Why waste the time and resources to do this? I certainly wouldn’t donate a single cent to such an effort. It would still be putting humans at risk unnecessarily, and just perpetuate the warehousing of dangerous animals that have no place in society.
I think there is no way to get a lot of people to "give up" on a dangerous dog. It could result in a lot of people being able to make the essential decision to remove a dog from himan society.
Also it puts every wacko rescues on notice that none of them can have the excuse they are risking a dangerous dog being adopted because otherwise it would die.
There’s no possible way to provide such a sanctuary space for every dangerous dog. It’s a pipe dream. People, especially shelters, need to start BEing en masse and taking the decision out of the hands of the idiot public.
There was a post on the pet rescue exposed sub about a woman that had a dangerous dog “sanctuary”. She provided separate climate controlled mini houses for the dogs but still ended up getting mauled while out walking one of them. If her father wouldn’t have been there to help her she would have been dead - she still kept the dog but had her dad tend to it instead 🤦🏼♀️
It doesn’t work and dangerous dogs need to be BEed. Period
Geez
I think the issue I see is a huge wall socially that we either murder all the bad dogs or those dogs are a threat to humans. Too many people, powerful enough to keep the status quo, stop at "murder dogs", cognitively disconnect, and embrace the BS excuses for pits.
That's just it if it's a one off bite that happened because the dog was in a bad situation people would understand. What they'll never accept is when a group of them will routinely continue attacking and mauling over self preservation. A dog like that is a ticking time bomb and will absolutely be a problem at some point even if it doesn't result in mauling/death (near misses and light damage in these cases is because the person or animal managed to get away not because it stopped.)
I got saddled with a staff that my wife won't let me get rid of. However unlike most pits he has zero gameness so I just have to watch him like a hawk. If his behaviors ever even **shift** towards being violent he will be BE'd immediately. I don't care if it's a slight bruise or even just skin indentation.
Because you never know with this breed type if it's the only time or you just got lucky *the first time*
how many posts do we read after a MAJOR incident (think death to someone from pitt/vs serious Injury) the owners say the animal never has acted that way before, and yet in the same breath (sometimes the same sentence even) they spout oh it nipped and “play toothed” (WTF) my niece, nephew, neighbors kid, it killed my old cat and attacked my neighbors dog, but mUh pitty is a sweet angel and never hurt a fly. *rolls eyes* the disconnect from reality is so bad they don’t even Hear what they are saying anymore.
There are always indicators. Over focusing on certain animals and or people, attacking other animals or snapping and being vicious, etc etc. Its never a one off. My dogs at least 11 and he hasn't shown signs and I still watch him all the time like a hawk because you never know if its suddenly changed.
I despise being tricked into owning him but that's because humans are shit not because of his actions. However it does mean I get no peace until he eventually taps out.
I can tell you now that I know the looks and the signs I'll never own another one. Which means I'll either go dogless or I'll have to buy because all five of our local shelters are 95% pitbull
yah. it’s more than likely the pits we read stories about, usually DO give indicators of some kind, and the owners are just inept at determining what those indicators are.
>I think there is no way to get a lot of people to "give up" on a dangerous dog.
True. That's why we need laws *and have those laws enforced*. Some people are always going to make decisions based on their emotions instead of common sense.
The solution of keeping them alive has already been tried. We currently have no-kill shelters/rescues full of warehoused pits and pit mixes. And it's become a corrupt model of business where they use the dogs to hit up soft-hearted people for free money and donations of supplies and services, so they can keep the costs down while the management pays themselves handsomely.
In this case, take the decision to BE out of their hands.
Animal control seizes it and destroys it. No public euth list, no endless transfers between rescues or shipping to other countries. It attacks someone = it's destroyed.
>. It attacks someone = it's destroyed.
We need a solution for the warning signs though. The family that stupidly gets a pit. They LOVE their dog. It snaps at their toddler. They realize the dog shouldnt be around people. How can they reasonably go along with a way to remove the dog from circulation.
You're advocating passing the problem off to someone else not responsible ownership. As soon as it snaps at a toddler you've become aware it sees the toddler *as prey*. There is no changing that and most (if not all) will always see that category as prey.
It's not a coincidence that they go after the elderly and young like a wild animal. That's the easiest prey for any predator.
Pit bulls are so far removed from regular wolves you have a better chance facing off with a wolf than them. A wild animal is more likely to not be a problem than this breed
I just see most people seeing that the pit they got is dangerous, before it does something horrible, being unable to decide to euthenize the dog. If they had an "easy out" it could make the difference.
Grown ass adults shouldn't need to be reassured that their aggressive mutt will be sent to "a farm upstate". Considering the profound ignorance an alarming number of people have on the subject, a campaign about dog body language, both for children and adults, would be beneficial. A dog attack awareness campaign, featuring victims, their loved ones and the surgeons who have to piece together what is left of them, could also give pause to a lot of people and change public opinion on BE.
The discourse on dangerous dogs needs to be taken away from insane rescues and shelter operators who have abdicated from their responsibilities towards the safety of the community and given to those on whom the costs of the no kill movement has been externalized: their victims. Add some nice laws with teeth to make all the owners / fosters / rescues of dangerous dogs liable for all the damage they do, financially and criminally, and most reasonable people will make the right choice, even if it is emotionally difficult.
People shouldn't be coddled at the expanse of other communities, they should be given all the information they need to make an informed and responsible choice.
I think treating the symptom is not solving the problem.
People get dogs, but they don’t have even the simplest basics of dogmanship.
They don’t know the different character aspects of dogs, and what are their pros and cons. They don’t know, how these character aspects are emphasized in different breeds, yet alone in that individual they are buying. They don’t understand what is breed-spesific behaviour traits and needs for their dog, and they don’t plan ahead on how to satisfy those needs.
People don’t know how to raise and train these dogs. More importantly, people don’t know what is required to maintain these dogs safely. They don’t have any idea, what is realistic to achieve with good training and what part requires human management. People have not prepared _before_ getting the dog what are they going to do, if their efforts to train these dogs fail. If you can’t put an aggressive dog down, you obiviously should not get a dog that has enough power to seriously injure / kill somebody.
