I don't know how the whole "he was such a great dog and never showed any signs of aggression!" argument is supposed to make me feel better about pit bulls. In other words, he seems perfectly normal, but apparently could one day snap and maul you. Great.

Why do they always seem to go after babies and old people? Fucking pussies.

Dog owners tend to forget that the side of their dog's personality that they see is often very different from the way the dog acts towards others. Dogs are wired for social hierarchies and the owner is given the subservience and deference afforded to an Alpha. Random strangers might receive different treatment.

Number of traffic fatalities on U.S. highways in 2007: 41,059
Number of pit bull terrier attacks causing bodily harm (number of dogs * number of victims) in the U.S. and Canada between 1982 and 2006: 1,110

Such a sad story. Had someone just put lipstick on the mother Pit bull she could have become Governor of Alaska.

Ziggity, I would like your source.

Pit bulls breeds cause 20% of attacks in the city limits; their numbers have increased in the city limits threefold since 1998.

Once a breed ban goes into effect, 20% of dog attacks will be perpetrated by German Shepherds instead. Once that breed is banned, it will be Rotweilers... At what point do we address the culture of lazy/apathetic/mentally ill dog owners who allow their dogs, whatever breed, to cause harm?

Puppies!

What is your obsession with pit bulls? It's really tedious.

Sasha wins

Source for traffic fatalaties: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2007 Annual Assessment of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes (google it)

Source for pit bull statistics:
Clifton, Merritt, "Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, US and Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006" available here. (PDF)

1. 20% of a smaller number of attacks is improvement, duh.

2. the pit bull owners' argument is "pit bulls don't kill, sloppy pit bull owners do" the opposite of the NRA argument.

3. Short of a ban, why not require a $400,000 insurance policy, training class, inspection of premises financed by a $100 a year permit fee, etc., sort of what we would require of a dynamite wharehouse operator, or a manufacturer of morphine.

Regulate them out of existence.

Or, a mere rule of strict liability would do it, to; in the current case, if the attacked lady could take the pit bull owners' house without having to "prove" negligence" or satisfy the common law one bite rule, this would be quite a deterrent to owning pit bulls.

The same way there is strict liability is you are string huge vats of poison on your property and it leaks or spills out.

Ziggity, if you think your statistics is making anyone feel sympathetic towards pit bulls, you are wrong; in fact, I was of two minds on the issue until I saw your numbers. And I have a suspicion that these numbers are under-reported.

Comparing anything to highway fatalities is not a great rhetorical strategy, btw. That way we could decide that we're just ok with the deaths in Iraq or in the ganglands of Chicago. After all, it is more dangerous to be on the highway that on the far Southside, right?

It's an interesting problem. The issue with Pit Bulls isn't their temperament which is provably better adjusted toward humans than many other breeds. They are frequently rated among the most patient dogs around children and rarely attack humans unless they are specifically bred to do so.

However, the issue is with the damage that they can do when an attack does happen. On this note, they are muscular animals capable of causing great harm. So the real question is, do we ban all animals that are capable of causing harm? German Shepherds, Akitas, Rottweilers, Labradors, or any dog that can grow over fifty pounds? If so, how do you enforce a ban like that? I'm not being facetious, perhaps this is a reasonable solution.

Frankly, I'd like to see a real study done with statistics around the percentage of pitbulls that turn and the relation to other breeds along with fatality and serious injury numbers. The only studies I've seen give total numbers of attacks but they don't tell the whole story. Pit Bulls account for a large amount of dog attacks but they are also among the most popular breed of dog in the U.S.

That said, I think we have other things to be hysterical about.

13: I'm just as upset about pit bull attacks as anyone else, and could be persuaded to vote for a breed ban.

I'm trying to say that we spend time arguing about pit bulls, gang slayings, the Iraq war, t-t-t-terrorists!, etc. while ignoring some of the fundamental problems that are built into the infrastructure of the U.S. because they're too big or too costly or too unmanageable to be managed.

Savage goes out of his way to find stories about kids hurt or killed by their parents, or their parents' dogs, or their youth pastor, and that's great to draw attention to these trends, but I'm just saying we've got bigger problems to deal with.

For those who don't actually live on Capitol Hill (or Seattle for that matter) let me give this post, as well as the countless other redundant posts, some context: Literally 90% of the dogs you see here are pitbulls... and you can't walk more than a few blocks without seeing one.

So it is understandable that Dan is scared shitless on a near constant basis, and thus uses this forum as an outlet to vent those frustrations.

Carry on.

See, now this is a situation where the dog owners should be arrested and charged. Travis Cunningham should be sitting in a jail cell right now for letting his dogs run loose and maim an elderly woman.

