Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Dogs bite harder, run faster, and are usually bigger than almost any herp. Cats are widespread in breeding colonies, kill lots of native wildlife, can live in areas that freeze, and are excellent escape artists. All mammals (including hampsters, cats, dogs, rats, and other commonly kept pets) can carry rabies which can be passed onto humans.
A monitor is only dangerous if cornered. A rabid dog can chase you down. A snake is very slow and 99.999 (my estimation) % of the time would not even consider a human as food. Large mammals may se us as food or a rival for territory (and try to do something about it, other that run away like an iguana or a monitor).
Probably the most dangerous herp in the wilds of florida is the native american alligator (or maybe the crocodile). And anyone who lives here (and is not an ignorant fool) knows that you have to be doing something that obviously involves the risk of getting attacke by one in order to get attacked by one (swimming in lakes, jumping on an alligator). And though non-native herps can impact native wildlife, I don't think it even compares to the impact that feral pigs, cats, dogs, and whatever other mammals are out here have on native wildlife (both flora and fauna).
I wish that people and politicians would consider this more often, especially when it comes to legislation on herps.

I agree and have posted simliar statements in other threads on this forum. Someone or some group needs to organize and fight this rediculous legislation that these ignorant politicians try to pass. These politicians don't know anything about reptiles, I'm sure many knowledgable members of this forum could easily crush one in a debate on the subject. The only reason these politicians are doing this is because 1 - they like the publicity of supposedly doing something good and 2 - interest groups such as the Humane Society and PETA (actually terrorist groups) pressure them into it. We need an organized group in order to combat these menaces.

Have you heard of the show "Bullsh*t" with Penn and Teller? They had a very interesting episode about PETA.
In one episode, they weren't exactly supportive of the herp trade, but they didnt say anything that was necesarrily untrue. It is like my favorite show. Whether I agree with the opinion parts of what they say or not, they always have great facts to back it up.
Anywho, the one on PETA was very informative and showed them for the hypocritial, organization they are. I could hardly bare to watch as they used all the money that people who really care about animals sent them to protest against the humane society putting animals to sleep instead of actually doing something about it and paying for the animals to be taken care of.
It showed evidence that one year, they put like 2/3 of the animals they actually did take in to sleep. And that a member who is very high up in the organisation uses insolin which came from animal testing while she does not support medical research using animal testing.
If any of them really cared, they would stop spending their money to say how much they care about animals and start spending it to help animals.

Said, actually as far as actual bite force I recently found a REAL test of bite pressure done on dogs, some big and small cats, reptiles, etc. When it comes to bite pressure, lizards are designed for just that, hard powerful bites. Some of what was in it, the aveage human produces I believe 150lbs of bite force, the average larger breed of dog produces 320lbs (there was a side note that many pitbulls from all breeds were tested and actually produced less pressure at 300lbs, there was an explanation telling that jaw size of German shepards, various retrievers, etc gave them the leverage advantage). There were made up tests published years ago saying 650-1500lbs, they were bullcrap lies about dogs and pitbulls mainly. Also mentioned were lions at 600lbs, and bears were at 500-600lbs, crocodiles at 2000-3000lbs plus depending on species and size.
In reality a medium to large sized monitor does bite harder than a dog (some can break bones), but their teeth are smaller, and the jaws are smaller (except komodo dragons and other large species).
Danger from these species comes from a variety of reasons, dogs are protective of territory, and family, although most fatal dog bites are on toddlers and small children under 8 and are off the leash on the owners property, when restrained on a lead or leash those numbers are barely 5% of the total.

This doesn't have much to do with the point of your responce, but I noticed you said "there was a side note that many pitbulls from all breeds were tested"
A pitbull is a dog from a small group of dogs. An example would be an American staffordshire terrier. When you say pitbull like that (to describe a mean dog no matter what breed), it gives it a negative connotaion and only contributes to the myths about pitbulls being mentally unstable or aggressive. It's like if we were to start saying "mean as a montior" or "aggressive as a snake".
Pitbulls can be aggressive for the same reasons as any other dog (inbreeding, mistreatment). And do not necesarrily bite harder.
If the source really said "pitbulls from all breeds", than it is certainly not a reliable resource as they clear have limited knowledge of even basic breed names.

