Comments on Pit Bulls Break Into Home, Maul 59-Year-Old Disabled Woman in Her Bed

pit bulls suck. ima get me one o' them labra-doodles!

Actually, this is a pretty good argument for keeping a loaded shotgun in your bedroom.

They interviewed the owner this morning on the news. Early 20 something guy who didn't seem all that bothered.
"What can I say y'know, except I'm sorry. It's not like I can take it back"
Apparently the dogs chewed through their leashes and knocked down a fence.
I am sure all the pit defenders out there will blame the owners or say the woman was "sleeping too agressively" or some bullshit like that.
I will not go so far as to suggest sending all pits to Michael Vick obedience school, but they do seem much more evil than other dogs.
And please spare me the "examples" of how your pit was harmless.
"I let him play with my toddler who was dipped in bbq sauce and nothing bad ever happened"
Yeah, right.

i've got a friend that has a pit bull and it is a very sweet dog. I've grown up around "big dogs" and yet i'm still always nervous around this pit bull. It is never good when they turn vicous....and they all seem to at some point. i guess that is what you get when you genetically engineer a dog to fight and kill.

But I swear! They never attacked before and blablabla!

Ok, I'll take the bait...

The owner claims neither dog had been vicious. But at the same time, he freely admits that they were chained. It doesn't take a detective to conclude if this asshole chained up his dogs, he probably treated them like shit. That is what makes a dog dangerous, not the breed.

What people refuse to admit is that this breed apeals to assholes that treat dogs like shit. That is the only thing wrong with pits, and that isn't their fault. I personally know three people with pits. Two are assholes, and they both treat the dogs like shit. One is decent, and treats his dog decently. Can you guess which dogs are vicious?

If you want to ban something, bad evil cruel pieces of shit from owning dogs.

asshole owner = asshole dogs.

that's all you need to know.

lol @7... you hit the nail on the head

This story is I think the worst dog mauling one I've ever heard.

I do still place the blame on the owner, though. Seriously - I have yet to read a story about a pit bull attack in which the dog was trained, properly leashed/restrained, and the owner gave a crap what their dog was doing or really took responsibility for what happened. Why? because the many pit bulls owned by responsible people don't end up attacking anybody.

I won't eve be able to support a breed-specific pet ban, but I would support stricter licensing requirements for pits.

No mention of the fucking Jack Russell Terrier that instigated all this shit?

How the hell does a 59 year old disabled woman fend off two attacking pit bulls?

Authorities should definitely neuter all pitbulls. And they probably neuter all their owners, too.

The difference is that an asshole toy poodle will annoy your ankles, while an asshole pit bull will disembowel you.

The whole purpose of the pit bull breed is to attract and identify assholes who need to be removed from society. I think they should advertise "mean pit bulls" in the paper and then arrest everyone who shows up, sort of like that sex-predator show that comes on after Olbermann.

This "don't blame the breed" shit is getting ridiculous. Yes, poorly treated pit bulls are more likely to go nuts than the ones with good owners. But the breed obviously plays a huge part.

Where are the cases of labs, retrievers, or poodles that break into a home and maul and old lady? That's right - they don't exist.

Dogs that are bred to be vicious are often going to end up doing vicious things. Humans created them to do this - the only rational thing to do is fix the original sin and put an end to this breed we've created.

@12 - Fnarf, if you were running for president you'd have my vote on that policy alone.

Fnarf, you make a good point re: toy poodles. I think that's the ultimate problem. Some breeds need good owners or ... they go about killing people. Genevieve, your suggestion was a good one. I wonder how viable that would be though.

@12 -

"The whole purpose of the pit bull breed is to attract and identify assholes who need to be removed from society."

Michael J. Fox, Jon Stewart, NPR's Ira Glass, and Rachael Ray all own pit bulls. Say what you will about Rachael Ray's cooking, but do you really think she and the rest of these folks "need to be removed from society"?

This sounds like a wake-up call for shotgun manufacturers. Your competition is innovating!

@16 - Rachel Ray should be shot into interstellar space and her image burned from the memory of civilization.

The rest of them can stay, but only if they get rid of their pit bulls.

asshole poople owner = annoying
asshole pitbull owner = deadly

Although I'm no gun nut, at least they won't crawl into your house and shoot you.

@6: "What people refuse to admit is that this breed apeals to assholes that treat dogs like shit."

Right, and since you can't outlaw assholes, you should probably outlaw dangerous shit they're attracted to that mauls people. It's a real shame that pits have been bred over the years to be psychotic and vicious. Dachsunds, pound for pound, are more vicious animals when they attack and were initially bred for killing wolverines - a badass task if there ever was one, but they've been bred to be more docile over the years and are now mostly guilty of piddling the rug when excited. Pits have been bred the other way - meaner and meaner. Until that is reversed, these dogs don't have a place in society. It's a shame, and it isn't their fault, but that doesn't change the fact that pits are unpredictable animals that too frequently turn vicious. Or, yes, are trained to be vicious.

Here's the thing with banning pits. As it is, the owner of these dogs will get, at worst, a slap on the wrist because his dogs got loose. Ban the dogs, and he can go to jail for owning them. That's a good thing. Something pit fans won't admit: There's no right to own whatever breed of dog you want. It's a shame pits have got to this point, but they have.

Fritz says, "Authorities should definitely neuter all pitbulls." Make that all fucking dogs! Anyone ever been to the humane society lately? I want to scream at people who don't neuter their pets...

Fritz also says, "And they probably neuter all their owners." That is brilliant!

pitssux says, "Where are the cases of labs, retrievers, or poodles that break into a home and maul and old lady? That's right - they don't exist." Uh, please learn the difference between correlation & causation. The "type" that own pits don't get labs, retievers, etc. If they did, they would treat it like shit, and it would be vicious.

Last I heard Michael J. Fox was already removed from society...

@16 Yes! Fuck, we are well into the internet age. Bring back the Kill Your Television slogan. But keep the 'I Love Tv' article in your paper. That shit is the best part of your paper.

switzerblog says, "Right, and since you can't outlaw assholes, you should probably outlaw dangerous shit they're attracted to that mauls people."

OK, you got me on that one.

@15, you're completely right that some breeds need good owners. I have a Doberman and I would say that they need an owner with at least "Intermediate" dog-owning skills. Pit bulls clearly require "Advanced" skills. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of test/licensing (a la a driver's license) for certain breeds.

Mike in MO: Surely you can't be so stupid that you'd claim that only pit bulls have owners that treat them like shit. There are plenty of better breeds that have crap for owners, but there's no evidence of those breeds going on homicidal rampages.

Get over your sad sympathy for these genetically engineered killing machines.

I support greater restrictions on dog licensing in general. It should be mandatory to have a license to own a dog, and you should have to take a test to get the license.

Pit bulls get a lot of press for being vicious, and because of that they tend to be owned by people who want that in a dog, which leads to more press reports of vicious pit bulls. Is a breed-specific restriction going to change that? Doubtful. You see how unpopular drugs are now that they're illegal and have been for a few years. Do you think that pit bulls would be any different?

@7 has it right. Asshole Owner = Asshole Dog

@4:

"...always nervous around this pit bull. It is never good when they turn vicous....and they all seem to at some point."

_ALL_ pitbulls get vicious? This is patently untrue. The vast majority of pitbulls have never and will never harm anyone.

