Here is to you, mindless morons..
Saturday, August 18, 2012
To you, morons!
When I saw this, I immediately thought of a band of sycophantic stooges who spend their lives bitching (with apologies to dams) and moaning. What a waste of oxygen.
Here is to you, mindless morons..
Here is to you, mindless morons..
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Break stick?
There is this mosquito, or is it a troll, that keeps buzzing in my ear... its latest inquiry is whether I have a break stick or not. Apparently, not only is it a nuisance, it is also ignorant. This is unfortunate... a mere 10 minutes reading a posting on this blog would have assured it that its poodle's life would be spared if my dog got hold of it. Oh, wait... that can NEVER happen, because my dogs don't make choices. I do.But those of you who missed my post about three years ago, can get proper instruction on American Pit Bull Terrier ownership by reading my "primer."
http://andrew-rozsa.blogspot.com/2009/06/andrews-primer-for-having-american-pit.html
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Heroes or foes? YOU decide
In his inimitable and useless endeavor to convince me that Pit Bulls are bad, my foe (DubV) points me to this utterly useless piece of YouTube propaganda that uses fabricated numbers to pursuade you. Viewed by a total of 23 people. :-P
 |
| GOOD DOG DOWN Four-year-old "Chief", an American Pit Bull Terrier, dashed in front of a venomous snake which was poised to strike at 87-year-old Liberata la Victoria and her granddaughter Maria Victoria. Shielding the women from the attack, Chief saved them but died minutes later from the snake's bite.(Photo: Marc Sabelita) |
So DubV and his 2 friends, who don’t have a life, will bring “talking in circles”
type evidence (a.k.a. hearsay cherry-picked, culled from the media, unreliable,
pulled-out-of-the-thin-air, b.s pseudo-data).
The lovely threesome will ignore the testimony, personal
experiences and documented data supported by all major associations and
agencies (such as the American Medical Veterinary Association, The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, American Canine Foundation, the National Animal
Control Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals),
opinion of experts, and the love of hundreds of thousands of Pit Bull lovers (the
mindless trio and their army of 23 cohorts call us “pitbull nutters”), and
continue to spew propaganda, while citing Goebel’s philosophy of it… how
hilariously ironic… or is it hypocritical?
But I digress…
So, on a lark, I entered the keywords “Pit Bull Saves”… got
683 hits… the “PitBull DSaves”.. got 663 hits…
Some interesting links:
Pit
Bull SAVES family from house fire
Blue,
the dog (Pit bull) wo (sic!) saved my son's life.
Pitbull
saves pregnant woman and child!
Pit
Bull killed protecting her family
Pit
Bull scares away molester
Pit
saves family from Cobra
A
Virginia Beach Pit Bull Is Being Called A Hero
Thank you, DubV, for being cannon fodder...
Monday, January 9, 2012
Talking about "unholy alliances"...
My foe, DubV, once again pours
water on a duck’s ass and “alerts” me to yet another masterpiece of foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric. This time an “article” written
by Branwyne Finch, a self-proclaimed “expert” and “contributor” to the blogs of
two ladies whose life-goals are to kill dogs.
I have no idea who Branwyne Finch is, what are
his qualifications, or whether anything about what he writes has any value. Is
he a geneticist? An animal behaviorist? A sociologist? A veterinarian? Or is he a self-serving mouthpiece
for two women who have nothing better to do with their lives than to denigrate
an entire dog breed?
Finch writes well; however he
self-references exclusively the blogs written by these two ladies and this puts
a serious dent in his credibility. Given that these blogs are read ONLY by folks
who are already convinced by the righteousness of their “cause,” he is “preaching
to the choir.” He sounds convincing and reasonable, however, the numbers he is “citing”
are pulled out of thin air and the arguments he uses are exactly of the same
caliber as those used by “pit nutters” (as these people, globally, call us).
At some point in his diatribe,
Finch states “It has become increasingly
apparent that a relatively small but vocal group of people who are fanciers of
dangerous dog breeds have managed to form an unholy alliance with the dog
breeder lobby and animal welfare organizations to ensure that the breeding and ownership
of dangerous dogs goes completely unregulated.”
