Is it time to ban pit bulls? : Lone Star Times

Is it time to ban pit bulls?

by RickG · 07/02/2007 6:51 pm

The Chronicle informs us of yet another child attacked by a pit bull (fortunately, unlike the other recently publicized attack, this child lived):

A 6-year-old Houston boy spent three hours in surgery Sunday after being bitten in the face by a pit bull, his father said today.

“They stopped counting (stitches) at about 200,” Brandon Palomo said, referring to repairs surgeons did on the face of his son, Logan Palomo, between noon and about 3 p.m. Sunday.

Knowing that this will infuriate the pit bull owners, is it time to ask the question: Should possession of these animals be banned?

What harm would come to society if these dogs no longer existed? Is there some organism on the food chain (other than 6 year old boys) which would propagate to unhealthy proportions without the culling skills of pit bulls?

I am not swayed by pit bull owners who say these dogs are just like other dogs, but are discriminated against. The problem with this argument is that it is false. Even the simplest of research reveals that studies consistently find that a single breed of dog is responsible for more attacks than any other. Guess what that breed is?

Studies show that pit bulls are the breed most responsible for incidents of dog bites, committing between 30% and 50% of all dog attacks. The studies also show that they commit twice to four times the attacks of the next most vicious dog breed. (Anecdotally, I spoke to a police officer who told me that, during his career, well over 90% of dog attacks he personally responded to involved pit bulls.)

So it is not just adverse publicity that makes it seem like pit bulls are more dangerous - it is the facts that show this to be true.

Neither am I impressed by the argument that pit bulls can be great pets, but they require more training, socialization and human interaction than most dogs. That is actually an argument in favor of getting rid of them. If they can’t be relied upon not to kill you without undergoing special training and treatment, why in the world would they be allowed to roam free?

With respect, pit bull owners are not the folks who should decide the fate of this breed. Dog owners, like parents, are protective of their “children.” They say, and truly believe, that there is nothing wrong with their animals, that it is the victim’s fault, or that it is a conspiracy by pit bull haters to paint their animals in a bad light. In fact, a government study suggested that pit bull owners frequently don’t tell the truth when asked about the history of their dogs. They often deny or minimize prior incidents which could be harbingers of future tragedies. In fact, the study suggests that neighbors and acquaintances are far better sources of accurate information about the dog’s behavior than the owners themselves.

On the other hand, some owners of pits involved in attacks can claim, with no evidence to the contrary, that their animals were always loving, gentle creatures who never before exhibited dangerous tendencies. If this is true, isn’t it all the more reason to ban or restrict this breed? After all, if the animal is so unpredictable and volatile that it could attack “out of the blue,” do we really want it chasing frisbees at the back yard barbeque?

A country neighbor of mine is a pit bull owner who trains his dogs to hunt and kill wild hogs. That pit has also been known to kill neighborhood pets. But my neighbor tells me the dog would never hurt a human. That’s what most pit bull owners say - including owners of dogs who attack people. (Though we are friendly, my neighbor is aware that his pits are subject to summary execution if found on my property.)

Rightly or wrongly, many countries and local governments have enacted legislation prohibiting the possession of these dogs. The UK banned the animals in 1991, under something called the Dangerous Dogs Act. Norway long ago banned most pit variants; France has restrictions on who can own them and requires them to be neutered. Harlem, Bronx and Yonkers, NY, instituted bans within the last year. Denver banned the dogs in 2005, as did Queens, NY. Bans have been proposed in the last year in such diverse places as New York City, Tupelo, MS and Richland, Washington.

Based on my personal experience and research on the issue, I have no qualms about any governing jurisdiction considering a ban on these animals in the interest of public safety. This is not because they occasionally bite people - every breed of dog has done this - but because they have proven to be the most dangerous, far and away ahead of any other type of dog. And, the wounds left from such an attack are more severe than those left by most dogs. (This is not just a matter of personal freedom. A man’s rights to do as he please end when his activities endanger others.)

So, you pit bull owners about to blow a gasket, your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to tell the rest of us: (1) Why you own a pit bull despite objective evidence showing them to be far more dangerous than other breeds of dog; (2) Why you could not do without a pit bull just fine; (3) Why you oppose a ban or severe restrictions on ownership of this breed of dog. As an alternative to a ban, would you support civil and criminal liability as to owners of pit bulls who injure others?

Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · Print This Post ··

Comments

87 Responses to “Is it time to ban pit bulls?”

american woman on July 2nd, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Maybe instead of a ban on pit bull ownership, there needs to be a psychological test done on those who are determined to own one. Facts show the pit bull is dangerous, and cannot ever be trusted. I think of the grandma who left her toddler grandaughter out in the yard with the pit and how he mauled her to death every time this comes up. That family was so surprised because the pit had always been docile and good with the children…… until… Yes criminal liability for owners of pits who injure others.
Braz0s on July 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm

Kudos for one of the best, most well balanced articles I’ve read on the subject.
I’m a dog person too (mutts) - mine will bark at you - but once you’re acknowledged as a friend, they’re pussycats.
southerntragedy on July 2nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm

In my old neighborhood, one of our “less liked” neighbors let his pitbull roam free in our hood, breaking the City of Houston ordinance. He killed 3 of my neighbors dogs, and mauled mine, which required THREE surgeries, and maimed another neighbors up the street to where she had it put to sleep. All of our dogs were in OUR yard, or were on a leash, walking down the street. I think you get the picture of how I feel about them. BTW: I’ve owned one, and made sure he stayed in our yard at all times. He was a great dog (God rest his soul), but it only takes ONCE.

This is just what I received from my homeowners insurance company renewal today:

Dog Exclusion Endorsement

(They will not cover any claim whether owned by me or in my possession or control)

Pit bulldog or Staffordshire terrier (or any other breed referred to as such)

Rottweiler
Chow
Doberman (the only doberman’s I’ve ever know were actually, the biggest woosies)
headshaker on July 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Send all pit bulls to Iraq
Owen Courrèges on July 2nd, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Ok headshaker, THAT was funny.
NAT PIERCE on July 2nd, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Before I read ST’s #3 the comment would have been, license the owner.

Bender and Binder Attorneys at Law LLP need to tear that insurance company a new one.

I’ve had half the dogs on the list and loved them; a buddy bought a bull to protect his children.

I think it is not the dog; it is how you raise them. Of course, responsible dog ownership is like responsible parenting or responsible citizenship, we don’t have to restrain ourselves any more, we need no self discipline, aunty nanny and her cousins will take care of us.
NAT PIERCE on July 2nd, 2007 at 8:22 pm

Aunty nanny says:

Get a Poodle.
Owen Courrèges on July 2nd, 2007 at 8:26 pm

I’m highly skeptical of breed-specific bans. Experience in Canada suggests that irresponsible dog owners who seek out aggressive breeds simple end up turned to dobermans or German Shepherds, and there is no overall decrease in dog attacks. It may be that pit bulls aren’t exceptionally more aggressive than other breeds — they’re simply more likely to be bought by people prone to being irresponsible owners.

In any event, I would agree that increased liability (criminal and civil) is warranted for owners of dangerous breeds who have a history of failing to control their animals. I’m just not sure that a total ban will do anything other than ignite expensive and passionate legal battles, as has been the case in other states. Bans are difficult to maintain; liability is a far simpler route.
TEX06 on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm

Just a casual observation.

About 98 percent of pit bull owners are certified “White Trash”

Yes I know ‘em when I see ‘um. Learned all about them [white trash that is] while growing up.

It would serve the culture good to legislate both species out of existance!
DanielJames on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Severe civil and criminal penalties.
Rastus on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Nanny, Nanny, Nanny. Start with a ban on the automobile if you want to get rid of dangerous things. I’m not certain where dogs fit into the dangerous object mix relative to say cell phones or hamburgers. Start here, and where does it end? All dogs will bite.
vlou on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Yes, there is overwhelming evidence these dogs are dangerous to others.
southerntragedy on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:19 pm

#4: Shakey, now THAT was funny!

#6 Nat: We have LEASH and LICENSE laws in the City, but he always managed to play the race card. I did manage to get his female hauled off, when I called animal control, but his male always seemed to “tied up” at the time. /please don’t even get me started about my neighbor. I’ve got pictures, vet bills, and filed a small claims court, but he moved, and was MY responsiblity to get his new address. Couldn’t find it and now the statute of limitations ran out. It took me forever to pay off the loan, but my dog is a member of my family, and he will slow down a burglar while I’m loading my gun..not to mention what a great bird dog he is!

#9: I hope I classify as the 2 percent! /did you know Brittany Spears?
IBreakCellphones on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Liability for all dogs. And children. (Yes, I’m a parent.)
Dave D on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:41 pm

O.K. Here goes, I’m not going to make anyone happy! BUT,… I’ve owned dogs all my life, since I wuz, knee-high to a grass-hopper, and I do know this! Some breeds have been bread by man to do certain things, Bird dogs and Border Collies come to mind. I’ve owned many coon dogs, Blue Ticks, Red Bones, no Walker Dogs. They are not mean, they chase for the sport/fun of the event, and I’ve seen 4 or 5 hounds, whipped by one mad coon! They just don’t have it in them to be mean. That said, I had a German Shepherd once, one of the smartest dogs that I’ve ever owned and he obeyed me to the letter unless he saw another dog, he would rip them apart! He was never bad around people, but he didn’t like dogs. My Dad had a Doberman and they are Wusses! They have to be taught to be mean! A pit Bull is bread to kill at all cost! My neighbor had one as a pup and when I was fixing my fence my Black Lab came into their back yard and he instinctively grabbed her by the neck. I picked his little A$$ up, and threw him over the fence! The point is, that he knew what to do! I told Chris that he needed to get rid of him but he said the same thing that all Pit-bull owners say “He’s not mean” They got rid of the dog when he took neighbor’s kid’s ear off! Fortunately they didn’t get sued! My point is that I hate the “DAMN GUB’MENT” telling me what I can and can’t do,…but if you live in the city maybe we need some laws to protect the idiots from themselves?!?! I can’t believe I ‘m on the side of any Gub’ment on this one! Stick a fork in me I’m done!
Dave puts up his “Soap-Box” and hangs his head in shame!! I hate to betray man’s best friend!
TexVex on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm

I’m still waiting for the answers to RickG’s three excellent questions…
Dave D on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:48 pm

ONE MORE THING! Senator’s Vest’s Tribute to the Dog.
http://www.pawsshelter.org/dogtribute.html
mathaholica on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Let them have their pits if we get to neuter the owner first. If it bites someone the owner and the dog get to be put down together. The gene pool is improved either way.
Dave D on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:53 pm

#14 IBreakCellPhones, I’ve had both dogs, cats, and kids, guess which ones do the most damage to the house! You got it,….The kids!! It always made me wonder about the pet deposits in a apartment!
Owen Courrèges on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm

TexVex,

Ok.

1) Why you own a pit bull despite objective evidence showing them to be far more dangerous than other breeds of dog?

I don’t own a pit bull. I down two mutts, one primarily a Beagle, the other mostly Yorkshire terrier (small dogs). However, if I did own a pit bull, I’d defend it by saying that there is scant evidence to show that pit bulls are per se more dangerous than dobermans, German Shepherds, or many other large dogs. They’re stronger, but I don’t think there’s some psychological disorder bred into pit bulls. They are statistically more likely to bite, but as I noted earlier, you’ll probably see neglectful owners simply switch to other breeds and the overall attack statistics will remain the same. I believe that’s what happened when Winnipeg banned pit bulls.

(2) Why you could not do without a pit bull just fine?

Because people love their dogs, even when that dog happens to be a pit bull. They don’t want a law passed that will have the practical effect of forcing them to hand over their beloved pet to be euthanized.

(3) Why you oppose a ban or severe restrictions on ownership of this breed of dog. As an alternative to a ban, would you support civil and criminal liability as to owners of pit bulls who injure others?

