SF Chronicle: Pit bull apologists, wake up

[RamboLiberal]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/06/BAG0C7H3811.DTL

Eighty-eight year old Mabel Wong was still in critical condition in John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek on Monday. She's been there since a week ago last Saturday, battling for her life, after a horrible mauling by a neighbor's pit bull near her Concord home.

In the aftermath, people wondered how it could happen. What did this little elderly lady do to trigger such an attack? The answer is simple and blunt. Nothing.

<snip>

According to a study by the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, covering the years between 1979 and 1994, pit bulls were involved in 57 fatal attacks -- well over twice the number for the next breed on the list, rottweilers, with 19, and more than German shepherds (17), huskies (12) and malamutes (12) combined. A 2000 study by the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association concluded that pit bulls "were involved in 65 fatal attacks between 1979 and 1998 ... twice that of rottweilers and more than three times German shepherds.''

Even more damning are the statistics kept by Clifton, a dog activist who has been keeping meticulous records since 1982 of dog attacks severe enough to have been reported in the media. It should be noted that Clifton excludes attacks by guard dogs, police dogs and trained fighting dogs and does not chart cases where the breed is uncertain.

The numbers are stunning. As of last week, meaning Mabel Wong's mauling would be included, pit bulls were cited in 831 attacks. The next closest was the rottweiler with 373. No other breed made it out of double digits.

[DBoon]

1. Sorry guy..

Looks like you have to go...

[jukes]

11. Dboon

interesting nick; wd that be a reference to debbie, or daniel? (joke: for all i know it's your real name!)


what a handsome & majestic animal! don't you dare get rid of him! (another joke, i recog'd the sarcasm in your post). the foto illustrates my stance on this topic, though. the owner (you?) appears to be a RESPONSIBLE pit owner: tough, durable leash on animal, whilst providing exercise & entertainment to 1 example of a strong, intelligent breed. what isn't clear is whether or not this OBviously male animal is fixt or not: i advocate neutering of companion animals for their own safety/welfare. a neutered pit will have fewer hormones coursing through his doggie brain & will be less likely to be uncontrollably aggressive.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, whether the breed is unstable or not, irresponsible owners are the criminals, not the animals.

i differ in the characterization of the dangerous pits being owned by fight enthusiasts (criminal cocksuckers in a different light; no offense to any NICE cocksuckers, male or female, in this organization!) or drug dealers. the criminality of these persons dictates they not draw attention to their animals; hence, they do not let them roam or attack indiscriminately.

i suspect (but have no research or citations to b/me up) that most attacks result from ignorant but arrogant, unstable & dangerous OWNERS of pits. these individuals , freq but not always of male gender, won't control their animals, because they desire "freedom" for the dogs. they also intentionally refuse to fix them, openly because they want them to be "butch", secretly because they equate neutering w/their private fears of their own questionable masculinity. (NOT a slap @ gays; i've known many "masculine" gay men , my cole porter post re: his croix du guerre from the french foreign legion is an example. i've also known some very effeminate straights.) i'm discussing hayseed (cottonseed) good-ole-boys confused and frightened by the feminine aspects of their personalties that repress those aspects out of fear that they're possibly "homos", and extrapolate these fears onto the dog as a symbol of their butchness.

human and other animals (w/a few exceptions) have entirely different sexuality. female dogs, for example, are not available sexually @ all times (oddly, female llamas ARE, but that's an exception). male doggies don't get laid that often, unless they're studs or extremely lucky (from their personal perspective) & inhabit an area w/an excess of females in the population. neutering them is a kindness, since they ain't gonna get any anyhow. allowing them to remain sexually active w/o outlet is cruel & insensitive. it also leads to them humping everything in sight, which is gross.

i liken these individuals, the dregs of the human race through breeding or ignorance, to children being allowed to play cowboy w/ a loaded handgun instead of a cap pistol (no gungeon flames, please, i'm a responsible gun-owner!)

they're actions, or rather, inactions, are criminal and deserve criminal penalties. hard time, not fines or lawsuits.

i only support euthanasia of those dogs thus abused that have been involved in attacks on people or other animals, for societal protection and as a kindness to a dog that has been warped into doggie insanity.

i believe several laws are necessary (and i despise unnecessary "control" laws like seatbelt & helmet requirements: if i want to endanger myself, ain't nobodies biz but mine. people that fail to use these devices are candidates for natural selexion & darwin awards, but don't forcibly protect them from themselves. children is another matter, o/c).

