Comments on Just Give the Pit Bull What It Wants and You Won't Get Hurt

How would you like it if everyone judged all gay men by a few sex offenders who happened to be gay?

Silly Dan! Kids are for Pits!

pit bulls arent aggressive dogs and their owners arent mostly assholes?

give it up. the more that shit like this happens the more you look foolish for either defending the dog, or not aknowleding the dog will most likely be raised by assholes.

Yeah, that would be awful, Anonymous. I hope that never happens.

Hey Bellevue Ave,

So if a certain kind of dog is often raised by assholes, the dog is still to blame? I don't think anyone is denying these dogs attract assholes. What's at issue is how to solve the problem. Getting rid of pit bulls won't do it...the assholes will find some other dog breed to twist and pervert. Rottweilers, German Shepherds...there are lots of dogs that can be mean if their owners are fuckwad abusers.

Swisher should be put down because he's too far gone. But the owners are the ones who should get your scorn, not the dog or the breed.

Thanks to Vick, every pit bull attack is going to get national coverage.

PS, all you Dan haters, I read this on CNN.com before reading it here.

actually the dog does get my scorn because they have potential for harm that exceeds that of others. you dont have a problem with banning assault rifles, or extended magazines, or armor piercing bullets, attached grenade launcher etc.

that is what pitbull is like in the dog world, a fully tricked out killing machine that has potential to cause more harm than other dogs through genetics.

so spare me.

Hey B.A.

What evidence do you have for these claims? "through genetics"? Lots of dogs have been bred to be aggressive over the centuries. Should they all be destroyed?

The only reason their "potential for harm exceeds others" is because they have the misfortune to attract more of the aforementioned assholes. But you don't seem to get the point: Getting rid of bulls won't stop the problem. Those same assholes will just pick some other breed, and that one will suddenly be the preferred option for people like you to blindly hate.

*Idea!* Lets send all of the Pit Bulls to Iraq and bring our soldiers back?? With the Pit Bull's aggressive tendancy and Islamic's disdain for dogs the hillarity will no doubt ensue!!!!

so what is your solution, BA? are you going to come to my house and take away Rufus? is that how it will work? sounds great. he's really sweet, so he won't put up a fight. but watch out, he's REALLY codependent. even though he weighs about 45 lbs, he has to sit on your lap and likes to sleep in the bed.

so go ahead and come take my pit. but watch out, because he's a lot of work.

I'm with Bellevue Ave. The pitbull defenders' arguments mostly boil down to variations on the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" theme.

Enforcement of any laws restricting pitbull ownership would be really difficult to implement, though. It would be great if the debate could be shifted to that ground.

You wanna make an omelet, ya gotta break a few eggs. Kiss Rufus goodbye.

We should have an aggressive animals permit. Much like requiring an exotic animals permit for those who wish to own lions and such. If you have the permit the authorities know who you are and where aggressive animals are. If you don't you loose the animal and get a nice big fine which is 5 time more than the permit. First time offenders can still apply for the permit and get their animals back. Second time you loose all options. And of course if you animal attacks someone you loose all options as well and getting charged with aggravated assault or some such appropriate law. Most owners of any animal need to take more responsibility.

Pit bulls SHOULD be allowed in bars.

So should guns. And pygmy goats.

Allowed? Hell, they should be mandatory! Seattle tries to run too many things by intelligent design. Let every Darwin have his day.

so assholes will move on to another dog -- one that is less likely to attack. that would be a step in the right direction. or they might not move on to other dogs.

when something is abused (a right, a privilege, etc...) to the point that it is demonstratably physically harming others, then measures can and should be taken to reduce the harm. why not require a special license for owning a pitbull (or any potentially dangerous dog) in areas with a certian population density? or at least start holding the owner for a designated dangerous breed responsible for the attack as if they were the one attacking.

you can have Rufus, bbut you'll have to get through my army of jack russel terriers!

Pit bulls aren't like guns at all, and I really think that trying to say bull defenders are making a similar "people kill people" argument is bullshit. Guns (handguns in particular) have a unique capacity (in terms of ease of use and concealment) to inflict immediate grevious harm. Not to mention the fact that they're inanimate objects that can't be molded or shaped to behave a certain way.

Dogs and dog breeds aren't like that. Taking pit bulls away won't work like taking handguns away would. Some other breed of dog will just take its place.

I could just as easily say that anti-bull people on this board are making the argument that all potentially dangerous dog breeds (and there are dozens, at least) should be killed outright just because of the potential for abuse by assholes. Is that your position? Because I find that pretty reprehensible.

genetically ridiculously strong chompers. thats why they are a threat.
and go fuck yourself with hate. I love dogs. I don't love dangerous dogs. Spare me the outrage over my selective bias against dogs that kill people more than other dogs, that attack people with greater bodily harm than other dogs. sure a dauschaund and a beagle and a corgi could attack, and sometimes do, but without the same ridiculous destruction of a pit.

how about this as a solution:

dog owners actually start cleaning house with owners. if you're a shitty owner, other dog owners should be on your ass about it. police yourself when you sell puppies or give them away - do you actually want this fuck raising a dog?

