Pit bulls and children do not mix
Posted
May 31, 2006 at
9:33 am by
Jessica
People own pit bulls to use as a weapon and if you are part of the few that doesn’t own a pit bull for a weapon, then know you’re amongst the majority of trash that does. Nobody thinks, “Gee, a pit bull would be a GREAT family dog.” A pug is a great family dog, a pit bull is not. In fact, why not just go out and get your family a bear or a tiger? And if you’re fortunate enough to live in an area where one of your neighbors owns one of these weapons of mass destruction, then do yourself a favor and move (your property value isn’t going to soar with pit bulls running around anyway) or get your village to sign an ordinance banning these animals. Children deserve better. People deserve better.
From the website dogbitelaw.com, here are some stats on dogs that kill:
As stated above, there are two problems that have been reported as though there is only a single problem, namely there are canine homicides (i.e., dog bite related human fatalities) and the dog bite epidemic. The dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:
“Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996….[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.” (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)
Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. 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.)
Owners of such dogs should be aware that if their dogs attack a person, the attacks may be scrutinized by law enforcement. The reason is that irresponsible behavior with or toward a dog whose breed is known to bite has caused a rising and unacceptable injury and death toll, which authorities are determined to stem.
“Irresponsible behavior” is defined differently from place to place. In California, for example, it can be a felony for a person to possess a dog trained to fight, attack or kill that, because of the owner’s lack of ordinary care, bites two people or seriously injures one person. (See Felony prosecution of attack dog owners.)
In different parts of the United States at the current time, there are a number of parents who are on trial for manslaughter because their dogs have killed their children. In these cases, the prosecutors have taken the position that the parents behaved irresponsibly because they left their children in the company of dogs most likely to bite.
There is an 8 out of 10 chance that a biting dog is male. (Humane Society of the United States.)
And here is the tragic story, brought to us by WTHR-Indianapolis, that tells a true account of just one out of thousands of tragedies that involve a child mamed or killed by a vicious dog each year. As a society, we fight for safer streets, safer schools, safer immunizations, safer foods, environment, homes, cars and so on, we need to keep ban dogs that are most likely to kill a child. People cannot be trusted to keep your children safe from their dogs. If you think the kind of person that chains up a pit bull or a rottweiler in their yard is of a level of sophistication that they keep innocent people in mind, then your are sorely mistaken.
Indianapolis - A toddler’s life is on the line after a pit bull attack. The victim’s family wants the owner held accountable.
It happened Friday afternoon in the 13-hundred block of South Belmont near Lambert Street on the city’s southwest side.
Police say the animal took control of the toddler and wouldn’t let go. His young victim’s blood was still on it’s snout while teams at Riley Hospital worked to save 2-year-old Amaia Hess.“She sustained serious injury to her face and it appears she may have been bitten on other parts of her body too. One of her eyes is missing at this point. The other eye is seriously injured,” said Sgt. Mathew Mount of the Indianapolis Police Department.
The little girl was in the stroller with her mother. A man opened his door and the dog, named Ozzie, ran out straight for the little girl.
“I seen the baby in the dogs mouth and the dog shaking the baby like a rag doll, just shaking, shaking, shaking,” said a witness.
Amay’s great uncle calls her a sweet loving child facing a long struggle.
“One eye was completely tore out but the pupils were good so they can do some reconstruction on that,” said the uncle. “The doctors said that there’s many many surgeries there to do.”
It’s the second pit bull biting at the house in a year.
Tags: dog-attacks, dogs, family-dogs, fighting-dogs, pets, pit-bull-terriers, pit-bulls, Social Issues |
376 Responses to “Pit bulls and children do not mix”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 » Show All
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 » Show All
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. Mezz said:
June 1, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
Jessica, you’ve evidently never spent much time around a pit bull or Rottweiler or (I would be willing to bet) had much exposure to dogs as a whole. Your view is the typical, short-sided opinion most often held by people who have no experience with the dogs that they’re so quick to vilify. Having been fortunate enough to be the guardian of 3 pit bulls and a Rottweiler mix (as well as many other breeds of dogs, some of which were considered “dangerous” by the mainstream big-dog-fearing pulic) over my lifetime, I take acception to you informing me that my dogs were “weapons of mass destruction” or implying that having such dogs would cause my property value to decline.