@9: Thank you. I would love to see VERY tight restrictions on pit ownership, but you'd need some harsh enforcement of them for it to work. I see it like restrictions on gun ownership. Works on a lot of people, but there are so many illegal guns out there that the worst people to have guns end up having the easiest time getting them. I bet it'd be the same for pitbulls.

#3 ect. I am not a fan of Pitbulls, but I think that the owner is getting a bad rap. I heard on the news last night that he is willing to get a second job to pay for the med bills. He was even willing to postpone college to pay for what happened. That seems pretty stand-up to me.

Funny.....dog attacks happen all the time. It's true!
And I'm pretty sure its all types of dogs are involved in the attacking/biting/leg humping. Could it be that the media blows it up every time there is a pitbull involved?

Nah...the media never does stuff like that, and besides, we're not that gullible.

Some pitbull lovers have a site where they post stories of dog attacks by other breeds:

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/AllDogsBite.htm

And here're the results of a Google search for 'labrador mauling':
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=IFE&q=labrador+mauling&btnG=Search

which returned 30k hits.

"They chewed through their leashes and broke free." If the owner wsa keeping them chained up outside, there's half the problem. Chaining a dog is asking for trouble. Second, I don't think it's a great idea to keep pit bulls in groups...seems to draw out the fighter in them.

Breaking news....

All Black people are criminals and all Arabs are terrorists.

I never hear about lousy sheltie owners causing their shelties to viciously attack people.

Part of the problem is that Pit bulls are unpredictable. I just Googled for stories about pit bull maulings and it doesn't seem to me that ALL of the owners were 'bad'. In fact, many of them seemed really nice.

Breed ban now. First on the slate: the Pit Bull. Wouldn't be the first banning of a specific breed and it's long overdue with these shitball dogs.

Wow, it took 33 whole comments before someone brought up the "disliking pit bulls is the exact equivalent of racism" argument!

Some might say drawing direct parallels between certain ethnic groups and dogs is far more "racist" than disliking pit bulls, but whatever.

Here's an interesting research paper by Merrit Clifton, Editor of Animal People.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

There's good data in there, and while I don't like her conclusions at least she's backed up by statistical evidence and great personal expertise.

This is a good argument for banning beds.

The shotgun works just as well unloaded, IMHO.

dipshits ... let's ban illegal immigrants, premarital sex, and that drug war while we are going to put a hate stain on a breed of dog.

Fucking morons going on another fucking witch hunt

and i think we should neuter the owner.

@36 read my comment above numbnuts (33), it's not about racism, It's about media perception.

All due to asshole owner?

Nature + Nurture! Look at the complete picture.

but whatever

Dogs are predators. Their brains operate on instinct and sensory cues that can't be completely controlled or anticipated. Because all dogs are therefore behaviorally capable of being a danger to humans the only salient question regarding dog breeds is, which dogs are physically capable of being a danger to humans. Name a type of dog that is capable of mauling a human, I can pretty much guarantee you there's a record of it having happened.

Long story short, it should just be illegal to keep a dog above a certain size in an incorporated city, and there should be rules for restricting their movements in unincorporated areas. They provide no practical benefit besides giving comfort to shut-ins and they're all, pretty much by definition, dangerous and unpredictable.

i agree, the owner is getting a bad rap, he was interviewed on the news last night, he owned up to everything, he was crying, he promised to pay for the woman's hospital bills and allowed that the dogs would almost certainly have to be put down. he looked absolutely devastated.

and again, no mention of the asshole little jack russell terrier that initiated the entire event.

From the link @37,

From 1982-2006

Pit bull attacks causing bodily harm: 1,110
Pit bull attacks causing death: 104
Pit bull attacks causing maiming: 608

Rottweiler attacks causing bodily harm: 409
Rottweiler attacks causing death: 58
Rottweiler attacks causing maiming: 223

None of the other breeds come close, not even German Shepherds or Mastiffs. Sure, it's not the breed at all.

@19 I am not sure what a poople is, but I kind of want one.

One a more serious note, this seems to be a rather interesting site (if not a great ad for an aspiring lawyer) on the subject http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

"According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question."

@37 That paper was really interesting. Especially the discussion of the different characteristics of different breeds' attacks.

The author talks in the text about # of attacks relative to overall # of a specific breed, but I would have loved to have seen actual % numbers. As in, what percent of wolf hybrids or pit bulls are involved in attacks. Very difficult to come by, probably.

@44

Something almost sensible, intrusive laws are a lot more necessary and easily to apply in the city than in urban areas. But hate mongering one breed killed peoples perceptions of dobermans back in the 80's. Little dogs aren't so innosent either, I remember a fun story of a pack of feril chuhuahuas in Torrington CT! They were MEAN!

Sorry for repeating what 37 posted. Spent to much time writing the post. :)

They were probably in pursuit of that poor little JRT who was trying to get away from them. It all leads back to the owner. YES. If the dogs were loved pets and not tied out and attended to, THIS WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED.

@46. And Dobermans had only 11 attacks, 3 fatal. I was totally shocked at 1,110 for pit bulls. The text is really interesting... the auther says that pit bulls attack adults almost as frequently as children, which shown they do not have a normal inhibition against attacking something larger than themselves (or at least, as must of an inhibition as other breeds).

keshmeshi @ 46: none of those would have anything to do with how the pits were treated, would it?

those pit bulls were also youth pastors. true story.

Still ... don't you people appreciate the logistical realities of banning a breed when there people who are so die hard to stand by their perfectly loving pets ... and many feel they have every right to do so?

Simply haters ... I have no real interest in marijuana doesn't work positively for me, and I personally couldn't give a shit that people enjoy it, even though many (not all) of the providers are just thugs. Maybe I'll just buy the government propaganda, assume that your recreational drug habbit supports terrorists and become pot hater?

I mean, am I the only one taking crazy pills here?

Save your money, spay and neuter ALL pets and get breeders licenses.

Wauna is *not* Gig Harbor.

I say ban them from King County. I can't have a tiger in fear that it will get out and maul someone. Why the fuck should people be allowed to own a dog that is going to turn on someone at any moment. Sure if they are trained and handled well, that will never happen. People do not train or handle their dogs well. Most people can not even train or handle their children.
The people that own these dogs own them for the implied threat. It would be like carring a baseball bat around town, or a loaded gun. These dogs are known as "bully breeds", and I think that says a lot about the people that own them.

David @36, some would argue that drawing direct parallels between animals and inanimate objects is just as fucking stupid.

And for the record- anyone with half a brain could see that the post at 33 was drawing a parallel between those who choose to broadly stereotype dogs, and those who broadly stereotype ethnic groups.

Both acts are only undertaken by douchebags.

I'll say it again: Pit bulls should be boiled alive like lobsters and then fed to their idiot owners.

WOW HATERS!!!

So many fricken haters by a bunch of people that pride themselves for acceptance!

What the hell is wrong with you!

Dan, I hope a mexican takes your job! and they ban give the chair to anyone that smokes the ganja!

Lets just round them all up in a doggie concentration camp and gas them.

Then there will never be another dog mauling ever again.

I'm sure that the treatment that pitbulls receive by asshole owners has some effect. However, if an asshole owner mistreats a poodle, a crazed psychotic poodle can only do so much damage. A crazed pitbull, regardless of what caused it to be that way, can do a LOT more damage than any other dog known to man.

The breed should be banned.

