Not What I Wanted for Christmas - a little vent.

[sheilaincali]

If I'm reading correcting you are basing a lot of your concerns regarding these particular dogs on the fact that they stared at your son right?

My lab stares at everyone. When the pizza guy comes to the door she stares him down hoping he'll drop the pizza. When kids come to my house she stares at them hoping they will give her cookies or play with her. When my adult friends are over she stares them down silently begging them to pet her. When DS' friends are over she follows them around hoping they will drop food or sneak her some human food. 

What I'm getting at is that an animal staring at your kid isn't necessary indicative of that dog having malicious intent towards your son.

As others have said- have a frank discussion with your son about strange animals and how to behave should he encounter one.

There was a story in our town about two rottweilers and their little Pomeranian type pack mate attacking a women. We briefly rented a house from the woman that owned the dogs and the attack happened the day before we moved in (unbeknown to us). They acted as a pack BUT and there is a big BUT here.

a. the owner had moved out months earlier and left the dogs alone in the home. Her husband would stop by at 5am and let them into her fenced yard (old wood fence) and give them food and water. At 10pm he'd come back by and put them in the house for the night alone. They had gone 6 months at that point with no human interaction except the husband letting them in and out once a day.

b. the woman they attacked was afraid of all dogs and walked with a hiking stick to protect herself.

c. the dogs got loose and were roaming the neighborhood. They came upon the woman and the Pomeranian ran up to her and yapped at her. The woman panicked and started hitting the little dog with her stick. The two Rots leapt to their pack-mate's defense. Only thing they did was bite her on the arm that was holding the stick that was hitting the other dog.

All factors that don't seem to be in play in your case.

[sarcasticgirl]

Dec 26, 2013 9:19:26 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Dec 26, 2013 9:06:50 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

so I just looked at the dogbite site and of the first 4 stories I read, 2 were of kids who went into their neighbor's yard and were attacked by a dog.  of course, if those same kids had broken into someone's home and been shot to death being mistaken for a burgler, everyone would blame the kid.  I think including dog attacks/deaths that were provoked does a complete disservice to everyone.  so quite frankly, I think their statistics are crap.

Yet, if those same two kids broke into a house where there were Pomeranians, odds are they would still be alive. They might have been bitten, but I highly doubt they would have been killed.

I can only find one actual death from a Pomeranian and that was of an infant. The bite caused brain swelling and the baby died.

I

if those kids had broken into my house with my boston terrier they'd be mince meat. 

Sorry, but the blame isn't on the dog, it's on the kids who did the wrong thing. 

[Miss Tequila]

Dec 26, 2013 9:46:53 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

Dec 26, 2013 9:19:26 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Yet, if those same two kids broke into a house where there were Pomeranians, odds are they would still be alive. They might have been bitten, but I highly doubt they would have been killed.

I can only find one actual death from a Pomeranian and that was of an infant. The bite caused brain swelling and the baby died.

I

if those kids had broken into my house with my boston terrier they'd be mince meat. 

Sorry, but the blame isn't on the dog, it's on the kids who did the wrong thing. 

And what about the people that are attacked and killed by Pitt bulls or Rottweilers that broke loose? 67% of all fatal dog attacks were from those two breeds. Surely they can't all be a result of someone breaking into their house.

I love dogs but it cracks me up that some people are unwilling to admit that certain breeds are inherently mor e dangerous than others.

[Deleted]

It's a shame all the mean-looking dogs have attracted the shitty loser owners and breeders.  Some lines have had aggressive behavior intentionally bred in and of course, being abused or trained to attack to protect shitty loser's drug stash doesn't help the statistics for these breeds.  I wonder how different things would be if they would have liked Golden Retrievers or Beagles instead of Pit Bulls.  

FWIW, the BEST kid dog we ever had (well, about equal to the lab we have now) was a Rottweiler.  He would put up with anything and at 120 pounds he was basically a starter pony.

[mmhmm]

Dec 26, 2013 8:54:04 GMT -5 milee said:

BTW, I don't think these are pit bulls.  They are way too big to be pit bulls.   From their appearance, I'm guessing that they're one of the "large molosser breeds" mentioned above, but have no idea exactly what they are.

