Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« This Week in The Stranger | What Will They Think of Next! »

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Breed Bans Are Stupid

posted by on June 19 at 15:42 PM

Breed bans are based on a simplistic view of the violent-dog issue and they don’t work because they don’t address the real cause of aggressive dogs: irresponsible humans.

The current problem with pit bulls (the frequency of bites and the bad press) is a direct result of pit bulls being the current favorite among people (“thugs” is maybe a better term?) who want to own an aggressive dog. It used to be Dobermans. It might be wolf-mixes or nasty fighting Dachshunds in the future. An obvious solution is harsher criminal penalties for owners and breeders of problem dogs. Regulating breeders, requiring obedience classes of all dog owners, and teaching children basic dog safety would be more effective at preventing attacks.

Malcolm Gladwell deals intelligently with this topic in his 2006 New Yorker piece “Troublemakers: What pitbulls can teach us about profiling”.

A Georgia-based group called the American Temperament Test Society has put twenty-five thousand dogs through a ten-part standardized drill designed to assess a dog’s stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness in the company of people. A handler takes a dog on a six-foot lead and judges its reaction to stimuli such as gunshots, an umbrella opening, and a weirdly dressed stranger approaching in a threatening way. Eighty-four per cent of the pit bulls that have been given the test have passed, which ranks pit bulls ahead of beagles, Airedales, bearded collies, and all but one variety of dachshund. “We have tested somewhere around a thousand pit-bull-type dogs,” Carl Herkstroeter, the president of the A.T.T.S., says. “I’ve tested half of them. And of the number I’ve tested I have disqualified one pit bull because of aggressive tendencies. They have done extremely well. They have a good temperament. They are very good with children.” It can even be argued that the same traits that make the pit bull so aggressive toward other dogs are what make it so nice to humans. “There are a lot of pit bulls these days who are licensed therapy dogs,” the writer Vicki Hearne points out. “Their stability and resoluteness make them excellent for work with people who might not like a more bouncy, flibbertigibbet sort of dog. When pit bulls set out to provide comfort, they are as resolute as they are when they fight, but what they are resolute about is being gentle. And, because they are fearless, they can be gentle with anybody.”

Then which are the pit bulls that get into trouble? “The ones that the legislation is geared toward have aggressive tendencies that are either bred in by the breeder, trained in by the trainer, or reinforced in by the owner,” Herkstroeter says. A mean pit bull is a dog that has been turned mean, by selective breeding, by being cross-bred with a bigger, human-aggressive breed like German shepherds or Rottweilers, or by being conditioned in such a way that it begins to express hostility to human beings. A pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not to the extent that it expresses its essential pit bullness but to the extent that it deviates from it. A pit-bull ban is a generalization about a generalization about a trait that is not, in fact, general. That’s a category problem.

(Dan, I left a copy of the the entire article on your desk.)

One more quote from Gladwell:

“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 dog-bite 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.

Fatal dog-on-human attacks in the last 30 years have been attributed to dogs of at least 30 breeds. Remember the recipient of the word’s first face-transplant, Isabelle Dinoire? She was mauled by her Labrador.

The CDC believes that irresponsible owners are to blame dog bites and calls the problem “mostly preventable.” The CDC does not support breed bans and points out that there is no way to accurately measure which breeds are actually most dangerous.

Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

A thorough study conducted by Toronto’s Department of Public Health and published in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Medicine, “Will breed-specific legislation reduce dog bites?”, concluded that breed-specific bans don’t work and are impossible to enforce (what exactly is a “pit bull” and who decides?). The author implores instead that “all dog owners must be made aware that they are fully responsible for the actions of their dogs.”

If you’re riled up about dog attacks enough to work on the problem, donate to a spay/neuter campaign through your local shelter (no fatal dog attack involving an altered dog has ever been reported). Ask every dog owner you know to train his or her dog. Report off-leash animals to animal control. And teach your children to be wary of all dogs, to never run screaming from a dog, and to stand still if approached by a strange dog.

RSS icon Comments

1

Amy Kate Horn and I don't care!
Amy Kate Horn and I don't care!
Amy Kate Horn and I don't care!
My pit bull's gone away!

