Babysitting Fail
Picture by: Gabe Miller. Submitted by: Gabe M. via Fail Uploader
Click to see G-Rated Pics and Movies Only
« Previous Prop Placement Fail | Instructions Fail Next »
Click to see G-Rated Pics and Movies Only
« Previous Prop Placement Fail | Instructions Fail Next »
Picture by: Gabe Miller. Submitted by: Gabe M. via Fail Uploader
Gotta keep ‘em entertained ’till you sell ‘em!
kids or the pitbulls?
third
1. Kids
2. Pitbulls
3.
SafetyYou’re saying that one’s gotta keep the smileys entertained?
1. Kids
2. Pitbulls
3. …
4. PROFIT!
Ayup.
Kids gotta learn to fight sometime!
__
Interested in a GifAway?
gotta feed em babies
Baby pitbulls?
This reminds me of a Far side cartoon – not sure one which exactly, but one of them.
That one with the thing?
Maybe, but more likely the one with the watchamacallit.
I remember it. I laughed so hard when I read that one.
Oh hahahaha! It’s one of my favorites. Gary Larson is a genius.
And the doodad that goes ‘rrrrrrrrrrrboink’
Oh that thingymcdoodle, I thought you meant the other one.
I think you mean the one called “Trouble Brewing”, with a dingo farm next to a nursery.
The one with the dingo farm next to the nursery?
Famous case back in the ’80s – a baby was taken and killed by a dingo in Australia, and prosecutors convicted her mother of murder despite 1) discovery of most of the baby’s bloody clothing near dingo lair a week later and 2) proof that the supposedly conclusive forensic test for fetal hemoglobin in their car also “finds” it in nasal mucus, chocolate milkshakes, car upholstery coatings, et al. She was imprisoned for six years, until the discovery of the last missing piece of clothing disproved the prosecution’s last “evidence” – their claim she was lying about it.
She was widely mocked in the media at the time for her “weird” religion, for supposedly not being emotional enough, with sick jokes about what she really did with the baby, etc. Even now it’s mostly remembered as an example of an unbelievable or crazy story, despite an overwhelming amount proof that it happened as she described it. YMMV on whether this is why she got convicted on extremely flimsy grounds.
Uehh, my bad – I misread your comment as disbelief. I’m not sure how I could’ve done so, looking at it again.
*said with Australian accent*
“Maybe the Dingos ate your baby….”
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. ^_^
What’s incredibly odd about this being brought up here and now is that I was had to explain this whole thing to my roommate only a few hours ago. It’s just one of those moments where things seem to be oddly coincidental.
The one where the daycare is next to the kennel and both have fenced in yards sharing a common fence in the middle and the jackals (wolves?) are all standing on their hind legs pushing on the fence and very nearly have it pushed over. One of my favs!
The cartoon you are thinking of has a Dingo farm right next to a nursery!
Trouble brewing….
There is a very stiff penalty for not picking your child up on time.
What if I don’t pick up the pitbull on time?
They give you one of the leftover kids as compensation. I hear Esther is waiting for a good home. She’s an orphan, you know. >.>
Aiiii; I first read this as “They give you one of the kid leftovers as compensation.” Gives a new meaning to “doggie bag.”
Maybe she was just announcing there was in fact a baby, sitting, in her home. To attract Pit Bull buyers of course.
Or, she was announcing that there was a baby sitting in her home… and wanted passing pit bulls to know it was for sale?
It’s obviously photoshopped, the 1st sign and i have doubts about the second one too
I’d like to question you and the first sign separately to see if the sign’s doubts are influencing you in any way.
they are influcing my thoughts allright. Mind controlling signs are dangerous things. Makes me let my baby play with a pitbull, or vice-versa
I agree. Those vice-versas are vicious things..
Where was the sign on the night of August 18th?!
Time travelling.
Time traveling signs. Thats a bad sign.
It’s a sign o’ the times.
*jazz hands*
♫Sign Sign everywhere a sign♫
♫Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind♫
♫Do this, don’t do that, can’t you read the sign ♫
A sign of the times?
You win this round!
Must be time travelling to be two places at once! 0.0
Quantum sign splitting!
the sign disorts the space time continuum ending up blurry from a distatnt future where pitbulls are babysitters.
id believe that!
The signs are photshopped to remove contact info…that’s what it looks like to me.
bullshit. examine the -continuous- handwriting.
It’s actually a sinister baby smuggling ring. They dress the babies up as pitbulls to smuggle them out the country and sell them into slavery.
Canada really has gone downhill recently
I was really hoping you had misspelled “Bagel Whisperer”.
It does have a ring to it…
Banger just gives bagels to badgers and then bags them with a bang
You just can’t trust sinister babies.
neither sinister baibies on pitbulls
How gauche!
I was left with that joke.
That joke went south, pa!
You’re right.
I need more dexterity understanding these jokes.
I would advise against more drug taking Aja.
Use the pitbull helm of dexterity +7
And that’s a fail because…? Wait, there’s idiots out there who still think that the breed is actually bad with people/kids? Wow, so many sheep. That does look like a pretty redneckish sign though, so I wouldn’t trust them with kids regardless.
Well obviously the poor handwriting is the fail. Proper penmanship is a must!
I knew this would come up… fighting breeds, especially pit bulls and doberman pinschers always have the potential of being dangerous. It is what they were bred for, and their strength makes mistakes more catastrophic. If you ask me, a dachshund is a lot more snappish and I’d like one around even less (personal experience) but a pit bull has more potential for problems due to size and unpredictability.
I know a lot of pits can be very sweet acting and loyal. However, they are still unpredictable. My spouse had her face almost bitten off (she still carries the scars) from when she was defending her toddler from a pit bull’s attack. The toddler hadn’t been annoying the dog. The dog had been a well-loved, well cared for pet who had never done anything like that before.
It can happen at any time. Don’t call someone who is being careful a “sheep.”
Almost a decade in the veterinary field and I’ve never had a pit snap at me, or even so much as growle.
.
.
You want snappy and unpredectable, go for that dashund, chihuahua, sheltie… or worse, a dalmatian!
.
.
Want to know the number one breed putting people in the ER for dog bites?
The labrador retriever… as the most popular breed they are the ones out there and biting people.
.
.
Pits just get a bad rap.
Pit bulls are the breed that has racked up the most dog attack fatalities. Boxers, Rottweilers, American Bulldogs are also some of the most dangerous breeds looking at the record of fatalities on Dog Bite Law website.
Even so the media loves a pit bull attack and will rabble-rouse their viewers any time a pit bull bites anyone. They won’t go as in depth on an attack by another breed, but you can be sure they’ll mention pit bulls while reporting it.
Most of the pit bulls and pit-mixes I have encountered have been inoffensive animals who never bit anyone.
Er, I meant I have never personally encountered a pit bull or pit-mix that has bitten a human.
A lot of dog bites I’ve heard about are bites of small breeds of dogs.
To my knowledge, I’ve never personally encountered a scene where a drunk driver ran over someone. But you’d be wildly optimistic to decide this proves that drunk driving is safe.
For that matter: Why do we forbid drunk driving, but not drunk walking? Because you’re a lot more deadly in a car than you are on a sidewalk. Why do we forbid pit bulls from running around unleashed in a neighborhood with children, but not chihuahuas? Because jaws that can tear someone’s face off are a lot more deadly than jaws that can sometimes draw blood.
Your analogy fails.
It’s pretty sad if your best reply is to assert “You’re wrong” with nothing to back it other than because you said so.
And if you had read it with the intent of comprehending, it would have been obvious there are two analogies. Not one.
Your analogy is wrong. A leash law is for ALL dogs, regardless of breed. Any dog can attack someone and do alot of harm. Those who say pit bulls are breed for fighting know nothing of the breed. They where originally used for hunting and herding of wild cattle and the like. Like someone stated earlier, you never here them reporting when someone is bitten by another breed only pits and rots. WHY? Because no one wants to hear about the neighbors dalmation attacking some kid, only if its a “BAD” breed. There are no “BAD” breeds only Bad owners who do not know how to train and discipline their pets. The same could also be said about parents..but thats another can of worms.
For reference, Pit Bulls are no more violent than any other breed and there’s no reason to worry about babies and pitties. A pit is no more dangerous to a child than my boxer and far less dangerous than say a Mastiff who might step on a child and hurt it.
Animal attacks happen because people are stupid and either provoke or improperly care for their dogs. And exposing pitties to children early would make them even safer, since they may actually learn how to deal with them.
AKA- FailBLOG Fail.
Oh yes, I’m not arguing that when one does flipp they can kill. They were breed for streangth, so they can do more damage. There is alwayes that one oddball… but it’s not fair to ban a breed just because they are strong.
.
.
Draft horses are strong yet mellow… but if you do startle one you’ll be putting a new wall in your barn.
What most pit bull owners get upset about isn’t an actual BAN in most areas of the US, at least. What usually gets their dander up, though they use the word ban to describe it, are laws that RESTRICT pit bulls to leashes and securely-enclosed yards – but even that is apparently unthinkable. Can’t say I understand the logic. (‘~’)
Wrt your last sentence… hopefully you’ll be putting a new wall in your barn. Do it from the wrong angle and you’ll be knocking a large hole in the wall, the hard way. (^_^)
Most of those “restrictions” also forbid new “pitbulls” from being brought in, so that limits their rescue abilities. Additionally, a lot of places ARE banning them; the city I live in put almost 2000 to sleep when their ban went into place. Bites and fatalities have gone up since the first year and are now higher than before the ban.
Additionally, most people are upset because the restrictions are unfairly biased. If they’re going to impose restrictions, it should be on all dogs or at least all dogs above a certain size.
And lest you say that little dogs are “safe”, a little dog bit right through my knuckle when I was 5 and incapacitated my index finger on my right hand. Because I was lying on her spot. Another little dog almost tore out my Achilles tendon because I was trying to keep it from attacking my dogs.