Also, all species bite with different forces for different tasks. It would be hard to measure the exact force they can exert.
You said "When it comes to bite pressure, lizards are designed for just that, hard powerful bites". The thing is, All predators are designed to have hard powerfull bites. And since dogs work in packs to take down large prey that need to lose a lot of blood or have deep penatrating wounds in order to be killed, it is likely that dogs require much more powerfull bites in order to take down their prey.
Monitors usually take small prey that they can swallow whole. This is not to say that they don't bite hard, just that a dog bite is worse.
I have heard from some very well educated people on this forum that monitors also may have venom. It is well known that the Komodo Dragon, one of the few monitors that does take prey much larger than itsself uses bacteria in its mouth and likely has a venom as well. This would mean that they do not require quite as hard a bite in order totake down their prey, but since their venoms are mostly not harmfull to people, does not mean that they have worse bites than dogs.

Lastly, I have been bit by a few dogs and a few monitors. The largest montior I have been bit by was a three and a half foot mangrove. It's not a huge monitor, but anyone who has also been bit by one can tell you it doesn't feel good. In my experiences, dog bites are deeper and a single tooth can lose you plenty of blood. A single tooth from a monitor is like having a needle run through your finger (not fun, but not as bad as a dog).

"Said, actually as far as actual bite force I recently found a REAL test of bite pressure done on dogs, some big and small cats, reptiles, etc. When it comes to bite pressure, lizards are designed for just that, hard powerful bites. Some of what was in it, the aveage human produces I believe 150lbs of bite force, the average larger breed of dog produces 320lbs (there was a side note that many pitbulls from all breeds were tested and actually produced less pressure at 300lbs, there was an explanation telling that jaw size of German shepards, various retrievers, etc gave them the leverage advantage). There were made up tests published years ago saying 650-1500lbs, they were bullcrap lies about dogs and pitbulls mainly. Also mentioned were lions at 600lbs, and bears were at 500-600lbs, crocodiles at 2000-3000lbs plus depending on species and size.
In reality a medium to large sized monitor does bite harder than a dog (some can break bones), but their teeth are smaller, and the jaws are smaller (except komodo dragons and other large species).
Danger from these species comes from a variety of reasons, dogs are protective of territory, and family, although most fatal dog bites are on toddlers and small children under 8 and are off the leash on the owners property, when restrained on a lead or leash those numbers are barely 5% of the total."

The way I worded it, "pitbulls of all breeds" was for your information so I didnt have to list APBT, Amstaff, staff, ABT, etc, etc, etc. Adding words to whats there does not make it untrue or against what was said. This was a REAL study into bite force, those in the past with the figures of 650lbs for one breed, and 750 for another, and 1500 for some pitbulls were all a load of crap, the actual figures stand as 300 and 320, all dogs have the same skull structure, size of the jaws in dogs has proven to help in leverage.
As far as a single tooth hole from a dog penetrating and causing blood loss, this is common sense, get bitten by a house cat once, not a playful bite, but a serious bite, their teeth are alot sharper, and can do more damage, I wouldnt compare bite force between them though. A monitors jaws are designed to produce high bite forces, no mammal can compare to them at any similar size, period.
By the way, if you were bit by a 3ft mangrove in reality, and say that it doesnt hurt as bad as a similar sized dog or compare it to a dog thats alot larger, you are comparing apples to fudge pops. I can compare multiple dog bites from German shepards and others (mostly smaller breeds)to my experiences with monitor bites from niles (1-5ft), timors (24-30 inches), albigs (18-54 inches), water monitors (3-4ft), flavi-argus (4ft), bosc (5-48 inches), a mangrove (3ft),and a few others. I can tell you that the flavi-argus bite was stronger than any dog bite Ive recieved (feels like a pair of vice-grips smashing your flesh, also as far as teeth go, the flavi-argus teeth at that size are about 1/3rd inch in length, double edged, like a knife. The description you gave of the mangrove seems as if you were bit by a hatchling, they have the needle like insect eating teeth when hatchlings. Many large species can do serious damage when bitten, from breaking bones, to taking away chunks of flesh. Make a comparison with similar sized jaws, I have fed a large bone in halves to a medium sized dog and a large albig, allow them to bite and chew the bone, see what happens. I can tell you that the same sized, thickness bone, will crack instantly in the albigs jaws, like it was cut with a bolt cutter. the dog will be chewing for a while.
So, to compare a similar feat of bringing prey down, a pack of dogs to a single komodo, similar prey items, deer, etc. Once the komodo gets a grip on the prey item its not long for this world, they do not have to rely on many many bites, lots of blood flow, and tiring the prey down for hours and or days, of course komodos do not get a solid grip in some cases and the prey gets away. Also think about it, on the islands where komodos reside there are many many dogs, all medium or better sized working dogs, they have been a prey source ever since they arrived, never are the tables turned.
The 2 animals hunt with different techniques, most times different prey, and have many other adaptations to help them, comparisons must be made that have a similar basis.

