Not a fan of writing a Pit Bull exposure (and not wanting to get into the discussion of “good” versus “bad” dogs or owners) since their severity of bite and subsequent claims can be ugly. I can agree to some extent w/ using them as assitance animals, as long as the animal is trained/certified. I don’t support them when used as “companion” animals as there is no formal training needed, just a doctor’s recommendation. There needs to be some assurances about the animal if I am going to have a large laibility exposures.
How about using a breed that doesn’t have a bad history? Golden Retrievers, Labs, poodles and any number of breeds that are gentle is a good idea. Pit Bulls are excluded by all major carriers for a good reason.
Bad history? Actually, if you look at their history, history, they used to be America’s dog. In the 1980s, when thugs and criminals misused them that was the start of the bad history. So, does it really make them bad, because idiots used them for the wrong reasons? Wish everyone had the ability to see through the BS and think for themselves.
I will let the statistics help me with my thinking and continue to not write Pit Bulls. I love dogs and have a Westie of my own but there is clear industry information out there that not all dogs are equal when it comes to liability predictive analytics.
“Bad history? Actually, if you look at their history, history, they used to be America’s dog.”
Except there is no evidence of this at all. If you actually look at vintage dog fancier magazines and old newspaper articles, you will see the pit bull has always been a dog whose main task was to be used for bloodsport, and there have always been many people who thought they were unnecessary dogs to keep around.
Google “1911 Pit Bull Terrier Depicted as Outcast American to Victimize the Breed” Then tell me why “America’s dog” needed an article urging people to see it as more than a brute fit only for dogfighting. Why was “America’s dog” labeled an outcast?
People have also looked through old archived newspapers to search the dog classified ads to see which breeds people were buying and selling the most often. Pit bulls were way near the bottom of the list. Retrievers, shepherds, spaniels, etc. were always more popular than pit bulls. Even St. Bernards were more popular than pit bulls in the past.
I’m sorry, but the whole “America’s dog” thing is completely made up. This is why the only “evidence” pit apologists have of this is an old vintage war poster and black and white photos of children next to pit bulls (as if that proves anything. You can find old photos of children next to other dog breeds and even lions and tigers). What you won’t find is actual textual proof that the pit bull was ever a popular family dog or thought of so highly by the general populace in the past.
Which makes people wonder – if pit bulls are such amazing dogs, why do their fanciers lie so much about them? Why are they working so hard on re-writing the pit bulls history into that of being a sheep herding dog and canine babysitter?
They’ve even turned Sgt. Stubby, a dog who was NEVER referred to as a pit bull at the time he was actually alive, into a pit bull. He was always referred to as a boston terrier, boston bull terrier, or bull terrier mix.
The RCA dog, Nipper, is now called a pit bull, despite the fact that, again, he was considered a fox terrier mix at he time he was alive. Nipper was also so named because he, you know, bit people. Why pit apologists would want to use him as an example of a famous pit bull is probably because they, unsurprisingly, did zero research into the actual dog and just labeled him a pit bull so they could say “SEE? THIS FAMOUS DOG WAS A PIT BULL. AMERICA’S DOG! AMERICA’S DOG!”
They also go on about Roosevelt’s pit bull, despite the fact he was “removed” from the white house (reportedly being sentenced to life in confinement) because he kept attacking people.
Petey is another famous pit bull, yet Petey was chosen simply because of his unique coat markings and not because his breed was considered a “nanny dog.” The “nanny dog” thing is another complete myth with ZERO evidence to back it up.
You don’t see akita fanciers acquiring and urging people to get akitas as service dogs. Most dog breed fanciers have enough sense to admit when their breed isn’t suited for a certain task. Pit bull fanciers are the only people who insist their favored breed excels at everything. Which is funny, because in reality, the two tasks which the pit bull is favored over other dogs are dog fighting and being a catch dog for hogs, which involves the pit bull launching itself onto a dangerous hog with no regard to its own safety and not letting go. Yet then they’ll turn around and tell you a pit bull is just the same as a golden retriever.