1.) all companion animals, not owned by licensed dealers, should be required to be fixt to prevent attacks on people or animals and to control unwanted populations. failure to comply shd be punished w/ mandatory, misdemeanor jail time & stiff fines.

2.) dealers shd be regulated by law and encouraged to soften these breeds; well-trained police & guard dogs need not be inherently aggressive (in fact it's detrimental to their professions) in order to do their jobs. sufficient aggressiveness is instinctual in all canines, proper training by professionals provides the framework to control their innate aggressiveness.

3.) guard/police dogs shd be licensed and certified by professional training centers, not lay persons or owners. unlicensed guard dogs shd be confiscated & the owner sanctioned.


needless to say, dog/chicken fighters & rat-pit aficionados & promoters deserve public canings &/or dunkings. the high point of my career was a raid on a dogfight ring; busted 20 assholes & saved 35 dogs

[DBoon]

21. Of course I won't get rid of him

He doesn't even bark at the mailman!

He whimpers if he can't say "Hi" to the electric meter reader!

As for DBoon,

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=UIDSUB040406030106110382&sql=Bcxcibkj96akx

[gatlingforme]

23. I only dream of raiding a pit ring. I can't tell you what I would do

to the MFs. Animal abuse gets my blood boiling.

[TX-RAT]

24. I have, it's not pretty

37 people went to jail for various charges, from animal cruelty to drug possession and gambling. Thats the good part, the sad part was 16 dog had to be put down.

[gatlingforme]

27. Unfortunately, those raids are indicative in any part of the US,

The problem is you can't arrest for the probability of it happening, you must do the raid and that is based on a good tip usually from a junky who does not want to see Bubba too soon. Drugs and money is 99% common denominator. Very sad.

[TX-RAT]

28. We're making it difficult to own fighting dogs

We don't allow tethering of dogs in our county. Makes it damn hard for dog fighters to keep their dogs without chaining. It still allows legitimate dog owners to have them, if they provide proper boarding and care.

[Rowdyboy]

2. Thank you for this thread

Many dog lovers here refuse to admit the truth that these are vicious, unstable animals. I am second to NO ONE in my love of dogs, but pit bulls, sadly, need to be euthanized-for society's sake.

I feel sick saying this, but it really is how I feel. They hurt old people and children. Too many owners are unconcerned assholes and the only way to combat it successfully, is to eliminate these trained killers.

[Liberal Classic]

4. Then jail the owners!

Many dog lovers here refuse to admit the truth that these are vicious, unstable animals.

The problem is no one has proved that this breed is inherently worse than any other. Such arguments have all been based on emotion, using emotionally laden but unscientific terms such as 'viscious' and 'unstable.' The problem is with irresponsible owners. Pit Bulls or Staffordshire Terriers have been recognized as a breed for over 100 years, but problems have been recent in origin.

Too many owners are unconcerned assholes and the only way to combat it successfully, is to eliminate these trained killers.

I totally disagree. The proper course of action is to take a hard line against anyone who fails to control their animal, and especially against breeders and organizers of dog fighting (which is a problem in the southern U.S. states that border Mexico).

Here's another kind of Pit Bull story
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/SciTech/lost_boy_040615-1.html
Kyle Reid, 11, was lost in a Utah canyon for 18 hours, but his dog Athena led him to safety.

Also of note, Boston Terriers are a pit fighting variety as well.

[iverglas]

6. uh ...

I thought criminals didn't obey laws.

So once again, let's just let 'em break the law ... and let a few hundred more children and other living things be killed (these dogs kill other dogs, and cats, and my good friend's kitten, too) ... but we'll be sure to point really hard at the criminals and blame them really loudly when we send them to jail.