I suggest that you do some more homework instead of hopping on the most recent pitbull-hating article that you run across and you’ll find that the MAJORITY of pitbull guardians (as well as the guardians of Rottweilers and other oft-feared breeds) are responsible and loving and their dogs make excellent family pets. Rottweilers are even known for “herding” small groups of children in an effort to keep them together and therefore safe (in their eyes). All of my dogs have had sweet dispositions with the larger ones (pit bulls and Rott mix) especially font of children. It’s my smaller dogs (Manchester terrier and Basset hound) that tend to nip when children inadvertantly pinch their hide or pull on their ears. Larger breeds typical don’t feel threatened as easily and are therefore much more tolerant of beings smaller than they are.
Better than scouting the internet for dog-bite articles, try volunteering at a shelter and actually meeting the loving animals that you’re so quick to compare to bears and tigers. Talk to local pitt bull and Rottweiler rescue groups and you’ll see that the reputation for these dogs is undeserved.
To ban a breed of dog that has been trained to maim another animal (human or otherwise) is akin to banning a particular car model because its driver has run down an innocent pedestrian. It’s unfair and inaffective.
2. Erika said:
June 4, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
I agree with the last poster. People who make ignorant statements like Jessica bring the IQ curve down. Most of the pitbull/rottweiler fears come from the media who desperately wants to grasp ratings from reporting horrible stories. There are thousands of pitbulls and rotweillers in this country that do not harm anyone.
In fact, it’s not the animals at all, it is the owners who train these animals to fight or become vicious. Pitbulls and rottweilers are NO different from any other dog. ANY dog can become vicious if trained. I have grown up with dogs since I was a child and I’m in my 30’s now. It irks me to get these one-sided, narrow minded views from people who either don’t own dogs or who have never been around pitbulls or rottweilers. I am a true dog lover not someone caught up in thinking only small dogs are the best pets and that big dogs are vicious or difficult.
Before you make ignorant statements, get your facts straight and stop being hypnotized by the media’s tricks. Better yet, go adopt a puppy that’s a pit or rott or any other big dog and learn for yourself what type of dogs they are, instead of writing what you hear. Then you can write about what you know.
3. Meg said:
July 3, 2006 @ 9:39 am
The two posters above have the correct way of thinking. Jessica, are you really that stupid to think that only pitbulls and rottweilers can be trained to kill, or maim? ANY dog can be trained to bite, those silly little pugs too. As the mother of four small chrildren and the owner of a pittbull/rottie mix, I’d just like to say that your ignorance is unbeliveable, my dog was raised as a loving family pet, not a ” weapon of mass destruction”, he would probably lick you to death before biting you. You need to attack the owners of these vicious dogs (of ANY breed, I might add) before attacking the dogs themselves. My cat is scarier than the dog. A dog is a very faithfull animal that will do whatever makes it’s owner happy. You should think twice about calling anybody “trash”.The only trash we are among is narrow minded uneducated idiots like you.
4. Jessica Carlson said:
July 3, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
See, the difference between a pug getting snippy with years and years of companionship breeding is that a pug can have a bad day and at the very worst, you’ll have a bunch of mosquito-like bites on your ankle (although I have never even heard of this happening, but I suppose in theory it can). A pit bull (or rott) has a bad moment and children are tortured and killed, regardless of the intent.
5. Tanya said:
July 13, 2006 @ 7:33 am
I am the guardian of a pit/rottie mix and he is the most benevolent creature I have ever known. My dog is almost 2 and has NEVER bit anyone. He is great with my toddlers and even will chase them down and hold them by the back of their pants when they try to run away too far. He was with the kids since he was born and he has been very protective and loving around all of the children that he has ever been around. He is non agressive when being fed. He is also non agressive towards other animals. It is all about how any dog is raised. In fact the only dog that has ever attacked me personally was a tiny chihauhua. So much for your theory of “weapons of mass destruction.”
