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 ·
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.
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.
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)
Send all pit bulls to Iraq
Ok headshaker, THAT was funny.
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.
Aunty nanny says:
Get a Poodle.
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.
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!
Severe civil and criminal penalties.
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.
Yes, there is overwhelming evidence these dogs are dangerous to others.
#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?
Liability for all dogs. And children. (Yes, I’m a parent.)
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!
I’m still waiting for the answers to RickG’s three excellent questions…
ONE MORE THING! Senator’s Vest’s Tribute to the Dog.
http://www.pawsshelter.org/dogtribute.html
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.
#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!
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.
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!
Owen, fair enough. Thank you.
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?
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!
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.
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!
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.
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! ;=)
This is the first time I have ever agreed with TedTam but I have to on this one.
Does “L” stand for little, “S” for syndrome and we can figure out the other?
gadboy, You got it!
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!
I have worked around some extremely dangerous animals, but I don’t want to be anywhere close to a pit bull.
# 18 mathaholica
Brilliant!
#9 TEX06 sez:
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?
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.
#19 Did your kids ever infest your house with fleas? Hence, the pet deposit…
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
#39 Sirrus Rider
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.
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…
#49 btoellner says
If only we had a competency test that could sort them out.
#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.
#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.
#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.
Ooops…there it is now…sorry for the double.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)!
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.
#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..
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.
#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.
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?!
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.
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!
Great stats from a meaningless test. But they don’t trump the fact that 1/3 of fatal dog attacks were by pit bulls.
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!
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.
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.
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.
#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.
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…
#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.
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…
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?
“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.
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 “unprovo