@44 - you're out of your mind. Labs are capable of attacking people. They're also by and large exceedingly well-behaved, and not only provide companionship to many but invaluable assistance to blind and deaf individuals. You might argue pit bulls are too unpredictable for an urban environment, but the benefits of having even larger breeds of dogs around dwarfs the costs.

@59 - LOL. Dan, immune to hysterics, as always. Where's the "ZOMG Dan Supported the War!!!!!111" spammer when you need him?

Idiots. I just can't believe this.

Seriously, stupid dog owners in Seattle aren't just limited to those people that own pit bulls. I'd much rather keep people from owning *any* dog, rather than restrict dogs by breed. I mean, even if this dumbass had toy poodles, chaining them up outside and allowing them to get so out-of-control is animal abuse. (Even if the worst they could do is to chew on your ankles...)

But don't lump in the responsible dog owners with the assholes.

(44) People are predators. Their brains operate on instinct and sensory cues that can't be completely controlled or anticipated. Because all people are therefore behaviorally capable of being a danger to humans the only salient question regarding people is, which people are physically capable of being a danger to humans. Name a type of person that is capable of harming a human, I can pretty much guarantee you there's a record of it having happened.

Long story short, it should just be illegal to keep a person above a certain size in an incorporated city, and there should be rules for restricting their movements in unincorporated areas. They provide no practical benefit besides giving comfort to shut-ins and they're all, pretty much by definition, dangerous and unpredictable.

@44 - you're out of your mind.

No, actually, I think the problem might be that you're stupid. Just try it out as an alternate hypothesis and let me know how it works out for you.

Service dogs for blind people are an exception to dog rules generally. In the case of service dogs for the blind -- and only in the case of service dogs for the blind -- do large dogs serve a useful purpose in the city. Deaf people do not need service dogs. Any Deaf person who says they need a service dog is either yanking your chain or trying to play the system.

"Companionship" is not a service that requires large dogs. And I would argue that using animals for companionship in urban settings generally is a bad idea.

The "benefits" of having larger breeds of dog in the city do not, in fact, dwarf the costs. Dog waste pollutes waterways, dogs running off leash degrade stream banks and spread toxic bacteria into streams and lakes. Dog food alone accounts for billions of dollars in consumer spending and uncounted costs in terms of the greenhouse gases produced by manufacturing and shipping the dog food and its ingredients around the world. Dog food left outdoors attracts and sustains pests like rats, raccoons and coyotes. The list of externalities associated with keeping large carnivores as pets in an urban environment goes on and on. And what's the pay-off? It allows people to simulate a convincing simulacrum of human companionship, without actually having to negotiate human relationships. Fuck that.

An urban house dog is just a combination shit factory and money hole. If people want to maintain something like that on their own, they're welcome to it. But the minute a dog becomes even a sideways threat to my safety I start getting to ask what your dog's doing for me and the answer is, "Not a fucking thing except shitting in my parks and polluting local waterways."

It is simply impossible for a dog owner to guarantee that their dog, once allowed out in public, will not attack someone.

So...

And daytrpr, the fact that you would even consider applying the same logic to a dog that you'd apply to a person says a hell of a lot more about your fucked up priorities than it does about my argument.

@44 and @ 66 ... whatever ...

Like I said, I ALMOST agree with your logic. But, in America we people like to pay for shit producing money holes for greater security, EVEN at the cost of the greater good.

I mean come on live a little. I do sort of feel bad for the rottweiller or the great dane couped up in that small apartment. Maybe I empathise in that I'm a much larger than average male living in a society that doesn't even accomadate my grocery bill (healthy eating for an athlete of 6'5'' is NOT cheap.) Maybe I sympathise with my dog, like when I have to fly on a budget.

And really breeds shouldn't matter so much. Most of us should be getting our dogs from the pound and rescues and not those god damn puppy mills where the really schitzy dogs come from!

It's good to see that Dan Savage supports the mistreatment of animals.

Hey, Dan, you probably want Michael Vick to go free because after all he was just killing pit bulls, and they deserved to be tortured, right?

The American Kennel Club rates Pits as the #1 dog to have with kids. Study after study has shown that there is no real innate difference in breeds of dogs in terms of which ones are more dangerous and that it's the owners.

The problem with Pit Bulls is that people get them to be tough guy dogs, fight them, mistreat them and turn them into monsters. WA has extremely lax rules about how people can treat animals and because of that we end up with idiot owners making dangerous dogs.

Another problem is the press (Slog included in this case) freaking the fuck out every time anything happens involving a pit bull or anything that can pass for a pit bull. In this case the lady attacked is safe, made it out of her house and is going to make a full recovery in the hospital. It sucks a lot and I feel horrible for her but we should be thankful that anyone mauled by two large dogs is relatively ok.

Especially in this case, the owners are to blame. Anyone who keeps dogs chained up, who has had multiple incidences with their dogs and who wants to have their dogs be scary or dangerous is a problem.

Lets not forget that the dog breed that attacks the most children every year is the Golden Retriever. But because goldens are fluffy and cute no one wants to ban them.

my girlfriend says all animals are meant to be eaten...hahaha

dog people are weird and regardless of what you dog owners think you smell like your dog......not so good....

Well, Dan Savage knows so much about pit bulls because he ... fights them ... like all gay men do.

Oh man it hurt just saying that.

@66 - hooray, it's a pointless flamewar! Tried your hypothesis, and failed. You're still completely out of your mind. Forgive me if I don't trust your half-assed anonymous Internet tough-guy opinion on whether the deaf need hearing dogs versus that of disability advocates. As for dogs being nothing more than a shit-producing liability occupying space and representing theoretical dangers to others - well, nothing personal, but the rest of society could say the same thing about you. Or any other human being. Prove to me that you won't attack someone unprovoked in public. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to assault a person than any given golden retriever is. (And you probably don't even help around people with disabilities.) Do the benefits of having you around exceed the costs?

i [heart] the "celebrity defense" @16. that's the most rational pro-pit argument i've heard yet.

anyone citing statistics about golden retrievers and/or cocker spaniels attacking people needs to shut the fuck up. the reason there are more "attacks" by these dogs is because THERE ARE MORE OF THESE DOGS than pitbulls. and the people citing these statistics also conveniently ignore the severity of the attacks. how many golden retriever attacks can be described as "maulings"?

@73 - please, learn to read. That was not a defense of keeping urban pit bulls. The point is simply that the folks shrieking about how every pit bull owner is a violent, criminal sociopath don't know what they're talking about.

I know a woman who leaned over the family Rottweiler one day to pet him and he bit her nose off. The dog had no previous violent incidents.

It makes no more sense to have a Rottweiler (or Pit Bull) as a pet than it does a Siberian Tiger. Regardless of training and owner, as a breed they are a time bomb waiting to go off.

dan savage, your comment today absolutely sickened me. i'm disappointed and completely shocked by the hatred you've spat out.

Smegmalicious:
When I was a kid I delivered papers. I have been bitten by all kinds of breeds. In my experience, the most aggressive dogs are usually purebred little yappy dogs like Yorkshire terriers and the like.

I've also been bitten twice by pit bulls, both owned by friends who treated them well and were responsible owners. Both of these bites required medical attention. Why? Because a pit bull's jaws are much stronger than a Yorkshire terrier's.

Now tell me again how my feelings about pit bulls are all about media hype.