6. Chris said:
August 8, 2006 @ 3:10 am
The problem with this poor and abused breed, come from people that have the horrible views you have! I have a 2 1/2 year old pit. We had a roomate that had a kid. The dog did not grow up with her. But he loved her, they played, and slept together. And you want a story how about this…
The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family’s Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby’s uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. (”Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog,” Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000 , Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)
Yeah I bet that makes you happy. I am a plumber. I go to peoples houses. I have NEVER felt threatend by a pit. I have been bittin by more little dogs than anything else. German Shepards scare me. But not the old mean pit. There are some bad ones out there. But that is because of the owners. Do research. They were breed to bait bulls, kill bears. They are a strong breed. But were also breed into being great around people. When they first started fighting them, you had to be able to control your dog. As stated above the only reason you hear about pits is because they will cause damage. But the owners are the ones that need to be dealt with! And people with your complete lack of knowledge. I bet you heard about a story about a young kid getting attacked by a pit. That is what the paper reported. But the real story was They kid was attacked by the other family dog. The pit then attacked the other dog to get it off the kid.!! You really need to be around the breed. They are the coolest and most compasionate dog out there. They are very loyal.
7. XYZ said:
August 16, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
I think the bottom line here is potential for damage. It’s not about pit bulls (any dog can bite), it’s not about how people raise their dogs (even the best behaved and most socialized dog can go nuts and attack), bottom line it’s about damage control. If you own a chihuahua and it loses it’s mind one day and attacks the kid next door it would be a terrible thing but after a few stitches the child will recover. Maybe the child will have a scar, maybe the child will be afraid of dogs, but the child will be able to go to school the next day. On the other hand, if you own a pit bull and it loses it’s mind one day and attacks the kid next door, then that child’s parents will be planning a funeral and you will be spending some time in jail. It’s a considerably worse ending for everyone. Why take the risk?
8. Matt said:
August 18, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
Most of the other posters here have said what I would have. What I would like to do is invite everyone to read this wonderful article on pit bulls and stereotypes that was published in The New Yorker a few months ago by the excellent writer, Malcolm Gladwell.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060206fa_fact
And I’ll add that I’m a proud owner of a 3 year old female pit bull mix. Everyone who meets her absolutely loves her including the mothers of toddlers in the park. She’s great with kids, cats, people and other dogs. Don’t believe the hype.
9. Yes said:
September 1, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
Ah ignorance. This is what’s wrong with America. ‘Children deserve better…people deserve better?’ What sheltered world have you grown up in? I have lived with a pit bull for 11 years and never felt threatened by her. They are loving animals and great with kids. Do you seriously think you can discriminate against an entire breed becuase of a statistic? Let me guess Jess, are you also afraid of certain ethnicities because of higher crime ratings? This kind of thinking is completely insane. You know, though you’re not alone in this way of thinking. In fact, there was this cool cat named Adolf (perhaps you’ve heard of him) his solution was to put the groups of people he despised in concentration camps. Espero que su pug muerda su cara.
And dear XYZ, we humans are also capable of going insane. Why take the risk of having a child when it could go crazy one day and stab the kid next door to death with a knife? Actually why take the risk of getting to know anyone at all? The world is full of what ifs, you can’t seriously base your whole life around them.
10. Jessica Carlson said:
September 1, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
11. Jeff said:
September 8, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Wow, I was just doing a little more research on breeds and just had one of the worst cases of tired-head ever.
The only reason to post is that it’s ironic that pugs and pits are mentioned in these above posts and I recently adopted an angel from a local shelter that is a pug/pit bull terrier mix.
12. Michael Norton said:
September 13, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
Hi Jessica,
Five years ago I would have agreed
with you 100 percent untill I was given a Pit Bull
puppy. I did not seek one out and probably would never have done so, but a friend of mine gave me
one of his pups and I just fell for the little guy.
Junior was most gentle dog I have ever owned
and could be controlled with just a stern look.