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 19, 2008 3:46 PM
2

Wow, more references!! Charles, are you watching? Hm, I guess I don't feel like letting it go.

Posted by Charles_Mudede_Is_A_Latent_Racist | June 19, 2008 3:47 PM
3

Amy we love you.

But we're not letting pit bulls run rampant.

Sorry ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 19, 2008 3:49 PM
4

This isn't a species about which someone is making some sort of overbroad generalization. It is a breed engineered to be violent about which one is simply stating a bald fact in saying that it's a violent breed of dog.

Posted by kinaidos | June 19, 2008 3:52 PM
5

Isn't the point that when pit bulls attack, they cause an inordinate amount of damage? Note, for instance, that while the American Temperament Test Society ranks beagles as worse than pit bulls, there is little evidence that they are more dangerous. Randall Lockwood names the beagle as a breed that he has never seen involved in a fatality.

This seems to be in line with the common observation that pit bulls don't bite as often as other breeds, but when they do the damage is much worse.

Posted by minderbender | June 19, 2008 3:52 PM
6

Now I really want a fighting dachshund. Perhaps to be called Bastian Schweinsteiger.

Posted by Abby | June 19, 2008 3:56 PM
7

Will in Seattle, please define your "we." It doesn't include me and I'd wager it doesn't include many of the posters here.

Posted by leek | June 19, 2008 3:56 PM
8

Part of what you're missing, Amy, is that pit bulls are huge and powerful.

Ok, my mum's chihuahua's are agressive, but I can handle those. Who can handle an agreesive pit bull?

Posted by Andrew | June 19, 2008 3:56 PM
9

This begs the question: WHY do asshole dog owners who desire a dangerous dog choose pitbulls instead of, say, dachshunds or malamutes? What is it about pitbulls that's appealing to them?

The simple fact is, whether or not a pitbull is more or less likely to be aggressive than a dachshund, absent other factors, doesn't change the fact that pitbulls can be trained to be more aggressive than other breeds, and can cause vastly more damage when they are. Most labradors are not face-chewers; most pitbulls are.

Posted by Fnarf | June 19, 2008 3:57 PM
10

Andrew, there are apparently dozens of other breed types who can't be "handled," or there wouldn't be all these other dogs responsible for fatal attacks.

That "no altered dogs have ever fatally attacked a human" thing is fascinating. Where's that factoid reported? Other than here of course.

Posted by leek | June 19, 2008 3:59 PM
11

what's a "pit bull"?

a pit bull is a pit bull terrier and/or an american staffordshire bull terrier. that's it. they are instantly recognizable due to their facial musculature - giant scary jaw muscles. if the dog is HALF either of these recognized AKC breeds, then it's close enough for hand grenades. these dogs were created for pit fighting with bulls, not cuddling with toddlers.

if the breed is not banned, then ownership of these breeds should require a license & training of both dog & owner. and a high school diploma.

Posted by max solomon | June 19, 2008 4:00 PM
12

Couldn't agree more that this is a human problem and not a dog problem. A couple of the nicest dogs I've known were a German Shepard and a Pit. A couple of the worst: aredales my Grandad owned--who killed other dogs on more than one occasion. Why? because he wanted them to be aggressive and dangerous.

The penalties for owning a vicious dog don't seem nearly serious enough. At least for the human involved, since they often put down the dog.

Posted by Westside forever | June 19, 2008 4:00 PM
13

Amy, these articles are a breath of fresh air in the stale pit bull slander that's usually splashed all over the slog.

And yeah, what's a pit bull? Most "pit bulls" I know are a mix of labs or shepherds. How do they decide what a pit bull is? I already refer to my dog as a lab mix whenever I feel like I'm talking to a small-minded reactionary person.

Posted by Carollani | June 19, 2008 4:01 PM
14

So I should teach my child to stand very still when one of the nice neighborhood pit bulls -- always described in news reports as a dog that was never aggressive before-- runs up and begins to maul him? What about after the mauling starts -- is it okay for my child to squirm then?