I think my former answers explain why I’m skeptical of a ban. I don’t think pit bulls are a particularized risk that can be cured by an outright ban. However, I would not oppose enhanced civil and criminal liability. In fact, I would definitely support it. I know here in Louisiana, we already have strict liability for harm caused by dogs.
bbrettell on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:56 pm

OK, here goes. Pitties (yes, I have them) are no worse (or better) behaved than their owners, reports of the media aside (yeah, they’re biased, but that ain’t news). Dogs can’t read, so I think bans are stupid from the outset. Further, they are akin to the same old “judging a book by its cover” that I was told was wrong. Oh yeah, and they don’t work (there’s REAL facts that show that). Finally, not sure what “studies” the author is referencing that support her point, but I’m unaware of a single, peer-reviewed, scientifically constructed study in the public domain that supports the conclusion that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous than any other type of dog. I’ve had this debate with Dr. Alan Beck (do your research here) and he was unable to point to any evidence to support that conclusion, either, so there’s that. Add in the inability to properly identify suspect dogs, the utter failure of animal control to enforce current laws (leash, etc.) and the ever-present “only the law-abiding suffer at the hands of dumb laws” and you’ve got the perfect storm of bad public policy. Cheers!
TexVex on July 2nd, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Owen, fair enough. Thank you.
tedtam on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:01 pm

We had a mail carrier mauled by three pit bulls in our neighborhood. They were fenced at the time. When they wanted out, they got out. Obviously restraint laws are not enough. IMHO, pit bulls are not only butt-ugly, but they are desired only because they compensate for some deficiency of their owners. Why else keep such a disgusting danger in your home?
bbrettell on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 pm

In all the to-and-fro I forgot to get to the dog-fighting issue. Pitties that are used to fight (think Michael Vick here) are selected for human passivity. For the WT folks (like me, right) that means that, as the the fight-dog owners say, “man eaters die.” That about does it for the whole argument. Now, can we all get back to enacting rational laws like restricting foie gras consumption. Geez, you Texans!
Dave D on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:05 pm

Owen, You are as smart as I am,…I know this because I’ve read some of your posts. I too used to think that it was all the owners fault, but I know that this is not true. Read my #15. My German Shepherd was treated like one of the family but he still didn’t like other dogs.
bbrettell on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Sorry, TedTam, couldn’t hear you through my extremely small ear - guess that’s what I’m compensating for, huh? I’m gonna take a flier here and bet that I’m more (even better) educated than you and in a tax bracket you can only dream about. So, I’m not sure (other than the ear thing) what exactly I’d be compensating for, but I’m open to suggestions. Cheers!
gadboy on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:21 pm

I have waded through all these arguments and there are good points on both sides. But at the end of the day, I think we do need to ban these these bogs from urban and suburban areas where there is a good chance they can come into contact with large numbers of people. We can say over and over again that they are not inherently more dangerous than other dogs, but when was the last time someone Poodle jumped the fence and mauled the mailman. Nothing else has seemed to work , so I think a ban is the next step.
Dave D on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm

For tedtam and bbrettell, My Lil’ Sister has a saying for it “The LDS Syndrome” You do the math, but it works more often than not! ;=)
gadboy on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm

This is the first time I have ever agreed with TedTam but I have to on this one.
gadboy on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Does “L” stand for little, “S” for syndrome and we can figure out the other?
Dave D on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm

gadboy, You got it!
Dave D on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:43 pm

BTW; gadboy ,…this may be the first time we’ve agreed on anything! It just shows to go Ya! We all (at LST) have more in common with each other than otherwise! Cheers!
gadboy on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:44 pm

I have worked around some extremely dangerous animals, but I don’t want to be anywhere close to a pit bull.
little mikey on July 2nd, 2007 at 10:46 pm

# 18 mathaholica

Brilliant!
Hamous on July 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 pm

#9 TEX06 sez:

About 98 percent of pit bull owners are certified “White Trash”

What a derogatory statement. Funny thing is, here in the barrio where I live, 98% of pit bull owners are certified Hispanic gang-banger wannabees. We’ve had to call the cops out several times for pit bulls attacking the neighborhood children. Should we legislate Hispanic gang-banger wannabees out of “existance” (sic) too?
NAT PIERCE on July 3rd, 2007 at 12:01 am

I like big dogs, I own big dogs.

I just deleted a long schpeal about licensing and it came down to somebody else’s arbitrary decision and money for the city, that’s not good.

Big dogs are not little dogs, the cute things Pootsy does would be frightening if done by Brutus. People that by animals to enhance their self esteem are the usually the worst owners.

Any person or group that portrays itself aggressively with a large dog, in my opinion is just as legal as a person exhibiting themselves carrying a lethal weapon. A vicious big dog portrayed as a physical weapon is one; and the owner is the operator of that weapon.

They should be regarded and dealt with in that manner.

If one wants to be an out-law, he is an out-law,
lock him up.
T-Hawkk on July 3rd, 2007 at 12:08 am

#19 Did your kids ever infest your house with fleas? Hence, the pet deposit…
Hamous on July 3rd, 2007 at 12:15 am

I grew up with pit bulls. We used them for “catch dogs” for hog hunting. Once they got hold of a hog they would not let go. They never once bit any human or even any of the tracking dogs. But I’m not naive enough to say they aren’t a problem in urban areas. I don’t see an issue with communities passing laws to control certain breeds of dogs that have a history of attacking humans. What ever “peer reviewed” studies have not been done the bottom line is that when you hear about a dog killing a human, more often than not, its not a peek-a-poo, it’s a pit bull.
Sirrus Rider on July 3rd, 2007 at 1:45 am

Number 7 Tell your Aunt Nanny even poodles bite. I have a scar on my butt to prove it. I follow Caesar Milan’s teachings on dog socialization. In most of these cases of pitbull attacks the dogs are chained up in a backyard and are neglected. They may be fed and watered and the “owners” may equate that to “loving” the animal, but the dog also needs exercise, discipline, and affection. Throwing food and water bowls is not love. That’s just tending to the dog’s most base physiological needs. The dog needs to be walked by the owner to re-inforce that the owner/human is the pack leader and is to be obeyed.

The same people who call for breed bans are the same bleeding hearts who advocate gun control. It’s roughly the same arguement and thought process. Blame the object/dog not the person controlling the object/dog.
Sirrus Rider on July 3rd, 2007 at 2:17 am

Tex06 Who owns Pitbull depends on where in the city you live. In the 3rd ward the pit bull owner is likely to be black and answering to the N-word by looks and lack of class..
saoder on July 3rd, 2007 at 7:13 am

I would agree that pit bulls tend to be more aggresive than other breeds of dogs. If you ban the pit, people will just get a rott or chow or other breed of dog. Increase civil and criminal penalties for people who have aggressive dogs that attack, and put down dogs that have attacked people or other animals. I do not agree with govermant bans on them, we are turning into (if we aren’t already one) a nanny state as it is.
btoellner on July 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 am

Before I answer these questions, I have a couple of comments:

1) Using dog attack/fatality numbers is a very dangerous thing. If the only factor you look at in dog attacks is breed, the only correlation you get will be breed. If they were to determine that 80% of dog attacks came from chained dogs, and pit bulls (because of their attractiveness a certain segment of the population) are 500% more likely to be chained than, say, Labradors, then if you only looked at breed, you’d never find the other correlations. There are many factors in dog attacks than just breed.

2) “Pit bulls” is a loose term that refers to anywhere from 3-6 different breeds of dogs. “Pit bulls” is a grouping –which dramatically inflates their numbers because it contains multiple breeds. Things wouldn’t look very good for Labs or Golden Retrievers if we grouped about 8 different breeds together and called them “retrievers” either.

3) People often talk about the UK having banned pit bulls — it should be noted that in their dog bite (and serious dog bite) numbers have continued to grow at an alarming pace since their ban. They had a 34% increase in attacks from 1998-2006 — 5-15 years after the ban took affect. It has been a completely ineffective policy for them, and everywhere else it has been implemented.

On to the questions:

(1) Why you own a pit bull despite objective evidence showing them to be far more dangerous than other breeds of dog;

I did the research before getting the dog, and actual adopted a pit bull because they were so hard for shelters to adopt out…I was skeptical at first (because I believed editorials like this one), but through research, realized there are many factors in dog attacks, and breed is only a minor one. I have 3 great, loving pets.

(2) Why you could not do without a pit bull just fine;

Anyone who has a pet would know the connection people have with their pets. I’d never want my dogs to be taken away.

(3) Why you oppose a ban or severe restrictions on ownership of this breed of dog.

Time and time again, breed bans/restrictions have proven to be ineffective policy. Instead of wasting police/animal control resources rounding up “pit bulls”–most of which are wonderful family pets, I want them focusing their resources on ANY BREED of dog that is potentially dangerous or running stray…German Shepherd, Chow, Doberman, Rotty, whatever. Pretty much all problem dogs can be tracked now under current animal control laws (leash laws, cruetly, strays, etc) — so the only thing a breed ban does is round up dogs that weren’t a problem in the first place.

As an alternative to a ban, would you support civil and criminal liability as to owners of pit bulls who injure others?

I support harsh civil and criminal liability to owners of any dog that attacks someone. Why wouldn’t we? And why would we make that breed specific? If someone’s golden retreiver attacks me, the owner should be held liable just the same.
Broc on July 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 am

Maybe something I have seen that others have not in reference to Pitt’s is that they are not a fight or flight dog in my experience.
I believe this is what makes them more dangerous. Most dogs I have dealt with in the past are what I call fight or flight dogs. If they have the chance to run they will, they do not just attack. If cornered then yes any animal will fight. But Pitts are different. They have a extremely strong fight mentality. I believe thats the reason they use them as fighting dogs. My neighbor has 2 and they would come into my yard and growl and bark at me.
I would walk at them and yell at them BY NAME to leave and they would stand their ground and growl. Now on the flip side if a lab or most other dogs I have been around goes into someone else’s yard, they are not as aggressive outside of their property. I think of Pitts as the lion’s of the dog world. They think where ever they go, they are in charge. Any animal that is that fearless in my opinion is a danger to society.
Where I live there is no pound, so things are handled easily with my neighbors pitts. A simple phone call explaining that I have the legal right to kill any aggressive dog in my yard took care of the problem without issue.
As far as a ban goes, leave up to the people. I don’t think many people were upset when they no longer allowed people to have pet lions or tigers in the city limits. I would say put it to a vote. Let the citizens decide what they want in their neighborhoods.
esbee on July 3rd, 2007 at 10:33 am

I should hate pitbulls because I lost a dog and cat to pitbull attacks. Also lost another cat to husky and shephrd mix attacks. but if you outlaw one breed, those who like this breed will only replace it with another, perhaps more vicious breed (see presa canario) and then you have to outlaw the next breed…where will it end….what you have to do is enforce the laws already on hand then go after the drug dealers/gang bangers who really like this type of dog. No, that would be too easy, better to pick on those law abiding citizens who can’t/won’t hurt you back!
esbee on July 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 am

statistics show that almost 10 times more children die in pool accidents than are killed by dogs…both are horrible ways to die…shall we outlaw pools?
gadboy on July 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 am

Here is how we end this quickly;
1) Start by picking up every Pit Bull that is not tagged and on a leash.
2)Start charging every owner of a Pit Bull who attacks another animal or a human with Felony assault.
3)Euthanise every Pit Bull who is involved in an attack and is not claimed by an owner.
Bill F on July 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 am

Easy answer. Treat them the same as you would treat tigers, lions, etc. Require a dangerous animal permit. The permit should cost enough to fund several inspectors who will go to each permit holder’s home at least twice a year to inspect the kennel in which the animal is kept. The requirements for the kennel should be just as stringent as the regs for lions, tigers, etc to keep the dogs from getting out. Simply having a fenced back yard is not enough.

Any pit found to be out in public would be taken the the shelter where it would be euthanized within 5 days if not claimed. If claimed, the owner would first have to explain how the animal got out and provide written documentation of modifications to prevent a future occurrence before being allowed to take the animal home. The first escape would get a $500 fine…the second escape would be a $1000 fine and the animal gets euthanized.

