Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, April 1, 2009
News So Good With Children
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:32 AM
AP:
A 7-month-old boy has died after being attacked by two pit bull dogs belonging to his grandmother in San Antonio. Police Chief Bill McManus says the grandmother was getting ready to feed the boy Tuesday morning and went to her kitchen for his bottle. When she returned her dogs were attacking the baby.The woman got a knife and stabbed one of the dogs, and got the child away. The chief says the dogs then attacked the grandmother before she managed to get them outside.
4
Does anyone remember the story of the grandmother who left her daughter’s children out in her car while she went into her boyfriend’s house? She "fell asleep" and when she finally woke up and realized she had children outside, in a closed-up car on a sunny 90-degree day, it was too late. Both children had died.
After stories like that and this one, I wonder: how do you ever face your children again? How does a family get past, well, murder? If a babysitter is negligent to this degree, the parents press charges, the babysitter goes to jail and you never have to see each other again. But when it's your own parent? My God, how do you recover from this?
After stories like that and this one, I wonder: how do you ever face your children again? How does a family get past, well, murder? If a babysitter is negligent to this degree, the parents press charges, the babysitter goes to jail and you never have to see each other again. But when it's your own parent? My God, how do you recover from this?
5
@4 - my guess is that people really don't. A death of a child fucks worlds up. I think the divorce rate for parents who have a child die is somewhere around 80%.
8
@5 And then to lose a child and a parent (and possibly/likely a spouse)... a life I don't want to imagine.
9
So how much longer until CPS or CFS or whatever the agency is called in your state finally steps up and makes it clear that having a small child in the presence of these dog breeds in the home constitutes gross negligence and abuse? How many more kids have to die?
I know that impinges on "freedom," but when you have a child you agree to give up some of your freedom to be a risk-taking idiot. It would seem to make sense to have some clarity in public policy here so there can be some real accountability.
Yes, the tragedy of a lost child is perhaps more powerful than any public policy consequences, but it might actually prevent some of these deaths in the future.
I know that impinges on "freedom," but when you have a child you agree to give up some of your freedom to be a risk-taking idiot. It would seem to make sense to have some clarity in public policy here so there can be some real accountability.
Yes, the tragedy of a lost child is perhaps more powerful than any public policy consequences, but it might actually prevent some of these deaths in the future.
10
What's with the Texas bashing? When pitbulls attack kids in Illinois, do you think "Stupid Illinoisians"? When pitbulls attack old ladies in Boston, do you think "Stupid Massachusettsians"?
Hey y'all, stupid is no respecter of state lines.
Hey y'all, stupid is no respecter of state lines.
11
@9 I completely agree. Perhaps instead of trying to outlaw the breed, outlaw the breed in the presence of children. Pass a law that states that these types of dogs can't be within sight of children - including backyards with fences these dogs can jump. Treat these creatures like guns, cigarettes, (cars?), household cleaners, etc. (And I’m not being facetious here.) Tell people: “sure, you can keep your pitbull (or Doberman or other attack dog) …locked in your house and securely chained in your backyard.” This won’t prevent the neighbor and friend attacks, though.
So maybe instead of “children”, the law should read “people.”
So maybe instead of “children”, the law should read “people.”
12
If you ban pitbulls, negligent grandmothers will just find another deadly breed to leave unsupervised near infants.
13
10
SLOG is a nest of bigototry and intolerance.
Liberals somehow think that being prejudiced against Christians or Southerners is different from being a racist or homophobe. Hate is hate, bigotry is bigotry; they are ugly no matter who the target is.
SLOG is a nest of bigototry and intolerance.
Liberals somehow think that being prejudiced against Christians or Southerners is different from being a racist or homophobe. Hate is hate, bigotry is bigotry; they are ugly no matter who the target is.
15
I'm officially starting a blog that charts all crimes committed by fags, thereby proving without doubt that all fags are criminals. That's how it works, right? By that logic, judging by the press on every pride parade ever, all gay men wear nothing but rainbow wigs, jock straps and rollerblades.
Seriously, it's enough already with the dogs.
Seriously, it's enough already with the dogs.
16
@11, nice thought, but remember that household cleaners, cigarettes, cars, etc are not actually banned in homes with children. They're not even controlled. It's just that when people misuse those things and children get hurt, the rest of society tsks and shakes its head...which is what we're doing in this post.
17
I donated to fight Prop 2 in Florida, and asked Dan this question: "Is there a later scientific peer-reviewed study supporting the efficacy of breed bans that forms (in part or whole) the foundation of your opinion?"
As part of my preamble, I explained that I have searched online for such a study, but could not find anything. I could only find the CDC study of 2000, which actually states that there is no such evidence. I was hoping that there might be a later study I could read.
Dan's response was
Now, I am ecstatic that he did NOT simply tell me off. However, he didn't really answer the question, as he doesn't cite any study in the UK or Denver. So I am left with the conclusion that No, Dan Savage does not base his opinions of breed bans on any scientific evidence.
What I find interesting is that he "doesn't trust the studies [I] cite." I believe there was a study in the UK that also concluded that there is no supporting evidence of the efficacy of breed bans. But he doesn't trust scientific research? What does he trust? His gut?
I find that his response, while deservedly terse, spoke volumes. His opinions on breed bans are simply that: opinions. He is neither more nor less correct than the rest of us. In fact, his opinions can be said to be faith-based, since he chooses to discount evidence that does not agree with his ideas.
As part of my preamble, I explained that I have searched online for such a study, but could not find anything. I could only find the CDC study of 2000, which actually states that there is no such evidence. I was hoping that there might be a later study I could read.
