Delta to ban pit bulls as service or emotional support

soflaflyer · Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:36 pm

Several news sources indicating Delta's ban on pit bulls. The ban is based on Delta's experience with this particular breed of dog. There are obviously others who do not agree but even as an avid animal lover who works with wildlife rehabilitation, I for one welcome the ban. Link to "Business Insider" article below.
http://www.businessinsider.com/delta-is-banning-pit-bulls-from-flying-and-customer-are-angry-2018-6

reffado · Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:38 pm

I know many jurisdictions have a ban on pit bulls. Out of curiosity, how did travel to those destinations work before this ban? Was there some kind of exemption for service animals and ESA's?

VTKillarney1 · Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:49 pm

I am an animal lover and dog owner. I have absolutely no problem with this rule.

Murdoughnut · Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:56 pm

The statistics on fatal and non-fatal dog attacks are on Delta's side here.

patineta89 · Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:58 pm

Supposing someone is allergic to dog hair and has Cynophobia (phobia to dogs).
Will this person have the right to board a plane with no dogs on board?
Shouldn't 'emotional support' go both ways?

Seabear · Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:10 pm

This "emotional support animal" ruse needs to stop, asap. Only bona fide Service Animals should be allowed in the passenger cabin. All others ride in the baggage hold.

jetero · Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:11 pm

Virtue signaling!

lightsaber · Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:16 pm

I agree with the rule needing to stop.

However, I travel with my dog. No dog... I will replan my vacation despite being an aviation enthusiast.

I like DL's, WN's, and B6's approach. All dogs are revenue centers unless a service dog. DL will not transport short nose dogs in the cargo hold, so they must either be small enough, in a bag, to go under a seat or they do not fly. It doesn't matter what doctor's note you have at these airlines, pay or don't fly and each plane size has a limit on quantity. For service dogs, have the paperwork or don't fly. Only service dogs fly in the cabin outside a bag. If you violate the rules, all future dog tickets are void with no refund. You can be stuck with a pet at your destination!

I have only had trouble with two breeds and I agree with no pit bulls. They have issues.

I'm certain DL is making a profit off me. Otherwise I was going to fly WN (similar rules).

Lightsaber

Jayafe · Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:20 pm

I would go further and ban from flying any passenger that even tries to put a pitfall in the cabin. Lack of common sense could come with issues.

Going even further, I would not allow to fly to any passenger that needs an animal to emotionally support him sitting aside, to behave like a person. (blind people obv apart).

WorldFlier · Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:28 pm

soflaflyer wrote:
Several news sources indicating Delta's ban on pit bulls. The ban is based on Delta's experience with this particular breed of dog. There are obviously others who do not agree but even as an avid animal lover who works with wildlife rehabilitation, I for one welcome the ban. Link to "Business Insider" article below.
http://www.businessinsider.com/delta-is-banning-pit-bulls-from-flying-and-customer-are-angry-2018-6

I understand banning emotional support animals, but if the animal has been certified in accordance with ADA...I foresee legal headaches

Pitbulls aren't the problem any more than sports cars cause getting tickets.

Pitbulls attract owners who use the breed as they were physically designed.

patineta89 · Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:38 pm

Jayafe wrote:
I would go further and ban from flying any passenger that even tries to put a pitfall in the cabin. Lack of common sense could come with issues.

Going even further, I would not allow to fly to any passenger that needs an animal to emotionally support him sitting aside, to behave like a person. (blind people obv apart).

Precisely.
Right on the money.

VTKillarney1 · Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:40 pm

WorldFlier wrote:
Pitbulls aren't the problem any more than sports cars cause getting tickets.

Sports cars cannot operate themselves - at least not yet. A pit bull doesn't need a human to make it do bad things.

WkndWanderer · Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:56 pm

WorldFlier wrote:
soflaflyer wrote:
Several news sources indicating Delta's ban on pit bulls. The ban is based on Delta's experience with this particular breed of dog. There are obviously others who do not agree but even as an avid animal lover who works with wildlife rehabilitation, I for one welcome the ban. Link to "Business Insider" article below.
http://www.businessinsider.com/delta-is-banning-pit-bulls-from-flying-and-customer-are-angry-2018-6

I understand banning emotional support animals, but if the animal has been certified in accordance with ADA...I foresee legal headaches

Pitbulls aren't the problem any more than sports cars cause getting tickets.