(Well, we don't actually usually send people to jail when their dogs attack someone who is lucky enough to survive, or attack other people's dogs and cats, and we aren't actually likely to do that. But what the hell.)

And all will then be right under the sun.

Think of all those responsible, law-abiding pit bull owners. Surely we don't want to punish anybody else who might want to be acquiring one. People need their pit bulls, because ... ah ... because ... because they say so! They don't have to explain to us why they need pit bulls.

Our children (and our dogs and cats) need to learn that their deaths and injuries are the price of freedom! That is, their lives are the price of somebody else's freedom. We just have to explain to them that it's a noble cause they die in, and they'll be proud to serve.

[Liberal Classic]

30. Re: I thought criminals didn't obey laws.

I support strict laws against dogfighting and the vigorous prosecution of people who cause injury due to failing to control their animals. I don't care if it's a Pit Bull, Boston Terriers, Pomeranian, or plain old mutt.

They don't have to explain to us why they need pit bulls.

That's correct. I do not have to explain or justify my choice of animal to you. Since you are arguing for a change, the burden of proof is on you to show both that what you claim of Pit Bulls is true and that change is necessary and would be effective.

[TX-RAT]

32. Whats your opinion on the practice of chaining dogs to a stake.

This seems to be rather common with fighting dogs. I've seen as many as 20 dogs chained up on 10 to 15 foot chains. Not only is this inhumane treatment of dogs it also seems to make them far more aggressive.

[Liberal Classic]

34. Personally I hate it

I've seen what you described, a whole bunch of dogs chained up to a tree or something. I don't know how enforcable it would be to ban it but I don't support it at all.

On Edit

Hit the post button too soon. At least with a pen or cage the dogs can move around a bit. I always get worried that the stake will come up.

[TX-RAT]

35. Our county has banned it.

Works well and is not breed specific.

[Liberal Classic]

36. That sounds like an ordinance I can support

Works well and is not breed specific.

I am glad to hear it. It is certianly not just Pit Bulls which cause problems. It makes me sick to my stomach to see some collar sunk into some dog's calloused neck.

[TX-RAT]

37. Worse than that

I've seen 2 dogs with the chain grown into the neck. I've seen another, where the owner cut the skin under the neck, then sewed the skin back together around the chain. Never did find the owner of that dog, which by the way was not a pit bull.

[Liberal Classic]

38. Goodness gracious

That's sick. I'm not suprised, though, and believe every word you say.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

41. for reasons that are not immediately apparent

you appear to be speaking to me.

I don't know what might have prompted you to say anything as bizarrely unmeaningful as "you are a dog-racist!" to me, but I'll be happy to play in response to your Red Rover.

You are a dog-moron. Howzat?


For anybody who isn't ...

"Could you imagine if an adoption agency told you that they won't adopt Puerto Rican babies because they will just wind up stabbing people with ice picks?"

Can anybody here distinguish between a dog and a human being?
(Answers that include the phrase "human rights" in a meaningful sentence will get automatic points.)

Can anybody here imagine what might happen if an adoption agency were to place a child known to suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, autism and/or a psychopathic/sociopathic personality disorder with adoptive parents without telling them about the problems?

Can anybody here imagine what might happen to an animal protection service if it sold an animal that was of a breed known for its vicious and unprovoked attacks on humans and the animal subsequently killed someone? How fast can we all say "lawsuit"?

[mbnd45]

42. I just happened to click the "reply" button

on your post. Look, what I'm saying is that pit bulls are not any more prone to violence than different types of people are more prone to violence. It's a myth. I know a lot of people who have pit bulls and they are for the most part just as gentle as any other type of dog. My mom just took in a pit bull off the street, and he's not agressive at all.

It is a common misconception that pit bulls have "vise grip" jaws that can lock onto whatever they bite. This is totally false. It is true that they have strong jaw muscles, but that doesn't mean that they should be wiped off the face of the earth.