Dan's response was
breed bans have worked in the UK, and they work well in Denver. i don't trust the studies you cite.
all the best,
dan
Now, I am ecstatic that he did NOT simply tell me off. However, he didn't really answer the question, as he doesn't cite any study in the UK or Denver. So I am left with the conclusion that No, Dan Savage does not base his opinions of breed bans on any scientific evidence.
What I find interesting is that he "doesn't trust the studies [I] cite." I believe there was a study in the UK that also concluded that there is no supporting evidence of the efficacy of breed bans. But he doesn't trust scientific research? What does he trust? His gut?
I find that his response, while deservedly terse, spoke volumes. His opinions on breed bans are simply that: opinions. He is neither more nor less correct than the rest of us. In fact, his opinions can be said to be faith-based, since he chooses to discount evidence that does not agree with his ideas.
18
@ 13, race and sexual orientation are traits you're born with. Christian and stupid are ongoing choices.
20
@16 Yes, I know... my toddler found a bottle of advil in my purse one day. I was getting ready to go and wasn't paying attention. The bottle didn't have a child-lock on it, which isn't something I'd thought about anyway. I found her sucking the sweet coating off of five or six of them. After reassurance from poison control that she didn't need to go to the hospital, I am far more careful about what my kids have access to. And for many people, it's not until after something bad happens that you think: "I shouldn't have _______."
It's tragic that some mistakes can't be rectified after reassurance from poison control.
It's tragic that some mistakes can't be rectified after reassurance from poison control.
21
@10: Oh please, like you don't make fun of folks from Temple, Tyler or Kerrville. And don't act like you don't agree with Kinky Friedman that no good man (or woman) has ever loved Dallas-Fort Worth.
Also, regarding this story, I think I know these people. Of course, they're from the West Side, which is San Antonio's White Center.
Also, regarding this story, I think I know these people. Of course, they're from the West Side, which is San Antonio's White Center.
23
17, there aren't studies out there proving anything, because it costs millions of dollars and years to conduct a study of that type (and holes can be poked through them by motivated people, just like when people refuted dozens of cigarettes-cause-cancer studies over the past 50 years).
We do know pit bulls are by far the #1 dog breed reported in fatal dog bites, and dog bites decrease when pit bull breed bans are enacted. That's good enough evidence for me. What evidence do we need to convince anti-breed ban people?
We do know pit bulls are by far the #1 dog breed reported in fatal dog bites, and dog bites decrease when pit bull breed bans are enacted. That's good enough evidence for me. What evidence do we need to convince anti-breed ban people?
24
@19, I'm tempted to say you're a moron, but you're clearly just undereducated on the subject. We've got 22 of Michael Vick's former fighting dogs here where I work, and they're doing great. We had one on Ellen a few weeks ago, in fact, to show just plain folks who believe any piece of shoddy journalism they read that these animals are just that--animals--and aren't any more or less dangerous than any other breed. You hear about their attacks because the press reports on them. Poodles can bite hard enough to break your hand in 100 places if they want, they just choose not to.
If an animal--pit bull, squirrel, elephant or mongoose--is trained and encouraged to fight, it will do so based on the threat of punishment or promise of reward. People who kid themselves that pit bulls are somehow more dangerous than Chows or Shepherds or any dog breed are welcome to their opinion, but they're wrong.
If an animal--pit bull, squirrel, elephant or mongoose--is trained and encouraged to fight, it will do so based on the threat of punishment or promise of reward. People who kid themselves that pit bulls are somehow more dangerous than Chows or Shepherds or any dog breed are welcome to their opinion, but they're wrong.
25
This is very sad, but it raises a couple of issues: First, ALL dogs need to be supervised around children (duh...), and second, one pit bull is enough.
26
@24 Nah, I can’t buy that. My friend had a pitbull that was only ever loved and cuddled. She assured me (when I pointed out the dangers) that he was perfectly lovely and sweet with her kids. Then he attacked her youngest one day, completely unprovoked (there were witnesses). How does that fit with your argument?
27
@23....MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to do this research. You are a effing moron.
@24....I can squeeze a rabid squirrel or mongoose to death.
To ignore the potential threat of a pit bull/similarly built breeds (due to genetics and/OR how they were raised) is foolish. They are powerful animals. I can deal with a death shake of a poodle (even the big ones)...I've seen what a pit bull can do in person.
Keep those motherfuckers away from me/small children/ect.... I avoid them. I support STRICT controls on their ownership. I'd rather have another breed become the 'chosen' dog to be afraid of (in the 70s, doberman's were the 'feared' dog.).
@24....I can squeeze a rabid squirrel or mongoose to death.
To ignore the potential threat of a pit bull/similarly built breeds (due to genetics and/OR how they were raised) is foolish. They are powerful animals. I can deal with a death shake of a poodle (even the big ones)...I've seen what a pit bull can do in person.
Keep those motherfuckers away from me/small children/ect.... I avoid them. I support STRICT controls on their ownership. I'd rather have another breed become the 'chosen' dog to be afraid of (in the 70s, doberman's were the 'feared' dog.).
28
@ 24, I'm tempted to say you're ignorant of dog breeds and how traits are hard wired into them, so I'll just come right out and say so. Watch yourself around Vick's dogs (esp. since they presumably survived his "tough enough" excercises) and don't let any children near them.
29
@26: Was the dog fixed? If it had been any other breed, would we even be having this discussion?
By the breed ban logic, we should ban guns. Oh, and knives. Cyclists are killed by cars, so let's ban cars too. In almost every case, the cause can be traced to the owner of the dog, the knife, the car--so let's ban people.
By the breed ban logic, we should ban guns. Oh, and knives. Cyclists are killed by cars, so let's ban cars too. In almost every case, the cause can be traced to the owner of the dog, the knife, the car--so let's ban people.