Next time, if you get a chance, get a picture of the dogs with your phone.  Maybe then, we can make some educated guesses as to what breed (or mix) they might be.  I can understand your concern; especially since you can't communicate with the owners.

[sarcasticgirl]

Dec 26, 2013 9:52:39 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Dec 26, 2013 9:46:53 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

if those kids had broken into my house with my boston terrier they'd be mince meat. 

Sorry, but the blame isn't on the dog, it's on the kids who did the wrong thing. 

And what about the people that are attacked and killed by Pitt bulls or Rottweilers that broke loose? 67% of all fatal dog attacks were from those two breeds. Surely they can't all be a result of someone breaking into their house.

I love dogs but it cracks me up that some people are unwilling to admit that certain breeds are inherently mor e dangerous than others.

i already addressed that, actually. The breeds aren't inherently dangerous. They just have the power that make any attack more substantial than that of a yappy pom.

They are also both breeds bought by the scum of the earth and used in dog fighting. 

[milee]

Dec 26, 2013 10:00:53 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

It's a shame all the mean-looking dogs have attracted the shitty loser owners and breeders.  Some lines have had aggressive behavior intentionally bred in and of course, being abused or trained to attack to protect shitty loser's drug stash doesn't help the statistics for these breeds.  I wonder how different things would be if they would have liked Golden Retrievers or Beagles instead of Pit Bulls.  

FWIW, the BEST kid dog we ever had (well, about equal to the lab we have now) was a Rottweiler.  He would put up with anything and at 120 pounds he was basically a starter pony.

Definitely.  When my oldest son was born, I had two dogs. One was adopted from the humane society and looked like a 70s brown shag rug - totally cute but very, very fearful of new people; looked like a teddy bear but huge potential fear biter IMHO (never did actually bite anyone). When I'd walk her, to be safe, we'd ask people not to pet her, never let her off her leash and at home kept her in her own safe room when people visited just to make sure.  The other dog I scraped off the road after she'd been hit by a car.  She looked like a junkyard dog - maybe pit bull/Doberman mix? - and one of her ears was torn off in the accident - so her appearance was intimidating, but she was the sweetest dog ever.  Would let the vet do painful things without complaining, never met a person she didn't like and just loved everybody.  But we never had to worry about strangers wanting to pet her because she looked so frightening... the strangers were always wanting to pet my other "teddy bear" dog that desperately wanted to be left alone. 

So I'm well aware you can't judge a dog by appearance. 

[sarcasticgirl]

Dec 26, 2013 10:00:53 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

It's a shame all the mean-looking dogs have attracted the shitty loser owners and breeders.  Some lines have had aggressive behavior intentionally bred in and of course, being abused or trained to attack to protect shitty loser's drug stash doesn't help the statistics for these breeds.  I wonder how different things would be if they would have liked Golden Retrievers or Beagles instead of Pit Bulls.  

FWIW, the BEST kid dog we ever had (well, about equal to the lab we have now) was a Rottweiler.  He would put up with anything and at 120 pounds he was basically a starter pony.

some of the biggest babies i've ever met are pit bulls. I also had a friend who had a 150lb rottie that thought he was a lap dog. 

Conversely... I have witness scummy bastards trolling through my old neighborhood getting their pit bulls riled up and training them to be angry and fight. 

[Deleted]

Milee, you are normally more level-headed than this.

You said the owners were walking this dog.  Have you seen the dog wandering randomly loose in your neighborhood?  Does your community have a leash law?  If so, call animal control.  But if the dog is only out with his owner, then notch your concern down to low.

Teach your son how to behave around all unfamiliar animals who are not leashed.  It doesn't matter if it is a big dog or a small dog. 

I know you are just venting and not asking for real solutions because you can hardly ask these people to have their dogs put down just because they are large and stared at your son as if he were a potential meal.  See how silly that sounds?  What you can do is watch your child just as you expect them to watch their dog.

There are also a lot worse human animals that look at children like your son as prey.  That's an even better reason not to allow him to ride his bike alone than the dog in your post.

