Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Moses Lake Decides Not to Ban Face-Biting Monster Dogs


Yakima has a pit bull ban in effect. A free story idea -- has the pit bull ban nearly eliminated serious dog attacks in Yakima like it has in Denver?

Posted by jrrrl | September 25, 2008 5:17 PM

These politicians who pay more attention to every major animal welfare and veterinary association while ignoring the screaming headlines hysterical reporters are no better than the ones who get their climate change advice from climatologists and their WMD advice from weapons inspectors. Or the "reality-based community" as it is called.

Who are you going to believe? A bunch of elitists who go to "school" and collect "data" and pussy shit like that, or your local gozo journo?

Posted by elenchos | September 25, 2008 5:18 PM

@1: In a major blow to proponents of BSL policies, Holland has lifted its ban on pit bulls!

On Monday, June 9, the Dutch Minister of Agriculture, Gerda Verburg, announced to the parliament that the rule banning pit bulls in the Netherlands would be lifted. After fifteen years, it has been found that the ban has been ineffective.

This represents a major victory for European animal advocates who have been opposing this breed specific legislation!

The lifting of the ban came on the advice of a committee that had been formed to re-consider the policy.

The ban had been imposed in 1993, as a reaction to the killing of three children by dogs. However, as Gerda Verburg, pointed out, there has been no decrease in the number of biting incidents during the fifteen years in which the ban has been in place.

Posted by St Francis | September 25, 2008 9:17 PM

Some people call it Eastern Washington. Others call it the scablands. Fortunately the census counts heads. Unfortunately many of them's they's counts not got much neruons in em's.

Posted by kinaidos | September 25, 2008 11:01 PM

There's a reason the stranger is a free rag...

Posted by Bender | September 26, 2008 12:36 AM

So did that Dutch ban fine pit bull owners $50 or what? There culd be many reasons for a ban not being effective. Did the pit bull owners flout the law? Were there just as many bites overall from all species, but fewer of them fatal cuz fewer pit bulls? IF a law isn't 100% effective, should we take it off the books, so that then we can lie and murder and assault each other?

As for Moses Lake, and all the free-market-in-pit-bull advocates who say greater owner responsibility is the answer, what exactly are the penalties for "keeping a vicious dog, having a dog at large and not having a pet license" -- a $500 fine with a time pay arrangment that you can repeatedly voilate at will and take 5 years to pay, ensuring maximum employment of cops, animal controal, local prosecutors and judges and bailiffs over in Moses Lake municiapl court?

What are the penalties that will be imposed after the inevitable plea bargain? Not having a pet license?

Posted by PC | September 26, 2008 7:34 AM

@6: First the dog at moses lake was NOT a pitbull. The dog was 130 pounds which is a mastiff. The weight of a pitbull is between 30-60 pounds.

The Holland regulation is controversial because (as stated by the commission) the number of dog bites has stayed the same since the inception of the regulation. Moreover, researchers have concluded that a bite from a pitbull does not do more damage than a bite of another dog. With this conclusion the commission has refuted a longstanding, persistent claim.

Besides, the experts often disagree whether a seized dog is a pitbull and should be killed. They are required to work with definitions such as ‘athletic but not skinny’ or ‘comes across as powerful’.

The regulation is outdated, says Verburg. She now wants new regulations which judge dogs by aggressive behaviour rather than breed. The Public Prosecutor will now look into current dossiers of seized dogs. If they have been found not to be aggressive they will be returned to their owner."

Posted by St Francis | September 26, 2008 9:19 AM

who knows why the ban in the netherlands didn't work? we do know there were very few pit bulls there to begin with, and they forcibly seized and euthanized pit bulls left and right, which would not happen here.

the ban worked in denver, how about other cities in the US with similar cultures?

i'd be fine with raising the penalties for violent dogs to include jail time and/or huge fines, but that does nothing to actually prevent dogs and children and other people from being injured to begin with.

Posted by jrrrl | September 26, 2008 11:00 AM


The UK Dangerous Dog Act:
From 1997 to 2007 dog bites INCREASED by 50 % and cost 14 million to enforce.

Aurora Colorado:2006 they ban pit bulls, dogo argentinos and a few other breeds. Since the ban, dog bites INCREASE by 90%!!!!

Aragon, Spain: 2000 Dangerous Animals Act, costs 8.2 million and has NO significant impact on dog bites.

Netherlands (as mentioned by another poster) lifts its 25 year ban due to innefectiveness. During the 25 years the ban was in place 12,000 ppl were hospitalized for dog bites and 3 children were killed.


Posted by Julie Russell | September 26, 2008 12:13 PM
Posted by Julie Russell | September 26, 2008 12:21 PM

Who is to say that Moses Lake has given up on the ban? They are just getting the conversation started. Several cities near Lake Moses already have bans including: Yakima, Othello, Wapato and Royal. Bans do work.


Posted by Monk555 | September 26, 2008 12:52 PM

@8: When Holland banned "pitbulls" in 1993 the total population was 1000. Today there are more than 25000 pitbulls in Holland.

So you don't know what you are talking about. I do because I am from there :)

I hope that you are doing well Colleen Lynn

Posted by St Francis | September 26, 2008 2:29 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.