30
@28: Matt, a few decades ago, German Shepherd dogs were considered "hard-wired" killers. Then it was Dobermans. Do you believe everything you read online, or just the inflammatory stuff about pit bulls?
31
@ 30, since I know something about dogs, I wouldn't fall for the hype and hysteria surrounding those breeds. I still wouldn't have small children around them, but they're not hard wired to attack things their size or smaller. Pit bulls are. It's a fact. It happens every single day - google the news if you don't believe it.
33
@4, I would recommend reading this story from the WaPo before categorically condemning people who forget children in cars as "murderers."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
@14, I would recommend reading a goddamn dictionary before calling other people stupid.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/r…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
@14, I would recommend reading a goddamn dictionary before calling other people stupid.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/r…
34
@24: 1. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Just because the carefully supervised pitbulls at your workplace haven't attacked any toddlers doesn't mean that pitbulls should be trusted around toddlers elsewhere. I'm curious: Do you frequently let toddlers play in the kennels where Michael Vicks' former fighting dogs are kept?
2. You have a vested interest in the argument you are making. This doesn't automatically make it wrong, but it does make it suspect. The fact that you are claiming that all types of dog are equally dangerous is just wrong. No, they aren't. A dachshund is not as dangerous as a pitbull. If you are saying it is, then it shows you are willing to stretch the truth considerably to make your point, which casts serious doubt on other things you say.
2. You have a vested interest in the argument you are making. This doesn't automatically make it wrong, but it does make it suspect. The fact that you are claiming that all types of dog are equally dangerous is just wrong. No, they aren't. A dachshund is not as dangerous as a pitbull. If you are saying it is, then it shows you are willing to stretch the truth considerably to make your point, which casts serious doubt on other things you say.
35
@29 Yes, people are killed by cars. Pedestrians when crossing the street, so we have designated crosswalks and sometimes flags and lights. Bicyclists nearly anywhere, so we have helmets and bike lanes and reflective gear. Children ejected from mothers’ arms, so we have car seats. People walking on the side of a road, so we add more and more sidewalks and curbs and street lighting. Accidents, so we have better and better technology to prevent accidents (cars that brake on their own when you’re too close to another car, for instance; more roundabouts instead of intersections, etc..).
Yes, knives are dangerous, too. So, you put them in a drawer with a child-lock so your kids don’t get at them.
Yes, guns are dangerous. So, you keep them out of your house or dismantled and locked up.
How do you make a pit bull safer? Remove its teeth and lower jaw? Keep it away from children? Neighbors? Strangers?
Yes, knives are dangerous, too. So, you put them in a drawer with a child-lock so your kids don’t get at them.
Yes, guns are dangerous. So, you keep them out of your house or dismantled and locked up.
How do you make a pit bull safer? Remove its teeth and lower jaw? Keep it away from children? Neighbors? Strangers?
37
@33 I do not mean to condemn them, I think those poor people condemned themselves as murderers. Think of the guilt these people will carry with them forever. Think of other people who loved the child, the hell they go through. I don't suggest they should be tried as murderers, I was thinking more of the personal torment and guilt.
38
So it only takes 36 comments for an article to achieve "most commented on" status now? Slog writers, you need to try harder.
39
There's no dogma like that of pit bull lovers.
Pit bull logic:
1. Deny facts of strength of pit bulls, no. 1 killer, etc. Claim facts do not exist.
2. Require that people must do nothing unless any solution is proven to be 100000000% perfect.
3. Engage in cultish "logic" like this:
Laws against pit bulls won't work, therefore we should have no such laws.
Laws against murder don't work, therefore we should have no laws against murder.
Laws against discrimination don't work, not everybody complies!
Therefore we should have no laws against discrimination.
It's just like arguing with right wing Christian nuts about their "opinions" about choice or gays or whatnot.
You can't really "argue" with them you should just tell them they're wrong and they're evil and unworthy of your time; then go elect someone who will ignore them and enact laws that make sense.
Pit bull logic:
1. Deny facts of strength of pit bulls, no. 1 killer, etc. Claim facts do not exist.
2. Require that people must do nothing unless any solution is proven to be 100000000% perfect.
3. Engage in cultish "logic" like this:
Laws against pit bulls won't work, therefore we should have no such laws.
Laws against murder don't work, therefore we should have no laws against murder.
Laws against discrimination don't work, not everybody complies!
Therefore we should have no laws against discrimination.
It's just like arguing with right wing Christian nuts about their "opinions" about choice or gays or whatnot.
You can't really "argue" with them you should just tell them they're wrong and they're evil and unworthy of your time; then go elect someone who will ignore them and enact laws that make sense.
40
30 - german shepards ARE kinda freaky. i was attacked by one when i was 8. no reason. lots of others that i've met are tweakers too. couple that with some irresponsible owners and...
don't trust that breed either.
don't trust that breed either.
41
I'm a bad owner. There, I said it.
That said, my Boston terrier won't even maul an insect.
Pit bull fans, what exactly do bad owners of pit bulls DO in order to make their harmless dogs turn vicious?
I have a harmless dog and it just remains harmless. I'm losing patience and value your advice.
That said, my Boston terrier won't even maul an insect.
Pit bull fans, what exactly do bad owners of pit bulls DO in order to make their harmless dogs turn vicious?
I have a harmless dog and it just remains harmless. I'm losing patience and value your advice.
42
Are pit bull advocates confident enough to take on more legal responsibility for the actions of their dogs? Would you be willing to go to jail if your dog mauled or killed someone?
If the violent behavior of these dogs is because they are mistreated by their owners, then shouldn't we hold these people legally responsible?
