I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before on SLOG, but my identical twin brother was *this* close to having his throat ripped out by someone's rescued pit-bull. The owner knew the dog had issues with other dogs, but, golly gee, she'd never known it to have aggression towards humans. Why anyone would rescue a dog that could kill them or one of their friends is beyond me.

I'm gonna watch some Carmen Miranda on YouTube. . . .

Sometimes, late at night, I wake up and find my kitty sitting on my chest...leaning down toward my mouth...ready to suck the very oxygen from my lungs.

But I don't need a ban. Oh no. All I need is a bag, some bricks, and a walk to the Aurora Bridge.

Yes, take away the drugs, people will stop doing drugs.

The problem isn't the dogs, it's the people. If you take their pit bulls, they'll start using other dogs as their tough status symbol. Then we'd have to outlaw German Shepherds in a few years, and those are some awesome dogs.

It'll just change the problem from one breed to another. Instead, make legislation that makes having a dog as a means of implied violence as big a pain in the ass as possible so that they'll get sensible deadly implements, like knives or pipe bombs.

Have you ever known anyone with a pit bull? I have. And they never talk about their "dog", they talk about their "pit". It's the people, not the dog.

For the record, I own and rad chihuahua bred and trained to be adorable.

If the nay-sayers don't like the "breed-specific" pit bull ban, how about just banning any dog with a jaw big enough to rip my arm off. Problem solved.

Matt: Yes, the idiots that want aggressive dogs will move on to some other breed if pit bulls are banned. But they'll move on to breeds, or a breed, that hasn't been selectively bred to be such perfect little mauling machine. They'll still have aggressive dogs, the scum bags, but their dogs' victims will be likelier to survive the attacks.

So long as we arm all toddlers with Uzis and armor-piercing rounds, I'm cool with adults having pit bulls.

Just don't come crying to me when the toddlers get scared of your dogs and empty a clip into them, though.

Hi, I know I've given this spiel before, but:

Former vet tech and KC animal control officer here. :wave:

Pit bulls are not even CLOSE to being the most aggressive breed out there. Neither are Rotweilers. What they have in common is that they are strong, so when they are mean, they can do some real damage.

But so can other breeds. Shepherds are pretty nutty. Huskies/malamutes? Crazy, neurotic, unpredictable dogs. Worst of all are Chows and Shar Peis. Genetically 75% evil, I'm convinced of it. I've owned a Rott, and I would own a Pit. I would never, ever own any of the other breeds I've mentioned. They may be somewhat less physically imposing, but they are all big/strong enough to do damage, and their temperments are much worse.

And then there are all of the nasty small dogs. Beagles, dachsunds, pomeranians, skips. . .all regularly vicious dogs. They're just too small to rip your throat out. But they can certainly harm a child.

So I think a ban on the media favorites is incredibly stupid. It can't be enforced, and won't solve any problems.

If we want to solve the problems, what we need to do is make neutering of pets mandatory, statewide. Police should have the authority to detain people and have animal control remove their animals if they are seen walking around un-neutered (which is pretty obvious for the boys). Selling dogs should be illegal if you're not a licensed breeder or shelter, and those licenses shouldn't be easy to get. And punishments should be harsh.

We already do mandatory neuters on animals who have been caught multiple times by animal control. It's not unprecedented. We just need to take it much further.

This not only limits backyard breeding, which is a huge problem with pitbulls, but it also decreases aggression a whole lot. Many aggressive dogs totally chill out once they've got their raging hormones removed. As most of us can imagine.

Violet nails it regarding other breeds.

IMHO, Pitbull hatred is simply a way to mask the real issue: problems with low income people of color. Fear of black kids in inner cities. Get over it. Obama's bringing a new way.

Start hating dobermans and show this isn't racist.

You support a breed ban. OK. Again, I suggest if you want a breed ban you might consider obtaining and presenting real evidence that a breed ban is needed and would prove effective without undue hardship on your fellow citizens. Personally, I have no love for certain breeds of dogs but I really don't like half-assed laws being passed for half-assed reasons.