Pitbulls attract owners who use the breed as they were physically designed.

The Air Carrier Access Act is the relevant law to airlines in regard to service animals. The ACAA allows airlines to use the following to determine what service animals to allow in the cabin:

"A wide variety of service animals are permitted in the cabin portion of the aircraft flying to and within the United States; however, most service animals tend to be dogs and cats. Airlines may exclude animals that:

Are too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin;
Pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others;
Cause a significant disruption of cabin service; or
Are prohibited from entering a foreign country.
Note: Airlines are never required to accept snakes, reptiles, ferrets, rodents, sugar gliders, and spiders."

https://www.transportation.gov/individu ... rt-animals

VTKillarney1 · Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:18 pm

FlySSC wrote:
Pitt Bull are the sweetest and nicest dog breed.

I was taking you seriously until you said this.

FlySSC · Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:19 pm

The concept of « emotional support » should be banned. This is ridiculous.
Pitt Bull are the sweetest and nicest dog breed. Delta should ban the owners who train those dogs to be agressive, instead of banning those poor animals.

Cubsrule · Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:39 pm

FlySSC wrote:
The concept of « emotional support » should be banned. This is ridiculous.
Pitt Bull are the sweetest and nicest dog breed. Delta should ban the owners who train those dogs to be agressive, instead of banning those poor animals.

I think a big part of the problem is that folks who utilize emotional support animals are often not the best passengers. We took a delay on an AA flight a couple of nights ago for a passenger who did not want to keep her emotional support parrot (no, that's not a typo) in its cage but rather wanted to carry it in her shirt. But much to my surprise, once the gate agent, his supervisor, and the poor commuting WN pilot who I think had walked down the jet bridge into the midst of the situation convinced her to put the parrot in the cage, the parrot didn't cause any problems at all.

Amsterdam · Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:58 pm

FlySSC wrote:
The concept of « emotional support » should be banned. This is ridiculous.
Pitt Bull are the sweetest and nicest dog breed. Delta should ban the owners who train those dogs to be agressive, instead of banning those poor animals.

Pitbulls are bred for fighting.
Its in their genes. They have been selected for that for decades.
Their jaws and necks are extremely strong and they have fighting instinct in them.
More dogs can bite, but when they bite its stronger and they dont let go.

Good luck making a golden retriever as dangerous as a pitbull.

silvanus · Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:16 pm

Pit bulls are innately and unchangeably prone to violence and savagery. Their bestial temperament is derived from genetics, not nurturing. They should be banned from all public places, including airports and aircraft.

Seabear · Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:20 pm

FlySSC wrote:
The concept of « emotional support » should be banned. This is ridiculous.
Pitt Bull are the sweetest and nicest dog breed. Delta should ban the owners who train those dogs to be agressive, instead of banning those poor animals.

Yes, some are creampuffs. But some are fur-covered hand grenades.

RDUDDJI · Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:25 pm

I don't disagree with Delta's decision. Pits (along with most other breeds) are not really qualified ESAs anyway. Of course, that doesn't stop anybody from bringing their fru-fru dogs on board.

Amsterdam wrote:
Pitbulls are bred for fighting.

Absolutely false. *Humans* breed pitbulls for fighting.

My sister has a (mostly) pitbull. When they rescued the puppy years ago, the shelter told them it was a boxer. After a few months: obviously it is a pit. It's the nicest dog I've ever seen and plays great with their kids. The only thing you have to worry about with her is if she tries to climb on you because she's excited. She doesn't realize how strong/heavy she is. My sister says when they take her for a walk, other people will cross the street to get out of their path...

Ironically:

My 7yo niece was attacked (requiring surgery) by a supposedly well trained police dog (Belgian Malanese) outside their church. She was afraid of all dogs for a while but their pit has been very therapeutic. She's still (understandably) scared when she sees a police dog.

PlanesNTrains · Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:26 pm

RDUDDJI wrote:
I don't disagree with Delta's decision. Pits (along with most other breeds) are not really qualified ESAs anyway. Of course, that doesn't stop anybody from bringing their fru-fru dogs on board.

Amsterdam wrote:
Pitbulls are bred for fighting.

Absolutely false. *Humans* breed pitbulls for fighting.