I dont think we should take dogs away by simple breed selection, and i havent advocated that, EVER. quote me on it. I think we should make the penalties for having a pit that goes apeshit be the same as criminally negligant offenses. felonies, fines, and the risk to the owner being so great they will make absolutely sure they will make sure that dog doesnt attack.

Has anyone considering upping penalties and enforcement resources for problem animals/owners? I don't know about this case, but the earlier dog attack this week had a long history of danger signs. Pitt bulls get the big press, but attacks come from a variety of breed. C'mon politicos, this is a solvable problem!

you might think it's bullshit that guns dont kill people, but is true. a gun is less dangerous by itself than a pit is. period. it's in the hands of a person that they become what they are; tools of violence.

@13 you beat me to it! apparently i need to type even faster than i already do.

Dan, you should start calling your pit bull related posts "And they will know we are pitbulls by our..."

Will do mongo...

"...by our trail of dead," maybe?

Go to hell Dan .... at least on this issue

hate em - used to live in a rowdy neighborhood where they were common.

yes, they try to bite all the time

gass em by madate of law

outlaw the breed

now

idiot above

hell is some
bad ass pit trying to devour your baby - then, the bad ass owner says - oh no, he never bites

you fucking idiot, go back to the turnip truck

Chows are supposed to be evil child killing dogs, I had 5, and one was a stray. They never bit anyone and never acted like they were going to bite anyone. I think assholes raise asshole dogs and good people raise good dogs.

Increase the liability insurance costs on properties housing pit bulls.(the state or county can require this can't they?)
Most pits are owned by young men still living with their parents or in rentals, who got a free puppy from a neighbor's litter. Their parents or landlord won't put up with an extra bill. Neighbors & mail carriers can report to the county which properties these are.
Most of pit bull owners are teens who can't afford to replace their free/cheap pit with an expensive rottweiler or dobermann. Of course drug dealers and professional football players will still have them. But all the dumb teens in our neighborhoods wanting to show off won't anymore.

This ongoing conversation is stupid and boring at the same time. Let me cradle you in my arms and rock you while I tell you this: It's the owner's fault.

Hey, look out! OMFG, it's a PIT BULL!!!!!!!
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Hey, and for shits, let me add that a German Shepard's bite force is greater than that of a Pit Bull. Which, btw, is a third of that of a Snapping Turtle. Keep an eye peeled, Jack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_fighting_breeds

lmao, it's funny that you mention it lloyd because many of the dogs used in dog fighting are in those "mis-identified" breeds thing.

and also, who teh fuck mistakes a choco lab for a pit bull?

Why are so many of the people saying "it's not the breed, it's the owners" saying that as if it ends the discussion? Okay, fine, it's the owners. Should we be asking what can be done to make owners behave more responsibly? Or if more stringent laws determining criminal liability for the actions of an animal in a person's care are required? Should animal control take a more aggressive role in euthanizing unlicensed or free-roaming animals of a certain size?

To the pit owners who are so angry about anyone suggesting that any actions be taken against the dogs, you'd earn a lot more respect from people who have good reason to be alarmed at stories like this one if you showed some kind of willingness to discuss effective remedies. Looking at a story where a woman is seriously injured protecting her infant from a loose vicious dog and essentially shrugging and saying "Oh well, nothing can be done" makes you look callous, like you care more about your right to have the pet of your choice than the rights of others to not be savagely mauled by somebody else's pet.

So come on, dog experts, step up. What, if anything, should be done to reduce the incidence of attacks like the one described?

@28,

Too late. Some insurance companies already refuse to cover people who own pit bulls. The problem is that many of those people aren't interested in owning liability insurance. That's why laws need to be passed allowing for those bastards to be locked up if their dog attacks someone. Is your pit a sweetie pie? That's great. Just make sure it never attacks someone or you will be paying the price.

Actually, my pit is almost always misidentified as a lab, or a weimaraner. Not because she is a mix, but because she is a pure bread American Pit Bull Terrier ( a pound rescue though...). People don't know what pit bulls are, they think these 80 lb dogs are pit bulls, i will tell you they are not. Either a recent generation, or one up the line was mixed with a larger breed dog,( rott, presa canario, etc..) pit bull's are not naturally large dogs.

And i do support higher penalties to those owners that have dogs that do harm.....i wanted the women who locked her son in the basement rather than her pit to serve jail time ( the child was killed by the mating dogs). I also support mandatory spay/neuter for ALL breeds ( with the exception of workingdogs and reputable licenced breeders).

Agreed that the owners are the problem, but because the dogs are so dangerous (under that circumstance), they are a HELL of a problem. Totally agreed with 31. Best point made thus far.
So here's the solution: Classify certain breeds as dangerous (because just like a gun they can be) and regulate ownership. Hell, I'd say make the license cheap, for loving poor folks who adopt a pit puppy and raise it right.
But as soon as a licensed dog goes bad, BAM! Shoot the poor motherfucker and imprison the owner for 5-10 years if the victim survives, 10-20 if they die.
It isn't just pit bulls, besides, as the one guy mentioned. A German shepherd raised to be vicious and left unrestrained will KILL the weak- old people, the blind, children, babies. Same license, same penalty.
-

Admit it, Dan: At this point, you're just posting about pit bulls to increase the Slog's hit counts.