He was great with my kids and my nephews and had
no enemies. He greeted everyone as a new freind.
The only bad experience that good people who
own pits have is usually from people like you.
We get greeted on the street with looks of disgust and treated with contempt.
The criminal element who actually encourage
agression in these dogs should be the ones who get punished and not the breed itself. if you
just gave pit bulls the benifit of the doubt and
met a responsible owner of one I believe your
opinion would change.
The alternative is what’s called “breed
specific legislation”. Towns and cities would
ban pits and then the morons who encourage agression in dogs would just jump to the next big
breed. Rotties then German Shepherds, Cane Corsos
Mastiffs, Dobermans and on and on untill every
dog is banned. Speaking of Dobermans, they were
the media darling back in the 70’s, you always
heard about Dobermans ” turning ” on their master. What happened in the last 30 years?
Did they all of a sudden become gentle or was the
whole thing just media hype and bullshit?
The truth is any dog can be encouraged
to be agressive and be a danger. Even Pugs.
Punish bad owners not the breed itself.
13. Christina Economou said:
September 26, 2006 @ 9:47 am
Most of the posters above have said what I would have liked to day earlier than today. I am the proud owner of a 70kgs male Rotweiller and the proud mom of a 22 month old boy. Last week, a TV channel got us on camera where the 2 of them were playing together like best friends. Both of them are very affectionate toward each other. For instance the kid gets the Rottie’s kong from inside his mouth and runs away; when the Rottie tries to get his Kong back my son gives him his binky in exchange. Then he decides to give the kong back so he extends his arm and the rottie just reaches out very gently and gets the kong back using his huge teeth being extra careful not to exert any pressure on my son’s hand or fingers. Then the dog rolls on its back with the kong in his mouth and moves his forelegs up in the air like crazy so that the game is resumed. I write all this just make a point with regards to the “weapon of mass destruction” phrase! I am a professional dog training instructor (hint: I train people to communicate with their dogs because all dogs are just fine adn inherently social animals; it’s always the people who need the training) and also run a program of Pet-Assisted Therapy which also involves kids(from ages 3,5 to 14)
14. Brandon Frost said:
November 8, 2006 @ 9:07 am
JESSICA, congratulations on writing one of the most ridiculous and funny articles “weapons of mass destruction” just like the media! You obviously have no idea of the breed, or enough that would make you change your little one sided mind. Do yourself a FAVOR?! And get your head out of your ass and look at the dog world a little better. I’m sure you’ll find that it’s the owners that are to blame for making them violent/aggressive dogs. Blame the stupidity of people for not knowing how to train or treat their dogs as a whole. DO NOT blame the breed, blame the irresponsible owners.
15. Jessica Carlson said:
November 8, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
Oh, don’t worry Brandon Frost, I blame both.
16. Meg said:
November 10, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Jessica Carlson said “Oh, don’t worry Brandon Frost, I blame both.” Does that mean that we should blame both you and your parents for your stupid ignorance, rather than just you? Same thing isn’t it?
17. Jessica Carlson said:
November 10, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
The analogy doesn’t work because I don’t think pit bulls are appropriate family pets around small children. Kinda works in my favor.
18. Janel Scott said:
November 29, 2006 @ 1:39 am
I got a dog a few months ago. Quite a few people have told me that he has pitt in him. He also has the pug features. He is brindle colored and is over all a good dog. I was wondering if anyone had a picture of a pitt pug mix. I have children and am curious about the breed.
19. Kelly Carr said:
December 10, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
I just had to put my Rot/Pit mix to sleep due to him no longer being able to walk. Taz was the best dog and I miss all of the 15 years of joy I had with him. Everyone that knew Taz loved him. I think the only thing that will stop me from crying and missing Taz is to get another Rotweiler/Pit bull mix. He was so affectionate and loyal to the end. He was my baby. Please, Please contact me if you know where I can get another TAZ. Good Bye TAZ I MISS YOU.
20. Jessica said:
December 12, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
I agree with you, Jessica. I just came across this post while looking at the blog. I think the entire breed of pit bulls should be banned.
