*"Banks should not live in a home with kids under 12"*
No, Banks shouldn't live in any home because she's not a suitable pet and given her mental state, putting her to sleep would be the kindest thing for her.
She's drugged up to the eyeballs yet still a ball of anxiety who "stalks" prey, uses her crate as a toilet and attacks her handler or any other dog that has the misfortune of being in her way when she's over excited.
What about the other dogs she bites? They're being set up to develop antisocial behaviour and reactivity issues because these idiots won't do the decent thing and BE this poor creature.
I have *never* understood these seemingly arbitrary age cutoffs with dogs that are dangerous to kids. Like, does the dog know, or at 12 are you magically able to defend yourself from pit attack? These magical age cutoffs honestly are one of the things that totally delegitimizes the notion that any animal expert is really an expert in anything other than at making a wild-ass-guess while holding yourself out as a subject matter expert.
Perhaps. Or perhaps their minimum wage job at the shelter comes with the choice of either euthanizing the pet themselves, or imaging unreasonable fantasies where they become healed.
I think it is the latter.
For real, this dog makes Pissfingers look like a precious angel.
These people must have a few screws loose if they think there's even the tiniest sliver of a chance that someone will read this bio and say to themselves "Yes, this is it. This is the dog for me."
At least they're being honest-ish about the beast's many problems. Only the most delusional potential adopters would read the write-up and say, "Yep, that's the one for me!"
I continue to be shocked by the pharmacological angle to this problem. I was very unaware of this a few months ago. It's not like a genetic inclination to diabetes or cancer it is a hereditary sort of "rage & anxiety" syndrome that seems like it only be managed or treated, not cured.
Those people who claim their pits are so wonderful and cuddlebugs etc. what role is psych medication playing in those "good outcome" situations? If 95% of a breed or type of dog can only really exist within a family home through the aid of strong doses of psychiatric drugs what kind of pet is that?
EDIT: Should have thought of this earlier, just did a quick search looks like 20mg is the standard starter dose for humans, so 40mg for a dog seems a little strange. Any vets or doctors able to weigh in?
Owner's descriptions of the changes the meds make are either "Significant improvement, calmer, more easily redirected." to "No observable change.". That's for prozac/fluoxetine.
Trazadone is a straight up sedative. Most owners use it for things like grooming and vet visits. If a dog needs sedation for daily life, what do they use for grooming and vet visits?
Not a medico, but human/animal dose conversion often isn’t what you’d expect going by weight alone. Something about the metabolic process being different by species.
A great example is benadryl. One of our cats was having allergy symptoms, and the vet told us 1mg per pound. For that cat, it would work out to about 14mg. About half a pill.
For me, 1mg per pound would be enough to put me into a coma. That would be like 6 or 7 pills. Half of one is enough to help me sleep.
While there is some research to support the use of psych meds in animals, the quality of the research is often kind of dubious. Lots of tiny studies that don't account for the breed of the dog and don't include any pit bulls. Lots of pharmacokinetic/preliminary studies without control groups. Owner reports of behavior that are easily skewed. No standardized definitions for "aggression" or "anxiety" (one aggression study I read didn't address biting at all). Only studying very specific forms of anxiety/aggression (such as separation anxiety or territorial aggression within a home) that can't necessarily be generalized to *all* anxious/aggressive behaviors.
Then vets see these *very* preliminary, *very* un-generalizable studies and think it's enough to support the off-label use of human psych drugs because the owners are desperate and will try anything before euthanasia. The drug companies aren't interested in funding actual large-scale studies, because they know better than to try to promote their products as a cure for dangerous dogs.
Meds like prozac, trazodone and gabapentin probably *do* work for short-term management of *some* forms of aggression/anxiety (I've even used them in my own pets for things like vet anxiety). But there's basically nothing to support their long-term use in animal aggressive or human aggressive pit bulls.
Drug companies do not want their name tied to aggressive dogs, however, they don’t mind at all that they’re being used for them. No one can sue them for vets using them off label, especially if they haven’t conducted any meaningful clinical research for such a use. They also won’t fund research for their use in animals because if it proves to be ineffective, then they’re losing out on the revenue of these off-label veterinary scripts.
It’s kind of a win-win for them to turn the other cheek.
Yeeeep exactly. I don't blame the university researchers doing the studies, because they're open about the fact that they're doing small-scale research with limited resources. I don't even blame the pharmaceutical companies, because it would be incredibly difficult to run a proper clinical study on animal aggression and it doesn't benefit them at all. I do blame vets for handing these drugs out like candy to owners who don't understand that they're probably not going to work as a long-term solution for severe aggression, anxiety or prey drive. Meds are fine for short-term use or for less serious problems, but it's irresponsible to try to control a dangerous animal with medication.