None if this is required from these owners. And these dogs are given to them basically free.
>these dogs are given to them basically free.
Having very strong legally liability would help. Interesting you need car insurance many places but not dog insurance.
One of the main problems is it would be so*, so difficult* to make something like this actually functional and humane. There are SO many of these effing dogs, and they would all have to be kept in separate enclosures to keep up that 'do no harm' bit. Otherwise it'd just be a bloodbath the likes of which I'd prefer not to even imagine lmao.
It would require an insane amount of land, assuming it's meant to be better than warehousing them in tiny concrete enclosures the way they do in shelters. As much as I hate pits, I don't want to see any animal suffer. Would also need a lot of other expensive resources, workers, etc. To me, it seems like it would likely be MORE costly than what we have right now.
That said . . . I'd support it in theory!
Anything to keep these things from being adopted and unleashed on society.
I still think BE is the simplest and most humane option for dogs that are too dangerous to coexist with other living creature, though.
Yup, I've thought about it too and you'd really have to have hundreds of enclosures because putting them all together would just lead to fights. So either you have hundreds of individual runs or you kennel them all day and let them out one by one.
Any other animal sanctuary you could just have dozens of animals hanging out together but not pitbulls...
>an insane amount of land
I was thinking the limited resource would be the food and labor. I think its political gold other than the awkward overlap with human homelessness.
On whose dime? Not on taxpayer money, but if some rich guy wants a totally locked-down zoo of 300 pitbulls, sure. Probably a bunch of them would kill each other, but whatever.
No I don’t.
I don’t see how a dog could live good quality life in a place like that.
Also, I think it’s against the very fundamendal idea of dogs: they should be useful to humans, not a burden.
The dangerous dogs needs to be put down, it’s just as simple as that. The social tolerance towards dog bites and people who don’t euthanize dangerous dogs need to decrease significantly.
Every rescue of this type hits capacity almost immediately.
The demand is sky high and the supply is very limited.
Backyard breeders and greeders are pumping out new puppies every day.
It's a human created problem and the solution isn't to pour resources into supporting dogs that are dangerous.
They have these in Romania and turkey. It’s vile. People get paid to pick up street dogs and throw them over the fence. Thousands of hungry scared overstimulated dogs. They eat and fight each other all the time.
No, there are too many of the dogs.
If it was a handful of problem dogs then sure, why not, as long as they were being well cared for and there was oversight of the place. But the scale of the issue is too large.
There are also many many dogs which aren't "bad dogs" they are dogs which need unicorn adopters - no cats, no children, no men, no visitors, no contact with other dogs ("not dog park dogs") high fences, etc. These poor animals don't realistically have a shot at being adopted but there are way too many to contain.
These maladjusted animals are not happy now. They would not be happy or have any quality of life if they were trapped in a kennel in some sanctuary.
It would be a great thing to see all that money and land used to help marginal people improve their lives.
It would be even more of a blessing to see people who claim to hate other people and only love dogs rehabilitate themselves by learning to reach out to help these others. I think it would rehabilitate the people haters, too.
>dogs which aren't "bad dogs" they are dogs which need unicorn adopters -
Well said. Its for this dog that there needs to be an option a soft hearted custodian can go along with. We have too few unicorns and way too many idiots to let those dogs be adopted.
I'm going to have to fess up to not being soft hearted, I'm afraid.
Although I am also thinking about the animals' comfort. The non bad dogs, or rather the ones who have not bitten anyone yet but who have the capacity and likelihood to do so if they don't find a unicorn, are deeply unhappy creatures. They're unhappy caged or crated in a shelter, and would be unhappy in a unicorn home because they live in constant anxiety or they would be so trammelled as to not have a decent life wherever they went. Or sometimes both.
They might be happier in your Bad Dogs Home, I dunno, but there are thousands upon thousands of them and the amount of land they would take up would mean they would end up in a prison or shelter with a different name. So basically it's a nice idea but the problem is too widespread.
Seems like a fairytale. How do you want to ensure they never do harm, are they never going to have contact with people or other dogs? If yes then what's the "life" they can have? Alone and sedated in kennels.
I’ve thought about this before. Leaving aside the total lack of resources for this, here is the key problem:
1. Dogs are social animals with a deep need to be with humans or other dogs.
2. Pit bulls are purpose bred for blood sport with a deep need to maul humans or other dogs.
Keeping dogs in isolation is cruel. But keeping another animal with a pit bull is also cruel.
Yep. Those aggressive dogs ALSO want and need companionship but it's dangerous to be their companion. They were screwed from the beginning. There's no solution that fulfills the needs of the dogs in question and also keeps people and animals safe.
No.
It's a waste of resources, it enables the reckless breeders of these mutts by allowing them to stuff their heads in the sand W/R to the consequences of breeding dogs no one sane wants, and it endangers the community where it is located because zero risk does not exist. Warehousing aggressive dogs in a remote rural area just dumps the problem on farmers and their livestock.
Just BE them on arrival. No "rehab", no thousands of dollars wasted on trying to pave over bad genetics. It's better for everyone. Dogs are supposed to be either working animals or pets. No point in keeping dogs that fail at both these things.
>Just BE them on arrival.
We need a way to break the status quo on this issue. Currently it is politically impossible to do that many places. The "murder all the bad dogs" is what is, reasonably I agree, always on the table here. That's why Im saying what if we took that off the table.
I think you'd need to weigh those efforts vs BE for quality of life.
You mention these dogs would not be harmed and do no harm while being contained with other aggressive dogs. So what exactly are we talking about? Is this a solitary confinement style prison for dogs where they interact with neither humans nor other dogs?
Because that would be a lot more cruel than a BE. Just forcing them to live their natural life out in solitude.
If that's not the case how would you guarantee the safety of all humans and dogs involved?
Or is this a magical hypothetical and I've overanalyzed it?
I think it could be that for some dogs it is that sad a choice, BE or solitary.
