I don't live in MD but go there to train several times a week

[Officially Retired]

I hate to say it, but there is some truth to the idea "pit bulls are inherently more dangerous" than other dogs, insofar as IF a pit bull bites he will take an attack to a whole new level that most dogs will never get to.

Think about it: why else are ONLY pit bulls used in money dogfights? Because of how game and relentless they are in their attack, that's why.

Keep in mind, I am not talking about temperament! I completely understand that "temperament" is a separate issue from "ability," and I completely understand that plenty of pit bulls have never (and would never) attack a person. But the fact remains that pit bulls are potentially more dangerous! Because if they do attack, they will take that attack to a whole other level.

I don't agree that any dog should be "banned" on account of its breed type, but I DO agree that pit bulls are potentially more dangerous than any other breed type, and that is because of their game relentless genetic background. So it's a slippery slope to walk. We can't say that, "A pit bull can do anything any other dog can do, and then whip him," and then not acknowledge that these extreme fighting abilities, and extreme gameness, don't carry with them the potential to do more damage and harm than a regular dog.

Jack

[wrknapbt]

I hate to say it, but there is some truth to the idea "pit bulls are inherently more dangerous" than other dogs, insofar as IF a pit bull bites he will take an attack to a whole new level that most dogs will never get to.

Think about it: why else are ONLY pit bulls used in money dogfights? Because of how game and relentless they are in their attack, that's why.

Keep in mind, I am not talking about temperament! I completely understand that "temperament" is a separate issue from "ability," and I completely understand that plenty of pit bulls have never (and would never) attack a person. But the fact remains that pit bulls are potentially more dangerous! Because if they do attack, they will take that attack to a whole other level.

I don't agree that any dog should be "banned" on account of its breed type, but I DO agree that pit bulls are potentially more dangerous than any other breed type, and that is because of their game relentless genetic background. So it's a slippery slope to walk. We can't say that, "A pit bull can do anything any other dog can do, and then whip him," and then not acknowledge that these extreme fighting abilities, and extreme gameness, don't carry with them the potential to do more damage and harm than a regular dog.

Jack

Jack while I agree I just do not agree with this law/bill. It will make life for resposible owners hard

[skipper]

Think about it: why else are ONLY pit bulls used in money dogfights? Because of how game and relentless they are in their attack, that's why.

That is not entirely true. The APBT are the superior breed overall in money dogfights. In Europe there are still some fanciers working with Staffordshire bullterriers. Ch Moses, CH Redbull, are just two examples. They both won against highly regarded apbts. I could name several more, but as their owners are low key doggers I won't. There are also some well known dogs down from the psycho strain of staffords. Ch Milo, 2XW Judas, 2XW beanie. And the list goes on. http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com...?dog_id=230949 Just an examlpe of a psycho bred stafford that beat a Pitbull.