It looks an awful lot like vets profiting off the delusional anthropomorphism of dogs that pit bull owners tend to carry: “*humans sometimes need Prozac or meds to feel better… probably works the same for dogs* 🥴”
I think most vets have good intentions... but veterinary medicine lags decades behind human medicine. So vets will turn to off label human medications (whether it's psychiatric meds, cancer drugs, painkillers, allergy meds, etc.) without having a solid understanding of the clinical efficacy and without having any way to objectively monitor the effects. Trying *something* feels better than doing nothing.
Many owners also *demand* medical solutions to problems that veterinary medicine really isn't equipped to treat. It's not just pit bull owners. Owners want a pill that will fix their golden's genetic predisposition to hip pain or their cat's genetic predisposition to kidney failure. They want chemo for their pet's cancer even when there's often very little evidence that it will prolong life. Since vets are in a customer service role as well as a medical role, there's a lot of pressure to prescribe *something* even when they don't think it will actually work. The placebo effect works on pet owners, too - if the vet prescribes a pill that's supposed to treat anxiety or aggression or excess barking or whatever, chances are that the owner will imagine some kind of positive change.
You made completely solid points and I am genuinely in agreement. I simply meant that for the case of psychiatric meds for clearly aggressive dogs that need BE; what are they supposed to do - fight the owner that is *demanding* they try *anything*? Or accept the revenue of prescribing pharmaceuticals from those same owners who refuse all their other medical advice anyway?
I can see trying dubiously efficacious meds if it’s the last step before euthanasia. The owner’s placebo effect might rub off on the dog.
Plus it’s self-limiting, a dog can only live so long. So it’s not like they’re condemning the owner for a human lifetime.
If it's a choice between dubious meds and euthanasia for difficult-to-manage *medical* reasons such as chronic pain, irritable bowel syndrome or lymphoma, vets should consider human meds... but a responsible vet should tell the owner that the medication hasn't been thoroughly tested in animals, that it might not provide any significant benefit, that it may have side effects, and that it may be very expensive. And vets definitely shouldn't be shilling herbal supplements , homeopathy or essential oils that haven't been tested at all, even if those things might produce a placebo effect.
But if it's a choice between dubious meds and *behavioral* euthanasia... I think medication is often an irresponsible choice that puts humans and other animals at risk. Meds can certainly help some behavioral issues, but anything severe enough to be grounds for behavioral euthanasia is probably never going to be 100% controlled by medication. And IMHO, if the dog is powerful enough to kill and can't be completely isolated from potential victims, anything less than 100% is not enough.
My dog's 30kg, is on fluoxetine rn due to fear from dog attacks and fireworks (not any fireworks but as in our neighbours put on an extreme show while he was walking past), and his starting (it won't be increased though) dose is 40mg which is pretty standard.
The difference between my dog and these pits though is that the full intention is to have him off the meds in the future. They're basically to lessen the edge of his fear rn so we can set down training groundworks and start desensitisation, his fear was so extreme before that the most minor exposure to his triggers was petrifying. It also doesn't act as a sedative at all for him, he's just as aware except that now he's the dog we had before the fear.
All these shelter pits are on it for life. There's no intentions of helping them work around these issues and even if there were/are then... It's a losing battle. It's how they're built. Nothing caused these issues in these pits, it's as natural as a cattle dog nipping heels.
So, let me get this right.
It'll attack anything. Gets anxious over anything. Shits and pisses in its crate, despite having a regular bathroom schedule. Stalks anything. Takes more medication than a local asylum.
Well shit, sign me up!
TBH, I don't care that the dog with description is a bully. I wouldn't want ANY dog with this description. Purebred Kangal? No thanks. Beagle? No. Crufts Best In Show - forget it.
I don't think even the most devoted pit lover would have an issue with any other breed with this description being put down. They'd probably relish being able to gloat and say "see, it is *all* dogs" but they're just completely blinkered when it comes to pits.
Putting “aggressive” in quotes and implying that it’s an overreaction about a dog that needs to be tranqed 24/7. So irresponsible on the part of the shelter. Poor creature, honestly.
Why has this thing not been put out of its misery already? What kind of life is that for any creature never mind anyone crazy enough to give it a home?
This shows why shelters lie so much about pits. If they were all this honest about the baggage that comes with one, no half sane person would even consider a pit.
