Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on What He Said

1

We I-o-way hicks are smart'r n'you city folk! And we drink regular coffee.

Posted by Sioux City Savant | September 16, 2008 8:34 AM
2

Lipstick sales in Sioux City will plummet.

Posted by Al | September 16, 2008 8:43 AM
3

I'm sure pitbulls wouldn't be so pissy if people didn't keep putting lipstick on them.

I do love his last line: "An assault rifle can be locked away or hung on a wall and it’s not going to wander off down the street and pull its own trigger."

Posted by Mom | September 16, 2008 8:49 AM
4

I love my lipstick and a good solid foundation before I go out on the town. There is nothing more faboulous than biting down on some young tender flesh of some adoring child while wearing the very finest from Revlon.

I am Put Bull and hear me roar! *snap* *snap*

Posted by Pit Bullicous | September 16, 2008 8:53 AM
5

I don't know if a ban is the answer, but in the absence of stricter legislation regarding owning, training, leashing, spay/neutering/breeding, and punishing owners of dogs who attack, it's probably the only way to go. For the record I would never own one and I try to steer clear of them if at all possible. It is kind of a shame to punish responsible owners though. Also, I think there may be something to the argument that if pitbulls are banned, thugs will just find a different breed of dog to train and breed aggressive traits into. It could be that if pitbulls are banned, soon we'll be pushing to ban Rottweilers, Dobermans, or German Shepherds to name just a few examples.

Posted by Old_Mama_Chips | September 16, 2008 8:58 AM
6

You wouldn't accept this principle for humans, would you?

Cause as we all know, black people account for a higher percentage of violent crime. Maybe it's genetic, eh? Couldn't be, say, a result of environment or ancillary trends.

No, we should enact a Pitbull Code.

The thing is, Dan... even if we do enact a Pitbull Code, people who want aggressive dogs to neglect will simply adopt another breed. Rotts are always a popular backup. Then we'll have to enact a Rottweiler Code to go with the Pitbull Code.

Eventually we'll have a city of neglected, angry french poodles attacking people, and we'll have to just ban all dogs.

I mean, do you really think this through, or do you just stick with the knee-jerk brain-dead canine eugenic crap?

Posted by K | September 16, 2008 9:01 AM
7

Last time I checked, Horsey was a cartoonist. Why should I give a fuck about anything he has to say about anything? Except maybe pens. Where does he get those wonderful pens?

Posted by Matthew | September 16, 2008 9:08 AM
8

If a ban on the breed isn't acceptable, how about requiring owners of "dangerous breeds" to post bonds or buy insurance against dog attacks. If you're caught without coverage, your dog gets taken. If your dog bites someone and you're not covered, it's jail time and fines.

Posted by Banna | September 16, 2008 9:09 AM
9

Can someone please post the peer reivewed study that supports the contention that breed bans work? That would at least shut me up. Otherwise, this is just "feel good" legislation. It accomplishes nothing, but at least someone passed a law about it.

Posted by Lavode | September 16, 2008 9:15 AM
10

@6: Do you even know what dog breeding is?

Please, please please stop comparing dog breeds to human differences in skin tone. It's ignorant and insulting. People have different levels of melanin because of the evolutionary pressures of living in different latitudes with differing levels of sunlight over many, many generations. This is not at all analogous to differences in dog breeds which have been deliberately selected over many generations by human breeders to emphasize the traits they want.

This would be the "canine eugenic crap" that you mention. It's called dog breeding. Eugenics as infamously practiced by the Nazis sought to impose a similar controlled breeding regime on humans. When you liken human "races" to dog breeds it is you that is taking a eugenicist's stance.

There are other ways to make your point.

Posted by flamingbanjo | September 16, 2008 9:17 AM
11

"For these people, there is an allure to owning a thing that is so potentially dangerous."

That's just stupid. I know lots of people who own pitbulls and related breeds and they didn't adopt their dogs because they thought it was thrilling to live with such scary, wild beasts that could, at any moment, rip their faces off. They adopted them because they are SWEET, GREAT DOGS.

The breed ban won't solve the problem. The problem is with owners who abuse and neglect their dogs, and those owners won't obey a breed ban. They'll just stop taking their dogs to the vet, stop registering them with the city, etc. It's already been pointed out that there isn't enough animal control staff to do anything about loose and threatening dogs -- to me that suggests there won't be enough staff to enforce a breed ban either. It's symbolic, not practical. Pointless.