My sister has a (mostly) pitbull. When they rescued the puppy years ago, the shelter told them it was a boxer. After a few months: obviously it is a pit. It's the nicest dog I've ever seen and plays great with their kids. The only thing you have to worry about with her is if she tries to climb on you because she's excited. She doesn't realize how strong/heavy she is. My sister says when they take her for a walk, other people will cross the street to get out of their path...

Ironically:

My 7yo niece was attacked (requiring surgery) by a supposedly well trained police dog (Belgian Malanese) outside their church. She was afraid of all dogs for a while but their pit has been very therapeutic. She's still (understandably) scared when she sees a police dog.

I don't blame DL. We have a rescue Pit that is absolutely great with people. However, whatever went on in the few years before we got him has trained him to be absolutely aggressive towards other dogs. From my experience of trying to get him to release a dog in his mouth (fortunately unscathed), ultimately having to about choke him out before he'd let go, I would never take him on a plane even if it were allowed. Not because he has ever hurt a person or showed an inclination, but because he's just so strong that I can't imagine trying to get him to stop before the person suffered a serious injury. I get why people are cautious - I would never fully trust him, or any animal - even if they really are or can be great with people.

Super80Fan · Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:37 pm

If you're going to start being this selective you might as well ban all ESA's except dogs for blind people. Did anyone see the chick in Denver who's rat dog defecated on the floor and she walked away? I've either owned or been around countless German Shepards, Pitbulls, bull mastiffs, and been fine/some of the most well behaved dogs I've seen. On the other hand I've never had a good experience with a rat dog and was even attacked by one (still have the scars to prove it).

soflaflyer · Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:07 pm

FlySSC wrote:
Pitt Bull are the sweetest and nicest dog breed.

Sorry, but they are not. Clearly an emotional opinion and not a fact-based one. The constant influx of reports of maulings and other incidents say otherwise. I know of no other breed that has so much "cheerleading" going on. Quite frustrating to see given the number of innocent people injured or killed, namely defenseless babies and elderly. An elderly family member of mine was severely injured when her adopted pit bull attacked her face completely unprovoked.
Airlines are in an industry which is very much in the public eye and do not take decisions like this lightly. DL obviously felt that the need to protect passengers and employees warrants a ban and are willing to accept the consequences. I would not be surprised to see other airlines follow suit.

soflaflyer · Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:09 pm

Seabear wrote:
FlySSC wrote:
But some are fur-covered hand grenades.

LMAO, can I use this? Love it...

fsnuffer · Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:11 pm

Amsterdam wrote:
FlySSC wrote:
The concept of « emotional support » should be banned. This is ridiculous.
Pitt Bull are the sweetest and nicest dog breed. Delta should ban the owners who train those dogs to be agressive, instead of banning those poor animals.

.....

Good luck making a golden retriever as dangerous as a pitbull.

You obviously have never been between a golden retriever and a tennis ball. Sarcasm aside, this support animal stuff has gone way to far.

smokeybandit · Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:16 pm

It's tough to get good stats on dog bites. How many pit bulls (which of course are a couple different breeds) who bite people were rescue dogs (and thus more likely to be less tolerant of any stimulus that might cause them to attack) vs normal pet dogs?

Tedd · Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:32 pm

Regardless of above comments, humans are responsible for pit bulls & whatever they do. We have taken two
wonderful breeds ( maybe more ) & turned them into something for some peoples enjoyment harnessing brilliant
traits & turning them into vile acts by evil people. In not dealing with these persons as we should we pass the buck &
make the dogs suffer...….I`m ashamed!

m0ssy · Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:36 pm

it's gotta be a hard call to take any support animal. When it's all said and done, the airline really has no time to fairly evaluate any animal and determine if they are truly safe.

The comment about the golden retriever is spot on. While my dog isn't vicious, it takes work to get the ball from him as he's so strong.

Jayafe · Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:00 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
...We took a delay on an AA flight a couple of nights ago for a passenger who did not want to keep her emotional support parrot (no, that's not a typo) in its cage but rather wanted to carry it in her shirt. But much to my surprise, once the gate agent, his supervisor, and the poor commuting WN pilot who I think had walked down the jet bridge into the midst of the situation convinced her to put the parrot in the cage, the parrot didn't cause any problems at all.