I am sorry. I misunderstood. You see, sometimes pitbull is used to mean a mean dog and I thought when you said "pitbulls of all breeds", you meant mean dogs of all breeds. It was my mistake.
I have to disagree that all dogs have the same skull structure still though. I can hardly imagine that the skull structure of a whipit is similar to that of a pug. If you mean that they dont have any extra bones, I am aware of that.
Let's not forget that 300-320 is an average, and there is surely quite a difference in bit force between a German Sheapard and a Chihuahua. It is not necesarrily even a middle of the road measurement. With an average, if there are more breeds of small dogs, then the bite force average will be about the same biteforce as a small dog.
Also,I never said that dogs have a 600 or 1500 pound bite force.
I would need to see stats to believe that a monitor can bite harder than a dog.
I know that a three and a half foot monitor does not have a hard bite compared to a dog. That is my point. I don't know how to prove to you that I was bitten by a 3.5 fool mangrove. Frankly, I don't care to. It was embarrasing. I should have gripped it better.
But if you are going to say that you dont believe I was bit by one, then I'll just say I deffinately do not believe that you have been bitten by many dogs. I'm not talking about getting mouther or a teathing puppy biting your arm. I'm talking about serious bites. I myself have only been bitten like that 3 times. I have been mouthed and bitten by teething puppies too many times to count.
If you have been bitten by all the montiors that you are saying you have, you must have a lot of deep and nasty scars. Got any pics? And it might be wise to take some precautions. Have you considered selling them to someone who can handle them a little better. Having a monitor is not worth getting seriously injured. A tame captive bred animal would cost a little more, but you wont need stictches if you treat it with respect.
I am aware that monitors can do lots of damage with their bites. I only ever said that they are less dangerous than dogs. I believe that a dog can do more damage than a monitor. I'll bet they can run faster, longer, jump higher, and have more damaging bites.
I agree that a komodo is more dangerous than a dog. I am talking about pets here.
I would never make a monitor bite down on a large bone. Proving this is not worth damaging its teeth. And I have never seen a dog bite down with full force on a bone. They seem to enjoy nawing it.
"no mammal can compare to them at any similar size, period." seriously rethink this statment. I know you probably only meant dogs, but it sounds like you are saying there is litterally not amammal in the world that can bite harder than a monitor. Keep in mind that big cats are mammals.

"The way I worded it, "pitbulls of all breeds" was for your information so I didnt have to list APBT, Amstaff, staff, ABT, etc, etc, etc. Adding words to whats there does not make it untrue or against what was said. This was a REAL study into bite force, those in the past with the figures of 650lbs for one breed, and 750 for another, and 1500 for some pitbulls were all a load of crap, the actual figures stand as 300 and 320, all dogs have the same skull structure, size of the jaws in dogs has proven to help in leverage.
As far as a single tooth hole from a dog penetrating and causing blood loss, this is common sense, get bitten by a house cat once, not a playful bite, but a serious bite, their teeth are alot sharper, and can do more damage, I wouldnt compare bite force between them though. A monitors jaws are designed to produce high bite forces, no mammal can compare to them at any similar size, period.
By the way, if you were bit by a 3ft mangrove in reality, and say that it doesnt hurt as bad as a similar sized dog or compare it to a dog thats alot larger, you are comparing apples to fudge pops. I can compare multiple dog bites from German shepards and others (mostly smaller breeds)to my experiences with monitor bites from niles (1-5ft), timors (24-30 inches), albigs (18-54 inches), water monitors (3-4ft), flavi-argus (4ft), bosc (5-48 inches), a mangrove (3ft),and a few others. I can tell you that the flavi-argus bite was stronger than any dog bite Ive recieved (feels like a pair of vice-grips smashing your flesh, also as far as teeth go, the flavi-argus teeth at that size are about 1/3rd inch in length, double edged, like a knife. The description you gave of the mangrove seems as if you were bit by a hatchling, they have the needle like insect eating teeth when hatchlings. Many large species can do serious damage when bitten, from breaking bones, to taking away chunks of flesh. Make a comparison with similar sized jaws, I have fed a large bone in halves to a medium sized dog and a large albig, allow them to bite and chew the bone, see what happens. I can tell you that the same sized, thickness bone, will crack instantly in the albigs jaws, like it was cut with a bolt cutter. the dog will be chewing for a while.
So, to compare a similar feat of bringing prey down, a pack of dogs to a single komodo, similar prey items, deer, etc. Once the komodo gets a grip on the prey item its not long for this world, they do not have to rely on many many bites, lots of blood flow, and tiring the prey down for hours and or days, of course komodos do not get a solid grip in some cases and the prey gets away. Also think about it, on the islands where komodos reside there are many many dogs, all medium or better sized working dogs, they have been a prey source ever since they arrived, never are the tables turned.
The 2 animals hunt with different techniques, most times different prey, and have many other adaptations to help them, comparisons must be made that have a similar basis."