All dogs should be kept on leash when not in a fenced yard. All dogs should be on a “1 bite” rule, where they are put to sleep on a second unprovoked biting offence. Any dog that kills should be PTS right away. Any owner that owns multiple aggressive dogs within a certain time period should not be allowed to have dogs.
At least those laws will actually help lower bites.
You mean the seven or eight breeds that are considered a “Pit Bull”?
In terms of single breeds, Rottweilers, German Shepherds and Huskies all have more fatalities than actual American Pit Bull Terriers; it’s only when you add in American Staffordshire Terriers, the various foreign versions of APBTs and normally Americal Bulldogs as well that “Pit Bulls” have the highest human bite OR fatality stats.
Now, as for dog on dog bites, APBT are definitely in the top three. Most of their human bites come from people interfering in their dog fights, too.
Granted, that’s changing as more and more terrible breeders are adding in human aggressive breeds. I wouldn’t personally go anywhere near one of those over-muscled freaks they’re calling “Gotti” or “Razor” line “Pit Bulls”. A proper UKC champ, though, is exactly what an APBT should be… about 40lbs, medium size, good lean muscle tone and a dedicated nature. There’s a reason they used to be the “nanny dogs” and it’s not just because people didn’t know what they were doing. Without the influence of the “for the money” breeder and the “ghetto” owners, the dogs still would barely have any human bite stats.
This sign is still fail, though, because there’s no way those pups are UKC champ lines with how harsh most UKC breeders are and if they’re not, they’re probably one of the mixes (who do tend to have wiring problems).
Exactly. Pitts are incredibly sweet dogs when raised right. And any other breed of dog can be incredibly mean. Besides, most people can’t identify a pitbull anyway. Anything from a great dane to a chihuahua have been called “pitbulls” when they bite. It’s absurd.
That’s not because pit-bulls are vicious. That’s because Pit-bulls are powerful. If a lab decides to attack you. Unless you mentally crumble on your own first, you will kick it’s ass. not true with a pitbull.
Your mistaken. Pit bull TYPE dogs are. And those pit bull type dogs, about 8 times out of 10, aren’t pit bulls.
Yeah right – pit bulls are BANNED in the UK under the Dangerous Dogs Act for a REASON.
Yes that reason is ignorance. They are not dangerous dogs they just tend to have dangerous owners.
Well the UK needs to rethink that law. I’ve grown up with many pitbulls and they were all hunting dogs but not once did one of them bite or growl at anyone.
visit this site: http://pitbullextreme.com/pit-bull-history/sergeant-stubby-most-decorated-dog/
also go to youtube and search for pitbull attacks baby. i promise it’s not what you would expect.
governments do a lot of stupid things, so don’t always think what they did is right. I would never want to live anywhere I couldn’t own a pitbull.
It’s funny, the city I live in just banned pits, but the next town over they are still legal.
.
.
We had two pits sitting in the lobby waiting to get their yearly vaccinations… one is double leashed and wearing a muzzle because that’s the only way the law will allow him out of the house, ((pits owned at the time the law passed can still stay with their owners, but they must be regestered with the city, “fixed” and must wear a muzzle any time they leave their property.)) the other is just sitting there like every other dog.
.
.
The first dog is from the anti-pit city, the second is still legal… but they are both in the same place to get their shots! Like what, the dogs on this side of a line are fine, but the ones on that side are dangerous?! It’s so stupid…
Yeah, let’s form a coalition – I want to let a pit viper roam around my yard, and even though it’s the sweetest thing in the world, they won’t let me because there are kids around. That’s discrimination, because my neighbor has a pet grass snake, and…
What’s that, you say? A grass snake bite rarely requires medical attention, but a pit viper’s bite leaves horrific damage or even kills? So what? The adjacent city doesn’t have any laws against pit vipers as pets, and that proves it’s stupid because that must mean pit vipers are harmless there but not here.
Does that actually sound logical to you?
Why do pit bulls get the rap of being involved with the most fatalities? Take the quiz below and tell me how many times you get the wrong answer before picking the right one:
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
90% of the people I know call every dog with a snub nose and muscular body a Pit, which is pure ignorance. This is the same as referring to every person with brown skin as a Mexican or Arab.
There was a lady in my area of the world a few years back that was attacked and mauled to death by a ‘pit bull type dog’ in her own back yard. What did that dog turn out to be? A Border Collie!
I think a lot of times, before all the facts are in, the people who report the news hear about a dog attack and just automatically label it a ‘Pit Bull Attack’ in order to sell papers and hike the ratings.
No, it doesn’t sound logical because it’s a false analogy.
If cobras and only cobras were banned and any other type of snake were allowed, including the other venomous ones AND the strangling ones, that would be a bit closer. Additionally, the neighbouring city doesn’t just allow any snake to slither around but enforces restriction of the snakes being kept in secure enclosures.
The problem is that ANY dog’s bite requires medical attention and quite often they do a lot of damage. I can’t use my right index finger because of a Chihuahua and have a scar on my right heel from a poodle mix. My one dog had to go in for almost $600 worth of surgery and wound care because of a Jack-a-poo. The other one has a nice notch in his ear that had four different infections because of a puggle. The one time anyone got bit by a “pit bull” (a lab/APBT mix), it was me, because I tripped and fell on him, and he wheeled and snapped. I had ONE shallow tooth puncture in the side of my arm and (unlike any of the other encounters) I didn’t have to hunt down the owner for medical costs or vaccination records because she was right with her dog when it happened and actually drove me to the hospital. Despite the fact that I told the hospital that it was my fault and even wrote a letter for Animal Control, her dog still has to be muzzled because he got startled. None of the other owners so much as got a visit from Animal Control.
Sure, a bigger dog CAN do more damage. Sure, a bigger dog require a physically stronger owner, just in case. Sure, a bigger dog is more likely to kill just based on the strength of the attack. But little dogs can kill too whether it is due to the attack, disease or infection of the wounds. And all dogs above a certain size are equally dangerous, but many aren’t restricted and many who do bite are given three or four chances to a pit bull’s one or two. A call about a pit bull attack will get a faster and more consistent response than one about a German Shepherd, despite the fact that the Shepherd actually has more jaw strength and is more likely to cause MORE damage. A pit bull will almost always bite and hold; which will definitely break the skin and might even break bones. A German Shepherd will almost always bite and shake and then release and bite and shake again, which will not only cause the bite and breaking of bones but also tear a lot more skin and muscle and can snap necks, arms, spines and other bones. If your initial bite is to the head, you’re in trouble either way. If it’s to the arm, you’re in more trouble with a Shepherd than a pit bull.
The argument isn’t that pit bulls aren’t dangerous, because they are. The argument is that targeting pit bulls isn’t addressing the main issue behind dog bites: irresponsible owners and breeders. There will always be dog bites as long as there are dogs but by euthanizing repeat biters, banning repeat issue owners from having dogs and following through on leash and roaming laws, the true dangers will be addressed with a minimum of hurt both to innocent dogs and to innocent bite victims. As it is, all pit bull laws do is keep pit bulls from biting… which isn’t much use when 90% of the problem owners will just go out and find another breed… potentially one where human aggression IS something that has been bred into it for more than a few years. Look up the Japanese Tosa; it’s the new rage where I live seeing as all our pit bulls were killed. It’s bigger, stronger and more likely to be aggressive… but it’s not a pit bull so it’s OK!
Akita Inus are getting popular in my part of the world. And it’s great, don’t get me wrong – they’re awesome dogs, but they are most definitely *not* a dog for a first time dog owner (like most of the people who bring them into my store are) or for someone with children. Unlike APBT and AmStaffs, Akitas have not been bred with the tendency toward following and listening to people.
And they most certainly will not receive the title of ‘Nanny dog’ anytime soon.
Akita knowledge fail.
My family got an akita when I was 4. He was big, strong, and territorial. He was also the most patient and loyal creature I’ve ever known. He put up with years of my childish nonsense–playing with his ears, pulling his tail, trying to ride him, and generally being a pest–with rarely even a growl. He kept a close eye on any stranger who came into the house, but if we were OK with them, so was he. I have no doubt that he would have fought to the death anyone who attacked one of us, but that’s probably true of my dad too, and he’s not “vicious” or “dangerous.”
Comment comprehension fail.
I never said that they were ‘vicious’ or ‘dangerous’, just that they were not a proper dog for a first time dog owner (neither are APBT, for that matter), nor the best dog for someone with children.
Akitas have not been bred with the same tendency towards following people blindly as APBT and AmStaffs have (as, you’ll notice, I’ve said before). They are a much more independent and free thinking dog which, a lot of times, don’t care to have children around.
Your parents obviously took the time to make the dog understand that you were someone to be respected and tolerated. This is something that pitties, for the most part, do not need to learn. Talk to most other Akita owners, and they will tell you similar things. Also, I’m just assuming that your parents got a puppy Akita and did not adopt a fully grown one. As with most breeds, if they’re raised around children, they tend to tolerate them.
Again, I never said anything to an Akita’s detriment. I love and respect the breed. I’m just saying that they are more independent and less people oriented than pitties.
I have to agree banning pitbulls is just ignorant. I have two of them currently and one is hiding under my desk because it is thundering out. Yea she is a mean evil dog. My son learned to walk holding on to my pitbull. I have pictures of my kids laying on crawling on, biteing, hitting my dogs and they have NEVER so much as growled at them. I thank goodness I live in USA in a county that does not let ignorance rule and allows me to have my dogs. They are treasured family pets and you will more likely find them snuggling with the kids in thier beds then anywhere else.
Tell that to all the people who were bitten by dogs under the same situation as yours. Dogs do what they were bred to do, taught to do. They have ‘personality’ flaws just like everything and everyone else – just like chihuahuas are exceptionally attached to their owners, labs tend to love water and racing dogs are inclined to run, bird dogs chase birds and small prey, etc.
Sorry, but if I want another family pet I want something that wasn’t bred to chomp down large animals before the large animals trample them.