Posted by West Seattle Bog | June 19, 2008 4:02 PM
15

Your argument seems well-researched and rational, which is hard for me to admit 'cause I've been bitten by pits a couple times and have a strong bias against them (and anything else that sends me bleeding to the emergency room.) The only part that makes me crazy is the last bit:

And teach your children to be wary of all dogs, to never run screaming from a dog, and to stand still if approached by a strange dog.

Not because it's bad advice -- it's exactly right. It's just every time I hear some version of "whatever you do don't show fear -- if you do then they're certain to attack!" I get angry all over again. Because it feels like blaming the victim. Like it's the kid's fault that they're afraid of a dangerous animal charging at them with teeth bared. Dog owners seem to love dishing out this kind of advice, and it makes me seethe with hatred for them every time I hear it.

I would be all for erasing the legal distinctions between things your dog does and things you do directly -- if somebody's dog injures somebody then the dog owner is held legally responsible as if they committed the crime themselves and is liable for all damages. And, sorry to say it, I would support a "one strike and you're out" policy on the dogs involved in serious incidents.

Posted by flamingbanjo | June 19, 2008 4:02 PM
16

A pit bull is a trendy bad-ass dog. Thus, wanna-be badasses raise dogs to be assholes. It used to be Rotts, it used to be Dobermans, it used to be German Shepherds. And yet, with all the news about pits attacking people, I've never met anyone who's been hurt by a pit, beyond some exuberant leg-humping. Ankle-biting little bastard dogs, on the other hand, bite everyone and live for-fucking-ever. Those owners need to be treated as sternly as people want to treat pit owners.

Most of the "pit bull menace" could be taken care of with stronger laws regarding animal ownership, common sense, and better-funded animal control.

Posted by Jessica | June 19, 2008 4:02 PM
17

The science doesn't follow... the CDC doesn't support breed bans only because they don't know how many of each breed exists in the US. On your link they state this and they link to their study which shows pit bulls cause far more bites than any other breed. They just can't say scientifically that there aren't 200 million pit bulls and only 50 million other dogs, for example.

The Toronto article you linked can be dismissed because it's the only recent scientific article that doesn't show pit bulls as the most dangerous dogs. See the rebuttal of the article here.

And your Malcolm Gladwell article ends with a story about a dangerous dog and this passage:

[T]he city could easily have prevented the second attack with the right kind of generalization—a generalization based not on breed but on the known and meaningful connection between dangerous dogs and negligent owners. But that would have required someone to track down Shridev Café, and check to see whether he had bought muzzles, and someone to send the dogs to be neutered after the first attack, and an animal-control law that insured that those whose dogs attack small children forfeit their right to have a dog. It would have required, that is, a more exacting set of generalizations to be more exactingly applied. It’s always easier just to ban the breed.

It's true, we could greatly reduce dog bites if we dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars to keep tabs on every dog owner to make sure the dogs are trained, neutered, muzzled if necessary, and don't have unregistered dogs. That's not possible, though. It's a lot easier to just ban the most deadly type of dog.

Posted by poppy | June 19, 2008 4:05 PM
18

@13: i bet that shuts 'em right up. there's no way someone could figure out that your dog is part pit just from looking.

Posted by max solomon | June 19, 2008 4:06 PM
19

Yeah, any breed of dog can be dangerous.

So let's just ban 'em all. There would be a lot less shit to step in, too.

Posted by David Wright | June 19, 2008 4:07 PM
20

Word of the day: flibbertigibbet

Posted by Mahtli69 | June 19, 2008 4:08 PM
21

it seems like a ban on any breed of dog would go the way of any ban on any particular drug. it just wouldn't work very well. better to ramp up the consequences for owners of dogs with poor behavior and require licensing.
also didn't that french lady pass out on pills and get her face chewed because her dog was trying to wake her up or something? does that really constitute a mauling?