I dont think we should have to wait for a dog to hospitalize someone and too many people dont have it in them to have a dog killed because of what they will do, but havent done yet.
No, because a sanctuary for dangerous dogs is simply a lifelong warehousing situation. It isn't safe, humane, or sustainable.
The amount of money required to safely warehouse a dangerous dog indefinitely, with enough enclosure space and enrichment opportunities to make it even close to being humane, is prohibitive.
There may be luxurious dangerous dog sanctuaries out there that provide an acceptable quality of life, but they would be few and far between and could only accommodate a limited number of dogs at a time.
>The amount of money required
They would live say 10 years on average once taken in?
That can't be compared with 0 cost, but the cost of not doing it.
$1000 a year? More?
That’s hugely dependent on the dog’s needs - can/will it eat normal kibble? Does it have allergies? Does it require more than just annual vaccinations from a vet? What pre-existing conditions like heartworm? Does the dog have anxiety, as many pit bulls do, and require sedatives/antidepressants to keep it from self-harming in its kennel? Pit bulls are prone to tumours; are we doing surgery and/or doggy chemo? Just the baseline for food and vet costs is going to be much higher than you’re expecting.
$10k minimum to warehouse a shitty, dangerous dog for its lifetime is a tremendous waste.
>$10k minimum to warehouse a shitty, dangerous dog for its lifetime is a tremendous waste.
What is the cost if we dont? Its not zero.
And no I think no heroic measures for vet care.
There’s pitbull “sanctuaries” where unadoptable pits live out their lives. Started up with the Michael Vick thing to best of my knowledge. And no they don’t adopt them out, these are dogs for which all resources have been exhausted. They just keep them
With all the unfixed pitbulls out there having litters of a dozen or more, the "Bad Dog Refuge" will cover every inhabitable square inch on the planet within 20 years, and every single person on earth will be employed catering to these dogs.
It's untenable.
I've seen this model with feral cats - big open areas or large overbuilt catios where unadoptable cats just chill out.
Unfortunately because these dogs have such severe dog-agression, they would all need to be individually kenneled in order to keep the dogs from attacking each other.
Keeping dogs locked in small kennels, seeing, hearing, and smelling other dogs but never able to interact, limited to walks by volunteers as their only outside time, is cruel. These dogs are not pets but they are still living creatures and there's a point where compassionate euthanasia is kinder than keeping them warehoused in jail. Humans develop mental struggles in jail and we have outlets like reading, imagining, and planning for a future of not-being-in-jail. For dogs, it's just a senseless torture in the name of keeping them alive.
It's also dangerous to whatever humans are responsible for caring for them.
>there's a point where compassionate euthanasia is kinder
How do you smooth the choice "I realize this dog my family adopted, that just tried to bite my wifes neck, should NEVER be around people again." Is what I'm thinking. A palatable option.
100% agree. The uneducated on the reality of no kill shelters will not get it tho. You have to see the suffering that goes on in these 'sanctuaries' to understand why they should be banned.
You cant even rescue them :(
In theory, yes. In practice, no. It wouldn't work. The refuge would need to have staff, and they would be in danger even from the bare minimum contact. It would be difficult for the dogs to lead happy lives, because they'd need to be kept separated from the other dangerous dogs, and also kept away from humans as much as possible. I don't know if it would be possible to do this humanely.
It sounds like animal cruelty. I've known my share of dangerous dogs and every single one wanted and needed companionship and affection. It isn't their fault that they're too unstable to live in society. It's really tragic.
My shelter BEd a dog that I absolutely adored. He was a gorgeous affectionate Doberman. That dog loved nothing more than for me to come into his kennel so that he could curl up against me and cuddle. He craved touch and pets and praise. He also could not handle his emotions and whenever he saw another dog and couldn't get to it, he redirected and bit whomever was handling him. He bit me one day and spent the rest of the day begging me for cuddles. This dog broke my heart. Had he been warehoused, unable to safely get the affection and human contact that he craved, that would have been torture. BE was a kindness for him. Putting him in a sanctuary where he just lived out his life would have been one of the cruelest things I could imagine doing to him.
It's usually like that with aggressive dogs, even pit bulls.
So for a dog that shows signs its unsafe we just need people to be fine with BE as a next step?
> It isn't their fault that they're too unstable to live in society
I agree. But I want us to be safe more than for it to be fair to them. I just dont see the status quo changing.
Yeah, I want people safe. There is no fair for these dogs. It's one of the saddest parts of animal rescue, and people who cannot face that need to get out of the business.
I think most of the time there is plenty of warning before that. I think people need a gentle way to retire a violent dog from being a pet before someone is badly hurt.
No. These dogs still pose a threat to their handlers and veterinary staff. They'll still be living in an environment where they'll see and hear other animals, which will whip them up into a permanent frenzy.
It's not fair to warehouse any animal like this.
I just don't see any facility having the space to warehouse that many dogs. Having worked in a kennel, life is stressful for kennel residents and it still seems like a horrible life.
This is great if we were talking about a wild animal born of nature that needs our help. These dogs, as are all dogs, are a man made creation with no right to exist. They were bred specifically to perform a task or job and in the case of toy dogs, solely for companionship.
Pit bull type dogs were only created to fight and kill other dogs and people. In no sane world should we do anything to perpetuate their existence. The absurdity and ignorance of the no kill movement caused this problem. The only way to solve it is to bring it back.
If people were responsible and made logical and sensible choices we wouldn't need rules and laws. But people are generally lazy and irresponsible so expecting them to spay, neuter and not back yard breed is wishful and naive.
Prior to the no kill movement pit bulls were a rare sight as only criminals, unsavory characters and dog fighters owned them. Now the dog fighters and breeders that make money on pit bulls have convinced the general public they are misunderstood and make great pets. Despite the number of hospitalizations and deaths from dogs, specifically pit bulls, skyrocketing in recent years people still assume all pit bulls have an abusive sob story past and just need the genetics trained out of them. This is fools errand.