If the violent behavior of these dogs is because they are mistreated by their owners, then shouldn't we hold these people legally responsible?
44
@ 10,
We hate Texas for giving us George W. Bush and the rest of the shrubs. Yeah, I know he was really born in New Haven, Connecticut but he was raised in Midland/Houston, Texas and has all your spurious values. So don't expect any love outside of Texas, buddy. The rest of America is going to be holding a grudge for a real long time.
We hate Texas for giving us George W. Bush and the rest of the shrubs. Yeah, I know he was really born in New Haven, Connecticut but he was raised in Midland/Houston, Texas and has all your spurious values. So don't expect any love outside of Texas, buddy. The rest of America is going to be holding a grudge for a real long time.
47
@42 - Yes, we should hold pitbull owners legally responsible. We should also hold German Shepherd owners, Doberman owners, Chihuahua owners, Rodesian Ridgeback owners, Labrador owners, Golden Retriever owners and the owners of every other breed of dog responsible for that dogs behavior.
It is not right to single out one breed of dog for special discrimination. It is not fair to the dog, dog owners and it is not fair to the victims of dog bites/attacks. All dogs are capable of biting and all large breed dogs are capable of causing massive injury.
It is not right to single out one breed of dog for special discrimination. It is not fair to the dog, dog owners and it is not fair to the victims of dog bites/attacks. All dogs are capable of biting and all large breed dogs are capable of causing massive injury.
48
@ 47, it IS right to single out one breed because one breed shows a much greater tendency for mauling and killing (forget biting) than any other. One breed, and not any of the others you list or could add to that list, has been bred specifically to do that in the name of bloodsport. It is willful ignorance to claim that pits are just like any other dog in that respect.
49
@48 If pitbulls are the only breed that bite and maul people then a law that is inclusive of all dogs and dog owners will then only be used against those terrible pitbulls and their owners.
I repeat, a law should not discrimate against the breed of the dog. The law should be inclusive for the sake of the victims of dog bites/attacks as well as the dogs and dog owners.
I repeat, a law should not discrimate against the breed of the dog. The law should be inclusive for the sake of the victims of dog bites/attacks as well as the dogs and dog owners.
50
@ 49, And I repeat, pit bulls do this with much greater frequency and with much greater damage than other breeds. It's what they are hard-wired to do. You can't say that about any other breed of dog. That makes you disingenuous for calling it "discrimination."
51
@22: Yes, we do have studies that show the efficacy of doing nothing: we have studies on Breed Bans. They accomplish nothing.
52
@23: "Proof" isn't the issue here. Supporting evidence is. There isn't any supporting evidence that Breed Bans work. You show me peer-reviewed studies that support Breed Bans, and I will support them.
"What evidence do we need"? Well, you need peer-reviewed studies showing the efficacy of Breed Bans. So far, there are only studies that show the opposite. This is an argument that is very short on facts, and very long on emotion. We need more studies, and we need to cite them.
"What evidence do we need"? Well, you need peer-reviewed studies showing the efficacy of Breed Bans. So far, there are only studies that show the opposite. This is an argument that is very short on facts, and very long on emotion. We need more studies, and we need to cite them.
53
47 - Pitbulls have not been singled out - they have distinguished themselves as a dangerous, unpredictable breed.
I have been around collies who instinctively herd groups of people in spite of never being taught this behavior. Dogs are bred for physical and behavioral characteristics. All large dogs have the potential to be dangerous. What makes many pit-bulls more dangerous is a bred disposition towards aggression. If you're a responsible owner, perhaps you can curtail this, but you need to admit to yourself that you're taking a risk.
I have been around collies who instinctively herd groups of people in spite of never being taught this behavior. Dogs are bred for physical and behavioral characteristics. All large dogs have the potential to be dangerous. What makes many pit-bulls more dangerous is a bred disposition towards aggression. If you're a responsible owner, perhaps you can curtail this, but you need to admit to yourself that you're taking a risk.
54
@ 51/52, can you cite the study that shows that a breed ban accomplished nothing? If so, was it peer reviewed? By which peers?
55
@50 and 53.
I understand that you both feel that pitbull-type dogs are more dangerous than all other breeds of dogs. I disagree but that is not the point that I am arguing right now. The only point that I am trying to make is that any laws pertaining to dogs should be inclusive of all dogs, not specific to pitbulls. Laws are meant to not only punish the guilty but also protect the victim. If a pitbull attacks someone then they should be destroyed and their owner should be held responsible. If any other breed does the same thing then they should also be destroyed and their owner held responsible.
Your argument seems to be that pitbulls are more dangerous and are likelier to attack, maul and kill than all other breeds and should therefore be subject to harsher laws. Again, I disagree but even if that is the case, the law should not distinguish between the attack of a pitbull and the attack of any other dog. Otherwise that isn't fair to the victim of the non-pitbull dog attack. The only determining factors that the law should be concerned with is the severity of attack, injuries sustained and the particular situation that allowed the attack to happen (ie. child left alone with dog, dog allowed to roam neighborhood freely, etc.). All citizens deserve equal protection under the law which is why any law about dogs must include all dogs and not discrimate by breed.
I understand that you both feel that pitbull-type dogs are more dangerous than all other breeds of dogs. I disagree but that is not the point that I am arguing right now. The only point that I am trying to make is that any laws pertaining to dogs should be inclusive of all dogs, not specific to pitbulls. Laws are meant to not only punish the guilty but also protect the victim. If a pitbull attacks someone then they should be destroyed and their owner should be held responsible. If any other breed does the same thing then they should also be destroyed and their owner held responsible.