Any owner found to be owning a pit without a permit would have the dog confiscated and held for 10 days to give the owner time to obtain a permit. The fine for not having the permit will be the same as the 2nd escape fine $1000. If a pit attacks anybody (including family), the dog is euthanized…no appeals…and the owner is fined $1000 plus medical/vet costs for the victim. The owner also loses their right to have a permit for life if they have a dog attack anybody or anything.

These dogs clearly qualify as dangerous animals for their ability and propensity to kill or seriously maim other people and animals. We should regulate them as such, and if people can;t afford to house them properly and prevent them from attacking others, they shouldn;t be allowed to own them. Period.
bigjolly on July 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 am

#39 Sirrus Rider

The same people who call for breed bans are the same bleeding hearts who advocate gun control. It’s roughly the same arguement and thought process. Blame the object/dog not the person controlling the object/dog.

I hate it when my SW646 357 digs out of it’s case and shoots someone. Absolutely hate it. And when I grab it to put it back in, it tries to take off again.
btoellner on July 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 am

A couple of comments:

#46 “Start charging every owner of a Pit Bull who attacks another animal or a human with Felony assault” I agree (on the human’s front), but why single out pit bulls? If a lab seriously mauls someone, they should be held to the same standard. Other animals are a little different IMO — while tragic, someone letting their cat run loose outside and it gets attacked by a dog, doesnt’ seem like a felony to me…if it is, a lot of retriever-type dogs are going to get arrested too.

#43 “I would say put it to a vote. Let the citizens decide what they want in their neighborhoods.” - Sadly, many people would vote for pit bull bans. Many people would also vote to kill gay people, and to resegregate blacks into their own schools, and reinstitute slavery. What people want isn’t always the best thing…which is why there’s a difference between Democracy and Freedom…

#47 “These dogs clearly qualify as dangerous animals for their ability and propensity to kill or seriously maim other people and animals.” - How exactly do they “clearly qualify”? There’s no valid statistical evidence to support this.

#45 “statistics show that almost 10 times more children die in pool accidents than are killed by dogs…both are horrible ways to die…shall we outlaw pools” - Cars kill 45,000 people per year. Pit bulls kill on average about 4. If we were really all that concerned about safety we’d quit manufacturing automobiles and make everyone ride the bus. People only care about “safety” as long as it’s convenient for them and they’re enforcing it on someone else…

Something like 10,000 kids a year are killed by their own parents…I think we should ban parents also…
bigjolly on July 3rd, 2007 at 11:47 am

#49 btoellner says

I think we should ban parents also,

If only we had a competency test that could sort them out.
Bill F on July 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 pm

#49

Lots of kids die in pools…yep, you are right. And the city and county have very specific regulations on how pools have to be fenced, at what point pools have to have a lifeguard, etc. People who violate those rules can be fined for it. The difference is that your pool isn’t going to get out of your backyard and roam the neighborhood on its own. For somebody to get to your pool, they either have to have your permission, or be trespassing. So long as you have taken appropriate steps to prevent the trespassing, such as putting up a fence, locking the gate, etc., then you are generally absolved of responsibility for an incident involving a trespasser. That leaves you responsible for people you have granted permission to enter the pool and over who you have some responsibility to ensure that they safely use your pool. If somebody dies in your pool, you can bet that police will talk to you as the owner of the pool and determine to what degree you are responsible for what happened, and if it was somebody else’s kid that died, you can bet that there will be some examination of your financial liability as well.

The same could be said for dangerous animals. If the animal is locked away in a kennel, and a kid reaches in without your permission and gets attacked…then you have a greatly reduced level of responsibility when compared to somebody who let their animal run free and had it attack a kid playing in the neighbor’s front yard. The problem in most cases is that as soon as the dog attacks somebody, it becomes a “stray”. In other words, the owner won’t claim it and face the legal and financial liability of dealing with the consequences of the actions of their dog. You do not have the same option with a swimming pool. If a kid drowns in it you can’t claim it is a “stray pool” and wash your hands of the responsibility.

And what about cars? You have to pass a test in order to drive one. The law requires that you have insurance in order to drive one. You have to have a license plate that clearly identifies your car with a unique number and an inspection sticker that proves that your car met the minimum requirements to be considered safe for operation on the road. All of the things I suggested for dangerous animals are things we require for cars.

We don’t “ban” cars and pools…we just put strict requirements on how they must be operated and what you must do in order to prevent liability for incidents involving them. The same should apply to pit bulls and other dangerous breeds.

And a note on statistics. Not all dog attacks are the same. A lab biting somebody and leaving a bruise or a minor puncture wound on their arm or butt isn’t the same as a pit bull biting the face off a toddler and requiring over 200 stitches. Sure, plenty of other dog breeds may “attack” people and skew the statistics to make pit bulls look less dangerous. But the overwhelming number of “serious” dog attacks involving death or severe injury involve a very small set of dog breeds (pits, chows, rotts, etc). So just using labs or other dogs as a strawman to defend the pits doesn’t work. I can’t recall the last time I heard of a family’s golden retriever tearing the face off of their toddler because he tried to hug the dog goodnight. I wonder why that is? Oh yeah…probably because I have NEVER heard of a family’s golden retriever tearing the face off of their toddler.
Bill F on July 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 pm

#49

BTW, here are your stats. CDC did a study published in 2000 ([url]http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf[/url]), that looked at breed specific attacks. Of the 238 attacks that resulted in a dog-bite related fatality (DBRF) in which a breed of dog was known from 1979-1998, 120 (just over 50%) involved pit bulls or rottweilers. Another 57 (24%) involved german shepherds, dobermans, and chows. So during that period approximately 75% of fatal dog attacks were by those 5 breeds.

Keep in mind that as CDC discusses in their report, those statistics don’t factor in number of dogs of any given breed owned in the US. So unless you believe that those 5 breeds constitute 75% of the dogs owned in the US, then you have to accept that they are more likely than other breeds to cause fatalities. Pit bulls in particular were responsible for 32% of the attacks alone. So even if you assume that they make up 5% of the dog population (which is undoubtedly too high), that means they are over 6 times more likely to be responsible for a fatal attack.

Interestingly, the CDC points out that the fatality stats follow the pattern of which breed is the popular “aggressive” dog breed for a given period of time. They point out that breed bans are unproven and will likely leed to choosing another “aggressive” breed by the population that wants those dogs. They instead recommend aggressive enforcement of leash laws and aggressive liability for owners, including banning repeat offenders from owning dogs. Their study points out that 82% of the fatalities involved unrestrained dogs, with 24% involving unrestrained dogs on somebody else’s property. That is why I recommended focusing on how the owner keeps the dog and making sure that responsibility for the owner is stiffly enforced. If people switch to a new breed to become their “attack dogs”, then it is a simple matter of adding that breed to the list requiring a permit if or when it becomes a nuisance.

They also point out that as the # dogs of a given aggressive breed increases, the stats will likely become more skewed than they already are. I can’t imagine that newer statistics would find that pits are less common now than they were in 1998, so I would imagine that a newer study of this type will find an even higher prevalence of DBRFs by pits.
Bill F on July 3rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm

#49 (my last post with this info disappeared…so here it is again)

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

Pit bulls, rotts, german shepherds, dobermans, and chows account for about 75% of fatal dog attacks from 1979 to 1998. Pit bulls made up 32% by themselves. Over 80% of fatal attacks were by unrestrained dogs, with 24% occurring on somebody else’s property. CDC believes breed bans are unlikely to be effective and recommends strong enforcement of do restraint laws and strong measures to force owners to accept responsibility and liability for their dogs, including bans on ownership by repeat offenders.
Bill F on July 3rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Ooops…there it is now…sorry for the double.
btoellner on July 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Bill F — Thanks for the good take on the CDC stats. Most peole read the chart, but not the rest of the study. I don’t question that pit bulls are responsible for more attacks than other breeds. However, as you nicely note, there are a lot of other factors involved (chaining, abusive behavior, etc). It doesn’t seem like a coincidence to me that BY FAR the largest number of severe abuse cases I see involve “pit bulls”. I guess I’d expect that abuse cases and severe attacks would overlap…which makes it seem like an owner issue, vs a breed issue.

Also, on the CDC issue, no doubt that large breed dogs are going to be more of a danger than Pomeranians and Cocker Spaniels (which are both on the list). But without population numbers, how can we tell whether a pit bull is more dangerous than a Chow, Rottweiler, Akita, Mastiff, Presa Canerio, etc. We can’t. Pit bulls easily outnumber these dogs…but it’s difficult to tell how much.

Here’s a link to your Golden Retriever story from a couple months ago. It’s a lot more common than you think, and a lot more common than is reported in the newspapers…http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa070322_kd_dogmaul.821fe3a.html
RickG on July 3rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm

51, 52 Bill

Excellent posts. That is one of the studies I looked at before writing the article. I find it amazing how folks can be so passionate about defending their animals that, like some posters here, deny that there is any study which supports any claim of dangerousness with respect to pit bulls. They are just wrong, and facts are there are a number of studies and they are largely consistent.

Facts are stubborn things.
btoellner on July 3rd, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Rick and Bill,

If you’re interested in the facts and more reading — check out this book: “Fatal Dog Attacks, the Facts Behind the Statistics”. http://www.fataldogattacks.com/#FDA

This author goes through every fatal dog attack and looks at how the dog was kept, the victim, etc. Read the book, and you’ll see that there is a lot more in play in these types of attacks than the breed of dog. The problem with all the statistics is if you only study dog attacks based on breed, that is the only correlation you’ll ever find…and there are other determining factors.
Bill F on July 3rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm

btoellner,

I disagree that that golden attack is similar to what we have seen from pits. First, the attack was provoked (albeit lightly so) by the kid stepping on the dog’s paw. If you cause pain to a dog, they will bite…the kid’s face just happened to be at bite height. But more importantly, this dog had a history of biting that was recognized by the owner (and should have resulted in euthanasia). Therefore, having a dog with a history of biting (especially kids) that bites a kid when provoked by the kid causing pain is not surprising at all. That hardly falls into the “my pit bull was an absolute baby who never showed any aggression until he pulled the toddler’s face off with no provocation” pattern of pit bull attacks.

As for the webpage you cited, it would appear that nothing Ms. Delise has said in her advertisement contradicts what I said above. I never contested the fact that there are reasons that go beyond breed for every dog attack. But the statistics don’t lie and Ms. Delise apparently makes no attempt to refute them. Over 50% of the fatal dog attacks committed between 1979 and 1998 were by pit bulls or rottweilers. You can try to spin that number any way you want (as Ms. Delise clearly tries with her 20-25 attacks per year “should” happen argument), but the simple fact is that rottweilers and pits do not make up 50% of the dogs owned in the US, and therefore on that single statistic alone, it is obvious that they are more likely to be involved in a fatal attack than other species. I am not arguing that there are not reason why they end up involved in those attacks (genetics or owner), but the simple fact is that they are. There are certain breeds of dogs that are large enough and vicious enough to kill or severely wound a human or another dog, that when not raised properly tend towards uncontrolled or unpredictable aggression, and that appear to be the breed of choice for people who want a “mean dog”. Given that set of facts, we should do whatever it takes to make sure that we are in a position to hold the owners of those dogs responsible for the actions of their dog. We can argue about what that means or how to implement it, but the model used for exotic cats such as tigers and such seems to make the most sense, and allows people to keep their dogs, while making sure that the public is safe.
hilost on July 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Kudos to researching the CDC…but does not everyone realize that most members of the bully breeds are lumped into one big breed = “pitbulls”. And as the CDC is showing a slight increase in the number of human fatalities related to dog bites/attacks, the Journal of American Veterinary Medicine (JAVMA) does not support breed bans for many reasons of which two include: statistics are always scewed because we will never know the exact number of dogs belonging to one breed at a particular time and the behavior of a dog has to do with both nature versus nurture. Studies of the aftermath in Europe and Canada do not show a decline in attacks, only nummbers of pitbulls. And when it comes to “hearing” of another pitbull attack, let us not forget who is reporting the breed…the media and animal control officers. Been to a shelter lately? Practically all the dogs in there are pits or pit mixes if not shepherd mixes. Come on…there have been American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers, American Bulldogs, etc etc in this country for 100’s of years without all the obssession of banning them. Interestingly enough, many institutions of guidedogs are finding that the dogs are “unnaturally” aggressive and I believe in Liverpool they are doing research into that area. But in the meantime, millions of americans die in car accidents, thousands of US soldiers are being killed in Iraq and we are discussing a ban on a breed that once stood for American values during WWI and WWII. An average of 20 americans are fatally wounded and 1000’s more are injured by dog bites…the question is should we be putting stricter regulations on who gets to own a dog period (regardless if it weighs 5 pounds or 100 pounds)!
btoellner on July 3rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm

The Golden Retreiver incident follows the same pattern as almost all major attacks…previous signs of agression, young kids, inattentive parents, etc. Throw the dog on a chain and you have the recipe for most attacks (or at least a combo of most of those). That’s the point of Karen’s book…that all of the attacks follow the same profile…and breed ends up being irrelevant.

