The Nanny Dog Myth Revealed

UPDATE 5/21/13: Two years and nine months after the Nanny Dog Myth Revealed was first published, BAD RAP, a major pit bull advocacy group publicly announced that it will no longer support the Nanny Dog myth because it endangers children.  While it is too late for many children, hopefully many will be saved in the future.  Thank you, BAD RAP
BAD RAP shared a link.
It's Dog Bite Prevention Week. Did you know that there was never such thing as a 'Nanny's Dog'? This term was a recent invention created to describe the myriad of vintage photos of children enjoying their family pit bulls (see link for details about vintage photos). While the intention behind the term was innocent, using it may mislead parents into being careless with their children around their family dog - A recipe for dog bites! 
From 2004 to 2010 59 US children were killed by the family's, babysitter's, neighbor's or friend's pit bull.
The pit bull apologia would have you believe that their fighting bred dogs are just like any other dog in many ways, but so superior in their unparalleled love and devotion for children they were commonly known as "The Nanny Dog" throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries. If pit bulls are held in low esteem today, it is only due to ignorance and the gullible acceptance of biased news reporting because, once upon a time, pit bulls were the most beloved dog in England and the United States.

A google search brings up 77,100 results for the term "nanny dog." While some sites bestow the Nanny Dog mantle on the American Pit Bull Terrier or the American Staffordshire Terrier and some lead you to productions of Peter Pan, most of the results lead you to 21st century blogs and news articles about the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

120 sites dedicated to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier include this phrase in support of the fighting nanny dog mythology,
"These dogs were renowned for their courage and tenacity and despite their ferocity in the pit were excellent companions and good with children. In fact it was not unknown for an injured dog to be transported home in a pram with the baby!"
Frankly, even if this anecdote were plausible, let alone true, this doesn't support a nanny dog claim so much as it supports a sociopathic, baby abusing, dog abusing parent claim.

Dig as hard as you want, the pram story is all you'll find to support the Nanny Dog myth in any of these sites. You won't find a single citation, quote or reference of any kind to a 19th century, or early 20th century text. Since the Staffordshire Bull Terrier enthusiasts didn't see fit to support their claims, I decided I would have to find the origin of the Nanny Dog myself.

Meet the Nanny Dog - the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, England's ultimate fighting dog and, inexplicably, the supposed dog of choice to care for England's children in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

It is not hard to find old references to the Bull Terrier. The various histories and descriptions of the breed largely agree with each other. After bull baiting was banned in England, Coalminers in various cities including Staffordshire were at a loss for blood sporting alternatives for their beloved, courageous bulldogs. So, they developed another blood sport - pit dog fighting. Sadly, they soon found their bulldogs were not suited to win in the pit.

According to a 1908 New York Times article,
"The old lovers of the bulldog found to their dismay that sometimes a terrier, with only quickness and a pair of punishing jaws to recommend him, would kill a bulldog while the latter was merely hanging on. The bulldog would be brave to the death of course, and would withstand pain that the terrier would never endure, but that was poor consolation when the terrier had killed the dog.
The dog fighters were, however, as persevering a set of men as were the bull baiters, and they set to work to remodel their favorites for their new occupation. They began to cross their bulldogs with the white English terrier, a breed now practically extinct, but the same in every respect, save color, as the modern Manchester or black-and-tan. The progeny was named the bull terrier, the greatest fighting machine, pound for pound, on four legs. The bull terrier had the courage of the bulldog and the jaws and quickness of the white terrier. Moreover, he has the terrier's way of fighting. He does not simply take a hold and stay there. He takes a hold and begins to eat his way through and tear and worry. If his first hold doesn't suit, he takes another. If he gets his adversary by the throat, he will tear out the throat in a minute or so and end the battle."
"There is perhaps no more beautiful illustration of the results of artificial selection than is provided in the history of the bulldog. It is a wonderful example of patient and skillful breeding for an object that is not wholly ignoble.
We can agree to disagree on that last point.

It is a bit confounding that the New York Times author neglected to mention the Staffordshire dog fighter's even more stupendous genetic achievement, that of creating an unstoppable "fighting machine" that can also be used to nanny their children.

Nineteenth century dog breed books, such as The Illustrated Natural History (Mammalia), by Rev. JG Wood (1853), and The Dogs of the British Islands, by J.H. Walsh (1878) very precisely describe the deadly nature of the Bull Terrier, including an account of a Bull Terrier's attack on a rhinoceros by a dog "called Venus in derision of her ugliness."(Wood, p. 311) Walsh suggests that, "unlike the bulldog, he (the Bull Terrier) is an excellent companion for the male sex, being a little too violent in his quarrels to make him desirable as a ladies' pet (p. 221)." Nanny Dog? Not so much.

In 1894, Rawdon B. Lee wrote A History and Description of the Modern Dogs of Great Britain and Ireland in which he explains that in the middle of the 19th century, fanciers began to breed bull terriers as "a gentleman's companion" and began showing them in the ring. It was about this time that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier began to be recognized as distinct from the Bull Terrier. The Kennel Club in England recognized the Bull Terrier in the last quarter of the 19th century, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier became the pit fighting dog of choice. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was denied Kennel Club recognition until 1935 because of its reputation as a pit fighting dog.

Lee illustrates the Bull Terrier's unsavory past by revealing that Bulls-eye, one of the meanest dogs in literary history and Bill Sykes' sidekick and alter ego from Oliver Twist (1838) was a Bull Terrier. Dickens describes Bull's-Eye as having a face "scratched and torn in twenty different places..." and..."who by a certain malicious licking of his lips seemed to be meditating an attack up on the legs of the first gentleman or lady he might encounter in the streets when he went out." Charles Dickens also seemed unaware of the Bull Terrier's special powers as a nanny, but was aware of the pit bull's capacity for human aggression.

Charles Dickens' Bill Sikes and Bull's-Eye

Lee (p. 23) contends, "our modern Bull Terrier is a very different creature from what he was half a century ago." According to Lee, they had been perhaps the most popular dog in England, until they were recently supplanted by the Fox Terrier. They were kept for pets and companions, they gained recognition in dog shows, and became fashionable to own among the undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge. If any pit fighting dog might have been called England's Nanny Dog, surely it would have been the white Bull Terrier. And yet there is no mention of it.

Mr. Lee is perhaps the first recorded pit nutter. He penned what might be the first known iteration of, "It's how you raise them" (p.22, p. 26) which is hilariously followed by the woeful tale of the demise of Mr. Lee's own beloved Bull Terrier, Sam. Sam was incredibly talented and an incomparable companion who, owing to fighting blood on his sire's side, became increasingly aggressive. After killing at least two dogs, Sam was dumped at a warehouse to be a guard dog where he died of a broken heart. 30 years later, Mr. Lee still laments the incredible and bloodthirsty Sam. But, I thought it was how you raise them...

As for 19th century mentions of the "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" that can be found online, there is one. It is a want ad for a fighting dog:
Pleshey Chelmsford Wanted a Staffordshire bull terrier dog must have an exceedingly long nose and thoroughly game to face anything and win A tried dog preferred PS For special purpose weight 34 lb 944 (1871 Exchange and Mart and Journal of the Household (p. 614))

Archive searches of British, American and Canadian newspapers going as far back as the 18th century turn up not one single mention of "Nanny Dog" with regards to ANY breed until 1904 when the first stage production of Peter Pan opened featuring a nursemaid dog named Nana. Though J.M. Barrie patterned Nana after his Landseer Newfoundland, Nana has been portrayed by a St. Bernard, and an Old English Sheep Dog in subsequent stage and screen productions. No mention of Nana ever being a Staffie Bull. Not even in Never Never Land.

So, where is the oldest known reference to the Staffie Bull being some sort of nanny dog? In a New York Times article. In 1971, Walter R. Fletcher wrote an article entitled, "A Breed That Came Up the Hard Way" in which he interviewed William R. Daniels and Mrs. Lilian Rant, President and magazine editor for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America on the eve of the Staffie Bull's being granted permission to be shown in the American Kennel Club's miscellaneous class. It's the first step to AKC recognition and the club wanted to polish their dog's image.

Daniels brings up Dickens' villainous Bull's-Eye again and Mrs. Rant acknowledges that the Stafford "had an unsavory reputation for fighting and violence and his name became associated with ruffians, who cared little for him as a dog but only for his ability in the pit. The Stafford we know today quickly becomes a member of the family circle. He loves children and is often referred to as a 'nursemaid dog.'"

Well, there it is. Mrs. Rant, lover and promoter of the Stafford, is clearly speaking in the present tense about the dog of today (1971) currently being referred to as a 'nursemaid dog' in the United States. She is using a variation of the argument that Mr. Lee used 77 years before about the Bull Terrier, suggesting that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's unsavory reputation as a fighting dog has been left in the far distant past. She harkens back to Dickens again, before the Staffordshire Bull Terrier even existed as a distinct breed. Her contention that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are OFTEN referred to as nursmaid dogs is a little bit of a stretch, too. In 1971, there were 99 registered Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the United States. As editor of the club's magazine, she must have been at the center of all conversation about the breed. It is likely that she either coined the nickname or promulgated it through the magazine, and the term may have gained popularity among those few Stafford enthusiasts who subscribed to her magazine.

A timeline search does not turn up a mention of the exact term "nanny dog" until 1987 in an archived Toronto Star article entitled, Move to Outlaw Pit Bulls Under Study in Several Cities.

"Breeder Kathy Thomas, president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Association said, 'We're aware of the fighting - there's a lot of it in the Hamilton area. We only sell to family homes.'"

"Thomas, mother of two young children, said her eight Staffordshires are 'wonderful with children. In England, our Staffies were called the nanny-dog because they were gentle with kids.'"

Here's where the lie begins to get twisted into its most bizarre and current form and the Nanny Dog myth jumps on the crazy train. The Nanny Dog argument is no longer valid in the way that Mrs. Rant used it in 1971 when the general public was not aware of contemporary dog fighting. By the 1980s, dog fighting had become a generally recognized problem and initiatives to ban pit bulls were beginning. Kathy Thomas acknowledges that there is dog fighting going on all around her in 1987 near Toronto. She can no longer say that the Staffie was once, long ago, in Dickensian England a fighting dog, but has been transformed by many years of selective breeding to be a gentle nanny dog. The dogs are fighting all around her. So, the lie becomes that Staffordshire Bull Terriers were ALWAYS known as nanny dogs. They snuggled with the babies by day, ripped out throats and gutted each other by night and, returning from the fight, snuggled once again with the baby in the pram, this time ripped to shreds and soaked in blood.

It took about 16 years for the story to mutate into the Nanny dog of England - historic fighter and lover of children. But, the myth did not really take off for another 4 years, when Mrs. Rant published her book in 1991, Staffordshire Bull Terriers: Owner's Companion. She uses the term "nursemaid dog" three times and significantly says, " He has a great affection for children, having earned the title 'nursemaid dog' many years ago." (p.117) In this instance, "many years ago" means about 20 years previous, when she first coined or adopted the term.

And how about the history of the term "America's Nanny Dog" referring to the American Pit Bull Terrier or the American Staffordshire Terrier? 5,570 results come up for that query. Again, you cannot find one single citation, source or reference to a text from the 1940s that confirms this assertion. A google timeline search for "America's Nanny Dog" shows the earliest online publication date is September 25, 2007 as an opinion piece in the online publication, Times-Standard entitled "America's Nanny Dog" by Tyla Hafstrom. It is a complete fabrication and an utter lie.

Go ahead and prove me wrong, not with a single primary source, but with a preponderance of evidence that demonstrates the incredible existence of the baby loving fighting dog that was so beloved and so popular in times gone by that it was commonly called the nanny dog.

This, by the way, doesn't count.

This is the truth of the Stafforshire Bull Terrier today. Note this one is in fighting trim and has a a heavily scarred muzzle. This ain't no nanny dog. 

And this is the truth of how pit bulls were seen at the turn of the 20th century.

~We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves.
Eric Hoffer


4truth said...

Very good! I have a few questions: What year was the APBT added to the AKC registry? How many "bully breeds" are there, and does the nanny dog myth apply to all of them or just the Staffordshire and APBT?

april 29 said...

I attempted to post a listing of American children killed by pit bulls since January of 2005. The list FAR exceeded the maximum number of characters allowed in comments. This is just a shame. The list is 59 names. Nanny dog? I don't think so...

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

4truth, the apbt is not recognized by the AKC, the amstaff is.

according to the AKC website:
In 1936, they were accepted for registration in the AKC Stud Book as Staffordshire Terriers. The name of the breed was revised effective January 1, 1972 to American Staffordshire Terrier. Breeders in this country had developed a type which is heavier in weight than the Staffordshire Bull Terrier of England and the name change was to distinguish them as separate breeds.

as for how many bully breeds there are, i couldn't tell you. i suspect it varies. the nanny dog myth originated the staffy bull and the american nutters happily adopted it.

april29, try submitting the victims in multiple comments.

4truth said...

Thanks, Craven. Someone told me they had an AKC registered APBT, so I assumed they were included in the registry! Thanks for clearing that up.

I guess I could buy a book that includes all the AKC registered dogs.... do you know of or recommend one? I have several dog books, but not one that says where they're registered with. I do plan on finding and buying the books you mentioned in the article, they sound like interesting reading.

It's so sad about the 59 children....and seeing their names in list form will help visualize how big a number like 59 really is.

Thanks for starting this blog, I look forward to learning from it!

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

not sure you need to buy a book. i found that information on the AKC website.

also http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/ lists registries for each breed.

actually i can't take credit for this. cking did all the excellent work on this blog post. i contributed some images, that's it.

april 29 said...

American children killed by pit bull dogs - 2010

Jacob Bisbee
2 years old/Concord CA
July 22, 2010
Family pit bulls

Savannah Gragg
9 years old/ Kokomo IN
June3, 2010
Family pit bull

Nathan Aguirre
2 years old/San Bernardino CA
May 27, 2010
Family pit bull

Thomas James Carter Jr.
7 days old/Port Richey FL
April 14, 2010
Family pit bull

Jane Doe
5 days old/Conyers GA
February 23, 2010
Family pit bull

Anastasia Bingham
5 years old/Terry MS
February 12, 2010
Neighbor’s pit bulls

Omar Martinez
3 years old/Apple Valley CA
January 9, 2010
Family pit bull

april 29 said...

American Children killed by pit bull dogs - 2009

Destiny Marie Knox
16 months old/Union County MS
November 5, 2009
Baby sitter’s pit bull

Matthew Clayton Hurt
2 years old/Prescott AR
October 28, 2009
Neighbor’s pit bulls

Colten Smith
19 months old/Delhi CA
October 23, 2009
Baby sitter’s pit bulls

Jasmine Deane
23 months old/Orange County VA
September 27, 2009
Family pit bull

John Doe
3 days old/Rio WV
August 15, 2009
Family pit bull

Gabrial Mandrell-Sauerhage
3 years old/Johnson City IL
June 27, 2009
Family pit bull

Justin Clinton
10 years old/Levertett’s Chapel TX
June 15, 2009
Pits owned by friend’s family

Leonard Lovejoy Jr.
11 months old/Eastpointe MI
April 22, 2009
Family pit bull

Izaiah Gregory Cox
7 months old/San Antonia TX
March 31, 2009
Family pit bull

Tyson Miller
18 months old/Luling TX
March 26, 2009
Pit bull being kept by family for a friend

Cheyenne Peppers
5 years old/Thomasville GA
January 6, 2009
Family pit bull

april 29 said...