Your argument seems to be that pitbulls are more dangerous and are likelier to attack, maul and kill than all other breeds and should therefore be subject to harsher laws. Again, I disagree but even if that is the case, the law should not distinguish between the attack of a pitbull and the attack of any other dog. Otherwise that isn't fair to the victim of the non-pitbull dog attack. The only determining factors that the law should be concerned with is the severity of attack, injuries sustained and the particular situation that allowed the attack to happen (ie. child left alone with dog, dog allowed to roam neighborhood freely, etc.). All citizens deserve equal protection under the law which is why any law about dogs must include all dogs and not discrimate by breed.
56
@ 55, I believe there are already laws like this on the books everywhere. If there's some place that doesn't already do this in the case of dog attacks, I'd like to hear of it.
The point here is, Should pit bulls be banned as a breed? I say yes. And it's not about how I "feel;" the facts show that pit bulls are much, much, MUCH more dangerous than any other breed of dog. This is about what I know.
Dogs are not subject to "equality under the law." However you might feel about it, equality under the law is a concept meant for people, and people only. Dogs are not citizens. Therefore, your last sentence is meaningless.
I think you mean well, Charity, but your thought process is really quite muddled. "Even if it were the case [that pit bulls are unpredictable and maul and kill at a rate all out of proportion to other breeds] the law should not distinguish between the attack of a pitbull and the attack of any other dog." Um, no. When certain types of vehicles, like 3-wheel ATV's were shown to be a lot more likely to flip over and pin the operator under than any other vehicle, the law "discriminated" against 2-wheel ATV's and banned them. Per your logic, they should be treated like any other vehicle.
The point here is, Should pit bulls be banned as a breed? I say yes. And it's not about how I "feel;" the facts show that pit bulls are much, much, MUCH more dangerous than any other breed of dog. This is about what I know.
Dogs are not subject to "equality under the law." However you might feel about it, equality under the law is a concept meant for people, and people only. Dogs are not citizens. Therefore, your last sentence is meaningless.
I think you mean well, Charity, but your thought process is really quite muddled. "Even if it were the case [that pit bulls are unpredictable and maul and kill at a rate all out of proportion to other breeds] the law should not distinguish between the attack of a pitbull and the attack of any other dog." Um, no. When certain types of vehicles, like 3-wheel ATV's were shown to be a lot more likely to flip over and pin the operator under than any other vehicle, the law "discriminated" against 2-wheel ATV's and banned them. Per your logic, they should be treated like any other vehicle.
57
saying all dogs of a single breed are dangerous and should be banned is about as educated as saying all homosexuals are pedophiles and should be banned.
as was mentioned before, dobermans were the feared dog of the '70s. why are they not the feared dog now? why isn't this thread about them? and why weren't pit bull's feared as much in the '70s?
this is stupid. the ultimate in confusing cause and effect.
as was mentioned before, dobermans were the feared dog of the '70s. why are they not the feared dog now? why isn't this thread about them? and why weren't pit bull's feared as much in the '70s?
this is stupid. the ultimate in confusing cause and effect.
58
@54: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.…
CDC Study. It was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Dan mentions that they are effective in the UK and Denver, but cites no study supporting this claim.
CDC Study. It was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Dan mentions that they are effective in the UK and Denver, but cites no study supporting this claim.
59
Lavode: Attacks by dogs have dropped by 17% in Denver since the pit bull ban went into effect. This despite the fact that many people broke the law and refused to give up their pit bulls. They're being euthanized as they are discovered now; expect this number to be even higher in the future.
60
@56 - Matt, my last sentence saying that all citizens deserve equal protection wasn't referring to dogs as the "citizens." The citizens in my sentence refer to actual people - the people in the community who deserve to have protection from all dangerous dogs.
You compare dogs to vehicles. Dogs are not vehicles. I am not trying to claim they should have the same rights as people but I am claiming that dogs should have more rights than inanimate pieces of metal.
Also, you quoted me and then inserted your own highly incendiary words, "[that pit bulls are unpredictable and maul and kill at a rate all out of proportion to other breeds]." I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that pitbulls are unpredictable. I believe that pitbulls, like all dogs, are highly predictable. Pitbulls (and other dogs) raised in proper home environments are wonderful pets. I have seen statistics that show that pitbulls are responsible for more bites and attacks than other breeds. What I haven't seen is statistics showing what kind of people owned the dogs that bit/attacked. Were they in poor areas? Were the dogs left outside or were they inside dogs? Were the dogs neutered/spayed? I believe there are better indicators of potential dog bites than the breed.
People who know and love the pitbull breeds will tell you that these dogs were bred specifically to be very gentle with people. I'm sure I'm not the first person to recommend these websites to you but here they are anyway.
http://www.badrap.org
http://stopbsl.com
Obviously you are I are on opposite ends of this argument and I highly doubt that I will change your mind (as you are just as unlikely to change mine), but I put this information out there for anyone who hasn't made up his/her mind.
More...
You compare dogs to vehicles. Dogs are not vehicles. I am not trying to claim they should have the same rights as people but I am claiming that dogs should have more rights than inanimate pieces of metal.
Also, you quoted me and then inserted your own highly incendiary words, "[that pit bulls are unpredictable and maul and kill at a rate all out of proportion to other breeds]." I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that pitbulls are unpredictable. I believe that pitbulls, like all dogs, are highly predictable. Pitbulls (and other dogs) raised in proper home environments are wonderful pets. I have seen statistics that show that pitbulls are responsible for more bites and attacks than other breeds. What I haven't seen is statistics showing what kind of people owned the dogs that bit/attacked. Were they in poor areas? Were the dogs left outside or were they inside dogs? Were the dogs neutered/spayed? I believe there are better indicators of potential dog bites than the breed.