As far a suing pet stores and breeders for breeding and/or selling a certain type of dog, that's B.S. Responsibility for dog attacks lies soley with the owner of the dog. If you own an agressive dog, it's YOUR responsibility to keep the dog out of trouble. If your dog assaults anybody, YOU should be sued, and that's where it should end. This is common sense.

I know my past post was a little rough, but that's how I had to word it to get my point across.

[gatlingforme]

43. I agree with you. ignorance on this subject is widespread and

it is not helpful to the Pit Bull bread when this type of misinformation is being spewed about without checking the facts.

[iverglas]

44. How do you make pit bull bread?

For anyone who remembers the old "how do you make rat stew?" joke that was popular in my childhood ...


"it is not helpful to the Pit Bull bread when this type of misinformation is being spewed about without checking the facts."

[gatlingforme]

45. Your contribution to this subject is noted.

[TX-RAT]

46. It is a common misconception that pit bulls have "vise grip" jaws

Ever hear of Break Sticks?
Commonly used in the Dog fighting pits. Seems these dogs have so much power in their bite that a stick ( usually a broom stick shaved down to a taper )is required to pry their jaws open, to get them to release their bite on other dogs.

[gatlingforme]

47. Yes, it is physically impossible to have the dog "lock" it's jaws

on anything. The "bread sticks" LOL are used by breeders as well when two dogs go at it. Since this breed has a tendency to be dog aggressive, responsible owners will never leave a pit with another dog alone too long. It's safety more than anything. I would rather see these misunderstood dogs adopted more so than breeding them. I adopted mine and she is my little sweetie.

[TX-RAT]

50. "lock" it's jaws"........ Vice Grip Jaws?

Don't believe i said that. I will say, they have such an incredibly strong bite that simply using your hands, while not only dangerous, is a complete waste of time.

[gatlingforme]

51. sorry, I should have stated a vice grip was not really locking into

anything. I was completely wrong on using the word "Lock" because that is what I thought you meant. Vice is according to the dictionary vise
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: vs KEY
VARIANT FORMS: also vice
NOUN: A clamping device, usually consisting of two jaws closed or opened by a screw or lever, used in carpentry or metalworking to hold a piece in position.
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: vised also viced, vis·ing, vic·ing, vis·es, vic·es
To hold or compress in or as if in a vise.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English vis, screwlike device, from Old French, screw, from Latin vtis, vine (from its spiral wrappings). See wei- in Appendix

so I guess assuming "lock" is wrong, I am sorry but to undo a vice you must reverse the lock.

[TX-RAT]

52. Once again,

I never used those words in my discussion.
Is there a point your trying to make?

[mbnd45]

53. Yes, the point is

that many people think that pit bulls have the ability to lock their jaws once they bite something.

[TX-RAT]

54. many people think that pit bulls have the ability to lock their jaws

Just trying to figure out what the hell we're talking about.
Beings your the only one, out of all these posts, that mentioned, locked jaws and vise grip.

[Mnemosyne]

7. I love ALL animals. the problem is...

once a dog, any breed, has killed or seriously maimed a child or adult, it's a moot point to jail the owner. The damage is already done, you can't undo death and maiming!

Unsure of what solution is, maybe idiot check before allowed to own dog!?

[jukes]

13. vickiss

societal change takes time & consistency. doesn't affect the here & now, & unfortunate (& horrible) incidences will continue for awhile. xin loi (sorry 'bout that!)

see my other post on corrective measures.

prohibition does not work: didn't work w/liquor, sure isn't working in the pompous & irresponsible "drug war", doesn't work w/ "vice". you'll just drive it underground, profits for non-compliance will soar thus attracting new perps, & we'll waste a lot of time/ on "doggie narcs".


regulation is more (but not perfectly) effective.

[iverglas]

8. stoopid board posted it twice (nm)

[jukes]

12. yep

& that lumpy goddam rug tript me! (just joshing; love to nail a scape-goat excuse. more fun than citing an ambiguity or inconsistency)

[iverglas]

15. excuse me?