Posted by Jane | September 16, 2008 9:25 AM
12

i'm going to generalize here.

who owns the "sweet, great dog" pits? often, responsible, educated, rescue-activist lesbians. the ones fighting the breed ban.

who owns the problem pits? proudly ignorant macho dickheads.

why are the problem pits a problem? they have functioning testicles.

not every unfixed pit is a problem, but there'd be a hell of a lot fewer problems if they were neutered.

but then they wouldn't be bad ass enough for a macho dickhead.

Posted by max solomon | September 16, 2008 9:41 AM
13

David Horsey makes that "Kelly" cartoonist at The Onion look like a genius. To think of all the insightful cartoons that could have been printed in the space that Horsey takes up makes me sad for Seattle.

Why don't you guys just print evidence that the other places, like Denver, that banned pit bulls are now safer? If you could say that, you'd have already won this debate.

Much like Tim Eyman's doomed ploys to reduce congestion, this has been tried many times before, and it didn't work. That's a CLUE!

Oh, wait. Seattle is different...

Posted by elenchos | September 16, 2008 9:49 AM
14

Wait, I don't see a balanced report here with any comment from the pit bull advocates. Doesn't this make Horsey a stupid fucking credulous hack?

Nah. It merely proves Savage is a goddamned fraudulent hypocrite.

Posted by Nero DeRobert | September 16, 2008 9:54 AM
15

I have a solution for the macho men who don't want their pit bulls neutered: Neuticles!

No, seriously. http://www.neuticles.com/original.php

Posted by TVDinner | September 16, 2008 10:01 AM
16

@12, are you suggesting that pit bull owners should be neutered (when applicable)? I think I like it!

Posted by Q*bert H. Humphrey | September 16, 2008 10:02 AM
17

If you think pit bulls are vicious, you should see off leash area advocates...

Posted by Trevor | September 16, 2008 10:07 AM
18

Jane sez:

they are SWEET, GREAT DOGS

Yeah, until they snap. Many, many pit bull attacks are made by sweet, great dogs who have never shown a glimmer of aggression before that day they tore the infant's scalp off.

Ban the breed today. Anyone caught violating it gets neutered. With a bottle opener.

Posted by Fnarf | September 16, 2008 10:37 AM
19

@16:

i INSINUATED it, like BHO insinuated that palin was the lipstick on mccain's pig.

not that murka could even understand that one.

Posted by max solomon | September 16, 2008 10:38 AM
20

We ban the ownership of all sorts of animals for precisely the reason that, under normal conditions, even with reasonably adequate safeguards in place, they represent a potential threat to the health and safety of surrounding citizens. This is why municipalities have reasonable restrictions on the ownership of dangerous animals such as lions, tigers, alligators, and the like, all of which I'm quite sure have advocates somewhere who would be more than happy to attest to their positive attributes - and whom even most pit bull owners would consider bat-shit crazy for saying so.

The pro-pit bull contingent can argue all they want that their particular dog is "a sweet great" dog, but when fully half of all dog attacks in our city alone can be attributed to a single breed, then clearly it's time to start considering them as being just as dangerous as keeping a full-grown mountain lion in the backyard.

I challenge ANY pit bull owner to stand up and tell the rest of us with a straight face that they think owning mountain lions or alligators is a GOOD idea, and THEN try to tell us why we should make an exception for a breed that shows clear evidence of being equally, if not more of a threat to public safety and well-being.

Posted by COMTE | September 16, 2008 10:39 AM
21

That makes sense, Sioux City is full of uptight white people.

Posted by steves | September 16, 2008 10:45 AM
22

I am a proud owner of a half-pit mix and, yes, she is a sweet, wonderful dog. And yes, I believe that responsible ownership is the key to this situation. And, frankly, I know personally of two golden retrievers that have snapped and mauled kids. However, none of that will influence anyone against the ban. So be it.

My concern is the wording of "experts will determine breed". Who are these experts? IN other cities, vets have stood up and say they won;t be the ones to do it. Are dog catchers qualified? Police?

My concern is as much for the "innocent" dogs that will be caught up in this as it is for the responsible pits/part pits and their owners.

Posted by B | September 16, 2008 10:48 AM
23

The only dog attack I witnessed was in a pet store. It was by a dalmation that bit the face of a 6-year-old girl. This is actually irrelevant in one sense, but I think it's the training mostly. It's also of course bigger dogs are going to cause more damage if/when they do bite. But banning an entire breed - no. Personally I would love to see mountain lions as pets. That would be so cool.