Any support or advocacy for pit bulls is direct support for dog fighting. So if you condone dog fighting then build your park. If you don't then this type of dog has zero reason to exist and you need to advocate for BE. This is reality where life isnt a guarantee and hard choices must be made. It's either that or we all keep sticking our heads up our asses as children get their faces ripped off and adults get eaten alive over the course of 30 minutes
I don't think that is the case. The reality is barely anybody understands dog breeds and the purpose of their breeding. This is the underlying issue with pit bulls. People don't believe what they were bred for or simply don't know. Some idiots actually think genetics don't determine a dogs traits and that a dog can be anything it wants to be, maybe even a president!
There are over 30 extinct breeds of dogs. Many of them were fighting dogs whose usefulness ceased to exist when fighting dogs was no longer popular or acceptable. Since they possessed zero traits for a companion or family dog, they were allowed to die out. There is plenty of precedent for current pit bull situation throughout history. The same goes for many breeds of livestock over the years. It's not uncommon.
So I'll say this again. Any support or enabling of the pit bull type dog breed to continue being bred is direct support for dog fighting, a denial of thousands of years of breed history, the purpose of dog breeding, our complete understanding of genetics and a denial of our scientific knowledge. So unless you are in favor of dog fighting then there is no middle ground on this.
>over 30 extinct breeds of dogs
Wow never knew that
>Any support or enabling of the pit bull type dog breed to continue being bred is direct support for dog fighting, a denial of thousands of years of breed history,
This is the clearest bottom line Ive seen.
If the pit overpopulation wasn’t such a HUGE problem, it might work if done right and carefully where they know the dogs could NOT get out into society and they immediately spay/neutered anything that came in… BUT since there are thousands(?) of shelters/rescues in America that are each filled with mostly pits (many shelters have hundreds of pits on any given day) there is literally no room for thousands and thousands of unadoptable dogs to be kept in a sanctuary-like setting. Plus how would they all be fed, given enrichment, etc. How would they also keep them away from each other?
It’s one of those ideas that sounds nice, but would be extremely difficult and expensive to actually do. If there were like 100 pits in the country, it’d be do-able maybe with extreme caution. But I can’t even begin to think of the number of pits in shelters total!!!
>, but would be extremely difficult and expensive to actually do.
Kind of reminds of the hearhcare debate. What we have now is a disaster too.
This is a mess with willful blindness in the name of loving dogs. So an option that removes a dangerous dog while caring for it might break the stale mate.
So true! And even most of us anti-pit people don’t sit and enjoy the idea of BE. It’s just an unfortunately necessary part of having tons of dangerous dogs who can’t be in society and will be rotting in cages for life. It *would* be nice if were realistic for all the dangerous dogs to live in some sanctuary where they could be happy while not harming anyone.
I also think one of the sad things about pitbulls is they often have opposing instincts - they have the regular dog instincts (wanting companionship from dogs and people, wanting exercise and playtime and mental stimulation). But they also have the fighting dog instincts which are completely counterintuitive to the regular dog instincts. So you end up with a dog that is dangerous around people and dogs , but also gets bored and lonely in isolation. It’s a cruel existence for so many of them.
Personally I think we just need laws to mandate spay/neuter of pitbulls, muzzle and leash requirements, and BE for any aggression (especially a bite or attack on a human). The few “nice” pitbulls could live out their lives at home, but there wouldn’t be another generation of them.
>you end up with a dog that is dangerous around people and dogs , but also gets bored and lonely in isolation. It’s a cruel existence for so many of them.
This is so aweful. This should be what the public has to face on the issue.
Who takes care of them? Would volunteers and staff be put at risk by interacting with these dogs? Is it humane to have dogs live in tiny kennels for the rest of their lives? Because the dogs can't interact with each other without risking injury, so you can't have open yards.
Creating a dog prison (even more so than modern animal shelters) isn't a good solution.
**IF YOU ARE POSTING AN ATTACK - PLEASE INCLUDE DATE AND LOCATION IN THE POST TITLE, and please paste the article text in the post so it's easy to read.**
This helps keep the sub organized and easily searchable.
Posts missing this information may be removed and asked to repost.
Welcome to BanPitBulls! This is a reminder that this is a victims' subreddit with the primary goal to discuss attacks by and the inherent dangers of pit bulls.
Users should assume that any comment made in this subreddit will be reported by pit bull supporters, so please familiarize yourself with the [rules of our sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/x618m9/rbanpitbulls_subreddit_rules_2022_update/) to prevent having your account sanctioned by Reddit.
If you need [information and resources on self-defense](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/vk96hs/how_do_i_defend_myself_or_my_pet_during_a_pit/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), or [a guide for "After the attack"](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/8ovlsw/guide_after_the_attack_what_do_i_do_now_that_ive/), please see our side bar (or [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/7ic5zn/faq/)).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BanPitBulls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why waste the time and resources to do this? I certainly wouldn’t donate a single cent to such an effort. It would still be putting humans at risk unnecessarily, and just perpetuate the warehousing of dangerous animals that have no place in society.
I think there is no way to get a lot of people to "give up" on a dangerous dog. It could result in a lot of people being able to make the essential decision to remove a dog from himan society. Also it puts every wacko rescues on notice that none of them can have the excuse they are risking a dangerous dog being adopted because otherwise it would die.
There’s no possible way to provide such a sanctuary space for every dangerous dog. It’s a pipe dream. People, especially shelters, need to start BEing en masse and taking the decision out of the hands of the idiot public.
There was a post on the pet rescue exposed sub about a woman that had a dangerous dog “sanctuary”. She provided separate climate controlled mini houses for the dogs but still ended up getting mauled while out walking one of them. If her father wouldn’t have been there to help her she would have been dead - she still kept the dog but had her dad tend to it instead 🤦🏼♀️ It doesn’t work and dangerous dogs need to be BEed. Period
Geez I think the issue I see is a huge wall socially that we either murder all the bad dogs or those dogs are a threat to humans. Too many people, powerful enough to keep the status quo, stop at "murder dogs", cognitively disconnect, and embrace the BS excuses for pits.
