Posted by unregistered user at 10/8/08 7:06 p.m.

As a responsible "chainer" with happy, healthy and above all FRIENDLY dogs, I respectfully disagree. A PROPERLY chained dog is not a problem. I also find it amusing that many of the same people people that want me to shove my dog(s) in a crate for hours on end instead.

Public safety: Of the dogs on chains that had bitten, how many in fact were cared for in the way that they should have been? Were they all taken care of properly or simply left on the chain with little interaction? It's important to ask and be aware of such information. The current dog type with the highest record of bites is the pit bull. By that logic, the dog is biting people simply because it's a pit, and not for any other reasons.

Chaining is inhumane: No, INCORRECT chaining is inhumane. A dog that gets chained outside with no stimulus and care is bound to have problems, but what about a properly chained dog? A chained dog should be treated no differently than a pet in the house, with scheduled feedings and water at all times, with both shade, shelter and stimulus (http://www.adbadog.com/p_pdetails.asp?fspid=81&pg=81) for more info. The dog should also have time off the chain for play, training, and interaction with it's owners. Only when these needs are not met is it neglect. Want to know the difference between a neglected dog in the house and a neglected dog on a chain? You just don't see the one in the house and therefore, you would most likely never know.

WILL REDUCE UNETHICAL BREEDING AND DOG FIGHTING: Actually no, it won't. What stops a person fighting dogs from simply moving all his fighters to cramped crates in his basement,out of sight and out of mind? Vick's pits were in kennels, not on chains. And chained pits does not equal dogfighting. That's both a horrible and annoying way of thinking that has gotten many innocent pets euthanized for nothing. Instead, look for better signs, like dogs that constantly sport fresh wounds/scars around the face and neck. Keep in mind that while Amstaffs and American Pit Bull Terriers can be seen getting along with other dogs, this breed does in fact carry the potential for natural dog agressiveness and responsible pit owners don't leave their dogs unsupervised together. I also urge you to take a good look at some unethical breeders, like puppy mills. You are far more likely to see many dogs and puppies cramped in small cages than you are to see the dogs stuck on chains.

Posted by monicas at 10/8/08 8:47 p.m.

In response to the "responsible chainer" who posted above: Yes, it is true that SOME people who keep chained dogs do not necessarily treat them in hideously abusive ways. They do not let the dog's flesh grow over their collars (not a pretty sight, I can assure you). They do not let them suffer in sub-zero temps. They do not forget to feed them. But you might be shocked to know how many people DO treat their chained dogs in such a way. Too often, a chained dog -- relegated to some far corner of the yard -- is a forgotten dog.

And the fact remains that chaining is by far the most easily abused form of confinement. It is too "easy," too passive... Don't know how to housetrain Fido? Well, for many people the answer is to simply chain Fido to a tree or a broken down old car and leave the dog there to pace the same small patch of dirt and excrement for years on end.

Allowing people to chain their dog 24/7 sets the groundwork for abuse and neglect.

I also agree that anti-tether laws are not perfect. I wish we didn't have to enact them and that everyone was as (apparently) "responsible" as you. Sadly, that is far from the case. To people who say, "I chain MY dog responsibly, therefore we don't need laws" I ask: How is that different, really, from saying, "I smoke pot responsibly; therefore, we don't need laws..."

The fact remains that countless people subject these social, intelligent animals to a horrendous, loney, parasite-ridden life because they either don't know any better, they actually desire that the dog suffer so he's a better "watch dog," or they just simply don't have the brains or wherewithall to properly care for an animal. To remedy such situations, it is appropriate to have reasonable laws governing how dogs are treated.

While is is also true that other forms of confinement (such as crating) can be abused (as you point out) that is no reason not to put a dent in the most easily abused method of confinement: chaining.

To most people, the thought of keeping a dog on a chain for its life is a horrific and repugnant thing. Lifetime chaining is an antiquated and barbaric practice.

In any event, why have a dog if you just want to keep it as a lawn ornament?