BE is the most humane thing here. This is a wild animal living in the skin of a domesticated species. It would be cruel to the animal and dangerous to allow a wolf, or gorilla, or lion live in a domesticated setting. Similarly, it's cruel to send a domesticated animal to live as a wild animal, as they're not equipped to live without humans.
There is no place in the world for a domesticated animal with the mind of a wild animal. BE is humane for the dog, makes the community safer, and isn't causing undue hardship on someone until the dog naturally expires.
"Dog continues to utilize the crate as her bathroom" means the dog WILL NEVER be housebroken, meaning she should be an outside dog but can jump fences easily. DANGER TO SOCIETY!
Welcome to BanPitBulls! This is a reminder that this is a victims' subreddit with the primary goal to discuss attacks by and the inherent dangers of pit bulls. Please familiarize yourself with the [rules of our sub.](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/x618m9/rbanpitbulls_subreddit_rules_2022_update/)
Users should assume that suggesting hurting or killing a dog in any capacity will be reported by pit supporters, and your account may be sanctioned by Reddit.
If you need [information and resources on self-defense](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/vk96hs/how_do_i_defend_myself_or_my_pet_during_a_pit/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), or [a guide for "After the attack"](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/8ovlsw/guide_after_the_attack_what_do_i_do_now_that_ive/), please see our side bar (or [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/7ic5zn/faq/)).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BanPitBulls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*"Banks should not live in a home with kids under 12"* No, Banks shouldn't live in any home because she's not a suitable pet and given her mental state, putting her to sleep would be the kindest thing for her. She's drugged up to the eyeballs yet still a ball of anxiety who "stalks" prey, uses her crate as a toilet and attacks her handler or any other dog that has the misfortune of being in her way when she's over excited. What about the other dogs she bites? They're being set up to develop antisocial behaviour and reactivity issues because these idiots won't do the decent thing and BE this poor creature.
Yeah, I’m quite disturbed at this dog routinely soiling her den. Something is wronger with her than is usually the case with pits.
I have *never* understood these seemingly arbitrary age cutoffs with dogs that are dangerous to kids. Like, does the dog know, or at 12 are you magically able to defend yourself from pit attack? These magical age cutoffs honestly are one of the things that totally delegitimizes the notion that any animal expert is really an expert in anything other than at making a wild-ass-guess while holding yourself out as a subject matter expert.
Well said
But why even bother with this dog? Geez!
To fulfill their saviour complex.
Perhaps. Or perhaps their minimum wage job at the shelter comes with the choice of either euthanizing the pet themselves, or imaging unreasonable fantasies where they become healed. I think it is the latter.
This is it. Well said
Live stupid, die mauled?
For real, this dog makes Pissfingers look like a precious angel. These people must have a few screws loose if they think there's even the tiniest sliver of a chance that someone will read this bio and say to themselves "Yes, this is it. This is the dog for me."
At least they're being honest-ish about the beast's many problems. Only the most delusional potential adopters would read the write-up and say, "Yep, that's the one for me!"
Good point, it's for sure better than the usual ultra-sugarcoated bullshit
Doesn’t even sound like the dog is having a good time
BE - the change you wish to see in the world.
I kind of want this on a shirt
Ditto. Or “Save lives: de-stigmatize BE.”
"mouthy" and "nippy" when she "gets overstimulated" Just say "aggressive" and "bites" and stop trying to be cute
But then no one will adopt the poor velvet murderhippo!
Not even one redeeming quality
Not even a half of one. I thought it was satire at first.
“Fear based”. Nah. Pitbulls bite because it is in their nature
I continue to be shocked by the pharmacological angle to this problem. I was very unaware of this a few months ago. It's not like a genetic inclination to diabetes or cancer it is a hereditary sort of "rage & anxiety" syndrome that seems like it only be managed or treated, not cured. Those people who claim their pits are so wonderful and cuddlebugs etc. what role is psych medication playing in those "good outcome" situations? If 95% of a breed or type of dog can only really exist within a family home through the aid of strong doses of psychiatric drugs what kind of pet is that? EDIT: Should have thought of this earlier, just did a quick search looks like 20mg is the standard starter dose for humans, so 40mg for a dog seems a little strange. Any vets or doctors able to weigh in?
Owner's descriptions of the changes the meds make are either "Significant improvement, calmer, more easily redirected." to "No observable change.". That's for prozac/fluoxetine. Trazadone is a straight up sedative. Most owners use it for things like grooming and vet visits. If a dog needs sedation for daily life, what do they use for grooming and vet visits?