[milee]

Dec 26, 2013 10:23:08 GMT -5 @southernsusana said:

Milee, you are normally more level-headed than this.

You said the owners were walking this dog.  Have you seen the dog wandering randomly loose in your neighborhood?  Does your community have a leash law?  If so, call animal control.  But if the dog is only out with his owner, then notch your concern down to low.

Teach your son how to behave around all unfamiliar animals who are not leashed.  It doesn't matter if it is a big dog or a small dog. 

I know you are just venting and not asking for real solutions because you can hardly ask these people to have their dogs put down just because they are large and stared at your son as if he were a potential meal.  See how silly that sounds?  What you can do is watch your child just as you expect them to watch their dog.

There are also a lot worse human animals that look at children like your son as prey.  That's an even better reason not to allow him to ride his bike alone than the dog in your post.

Makes sense. Thanks.

Just to clarify, I didn't want these owners to put their dogs down.  Keeping them at home behind a secure fence would be OK.   

[Miss Tequila]

Dec 26, 2013 10:11:31 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

Dec 26, 2013 9:52:39 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

And what about the people that are attacked and killed by Pitt bulls or Rottweilers that broke loose? 67% of all fatal dog attacks were from those two breeds. Surely they can't all be a result of someone breaking into their house.

I love dogs but it cracks me up that some people are unwilling to admit that certain breeds are inherently mor e dangerous than others.

i already addressed that, actually. The breeds aren't inherently dangerous. They just have the power that make any attack more substantial than that of a yappy pom.

They are also both breeds bought by the scum of the earth and used in dog fighting. 

That was my point all along so I'm not sure why you told me that I would be surprised by the research. The research supports my theory. All dogs can and will bite but only certain breeds have the strength and muscle to make those bites fatal. Which is why I stand by my statement that large dogs are inherently more dangerous because their bites can and do a lot more damage than a happy little pom ;-)

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2013 10:25:47 GMT -5 milee said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:23:08 GMT -5 @southernsusana said:

Milee, you are normally more level-headed than this.

You said the owners were walking this dog.  Have you seen the dog wandering randomly loose in your neighborhood?  Does your community have a leash law?  If so, call animal control.  But if the dog is only out with his owner, then notch your concern down to low.

Teach your son how to behave around all unfamiliar animals who are not leashed.  It doesn't matter if it is a big dog or a small dog. 

I know you are just venting and not asking for real solutions because you can hardly ask these people to have their dogs put down just because they are large and stared at your son as if he were a potential meal.  See how silly that sounds?  What you can do is watch your child just as you expect them to watch their dog.

There are also a lot worse human animals that look at children like your son as prey.  That's an even better reason not to allow him to ride his bike alone than the dog in your post.

Makes sense. Thanks.

Just to clarify, I didn't want these owners to put their dogs down.  Keeping them at home behind a secure fence would be OK.   

perhaps the dogs' owners would prefer you kept your kids at home behind a secure fence....that souds just as ridiculous.  judging a dog on its looks is just as bad as judging people. 

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2013 10:31:22 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:11:31 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

i already addressed that, actually. The breeds aren't inherently dangerous. They just have the power that make any attack more substantial than that of a yappy pom.

They are also both breeds bought by the scum of the earth and used in dog fighting. 

That was my point all along so I'm not sure why you told me that I would be surprised by the research. The research supports my theory. All dogs can and will bite but only certain breeds have the strength and muscle to make those bites fatal. Which is why I stand by my statement that large dogs are inherently more dangerous because their bites can and do a lot more damage than a happy little pom ;-)

you seem to be defining dangerous by how much harm can be caused whereas I define dangerous as to how often they attack unprovoked or withoug being trained that way.  yes a big dog will cause more damage than a little dog, however, when the neighbor's lab attacks it doesn't seem to make the news.

