Please donate to support our work is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

29 thoughts on “Pit Bulls Make "Most Dangerous Pet" List at The Huffington Post

Please review our comment policy.

  1. There is NO excuse on earth for breeding or owning fighting breeds.

    Fighting breeds don't do well with adults, children, other pets, livestock, each other.

    And there is nowhere in this country that anyone can reliably keep them away from all these things.

    Hence, the bloodshed.

    These are dogs that have been intentionally bred for hundreds of years to be FIGHTING DOGS. To kill.

    They are not pets.

    And no one has the right, no matter how delusional or greedy they are, to be breeding or owning these breeds and KILLING PEOPLE and other animals with them.

  2. Note to regular commenters: If you do not see your comment right away, just know that it is not lost, we are experiencing some technical difficulties.

  3. And of course, the pit nutters have inundated the comments section of the article to defend their wiggle butts. I do have a problem with this statement about pit bulls from the article:
    "While bit bulls can be warm and make good pets, when trained to fight, their aggression and ferociousness spells trouble when they're provoked. "
    We all know that they DO NOT need to be trained to fight to be aggressive and ferocious.

  4. Every now and then, we gotta give the numbknuckle press reporters a "gimmie" FoolMeOnce!

  5. This article is a point where Drudgereporter's and Huffposter's have some common ground. We all want to protect our kids from harm.

  6. The Huff Post article has been changed to 8 dangerous pets. Pitbulls have been removed from the list.

  7. Here's what it "used" to read:

    "While bit bulls can be warm and make good pets, when trained to fight, their aggression and ferociousness spells trouble when they're provoked. They are responsible for the largest number of (fatal) attacks on humans compared to any other breed. A number of cities have banned pit bulls altogether."

  8. It's just as well that they did remove that part, because it's inaccurate, anyway. Pits don't HAVE to be trained to fight. They do it naturally. I'd rather see some hard journalism presented factually, that these dogs are more dangerous than wild animals because they have zero fear of human beings and yet just as much propensity for explosive aggression as a bear or big cat.

  9. Unfortunately for the pit bull profiteers that succeeded in intimidating a weak journalist, the article was up for some time telling the truth about pit bulls and is now "old news."

    The original article is now saved all over the internet and people will indeed continue to read that list containing pit bulls.

    Too late for the pit bull profiteers!!

  10. I'm glad they removed it because it reads like a piece of pit nutters propaganda anyway. They attack UNPROVOKED and they don't have to be trained to fight to kill you as we have seen in so many incidents.

  11. Before we are too hard on this young girl, who is only a college student; did you ever think she may have been threatened, or even stalked? Remember, pit bull "activists" include the lunatic fringe of the humane movement, and some very hardened criminals. We are all well aware of the link between pit bull ownership and deviant, violent behavior. It would not surprise me that the writer was frightened into removing the piece. They may have told her they knew where she lived, etc.

    We all need to understand what we are dealing with here…..pit bull owners, breeders,dog fighters, drug dealers, gang members, etc. All part of an underground economy driven by the lack of laws regulating the breed. These are not nice people. Many are dangerous, violent people. Which is why so few journalists are willing to take them on.

  12. Three years, one of my good friend's 6 year old daughter was attacked by their neighbors Pit Bull. She was in the hospital for two weeks. She is alive and well today, but still carries around the scars of what happened to her. The neighbors were very well off (money wise) and my friend received a hefty settlement…didn't even have to go to court. The Pit nutters knew they had no fight. The wife nutter actually tried to blame the child and the swing set being too noisy.

    Last week, my friend calls me up to accompany him to some kind of Pit Bull Positive talk or whatnot. On how they want to "educate" people on the breed. He had a t-shirt made with the words: "Gun's don't kill people" on the front, and "Pitbulls do" on the back.

    You should have seen the frenzy. My friend(who is a large man, 6'4, 260 rock solid) stood there listening to the bullsh*t, never saying a word. One man said, "Hey homie, you need to get out of here with that shirt" My friend said, "Free country and freedom of speech,homie." The woman leader kept saying, "Sir, please leave". My friend said, "No,I am not doing anything wrong, I just want to be educated."

    No one really wanted to mess with him. So they tried moving their talk somewhere else, but he kept follwoing them. The asked a police officer to "take care of the situation" and the cop said, "What is he doing that's so wrong?"

    I loved every minute of it ๐Ÿ™‚

  13. "she may have been threatened, or even stalked? "


    You report the threats, let law enforcement take care of it, and do not submit to threats.

    You even WRITE about those threats and expose them!

    Can you imagine what the state of the media would be if stories were pulled or falsified because a journalist was "threatened?"

    Journalists get threatened EVERY DAY. If they are really journalists, and not pretend ones, they continue to report and they stand by their story.

    If they don't, they ARE NOT journalists and need to stop representing themselves as such.

    And if they cater to lobbying by business interests, they need to disclose that they can be bought and sold, and aren't journalists.

  14. we are not being hard enough on her.
    nguyen is a graduate student, not a freshman at some junior college. she should defend her position, not abandon it.
    that's what academia is all about, at least it should be.