I wish Mr. Finch did not lump
all of us together. MY cadre of Pit Bull fanciers has little tolerance for
backyard Pit Bull breeders or breeders in general. We are definitely NOT
aligned with any organizations that promote “the breeding and ownership of
dangerous dogs.” We loathe criminal behavior and cringe at the thought of dogs fighting
each other. In
fact, what Mr. Finch wishes for (i.e., “a call for cracking down on criminals and backyard breeders
producing the glut of unstable dogs, a call for breed clubs to redefine ethical
breeding practices, and a strong commitment to breeding away from the
aggressive behavior, including dog aggression that defines the pit bull breed”) is EXACTLY the focus of our endeavors.
Mr. Finch’s statement that Pit Bull fanciers promote unregulated
ownership of dangerous dogs is patently false. What we want is a distinction
between a “dangerous dog” and Pit Bulls. In his mind and in those of his cult,
the two are synonymous.
What Finch purposely misstates is that we are a “relatively
small” group. Actually, there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of us who
are rational, thoughtful, socially responsible, and kind human beings who just
happen to love a dog that gives us and our families much pleasure and improves
the quality of our lives.
Probably much to his surprise,
we (genuine Pit Bull fanciers) completely agree with Finch’s conclusions. Those
of us who work to rescue Pit Bulls and advocate responsible ownership will automatically
spay and neuter the dogs and will foster and re-home only those dogs that are
animal and human friendly. Demanding
dogs are paired with experienced handlers and placed in families that are
appropriate for the dog. The gauntlet of tests and the level of scrutiny through
which prospective adopters AND the dogs have to pass is probably matched only
by the FBI applicants.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
FAIR USE STATEMENT
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
A Tale of Two Cities
There are these two towns in Nebraska: Rushville and La
Vista.
Rushville, citing a rash of dog attacks, had the City Council
members vote unanimously to prohibit pit bulls inside the city limits. They “recently
passed an ordinance that bans “pit bulls.”‘
 |
| http://tinyurl.com/35uvp57 |
Let’s follow the logic:..”Mayor Chris Heiser said some of
the problems that prompted the ordinance originated with stray dogs that enter
the city from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Although other breeds cause
problems, pit bull attacks are often more dangerous, he said. "In 2009 we
had 10 dog bites, and of those only one was from a pit bull," Heiser said.
But he added that, due to the strength of their jaws, a pit bull attack can
cause much more harm that a bite from a Chihuahua (sic!). "We have talked
about (making an ordinance) before, and we currently have a vicious dog
ordinance. We're just trying to catch up with the times," he said. http://tinyurl.com/7k84htj
So, to summarize… the town has a problem with stray dogs,
they had 10 dog bites in 2009, one of which was a “pit bull,” so the city makes
the decision to ban Pit Bulls. Now THAT ought to protect the citizenry.
Our colleague Jodi Preis of Bless the Bullys fame, tells us
about another city ion Nebraska.
"The La
Vista City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved an ordinance to cope with
potentially dangerous dogs and their owners.”
“The ordinance, which
will take effect Jan. 1, gives the Nebraska Humane Society the power to declare
a dog as "potentially dangerous" if the dog is unprovoked and attacks
and injures a person or another pet.
Unprovoked dog chases,
or a tendency to attack or threaten animals or people, could also lead to the
tag of potentially dangerous.
 |
| http://tinyurl.com/8yedmpl |
Mark Langan, a vice
president for the Humane Society, said similar measures have been effective in
other cities. He said only about 100 dogs in Omaha have been declared
potentially dangerous since the city's ordinance took effect in 2009.
Dogs, regardless of
breed, can be classified as potentially dangerous only after an incident that
leads to the intimidation, injury or attack on another animal or human.
"It holds the
owner responsible, which I think is key to this," said Councilman Kelly Sell.”
So, dear reader, what makes sense? An ordinance that
prohibits Pit Bulls or an ordinance that holds the owners of ANY dangerous animal
responsible?
You tell me…
Monday, December 5, 2011
TIME Magazine's "Top 10 Heroic Animals
Eighty-five years after his death, guess who make TIME
Magazine’s "Top 10 Heroic Animals?" Sergeant Stubby, a Pit Bull.