@7
we've shown you the data many times we don't have to keep showing it.

Leopards don't change their spots.

Ban all the fucking dogs. Tired of the fucking poop everywhere. Buy a cat or a rat.

@ #5:

Yes, they'll move on to other breeds, and backwater puppy mills will breed them to be more aggressive. It's a short term solution. After a few generations of breeding whatever the new flavor of deathound is it'll be as bad as pit bulls, then it will have to be banned, too.

Then, eventually, any larger breeds of dog will be gone: Golden Retrievers, Yellow Labs, Britney Spears. When will it end?

You have to make them not want what the dog represents, not take the dog away. The want of a killer animal will remain. That's what needs to be regulated, not which animal they pick. Make it such a pain in the ass -- or such a liability -- to own a killer pooch, and you'll see less killer pooches.

Funny, my in-laws own a pit bull and it's one of the sweetest dogs I've ever met. I've known the dog for at least 5 years and they've had her for way longer than that. She's never bitten anyone or attacked anyone and she's extremely well-behaved around small children.

I'm not saying there aren't bad pit bulls. There are and it's usually brought out by bad pit bull owners. What bothers me about these anti pit bull posts I keep reading here at slog is that to the read them you would think that it's never possible for a pit bull to be a good dog (such as Dan's above comment that they are "piece-of-shit" dogs). The pit bull I know is not a piece of shit. She's a wonderful and sweet dog, one of the most loving I've known (and I grew up with two labs).

These dogs can be good and the constant denial that it's ever possible doesn't make your argument sound very legitimate. It makes it sound like you're seeing what you want to see.

For Christ's sake, Jessica, can you read? Everyone that gets attacked by their own fucking pit bull says it was the sweetest dog they ever met -- until it snapped and the aggression bred into it the damn thing took over and it ripped grandma's throat open.

Gee, cigarettes are bad for you? But my grandpa -- the sweetest man you ever met -- has been smoking for six decades? It simply couldn't be possible, based on what I've witnessed with my own eyes, that smoking could be bad for you! My grandpa is the very picture of health!

Don't be such an obtuse dumbfuck, Jessica.

Maybe a test? "If your dog can bite down on this special pressure gauge with enough force to snap a child's tibia, then we take him away to stay on a Big Farm In the Country Where He'll Be Well Cared For and Can Run and Play All Day. No you can't go visit him. It, uh, disturbs the acclimation process."

Sound fair?

ARF ARF ARF BARK BARK BARK WOOF!

I think bull pits are fucking stupid, but I can't support legislating safety. Unless we're talking building codes and sidewalks.

Thanks for the post, entertaining read through the comment sections.

@7 - Huskies/malamutes? Crazy, neurotic, unpredictable dogs.

I'd have to agree with you there. I own one, a husky/malamute rescue from the SPCA. Never again. Yes, she's miles better than when I got her. However, she is never going to be off-leash in a populated area and she has to be kept under control at all times.

She and the big old Rott I have are why I really, really hate people who have their dogs off-leash in on-leash areas. My dogs are on a leash for a reason, and I don't take them to off-leash areas for a reason. While I can control my dogs, I can't control anyone else's. And I swear, the next person who lets their dog run up to the darn near 200-pound rottweiler and start barking while they're calling out "he's friendly!" is going to get an earful.

I love my dogs, and I know they have the potential to be extremely dangerous. I treat them basically like lovable, furry, potentially lethal weapons. I always watch the situations that I find myself in with them - and I always have to keep that in the back of my mind. These breeds are not for people who don't know what they're doing.

I wouldn't want to ever give them up, and I've learned a lot from them. That said, I'm reasonably sure my next dog will be from a reputable breeder, bought as a puppy. It will also, more likely than not be a completely different breed than the ones I have now.