I'm sorry, do you really find that acceptable? It was fun until the last sentence. Are you justifying the dumb passenger after the words you wrote previously?

Super80Fan wrote:
If you're going to start being this selective you might as well ban all ESA's except dogs for blind people

As should be and happens in normal countries. You can carry certain animals if meets certain specifications. But "emotional support? Really?

Cubsrule · Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:11 pm

Jayafe wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
...We took a delay on an AA flight a couple of nights ago for a passenger who did not want to keep her emotional support parrot (no, that's not a typo) in its cage but rather wanted to carry it in her shirt. But much to my surprise, once the gate agent, his supervisor, and the poor commuting WN pilot who I think had walked down the jet bridge into the midst of the situation convinced her to put the parrot in the cage, the parrot didn't cause any problems at all.

I'm sorry, do you really find that acceptable? It was fun until the last sentence. Are you justifying the dumb passenger after the words you wrote previously?

I don't really care if a passenger has a parrot, or his marijuana stash, or anything else under his seat as long as whatever it is doesn't bother me or interfere with the safety of the flight. My point was that often times the problem with emotional support animals isn't so much the animal but rather the person who allegedly needs the animal. If you can't fly without your parrot, maybe you shouldn't be flying in the first place.

Jayafe · Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:20 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
I don't really care if a passenger has a parrot, or his marijuana stash, or anything else under his seat as long as whatever it is doesn't bother me or interfere with the safety of the flight. My point was that often times the problem with emotional support animals isn't so much the animal but rather the person who allegedly needs the animal. If you can't fly without your parrot, maybe you shouldn't be flying in the first place.

We totally agree in the 2nd point. Regarding the 1st one, the fact that the law mentions some specifics like spiders, is already an indication of how crazy can be if they think they are entitled. A parrot flying around the cabin in an emergency? Really?

If would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
https://youtu.be/FNkpIDBtC2c?t=19

kabq737 · Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:05 am

Pit bulls are EXTREMELY common where I live...I see them on a daily basis. While I haven’t been attacked it is certainly not unheard of here and the statistics agree with that statement. I support Delta in this new rule. I LOVE dogs and have 4 of them but putting a dog bred (by humans of course) for fighting in a stressful environment is just asking for trouble. Banning their travel is better for the dogs and for most passengers.

Cointrin330 · Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:26 am

If you need a pit bull (or a peacock, or a snake) as a service animal, you should be banned from flying.

itchief · Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:34 am

fsnuffer wrote:
Amsterdam wrote:
FlySSC wrote:
The concept of « emotional support » should be banned. This is ridiculous.
Pitt Bull are the sweetest and nicest dog breed. Delta should ban the owners who train those dogs to be agressive, instead of banning those poor animals.

.....

Good luck making a golden retriever as dangerous as a pitbull.

You obviously have never been between a golden retriever and a tennis ball. Sarcasm aside, this support animal stuff has gone way to far.

Yes, the support animal stuff has gone too far.

All dogs bite. And before anyone says no, all dogs bite their food when they eat. I spent more than 20 years as a postman and was attacked many times by dogs of all sizes and breeds. Any animal can be unpredictable, just like people. My worst encounter was with a Lab, very protective of the children in the house I approached. Many would call Lab's gentle dogs but you never know.

I have had pets all my life and traveled to more than 40 countries with no need to bring one with me for support.

slider · Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:33 am

Cointrin330 wrote:
If you need a pit bull (or a peacock, or a snake) as a service animal, you should be banned from flying.

^^Voice of reason here.

On its face, it's ridiculous to assert that [fill-in-the-blank-item/creature/whatever] gives me "comfort" enough to be able to brave the anxiety of flying through the air. Fear of flying notwithstanding, if people need that kind of support just to get through their day/life/flight, they aren't terribly qualified at human survival.

lightsaber · Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:59 am

Jayafe wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
I don't really care if a passenger has a parrot, or his marijuana stash, or anything else under his seat as long as whatever it is doesn't bother me or interfere with the safety of the flight. My point was that often times the problem with emotional support animals isn't so much the animal but rather the person who allegedly needs the animal. If you can't fly without your parrot, maybe you shouldn't be flying in the first place.

We totally agree in the 2nd point. Regarding the 1st one, the fact that the law mentions some specifics like spiders, is already an indication of how crazy can be if they think they are entitled. A parrot flying around the cabin in an emergency? Really?

