Slog

This is almost daily. Terrifying. Poor child.

Gotta admit, I once thought the whole rampaging pitbull thing was a media creation (bird flu anyone?).

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

I'm no big fan of pitbulls and don't see why anyone would want one. I've seen two of them going at one another on a P-Town street. I'm just curious why you hate them so Dan.

These events will keep on occurring until the owners face some sort of attempted homicide or manslaughter charges.

Please, someone has to stop Sarah Palin from biting 6 year olds!

Perhaps a new chew toy or tanning bed.

Does anyone know if the 15 year old pitbull ban in Denver (or anywhere else) did any good? Did it work? Because you'll look insane if you keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.

as it turns out, you can put lipstick on a pig...

http://tinyurl.com/4lrk72

this is obviously the little boy's fault. "Playing" in his "grandmother's" "yard". come on!

I hate to see these tragic stories (and these are the only types of stories that are published about pit bulls). I feel horrible for the boy and his family.

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.

Hey Dan: You forgot to post this dog-attack story from Monday:

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.

Hm, three days old and in a foreign country to boot - was that the BEST you could do @10?

Correction: The ARTICLE is three days old. The attack occurred three WEEKS ago.

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...

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.

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?

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 below:

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

Okay, once more, but without the typo.

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

.....and here's the complete source:
JAVMA, Vol. 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000

Flamingbanjo you're my hero.

What he said!

Dog Bites Man, and Dan Savage is there!

@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 keep getting deafening silence when I ask for any evidence that pit bull bans work. Why is that?

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?

Perhaps its time to make constructive use of pitbulls' aggressiveness.

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

@19: I've been pretty clear in the past saying that I am skeptical of the efficacy of breed bans. I would support any approach that would reduce the incidence of dog bites and could document this.

@ 4. I completely agree. The dog's OWNER should do time and be held criminally liable.As should the owner from last Monday's SeaTac incident. A local group called Families Against Breed Bans is pushing to see that this happens(In the SEaTac King County case)...You know rather than just bitching about it and complaining that certain dogs are worse than others.

@19 - I don't understand the question. If there is a breed ban, as I understood it in my old province when it came into effect, it meant that if you already had a pit bull, you could keep it, and then when it died, you could get yourself a poodle. And then eventually, after they all died, there wouldn't be any more pit bulls in the city. I assume that anyone trying to license there pit bull after that would be SOL. So they either have them illegally, but I think few would find it worth the hassle, or they don't have them.

How do you measure if that is working?

If my child were torn apart by a dog it would mean so much to me to know that the dogs owner spent some time in jail. It would make it all worth while.

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

@23

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?

can i subscribe to the SLOG's RSS feed w/o fucking pit bull news? are you just hammering a point or what? we get it. you're anti-pit bull. post pit bull news on a separate page, and put a link on the side: FOR YOUR PITBULL UPDATES CLICK HERE!

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.

Pit bull bans only ban AKC-registered pit bulls. Do you really think that pitweillers or pittermans or pitadoodles would be any safer?

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

It's hilarious that Palin compared herself to a pitbull after you've completely shown us what dangerous, unpredictable, uncontrollable animals they can be. Can we ban pitbulls and Palin? Or at least muzzle them both?

@23 - Our city council never made it past the preliminary discussions about the ban (which related only to pit bulls). I did however suggest requiring owners to maintain additional liability insurance. The issue was dropped entirely because it is so difficult to indentify this breed as it is often mixed with other breeds.

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.