Posted by Dagmar | September 16, 2008 10:49 AM
24

Let's ban anything that has any potential threat to it at all, no matter who it hurts along the way.

Posted by Carollani | September 16, 2008 11:01 AM
25

@24: Fine. Let's not regulate anything dangerous if somebody somewhere finds enjoyment in it, no matter who it hurts along the way.

Posted by flamingbanjo | September 16, 2008 11:13 AM
26

So half of dog attacks are from pit bulls. What percentage of pit bulls eventually attack people?

You can have one billion people with one billion pit bulls, and if you have one attack in a billion years, that will mean one hundred percent of attacks were pit bulls, but odds of a given pit bull attacking someone in a given year are only (by my math) 0.0000000000000001%. Would that warrant a breed ban?

How about a statistic that actually speaks to the danger they pose?

Posted by Ben | September 16, 2008 11:15 AM
27

The vast majority of pit bulls/related breeds are NOT vicious and have NEVER attacked, snapped, or hurt anyone. This is obviously the case -- you read in the news about the few who do cause problems, not the majority who don't.

I don't see how mountain lions and alligators at all compare here -- if you reach out and try to pet a mountain lion or alligator on the head, chances are about 99.99% it's going to try to bite you. It's a WILD ANIMAL. This is not true of all pit bulls/related breeds.

Does this mean it's safe to reach out and pet any pit bull you encounter? Hell no -- it's just as dumb to do that as it is to reach out and pet a poodle who doesn't know you. But it doesn't make sense to me to say, "Hey, there were 22 reported dog bites in the last 12 months from pit bulls, therefore we should ban all pit bulls." 22! How many people were seriously injured or died from car accidents caused by drunk drivers? Shouldn't we BAN people who drink and drive and hurt someone? That seems like a better analogy to me than the mountain lion/alligator one -- another case where an irresponsible owner ends up getting someone else hurt (in this case, a car owner).

Frankly, I think the solution is in more severe punishments for dog owners who have animals that hurt someone else. Bad dog owners end up getting slaps on the wrist -- there's no incentive for them to take the time/money to restrain their animals, train them, treat them better, get rid of them if they can't care for them, etc.

If you want to reduce the number of dog bites of any breed, the answer is not just BANNING DOGS. We already know that doesn't work. I think it's time we try really cracking down on the bad or careless owners instead. Mandatory jail time! Huge fines! No longer allowed to own a pet of any kind! Fed to a mountain lion or alligator! But punishing the hundreds of good owners just to pick off the 22 bad ones out there makes no sense, especially since most of those bad owners aren't going to obey a breed ban anyway. Frankly, it's going to make those 22 bad pit bulls even more dangerous because their owners will no longer take them in for their shots every year, get veterinary care for them if they get sick, etc.

Posted by Jane | September 16, 2008 11:15 AM
28

@27:

Punishing pet owners for the actions of their animals is all well-and-good up to a point, but it's a reactive, rather than a preventive approach; while it might make the general public feel better, it sure doesn't do much for the poor person whose child, or spouse, or parent has already been killed or severely injured post-attack.

And of course mountain lions and alligators are WILD animals, and therefore uncontrollable; but what does it say about pit bulls that, as a DOMESTICATED breed is selected precisely for its aggressive nature and overpowering physical attributes. Seriously, I don't blame the dogs per se, they're just doing what generations of selective breeding have instilled in them. But any owner who truly understands the nature of the breed, MUST recognize their animal represents not just a potential, but likely threat to other people.

As for the anecdotal stories of other dogs committing similar acts, well yes, some dogs, just like people, do occasionally act in an inappropriate, anti-social, and dangerous manner - but when credible studies cite ONE SINGLE BREED as being responsible for 65% OF ALL DOG-BITE RELATED FATALITIES in the U.S. and Canada between 1982 & 2006 (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf), then this is not simply a case of "a few bad apples", but instead represents a clear-and-present danger to public safety.

Posted by COMTE | September 16, 2008 11:31 AM
29

Ban the pit breed and mix-breeds.