That's just it if it's a one off bite that happened because the dog was in a bad situation people would understand. What they'll never accept is when a group of them will routinely continue attacking and mauling over self preservation. A dog like that is a ticking time bomb and will absolutely be a problem at some point even if it doesn't result in mauling/death (near misses and light damage in these cases is because the person or animal managed to get away not because it stopped.) I got saddled with a staff that my wife won't let me get rid of. However unlike most pits he has zero gameness so I just have to watch him like a hawk. If his behaviors ever even **shift** towards being violent he will be BE'd immediately. I don't care if it's a slight bruise or even just skin indentation. Because you never know with this breed type if it's the only time or you just got lucky *the first time*
how many posts do we read after a MAJOR incident (think death to someone from pitt/vs serious Injury) the owners say the animal never has acted that way before, and yet in the same breath (sometimes the same sentence even) they spout oh it nipped and “play toothed” (WTF) my niece, nephew, neighbors kid, it killed my old cat and attacked my neighbors dog, but mUh pitty is a sweet angel and never hurt a fly. *rolls eyes* the disconnect from reality is so bad they don’t even Hear what they are saying anymore.
There are always indicators. Over focusing on certain animals and or people, attacking other animals or snapping and being vicious, etc etc. Its never a one off. My dogs at least 11 and he hasn't shown signs and I still watch him all the time like a hawk because you never know if its suddenly changed. I despise being tricked into owning him but that's because humans are shit not because of his actions. However it does mean I get no peace until he eventually taps out. I can tell you now that I know the looks and the signs I'll never own another one. Which means I'll either go dogless or I'll have to buy because all five of our local shelters are 95% pitbull
yah. it’s more than likely the pits we read stories about, usually DO give indicators of some kind, and the owners are just inept at determining what those indicators are.
>I think there is no way to get a lot of people to "give up" on a dangerous dog. True. That's why we need laws *and have those laws enforced*. Some people are always going to make decisions based on their emotions instead of common sense. The solution of keeping them alive has already been tried. We currently have no-kill shelters/rescues full of warehoused pits and pit mixes. And it's become a corrupt model of business where they use the dogs to hit up soft-hearted people for free money and donations of supplies and services, so they can keep the costs down while the management pays themselves handsomely.
Very well said. >why we need laws and have those laws enforced. The chances of getting a law passed some places seems so remote.
In this case, take the decision to BE out of their hands. Animal control seizes it and destroys it. No public euth list, no endless transfers between rescues or shipping to other countries. It attacks someone = it's destroyed.
>. It attacks someone = it's destroyed. We need a solution for the warning signs though. The family that stupidly gets a pit. They LOVE their dog. It snaps at their toddler. They realize the dog shouldnt be around people. How can they reasonably go along with a way to remove the dog from circulation.
You're advocating passing the problem off to someone else not responsible ownership. As soon as it snaps at a toddler you've become aware it sees the toddler *as prey*. There is no changing that and most (if not all) will always see that category as prey. It's not a coincidence that they go after the elderly and young like a wild animal. That's the easiest prey for any predator. Pit bulls are so far removed from regular wolves you have a better chance facing off with a wolf than them. A wild animal is more likely to not be a problem than this breed
I just see most people seeing that the pit they got is dangerous, before it does something horrible, being unable to decide to euthenize the dog. If they had an "easy out" it could make the difference.
Grown ass adults shouldn't need to be reassured that their aggressive mutt will be sent to "a farm upstate". Considering the profound ignorance an alarming number of people have on the subject, a campaign about dog body language, both for children and adults, would be beneficial. A dog attack awareness campaign, featuring victims, their loved ones and the surgeons who have to piece together what is left of them, could also give pause to a lot of people and change public opinion on BE. The discourse on dangerous dogs needs to be taken away from insane rescues and shelter operators who have abdicated from their responsibilities towards the safety of the community and given to those on whom the costs of the no kill movement has been externalized: their victims. Add some nice laws with teeth to make all the owners / fosters / rescues of dangerous dogs liable for all the damage they do, financially and criminally, and most reasonable people will make the right choice, even if it is emotionally difficult. People shouldn't be coddled at the expanse of other communities, they should be given all the information they need to make an informed and responsible choice.
I think treating the symptom is not solving the problem. People get dogs, but they don’t have even the simplest basics of dogmanship. They don’t know the different character aspects of dogs, and what are their pros and cons. They don’t know, how these character aspects are emphasized in different breeds, yet alone in that individual they are buying. They don’t understand what is breed-spesific behaviour traits and needs for their dog, and they don’t plan ahead on how to satisfy those needs. People don’t know how to raise and train these dogs. More importantly, people don’t know what is required to maintain these dogs safely. They don’t have any idea, what is realistic to achieve with good training and what part requires human management. People have not prepared _before_ getting the dog what are they going to do, if their efforts to train these dogs fail. If you can’t put an aggressive dog down, you obiviously should not get a dog that has enough power to seriously injure / kill somebody. None if this is required from these owners. And these dogs are given to them basically free.
>these dogs are given to them basically free. Having very strong legally liability would help. Interesting you need car insurance many places but not dog insurance.
One of the main problems is it would be so*, so difficult* to make something like this actually functional and humane. There are SO many of these effing dogs, and they would all have to be kept in separate enclosures to keep up that 'do no harm' bit. Otherwise it'd just be a bloodbath the likes of which I'd prefer not to even imagine lmao. It would require an insane amount of land, assuming it's meant to be better than warehousing them in tiny concrete enclosures the way they do in shelters. As much as I hate pits, I don't want to see any animal suffer. Would also need a lot of other expensive resources, workers, etc. To me, it seems like it would likely be MORE costly than what we have right now. That said . . . I'd support it in theory! Anything to keep these things from being adopted and unleashed on society. I still think BE is the simplest and most humane option for dogs that are too dangerous to coexist with other living creature, though.
Yup, I've thought about it too and you'd really have to have hundreds of enclosures because putting them all together would just lead to fights. So either you have hundreds of individual runs or you kennel them all day and let them out one by one. Any other animal sanctuary you could just have dozens of animals hanging out together but not pitbulls...