Most dogs were originally bred for tasks that involved biting. Shih-tzus were guard dogs, Jack Russels and Dachshunds were hunters. Rottweilers were herders, as were Collies, Aussies, German Shepherds and Poodles. Labs and Goldens were retrievers, beagles, greyhounds and foxhounds were all hunters.
All of these dogs has a bite instinct, each triggered by different stimuli. An APBT has large animals as a trigger. Dogs CAN tell the difference between animals and humans. An APBT is less likely to bite humans than a dog bred for guard purposes. As they were also bred to be family dogs, they are also less likely to bite humans than a lot of hunting/retrieving/herding dogs as a calm APBT was more likely to be a treasured pet that was bred than a snappy or spooky one was whereas the hunting/retrieving/herding dogs were more likely to be outdoor or kennel dogs who wouldn’t have their patience tested all the time.
So yeah, APBTs were bred to take down large cattle. They were also bred to behave with humans. Even when they became fighting dogs, they had to be good with humans because a dog that attacked its handler would be an unnecessary risk. Only in the past 5-10 years have they been bred with an eye to human aggression and that is only the case in the puppy mill/backyard bred dogs. A pup from shown and health tested parents is still almost always going to be a good family dog, medical and training issues aside.
If they were my type of dog, an APBT would be in the top three of my list of dogs to own. They are high-energy, though, which is something I’m not.
No, the English Bulldog was bred for bull-baiting (“taking down large cattle” is a disturbing euphemism for bloodsport).
Pits were bred for pit-fighting, in which the surprise attacker – the one that attacks without warning – is more likely to win.
So because the Bulldog (improperly called the English Bulldog) was a bull baiter, an APBT couldn’t be bred to do a similar job? And there is a massive difference in aggression because that breed was then co-opted for fighting? Most fighting dogs aren’t actually aggressive; they are terrified, trained to view other dogs as the enemy and driven by pain. Get them into a home with some kind humans and no other dogs and most are sweeter than sugar.
The breed was officially named after it had been mostly taken over for fighting but it’s original job WAS to work on farms and in bull-rings. It was also a family dog. Most of the stock originally used to get UKC approval were bred for these purposes.
Rottweilers were used as guard dogs almost immediately and greyhounds were used to hunt coyotes shortly after they were brought to the US. That doesn’t mean that their original purpose no longer exists or that the breed suddenly became vicious. Great Pyrenees are livestock guardian dogs bred specifically to fight with wolves and coyotes (which requires far more aggression and strength than fighting with other dogs) and you don’t hear anything about how horribly vicious THEY are.
You’re also presuming that dog aggression is automatically linked with human aggression, which is entirely false. Some dogs are always aggressive to everything and some dogs will snap if bothered during a fight but it’s rare for a dog to go from dog aggression to human aggression. As a matter of fact, even the APBT bred to be fighters would be discouraged from human aggression as their handlers would not want a dog that would attack them as well as the other dog.
But, of course, all you see is “pit bull” (not even a breed, but a type encapsulated many breeds) and assume that any aggression means that it will kill someone. No matter what stats you are presented with, or what knowledge people have, you will assume that they are mad killers with locking jaws and a taste for blood. This view of “pitbulls” does as much damage as the shitty owners who do let them run loose because any APBT that you see, you presume will eventually snap and therefore you will never realize that left to their own, “pit bull” breeds are no worse than any other large breed.
Wrt your first sentence: “Couldn’t be” =/= “was”.
Any breed could be bred for ‘most any purpose, given enough generations and enough patience. But you asserted they were bred for something they weren’t.
Wrt the second paragraph: Of course they were originally bred to be domesticated, if you go back far enough. All domesticated dogs were, by definition. That has little bearing on how they’ve been bred in recent centuries, and cj (below) has already refuted you thoroughly on that question.
Wrt the rest, please stop representing opinions I don’t hold as if they were mine. Using straw-man arguments isn’t particularly nice.
Please forgive the incivilities. I was in a really foul mood when I first woke up. m(_._)m
During the nineteenth century, dog fanciers in England, Ireland, and Scotland began to experiment with crosses between bulldogs and terriers, looking for a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the bulldog. [1]
In the late 1800s to early 1900s, two clubs were formed for the specific purpose of registering APBTs: the United Kennel Club and the American Dog Breeders Association. The United Kennel Club was founded with the registration of an American Pit Bull Terrier and was the first registry to recognize the breed.
The dog was bred first to bait bulls and bears.[2] When baiting bulls was deemed inhumane, dogfighting became more popular, and the APBT was used in the sport. With time, the dogs became more commonly used as house pets due to their friendliness towards people.[3] In America, farmers and ranchers used their APBTs for protection, as catch dogs for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, and to drive livestock.[4] The dog was used during World War I and World War II as a way of delivering messages on the battlefield.[3]
The name “Staffordshire Terrier” was adopted by some owners as a way of distancing the breed from a name with a stigma, and was recognized by the American Kennel Club in 1936. Later, the word “American” was added to reduce confusion with its smaller British cousin, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Once an extremely popular family dog in the United States (for example, the dog in The Little Rascals movies and in Buster Brown was an APBT), the American Pit Bull Terrier’s popularity began to decline in the United States following World War II in favor of other breeds.
do your homework. I own a pit bull and he is the best dog i have EVER owned, saved my life during a grand mal Seizure. he is amazing with children and loves them. We also have a great dane, big powerful dog who is loving but a complete chicken.. On the other hand i have been viciously attacked by several small dogs, i watched a weimeriner rip a girls face off and we had an elderly lady attacked by a standard poodle.. There are no bad dogs just irresponsible and criminal owners.. KNOW YOUR DOGS! don’t ban someones best friend because the low life down the street has no respect for living things.
I’m no fan of pit bulls, I have to admit. But as I’ve said several times in these comments, I think banning them would be a gross overreaction, and I would be sharply opposed to it.
Many pit bull owners (not</b< you) react to any restriction whatsoever by yelling "racism! [sic]" and "stop trying to ban them!" I think that's also a gross overreaction, reminiscent of the NRA's position that restricting assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets is the same as banning all guns.
I would be really startled if you took the position that it's okay to let pit bulls run unleashed in a neighborhood with children. But that's all I, and I think most people, believe should be restricted.
Scrap both the ones who want no restriction and the ones who really do want to ban them, I say. The middle ground between two extremes is usually the best course, and it definitely is in this case.
Wow, sorry. Epic close-bold tag fail.
no dog should be allowed to run unrestricted around ANY neighborhood regardless of breed or if there were children there.. that is just basic responsibility. all dogs should be leashed when out side their home unless in a fenced in area.. It’s commonsense to do other wise would be just asking for the animal to he hit by a car, stolen, attacked or even involved in a bite incident. Again any one who would do as such would be an irresponsible owner who should probably not be responsible for a living thing. Dogs have the inelegance of a two year old child, I don’t know many responsible, intelligent people who would allow a two year old child to go running around a neighborhood unsupervised.
I really like this post. (^_^)
And I agree completely, but I’ve heard way too many pit owners claim something akin to “My neighbor’s dog doesn’t even get picked up by animal control when it’s running loose, so it’s not fair that they’re taking away my pit bull that’s been repeatedly caught running loose.”
Lowest-common-denominator rationalizations don’t speak too well of anyone’s sense of responsibility.
“An APBT is less likely to bite humans than a dog bred for guard purposes.”
Or a dog bred for herding purposes, for that matter. I have this couple in one of my classes with an Australian Shepherd and one of the biggest issues they want addressed is Chandler’s tendency to nip when trying to herd them wherever he feels they need to be. As an example of how hard he bites when doing this, the husband took off his shoe and showed me the (most recent) bite mark he had received on his ankle.
It was nasty.
Knowledge of dog breeds, fail.
Pit bulls are not human aggressive because they were bred to be human friendly. Would you want to handle an aggressive dog?
Also, if you think about it, Dachshunds were bred to take down badgers. Have you ever SEEN a badger? They’re not little. Jack Russels are terriers, too. Most terriers have been bred to take down other animals. Many of the hunters have taken down large prey. Including… *GASP*… POODLES!
Also, if you’re referring to bull baiting, that would be bulldogs. Not pit bulls. Do your research. Yes, pit bulls were bred to hunt wild boar- but, so were many other breeds that have reputations as family dogs. In fact, bulldogs are about the most mellow freakin’ dogs you could own and they were originally bred to take down BULLS! BULLS for dogs sake!
You insult the intelligence of canines. They can tell the difference between a dog and a human and a cat and a bird. APBT’s were NOT bred to take down humans in the pit. So this ridiculous rumor that they were bred to be aggressive is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. They were bred to be friendly. You try training an aggressive dog to take down a wild boar. See how far it gets ya.
QFT
Emma – Yes, and that REASON is stupid, ignorant people. There are a lot of idiots who believe pit bulls are somehow genetically inclined to bite people. That’s why they’re idiots.
If you would like to stop being an ignorant twat at any point, try doing some google searches for the Vicktory dogs and Best Friends Animal Sanctuary. It’s people like you who are slowly making the world more retarded, and we’d all like you to stop.
As far as this fail, it fails because it’s based on the assumption that pit bulls will attack children, which is wrong, to say the least.
It is also treason to put a stamp of the monarch upside-down in the U.K.
Pit Bulls (American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers) are different breeds, not species. Aren’t Staffordshire Terriers legal in the United Kingdom?
Interesting.
I hate chihuahuas… they are just too annoying -.-
All animals, from dogs to guinea pigs and beyond, have the potential to be dangerous… NO DOG was bred specifically to sit in your lap and love you, at least not when they first started being bred way back when… Animals are animals, regardless of breed..
and yes, I am a proud owner of a rescued pit bull and a show pit bull!!
and don’t make fun of people just because they feel differently than you do, they arent sheep because they have an opinion
HAVE A GOOD NIGHT EVERYBODY!!!
Pit bulls were actually known for years as “nanny dogs” because they’re so good with kids, and fighting breeds in general are almost never human-aggressive because you lose money if your gamblers are getting eaten instead of betting on the fights. “Man-eaters die” was how they put it, and it was true; if a fighting dog bit somebody, it was put to death.