I twice tried to post the post that does appear in full in this thread. I was twice told that it had failed to post because I had another window open (I didn't). So I copied the post content and returned to the post I was replying to, clicked on "reply" again, and tried again, and it took -- and became the post you responded to.

"Scape-goat excuse"? I need an excuse for accidentally posting twice when I have a reason -- and can't imagine why I'd need an "excuse" for something that wasn't even "an offence, fault, etc. (per my Oxford Concise ... and you'll get the joke in my header of course) in the first place??

Now, if you have an ambiguity or inconsistency in something I wrote that you'd like to point out, I'll be all ears.

Just don't be defending the bloody rugs. They have in in for me, I know they do, and they trip me every opportunity they get. They're relatively harmless compared to the curb and driveway that actually broke my foot (i.e. one successful kill each), though. Them, they want banning.

[Pert_UK]

48. Pitbulls and Staffs are a MILE apart.......

Staffordshire Bull Terriers have a history of good nature, although they can be corrupted and bred to fight.

Pitbulls (in general) have a history of being unpredictably violent, although they can also be good dogs.

[mbnd45]

55. They're the same dog

"Staffordshire" is just another word for pit bull.

[TX-RAT]

57. AKC only recognizes the Staffordshire

[Pert_UK]

59. Absolute twaddle.....

at least in the UK.

A Staffordshire Bull Terrier is around knee high - very tough, heavy strong dogs for their size, but not big. Isn't a Pit Bull pretty damn huge? I thought they were more Bull Mastiff size.

Aside from anything else, Pitbulls are banned in the UK, whereas Staffs aren't - I've never heard of the two being confused with each other, although there have been cases of owners claiming that their dog is a Bull Mastiff rather than a Pitbull.

[gatlingforme]

61. Staffs are recognized by the AKC (big deal) in US the Pit is not

the Staff is shorter than the pit, but the pit bull is not as big as the mastiff. a female can weight b/t 35-50lbs (ideal) the male from 60-75lbs (ideal) the Pit Bull is known for it's game (what is in it's heart) thus, it wants to please it's master at all costs. the pit is loyal to the end for the master and it will do anything to please h/her. People take advantage of this unique trait and can easily train it for dog fighting. These scums and pieces of shit will fight them for money, drugs... guarding their loot.etc....
I adopted my pit from the shelter and I was actually picked by the shelter to adopt her. They are very warry of people adopting pits for nefarious purposes. and now that I have had her for 3 mos I can attest to their loyalty and intelligence and she does not cease to amaze me. I love her like I never thought I could after my Gatling died. Just a bit of info did not mean to blather.

[gatlingforme]

26. I do not agree with "your" truth. I am an animal lover including

Pit Bulls and if ignorance is bliss, than someone's pretty darn happy. Pit Bulls are not a killer breed, they are dog aggressive at times like any other breed might be, but you transfer that kind of aggression to humans and that is just false.

[Liberal Classic]

3. In the words of Mark Twain

"Get your facts straight first, then you can distort them as you please."

Here's a couple of recent threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=1355477&mesg_id=1355477

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1362289

And the raw data referred to in the article from the CDC:

(note this is a PDF document)
ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/wk/mm4621.pdf


One thing that the chart shows which the article does not is fatal attacks from Pit Bulls are down, while fatal attacks from Rottweilers are on the rise, at least for the 1993 - 1996 time period shown.

Also of import are these caveats from the Editorial Notes:

The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, because death-certificate data were not available, the two sources used for case finding in 1995 1996 probably underestimated the number of DBRFs and may represent only 74% of actual cases ( 1,2 ). Second, to definitively determine whether certain breeds disproportionately represented, breed-specific fatality rates should be calculated. The numerator for such rates requires complete ascertainment of deaths and an accurate determination of the breed involved, and the denominator requires reliable breed-specific population data (i.e., number of deaths involving a given breed divided by number of dogs of that breed). However, such denominator data are not available, and official registration or licensing data cannot be used because owners of certain breeds may be less likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their animals.