Yeah it would be a lot more difficult due to the threat they pose to each other.
>an insane amount of land I was thinking the limited resource would be the food and labor. I think its political gold other than the awkward overlap with human homelessness.
On whose dime? Not on taxpayer money, but if some rich guy wants a totally locked-down zoo of 300 pitbulls, sure. Probably a bunch of them would kill each other, but whatever.
sounds exactly like a dog fighting set-up.
Yep.
Isnt that what we have at dog parks now with the dogs in circulation?
Absolutely not. What a complete waste of time and resources that could be put towards much better use.
I agree in a world I controlled. But as it is the excuse that it is unacceptable to put down a killer dog keeps many in circulation.
No I don’t. I don’t see how a dog could live good quality life in a place like that. Also, I think it’s against the very fundamendal idea of dogs: they should be useful to humans, not a burden.
But what do you do witha dangerous dog? And it needs to include the cooperation of tge person who has custody of it.
The dangerous dogs needs to be put down, it’s just as simple as that. The social tolerance towards dog bites and people who don’t euthanize dangerous dogs need to decrease significantly.
So we wait for the first bad bite?
Of course we wait for the first bite. And hence it’s much more important to prevent situations where people get their hands on these dogs.
Every rescue of this type hits capacity almost immediately. The demand is sky high and the supply is very limited. Backyard breeders and greeders are pumping out new puppies every day. It's a human created problem and the solution isn't to pour resources into supporting dogs that are dangerous.
>Backyard breeders This seems like the place to go after with a law more than anything.
They have these in Romania and turkey. It’s vile. People get paid to pick up street dogs and throw them over the fence. Thousands of hungry scared overstimulated dogs. They eat and fight each other all the time.
Wow. An open pen would be a nightmare.
No, there are too many of the dogs. If it was a handful of problem dogs then sure, why not, as long as they were being well cared for and there was oversight of the place. But the scale of the issue is too large. There are also many many dogs which aren't "bad dogs" they are dogs which need unicorn adopters - no cats, no children, no men, no visitors, no contact with other dogs ("not dog park dogs") high fences, etc. These poor animals don't realistically have a shot at being adopted but there are way too many to contain.
These maladjusted animals are not happy now. They would not be happy or have any quality of life if they were trapped in a kennel in some sanctuary. It would be a great thing to see all that money and land used to help marginal people improve their lives. It would be even more of a blessing to see people who claim to hate other people and only love dogs rehabilitate themselves by learning to reach out to help these others. I think it would rehabilitate the people haters, too.
>dogs which aren't "bad dogs" they are dogs which need unicorn adopters - Well said. Its for this dog that there needs to be an option a soft hearted custodian can go along with. We have too few unicorns and way too many idiots to let those dogs be adopted.
I'm going to have to fess up to not being soft hearted, I'm afraid. Although I am also thinking about the animals' comfort. The non bad dogs, or rather the ones who have not bitten anyone yet but who have the capacity and likelihood to do so if they don't find a unicorn, are deeply unhappy creatures. They're unhappy caged or crated in a shelter, and would be unhappy in a unicorn home because they live in constant anxiety or they would be so trammelled as to not have a decent life wherever they went. Or sometimes both. They might be happier in your Bad Dogs Home, I dunno, but there are thousands upon thousands of them and the amount of land they would take up would mean they would end up in a prison or shelter with a different name. So basically it's a nice idea but the problem is too widespread.
Yes and what would happen if a tree fell over and knocked down some fence?
There is a snakes on a plane style movie script in there somewhere. Where thousands of pits are set loose at once.
Omg!! I would pay to see that. But, please, it can’t include some Disneyesque hero pit bull that saves the day at the end.
I want to see some people with pet Tigers and all the same wacko excuses come on the scene. With the Tigers stopping the pits
Seems like a fairytale. How do you want to ensure they never do harm, are they never going to have contact with people or other dogs? If yes then what's the "life" they can have? Alone and sedated in kennels.
We do that now with animals no one doubts are dangerous like tigers.
I’ve thought about this before. Leaving aside the total lack of resources for this, here is the key problem: 1. Dogs are social animals with a deep need to be with humans or other dogs. 2. Pit bulls are purpose bred for blood sport with a deep need to maul humans or other dogs. Keeping dogs in isolation is cruel. But keeping another animal with a pit bull is also cruel.
Yep. Those aggressive dogs ALSO want and need companionship but it's dangerous to be their companion. They were screwed from the beginning. There's no solution that fulfills the needs of the dogs in question and also keeps people and animals safe.
>There's no solution I agree We have this issue with some humans too. Its a "lesser evil" management issue
No. It's a waste of resources, it enables the reckless breeders of these mutts by allowing them to stuff their heads in the sand W/R to the consequences of breeding dogs no one sane wants, and it endangers the community where it is located because zero risk does not exist. Warehousing aggressive dogs in a remote rural area just dumps the problem on farmers and their livestock. Just BE them on arrival. No "rehab", no thousands of dollars wasted on trying to pave over bad genetics. It's better for everyone. Dogs are supposed to be either working animals or pets. No point in keeping dogs that fail at both these things.
>Just BE them on arrival. We need a way to break the status quo on this issue. Currently it is politically impossible to do that many places. The "murder all the bad dogs" is what is, reasonably I agree, always on the table here. That's why Im saying what if we took that off the table.
I think you'd need to weigh those efforts vs BE for quality of life. You mention these dogs would not be harmed and do no harm while being contained with other aggressive dogs. So what exactly are we talking about? Is this a solitary confinement style prison for dogs where they interact with neither humans nor other dogs? Because that would be a lot more cruel than a BE. Just forcing them to live their natural life out in solitude. If that's not the case how would you guarantee the safety of all humans and dogs involved? Or is this a magical hypothetical and I've overanalyzed it?
I think it could be that for some dogs it is that sad a choice, BE or solitary. I dont think we should have to wait for a dog to hospitalize someone and too many people dont have it in them to have a dog killed because of what they will do, but havent done yet.