For the record, so far in this thread we've heard every boilerplate argument about guns adopted wholesale to defend keeping pitbulls: Pitbulls don't kill people, irresponsible pitbull owners kill people. When pitbulls are illegal, only criminals will own pitbulls. The laws would be unenforcable. Etc etc. And yet I'm relatively certain the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention the right to own pitbulls at all.

I'm gonna say it again: I am allowed to own a cat. I am not allowed to own a leopard. So, at least in some cases, breed-specific bans seem to be working just fine.

I encourage you all to contact PETA regarding Dan Savage's comments today. No one should be advocating the torture and death of innocent animals.

Also, every dog expert in the world agrees that there is no such thing as a dog that's a ticking time bomb. That is just media induced paranoia.

If you need companionship, you can always get a budgie.

"The point is simply that the folks shrieking about how every pit bull owner is a violent, criminal sociopath don't know what they're talking about"
Not really criminals, not all of them, but sociopaths...I would guess most of them. How else to explain the need to own such a dangerous animal.

flamingbanjo:
The problem with your argument is that lepoards are a different species from cats, not a different breed.

Granted bigger dogs are more dangerous, but the bottom line is you need to get rid of irresponsible people not dangerous things. Once you start getting rid of all the dangerous things it's a very slippery slope.

OR Matt -- Agreed that everyone who wants a dog (as a pet) should get them from shelters or rescues. I cannot fathom why anybody who just wants a pet would pay a large sum of money to a breeder or a puppy mill. By doing so, you are basically indirectly causing a perfectable healthy, adoptable animal to be euthanized (1-2 million healthy, adoptable dogs are euthanized every year). If you want a pet, go to a shelter. If you want a specific breed (as I did), you may have to wait a little longer, but for most breeds should should be able to get what you want.

But the undergroung leapard trade is full of poorly treated cats owned by the super rich ... I'm not exactly sure of the logic on this one. But I think the leapard thing seems to work itself out with or without banning that animal. Same thing with horses, the logistics of owning and and having a horse in the city kind of out weigh the laws.

I'm not sure if they are really comparable. You know what? I call @77 bluff! Maybe he should own a leapord if he feels owning one is comparable to owning a pit bull.

Pit bulls aren't even THAT big. It's the those damn slobber factory St. Bernards or Mastiffs. Sofa Couches that eat a bag of dogfood a day. YIKES!

Actaully boiled dog sounds alright. Maybe with some chilis and spices, kind of like birra

#59 has the only logical solution to this problem.

Smegmalicious: >>The problem with your argument is that lepoards are a different species from cats, not a different breed.

That's because it's what's known as "hyperbole," which is to say an intentional exaggeration, in this case intended for comic effect. But if you insist on having a more straightforward statement: it is my understanding that all breeds of dogs are capable (at least theoretically) of breeding with wolves. Ergo they are the same species. And yet it is illegal to own a wolf in most cities. Why do you suppose that is?

>>but the bottom line is you need to get rid of irresponsible people not dangerous things.
So everybody should have the right to own nuclear weapons, as long as everybody is willing to submit to universal psychological testing to determine whether or not they are "responsible" enough to handle them (with those who aren't, naturally, being removed from the population?)

Good idea.

Hey! I'm a dachshund and I am a total badass. My only problem is my legs are so short I cant get up on the bed to maul anybody. And that little Jack Russell was trying to save the lady... as to those Pits..... I'd say they were mistreated if they were chained up outside. Sad for the brothers.

#4 – don’t generalize. I could say “all teens do drugs/drink and drive/have premarital sex”. b/c it’s what I’ve heard a lot of or seen a lot of; doesn’t make the blanket statement true.

#9 – ty for at least being rational about your thoughts and the actions you’d like to see taken.

#12 – interesting idea, kinda like it; about the whole advertising for a sting operation. BUT, I have to disagree with the first statement, b/c the poodle could do damage depending WHO and WHERE it attacked. I have a cousin who has severe facial and neck/collarbone area scarring due to being mauled and almost lost his eye. Guess by what? A cocker spaniel. A FAMILY cocker spaniel. It wasn’t ever tied up, it was an indoor pet of a wife and husband and their 3 kids. There was a BBQ outside, we were there with a bunch of other kids playing tag. The next thing we knew my mom’s screaming and running for my cousin but the dog makes it first. They hit the dog repeatedly, commanded it to stop & let go, it didn’t. the owner had to pry the dog’s jaw open, then distracted it and pinned it down as my mom and others took my cousin to safety. It was the first time the dog had “attacked” but not the first warning. That dog snapped at ppl, was defensive, growled at children, etc. a small dog can do just as much damage as a big one. Don’t let that give you a false sense of security.

#13 – someone else gave lab examples, see above for a small dog personal example, want another one where a dog NOT a pit mauled a BABY in its own playpen and ATE bits of him? Cookeville, TN. The 2 Siberian Huskies got into the room the baby was in, got into his play pen and proceeded to maul him. Huskies! The “furry, cute, energetic pups” ppl fawn over. Why wasn’t there coast-to-coast coverage of that? That was only a few weeks ago. Ever think THAT’S why you “don’t hear” of other breeds of dogs mauling, maiming or killing ppl in their own homes, etc??? b/c it won’t get such a reaction from ppl, the media ignores it?

#20 – there are TONS of responsible licensed breeders who ARE breeding out the “aggression” of the dogs towards other animals/dogs. The true APBT’s (that’s what I’m presuming we’re speaking of when everyone here uses the ignorant term ‘pit bull’) were NEVER human aggressive and were NEVER guard dogs. They were semi-watchdogs who were extremely human friendly. They had to be, any dog that showed the SLIGHTEST tendency to human aggression was culled asap b/c they couldn’t be trusted in the fights not to bite their owners. (And I’m talking the true ‘sport’ of dog fighting, where once it became apparent who the winning dog was, both were pulled, both were tended to extremely well by vets and none were ever killed for not winning and none ever died in the fight.) BUT there are assholes who breed for size, color, etc and don’t even take into account the lineage or temperament of the dogs being bred so long as the right size or color is met. THAT’S when you get issues. Also, in any dog case when ppl breed mom/son, dad/daughter, bro/sis… I agree byb’s should be banned. Heck, it may get to the point where every person wanting to own an APBT needs to have their dog given a temperament test, but just out right killing a mass amount of one breed isn’t gonna do much but have the ppl who SHOULDN’T have the dogs move on to another type.

#25 – again, anyone who is looking into getting a dog, ANY dog, needs to ask around with trainers, responsible licenced breeders, and ppl who own the dog in question BEFORE obtaining the dog. Even muts! Find out as best you can what is in your dog so you can research and be better prepped for it. I did TONS of research, talked to MANY ppl before getting my dog. My family and I have owned pretty much nothing but (what ppl would call) “vicious dogs” ie: 2 Rottwielers, 1 Doberman, 2 G. Shepards, 1 chowchow/Akita mix, 1 Siberian husky & we’ve had one chocolate Lab. We knew the level of responsibility we carried by having these dogs and not one of them was vicious or mean (unprovoked) the only time ANY of my dogs ‘attacked’ were the one time a meter man ignored our “beware of dog” sign b/c all he saw was our lab and not the 4 yr old rottie on the otherside of the house, my dog cornered him and took a bit of his pants until we called him off (he was properly trained too), and the other time was when our last dog, a Shepard, bit and held down someone who just waltzed into our home as we were moving. They thought they could help themselves to free things. Everyone should know what they’re getting into. When you go car shopping don’t you normally look at how a car does in crash tests, how to properly maintain the car, if the car has a higher risk of over turns, etc. you want to be prepared. Same with a dog I think.