American Children killed by pit bull dogs - 2008

Alexander Adams
2 years old/Las Vegas NV
November 26, 2008
Family pit bull

Lopeka Liptak
2 months old/Waianae HI
October 5, 2008
Family pit bull

Katya Todesco
5 years old/Simi Valley CA
September 26, 2008
Neighbor’s pit bull

Cenedi Kia Carey
4 months old/Las Vegas NV
September 12, 2008
Family pit bull

Isis Krieger
6 years old/Anchorage AK
August 14, 2008
Family pit bull

Tony Evans Jr.
3 years old/Jackson MS
June 22, 2008
Neighbor’s pit bull

Pablo Lopez(Hernandez)
5 years old/Weslaco TX
June 18, 2008
Family pit bull

Joshua Tanner Monk
7 years old/Breckenridge TX
May 18, 2008
Neighbor’s pit bulls

Julian Slack
3 years old/ Camp Lejune NC
May 14, 2008
Family pit bull

april 29 said...

American Children killed by pit bull dogs - 2007

Holden Jernigan
2 years old/Summerville SC
December 13, 2007
Family pit bull

Seth Lovitt
11 years old/Killeen TX
November 7, 2007
Family pit bull

Scott Warren
6 years old/Dallas TX
August 31, 2007
Family pit bull

Zachary King JR.
7 years old/ Minneapolis MN
August 16, 2007
Family pit bull

Sabin Jones-Abbott
6 years old/Bath NY
June 27, 2007
Family pit bull

Dandre Fisher
3 years old/Hunter Army Airfield GA
May 26, 2007
Neighbor’s pit bull

Brian Palmer
1 year old/Charleston SC
April 27, 2007
Family pit bull

Carolina Sotello
2 years old/Combine TX
March 23, 2007
Family pit bull

Robynn Bradley
2 years old/Lithonia GA
February 16, 2007
Family pit bull

Amber Jones
10 years old/San Antonio TX
January 12, 2007
Neighbor’s pit bull

april 29 said...

American Children killed by pit bull dogs 2006 and one more from 2007, it is very difficult to cut and paste these names. They are not simply names... these were CHILDREN! This list breaks my heart.

Amber Jones
10 years old/San Antonio TX
January 12, 2007
Neighbor’s pit bull

Pedro Rios
4 years old/Pasadenao TX
November 21, 2006
Ownership details not available

Allen L. Young
22 months old/Bamberg SC
October 4, 2006
Family pit bull

Mireya Puga Davila
3 years old/Hargill TX
July 25, 2006
Family pit bull

Javelin Anderson
15 months old/Conehatta MS
June 17, 2006
Family pit bull

Cody Adair
4 years old/Bartlesville OK
January 3, 2006
Uncle’s pit bull

Kylee Johnson
14 months old/Louisville KY
November 6, 2005
Family pit bull

april 29 said...

American Children killed by pit bull dogs - 2005

Kylee Johnson
14 months old/Louisville KY
November 6, 2005
Family pit bull

Jonathan Martin
2 years old/Suffolk VA
October 3, 2005
Family pit bull

Dazavious K. Williams
5 weeks old/Griffin GA
July 7, 2005
Neighbor’s pit bulls

Nicholas Faibish
12 years old/San Francisco CA
June 3, 2005
Family pit bull

Arianna Fleeman
2 years old/Huntington WV
May5, 2005
Pit bull owned by friend of the family

Cassidy Jeter
6 years old/ Hamtramck MI
April 4, 2005
Family pit bull

Lydia E. Chaplin
14 years old/Erie IL
January 27, 2005
Ownership of pit bulls not established

Tyler Babcock
6 years old/Clovis CA
January 2, 2005
Neighbor’s pit bull

april 29 said...

American Children killed by pit bull dogs - 2004

Kamryn Billingsley
1 month old/Shoreline Park MS
December 12, 2004
Ownership of pit bull not established

Annilee McKinnon
5 years old/Show Low AZ
December 2004
Neighbor’s pit bull

Myles Leakes
4 years old/Orlando FL
December 9, 2004
Ownership of pit bull not established

Anton Brown
8 years old/Tampa FL
October 1, 2004
Family keeping pit bull for a friend

Isaiah Calandis Smith
19 months old/Greer SC
September 2, 2004
Ownership of pit bull not established

Jordan Lee Parker
8 months old/Nacogdoches TX
July 15, 2004
Grandmother’s pit bull

Roddy Phillip Dumas Jr.
8 years old/Charlotte NC
April 14, 2004
Family pit bull

John Doe
16 months old/Rouge Park MI
April 5, 2004
Grandmother’s pit bull

Nathan Hill
3 years old/Bunn Level NC
January 2004
Neighbor’s pit bull

Stop Making Excuses said...

We need to reference this as often as possible people!!
The more we click on this blog, the higher up in the ranks it will go, and this needs to be number one when a search on nanny dogs is done. Everyone with me?
Great job!

CKing said...

Thank you April 29, that list makes an impressive statement. And you're right, they're not just names, they're human beings. Thank you for remembering them.

4truth - Did you see that all of the books are online in their entirety in google books?

Anonymous said...

i'm glad to find your blog, and will be following, and will link it from this article:

i find the pit bull defenders unable to respond intelligently when confronted with the truth. rather, they just vote the article down so nobody finds it. their cycle of hatred is disgusting.


scurrilous amateur blogger said...

here is a federal judge citing the nanny dog nonsense in TYLA HAFSTROM'S fantasy piece.


see what i mean?

CKing said...

Thank you Paul for the link. Your article is great!

Wow, Craven, yes. This is more than just silly, naive pit nutters repeating fairy tales to one another when it can get into federal court documents. It is propaganda. Lies repeated so often they become truth

CKing said...

SME - I think you're right about clicking on this blog. There are a lot of "truth about pit bulls" returns. Craven's blog isn't near the top yet. It will be, though!

Stop Making Excuses said...

We need to get it up there!!
It will be great when people do a search on pitbull nanny dogs and this one is first so they can learn the truth.

Anonymous said...

Excellent! I've often thought it would be great for a network to add another 'Myth Busters' show, but rather than a program of engineering tests to explore these legends, the second edition of Myth Busting would show the historical back testing needed to debunk revisionist history and contrived accounts, crafted to support false premise and agenda. 'Nanny Dog' could be Episode 1.

april 29 said...

A new name for the top of the list,

Jason Walter
7 years old/LaSalle IL
August 25, 2010
pit bulls owned by residents of the farm Jason and his mother were visiting

The Technomancer said...

Yes, magnificent, truth-revealing article. We need to get this out for everybody to see so they too can know the truth.

And thank you for sharing that information, April 29. It really does break my heart when anybody - especially a child - is attacked by one or more of these "nanny dogs." Nanny dogs? Pffft. A good nanny does not rip a child's face off. We ban people who are dangerous from our society (institutions, jail, etcetera), so we should ban dangerous dogs too. It's not that hard. Just don't let any frankenmauler pop out another ugly spawn. Don't let the pit nutters bring any more walking chainsaws into the world. For the sake of all these children. They died because somebody with a big ego and a small brain kept a dangerous animal around children. The pit bull owners are kind of hypocritical when they say "ban stupid people, not dogs." Stupid people = pit nutters.

Anonymous said...

Funny how the pit nutters are always spouting this crap but never provide any evidence to support their claims. Good job.

Unknown said...

you cant tar every dog and owner with one brush, neglect, torment and abuse cause bad dogs. American dogs! i cant really comment as I'm English and own a staff which is the best dog with children and family in the world. The old times,men rote about men stuff, tough, hard, fighting and drinking. If any man rote about how nice his dog was he would be ridiculed and basically ripped the shit out of, that's why you ain't going to find any literature on nice bull dogs before 1935. Respect to all lost by dog attacks. No writing, blog or tears can replace loved ones. x

Small Survivors said...

Neil's comments lend credence to the idea that dogfighters pushing baby prams to dogfights is TOTAL CROCK!

How refreshing to see some solid, verifiable RESEARCH!

Constant Evolution said...

Thanks Neil!! I love the sociopath crowd of Pit Bull haters! I have researched too you moron! America was built by pit bulls. Stubby ring a bell? I think it's disgusting that people have lost children to dogs but they have lost them to other things as well. You can't live in a bubble and like it or not pit bulls save lives every year too. YOUR RESEARCH IS BASED SOLELY ON THE NANNY DOG MYTH!! THE LITTLE RASCALS DOG WAS A PIT, SO WAS SARGE STUBBY, SO WAS HELLEN KELLERS, SO WAS

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

"America was built by pit bulls."

normally i wouldn't publish your rumor mongering but i just had to publish this one. it's a hoot. thank you jeremy for the laugh and the inspiration. i will be sure to credit you.

why yes, stubby does ring a bell.


and so does helen keller.


and so does





CKing said...

My research was "based" solely on the nanny dog because this was a blog post about the nanny dog myth. You can tell by the title. When you go to the links that Craven left, you'll be able to tell what that research is "based on" by looking at the title of each of those posts.

And you will find the truth about Stubby, Helen Keller, Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, Humprey Bogart, and Teddy Roosevelt. Ask and ye shall receive!

And kudos on recognizing research when you see it. I notice you didn't find anything to refute it either.

You better get cracking on your "Pit Bulls Built America" research project, I think you've inspired Craven to do some history telling as well.

And I'm sure the "Pit Bulls Built America" thesis will rest on a much more solid foundation than the "famous pit bull owners list" and the "nanny dog" myths.

Constant Evolution said...

All of your links just support what I said. :).
I'm terrified by all these evil horses!!! OMH they are killing Americans!! Should we ban them?


Here is the fact. Animals are dangerous. ALL ANIMALS ARE DANGEROUS IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. They also compliment our lives. I love my pit bull. I f you had a wonderful dog like mine you would be defensive too. This is a hateful blog, that's all.

Constant Evolution said...

You guys are cute, hateful but funny.I'm sorry you had a bad experience, I truly am. I'm not sorry I have a job and don't have the time to do as much research as you so I figured I would keep it short and sweet. :) Later sucka....

Constant Evolution said...

You only source yourself? You really are a retard. I see you didn't address real info about Petey, the little rascals dog. You and your drones are really sad. You must be democrats. :)


Ban these too?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

do you really believe that 486 people are killed by horses in the US each year? if so, your gullibility borders on dangerous. but let's say i believe this number, are these horses randomly killing innocent people as they ride their bikes, take the trash out and check their mail or are these deaths occurring to people engaging in a dangerous hobby, people who accept the risk of their chosen hobby like mountain climbing or sky diving?

no, this is a TRUTHFUL blog. craven desires is a HATEFUL blog. actually i prefer to think of CD as my manifesto of rage.

if you had bothered to read any of those links about famous "pit bulls" and famous "pit bull" owners you would see that i provide objective independent sources to back up EVERY thing that i say. jeremy, keep those blinders on, we wouldn't want you to actually learn anything.

oh and by the way, a Petey blog is in the works. be sure to come back.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

and one other thing, if you wish to continue this discussion, please do it on my hate blog.
i would be happy to publish anything you would like to say there.

CKing said...

I take back what I said about Jeremy being able to comprehend sourced research when he sees it. Cravendesires is right on target about your idiotic "source" and about the difference between any US horse related fatalities and pit bull related fatalities. There is a huge difference between being killed by an animal you choose to deal with and getting mauled in public spaces when you have no idea the animal is near.

Frankly, if pit bulls only killed their owners, the pit bull owner's family members and the pit bull owner's friends on the pit bull owner's property, I'd have no problem with that. But we are entering new territory in this era in the US with innocent people, pets, and farm animals being molested and killed by marauding pit bulls. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

This blog post puts to rest the notion that at one time pit bulls were trusted with young children. They were not. You can't lie about that anymore because if you doubt any assertions made here, you can verify it yourself. Just click on the links. It really works!

Scarlett said...

regarding your early film postings of pits: Did it ever occur to you that as America's dog of choice at the turn of the century, they would naturally be trained to use in films for material people liked to see at that point in time? We no longer spank kids like the lady did in one of your Buster Brown films, but that was common for that time also. Ditto, responsible pit owners don't train their dogs to fight and kill. American dog temperment tests show pits at 83% - higher than most breeds. Ban stupid people, not breeds!

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

scarlett, not every one spanked their kids at the turn of the century. today, spanking your children is not illegal, people still practice it although less often. please don't exaggerate that societal change. and your image of dogs in films could be jaded by pit bulls. other dog stars are not cast in that light. something for you to ponder, maybe only the lower classes that are drawn to pit bulls in the first place are drawn to the violent slap stick comedy of pit bulls. the petey blog will be along soon, you will see what i am talking about. as for the great inventer thomas edison and his use of pit bulls, every thing i have read about him leads me to believe that he was not a good man and probably a sociopath.

i agree, responsible owners don't TRAIN their dogs to fight and kill but then again neither do irresponsible owners. they BREED and CONDITION their dogs to fight and kill.

the last time i checked, your wiggle butts hit the "85%" passing rate. you are going to LOVE my blog post on the ATTS. check back on x-mas.

Unknown said...

Thanks for clearing this up for me. I always wondered if this was true or not...

I've been on both sides. I've seen the damage an APBT can do.. but I've also felt the love they can give.

I'm an APBT owner and always will be. Banning an entire breed is stupid, but i think they should make some laws when owning a bully breed. Like that you HAVE to have insurance, and if your a convicted felon you shouldn't be allowed to own the breed, and i don't think they should be allowed at dog parks. Yes i am an owner, but i'm also a logical thinker. I know this breed is naturally DOG aggressive and unless you know your dog like the back of your hand it should NOT be allowed around other dogs.

I think the lower class tends to flock to this breed and I've seen so many pit bulls being used as "ghetto alarm systems" But i know they are NOT all blood thirsty killers.
My APBT was a game bred dog who was beaten, was used for breeding ONLY, and lived the first year of her life in a cage... she has never shown any signs of aggression towards people in the 4 years i've owned her, she don't even bark at the door when someone knocks.. But she IS aggressive with other dogs, she was bred to be... has she ever attack or killed another dog? nope.
I know how to handle my dog, and i know how to read her body language. But not all owners do. Education is the key when you own a bully breed.

I watch the news just as much as the next gal, so i see the storys about pit bull attacks to... but i've also seen storys about APBT saving lifes and being used in police work,search & rescue and as therapy dogs along with many other jobs.
I take my dog next month to start her CGC classes then i want to start taking her to schools. She is not a mean dog and is very good with kids, i trust her completely.

Nobody can ever convince me that all APBTs are killers, or will attack because like i said i've seen both sides. There are APBTs that can go there whole lifes with out showing any H/A ya know.
Banning a breed hurts, especially for the familys of the dogs who did nothing wrong. Banning a breed is not the answer.. there ARE other ways of preventing dog bites/attacks.

I'm not some illiterate bum, i'm not some hard ass, i'm not some thug, i'm not some clueless airhead... .... I'm a APBT owner, and i AM damn proud of it. :-)

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

thank you for your honesty anyssa. i know you people exist, unfortunately not in enough numbers to make a difference. and i can't say that i disagree with anything that you have said. i don't believe that all pits are killers. i don't believe that all owners are criminals, illiterate, airhead pit nutters or dog fighters. and yes, i agree with you that there are more effective ways than banning to minimize dog attacks, you mentioned most of them here.

Unknown said...

haha, i thought you were gonna call me a pit nutter!
I've read some of your other blogs, and i am curious to know why you started your blogs? I mean its pretty obvious that the breed isn't exactly your favorite... but what made you do all this research? I mean i understand clearing things up, like this whole nanny dog thing...i always thought the real nanny dog was the saint Bernard(thanks to peter pan)
Also, is it just apbts you hate or any breed that was bred for fighting?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

once i realized the pit nutters were lying, i just kept digging. the lies around pit bulls are a bottomless pit.

i don't like any fighting or baiting breeds of dogs:

Unknown said...

Have you ever met an apbt that you liked??
You don't think any pit bull is good? Even the ones that have saved lifes, not all of them take lifes ya know.

