Why is it that one topic of great interest and controversy seems to always encompass another topic of the same interest and controversy? :?| Dang, that's why these threads get derailed, and also why I tend to get ****ed when someone replies to the secondary topic instead of the one I posted. :redface:
That being said, I'll speak my peace on both.
Before this whole ordeal came about, I had no clue who Michael Vick was. Never even heard his name, that I can remember. But that's beside the point, sorta. I'm not a fan of PETA, and I still feel humans should get preferential treatment over animals. However, what he did...what all dogfighters do...is inexcusable. (This is where the two topics blend a bit, but dogfighters are the root of the problem with overly vicious dogs.) Vick is, as had been said before, lowlife scum. Hang him. Hang all dogfighters.
As far as pit bulls, I do not trust them, nor will I tolerate one on my property or near my family. In the past few years, I have shot and killed no less than a dozen of them on my property, all with the blessing of the 911 operator I was talking to at the time, and of the LEO that responded afterwards. I am justified in doing so to any dog that comes onto my property and acts in a vicious or threatening manner. Now, lets speak of the population of dogs in little ol' No Hope, KS: according to the last statistics (about 2 years ago), there were an equal number of large breeds of dogs (chows, pits, shepherds, collies, malamutes, labs, etc.) in this town. So, statistically speaking, of the six most popular large breeds of dogs in town, I should have had to shoot 2 of each over the past few years. I have never shot anything but a pit bull. I have never had another breed of dog act in a vicious or threatening manner in my own yard. Have I seen other breeds act that way other places? Sure. In a farming community like this, everyone has dogs, mostly large breeds on the farms. So, I've been around large breed dogs all my life, and from my own personal experience, the two most likely dogs to attack have been pit bulls and chows, respectively. However, the pits were far more likely to attack or even show aggressive behavior than the chows. I'm sorry, Mingez, but I'll have to side with TC on this one in saying that the "aggressiveness studies" were biased by an agenda. Sure, people have a negative connotation against pits because of the press they've gotten, but they've gotten that press for a reason. That reason is because they are overall a vicious dog breed. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, as there are in any case, but as a whole I believe that pits are the most dangerous dogs to have around humans, and I gather that belief from personal experience, testimony of others who have had dealings with various breeds of dogs, and medical reports I was privy to when I worked in the health care industry. The news may only report attacks by pits, but doctors and other health care workers must report attacks by all dogs. And based on those reports, pits are the very worst by a landslide, not just in number but also in the severity of attacks.