[Miss Tequila]

Dec 26, 2013 10:35:28 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:31:22 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

That was my point all along so I'm not sure why you told me that I would be surprised by the research. The research supports my theory. All dogs can and will bite but only certain breeds have the strength and muscle to make those bites fatal. Which is why I stand by my statement that large dogs are inherently more dangerous because their bites can and do a lot more damage than a happy little pom ;-)

you seem to be defining dangerous by how much harm can be caused whereas I define dangerous as to how often they attack unprovoked or withoug being trained that way.  yes a big dog will cause more damage than a little dog, however, when the neighbor's lab attacks it doesn't seem to make the news.

I consider the death of a child much more serious than a dog bite. Therefore, if a neighborhood dog were to attack my child, I would prefer it to be a small dog that is highly unlikely to cause death.

[The Captain]

Why in the world would anyone think it's ridiculous to have some concern about a breed that is known to be specifically bred for aggressive purposes?

We not discussing labs or collies here.  That's like saying it's nonsense to be concerned about kids being around guns.  After all you can't judge a gun by it's looks, right?

[sarcasticgirl]

Dec 26, 2013 10:31:22 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:11:31 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

i already addressed that, actually. The breeds aren't inherently dangerous. They just have the power that make any attack more substantial than that of a yappy pom.

They are also both breeds bought by the scum of the earth and used in dog fighting. 

That was my point all along so I'm not sure why you told me that I would be surprised by the research. The research supports my theory. All dogs can and will bite but only certain breeds have the strength and muscle to make those bites fatal. Which is why I stand by my statement that large dogs are inherently more dangerous because their bites can and do a lot more damage than a happy little pom ;-)

I have no idea what you are talking about-  I never said you'd be surprised by the research.

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2013 10:42:57 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Why in the world would anyone think it's ridiculous to have some concern about a breed that is known to be specifically bred for aggressive purposes?

We not discussing labs or collies here.  That's like saying it's nonsense to be concerned about kids being around guns.  After all you can't judge a gun by it's looks, right?

pit bulls used to be used as nanny dogs....sort of flies in the face of them beig specifically bred for aggressive purposes....

I have no concerns about any dog - big, small, mean looking, etc. - that is walking nicely on a leash with its owner, showing no signs of aggression. 

[milee]

Dec 26, 2013 10:33:12 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:25:47 GMT -5 milee said:

Makes sense. Thanks.

Just to clarify, I didn't want these owners to put their dogs down.  Keeping them at home behind a secure fence would be OK.   

perhaps the dogs' owners would prefer you kept your kids at home behind a secure fence....that souds just as ridiculous.  judging a dog on its looks is just as bad as judging people. 

There are few conceivable situations where my 50 pound child wandering the neighborhood would result in injury or death to other people. It is easy to imagine how this dog pack could cause injury or death to other people.

Completely different situation and if you cannot see that then you are revealing yourself to be so biased as to be unreliable.

[sarcasticgirl]

Dec 26, 2013 10:42:57 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Why in the world would anyone think it's ridiculous to have some concern about a breed that is known to be specifically bred for aggressive purposes?

We not discussing labs or collies here.  That's like saying it's nonsense to be concerned about kids being around guns.  After all you can't judge a gun by it's looks, right?

did you really just compare a dog to a gun 

I think people think it is a bit ridiculous because the OP saw the owners walking a large "dangerous" looking breed and now she's concerned about her son being killed while riding his bike. There's nothing else to the story, so it seems a bit over the top.

The kid is much more likely to die in a car accident than to randomly be mauled while riding his bike. 

[mmhmm]

milee, have you ever seen these dogs outside and off the leash?  Have you ever seen them unaccompanied by their owners?  Has anyone else in the neighborhood complained about having seen these dogs out without supervision and a leash?

As I said, I can understand your concern.  When our neighbors brought home a pitt bull pup about 6 months old that had been left at their veterinary practice, several in the neighborhood were quite concerned.  I had my doubts, as well.  As it turns out, that dog is sweet as cream!  I went out to bring in the garbage can this morning as the neighbors (owners of said dog) were leaving their home.  The dog always walks them to the door.  Well, he saw me through the door and the barking began.  The husband looked at me inquisitively and I nodded "okay". They took a few minutes to let the dog come and accompany me in taking the garbage can back to the garage.  After "Spike" had thoroughly checked the garage for possible intruders, he gave me a good face-washing (I guess I'd not gotten clean enough to suit him) and trotted back home.  He's never out unsupervised and these folks are vets, so are excellent dog owners. Although Spike is a good-sized dog, all of us who had concerns are long over them.  He's just a big sweetheart.