Hunters and breeders are usually the only groups who oppose such laws. I assume you fall into one or both camps? If so, know that some communities and states HAVE managed to accommodate hunters/breeders by exempting them or finding other workarounds. I hate to see hunting dogs chained for years on end, but I'm willilng to give on that front if it means the "junkyard" and "backyard" dogs get some hope.

Learn more at www.dogsdeservebetter.org and www.unchainyourdog.org

Posted by unregistered user at 10/9/08 6:02 a.m.

My problem with anti-tethering laws is they do nothing but provide a band-aid fix that doesn't address the real problem at hand: neglect. I am neither a hunter or a breeder, just a dog owner who is tired of seeing both himself and his dogs painted with a stereotypical paintbrush. As such, I am firmly against anti tethering/chaining laws, but would appreciate it if actual proof of neglect was paid better attention to. My other problem with the law is it only affects the people responsible enough to care about thier dogs, rather than the target offenders. "Oh, I can no longer neglect the dog outside? Then I'll put it in a crate or a small room.. Out of sight, out of mind". THAT is the thought process of a person that doesn't care. Do you see the problem here? Am I saying there need to be no laws considering chaining? No, there needs to be some minimums set so people have an idea of what to work with. BUT, I don't think that a responsible owner needs to be placed in the same bin as an irresponsible one and like it or not, that's exactly what the law would do.

Also, the only reason that chaining is seen so often as the most common form of abuse is because quite frankly, it's outside. So, what happens to all those dogs that will be shoved out of sight and out of mind? Nothing changes for them at all. I am also not a fan of either of those two sites, seeing as they celebrate the banning of all tethering despite what they put on the websites

Posted by unregistered user at 10/9/08 7:48 a.m.

love it, you can't chain your dog outside, but you can leave it in a crate 10 hours a day. Hypocrisy at its best!

Posted by unregistered user at 10/10/08 5:19 p.m.

A chain is nothing more than a tool. It's the other end of the chain (the HUMAN) that is either responsible or irresponsible.

Posted by monicas at 10/11/08 8:48 a.m.

Of COURSE a dog can be abused by other methods of confinement. Crating a dog for 10 hours a day is awful.

But it is non-sensical to suggest that we should not crack down on the most easily abused method (chaining) just because there are other ways to abuse a dog. The evidence (admittedly anecdotal) shows that where anti-chaining laws are passed, thousands of dogs are not all of a sudden brought inside to basements or are crated for days on end. For many people, if they can't keep their dog chained to a tree in the yard, they simply decide to get rid of it. Others (I've seen it many times), confronted with such laws, DO decide to housetrain their dog and treat it with some humanity.

Also, going forward, these laws discourage people who would chain an animal neglectfully from even getting a dog in the first place.

There are no easy answers here. , I do see your point of view: At the end of the day, these laws target a practice that runs a whole spectrum, from occasional chaining (can be perfectly fine in my opinion as long as dog is cared for, socialized, given exercise, etc.) to horrific lifetime chaining where the animal rarely even receives proper food/water. As such, I think time limits work better than flat-out bans. Time limits allow some flexibility and allow "responsbile chainers" to occasionally chain their dogs. Time limits are difficult to enforce, but at least then animal control has a tool at its disposal when confronted with truly abusive situations that currently are not covered by animal welfare laws. In other words, no one walks around neighborhoods with stop watches, but when an abusive chaining situation is brought to animal control's attention, then they have a tool at their disposal. Otherwise, if a dog has occasional food and water and something akin to a "shelter" (think for a minute about how pathetic so many dog houses are), the AC officer must just walk away and leave a dog to suffer and often die at the end of its tether.

I realize these laws are not perfect, but they do help change mindsets -- they finally send a message that people need to give some thought to how they are goijng to properly confine a social, intelligent animal that may live for more than 15 years.

Posted by Canine Voice at 10/11/08 12:51 p.m.

Anti-Chaining Laws are a good step in the right direction. They don't solve the abuse of dogs, but I agree with monicas, that, in my experience, people get rid of their dogs if they aren't permitted to chain any longer. Given, more dogs might be euthanized, but sometimes euthanasia is more humane than keeping a dog on a chain for his/her entire life, forcing him/her to be segregated from what was suppose to be his/her social group.