What exactly is a "pit nutter"? Any person who owns a pit bull?
Not all owners say its the humans fault every time a pit bull attacks. I've never "candy coated" any of the stoys about dog attacks. Its a very serious matter.

I just don't get how doing away with the breed will do any good. Lets say that BSL was an active law and it was illegal to own a "pit bull type" dog. Even if the attacks from pit bulls go down the attacks from other breeds will do up. No matter what there are still going to be irresponsible owners, and bybs who breed aggressive/ unsocialized/un healthy dogs.

If the pit bull was gone then another breed will just take its place, then another breed will be facing bsl. Not every dog is going to kill or attack. The responsible owners have to worry about this because of the mistakes others have made. My dog has done nothing wrong but i still get comments about her... a few months ago some guy threatened to shoot her.. why you ask? She was a pit bull, and he had kids.
I've had people actually pick there kids/dogs up and move away from me when i'm walking my dog.. some of the things people have said to me is just flat out stupid. Just because my dog is an APBT dont mean shes gonna 'go for the throat'. My dog is VERY well socialized and shes been introduced to people of all ages, along with many types of animals. She is NEVER allowed outside with out me, and very well trained. I dont make excuses for my dog, nor do i make excuses for the breed. Not all owners are crazy or what ever you think. :-)

Seeing all the lifes lost to attacks breaks my heart just as much as it does yours, but i know there are other ways of preventing it... and bsl is not the answer.

What do you think about the pit bulls that have saved the lifes of humans & animals? or about pit bulls used in jobs?(search & rescue, seeing eye dogs..etc) Surly you don't think those ones are evil to.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

hi annysa, you are free to leave off topic comments on craven desires but this will be the last one that i publish here. also you should know that comments do not require approval on blogs that are less than 4 days old on craven desires.

in response to your comment, i think you are just being a pain in the ass and sound like a pit nutter with these questions/comments. i have said in a previous response that i do not think all pits are killers and i do not think all pit owners are pit nutters.

for example, this comment:
No matter what there are still going to be irresponsible owners, and bybs who breed aggressive/ unsocialized/un healthy dogs.

this sounds an awful lot like you believe the manbiters were culled because they had to handle them in the pit myth. go here to read about this myth:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29889367/Manbiter-Discussion or here http://www.scribd.com/doc/31272682/Dogmen-Conversations-About-Man-Biters-and-Man-Eaters

pit nutter is defined here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pit+nutter

i have read about pits doing sar but not working as sight dogs. i do not believe that just anyone should be able to own a pit. that would disqualify pits for guide/service work. if you can't control it, if you can't prevent it from attacking another dog or a horse, then you shouldn't be able to own it. the issue here is the pit bull's insane prey drive.

if you read the craven desires blog, you will see that i come at the pit bull problem at its foundation: animal aggression.

Cannisseur119 said...

WOW, really? you seriously are crazy... i love ignorance. Animal aggression lol!! every animal has aggression, even people. look at you wasting time and energy on this pit bull craziness. you apparently have some personal problem with pit-bulls, maybe you should see someone about that. i think owning snakes and spiders are dangerous but do you see me posting iffy factoids trying to sway peoples pet owning. don't be a communist, let people own what they want and if it injures or kills someone hold the owner responsible. anyways i think you should devote this energy to the inbreeding of dogs.... happens across the country with every breed, cousins and siblings being mated, with and without knowledge. now modern science tells us that when inbreeding occurs, recessed genes and metal disorders begin to emerge more prevalent. such as aggression and deformations. How many people have been Killed by dogs in general in 2010? did you also read that pit bulls are to blame for less than half, close to but less than half? Have you ever though about doing a blog on the owners of these dogs that kill people, are they all sleazebags? were there any good owners whos good dog just went crazy for no reason and murdered a small child? invent something discover something, do something USEFUL to advance the human race.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

david, you obviously haven't been to my other blog craven desires. i do go after pit bull owners and my focus is on animal aggression, not human aggression.

love your anti-commie solution though " let people own what they want and if it injures or kills someone hold the owner responsible". that can be said of absolutely every other behavior that our society legislates.

and i happen to think that exposing any web of lies is useful and advances the human race.

remember to stay on topic or take your comments to craven desires.

Unknown said...

Hi, I have been reading all the posts with interest, and I have two questions for everyone:
1. Why so much about general research about the "pit bull" when the nanny dog is specifically the English Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
2. How many of the above posters has, or have had an English Staffodshire Bull Terrier.

Thank you all.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

provi, another whopper of a myth. ONLY people who own pit bulls can study them or have an opinion about them. much like only cancer patients can research cancer or the oil industry can research global warming.

as for the first comment, maybe you didn't read closely enough, the author does acknowledge the nanny dog myth is rooted in the english version of the pit bull. you do realize that the american pit bull is a descendant of the english pit bull, right?

Unknown said...

Dear cravendesires, you are drawing your own conclusions on my honest questions, and still, haven't answer them.
Would you please do?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

i can't answer question two. i have no idea what the experience of the above posters is. i've never owned one. and they not terribly common in my neck of the woods. i have seen two.

as for your first question - it is idiotic. the staffordshire bull terrier is a "pit bull".

make your point or take it to my other blog. i have no patience for bullshit at this blog.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

correction: three

Unknown said...

My dear cravendesires, this blog is for facts without aggravation so unlike you I will give you only some facts.

The Nanny Dog alias relates to, and ONLY TO the English Staffordshire Bull Terrier, not any of the other breeds associated with pit origins.

What YOU call pit-bull is perhaps one of the descendent breeds of the English Staffy: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or any of their crosses. As you say, you have ONLY EVER seen three English Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

Comparing an ESBT to an APBT shares ground to comparing a caniche to a newfoundland.

Also, comparing them from the "evolution" theory point of view, as all pit-bull descend from the ESBT would be inversely the same as comparing you, as American you are, with a criminal scumbag, society dropout mentally retarded no-good-for-nothing but to be sent to the colonies out of the way.

Because you know that is how England populated its American colonies back in the day, right?

Kindest regards.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

i simply asked you to make your point on this blog and make it quickly. provide links if you'd like. but if you want to play games, go here http://cravendesires.blogspot.com/

re: the nanny dog myth, this is not MY creation. please go educate the nation of american pit nutters who continue to infect the internet with it.

start with dawn capp

then tyla hafstrom

and jason mann

(this is just a short list that i came up with in one minute)

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

looks like the provi idiot is gone. in case it returns, here are few points now that i have had time to re-read the nanny dog blog post, hopefully, it will answer its questions:
american pit bull terrier is listed 2 times in this blog.
while the staffordshire bull terrier is listed 17 times.
also please note the third comment (mine):
"the nanny dog myth originated [with] the staffy bull and the american nutters happily adopted it."
(good luck educating the american pit nutters)

finally, how england populated america and poodles & newfies are in violation of the no off topic commenting policy here but it is always welcome at craven desires.

Unknown said...

Dear cravendesires.
Keep your insults for who may appreciate them; you are making a fool of yourself.

You are defeating the point and that is obviously frustrating you: How many times have you listed the ENGLISH Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which is the Nanny Dog and a different breed from the American Stafford, which you obnoxiously keep on calling just Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

And for your own sake, go back to school and learn respect and manners.

I bet you won't publish this comment. Wishing you every deserved success, please remember to FOCUS at any opportunity.


scurrilous amateur blogger said...

while you are educating all of those american pit nutters, you might want to educate the following obnoxious kennel clubs:

the UKC

the CKC


the NZKC

the AKC

the kennel club of the united kingdom

Cannisseur119 said...

seriously you are speaking out of ignorance. I own 2 UKC registered american pit bull terriers. every person, and im not exaggerating at all, every person who meets either of my dogs is amazed at how well they are behaved. they have never made an aggressive move toward anyone or any other dog. my male is 2 years old, not neutered, and weighs about 85 pound, he plays with a choco lab female on a daily basis. no matter how much that lab bites his ankles or tries to tackle him he has never made one aggressive move toward her. a good friend of mine has a 3 year old daughter who loves him to death, he keeps her out of trouble and entertained... you blog out of ignorance and spite you obviously dont know anything about genetics, dogs, or people for that matter. anyways talk smack all you want it wont change the fact that YOU ARE WRONG. one day you will realize that, until then good luck...your gonna need it

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

david, do you actually understand this blog post? i assume that you don't understand it or you didn't even read it because you not refuting its content, you only shooting your mouth off.

Judys Marketing Tips and Tricks said...

The point you all have missed it this...the problem started over a hundred years ago with coalminers who wanted an animal for blood sport. They bred dogs for this purpose. Now you are blaming dogs for human aggression and ignorance. I know several people who have perfectly socialized pit bulls. Remember, only people are ignorant, not animals. I never trust a person who hates animals and blames them for the error of mankind.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

i don't think anyone missed that point judy. it is irrelevant to the nanny dog myth. as are all of comments pertaining to what this blog is about. people you really need to focus and stay on topic. i don't like censoring.

Unknown said...

Curious if any of your "Research" is derived from any sources other than the Internet?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...


Carpyrob said...

People like you need to word your blogs better, you are one of many idiots giving the Staffordshire Bull Terrier a bad rep, Especially when you place a picture in your article of a dog you call a Staffordshire bull terrier, can you provide proof that this is a Staffie, because I think you may find it is blatantly a Pit Bull.
It is the Staffie that gets blamed initially for the crimes in the uk that the American Pit Bull commits, then lo and behold it surfaces as being a APBT so blame your fellow Countrymen and not the dogs for these digusting murders of US and UK children by a US breed of dog, I will also add for the sake of fact, that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is one of only 2 breeds recommended by the UK KC as good with children, The other being a Cheasapeake Bay Retreiver, so leave the Staffie out of your hatefull rants!!! And for you to digest at your own pleasure I think paragraphs 6,7 and 8 in one of the articles I have added a link for will show your inclusion of a Staffie in a Violent none Nanny like dog blog to be injust




scurrilous amateur blogger said...

Funny, i just read an article written by NASSER HANIF of the BBC a few days ago that the staffy bull is getting a bad rap because just in the LAST 10 YEARS, people started 'training' it to fight. training a dog to fight that was bred to fight 175 years ago. sounds like YOU and the BBC need to do a little more research.

as for the photos, they are staffy bulls. as for staffy bulls, they are not APBTs but they are pit bulls.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

oops, forgot the link to that lazy BBC reporter.

Unknown said...

I'm tired of hearing this "it's not the dog it's the owner my pitbull is a sweetie!" bullshit.
People are forgetting that this dog has been bred specifically for killing. Often times the owners of pitbulls that have attacked and killed someone say that it's the first time the dog had ever snapped at someone. Adding to the fact that they have had aggression bred into them, if they do attack someone they are going to do a lot of damage because they are physically killing machines.
I don't think that every pitbull out there is dangerous, but it's ridiculous to keep this breed going. If you want a gentle family dog, get a dog that was bred to be a gentle family dog, not one that was bred for killing.

Small Survivors said...

I have always wondered why Britain banned apbts and not staffordshire bull terriers, since they are both pit bulls and both came from the fighting bull terriers from Staffordshire England as this blog post clearly shows. And now that bbc reporter explains everything.

It is funny, if you go to any Chesapeake Bay retriever site, they will warn you that Chessies are not as easy going as labrador retrievers, they are harder to train, and can be more aggressive than labrador retrievers. So, everything that reporter said was bassackwards, and unsubstantiated, to boot.

Most of these commenters have obviously not read the blog post. Are the sources from the internet? C'mon, most of the sources were written before houses had electricity! And In England! All but two sources were written before the internet was widely available, and the most recent one is a book by a SBT lover!

* said...

It is amazing how many people don't have the capacity to stay on topic on this blog. Jeremy, David, and Provi are the three worst offenders here.

Part of me thinks there should be a blog that highlights the stupidity of these people in mass.

But I digress.

Wonderful post as always Craven! I read that you were going to talk about Pete The Pup in an upcoming article. I cannot wait for this one.

Unknown said...

While clearly there is a large group of people who are against American Pit Bull Terriers (obvious statement, proven solely by insurance companies and BSL), but with all the outrage against the dog, why is there no outrage towards their owners and breeders? There are too many dogs of all breeds who become violent and aggressive towards humans because they are poorly and irresponsibly bred and poorly and irresponsibly treated. I grew up with a dog that was half poodle, half terrier- cute, charming, lovable, seemingly harmless, but who bit anybody who seemed to threaten his family. Now, a bite from a 20 pound dog is far less harmful than that of a 50 pound dog, so do you think the UPS man ever called animal control or the police or even reported it to his superior? Of course not. It wasn't until Falcor was 15 years old and bit my three year old nephew's face that my parents finally put the dog down. If Falcor had been a Pit Bull, my nephew would probably have become another name on the lists above.

With that being said, I am a serious dog lover, of all breeds and I worry that with BSL we are not getting to the heart of the issue and solving the real problem- irresponsible breeding and irresponsible ownership. Regardless of the breed, a dog that isn't bred well and is treated poorly and left untrained or is trained improperly, is going to behave very badly with potentially deadly aggressiveness. There is no way to deny that bully breeds (i.e. American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Bull Dogs, etc.) are athletic and very strong which, when they fall into the category of mistreated dogs, is obviously a deadly combination.

Instead of banning a breed, start getting to the root of the problem, and ban irresponsible owners as THEY are the ones that should be punished.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

stephanie, i never said that BSL would solve the problem and in my other blog, i target both ends of the leash equally. it is never JUST the breed, it is never JUST the owner. it is always a combination. take the recent mississippi fatality and james swanson. he had several pit bulls, they killed his neighbor/friend. if it is always the owner's fault, you could substitute ANY breed and you would get the same outcome. could 5 cocker spaniels kill a healthy adult man? how about 5 dachshunds? 5 border collies? 5 jack russells? of course not.

Unknown said...

sad to see so mant death related to dogs on here,but you would have to question the parenting also. leaving an animal alone with a 8 month old baby???

i am the proud and responsible owner of a staffordshire.ban the owners not the breed!!!

kevin in ireland.

American Children killed by pit bull dogs - 2004

Kamryn Billingsley
1 month old/Shoreline Park MS
December 12, 2004
Ownership of pit bull not established

Annilee McKinnon
5 years old/Show Low AZ
December 2004
Neighbor’s pit bull

Myles Leakes
4 years old/Orlando FL
December 9, 2004
Ownership of pit bull not established

Anton Brown
8 years old/Tampa FL
October 1, 2004
Family keeping pit bull for a friend

Isaiah Calandis Smith
19 months old/Greer SC
September 2, 2004
Ownership of pit bull not established

Jordan Lee Parker
8 months old/Nacogdoches TX
July 15, 2004
Grandmother’s pit bull

Roddy Phillip Dumas Jr.
8 years old/Charlotte NC
April 14, 2004
Family pit bull

John Doe
16 months old/Rouge Park MI
April 5, 2004
Grandmother’s pit bull

Jay said...

First, for information's sake, Aurora, CO, (which has had BSL in effect since mid-2008) recently did a study of dogs bite incidences which shows that Labrador retrievers are the #1 biting dog, followed by German shepherds with pit bull breeds in third place. Yet every time a pittie bites someone it's all over the headlines but when another breed bites it doesn't even make the papers. I suggest that much of the fear and loathing of pit bulls is in response to all of this media hype, not to actual facts or statistics.

Second, I notice that none of the statistics cited make any distinction between family dogs (those raised indoors as family companion animals) and resident dogs (those kept outdoors on chains or in kennels for purposes of guard dogs or breeding dogs). It would be interesting to see the number of biting incidents by companion pit bulls vs. guard or breeding pit bulls.

CKing said...

Jay your comment has nothing to do with this blog post. I cite no statistics, there are lists of children that were killed by pit bulls in the coments

You are not stating proven facts either. The list is just children killed by pit bulls. If you want to assert that there are many cases of children being killed by other breeds of dogs that are not being reported, then find them. In order to prove your point that pit bulls are no more dangerous than other dogs you will have to produce 9 child fatalities by other breeds for every single fatality bye pit bulls if you believe that pit bulls make up 10% of the dog population. You will not be able to do that.