“know a lot of pits can be very sweet acting and loyal. However, they are still unpredictable. My spouse had her face almost bitten off (she still carries the scars) from when she was defending her toddler from a pit bull’s attack. The toddler hadn’t been annoying the dog. The dog had been a well-loved, well cared for pet who had never done anything like that before.”
Dogs never do anything for no reason. How do you know the toddler wasn’t annoying the dog? Can you see things from the dog’s perspective? Also, most dogs see babies and small children as their equals, bot their leaders, and, therefore, treat them as such. I know of a three year old who got her nose bitten off by an Aussie b/c the child’s idiot parents left the kid alone with the dog and she had a cookie that the dog wanted.
Dog’s of any breed can be ‘unpredictable’ if you don’t know how to read their body language. I’m a dog trainer, and in my line of work I hear a lot of stories about dogs that bite people, despite the fact that they were wagging their tail seconds before. A wagging tail on a dog doesn’t always mean happiness, but most people don’t realize that.
‘The dog had been a well-loved, well cared for pet who ahd never done anything like that before’ – pretty much the exact same thing was said by a customer to me a couple months back when she showed me her calf, or what was left of it anyway, after her encounter with what seemed like a very friendly stray lab. She is, quite literally, missing half her right calf muscle now do to that incident.
It can happen at anytime, butit can also happen with any breed. I don’t call someone who is being careful a “sheep”, but I think everyone should exercise caution around *all* dogs, not just pittes.
For the record, I’ve got two pits and my sister has three and none of the five have ever hurt anyone with their teeth. Their tails are another matter. I’m currently sporting a bruise the exact shape and size of my Annabelle’s tail on my left thigh (she saw a yorkie she knew and, apparently, it made her really happy).
My first thought was that they probably keep the dogs in the yard. In which case, SO not a fail. Sometimes these things really grasp at straws.
Yah, I grew up with german shepards back in the day when those were the fav “dangerous dog.” We’d have a litter of pups every spring and so many buyers would be aghast that us kids were allowed near the dogs.
…..
Yah, those idiots went home without a puppy.
ITA. Thanks for saying what I was going to.
“And that’s a fail because…? Wait, there’s idiots out there who still think that the breed is actually bad with people/kids?” right.
“That does look like a pretty redneckish sign though” WRONG. guess your handwriting is textbook?
Poor pitbulls! Babies can be vile.
I’ll call PETA!
Please don’t. They’re renewal came up at their Norfolk location and the city seriously considered having them relisted as a slaughterhouse. They killed over 85% of the animals that came in and less than 25% of those were sick or dangerous!!!!
not even a pitbull can outpower the true crybaby.
I think the full sign actually reads
“Baby sitting in my home terrorising pit bulls for sale, please help me.”
It’s a genuine cry for help doctored for your amusement, I am horrified and disgusted by the lot of you.
*hangs head in shame*
You make The Moomin cry!
.
“Baby sitting in my home holding me hostage, and putting my pit bulls for sale,why is this happening?!”
Baby sitting in my home EATING BRAINS BELONGING TO pit bulls for help. CALL AREA 51 %!
Area 51%? That’s more than half!
(sorry. had to. )
awesome one. you win this round
Check to see if the pitbulls have unusually high I.Q.’s. This will tell you if they’ve been eating gifted children.
for once, who said the children were gifted. If they start sleeping and eating excessvley they may have or haven’t eaten the baby. Because that’s where babies and pitbulls are alike
I’m gonna eat your brains and gain your knoowwwllleeddgggee!!!
Baby sEATing, hot dogs for sale.
I’m more disturbed for the person living there purely for the above sign. There seems to be some baby, sitting in their home!? Obviously not their baby. It’s a subtle cry for help! Creepy.
…Crawly.
it doesn’t state WHERE the baby is sitting
Even worse!
Sitting on the pitbull, disguised as Indian and called sitting pitbull.
RUN AWAY *pitbull barks*
I think you might mean Lieutenant Colonel? I’ve never heard of a Cadet Colonel.
In reality, I am the cadette officer of CAT in a school in the Philippines.
How come pit bulls aren’t miniature bovines for working down coal mines? Pit ponies are like midget ponies.
English language fail!
Pit bikes are small dirt bikes, so your definition makes even more sense. Pit bulls should be small bulls working in the dirt.
What about pit stops?
And bottomless pits?
G&FT BF: Have you ever seen a full size stop? They have motorway services and everything!
AE: I think it must only work when put before a word. And in that phrase the pit is the thing, not a added wordy thing before it. (there are proper words for most of this, but I know none of them)
What a pity.
*smells armpits*
It’s the pits.
*spits out pit from fruit*
RUN! He’s just reloaded his gun!
*flees*
And does that mean Pittsburgh is really small?
Dolt, a pit pony is a pony that works in a coal mine. The name is indicative of the work, not the breed.
Pit Bulls get their name from being in a fighting pit.
.
.
You obviously don’t know your ass from various different holes in the ground.
Humo(u)r isn’t your strength, right?
I feel sorry for your friends when you try to tell jokes…
Fail!
You can’t read the numbers to dial to buy a pitbull or have your baby sat on.
555-don’t-tell-granny
*squeeze!*
I thought you’d want to hear all about babies to sit on?
*squeeze*
……ah the muffled cries
It’s like watching a birth on rewind.
*blaaaaaarg*
*sniff*
Its beautiful!
LOL!
babies go in – pitbulls come out
*adds another sign*
“get ‘em before granny does”
You after the babies or the pitbulls?
Yes.
I want one
i love how rAndom leTters are cApItalized FOR no REason
ThAt geTs anNoyIng aFTer a whILE.
Looks like it’s the kid that’s advertising for a babysitter. Poor children to have those parents.
a pitbull babysitter? not bad, must get one.
i have three on speed-dial
Well, at least the house would be well protected…
*hangs sign*
Baby disposal in my house – or take home a disposal of your own!
The only real fail I see here is “baby sitting” being two words. And I’m not even sure about that, now that I think about it. It should at least be hyphenated.
You’re right. That is a fail… babysitting is one word.
*ugh*
I am so sick of the whole community of people who feel the need to insist pits are the sweetest creatures on the planet.
Hey guess what… ANY breed can be aggressive even your angelic pit bull breeds.
Stop feeling so determined to fit into the ‘omg no dog is bad’ society that is an unfortunate requirement to be a dog person these days.
Pit bulls *are* the breeds who attack and kill the most. Even unprovoked.
I have personally known multiple pits who were WONDERFUL for many YEARS and treated and trained well who ended up attacking or killing someone.
Sorry all you pit defenders, but it’s the statistical truth. I can go out and form a community of people who insist that 1+1 doesn’t equal 2. We can all be clueless and try and prove our point just to be good dog lovers, but the facts are facts.
I have known aggressive retrievers, shepherds, huskies, chihuahuas, yorkies, etc.
But yes- I have known vicious pits too.
The problems with pits are:
1.) After so long of being bred for aggression, it’s still in them and can come out.
2.) the people who adopt pits *JUST* to try and show they are the gentlest things in the world.
If you have a genuine love for the breed and get it from a reputable source, and train it well, and keep it properly restrained then go ahead.
But don’t be a bunch of morons who go around preaching that pits are the greatest thing in the world when the fact is they DO attack and kill way more than any other breed.
AND unlike many other breeds, pit attacks are often unprovoked way after the dog has been good for years.
When I see aggression in other breeds, it’s usually because of bad ownership. Nobody actually thinks they need to take the time to train a chihuahua or a yorky, etc…. so they are just nasty. Fortunately, their bites do not tend to be fatal.
Pit bulls- I have known of so many that were well-trained. Heck I even knew a couple who were certified therapy dogs, that finally snapped and caused harm.
You do not need to defend pit bulls to be a true dog lover. That is what the modern dog community will force you to believe though. I am a dog lover and have owned dogs and worked with them over the years.
I cannot jump on the bandwagon and defend a breed that *IS* dangerous.
Yes there are the pits who never harmed a fly in their life, and THAT’S what everyone looks upon for their opinions.
Pit bulls do kill. They can turn dangerous unprovoked. It happens. Deal with it.
There is no such thing as an unprovoked dog attack, that is pure myth and if you really read the clues, the dog was provoked or threatened enough to feel that it needed to defend itself. Most people can’t or refuse to read the clues, so they make the excuse of an unprovoked attack.
Pit bulls are not my breed of choice, but neither are labs or retrievers. But that doesn’t mean I should stop trying to help this breed from allowing stupid people to continue thinking stupid racist-like thoughts that would later spread to giving limits to my breed of choice. By supporting these negative thoughts against one breed, it can spread to labeling other breeds as dangerous. Including labs and goldens one day.
And beside, the reason why most countries ban pit bulls is not because of the breed being vicious, but because there are those heartless people out there that use them in dog fights. Plus, if you really studied what those fighting pits were like and bred for, you’d realize that it’s not in their blood to be dangerous to people. People who breed fighting dogs look for a dog whose ready to kill other dogs but won’t lay a tooth on the human that’s beating it. I bet that if these people were to use labs for fighting, that breed would also be banned and labeled as dangerous.
And the media doesn’t help. Do you know that a person was killed by a shepherd/ lab mix but the paper reported it as a pit bull attack. They know that pitties have a bad rap, so what better way to get people to buy their papers than to take advantage of the readers.
Yeah sure pit bulls can kill and turn, but so could any other breed. I’ve met and known quite a few people who were attacked or had family members that were killed by labs, goldens or other breeds that no one would expect to turn.
I hate how ignorant people continue to believe that just this one breed can cause all the major damage to people, when it’s the a-holes that cause an individual dog to be like that. If you idiots learned to read the dog, learned to speak dog, you would see that you are the one who provoked the dog to attack.
Ok… so every time a dog attacks someone, the dog was right and the person should have known better? That is a pretty screwed up way to think.