I live in a rural area where many dogs are chained. They aren't 'abused', have food, water, shelter and are walked.
But they are over-stimulated by animals/people/dogs walking by, stress-bark and lunge that is increased by restraint frustration, annoy neighbors and might frighten children/people that walk by.
Depending on region and season, there are annoying insects. My dogs are 'bugged' on walks and that annoys them. I feel sorry for every dog in my neighborhood who is swamped by mosquitos and deer flies they can't get away from all day long.
And, do you know what happens when your dog is outside by herself? Are stones thrown? Is she teased?
That is not only a problem of chains, but also of dogs dumped into back yards and dog runs.

Dogs, unless supervised, belong inside the house. There they are safe and warm. No dog, inside or not, should be left alone for 10 hours every day.
News Flash - dogs are social animals. So yes, ideally there should be a law against neglect. But that will likely not happen for some time. So, for now, if it's the anti-chaining-law, I'd take it.

Posted by Regina Frau at 10/12/08 9:12 a.m.

No dog should be left outside unattended for the majority of its life. For working professionals that must leave their dog alone all day, a crate or a secure kennel outside makes for a happy dog. My 2 dogs are crated during the day and are happy and well adujsted. They like their crates and consider them their dens.

Chaining a dog outside while its humans are inside is cruel and neglectful. Please someone tell me what is the point of having a dog if you are dumping it on an 8 ft tether tied to a tree while you are inside the house? Those same people most likely also dump their kids in front of the TV without interaction as well and then complain when the kid acts out.

Having a dog requires having responsibility. If you do not want to be bothered with a dog do not get one. Sometimes death is better than 10 years tied outside with no more than a 10 ft wide circle as your freedom and no interaction.

As for the law well please show me a perfect law. There aren't any.

I have one neighbor that has decided to leave his dog outside 24x7. It barks day and night. I have 4 large dogs and none bark like that. If it continues I will be calling AC and they will either be forced to give up the dog or bring it in. Chaining is not much worse than being in a kennel all day/night either.

Some people just do not want the dog in the house. Again why get one if you do not want it in the house?

There is no such thing as chaining responsibly. If your dog breaks free and runs the neighborhood then what? Dogs in Seattle have been shot with arrows in their own backyards what makes you think yours won't be tortured or abused by others? You really have that much trust in humans?

I fully support no tethering laws and urge others that care about the well being of dogs to write to their local rep in support.

It's one step closer to forcing humans to be responsible (gasp).

Posted by unregistered user at 10/12/08 5:20 p.m.

basically what it boils down to is that people dont think of animals as living things with feelings,emotions,and that feel pain and hot and cold weather.animals should be part of the family and treated as such.i am so glad that that this whole "chaining your dog is wrong thing" has come out to get attention.it makes me sick to drive by someones house and see a dog tied up and left outside day after day .GET A GRIP! CHAINING AND CRATING IS INHUMANE.DOGS FEEL.THEY NEED TO STRETCH THEIR LEGS.THEY NEED TO USE THE BATHROOM.WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO "HOLD IT" JUST BECAUSE THEIR OWNER IS AT WORK????????PEOPLE WITH DOGS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FENCED A YARD FOR FREE ROAMING OR AGREE TO KEEP IT INSIDE.IF NOT...........................DONT GET ONE........SIMPLE I DONT BUY IT WHEN PEOPLE SAY THE DOG FEELS SAFE IN A CRATE FOR HOURS AND SEES IT AS A DEN YOU ARE AN IDIOT

Posted by unregistered user at 10/12/08 8:06 p.m.

