphaned bottle fed kittens by cleaning them (top to bottom),
keeping them warm and safe and playing with them as they got older.  I
also know of other Pits that do this and not just with kittens.

>They are all individuals with separate and
>unique personalities and they all have
>taught me something, one profound about
>not be concerned about physical
>appearances

Exactly the same with dogs.  They are all individuals and shouldn't be
lumped into a category.  Granted the type of breed, be it a cat or dog,
does lend to some inherited traits but a lot has to do with how they
have been raised.

>I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm
>wondering if you are of the same opinion that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>other than identifying with other people who
>had no experience either.

I am in the same opinion that "breed" haters just haven't really had any
experience with what they fear so.  The Pit Bull breed is severely
misunderstood.  They have been bred to be not human aggressive.  We have
more problems where I work (Veterinary office) with small breed dogs
trying to bite then any large breeds. IMO bad owners make bad dogs.

Glad you have learned that cats are great creatures.  My husband hated
them until he lived with one.  We now have 5 of our own, along with 5
fosters, at the moment.  And 3 house dogs, an Pit/Catahoula mix, an
Akita, and the pure Pit.
Not so quick - 21 Nov 2003 19:50 GMT
> <snip>
> >But since I've gotten to know cats
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
> fosters, at the moment.  And 3 house dogs, an Pit/Catahoula mix, an
> Akita, and the pure Pit.

I have had experience with pitbulls though. A friend
was bitten on the face. I played with the dog quite a
bit before that, and my daughters friend's pitbull had
to be put in the bathroom when I came over because
he tried to attack me once. I really fear for the safety
of children in a house with a pitbull. I may be misinformed
but it seems that they are especially prone to attack when
frightened and that they will attack, rarely but seriously,
when startled or 'bothered' by a child.

I know that the loyalty and love that a person feels
towards their pet is deep. I don't know what happens
to that love when one's child is scarred or traumatized
or killed. Maybe the horrible stories about pitbulls are
those that have been raised to be killers, but my friend's
dog, that bit her face and left scars... You know I never
saw her after that. I warned her about the dog. Maybe
she thought it was some kind of curse...
Nadine - 22 Nov 2003 11:59 GMT
No so quick wrote:

>   I have had experience with pitbulls though.
>A friend was bitten on the face. I played with
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>that they will attack, rarely but seriously, when
>startled or 'bothered' by a child.

  Sounds like the 2 Pit Bulls you met came from either irresponsible
breeders or weren't properly socialized/trained by their owners (bad
owners).  Two dogs doesn't really qualify as real experience with a
breed though.  My pit/catahoula mix, which by the way is my most
aggressive dog, it's the catahoula in him and only toward adult
strangers, a down/stay works without fail, locking him in a room when
people come over would only make the situation worse, is now 10 years
old, my 2 children are now 14 and 17 and where raised with him.  He has
never so much as growled at them and my pure Pit adores all children,
and adults including strangers.  She has been around all ages of
children, from infants to teens, with no problems what so ever (and some
of these kids were so mean I would have liked to bite them myself).
      People have made the comment "oh, you have her as a watch dog"
all I can do is laugh, because the worse she'd do is beat them to death
with her tail (not docked) or maybe lick them to death.

>I know that the loyalty and love that a person
>feels towards their pet is deep. I don't know
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>the dog. Maybe she thought it was some kind of
>curse...

    I do love my animals but, they are animals, not humans.  I can
honestly say that if any of my dogs ever showed an aggressive tendency
towards a child (no matter what the child did) it would be put down
asap.
     It amazes me how many people are afraid of their own dogs.  I have
heard many, many times from the owners of Chihuahuas, Poodles, Malteses,
Yorkies,  ect...that have been raised as "babies" (human infants) "You
want me to give him/her a pill? Without food? But it will bite me!"
Why?  Because they think because it's such a small breed that's it's
cute when they growl or nip at them and let the behaviour continue.  But
now that it's time to have to medicate them they are unable to do so.
Sad but true.
    A curse?  LMAO
Not so quick - 22 Nov 2003 18:51 GMT
> No so quick wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> Sad but true.
>      A curse?  LMAO

I can't blame you for loving your pet
but I'm afraid you have a little Ray Horne
in you.
Nadine - 22 Nov 2003 20:09 GMT
>but I'm afraid you have a little Ray Horne in
>you.

Who might Ray Horne be?
The Charmed One - 22 Nov 2003 11:57 GMT
> I used to be a typical cat hater.
> I never did anything mean to cats
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> got to know one that was nice. Maybe
> a feral cat or a disagreeable cat might

Yeah, I totally agree with you here.
I used to hate cats myself until we got one of our own. {Well we saved her
actually] and now we have 2 of her Son's as well ;-)

Now, I couldn't really live without them now.  They were my Sister's cats
first, now they are ours ;-)

Nat
Dot S - 23 Nov 2003 01:38 GMT
>I didn't think it was a big deal that a
>friend at work strangled a cat (I didn't eat
>lunch with him any more though).

That is a very bad sign.  Anyone who would do that to a cat will have no
qualms about doing the same to a human.  The Green River Killer talks
about strangling cats when he was a child.

Dot
Fingers - 23 Nov 2003 12:45 GMT
Dot S flushed and wrote :

>>I didn't think it was a big deal that a
>>friend at work strangled a cat (I didn't eat
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>qualms about doing the same to a human.  The Green River Killer talks
>about strangling cats when he was a child.

How do you get up in the morning and make it through the day?  Do you
bump your head quite often?

Idiot
frlpwr - 23 Nov 2003 19:07 GMT
> Dot S flushed and wrote :
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Idiot

Only inasmuch as FBI profilers are "idiots".  Along with bed-wetting and
childhood arson, a high proprotion of serial killers tortured and killed
animals as youngsters.
Army_wife - 09 Apr 2006 06:19 GMT
Here's the thing.  I am a dog person I married a cat person and even with
this flaw I still love him.  I too have never done anything bad to a cat and
would never want to see of one or hear of one being hurt.  I had two really
amazing cats in my life time that were 20 plus years old before they died
that is why I don't want another one.  There will never be another Kally or
Ginger.  The one we have now is borderline psycotic but realitivly ok.  I
grew up with boxers and American Staffordshire Terriers that some have given
the derogatory name of "pitt".  It is NOT the dog it is the way the dog is
trained and handled that causes problems.  I have never had a bad one and
never had an incident were I thought my safty or that of my children were in
question.  In fact we have an Am Staff now.  She is just over a year old and
the most "furocous" thing she has done to date is lick my four year old so
much she made him pee his pants laughing.  My husband is a military police
officer and he can tell you as he has told many others they have more
problems out of breeds OTHER than "pitts" and one cop even got attacked by a
poodle.  So before you judge us and our dogs remember its the deed that needs
to be punished not the breed.  Perhaps your friend wasnt the best "pitt"
handler or didn't train her dog so well.
I would rather have a "pitt" than a silly cat....besides no matter what breed
cat you have or how smart it is...it still uses your house as a toilet.

>I used to be a typical cat hater.
>I never did anything mean to cats
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>on something other than identifying with
>other people who had no experience either.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.