Some sources speculated that he was
part Boston Terrier and part Pit Bull, while other sources state that he was in
fact a pure bred American Pit Bull. His obituary described him as a "Bull
terrier" (which was, at the time, synonymous with "American Bull
Terrier" and "Pit Bull terrier"). One thing is for sure: he was not a Shih-Tzu.
 |
| At the Smithsonian |
Sgt. Stubby's endeavors are well chronicled. Just follow the
links at the bottom, if you are interested. Stubby was made a life member of the American
Legion, the Red Cross, and the YMCA. In 1921, the Humane Education Society
awarded him a special gold medal for service to his country. It was presented
by General John Pershing.
Riffenberg’s blog reminds us of the unavoidable irony that
the dog that was the most decorated military dog in the history of United
States, today would not be allowed on any of America’s military bases.
Way to go people: take something precious and turn it into
anathema.
As a note to all dog haters out there: four of the “Top 10
Heroic Animals” are dogs. Trackr, the 9/11 hero, was cloned five times. Mei Chan, the “loyal tsunami dog is a Brittany
spaniel. Brittanies are genuinely
sweet bird dogs. Togo the Sled Dog is a Siberian Husky, Trackr was a German
Shepherd, and Sgt. Stubby a Pit Bull. With the exception of Mei Chan's, all the others' breeds frequently make the top 10 “vicious
dogs” lists of people who use such terminology.
References:
Wikipedia
Smithsonian - The Price of Freedom: American at War.
History Wired
A Connecticut Hero
Disonancia
Riffenberg's blog: U.S. & World Political News &
Opinion
The Most Decorated Dog in History Would Not Be Allowed on
Military Bases Today.
Sgt. Stubby: American War Dog
Monday, November 28, 2011
The most hated dog in America? Depends on the decade.
My “esteemed critic” is at “it” again - splitting hairs. S/he
utters in Comments to my previous posting: “Blame
is an incorrect way to frame this issue. Dogs are not moral agents. Therefore,
they cannot be blamed. Their behavior can be influenced by breed genetics. It
is best to think in terms of cause and effect."
Cute. S/he uses the usual red herring - quibble about minutiae to distract from the message.
 |
| About the history of the breed |
Cesar Millan's is not a native English speaker. I am not
sure whether he said what it’s attributed to him, or whether he said it first,
or whether he said it at all, etc. OK, s/he doesn’t like “blame.” To appease our prevaricator, we can replace “blame”
with asperse, attack, bad-mouth, blot, blotch, calumniate, decry, defame,
defile, denigrate, dishonor, do a number on, give a black eye, knock, libel,
malign, rip up and down, rip, slander, slur, smudge, stain, sully, taint,
tarnish, traduce, vilify, or any other similarly-meaning word from a thesaurus.
The historical facts remain that at different times in the
history of this country people had the same visceral hatred for specific breeds
of dogs that Bully-haters demonstrate for Pit Bulls now.
The entire argument that Pit Bulls are dangerous because the
media reports fatal dog attacks is an egregious example of post-hoc ergo
propter hoc type argument. It’s a huge logical fallacy and my detractors know
this. But an agenda is an agenda and, quite obviously, selling your soul is
secondary to that.
To spare the readers of this blog a serious tension
headache, I will NOT engage in a nature vs. nurture argument here. I know for a
fact that I can modify the behavior of the dog to conform to the needs, rules,
and social requirements of the milieu in which it lives. A glancing shot at “nurture”
here: as everybody who cares to learn about Pit Bull terriers knows, the animals
that WE call Pit Bulls have been genetically selected AGAINST human-aggression.
Cause and effect? Really? Science deals with probabilities. The probability
that ANY of my Pit Bulls will bite anybody… ever… is ZERO.
I reiterate a statement that I, and all similar-minded
people, hold as truth: Only owners who take the responsibility of a Pit Bull
ownership SERIOUSLY should have Pit Bulls in their families. Is this not an
unequivocal and pretty clear statement?
In the hands of responsible owners, a Pit Bull of any sort
is not more likely to harm a person than any other breed of dog. IF, my Pit
Bull bites you, brother, you have the right to take me to court, sue the hell
out of me for medical bills, pain and suffering, and whatever else you and your
shyster desire. Plus, you also have the right to have criminal charges brought
against me.