monicas: I do believe that something has to be done for chaining and tethering, but banning is not the way. Instead I would much prefer some rules established like minimum chain lengths, appropriate shelter, and water present at all times (food should not be present at all times, indoor or out), which is much easier to enforce. Fail to do it properly, get a nice fine as a warning. Do it again, lose your dog. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Canine Voice: I find a happy and well cared for dog euthanized because a new law prevented his owners from being able to keep him outside for whatever reason to be more cruel. If a dog is over stimulated and neurotic because it's outside, it may mean that the dog is bored and hasn't recieved enough excercise prior to being rechained. Suggest that the dogs get more excercise. Canines in general have excellent hearing, and what they hear outside they can usually hear inside. If I had a nickel for every time I walked past a house to see a dog lunging up at me from the window, I'd be a rich man. As a matter of fact, my grandmother had a skittish dog that immediately began to bark at almost anyone that walked past her house, even in the rooms farthest away. He was actually quite the wuss when you went up to pet him though. I roll my eyes at people who would own dogs PERIOD, and not allow them insect protection. A dog in the house still has to go outside, and needs protection from the things that nibble. I personally apply frontline to each dog and make sure that the dog's areas are pest free with pet safe methods. It's not that hard, and I don't see why I should be held at fault due to the less responsible. And the chances of people messing with my dog are slim, since I also keep a fence on the property, and so should anyone else with a chained dog, honestly. Just because a dog is on a chain or in a kennel does not necessarily mean he will be bothered, and just because a dog is in the house means that he WON'T be bothered. Over the years I've seen children take great delight in teasing dogs kept in houses, angering them as they bark at the window and striking the window in a manner that it hits the dog's sensitive nose. A small dog some years earlier was taken from a house broken into, doused with gasoline, and set on fire. Lots of protection there, huh? Dogs in the house can also harm themselves by chewing, choking and swallowing on household objects including their own toys( I had the chance to do some volunteer work at a vet clinic, and the amount of xrays on dogs that managed to perform these tasks were phenominal), drinking chemicals, and recieving cuts from glass they had broke somehow. Even had one dog that had somehow ripped himself out of his crate and impaled himself on the twisted remains of metal. Safe? Not necessarily. Laws against dog neglect are not all that hard to enforce. I have a friend in Montgomery County, where the laws are enforced very well in fact. And while dogs are social animals, there are times when the dog needs to be unsupervised. I'd rather my dog was stretching his legs and getting a snoot full of mother earth, and frankly, so does he.

Frau: Ah, I was wondering when you'd bother to show. At any rate it's nice to meet you, and if you can keep it civil, so will I. Many breeds of working dogs require that the dog be both outside and unnatended. Livestock guardians and herding dogs do not always require direction from a human being and many seem fine with it. My 6 dogs are on chains during the day and are well adjusted and human friendly. They do not however, get along with other dogs and for their breed, it is natural. They like outside and consider it a place to cool their heels until it's time for play and training. With a little luck, one of my older boys (Heavenboy) will be tacking a CGC on his list of accomplishments.

Chaining a dog while people are inside may keep them out of the way, especially if something needs to be done where them getting underfoot would cause them harm. Keep in mind also that some dogs do not get along and when your dog can jump a 6 foot fence, pet gates don't cut it. Kennel dogs also tend to be outside while the owners are inside. How come there are no laws against that when proper chaining done right can allow more space? Why? Because a dog on a chain makes some people uneasy.

While there are no perfect laws, no laws concerning the subject of chaining is better than swatting flies with bazooka missles, which is what this law does. Thinking in this manner with no actual hard fact makes BSL so popular these days, but if you were a proponent of that, I wouldn't be surprised.

A dog that barks all day and night is noise pollution. Warn them of their actions and threaten with police action. That dog either bored or has a severe dislike of thethering. If the dog dislikes it then by all means, remove him from the tether.

Some people can't keep a dog in their house for various reasons. I have a friend who had gotten a dog for her son. Her son LOVES the dog and the dog loves him right back but after a while they discovered that the son was allergic. While they talk things through with a breed rescue, Max is in a kennel on thier property as he waits for his forever home.

You can say what you please, but if there is no such thing as chaining responsibly there is no such thing as crating responsibly or keeping a dog in the house responsibly. With enough incentive, a dog can bust itself out of a crate or your house. And if it doesn't cause damage to itself in the process, it may very well do so later. The chains that I use are checked monthly, replaced as needed, and have a chain strength of about 800 lbs. Guess which I'm less worried about the dog escaping from? Dogs have been removed from their houses and doused with gasoline, hung, drowned, and shot. Do you really have that much trust in your house?