Oh wait, does that mean gub'erment introoshun inta pravit lifes? How about freedom for citizens to shoot pits on sight? Just like a pit, I'm a sweet and personable, but sometimes, for no good reason, usually its dog snarls and the knowledge that a 80lb dog has the power to put to put an 80lb kid or 70 yro woman into a grave at a rate faster than any other breed... but I do get set off and I snap. Laws keep me from killing pit bulls with gun, club or fist on sight, so laws should prevent those pooches from being in my neighborhood. Its for the pits own protection, after all. Guess humans in Seattle aren't worthy of the same protections?

Posted by The Peanut Gallery | September 16, 2008 11:51 AM
30

What is the downside of banning pit bulls? That someone who really really really wants a pit bull might have to settle for another breed? Boo fucking hoo.

If you don't think bans are effective, then let's make all dog owners criminally liable for the violent crimes of their pets. I'm fine with either one.


Posted by Sean | September 16, 2008 11:53 AM
31

the report you cite comes from an animal activist, not an animal behaviorist nor a canine expert.
the report was compiled from newspaper articles and includes many assumptions on the part of the activist. (not a very reliable method)

even the cdc states on their site not use their stats for breed determination of bites as there is no accurate way to determine a breeds total population.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm



if this breed as a whole is inherently dangerous, why are they used as law enforcement, search & rescue and therapy dogs?
www.lawdogsusa.org

www.forpitssake.org

why don't these dogs snap?

why aren't we hearing stories of shelter workers being consistently attacked?


why did the dutch end their 15yr ban after determining that bite incidents and severity didn't change during the ban?


Posted by @28 | September 16, 2008 12:06 PM
32

I have faith Seattle's political process will make this drag on through several referendums until the Nanny State, fear mongers get bored find something else to bitch and moan about.

If this was a Pomeranian ban I might feel differently. Those dogs are creepy leg-humping monsters.

Posted by Jigae | September 16, 2008 12:07 PM
33

@6- Nothing proves a point better than a "cause we all know" racist generalization.

Here are some more race based crime facts:

Serial killers are usually white.

Most of the violent shooting sprees at schools, malls and work places have been done by white men.

An individual is responsible for their actions, not their socially constructed race.

Please crawl out from under your social rock and evolve.


Posted by Ren | September 16, 2008 1:19 PM
34

@31:

What difference does it make WHO initiated the study? If the total number of dog-attack fatalities is documented, and the number of deaths-by-pit-bull can be determined from that data, then the political motivations of the people who initiated the study is irrelevant. It is a matter of irrefutable FACT that an overwhelming majority of fatalities in the U.S. can be directly attributable to pit bulls and p-b mixes. It's not a question of whether other breeds also exhibit similar behaviors; they do, but nowhere near to the extent, even collectively, as do pit bulls by themselves.

And it's not like the sources you cite are exactly unbiased either; they're just biased toward your side of the argument, that's all. So, unless you can prove the numbers have been manipulated in favor of a particular bias (and there are several other studies - of which you are already no doubt aware - that corroborate these findings), you've got no leg to stand on, particularly since the CDC study you cite actually CONFIRMS the findings of the other studies mentioned elsewhere.

As for your other assertions, well, LEA's tend to favor aggressive breeds for precisely the reason that - they're aggressive. When used in containment situations, the aggressive personality of the dog acts as a compliance mechanism - get out of line, get your arm gnawed on. So naturally they will prefer breeds that exhibit those desired characteristics.

And while certainly the breed has positive attributes for search-and-rescue applications: intelligence, strength, and stamina for example, it needs to be noted that s-&-r, just like law enforcement, requires highly specialized training and socialization, something most members of the breed never receive.

As for the Dutch ban being rescinded, the total number of incidents simply don't fall anywhere near the number tracked in the U.S. and Canada, where dog populations are much larger in general (roughly 75 million dogs in the U.S. versus about 1.4 mm in the Netherlands), and populations of pit bull/rottweiler & mixed breeds are so much higher here than there as to make a statistical comparison literally meaningless.

Posted by COMTE | September 16, 2008 2:01 PM
35

31:
Newspaper reports will never be a reliable method for obtaining data.


The cdc states:


A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. 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.


Why don't the therapy dogs "snap"?


why aren't the shelter workers, which work daily with pit bulls overcrowding the shelters, being consistently attacked?


so the dutch don't count because they don't have enough dogs? Hmmm...
and the percentages of the breeds are determined how? by number of registered dogs?

Seattle was reported last year as having pit bulls as their fourth largest breed. does that number include unregistered dogs too? who counted?


why is it that all major organizations involved with human/canine interaction is opposed to breed specific regulations?