If would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
https://youtu.be/FNkpIDBtC2c?t=19

24 seconds in, this is an emotional support bird! (Airplane):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotatio ... 0j2dVuhr6s

millionsofmiles · Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:24 am

Dog lover here...but I would not hesitate to walk off a flight if there was a pit bull in the cabin.

Yes...I know some are sweethearts...I recently visited fhe house of a friend of a friend, Her pitbull decided I was her "date" for the evening, and cuddled/slobbered all over me all night. She was a sweetheart but I KNOW what their nature usually is.

Kudos to Delta.

Andy33 · Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:26 am

Delta has been preventing pitbulls from travelling in its cabins (and indeed its holds) for some years on its flights to the UK. How? Well, the breed is illegal in the UK, along with 3 others, and the ACAA has a clause that exempts airlines from its animal provisions on flights to destinations where the animal is illegal.

The whole of Europe has no real concept of emotional support animals - service animals yes, but they have to be certified by an officially recognised body. There's no evidence either way to show whether the lack of ESAs has any impact on the mental health of Europeans, and I'm not sure how such evidence could ever be collected.

notdownnlocked · Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:26 am

I think the support animal on a plane fad is about to pass. It used to be understandable and accepted that 4-16 year old girls would bring their personal emotional support/comfort pillows for their trips. Now what I mostly see are 20-25 year old grown men carrying their emotional support/comfort pillows and they are the guys with man buns. Perhaps they use them to soak up hair oil from previous passengers. They greatly outnumber the little girls from days past. Easy to see in the Summer travel season. I've been here at the airport almost everyday for more than last 30 years. About 15 years ago I thought I was going to lose my face or eyes to a shoulder held emotional support and pissed chimpanzee getting on a plane.

Flanker7 · Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:27 am

smokeybandit wrote:
It's tough to get good stats on dog bites. How many pit bulls (which of course are a couple different breeds) who bite people were rescue dogs (and thus more likely to be less tolerant of any stimulus that might cause them to attack) vs normal pet dogs?

Stats are difficult but these might give an insight.
www.caninejournal.com/dog-bite-statistics
Google dogbite and you get some insights but no idea how accurate these are

Amsterdam · Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:55 pm

itchief wrote:
fsnuffer wrote:
Amsterdam wrote:

.....

Good luck making a golden retriever as dangerous as a pitbull.

You obviously have never been between a golden retriever and a tennis ball. Sarcasm aside, this support animal stuff has gone way to far.

Yes, the support animal stuff has gone too far.

All dogs bite. And before anyone says no, all dogs bite their food when they eat. I spent more than 20 years as a postman and was attacked many times by dogs of all sizes and breeds. Any animal can be unpredictable, just like people. My worst encounter was with a Lab, very protective of the children in the house I approached. Many would call Lab's gentle dogs but you never know.

I have had pets all my life and traveled to more than 40 countries with no need to bring one with me for support.

We have already said that all dogs can bite.
The difference is the results of those bites.
The bite of a pitbull is not the same as the bite of a labrador. Not at all. Plus in many pitbull attacks the pitbulls dont stop and dont let go. Labradors and many other breeds dont do that. Thats a fact.

And in your example you mention protective of children that lab at his house.
We talk about pitbulls killing or heavily injuring random children in parks etc. We talk about completely something else.

WorldFlier · Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:02 pm

silvanus wrote:
Pit bulls are innately and unchangeably prone to violence and savagery. Their bestial temperament is derived from genetics, not nurturing. They should be banned from all public places, including airports and aircraft.

This is a very dangerous statement. Do you feel this way about all animals? Because I've heard this exact statement, but referring to people as well. If you believe genetics (nature) is the be all and end all (instead of nurture), then you are very very mistaken and bigoted.

WorldFlier · Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:09 pm

Also, is anyone else getting an Emotional Support Animal ad on this page?

It's funny because algorithms can't tell when we are disparaging something and throw it up there...

lightsaber · Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:22 pm

Lots of discussion without noting DL had issues with the specific breed. In today's lawsuit happy culture, they have to make changes.

WorldFlier wrote:
Also, is anyone else getting an Emotional Support Animal ad on this page?

It's funny because algorithms can't tell when we are disparaging something and throw it up there...