I don't support pure anti tethering laws because most often the people who want to impose them are severely misinformed and I urge the people who want to see responsible tethering in action visit some friendly responsible breeders/owners who tether, most of which will not mind.

It's one step closer to people being able to see that not everything in the world is black and white and that sometimes all it takes is the time to bother to sit and listen to the other side before making assumptions that everyone who tethers must in fact be a horrible person (gasp)

Posted by unregistered user at 10/12/08 8:24 p.m.

An EXCELLENT set of rules that would not be much trouble to enforce but at the same time require humans to use responsibility:
http://www.adbadog.com/uploads/BSL/RESPONSIBLE%20DOG%20OWNERS%20OF%20THE%20WESTERN%20STATES%20MODEL%20DOG%20OWNER%20REGULATIONS.pdf

Posted by Regina Frau at 10/13/08 11:09 a.m.

Working farm dogs are not tethered. They are roaming free on their property protecting livestock. Working dogs and pet dogs are two very different animals.

Responsible pet ownership (I use that term loosely as I do not believe in "owning" animals") is preferred but since anyone can get a dog that means the laws need to be more strict.

As for a dog that hurls itself through a picture window or destroys his crate perhaps the owner is themself neurotic which is why the dog is. A dog that isn't well balanced needs a special type of training from humans that know what they're doing and do not belong in the average household. Busting out of my house is simply never going to happen. My dogs are interested in being where I am at and if I am not home will sit here waiting for me. I have left my GSD and Husky outside in my backyard for hours in the summer and neither escape even though my husky can clear the 6 ft fence if she wanted to. They have no reason to escape they are happy here. I am more concerned with psychos entering my yard and hurting my dogs than I am of my dogs getting out. As for entering my house I am sure the robbers would want to keep quiet and a GSD and 2 wolf mixes (all males) barking furiously would not make the robber happy. 3 gunshots are also not quiet either. My house would most likely be passed over in favor of my neighbor with the nicer car and no dogs.

and there goes my wolf hyrbrid into his crate to hang out when he does not have to. He is more happy in his crate than if I were to put him outside tied up.

As for your friends with the allergic son, instead of fixing the problem they decided to stick the poor dog in the backyard until a new home is found. Thankfully they have decided to work with rescue on a new home but perhaps might want to explore their son's allergies and where it stems from (most likey diet not the dog)
but I am not a doctor. I too have allergies and have been taking meds for 15 years. Oddly since I eat healthy I am not allergic to my 4 dogs or 3 cats. My house is full of pet hair.

As for the flies on dogs left outside that Canine Voice mentioned, Frontline does not claim to prevent flies biting the dog's ears. Frontline stops fleas and ticks not flies. Also some dogs and cats have a reaction to the Fipronil used so some people choose not to subject their pets to chemicals.

Dogs should not be tethered for a long time outside. Tethering your dog on a lightweight comfortable long tether for a few hours isn't the issue. It's the people that tether for 20 hours. Most tethering laws have a limit on how long the dog can be tethered which is exactly what we need.

As for BSL I have 2 wolf hybrids so you are way off thinking I support it. Too bad there's no support for wolfdog owners.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/13/08 2:24 p.m.

I was bringing up what you said, which was "No dog should be left outside unattended for the majority of its life". Tethered or not, this remains a possibility and common practice. Of course there needs to be stricter laws concerning aspects of pet ownership, but there's a large difference between removing problems and creating problems AKA 'the sideways fix".

A dog that removes itself from it crate does not have to be a neurotic animal, it may simply be uncomfortable or generally have a dislike for being in such a space, which is a possibility seeing as just like with crating, some dogs dislike being tethered and alternate methods should be found. A dog that breaks a window of a home may possess high prey drive and been scratching at some random squirrel, bird or cat. If it does prove that the dog is indeed neurotic, steps should be taken to make it less so. Just because your dogs have no desires to chase or roam doesn't speak for the vast majority of dogs that do in fact carry the will and the instinct. Unless you are in your house 24/7/365, then you may still have something to worry about and trust me when I say that burglars are unconcerned with the average dog. A barking dog is really no concern to him if you are not home. Also, how would you know something that you didn't bother to try? Tethering doesn't necessarily involve a chain. I've seen many a happy pup on a cable run for a bit of safe leg stretching while their owners attended to some task like painting the house.