It’s funny that you dismiss the Golden Retriever attack when it’s almost an identical story to the one that prompted this discussion — where a kid “hugged” a pit bull before going to bed. Again, he probably squeezed too hard, and got attacked. It’s not right, but it’s a very similar incident.

I’m in complete agreement with the philosophy of holding owners responsible for the actions of their dogs. I guess with domesticated animals, I believe like everything else we prosecute (severely) after, vs prosecuting beforehand.
Sirrus Rider on July 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm

#48 Good one Big Jolly! However, even though a dog has a will of it’s own (which IS a difference between it and a gun.) like a gun it’s up to the owner to control it. That’s where the discipline aspect comes in to it..
Bill F on July 3rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Hilost,

You need to go back and read that CDC study again. They went to great lengths to weed out dogs where the breed could not be distinguished, and distinguished between “purebred pitbulls” and “pitbull types” as well as describing how they went about assigning crossbreeds. They also had a separate category for “pitbull types” and “bulldogs”. Pit attacks outnumbers the bulldog attacks 78 to 3.

Btoellner,
I am not trying to ignore the golden attack and forgot to mention that ya got me with producing the story when I had never seen one before. The point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between that case where the golden had a clear history of attacks and was clearly provoked (stepped on his foot) and many of the pitbull cases in the news recently where the owner and others swear that the dog has no history of aggression and the “provocation” (hugging the dog in this case) is something totally innocuous that most people to their dogs every day without incident.

What seems to be the pattern expressed by nearly every pit-bull defender is to say that pits “aren’t aggressive naturally” and that “it is only bad ownership” that causes them to become killing machines (”operator error” if you like that phrase?). Ok, fine, I will accept that explanation from you and others…which is why I believe that anybody owning one ought to have to have an “operators” permit showing that they understand the importance of proper “operation” and are willing to commit their personal resources and financial liability to proper “operation” of their pet.
Broc on July 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm

#49
wow playing the race card, never thought I would get that response. I don’t know about you, but I think a vote is hearing what the people want. You might not like the outcome but thats the way it is in a representative republic. If you don’t like the way the vote turns out, move to another city and maybe all the Pit bull lovers can go with you. Eventually you would have enough people to make them not only legal but a requirement in your town.

Comparing something like racism to Pit bull ownership is a huge leap. I would not call a ban on a dog unconstitutional…..But please tell me if you will, why a vote by the people would be considered WRONG in your eyes. Because it might not yield the outcome you want? Funny you think its wrong to deny rights to Pit owners, and I think its wrong to deny rights to a city of voters……..I can see why you are a pit bull defender, logic escapes you.
satexas on July 3rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm

To Tex06- maybe you have come up with your 98% because you surround yourself with trash. You are making a false statement which makes you look ignorant. If you want to make a point,make it a true one! If Pits are banned then me might as well ban any dog over 50 pounds, because that will come next. I want you to know that the research he claims and facts he claims are actually not accurate. That one police officer may respond to more pit bull calls because he may work in a low income area where overall people may tend to be less educated and are more likely to have dogs without adequate care. There are always more factors that what appears to be. Should I hate all journalists for writing inaccurate info- I know that comment is on a much lesser scale, but the same concept. People are quick to point the finger at an animal, instead of taking responsibility for what they have done. Why don’t we ban all men because some choose to sexually abuse little children?!
APBT4me on July 3rd, 2007 at 8:15 pm

To RickG you said that statistics could be stubborn; here are some statistics for you from the American Temperment Test Society, Inc. http://www.atts.org/index.html

ATTS Breed Stats
as of December 2006
AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER 542(Tested)456(Passed)86 (Failed) 84.1%(Percent)
AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER 521(Tested) 437(Passed) 84(Failed) 83.9%(Percent)
STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER 61(Tested) 52(Passed) 9 (Failed)85.2%(Percent)
The above breeds are commanally refered to as “Pit Bulls”. Let’s look at some other breeds I saw mentioned here; shall we?
MINIATURE POODLE 64(Tested) 49(Passed) 15(Failed) 76.6%(Percent)
GOLDEN RETRIEVER 687(Tested) 576(Passed) 111(Failed) 83.8%(Percent)
BORDER COLLIE 230(Tested) 184(Passed) 46(Failed) 80.0%(Percent)
BEAGLE 59(Tested) 47(Passed) 12(Failed) 79.7%(Percent)
COLLIE 811(Tested) 642(Passed) 169(Failed) 79.2%(Percent)
REDBONE COONHOUND 5(Tested) 5(Passed) 0(Failed) 100.0%(Percent)

And to answer your questions:
1)I choose to own pit bulls because to me; they are the greatest breed to walk this earth. People who do not own a pit bull do not understand this. With proper training and a responsible owner pit bulls are the best all around dog out there.

2)I love my dogs and they mean the world to me…I couldn’t do without mine because they are my constant companion; they are loyal and always willing to please their owners to a fault. Again it takes owning a pit bull to understand them. I was like most of you here; I believed the media hype about this dog breed until I got my first one 12 years ago.

3)The problem is not the breed of dog. The problem is the owners that don’t take responsiblity for their dogs; they let them roam, they don’t take proper care of them. They get a dog only to throw it in the backyard most often on a chain to be ignored. Dogs are social creatures that require companionship and training. The other problem is irresponsible parents that leave children alone with dogs…I don’t care what breed of dog it is children need to be supervised around dogs. Children make noise, they make strange jerky movements, they are uncoordinated and a dog does not understand any of that. I would support any law that makes any owner of a dog (any breed) that injures someone liabel.

The media loves the pit bull because “pit bull attack” sells. Interestingly enough just today here in San Antonio one of the news stations did a story on the 150 dogs and cats that have been put in quarrentine at the animal shelter for biting did we hear about all 150? No of course not we heard about the two pit bulls!!!

To Tex06; your comment about “white trash” is not only rude it’s ignorant. Just for your information; I’m white, I’m also a woman; I served over 20 years in the US military and I have a civil service job with the US Government. Oh did I mention that I have tattoos and I own 4 pit bulls. White Trash??? I don’t think so.
Alpha_allie1010 on July 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 pm

I agree with the above comment!! It is not the dogs but the stupid irresponsible owners that are the problems. I have two dogs….one female pit and one male boxer and as far as the comment that since they take more time to train that they should be banned….THAT IS HORSE SHIT!!!My boxer has taken way more training than my pit. I think that people should be evaluated before they can get anydog…not just pitbulls. They are a ton of dog attacks all the time WOAI said 150 in the last two weeks alone but all you hear is how horrible the two pitbulls are!

As far as the Tex06’s comments about 98% of people who own pits being white trash…now that is just stupid. I am white but by no means white trash. I am a college graduate with a degree in Biology and a minor is psych and i graduated with honors at the age of 21, and i live in a beautiful new home that we just built on the northside of town…..I would never consider myself white trash and from the other pitbull owner i have met i would say that the statistic that you pulled out of your ass is way off!

Funny story actually …. I walk my dog a few times a week and I actually had to change my route because people that live two streets over let there two minature poodles roam free and they actually came after my dog pitbull! I had to take her to the vet for stitches from the incedent. She didnt even bit back and the owner came out and started screaming at me like it was my dogs fault. I told the homeowners association about the incedent and showed them pictures of my dog with stitches and all the poodle owners got was a notice of the dog on a leash policy. Not only are pits getting a bad rep but when they are attacked by another dog they get blamed. Its all bullshit! There arent bad dogs, just bad owners!
Bill F on July 3rd, 2007 at 10:59 pm

Great stats from a meaningless test. But they don’t trump the fact that 1/3 of fatal dog attacks were by pit bulls.
Alpha_allie1010 on July 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 pm

I hardly think that it is a meaningless test when it is what is used nationwide when ANY BREED of dog comes into a shelter and it determines if the dog is adoptable or will be put down. I understand that ingorance creates fear and I see why some people are really ignorant about the breed. But the fact of the matter is you cant tell me that i have to get rid of my dog when it did nothing wrong. My dog is a family pet that is hardly ever in a kennel. It sleeps at the foot of my bed everynight and roams my house all day. I am not opposed to alot of the ideas that people are throwing out. I think that there should be a license but not to own a pit but just to own a dog. People are talking about charging people with felonys if there dog attacks. I AM ALL FOR IT….as long as it applies to every dog…purbred and mutts. Any dog that is allowed to roam free should be picked up by animal control for everyones safey and for the dogs. I think the government just needs to crack down on dog owners in general. The rules should apply to everyone!
btoellner on July 4th, 2007 at 9:21 am

Wow Bill. Stats are valuable when they work for you and “meaningless” when they don’t. The test proves that under normal conditions, pit bull type dogs are as stable as almost all other breeds of dogs, and more so than most. Unfortunately, if you spend a few months working in rescue/police work/volunteer work in an inner city somewhere, you see the deplorable conditions many of these dogs are kept in. If they were indeed “naturally vicious”, there were be a LOT more attacks out there than there are. Don’t just dismiss facts that don’t agree with your point of view. THis is why I’ve developed mine is because I’ve studied ALL of the facts on this.

#63, Broc - I noted earlier that there is a difference between Freedom and Democracy. Democracy is where the vote of the majority rules. However, in many cases, if left to the vote of the majority, the minorities out there would be persecuted. That’s why there is this thing called the constitution, to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. There’s a thing in there about property rights, and that property can’t be taken from people without due cause. This is exactly what you’re proposing. Don’t confuse Democracy with Freedom, in many ways, they’re the exact opposite.
Bill F on July 4th, 2007 at 7:01 pm

That test may be what is used in shelters, but those results are not the results from all dogs tested including in shelters. Those are the results from people willing to pay $25 to have the temperment of their dog tested. The results are 100% skewed by what type of owner is willing to pay $25 to have the temperment of their dog tested. In the case of pit bulls and other “mean dogs”, people who don’t care enough to keep their dog in the house and who have the dog specifically because they want a “mean dog” are not going to spend money to have somebody else tell them if it has a nice even temperment.

The reason I call it worthless is because it is portrayed as a random sampling of dogs, when in fact it is not a random sampling at all. What it shows is that of the pit bull owners who care enough to pay to have the temperment of their dog tested, their dogs score about average. The CDC study I cited was truly random, in that there was no “pre-selection” of the dogs in the sample…the dogs in the sample were included because they killed somebody in an attack…and in that random sampling, pit bulls were responsible for 1/3 of all fatal attacks.

I don’t disagree that training has a big part of any dog’s temper, but if you have to specifically train a dog a certain way in order to keep it from killing kids and other people’s pets, then it deserves a special consideration when determining who can own it and under what circumstances they have to keep it. I am not saying to ban it…I am just saying that we should treat it as the dangerous animal that it is and regulate its ownership accordingly.
btoellner on July 5th, 2007 at 9:21 am

But Bill, that’s the whole point. The study, more or less, provides a rational basis for saying that if a “pit bull type dog” is brought up in a good home (one that cares enough to get a $25 test done) they pass temperament tests at a higher rate than the average dog (who’s owners also care enough to pay to take the test). So if the ones with caring owners have good temperaments, there must be something else at play in these fatal attacks.

