But 5% of dogs and 20% of attacks? Ban the fuckers. Or at least mandatory muzzling outside of the owners home.

Perhaps a new chew toy or tanning bed.

http://tinyurl.com/4lrk72

I am a very responsible owner of a 9 year old pitbull. I am sensitive to people's misconception about these dogs and make sure people see that I am a responsible owner (for example, I don't leave my dog alone all day in my backyard). My dog is better behaved than any lab I have owned (and most dogs I see).

Too often these dogs (thanks to the image the media and people like DMX portray) wind up in the "wrong" hands. I fully agree that the owner should be liable and punished accordingly but breed bans are not the solution. From what I have read, breed bans do not work. I worked hard to help make sure that a proposed breed ban did not make its way into the city where I live.

http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/news/Crawley-dog-attack-survivor-meets.4491822.jp

Oh wait, that wasn't by a pit bull, so it clearly isn't newsworthy.

Yep, and there've been - what? At least a half-dozen pit bull attack stories in the interim, just in the U.S. alone.

Nope, pit bulls aren't the problem at all, no sirree Bob...

But you did lobby for some better approach to curb future incidents, right? Because your deep concern for this issue is not all about protecting your choice of pet, right? I mean, I can tell you really care about the kids mauled in these attacks because you say right there in your post that you "hate to see these tragic stories."

And that's why, after you successfully defeated your local breed ban, you continued to work to ensure the safety of your neighbors who harbor "misconceptions" about the danger presented by pit bulls that fall into the "wrong" hands, right? By pushing for the stronger liability laws you support, perhaps?

p. 837, "Special Report: Breeds of dog involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998" by Jeffrey Sacks, MD, MPH; Leslie Sinclair, DVM; Julie Gilchrist, MD; Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM; Randall Lockwood, PhD

According to a Center for Disease Control Report, Pitbulls are the breed most likely to fatally injure human beings. Pitbulls accounted for 66 deaths in the U.S. over 19 years (1979 to 1998), while Rottweilers, ranked second, accounted for 39. Granted, 66 deaths over 19 years is not that significant, but 66 deaths by Pitbulls as compared to 39 by Rottweilers suggests that Pitbulls are more dangerous. Here's my source:

p. 837, "Special Report: Breeds of dog involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998" by Jeffrey Sacks, MD, MPH; Leslie Sinclair, DVM; Julie Gilchrist, MD; Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM; Randall Lockwood, PhD

What he said!

@14: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I looked at that report, and it is interesting to see the peaks and valleys of "dangerous" breeds. There is clearly something more to this than the breed.

I mean, do you even care whether they work or not? COMTE? Flamingbanjo? Are you saying you want to ban pit bulls even if it is a complete waste of time?

Because I can prove that spaying and neutering is extremely effective, and not at all a waste of time. Why the obsession with doing something that doesn't work?

Say, by stationing them in grocery stores where the disposable plastic bag racks are located.

How do you measure if that is working?

I just hope that no one will be denied the clownish good fellowship that only a pit bull can provide!

Gee, how do you determine if a pit bull ban works? Maybe the same way you discovered that pit bulls were a problem in the first place? I don't know, but it seems to me if you're advocating a ban then the burden is on you to show why it works. Or, more to the point, the burden is on you to show why it would work here in spite of having no effect anywhere else.

Neutering pit bulls -- and all dogs not belonging to licensed breeders -- is enforcable, I can tell you that. Nobody can agree on what is and isn't a pit bull, but we all know a scrotum when we see it. And it is 100% effective in reducing the number of unwanted pit bulls (and other dogs), as well as drastically reducing attacks. Testosterone is a far greater force in aggressiveness than a genetic tendency.

And I have data that proves it. You?

I enjoy reading the slog, but the constant, oh this poor little child/old woman/average person must've provoked the vicious, mauling, evil, hound from hell pit bull.

Also, I wanted to post that it is not OK to put lipstick on dog. Ordinary cosmetics can make a dog very very sick.

I am all for requiring owner liability for the actions of their dogs - no matter what the breed. I will take the same precautions I have taken with my pit bull (extensive dog training, obtaining Good Canine Citizen Certificate for my dog, fencing and supervising my dog) with any other dog I may have in the future.

In the past I have reported suspected dog fighting and neglect and I donate to programs to provide low cost spay/neuter procedures.

Banning this breed (and others) will only add to the "thug mystique" associated with this breed and drive this all underground - creating more problems.