I am one of those people who gives Pit owners dirty looks ont he street. I will admit it to anyone and everyone every time I am asked.
I have had two pitts come into my yard and both are very lucky that I am against owning guns (for the same reason I am against pitt’s–they kill) because I would have killed each of them without a second thought. One of them, came up while I had my, then 6mos old, in an activity center. My husband was out back grilling and the dog got in between my daughter and I. I started yelling at him and he continued towards my daughter and I continued towards him. Only when my yells became shreiks did he start back down my driveway. I ran after him, letting him know what would happen next time he came in my yard.
Breed specific legislation. get RID of these child killers!!!!!
21. dog lover said:
December 13, 2006 @ 2:57 am
Jessica, the information you presented has merit. In Trinidad, West Indies, the only dog bite related death, an there were a few, was Pit bull related. A law was since passed to prosecute owners of the dog should injury be sustained from these dogs.
I appreciate this info.
Thanks.
22. Karen said:
December 14, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
I don’t think Jessica is saying ALL pit bulls are mean, just that they are more likely to be that way. We have a neighbor with 3 pit bulls and we have called Animal Services because of them was actually killing the smaller one. It was ripping it limb from limb as we watched in horror as the white snow turned red.
It in known that pit bulls are more likely to be aggressive. Not that they ALL are.
Small childen should never be left alone with a dog no matter the breed or how well you think you know the dog. We keep a baby gate between our dog and our toddler at all times.
23. Carmine said:
December 14, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
prej·u·dice (prj-ds) KEY
NOUN:
An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
24. Carmine said:
December 14, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Ignorance 1) is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is also a “state of being ignorant” or unaware/uninformed. Ex: “In debate class Bill lost the debate because he was ignorant in (without knowledge of) that subject.” In such a case the term is not pejorative, and may even be used as a self–descriptive term, as in “I am ignorant of (some subject or topic)”. Ignorance can also be more than a lack of knowledge. It can include a deliberate intent to ignore knowledge or facts that conflict with what someone believes or wants to be true.
(pejorative definition) Ignorance 2) is the choice to not act or behave in accordance with regard to certain information in order to suit ones own needs/beliefs.”I know better but I choose to ignore that and do/say/act in a way that behooves me.”
In politics, it is almost always used as a pejorative label, but some political movements have raised it to an ideal, for instance some peasant and agrarian movements. This is usually simply a rejection of academia and professions and other power structures that assume they are intellectual superiors, that should be accorded deference by others.
Ebenezer Scrooge encounters “Ignorance” and “Want” in A Christmas CarolIn philosophy, the study of ignorance is paired with the study of knowledge, both of which are central to epistemology. Secular philosophies generally condemn ignorance as illustrated in the classic story, A Christmas Carol where the Ghost of Christmas Present reveals to Scrooge the childlike personifications of the major afflictions of the world, Want and Ignorance, and the fact that the latter is more harmful
I hope you can open your eyes
25. Carmine said:
December 14, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
The bottom line is anyone with a dog or other pet should know the breed and be a responsible owner there is NO breed that is at fault. ANY animal can be a threat. I’m not protecting Pits some times It’s the way there raised (Dogs in general)or like us we all have different personalities Also if you do any research at all you will find that reports will call a dog a Pit Bull or a Rottie when in fact they are not. I’m sorry if you “Jessica” or anyone else had a bad experience with this breed. I’ve known many people who have owned Pits and most of them have kids. I’ve not heard of any problems. The problem use to be with Shepards then Dobermans, Rotties and now Pits, I wonder what breed is next.
26. Snuffles said:
December 16, 2006 @ 12:28 am
I’m with Jessica on this one. Although the owners of these dogs are the ones to train it to attack, pitts are BUILT to fight! Their muscular system is rock solid and thier jaws exert SO much pressure when they bite that many times it is “almost” impossible to get them to release until THEY are ready to. These dogs have been bred for their temperments and the “traditional” pitt breeder/trainer/fighter does NOT want a gentle pitt!