The best deterrent to aggressive dog ownership isn't a breed ban, but rather a legal climate in which owners are explicitly held accountable for the actions of their dogs. There are just too many examples of things like this happening; people who choose to own pit bulls, knowing their propensity toward aggressive and violent behavior, should be held liable in the event of an attack.

I've got good friends who own pit bulls, and a couple of those pit bulls I absolutely adore, but if any of them attacked a person like this, well then I'd say shoot the dog and arrest the owner.

Ziggity, comparing raw numbers like that is meaningless. Yes, there are a lot of traffic fatalities, but compare that to the number of people in traffic accidents -- it's a small percentage. Most people who are in accidents are not killed and many walk away.

What percentage of people attacked by pit bulls similarly walk away with minor injuries or completely unharmed?

Many alternatives to breed bans: Require annual temperament evaluation for pit bulls -- aggressive dogs will be put down. Or require the owner to post a million dollar bond. Or require the owner to keep the dogs in a roofed, chain-link kennel -- pits can climb fences.

@9 - I agree. Dan, would it be okay if a pit bull attacked a youth pastor?

Annual temperament evaluations? Right on! Let's solve this problem with a huge government bureaucracy! Especially one that would fail 100% of the time! The dogs in this case would have passed a temperament evaluation.

I'm getting a little sick of this "oh, it's not the breed, it's the owners" argument, when we see OVER AND OVER that not just dogs trained to kill but sweet, lovable widdle puppies snap and attack. BAN THEM NOW.

And yes, the owners, father and son, should be sitting in jail right now.

I love how the printed version of this story paraphrased the kid, saying "they would lick you silly" When he actually said in the TV interview, "They would lick your face off"... Maybe now that this woman's face is off, they thought maybe they should switch it up a little!

Pitbulls. The fashion statement for the 21st century. Just choose your color. Be the envy of all your friends. Let them know that you are a professional dog handler and Pitbulls are putty in your hands. They just are so misunderstood. They would only maul someone if their owner was a bad person, and not cool and suave like yourself.

It is true that these dogs are everywhere on Capitol Hill. It's ridiculous. WTF?
I am torn about it too - I do like the idea of making it a serious crime to not have these dogs secured - either on leash, or in a locked kennel/inside a house at all times. Or making it really expensive to own one? But then what would all the Ave Rats/ Broadway Kids do?

Why is it guys named "TJ" always own pitbulls? It's like the same law that all women named Crystal smoke Marlboro Lights and are pregnant by 17. (The Bristol Clause may become law, too)

I get especially unhappy when I see street kids with pitbulls on the Hill. I guess I understand why they have them, but that makes me more determined to stay the fuck away.

If not a breed ban, for all dogs in Seattle:

*Mandatory sterilization - improves temperament

*Mandatory licensing - Enable police to write tickets for non tag wearing dogs they observe on the street. Post license tabs on houses/fences/mailboxes, so mailperson/passerbys know if a dog is there or can report an unlicensed dog.

*Mandatory property insurance - based on general weight. Landlords will limit numbers and sizes and parents will limit their children's dogs. Homeowners who want big dogs or lots of dogs have to pay for them.

*Criminal equivalency for owners - your dog bites off a leg? the same as if you bit off the leg.

Any dog can be aggressive and deadly. Hold the owners responsible and the problem is solved. At the very least, I hope the injured woman sues the pants off the owners.

If a gun owner leaves a loaded gun out in the yard and a child uses it to kill another child the gun owner should be held to be criminally negligent. The same law should be fashioned for pit bulls. Thus there could be a special pit bull license which includes liability with automatic minimum sentencing for unwarranted attacks as there is for possession of unregistered handguns and negligent discharge of a weapon in certain cities.

Thus if you are attacked and your pit bull defends you, there could be a determination made as to whether you had acted lawfully. That is, did you use your deadly weapon in self defense (this would include a duty to flee).

If your pit bull attacks someone who was not attacking you, you go to jail immediately for negligence and face the assault with a deadly weapon charges as well.
While many people may claim provocation caused a dog to attack, this statute would emphasize that in the absence of the owner or a verifiable threat such as a gun, there can be no provocation.

The dogs in this case would have passed a temperament evaluation.

What did we just learn about fnarf?

He is an expert in dog temperament evaluation.
Not only that, but he can diagnose the temperament of dead dogs, just by reading a newspaper article in which they figure.

I am effing impressed.

And he may be surprised to learn that a government agency can require an annual evaluation without creating a massive new bureaucracy: namely the FAA can require airline pilots to get a flight physical.

My dog was attacked by a pit bull last Tuesday.

Fortunately, the other owner and I were able to stop it before anything serious happened.

So, basically - my obedience trained, well-behaved, spayed, female pit should be taken from me and put down so Mr. Savage can feel safe walking down the street?

I guess a permissive society is only acceptable so long as it isn't too frightening.