The owners of certian breeds who may be less likely to register or license their animals imples to me certian classes of criminal, specifically I am talking about drug smugglers and dog fighters.

Totally absent in this debate are the positive roles of the Pit Bull, which are trained in search-and-rescue as well as being therapy dogs, such as seeing eye and hearing ear. If Pit Bulls were the monsters depicted in the article, they would be unsuitable for such purposes. Furthermore, to train a dog to fight in a pit the animals are regularly abused and tortured. If Pit Bulls were the monsters depicted in the article, they would not need such encouragement. They do, however, require the same abusive treatment as Rottweilers, Mastiffs, even Presa Canarios a popular fighting dog from Mexico must be so abused.

[iverglas]

9. gosh

Maybe we could all try remembering this:

The numerator for such rates requires complete ascertainment of deaths and an accurate determination of the breed involved, and the denominator requires reliable breed-specific population data (i.e., number of deaths involving a given breed divided by number of dogs of that breed).

next time somebody starts "comparing" deaths by firearm to deaths by automobile.

That's the point I made in my very first post in this forum, in response to someone (whether dimly or disingenuously, who knows?) "comparing" deaths from staircase falls to deaths by firearm.

If there are more pit bulls than rottweilers, then the fact that there are more deaths by pit bull than deaths by rottweiler does not necessarily mean that pit bulls are more dangerous. The RATIO (number of deaths to number of dogs, at its most basic -- used to establish a crude index of dangerousness) is what is important.

Ditto deaths by doctor, deaths by automobile, deaths by staircase falls, and deaths by firearm. If the number of potentially fatal contacts with automobiles that a person has in a day is in the thousands (which it certainly is), then it is hardly surprising that the number of fatalities by automobile will be higher than the number of fatalities by firearm.

In this case, there may be a lack of specific data regarding dog breed populations, but do we really imagine that there are more pit bulls than cocker spaniels in the US? How many deaths by cocker spaniel have there been?

Demonstration that the ratio of deaths:dogs is as high for rottweilers as for pit bulls would really just be an argument for rottweiler control, I'd say, unless the ratio for cocker spaniels and newfoundlands and chihuahuas, or even german shepherds (if we're going to compare dogs kept for similar reasons), looks the same.

The positive characteristics that are claimed for the breeds are present in other breeds that do not have the inclination to attack and kill people and other animals. Really, what sane and decent person would choose a pit bull as a guide dog when a lab was available? And why would the usefulness of pit bulls as tracking dogs mean that they should be available to the general public without restriction?

The claim that pit bulls must be abusively trained in order to be pit fighters is interesting and probably true -- but it simply is not relevant in the case of domestic pit bulls that attack people and other animals. It may be possible to train them not to attack, but such training cannot be relied on as 100% effective to prevent attacks, and absent licensing requirements that are accompanied by stringent testing there is no remote guarantee that owners will engage in that training anyway.

Gosh, it all sounds so familiar ...

[Liberal Classic]

29. Re: Rottweiler contol

Demonstration that the ratio of deaths:dogs is as high for rottweilers as for pit bulls would really just be an argument for rottweiler control, I'd say, unless the ratio for cocker spaniels and newfoundlands and chihuahuas, or even german shepherds (if we're going to compare dogs kept for similar reasons), looks the same.


I would respectfully disagree.

The numbers imply to me a human problem. Only a few years ago, the number of fatalities were on par with other agressive large breed. However, since the the 1990s, deaths from the two breeds (Rottweilers and Pit Bulls, the subject of the thread) increased. Both of these breeds have been recognized for over 100 years, but in the last 10 or 15 years fatalities from these two breeds (and to a lesser extent Dobermans and Shepherds) went up. Why? I'll tell you: people. The problem is not inherent to the animal, but in how the animal is trained. The two states with the largest number of fatalities to dogs are California and Texas, and as I said these states have problems with dog fighting and drug smuggling across the Mexican border.