Between this and the ongoing "Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father," and "Ye Shall Know them" series, it seems safe to assume that you also support banning male parents and male youth pastors. You've presented more or less equal amounts of compelling evidence that both of those groups are dangerous to children, too. Tell you what--you hand in your kid to the authorities, and I'll hand in my dog. Fair?

Is there some legal impediment to local jurisdictions imposing liability insurance requirements? That'd at least give you some basis to start separating responsible dog owners from reckless ones.

I'm wary of regulations that lead to black markets. Bans on drugs, booze, guns, or dog breeds may be well intentioned, but the resulting black market often just causes additional harm.

I'll go @20 one step further. Criminal liability for your dogs misbehavior. If you drive drunk and get in an accident and someone dies, you're looking at vehicular homicide. If you use a gun to rob a 7-Eleven, and someone gets shot, even accidentally, you and your accomplices are in a world of trouble. So why not, if you own a dog, and it mauls someone, you're looking at negligent manslaughter. That should give the owners of these doggies something to think about and get the real idiots off the streets.

@14 "the aggression bred into it the damn thing took over and it ripped grandma's throat open"

Just a note for accuracy's sake, though I'm sure I'll get called a dumbfuck for this too: Pit bulls are actually bred to be extremely submissive to humans (more so than other breeds), but are bred to be hostile to other animals.

Something I learned by reading.

-----

And a small anecdote, I do have a relative that was mauled by her dog last year. And while she owns a Rottweiler, it was actually one of her Australian Shepherds (a breed billed as a wonderful family dog) that attacked her.

-----

That's all for me on this subject. Continue with the generalizations and name calling.

Actually @22, I find your posts reasonable and fairly unemotional unlike your attacker who seems to have some unholy phobia of scary dogs, even to the point of verbally abusing someone over their statements that don't match to his somewhat histrionic opinions.

Gee, Dan, were you assaulted by a fat pit bull youth pastor?

@ violet... Right on. Been there (vet tech - literally 1000's of dogs, had friends w/ pits - all incredible, birth to death) but you said it much better than I could. Fix 'em all (cats too, tougher to enforce, tho).

Yeah, let's not have a breed ban! In fact, let's not ban people from owning wolves as pets. I mean, wolves are just like dogs and we can train to be nice in obedience school.

Why don't we let people keep lions( it's just a big kitty cat), alligators( it's just a big lizard), and other large beasts as pets? They only need some obedience school to know who their masters are.

@14

Dan, that is because of the Dunning-Kruger effect:

1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill. [This one is a big if.]

So if you're the kind of ignorant rube who wouldn't read a book about dog care and training (or ever read a book), or take a class on dogs, or seriously exert yourself to be a good dog owner, then you are probably incompetent to know if the dog was in fact a sweet dog. I would bet that dog exhibited many signs of aggression before the attack, and they were too ignorant to know what they saw. Probably thought the signs of aggression were "cute."

Not to mention that if they did admit to a newspaper reporter that the dog had given warning signs, the victim's lawyer would have a field day. Probably sue them for the whole dang trailer and the pickup too.

@10

You know what, SusanUnPC, for once I agree with you: Leopards don't change their spots.

"These piece-of-shit dogs, bred to be vicious"

I agree with the ban but not the completely with the perspective that it's the "piece-of-shit" dog's fault. I also don't think Alligators or lions should be domesticated, they are aggressive by nature. Wether these dogs are aggressive by nature or by breeding they don't belong in a domestic environment, particularly with kids.

As someone attacked by a dog [months of plastic surgery... fun!], I'm still unsure. I was attacked by a chocolate lab, a breed that is supposed to be fairly safe and loving. The dog that got me, however, had already bitten someone... a three year old! In the face! Has he been put down? Nope.

I've never had a problem with pitbulls, but I'm not against breed bans. Some dogs are just too historically violent.

Pit bulls were bred and created exclusively to fight to the death with other dogs. The idea that anyone can eliminate those killer traits with tender loving care is delusional. The breed is called "pit bull" for a reason otherwise it would be called a "pit poodle."