#27 – ok, I see your “license to own a dog” and raise you “people should have a license to have children”. I seriously think there should be a test of some sort that people need to have before they can think about having kids. And I’m not talking monetary things or w/e, there are kids on welfare and food stamps who are well loved and cared for. And there are affluent kids whose parents treat them like inanimate objects or don’t care about what their kids do. Etc etc. I’m sure pretty much everyone here has met or seen an example of someone who just should have NEVER had kids b/c they don’t get the immense responsibility that comes with having and raising a child.

#32 – I have to make an adjustment to your statement, chaining a dog/s outside all day every day, 24/7/365, YES I agree that is asking for trouble. But if you leave your dog/s tethered outside, with a kiddy pool, bucket of food, and in ready access to shade or shelter should the weather call for it and your dogs come inside when you get home, I don’t see an issue with that. I see issues with ppl who think of their “companion” animals (not game or hunting animals, those are a breed unto themselves and require different handling) as lawn ornaments to be tethered at all times and rarely played with or socialized – THOSE ppl are the ones whose animals are a higher risk for aggression.

#34 – of course they seem nice… what? Do you expect irresponsible parents or animal owners to go around laughing maniacally while shouting at the top of their lungs: “I have no idea how to be a responsible pet owner!!!!!” ? or, maybe you know for a fact that the good guys always win, and the bad guys are easily distinguished by their black hats & pointy horns. C’mon. Manson was a charismatic and likeable guy too!

#44 & 55 – honestly I think you may have the best argument/call for action on here. *claps*

#57 – I don’t think there are many examples of animals “just” doing anything. There are ALWAYS warning signs and indicators, whether ppl ignore them or not is another matter. An animal is an animal, they think differently and those that can, reason differently. You and I may know that just b/c we got mugged by a white man once, doesn’t mean EVERY man that approaches us is going to do the same. A dog or cat on the other hand, will associate. A human beats them, or doesn’t feed them, or whatever, they then tend to start associating bad things with humans, which leads to defensive and aggressive behaviors. Or a child throws rocks at them every day, they start to associate pain with child-sized things. Or they’re only used to seeing black ppl, well a white person will freak them the hell out… to them it’s foreign and causes them to react. Ppl need to understand that animals, as intelligent as they may be, are still animals and have different patterns than we do. As for your “that will never happen” on training dogs properly, I beg to differ. I associate with MANY responsible owners who train and socialize their dogs on a daily basis. For your “bully breed” comment, that’s just ignorant. Am I a bully? No. but I love the bully breed - American bulldogs, English bulldogs, APBT’s, Bull Terriers, etc. I think they’re amazingly loyal and great working dogs… well, except maybe the English bullies… they’re just so friggin ugly they’re cute.

@ 74 learn how to state your argument more eloquently. i've re-read it a number of times and it sounds more ridiculous each time.

and i beg to differ that rachel ray isn't a violent sociopath.

Hello people! It's called "hyperbole" and "sarcasm". I'm sure Savage would love PETA to protest him and The Stranger. But if you really believed he meant what he said... um, I don't know what to say.

And that's true about the pitbull argument. The difference between irresponsible pitbull owners and irresponsible gun owners is that the latter has a much harder time lying if his or her weapon of choice misfires.

On the other hand, guns aren't living things, much less things that can be trained to be very lovable. I've petted many a pitbull, but never one romanticized by wannabethugs looking to foster a canine weapon. Hell, many on Metro buses. Never felt nervous or had a problem. Has anyone heard about a pitbull story on a bus here or anywhere? If so, I'd like to know -- since it's not uncommon for me to see one.

Back to the first hand: yes, we cannot outlaw irresponsible thugs. The problem is: if you outlaw/ban pitbulls, it will be not unlike the drug war. Pitbulls will become 500000% more desirable not only because they will be illegal but they will become LIVING THINGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL! I mean, imagine the counterreaction to legislation that will call for, essentially, the extinction of a specific type of canine. The pitbill has been around long enough such that the big E word is certainly applicable.

So, are we all ready for a War On Dogs? Has the War On Drugs proven to be successful yet? Er, no. Not even close.

Ahhh, the pit bull arguments again. Must be that time of year...*plays cheery music*

What happened with this was so totally random, how could anyone predict it? I wouldn't use this story as some "pit bulls are bad" story.

And even if 20,000 people died of pit bull attacks every year, doesn't make them any worse than, I don't know, CARS.

Cars kill people, falling pianos kill people, babies kill people. whatevs. Get the fuck over it. If the pitt bulls don't get you, the republicans will. And I bet they'd be worse.

For the record, I hate dogs. I think they are smelly and annoying. Doesn't mean because *some* dogs attack people that people shouldn't have them. We have tamed *animals* to live with us. Sometimes that just doesn't work out.

Forgive me if I don't trust your half-assed anonymous Internet tough-guy opinion on whether the deaf need hearing dogs versus that of disability advocates

My half-assed anonymous Internet tough-guy opinion is informed by two years of training as a sign language interpreter and a year living with a Deaf roommate, providing services at Deaf public functions and socializing in the Deaf community. As far as your un-cited "disability advocates", their job is to advocate for the disabled, not for the community at large.

As to your whole kick about my rights vs dogs: again, I don't feel compelled to engage with you on that one. Arguing that a dog can or should have the same rights in (human) society as a human being basically just proves that you're A) stupid B) crazy or C) both. Full stop.

Interbreeding is not the sole criteria for species designation. Dogs and wolves are not the same species for a variety of reasons.

If one can breed a dog to instinctively herd livestock, as border collies will do without training, then certainly one can develop a breed that is innately aggressive.

Once again, Nature + Nurture.

@88. Wow. That was a long post. Unfortunately, your credibility is somewhat dimished by the fact that you have owned two dogs that have bitten people! Love how you put "attacked" in quotes by the way. I am without a doubt a "dog person", but am totally amazed sometimes at how people make excuses for and dismiss the poor behavior of their dogs.

I wish some of the other "dog people" on here were a little more articulate because I do think there is a reasonable solution -- stricter licensing requirements (and enforcement) for all dog owners -- that is practical and implementable. "No large dogs in urban environments" doesn't strike me as particularly either one, though certainly an interesting argument in theory.

Did I miss the point where the Stranger just completely became "A Current Affair?" I suppose it's a problem, but I'm too busy being scared of that fat bitch in an Audi that nearly ran me over when she plowed through a red light at First and Denny today.

Then again it's Gig Harbor and if I wanted to profile an entire neighborhood for sucking ass, that whole place could die. Your grandmother too, if she lives there.

We should just outlaw everything dangerous. Start with guns and pit bulls, then maybe other large dogs. After that lets crackdown on nightclubs and nightlife because they’re dangerous. Then we have to keep drugs illegal and maybe even alcohol too. Why stop there? Fatty foods kill tons of people, lets outlaw that too, then sugary things, and maybe carbohydrates since they seem to be dangerous.

After that we'll be pretty safe, but not safe enough. Eventually we'll have to ban sex because it's dangerous, especially teenage sex and gay sex. After that we should ban nudity and foul language because it's dangerous.