First off, you're making several large assumptions about my friend. He had been tested PRIOR to the dog being kenneled (just to make sure), and the boy is a supplemented vegetarian, so diet was not his problem. Would you rather they dropped the dog off on the side of the road rather than provide feed and care for him? Max is currently asleep in his kennel with her son laying on a blanket on the grass near the kennel. So much neglect there, huh?

As for the insects, I had already stated that Frontline was not the only thing I do. The yard itself is also treated and since I discovered a great method of pest control haven't had insect problems in years (yes, I inspect my dogs for problems regularly). I also feel that whether or not the dog spends a lot of time outside, your yard needs yearly treatments. It's all fun and games until your dog contracts pest related kidney failure.

Tethering needs LIMITS, not a BAN. That's the point I'm trying to get across here.

You may want to reread my statement. I did not say you did support it, I just said that I would not be surprised as that type of misinformed attitude makes up a great deal of the BSL community. I happen to have a friend with wolfdogs. Wolfdog owners may get more support if they bothered to get out there and lobby a bit more for thier cause, rather than disrupt the owners of other breeds. I say owners because by law a dog is property and NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO REMOVE WHAT IS YOURS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. You take that away and you are left with animal control knocking on your door to seize your animals on suspicions, which with both APBT and wolfdog owners is happening enough. Do I just write my dogs away as livestock? Of course not, my dogs are friends and family, but in a place where paranoia is king over actual fact and reason, you would do well to pick up some info in the protection of what is by law, yours

Posted by unregistered user at 10/13/08 3:23 p.m.

Also, you may want to read:
http://www.dogpolitics.com/my_weblog/2006/03/guardian_is_a_k.html
http://www.dogpolitics.com/my_weblog/2008/04/dog-thief-tammy.html#more

A good read for those that understand that sometimes to understand a viewpoint or two, it takes some digging. You've all heard the views of black and white, time to go diving in some grey

Posted by unregistered user at 10/14/08 9:45 a.m.

I do not believe that keeping your dog chained up outside for long periods of time is treating your animal with positive regard. The hazards to the animal are great and if being tethered outside, the owner has to take care to insure that the animals can not harm themselves or be harmed by the power of the chain. Dog runs and other more responsible means are available. I have a friend that leaves her doberman out on a run chain during the day. This dog has a fifteen foot span between two trees that is shaded, with a proper dog house and food and adequate water. This is a happy dog. But she is not outside all day and night. I do believe that like all things, care should be taken into consideration.

And this statement, "Keep in mind that while Amstaffs and American Pit Bull Terriers can be seen getting along with other dogs, this breed does in fact carry the potential for natural dog agressiveness and responsible pit owners don't leave their dogs unsupervised together", is ridiculous. I am a responsible pit owner, as well as know many others. My 6 and 7 year old pits are currently sleeping on the floor at my feet. They do everything together and when separated become highly distressed. They are home alone whenever I leave. I have NEVER had a bite, any bleeding, or aggression during the times we are away. We have gone through training and continue to reinforce their training. That is just silly. Stick to one topic at a time and leave the breed be for this one.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/14/08 10:43 a.m.

Just because YOU haven't had an aggression problem with your dogs does not mean the breed does not carry the trait. Responsible as you may be, it's a fact that it's not unnatural that an APBT be DA, and had you picked up a book on the breed, you would have known this. A dog bred to fight other dogs for hundreds of years does not suddenly drop the trait in a couple years, as much as most of us would enjoy that they do so.
From Pit Bull Rescue Center:

"Pit bull owners must be aware of the remarkable fighting abilities these dogs posses and always keep in mind that pit bulls have the potential to inflict serious injury to other animals. A pit bull may not even be the one starting a conflict, but he has the genetics to finish it. Remember that pit bulls are almost always blamed no matter who initiated the hostilities, and often end up paying the price...as does the owner!