Dogs, being animals with a mind of their own, have the same free will to attack and kill humans as humans have free will to kill each other. To call any breed of dog "safe" or "kid-friendly" is an ignorant statement.

I'm a dog walker, I love dogs, but have to agree. Twice in two years I've been attacked, actually the little dogs I've been walking have been attacked and I was bit protecting them from Pit Bulls who's owners didn't have the control or tight collars needed to walk them in the city.

@8: I completely agree with you -- I wanted to skim the threads before I said that though.

I feel like replacing "pit bull" with "racial minorities" actually brings us a lot closer to what people are actually feeling.

Pit Bulls make a great stand in for race because we can talk all day about how whether race or biology determines violence (i.e. crime) without ever feeling like bad liberals.

I'll go on record as saying bad upbringings and historical injustice make pit bulls bad, not being genetically stronger and more aggressive.

The only pit bull I've ever spent a good amount of time with was my fifth grade teacher's dog. He was a big momma's boy and completely gentle. He loved the attention of an entire classroom of unruly fifth graders.

If you want to use solitary examples of bad dogs to promote your idea for banning entire breeds, shouldn't we be able to counter with positive stories?

I used to a clean a kennel for two Rottweilers when I was 12. I also played with two Bull Mastiffs when I was in college. Never had any trouble with the dogs because they had good owners. I've only had trouble with one dog and that was because the owner didn't do a very good job raising the dog.

The sweetest dogs I have ever had the pleasure of encountering have all been Staffordshire Bull Terriers -- these dogs, known as "nanny dogs" in England because they are so great with kids, are incredibly affectionate, gentle, and wonderful. And yet? They are often lumped into pit bull breed bans!

It's just NOT the dogs themselves, people. No matter how much you want to believe all these dogs are inherently vicious. It IS the owners. Before we leap into breed bans, I'd like to see us try harsher penalties for owners of aggressive dogs. At the very least, they should be charged with cruelty to animals, in addition to any assault or endangerment charges that might also come up. And cruelty laws need to be toughened up as well. The only way you could make a Staffie vicious would be to abuse it without mercy. And THAT is what should be unacceptable, not the dogs themselves.

As someone with a life long fear of dogs, I think both the humans and the breed are the problem in this case.

Everyone loves their own dog and thinks it wouldn't hurt a fly. I've been attacked by dogs and then yelled at by their owner for "moving suddenly". Maybe you should chain up your freaking dog and not let it loose on unsuspecting passers by! And the whole “don’t be afraid, dogs can sense fear” is just a bunch of crock. That just makes me more afraid—I’m afraid of the dog, and then I’m afraid that my being afraid is going to cause the dog to maul me.

Luckily, I've never had an encounter with a pit bull, but that doesn't mean they are cuddly friendly loveably misunderstood puppies.

A national ban on these dogs is a bit overkill, and I certainly think some of the alternative ideas already presented in this thread are probably far better (extreme liability, high cost, or forced neutering and harsh punishment for non-neutered animals' owners).

That being said I am ALL FOR city-wide ban on a whole list of dogs bred to be strong, powerful, and violent in every major city. Cities are simply the wrong places to own a violent dog domestically. There are simply WAY too many opportunities for a dog to be mistreated in a big city, and FAR too many opportunities for something to go wrong due to the high density population. Want a pit bull? Move to the country. It's just that simple.

Now, one thing I really must point out is how incredibly stupid a person must be to try and correlate a person's hesitance or dislike of a certain breed of dog with despising low-income racial minorities. That is about as ignorant and, well, wrong a statement I've heard since I happened to walk in on an episode of the Real World many years back where a black man screamed at the top of his lungs that "Black people can't be racist!"

For god sakes everything does NOT have to be traced to a white person's supposed, and more often than not, wrongfully assumed dislike of racial minorities. Yes, there are still MAJOR issues with race in our country. Yes, it is horrible and ignorant and causes many problems. But not EVERYTHING is a sign of it. So stop calling everything out for it, all it does is devalue the actual impact when something actually IS.