People who know and love the pitbull breeds will tell you that these dogs were bred specifically to be very gentle with people. I'm sure I'm not the first person to recommend these websites to you but here they are anyway.
http://www.badrap.org
http://stopbsl.com
Obviously you are I are on opposite ends of this argument and I highly doubt that I will change your mind (as you are just as unlikely to change mine), but I put this information out there for anyone who hasn't made up his/her mind.
61
@33 - That was an amazing article. It certainly does make you think twice. But I still can't imagine forgetting my child. I don't drive, so maybe that helps. Another good reason to go green.
62
@ 58 - nice. The study does not say anywhere that breed bans accomplish nothing, which is what you said @ 51. Fail.
@ 60, disagree all you want, but facts are stubborn things, and they're not on your side. You wouldn't have to willfully misunderstand the gist of my comparison, or ignore my other counterpoints, or just flatly lie about what pits were bred for, if they were.
@ 60, disagree all you want, but facts are stubborn things, and they're not on your side. You wouldn't have to willfully misunderstand the gist of my comparison, or ignore my other counterpoints, or just flatly lie about what pits were bred for, if they were.
63
@61 - I cried through that article. But then, I'm pregnant and cry at anything. But the thought of forgetting one of my children horrifies me.
Look, you can teach your kids how to be safe around dogs, just like you can teach your kids how to be safe around guns and cars. But guns and cars most of the time do what you expect them to do and can mostly be controlled. A dog is a living, breathing, instinctual creature, not so much controllable as acquiescent most of the time. If you cannot easily overpower your dog, you should not have that dog. Rotweilers, pit bulls and other powerful breeds have shown, time and again, how impossible it can be to pry them from their victims. This woman had to stab her dogs AND THEN THEY ATTACKED HER. Other stories have shown how once a dog (mostly rotweilers and pit bulls) start to attack, people have to kill or harm the dog in order to stop the attack and attempt to save the victim.
If a dog is too strong for an average person to overtake, the dog should not be near other humans.
Look, you can teach your kids how to be safe around dogs, just like you can teach your kids how to be safe around guns and cars. But guns and cars most of the time do what you expect them to do and can mostly be controlled. A dog is a living, breathing, instinctual creature, not so much controllable as acquiescent most of the time. If you cannot easily overpower your dog, you should not have that dog. Rotweilers, pit bulls and other powerful breeds have shown, time and again, how impossible it can be to pry them from their victims. This woman had to stab her dogs AND THEN THEY ATTACKED HER. Other stories have shown how once a dog (mostly rotweilers and pit bulls) start to attack, people have to kill or harm the dog in order to stop the attack and attempt to save the victim.
If a dog is too strong for an average person to overtake, the dog should not be near other humans.
64
@62 Matt, I didn't wilfully misunderstand anything. I understood perfectly the point you were making. You made a direct comparison of dogs to vehicles and I said that comparison is a bad one.
You are correct that facts are stubborn things. But you don't have facts, you have statistics. Unfortunately, both sides of this argument can post statistics (what you refer to as "facts") that support their argument.
Here's a final argument in my favor. There is only one animal welfare group that supports BSL and that is PETA. I can't find a single other group that supports it. The ASPCA doesn't. The Humane Society doesn't. The American Veterinary Medical Association doesn't. The National Animal Control Association doesn't. All of the these groups deal with all kinds of dogs (including pitbulls) on a daily basis. If pitbulls were truly more dangerous than all other dogs, wouldn't you think that more organizations would be for it that the nutjobs at PETA.
You are correct that facts are stubborn things. But you don't have facts, you have statistics. Unfortunately, both sides of this argument can post statistics (what you refer to as "facts") that support their argument.
Here's a final argument in my favor. There is only one animal welfare group that supports BSL and that is PETA. I can't find a single other group that supports it. The ASPCA doesn't. The Humane Society doesn't. The American Veterinary Medical Association doesn't. The National Animal Control Association doesn't. All of the these groups deal with all kinds of dogs (including pitbulls) on a daily basis. If pitbulls were truly more dangerous than all other dogs, wouldn't you think that more organizations would be for it that the nutjobs at PETA.
65
Fifty-Two-Eighty: Interesting statistic. What is your source for that? Is there any research or evidence supporting the notion that breed bans are the causal factor?
66
@ 62, yes, you did willfully misunderstand. I made a valid comparison between how lawmakers can focus on one single subtype of a larger group and selectively ban it based on its propensity for causing harm to people. You nitpicked about the fact that one group is living and breathing and the other isn't, which neither undermines the comparison nor shows any comprehension for it.
You can choose not to believe that pits are inherently dangerous, but that means even ignoring your side's stats (see Lavode's link, which actually shows that both pits and Rottweilers are atypically aggressive breeds) and saying that no stats are "facts" (just the latest absurdity you've come up with).
I'm through with you, because you're not capable of honest debate.
You can choose not to believe that pits are inherently dangerous, but that means even ignoring your side's stats (see Lavode's link, which actually shows that both pits and Rottweilers are atypically aggressive breeds) and saying that no stats are "facts" (just the latest absurdity you've come up with).
I'm through with you, because you're not capable of honest debate.
68
@66 - The fact that one type is living, breathing and one type isn't is a huge differentiation and I think it completely undermines the comparison. I guess this is just one more instance where we don't agree.
Lavodes link is a study by the CDC. The conclusions from that report (written on the first page of it) is as follows:
Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers) (THIS SUPPORTS YOUR ARGUMENT), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates (THIS SUPPORTS MY ARGUMENT). Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet
Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)
Overall, the CDC concluded that BSL is NOT a good solution to the the problem.