If you go back to the 80’s and before, you probably had more people not reporting most dog bites at all. If you still had your fingers and toes, the owner probably apologized, offered a Band-Aid, or paid for your stitches if needed. Now, if a dog scares you it’s reported and a lawsuit filed. So to say they weren’t bad dogs back then, is like saying the T-Rex was a family pet. You can’t actually prove it wasn’t, you can assume.
Actually, many major carriers are changing this policy. Progressive being the most notable. They underwrite for the dog, with a higher premium on certain breeds. But breed no longer excludes applicants off the bat.
“Bad history? Actually, if you look at their history, history, they used to be America’s dog.”
Except there is no evidence of this at all. If you actually look at vintage dog fancier magazines and old newspaper articles, you will see the pit bull has always been a dog whose main task was to be used for bloodsport, and there have always been many people who thought they were unnecessary dogs to keep around.
Google “1911 Pit Bull Terrier Depicted as Outcast American to Victimize the Breed” Then tell me why “America’s dog” needed an article urging people to see it as more than a brute fit only for dogfighting. Why was “America’s dog” labeled an outcast?
People have also looked through old archived newspapers to search the dog classified ads to see which breeds people were buying and selling the most often. Pit bulls were way near the bottom of the list. Retrievers, shepherds, spaniels, etc. were always more popular than pit bulls. Even St. Bernards were more popular than pit bulls in the past.
I’m sorry, but the whole “America’s dog” thing is completely made up. This is why the only “evidence” pit apologists have of this is an old vintage war poster and black and white photos of children next to pit bulls (as if that proves anything. You can find old photos of children next to other dog breeds and even lions and tigers). What you won’t find is actual textual proof that the pit bull was ever a popular family dog or thought of so highly by the general populace in the past.
Which makes people wonder – if pit bulls are such amazing dogs, why do their fanciers lie so much about them? Why are they working so hard on re-writing the pit bull’s history?
Why are you posting the same thing twice? We got it the first time. By the way, there was a story some weeks ago about a young black child in Chicago that was mauled and killed by the family Pit Bull with no provocation. It seems to be in their genes and they turn on people for no apparent reason. They have a very terrible history and the breed can be made extinct as far as I am concerned. No wonder insurance companies don’t want them.
“Snarly, go fetch me the newspaper.
No, I didn’t say rip my arm off, I said fetch me the paper. Bad boy, bad boy.”
Not a fan of writing a Pit Bull exposure (and not wanting to get into the discussion of “good” versus “bad” dogs or owners) since their severity of bite and subsequent claims can be ugly. I can agree to some extent w/ using them as assitance animals, as long as the animal is trained/certified. I don’t support them when used as “companion” animals as there is no formal training needed, just a doctor’s recommendation. There needs to be some assurances about the animal if I am going to have a large laibility exposures.
How about using a breed that doesn’t have a bad history? Golden Retrievers, Labs, poodles and any number of breeds that are gentle is a good idea. Pit Bulls are excluded by all major carriers for a good reason.
Bad history? Actually, if you look at their history, history, they used to be America’s dog. In the 1980s, when thugs and criminals misused them that was the start of the bad history. So, does it really make them bad, because idiots used them for the wrong reasons? Wish everyone had the ability to see through the BS and think for themselves.
I will let the statistics help me with my thinking and continue to not write Pit Bulls. I love dogs and have a Westie of my own but there is clear industry information out there that not all dogs are equal when it comes to liability predictive analytics.
“Bad history? Actually, if you look at their history, history, they used to be America’s dog.”
Except there is no evidence of this at all. If you actually look at vintage dog fancier magazines and old newspaper articles, you will see the pit bull has always been a dog whose main task was to be used for bloodsport, and there have always been many people who thought they were unnecessary dogs to keep around.
Google “1911 Pit Bull Terrier Depicted as Outcast American to Victimize the Breed” Then tell me why “America’s dog” needed an article urging people to see it as more than a brute fit only for dogfighting. Why was “America’s dog” labeled an outcast?
People have also looked through old archived newspapers to search the dog classified ads to see which breeds people were buying and selling the most often. Pit bulls were way near the bottom of the list. Retrievers, shepherds, spaniels, etc. were always more popular than pit bulls. Even St. Bernards were more popular than pit bulls in the past.