When you ban a type of dog, you expect bites from that type of dog to drop dramatically. That is the point. If you want to prove a point, you will have to show that the SEVERITY of dog bites has not gone down since the ban has been in place. If you want to prove that point, it is up to you to do the work and gather the proof.

If you want to prove that the problem is not pit bulls but guarding and breeding dogs, you will have to show evidence that all breeds of dogs used as guard dogs or are breeding kill as much as guard pit bulls and breeding pit bulls. It is up to you to prove that point.

None of this has to do with the point of this post which is that that pit bulls were never thought of as fighting nanny dogs.

The Curnel said...

@Cravendesires - please don't confuse the pit bull or the american stafforshire bull terrier to the ENGLSIH staffordshire..this is SO OLD! You claim to have only seen 3 english staffies..so how can you even BEGIn to comment on a dog you clearly no NOTHING about. Please go and do your research properly..interview some people..read REPUTABLE articles/journals/papers..before posting this sh*t. I own an English staffie and here in south Africa they are very much loved and adored...we ban pit bulls here as do many other countries...totally different dog. Also see Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier for some more pointers on the differences between the breeds.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

i am not confusing anything. the american pit bull terrier, the american staffordshire terrier and the staffordshire bull terrier (not the english staffordshire), and the english bull terrier are all distinct separate breeds but they belong in the same category of gripping dogs. and they all trace their fighting roots to the staffordshire bull terrier.

we don't have a lot staffy bulls in the US, so they are not a problem here but they are huge problem in the UK.

it is the american pit bull terrier nutters that are confusing the nanny dogs, not me.

birdy13 said...

"""we don't have a lot staffy bulls in the US, so they are not a problem here but they are huge problem in the UK.""""
did you know The RSPCA want to rebrand the dogs as loving, loyal and friendly....sounds a bit like a nanny dog
I am from the UK and you need to get your facts right
1 stafforshire pit bull banned under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.
2 staffordshire bull i quote from Wikipedia... "Staffordshire Bull Terrier is one of only two breeds from over 190 recognized by the UK Kennel Club to have a mention of the breed's suitability with children

The Curnel said...

So you decided not to post my previous comment..was it too factual for your liking or what?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

too factual? the ATTS? LOL. it is obvious that you have only read the nanny dog blog and not my blog about the ATTS. take a look around, you might learn something. on second thought, probably not. you are too closed minded.

i didn't publish your second comment because you violated my comment policy - see above. but i do plan to publish it on my other blog.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

birdy13, yes i am familiar all of the nanny dog propaganda on the internet.

i especially like this one

Considered a first class guard dog in Japan, Japanese mothers would often leave their children in the family Akita's care. They are extremely loyal and thrive on firm leadership from their handlers. They should definitely be supervised with other household pets and children.

LOL!!!!! akitas were highly regarded nanny dogs, but don't leave kids alone with them. japanese mothers can but no one else can. LOL!!!

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

you are mistaking my blogs for free speech utopian democracies, they are not. on occasion, i have allowed off topic comments, even from the opposition but i absolutely will not allow propaganda links in this blog. i rejected the curnel's comment because he promoted the atts lie and included an atts link.

if you want to leave off topic comments and wild lies about anything in the truth blog, go here. i will most likely publish them.

Anonymous said...

The History of the "American" Pit Bull Terrier may be seen here:


Lot's of blood money made by the dogmen, registries and breeders...

* said...


"...did you know The RSPCA want to rebrand the dogs as loving, loyal and friendly..."

End your quote. Good to see that you acknowledge the the RSPCA is rebranding a breed that has never been documented to have that title post 1970's. Maybe you're a little smart after all.

Also, you do know that anyone can edit a wiki page and that anyone can assert something as fact with out any evidence? Until there's official proof of such a claim, you're either asserting a myth or a lie.

* said...


I love how the pit bull community shows once more than it cannot comprehend the basic of rules nor the most basic of journals. Honestly, while your entries are a read, they are not complex to comprehend. You would think that there would be at least one pit bull advocate who could come here and either stay on topic, or provide irrefutable proof for their assertions. But I wont hold my breath in fear of dying.

Isabelle Roche said...

A comment up there mentions a study where the Retriever would be the first to bite, I read on another blog that the Retrivever was the most patient one. Both agree on Pitbull ranking third. It's on this blog http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=1103, which publishes by the way a certain amount of photos where you can see children with pitbulls or the like, hence giving body to the theory of the "nanny dog" (although it could be perfectly as you say that this termed was coined much later!). Perhaps the breed known today is much more aggressive than it was at a certain time? You list names of children killed by pitbulls. What about kids killed by other breeds?
fyi Yahoo published today an article based on that blog.

IroxURsox said...


I am the ONLY person I know who has a balanced, reasonable view of pit bulls and it drives me crazy to hear my friends and coworkers tell me pit bulls are only bad if you raise them to be that way. RETARDS.

A breed of dog - ANY BREED - exists for a purpose. That is why it is called a "breed", human beings intentionally BRED the dog FOR A REASON. If the dogs did not fulfill that purpose, THE BREED WOULD NOT EXIST. If Poodles weren't naturally good at water retrieving, they wouldn't exist. If Beagles didn't have a great sense of smell, they wouldn't exist. IF PITBULLS WEREN'T EXTERMELY AGGRESSIVE, POWERFUL KILLERS, THE BREED WOULDN'T EXIST.

The pitbull is the only breed of dog that people deny deny deny that it naturally has the characteristics it was bred to have. Other breeds? "Oh my Beagle is a great hunting dog." "My German Shepherd is a great guard dog." Yes of course they are, that's what they were bred for. But then ..."My Pitbull is a baby. Sweetest dog that would never hurt anyone." Yeah, okay. I honestly hope for their sake's they never have to admit they're wrong, because if they do that means someone has been killed or seriously injured by their "sweet little baby."

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

thank you iroxursox. if there were more honest pit bull owners, i would not have moved so far into the haters camp. it's all about balance.

isabelle, grossman is a moran. he offers nothing new to the debate. he simply adds his gullible voice to PROOF OF ASSERTION army.

here is a recent discussion of the nanny dog MYTH on a pit nutter blog

Chris said...

So much work. All undone with a single article.


If you click on the blog post linked to this article, you will find a hell of a lot of old pictures showing children with friendly pit bulls--I don't know if this means they were called "The Nanny Dog" or not--frankly, sounds like a bit of a sissy name (no kid ever used it, that's for sure), but people unquestionably thought of them as safe companions for children, which is the only point an intelligent person would be considering. If they were savaging children, they'd be put down. Instantly. Rotting in the ground, not posing for cute photographs. A dog's life isn't worth much now, but it was worth a whole lot less then.

Not sure which (if any) of the dogs in those photos are Staffies (not many, I suspect). I personally know two Staffies in my neighborhood. Both are notably friendly with children (honestly, with everyone), and neither is at all aggressive with other dogs. They were bred as companion animals, not fighters. Most Staffies are bred that way now--never heard of any American being arrested for fighting that breed--the APBT is the breed of choice, but honestly, I question (as does the AKC) whether that's even an identifiable breed--more of a type. So many dogs of wildly differing appearance and behavior are described as 'pit bulls' that the term loses all meaning.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

UK pit nutter chris left three long rambling comments, all of which violated the clearly outlined comment policy of supplying objective, verifiable evidence. sadly, i don't think he read the blog post either. oh well, classic nutter. this blog isn't for people like him, it's for people who have not yet been brainwashed.

chris made the following grossly exaggerated statement:
"Babies have been killed by toy dogs"

to which i would like to respond to his almost truthful comment:
ONE pomeranian mix killed ONE baby.

that's called a FREAK accident.

Chris said...

I knew you wouldn't have the guts to put it up, even though it was more on-topic than anything you've posted here. And now you've proven me right. Classic. Later, wack-a-doodle. :D

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

poor feeble minded pit nutter, i almost feel sorry for you.

further evidence that chris is unable to comprehend in his above comment.

i said you violated the OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE criteria, NOT the ON TOPIC criteria.

just how fucking stupid are you people?

jinxd said...

"Nutters" and hate? Yet it's supposed to be about balance?

There is plenty of evidence supporting the claim that pit bull type dogs were commonly kept as family pets and made wonderful companions to children. The term "nanny dog" should not be taken to a literal extreme. We're not talking about a wet nurse here, the term was used because they stuck to the kids like glue and provided constant companionship... much like a nanny would. My grandpa mentions it in his journal regarding my dads "nanny" and I see this behavior daily with my son and his dog practically attached at the hip.

Yes, they show an above average tendency for animal aggression but human aggression has never been a normal trait in any of the pit bull breeds and animal aggression is in no way related to human aggression, it's perfectly plausible that a dog could be a pit fighter and still safe for children to be around. Not that I would recommend it, but one type of aggression does not guarantee the other.
Furthermore, fighting is not the only thing these dogs were bred for. Early on they were used as farm helpers, service dogs, police dogs, etc.
Now look at the entire terrier group, coonhounds, wolfhounds, daschunds, all have historically been bred to hunt and/or kill other animals but we don't worry about them around our kids or seem surprised when they show other skills, do we? So why can't we look past one aspect of a pits history and realize they aren't monsters?

Pit bulls are extremely eager to please their masters and show a high degree of human friendliness, both traits that were twisted for the benefit of violent men. Todays pit bulls are usually far removed from their fighting lines but still show a strong need for human companionship and this is often where things go so horribly wrong. They can not be left chained in a backyard or trained as guard dogs, to do either is to deny a basic need and break the dogs mind. When they are socialized well (including with children, something that should be done with all dogs) and are given the training, affection and attention they crave they tend to be just like umm.... dogs.

I'll be first to say not everyone should own a pit, and that not all of them are stable due to bad breeding or mishandling but why not gain some true knowledge of these breeds and start preaching responsible ownership rather than maligning the entire breed? Get out and spend some time with one instead of reading about them on the 'net. Learn about what they need in order to be happy, healthy dogs and why they got the nickname "nanny dog". You might be surprised.

Go ahead, call me a nutter or fucking stupid like you have others that have defended this breed. I'm the proud owner of both a APBT and a Rottweiler that co-exist quite peacefully. They haven't been the easiest dogs to own (mostly because of people like you though) and require a bit more care and understanding than your basic mutt but both have proven their love and loyalty and deserve nothing less from me.

Oh, and the comment about the Labrador Retrievers. That wasn't just Aurora but the state of CO. Here's a link to the study

ELi said...

Hello this is my first post here, hopefully not my last. Anyone saying that Pitbulls are good with children, or saying Pitbulls are bad with children are just generalizing.

I have owned multiple APBTs, and 1 Pitbull-bordeaux mix. I am a safety certified pet specialist, I deal with dogs on a daily basis in a environment controlled by myself(not my own dogs). That being said:

Yes Pitbull breeds were bred to fight. No they arent restricted to having just that instict. I will have to say its unfortunate you couldnt find any evidence of a Nanny dog in your research, but you dont need to research much to find that the APBT has a history of being an amazing companion to Soldiers. You may not find written evidence that it is a "nanny dog" but you can just see all the pictures for yourself from old time photos, and new photos alike.

My first pet that was my OWN(instead of family pets) was a Pitbull, a dog that only an experienced dog owner should obtain. I made mistakes in training it, I knew nothing about them and she was amazing with people, children and other animals(minus squirrels, hehe.) But was food aggressive unfortunatly. Ive had many since, and I find that it would be fairly hard to actually MAKE one of these dogs into a bad or aggressive dog.

I dont expect you to change your mind by reading this but if you ever owned one or have been around a variety of them, you would almost have to second guess yourself.

Oh and by the way, the majority of reported pitbull attacks are done by dogs that are not of any pitbull breed. Oh and if you havent noticed there is more pitbulls/pitbull mix breeds out there then any other breed right now, of course you see more incidents about them in the news. That would be like saying white people are involved in more crime then black in America. Of course they are, black are the minority.

I have a full time job amoung other things in life to do, or ide try to find specific evidence to all of this. If you arent closed minded then you should have no trouble finding it yourself since you seem so intent upon giving them a 'bad rap'. and clearly have the time.

* said...

Isabelle Roche,

There are many photos of pit bull type dogs that are with children, but that does not make them a nanny dog by fact. If they were known as nanny dogs in those times, there would be irrefutable evidence of the claim from that time period, but there is not. You would think an advocacy group so intent on dismissing myths would see the clear fault in their argument.

And if photos are a clear evidence of the nanny dog, then Saint Bernards are nanny dogs to. Inherently with out question.

I can partially agree with your breeding method theory. There does seem to be some differences in todays pit bull than the one of yesteryear.

As for other breed attacks, I try and keep track of them here when I have the time.

Small Survivors said...

I've let in comments that even hint at a mention of the nanny dog since it is so hard for people to actually stay on topic.

It is nice to see people are now saying, "oh, you're just taking "nanny dog"a bit to literally. When we say "nanny dog" we just mean we found old photographs of children next to them. We didn't actually mean anyone ever really called them the "nanny dog."'

"So much work. All undone with a single article. " Undone how? The article insists pit bulls were called nanny dogs for 100 years with no substantiation. How does that undo all this work? But what really is important to you is the pictures! pictures with no provenance or documenting text on it? You can tell because the dog sat with the children for a couple minutes that the dog was friendly- - and the family dog? How do you know that wasn't a "resident" dog that was kept in a yard? How do you know that wasn't a fighting dog? And why do you think that " because a parent allowed it, it must be safe." Great reasoning there. Here's a bit about how great dogfighters' parenting skills were.

Cory wouldn't recommend giving a fighting dog to be a child's companion but he thinks its "plausible?" But is it or has it ever been safe? If it is safe you can recommend fighting dogs as a child's companion, If it is not safe then you can't. Cory, they were bred for fighting and that is all. I think by "plenty of evidence" you mean photographs. If you have more than that, show it.

I seem to remember that no one can visually identify a pit bull...

Anyhow, it is nice to see nutters are slowly abandoning the patently unfounded myth of the nanny dog and are now pinning their hopes on a bunch of old, unidentified photographs

* said...


"Nutters" and hate? Yet it's supposed to be about balance?

Yes, there is supposed to be a balance, but people with your community will not allow for it. Even the most un-discriminatory of laws are dismantled by your lord and leader Ledy Vankavage among others.

There are many people who are more than willing to meet a balance. But none of them have so far come from the pit bull community. Your kind cannot even practice what they preach.

* said...

@ Cory:

"The term 'nanny dog' should not be taken to a literal extreme."

This is what we call moving the goal post. If this is your new argument then you will have to acknowledge that the title is nothing special. Almost ANY breed of dog could be named or be known as a "nanny dog." Apparently all you need as proof by your criteria is a bunch of pictures of a certain breed with the child. Well, there are a lot of Saint Bernards with kids, were they nanny dogs? What about small terriers like Jack Russells? Labradors? What makes them better nanny dogs even is the fact that they have a low maim and mortality rate among kids and people compared to the pit bull. Your argument is faulty and flawed, now you're just scraping at the bottom of the barrel in hopes that some form of copy-pasted information you throw out in your defense will actually work.

"...it's perfectly plausible that a dog could be a pit fighter and still safe for children to be around."

Why should this be excepted? Why should it even be tolerated. You're admitting that having a pit bull type dog is a game of Russian roulette so why even mention this as though this somehow validates the pit bulls ability to be a nanny dog?