Oh darn… I should have known that dog didn’t like the color orange! It wasn’t his fault for attacking me when I wore my orange shoes.
That kind of attitude is a big reason why we do have a lot of vicious dogs. People think dogs have the right to act the way they naturally do instinctively.
Sorry, but all dogs need to be trained to never attack unless their owner’s life is in danger. You can’t think “Well people need to learn that if they move their arm wrong that a dog may attack them”. That is crap. Sorry. There is no excuse for a dog attacking someone without good reason. And by good reason I do not mean that ‘the dog doesn’t like the way a person looked or moved’.
A good dog will not hurt someone.
A dog that would attack is not a good dog. Sorry.
To say there is no such thing as an unprovoked attack is very, very ignorant. Even if the dog sees something as a threat- I did not “provoke” him. If I sat down and waved my hands around while describing something, and the dog saw that as a threat and came and bit me… that is an ‘unprovoked attack’ even if, in the dog’s head, that was a worthy reason to bite.
Too many dog owners let their dogs stay untrained, or think that bites are perfectly OK and part of owning a dog. A good dog will not bite someone if there is no definite threat. A kid running at a dog and getting bit is an unprovoked attack, because that dog should have been trained that you do not bite random people like that. YES I know the kid should be controlled too, BUT to have a dog that will attack ‘unprovoked’ is bad pet ownership. A good dog will not bite people who wave their hands wrong, talk to loud, run towards them, etc.
Dogs who would do that are attacking unprovoked because there was no intention on initiating the dog to defend anyone.
It’s disgusting how much the dog community has gone downhill over the years. People can not keep thinking that if a dog bites someone that they had a good reason to do it.
I have had dogs, and I have known dogs, who would never even bare teeth at these kinds of situations because they were taught the right way.
The excuse that dog attacks are justified because the other person did something to provoke it without knowing is just being a friggin lazy dog owner. People who do not want to be bothered taking the time to train and dominate their dog have a great excuse when their dog causes harm.
I am almost ashamed to be a dog person sometimes. At least I know I work hard making sure I have dogs who know not to attack ‘unprovoked’.
Froggy – You really just have no idea how dogs work, do you? Attacks aren’t justified, nobody said that. What he said was that there is ALWAYS a REASON FOR IT. Dogs don’t operate on the same level that humans do. They don’t lie, their language is easy to read if you know what to look for. There is no such thing as an UNPROVOKED ATTACK.
For god’s sake do some research or something. When dogs are insecure they will defend themselves out of fear. This isn’t necessarily behavior that you want from a dog, but it is NOT unprovoked aggression. ANd yes, most dogs can be helped to get over their fears with positive reinforcement, but most people are stupid and try to use negative reinforcement instead, which makes it worse.
That is not the dog’s fault. A kid running at a dog who then gets bitten is absolutely a provoked attack. If you watch a dog when something like that happens you WILL see all the warning signs before it happens, assuming you’re not blind or too stupid to notice. Staring, teeth showing, growling – all warning signs. If a kid ignores the warning signs, whose fault is it? The dog gave all the warnings before biting. There’s nothing else he can do. It’s that simple.
You expect dogs to reason on a human level, and that isn’t ever going to happen. Because they’re dogs. Obviously it’s the job of the owner to train the dog correctly, and keep him away from children if he doesn’t like children. But your belief that dogs attack unprovoked is ridiculous. There is ALWAYS a reason. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS. You may not like the reason, you may not agree with the reason, but there IS a reason.
Dogs don’t lie or deceive you. They won’t do anything without a reason for it, therefore “unprovoked” is the wrong word to use. It suggests that the dog has no reason to attack, that’s what unprovoked MEANS. The dog ALWAYS has a reason for it, and whether you agree with that reason or not is completely irrelevant.
I agree. Dogs are not unpredictable if you know their language (and people that don’t should NOT have strong dogs), and they do not attacked “unprovoked.” There is “long-term provocation” (consistently harassing a dog and upsetting him, then he bites when nothing else is really going on), but that’s still provocation.
EVERY mean pit bull I’ve ever met was either kept in a dog crate for long periods of time (bad idea as they’re energetic dogs), never exercised (again, bad idea as they’re energetic dogs and NEED to burn off their energy), or kept in the yard on a chain and not properly socialized. Pit bulls tend to be owned by idiots because they’re “status symbol” dogs. Idiot-owned pit bulls are rarely fixed, and produce pups with behavioral issues because the parents are screwed up from being treated as objects and not as dogs.
Even the recent news story about a “family pit bull” attacking a kid has a darker side to it. If you look closely, the pit bull “was released from the crate it was typically kept in while family was over.” Meaning the dog was locked up around company, meaning the dog had behavioral problems that the owners did not address via proper training, meaning the dog was not properly socialized and was an accident waiting to happen. It had nothing to do with being a pit bull. It had everything to do with poor ownership.
Wow… there is no reasoning with people.
Just because the dog has it’s ‘reasons’ to attack doesn’t make it ok. I know dogs can’t sit and think through most situations like people do, which is why they need to be trained to not react to those situations. I made that point very clear. While in an untrained dog’s head ‘kid running at me’ may be a reason to attack, you cannot say the kid provoked the attack as a justification of the dog biting it.
I know how dogs work. That is why I have well-behaved dogs that I train because I know how to read them and how to reward and discipline based on what THEY are thinking without anthropomorphizing.
If a kid came running at my dog- he would not like it, but he knows to just sit and wait for the annoyance to go away. I would never think it was ok or justifiable if he bit the kid.
Humans domesticated dogs ourselves. It is up to us to realize that we can’t just let them act on their own instincts. If we sit back and say “It’s ok that dogs bite because random things humans do are seen as a threat” then there will just be more problems.
Dog owners need to realize that ANY dog, whether it’s a pit bull or a poodle, was created for a different purpose, and we need to understand that purpose and what is involved in training BEFORE even buying one.
We can’t live in a fantasy world that dogs are naturally good, and whatever they do is justified because it’s an instinct.
If I am walking down the street, and a big dog doesn’t like the way I am walking and sees my steps as a threat in his head… he should NOT be forgiven if he attacks because he is a dangerous animal.
If I go up to a strange dog and start kicking it and poking it, then yes the dog can see me as a threat and bite me with reason. That would be my provoking it. My walking in a way that makes a dog uncomfortable should not provoke an attack.
If people can not train their dogs to be civil around normal human activities and behaviors, then they should not own a dog in the first place. Dogs are dangerous when untrained, and some even when trained have their instincts. Dangerous dogs are not good pets. A dog that can harm someone for just doing normal human behaviors should not be a pet.
Froggy, your issues are with people not training their dogs, mixed with the word “unprovoked”. Those two things do not go together, unless you really just do not know the meaning of the word “unprovoked”. Furthermore, nobody said it’s ok, so don’t try to use that as an argument. Nobody said it was ok, nobody is using anything as justification.
You were using the word “unprovoked,” which is WRONG and you should know better. If a dog attacks somebody there was provocation for it. PERIOD. I’m not saying it’s okay, I’m saying there is a reason for it. Do you see the difference? This is to counter your “unprovoked” argument, which is stupid. Nothing a dog does is unprovoked, and if you knew dogs as well as you think you do, you would know that already.
A dog that can harm someone can be rehabilitated. Since that behavior is usually caused by humans, it’s not really fair to say the dog shouldn’t be a pet, isn’t it? It’s not the dog’s fault. He just needs to learn a new set of rules. Dogs don’t just do whatever they want, there is always a status quo for them. It’s up to people to set the rules and boundaries. And there is no such thing as a dog who is born to bite people. That’s idiotic. Dogs LEARN that behavior. This is why breed bans are completely stupid. There is no puppy, ever, that is born knowing it wants to bite people. The whole idea that some breeds are just more dangerous than others is so catastrophically retarded that it makes you wonder how some people can tie their shoes without strangling themselves.
You do not know anything about aggression or dominance. You just know what you need to say to stay on the good side of the bandwagon of pit-promoters.
Have fun.
Nice non-response. It has nothing to do with pit bulls, it has everything to do with you not understanding the reasoning behind a dog biting somebody, since it’s not breed specific. And is the bandwagon you’re talking about the same one that states that pit bulls aren’t any more dangerous by nature than any other breed? Because you would have to be a moron not to be on that bandwagon.
And for the record we were talking about aggression, NOT dominance. I’m not surprised that you don’t seem to know the difference, most people who don’t know a lot about dogs lump those two things together.
Proof or it didn’t happen.
Pit bull “attacks” are merely the most widely publicized dog attack in the country. According to the CDC, to whom all police and humane society recorded bites are reported, 4.7 million people were bitten by a dog in 2008. In 2008, there were an estimated 1.6 million “pit-bulls” or “pit-bull mixes” in the USA. Of these bites, 23 were fatal. Of these fatalities, 15 were caused by a pitbull.
So 15 poorly trained, unsupervised pit bulls bit, and killed, and the other 1.599 million get labeled as “killers.”
You, people like you, and the American media, need to stop perpetuating the myth that APBTs and Staffordshire Terriers are dangerous, unstable, untrainable killers. The only animal that cannot be trained is Man.
Educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_Bull#Dogsbite.org_.282009.29
http://www.dogbitelaw.com%2FPAGES%2Fstatistics.html&ei=hvWJSvvoLoOotgPlyu3HDQ&usg=AFQjCNHeUD6yWxQyEaA2pmswV_9Ew1Xq_g&sig2=jJ9i-0orRC21Nlb4zm056w
http://www.realpitbull.com/myths.html
Unfortunately, there’s a few bits of information you’re missing.
1) Pit bulls aren’t one breed. There’s about 7 or 8 breeds commonly considered “pit bulls”. The name comes from the American Pit Bull Terrier, but they are actually among the less common of the pure examples of any of the breeds. However, they make up the most of the “pit” parts of “pit mixes.