I’m sorry, but the whole “America’s dog” thing is completely made up. This is why the only “evidence” pit apologists have of this is an old vintage war poster and black and white photos of children next to pit bulls (as if that proves anything. You can find old photos of children next to other dog breeds and even lions and tigers). What you won’t find is actual textual proof that the pit bull was ever a popular family dog or thought of so highly by the general populace in the past.
Which makes people wonder – if pit bulls are such amazing dogs, why do their fanciers lie so much about them? Why are they working so hard on re-writing the pit bulls history into that of being a sheep herding dog and canine babysitter?
They’ve even turned Sgt. Stubby, a dog who was NEVER referred to as a pit bull at the time he was actually alive, into a pit bull. He was always referred to as a boston terrier, boston bull terrier, or bull terrier mix.
The RCA dog, Nipper, is now called a pit bull, despite the fact that, again, he was considered a fox terrier mix at he time he was alive. Nipper was also so named because he, you know, bit people. Why pit apologists would want to use him as an example of a famous pit bull is probably because they, unsurprisingly, did zero research into the actual dog and just labeled him a pit bull so they could say “SEE? THIS FAMOUS DOG WAS A PIT BULL. AMERICA’S DOG! AMERICA’S DOG!”
They also go on about Roosevelt’s pit bull, despite the fact he was “removed” from the white house (reportedly being sentenced to life in confinement) because he kept attacking people.
Petey is another famous pit bull, yet Petey was chosen simply because of his unique coat markings and not because his breed was considered a “nanny dog.” The “nanny dog” thing is another complete myth with ZERO evidence to back it up.
You don’t see akita fanciers acquiring and urging people to get akitas as service dogs. Most dog breed fanciers have enough sense to admit when their breed isn’t suited for a certain task. Pit bull fanciers are the only people who insist their favored breed excels at everything. Which is funny, because in reality, the two tasks which the pit bull is favored over other dogs are dog fighting and being a catch dog for hogs, which involves the pit bull launching itself onto a dangerous hog with no regard to its own safety and not letting go. Yet then they’ll turn around and tell you a pit bull is just the same as a golden retriever.
If you go back to the 80’s and before, you probably had more people not reporting most dog bites at all. If you still had your fingers and toes, the owner probably apologized, offered a Band-Aid, or paid for your stitches if needed. Now, if a dog scares you it’s reported and a lawsuit filed. So to say they weren’t bad dogs back then, is like saying the T-Rex was a family pet. You can’t actually prove it wasn’t, you can assume.
Actually, many major carriers are changing this policy. Progressive being the most notable. They underwrite for the dog, with a higher premium on certain breeds. But breed no longer excludes applicants off the bat.
“Bad history? Actually, if you look at their history, history, they used to be America’s dog.”
Except there is no evidence of this at all. If you actually look at vintage dog fancier magazines and old newspaper articles, you will see the pit bull has always been a dog whose main task was to be used for bloodsport, and there have always been many people who thought they were unnecessary dogs to keep around.
Google “1911 Pit Bull Terrier Depicted as Outcast American to Victimize the Breed” Then tell me why “America’s dog” needed an article urging people to see it as more than a brute fit only for dogfighting. Why was “America’s dog” labeled an outcast?
People have also looked through old archived newspapers to search the dog classified ads to see which breeds people were buying and selling the most often. Pit bulls were way near the bottom of the list. Retrievers, shepherds, spaniels, etc. were always more popular than pit bulls. Even St. Bernards were more popular than pit bulls in the past.
I’m sorry, but the whole “America’s dog” thing is completely made up. This is why the only “evidence” pit apologists have of this is an old vintage war poster and black and white photos of children next to pit bulls (as if that proves anything. You can find old photos of children next to other dog breeds and even lions and tigers). What you won’t find is actual textual proof that the pit bull was ever a popular family dog or thought of so highly by the general populace in the past.
Which makes people wonder – if pit bulls are such amazing dogs, why do their fanciers lie so much about them? Why are they working so hard on re-writing the pit bull’s history?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.