As for their ability to work. Where's your proof of this? More pictures? What about pictures AND records of this? I doubt anyone could provide this. The truth of the matter is that pit bull's first function was to fight, and maybe to do the other things; and that's a slight maybe. Other breeds have been bred for those purposes and have kept their titles for a reason. Because they work better. The whole purpose of Schutzhund and the models based off of it were made to train GSD and their cousin the Belgian Malinois. Other breeds that were used to a lesser extent were the Rottweilers, Dobermans, Cane Corsi, Giant Schnauzers, Bouvier des Flandres, Dutch Shepherd Dogs, Beaucerons, American Bulldogs, Boxers, Black Russian Terriers, andAiredale Terriers.

* said...

@ Cory:

You've been off topic of this post sense the first paragraph of yours; but I cannot help but engage and I hope that my comments are published.

"Now look at the entire terrier group, coonhounds, wolfhounds, daschunds, all have historically been bred to hunt and/or kill other animals but we don't worry about them around our kids or seem surprised when they show other skills, do we?"

Someone has already mentioned this to me before and I've since tackled your point. The reason people do not worry about those breeds are due to several reasons. The most obvious though is that hey have low or non existent maiming and fatality rates. Which further solidifies the fact that pit bulls are different than other game breeds. Here are some more relevant posts on the matter: "Any Breed Can Be Dangerous" , Dachshund Aggression.

As for your monster comment. They were known as monsters back then and even today. Have you been reading the post on this blog at all? I can assure you that pit bull owners back then acknowledged that their dogs were savage, saw them as prizes like a trophy horse, but were also family pets; SOME of them. But many of them most certainly would not have dismissed the savage nature of their dogs towards other dogs at least.

"Pit bulls are extremely eager to please their masters and show a high degree of human friendliness, both traits that were twisted for the benefit of violent men."

This sounds like you're promoting "most abused" or "most forgiving" breed tactic. For both of those, just go to this post and then read the hyperlinks within it.

"I'll be first to say not everyone should own a pit, and that not all of them are stable due to bad breeding or mishandling but why not gain some true knowledge of these breeds and start preaching responsible ownership rather than maligning the entire breed?"

This is the only thing I partially agree with. Why do you think that people are pissed at your community and pit bulls? Most of you know do now follow what your preach, most of you excuse you or your dog's actions. And most of you lie no matter the cost. If you were more like the cane corso and akita clubs then maybe people who hate your kind would show you some respect. You can't just ask for it, you have to earn it.

* said...

@ ELi:

I respect you.... you're one of the few pit bull people out there who has proven to be sane on the most common sense of levels.

I think people in your society fear that being truthful or having breed specific rules would hurt them. But many other breed advocates like the Akita and Cane Corso group are not hesitant to admit any breed faults like you have.

Every breed is special and requires a certain owner. Pit bulls are not for everyone, and that's ok to say. Pit bulls should be in the homes of older children, and that's ok to say as well.

Yes, not all pit bulls are all savages. But they're not all wiggle butts either. Both sides who promote only this are wrong in my opinion.

Once people can come to terms with their breed and stop making them godlike then maybe we can have a happier world of pits and people. But more people have to work for this.

DubV said...

Bully folks will claim that pits were bred to do farm work (or anything other than fight) based upon hearing of them being used in this way. Well guess what? If I have two labs (male and female) and they have puppies, and I use those puppies to guard my chickens from foxes at night; then they still were bred to be water dogs that retrieve. Those pups were not bred to guard chickens. Sorry, you just can't misconstrue what "bred" means to those absurd lengths.

As far as animal aggression and human aggression being two totally different things, well first I would point out that humans are animals but that is too easy. I'll say this. We live in a country where people have the audacity to have non-pit bull type dogs and to walk around in public and elsewhere with these dogs on a leash. Also, they love these non-pits and will attempt to stop a violent death by a dog-aggressive dog. That is how a great number of human attacks occur. The person is walking a dog and it is attacked by a pit and then the person gets involved.

People will not stop being in public with dogs. People will not begin abandoning their beloved dogs and running from the pit bulls. Pit bull owners will not become perfect and create a dog utopia where no pit bull is ever able to express their dog-directed aggression.

Cory, your logic is a house of cards.

CKing said...


"This is what we call moving the goal post. If this is your new argument then you will have to acknowledge that the title is nothing special. Almost ANY breed of dog could be named or be known as a "nanny dog." Apparently all you need as proof by your criteria is a bunch of pictures of a certain breed with the child. Well, there are a lot of Saint Bernards with kids, were they nanny dogs?"

Fantastic comment. They're now essentially saying if we can find a bunch of photos of kids and dogs, those dogs were nanny dogs, thus rendering the term meaningless! Love that!

* said...

@ CKing

Exactly, Cory has just admitted defeat whether he acknowledges it or not. He's just admitted several things and it boils down to this:

"the nanny dog is a metaphor based on the appearance of the individual dog's nature to be good around children. But this isn't an absolute! No, the term nanny dog was only earned through the interpretation of photos. Not real irrefutable and copious amounts of resources or personal documents that were not doctored to this as fact."

That's right.

The nanny dog was not a coined term back on in those days.

The nanny dog was a figment of people's imaginations based on pictures, not documents.

There were better nanny dogs than the nanny dog itself.

These are all the truths anyone needs to be told concerning the nanny dog.

* said...

@ snack sized dog

Exactly the very points that need to be mentioned.

If anyone's work has been undone it is the work of people who promote the myth that pit type dogs were known as nanny dogs. The only molosser dog that has held such title was the Newfoundland and maybe Saint Bernard; and those were only fictitious.

Let's recap shall we?

"Pit bulls were known as 'nanny dogs' for at least 100 years."

Proof of Argument:
- no recorded document in fiction or real life coining the term.
- no personal document with those images.
- no articles mentioning the kindness of pit type dogs towards children.
- no document that those pits were pets of the child's family.


"Pit bulls were not known as nanny dogs."

Proof of Argument:
- the term was coined in the 1970's by a staffy breeder.
- the term was for that one staffy alone.
- documents of the pit type nature 100 years ago show a savage beast.
- documents from personal accounts show pits to be killing machines.
- documents of fatalities from the nanny dog fighting or not exist in the 100 year span.

But apparently the top argument is more factual.

* said...

@ Eli

You're getting off topic but I can't help but argue the defense you've put up.

"Oh and by the way, the majority of reported pitbull attacks are done by dogs that are not of any pitbull breed."

Where is your proof of this? Almost any attack I come across that documents a pit bulls has, surprise, pictures! Are you saying these dogs are not pit bulls? What about the fact that the media also mislabels dog attacks as other breeds? What happened to that idea that no one can find a pit bull?

If anyone is having breed confusion it's often people within your community. And no, pit mixes don't seem to be that common from the reports I've gathered. Less than one percent of dog attacks I've found are from pit mixes.

Playing the race card are we? Unless your forget, dog breeds are meant to be discriminated, that's their whole purpose. People have a russian roulette of genetics due to unregulated sex; dogs generally do not. Which is why pit bulls attack more and why they are rightfully profiled.

Although I do respect you on some level, I must ask... are you an idiot who believes what you say? Or a person who's simply in denial? I'd hate to call you an idiot but you can't even grasp the basics of genetic behavior.

"I have a full time job amoung other things in life to do, or ide try to find specific evidence to all of this."

We all have full time jobs, sweetie. You do know you can spend an hour on research, then the other 23 hours doing something more productive right? You seem to be proving to me that you're an idiot... Also, you do know that blogger has a draft mode so you can write a bit then come back to it.

To be honest. At least Craven's work has truth to it. People like Ledy and Jane spend hours spewing lies. That makes them real time wasters if you ask me! And liars... and grifters... and people who indirectly support dog abuse... and -

Also, you're basically avoiding doing any research. Congratulations, you're in denial and most possibly a coward to admit any truth about the breed in most concerns.

DubV said...

With the photo logic, they've resorted to what a carnival owner would do. Select a handful of photos of people apparently enjoying themselves at their carnival and then construe those photos to be evidence that their carnival really is the happiest place on Earth. Hasn't a pit nutter ever been misled by a brochure like this? I suppose not or they didn't learn to be a bit skeptical.

Propaganda, advertising, pit nutter "facts", all are the same thing.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

exactly DubV.
i have been working on a propaganda blog.

* said...

@ DubV

This reminds me of a comment seen on a relatively popular youtube nutter.

"Fight BSL every day, all it does is kill innocent family dogs. If a dog is viscious, do NOT blame the dog...it is the monster holding the leash that made them that way. BSL is Breed specific legislation, if a BSL law is passed in your area animal controll can & will come to your home, seize your dog and uthanize it, all because it has a certain look to it......INHO this reminds me of a certain person....HITLER!"

The irony is that people like him support some of the same things Hitler did. Funny how they mention the evils of Hitler without realizing their institutions are just as similar. If I'm not mistaken, Hitler made some wonderful propaganda that showcased jews being sent to decent places and possibly having fun to some extent. I could be exaggerating, but I don't think this is unlikely.

Either they realize this and don't acknowledge it or they're to stupid to realize that they are the very victims of a system Hitler created exploited by the pit bull apologia. One could call them Holocaust Deniers. Except replace the SS with pit bulls and the Jews with children and other people.

Speaking of which, think you will do research on the pit bull holocaust? Something tells me this is board-line myth.

I would like to add that this specificnutter cannot spell check worth a damn.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

i am not exactly sure what the nutter means by pit bull holocaust. if there is a holocaust surrounding this dog, it has many dimensions.

the pits killed in the pit or culled by dogmen.
the pits killed by human euthanasia in shelters.
the people, pets, livestock killed by pits.

jinxd said...

Is anyone on the anti-pit side actually capable of using even and small amount of common sense? Gotta love how many of you had to twist what I posted in order to make an argument. Gee, did I hit a nerve?

"We didn't actually mean that anyone ever really called them the "nanny dog".
Who said that? I know it wasn't me and I couldn't find any other post stating that either.

"Cory wouldn't recommend giving a fighting dog to be a child's companion but he thinks its "plausible?"
She, thankyouverymuch and I wouldn't leave a child alone with any dog of any size, breed or temperament, period, but my opinion regarding dogs and children doesn't mean people didn't do so in the past (and of course, some idiots still do). Again, animal aggression and human aggression ARE NOT RELATED so yes, it is plausible for a dog that is animal aggressive to remain human friendly and provide companionship to a child. I'm saying that I don't think it's a good idea, not that it wasn't done.

"Why should this be excepted? Why should it even be tolerated. You're admitting that having a pit bull type dog is a game of Russian roulette so why even mention this as though somehow validates the pit bulls ability to be a nanny dog?"
I never said anything about Russian Roulette and your argument becomes meaningless if you need to twist others words in order to dispute them.
Is it accepted or tolerated by...? There are TONS of pit-bull type dogs in my county and I have yet to see anyone expect theirs to babysit the kids. You seem to have missed the fact that the basis for this blog post is HISTORY.

"This is what we call moving the goal post"
That’s what you call it because it doesn’t fit with your ranting and raving about pits.

"As for their ability to work. Where's your proof of this? More pictures? What about pictures AND records of this?"
There's plenty of mention of it on the internet or you could go to the library and do some real research. It took me all of 10 minutes to find records from a breeder that was breeding specifically for ranch dogs in 1905. And yes, there are pictures too if you feel you must have them.

"The nanny dog was not a coined term back on those days.
The nanny dog was a figment of people’s imaginations based on pictures, not documents."
Because you didn’t come up with proof on your own? Go to the library, there is plenty of evidence, I found numerous newspaper articles and ads with a simple search. Just because you haven’t found it on the internet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

"You’ve been off topic of this post sense the first paragraph of yours..."
Off topic how? Any post that makes valid points against what you're determined to believe is called off topic.


jinxd said...

"My community"? "My kind"? It appears you mean anyone that isn't out to badmouth these dogs with the sole purpose of doing away with them. Most of "my people" don’t lean so far to "my side" that we think pits are so safe we would leave our babies in their care. Most of "my kind" are responsible pet owners that take care to ensure our dogs don't cause harm to anyone or anything. We understand both the positive and negative traits of the breed, we provide loving homes, regular vet care and obedience training. The people you need to worry about, the irresponsible byb's breeding based on color and size instead of temperament and health, the guys chaining their dogs up the yard, the ones trying to turn their dogs against people and the ones too stupid to understand what their pets could be capable of without proper care and training... they aren't worried about the reputation of the family dog. In fact, you're only helping them and I find it disappointing that someone claiming to seek balance and truth would be so stupid as to support these people by adding to the bad reputation of a dog already being sought out as a status symbol by criminals and idiots. People who want the dog only because of that reputation.

You want balance? You have repeatedly failed to show much of it. Calling someone a nutter because they don't support the claim that these dogs are all dangerous does not show as a balanced argument. No one should fall so far to either side that something as silly as whether or not they were known as nanny dogs 100 years ago becomes an argument regarding their safety as pets today. Which brings me back to my original point that claiming a breed couldn't have been known as such based on it's use as a pit fighter is nil as one type of aggression does not support the other.

CKing said...

You don't seem to understand that "balanced" has nothing to do with "truth." Balance is important in debates which have to do with opinion. People who argued that drunk driving was dangerous and too prevalent and required stronger deterrents felt no need to listen to "the other side."

You are moving the goal post again, now saying that the nanny dog myth isn't important because its history. You suggest that pit nutters used to be stupid enough to let their dogs alone with children, but they've wizened up since. That is silly. One hundred years ago people were dumber about germ theory, but they'd already lived with dogs for about 14,000 years by then.

Of course its important to the pit bull ownership rights lobby. It is the foundation of the false distinction between "human aggression" and "dog aggression." It is the foundation of the false idea that once society could see the "real" pit bull but since then we've become dumber about pit bulls. It is the basis of the reasoning that they can be safe in populous areas because they are not aggressive towards people. But that is not true. It was just a myth. And I showed it was a myth.

I not only showed that the "nanny dog" is a myth, if you'd read my blog post you would also see that people regarded these dogs as unsuitable for ladies - let alone children - because they were too aggressive. The way people 160 years ago saw these dogs is the same as today - they saw them as fighting dogs and many people despised them. There have been pit nutters who have been saying, "You just don't understand..." about pit bulls for 140 years. They've been saying "its all how you raise them" and then immediately contradicting themselves for a 140 years. Pit bull owners have dumped their dogs when they get too aggressive for 140 years all the while insisting they're great dogs for "special" people. But one the pit bull nutters hadn't thought of 140 years ago is calling them "nanny dogs."

"There's plenty of mention of it on the internet or you could go to the library and do some real research. It took me all of 10 minutes to find records from a breeder that was breeding specifically for ranch dogs in 1905."

First, saying you found evidence and then not providing it is the same as not having any evidence at all.
Second, what does attempting to breed pit bulls as "ranch dogs" have to do with nanny dogs? I don't know what a "ranch dog" might have been, but that was obviously a failure as we don't hear of the much vaunted pit bull "ranch dog" either, do we?

"Because you didn’t come up with proof on your own? Go to the library, there is plenty of evidence, I found numerous newspaper articles and ads with a simple search. Just because you haven’t found it on the internet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist."

That's right, and I specifically mentioned the limits of my research and specifically invited people to do their own research and disprove me. So, if you've got the proof, bring it on. I'll publish it. Remember a single mention of nanny dog is not proof that the dogs were commonly known as nanny dogs. I'm sure in the billions of words printed since the 19th century there were one or two places where you can find the word "nanny" next to the word "dog" somewhere. I'll even publish those, though you understand that won't be enough to demonstrate that people used to trust their children with staffie bulls more than any other kind of dog in existence.

jinxd said...

You people can't comprehend what you're reading can you? The ranch dog comment was in response to another poster that stated they were never intentionally bred for any other purpose.
"...obviously a failure as we don't hear of the much vaunted pit bull "ranch dog" either, do we?"
You aren't near many ranches are you?

Balance and truth do partner, as in keeping a balanced point of view when in search of the truth. Something you didn't bother with. When someone doesn't keep a balanced point of view, the outcome is skewed by personal bias. Note the blog above.