Because a stastically insignificant number of people are truely affected by pit bulls in the mannor that the story was described. It's sensationalism ... pure and simple. And the logistics for trying to identify a breed? It's fucking asinine, petty, logistically impossible, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK! Because unless you have a fucking pedigree on your dog to umpteenth generation, you won't ever ever ever be able to have the ... I forget the canine society even to identify the breed.

So now what, are you going to waste more money by taking a dog to court SAY it's a pit bull when no judge can say he can't emphatically determine whether the dog is a pit within reasonable doubt? Unless of course you have DNA evidence to suggest that the dog is in fact a pit bull or has any trace of pit bull ever in him. Furthermore I'm willing to bet TWICE MY STUDENT LOAN DEBT THAT SUCH A GENE WILL NEVER BE FOUND.

Morons ... fucking morons ... if it really concerns you people so much, hold the owners more responible, register the dogs, register the breeders, SPAY AND NEUTER YOUR PETS (sometimes you wish people could be treated that way) At least it's nondiscriminatory and realistic.

cris- good idea! mandatory spay/neuter should also be employed for harmless (to humans) animals like cats, because they are devastating to wildlife. I love my cats and they're all gender-neutral.
:-)

So OR Matt, are you like 6'4" and 300 pounds? Because the rest of us have to fear for our lives when we're in neighborhoods with powerful, unrestrained dogs. And the rest us think that's worth levying some sort of laws. So yes, it really concerns us people so much, and yes, holding the owners more responsible, registering the dogs, registering the breeders, and mandatory spayings/neuterings are all good ideas. Muchas Gracias.
-

to 18 - “Genetically ridiculously strong chompers.” - Completely false statement. There is no difference between ANY of the bully breed dogs’ jaws/mandibles/teeth and any other dog. Took/audited some classes in: Animal Behavior, Mammalogy, Genetics, Evolution, & Comparative Physiology [all in the zoology field]. I may not be a PhD or expert, but as someone raised around many animals and fascinated by them, I feel I may have some level of competence.  There is no skeletal difference between dogs other than bone density and length of bone/s *i.e.: difference between a great dane and a Chihuahua skeleton* so to make the statement that a bully breed dogs’ teeth (or ‘chompers’ as you put it) are different down to a genetic level is asinine. Give me hard, biological, scientific proof that has come out between Dec. of 05 and today to prove me otherwise.

”I don't love dangerous dogs.” – Again, I’ll reiterate: a dog is a dog is a dog. That’s like me saying ‘I love horses just not dangerous horses.’ Any dog, (or horse if you want to go with the parallel) is dangerous with people who do not understand the animal (both as a whole and individually) nor the responsibility they are taking on with the animal/s. There are different dog and horse breeds, but they’re all the same when you get down to genetic levels. I will give on the fact that certain breeds of dogs were preferred for specific tasks and traits necessary for said task (for man’s pleasure) were encouraged, but so were horses (plowing, racing, trotting, show, etc). But to discriminate based on that is like saying get rid of all farm/work horses or any other breed and keep only Arabian or Iberian horses for [insert reason here]. Granted, you could argue *again* about the teeth but ask any one who has ever been bitten by a horse to tell you a dog bite would be worse. Horses are dangerous creatures in the wrong hands (as are some dogs). They are also abused and neglected (much like dogs) and when rescued and afraid of ppl, with patience, can be rehabilitated (much like dogs). Are you against horses for the same argument you’re against bully breed dogs?
“selective bias against dogs that kill people more than other dogs, that attack people with greater bodily harm than other dogs” – so I assume you’re against ALL: Labrador retrievers, huskies, Pomeranians, German Shepards, malamutes, Belgian malinois, rottweilers, St. Bernards, Great Danes, West Highland Terrier, Japanese Hunting Dog, Newfoundland, Coonhound, Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback and cocker Spaniel? All these breeds of dogs at one point or another since 1980 have killed 1 or more people. We’re not talking bites or maulings but deaths. That’s a LOT of dogs since you have to take into account all dogs with these in them, b/c with your logic, on a ‘genetic’ level a dog with one or more of these breeds in it are ticking time bombs and need to be eradicated?
As to your solution, many many MANY responsible breeders DO screen those who will take a puppy and many more responsible bully breed owners don’t breed at all and instead fix all their animals and rescue/adopt those dogs that pass tests and need a good home. And they also rip irresponsible owners a new one. But it’s a very uphill battle.
“The penalties for having a pit that goes apeshit be the same as criminally negligent offenses. Felonies, fines, and the risk to the owner being so great they will make absolutely sure they will make sure that dog doesn’t attack.” - Good idea, problem with that is having ppl to enforce it.

@32 - Yeah they don't want to pay, but mortgages require property insurance. There are a few people who own their homes/rental properties out right, don't have insurance, and don't care if they lose everything in a fire anyways that wouldn't pay. But that's another issue and a separate hazzard for the neighborhood as well. Like drug dealers they are probably unreachable. It will shock the other homeowners(or the landlord) when a kid brings home a puppy into saying hell no.