So if we then make the assumption (which can be proven, but I think we can all make the mental leap) that abused, mistreated and neglected dogs will have worse temperaments than those that are house dogs with good, loving owners. This seems fair.

While there is no statistical way for me to prove this, years of experience in working in inner cities leads me to the conclusion that there are a LOT of pit bull type dogs that live neglected, abused lives. Every time I go through the urban core, the dog that is on a 2-foot long chain attached to a dog house with no water near by, it’s always a pit bull, rottweiler, chow or akita. It’s never a lab or a golden retriever.

So if we accept that under good ownership, pit bulls pass temp tests, and accept that mistreated dogs probably don’t at the same rate, then most attacks will likely come from the breeds that are most likely to be abused and mistreated. And it’d be hard to argue that any other “breed” gets nearly the bad hand in life that pit bulls do…which is why breed bans are not an answer, and vigilant enforcement of cruelty and neglect laws is.
Broc on July 5th, 2007 at 9:30 am

#69

Well I think I understand what the difference is between Democracy and Freedom. Please don’t try and tell me what I am proposing. Did you ever think that MAYBE just MAYBE these dogs being prone to fight is the DUE CAUSE that you are looking for? Apparently you don’t think that animals being prone to fight is not enough due cause to have them removed from city limits. I guess you are angry that people can not have lions in the city as well since it violates their rights to private property.

You make the most ridiculous arguments when trying to support your stance, which I have yet to understand which side of the argument you fall. I think you just like playing the devils advocate, you argue for the sake of argument and its telling from your in ability to make a valid point without going into left field with some silly comparisons.
btoellner on July 5th, 2007 at 10:01 am

Broc, let me spell it out for you:

1) I think the reason “pit bulls” are responsible for more bites than other breeds of dogs is because of external factors such as how they are raised, and having a higher propensity of being abused/mistreated than other breeds of dogs. I base this off of working with these dogs for a number of years and handling hundreds of these dogs. Read #71 above.

2) I believe in my constitutional right to own a dog — whichever kind of dog I want - and dogs are different from Lions in that dogs are domesticated animals.

3) Breed specific laws have a long history of using animal control resources to enforce, that would be better utilized in protecting citizens from aggressive dogs — regardless of breed. Aggressive dogs are dangerous…and should be treated as such. Animal control resources should be used to protect people from aggressive animals…whether it be a pit bull, rottweiler, german shepherd, doberman, whatever. If a pit bull needs to be removed from society, it can be done through an aggressive dog ordinance. Breed ordinances only then get dogs that aren’t aggressive — what sense does that make?

4) The general public is ill informed on how in-depth this issue is. Most go so far as to read the chart on the 7 page CDC report and a couple of newspaper articles to develope their opinion. While virtually every expert and organization that has studied this issue will tell you that breed specific legislation is unnecessary and doesn’t work. So yes, a vote would scare me, because this country has a rich history of having a majority of uneducated people voting to restrict the rights of a minority group…
Bill F on July 5th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

#71 you just made my point brilliantly. If owner neglect is the reason pit bulls are responsible for 1/3 of all fatal dog attacks, then we should create a regulatory scheme that enforces strict requirements for ownership of a pit bull and that penalizes owners who don’t meet those standards of ownership. If you can show me statistics that prove that other breeds are similarly inclined to be vicious and potentially deadly and tie it to neglectful ownership, then great…lets add that breed to the list where an ownership permit is required. Pit bulls have the clear ability and inclination to be deadly if not trained properly by their owner. The statistics prove the dealy part, and you seem to agree that neglectful ownership is likely to be a large or even complete reason for that. So why would you disagree with a regulation that stipulates the type of care an owner must provide? I know you believe all dogs would end up the same way if neglected, but the fatal attack stats don’t show that. So if pits preferentially attract bad owners, then lets regulate those owners and force them to be good owners or give up their dogs. If they move to another breed and the same pattern develops, then we can add that breed to the list. I don’t believe in penalizing all dog owners for what appears to be the failings of a small group of owners who preferentially select a certain breed of dog to neglect.
btoellner on July 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Bill, your stats are in the other 2/3 of fatal dog attacks that you ignoring. While no other one breed sticks out, the sume of their total doubles that of the pit bull attacks…and each of those has its own story of neglect and cruelty. So what happens, under strict ownership requirements, is that pit bull attacks then go down in number, but the irresponsible ownership issue hasn’t been addressed, and attacks by Boxers, Bulldogs, Shepherds, etc go up significantly. Council Bluffs Iowa provides a good example of this. Two years after their pit bull ban went into place, they have more bites than ever before, just the breeds are different.

The kicker is that nearly all communities already have cruelty and neglect laws in place that could removed these dogs from the situation, but most cities lack the animal control resources to properly enforce them. Breed specific legislation even further muddies the water (because then you have breed determination issues that are more difficult than you think since most dogs are mixed breeds), and takes up more resources from handling the mistreatment and neglect issue.

The cities that have been most successful at minimizing dog attacks have been those that have been most vigilant at enforcing leash laws and cruelty/neglect laws that are already on the books…
Bill F on July 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pm

I already cited those stats too. In post 52 I pointed out that 5 breeds are resposible for 75% of all fatal attacks, and in my 51 post, I advocated including them in the regulation along with pit bulls.

The problem with the existing laws is that they were written with nuisance animals in mind. In other words, they were written so that Ms. Jones could call up animal control and complain about the neighbor’s dachshund crapping in her neatly manicured yard of the month. Animal control can come out and write a warning the first time, write a ticket for a paltry fine the next time, and then maybe on the 3rd of 4th time, they might actually take the animal in. Even then, the owner can go to the shelter and get the animal back. It typically takes more than 5 incidents before the owner faces any serious penalty and before they risk losing their dog. It takes even more serious and egregious incidents before they are faced with being forbidden from owning another animal.

Because of the way the laws are written (with nuisance animals in mind), truly dangerous dogs typically cannot be confiscated and their owners cannot be ticketed until either their dog has been involved in a serious attack or until they have been cited multiple times for leash law/neglect violations. What we need are laws written with dangerous dogs in mind that have more teeth than the nuisance laws. Having a pit (or rotty or doberman…etc) in your front yard chasing you away from your mailbox or attacking other dogs on leashes being walked by their owners is a totally different situation than having a dachshund crapping in Ms. Jone’s yard of the month, and our laws and the penalties included in them need to reflect that.

You keep acting as though I want to ban pit bulls (or other dangerous breeds). I am not sure how you keep arriving at that conclusion from what I have written. I stated in my very first post on the subject that I don’t agree with breed bans and I even cited a CDC study that discourages their use. I know fighting the “ban mentality” is an easier strawman to attack, but posing my suggestions as a “ban” in order to argue against them is totally inaccurate and hopefully you know that.

Let me ask you this. Would you agree with the ownership permit if it included every dog? Do you really think that is reasonable? Is it really necessary to treat a mini-chihuahua as a dangerous threat on par with a pit bull? Isn’t that like the security guards at the airport treating an 82 year old lady from North Carolina the same as a 22 year old male from a middle eastern country? We all know the old lady could have a kilo of semtex in with her knitting supplies, but statistics show that a lot more young midlle eastern males are blowing up airliners than grannies from North Carolina. Everybody except the FAA thinks profiling is the responsible way to do airline security…so why shouldn’t we profile dogs and take extra precautions with the ones shown over a long period of time to be more likely to kill than others?
btoellner on July 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pm

“Would you agree with the ownership permit if it included every dog?”

I don’t like the ownership permit as a law, regardless of what dogs its attached to. It’s just one more thing for animal control enforcement to try to enforce, with already strapped funds. This is what people don’t get, if you enact a law, it has to be enforced, which either takes more money, or resources away from something else.

If the laws in your area are written in a way that doesn’t allow the dog to be confiscated until it has bitten someone, then the law needs to be changed. It needs to be written so that any dog (regardless of breed) that continually acts in an aggressive matter can be confiscated (with due process). It also needs to be written so that owners can have their dog confiscated with repeated violations of abuse/negelect/mistreatment.

Enforcement of these types of laws deal with problems…and only problems. They don’t create problems for responsible owners. They don’t give some dogs a free pass because they are not a targeted breed. And it uses resources dealing with dogs (and owners) that are problems…without using resources to deal with non-problems. People are safer. Dogs are safer. And it’s no burden on people who aren’t a problem.
JS5 on July 5th, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Hey Bill , Where do you live ? In Harris County , BY LAW , all it takes to get ANY dog picked up and headed to the needle is an “unprovoked act ” …not even an “attack ” . Jumping barking , causing someone to “feel” threatened is all it takes in a sworn complaint by ANYONE, to get the dog picked up , held and a ruling by a judge if it is dangerous or not . Most judges (wrongly) do find these acts as menaing a dog is dangerous . This can result in destruction of the dog or it being declared “dangerous ” by statute which results in lots of extra fencing and other restrictions which most people can’t even afford …so the dog usually is turned over to be killed .
JS5 on July 5th, 2007 at 4:32 pm

…..That test may be what is used in shelters, but those results are not the results from all dogs tested including in shelters. Those are the results from people willing to pay $25 to have the temperment of their dog tested. The results are 100% skewed by what type of owner is willing to pay $25 to have the temperment of their dog tested. In the case of pit bulls and other “mean dogs”, people who don’t care enough to keep their dog in the house and who have the dog specifically because they want a “mean dog” are not going to spend money to have somebody …..

Bill , The temperment tests are administered NOT when someone comes in to get a dog but when the dog is first being evaluated as to whether it is stable enough to BE adopted at all . The same resluts were found in the ATT (American Temperment Test)Societies Canine Good Citizen test , not just shelter dogs but anyone that wants their dog evaluated . The “killer” dogs have consistently had a higher pass and stability rate than many of the “good” breeds .
Bill F on July 5th, 2007 at 5:01 pm

JS5, Yes I understand that the tests are used for dogs entering shelters. But the statistics reported on the website are not from those tests on dogs at the shelters. In other words, they do not represent a random sampling of all dogs that showed up at a shelter. The stats reported on the website represent a cherry-picked sample of dogs whose owners care enough to pay $25 to have them tested.

As for the law in Harris County…I know first hand that it takes more than one “unprovoked act” to get a dog picked up. And in most cases, if the owner shows up before a judge and the person who called the dog in to animal control doesn’t…then the dog gets released. In most cases, if the person who phoned in the complaint shows up, it becomes a he said she said and the judge will err on the side of giving the dog back at least after the 1st offense. It typically takes a multiple offenses or an attack with demonstrable personal injury to get a dog put away on the first offense. I know the law is written such that theoretically a dog can be picked up and put down for one incident…but in most cases, there is very little penalty to the owner unless there is a serious injury or many repeat offenses. The point I was trying to make above is that our system (and most animal control departments) are not equipped to hold the owner responsible for the animal’s bad behavior with any meaningful sanction until after a serious attack occurs. The animal may pay the price by being put down, but the owner can just go back to the puppy mill on the street corner and buy another dog and go back to what they were doing.
JS5 on July 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am

Bill , you still miss the point …under your scenario of “cherry picking ” ALL breeds cherry picked to be adopted undergo the same test with passig rates STILL showing great results for breeds the media protrays as having “bad” temperament !

As for the laws , I am a lawyer and handle some of these cases . The laws are written for the very reason you say they were not …to deal with “dangerous dogs ” . That is the provision they are under in the State Health Code AND local codes that may be more strict than state law .These are all fairly new laws , not antiquated to deal with”crap” on the lawn as you stated yesterday . If the problem is lack of people to enforce them , then that is the problem . New unenforced laws are not an answer to any problem
JS5 on July 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am

As a new “poster” on this list, I’ll try to cut through the rhetoric and attempted sarcasm that proceed the questions and answer the three questions you inquired about. I would ask that you cite each and every “study” you referred to in your article since, having read most studies about dog bites or dog attacks written in this country over the last 10 years, I am not sure where you are getting your “facts”. If you are talking primarily about the CDC on fatal dog attacks, this will be addressed below.

As a little background, I do not now and have never owned a pit bull. Consequently, you can cross me off “that list” as for my reasons in posting here. Since it is illegal in this state to discriminate against an owner based solely upon the type of dog being owned, this is really a pointless discussion nevertheless, here it goes.