Seems to have no understanding about monitors.

"Let's not forget that 300-320 is an average, and there is surely quite a difference in bit force between a German Sheapard and a Chihuahua. It is not necesarrily even a middle of the road measurement. With an average, if there are more breeds of small dogs, then the bite force average will be about the same biteforce as a small dog.
Also,I never said that dogs have a 600 or 1500 pound bite force"

320lbs was measured as a consistant from many German shepards, multiple retrevers, and other medium and large dog breeds. The 300lbs was a consistant measurement from all breeds of pitbull. There were no measurements beyond 320lbs.
As far as dogs being considered dogs, look it up, all dogs have the same skull structure, period, thats part of why they are all the same species. The wolf and the dog have a different skull, why the wolf has a stright line from nose to top of the head in bone, all dogs have a forehead where the eyes are located, a definite shape. All dogs have much smaller teeth (this was bred into them by humans who feared larger teeth), and much weaker jaws, wolves are proven to produce much higher bite forces.
What I referred to was the claims of studies done where pitbulls were showing measurements of 1500lbs.
If you were to take any mammal with the same sized skull or similar sized to a particular monitor the mammal would produce bite forces much much lower, the monitor like most lizards is designed to crush when biting, its the advantage they have.
Many mammal predators have longer, larger teeth, the advantage they have is energy expenditure in the use of those teeth, they dont crush, they bite and shake or pull.

"If you have been bitten by all the montiors that you are saying you have, you must have a lot of deep and nasty scars. Got any pics? And it might be wise to take some precautions. Have you considered selling them to someone who can handle them a little better. Having a monitor is not worth getting seriously injured. A tame captive bred animal would cost a little more, but you wont need stictches if you treat it with respect.
I am aware that monitors can do lots of damage with their bites"

I have many scars, are you saying that I should have never joined the military years ago and could have avoided sprains, cuts, burns, joint pain, a 4 inch shard of wood that was lodged through my one finger knuckle. I could have avoided being a runner years ago and avoided broken bones, sprains, etc.
Also about CBB and WC monitors, Ive been bit by a few of both. There is no such thing as tame CBB compared to WC monitor, if you kept any you should know this. To this day one of my monitors is WC, the others are all CBB. Also the first bite Ive taken in years was a flavi-argus, just like with bites Ive taken with albigs there is no amount of protection a glove could have offered, the teeth went through my thumb nail from the top, and through the thumbprint side, and crossed over around the bone. Ive had bones broken by albigs, 4ft long, Ive never been bite by my 6ft 4 incher.
If you work with or handle monitors it is bound to happen, you will get bitten sooner or later. Ive been keeping them for over 14 years. Ive had a water monitor bite my ankle as it ran past, luckily it was only 4ft long and I had jeans on, not much to worry about. Its funny reading the comment you posted about tame CBB monitors not giving you stitches, lol. THATS A GOOD ONE, LOL.
Of course by all means post opinion, but have some fact or experience to back it up.

-"all dogs have a forehead where the eyes are located, a definite shape."-
The "same" has some interesting definitons. I know that dog skulls have the same general shape, but their are certainly differences in the lengths and widths of different sections of the skull.