What you DON’T have, Bully-hater, is the right to assume that
my dog will bite you because s/he happens to look like a dog you don’t like.
I will fight you and your pals with all the resources available
to me to prevent you from empowering police, dog catchers, sexual deviants, and
whoever you care to name to come barging into my house and kill my dogs because
they simply LOOK like a dog you don’t like.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Life magazine covers
"The Pit Bull is the only dog to have graced the cover of Life magazine three times."
Monday, October 31, 2011
To “Nanny-Dog” or “Not To Nanny-Dog,” that is not the question
To “Nanny-Dog” or “Not To
Nanny-Dog,” that is not the question
Science, or scientific
research, does not answer the question ‘why.’ Scientific inquiry deals with
probabilities. For example, if event “A” happens, what is the likelihood that
it will be followed by event “B” or event “X?”
So, if we call the Pit Bull a
“Nanny Dog” what’s the probability of someone getting bitten or killed by a Pit
Bull? Conversely, if we agree that Pit Bulls are too dangerous to have ever
been called “Nanny Dogs,” what is the probability that someone will show up at
my door and want to take my dogs away and kill them?
So let me set up a decision
making matrix to see which way I would rather err..
The decision-making matrix
will depend on the payoff.
|
|
Null Hypothesis (H0) is true
Nanny Dogs |
Alternative Hypothesis (H1)
is true
Not Nanny Dogs |
|
Accept Null Hypothesis
Nanny Dogs |
Right decision
|
Wrong decision
Type II Error |
|
Reject Null Hypothesis
Not Nanny Dogs |
Wrong decision
Type I Error |
Right decision
|
H0 is False and I call it False – we continue calling Pit
Bulls “Nanny Dogs.” All Pit Bulls are loved and owned by responsible families. If we make a Type II error –
some people get bitten, maimed, or killed. The proposition is to mitigate the
Type II error by educating the public and make them “bite-proof.” Which is what
the experts tell us to do. The number of Pit Bull (or any dog) bites decreases.
Ho
is true and we fail to reject it – we state that Pit Bulls are not “Nanny
Dogs” (because… they are vicious – otherwise why not call them potential
“Nannies?”). Millions of dogs get killed, ownership is penalized, more
governmental control is put in place, people learn to be helpless because
somebody else will take care of them, individual responsibility is, once again,
minimized, and OTHER type of dogs will bite, maim and kill. A Type I error is vastly most
costly, if you care about dogs, freedom, responsibility, and are one of the
hundreds of thousand of us who love Pit Bulls.
My opponents’ aim is “prove”
that the Pit Bull was not named a “Nanny Dog” (because “it couldn’t possibly,
look at the terrible evidence we have..”) thereby further demonizing an animal
that doesn’t deserve it. My projection of his/her desired outcome: nothing will
change, except hundreds of thousands of more dogs will be killed. Cities that
banned Pit Bulls have NOT seen a decrease in dog bite fatalities. I can bring statistics
supportive of this statement. Their supporters: people who have been bitten by
dogs, people who are afraid of their shadows and want Big Brother to protect
them, politicians, media, and breeders.
My aim is educate the public
and let it know that the dogs are safe when handled properly and the public
needs to learn some basic knowledge to protect itself against DOG bites. I
said, DOG, not Pit Bull, on purpose.
The focus of Bully-haters remains heavily on the dog’s conduct
rather than on the owner’s conduct,
which, to me, seems misguided. Owner conduct is easier to correct through law,
education or other means, which is more likely to promote owner accountability
for dogs in the future. Focusing on the dog’s actions may mean it is destroyed
as ‘dangerous’ while the owner can still get a new dog, a new kind of dog, or
an alligator and act equally irresponsibly in the future.
Calling Pit Bulls “Nanny Dogs” seems to irk a cadre of
Bully-haters to such extreme that makes me wonder not only about their agenda,
but also about their mental health. In a country in which up to 300 kids are
killed each year by their biological parents we worry about what a Pit Bull may
or not have been called? What a costly investment of misplaced priorities,
energy, time and resources this is.