One of my childhood friends had a pit-bull and it was the sweetest most patient dog I'd ever met. Little kids would pull on its tail and try to ride it and it would just sit there calmly and take it. Then one day we were hanging out in her detached garage and the mailman, the same one that always came at that time, walked by the window on the way to the house. The dog jumped right through the glass. No warning, and really, no explanation as to why on this one day the dog just snapped.

It was so strange since the pit had always been so calm and unaggressive. It always seemed to be the little dogs, the drop kicks, that you had to watch out for. Everyone on our block knew to steer clear of Blackjack, an evil little terrier, owned by a cop no less. But as vicious as he was, he wasn't too hard to avoid because he was ALWAYS tied up.

I think the telling points of this recent attack are that this was not the first time that Swisher had bit someone and that despite that history, on this day, the dog was lose.

Now the dog will be killed, and most likely, the owners will be charged with reckless endangerment, or some such, and will also face a civil suit from the woman who was attacked. There are laws already in place to insure that both the animal and the owner will be punished. Creating new laws to try and prevent this sort of thing from happening are not likely to make any difference if the ones we have in place now are already being ignored by the folks they're designed to affect.

To 19 – again, it more often than not boils down to irresponsible ownership. To people who are ignorant to animal minds and behavioral patterns. When people don’t know or don’t act on the fact that their animal is showing signs of irregular/aggressive/etc behavior, THAT’S when problems arise. Most times, the owners are assholes, but sometimes it’s just a regular joe/jane who didn’t want to be bothered with getting to know their animal well enough or couldn’t be bothered by the responsibility pet ownership requires. I agree that they are the ones who should be punished b/c due to their lack of action someone was hurt. An animal, no matter how sentient or intelligent it may be, is STILL an animal and will act like an animal (ever hear the story of the frog and the scorpion? Same thing.) An animal will always act true to it’s animal nature. It can not fully reason, does not differentiate as humans can…. It is ruled by experience and judges based on association. It IS a solvable problem, the question lies in, whose solution do we go with? Those who want to exterminate en masse any and all breeds that aren’t itty bitty and harmless in a teacup? The other extreme? What?

The hole in your thesis is that there are no horses bred for killing. There are dogs that are bred for killing. Killing other dogs, yes, but that makes them significantly more dangerous than horses.
All the other breeds you mentioned, ticking time bombs? Yes indeed. Same licensing and penalties for owners of those dogs. Why not? I'm not in the crowd that advocates eradication of combat dogs.
But if we did eradicate them, aside form the people going, "Oh poor babies" about them, who really suffers? It would be a smaller amount of killing than the annual meat harvest for McDonald's. It would be funny to see Vicks and his asshole buddies trying to bet on bloodthirsty Chihuahua fights.
-

Funny you should ask ... yes, I'm 6'5'' and 240 (close enough) and I did have a scary experience once with a doberman when I was 4.

And I don't think it matters.

It was the purebred mother of an undesired litter from which we adopted our family dog from. (yes she was a mean bitch). The dogs still freak me out a little, but it's not a dog you really see to much any more because of you bat shit paranoid weirdos that killed the breed. Our family dog was half doberman, half shepherd spanial mix. She loyal to the family, very protective, and we new ... and used our best judgement ... which people she should and shouldn't be around.

My uncle, who had a giant Schnouzer oh my god. THAT was a protective dog. Thing was the size of a bear! Ironically, my uncle a big guy was attacked by a pack of chuhwahwah's and is still skitish around them.

I've been trying to find stories of attacks by feral chuhuahua packs, and I can't find them. There was one in Torrington CT. Great local news, not on the national level.

It's sensationalizm pure and simple. People love to scapegoat a breed.

@43

I'm sure Christopher Reeves appreciates your insensitivities towards the dangers of horses.

Heh, Bellevue. *It all happened so fast, I couldn't tell it was a Chocolate Lab!* You might well be right about fighting dogs, but my point is more that people don't know what a Pit Bull actually is. It's a lot of misinformed hype.

@ 31 - I think you're on the right track about licencing and liability for owners. If you rack up a certain number of incidents, fines and beyond to losing the dog to the wonders of euthanasia, plus a mark on your record that'll come up with the next dog you register. And big penalties for unregistered dogs. I think, too, that OR Matt makes a lot of sense @36.

Did you read the rest of my post OR? I'm not scapegoating the breed. Dogs of every kind large enough to hurt people need better legal controls. I'm not on the scapegoating breeds tip.
Though dogs bred for combat do tend to end up owned by the kind of assholes who should be in prisons. You can't look at the news stories and seriously expect me to believe we shouldn't do ANYTHING about this situation. Like 31 said, that makes you look like a callous asshole.
-

@45- Christopher Reeves wasn't attacked by a horse. I'm sure the lady with ripped to shreds forearms and the ghosts of dog attack victims appreciate your dissembling.
-

@48

No, but the net result is the same. People die and get seriously injured quite often because the horse, that is the very large animal you are riding, decides that it doesn't want you to be there anymore. The varrying degrees of injury are how pissed off the horse is, how large the horse is. Sometimes they even trample you.