1. I will answer this question even though I do not “own or house” any pit bulls. There is no “objective evidence” showing a “pit bull” to be more dangerous, much less “far” more dangerous than any other breed of dog. I am assuming you are referring to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study on fatal dog attacks during an approximate 30 year period. Please take time to consult the authors of that study as well as the advisors from the American Veterinary Medical Association who helped. You will note that the study itself in the preamble states why it should not be used as a tool to suggest any restrictions based upon the type of breed of animal involved. Those putting together this study themselves knew the limitations of what they were doing and the problems with it. The study nevertheless is often cited by people as the reason we should ban certain types of dogs when in fact, the authors say it should not. There are several reasons why the authors, including Dr. Gail Golb , whom you can find on the Internet and contact yourself, stressed the limitations of what they were publishing.

There are around 70 million dogs in this country. Although there is no way to determine the exact number of any type of dog, the best estimates are between 6-8 million “pit bulls”. Doing the math shows that because of their current popularity they account for a very significant portion of the population. However, because the CDC authors did not have an exact number, they made no attempt to calculate percentages of bite based upon breed since they had no denominator to put in the equation to do that calculation. If however you want to take a conservative number of say 5 million pit bull type dogs in the country and another average of say 30 fatalities per year from all dog bites (which is a bit high since it averages less than that over the last 30 years despite a large increase in the number of dogs) and if you assume all of those deaths are attributable each year to “pit bulls” which they are not, you would come out with - let me do the math for you - 0.000006 of those animals being involved in any type of altercation resulting in a fatality. This also does not consider the particular incident itself. For example, the case this week which resulted in your writing of this article, was caused by lack of parental supervision. Go on the Houston Chronicle’s website and read the blogs wherein the family members for the child who was injured discuss this very issue. Anyone, a child or an adult, hugging a strange dog is the most dominant position you can exercise over any canine and is a very threatening posture. Dogs are not people. They do not speak English and can’t say “no”. They bite. Every year in this country, hundreds of thousands of people are bitten and injured by dogs, some provoked, some not provoked. A small child without supervision hugging a strange, large dog is provocation.No , I am not blaming the child . You simply cannot look at it in human terms of “telling the dog good night” which is supposedly what happened or “loving” the dog.

The second biggest problem is noted by the CDC authors themselves is that the “statistics” they use come mostly from media reports of the type of dog or breed of dog involved. I will get to this point later but suffice it to say that through the work of one particular author, Karen Delise in her book Fatal Dog Attacks, The Stories Behind the Statistics, it is well documented the vast majority of all fatal dog attacks were in fact very predictable if one examines what happened at the time. I am making no excuse for loose dogs that are allowed to roam, bite, chase, or attack people. I am talking about children playing with nursing puppies, children removing food bowls from dogs they do not know, children hugging dogs, intruders breaking into homes (yes those are included in the statistics). The fact is that despite your sarcasm in your article, “if it bleeds it leads” media and lawmakers hungry for publicity are all too eager to blame an easy target “pit bulls” rather than look at the real causes of loose dogs that bite namely, lack of enforcement of leash and/or enclosure laws. Take for example, the recent incident in Houston where Pedro Rios was killed by two “pit bulls”. For 7 days the Houston Chronicle ran front page (both A and B sections) stories featuring pictures of snarling pit bulls and describing the dogs as pit bulls that killed this boy. On the 8th day in a back page of the B section there was a small quote in the middle of an article wherein it is finally admitted by veterinarians that they in fact were not pit bulls but mixed breed mutts. These dogs had been roaming in the neighborhood for about a week with no one paying any attention to them until they killed someone. Did the Houston Chronicle ever retract their statements about them being pit bulls? No. Was the Houston Chronicle in the middle of promoting a frenzy against pit bulls while a bill regarding dangerous dogs was pending in the Texas Legislature? Yes. How do I know this? Because with the last 2 sessions, I have been in Austin testifying on these very issues. In one of the same issues of the Houston Chronicle receiving a small paragraph in the back part of the paper was an article noting that 27 people drowned in swimming pools in the City of Houston last year. This will be discussed more below.

2. Dogs have provided companionship and service to man since they were first domesticated several thousand years ago. A pit bull terrier is just that… a terrier. It, the American Staffshire, and the Staffshire Bull Terrier are some of the larger of the terrier breeds. Terrier refers to “earth dog”. All of these types of dogs have served mankind as chasers and killers of vermin over several hundred years.

As noted above, 27 people drowned in the City of Houston last year. Can we do without swimming pools? Absolutely. Well, I guess people could swim in lakes but then they would drown there as well, right? The same is true regarding any particular type of dogs. This will be discussed more in 3 below but the type of restrictions you talk about have never, ever been effective anywhere they have been attempted to be implemented. I also read in the paper yesterday where a girl had her intestines sucked into a pool drain. All the more reasons to ban swimming pools. Last night I saw in the news where a tiny girl received 3rd degree burns over 30% of body from fireworks. This is just one of thousands of serious injuries and hundreds of deaths caused each year in this country caused by fireworks. We absolutely should do away with fireworks. Can we do without them? Sure we could. We could also do without large SUVs which are more prone to kill people and/or roll over due to their weight and size. Everybody except farmers could drive Yugos or Hondas. The fact is, according to statistics from the United States government, you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured falling down stairs in your home, tripping over items laying around the home, being stung by killer bees, being stung by bees or wasps and having an allergic reaction than you are to die from a dog bite. This includes all dog bites combined not just those from pit bulls.

When you start looking at statistics you have to have a statistical group big enough to show consistency. When you are looking at a group of 6-8 million dogs that the type of numbers for serious maulings or fatalities you are discussing, there is nothing statistically significant about them. That’s not to say they are not important to those people or their families. However, when you start talking about taking away people’s personal property, property that has done nothing in most cases, to prevent a tiny number of significant injuries or fatalities, which as have discussed above may or may not be related to the reasons you are trying to ban them, it is simply something that should not be done.

Have you ever seen the Little Rascals? Do you remember the dog Petey? Yes, a pit bull. Did you know that Helen Keller’s (yes the Helen Keller) dog was a pit bull? Do you know the only “hero” dog ever featured on the cover of Life magazine was a pit bull, the most decorated service dog in World War I? Do you know that currently what you would call “pit bulls” serve as registered therapy dogs, service dogs, police dogs, drug dogs, search dogs in this country? It is obvious from the number of those dogs and the relatively small number of incidents involved that they do serve a useful purpose namely, family pets which never, ever cause a problem for anyone. Just because lightning might strike you on the golf course, is not a reason to never play golf.

Last year the City of Denver based upon their irrational ban of pit bulls, confiscated 1,000 family pets who had never been loose and never bit anyone and killed them. Does this sound like a good idea?

3. No where that has ever tried to ban pit bulls has ever been effective. I believe someone has already posted something about this. The parish that encompasses the City of New Orleans had restrictions on these types of dogs for several years. After Hurricane Katrina, do you know what the number 1 type of dog taken out of New Orleans during rescue was? Yep, it was pit bulls. During the 60s and 70s German Shepherds and Dobermans were viewed as the evil dogs and people were having the same discussions you are now initiating about pit bulls. During the 80s and 90s it was the Rottweiler and the same discussions occurred. When a breed of dog becomes popular, many of them end up in the hands of people who have no idea what animal husbandry is. Animals are discarded or allowed to roam loose or taught to do the wrong things or worse, not taught to do anything. If you have a gang problem, deal with gangs. If you have a drug problem, deal with drug dealers. If you have a problem with loose dogs, deal with the owners who let them roam loose. Currently, in various communities around this country there are over 3 dozen different breeds of dogs banned or severely restricted. Some even attempted to place a ban on the size of dogs over 30 or 40 pounds in communities. In most of these locations, those laws are never challenged either because the people there do not have the money to challenge them or they don’t even know about it because those laws are not enforced, like leash and enclosure laws. I have an idea. Why don’t we do what they do in Italy? Each year they look at the statistics for the previous years as to the breed of dog with the most bites. They then ban that breed. Currently in Italy, there are over 90 different breeds of dogs banned. It sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it? Obviously when you ban dogs, people move on to other breeds which by popularity become the most prevalent biters.

As recommended reading for all of you and I can get you the cite if you would like, go online and look at the Tellings vs. City of Toledo, Ohio Court of Appeals decision which was handed down last year. It did not deal with a pit bull ban but restrictions on ownership regarding insurance, fencing, etc which was different for pit bull owners than other breeds. In other words, it distinguished based upon the breed of dog. The Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional that law because in Court the City could not show why the dog in question based upon the behavior and characteristics of the individual dog was any more dangerous than any other dog based simply upon it’s appearance as a “pit bull”.

A loose dog of any breed on the street is a matter of public safety. A dog in someone’s home that bites someone for whatever reason is not a matter of public safety. It is a private matter. Civil and criminal liability for owners of all dogs is currently in place(even before new laws were passed this year that take effect in September . There is no rational basis, which is what is required for police power to be utilized, to distinguish between civil and criminal liability for an owner of any particular type of breed of dog over another. I very much look forward to reading the studies and statistics you referred to in your article.

I also want to address some of the statements made in the article before the questions were asked. The only study you actually cite is the “anecdotal” statement from a police officer. Anecdotes are not a good basis for taking away constitutional property ownership rights particularly of animals who have never caused a problem for anyone. You state that “facts show it to be true” that pit bulls are more dangerous and it is not just adverse publicity. Show me the facts. Let’s take each specific case in Texas during the last year and discuss what happened during those attacks. Do you know? I do. What about the Golden Retriever and Australian Shepherd that killed their owner in Houston a few months ago? I think we should ban them too. Oh, you want to talk about the girl in San Antonio who was killed by the pit bull a few weeks ago? The one who was trying to free a choking dog from a fence. By the way, it was not her dog. I’m not blaming her, she was a child doing what would be normal for any sane person trying to help a struggling and dying animal . In the process, however, she was attacked. Where were her parents? What about the case in Montgomery County this past year where a man went to buy a pit bull from another man? Go to the Sheriff’s Department and check the records and official report of who these individuals were and the transaction that was taking place with the dog and how it happened. What about other breeds? Oh yes, don’t forget about the Labrador Retriever who ripped off the woman’s face in France requiring her to be the first face transplant patient in the journals of medical science. She was apparently intoxicated when she went home and her Lab who had “never bitten anyone” apparently took her face off while she was unconscious. Dogs just don’t turn vicious. Dogs react to stimulus in their surroundings as dogs. If you don’t know what to expect from dogs, don’t own them. It’s a lot like the argument that some people shouldn’t have children. Do you really want to get into that debate?

You say that “a government study suggests pit bull owners frequently don’t tell the truth when asked about the history of their dogs.” What study are you talking about? In fact, this is true for any breed of dog. When someone’s dog bites someone, the first reaction for dishonest people, at least, is to deny that their dog was involved. Who is going to admit that their dog had previously been a problem when it bit the neighbor’s child a second time? Animals don’t attack “out of the blue”. As I said there is always a reason for it. In any particular case, if you want to look at the reasons, I will be glad to do so with you.

As for “summarily executing” dogs on your property, unless they are threatening your live stock or your directly, summarily executing them will now, based upon laws passed this past legislative session in Texas, cause you to be charged with animal cruelty. You reference the ban in the U.K. in 1991 and other countries. There has been no overall decrease in dog bite numbers in any of the countries. Harlem, the Bronx and Yonkers, New York have not instituted bans. How do I know this? Because the State of New York has a ban on breed bans. Colorado has a law like Texas which does not allow you to discriminate based upon the type of dog. Denver was only able to do this because it is a “home rule” city which allows it to be exempt from state laws. Denver is currently in 2 legal battles over this very law.

Did you all see the movie with Tom Cruise , I think it was “minority Report “(?) . The one where people got arrested and charged with crimes they “might ” do in the future ?
uniqlee on July 7th, 2007 at 10:18 am

I had a great deal to say until I read GS5’s comments. They have covered it all so completely the only comment I will make is that if you read the supporting information on the data collected by the CDC you will find that they collected their breed statistics on fatalities via the news media. We have seen evidence that media reports of breed identification can be faulty.