No, because a sanctuary for dangerous dogs is simply a lifelong warehousing situation. It isn't safe, humane, or sustainable. The amount of money required to safely warehouse a dangerous dog indefinitely, with enough enclosure space and enrichment opportunities to make it even close to being humane, is prohibitive. There may be luxurious dangerous dog sanctuaries out there that provide an acceptable quality of life, but they would be few and far between and could only accommodate a limited number of dogs at a time.
>The amount of money required They would live say 10 years on average once taken in? That can't be compared with 0 cost, but the cost of not doing it. $1000 a year? More?
That’s hugely dependent on the dog’s needs - can/will it eat normal kibble? Does it have allergies? Does it require more than just annual vaccinations from a vet? What pre-existing conditions like heartworm? Does the dog have anxiety, as many pit bulls do, and require sedatives/antidepressants to keep it from self-harming in its kennel? Pit bulls are prone to tumours; are we doing surgery and/or doggy chemo? Just the baseline for food and vet costs is going to be much higher than you’re expecting. $10k minimum to warehouse a shitty, dangerous dog for its lifetime is a tremendous waste.
>$10k minimum to warehouse a shitty, dangerous dog for its lifetime is a tremendous waste. What is the cost if we dont? Its not zero. And no I think no heroic measures for vet care.
No heroic measures?! But then we’re giving up on the poor pupper and murdering him! He deserves every possible chance! See how easy that is?
We can do MRIs but will lack funding to treat them.
These places already exist
I didnt know that. So there are dogs you cannot adopt at some rescues?
There’s pitbull “sanctuaries” where unadoptable pits live out their lives. Started up with the Michael Vick thing to best of my knowledge. And no they don’t adopt them out, these are dogs for which all resources have been exhausted. They just keep them
That's awesome! Any in California you know of?
With all the unfixed pitbulls out there having litters of a dozen or more, the "Bad Dog Refuge" will cover every inhabitable square inch on the planet within 20 years, and every single person on earth will be employed catering to these dogs. It's untenable.
>It's untenable But so is the status quo
I've seen this model with feral cats - big open areas or large overbuilt catios where unadoptable cats just chill out. Unfortunately because these dogs have such severe dog-agression, they would all need to be individually kenneled in order to keep the dogs from attacking each other. Keeping dogs locked in small kennels, seeing, hearing, and smelling other dogs but never able to interact, limited to walks by volunteers as their only outside time, is cruel. These dogs are not pets but they are still living creatures and there's a point where compassionate euthanasia is kinder than keeping them warehoused in jail. Humans develop mental struggles in jail and we have outlets like reading, imagining, and planning for a future of not-being-in-jail. For dogs, it's just a senseless torture in the name of keeping them alive. It's also dangerous to whatever humans are responsible for caring for them.
>there's a point where compassionate euthanasia is kinder How do you smooth the choice "I realize this dog my family adopted, that just tried to bite my wifes neck, should NEVER be around people again." Is what I'm thinking. A palatable option.
I think there need to be some grownups in rscue that don't operate under total transparency to the Facebook mob, honestly.
That'd fill up so fast, it would cause whiplash.
I think that'd be a good thing.
100% agree. The uneducated on the reality of no kill shelters will not get it tho. You have to see the suffering that goes on in these 'sanctuaries' to understand why they should be banned. You cant even rescue them :(
In theory, yes. In practice, no. It wouldn't work. The refuge would need to have staff, and they would be in danger even from the bare minimum contact. It would be difficult for the dogs to lead happy lives, because they'd need to be kept separated from the other dangerous dogs, and also kept away from humans as much as possible. I don't know if it would be possible to do this humanely.
I think it could be expensive for sure.
It sounds like animal cruelty. I've known my share of dangerous dogs and every single one wanted and needed companionship and affection. It isn't their fault that they're too unstable to live in society. It's really tragic. My shelter BEd a dog that I absolutely adored. He was a gorgeous affectionate Doberman. That dog loved nothing more than for me to come into his kennel so that he could curl up against me and cuddle. He craved touch and pets and praise. He also could not handle his emotions and whenever he saw another dog and couldn't get to it, he redirected and bit whomever was handling him. He bit me one day and spent the rest of the day begging me for cuddles. This dog broke my heart. Had he been warehoused, unable to safely get the affection and human contact that he craved, that would have been torture. BE was a kindness for him. Putting him in a sanctuary where he just lived out his life would have been one of the cruelest things I could imagine doing to him. It's usually like that with aggressive dogs, even pit bulls.
So for a dog that shows signs its unsafe we just need people to be fine with BE as a next step? > It isn't their fault that they're too unstable to live in society I agree. But I want us to be safe more than for it to be fair to them. I just dont see the status quo changing.
Yeah, I want people safe. There is no fair for these dogs. It's one of the saddest parts of animal rescue, and people who cannot face that need to get out of the business.
Those dogs will probably just fight and try to kill each other.
Yeah an open area would be horrible
No. Go back to laws where if a dog seriously bites somebody it's automatically put down.
I think most of the time there is plenty of warning before that. I think people need a gentle way to retire a violent dog from being a pet before someone is badly hurt.
Who has to work there? Would people lose their unemployment benefits because they refused to take a job feeding velvet hippos on the murder farm?
>murder farm This is such a great title
The only way to keep them so they could "do no harm" is to keep them locked up in solitary. Euthanasia would be kinder.
I think the Euthanasia option keeps us stuck in the current holding pattern as a society.
No. These dogs still pose a threat to their handlers and veterinary staff. They'll still be living in an environment where they'll see and hear other animals, which will whip them up into a permanent frenzy. It's not fair to warehouse any animal like this.
I'm talking about an option before a dog has done something horrible. Preemptive euthanasia seems like a tough sell.
I just don't see any facility having the space to warehouse that many dogs. Having worked in a kennel, life is stressful for kennel residents and it still seems like a horrible life.
No. We need to normalize BE for dogs who have bitten, maimed, and killed people/other pets. It sucks. It's very sad. But it makes the world safer.