@36: I'm just calling out the hypocrisy here. People are animals. If we're arguing that some breeds of dogs are genetically inferior/aggressive/etc it's not a huge leap to apply that to cohorts of people who have been "selectively bred" by historical tragedies like slavery.

Pit bull's behavior is nurture not nature. More than that, the real problem with pit bulls isn't that they're born evil, it's that they have huge powerful jaws. If a Pomeranian is threatened and then attacks, the worst thing you're likely to get are scratch marks. If a pit bull freaks out the results can be much worse.

It doesn't mean they're this horrible aggressive breed, it just means they're capable of doing more damage.

Dan, you've let your lizard brain get the better of you (carnivores with big teeth are scary to us primates).




1) It's a numbers thing - "pit bulls" are by far the most common breed. So if a certain amount of all dogs bite, and there are more pit bulls, there will be more pit bull incidents, plain and simple (not even taking into consideration that the owners of these dogs are not often responsible owners and this is a symptom of a society that glorifies violence and has a very poor, marginalized population of people). There is no real evidence that pit bulls bite more often than other breeds. They have a high passage rate by the American Temperament Test Society (84.3%). The Golden Retriever has an 84.2% passage rate. "The kinds of dogs that kill people change over time, because the popularity of certain breeds changes over time. The one thing that doesn’t change is the total number of the people killed by dogs. When we have more problems with pit bulls, it’s not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous." (Malcom Gladwell's "Troublemakers" article: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/06/060206fa_fact?currentPage=4 )




2) Breed bans don't work. The Netherlands is lifting a breed ban because bite incidents didn't go down (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080609/ap/d916m6uo2.html). Breed bans are also unenforceable because of the problem of identifying dog breeds.




As Malcom Gladwell said in the Troublemaker article: "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." And don't just read the first page describing a pit bull attack (lizard brain activation), read the whole thing (neo-cortex activation).

@37.

It does not take something as tragic and horrible as slavery to make such comparisons to humanity. Every single culture, religion, and nation has or has had a tendency to purposefully "keep it in the family." Judaism is a perfect example. Jews throughout history, due religious and social ideals, have mostly tried to marry other jews. As such they have created somewhat unique genetic strains different than even that of the surrounding culture, regardless of nationality. The same can be said for almost all nobility of any country in the world's history.

Hindus marry hindus, muslims marry muslims. Irish marry irish. While this isn't always the case, and is becoming less and less so as time goes on (especially in such racially and religiously diverse countries like the US and parts of Europe), it HAS been that way throughout history.

Which would lead me to argue that, no, talking about pit-bulls and the banning of this one particular species is NOT automatically something one can correlate to a presumed hatred for black people: because the same argument you make towards "specific breeding in humans" can be made to just about every other culture and civilization, hell even every social circle, on the planet.

Now, back to pit bulls: while I do agree that most cases of violence concerning dogs is a learned trait, there CAN be predispositions for violent behavior in some breeds more than others. Be it intentional or otherwise, humans CAN breed animals, through stricter means than anything imposed on other humans (including slaves) to have predispositions of naturally violent behavior. While this isn't something that becomes prevalent in every single one of a specific breed, and rarely does this predisposition actually act out, it DOES explain the countless instances where a dog, presumed to be raised properly and in a loving home, will suddenly and without provocation lash out violently. It is unfortunate, and not the dog's fault, but it IS something one has to understand. Which is why I refer to my previous argument that a universal ban isn't a practical thing, but strict rules about accountability due to owning a dog, or stricter rules on neutering your animals, or bans in major cities where things are more likely to go wrong due to higher exposure to potentially bad situations, would be extremely practical and should be implemented.

Dan,

you support handgun bans? How disappointing.

Dog laws, like gun control laws, wil only affect law abiding, responsible owners, who are not the problem in the first place.

"A breed ban is a blunt instrument, and it’s imperfect—just like a handgun ban. But I support the latter for the same reasons I support the former."