We should also probably get keyboards because they cause carpal tunnel, and monitors and tv's because they emit radiation. I suppose then the biggest threats will be contact sports so we should ban them too.

Lets not forget cars and horses and all other means of transportation. We'll make those illegal because they're dangerous, followed by amusement parks, and merry-go-rounds. Those things should have been banned when we got rid of lawn darts anyway.

After that we'll be perfectly safe, except for peanuts. Those things have to go! People are dropping like flies from peanuts. We have to outlaw shellfish too because people die from that. I guess our work is never done unless we've outlawed everything illegal.

And here I thought this was the land of the free! Go USA!

Smegmalicious: Yes, that's called a "slippery slope" argument. Roughly stated, it says "because A inevitably leads to B, rather than discussing A on its merits, I will argue against B, which is an argument I know I can win."

I'm not even sure I would advocate a breed-specific ban. But all the arguments that say, in effect, that we can't pass laws against dangerous things seem pretty specious to me. Of course we can. We do it all the time. We also pass laws delineating explicit liability when those things cause harm. For instance, car owners are responsible for owning liability insurance in case they hit someone. Sure lots of people don't buy the insurance, and when they get in an accident they are charged with that criminal offense in addition to still being on the hook for damages. Maybe dog owners should face similar requirements.

Maybe you're not in favor of regulating what sort of animals can be legally owned. But don't pretend that such laws are unprecedented or somehow inherently fascistic. There are many, many laws on the books regulating far less dangerous things than pit bulls.

to #94 - um, i'm sorry if our trained guarddog did what he was trained, to corner and keep intruders cornered until called to stand down. i'm sorry the meterman chose to ignore the signs we had posted up saying "beware of dog" - and we didn't put those up for the lab or for aesthetic value. yes, i will justify my rotties actions in that case. the meter company agreed the man should have heeded the plain-as-day signs.

as for my shepard, again, she was trained to immoblize and secure intruders until told to stand down. we were moving and our house was open. i was there with my mom and our dog and a man just decided to come inside while we were in another room packing up. who is to say he didn't have a weapon? he didn't. my dog did what she was trained to do: stop a criminal in our home.

that man was on OUR property, came into OUR home and tried to take OUR things.

i'm sorry if the two incidents in my multiple dogs long lives offended you.

flamingbanjo:
I hear what you're a saying, it's just a dangerous trend in our society. I think the much more reasonable course is to stop the dangerous people and to make it harder for them to do dangerous things.

Sure we have laws regarding less dangerous things than pit bulls, but are all those good laws? The more we legislate away personal responsibility the more the root problem grows.

Question to Alix @98

When your dog is attacking and in defense mode. Even defending the pack, property, whatever .... do you say, good boy and he stands down? Do you say good boy afterwords. I can just see someone listen to you praise the dog, after being attacked and scared for their life, and quite irrate about. Even if the dog bites the wrong person?

Question to Alix @98

When your dog is attacking and in defense mode. Even defending the pack, property, whatever .... do you say, good boy and he stands down? Do you say good boy afterwords. I can just see someone listen to you praise the dog, after being attacked and scared for their life, and quite irrate about. Even if the dog bites the wrong person?

As to examining assumptions regarding profiling and singling out pit bulls, you might peruse this article:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/06/060206fa_fact

from Mr Blinky Tippingpoint himself, Malcolm Gladwell, regarding the ineffectiveness of profiling in general, with pitbulls being the example. The impetus of the article was Canada outlawing them due to a recent attack. (his point is that this knee jerk legislation was not taking the data into consideration).

An excerpt for your reading pleasure, a quote from a New York Police Commisioner:

“I’ve seen virtually every breed involved in fatalities, including Pomeranians and everything else, except a beagle or a basset hound,” Randall Lockwood, a senior vice-president of the A.S.P.C.A. and one of the country’s leading dogbite experts, told me. “And there’s always one or two deaths attributable to malamutes or huskies, although you never hear people clamoring for a ban on those breeds. When I first started looking at fatal dog attacks, they largely involved dogs like German shepherds and shepherd mixes and St. Bernards—which is probably why Stephen King chose to make Cujo a St. Bernard, not a pit bull. I haven’t seen a fatality involving a Doberman for decades, whereas in the nineteen-seventies they were quite common. If you wanted a mean dog, back then, you got a Doberman. I don’t think I even saw my first pit-bull case until the middle to late nineteen-eighties, and I didn’t start seeing Rottweilers until I’d already looked at a few hundred fatal dog attacks. Now those dogs make up the preponderance of fatalities. The point is that it changes over time. It’s a reflection of what the dog of choice is among people who want to own an aggressive dog.”
"

Ban the assholes, and give me my gin and tonic please.

Jelly@102 for the win.

There's a great article in Salon about how pits are great dogs. Having been around so many of them, I knew how great they are already.

One of the best points: There are approximately 300,000 pits in NYC. If they're so damn deadly, why is there anyone left alive in NYC?

Well, I live in the city (though South Beacon Hill isn't exactly a paragon of density) and own a 90lb German Shepherd. Three houses (that I know of) on my block have been burglarized in the last year; one of them while the residents were home, several of whom were beaten severely during the home invasion. Last week my husband was out walking the dog one night when a crazy guy mumbling down the street decided he didn't like the way my husband was "eyeballing him," and pulled out a big-ass knife. Husband calmly said to the dog, "Watch him;" the ensuing barking stopped the crazy guy in his tracks and sent him on his way without physical contact. So aside from, you know, wuvving her widdle pookum self for being a "convincing simulacrum of human companionship," I appreciate the immediate and effective deterrent provided by the dog's very presence.

But I agree that those of us who decide to own dogs should bear the brunt of the cost for that decision. I assume some of those costs are paid for with the licensing fees which are already in place for pet ownership, although I think those fees could be increased a lot before they approached a punitive level. Some of the other societal costs mentioned above are, of course, caused only by stupid and irresponsible dog owners. My dog doesn't roam around off leash; I scoop up her shit; her food attracts no pests because it's kept inside; and she lives inside, so there's no noise issue if she does bark at something.

So as a self-righteously virtuous pet owner, I'm all for increasing the ticket amount for not having a pet license or breaking any other pet-related laws. Recoup the costs on the backs of those idiots who give us all a black eye. (I say the same thing about bicyclists who are too important to obey stop signs.) And I think the idea of "dog insurance" is actually pretty logical.

So...what am I missing, that I don't feel like I'm a part of the menacing problem of large-dog owners?

@ 66 well said

Thel -
The average per capita expenditure for dog food alone in the United States -- and I'm talking if the cost is spread out over the entire population -- is about $30 per person per year. So if Seattle banned dogs and spent spent the money we currently spend feeding dogs on civic improvements, we'd have about $18 million a year in additional city money.

So, using the figure from this page I figure that to be something like 180 new cops per year for the city -- just for the cost of dog food, mind you. Convert the cost of vet bills and chew toys and we could probably build a new precinct in your neighborhood.

Of course, that's neither here nor there: low-density low-income neighborhoods are always going to have high rates of property crime and higher-than-normal rates of violent crime. In a situation like that, people might be justified in owning dogs for the same reasons that people who live on farms might be justified in owning dogs: as territorial predators, dogs make excellent early-warning systems.

As far as Mr. Crazy Knife Man, I assume you're aware that, since he's symptomatic of a lot of other problems, he's also susceptible to a lot of other solutions.