Just in case I have not stated my intentions clearly, the goals
of this blog have always been and remain to:
1.
Debunk the bad rap my favorite dog
breed gets;
2.
Provide (however biased) evidence that
Pit Bulls have been vilified by the media ad nauseam;
3.
Present evidence that close-minded people use b.s. published in the media to
further their own agenda with no regard to whom it may harm;
4.
Provide whatever
means I can muster to show off Pit Bulls as the great pet that they are in the
right hands and with proper treatment;
5.
Remind the
uneducated that the breed was bred for dog-aggression NOT human-aggression and
that two are vastly different from each other;
6.
Help the Pit
Bull by convincing folks to a) spay or neuter their dogs; b) understand and
assume responsibility of dog ownership; c) behave as they want others behave
towards them; d) put unethical and immoral breeders out of business; e) stop
dog-fighting; f) prevent the killing of nearly 500,000 Pit Bulls every year by
rescuing, fostering, training and adopting as many of them as possible; and g)
stop ill-equipped, uneducated, mean-spirited, angry individuals from showing up
at MY doorstep and take and kill my dogs simply because they look like
something a politician thought of as not deserving to live
So,
it’s not about “Nanny Dogs” at all. It’s about BSL, stupid!
More
about that later.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The Nanny Dog issue - redux
My
discussion opponent seems unconvinced that Pit Bulls were ever called “nanny
dogs.”
I guess
that means he will not be adopting a Pit Bull sentenced to die, any time soon.
Were Pit
Bulls called "nanny dogs." Who knows? The thousands of pictures we
see seem to support the notion that a lot of people liked them and have no
problems with the dogs being around their children. We don't know what people
called them. Just because it's not in the papers, doesn't mean people didn't
call them "nannies." Do people call TVs nannies? I don't know, but
sure as hell they use TVs/video games as nannies.
My evidence
for "nannyhood?" Thousands of vintage pictures. My “friend's”
evidence? Sensation-seeking media. My experience? Thousands of owners I know
who adore their dogs. His? Somebody got bitten by a dog she thinks it was a Pit
Bull.
MY dogs
would OK with families with children. Would I leave them alone with my
grandchild? Absolutely not. Why not? Because NO DOG should be left unsupervised
with a child. I have an article about a Pomeranian killing a baby.
If you are interested in the truth, do find the nearest Pit Bull owners' gathering in your
area and visit them. Talk to the people. Spend some time around the dogs. I think you will be
pleasantly surprised that the Pit Bull is not the ogre it is made out to be.
OTOH, you can walk with me through the areas where I see clients in the
evenings and weekends and you will see 12-year-olds with a Pit Bull on a rope
looking for an impromptu street dog fight. Do you know what would happen if Pit
Bull haters managed to kill all the Pit Bulls? We, who love these animals and
commit ourselves to responsible ownership would be deprived of our companions
and the misguided 'users', greedy breeders, and macho criminals would switch to
Presa Canarios. I wish they did, already. L
Last few
DooDah Days - when our city parades its pets - tens of thousands of them - we
saw a lot of people and a lot of dogs and cats. Nobody flinched at the sight of
my Pit Bulls. In fact they just smiled at my T-shirt that says "Owned by a
Pit Bull." Then I joined the Bama Bully Rescue booth and the dozen
absolutely delightful young ladies who were working to educate the public and
adopt out some of our dogs.
What is the
official position of the CDC and American Veterinary Medical Association?
Educate the public in dog bite prevention! Do they advocate the use of Pit
Bulls as "nannies?" Nope. But they also emphasize that one cannot
ascertain "viciousness" based on breed. Certainly, not with the 79
people maimed or killed by so-called Pit Bulls that my “friend’s” friend is so
fond of citing and not with ANY available scientifically documented data.
Was I ever
bitten by a dog? Of course I was. By a Deutscher Schäferhund... I was a child
and I was teasing it. You know what happens when a child teases a trained,
well-cared for and balanced Pit Bull? NOTHING! It will probably lick the kid.
Pit Bulls are tolerant, loyal, gentle, and loving. My dogs would rather be
petted than eat. The dozens of people with Pit Bulls we walked with in the park
last Friday, many of whom were children, seem to agree with me.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Are the "Nanny Dogs" a Myth?
