All pitbulls in Denver to be killed.

Poststructural Pub
21

Being a resident of the Denver area, I am reluctantly on the side of the state on this one. I don’t relish the idea of a law passed on a group of individuals (even if they are dogs) based solely on their genetic makeup. But there are problems with this breed that cannot be ignored.

Yes, It is the owner’s responsibility to care for and mind their animals. That charge doesn’t reduce this particular breeds’ responsiveness to aggressive training techniques.

Every year (really! EVERY year) there are a couple or three news stories in Colorado about someone’s pit bull that-has-never-caused-any-problems-and-wouldn’t-hurt-any-one chewing up a little kid or mother who is protecting her little kids. And a couple more stories about dogs that have had previous “run-ins” with the law in areas where pit bulls are not outlawed.

I never hear these stories about Pugs, Poodles, Great Danes, Golden Retrievers, Dachshunds, Newfoundland hounds, Greyhounds, St. Bernards, German Shepards, Dobermans… you get the picture. I hear them about Pit Bull Terriers.

The Malamute story in the Rocky Mtn News, while unfortunate, doesn’t seem to me to be outside the norm, and after a bit of searching, I found these statistics on attacks per breed: (statistics in bold , my interpretation immediately follows)

Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%) Pit Bulls-- the most likely to attack breed by far
Mixed breed dogs (16%), Pit Bulls 1.3125 times more likely to attack than all forms of mutts combined
Rottweilers (13%), Pit Bulls 1.6153 times more likely to attack
German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Pit Bulls 2.3333 times more likely to attack than the most common military and police dogs
Wolf Dogs (5%), Pitt Bulls 4.2 times more likely to attack than a wild animal/domestic hybrid
Siberian Huskies (5%), Pit Bulls 4.2 times more likely to attack
Malamutes (4%), Pit Bulls 5.25 times more likely to attack
Great Danes (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
St. Bernards (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
Chow Chows (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
Doberman Pinschers (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%). Pit Bulls 1.4 times more likely to attack than all other remaining breeds combined

Combine this proclivity for attack with this breed’s ability to physically lock its jaw, bite strength, increased stamina, muscularity and strength for its size and you have the most dangerous breed of dog on the planet.

For the record, I read Bill Johnson’s column on a regular basis. His standard take on any topic is the diametrically opposing view-point from popular opinion. It is good. It makes you think. It frequently outrages and ruffles. On the rare occasion it is so utterly backward that it reinforces public opinion but it is good thought provoking stuff.

I think the pit bull problem is not unlike our issues with nuclear waste or guns. (not to hijack this threat to a different hot topic) It is a problem we have created and there is no good solution for undoing what has been made. It has to be recognized that there would be fewer injuries, deaths, and potential for injuries and deaths if these problems we have created were not here now.

22

And in the 1970s, you heard all the same terrible stories, only THEN it was German Shepherds and Doberman Pinchers that were killing people and pets and that communities were screaming about banning. They were the “bad dogs” du jour. When the heat got to be too much for the bad owners, they switched to pit bulls and rotties. Banning any breed WILL NOT ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM. Next time, I project, it will be chows, akitas or shar pei…all of which are dogs with fighting backgrounds that look impressive and are capable of causing serious damage. Or perhaps the bad owners will pick up on the real bad boys of the dog world: Presa Canaria or Fila Braseilera (it was, by the way, Presas who killed that poor woman here in San Francisco last year. They are big among the drug and dog fighting crowd here in California).

Really, the only way you can fix the problem, outside of banning dog ownership entirely, is by requiring and ENFORCING strict licensing laws for dog ownership…ALL dog ownership.

Redwolf

23

Breed specific legislation is NOT the answer for animals who have been raised poorly or are neglected. All dogs have the potential to be vicious, it is NOT a problem specific to Pits.

If people are going to own animals with teeth, then these people are responsible to and for their fanged friends. I feel bad for the children and adults that have suffered greatly or died as a result of a dog attack, but the real issue is how in the hell did it happen? What were the circumstances that put that dog and that child in close quarters? The answer, IMHO, is simply human error or neglect, 110% of the time.

I seriously doubt that this BS will end with Pits… Rotties, Shepards, Bull Terriers, Beagles, Wolf Hounds, Sheep Dogs, Bull Dogs, Cocker Spaniels (a breed which can be really viscious… seriously) Labs… etc… etc… will be next.

Perhaps a screening system for perspective dog owners should be legislatively set in place… don’t pass the screen, you don’t get to own a dog… period. Stiff fines and mandatory jail time for those who disobey the law would go a long way toward making these rare, but tragic, occurances none existent.

24

Peter wrote:
“This all sounds a bit like the arms discussion, it’s not the guns that kill but the people”

Yep - and I’m against banning guns, too.

Dogs, guns, cars - you have laws on the books about the misuse of all of them. Enforce those laws to the fullest extent. If the laws aren’t strong enough, make them stronger.
And if you ban one type of gun or dog, where will it stop? Banning all?
But “banning” any of these won’t make the stupidity stop. It’ll just mean that the only people that have dogs, guns or cars will be those that have them illegally.

Missy

25

Well, they banned lawful ownership of most firearms here on the mainland some considerable time ago. People are still shooting other people, Peter. Big surprise, armed crime is UP, not down, and the number of murders with firearms is up. So much for legislation and bans (which, let’s face it, only the law-abiding take notice of).

I’d like to see Home Office figures on “dangerous dog” attacks, it’d be interesting to see if the legislation has had any effect on that too.