-"320lbs was measured as a consistant from many German shepards, multiple retrevers, and other medium and large dog breeds. The 300lbs was a consistant measurement from all breeds of pitbull. There were no measurements beyond 320lbs."-
If you would have clearly stated that these bite forces were from a single size range in dogs, I would not have argued against it. Either way, getting bit by an animal with a 300 lb per square inch bite force sucks.

-"If you were to take any mammal with the same sized skull or similar sized to a particular monitor the mammal would produce bite forces much much lower, the monitor like most lizards is designed to crush when biting, its the advantage they have."-
Yah, if you took a mammal with the same sized skull, a monitor would produce a higher bite force. But it is much more common for a dog to have a larger skull than a monitor than for a monitor to have a larger skull than a dog.

-"Many mammal predators have longer, larger teeth, the advantage they have is energy expenditure in the use of those teeth, they dont crush, they bite and shake or pull."-
You are clearly forgetting what this argument is about to say that. I am saying that a dog is more dangerous than a pet monitor and that dogs can be territorial towards humans and will sometimes attack without being cornered like rabid dogs. The fact that they have long sharp teeth only proves that they can have dangerous bites. I see that you are trying to say that monitors require a perportionately greater bite force, but that really isn't relavent to the arguement. A perportionately greater bite force does not make a monitor more of a formiddable or likely opponent than a dog. Especially considering that monitors are generally smaller than dogs.

-"I have many scars, are you saying that I should have never joined the military years ago and could have avoided sprains, cuts, burns, joint pain, a 4 inch shard of wood that was lodged through my one finger knuckle. I could have avoided being a runner years ago and avoided broken bones, sprains, etc."-
I cannot believe that you would take a debate over a dog or montior being more dangerous and skew it to sound like I was implying that you shouldn't join the military. And since this is just a forum on a computer, let's not get so personal.

-" Also about CBB and WC monitors, Ive been bit by a few of both. There is no such thing as tame CBB compared to WC monitor"-
Good for you, you can knitpick. I wasn't saying that a tame CB is necesarrily more tame than a tame W.C. And I know that there are no truly tame monitors. I was only making the point that a C.B. monitor may be more acclimated to captivity and less stressed. This makes for an easier to deal with animal and that improves the quality and ease of the taming process.

-"just like with bites Ive taken with albigs there is no amount of protection a glove could have offered"-
I never said a glove. I said "knows", "how", "to", and "handle".

-"Its funny reading the comment you posted about tame CBB monitors not giving you stitches, lol. THATS A GOOD ONE, LOL."-
Damn, I did mess up their. I meant to say that you would have a lessened medical bill (both for you and the monitor) because I still believe that the ease and quality of the taming process is improved with tame monitors and generally, CB monitors are a bit healthier (though not always).

-"Of course by all means post opinion, but have some fact or experience to back it up."-
I have experience. I don't believe there is a whole lot of fact out there.

I would like to say that I still do not take those bite pressure tests all that seriously. Animals bite with different forces for different reasons. I would need to know more information about the test. Also, you have said nothing to prove that a monitor is more likely to bite you or is a more dangerous animal than a dog. That is what this thread is really all about. I believe that dogs are generally more dangerous than pet monitors and that a dog is more likely to attak without being cornered. Also, they are more dangerous because they can contract rabies. This is not to say that I think dogs should be outlawed. I love dogs. I just think that since dogs are not persecuted much, monitors should not be either.

"Let's not forget that 300-320 is an average, and there is surely quite a difference in bit force between a German Sheapard and a Chihuahua. It is not necesarrily even a middle of the road measurement. With an average, if there are more breeds of small dogs, then the bite force average will be about the same biteforce as a small dog.
Also,I never said that dogs have a 600 or 1500 pound bite force"

320lbs was measured as a consistant from many German shepards, multiple retrevers, and other medium and large dog breeds. The 300lbs was a consistant measurement from all breeds of pitbull. There were no measurements beyond 320lbs.
As far as dogs being considered dogs, look it up, all dogs have the same skull structure, period, thats part of why they are all the same species. The wolf and the dog have a different skull, why the wolf has a stright line from nose to top of the head in bone, all dogs have a forehead where the eyes are located, a definite shape. All dogs have much smaller teeth (this was bred into them by humans who feared larger teeth), and much weaker jaws, wolves are proven to produce much higher bite forces.
What I referred to was the claims of studies done where pitbulls were showing measurements of 1500lbs.
If you were to take any mammal with the same sized skull or similar sized to a particular monitor the mammal would produce bite forces much much lower, the monitor like most lizards is designed to crush when biting, its the advantage they have.
Many mammal predators have longer, larger teeth, the advantage they have is energy expenditure in the use of those teeth, they dont crush, they bite and shake or pull.