JS5 I would really like your input on an ancillary matter if you would email me. PLeePadgett@yahoo.com.
uniqlee on July 7th, 2007 at 11:30 am

Oh, I will answer the three questions.

1. Why do I own a “pitbull” dispite objective evidence as to their dangerousness.

First there is no objective evidence as to their being more dangerous than other dogs. Given that here are the reasons I do own them.

a. Highly intelligent and trainable, very eager to please.
b. Very friendly including to strangers, their biggest problem is that they love people and will run up to strangers and even jump on them. Making the fearful, undog savy person believe they are being attacked in some cases.
c. Just the right size. Not so large as to be a problem for me with travel or house and yet not so small as to be unappealing to me personally.
d. I prefer single coat dogs with short hair because the grooming involved is much less as is the house cleaning related to the dogs. My siamese cats are more of a hair nusance than my AmStaff dogs.
e. As a breed they are not highly vocal. I prefer dogs not to bark for every little thing. Some people like for their dog to bark if someone is at the door, or even walking through their yard. I would just as soon mine don’t. My girl has learned to bark at the door bell which is good because sometimes I don’t hear it. Annoying but helpful.
f. They are amusing. They are the harliquins of the dog world. They find funny things to do to liven up otherwise normal or routine situations. They may not be pretty in the manner of a Collie or elegant as a Borizo but they have a charm to their smiling faces that makes lots of people just smile back by reflex.
g. While I have never had one of my “pitbull” or AmStaffs be even a hint aggressive to a person in any situation, I live in hope that if I were truely in danger by an intruder, car jacker, attacking dog (or when I lived in Alaska, attacking moose,) my dogs are strong enough, confident enough and couragous enough to at least attempt to protect me. I would never intentionally put one of my dogs in a situation that endangered them, so I suspect with an intruder I would put the dogs in the bedroom with the door locked and get my pistol. I would certainly not “send” my dogs to check out the trouble ahead of me. Still in case of danger I “think” they would try to save me from harm.
h. “Pitbull” breeds have a very limited list of genetic related illnesses and diseases, unlike other popular breeds. This means that I have less diseases to screen for, less to be fearful of and less overall vet costs.
i. They are highly versatile. As has been commented upon earlier on this comment list, some are used as “hog dogs.” My dogs are actually service dogs. But I also show them in comformation with AKC, am starting to do some schutzhund training. This is a breed of dog that can do almost anything you want to do with it. They are frequently called weekend warriors because like their owners they lay on the couch all week and then on the weekend go hiking, mountain biking, ski joring, or some other physical activity without any training regiment to keep them in shape. Though like their owners they may be a little sore on Monday morning.

I could probably come up with more but those are a few that I can think of off the top of my head.

2. Why could I not do without a “pitbull” just fine.

Well for lots of the reasons that I listed for prefering this breed in answer 1, but also for the emotional reasons of my attachment to my dogs. I will not even start with the help they provide as my service dogs because that is not the issue here.

3. I oppose a ban or restrictions because there is no unbiased statistical data that says “pitbulls” are any more dangerous than any other dog breed. As has been pointed out here in other comments, they banned “pitbull” type breeds in England and their bite incidences have increased. Not a solution to the underlying problem. We have a People problem not a dog or dog breed problem. I have not seen the stats I don’t know if they are kept so I don’t know if there is a correlation between sever/fatal dog bites and the dog owners. Are they really gang bangers or drug dealers, or are they just irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to run in packs, with no training and socialization or even actively encourage aggressive behavior. I know anicdotally we seem to have lots of felons who’s dogs end up biting someone. But I have never seen real data that would back this up.

I support strong enforcement of existing dog laws which would in most cases solve the problems of loose dogs of whatever breed attacking people. In almost all incidences of loose dogs attacking people, those dogs had been loose before or chronically. The biggest problem is not one breed of dog or another it is lack of funding for animal control. They are woefully under manned in most instances. They lack the facilities and resources to deal with the existing laws much less a law that requires them to decide what breed of dog a dog is when a dog’s life, a person’s property rights and in many cases obviation of due process are at stake.

I would support and even advocate for additional laws if necessary that require legal and financial responsiblity by the owner for damage loose dogs perpitrate up to and including assault charges for owners of dogs that attack people while running loose.

Incidences of tied dogs biting someone in their yard are a civil matter. The dogs were tied in their own yard so the question is what were the people doing there. Again we have civil court to deal with issues of going onto someone’s property and being injured.

In cases of dogs biting people inside their home, again the question is why was the person there. Intruders, get what they get in my opinion. Family, friends, invited guests, who are injured by a family pet; in most instances there are signs of a problem with the dog that are ignored or unrecognized. Should these people be prosecuted by the law, I don’t think they should but I am open to being convinced that Dad should go to jail if his child is bitten or cousin Jimmy goes to the hospital on Thanksgiving.

There are my responses as a American Staffordshire Terrier owner, whos dogs are service dogs.
Gritsforbreakfast on July 8th, 2007 at 8:30 am

“would you support civil and criminal liability as to owners of pit bulls who injure others?”

This is already the case, not just for pit bulls but for all dogs, which is why why I find this line of argument a complete red herring.

By the same logic we could notice that black people make up a disproportionate number of arrests for criminal acts (leaving aside for a moment debates about why that is) and conclude society would be better off by banning all black people. What? Most black people aren’t criminals, you say? Well, they’re statistically more likely to commit a crime, so let’s get rid of all of them, right? I think that’s crap. Both arguments are morally and logically flawed for identical reasons.

And finally, how is it that its conservatives who come up with this ownership permit for dogs stuff? What’s next, a permit to fart? That’s just more useless, unnecessary bureaucracy. Our current criminal and tort laws are adequate to handle the problems arising from dangerous dogs.

These are all solutions looking for a problem.
Thedogpress on July 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pm

DOG BITE STATISTICS

PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN OR MEDIA HYPE?

Do you believe that there is a “dog bite epidemic” as we have often heard in the news? How many times have we heard someone in the media spotlight making inflammatory statements about dog bites statistics in an interview, without ever disclosing their source? Even when the comments seem highly suspicious, few people question their validity. (Especially editors and news directors it would seem.) Researching this subject on the Internet has uncovered some enlightening information.

According to CBS News, the Early Show (2002) “About 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year. One million of those need medical attention. About 750,000 children are bitten by dogs each year; in most cases, these bites are from “familiar dogs” – not strays. Approximately 12 people die each year from dog bites.” When I tried to cross-reference these statistics I encountered a problem that was to become typical. The “4.7 million” appears to come from a JAVMA article evaluating data from 1994, almost six years earlier!

Most of the studies and references that I found gave a list of resources, but no footnotes as to which source any given statistic came from and many were significantly out of date. This makes it difficult to guarantee the accuracy of many of the statistics I read. However, the motivation of the source must be taken into consideration as well as the fact that many sources derive their data from news reports instead of county health records. My personal experience has shown that only about half of the dog bites reported as “pit bulls”, actually are, as many mixed breed dogs are called “pit bulls” unless proven other wise. Also, many studies quoted each other’s data as a premise for their own. Since there does seem to be a consensus of opinion on some of it, I will repeat only what I believe to be credible.

“Fatal Dog Attacks in the U.S, from 1965-2001”, analyzed 431 cases over 35 years and:

10% involved leashed dogs or misc. circumstances

17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their owners’ property

73% involved dogs within the boundaries of the owners’ property

(25% chained dogs, 25% dogs in yard, and 23% dogs inside the home)

Surprisingly, it made no difference whether or not the dogs were chained as 75% involved in fatalities were not chained, and yet this has been frequently cited by animal rights proponents to cause aggression. (At least a chained dog can’t chase you!) Currently, the AVMA has no official position on tethering (“We have been researching this issue with interest, but have not yet identified sufficient data to make specific recommendations.” Golab 2007) and a 2001 study conducted at Cornell University comparing tethered dogs to those in pens stated “the behaviour of the dogs in this study did not indicate an improvement in welfare in pens”. No other controlled study has ever been conducted on this subject.

The oft quoted statistic that chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite is, based on my research, a specious assumption. Derived from “Which dogs bite? A case-control study of risk factors” (Pediatrics 1994) which uses only 178 hand picked cases out of 991 reported bites, and there are no statistics as to how many dogs within Denver Metro Animal Services jurisdiction were tethered full time, part time or not at all in the total dog population. In regards to contributing factors, especially tethering, I would have to say that this study has no scientific merit whatsoever because, as one of my peers stated:

“The study uses one of the most UN-reliable methods there is: Survey. Worse, sampler bias can be introduced to the study because samplers know which are control dogs and which are study dogs. They admit that Chows and GSDs are most common, and then announce that these two breeds are responsible for most of the bites! Worse, they rely on the owner’s id of the breed, even in mixed breeds. …The only way to determine if chaining will cause aggressive behavior is to have a control and a study group, both of which receive equal amounts of attention, food, time, and exercise, and have one group “tethered” and the other either penned or crated. And that would only answer the question as to whether the chaining method chosen caused aggression: it would not answer questions related to longer or shorter chains, less or more attention, etc.” Or, as another one of my associates said: “This study has so many holes, you could drain macaroni through it!”

When Dr. Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM, Associate Director, Animal Welfare of the American Veterinary Medical Association was asked to address these concerns about this study, she responded: “Science is typically conducted on small populations with an assessment for statistical validity; that is what happened with this study. Study design and the attended statistical analysis is a very complicated issue; the correlations and CIs provided suggest that the results have some scientific validity. The reality is that the kinds of numbers you’re looking for in terms of numerators and denominators don’t exist. Given the latter fact, we need to use the data we have with the most appropriate statistical analyses possible to obtain as much information as possible. That appears to have been what the authors of this particular study tried to do.”

More importantly, she goes on to state:” The reporting of dog bite injury data, in general, is a problem. That’s the reason we emphasized the need for standardized bite reporting so heavily in the AVMA report. Until such data are available, we do the best we can with the data that is available. Reporting itself is a problem, partly because of fears about what will happen to the dog involved (particularly if it is a family pet), should a bite be reported. That means that you’re already dealing with a skewed population, irrespective of what analysis is done.”

Additionally, this Pediatrics’ study specifically states that “Bite report forms indicated where 101 {…out of 991} (56.7%) of the incidents. Of these 51 (51.5%) took place on the sidewalk, street, alley or playground…;30 (29.7%)in the owner’s yard;14(13.9%) in the owner’s house; and 4 (4%) in the victims yard.” And data on whether the bites were PROVOKED was NOT systematically reported.

Further, it goes on to state: “Biting dogs were significantly more likely to reside in homes with one or more children (less than age ten) and to be chained while in the yard. Of the 83 dogs chained while in the yard (cases plus controls), 44 (53%) had growled or snapped at visitors to the house. (Maybe that’s why they were chained?) This behavior was also reported, however, of 116 (44%) of 263 dogs not chained while in the yard”. It seems to me that given the ridiculously small sampling (178 cases out of a national dog population that easily exceeds 60 million), lack of both numerator and denominator for containment figures, failure to separate tethering from the presence of children as contributing factors and control group methodology, I personally feel it would be a far more adequate conclusion that the contributing factor in tethered dog bites is unattended children. “The No. 1 rule is, a child and dog should never be left alone unsupervised,” said Dr. Bonnie Beaver, executive director of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists.

Fatal Dog Attacks appears to support that assumption by stating that:

68% of fatalities were inflicted by a single dog

79% of victims were children under the age of 12

09% were ages 13-64 years old

12% were elderly, 65-94 years old

Children under the age of one year accounted for the highest number of fatalities, at 19%. Over 95% of these deaths occurred when an infant was left unsupervised!

The group with the second highest number of fatalities was 2 year olds, at 11%. Over 87% of these fatalities occurred when the child was left unsupervised!

Boys, ages 1-12 years old were 2.5 times more likely to be the victims of a fatal attack than girls of the same age.