No goal post is being moved, at least not by me. I never said them being known as nanny dogs 100 years ago was important. I never said that everyone has wizened up, read it again, I even stated that some people still leave their kids alone in the presence of dogs. Furthermore, are you aware of the difference in view of children then and now? There is certainly more respect and understanding for an animals life now than then but an even bigger difference is the view of children and the care they require.

Provide proof for you? I'm not the one trying to dispel a so called myth while admitting that my research was limited.
You haven't proven anything. You're "proof" is not that they weren't called nanny dogs, just that they were used for fighting by many and regarded as too violent for women by an author.
One point already well known, the other an opinion.

"...the false distinction between "human aggression" and "dog aggression."
And now, I'm out. I refuse to continue debating a point with someone too dumb to accept proven and well documented information when it doesn't help their case.

CKing said...

You're certainly down, well see if you've really tucked your tail and run out as well.
Again you're talking about documented and proven information when all that means is its been repeated over and over in the echo chamber of the pit bull propaganda sites.
Yeah, I don't live near a ranch but I've heard of heelers and collies and they work on ranches. I have no idea what a pit bull"ranch dog" might be and one idiot trying to get pit bulls to do some sort of "ranch work" in 1904 that came to nothing actually proves Digger's point that pit bulls weren't successfully used for anything but dog fighting (attacking and killing pit bulls or die trying), hog dogging (attacking and killing hogs or die trying), big game "hunting" (attacking and killing bears and cougars or die trying). What pit bulls were bred to do is attack and kill or die trying.
And none of that is about the nanny dog.
And now you're the one twisting words. I stated what the limits of my research were, I didn't say it was limited. Simply asserting that I failed to dispel the nanny dog myth with out providing proof to me means exactly nothing.
Provide proof to me of your assertions or, yes, you are out. I've invited you to prove me wrong and even when you claim to have evidence, you back down. We all know what that means, sweetie.

* said...

@ Cory

"The term "nanny dog" should not be taken to a literal extreme. We're not talking about a wet nurse here, the term was used because they stuck to the kids like glue and provided constant companionship..."

This was your comment, Cory.

You're basically admitting defeat for several reasons. I've already laid them out but maybe I should reiterate because your mind did not comprehend it the first time. :)

First you use photos as "proof" of your assertion which literally means nothing. You do not know the history of the individual dog and you do not know if it was a well loved family dog. For all you know, the owner of that dog could be showing off his prized fighter.

Secondly you prove no proof from the supposed time period (1800's-1940's) of the dog being called a "nanny dog." You only interpret this to be a truth, but have no proof of it being one.

Thirdly, almost ANY breed of dog has a better record of being family pets than the pit bulls. Name any other breed of dog who's come close to the mauling and fatal attacks of the pit bull since their inception and in recent history. You cannot, because they don't have the capacity to match the pit bull. Even the stronger Saint Bernard has had fewer unprovoked mauling and no fatalities to my understanding.

Point is. You're changing the definition of the pit bull's "nanny dog" status to fit in the new criteria that Craven has laid out for you. Point is that you have no substantial proof of your claim other than a dozen or so photos that show pit type dogs with kids; dogs that have no recorded history and dogs that cannot be proven as good from a split second photoshoot.

You're basing your whole argument on:

A.) A handful of photos.
B.) 5 second photos that don't show the entire lifetime interaction of the dog and child.
C.) Photos that tell nothing of the dogs lineage or amount of time with child.


Your "logic" didn't strike a nerve with me Cory, but your sheer stupidity and lack of common sense did.

DubV said...

Hey Cory, type less and think more.

Animal and human aggression do impinge upon each other. Why? Because pit bulls attack dogs and then the victim's owner will try to intervene and become a victim themselves. That is just one obvious connection.

You are just repeating the animal aggression is not human aggression point as a mantra. Yes, we agree that the definition of "animal aggression" and "human aggression" are different. You trying to construe this as meaning they are disconnected is wrong.

* said...

@ Cory

"I wouldn't leave a child alone with any dog of any size, breed or temperament, period"

Well the that would mean every time you leave the house, use the bathroom, cook food, answer the phone, go to another room, or remove your self from an inch of the room; you would need to either take the dog with you or crate it due to your absence. You would spend half of the time in your day making sure that the dog was always by your side or crating it.

Amazing how no other breed left with a child alone is even able to match the pit bulls fatality and maiming rate. Oh wait - genetics.

"Again, animal aggression and human aggression ARE NOT RELATED"

You do know that humans are animals right?

The problem with the pit bull is dual. There are several man biters who were either not culled or who were even bred because of their ferocity. And in the UK there are many people who are breeding pit type dogs to BE human aggressive; there's an entire documentary about it.

"I never said anything about Russian Roulette and your argument becomes meaningless if you need to twist others words in order to dispute them."

You mentioned that "it's perfectly plausible that a dog could be a pit fighter and still safe for children to be around" so no, I did not twist your words around. You're basically admitting that in some part of your mind, that if someone thought this and then put their child around a dog who has a bad history of deciphering animal and human aggression as you like to put it; is socially acceptable and even reasonable.

"There are TONS of pit-bull type dogs in my county and I have yet to see anyone expect theirs to babysit the kids. You seem to have missed the fact that the basis for this blog post is HISTORY. "

So what is that supposed to mean? There have been over a hundred victims in the past 6 months alone. Many of them were children, and we're not counting the death toll. More than 40 fatal attacks in the past five years alone have been pit bulls.

You're missing the basis for my argument. The past history of the pit bull is a lie the way you nutters love to spin it. The current history of the pit bull you try and formulate in your feeble mind is also a lie. But if you look at the fact that pit bulls have caused more unprovoked harm than any other breed or type since their inception their history lines up perfectly. Which should not be amazing or revolutionary seeing how they were bred with the instinct to fight.

* said...

@ Cory

"There's plenty of mention of it on the internet or you could go to the library and do some real research. It took me all of 10 minutes to find records from a breeder that was breeding specifically for ranch dogs in 1905. And yes, there are pictures too if you feel you must have them."

Wow! More pictures! How about this Cory. Rent those books, and scan in the pages in which the breeder mentions that pit bulls were good companion dogs for children. But you would have to also find a paragraph that mention they were nicknamed "nanny dogs" because every pit bull advocacy site mentions that it was a common nickname back then. If it's so common then it should not be to find several documents that show this.

Also, please provide evidence where the majority of the pit bull population was bred to be other than fighting or hog dogs. One example does not the majority make.

"Because you didn’t come up with proof on your own? Go to the library, there is plenty of evidence, I found numerous newspaper articles and ads with a simple search. Just because you haven’t found it on the internet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist."

Again, show your proof of documents from the era in which the terms "nanny dog" were used for any of the pit type. There are numerous scans of documents from back then of pit bull attack cases, so it should be evident that they were nanny dogs. Unless you're a liar. :)

* said...

@ CKing

Good go!

You should read my response to them when it comes through as it surely is grand.

And I've noticed that as well... the providence of proof that is; or lack thereof.

We shall see what evidence they will provide of their claims, even though most of her rant has absolutely nothing to do with the nanny dog topic we're handling. But maybe that's why she changed it. Maybe she knows that being able to provide evidence of their claims is far beyond their capabilities.

* said...

@ Provi:

Comparing an ESBT to an APBT shares ground to comparing a caniche to a newfoundland."

No they do not, are you an idiot?

Newfoundlands are molosser types, the caniche (poodle) is a retriever type. They are two different types of dogs. Other breed types include terrier, toy, and herding.

As for the relation of the ESBT to the ABPT, do you think pit bulls just spawned out of nowhere when immigrants suddenly bought over their ESBT dogs? You honestly cannot be this idiotic...

If you want to learn more about pit bulls types then please click on this link.

You can't educate someone on something when you don't understand it yourself.

* said...

@ Cory:

You sure do love to change the topic don't you? So far this has been your train of thought; and this is just in your first response to the article.

nanny dog (1st paragraph)
difference" between animal and human aggression (2nd paragraph)
pit bulls nature to please people (3rd paragraph)
breed ownership (4th paragraph)
nutter syndrome (5th paragraph)
labrador retrievers (6th paragraph)

You've strayed completely from the topic and to be honest, I'm surprised the rest of your comments have come through. But because you entertain me in my spare time; I will tackle other points you've mentioned despite their disconnect from the article and the rules.

" 'My community'? 'My kind'? It appears you mean anyone that isn't out to badmouth these dogs with the sole purpose of doing away with them."

Not badmouth, people who are lying about the breed's higher tendency to maul and kill animals and people. Yes your group is highly irresponsible; read the link in which I was speaking of people like Ledy removing any law that promotes responsible ownership and safe communities.

There are other breed groups who will loudly warn of their breeds temperament and faults. And what's amazing is that these people seem to have fewer problems despite some members of their breed coming from shaky lineages.

And who said anyone here was out to kill these dogs? I can say that several people here would sooner cooperate if people were responsible about the problems they face with this breed and stopped trying to remove laws that ensure a safer community. I'm not talking about bans either, just regulation. Thought i should throw that out there before you went on to presume I was part of the ban plan.

"You want balance? You have repeatedly failed to show much of it."

This relates to the above. What would be balanced is if your community would stop the removal of laws that do no discriminate by breed because you fear your pibbles would be rightly convicted if they attacked. It would be balanced if your community would pay the fees for mangled pets instead of removing their dog temporarily or running from the scene; as well as stop blaming generally benign animal victim. It would be balanced if advocates promoted better guidelines and regulations for the breed.

How is that for balanced?

* said...

@ CKing:

"You are moving the goal post again, now saying that the nanny dog myth isn't important because its history."

You know, this is one thing she's been right about although not in the way she intended.

Anyone who argues that the pit bulls "was/is" a nanny dog has no ground to debate.

What the breed "once was" has nothing to do with how the breed is today. The fact that the breed continues to defy the opposition (nutters) should show two things. First that the past was different (lie), and second is that the past is irreverent. It's irreverent because these nanny dogs who are often decently cared for maim and kill children unprovoked.

So even if the nanny dog myth was true, it would not hold ground because the breed of dog is much different than what it once was. And because Cory allowed for this to be said, we could deduce that the reason the breed "has a problem today" is because of poor backyard breeding.

But breeding has always been an issue.

Almost any way a nutter tries to look at it, the point is moot.

* said...

@ Cory:

"Provide proof for you? I'm not the one trying to dispel a so called myth while admitting that my research was limited."

Basically you're saying, "I'm too lazy to TYPE IN OR GOOGLE the books and references that I've perviously read to support my opinion. Despite the fact that I know they exist and despite the fact that providing these reports would immediately remove any criticisms on the nanny dog."

From this I can assuredly state that you have NO documents that support your "fact" aside from some images you believe to be the word of god.

And I'm out to. There's no point in debating with a liar who's also delusional and obtuse beyond reason.

Take some B12, and come back if that helps.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

cory wrote:
"Provide proof for you? I'm not the one trying to dispel a so called myth while admitting that my research was limited.
You haven't proven anything."

the burden of proof should be on those make this outrageous assumption. dispelling the nanny myth is similar to dispelling the god myth. outside of your many pit bull bibles, there is no evidence that pit bulls were nanny dogs. we have simply proven that the pit bull advocates have no objective, historical references outside of nutter literature and websites.

A Complete History of Fighting Dogs by Mike Homan is highly regarded in pit nutter/dog fighter circles and nary a mention of nanny dog, babysitter or nursemaid. and there are quite a few photos of adults and children with pit dogs.

bad said...

The point is Freedom Of CHoice. If you don't like it leave the USA. You should be able to own whatever dog you want. Period. Trying to impose your views on other people makes you a "nutter".

* said...

@ bad

True to your name, you're bad at reading articles.

Nowhere did it mention here that no one should be allowed to own a pit bull. All it was stating was that pit bulls were not known as nanny dogs; end point.

You should probably go back to grade school and learn how to differentiate between topics before coming to a forum like this to make a point.

Either stay on topic, or don't comment.

DubV said...

bad is purposefully changing the subject to something he can make a stronger case for. He is taking the point of the blog, which is examining a truth claim, and then spinning it into being about the US Constitution.

Small Survivors said...

Bad came here of his free choice. That doesn't in any way create an imposition. The post says nothing about what kind of dog he should own. It merely states that the kind of dog he owns, if its a pit, was never called the nanny dog.

Toro said...


The blog was about the "Nanny Dog Myth" and it has evolved to dog aggression statistics statements, civil rights and so on so on so on.

Coming back to the original point: Is not the Nanny Dog Myth originally and traditionally related to the (English) Staffordshire Terrier, and is this not a different breed from the other so called "Pit Bull" breeds?


Think this is your point? Also very good, FOCUS! I'd recommend Digger to focus too. And to visit the urban dictionary.

CKing said...

Toro/provi, the post above explains that the first explicit mention of the nursemaid dog that can be found was in reference to the modern 1970s STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIERS and that reference was made by an American breeder of STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIERS.

Ten years later, the first specific mention of a "nanny dog" that can be found was by a Canadian breeder of STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIERS says that in England a long time previous, STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIERS were called Nanny Dogs. That is a fabrication, as the post exposes.

STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIERS are recognized by the AKC, the CKC and the KC and are bred in those countries. None of those kennel clubs recognize "English SBT" "Canadian SBT" or "American SBT" as separate breeds.

There is no kennel club recognized breed currently called the "english staffordshire terrier" or the "staffordshire terrier" as far as I know. There is, however the AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER recognized by the AKC.

In 2007 the first mention of "America's Nanny Dog" is found and that article, linked in the post, talks about "pit bulls." It is a lie. And it is also an example of the pit bull apologia willing to lump all the breeds together as pit bulls when referenced in a positive light.

I don't know if toro/provi just doesn't know their breeds or is purposely trying to create more confusion. If it's the former, look it up. But enough with the english staffordshire terrier already unless you can show that this is a recognized breed by a recognized kennel club and that it was called the nanny dog.

* said...

@ Toro

No, Staffordshire terriers are part of the pit bull type, and they were a foundation breed for the APBT, so genetically they are related despite being two different breeds. It seems as though you're the one who's confused about what the differences between pit bulls are.

And I agree with CKing, just go to Bad Rap's website and look at their rescue dogs. The lump Staffordshires and pit bulls with each other when they benefit form the positive press. When press is good it's a pit bull, when press is bad "they're different breeds!"

msteeleart said...

Since you have oodles of time on your hands, maybe you should go research the recipient of the first human face transplant. It was a woman who had her face torn off by a labrador retriever, not a pit bull. Maybe they should be banned. When I was a child, someone left a baby on a bed with a golden retriever and it chewed up the infant's arm. My husband was attacked by a Great Dane when he was a child that he played with on a daily basis. When I was a teenager, I was chased by a German Shepherd and if the owner wouldn't have restrained him, I would have been mauled. A kid left a gate open in my neighborhood at a house who had 2 very scary Dobermans and I was walking my Rottweiler and they headed right towards us. Luckily the owner came and restrained them. It is not the breed of the dog, it is the individual dog that determines it's behavior. The only reason you hear about pit bulls is the media loves the headline and they are a very popular dog, especially by men who want to look cool. Pit bulls need a lot of love and attention and many people that own them, don't fix them and tie them in the backyard and don't give them any affection. I probably would maul someone too if I was tied up in a filthy backyard and ignored. Punish the people that own the dogs, they are the ones that have a choice, not the dogs.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

oooh being chased by a german shepherd, i am so impressed that you have been able to get on with your life.

but on a serious note, i prefer to spend my oodles of time researching pit nutters like you and charles. you two are far more interesting than labrador retriever who chewed off the face of a woman in europe who mixed tranquilizers and alcohol. people who present themselves as pit bull experts with a whole 15 months of pit bull ownership under their belt and people whose views of the world are so skewed they think that all hunters are serial killers, are much more interesting to me.

ps, my friends in ohio would love it if you move to California. i think you'll like it there. i hear that the state actually forbids human beings from discriminating against canines!