  15. Perhaps it was Ms. Huffington herself that made the call. That would surprise me — I thought she was a tough lady. Whoever chose to bow down to those pit nutters — bad call!

    I made a comment after the pulling, that was very respectful and supportive of the young journalist, and I challenged HuffPo to do some real investigative journalism into our country's pit bull problem. I challenged them to prove all the facts as posted by the pit bull advocates, starting with "pits are the most popular dog in American, so naturally they have higher fatality rates." It was never posted. I wrote it again. Still not posted. Wimps!!!!

  16. I have had the same experience with the Huffington Post. Be warned that if you want to e-mail Ms. Huffington directly, your comment will likely be refused. If you make the choice to contact her by U.S.Mail, you must send the letter Registered Mail or it will be refused and returned to you. Ms. Huffington never responded to my registered letter. It seems that the Huffington Post simply refuses to acknowledge any opinion other than their own.

  17. I posted a response to the "I'm tired of…" Carrie Pollare's B.S. months ago. It wasn't published either. I promptly unsubscribed to the Huffington Post and I haven't been back since. I really was a fan of Arianna Huffington and I was a daily reader. Not a pretend reader like the pit nutters of GQ.

  18. To anon with the friend with the Tshirt

    Please thank that man for representing the rights and suffering of the many victims of these fighting dogs

  19. My initial comment on this article was posted, before the pits were removed from the list. Andrea Torres has responded to my post claiming that I am the author of the article, posting under a different to make the author look good. I responded that she is paranoid. Who is this Andrea Torres anyway? I've heard that name before. I noted Jere Alexander in my post as an example of people with ties to dog fighting that have infiltrated animal control. I tried to find the links to the original investigations but they all go back to an unrelated article from May 2010 (although the article is about a pit attack). I wanted to provide the links as my sources, since Andrea accused me of merely spouting my opinion. How can I find the original articles?

  20. Hi, Trigger, It's in the comments on the HuffPo piece.

    Here's my first post: "While bit bulls can be warm and make good pets, when trained to fight, their aggression and ferociousness spells trouble when they're provoked. "
    Wrong. Pit bulls don't need to be trained to fight, nor provoked, in order to attack. Hundreds of years of breeding the ultimate fighting dog have guaranteed that. The HuffPo should do a complete investigative piece on the pit bull problem in this country. Make special note of how most of these dogs that kill and maim were not abused, used for fighting, and were well loved. Of the animals listed in this article, pit bulls are causing the most carnage. The problem is getting worse as people mainstream these fighting dogs, with the false belief that all it takes is love to kiss the killer instinct out of them. 7 Americans have been killed by pit bulls since Jan 1, 2010, not to mention dozens of victims that have been maimed for life.

    Start the investigation by looking into organized dog-fighting, a huge criminal underground involving doctors, lawyers, vets, teachers, coaches, etc. Investigate how these people infiltrate our government, animal control, rescues, and breeding operations to keep the flow of pits coming. Start with Jere Alexander. She is but one example of this.

    Do not be fazed by all the pro-pit comments here. They are loud and vocal, but they are the minority. The majority of us would rather not live next door to your cute little pitty, thank you very much."

    Here is Andrea's first response, alluding to me being the author: "Your ignorant hubris is laughable. You can't go around alleging your opinions as fact. Provide your sources for your words, we certainly have. Perhaps your name is not one so unfamiliar. Yes, Pity indeed."

    Here is her second response, where she says it outright, then backs off, in case she is wrong: "it's interesting how two brand new members (with pitbull nom de plume's none the less!) suddenly appeared after the loud outcry, taking up for the author, and being, well… just chirppedly in agreement with everything the author had to say! Quite impressive indeed. I won't begin to think that perhaps it is a disguise, (as writer's sometimes like to take when their opinions are not taken well.) And of course I am sure it is not, for such a thing implies a lack of moral fiber and integrity. Nonetheless, I am still waiting on their sources, such arrogance demands it, don't you think?"

    The sick thing is that she never once supplied any sources for her opinions, as she claims, except to say "There is not an animal behaviorist alive, nor veterinarian, nor animal rescue organization, nor zoologist et. al., that would back Ms. Nguyen's words."

    It is to laugh, if I were not crying.

  21. Don't forget that her types are troubled and abnormal at best and "wholly insane" at worst. One can't easily reason with them.

  22. Agreed :). I might as well slam my fingers in a car door over and over and over! Someone has responded to my post calling Andrea paranoid. This person said I was ignorant, needed to do research, and should google "nanny dogs." To get me started, she put a link to an article about nanny dogs to set me straight. It is merely some pit nutter regurgitating the nanny myth, with not a single source cited.

    Oh, yeah, they back up all their facts, don't they?

  23. I almost think click-farming is behind the recent spate of Huffington Post pro-pit bull articles. Every time they post a: "Slideshow of pit bulls and babies that proves pit bulls are safe!" article, it gets thousands of nutters swarming and sharing it.

Comments are closed.