That comment alone shows your ignorance on both issues and proves your arrogance. How does one get to be such an expert on issues as diverse a pitbull/gun bans AND issues of the heart? No one will ever know....

Here's one more reason I love living in Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2005/03/02/pitbull-ban050302.html

As the mother of a small child, I cheered mightily the day this was announced.

Huskies/malamutes? Crazy, neurotic, unpredictable dogs.

I've known some insane Samoyeds, but I've had a number of Huskies and Malamutes over the years, and found them to be quite stable and affectionate. I had one husky that developed dog Alzheimers and went a little nuts after sundown every day, but he was also being eaten up with cancer--he was 18 years old, ferchrissakes*--and the malamutes I've known have been a little more aggressive but not nearly dangerous.

*Huskies and malamutes weren't originally bred to live more than 3-5 years; the people who relied on them to live used them as transportation [sled dogs] and companions until they hit an age when their sled-pulling ability started to diminish, then they were slaughtered for their fur and their meat. These people didn't let sentimentality get in the way, and they used everything of the dogs they could. But they were never bred to live as long as our domestic H's and M's live today, so it's no wonder they get these diseases once they exceed their intended lifespan.

Dan, it seems that your mind is made up on this subject, so I'll keep it shortish

I feel that you are a person who is generally able to think critically about conventional wisdom. You know, obvious, well accepted stuff like:

prostitution and sex work is bad bad bad!

pot is bad!

pornography is bad!

gay marriage is really bad!

and not too long ago: homosexuality is bad! Oh wait .....

a bit before that, masturbation: bad!

interracial marriage! .... bad

These are, or were recently, well accepted truths.

You get the idea. All I'm asking is that you use your critical thinking skills to ask yourself whether it is possible that pitt bulls fall into the same trap as my examples; things that are widely believed to be harmful, until looked at in a more open-minded, critical light.

I'll also ask you to be more rigorous in your research than looking for anecdotal evidence of mauling that you see reported in newspapers. If you rely only on anecdotal evidence, and were not sufficiently rigorous in your research, you could easily come to some terrifyingly wrong conclusions. At the risk of being inflammatory, and violating the touchy feely liberal code, let's use black people as an example. If you looked at raw crime rates, and newspaper reports of violent crimes, might you conclude that black people are "vicious" and should be banned. *But you'd be fucking wrong* I don't have to explain why, you know why.

Now use some of that same logic, and ask of there are things which might *correlate* with pit bulls, like say, poor, thuggish, "dumb fucking scum" owners.

These fuckers could turn a golden retriever into a menace, if they got it into their mind that owning vicious goldens could increase their cred.

I still like your sex advice, but remember, just because you become a true expert in one area (sex, relationships, etc) and have come to justifiably trust your first reflexive responses, don't let that fool you into thinking that your off the cuff opinions are correct in all subjects.

best,
Cedar

@38, Thanks for the Gladwell article--fascinating--I just love Malcolm Gladwell!

He presents a good case for why breed bans won't work. I think a pit bull ban, in particular, is appealing to most middle class people, because they know they will never want a pit bull. There seems to be arguing when people start to talk about banning Rottweilers and German Shepherds and more so when you add in Huskies, Malamutes, and Chows. Full disclosure: two of my favorite dogs (individuals, not the breed in general) are a German Shepherd and a Rottweiler. Dogs I or my family members or dogs have felt threatened by include a Chow, a Dalmation, a couple of Dobermans, and several pit bulls.

I thought one of the most interesting findings in the Denver fatal dog-bite study was this "The strongest connection of all, though, is between the trait of dog viciousness and certain kinds of dog owners. In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting."

I don't know the numbers, but surely the percentage of all dog owners who are involved in dog-fighting must be tiny, so a quarter of fatal dog-bites coming from owners known to be associated with it seems huge. It seems like cracking down on dog-fighting, as well as forced neutering (certainly for first-time biters, if not for all male dogs not owned by licensed breeders) would go further toward saving lives than a breed ban.