Lavodes link is a study by the CDC. The conclusions from that report (written on the first page of it) is as follows:
Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers) (THIS SUPPORTS YOUR ARGUMENT), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates (THIS SUPPORTS MY ARGUMENT). Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet
Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)
Overall, the CDC concluded that BSL is NOT a good solution to the the problem.
69
@67 Lavode, I can't help but waste my time when I care about the subject. I fed the troll and I am ashamed. :(
70
@ 67 - hilarious. I've been commenting at slog for 3 years. How long have you been here?
Let me just say that when you have to resort to namecalling like that, you're losing the argument.
Let me just say that when you have to resort to namecalling like that, you're losing the argument.
71
@69: Charity, it happens to all of us, especially on the subjects that we care about. The hardest part is not continuing to feed them.
72
This a very sad story. My only experience with pit bulls is another sad story. My neighbor does pit bull recovery, and two of her dogs escaped from her yard. The two dogs ran down the street, dug into another neighbor's yard and mauled the neighbor's two dogs to death. When the police arrived they attacked the officers and one was shot and killed, and the other will likely be put down. Certainly not as tragic, but there seems to be a lot of tragedy associated with pit bulls in the news.
73
@71: You are misusing the word "troll" to refer to anybody who disagrees with your point of view. And Matt in Denver is also right about you willfully misreading things that you don't like. Like you did with my comment.
75
So, Dan you double post the dog attack involving a pit bull, but fail to report on the BEAGLE attack?
Interesting and so surprising!
http://www.wnewsj.com/main.asp?Search=1&…
Since my links NEVER work (I'm an idiot) it's on www.wnewsj.com Apil 1,2009 Beagle Attack(though the breed is NOT in the headline, as it never is unless a pit bull is involved)
P.S. Matt from Denver is a D-Bag.
Interesting and so surprising!
http://www.wnewsj.com/main.asp?Search=1&…
Since my links NEVER work (I'm an idiot) it's on www.wnewsj.com Apil 1,2009 Beagle Attack(though the breed is NOT in the headline, as it never is unless a pit bull is involved)
P.S. Matt from Denver is a D-Bag.
76
@34...all but 1(+2 that died of natural causes) of the Vick dogs have been rehabbed, and IN FACT many ARE living in homes with children.More than 3 have become Therapy Dogs.
Children should be supervised around ANY dog, no matter what the breed.
Children should be supervised around ANY dog, no matter what the breed.
77
Nice to know we can argue about trolls, agreement, and split hairs about what exactly one person said or didn't say. And yet we still have no more than one study nor verifiable statistics about the subject.
Until someone can cite something that supports the efficacy of breed bans, we're left with only the CDC study. Stop arguing around the point, and provide some actual hard evidence, not just anecdotal evidence.
Until someone can cite something that supports the efficacy of breed bans, we're left with only the CDC study. Stop arguing around the point, and provide some actual hard evidence, not just anecdotal evidence.
78
Wow, more insults. I'm convinced Julie! Why bother arguing a case when you can just call someone a "d-bag" and be done with it?
See, this is why rational people support pit bull breed bans.
See, this is why rational people support pit bull breed bans.
79
@77: You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, so let me boil it down to a simple point: Using your preferred approach (doing nothing), children will continue to get mauled by pitbulls and people like you will continue to not give a shit.
81
Lavode: Sorry I didn't read your comment until this morning. My source for that statistic is a personal communication from Jeanne Robb, President of the Denver City Council. Nothing published, I'm afraid. And nothing (other than common sense) directly tying the drop in violent attacks to the pit bull ban.
82
I've seen several comments asking about why Dobermans and Rottweilers are seemingly no longer as aggressive/feared as they once were. This is because responsible breeders in the '60s and '70s selectively bred out aggressive dogs. Does this mean that all Rotties and Dobies are stable, well-adjusted dogs? No, but the incidence of aggressive biters is down because the vicious dogs weren't bred and also because the nutcases that wanted bigger, nastier dogs got pit bulls.
The problem with pit-type dogs is that, instead of a group of breeders wanting to preserve the good characteristics of a breed, you have a large group of stupid people who want to have large, powerful, aggressive fighting dogs. There is no compelling reason (yet) for the aggression to be bred back out of them.
Are pit bulls the #1 biters in the country? No, that honor falls to the Dachshund. Are pits the #1 people-killers? According to this compilation, yes. http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%…
What's the difference, and why don't Chihuahuas and Dachshunds kill people? Little dogs can't get to your jugular easily. Big dogs can.
The problem with pit-type dogs is that, instead of a group of breeders wanting to preserve the good characteristics of a breed, you have a large group of stupid people who want to have large, powerful, aggressive fighting dogs. There is no compelling reason (yet) for the aggression to be bred back out of them.
Are pit bulls the #1 biters in the country? No, that honor falls to the Dachshund. Are pits the #1 people-killers? According to this compilation, yes. http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%…
What's the difference, and why don't Chihuahuas and Dachshunds kill people? Little dogs can't get to your jugular easily. Big dogs can.
83
I think a breed ban is excessive. On the other hand, I think the people who are acting like there's no behavioral difference between breeds are being ridiculous, or have never had much experience with dogs.
Dogs aren't people. Saying that one breed of dog behaves differently from another breed of dog isn't some kind of evil discrimination. Look up breed definitions, and you'll see that they all dive right into behavioral traits and emphasize differences.
I understand the tendency to avoid generalizing about a group's behavior, because we as humans have an ugly history of doing that to other people. But people aren't explicitly bred to have different characteristics. Dogs are. So when somebody says that a pit bull is not inherently more aggressive than any other dog breed, I find the rest of their argument to be extremely suspect.
Dogs aren't people. Saying that one breed of dog behaves differently from another breed of dog isn't some kind of evil discrimination. Look up breed definitions, and you'll see that they all dive right into behavioral traits and emphasize differences.