"If you have been bitten by all the montiors that you are saying you have, you must have a lot of deep and nasty scars. Got any pics? And it might be wise to take some precautions. Have you considered selling them to someone who can handle them a little better. Having a monitor is not worth getting seriously injured. A tame captive bred animal would cost a little more, but you wont need stictches if you treat it with respect.
I am aware that monitors can do lots of damage with their bites"

I have many scars, are you saying that I should have never joined the military years ago and could have avoided sprains, cuts, burns, joint pain, a 4 inch shard of wood that was lodged through my one finger knuckle. I could have avoided being a runner years ago and avoided broken bones, sprains, etc.
Also about CBB and WC monitors, Ive been bit by a few of both. There is no such thing as tame CBB compared to WC monitor, if you kept any you should know this. To this day one of my monitors is WC, the others are all CBB. Also the first bite Ive taken in years was a flavi-argus, just like with bites Ive taken with albigs there is no amount of protection a glove could have offered, the teeth went through my thumb nail from the top, and through the thumbprint side, and crossed over around the bone. Ive had bones broken by albigs, 4ft long, Ive never been bite by my 6ft 4 incher.
If you work with or handle monitors it is bound to happen, you will get bitten sooner or later. Ive been keeping them for over 14 years. Ive had a water monitor bite my ankle as it ran past, luckily it was only 4ft long and I had jeans on, not much to worry about. Its funny reading the comment you posted about tame CBB monitors not giving you stitches, lol. THATS A GOOD ONE, LOL.
Of course by all means post opinion, but have some fact or experience to back it up.

-"All dogs have much smaller teeth (this was bred into them by humans who feared larger teeth), and much weaker jaws, wolves are proven to produce much higher bite forces."-
You are aware that dogs have been bred to fight people and other dogs in war and for entertainment for thousands of years, right? I don't think small teeth and a weak bite fits that job description. In fact, I am willing to testify that dog teeth are not small. They are very big and hurt like the dickens. They are certainly bigger than monitor teeth.

The first responce up to this one a few times.
I agree, you are far more likely to be injured, bit, and need professional medical care from an encounter with a dog, thats true, I agree completely. I myself have a medium sized dog, a very very very powerful breed of dog that is according to the CDC, a danger to toddlers and small children, or rather according to their mixed up dog bite surveys.
The average person who gets bit by a monitor gets bit by young small monitors, not by one of adult size, but it can happen, and does. If you get bit by a dog seriously you face a different type of injury than most large monitor species, they have a different method of biting. But to compare bite force alone, the monitor of similar size will do some serious crushing damage, the dog wont.
Check for yourself, all dog breeds have the same skull, just a different size, the flesh and cartilage around is what is different from one to another. Determining factors of species with canines, skull shape, tooth size, etc. Therefore no breed of dog can have an advantage in jaw pressure by design from one to another, this was the point in mentioning it. The advantage proven in jaw pressure so far has been to jaw size, and leverage.
By all means, I myself like dogs, I like to look at what has been proven by the CDC survey as to prevent bites on people, that is such small numbers occured with dogs on leashes, tied out, or under direct control of their owner. What this means is irresponsible ownership, not the dogs fault. In fact Ive had far more close calls with dogs in my life than with reptiles at all, yet Ive only ever had one dog, again, irresponsible ownership, a few bites also.

I'm glad that you agree that dogs are as much or more of a threat to people than monitors.
I agree that they have different types of bites and that dog attacks are mostly the fault of irresponcible owners.
On the skull issue though, I did do research and here is what I found;

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/pug-skull.html

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/doberman-pinscher-skull.html

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/rottweiler-skull.html

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/pit-bull-terrier-skull.html

Also, I didn't notic that first thing you said in the post at first. I did defend against certain points that were not really relavent to the topic and I did have one point in my first responce to you that was unfounded. However, the basis of my argument has never changed, just had a few branches.

I just have my own opinions and am expressing them. If it upsets you, then don't read them.