You don't want to impart irrational fear to your children.  They should know how to act around unknown dogs, but a scared kid isn't a thinking kid and that's not what you want.

[Deleted]

Milee, do they allow these dogs to roam the neighborhood without them?  That would indeed concern me. 

[Miss Tequila]

Dec 26, 2013 10:45:14 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:31:22 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

That was my point all along so I'm not sure why you told me that I would be surprised by the research. The research supports my theory. All dogs can and will bite but only certain breeds have the strength and muscle to make those bites fatal. Which is why I stand by my statement that large dogs are inherently more dangerous because their bites can and do a lot more damage than a happy little pom ;-)

I have no idea what you are talking about-  I never said you'd be surprised by the research.

Oops...I confused you and singlemom...

[The Captain]

Dec 26, 2013 10:46:56 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:42:57 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Why in the world would anyone think it's ridiculous to have some concern about a breed that is known to be specifically bred for aggressive purposes?

We not discussing labs or collies here.  That's like saying it's nonsense to be concerned about kids being around guns.  After all you can't judge a gun by it's looks, right?

pit bulls used to be used as nanny dogs....sort of flies in the face of them beig specifically bred for aggressive purposes....

I have no concerns about any dog - big, small, mean looking, etc. - that is walking nicely on a leash with its owner, showing no signs of aggression. 

pitbullregistry.com/PitBull%20History.htm This site (plus several others I've checked) don't exactly engender the image of a "nanny dog". If my sources are wrong please let me know as I'd like to be clear as to why a nanny dog would need to have very powerful jaws and body.

I'm not anti any dog, but the simple facts are some dogs were specifically bred to be able to clamp down and not.let.go until the target is dead.  It does not make the dog evil, it's simply what the breed was designed to do over hundreds (if not thousands) of years of focused genetic efforts. That means if this breed gets its jaws on a kid, there's really no contest.

Does that mean the dogs should not exist?  Of course not, but I think it's very prudent to excercise extra caution when a small child has the potential to be exposed to one.

[milee]

Dec 26, 2013 10:54:00 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:42:57 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I think people think it is a bit ridiculous because the OP saw the owners walking a large "dangerous" looking breed and now she's concerned about her son being killed while riding his bike. There's nothing else to the story, so it seems a bit over the top.

You may be reacting this way because of your predisposition to defend pit bulls.

I may have added too much detail in my other posts in an attempt to fully describe the situation. That's causing a few key points to be lost:

- This is obviously a breed of dog that is strong and may be a breed of dog that is more likely to be involved in attacks.

- The male at least is too large to be restrained by any normal human, should he decide to misbehave. It may be possible for a large man to restrain one of the small females, but I doubt that the woman walking them could restrain both females at one time.

- So I am completely dependent on the faith that these are well-disposed dogs that have not been abused or trained for fighting and will behave their owners and will not be tempted by the stimuli of a child on a bike (very common for many breeds of dogs to be interested in people on bikes).

-  I cannot communicate with the owners to get any feeling at all for whether they are responsible, know anything about dogs or are even interested in being safe dog owners. So I am having to take on faith that they care, are knowledgeable and have done the work required to make dogs like this safe.

So if everything goes well, no worries.  The problem is if one of those things is off and my kid is around when it is off... you fill in the blank. 

[milee]

Dec 26, 2013 11:08:39 GMT -5 @southernsusana said:

Milee, do they allow these dogs to roam the neighborhood without them?  That would indeed concern me. 

No and I've not seen anything to specifically indicate they are dangerous or that the owners are in any way irresponsible. (Other than my personal bias that pretty much every single dog should be spayed and neutered, not just because they're safer pets but because there are too many unwanted dogs.)

[The Captain]

Dec 26, 2013 10:54:00 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:42:57 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Why in the world would anyone think it's ridiculous to have some concern about a breed that is known to be specifically bred for aggressive purposes?