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

oh my, you are too stupid for words. AND you appear to be a pit bull BREEDER!!!!!

PLEASE send the link that says the APBT was the first dog to be registerd in the AKC.

please read ATTS

mayerling said...

I find it interesting that when I researched children killed by dogs in 2006, there are more references to other breeds killing people then to pit bulls. I also find it interesting that when people talk about dog attacks, they say "a pit bull attacked my dog" unless, of course, it was attacked by say....a golden retriever. Then it is simply stated that it was attacked by another dog. A dog is only as good as it's owner. You sir, are ignorant. I work with a rescue group that places bully breeds with responsible owners and we have not had one incident with any of the hundreds of dogs we place. People like you perpetuate fear instead of promoting responsible pet ownership.

* said...

@ msteeleart

What does that have to do with the nanny dog myth, nothing!

What does that have to do with the fact that pit bulls attack more than labradors with more deadly and deforming consequences, nothing!

The little sequesters you're throwing out have literally nothing to do with the nanny dog myth; the only people who are focused on the violence that pit bulls cause in this article's responses have been nutters or people who apparently can't comprehend what this post is about. Are people really that desperate to prove they're right about something they they red herrings and move goal posts?

Also you're presuming that every single pibble that's attacked someone just haaaaad to be abused? Heh, funny...

* said...

@ Flametreekennels

From your name it appears as though you're a breeder of some sort; most likely a pit bull breeder since you've come her to defend them.

Let me ask you this; do you think it's responsible to breed more pit bulls when there are so many that are already flooding shelters and are being needlessly killed because people like you keep breeding more of them? You claim you love pit bulls but then participate in the indirect murder of thousands each year.

The rest of what you've written just seems to be too out there for me to even waste my time responding to as I've done it many times before.

Here's to me hoping that you will see the light. And to help you get there, here are some must read articles:


Owning or breeding dogs isn't a right; it's a responsibility; and if you're a breeder as I presume then you've proven yourself to be a hater of the very breed you love.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

mayerling, i promote truth over lies. please bring your findings to the table.

Flametreekennels said...

@crave desires lies, what happen to my comment, you wouldn't post that shyt. You lucky I forgot exactly what I said because I would've said that shyt again. @Digger your ignorance is annoying. A breeder breeds for the quality, for you not to be a dog breeder then you must not know. How would you look at an not even article but blog, that basically tries to destroy me as a breeder that there are to many pitbulls dieing and overflooding places. But you tell me I should no longer breed these animals and adopt. But as a pitbull hater this should make you happy that so many of these beautiful animals are being destroyed. First of all, I don't adopt because they don't have papers identifying that they are a true APBT. I do more then own dogs, I breed for a specific purpose and standard. A standard you obviously wouldn't expect out of the breed. Second, these Bullies are being killed because of people like you. In certain states, certain areas, even in certain economical classes (low class) they are not allowed to have pitbulls, and they are confiscated. Then the people like you act like they care for the dog, and kill it. And actually in the past year people been attacked by chows, chows mixes, and other dogs more than APBT. Like I said watch the dog whisperer(you may learn something). Any dog is capable of killing/biting anyone. Let's put it in retrospect, a dog is a gun, they has the capability to kill. The pitbull is like a .50 cal. Don't go on and rant about how I put it in metaphorically with a weapon. APBT are the true Nanny dog, they were fighting dogs who the owner trained, and he couldn't have a dog the bites people because their were people in the fighting ring crawling on the ground with the dogs. you and craven liars need to accept the fact that the APBT is an animal and a canine like every other breed. They are the minorities of the dog world like blacks/hispanics, given a bad image by negative publicity. Like blacks are people, APBT are dogs. Just put in a bad place where they are not expected to succeed. Like I said look up The SUPER DOG TITLE by the UKC. 5 dogs are APBT, 1 is STAFF, 1 is AMSTAFF. These are the top dogs in the world ranked by behavior, agility, obedience, conformation and or weight pull. I love the breed, while you seek to destroy it. and @ craven lies you need to post my comment before this one. With that bogus blog about the ATTS,

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

flame tree, how many comments do you think you submitted?

nothing bogus about the ATTS blog, follow the links stupid.

Unknown said...

@4Truth The AKC recognizes at least 3 breed names today that are Pit Bulls, however they had refused to allow pit bulls to be registered because of the unsavory history of the name and breed originally. Because of that refusal the UKC was formed and first breed it allowed to be registered was the APBT.

@craven I read somewhere about a book published in the 1920's where a pit bull owner called the dog the nanny dog. However it also stated that he had let it be known his intention was to change the image of the dog. I have spent the last few hours trying to find this information again. Perhaps you might know something about this book? If so please let me know here or through my new site PitBullDangers.com

* said...

@ Flametreekennels

A breeder breeds for the quality, for you not to be a dog breeder then you must not know.

I don't have to be a dog breeder to know what a dog breeder does. That's like saying I must own a dog to understand it's hard work; no ones does - they just have to do research and be perceptive. I've DONE research and am perceptive on how most pit bull breeders operate.

Your kind generally claim for breed "perfection" but there are so many breeders who believe "perfection" is preserving the gameness and tenacity of the pit bull. You want to breed for a better pit bull? Cull any dog that shows aggression of any sort and outcross with other tamer breeds and tame the most temperamentally sound of those breeds. When looking at the results the whole breeding community for pit bulls, seems as though you guys have a shitty past and a piss poor track record...

"I do more then own dogs, I breed for a specific purpose and standard. A standard you obviously wouldn't expect out of the breed."

I expect pit bulls to be bred as tame family pets if they're going to be kept as such. Until the general breed shows strains of dogs with softer mouths and less volatile reactions I will presume that almost any pit bull breeder is breeding for an aggressive stain; whether it be dog or human aggression.

"Let's put it in retrospect, a dog is a gun, they has the capability to kill."

A dog IS NOT a gun... dogs have brains; something you seem to lack. Just because you make a comparison that shows similar traits does not make the two things being compared the exact same. And if you're going to compare pit bulls to intimate objects be more logical in the comparisons you're making.

* said...

@ Flametreekennels

Also, you never did respond to my first question; so it's safe for me to presume that you do think it's ok to produce more pit bulls to be sold then dumped at shelters at an alarming right.

Yes, any breed can be dangerous but not every breed can be dangerous to the level of a pit bull. Is a bite from a pomeranian to a baby dangerous? Yes! Does it happen often? No... Do they maim adults and children alike often? No... do they kill at least one person a year? No...

You can try and excuse that by saying pit bulls have a large prey drive; but so do other hunting dogs and they've still not managed to maim or kill ad many people as pit bulls have.

When it comes to canine racism it doesn't exist because the dogs can't comprehend any level of prejudice, discrimination, or "racism" that's been pushed on them. I've never seen a dog get upset when I mention that "x breed is better for x or worse for x." Because they're DOGS. They're not people... do you really have to scrape that low at the bottom of your barrel to try and prove you're right about something? Even when it has nothing to do with the nanny dog myth?

Dog breeds exist so they can be discriminated against from their form to their function; that's their whole purpose.

You claim I don't even know the basics of dog breeding but you've just proven to me that you know jack about it...

Gun Mom said...

FIRSTLY, the American Pitbull Terrier is recognized by the UKC, and here are the breed standards. "The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable."

Secondly, and I'm not saying this is relevant to every attack, almost all of the pit bull attacks in the United States were "pit-mixes" / "pit bull-type dog" or mislabeled by journalists and police officials.


I have been a part of a community that helped a woman's dog recover after getting a bullet to the face by police officials who entered her backyard to chase a criminal. Her dog began barking and lunged at the police. They labeled the dog as a "pit bull" in the news article about the event, however her dog is a foxhound. You can find their facebook page under "Justice for Harley".

Pitbulls are similar to the American Akita in that they were bred to have strong prey drives. Once they were introduced into fighting rings (which is a very important part of the American Akita's developmental period) they were bred with dogs like German Shepards - which are aggressive towards humans. A lot of pitbull mixes could be bred with dogs who are used for protection work, and therefore develop aggressive behavior towards humans. This is either a sign of a bad breeder or NOT a pure bred pitbull.

lexx said...

@ Douglas Wolfe, CKing, and Craven, out of curiosity did you guys have a bad experience/encounter with a pitbull type dog?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

i have written about many (but not all) of my pit bull experiences here.

Small Survivors said...


I have had many "normal" encounters with pit bulls. When I lived in a large city, I used to pick up strays and take them to "no kill" shelters out of the city where I thought they might have a better chance - that included a deluge of pit bull puppies that I started seeing in my neighborhood.

And I've had a few that were abnormal. It wasn't just that the pit was aggressive - it was aggressive in an abnormal way ie. after a completely normal and calm greeting with my dog, it suddenly choked off my dog and both I and the pit owner had to beat it to get it to release.

Watching a completely calm pit walk past my house, and after I turned away, hearing what sounds like a complete, all-out dogfight turn out to be just two pit bull owners barely able to hold on to their pits encountering each other on the sidewalk.

Each spring watching a deluge of new pit bull puppies being paraded around by kids and idiots only to find that most of those pits are gone by the next year (unfortunately not my neighbors pits) which are replaced each spring by new ones that will soon be stuck with the bye bye needle.

Hearing what I think is an all out dogfight just to find that my neighbors decided to sit on their front porch with their pits who tried to attack the first thing they saw moving. (they have stopped taking their pits out on the front porch)

It is absolutely true that the vast majority of pits I see are not dangerous. It is also absolutely true that the vast majority of pits I see are less than a year old.

* said...

@ Gun Mom

In response to your find the pit bull test, here's a better one. :)

Your UKC reference, and almost everything else you've mentioned here has nothing to do with wether or not the american pit bull terrier or staffordshire terrier were popularly known as nanny dogs.

I honestly don't know why this comment was allowed through.

"Pitbulls are similar to the American Akita in that they were bred to have strong prey drives."

You should probably read the links that respond to this in depth here. But do you honestly think that's a valid excuse for the pit bull to kill and maim more than any other breed regardless of ow the dog is treated? German Shepherds, hound, and other terrier dogs have strong prey drives, why aren't they killing and maiming more people than the American Pit Bull, Staffordshre, and Ambull?

To put this into perspective for I've documented 15 other breeds with that have amassed 77% less attacks than the American Pit Bull, Staffordshire, and their mixes. Of those individuals pit bulls have had 173 dogs involved to my recent count. The other breeds with the highest numbers are the Rottweiler, Bull Mastiff, and Labrador; and they averaged out to 4. That means the pit bull has beaten out those three breeds by a 97% increase in the individuals who attack.

"Secondly, and I'm not saying this is relevant to every attack, almost all of the pit bull attacks in the United States were pit-mixes"

If any breed can attack to the level of a pit bull why aren't here dozens of rottie, GSD, and lab mixes maiming everyone? Why is it that if these breeds are part rottweiler, GSD, or labrador that the other half is most often a pit mix? Why aren't labordoodles killing everyone?

Excuses, excuses...

S70KCS said...

You dog haters should be thrown in a pit with some agressive American pit bulls!! I'm from the UK and had a Staffi for 12 and a half years. She was not aggressive in any way to other dogs or people. She was fab with children and because of that I would have referred to her as a 'nanny dog'. Staffs are not a pit breed, hence the name 'Staffordshire Bull Terrier'. They are terriers and not a mention of 'pit' in the name. We have thousands of Staffs in the UK and very few incidents regarding them. Get your facts right before giving these dogs a bad name. It was the Americans who gave it the pit name, so blame yourselves. In the UK we have 'Nanny Dogs' and they are Staffordshire Bull Terriers'. Case closed!

jeremy1978 said...

Sounds like you got all your info from the net or books and def the
Media. How about you spend time with these dogs and make your own opinion. This is really a bunch of hog wash. All those kids you say were killed by pitbulls, well I'm an animal control officer. Cross reference what the
Media says with the report you will besurprised. Even when the horrible so called sport of dog fighting was legal. Yea it's in there blood to be animal aggressive but those same dogs are people lovers. Really I know This for fact. Now the prob begins with people training them badly most drug dealers. Read the stats on the temperament test. Pass rate of 86.4%. Thats among some of the highest percentage of the best tempered dogs. You really make yourself sound educated on the breed. But you are not. Read the temperament test. Enough said. Thank you for giving me the chance to correct you.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...


regarding your comment that you can only truly understand pit bulls by having direct experience with them. well, that same logic applies for aggression and attacks. you can only have a valid opinion about dog aggression IF you have been mauled.

the tentacles of the pit bull propaganda machine reach far and wide. so far that even animal control officers are brainwashed.
the pit bull ATTS scores are an even bigger lie than the nanny dog. now allow me to educate you.

and then be sure to check out this link

you probably believe that man biters were culled too. IF you are in fact an animal control officer, you look especially foolish.

i base my research on pro pit bull sources. while you base your opinion on jane berkey seminars.

thank you for allowing ME to educate YOU. now let's see if you have the courage to read the TRUTH about the ATTS.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

S70KCS ,
you own ONE staffy bull and you think you are an expert. you're a arrogant moron.

timah said...

As a former animal control officer I can honestly say that I responded to no more bite calls for "pit bulls" than I did for bassets, pomeranians, or any other breed that you can think of. There are reasons some dogs are aggressive and you can almost always trace that back to the owner. Do some real research, actually spend some time with the dogs. Who cares where the term "nanny dog" came from, the fact remains that, just like any other breed, "pits" have always been good animals when treated humanely. Oh, and that picture you put up of the obviously abused dog is a joke, I can use google picture search, too.

timah said...

DubV said...

Yes timah, we all know that chihuahuas bite ankles pretty regularly. Get a clue.

IroxURsox said...

Just read the reuters news article about the Pit Bull owner who came home to find his pregnant wife mauled and partially eaten by one of his Pit Bulls. Don't know how to link in posts, just search for "Pregnant San Francisco woman killed by pit bull".

Saw that article and I was reminded of this blog post. Like I posted back in June, although I think Pit Bull owners are about the dumbest people I know, I really do not want them to be proved wrong because it means something horrible has happened. Sadly, another "family dog" murdered its owner because these brainwashed sheep can't admit they are wrong.

Btw, since I posted in June I talked with one of my friends who I used to get into arguments with over his Pit Bull. He no longer owns "Chopper". Why? Because his wife had their first baby. Guess deep down he wasn't as convinced about Chopper's harmless nature as he wanted to admit.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

dogsbite.org is covering this bizarre "accident".

CKing said...

Thank you! You know your arguments about your friend's pit bull may have contributed to his responsible behavior. You might have saved a life and a family some heartbreak.

There will always be people who engage in high risk behavior. Its their right to kill themselves so long as it doesn't involve anyone else. It is a shame when they bring their children into it. It is absolutely unacceptable for them to force entire communities to bear completely avoidable additional risk just so they can get a thrill.

Smoking got banned in public places after studies on second-hand smoke came out.

If you go to the dogsbite.org link above, you will find that the husband wants his other pit bull back because he judges that dog to be safe. We all see how good his judgment is. Why must his neighbors STILL be at the mercy of his demonstrably bad judgment?

mybullseyeview said...

Aren't You confusing Pit Bulls, or rather American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers? They are different breeds and not all breeds can be lumped into a term that really has no definition?

I have seen many dogs and trained many dogs and have yet to see any breed of dog that does not potentially exhibit aggressive and/or fearful behavior.