2) When considering each “pit bull” breed individually, their human bite and fatality rates are generally 5th place and lower, after Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Huskies and Dobermans for fatalities and most small breeds and large breeds for bites. It is only in considering dog bites that any of the breeds individually rise into the top three. However, when considering the seven or eight breeds together, they do make up the most bites and fatalities. Interestingly enough, considering the next 7 highest breeds together, their bite and fatality rates are anywhere from double to triple the “pit bull” rate.
3) The problems for “pit bulls” now is multi-fold.
Firstly, the dogs are popular and so puppy mills and uncaring owners will breed their dogs regardless of temperament, health or other concerns. Thyroid problems in pit bulls have gone through the roof in the past five years and this is a common cause of “sudden snaps”. Additionally, lines such as the “Gotti” and “Razor” lines are having other breeds introduced into them to encourage human aggression and muscle mass. These dogs are now considered to be what an APBT should look and act like, despite the fact that they would never win a show and are so far from what the breed should be that they might as well be a different breed.
Secondly, although the craze over the breed is starting to die down as people are beginning to realize how difficult it is to actually train an APBT to be human aggressive, a decent percentage of people buying pit bulls (not adopting) are still young males who want a status symbol. They leave their dog on a chain, abuse it, starve it and generally do whatever they want to the dog until it snaps. There is also the reverse issue, where someone with good intentions adopts a pit bull with the intent to “save” it, but does not have the time, skill or personality necessary to work with the dog and instead allows its issues to become much worse. Although these dogs aren’t “bad” dogs just by breed, they ARE strong personalities and require someone with some experience and an equally strong personality.
4) Media attention to pit bulls means that most people will condemn every mid-sized short-haired biting dog as a “pit bull” regardless of their actual breed. Estimates by advocated for the breed as to how many reported “pit bull” attacks are by dogs with no discernible bully breed in them run anywhere from 10-40%. Additionally, negative media bias means that more people are likely to react to a pit bull’s presence, which can trigger attacks, depending on the dog and the reaction. People have been known to throw things, shouts and even try to hit “pit bulls” even if they are muzzled and on-leash.
The problem is that any breed CAN be aggressive but so much effort is being put into focusing on one breed (or appearance type) that isn’t worse than most others of similar size and not being spent on actually dealing with aggressive dogs and owners who intentionally keep aggressive dogs. Pit bull bans and laws don’t lower bite rates by any meaningful amount. Strict dangerous dog laws and enforcement of leash laws do. Instead of wasting money and time chasing a made up problem, they should be dealing with the real one.
You’d love the Twin Cities, where they have a dangerous animal law. Any unrestrained pet that acts aggressively can wind up on it, including two cats last time I saw (a few months ago).
I’d agree that enforcement of leash laws and animal cruelty laws, and keeping all potentially dangerous animals securely enclosed, would be a lot more sane than passing trying to outright ban just one subset of potentially dangerous animals. That makes no sense. But neither does the insistence of pit bull owners that their dogs are NOT potentially dangerous animals, and should be free to run loose because 1) enforcement is lax against less potentially dangerous animals, or 2) because there are animals that are even more potentially dangerous.
Financial responsibility for all attacks is a good start. But owners of any animal that 1) they’ve been warned more than once about its aggressive behavior, and 2) they’ve been caught letting run loose more than once, should be held criminally responsible when their animal hurts or kills someone. “But I didn’t mean for it to happen” is the exact same excuse that was once used to justify not holding drunk drivers criminally responsible when they killed people.
I do think I would love the Twin Cities, although I think I’d love them even more if they stopped people from letting their animals roam unrestrained entirely. I don’t like off-leash, out of their yard cats any more than I like off-leash out of their yard dogs.
I don’t think any responsible pit-type owner wants to let their dogs roam off-leash, I think they just make the point that other animals ARE allowed to and thus the law should be equal; meaning that ALL animals should be subject to leash laws. I think applying muzzle laws to all would be a little extreme, but I do think that any dog that has bit once (with the exception of biting to protect itself/family) should be muzzled. I also don’t believe in fines for any aggressive behaviour. I think a fine is OK for the first occurrence of a dog roaming. After that, there should be jail time. I also totally agree that the owner of any dog that kills someone who has had a warning for aggressive behaviour and/or a loose dog should be charged with manslaughter, or at least criminally negligent homicide. I also further think that any dog who bites more than once (again excluding protection biting) should be euthanized and that any owner who owns more than one of these dogs within a set time period (either 5 or 10 years) should be forbidden from owning more dogs.
The thing is that most people have this definition of “potentially dangerous” as “more than 50lbs” or “a pit-type breed” or some other specific. ALL animals are potentially dangerous and ALL pets should be securely restrained at all times, whether it be by a fence or a leash. I personally won’t even let my cat roam; if he wants out it’s on a harness or leash or in his soon-to-be-built fully enclosed wire mesh enclosure. Why? Because not only could he potentially scratch and/or bite someone and spread disease that way but he can also mess with other people’s pets, gardens and homes. It’s the same reason my dogs are always on-leash unless in my (or my family’s) home, a fully fenced yard or the fully-fenced dog park. The same should be true for any cats and dogs with the addition that any dog that displays aggression REGARDLESS OF SIZE OR BREED should not be in the dog parks. Both of my dogs have been attacked in the dog park by small dogs who were highly dog-aggressive (one was just generally aggressive). Neither should have been in there, nor should the aggressive goldendoodle who tried to take a chunk out of me (and missed). Neither should an aggressive pit-type. The law should be equally reasonably harsh all around, regardless of breed or even species. No-one’s animal should be allowed to roam un-secured, period. No-one’s animal should be allowed to be aggressive without consequences.
“I don’t think any responsible pit-type owner wants to let their dogs roam off-leash, I think they just make the point that other animals ARE allowed to and thus the law should be equal; meaning that ALL animals should be subject to leash laws.”
Yes. This. Definite win.
The converse fail, which I see too often, would have been finishing with “meaning that ALL animals should be free to roam, including pits.”
Incidentally, we completely agree about pet mills and unethical breeding. I used to visit Petsmart from time to time just to see the animals, and found it heartwarming. But it turned to heartsickening when they stopped being responsible about their sources, and every other animal started exhibiting mild-to-severe genetic deformities from inbreeding. The thyroid issues you describe are very likely yet another case of “Double Recessives Are Rarely A Good Thing.”
(sarcasm) Because it’s just too tough to periodically bring in new stock, or even mix the stock you have, when you can just keep litters together until nature takes its course. (/sarcasm)
1 + 1 = 3
For large values of 1, and in synergistic systems.
Also, the only UNPROVOKED dog attacks are in cases of Springer Rage, which is a neural disorder found in some breeds of spaniels.
I don’t think I can count you as any sort of dog person if you don’t know that no attack is really unprovoked, and especially if you can’t separate dog aggression from human aggression. :/
Your statement does work if you define “provoked” as “did something which the dog decided was a reason to attack.”
Such as “walking by when the dog was hungry and in a pack of its wild buddies.” Or “getting between a high-strung dog and the cat it wants to kill.” (I don’t think those mesh very well with your desired implications, though.)
But that definition fails because it’s utterly circular logic. Simplify “dogs only attack when provoked” + “provocation is anything which the dog decides is a reason to attack,” and you get “dogs only attack if they decide to attack.”
But not if you use the connotative definition of “provoked,” i.e. “did something which a normal person (not ‘an expert or a psychic’) should understand could make a normal dog (not ‘a hyper-aggressive dog’) believe they’re trying to harm it.” If you believe all dog attacks meet that criterion except in cases of Springer Rage, I have some prime beachfront property in Kansas to sell you.
no no no no…this is win! means baybeez is protected from the creepy menz who comes to the house. means baybeez gets lots of kisses and pony rides on the pibbles!
either that or the pibbles will make all the kids nap in a dogpile and snore really loud (troo story…)
Tis the wrong place for LOLspeak,but I agree.
Pit’s are good with kids,AS LONG AS they’re raised right.
But,any breed has the risk of having attitude problems,I mean my Dachound is meaner than my Pit and my Rottie put together.
The only risk with my Pit you take is getting glomped and licked to death XD
I find it a shame that when it comes to dogs such as Pits,Rotties,Dobermans,Mastiffs and guard dogs such as that you mostly hear the bad,when there is so much good to the breeds too.
But when it comes to the small breeds like Shi Tsu’s,Chihuahua’s,and such,you only hear how sweet they are,when the little breeds tend to have horrible attitude problems.
There’s a lot of good to drunk driving, too. The vast majority of the time, drunk drivers get home without killing anyone, and in some cases it’s safer than sleeping in your car in a bar’s parking lot.
But it’s still criminally negligent to take a significant risk of other people being hurt or killed, when a little common sense and precaution can avoid the situation altogether. Likewise keeping any potentially dangerous animal properly restrained.
Being lucky (“nothing bad has happened yet”) is not the same as being safe (“nothing bad will ever happen”).
*Dachshund
*Shih tzu
Little dogs only have “attitude problems” because many owners spoil them and treat them like accessories. Sadly, giving them a bad reputation. But, even they should have a sweet temperament, believe it or not. Rowdy, yes. Loud, some of them. Aggressive? Unacceptable according to breed standard.
Any dog breed can bite and attack. However, a Chihuahua can be punted across the room if it lunges at you in a fit of rage, whereas a 120 pound dog with a 32″ neck circumference can’t.
True story!
If you have a 120lb dog with a 32″ neck, you don’t have a pit bull.
APBT standard is males from 35-55 and females from 30-45 pounds. Those disgustingly huge things people sell as “pit bulls” are mixed with other breeds to make them that size (and often to encourage human aggression, which is not a normal APBT trait).
Most people that have biting Chihuahuas are more likely to run over and pick up “Pooky” and fuss over him than to correct their dog, never mind punt it.
You only need to look at these comments to see pit bull owners are just as wildly emphatic that their pets couldn’t possibly need correction. My favorite was the one who insisted pitbulls never attack unless “provoked,” and if you get attacked it must be your fault.
My favorite comment was from the guy who wildly misinterpreted the guy who said that dogs don’t attack without reason. Man, that guy will twist anything to make it look like he’s right and the original poster is stupid.