Were they bred to kill? No ... more often than not they were mishandles, or there was some miscue in the animal human trust relationship.

The difference perhaps being hit by a motorcycle going a 100 and a car 50 ... or something like that, simply put, the effect is the same.

Oh, and muzzle an aggressive dog.

Parents also need to be aware of how they and their children are interacting with dogs. Dogs have body language that isn't difficult to learn to read.

From dog_biteprevention.com:

Recommendations for parents

Parents should instruct children not to approach and interact with dogs they do not know that well, particularly in certain circumstances such as when a dog is feeding, when a dog in in possession of a coveted object such a bone or something that it has stolen, or when a dog is resting or sleeping;

In selected circumstances, parents should instruct children not to charge a dog or place their face into the face of a dog they do not know that well. This recommendation also applies to adults;

Both children and adults should be cautious around a dog who is chained until indication is received from the dog itself (i.e. through it's behavior) or from the owner that the dog will not bite or act aggressively;

In selected circumstances, children need to be taught to respect a dog's personal boundaries, including the dog's territory and "personal" space, and further children (and adults as well) need to recognize a dog's "body language" (e.g. facial, postural, and vocal behavior);

Instruct children not to tease neighborhood dogs, or for that matter any dog;

Parents should teach their children to treat dogs in a humane and caring manner. There should be zero tolerance for animal abuse;

Keep children away from a dog who they know could be aggressive, and both children and adults should avoid circumstances that might elicit aggressive responding from a dog. These circumstances have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis - situations obviously differ.

to 43 - “these dogs” as you put it, were bred to FIGHT other dogs, not KILL. The original ‘sport’ of dog fighting based out of Ireland and the UK was much like boxing or UFC fighting in that, once it became apparent who the winner was, both dogs were ordered to stop and removed. Also, any dog showing human aggression or apt to kill and refusing to listen to orders, was culled right away to keep the breed integrity as much as possible. The fighting dogs were family pets and received the best care possible. Their training was like that of fighters, and did not involve torturing. NOW though, there are practically 2 different lines of ‘pit bulls’ – those who have been bred to weed out the dog aggression and maintain the breed. And those idiots who want a quick buck and don’t monitor their animals; who breed for size, shape and color rather than personality traits and don’t give two shits as to where their animals end up.

Those other dogs I was using as a small example to show that MANY other types of dogs are responsible for deaths. Here’s another portion of the study done: “study tracks 238 human deaths from dog attacks during a 20+ year period. 24% of these attacks involved unrestrained dogs off their owners property. 58% of the deaths involved unrestrained dogs on their owners property. 17% involved restrained dogs on their owners property and less than 1% involved a restrained dog off the owners property. Some of the conclusions of the study are not suprising. Yes, certain breeds are more likely to kill than others. Yes, deaths from dog attack are quite rare. Also it is sometimes difficult to determine the actual breed of a dog. Communities who try to ban specific dog breeds for public safety will find it difficult to define the parameters of what constitutes that breed. Several factors interact with the dog to enhance the possibility of a human being attacked by a dog besides the breed of the dog. These factors include heredity, sex, early experience, socialization, training, health, reprodcutive status, quality of ownership and victum behavior. Additionally, this study did not look at intervening variable such as was the dog protecting his owner from serious harm or death or was the dog actually protecting himself from serious harm or death. Male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bite then female dogs. Sexually intact dogs,both male and female, are 2.6 more times likely to bite than neutered dogs and chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite then unchained dogs.”

Consensus says…. Enforce laws on ownership and owners! The issue is not really the dog here, but in whose hands it’s in.

If you eradicate over 50% of all companion animals that are dogs, you’d have more than just a few ppl saying “ohhh… poor babies.”

NOW I UNDERSTAND. Throw common sense and personable responcibilty out the window. Throw more beauracracy at the problem, until you only feel slightly safer (which is only the illusion of safety), at the expense of our patience and our tax dollars. EXTREMELY effective considering how animal control isn't usually the best funded.

@51+52: What do you believe when an unrestrained vicious dog thinks your baby is a tasty treat and is chewing through you to get to him? Still all animal-rights at that point?
I think debate is over-rated. People think internet debate is the lowest form of discourse and lament how no one ever changes their minds over it, but wouldn't the same damn thing happen if we were debating face to face?
No one is changing their mind, and we've all thoroughly expressed our opinions & defended our beliefs. Guess that's all that can be had from this conversation. That said, I'm off. Have a nice day.
-

Why not this:
If your dog is unrestrained (not behind a fence large/strong enough to contain it or on a leash strong enough to contain it), it's put down and you're barred from owning any dog for 10 years?

Sounds reasonable to me.

to 53 - again, i'm all for case-by-case. in THIS case, the dog should be apprehended, tested, it's prior actions taken into consideration and probably put down. But I stated, i still blame owners and hell! even the nieghbors who knew of or saw prior aggressive tendencies in this animal and did nothing about it. Irresponsible ownership & ignorant owners is the leading cause in most all dog attacks.