Posted by douglas | June 19, 2008 4:09 PM
22

my partner works for animal control in SF, and i've heard many, many stories of responsible pitbull owners having vicious and dangerous dogs. they're happy and playful one minute, then rip a child's face of the next. i'm not being facetious. this kind of thing happens more often than it should.

it's true that a lot of the behavioral issues are due to the owner, but genetics and breeding are big factors with dog behavior. remember, a lot of pitbulls are bred specifically for dog fighting, and unless you know the bloodline of your pitbull, you're asking for trouble.

i don't think breed bans will solve the problem, but spay/neuter laws help curb irresponsible breeding. and sorry, but people should really be discouraged from having pitbulls as pets. they can be sweet, loving dogs, but the danger they pose is not just media hype, it's very real.

Posted by brandon | June 19, 2008 4:12 PM
23

@15 - "I would be all for erasing the legal distinctions between things your dog does and things you do directly"

Man, so would I. If your dog fatally mauls someone, you should be charged with manslaughter, no exceptions.

The Stranger's (or at least Dan Savage's) anti-pit bull crusade misses the biggest problem, which is that people get away with raising aggressive, violent dogs that attack people. Your dog mauls a kid? Dog gets shot, and the owner gets off with a slap on the wrist at most. That is the real problem that needs correction.

Posted by Hernandez | June 19, 2008 4:13 PM
24

"Breed bans are based on a simplistic view of the violent-dog issue and they don’t work because they don’t address the real cause of aggressive dogs: irresponsible humans."

I assume you'd agree with the following:
Handgun restriction laws are based on a simplistic view of the gun violence issue and they don’t work because they don’t address the real cause of firearms fatalities: irresponsible humans.

In the same way as I support laws that prohibit carrying unlicensed concealed weapons on the street, I also would support the licensing of any dangerous breed of dog. Or any dog, period. And like firearms, I'd rather not see a dog bred specifically for violence wandering around on the street. It's fine if you're licensed and you carry it in your pocket (or dressed up as a lab).

Also, sorry, but I shouldn't have to teach my kid how to deal with YOUR violent dog. Dogs with violent tendencies have NO BUSINESS IN A DENSELY POPULATED AREA.

Posted by Patrick Austin | June 19, 2008 4:15 PM
25

Okay, but now we're going to have to remove the ban of owning a cheetah. I want one, and I'll totally take it to class n'shit and teach it to be good.

Posted by weeeeeeee | June 19, 2008 4:16 PM
26

My dog gets accused of being a pit bull sometimes. She's have mastiff, I guess they are distant cousins.

I don't see how we can ban a breed of dog when we don't ban guns.

Posted by Tizzle | June 19, 2008 4:18 PM
27

Cheetah bans are based on a simplistic view of the violent-cheetah issue and they don’t work because they don’t address the real cause of aggressive cheetahs: irresponsible humans.

Posted by poppy | June 19, 2008 4:19 PM
28

*half*

Posted by Tizzle | June 19, 2008 4:20 PM
29

"..the real cause of aggressive dogs: irresponsible humans"

THAT is a simplistic view of this issue. Yes, one factor of the equation is that there are a ton more pit bulls in America than there used to be, and yes, it does also matter that the people who are choosing to own pits are specifically wanting a big badass dog so you have backyard breeders scrambling to provide them.

But it's undeniable there is still something inherently troubling about pit bulls. These dogs were bred to latch on to living beings with those big giant crushing jaws and not let go, not even to the death. They are very very good at doing what they were bred to do, and, with the explosion of the backyard breeders, you have all kinds of nightmare breeding scenarios, producing all manner of ill-adjusted dogs with hidden triggers in their heads. Pits not only do more damage than other dogs when they attack, they have a much higher incidence of attack than other breeds, which is why people talk about breed bans.

For the record, I'm not entirely in favor of breed bans myself. But it's disingenuous to make the argument that all dogs are the same in this regard and that a pit bull attack can always be blamed on the owner of the pit - the news is filled with stunned former pit bull owners who tell tales of having handraised their dogs from pups, dog never displayed any aggressiveness anywhere to anyone at anytime, just a big old softy, really, so, no, I can't explain why I no longer have a niece/nephew/face.....

:/


Posted by merry | June 19, 2008 4:21 PM
30

Thanks, Amy! It's nice to see some good, well-researched info on dog breeds and attacks. Much appreciated!