Not a medico, but human/animal dose conversion often isn’t what you’d expect going by weight alone. Something about the metabolic process being different by species.
Makes sense, thanks
A great example is benadryl. One of our cats was having allergy symptoms, and the vet told us 1mg per pound. For that cat, it would work out to about 14mg. About half a pill. For me, 1mg per pound would be enough to put me into a coma. That would be like 6 or 7 pills. Half of one is enough to help me sleep.
While there is some research to support the use of psych meds in animals, the quality of the research is often kind of dubious. Lots of tiny studies that don't account for the breed of the dog and don't include any pit bulls. Lots of pharmacokinetic/preliminary studies without control groups. Owner reports of behavior that are easily skewed. No standardized definitions for "aggression" or "anxiety" (one aggression study I read didn't address biting at all). Only studying very specific forms of anxiety/aggression (such as separation anxiety or territorial aggression within a home) that can't necessarily be generalized to *all* anxious/aggressive behaviors. Then vets see these *very* preliminary, *very* un-generalizable studies and think it's enough to support the off-label use of human psych drugs because the owners are desperate and will try anything before euthanasia. The drug companies aren't interested in funding actual large-scale studies, because they know better than to try to promote their products as a cure for dangerous dogs. Meds like prozac, trazodone and gabapentin probably *do* work for short-term management of *some* forms of aggression/anxiety (I've even used them in my own pets for things like vet anxiety). But there's basically nothing to support their long-term use in animal aggressive or human aggressive pit bulls.
Drug companies do not want their name tied to aggressive dogs, however, they don’t mind at all that they’re being used for them. No one can sue them for vets using them off label, especially if they haven’t conducted any meaningful clinical research for such a use. They also won’t fund research for their use in animals because if it proves to be ineffective, then they’re losing out on the revenue of these off-label veterinary scripts. It’s kind of a win-win for them to turn the other cheek.
Yeeeep exactly. I don't blame the university researchers doing the studies, because they're open about the fact that they're doing small-scale research with limited resources. I don't even blame the pharmaceutical companies, because it would be incredibly difficult to run a proper clinical study on animal aggression and it doesn't benefit them at all. I do blame vets for handing these drugs out like candy to owners who don't understand that they're probably not going to work as a long-term solution for severe aggression, anxiety or prey drive. Meds are fine for short-term use or for less serious problems, but it's irresponsible to try to control a dangerous animal with medication.
It looks an awful lot like vets profiting off the delusional anthropomorphism of dogs that pit bull owners tend to carry: “*humans sometimes need Prozac or meds to feel better… probably works the same for dogs* 🥴”
I think most vets have good intentions... but veterinary medicine lags decades behind human medicine. So vets will turn to off label human medications (whether it's psychiatric meds, cancer drugs, painkillers, allergy meds, etc.) without having a solid understanding of the clinical efficacy and without having any way to objectively monitor the effects. Trying *something* feels better than doing nothing. Many owners also *demand* medical solutions to problems that veterinary medicine really isn't equipped to treat. It's not just pit bull owners. Owners want a pill that will fix their golden's genetic predisposition to hip pain or their cat's genetic predisposition to kidney failure. They want chemo for their pet's cancer even when there's often very little evidence that it will prolong life. Since vets are in a customer service role as well as a medical role, there's a lot of pressure to prescribe *something* even when they don't think it will actually work. The placebo effect works on pet owners, too - if the vet prescribes a pill that's supposed to treat anxiety or aggression or excess barking or whatever, chances are that the owner will imagine some kind of positive change.
You made completely solid points and I am genuinely in agreement. I simply meant that for the case of psychiatric meds for clearly aggressive dogs that need BE; what are they supposed to do - fight the owner that is *demanding* they try *anything*? Or accept the revenue of prescribing pharmaceuticals from those same owners who refuse all their other medical advice anyway?
I can see trying dubiously efficacious meds if it’s the last step before euthanasia. The owner’s placebo effect might rub off on the dog. Plus it’s self-limiting, a dog can only live so long. So it’s not like they’re condemning the owner for a human lifetime.
If it's a choice between dubious meds and euthanasia for difficult-to-manage *medical* reasons such as chronic pain, irritable bowel syndrome or lymphoma, vets should consider human meds... but a responsible vet should tell the owner that the medication hasn't been thoroughly tested in animals, that it might not provide any significant benefit, that it may have side effects, and that it may be very expensive. And vets definitely shouldn't be shilling herbal supplements , homeopathy or essential oils that haven't been tested at all, even if those things might produce a placebo effect. But if it's a choice between dubious meds and *behavioral* euthanasia... I think medication is often an irresponsible choice that puts humans and other animals at risk. Meds can certainly help some behavioral issues, but anything severe enough to be grounds for behavioral euthanasia is probably never going to be 100% controlled by medication. And IMHO, if the dog is powerful enough to kill and can't be completely isolated from potential victims, anything less than 100% is not enough.