Also from the PDF document:
Editorial Note: During 1979 1996, fatal dog attacks occurred in 45 states (Figure 1). In 1986, nonfatal dog bites resulted in an estimated 585,000 injuries that required medical attention or restricted activity; in that year, dog bites ranked 12th among the leading causes of nonfatal injury in the United States ( 5 ). In 1994, an estimated 4.7 million persons (1.8% of the U.S. population) sustained a dog bite; of these, approximately 800,000 (0.3%) sought medical care for the bite ( 6 ).

As a general rule, small breed dogs bite far more often than large breed dogs. Putting aside fatal attacks for a moment, small breed dogs cause more hospital visits than large breed dogs. Large breeds, being more muscular tend to cause more serious injury, but it is important to note that small breed dogs can and do cause injury serious enough to warrant a doctor's attention. Cocker Spaniels are a breed which is known to bite, and I would not hesitate to say that Cocker Spaniels put people in the hospital from time to time.
This is not simply a case of one bad breed of dog causing all the problems and all the other breeds being angelic pets.

Really, what sane and decent person would choose a pit bull as a guide dog when a lab was available?

People have an emotional bias against Pit Bulls, not scientific proven information showing they are any more dangerous than any other breed. Here you are calling people insane and indecent for using Pit Bulls as working dogs. This is a clear example of the bias against Pit Bulls based on nothing more than emotion. Not withstanding your emotional bias, the truth is that Pit Bulls do make search and rescue and guide dogs, though some therapy organizations do not use them based on similiar emotional bias. There are Pit Bulls in service today as drug sniffers, cadaver dogs, bomb sniffers, search and rescue, as well as guide dogs.

And why would the usefulness of pit bulls as tracking dogs mean that they should be available to the general public without restriction?

Because they're no different than any other breed of dog. All dogs are individuals, with different temperments. Dogs which are abused or trained to fight agressively are surely dangerous, and I support the prohibitions against dog fighting.

[Jack_DeLeon]

5. I dont particularily care for pitbulls, but what do you suggest we do?

Should we make them extinct or something?

How do you go about "banning" a breed of dog? Has that ever been done before?

[iverglas]

10. ask google for ...

"pit bulls" banned. Various municipalities in the US appear to have taken this action, banning the possession of pit bulls within their limits.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/petaletter.html

There are many kind and responsible people who have Pit Bulls as members of their family. These dogs do not pose a threat to anyone. We should not be denied our loving Pit Bull companions because some people chose to make their dogs aggressive. Also, if Pit Bulls are banned they will still be in the hands of the criminal because they have no respect for the law. Criminals will still fight Pit Bulls and breed Pit Bulls. The only people a pit bull ban will hurt, will be the law-abiding good citizens who can provide loving homes for them.

Like I wuz saying, eh? It all sounds so familiar.

[Wickerman]

14. aw come on Iverglas

if you take away my pitbulls, only criminals will have pitbulls.

[iverglas]

16. hmm

You don't suppose that the thing I quoted was ... p*a*r*o*d*y ... do you?

... Nah.

[Wickerman]

17. and

ya don't suppose I was being ...s*a*r*c*a*s*t*i*c... do you?

...Nah.

[FatSlob]

33. The difference between guns and pit bulls.

Guns require an outside force to be dangerous. Pit Bulls can kill on their own.

[Pert_UK]

62. Don't get a dog, fool, he'll shit in the den....

Nowadays a gat's a man's best friend......

Thank you, Mr Ice T.

Or was it Ice Cube?

I get so confused now I'm getting old.....

[OpSomBlood]

18. I'll bite.

Since this is an obvious pitbull/guns analogy, I'll address it as such.

First, individual municipalities have the right to ban a particular breed of animal from within their borders if they feel like it is a threat to the people at large. But note that this is done on the city level, not on the federal level, as matters not specifically dealt with in the Constitution should be handled.

If cities or states decide that certain types of guns present a public hazard, then it is their prerogative and constitutional right to regulate them, as anything else. The democratic process in turn allows me to oppose such a measure on the city/state level.

And by the way, guns are not sentient. But pitbulls are known to attack and kill people without a command to do so.