Posted by wench | June 19, 2008 4:24 PM
31

@18: She has a big head and muscular body, but she looks a lot like a hound or a lab mix. People ask me what breed she is all the time, so I assume a lot of people can't tell what kind of dog she is, you sarcastic shit.

Posted by Carollani | June 19, 2008 4:25 PM
32

Can't we just require pit bulls to be neutered? Would that solve the problem?

Posted by hiii | June 19, 2008 4:29 PM
33

Thanks AKH for another post to counter a small amount of Dan's near daily anti-pit bull bullshit.

Posted by iwanttobealion | June 19, 2008 4:33 PM
34

@32: And their owners?

Posted by Dan Savage | June 19, 2008 4:35 PM
35

Here's a study showing Pits are more likely (from reported cases, that is) to be deadlier/more likely to attack than other studied breeds--by about three times the number of the highest non-Pit attacks.

Pit Bull Attacks

Almost 1200 as opposed to 400 for the most-reported. Something's going on here, and it's not the owners' lack of training their animals. To think so is naive...the animal's natural instinct to attack will win.

Eradication efforts may be needed to remove this assailant from the gene pool.

Posted by Buffalo Bill | June 19, 2008 4:47 PM
36

My mini dachshund thinks she can take every pit bull she sees. She barks at them and growls and lunges at them. The pit bulls usually just batt their eyes at her and walk away, luckily for her!
And yes, we've done over 500 bucks in agressiveness reduction training. Ouch.

Posted by scharrera | June 19, 2008 4:49 PM
37

I call for a ban on citing Malcolm Gladwell to support an argument. He writes to charm and seduce, not to analyze, and only finds a line of argument interesting if it's counter-intuitive. Which makes for great magazine writing, but also leads to him being, very often, and not to put too fine a point on it, wrong.

Posted by Eric F | June 19, 2008 4:54 PM
38

Ban the fucking things. They cause way to much sadness, damage and fear.
Stiffer penalties for off-leash assholes too. (I don't care how well trained your dog is. I'm a great driver but I can't drive 75 mph down 65th.
Also: pick up your dog's shit.

Posted by poster Girl | June 19, 2008 5:00 PM
39

I agree that human treatment of dogs has a big impact on how the dog behaves. And I agree that a big part of the problem is that pit bulls are the dog-of-choice for a lot of over-aggressive douche bag dog owners.

But that ignores the fact that a pit bull is capable of snapping a baseball bat in half with its powerful jaws. A pomeranian, no matter how badly mistreated, can do minimal damage, and can only kill someone if it is really really lucky.

A pit bull in the hands of an overly aggressive douche bag is inherently more dangerous than a pomeranian in the hands of an overly aggressive douche bag.

It is simple to ban pit bulls. As much as I might like to, it is much harder to ban overly aggressive douche bags.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | June 19, 2008 5:04 PM
40

The knuckle-draggers in my neighborhood will still have pitbulls if they're banned. These dogs are chained up in a dirt yard all day, all night. I don't even know why these people own a dog. I guess they're afraid someone's going to break into their 1978 El Dorado Brougham.

Posted by Big Tough Guys Right | June 19, 2008 5:13 PM
41

@7 - fuck off, leek.

I agree with Abby, we need a Fighting Dachshund League.

@16 for the win, though.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 19, 2008 5:13 PM
42

My son has a rescue pit bull who is the sweetist, friendliest, never-met-a-stranger dog you could ever encounter. Her tail, however, fucking stings like hell when she smacks you with it. My dipshit neighbor, on the other hand, HAS an attack dachshund, who will try to bite hunks out of your hand if you try to pet it. The difference is, my neighbor is a fucking freakazoid bitch.

Posted by Hoof Hearted | June 19, 2008 5:13 PM
43

I had a neighbor who owned a Pit Bull. They treated their dog really well and they seemed like responsible people in general. So Amy, I'd like you to give me an explanation (that doesn't involve the owners) for the time their dog was loose and noticed me standing on the porch, ran towards me at full speed growling, giving me just enough time to run inside and slam the door in its face. The dog actually slammed into the door.