That is too precious...
Sarcasm filter /off

Lightsaber

gardermoen · Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:39 pm

This sort of nonsense of having an emotional support animal/puppet/blow up doll/chandelier can only happen in America . I just don’t get it. In all of my 35 plus years of travelling as an adult around the world (Europe, Asia, Australasia primarily ) I have never seen nor heard of this situation occurring. If other countries can get by with common sense and brains surely those folk in the USA can too.

VTKillarney1 · Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:03 pm

WorldFlier wrote:
silvanus wrote:
Pit bulls are innately and unchangeably prone to violence and savagery. Their bestial temperament is derived from genetics, not nurturing. They should be banned from all public places, including airports and aircraft.

This is a very dangerous statement. Do you feel this way about all animals? Because I've heard this exact statement, but referring to people as well. If you believe genetics (nature) is the be all and end all (instead of nurture), then you are very very mistaken and bigoted.

Such hyperbole. Nobody equated dogs to humans and nobody said that genetics is the "be all and end all."

Let's break it down:
Unlike humans, dogs have most definitely been bred for certain traits. That is why you have different groups of dogs, such as the retrieving or herding groups. It is a matter of fact that a border collie is going to be better at herding sheep than a chihuahua. We have not done anything of the sort with humans, which is why your equivalency argument is absurd.

As for the nature versus nurture argument, you have created a straw man. Nobody has suggested that nature is 100% dispositive of a dog's disposition. BOTH nature and nurture impact the disposition of a dog. As absurd as it is to believe that it is solely nature, it is equally absurd to believe that it is solely nurture.

I'd like to think that we can discuss the traits of dogs without someone shouting, "Nazi!" Sadly, in today's political climate that appears to be impossible.

musman9853 · Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:10 pm

All dogs are inherently dangerous. Unless they're verified support animals that are well restrained they should ride in the cargo hold.

VTKillarney1 · Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:11 pm

RDUDDJI wrote:
Amsterdam wrote:
Pitbulls are bred for fighting.

Absolutely false. *Humans* breed pitbulls for fighting.

Uh... the latter does not make the former false.

RDUDDJI wrote:
My sister has a (mostly) pitbull. When they rescued the puppy years ago, the shelter told them it was a boxer. After a few months: obviously it is a pit. It's the nicest dog I've ever seen and plays great with their kids. The only thing you have to worry about with her is if she tries to climb on you because she's excited. She doesn't realize how strong/heavy she is.

I am happy that your sister's dog is a nice dog. I fail to see, however, how a single piece of anecdotal evidence is persuasive.

RDUDDJI wrote:
My sister says when they take her for a walk, other people will cross the street to get out of their path...

Since they presumably don't know your sister or her dog, I don't blame them.

When there are countless breeds of dogs out there, I've never understood why someone feels the need to pick a pit bull. I am happy that there are people out there who provide loving homes to these dogs, but the fact that so many pit bulls are in shelters awaiting adoption tells me that something must be happening. Either there are a lot of irresponsible owners or there are a lot of owners who don't like their pit bulls. Neither is good. When we adopted our last dog, it would not be an exaggeration to say that more than 50% of the dogs available for adoption were pit bulls or at least predominately pit bull.

evank516 · Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:17 pm

VTKillarney1 wrote:
FlySSC wrote:
Pitt Bull are the sweetest and nicest dog breed.

I was taking you seriously until you said this.

Dogs, to me are the most annoying pets in the world. They bark, the leave presents everywhere, they beg for food. Yet I can actually back up the statement that Pit Bulls are actually very sweet dogs when raised in the right home.

VTKillarney1 · Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:26 pm

evank516 wrote:
VTKillarney1 wrote:
FlySSC wrote:
Pitt Bull are the sweetest and nicest dog breed.

I was taking you seriously until you said this.

Dogs, to me are the most annoying pets in the world. They bark, the leave presents everywhere, they beg for food. Yet I can actually back up the statement that Pit Bulls are actually very sweet dogs when raised in the right home.

That's not what FlySSC said. He/she said that no other breed is sweeter or nicer. I took issue with that declaration.

That being said, this would be a more accurate statement: Pit bulls are generally very sweet dogs when raised in the right home. Bad things can still happen with dogs that are raised in loving homes.
https://www.insideedition.com/florida-w ... bull-40394

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net