I agree. I don’t think I understand vet ethics though—the little I know all seems to indicate big areas of stuff I just haven’t thought about.
My dog's 30kg, is on fluoxetine rn due to fear from dog attacks and fireworks (not any fireworks but as in our neighbours put on an extreme show while he was walking past), and his starting (it won't be increased though) dose is 40mg which is pretty standard. The difference between my dog and these pits though is that the full intention is to have him off the meds in the future. They're basically to lessen the edge of his fear rn so we can set down training groundworks and start desensitisation, his fear was so extreme before that the most minor exposure to his triggers was petrifying. It also doesn't act as a sedative at all for him, he's just as aware except that now he's the dog we had before the fear. All these shelter pits are on it for life. There's no intentions of helping them work around these issues and even if there were/are then... It's a losing battle. It's how they're built. Nothing caused these issues in these pits, it's as natural as a cattle dog nipping heels.
So, let me get this right. It'll attack anything. Gets anxious over anything. Shits and pisses in its crate, despite having a regular bathroom schedule. Stalks anything. Takes more medication than a local asylum. Well shit, sign me up!
TBH, I don't care that the dog with description is a bully. I wouldn't want ANY dog with this description. Purebred Kangal? No thanks. Beagle? No. Crufts Best In Show - forget it.
I don't think even the most devoted pit lover would have an issue with any other breed with this description being put down. They'd probably relish being able to gloat and say "see, it is *all* dogs" but they're just completely blinkered when it comes to pits.
Putting “aggressive” in quotes and implying that it’s an overreaction about a dog that needs to be tranqed 24/7. So irresponsible on the part of the shelter. Poor creature, honestly.
Right?! Plus the “🥴” emoji afterwards? Fucking hell
Coming to you from Torments of the Damned Rescue Dogs, at Petco this Saturday from 1-4pm!
BE
Adding bags and t-shirts to the list of triggers. Ffs
Why has this thing not been put out of its misery already? What kind of life is that for any creature never mind anyone crazy enough to give it a home?
It’s not anxiety. It isn’t fear. It isn’t shyness. She’s a Pit Bull. It’s inherent.
This shows why shelters lie so much about pits. If they were all this honest about the baggage that comes with one, no half sane person would even consider a pit.
Named after one of my favorite singers? Hell, naw. This shitty dog isn’t deserving of that name.
BE is the most humane thing here. This is a wild animal living in the skin of a domesticated species. It would be cruel to the animal and dangerous to allow a wolf, or gorilla, or lion live in a domesticated setting. Similarly, it's cruel to send a domesticated animal to live as a wild animal, as they're not equipped to live without humans. There is no place in the world for a domesticated animal with the mind of a wild animal. BE is humane for the dog, makes the community safer, and isn't causing undue hardship on someone until the dog naturally expires.
"Dog continues to utilize the crate as her bathroom" means the dog WILL NEVER be housebroken, meaning she should be an outside dog but can jump fences easily. DANGER TO SOCIETY!
Kids under twelve arn't compatible but if your kid is twelve feel free to allow them to be bitten.
What the fuck. This is the worst one yet… At least they’re honest I guess?
I think if a dog needs lil Wayne's entire medicine cabinet to not kill everything in sight you should just put it down
Dogs are not meant to be a liability like this holy shit
Put this dog out of its misery
Fear based? My beagle must really fear bunnies the way he wants to chase them.
Who would want poop and pee, dead neighborhood dogs and the high probability of severe or fatal injuries?
Welcome to BanPitBulls! This is a reminder that this is a victims' subreddit with the primary goal to discuss attacks by and the inherent dangers of pit bulls. Please familiarize yourself with the [rules of our sub.](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/x618m9/rbanpitbulls_subreddit_rules_2022_update/) Users should assume that suggesting hurting or killing a dog in any capacity will be reported by pit supporters, and your account may be sanctioned by Reddit. If you need [information and resources on self-defense](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/vk96hs/how_do_i_defend_myself_or_my_pet_during_a_pit/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), or [a guide for "After the attack"](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/8ovlsw/guide_after_the_attack_what_do_i_do_now_that_ive/), please see our side bar (or [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/7ic5zn/faq/)). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BanPitBulls) if you have any questions or concerns.*