Posted by crispy | June 19, 2008 5:19 PM
44

This is for you, Hoof Hearted:

The traditional approach to dangerous dog legislation is to allow "one free bite," at which point the owner is warned. On second bite, the dog is killed. The traditional approach, however, patently does not apply in addressing the threats from pit bull terriers, Rottweilers, and wolf hybrids. In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Children and elderly people were almost always the victims.

...

The humane community does not try to encourage the adoption of pumas in the same manner that we encourage the adoption of felis catus, because even though a puma can also be box-trained and otherwise exhibits much the same indoor behavior, it is clearly understood that accidents with a puma are frequently fatal.

For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances.

Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as
their victims are paying the price.

If your neighbor's dachshund ever snaps, your son can probably take him. If he sweet pit bull snaps, which they do, your son may not survive the attack.

Here's the link: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf (courtesy of Buffalo Bill, above).

Posted by Dan Savage | June 19, 2008 5:25 PM
45

While a lot of animals are aggressive, their attempts at aggression can usually be stopped by an adult. Take squirrels for instance, they are the number one cause of animals attacks on humans. But who can't take on a squirrel??!! An angry pit bull, however, is a different story.

Posted by hunting_in_a_zoo | June 19, 2008 5:29 PM
46

Wait, whaaaat? Will in Seattle, you get abused up one side and down the other by posters much much ruder than I am, and my simple "define your we" gets a "fuck off"?!

Yikes.

Posted by leek | June 19, 2008 5:31 PM
47

My son has a rescue pit bull who is the sweetist, friendliest, never-met-a-stranger dog you could ever encounter

That's what every single news account quotes the owner of a killer dog saying. "It was the sweetest dog..." Tell that to their victims. I'm sure it'll make them feel better.

Posted by Buffalo Bill | June 19, 2008 5:31 PM
48

And I even said "please"! Well fuck this, I guess I'll be as cruel and cutting as Poe-ingly possible in the future.

Posted by leek | June 19, 2008 5:32 PM
49

How the fuck did a Pomeranian kill someone? Annoy them to death?

Posted by Bob | June 19, 2008 5:49 PM
50

Dogs shouldn't be running around off leash anyway. I wish the shit-stain across the street from me would be that through his Boondocks head. BB guns are legal, right?

Posted by 25th | June 19, 2008 5:52 PM
51

@49 --

(Lancaster, PA) -- A local woman has died after her face was eaten by her pet dog, a Pomeranian. The victim's identity has not been released by law enforcement pending notification of her family, who are believed to be traveling abroad.

The woman had not reported to work at the Lancaster County Waste Water Treatment Facility and co-workers called police. Upon arriving at her home, police discovered the victim in a La-Z-Boy reclining chair in her living room without a face.

"The dog had face on its face," said Police Inspector Daniel Unzivilisiert. "If she was smiling or crying, we would not be able to know."

This marks the third recent attack by Pomeranians in Lancaster within six months.

In February, a Pomeranian was responsible for the deaths of 36 people when the bitch chewed through a local theater's fire alarm power cord and exploded into flames, resulting in the tragic destruction of the theater and attendant loss of life.

More recently, three Pomeranians were seen leaving the home of Alois Poe, who was later found to have been pushed into his garbage disposal. Investigators classify the case as at a dead end.

-- 30 --

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 19, 2008 6:10 PM
52

@49: I also remember a death-by-Pom being a plot point on that fine British drama Footballer's Wives. I believe it sat on a baby and killed it.

Posted by Abby | June 19, 2008 6:27 PM
53
When pit bulls set out to provide comfort, they are as resolute as they are when they fight, but what they are resolute about is being gentle.
You still don't get it, do you? He'll comfort her. That's what he does. That's all he does! You can't stop him. He'll wade through you, reach down her throat, and comfort her fucking heart out.
Posted by elenchos | June 19, 2008 6:47 PM
54

Amy...to echo a previous post, you made me stop and think a bit, right up until you said this:

And teach your children to be wary of all dogs, to never run screaming from a dog, and to stand still if approached by a strange dog.

The thought that my 5 year old and my 7 year old should be taught not to run in the face of a dangerous, powerful animal that is capable of killing them illustrates precisely why your stats and your logic can't win this argument.