OH WAIT.
“There is no such thing as an unprovoked dog attack, that is pure myth and if you really read the clues, the dog was provoked or threatened enough to feel that it needed to defend itself. Most people can’t or refuse to read the clues, so they make the excuse of an unprovoked attack.”
Later gems from the same post include calling those who want pit bull restrictions “stupid” and “racist.”
And you say it was “wildly misinterpreted” to say that this person was claiming dogs don’t attack unprovoked? You, sir or madam, fail epically.
As do you for thinking that dogs do attack unprovoked. Like the post you’re quoting says, there is no such thing.
Just because you don’t know why it happened doesn’t mean there wasn’t a reason for it. There is always a reason.
Only if you define “provoked” as “did something which the dog decided was a reason to attack.” Such as “walk by when the dog was hungry and in a pack of its wild buddies.” Or “get between a high-strung dog and the cat it wants to kill.”
But that’s utterly circular logic. Simplify “dogs only attack when provoked” + “provocation is anything which the dog decides is a reason to attack,” and you get “dogs only attack if they decide to attack.”
A more rational definition of “provoked” would be “did something which a normal person should understand could make a normal dog believe they’re trying to harm it.” If you believe all dog attacks meet that criterion… you’ve moved beyond making excuses, and are simply indulging in pure fantasy.
“There is always a reason”? Sure, that’s true from a philosophical standpoint. But that includes reasons like “the dog attacked the small child because it looked like prey, and dogs aren’t that far-removed from their wolf ancestors.” I don’t think that meshes very well with your desired implications.
The word ‘provoke’ and it’s many meanings (your ‘rational’ one doesn’t happen to be listed, by the way):
* Main Entry: pro·voke
* Pronunciation: \prə-ˈvōk\
* Function: transitive verb
* Inflected Form(s): pro·voked; pro·vok·ing
* Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French *provoker, provocher, from Latin provocare, from pro- forth + vocare to call, from voc-, vox voice — more at pro-, voice
* Date: 14th century
1 a archaic : to arouse to a feeling or action b : to incite to anger
2 a : to call forth (as a feeling or action) : evoke b : to stir up purposely c : to provide the needed stimulus for
Dogs are not rational or irrational, they attack when provoked. The source of provocation can be anything. I have a lady with a Shiba Inu mix in one of my classes and her dog used to try and attack anyone and anything around her when she smelled cigarette smoke. We soon figured out that she did this because she once smelled cigarette smoke and then a rock got kicked up off the road and smacked her hard in the head forming what is known in the dag training world as a superstitious connection.
Anyone smoking around the dog provoked her, but they were not aware of it. The dog saw it as a perfectly legit reason to attack, though.
And your ’simplification’ should be “dogs only attack when given a reason to attack” as dogs don’t just randomly decide ‘Oh hey, that person looks tasty – I shall go attack them!’
You deliberately left out the primary definition, 1. to anger, enrage, exasperate, or vex. You then claimed definitions 2. and 3. were really 1. and 2.
The connotation of provoke is not that of the older definitions, but that of the first one. It arouses sympathy to say that someone was provoked into an attack; it arouses no sympathy to say that they decided (whether the decision was rational or irrational) to attack. You know this, which is why you persist in using the word “provoked” instead of “led to” or something similarly neutral. It makes them sound like innocent victims.
Dogs are not helpless unthinking creatures who are forced to respond to stimuli a la Pavlov’s experiment, they make decisions just as you or I do.
Umm, I ‘deliberately’ did nothing. The definition I got was copied directly from the Merriam Webster online dictionary. Way to accuse someone you don’t know of something they didn’t do in the first place! You’re a winner!
Also, your ‘first’ definition still fits within the parameters of what I was trying to say in the first place: the person on the receiving end of a dog attack did something “to anger, enrage, exasperate, or vex” – all of which are emotions that humans (and dogs) have no control over.
And dogs do not make decisions similar to what your or I do. Rational human beings (emphasis on the rational, because you’re quickly proving that you are not) weigh the pros and cons of a situation before they act. Dogs see a situation, assess what they feel to be a threat and respond.
No dog in the history of the world has thought, “Hmm… those people over there have a lot of guns and various other weapons and are trying to harm my master. My master is a lowlife that deals meth and trades in child pornography, though, so I’ll just let them come and take him.” No, what a dog thinks is, “Bad guys are trying to hurt me and/or my master, and/or a member of my pack! I will fight until they die!”
“Umm, I ‘deliberately’ did nothing. The definition I got was copied directly”
There’s more than one way to lie, as you just demonstrated. I didn’t say you didn’t copy it. What I said was that you deliberately copied the second and third definitions, and claimed they were the primary and secondary definitions. You deliberately chose to not copy the primary definition because it flew in the face of your claims.
“emotions that humans (and dogs) have no control over.”
We all have emotions, and most of us have some modicum of control over them. I guess you don’t, and are projecting onto others? But that does make it even more funny that you then turn around and call me irrational for disagreeing with you.
Try using the defense in court that humans have no control over their emotions of anger, vexment, etc, and therefore it’s not your fault that you tried to rip someone’s face off. Come back and let us know how that worked.
But back to the subject, dogs – they’re completely incapable of being good or bad, deciding to bite or not bite, they just react to stimuli a la Pavlov’s experiment?
The responsible pet owners on this board have a serious bone to pick with you – you’re claiming that dogs are an extreme hazard that shouldn’t be allowed in anyone’s home. That’s not true, but that is the logical conclusion your assertions lead to. If a dog were incapable of deciding “This short human keeps pulling my tail, which hurts, but I’ll be patient with it for now,” child fatalities would reach epic proportions instead of being rare exceptions.
Here’s an idea, instead of calling me a liar, which I am not, go to Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, type in the work ‘provoke’ and see what pops up! What I copied was exactly what was their. No cuts, no edits.
Humans don’t have control over whether or not they feel angry. They do, however, have control over how they react to that situation. Case in point, customers annoy, upset and anger me everyday. How do I deal with it? By smiling and nodding and helping them with whatever problem they might have. Human beings have ways of not letting their emotions get the best of them, dogs don’t come with that kind of wiring.
“The responsible pet owners on this board have a serious bone to pick with you – you’re claiming that dogs are an extreme hazard that shouldn’t be allowed in anyone’s home.” – Nope, never said that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. And, by the way, dogs are incapable of being either good or bad – that’s human based morality and does not apply to animals.
“If a dog were incapable of deciding “This short human keeps pulling my tail, which hurts, but I’ll be patient with it for now,” child fatalities would reach epic proportions instead of being rare exceptions.” – Dogs are capable of thinking of children as members of their pack, but only if introduced as such. In a pack, puppies are allowed to crawl on, bite and annoy the living daylights out of the older animals to a point. I never said dogs weren’t incapable of making decisions, I just said that they went about it in a different method than humans did. If you disagree with this statement, then you are more of a danger with a dog than someone who understands that dogs are *animals* and not human beings.
*there
Whoops, typed too fast and defaulted to a specific ‘their’.
http://www.dogsbite.org/bite-fatalities-2008.htm
It’s the hard facts people… Froggy is right, but those deaths occured because the owners were careless or ignorant to the fact that Pitbulls aren’t bred to be family dogs… they’re meant for killing/herding things MUCH MUCH larger than they are. They’re a fearless breed, and thusly have no shame in attacking humans if they feel threatened, or if their “pack” is threatened. Catch my drift?
Wrong. PIt bulls are extremely loyal to their owners by nature. HUMANS are the ones training them to bite people. It is not in their nature to be aggressive towards people. You think it’s a coincidence that people want pit bulls to be guard dogs, and by some miraculous coincidence they’re also the breed that bites the most?
If you simply don’t train a pit bull to bite people, THEY WON’T. It is that damn simple. And this is why breed bans are incredibly stupid. And also, look at those numbers you linked. 15 pit bull bite cases over an entire year. Out of how many millions of pit bulls in the US?
Oh yeah, clearly all pit bulls bite people. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Not that good at math or something? You can train ANY dog to bite people. There is nothing different about pit bulls except for the self-perpetuating idiot stigma surrounding them that makes everybody think pit bulls are vicious dogs, which makes people want them for guard dogs.
Dogsbite is a blatantly anti-pit site run by someone with a heavy bias and no brains. I wouldn’t quote a biased site if I were you.
Sad but those stats are way off. First, how many breeds are considered “pit bulls”? Most sites count between 5 and 10. Second, where do they get their stats? Most Animal Controls and newspapers will report any dog of a not obvious mid-to-large sized short-haired breed as a pit bull or pit bull mix. Some will even call obvious labs and boxers pit bulls.
Secondly, APBT were bred to be family dogs. They were known as “nanny dogs” for their ability to care for babies. They are more likely to be dog aggressive but actually LESS likely to be human aggressive than the most common “family breeds” (eg: labs and goldens). This is, of course, presuming the APBT is pure bred with good lineage, not the product of the two dogs that couldn’t be sold because they were too snappy or something bred out of a few pit mixes to be big and scary looking.
I’ve seen people call a PURE-BRED, SHOW DACHSHUND as a pit bull.
Some animal control officers can’t tell the difference between a working Lab and a pit bull.
Really.
That site makes up most of it’s statistics. And posts a lot of stories that have no proof backing it up. The creator of the site also can’t tell the difference between a pit bull and a terrier mix.
I’m sure the pit bulls would do a better job babysitting than that illiterate wench. People need to start laying off the pit bull issue. They are great dogs – very sweet. Most people are surprised when they actually meet one.
IS THIS MICHAEL VICK’S NEW HOUSE
All but two (that had to be put down because of medical reasons) of Michael Vick’s dogs went to loving families, one is even now a therapy dog.
You guys are the real fail! Pit bulls are not a breed, they are a type of dog – so of course “pit bulls” are responsible for the most dog bite fatalities; it’s like saying “large brown dogs” are a breed responsible for the most fatal attacks. ANY dog with a large head, a wide jaw, a wide chest, and a thin tail can be legally labeled a “pit bull” unless the dog has paperwork proving otherwise.