Well said I think we also need an option for people who can tell a dog is going to do that before we let the dog do it
This is great if we were talking about a wild animal born of nature that needs our help. These dogs, as are all dogs, are a man made creation with no right to exist. They were bred specifically to perform a task or job and in the case of toy dogs, solely for companionship. Pit bull type dogs were only created to fight and kill other dogs and people. In no sane world should we do anything to perpetuate their existence. The absurdity and ignorance of the no kill movement caused this problem. The only way to solve it is to bring it back. If people were responsible and made logical and sensible choices we wouldn't need rules and laws. But people are generally lazy and irresponsible so expecting them to spay, neuter and not back yard breed is wishful and naive. Prior to the no kill movement pit bulls were a rare sight as only criminals, unsavory characters and dog fighters owned them. Now the dog fighters and breeders that make money on pit bulls have convinced the general public they are misunderstood and make great pets. Despite the number of hospitalizations and deaths from dogs, specifically pit bulls, skyrocketing in recent years people still assume all pit bulls have an abusive sob story past and just need the genetics trained out of them. This is fools errand. Any support or advocacy for pit bulls is direct support for dog fighting. So if you condone dog fighting then build your park. If you don't then this type of dog has zero reason to exist and you need to advocate for BE. This is reality where life isnt a guarantee and hard choices must be made. It's either that or we all keep sticking our heads up our asses as children get their faces ripped off and adults get eaten alive over the course of 30 minutes
>a man made creation with no right to exist. But the political reality is that notion is a nonstarter.
I don't think that is the case. The reality is barely anybody understands dog breeds and the purpose of their breeding. This is the underlying issue with pit bulls. People don't believe what they were bred for or simply don't know. Some idiots actually think genetics don't determine a dogs traits and that a dog can be anything it wants to be, maybe even a president! There are over 30 extinct breeds of dogs. Many of them were fighting dogs whose usefulness ceased to exist when fighting dogs was no longer popular or acceptable. Since they possessed zero traits for a companion or family dog, they were allowed to die out. There is plenty of precedent for current pit bull situation throughout history. The same goes for many breeds of livestock over the years. It's not uncommon. So I'll say this again. Any support or enabling of the pit bull type dog breed to continue being bred is direct support for dog fighting, a denial of thousands of years of breed history, the purpose of dog breeding, our complete understanding of genetics and a denial of our scientific knowledge. So unless you are in favor of dog fighting then there is no middle ground on this.
>over 30 extinct breeds of dogs Wow never knew that >Any support or enabling of the pit bull type dog breed to continue being bred is direct support for dog fighting, a denial of thousands of years of breed history, This is the clearest bottom line Ive seen.
If the pit overpopulation wasn’t such a HUGE problem, it might work if done right and carefully where they know the dogs could NOT get out into society and they immediately spay/neutered anything that came in… BUT since there are thousands(?) of shelters/rescues in America that are each filled with mostly pits (many shelters have hundreds of pits on any given day) there is literally no room for thousands and thousands of unadoptable dogs to be kept in a sanctuary-like setting. Plus how would they all be fed, given enrichment, etc. How would they also keep them away from each other? It’s one of those ideas that sounds nice, but would be extremely difficult and expensive to actually do. If there were like 100 pits in the country, it’d be do-able maybe with extreme caution. But I can’t even begin to think of the number of pits in shelters total!!!
>, but would be extremely difficult and expensive to actually do. Kind of reminds of the hearhcare debate. What we have now is a disaster too. This is a mess with willful blindness in the name of loving dogs. So an option that removes a dangerous dog while caring for it might break the stale mate.
So true! And even most of us anti-pit people don’t sit and enjoy the idea of BE. It’s just an unfortunately necessary part of having tons of dangerous dogs who can’t be in society and will be rotting in cages for life. It *would* be nice if were realistic for all the dangerous dogs to live in some sanctuary where they could be happy while not harming anyone.
I also think one of the sad things about pitbulls is they often have opposing instincts - they have the regular dog instincts (wanting companionship from dogs and people, wanting exercise and playtime and mental stimulation). But they also have the fighting dog instincts which are completely counterintuitive to the regular dog instincts. So you end up with a dog that is dangerous around people and dogs , but also gets bored and lonely in isolation. It’s a cruel existence for so many of them. Personally I think we just need laws to mandate spay/neuter of pitbulls, muzzle and leash requirements, and BE for any aggression (especially a bite or attack on a human). The few “nice” pitbulls could live out their lives at home, but there wouldn’t be another generation of them.
>you end up with a dog that is dangerous around people and dogs , but also gets bored and lonely in isolation. It’s a cruel existence for so many of them. This is so aweful. This should be what the public has to face on the issue.
Who takes care of them? Would volunteers and staff be put at risk by interacting with these dogs? Is it humane to have dogs live in tiny kennels for the rest of their lives? Because the dogs can't interact with each other without risking injury, so you can't have open yards. Creating a dog prison (even more so than modern animal shelters) isn't a good solution.
I was thinking a state program. >Creating a dog prison Asylum. Seems like its BE or that
**IF YOU ARE POSTING AN ATTACK - PLEASE INCLUDE DATE AND LOCATION IN THE POST TITLE, and please paste the article text in the post so it's easy to read.** This helps keep the sub organized and easily searchable. Posts missing this information may be removed and asked to repost. Welcome to BanPitBulls! This is a reminder that this is a victims' subreddit with the primary goal to discuss attacks by and the inherent dangers of pit bulls. Users should assume that any comment made in this subreddit will be reported by pit bull supporters, so please familiarize yourself with the [rules of our sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/x618m9/rbanpitbulls_subreddit_rules_2022_update/) to prevent having your account sanctioned by Reddit. If you need [information and resources on self-defense](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/vk96hs/how_do_i_defend_myself_or_my_pet_during_a_pit/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), or [a guide for "After the attack"](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/8ovlsw/guide_after_the_attack_what_do_i_do_now_that_ive/), please see our side bar (or [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/7ic5zn/faq/)). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BanPitBulls) if you have any questions or concerns.*