So when you talk about facts, but have everything confused, it invalidates expertise and leaves it completey as uneducated opinion.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

well bullseyeview, you almost followed the argument. it's the nutters who are confusing the 3 different "breeds" that are lumped into a single category, ie PIT FIGHTERS. the pit nutters on US soil have co-opted the UK myth.
and the 3 breeds you mentioned can reliably be lumped into one term, ie type or category the same as goldens, labradors, flat coateds and chesapeake bays can all be lumped into the RETRIEVING group.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

well jake, i will start by answering your question as to why i have not published your comments with the first two sentences of the first of your three comments:
"I haven't read all of this blog, but it clearly appears that this blog is an attempt to demonize bull terriors and associating the SBT with the APBT is the main goal. These are two entirely different Terriors."

you haven't read the blog, yet you have the audacity to attempt to dispute the content anyway. you misspelled TERRIER a total of 6 times despite the fact that the links that YOU provided are spelled correctly.

in your third comment, you repeated propaganda that i have dispelled elsewhere.
Helen Keller's dog Sir Thomas was not an american pit bull terrier, it was a boston terrier. You can read about it here

Petey of the Little Rascals was indeed an american pit bull terrier and one from distinguished fighting lines. Jack the brindle bulldog was most likely an american bulldog but he could have been an APBT. i briefly addressed Jack here.

and by the way tyla hafstrom is a nobody repeating propaganda just like you. i do not allow that here.

you will want to check back for more myth busting. Man-biters were not culled and your adorable Petey are coming up next.

birdy13 said...

Since the UK Dangerous Dogs Act made it illegal to own breeds such as the pit bull terrier, the press have reported many cases of attacks by Staffordshire Bull Terriers or dogs described as a 'Staffordshire bull terrier cross' on children, adults and family pets. The RSPCA fears that breeders are re-naming pit bulls as Staffordshire bull terriers to avoid prosecution. Also, the description 'Staffordshire bull terrier cross' is frequently a euphemism for a dog such as the American Pit Bull Terrier.

RSPCA chief vet Mark Evans said: "Staffies have had a terrible press, but this is not of their own making - in fact they're wonderful dogs. If people think that Staffies have problems, they're looking at the wrong end of the dog lead! When well cared for and properly trained they can make brilliant companions. Our experience suggests that problems occur when bad owners exploit the Staffie's desire to please by training them to show aggression".

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is often subject to breed bans worldwide that target the Bull and Terrier family. However, Australia, England, and New Zealand make clear a distinction between the American Pit Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier and thus are exempted from Breed Specific Legislation.

Dani said...

When my husband and I adopted what we were told was a boxer/mastiff at the pound, she turned out to be a pit bull. I had no idea how demonized these dogs are when we got her! As she grew, people told us she was a pit. We made sure to train her and socialize her well. Shame on you, annysa, for saying pit bulls should be banned from dog parks! How else are they supposed to be socialized? She is now the belle of the dog parks and, to 'stay on topic', she is the favorite of the children who visit the park (she will chase the balls they throw, she'll let them hug her, she'll sit attentively when they tease her with a toy, etc.). The only problem we have is when we visit my mother's and her dog and my dog play. Because of my dog's body, she has a hard time stopping on a dime after she's started to run and we have to warn my niece to keep out of the way lest she gets knocked over.

My pit bull doesn't growl or get possessive about food or water. She likes to cuddle. While, when playing with other dogs, she prefers wrestling, she changes her play style to fit the other dogs (she runs with a grey hound, wrestles with other pits (and no, they don't bite) and chases balls when there are labs at the park).

My research has indicated that these negative incidents of these 'nanny dogs' being harmful seems to point at the suggestion that the areas these attacks happen in are impoverished and they might not necessarily understand how to properly take care of, much less, train a dog and properly socialize it. Hell, if I were a dog and chained up outside and the only attention I got was for food or water and not to be walked or taken to a dog park or be played with, I might be pretty annoyed as well and act out.

I understand that some of these dogs have been breed for the specific purpose of fighting, much like many people have been breed, perhaps unintentionally, to be ignorant, but to make the blanket statement that all pit bulls are terrible is a little silly. Sure, a dog- any dog- that has been breed for fighting and is fighting should not be called a nanny dog, and if that fighting line has been actively fighting and is a long line, maybe it should be advised that, even a child of the dog that isn't fighting, shouldn't be around children, but around a more responsible group of people (whilst the trainers of the fighting dogs should be killed so their own blood line doesn't continue), it shouldn't be assumed that dogs, despite their breed, that has proved themselves to be safe and has had supervised success with children shouldn't be allowed to be called a 'nanny dog'.

Hell, if my dog is proof of anything, she is the Nanny dog. She has been routinely 'attacked' in play by small children from kids at the dog park to nieces and cousins and only wags her tail and kisses them, keeping herself in check not to scratch or knock them over.

My evidence is my own experience as, aside from the dog report fatalities (which is where I had the indication that these areas of attack are in the majority of being in the state of poverty), I had little success of pit bull information that wasn't objective either way.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

Dani, how old is your "pit bull"?

as to your comment about them only attacking when abused, chained, neglected etc - don't be so gullible. plenty of loved and well cared for pit bulls attack. check out this angry pit bull who finally just got fed up with his abusive owner and broke a kid's nose and delivered 64 stitches to his face.


Dani said...

My 'pit bull' (and yes, she is a pit. Everyone who sees her says she's a pit. Even her vets.) is about one and a half years old.
As to your comment about my comment... you at first indicate that you think loved and well cared for pits attack and then go on to say that this angry pit bull got fed up with his abusive owner. Like all the other abused pit bulls. Gullible? You seem to be the one eating what the media is feeding you without a wealth real life experience to temper it with.
It seems that pit bulls attract ignorant owners much like the internet attracts ignorant bloggers. It's an unfortunate incident. I've meet many extremely well behaved and well socialized pits (I lived in South Florida and good pits well out numbered bad labs and shepherds at the dog park), but abusers and haters give these dogs a bad name.
It's unfortunate that you spend so much time hating on a dog when you could be doing other things. But, the good thing is, you can hate and other haters will listen, but people with actual sense don't choose their dog by what some nutter on the internet is ranting about. And, those who abuse their poor dogs aren't going to go advice on the internet either. So, it looks like just the ranting bloggers and a few people trying to give them a real perspective are wasting their time on this 'argument'.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

"As to your comment about my comment... you at first indicate that you think loved and well cared for pits attack and then go on to say that this angry pit bull got fed up with his abusive owner. Like all the other abused pit bulls. Gullible? You seem to be the one eating what the media is feeding you without a wealth real life experience to temper it with."

i think you might be the dumbest pit nutter ever.
it's called SARCASM.

Dani said...

Dumb? Nutter? I don't think I've written anything that isn't factual. If that's sarcasm how on earth does your argument make any sense?

peacelovepitbulls said...

haters gonna hate... my APBT is great with children... Also, A DOG IS A GOOD AS IT'S OWNER... NO MATTER WHAT. Stop confusing this domestic animal with a wild panther or lion. Plus, most attacks are from dogs that are mixed breed and unstable... then are labeled pitbulls by the media. Oh and you clowns sound the silliest spasses in the world. thanks for the misinformation!

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

Dani, if you take the time to click on the link (KAPPA) above and read, you will see an example of a well cared for pit bull tearing up the face of a little boy. this obviously isn't a chained/neglected pit bull. he's wearing jersey and posing in the house for the photo!

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

peacelovepitbulls, obviously the comparison of pit bulls to panthers is ludicrous. the panthers have not had self preservation bred out of them. you silly girl!

Dani said...

I took the time to go to your little website. Here is the quote straight from your website:
"And now, meet KAPPA, the under socialized, mishandled, abused wiggle butt that broke Devon's nose and delivered 64 stitches worth of damage."
How is an under-socialized, mishandled, and abused wiggle butt a well cared for dog, exactly?

scurrilous amateur blogger said...


go away a little girl. clearly you are not able to comprehend the basics.

Small Survivors said...

Oh GEEZ, Dani, LOOK AT THE PHOTO OF KAPPA - Dawn was being sarcastic - the dog looks well fed and pampered. The news accounts said the grandfather loved the dog. Dawn was poking fun at YOU and your ilk who always say, well the dog must have been abused and starving. Obviously, well fed and pampered pit bulls ATTACK!

Google Darla Napora. She was attacked by her well loved, socialized, trained pit bull. Darla was affiliated with BAD RAP. She was not only a doting and caring owner, she was EDUCATED by BAD RAP on the proper handling of pit bulls. And she was gruesomely mauled for no apparent reason. GO AWAY AND GROW UP

DubV said...

It seems the pit bull foundation has addressed this blog. It is referenced and quoted here.


They do not seem to not want to admit they hold the burden of proof and have not met it.

The truth blog is important in removing their linchpin arguments: 1. nanny dogs, 2. ATTS stats, 3. can't ID a pit bull, and 4. manbiters were culled.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

just like every other religious fanatic, the burden of proof is on the pit nutter to PROVE their fairy tales are true!

thanks DubV.

CKing said...

looks like someone took me up on my challenge to find an abundance of evidence that pit bulls were called nanny dogs and failed. Looks like they couldn't even find one instance. Looks like they still want to claim pit bulls are nanny dogs absent any proof of it.

By their use of "argument from ignorance" I can say that all early 20th century pit bull owners suffered from anencephaly and, absent any specific proof to the contrary, they'd have to accept my statements as true.

Or are their brains just full of shit?

mward said...

All of you have no idea what you are talking about. You want to talk about children? CHILDREN die every day by the thousands in animal shelters because no one wants them and the ones who take them abuse them. CHILDREN are going to die in BSL cities today because this blog continues to add fuel to the fire. CHILDREN are going to have to fight for their lives in a pit because someone wants money and drugs. Human children are not the only children we share this planet with. Now you leave my pit bull child alone!

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

mward, what an absolutely bonkers comment. thank you! we'll do our best to make your voice famous.

Colleen Lynn said...

We have a new Maul Talk term courtesy "mward"

Small Survivors said...

Great maultalk addition! Just wow.

Manda Malice said...

As an parent and pet owner, I think the idea of any dog being a "Nanny Dog" in ridiculous. No small child should ever be left unattained with a dog of any breed. Dogs as small as a dachshunds have been known the maul babies. And on the other side of that, the older my children get, the less I trust them not to do something foolish that may accidently harm our pets. While photos/movies of kids and pets are cute to look at, the reality of leavening a pet that is depended on it's owner to care for it "in charge" of a child is a huge fail at parenting no matter what breed or species.

SynCollazo2011 said...

You guys base this off of what bad happens. the 70's it was the doberman, the 80's it was the german shepherd, the 90's it was the rot and now in the 2000's its the american pit bull terrier. You guys see the bad in this breed but dont spit out the good. The real reason pit bulls get this rep is because you have people breeding them poorly thus causing issues and then you have "thugs" training them to be aggressive. any dog can kill so you might as well ban labs and goldens because as of right now they're higher up on the bite list nation wide than the pit bull. I own a american pit bull terrier, he's a ex fighting dog who was on his death bed due to his lack of true dog aggression while they busted the ring. Yes, he's a little beat up, yes he has a few scars from his past on his face, yes he's muscular, YES he's a pit bull BUT none of these scars sunk into his heart like it seems to do yours. THIS dog will love you more than anyone will if you give it a chance. Mayhem sleeps with our cats and guinea pig, he protects our home, he protects us, he makes us laugh when no one else could. He is the best dog. I feel he shouldn't be judged because of what he is but judged for WHO he is. Some dogs are messed up yeah but you get that in any breed that is over and in bred. any true pit bull owner will say what i said because guess what, us pit bull owners are a fighting bunch. we will die for our dogs and they would us. I'm 18yrs old, I am the youngest hander in a professional dog sport called Mondio Ring, My hero is my pit bull who saved me and my girlfriend from a carjacking. I know what I stand for and I stand for forgivness, you should do the same because knowing a 18yr old brought up in a world full of hate still believing in hope should help you understand that just because bad things happen and it's a specific group of things doesn't mean everything in that group is bad. food for thought

Lantee said...

My personal experience with pitbulls is every single one of any type I have encountered was a pet killer. Cats beware, that dog will drag it's owner across the street (small or weak people should not own powerful dogs) and attack any cat not fast or smart enough to escape.

They are also aggressive towards other dogs and won't hesitate to get into a bloody brawling match.

Further, I have seen every one of those animals make aggressive moves towards any human that is doing something they do not understand. Their owners tend to see them as lovable and nice, which I think is because the dog knows them and what their habits are. Small children and unknown humans are much more likely to elicit a deadly response because they dog does not understand what or why the human is acting as they do. Thing is, it isn't our responsibility to act in a manner your dog understands, it your responsibility to ensure your pet, that you are legally responsible for, does not harm another human being, for any reason short of defense of your home.

We had a pitbull break into our backyard at 2am in order to kill our cat. Ripped it's belly out. I followed it back to it's house (next door) and informed the owner what it had just done. He looked me in the face and swore his dog had been at his side the entire time and never left his sight and would never have done that. Next time I hear a disturbance in the night, i'll bring my axe and put the animal's head on the curb. If you don't like that idea, then perhaps you should make sure your dog is under tighter supervision?

These problems occur not because the animal is bad, but because they require supervision. Every problem I have ever heard about occured because the owner was either not paying attention or trusted their pet. If you always watch your pet carefully and ensure it isn't doing something bad or downright horrible, then you are a good owner... that does not mean your pet would not do those things if given a chance.

Cat owners know not to leave little fluffy in the same room as an unprotected bird and won't dispute you calling them dangerous to birds... why on earth would you dispute dogs are dangerous to things they are capable of killing???

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

syn, you are more than a little confused.

the decade of the dobermans was the 1980's and even then pit bull out killed the dobie 5.6 to 1. and that is according to the liar you pit nutters worship, karen delise

click here to read more about your "expert".

lantee, sorry you didn't have that ax the first time but if i know pit bulls and their owners, another opportunity will present itself.

Anonymous said...

You're right on the money Syn about these types of people. People like Dawn James judge thousands based on the actions of a few, just like racist nutjobs usually do. You know, the "all black males are inherently criminal" argument backed up by the "because there are so many black males in prison" proof, that kind of nonsense. Anti-pit fanatics can search for negative stories to their hearts content and can probably find a few hundred, but when you weigh them against the hundreds of thousands of well-behaved family "pits" throughout North America, the negative "facts" these racists dig up are quite insignificant. This whining on the net will never have any impact on a dogs life in the real world so don't lose sleep over this drivel. Grin, have a chuckle, and take your pitty out for a stroll to the park to play with these fanatics children. I guarantee they wouldn't have the balls to speak like this to your face. Ain't that right folks?

Small Survivors said...

Pit bull pushers are the only ones making the disgusting comparison between animals that greet each other by sniffing butts and a race of human beings.

Pit bull pushers are the only ones making the revolting comparison between animal husbandry questions and the intractable social justice issues that have dogged the US as a result of our white forefathers' perversions.

Pit bull pushers are the only ones who feel that because lots of pit bulls don't attack, we have to let ourselves and our children and our pets be sitting ducks for any pit bull that decides it DOES want to prey on us.

And pit bull pushers are the only ones who gloat about how they can bully people every where they go with their dogs.

This will be the last comment allowed that makes vile, racist associations between people and dogs.

But please continue to write internet comments that threaten parents' children with your dogs, and reveal your underlying moral turpitude. Please include threats to pet dogs, as well. Those of us who want pit bulls to disappear will support your truth.

Small Survivors said...

It seems it is time once again to reiterate that comments must be on topic. Unfortunately, It is also now necessary to explain that to be on topic, one must actually read the post, be able to comprehend the post, and also be able to comprehend sarcasm.

Also, if you don't understand the phrase, "objective, verifiable evidence" you shouldn't even try to respond.

And finally, if a previous numbnuts got their corn creamed in previous comments, voicing the exact same baseless opinion will not get your comment published.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

pete, please read the the truth about the ATTS