Many people tout how loyal and protective these dogs are without realising that YES, they may be loyal and protective of you, your family and circle of friends, but are NOT tolerant of others and will “protect” thier loved ones from anything they percieve to be a threat, such as a stranger, be they adults or children.
The handful of pitt owners that have posted here only represent a small percentage of people that own pitts. Pitts have been around in this country for decades and thier past includes being bred and trained to fight. Because the majority of people believe this to be wrong, you must think of the type of people that traditionaly owned pitts. Because of their ability to be a destructive machine, the criminal element was inclined to get that dog for protection during thier criminal jaunts. Someone mentioned Dobermins earlier and why we don’t hear much about them being vicious anymore. That’s because the criminal element moved from Dobie’s TO Pitts BECAUSE pitts are more dangerous! That left Dobermins for “normal” people who knew to treat the animals properly, thereby reducing the attacks by Dobies. However, as with pitts, the status of owning a Dobie was for those that wanted to “be cool” or “look tough”.
For those of you that have attacked Jessica here, how dare you?!?! YOUR dog may have never bitten anyone, but how can you deny that pitts have caused fatalities? You and your “not MY dog” attitudes, are the families that are SHOCKED when these tradegies happen and you’re on the losing end of a law suit.
27. Amanda said:
December 26, 2006 @ 11:25 pm
I agree that anyone who owns any animal has a responsibility to protect that animal and others. I don’t believe it is one particular breed that is more dangerous than others. Anything that has teeth, will bite!! Should we ban 2 year old children becaue they have the potential to be aggressive and bite!! Let’s be real. Pitts and rotts have gotten a really bad name. Why? Because a lot of times these animals are used for fighting and are abused. I have had a varity of dogs, some were very protective and some were not. The ones that were protective, did not go around other people. I have had 2 pitts and one rott in my life and all three were very loving animals. The humans that abuse these animals should be banned, not the animal!!
28. Johnny said:
December 30, 2006 @ 2:36 am
i have a 2 year old female rottweiler. I’ve had her sense she was about 3 months old. Shes the biggest baby. I adore my dog but sometimes I laugh at what a baby she is. She is scared of other dogs and will run away from any type of fight. She just wants to play all the time. My niece and other small kids can pull my dogs ears, grab her paws, even lay on her and the dog doesnt care. My 6 year old niece has taken away my dogs food while shes eating. My dog just sits there and waits patiently for my niece to put the food back. Dogs are just like people. You cant generalize and some one breed is bad. Rottweilers dont bite the most its just that when they do bite they cause more damage. My dog has never bitten anyone. My sisters 10 lb poodle bites all the time. The stupid dog has bitten me twice for no reason. Rottweiles are very smart and have big hearts. If you raise them right they will never hurt anyone.
29. Vanessa said:
January 10, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
this is the craziest heap of crap i have ever read.. jessica and jessica are a couple of EXTREMELY closed minded idiots… get over yourselves and open your eyes to what the real problem is.. i have never owned a pit, would love to tho. i have friends that have pits and their friends have pits and all of these people have pits in houses with CHILDREN! theres pictures of these dogs surrounding and sleeping with these babies… and i look at these pictures and i cant ever imagine that those dogs would ever DREAM of doing anything to hurt those babies their protecting so hard… people are punishing the wrong end of the leash here.. its not the dogs fault it was born and raised to kill, its the moron that bought it and raised it to kill. and not everyone raises their pits to kill. i think a pit bull would make an awesome family pet… grow a brain before you post more stupid garbage like this…
30. rick said:
January 14, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
You and the rest of the dog lobby are in denial. Every time there is news of a mauling, we hear the refrain, “poor dog, bad owner.” In other words, the alibi for the dog and the breed is that the owner mishandled the dog.
Is it really scientific to say that because an animal can be classified as a “dog” that it can be presumed that the animal therefore is sufficiently domesticated so it is safe to have the animal cohabitate with us in our neighborhoods? I think not.
So, how are we to decide if a presumption of domesticity is unsupportable?