I grew up in a neighborhood full of aggressive dogs, was bit by a german shepherd and a great dane, and absolutely hated all big dogs when I was a kid. Back then, I was a Christian, and one question I always asked God was why fellow Christians thought it was OK to own dogs that terrorized children.

It's not OK.

Posted by Timothy | June 19, 2008 7:18 PM
55

So it's OK to categorize dog breeds on positive traits ("Labs are good with kids") and not negative traits ("Akitas will attack silently, without provocation, and don't let go")

Breed does have something to do with temperament. And anecdotes about breeds are just that... so I'll share my two: a Dalmatian that bit off my left ear when I was 16. And an Akita that clamped down on my left arm when I was 35, severing the nerve to my thumb.

Both were unprovoked, at the dog's home (I was eating dinner and enjoying a mighty fine red wine when the Akita took a disliking to my arm!)

In both cases, the dog owners blamed me and not their beloved pets, enough to whisk their dogs away the next morning, and beg me not to report it to the county animal control officers. As it turns out, the Akita had even previously attacked the 12 year old girl who vacation-sat her, I later found out.

So I say fuck dog owners. They're irrational, and I now ask anyone with a dog to restrain it when I pay a visit--and when I see one of them with their offleash dog at places like Green Lake or the Arboretum, I tell them flat out to restrain their beast.

They may be your best friend, but they're not mine. Don't impose them on me.

Posted by SD Dan | June 19, 2008 10:13 PM
56

Oh, and I might also add: that little statistic about 'only 0.0002% fatalities' is just bullshit.

It's like telling a rape victim to "just get over it--at least you weren't murdered."

It's a very personal violation when someone's 100 pound animal mauls you. No, it's not rape, but it's definitely not a pinprick either.

Posted by SD Dan | June 19, 2008 10:16 PM
57

@ 54 ---

Yes!!, You do have to teach your kids not to run at a dog. Little kids scare or annoy my dog (so do puppies; also they annoy the shit out of me).

One time a little girl did run up to her, while I was holding her leash but not paying attention to the girl. My dog barked a warning, and stopped the little girl. Then her mom used the moment to teach the child to not scare dogs, and to ask if they can pet them.

It was all fine, and if the girl had hit my dog, and my dog bit her, I'm sure I'd still have put the dog down. FTR, she's never bitten anyone since I've owned her.

No matter how responsible I am, and how nice my dog is, children need to be taught how to behave around them.

Posted by Tizzle | June 19, 2008 11:32 PM
58

45
"Take squirrels for instance, they are the number one cause of animals attacks on humans"


for realz?!

Posted by mintygreen | June 20, 2008 7:18 AM
59

I guess they're afraid someone's going to break into their 1978 El Dorado Brougham.



Jesus Christ, we have to drag one of Cadillac's finest specimens into this, too? This is a totally sweet ride. Extremely high legitimacy factor. Fuck.

Posted by Mike | June 20, 2008 7:49 AM
60

Dogs tend to be loud, moist, and stupid - and so do most of their owners.

Posted by Arf | June 20, 2008 7:50 AM
61

@57 - Teaching children not to run AT a dog is quite different from suggesting children should be taught not to run AWAY from a menacing animal.

The advice Amy gives for teaching children is similar to the advice you give to people about how to deal with BEARS or COUGARS, which are, you know, WILD ANIMALS. If anything, that advice merely advances the point that dogs are very dangerous and should be tightly controlled.

Breed bans aren't perfect by any means, but ignoring the fact that certain types of dogs have killing power closer to that of a cougar is ludicrous, as is assuming that because you've trained your dog so well, it'll never happen to you. The risks can be mitigated, but not eliminated. As others have pointed out, smaller dogs with less powerful jaws simply present a less serious risk to begin with.

Dogs of all breeds have the potential to go nuts and attack humans. It's certainly relevant whether those attacks are more or less likely to kill someone. Even people who support private gun ownership probably don't support private cluster-bomb ownership.

Posted by Anthony Hecht | June 20, 2008 11:01 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.