Well ... you try not to think about it. What's the point. It doesn't help you to be paranoid and weird about the stuff you really have no control over. Like the people who were casually driving over a bridge in Mineapolis one day. Freaky shit happens. Sometimes there really is no good rhyme or reason, only marginal ones. And life goes on. Some surprising study about the bridges, how everyone is concerned about bridge safety. How the bridges should be fixed, yet hardly anyone wants to raise taxes to fix it?

Human nature in a nut shell, and life goes on.

Gas 'em. Gas 'em all. The only trustworthy pit bull is a dead pit bull.

Period.

@ 57

I like it ... round up the pit bulls, and foo foo dogs and the gypsy dogs (muts? I don't know, I'm grasping) put them in doggy concentration camps and gas them!

I liked the original idea, but OR Matt, you took it further and I think you've hit the nail on the head. The only logistical problem I can see is standardizing mutts, but your head is in the right place.

I can see the trial now. It would be the most ridiculous thing ever.

"Your honor I would like to call to the stand, Mr. so and so a representative of the American Cainine Society."

"In your opinion is this dog in fact a pit bull"

And then watching it all fall apart.

@59 - Agreed. It would emphasize owner's understanding that their responsibility is always to be the top dog.

The DOG SHOULD BE PUT DOWN.

The DOG SHOULD BE KILLED.

The DOG SHOULD DIE.

Any questions? F*cking idiots.

I wish that all pit bulls on the planet would spontaneously explode.

Alix, how do you explain how certain dogs do more damage in attacks than others if there is not a genetic, muscular, lingemental difference. bone density has exactly what to do with the ability to clamp down on something and hold it?

it might be other psychological features of the dog that is compounded by genetics. such as the ability to endure pain to maintain the grip.

furthermore im all for targetting all dogs that attack people. enact harsher legislation and enforce it. it shouldnt be hard when someone is found dead.

I dont get where these people think enforcement is so much harder. police investigate deaths at the hands of dogs all the time. the only more enforcement needed is in time served.

Don't buy that stricter penalties will deter offenses. I think they will just increase the workload in an already burdened social services.

What I DO think will work (to much chagrin and anger if you people are THAT pissed off about it). Is to ban ALL dogs. And STRICTLY enforce their licensining. Hell dogs are used mostly for companionship anyways and serve no useful purpose in society than give a safer protection of your home than guns and scare people who are already skittish around animals ... and give people with an inferiority complex something else to beat down on. Dogs are becoming obsolete, right?

Pin it to the Dept of Licencing. Get dog and driver renewed simultaneously.

@56 - If it had been your kid, you would be a hoot at the funeral :

Friend : "My God - I'm so, so sorry...."

You (with a shrug) : "Hey, you know. Freaky shit happens. Life goes on!"

stricter penalities will end repeat offenses. period.

furthermore, social services will have nothing to do with this. criminal justice will. if the crime committed by a dog was 2nd degree murder, charger the person with 2nd degree murder. if it is assault with a deadly weapon (as could be demonstrated in could) then the person will be charged with that.

too hard to understand under your rabid dog defense mechanisms?

@67-69

Of course I would be upset ... but truthfully. Maybe I've gone through enough freaky shit where I just sort of feel detached from stuff. And the sick thing is ... you still wake up every god damn day. You can let the anger consume you or you try to find something worthwhile to live for. Why do I defend the pit bulls? It's not so much that I'm dog lover ... but I'm a pit bull hater hater. Simply because. I don't see a practical way to control this issue! I just don't see it. Everyone posts these comments that are fueled by anger and retribution which don't amount to NOTHING in the real world. More often than not, something fucked up happened ... we deal. All love and hate aside, the dog in this story needs to be put down. Dog's just not right and isn't fit to be in society. But that pit you see in your neighbors yard ... you don't know that dog. It's not your dog, it's up to the owner to know that dog. IF they can't attest to the true nature of their dog, then they should probobly not have one. Same thing can be said about children, yet people have babies anyway.

And to create special laws for certain breeds of laws is just fucking stupidity. If the dog brutally attacks someone, the dog goes down. That's the way laws are written, and they work as well as they are going to work.

Oooooo-kay then. I think I'm getting a STRONG whiff of something else entirely now. Could be pot. Could be patchouli. Maybe dogshit. Or perhaps a bracing mix of all three...

@71

Let's say when Michael Dukakis meets a VERY VERY fucked up childhood, and the last few years ... let's just say this isn't the place to discus. I can spend the rest of my life being an angry embittered ass hole Ph. D. scientist, or I can see what else life has to offer you.

And no, I don't smoke pot or ware I patchouli ... I just came back from the weight room where I was having blast doing 100 lb bent over rows! And now I have to work on finishing some scientific article.

See don't EVER judge this dog until you know me.

Pit bulls are very sweet and friendly dogs when raised properly. They are good with and protective of children.

Any dog can be aggressive or dangerous when raised improperly. Pit bulls are sensationalized, the name of the breed grabs attention and therefore appear in headlines. Often times the media will name an unclassified involved in an incident dog a pit bull for that very reason.