[mbnd45]

56. Sounds familiar,

but it's an absolute truth. These pit bull banners are quite possibly the stupidest breed of human ever to walk the earth.

[iverglas]

58. as long as we're hauling threads back up from oblivion

I evidently missed this one.

(btw, when I asked luna whether he supposed that the site I quoted was p*a*r*o*d*y -- I wasn't being sarcastic. It is 100% *not* parody!)

So once again, I can't figure out what you're getting at in response to a post of mine.

When I quoted a pit bull afficionado saying

There are many kind and responsible people who have Pit Bulls as members of their family. These dogs do not pose a threat to anyone. We should not be denied our loving Pit Bull companions because some people chose to make their dogs aggressive. Also, if Pit Bulls are banned they will still be in the hands of the criminal because they have no respect for the law. Criminals will still fight Pit Bulls and breed Pit Bulls. The only people a pit bull ban will hurt, will be the law-abiding good citizens who can provide loving homes for them.

and then said: "Like I wuz saying, eh? It all sounds so familiar" -- I wasn't talking about the municipalities that have banned pit bulls within their limits. Perhaps this wasn't clear, although I surely would have thought it was.

So your statement:

Sounds familiar, but it's an absolute truth. These pit bull banners are quite possibly the stupidest breed of human ever to walk the earth.

just has nothing to do with the price of tea in China, I'm afraid.

What sounded familiar was the droning drivel about how if pit bulls are outlawed, only outlaws will have pit bulls, and pit bulls don't bite people, people who make their pit bulls aggressive bite people, and yada yada blah blah blah.

Speaking of which ...

[NorthernSpy]

60. ***** latest pit bull horror story! ***** (Kentucky)

Thanks for reviving the thread, Iver!

I noticed the following story at one of the links from GITN:


http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=2146178

Police: Six Pit Bulls Killed Elderly Woman

Authorities in Daviess County say an 87-year-old woman died Friday after being attacked by her son's six pit bulls at his home.


Mary DeLacy appears to have gone outside to shake out a rug and was pulled into the backyard after the dogs took hold of it. That's according to Daviess County Sheriff's Captain David Osborne. Deputy Coroner Mike Postlewaite says the woman's son was mowing and found his mother after the attack. She was dead when an ambulance arrived.

[TX-RAT]

20. Don't ban the breed

Use restrictions on ownership that apply to all dogs.

[Liberal Classic]

31. Thank you very much

For bringing some sense into this thread.

[DBoon]

39. Interbreed them with Labradors

works for us..

[TX-RAT]

19. County wide tether ordinance.

Our county has just initiated a county wide tether ordinance. It simply states no dog can be chained up or tied up. You are required to have at lest a 100 sq ft enclosure, or a yard thats fully fenced.

[gatlingforme]

22. Clifton the dog activist? What does that mean? What does Clifton

know that the CDC and the Vet. Med. Assoc. seem not to know?
What this dumb ass article says is this:

CDC states pit bulls fatal attacks = 57 from 1979 - 1994

Vet. Med Assoc. pit bulls fatal attacks = 65 from 1979 - 1998

Clifton the dog activist states PB fatal attacks = 831 from 1982 -present (I find something wrong here hummmmm. )

THIS is stunning !!!!! I can't wait to see what Clifton has to say about the economy.

Many a times the news will not even know what a Pit Bull looks like and just label the dog a pit to enhance reader interest.

The Pit Bull breed is maligned by ignorant media to sell a paper, don't believe everything you read in a paper.

And if you do I wish you the best of luck.

[Dolomite]

25. "They tend to bite, and spend a lot of time fondling themselves. "

http://www.canoe.ca/AllAboutCanoesNewsOct00/04_attmonk-par.html

"Monkeys the New Weapon of Paris Gangs"
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/monkeys_new_attack_weapon.html


I know this is old news - but what the hell.

[Pert_UK]

49. We don't have this problem in the UK......

having seen the evidence from abroad and attacks at home, it was made illegal to own pitbulls.....

AAARRRGHGHHHHH!!! REPRESSION!!!!!! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN????

Oh hang on, they did......