@107, You could say the same thing about just about any thing that people buy. I suppose we could all eat cheap live in closets and not do anything, but honestly that seems boring. The whole self righteous hippy shit works well when one is a naive elitist college student but it gets old once one is say 23.

I prefer to enjoy the excesses and luxuries provide by living in a civilization at its apex. While I happy to pay taxes and what not I just don't care enough to get rid of my dogs or other such things that make me happy and I would guess just about everyone feels the same.

Giffy:

You're arguing to a point I didn't even try to make, and you're doing it with trite bandwagon logic.

Keep an eye on those dogs. Evidence suggests they might trick you into all kinds of mischief.

@109. I don't think so. Your argument was that money spent on dogs, dog food to be specific, could be better spent. You even researched how many cops it could buy. Fair enough, but there's absolutely no reason to stop at dogs.

Clearly you don't like them and find them to be a waste of money. I find most local music to be trite and lame. I am also not a fan of tricked out Hondas. I could make the exact same argument about acoustic guitars and large mufflers. This being a stupid argument, I will refrain.

By the way many more people are killed and injured by their partners each year then by dogs. Associating with others, be they human or animal, is frat with risks.

Eh, but you could make a similar point about any consumption you consider useless. In 2006, cigarette consumption was 67.5 packs per capita; at $3 per pack (is that close to reality? I have no idea), that's already $200 per person per year--not including all the money spent on advertising and medical care for tobacco-related diseases. How much per capita do we spend on pop (the carbonated beverage, not the musical genre) every year, or on cable TV, or movie popcorn?

I suppose that doesn't really negate your point...it's pretty much just a whiny sort of, "Hey, other consumables are useless and money spent on them could be put to better purposes, too!" So if there are ways to mitigate those drains on society (via tobacco taxes, etc.), can we apply those same techniques to pet ownership, too? And actually, I can't think of anything but taxes right now, so...tax me harder, I guess.

And yes, I wish there were a host of other solutions for Mr. Crazy Knife Man, or for Mr. Thel and his own PTSD for that matter, or anyone with less than perfect mental health. But hey, haven't there been some studies correlating pet ownership with certain mental and physical health benefits, anyway? Maybe that's the solution: a dog for every crazy person! Er.

Sorry...108-110 came while I was intermittently composing 111.

Yep, the dog freaks came out en masse after this news broke.

Look, pitbulls are a deadly breed. A pitbull's animal instinct is to lock its jaws onto its target and not let go until either it dies or the target dies, whichever comes first.

You may housebreak some of them to be nice and cuddly etc., but these are animals whose first genetic instinct is to maul and kill, like a wild tiger. This crime isn't too surprising, and this is the risk a community takes in allowing these animals to be kept as roving pets.

Oh for crap's sake. It's not a question of whether the money would be "better spent" in some vague general sense: I said urban dog ownership was dangerous to the community and served no useful purpose, Thel said her dog serves a specific purpose (security), I opined that the money spent on dogs by those who own them could be redirected to serve the same purpose more communally without the dangers and external costs of dog ownership. How the hell do you two generalize that to, "any consumption [I] consider useless"?

If we're going to argue it would be helpful if you could argue with the point I'm actually making.

As far as the question of Mr. Crazy Knife Man, my point was simply that it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that your dog is the only solution to the problem he presents -- or even that your dog is a good solution. Mr. Crazy Knife Man is still an accident waiting to happen -- he's just going to happen to someone else. Other solutions that cost you the same amount of money as your dog might actually make you safer in the long run. It's a pretty simple point, I think you basically agree with it and, since I have at no time suggested that Chloe should be arrested by the Dogstapo and hustled off to Doggie Dachau, I think we can just agree on the point we probably agree on and have done.

OR MATT @101 - No, my 2 dogs never got praise during or immediately after the 2 incidents. Nor were their commands things such as “good boy/girl”, my stepfather aided in training military dogs, so all our dogs are trained with schutzhund. To clarify, the first instance I sited, my rottie Brutus never *bit* the guy. He was trained by my stepdad to basically corral and keep cornered intruders, which he did beautifully. The meter man (who ignored the signs we had posted warning of our dog and came in anyways) tried to make a run for it after being cornered, and Brutus grabbed a hold of his pants, ripping them. The meter man thought better of running, stood still and Brutus went back to sitting and keeping the intruder cornered until my mom and stepfather went out. Then he was given a stand down command and the situation was handled. After it all ended, yes he got a nice belly rub for a job well done, but it’s nothing more than if you profusely thanked a cop or firefighter for doing their job and helping you. My German Shepard’s sole incident, with the man who came into our house as we were moving thinking to help himself to easy pickings, was met with Sadie. Now she was adopted from the military and was originally from Germany, and she was a ‘professional’ gaurd dog (also trained with schutzhund) and so when the man came in, her training had her going for his forearm to bring him down and immobilize him until called to stand down. She did bite him, through a sweatshirt, but we were not at fault b/c again, the man came onto our property, ignored posted signs, came into our home and was attempting to rob us of our things. Again, she didn’t get praise or anything b/c she was doing what she was trained to do. I don’t consider what they did ‘attacking’, b/c to me an attack is something uncalled for and unprovoked. Both instances were of intruders coming onto the property and my dogs did what they were taught – to protect the family. I don’t see anything wrong with what either of them did.

To 113 – your ignorant comments are astounding. Do you seriously believe APBT’s have “locking jaws”?!?! That there is some mutation in that one breed of dog that makes its jaws that much different from any other dog?? Here’s something for ya: The infamous locking jaw is a myth. The American Pit Bull Terrier and related breeds are physiologically no different from any other breed of dog. All dogs are from the same species and none have locking jaws. Dr. I Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of 'pounds per square inch' can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data." Furthermore, Dr. Brisbin states, "The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of 'locking mechanism' unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier.”
And as far as that whole: they won’t “let go until either it dies or the target dies”. I’m sorry. Maybe untrained dogs do. If your untrained husky or lab or [insert breed of dog here] went after a cat or a squirrel or some other small fast animal that kicked in the dogs innate ‘prey’ instinct, and you commanded it to let go, would it?? or would it ‘play’ with it until they killed it? to blanket statement that that’s a trait separate and alone to APBT’s is ridiculous and makes you sound ignorant.
Btw, housebreaking is potty training. A dog that is nice and cuddly is just what we call a dog; a companion animal if you have to give it a title. And I LOVE how you use scientific terms such as “genetic instinct”… as if you were an animal behaviorist or PhD in biology. Praytell, how do you know it’s in their genetic makeup (DNA if you will) to maul and kill? Do you mean dogs in general have that genetic makeup? Then yes, I may concede on that point b/c THAT is true. ALL dogs, being decendants of wild dogs and wolves, have an instinctual prey drive. There are those whose prey drive is higher (those dogs which are used in hunting like pointers), but you make it sound as if you know 100% beyond a doubt that *only* APBT’s have this within them. And btw, a wild tiger kills for food and defense, not pleasure. Humans are the only animals around that hurt and kill for fleshly gain or sadistic pleasure. Dogs, cats, horses, lions, tigers, bears, oh my! Don’t have that kind of cognitive reasoning or high level of sentient to make that kind of call.

@114,

I still say I was. You don't like dogs and think they are useless and dangerous. Thats completely fine. No one says you have to have one. Where your argument becomes vacuous is when you try and argue that those of that do should spend our money elsewhere.