My esteemed critic DubV asks: "do you still think pit bull's were ever the or a nanny dog?"
Here is my reply:
Here is my reply:
- ANY point of view is supportable by simply cherry-picking supportive “evidence.” Notoriously, in research, it is not unusual for one to cite a hundred articles that support the findings of the research and ignore most, if not all, the ones that would contradict it. Similarly, when deposed or asked to act as an expert witness in forensic work, we have been taught not to cite references supporting our point of view, because the opposition has just as many “expert witnesses” who will bring to bear references that state the contrary view. Any good expert witness, and I think I am one, states his or her OPINION and supports it with HIS or HER findings.
- History is “truth” as seen from the perspective of the writer of history. I believe that our knowledge of history of the past is nothing but a recitation of “facts” as ordered by the winner of war(s) or whoever is in power.
- Beliefs are acquired through: a) learning (experience); b) what an authority tells us; c) consensus. All three can be faulty. I know you can think of examples of each.
A Google search of the phrase “nanny
dog historical fact” yields 1.5 million hits, much of it “”noise.” However, the
vast majority of hits on the top few pages will be supportive of the idea,
while the minority who calls us “nutters,” holds the opinion that this is a myth.
CKing and Craven Desires, who dedicated their My
Space page to “debunking” the “myth of the nanny dog” are “friends” with a dozen
kennels that breed “pit bulls” (note the quotation marks), bring NO evidence
that the American Pit Bull Terrier was NOT a family dog at the turn of the
century and into the 40s and 50s, and by failing to find evidence of “historical
fact” conclude that the whole things is a myth. It’s the classical “Bertrand’s
(Russells’) Teapot,” or argumentum ad ignorantiam – indeed, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. The
rant starts with a false premise, quite thoroughly contradicted by both the CDC
and the American Veterinary Medical Association (the number of children killed
by “pit bulls). Further impugning the person’s credibility, at the very top of
his/her page, this person starts with an image that paraphrases Joseph Goebbels,
Adolf Hitler’s Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany. What a perfect example of
Godwin’s Law.
That My Space post has been cut and pasted verbatim by several other bloggers.
CUI BONO?
“The American Pit Bull Terrier was not bred for human aggression or for use as a guard dog. Rather, bred for their unmatchable will, high tolerance for pain, and their athletic abilities. They are good caretakers who are intelligent, loving, and alert. Combine all of these factors together, and you have the recipe for a companion animal that does well with children when properly trained. Pit Bulls make great search and rescue dogs and many serve as therapy assistance animals. The Nanny Dog story dates back to the 19th century where the Pit Bull was a popular choice as a companion animal for children based on their docile temperament. Certain sites will have you believe that the Nanny Dog story is a myth, such as the Truth about Pit Bulls blog, yet if you read such sites, you will see that these individuals are making assumptions based on comparisons of dog aggression and human aggression as if the two are related to one another. For example, one of the implied ides on the site mentioned is the thought that the Pit Bull could be the perfect family companion by day and be the throat ripping monster fighter in a ring by night. What these authors do not grasp is the fact that a scenario of this sort is not only completely plausible, but did, and does exist. Because of how Pit Bull fighting and over-breeding has evolved, coupled with the fact that people can’t understand that dog aggression and human aggression are not the least bit related, most do not comprehend that the family Pit Bull often shared a bed with the kids, ate dinner with the family, saw a veterinarian on a regular basis, and when it was time, was thrown into a ring by his master. When a fight was over, rarely was a death of a dog the end result.
The other side of the Nanny Dog involves those who were companions in the wars. Many Pit Bulls/Staffordshire Terriers would accompany their masters to their posts. There are several war stories and memorandums in dedication to the breed for their courageous efforts and their therapeutic loyalty to injured soldiers.
There are still stories today involving heroic efforts for the family children that the media passes right over. Two recent cases involve a Pit Bull pulling a baby’s basinet through a home away from a fire, and another involves a Pit Bull alerting his owner to a strangling child. Both children were safe in the outcomes. Though bad people do bad things with dogs and tragedies result from their negligence, this breed by nature is not the culprit, they are often the reason that children are removed from harm.