We not discussing labs or collies here.  That's like saying it's nonsense to be concerned about kids being around guns.  After all you can't judge a gun by it's looks, right?

did you really just compare a dog to a gun 

I think people think it is a bit ridiculous because the OP saw the owners walking a large "dangerous" looking breed and now she's concerned about her son being killed while riding his bike. There's nothing else to the story, so it seems a bit over the top.

The kid is much more likely to die in a car accident than to randomly be mauled while riding his bike. 

Well, both (if not trained or used properly) have the potential to cause unintended death or harm. That is the concern the OP has.

I don't see anything ridiculous about the OP being concerned about the safety of her child.  Ever.

In my example DD had greater chances of being hit by a car than being attacked by a coyote, however one I can't prevent.  The other I can (or at least minimize the damage) by simply keeping an eye on her.

Just like someone is much more likely to be killed by a car than by polio.  Does that mean we should stop vaccinating people?

I just don't understand that reasoning.

[swamp]

Dec 26, 2013 10:46:56 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:42:57 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Why in the world would anyone think it's ridiculous to have some concern about a breed that is known to be specifically bred for aggressive purposes?

We not discussing labs or collies here.  That's like saying it's nonsense to be concerned about kids being around guns.  After all you can't judge a gun by it's looks, right?

pit bulls used to be used as nanny dogs....sort of flies in the face of them beig specifically bred for aggressive purposes....
I have no concerns about any dog - big, small, mean looking, etc. - that is walking nicely on a leash with its owner, showing no signs of aggression. 

They used to be nanny dogs. They are now the dog of choice of methheads and bred to fight. 

However, there are family friendly pits out there. My brother has one.   

But I agree that I am more leery of a strange pit than a Lhasa apso. I can boot the Lhasa away. The pit, not so much. 

Id be a little leery of a large dog staring my kid down.  It could be hunting behavior. But as long as he's on a leash and under control, I'm good. 

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2013 11:12:17 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:46:56 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

pit bulls used to be used as nanny dogs....sort of flies in the face of them beig specifically bred for aggressive purposes....

I have no concerns about any dog - big, small, mean looking, etc. - that is walking nicely on a leash with its owner, showing no signs of aggression. 

pitbullregistry.com/PitBull%20History.htm This site (plus several others I've checked) don't exactly engender the image of a "nanny dog". If my sources are wrong please let me know as I'd like to be clear as to why a nanny dog would need to have very powerful jaws and body.

I'm not anti any dog, but the simple facts are some dogs were specifically bred to be able to clamp down and not.let.go until the target is dead.  It does not make the dog evil, it's simply what the breed was designed to do over hundreds (if not thousands) of years of focused genetic efforts. That means if this breed gets its jaws on a kid, there's really no contest.

Does that mean the dogs should not exist?  Of course not, but I think it's very prudent to excercise extra caution when a small child has the potential to be exposed to one.

you do realize that a pit bull is NOT a specific breed, right? 

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2013 11:20:54 GMT -5 milee said:

Dec 26, 2013 11:08:39 GMT -5 @southernsusana said:

Milee, do they allow these dogs to roam the neighborhood without them?  That would indeed concern me. 

No and I've not seen anything to specifically indicate they are dangerous or that the owners are in any way irresponsible. (Other than my personal bias that pretty much every single dog should be spayed and neutered, not just because they're safer pets but because there are too many unwanted dogs.)

now this I do agree with.....there is absolutely no excuse for not spaying/neutering a dog.  there are too many unwanted dogs already and there don't need to be anymore (including purebreds).

[milee]

Dec 26, 2013 11:24:40 GMT -5 swamp said:

Dec 26, 2013 10:46:56 GMT -5 @singlemominmd said:

  

But I agree that I am more leery of a strange pit than a Lhasa apso. I can boot the Lhasa away. The pit, not so much. 

Id be a little leery of a large dog staring my kid down.  It could be hunting behavior. But as long as he's on a leash and under control, I'm good. 

With a dog this strength and size, a leash is for decorative purposes only.  "Under control" is at the dog's discretion.  No way could anyone stop this dog from doing something he wanted to do.