I can make the same dangerous/useless/annoying argument about many other things. Most things we do are somewhat dangerous (driving) and given perfect knowledge and benevolence could be done better. However we lack both those things so we allow people to choose for themselves what makes them happy. I am pretty sure you would not want the things you enjoy taken away from you because some communal do gooder thinks they know better.

For example, many people, probably more then dies from dogs, die at concerts every year from tramplings, accidents, etc. Not to mention the deaths results form drugged out and drunk revelers driving home or health care costs from lose of hearing. Concerts are expensive, require large venues, and make lots of noise. We could better spend that money on home audio. It would be safer and cheaper. Thats not the point though. People, myself included, enjoy going to see live music just like they enjoy their dogs. As long as they stay with in certain bounds they should be allowed to enjoy themselves.

On a side note, I could equally argue that more cops would be quite dangerous at least with the SPD's record. :\

@115

Thank you so much. Curious how the pros do it. I don't have much time for a pet at the momment, but I did have dogs growing up. Some strays, but ... well we had a collie, spanial, shepard mix that was NUTS about protecting the family. Hard to train at first, an absolute bitch really, but loyal as a son of a gun. When company came over, we knew to put her away in a room, it made the most sense right. She was also especially skittish around men (which I guess isn't uncommon). The husky shepherd mix also pscycho around strangers, needed to be shut away around company, leeshed etc. etc. but loyal to the family.

The pit bull mix however thought she was a lap dog. I'm so sick of the pit bull haters.

I still say I was. You don't like dogs and think they are useless and dangerous. Thats completely fine. No one says you have to have one.

That's related to my point: other people's dogs are a danger to me whether I own one or not. The other activities you talk about require either voluntary participation (concerts) or, like driving, provide a general benefit even to the public -- even the non-driving pulbic. Now me, I don't drive and I'd prefer other people didn't either, but I can see the argument for allowing cars to remain legal on the grounds that they serve some function that benefits society at large.

Not so dogs, which don't benefit me at all and represent several tangible threats to my health and safety. And this is Civics 101: my health and safety are rights guaranteed me by the Constitution. Activities that endanger those rights without my consent are only justifiable to the extent that they can be demonstrated to produce a net benefit to the community that mitigates their harmful effects. I would contend that the harm done by cars is greater than their benefit, but I can at least see the arguments that run the other way. Urban dogs, on the other hand, are obviously an unmitigated liability to the public good. Specifically, other people's dogs are a liability to my good.

"And this is Civics 101: my health and safety are rights guaranteed me by the Constitution. "

No they are not, not in the least. The constitution protects you from government interference not private action. Thats what laws are for. There is no constitutional right to be safe or really even alive. If you are injured you don't have an action under the constitution except in the narrow circumstance were your injury was caused by government action in violence of your enumerated rights. i.e. cruel or unusual punishment.

As for concerts, you ever live near one or experience a concert riot. Hell a few random people this year have been killed because they walked by a night club. Of course this the fault of a few irresponsible actors right?

Somewhere between 20-30 people are killed each year from dog bites. More are killed by alcohol, guns, small plastic toys, drug violence, old people driving, and other things that convey little social benefit and are quite dangerous to those around it. If we made everything illegal that carriers some risk to bystanders we would have few things left legal at all. Instead we regulate to protect people. SO you can drink, but not drink and drive. You can drive but we want to test you first. You can have a dog, but you have to keep it on leash or in your yard.

OR MATT @ 118 - getting dogs trained is hard. well trained even more so. and trained to the point of 'professional'ism is the hardest and is an ongoing thing for the dogs life pretty much. wow, those dogs sound great, just not human-friendly lol or stranger human-friendly. :-)

i never had to worry about locking away my animals like that though. most were of the mindset, "if they're with the family, it's ok." when new ppl came around. mostly though they'd just give a sniff or two then go about their own things; lay down outside or in another room or w/e. ha ha ha. it was when ppl came around without a family member that my dogs would ever go into "gaurd" mode. and we told ppl this. no matter how many times someone had come over, if they didn't live there, my dogs were usually not okay with them unless we were accompaning them.

and the funny thing is? they were all trained by my stepdad in one way or another and that's why they were that way. my APBT? biggest sissy alive! i don't have the skill nor discipline to train my dog to be 'professional', but she is pretty well mannered (for a 6.5 month old lol) and knows most of her commands. and she's the breed (out of all of my dogs i've ever had as a family pet) that catches the most shit for agression. the only thing my dog bites hard are her toys b/c since day 1 i've been firm in that; i never once let that "puppy biting" slide b/c if you stop it early it won't be a problem. it's when ppl think it's "cute" and let their little puppies chew or bite them when playing that ppl end up with an adolescent dog with the same bad habit that's now hard to break it of. i've actually gotten my girl to the point where even when her 'dad' is roughhousing with her (which i hate him to do btw) he can NOT get her to break his skin when he tries. he got mad once that i'd instilled in my dog the "no! no biting!" (take away skin and give her a toy and praise THAT biting) so much that she won't even do it riled up. lol now i think that's a GOOD thing. :D

i agree 100% that my APBT thinks she's just like my aunt's 5 chihuahua's... she can sit on your lap when you're watching tv. lol. it was ok when she was little, but she's pushing 40lbs now and only getting bigger. lol i'll end up with a 65-70lb lap dog. ha ha ha. she is the biggest baby i've ever owned. followed by my last Rottie, KiKi.

Okay, fine, I went and looked it up; it's not Constitutional (though you're wrong about that; Constitutional protections do restrict the actions of private parties such as employers and so on), it's common law. The government has the right/responsibility to regulate behavior that affects the health safety and welfare of the community or individuals within the community. So basically my point is that dog ownership constitutes an unreasonable threat to the health safety and welfare of urban communities and that the government therefore has, at least, a prerogative to regulate it -- possibly to the point of exclusion (as in the case of certain livestock animals like horses and roosters).

I would add here that if dog owners, broadly, were capable of consistent and reasonable behavior with regard to their animals, I wouldn't even be making this argument. But the violation of leash laws and scoop laws is so flagrant and incessant that enforcement is simply not a practicable solution; I believe a limited ban is necessary and appropriate.

But it's also never going to happen. So if you want the last word in this pointless fucking argument, it's all yours.

I will always remember the day when my old girlfriend introduced me to her rottweiller. I was hearing all sorts of wonderful stories about how Sage HATED her old bf and come screaming and barking at any obsitcal standing in his way when ever the prior bf came around. He wanted him dead. Forget meeting the parents, I was scared out of my mind meeting this dog, German muscular rot too. Gave me a couple sniffs, was totally cool with me ... he still took up way too much room in the bed. I suppose personally that's where I would have drawn the line.

Pit Bulls are nothing.

@122, the only thing I'll add is that the constitution does not restrict the right of private parties regarding discrimination. Thats why we have anti-discrimination laws, which were subject to unsuccessful constitutional challenges. The only possible exception is slavery as it is explicitly outlawed, but I am not aware of any cases against a private party for slavery under the constitution.

In fact until the 14th amendment was ratified the bill of irghts did not apply to the States.

For those of you who do understand that there are a lot of irresponsible pitbull owners who purposely create vicious animals, and realize that euthization is the only answer in some cases, go to dogpolitics.org (where they apparently don't understand this) and express your opinion.

We live in a very scary society.