That said, some pit bulls get along great with other pets and may live happily with other dogs without incident. We just can't assume that this is true for all of them, or take for granted that pit bulls getting along with other pets today will do so tomorrow. Pit bull owners must have common sense and make sure they don't set their dogs up for failure by putting them in inappropriate situations".

Happy Pit Bull writes:
"Dog Aggression

Our discussion on this page will focus on dog-aggression, which is common with (and should be expected from) pit bull-type dogs. Aggression toward humans is NOT typical of the breed-type and should NOT be tolerated or encouraged. If your pit bull is aggressing toward humans, you must seek professional assistance immediately!

I would also like to stress that dog-aggression is not breed specific. I have seen many individual dogs, of breeds from Labradors to Greyhounds to Scottish Terriers, that have exhibited aggression toward other dogs. And yes, some of those dogs have killed other dogs. Dog-aggression is not limited to pit bulls, nor do all pit bulls have dog-aggression. Each and every dog must be considered and managed individually.

However, because this site is specifically meant to assist pit bulls and pit bull owners, I will discuss dog-aggression as it pertains to the proper management of pit bulls. It would be wholly inappropriate for me to overlook an issue that many pit bull owners, especially novices, have difficulty understanding. Readers should not take my focus on pit bulls to mean that only pit bulls are dog-aggressive, nor should they assume that all pit bulls are dog-aggressive.

Ironically, dog fighting - the very activity that created the pit bull - has also ruined the pit bull breed-type due to the constant breeding for greater and greater dog aggression. The most dog-aggressive pit bull, after all, will win in the pit. Even well-trained, well-socialized, extremely human-friendly pit bulls can (and often do) develop some degree of dog-aggression.

This tendency toward dog-aggression has a devastating fallout. This trait prohibits many pit bulls from doing dog-related activities such as dog sports, search-and-rescue, therapy, pet parades, pet store visits, and more, simply because they cannot stand to be around other dogs. Responsible owners keep their DA (dog-aggressive) dogs at home, away from other dogs and, as a consequence, out of public view. This allows misinformation and myths about pit bulls to spread rapidly. The pit bulls most commonly seen in the news are the ones causing trouble because their irresponsible owners don't know what they're doing.

Another side effect can be seen in the number of pit bulls who are homeless. Many new and inexperienced pit bull owners are caught completely by surprise when their adolescent pit bull develops dog-aggression. They do not realize that the behavior is normal and manageable, and are likely to banish the dog to the shelter as "defective" or have it euthanized. DA pit bulls that end up in the shelter usually don't make it out alive; DA dogs don't cope well in a kennel crammed with other dogs (duh), responsible owners avoid pit bulls in general, and many shelters won't adopt out pit bulls at all (DA or not); for most pit bulls, being sent to the shelter results in an automatic death sentence.

In pit bulls, dog-aggression typically develops between nine months of age and two years of age, but it is not unheard of for a dog to develop DA much earlier or later in life. Pit bull owners should always expect and prepare for dog aggression, regardless of their dog's current behavior. Prevention is key for keeping DA at bay; once a pit bull gets into a serious fight, the frequency of fighting is likely to increase. Puppy owners should start socializing their puppy with other dogs as early as possible so their dog will learn the correct way to interact in canine society. This socialization is not guaranteed to prevent DA, but it can reduce the severity of DA."