Of the 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 200-2001, 26 were males and only 2 were females.

The Fatal Dog Attacks study concludes, “While at times informative, statistics on fatal dog attacks can also be misleading. For example, a number of cases where a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or German Shepherd Dog were counted as causing a human fatality, in reality the direct result was from gross human negligence or criminal intent”. (Hmmm…you don’t say?)

The American Veterinary Medical Association publication Vet Med Today: Special Report, also compared DBRF (dog bite related fatality) statistics, collected from 1971-1998. Their findings were similar but the percentage of chained dogs dropped significantly. During 1997 and 1998, a total of 27 DBRF were reported. (NCRF reported a total of 29 fatal bites for the same time period.)

19% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their owners’ property

67% involved unrestrained dogs on the owner’ property

11% involved restrained dogs on the owners’ property (chained?)

4% involved restrained dogs off the owners’ property

67% were single dog attacks

“Some breed information was reported for all 27 attacks. As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs.” (What was the criteria to determine ”type” when even ”pit bull” is a slang term that may include several breeds?) “The denominator of a dog breed specific human DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population data. Unfortunately, such data are not currently available.” And, “Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner related issues.” (Ninety cases were excluded from the overall study because the breed involved could not even be determined.)

They also mention a study by Pickney and Kennedy (Pediatrics 1982) listing DBRF from May of 1975 through April of 1980 which lists German Shepherd Dogs as the #1 killer for that time period, Husky type dog second and Saint Bernard third. “Indeed since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people, including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a Labrador Retriever.”

This article also discusses nonfatal dog bite statistics. In 1994, 1.8% of the population reported a dog bite, but only 0.3% of the population sought medical care. (An estimated 99% of treated bites fall into category 1, defined as quick recovery with no lasting impairment, and category 6 being fatal.) Citing a “36% increase in medically attended dog bites from 1986 to 1994 draws attention to the need for an effective response, including dog bite prevention programs. Because fatal bites constitute less than 0.00001% of all dog bites annually, fatal bites have remained relatively constant over time, whereas nonfatal bites have been increasing, and fatal bites are rare at the usual political level where bite regulations are promulgated and enforced, we believe that fatal bites should not be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dog bite prevention.”

The National Canine Research Foundation offers the following annual figures:

1955 ten fatal dog attacks (for comparison with current data)

1994 fourteen, 1995 thirteen, 1996 seventeen, 1997 twenty, 1998 nine, 1999 twenty six, 2000 nineteen, 2001 twenty three, 2002 fifteen, 2003 twenty four, and in 2004, twenty two fatal dog attacks. From January 1st, 1965 to June 30th, 2005 at least 513 reported fatal dog attacks. NCRF also has information on canine genetics and behavior at: http://ncrf2004.tripod.com/id5.html

Pertinent to this discussion is the conclusion that un-neuterered males are responsible for a disproportionate amount of dog attacks. Again, exact numbers of altered versus un-alterered dogs are needed within a given study population to make an accurate evaluation and it must be taken in consideration that un-neutered males are more inclined to roam. However, neutering dogs has never been proven to stop learned or innate aggressive behavior, but it does make them less likely to roam.

In “ISSUES REGARDING CASTRATION IN DOGS” (BREEDERVET ©2003), Mary Wakeman DVM writes “Politically correct conventional wisdom is not necessarily biologically correct. Also, old wives tales regarding testicles and behavioral matters are often just that. The only true justifications for castrating dogs are 1) aggressive behavior toward other dogs in the same household, and 2) perianal adenoma in old dogs. Aggression to other dogs in situations outside the house is pretty normal dog behavior. Appropriate behavior. Since your dog will be on lead or inside a secure fence at all times, there should be no problem with dogs outside your household. However, if male house mates fight, and both need to stay with you, castration of one or both may solve the aggression problems. If you fault your dog for being aggressive to acquaintances while being walked on lead, you should not. He is guarding you. That simple. Honorable behavior. If you fault your dog for aggression in a ‘dog park’ where he is running free, or on the beach, or in the woods, well shame on you; you’re the one at fault for risking his life in such an uncontrolled situation. Dogs that can manage such encounters without aggression are fine, but you cannot automatically expect a dog to have friendly relations with animals from outside his own ‘pack’. It goes against his whole evolution.” She goes on to list several medical problems associated with castration. The connection to tumors is discussed by Myrna Milani DVM in “Spay, Neuter, and Cancer”” http://www.mmilani.com/commentary-200509.html

Municipal Court Judge, Francis X. Gorman (7-8-2004 Toledo, OH) stated: “Obviously the ratio of dog bites per dog versus dog population seemingly would be relevant in this case. However, as pointed out by Dr. Peter Borchelt, the number of dog bites, “the numerator” as he calls it, is irrelevant without having exact statistics as to “the denominator”, the number of dogs in existence. Candidly, this court feels that much of this statistical information, as will be seen is irrelevant. Pit Bulls do not cause the most bites in the United States. Certainly the bites of mixed breed dogs far exceed those of the Pit Bull because there are many more mixed breed dogs than Pit Bulls. Moreover, even local statistics indicate that, for example, the Chow bites more frequently than the Pit Bull.”

A recent study of the medical charts of minors seeking medical attention for dog bites did actually reference the breed involved (as identified by the veterinarian providing proof of rabies vaccination) to the total breed population as could reasonably be determined by administrative district records (Pediatrics, March 2006). The resulting risk index showed that German Shepherd Dogs were 5 times more likely to cause bite trauma than “pit bulls” over a ten year period. It also stated that “we did not identify any of these fighting breeds to be likely to attack more frequently than the average.” http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/117/3/e374

The website for the Centers for Disease Control has a disclaimer about their own, often misused and misquoted statistics. (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm) “A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. And “There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.” Since the source for their statistics was news reports (see “Media Bias”: http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Jade/06_Media.Bias_07.asp ) and data supplied by an animal rights organization with a frightening political agenda the study is all but useless. For an in depth discussion of why, see: http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/CDCReport/CDCReport.htm

To put all of this into perspective I offer some additional information that I discovered. In the United States, approximately:

1 out of every 37 people in the U. S. is a convicted felon

There are a half million registered sex offenders, many whose whereabouts are unknown…

50 people every DAY are murdered (humans are certainly a dangerous animal)

40,000 people die in automobile accidents

25, 000 people die each year because of drunk drivers

17,000 people fall to their death

3,000 deaths caused by accidental drowning

3,000 women a year die of spousal abuse

2,000 children are killed every year by their parents, through abuse and neglect (A child is 800 times more likely to be killed by their adult caretaker than by a “Pit Bull”)

Dog bite related fatalities did not even make the National Geographic magazine’s August 2006 issue feature “Ways to go” chart.
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Dr. Ian Dunbar, a veterinarian and behaviorist from Berkeley, CA. believes the entire issue is overblown. “we’re talking about maybe ten fatal attacks on people annually” he says. “Is this really something we should be putting our public policy efforts toward?” He maintains more people are killed annually by tripping over their own slippers than all fatal dog attacks combined, regardless of breed. Even Dr. Julie Gilchrist of the CDC agrees. “The truth is that SUV’s are far more dangerous than pit bulls, and they’re still on the road. As a public health researcher, I want to prevent all mortality and morbidity. But the truth is that with just over 60 million dogs in America, and who knows how many millions of pit bulls, it’s not a statistically significant issue.”

It is estimated that around 5,000,000 dogs per year are killed in shelters. In many places “Pit Bulls” make up as much as 30-50% of the shelter population, and sadly, are less likely to be considered for adoption than any other breed. Assuming that 25% of the shelter dogs killed are “Pit Bulls”, then approximately 1.25 million “Pit Bulls” are killed in shelters every year. Therefore, it is at least a hundred thousand times more likely that a “Pit Bull” will be killed by a HUMAN, than the other way around.
Thedogpress on July 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pm

I forgot to answer your questions…here goes:

I own 10, yes count ‘em 10 American Dog Breeders Association/All American Dog Registry dual registered American Pit Bull Terriers - despite media villification and animal rights extremist/domestic terrorist misinformation precisely because I have dedicated over two decades of my life to serving the public by working with ALL breeds of dogs to earn my living, and unlike the majority of those posters here (and elsewhere) that would like to shit can the Constitution when it suits them, I know the truth about this breed. I have forgotten more about canis familiaris than most of you will ever know, and little of the truth appears in the media these days. I read articles on this subject daily, from around the world, si I feel confident in that statement. The only “evidence showing them to be far more dangerous than other breeds of dog” is SUBJECTIVE and fallacious, not “objective” at all, and it is continually regurgitated by those with an agenda.

I could not do “just fine” without one because in my 22 years of working with ALL BREEDS, there has been no other that has made me laugh, taught me important life lessons, inspired me to be a better person, or given me a reason to haul my aging carcass out of bed every morning to be greeted by vigorously thumping tails and “doggy breath” the way that this breed has. I love their size (35-45 pounds), short coats, balanced structure and anatomical grace and beauty (champion caliber - NOT what you see in the “ghetto”), I love their personality the most. So much so that I aspire to be more like my dogs - loyal, forgiving, live in the moment, physically fit, with an enthusiam for live and an appreciation of the simple things, etc.

I oppose a ban AND/OR restrictions based on breed, size, reproductive status or any other arbitrary quality for many reasons. Some of the best are:
It violates my rights under that messy little thing called the US Constitution.
It has shown to be a policy failure of epic proportions in every single venue where it has been enacted.
It does not encourage compliance and creates an atmosphere of hatred and mistrust, turning neighboors against on another and wates enforcement recources that could be better spend elsewhere.It will never succeed in controlling the dog owner who creates the majority of problems, because irresponsible owners are rarely in compliance with existing laws to begin with.
No dog will ever have the capacity to be attendant to any law that is ever written. No dog will ever be aware of the breed(s) of which it is comprised.
When government writes canine behavior into laws written for controlling humans, attempts to control that behavior, mete out punishments, and create criminal labels for dogs; it equates the legal status of dogs to that of humans. A dog will only do that which the owner allows, encourages or trains it to do.
Because research has proven that 83% of all dog bites are to unattended children who are less than ten years of age, parents must also share some burden of responsibility. When an unsupervised child encounters a dog the results can be tragic. Children and dogs both exhibit behaviors that would not be expressed in the presence of a responsible adult.

Breed specific laws do not protect the public from dangerous dogs and there is no safeguard to prevent the addition of any or all other breeds of dogs. Ordinances like the one under appeal in Denver, CO are so broadly written as to be inclusive of all dogs, i.e., “any dog displaying the majority of physical characteristics of any of these breeds”. All dogs have the same physical traits. That is what makes them dogs. Realistically, the majority of bites are from mixed breed dogs or dogs of unknown ancestry because they comprise the majority of the dog population.
When a city, county, or state legislates that a breed or breeds of dogs are “dangerous”, it indemnifies all of the breeds that are not named as being safe, opening up the enacting body to possible litigation by anyone who is bitten or mauled by any breed not specifically named.
Laws must be reasonable. Their validity depends upon meeting this criterion. It is unreasonable to make legal presumptions about the intent of another species. While not always apparent to the human observer, dogs rarely bite without “provocation”. Why have “three strikes” laws for our own species, then attempt to hold non human animals to an even higher standard? Humans are “potentially dangerous”, especially young men between the ages of fifteen and twenty five years. However, no court would attempt to restrict an entire group of people based on potential, so different rules should not apply to animals. They cannot understand the legal consequences of their actions. But their owners can. Therefore, the criminal label of “potentially dangerous” is overly broad, unreasonable, and subjective when applied to dogs. We encounter “potentially dangerous” common situations every day when we choose to get out of bed in the morning and life itself is inherently “potentially dangerous”. Humans must assume responsibility for the choices they make.
Lastly, if you are going to make dog owners into criminals, and charge them with a crime, by law there must be a “victim”. Ownership of a “type” of domestic animal in and of itself should NEVER constitute prima facie evidence of wrongdoing. Our founding fathers would be horrified. If you can’t wrap your brain around THAT, then watch “the Revolution” on the History Channel.