Posted by 31 | September 16, 2008 3:10 PM
36

34:
Newspaper reports will never be a reliable method for obtaining data.


The cdc states:


A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. 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.


Why don't the therapy dogs "snap"?


why aren't the shelter workers, which work daily with pit bulls overcrowding the shelters, being consistently attacked?


so the dutch don't count because they don't have enough dogs? Hmmm...
and the percentages of the breeds are determined how? by number of registered dogs?

Seattle was reported last year as having pit bulls as their fourth largest breed. does that number include unregistered dogs too? who counted?


why is it that all major organizations involved with human/canine interaction is opposed to breed specific regulations?

Posted by 34 | September 16, 2008 3:10 PM
37

here's an excerpt from http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites1.asp
regarding the report comte referred.



Fatal Dog Attack Numbers:



Merritt Clifton located 264 fatal dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada from 1982 to 2006 through the collection of newspaper articles.

The Centers for Disease Control and the National Canine Research Council have documented 477 fatal dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada during this same period.


Maiming Numbers:


Merritt Clifton located 2,209 attacks doing bodily harm occurring between 1982 and 2006 from newspaper articles.


According to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control over 300,000 people report annually to emergency rooms for treatment of dog bites, of whom approximately 6,000 are injured severely enough to require hospitalization.



Hospital admission for injuries sustained during a dog attack is a valid medical assessment of bodily harm. Therefore, according to the CDC and the NCIPC, at least 150,000 people received bodily harm (i.e., hospital admission with a median stay of 3.6 days) from dog attacks during the same time period as Clifton's "study." (1982-2006)


Merritt Clifton's collection of the 2,209 attacks reported in the newspapers is clear evidence that most attacks doing bodily harm are NOT reported.



What method editors and reporters use to determine which dog attacks to publicize is unknown.



Clifton then went on to draw sweeping and totally inaccurate conclusions about breed behaviors; presenting his collection of newspaper articles as "evidence" and "predictive" of the nature and behavior of all the other dogs in the U.S."

Posted by reporter | September 16, 2008 3:24 PM
38

Funny, that you would post a pro-pit bull "analysis" of the CDC report, while completely ignoring the findings of the report itself:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

"RESULTS - At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF (Dog Bite-Related Fatalities) during the past 20 years (1977 - 1998). Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in MORE THAN HALF of these deaths."

(See Table 1 on page 2 for a breakdown by-year.)

Posted by COMTE | September 16, 2008 4:15 PM
39

@34:

What difference does it make WHO initiated the study?

Are you serious? How often do we hear about a study-funded by some corporate or governmental group that comes back with questionable or prejudiced results?

Posted by Jigae | September 16, 2008 4:22 PM
40

comte

Funny that the CDC realized the flaw in their methodology and thus posted the statement that their statistics should NOT be used in breed determinations.



http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm



Newspaper articles will never be a reliable method for data collection.

Posted by 38 | September 16, 2008 4:32 PM
41

Here's an excerpt from
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites1.asp

regarding the cdc report.


An Analysis of the CDC Study
Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the U.S. between 1979 and 1998


The critical flaw in the CDC's study was the attempt to isolate a factor (breed) which could not be isolated and was impossible to verify.


Of all the more tangible circumstances surrounding a dog attack (sex of dog, reproductive status of dog, location of dog, relationship of dog to victim), the CDC chose, for unknown reasons, the most problematic and least reliable aspect on which to base their study.


Without any legitimate way to identify or verify breeds of dogs, and while knowing that mixed breed dogs make up a significant portion of dogs in the U.S.; the CDC, nevertheless, sought out and attempted to acquire breed information. Since there was, and still is, no national recording system that keeps track of the events surrounding dogs bites, the CDC scanned newspaper articles for breed identifications in cases of fatal dog attacks.

In addition to using newspaper articles, the CDC excluded nearly 1/4 of the small sample population (n=320) due to the fact their source (i.e., newspapers) either failed to report the incident altogether or reported the incident but failed to "identify" a breed.


However, unlike the Clifton study listed above, the CDC recognized the flaws in their study and clearly stated that no conclusions on breed behaviors could be drawn from their data.


The CDC no longer keeps track of dog bite fatalities by breed and has posted the following statement on their website:

"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. 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."

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm

Posted by reporter | September 16, 2008 4:40 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.