So no, I am not just pulling what I said out of thin air. I've owned this breed all my life, and am currently in charge of 6 of my own, with 2 rescues I'm looking after. It is the idiocy of those that EXPECT all pit bulls to get along with everyone and would place them in situations where dog fighting can occur that often causes the loss of a dog's home. So while your dogs don't display aggression toward other dogs, do not assume that it is the norm, because it is not

http://www.pbrc.net/breakfight.html
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/owning.cfm
http://www.happypitbull.com/ownermanual/aggression.html

-Finch

Posted by unregistered user at 10/14/08 12:06 p.m.

http://www.pitbulllovers.com/pit-bull-temperament.html
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/breedinfo.php
http://www.realpitbull.com/temperament.html
http://www.downtowndogrescue.com/pitbulls.htm
http://www.blessthebullys.com/id1.html
http://www.hugabull.com/profile.html
http://www.pitbullforum.com

I was going to reply with something long and involved for the person who doesn't beleive that pit bulls can be naturally dog aggressive (seriously man?) but since the point's already been proven, I wont. I will say however, that if you had not tried to call him on a subject that can be easily confirmed in both books and sites, I highly doubt it would have been an issue in the first place. This does make them less lacking in the human love department and if someone cannot deal with the possibility, they need not own a dog of this breed. You may want to check out the sites listed above as well, all of which confirm this.

I have no problems with chaining done well and chaining done right, but I cannot stand those who would use it as a tool for neglect. Regardless of what ban is put up, people that would neglect a dog are going to neglect a dog. Removing a method in which a person may neglect a dog does not solve the issue at hand. Instead, try better enforcement of rules dealing with neglect.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/14/08 9:36 p.m.

For the last two posts, I went to the sites and read several times, your posts. I was not stating that they pit bulls can not be aggressive towards other dogs, and as confirmed by the sites you both listed, ALL dog breeds can have aggressiveness. I was stating that the broad general statement that the gentleman made that responsible dog owners do not leave their pits alone together. I know many other than my own. I researched the breed of dog I wanted BEFORE I commited to the foster and adoption. I am not a NOVICE dog owner, have had specific training for pitbull owners through a reputable pitbull rescue, training with one of the pitbull trainers for therapeutic dogs in Washington State, and currently own two dogs rescued in Washington. I have fostered several different breeds, but pitbulls are my favorite. So Finch in response to the nasty "had you picked up a book on the breed, you would have known this" statement, I feel that I have done extension research and training on this breed to make qualified statements. I do understand that owning six and fostering two might qualify you as more of an expert, but make no assumptions about my knowledge.

It's forums like this one that quote specific passages of websites out of the context in which they were initially written, i.e. Happy Pit Bull: Aggression, that leads to misinformation.

I took your information on board, looked at your references, even if it was given harshly, somewhat rudely and with an element of "hearing yourself talk" so to speak.

My point was tethering has nothing to do with breed. These are two different topics and should be treated as such. And also that broad statements like yours are silly. Life is not black and white, it is all shades of gray.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/14/08 10:14 p.m.

From the times that I have heard "but they got along so well" out of the mouth of an owner, leaving dogs alone unsupervised is advice that after 27+ years, I've learned to heed. The statement wasn't nasty, it was the truth, and prior to you bringing it up it it was simply an addition to the original conversation. Never once did I say you were a novice, just misinformed and it's a statement I stand by. If your dogs get along hey, that's great but after extended time with multiple dogs it's something you learn to avoid. "Dog aggression in our great breed: You can take it and if you can't, you need to leave it", is my opinion.

The good thing about information placed out of context is it can be corrected, and once sites and people are, they tend to scurry off with thier tails between thier legs because they know they were wrong. I do not talk to hear myself talk (provided it's not Christmas and I'm not tipsy). Since I happen to know the person who originally started the comment chain pretty well, I simply asked him and that was not his point. His point was that with multiple dogs that can carry a natural degree of dog aggression to them, it's best that they have a space to themselves at times

His point on tethering was not meant to be breed specific, it was meant as an example in homes concerning multiple dogs that may not necessarily always get along, and like him, I hail from the department of "better safe than sorry". I doubt the statement was not intended to be as blanket as such, but that's not my call. Though I will say that my view does drop when people fail to realize something so widely mentioned among breed fanciers, especially those that would set up thier dogs for a chance at failure by putting them in situations where they could be seen as vicious (see:dog parks) . Also, feel free to sign up on game-dog.com or pitbullforums.com, where I'm sure other bulldog enthusiasts would be happy to chat with you on the subject
-Finch