Myths or beliefs, past or present, the nature of this breed emulates a loyal companion and sheppard for children when brought up in the right hands. We share our home with two Nanny Dogs.”
Personally, I prefer to give credence to the American Pit Bull Foundation:
The other side of the Nanny Dog involves those who were companions in the wars. Many Pit Bulls/Staffordshire Terriers would accompany their masters to their posts. There are several war stories and memorandums in dedication to the breed for their courageous efforts and their therapeutic loyalty to injured soldiers.
There are still stories today involving heroic efforts for the family children that the media passes right over. Two recent cases involve a Pit Bull pulling a baby’s basinet through a home away from a fire, and another involves a Pit Bull alerting his owner to a strangling child. Both children were safe in the outcomes. Though bad people do bad things with dogs and tragedies result from their negligence, this breed by nature is not the culprit, they are often the reason that children are removed from harm.
Myths or beliefs, past or present, the nature of this breed emulates a loyal companion and sheppard for children when brought up in the right hands. We share our home with two Nanny Dogs.”
Considering all of the above, I
BELIEVE that the “nanny dog” moniker is well-deserved with the appropriate
cautions: 1) no dog of any kind should ever be left unsupervised with a young
child; 2) a dog should be treated with the respect that a family companion
deserves; 3) a dog should be trained every day of his/her life; 4) a Pit Bull
of any kind is not for everyone.
Just an aside... the original "nanny dog" name was attached to an English breed of dogs, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
The REAL American Pit Bull Terrier?
I have been having an
interesting, albeit unproductive, discussion with a blog reader. My opponent is,
quite obviously, intelligent, rational, literate, cogent, and capable of doing
research to support his/her perspective. Yet, we are so apart in our respective
stances regarding Pit Bulls that we will never be able to agree on any
essential point.
How is this possible?
I think he must be talking
about these “monsters” that are bastartizations of the breed and most of the rescue people I work with and owners of Pit Bulls I know would consider an affront to the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris and the Homo sapiens species alike.
I will make sure that my new
rescues are sweet, people and animal friendly, properly training, and always
supervised and under my control.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
AMERICA'S NANNY DOG
Yonah Ward Grossman is an erudite and prolific poster/blogger whose observations are delivered with a fine sense of humor. I recommend his blog both for edification and a grin. http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/
http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=604
http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=780
http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=676
http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=1103
http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=954
http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=853
Recently he posted a series of articles on Pit Bulls which I recommend to all. He graciously acquiesced to let me use some “antique” pix of Pit Bulls as seen through the lens of the camera in the early 1900s. That was a time when Pit Bulls where considered not only America ’s dogs, but also America
As he states so eloquently, “America United States
I am posting here some of the pictures he has on his blogs and some which I have found on the Internet over the years. I find them all delightful. I hope the readers of this blog will, too.
Here are the links to Yonas’ blogs about Pit Bulls
THE CRUELEST TRICK EVER PLAYED ON A BREED OF DOG
Posted on May 2, 2011 by YWGROSSMANhttp://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=604
FOR OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS AMERICANS KNEW PIT BULLS FOR WHAT THEY DID BEST. BABYSITTING
Posted on May 4, 2011 by YWGROSSMANhttp://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=780
FOR OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS AMERICANS KNEW PIT BULLS FOR WHAT THEY DID BEST. BABYSITTING
Posted on May 4, 2011 by YWGROSSMANhttp://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=676
RICH OR POOR, AMERICAN PARENTS KNEW EXACTLY WHAT PIT BULLS WERE FAMOUS FOR. BEING GREAT WITH KIDS
Posted on June 2, 2011 by YWGROSSMANhttp://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=1103
THE MEDIA REPORTS PIT BULLS ARE THE #1 MOST AGGRESSIVE DOG BREED…
Posted on May 22, 2011 by YWGROSSMANhttp://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=954
YOU’RE FACING A GERMAN SHEPHERD, A ROTTWEILER, A DOBERMAN PINSCHER, AND A PIT BULL…
Posted on May 18, 2011 by YWGROSSMANhttp://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=853
Enjoy the pictures….
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)