Perhaps a better solution might be to learn a little more about dogs and what actually constitutes aggressive behavior. You might actually learn something... perhaps even that fear responses can trigger aggressive behavior.

For someone so interested in the rights of the socially oppressed you show a remarkable lack of empathy, Dan.

Oh, and conveniently missing from your diatribe is this pertinent fact:

"According to police and Animal Care and Control, the two slain pit bulls were unneutered male dogs owned by a man who lives two blocks from the victim on South 152nd Street."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008167688_pitbulls09m.html

Smart. Two un-neutered, male dogs roaming the streets. Sounds like a responsible owner to me.

Yes, "deprogram", I see your point. The old lady's at fault here. Her "fear response" is to blame. If only she had had a giant set of balls like you.

Things that cause death when they encounter "fear response" have no place in a civilized society.

@30, you don't consider the FAA to be a huge government bureaucracy? Guess what? That makes you a stupid person.

The difference, of course, is that flying is enormously valuable to society, and maintaining a well-trained cadre of pilots is essential to the smooth functioning of the air industry and thus all of America. Pit bulls are only necessary to bolster the manliness of dipshits with tiny pee-pees. The FAA is a good idea; a pit bull agency is not.

strange he would have pitz-his son looks like he's got more sheepdog in him??

Ziggity-home many cars vs. pit bulls in the US? Mash them numberz, son!

50$ to anybody that these dogs weren't fixed. Mandatory neutering except for breeders with a business license or federal tax ID # is a lot cheaper than a breed ban, and a wiser solution. Until then, deputize dan and let him shoot all hey wants, with a pink squirt gun filled with lube ;)

Anyone else find it funny that the two male dogs were named Big Guy and Rimshot?

i don't hear about attacks by the pits of the stereotypical lesbian-dog-rescuer owners. these are the people behind the anti-breed ban campaign.

the issue is thuggish, low-education male owners (of multiple ethnicities, as proved by this story) who like to bask in the reflected athletic glory of pits. they conciously do not neuter their dogs. the only dogs that cause serious trouble at magnusson are intact males.

the cost of unneutered dog licenses should be 10x that of neutered dogs. hell, 100x for pits or mutts with pit in them. it's not that hard to ID those genes.

Dog bites that cause hospitalization = mandatory felony assault charge, just as if you attacked the person with a baseball bat. Dog bites that cause death = mandatory voluntary manslaughter charge.

I have yet to hear of an attack like this perpetrated by a dog that was early neutered. Why is anyone allowed to own unneutered adult dogs inside the city at all?

Dan, I love you, but you're way off here. I've actually seen a dog attack up close and personal (and got spattered in blood in the process). It was a dogo argentino, not a pit bull. It was an irresponsible owner, and an unfixed male dog, that had been let into the open without proper supervision. (And had been pretty obviously been trained to be aggressive.) The dog was put down and the owner arrested.

My cocker spaniel and my friend's pit (both rescues) play all the time. The pit is a sweetie, well trained and happy, and no different than any other dog. We once took them to the dog park. Guess who is universally the most badly behaved dogs at the dog park? The very small aggressive terriers (the under 12-pound variety). A little terrier came over and snapped at my dog (bristled and no tale wag). My dog backed up and gave a warning growl-- not a snap, not a bristle, just a "get the fuck out of my face, you fuckin' terrier". SO the terrier then went over and snapped at the pit bull. The pit bull, backed up and gave a warning growl-- not a snap, not a bristle, just a "get the fuck out of my face, you fuckin' terrier"-- the exact same behavior as my spaniel. The owner came over and threatened to call the cops on the pit bull for being "too aggressive."

Leave the pit bulls alone. Put down the owners of small obnoxious terriers.

Right on Dan. Pit bulls are basically ticking timebombs. I cross the street when I see one. And for the owner/dog blame game- there's no such thing as a responsible pit bull owner- that is an oxymoron. If you want to have a dog, great, get anything but a pit bull unless you live in the middle of nowhere and are the only potential target for these awful excuses for a dog.

While I admit that some situations are binary (pregnancy, winning the lottery, etc), there are lots of things (probably more) that are not binary. Why must this be a zero sum debate? Too complex? Doesn't make for good incendiary blog posts? It would sure be nice if people could come down on "people on the far sides of this issue are both wrong." That includes the "apologists" and the whatever-you-call-the-people-who-are-trying-to-ban.

@30, you don't consider the FAA to be a huge government bureaucracy?

It didn't get any bigger after they asked pilots to send them one piece of paper with the word "passed" on it. And neither will the dog licensing agency. Their task will hardly change at all:

1. License renewal form filled out - Check!
2. Check enclosed - Check!
3. Proof of rabies vaccination enclosed - Check!
4. (If aggressive breed) Temperature test results from behaviorist - Check!