Pit bulls are bred to fight dogs, not people. They have to be excellent with humans or they aren’t even bred in the fighting ring because the handlers have to be able to pull the fighting dogs apart by hand without any risk of being bitten.
The logic in these comments is the fail. I’d give this thing five thumbs-up just for the silly comments!
You know not what you speak oft.
American Pit Bull Terrier = recognized registered breed
And they weren’t originally bred to fight each other, but to “bulldog” bulls (Bull-baiting) to seize an enraged bull by the nose and bring it to a standstill or if working cattle, to stop a hostile bovine trying to gore someone the way Ol’ Yeller did the cow that charged Travis in the movie.
Try looking up the etymology of “pit” bull – they were set against each other in a fighting pit. For that matter, the “bull” aspect comes from bullbaiting – it’s amazingly imaginative to call that “working cattle.”
What both of you are saying is that they were bred to be vicious and not loving lap dogs. Right?
Only if you consider clamping onto the snout of a bull to try to suffocate it so that your owner can win his wager “vicious.”
(sarcasm) It’s all in how you look at it… see, bull-baiting was about protecting cheering bystanders from being gored by the bull tied to a post. Bull-baiting is usually called a bloodsport in the same vein as dogfighting, but if you’re not a stupid pit bull hater then you’ll realize they were being sweet and gentle about it. (/sarcasm)
They were bred to be vicious towards the animals they were in the pit with, while, at the same time, being loving lap dogs as they were kept in homes with children. They were never bred to fight humans. Therefore, it is against the dog’s nature to be aggressive towards humans and it is always poor breeding or poor ownership that causes one to be aggressive.
I’m really not sure any more… are you being sarcastic (one of my favorite forms of humor), or did you seriously assert “They were bred to be vicious… while, at the same time, being loving lap dogs”?
American Staffordshire Terriers are the breed. American Pit Bull Terrier is practically the same dog as the Amstaff but a different strain used more in dogfighting while the Amstaff was a bull-baiter.
However, LEGALLY, many many many dogs and mixes can be considered “pit bulls.”
EPIC FAIL at pit bull history.
American staffordshire terriers are the AKC recognized breeds. American pit bull terriers are the UKC regognized breed. Two different kennel clubs. The Am staff was not a bull baiter because the Am staff was once the same breed as the APBT. In fact, my AKC book mentions it having once been known as the pit bull and the pit bull terrier. When pit bull fanciers tried to get the AKC to recognize the APBT, they refused. Saying they didn’t want to register a breed with pit bull in its name so they wouldn’t be associated with dog fighting. The same way they won’t register labradoodles today because they don’t want to be associated with puppy mills. They stood by their decision. That is, until Pete the Pup (who was an American pit bull, btw) became stuff of legend. They then decided to accept the breed, however, under a different name: American staffordshire terrier. (Pete was one of the first duel registered “pit bulls”) For this reason, teh American staffordshire and the APBT have almost IDENTICAL histories. Gee, I wonder why? They are both”pit bulls” however, the American staffordshire terrier is not even close to the APBT. Not anymore. The APBT has been bred for working purposes, the am staff for show. Creating a completely different look between the two breeds. The Am staff is bigger, the APBT is smaller.
If they do make their penises bigger, I’m not sure I want to know how it’s accomplished. (‘o’)
Fail, your fail is a fail and you, quite possibly, are a failure, as well. I fail to see the logic in your fail comments, and am therefore failing your fail.
*stamps comment with big, red failure stamp*
If a double fail is actually a win, then what is a triple… quintuple… septuple… octuple… BZZZZZTPOP!
I think my cortex just shorted out trying to analyze that much concatenation of fail. Ow.
*picks pieces of putrid pink grey matter off self*
Hey! Watch where you’re flinging that stuff!
Well, labs have killed more children than pit bull-type dogs.
Nice stereotype fail, Failblog.
intelligence of fail bloggers fail. they’re babysitting and selling puppies. the horrrorrr!
Fail in the sign is Pit Bulls, is too general a term, as there are multiple breeds referred to as “pit bulls”
Also pit bulls were very popular back in the day for how good they are with kids (being tolerant of hitting, pulling, etc) and how protective they are of kids as well. So double fail.
And then fail on everyone for making an opinion on the breed just because there are a bunch of people that use them for fighting, or as vicious guard dogs, or treat them like crap and don’t care enough to keep them somewhere where they can’t cause harm.
Poor pitbulls; having to put up with kids all day
Roger is right.
No fail here at all.
how is this a fail?.. I have a pitbull and she is a therapy dog for sick children!
its stuff like this that makes people think the breed is horrible
pits are some of the sweetest and brightest dogs out there and when raised properly they are freaking marshmallows!
It’s gotta be Photoshop. If this were real it would be “Pit Bull’s for sale!”
lol wat?
It’s not a fail at all period. The person that thinks it’s a fail is a biased idiot.
Seconded.
dont ban dogs ban stupid people
how redundine
ignore the speling
I’m surprised this has four and a half thumbs-ups… it’s not a fail at all. I’ve seen better fails with three thumbs-ups!
Yeah I don’t think anyone wants to babysit in a home that sells pitbulls. Yikes! I wonder if the owners of those signs realize how funny that is?
The puppies & their parents would probably make better babysitters than the advertiser.
Whether you are wary of pitbulls or not, to me this is a huge fail. I certainly would not want my child looked after by someone too daft to realise that with the generally bad reputation that pitbulls have in society (be it justified or not – not a debate I’m interested in) this is some seriously bad advertising. Just, seriously, get a grip on reality and advertise your puppies and your babysitting skills in two different places.
Also, since even all the pitbull-defenders are admitting that there are a ton of irresponsible pitbull owners around, I don’t care how sweet those puppies CAN be; I certainly wouldn’t trust any random pitbull owner with my kid (if I had one). No beef with the dog breed, just wary of the owners.
So yeah, fail.
Finally!
Someone wary of the OWNERS and not the DOGS!
That’s the problem,people who either willfully make the dog viscious,or who didn’t do their research and cannot raise the dog properly.
Ban stupid owners,not a breed.
Well, personally, I wouldn’t trust any random anyone with my kids – regardless of their breed of choice. If you’re trusting random people with your kids, you’re obviously doing something wrong.
Well, that is true.
Good thing I don’t have kids and don’t have to worry about where to put them.
Lol, same here!
I have two pitts and would trust my baby with them more than I would most people.
Amen!
I’ve had three pit bulls and none have ever shown even the slightest bit of aggression. Labeling an entire breed as dangerous and “evil” because of 15 or so animals is retarded. End of story.
Not All Pitbulls Are Bad Guys. Its The owners like michael vick and other dog fighters that dont take care of them and give them a bad name
I have a pit bull and trust her with my 3 little boys more than I trust most people with them. If someone is going to be concerned about taking their children to this place for child care, they should be more worried about the people in the house than about the dogs.
I am an avid pittie defender, but I will say this: I know you love and trust your dog and I know that you love and trust your kids, but I still would not trust them alone in a room together unless your ‘little boys’ are older than this post makes them appear.
I’m honestly not trying to bash you as a parent or you as a dog owner in any way, but I strongly believe that no child should be left alone with any dog before a certain age simply for safety reasons.
The same rule applies for pretty much any animal and any child: I know of a baby that was removed from a home because the ferret that was owned by the parents got out of its cage somehow in the middle of the night and mauled the baby before the parents could get to him.
Maybe the pit bulls are doing the baby sitting? Sign me up!
Pibbles sitting on babies? Sounds like a bad idea to me! Unless the baby’s daddy is Wayne Szalinski and now the child is as tall as a 5 story building. Then the pibble could sit on him…
Why is this a fail? Pitbulls are a family dog and I would leave any child alone with mine. She would just lick them to death. It’s the owners that cause dogs to be a problem. If this person is responsible and a good parent/dog owner there would be NOTHING wrong with the two being in the same home. Also if they are a responsible baby sitter the kids wouldn’t be left alone with a litter of puppies due to what the children would do not puppies.
pitbulls are family dogs and are great with children. stop listening to the media. this is not a fail unless ur ignorant towards pits. if there was a pitbulls for sale. poodle sitting service. maybe a fail but still
I really dont see how this is a fail. So what, they are selling pitbulls. Just because some idiots decided to teach pitbulls to fight doesn’t mean that all of them are. According to some peoples logic, i guess that means that all Saint Benards are monsters because of Cujo.
Thank you, Thank you. I have a Pit and he is the best. Blame the Owner, not the dog!
My first dog growing up was an American Pitt Bull Terrier. My parents got Bobby a year or so before I was born and I grew up with him until some @$$h0le decided to run him over on the side of the road (almost took out my mother too).
It’s been 20 years and three dogs later, and I still have never found another dog as sweet and devoted as Bobby was. I still miss him
pit bulls are actually some of the best family dogs out there, they’re only dangerous when abused, those kids would probably have lots of fun with those dogs
haha i live about a minute from where this sign used to be!
we sent it to headlines for jay leno but he didn’t use it lol.
Maybe he/she sold children as pit bulls.
I don’t understand how this is a fail…unless they’re like my friend’s pit bull, who might lick you to death.
Pit bulls even have the nickname nanny dog. The fact that this is on fail blog shows ignorance. Punish the deed not the breed! Its people that make the dogs fight and/or vicious they arnt just born that way!!!!!!
Why is this a fail? There’s nothing wrong with pit bulls, other than thugs and thug wannabes who abuse them and/or train them to fight. If pit bulls vanished today, the thugs and thug wannabes would find another breed to abuse.
they are mans best friend if we just take good care of them nicely we will all have great bonding with our animals.
dog attack
There’s something really Darwinian about this sign. I just can’t figure out what!
Do I sence some Dog Whisperer fans out there? Pack Leader FTW!
Спасибо Аист мультфильм / Спасибо, Аист!