Here, as they say, are just the facts Ma’am, though the dog lobby has never succumbed to the temptation to let facts get in the way of their logic.
Data indicates that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of the human dog bite related fatalities (”DBRF”) in the United States between 1997 and 1998. “Thus, there appears to be a breed specific problem with fatalities.” (from an article appearing in JAVMA (2000;217:836-840) entitled “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks between 1979 and 1998.” (Sachs, Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab and Lockwood)). (JAVMA = Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association). Now, it is far more credible that this statement was made by veterinarians if you consider that to speak this way against bully breeds or rotty’s, that the vets are biting the very hands that feed their profession.
Then the government reports that the chance that a victim of a fatal dog attack will be a burglar is 1 in 177. The odds that the victim of a fatal dog attack will be a child are 7 out of 10.
I have also read what pit bull breeders have to say about their own animals. A person has to wonder why they oppose sensible laws to protect the public based on their own admissions that have been published for the rest of us to read and become informed by experts in their field.
From a special edition of “Dog Fancy” magazine, which was issued under the title “Bully Breeds,” Vol. 21, published in 2002, (ph. 949 855 8822) I read the following:
“The largest problem, and the one that requires the greatest understanding and dedication from the owner, is the inherent tendency toward dog aggression. Dog aggression can be difficult behavior to control, and when the dog is muscular and determined not to let go of the dog it is fighting with (a special tool called a parting stick is sometimes used to open the jaws of fighting dogs to release their hold), the results can be deadly. Owners must understand not only why this form of aggression arises, but also how they can keep from escalating into a dangerous or out-of-control situation.” (page 47)
Attributing the following to Steve Stone, a breeder from New Mexico:
“The key to preventing a Stafford from becoming highly dog aggressive, .. is to “keep the dog out of its first fight.” Fighting, unfortunately, is a self-rewarding activity for these dogs, and if a dog is accidentally allowed to scuffle with a dog, the situation becomes exponentially more difficult to control even for a dedicated owner. “To a Stafford, nothing in life is as good as a fight. Once they get a taste of it, they love it.” From day one, therefore, an owner must walk his or her Stafford on a leash “as if they have a hand grenade with the pin pulled out.” [quoting Stone again]. (pages 47-48)
The publication then continues:
American Bulldogs are similar to Bull Terriers in that acts of aggression to humans are rare, but if they arise, they are usually the result of a self-confident, dominant dog that tries to bully its owner. When the owner crosses a dominant dog (regardless of the breed) after a long time of allowing the dog to rule the roost, the confrontation may escalate until the dog bites to get its point across. (page 49)
Next, quoting another expert, Katie Dinneen of San Francisco, president of Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pitbulls (BADRAP) and director of animal care at the San Mateo County Humane Society:
“There is a genetic component with temperament.” Although the environment in which a dog is raised can strongly influence how the dog develops, a dog’s genetic pre-wiring can only be modified so much; it can never totally be overcome. Dinneen adds that it’s heartbreaking to see a good family do everything right in raising a dog only to have temperament problems. (page 50)
Breeders and owners of pit bulls are fond of pointing out that 16 to 20 or so deaths per year nationally do not rise to the level of a public danger. But that’s only seeing so much of the iceberg that appears above the surface. Besides deaths, how many maulings must the public endure like that which took place in Cary?
If Ford or GM made any of the bully breeds, the government would have them recalled in a New York minute, and the last time I checked cars had greater social utility than dogs.
Firestone had tens of millions of its tires on the road, and there were only a score or two of accidents each year leading up to the recall ordered by NHTSA. Also, NHTSA did not accept the excuse that the owners of cars are at fault for driving too fast, or in not having their cars maintained or inspected their cars.
It’s a given for the government (and by the courts in support of the government against car manufacturers) that consumers (car owners) will NOT often do the right thing all the time to make the operation of their vehicles perfectly safe. Thus, even though the danger from the Firestone tires likely was augmented by the aggressive or fast driving habits of some SUV drivers, the federal government did the right thing for all the rest of us. Regardless of what car owners were doing to add to their own or the public’s risk, Ford and Firestone were told to get the tires off the road.