I’d wager that the word ‘ban’ has been uttered in parliament more times in the last 20 years than in the previous hundred years combined. To no significant avail, other than the temporary appeasement of the tabloids.

26

Still, it could always be worse:

27

Well, it would reduce the number of stupid people with easy access to objects that are too dangerous for them to be trusted with. I’m sure it would help, I’m not sure how much or if the loss of freedoms would be justified. And I don’t want to get into a gun laws/gun rights foofaraw here.

In any case, it is really up to the responsible owners to let people with dangerous animals know that what they are doing is socially unacceptable. I know it ain’t easy and don’t ask me how we are supposed to do that, but socialisition is the only approach short of using legal coercion.

As far as carrying a piece for protection against dog attack, I have carried pepper spray. It may not be as absolutely effective but a dog in a vicious attack is a rapidly moving object. I’m good with a pistol, but sorting out target from victim in a situation like that is kinda tricky. With pepper spray, hitting the wrong target is recoverable. And on the couple of occasions that a Pit off leash approached me and my dog and I reached for the pepper spray, staying cool and talking quietly defused the situation without problem. 'Course, there were skid marks when I got home but I didn’t let the dogs didn’t know that…

Roger

28

Uh, Gary - those aren’t dogs.

Roger

29

It’s kind of a Charleton Heston thing “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead, fingers.” right?

So… I can have my pit bull when I pry it’s jaws off someone’s cold dead neck? :really:

Really? :confused: You don’t find this…

to be just a little bit of a breed specific thing?

30

I think that was the point…

31

Correlation does not mean causation.

32

Yes, I find it breed specific… but incomplete and as such a little misleading. In the USA, cocker spaniels lead the list of reported dog bites, but I don’t see them anywhere on your list.

33

Scott - again - you need to look farther in those statistics. What type of owners did those dogs belong to?

If you ban pit bulls (and again, what IS a pit bull?), someone that wants a vicious dog is going to go and get a Rotty, or a boxer, or a Doby, or some other big muscular dog, and raise IT to be vicious.

My point is, you make owning a vicious DOG illegal, not a specific breed.

Just like you make committing a CRIME with a gun illegal, not ban all guns.

And you make recklessly operating a car illegal, not ban cars.

If you honestly think the world would be a safer place with all pit bulls and all guns banned, well, I hope you are never proved wrong.
If, instead, you approach any dog with the understanding that is has the potential to be dangerous, and knowing that any gun can kill, I think you’ll be safer in the long run.

BTW - I was attacked by a boxer when I was 5 years old. Totally unprovoked - was just walking in my backyard and the dog came running across the street from his yard, managed to get me down on my stomach (I probably weighed all of 40lbs soaking wet at that time - and he was probably close to 80lbs), and dug his claws into my shoulders and the back of my knees, while holding my head in his jaws. A neighbor heard me screaming and came and beat the dog off me. My parents, nor did I fault the dog - never even occurred to us back then.
And I now own 2 boxers, and have owned them in the past. After I got to know the breed, I realized it was what the neighbor had done to the dog that made it attack me, not what the breed of dog intrinsically “was”.

Missy

34

As I recall, dogs that spend most of their time tied out are most likely to attack. Tying out makes dogs crazy. Some of them take it well, but for most of them it forces them to feel thrown out of the pack and therefore on their own and unprotected. (The whole “Lone Wolf” thing is a myth - a wolf without a pack and on his own is just a dead dog.) Further, the chain limits their ability to defend themselves so they lunge at the limits of the chain as defensive aggression and when the chain snaps all hell breaks loose.

The causal relationiship between the Pit breeds and aggression may be that people who get Pits may just be more likely to tie them out - they didn’t get it for a pet in the first place and the enhanced aggressive behavior may be seen as desirable.

Once again, the issue comes back to ignorance, and a particular form of persistant ignorance, stupidity.

On the other hand, if any municipal government bans hyenas I would find it hard to argue.

Roger

35

Cocker spaniels bite the most? Not from what I found:

“A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) The experience of the author of Dog Bite Law confirms that the dogs on the CDC list are the most frequent attackers of human beings. “

“Mixed breeds and not pure bred dogs are the type of dog most often involved in inflicting bites to people. The pure-bred dogs most often involved are German shepherds and Chow chows. The breeds most often involved in fatal attacks are Rottweilers and Pit bulls.”

“The Centers for Disease Control study dog bite incidents, including the types of dogs most likely to bite. The breeds that the CDC considers highest risk are pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, Chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. “

And that’s just the first few finds when searching “dog bite statistics.”

Susan

36

I don’t get it. Surely “just like” making owning a vicious dog illegal would be to make owning a vicious gun illegal.

And all handguns and assault rifles would surely fall into the category of vicious.

37

…

38

Steve - I didn’t say a vicious gun…

What I was saying is you make a law against owning a vicious dog, not a law against owning a specific breed of dog only
Just as you make a law against commiting a crime with a gun, you don’t make the law against a specific gun only.

I was just responding to whomever it was that said this sounds the same as the gun banning laws…


Missy

39

I got that info from a vet I work with. When I see her next, I’ll ask for the data she quoted.

As a veterinary technician, I get bit frequently. To date, never by a pit bull, Rottie or any of the many big dogs we have as patients . But beagles, chi hua huas and other small dogs are where the majority of my bite scars have come from… and cats… but thqat is a whole 'nother story.

I have yet to be bitten by a cocker spaniel.

40

I own a beagle and a cocker spaniel - I’ve been bitten by the beagle (many stitches, but I consider it my fault - I was trying to get a piece of metal out of his mouth) but not the cocker.

Susan