Because of this reputation, some macho-types seek this breed out. The ones who seek this breed for this reason are very likely to be the ones that treat the dog poorly, or allow it to be aggressive. This compounds the association that pit bulls are dangerous, but it does not mean that the temperment of the pit bull is more or less aggressive than any other dog.

This is a problem, but the problem does not come from the pit bull itself, but how humans respond to and treat them. This is no good reason to doom the breed to the gas chamber.

The only answer is to train dogs well, and not let any dog into the hands of those that want them for ill will.

@71 - I don't think it's the place for "discus" either. Shot put, maybe, but definitely not discus. I have not the right things to "ware" for either of them anyway.

And I don't think we have to know you to judge you. You're putting up some great numbers all by your lonesome, there. You addled rascal, you....

Heavens to Mergatroid!

The problem with banning these dogs is that only the GOOD owners - the law-abiding responsible owners - will lose their dogs. Do you really think a yob who trains his dogs to fight and lets them run around loose is going to hear about the ban and think "oh, now my dogs are illegal I had better hand them in!"? Don't be daft. The bad owners who are already up to illegal activities are going to keep on doing exactly that.

Then you end up with all the well bred, well trained pitties DEAD, and only the badly bred, badly trained pitties left alive to continue the breed. That is SO not a direction we should go in. Rather we should eradicate dog fighting and backyard beeding in its entirety.

Might I also point out that pitties are extensively used in police work e.g. as sniffer dogs, and also as therapy dogs.

@54
that's the only sensible thing said here. the dog? menace to society, no doubt a bout it. but what about the owner????? they really are the menace. if you own a dog (whatever breed but specially an aggressive one) it SHOULD BE RESTRAINED WHEN AROUND PEOPLE or when left alone!!! it can be running wild around the town. shit. it's very simple.

to 64 - “Alix, how do you explain how certain dogs do more damage in attacks than others if there is not a genetic, muscular, lingemental difference. bone density has exactly what to do with the ability to clamp down on something and hold it?” – Size difference is the reason why dogs in group (A) do more damage to [insert item] than dogs in group (B). example: the amount of damage a St. Bernard can inflict on a toddler is not the same as would be with an adult male. BUT, by size ratio, the damage inflicted on say a cat or small mammal would not be the same as that done to a toddler.
The size of the animal and the size of what it sees as prey are all factors in damage inflicted. And ALL dogs can do damage. My cousin has severe damage and scarring on his upper right arm, clavicle, neck and face from an attack by a Cocker Spaniel when he was about 2.5 yrs old. Small dogs can do just as much harm as a larger one. an animal is an animal and owners need to be more educated on animal body language so that when signs are shown measures can be taken.
But a dog’s skeleton, muscles, and LIGAMENTS/joints are all the same except for the size ratio and fragility of the bones. Bone density has nothing to do with biting down onto something and holding onto it. That action is performed by muscles in the jaw of any and all mammals (such as the depressor labii inferiorus, risorius, masseter, etc) but we have those same muscles

“it might be other psychological features of the dog that is compounded by genetics. such as the ability to endure pain to maintain the grip.” – the dogs feel the pain – just like any other animal. They only have a trait that is called ‘gameness’ which translates into ‘the will to pursue a task given to it without letting up or giving up even under pain or death’. I’m sorry but in a human that would be an admirable trait. In fact, aren’t the marines and SEALS ‘trained’ to be like that? To be given a task at which they must not give up even if it means enduring pain and possibly death? And aren’t they tortured and broken and ‘rebuilt’ by our military society to become that? Are THEY genetically enhanced or mutated? They can cause severe damage with their bodies alone b/c they are trained for it; so should we kill them en masse after they’ve served their purpose for our country? Who’s to say that they won’t just ‘snap’ one day and kill someone?

to 64 - “furthermore im all for targetting all dogs that attack people. enact harsher legislation and enforce it. it shouldn’t be hard when someone is found dead.” – no but again, that’s solving the problem after an incident. I don’t believe banning and murdering ½ or more of the dog population, but I do believe morepeople should be aware of the responsibility pet ownership entails. I believe neighbors and family and friends need to report when someone irresponsible has gotten a hold of a dog that they really shouldn’t have. as a lifetime dog/animal owner (and most of those dogs were of the large, guarding type) I can tell you they are an IMMENSE responsibility. They require training, socializing, a huge amount of love and adoration, lots of food, and an owner who is educated. Some dogs are not for first time owners or even 2,3,4. they’re more of the ‘intermediate to advanced’ type [responsible] owner. I believe unless you have a licensed kennel, you should have all animals fixed at 5 or 6 months. I believe that a great many good dogs are being abused by the scum of our society but that it’s mostly the media’s fault. Over the last decade they have built up this image of these certain dogs to make it seem like they’re the ‘gangsters’ of the dog world and so those men who have complexes and the need to prove their machoness have been attracted like moths to a flame. I believe that if the media reported ALL deaths by dog, a great many people wouldn’t own a lab, spaniel, etc. but they don’t. here:

the National Canine Research Council reveals biased reporting by the media, its devastating consequences for dogs and the toll it takes on public safety.
Consider how the media reported four incidents that happened between August 18th and August 21st:
Labrador mix attacked a 70-year-old man sending him to the hospital in critical condition. Police officers arrived at the scene and the dog was shot after charging the officers.
This incident was reported in ONE (1) article and only in the local paper.
August 19, 2007 -
A 16-month old child received fatal head and neck injuries after being attacked by a mixed breed dog.
This attack was reported TWO (2) times by the local paper only.
August 20, 2007 -
A 6-year-old boy is hospitalized after having his ear torn off and receiving severe bites to the head by a medium-sized mixed breed dog.
This attack was reported in ONE (1) article and only in the local paper.
August 21, 2007 -
A 59-year-old woman was attacked in her home by two Pit bulls and was hospitalized with severe injuries.
This attack was reported in over two hundred and thirty (230) articles in national and international newspapers, as well as major television news networks, including CNN, MSNBC and FOX.
"Clearly a fatal attack by an unremarkable breed is not nearly as newsworthy as a non-fatal attack by a Pit bull," says Karen Delise, researcher for the National Canine Research Council.
The National Canine Research Council reports that people routinely cite media coverage as "proof" that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. Delise says costly and ineffective public policy decisions are being made on the basis of such "proof". While this biased reporting is not only lethal to an entire population of dogs; sensationalized media coverage endangers the public by misleading them about the real factors in canine aggression.

“I dont get where these people think enforcement is so much harder. Police investigate deaths at the hands of dogs all the time. the only more enforcement needed is in time served.” – But it probably wouldn’t fall to police but rather to animal control officers, or the like. And they’re usually understaffed as it is, so to burden them with this type of task (enforcement, not after wan incident occurs in which case, yes, the police would be involved) would be pointless b/c they’d probably be unable to do much. Again, it would fall to other ppl reporting a dog showing signs of aggression for them to know where to look.

To all the haters and unlearned folk:

http://www.badrap.org/rescue/
http://www.lawdogsusa.org/home.html

Explore these web sites!

( you might even come across my CGC star Blue!)

well that's the thing alix, like with most behavioral and crime prevention programs you have either sticks or carrots. the threat of a stick so painful such as being charged with the crimes of your dog might be enough to motivate some, many owners to prevent their dogs from becoming menaces or at least keeping them in places to prevent that.

Again, a sentencing scheme is not at the hands of animal control, it is at the hands of the justice system. I dont know if there is a reasonable solution to prevent the crimes directly, but there are reasonable incentives to pressure owners to prevent crimes.

did you ever think that maybe 90 percent of the mean pitbulls are owned by niggers fighting them, lets think bout this before you go running your cocksucker, my bestfriends have a pit, and the only thing she will attack is a damn french fry, she gets chased by cats for fuck sakes, so shut the fuck up pecker head

Don't outlaw pitbulls; outlaw pitbull owners.

Hmm, this needs a moderator.

How about this:

1) Dog owners are responsible for the behavior of their pets.
2) If a dog (any dog, even a chihuahua) does serious bodily harm to a person, the owner will be charged as if s/he had done the harm personally, using the dog as a weapon.
3) The owner's "knew-or-should-have-known" knowledge of the dog's nature will be taken into account in such a case. (That is, if a dog that has never been aggressive suddenly freaks out, that would be grounds for exonerating the owner.)
4) The "weapon" in such a case will be preserved as evidence, in a secure lockup to be determined by the court, until the resolution of the owner's case, and destroyed upon the owner's conviction on such charges.

That way the people who raise the pussy-whipped (sorry, couldn't resist) frenchfryovores described by pitbull daddy, racist jerk though he is, would not get in trouble, and the assholes whose dogs literally eat babies would go to fucking jail where they belong. Also, we'd get rid of their dogs permanently.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

So long as people realize that breed banning makes no practical sense ... there is no issue ...

but I live in Oregon, Lane County no less. I don't have much faith in the "justice" system.

Best off luck to you people who think the big bad government can solve all of your problems.

And this is coming from someone who perpetualy votes democrat .... funny how that works out.

Even though responsible citizens are not likely to detonate them, we ask our government to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of all our citizens because we realize there is a significant percentage of our population which –being total fuckheads– would detonate them. We should ban pit bulls for the same reason: because for every 'sweet' pit bull and pit bull owner there's some fuckhead who's going to let his dog ATTACK A MOTHERFUCKING BABY.

Collect them. Gas them. Burn them. Chalk it up to the downside of 'freedom.'

Wow! I'm going to have to come back when I have like 10 hours to read all of these comments! I don't like mean dogs. My cat Spice got attacked by a dog once. Luckily she had a pudgy stomach and she ran up a tree. It saved her life but she had to get stitches. Recently my little Squeaky cat almost got eaten by two crazy mean dogs that rammed through our fence and into our yard to chase him. Good thing he ran fast or he would be dead now. Mean dogs suck. One time when I was a kid and I was riding my bike down a road to look at some horses a little tiny dog came out and tried to bite my ankle! So, it isn't just pit bulls...any dog can be mean. Luckily the dog in my case wasn't a pit bull, so I didn't lose my leg! I feel so sorry for that poor woman! I'm not a fan of dogs that can tear your flesh off and kill you! Shudder.