Also, NHTSA will require a recall of millions of vehicles even if less than a hundred cars are known to be affected by an unreasonably dangerous defect if the car manufacturer otherwise lost or failed to maintain the ability to trace the defect back to specific vehicles.
Given all the care and concern shown as to unreasonable danger present on our highways, it is logical to ask why should dogs and owners and breeders of dogs, who may have a rare but unreasonably dangerous temperament problem, be exempt from being found responsible by a community in presenting too great a risk to our neighborhoods in the same way Ford and Firestone were found responsible by Congress and NHTSA for subjecting the driving public to unreasonably dangerous tires? And how different is it for dog owners to argue that not all dogs are dangerous, and that the matter instead ought to be an issue over the owner’s duty to control the dog, versus the argument made before NHSTA and Congress by Firestone that none of the tires contained a design or manufacturing defect, and that owners of SUV’s contributed to their own risk?
I think there is no difference. So after someone is mauled or killed by a dog, and I hear the alibi offered in defense of the dog from owners and breeders that the dog’s owner alone should be singled out, my reaction is “no, you still don’t get it!” If the danger is great enough, and with human mistakes or errors likely to occur, and if the harm is severe enough, then the public is warranted in taking action to abate the risk to a more certain degree by removing the possibility that another dog owner’s mistake will lead to someone’s death or severe injury. That’s the reasoning used by the federal government in removing dangerous risks on the highway. WHY SHOULD THAT PRINCIPLE NOT APPLY TO UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS DOGS?
The problem, as I see it, is that car owners don’t “adopt” their cars into their family, don’t name their cars “Pumpkin” or “Tiny,” and when an owner takes the keys out, we can be sure that the car will basically sit still and not leap over a five foot fence (that’s happened with Pit Bulls and Rottweilers) or rush out a door and maul someone with unrelenting fury. Other dogs may bite, but bully dogs and Rottweilers maul and kill.
Then I also ask the dog lobby to please explain why at least there should not be improvements to our different state laws establishing conclusively the strict liability for owners of dogs who attack children and severely injure them, if not adults too; and explain as well why insurance making sure the owner can pay at least some fraction of the cost for medical expenses is not made mandatory as well for the benefit of victims of dog attacks. Note, I’m not asking that dangerous breeds be banned, only that “responsible dog ownership,” a common refrain of owners like you, is translated into legislation yielding some semblance of reasonable protection for the rest of us. Note, too, the story reports that one of the dogs had been neutered. So much for that theory of dog temperament control.
Still, if we wanted to go that far, BSL is constitutional. Dogs are property. As such, they are subject to regulation through the exercise of the police power held by legislatures. The exercise of this power over property is subject to a less stringent constitutional standard than the standard applied to laws prohibiting or curtailing speech, or which are suspected of discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, gender, creed, or nationality.
Properly drafted, BSL is constitutional, at least where judges don’t have to worry about retention elections or recalls organized by vocal special interest groups sponsored by the AKC. In contrast to some state court decisions in Ohio, you should read the case of Vanater v. Village of South Point, 717 F. Supp. 1236 (S.D. Ohio 1989). It was written by the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. That court is one step removed from the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s the only federal circuit court of appeals I know of that has ruled on the matter of BSL.
Federal judges, being appointed for life, are not subject to the political pressures many state court judges are subjected to. They do not come up for retention votes. No amount of campaigning by the American Kennel Club will work to have them removed. They also are viewed as more competent in deciding the constitutionality of legislation.
The 6th Circuit Court in Vanater saw no constitutional problem with a village ordinance passed in Ohio that was banned specific breeds. The Ohio state courts are split on BSL. Some in favor, some opposed. Still, however, most state courts that have decided the issue have ruled the same as the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Its remarkable that the later Ohio state court decisions finding BSL unconstitutional made no effort to either criticize the 6th Circuit Court’s opinion in Vanater, nor attempted explain how the BSL before the 6th Circuit was distinguishable from the BSL struck down these Ohio state courts.