I understand the tendency to avoid generalizing about a group's behavior, because we as humans have an ugly history of doing that to other people. But people aren't explicitly bred to have different characteristics. Dogs are. So when somebody says that a pit bull is not inherently more aggressive than any other dog breed, I find the rest of their argument to be extremely suspect.
84
Pitbulls need responsible ownership. My pitbull plays in a young dog socialization class with dobermans, bulldogs, and all other breed types. I've owned dogs like this my whole life, and they have been loyal friends. I understand their nature to play rough and their exercise needs. It's much like mine - I like to work out hard and participate in mixed martial arts, because it feels good to me. That doesn't mean that I, or my pitbull, go around attacking people in the street. We are trained, not dangerous.
Pitbulls aren't very good guard dogs because they like people too much. You'll notice that high-security buildings with dogs use German Shepherds or other breeds, and that when intelligence and obedience is necessary (such as bomb sniffing) pitbulls are used. Also, cops use German Shepherds because they are so easily trained to "subdue" humans.
Anyway, breed bans cause witchhunts where zealots like Matt in Denver go around trying to kill everybody's dog. How do you know the difference between an American Pit Bull Terrier and an American Staffordshire Terrier, or an American Bulldog, or a Staffordshire Bull Terrier? Who gets euthanized and who gets to live? Who decides?
Dog owners need to be held responsible, legally, for their dog's actions. Period. If my dog kills somebody, I expect to do 15 years for manslaughter. I hold all dog owners of any breed to the same standard, such as the Presa Canarios in San Fransisco that mauled that poor woman - oh yeah, everybody said it was a pitbull.
Pitbulls aren't very good guard dogs because they like people too much. You'll notice that high-security buildings with dogs use German Shepherds or other breeds, and that when intelligence and obedience is necessary (such as bomb sniffing) pitbulls are used. Also, cops use German Shepherds because they are so easily trained to "subdue" humans.
Anyway, breed bans cause witchhunts where zealots like Matt in Denver go around trying to kill everybody's dog. How do you know the difference between an American Pit Bull Terrier and an American Staffordshire Terrier, or an American Bulldog, or a Staffordshire Bull Terrier? Who gets euthanized and who gets to live? Who decides?
Dog owners need to be held responsible, legally, for their dog's actions. Period. If my dog kills somebody, I expect to do 15 years for manslaughter. I hold all dog owners of any breed to the same standard, such as the Presa Canarios in San Fransisco that mauled that poor woman - oh yeah, everybody said it was a pitbull.
85
Fifty-Two Eighty: Thanks for the info on the statistic. While interesting and suggestive, it's difficult to conclude what caused the 17% drop. It's possible that there were other factors including (just off the top of my head) owner education, natural fluctuations due to statistical variance, time of year, etc that could account for it. I'm not saying the breed ban didn't cause the reduction, just saying correlation doesn't mean causality.
I hope Denver has some scientists that can study the issue directly. It would be great to have hard evidence other than the CDC study.
I hope Denver has some scientists that can study the issue directly. It would be great to have hard evidence other than the CDC study.
87
what about requiring a special license for certain breeds or for dogs above a certain weight? say you create a law that says owning any dog over 40 pounds or on a list of specific breeds requires a license that includes training, a fee and signing a contract that says if your dog hurts someone you are completely liable.
just a thought.
just a thought.
88
@86...By supporting the concept of a Breed Ban you automatically support the death of innocent dogs.
When bans are put in place,even when existing pets are grandfathered in, TONS of innocent dogs are killed.
Any stray or unowned shelter dog fitting the "banned" criterea is KILLED.
I don't need the whole world to love pit bulls...I just want there to be an awareness that they ARE NOT different from other breeds.Keep in mind 28 breeds were selectively bred to fight but NO OTHER such BREED (Boxer, Shar-Pei,Boston Terrier,etc)faces the intense and needless scrutiny the pit bull faces. The same held true for the German Shepherd in the 70's, Rottweiler in the 90's, etc.
Also, when considering stats, consider this...The AKC does not recognize pit bulls, but recognizes Staffordshire terriers, so when a report comes out stating that pits account for X amount of attacks and account for Y% of the overall dog population, millions of pits have not been counted/factored in. In other words, there are MANY more pit bulls in the pop. than will be recorded.
AND.....When any dog becomes popular (as pitbulls have in recent years)OF COURSE there will be more activity from these breeds.
When bans are put in place,even when existing pets are grandfathered in, TONS of innocent dogs are killed.
Any stray or unowned shelter dog fitting the "banned" criterea is KILLED.
I don't need the whole world to love pit bulls...I just want there to be an awareness that they ARE NOT different from other breeds.Keep in mind 28 breeds were selectively bred to fight but NO OTHER such BREED (Boxer, Shar-Pei,Boston Terrier,etc)faces the intense and needless scrutiny the pit bull faces. The same held true for the German Shepherd in the 70's, Rottweiler in the 90's, etc.
Also, when considering stats, consider this...The AKC does not recognize pit bulls, but recognizes Staffordshire terriers, so when a report comes out stating that pits account for X amount of attacks and account for Y% of the overall dog population, millions of pits have not been counted/factored in. In other words, there are MANY more pit bulls in the pop. than will be recorded.
AND.....When any dog becomes popular (as pitbulls have in recent years)OF COURSE there will be more activity from these breeds.
90
Interesting conversation....some observations.
Way back up in #9, I recommended what amounts to a presumption--it is gross negligence and therefore potentially child abuse to expose a child of a prescribed size/age or smaller to a Pit Bull. This is NOT a breed ban, it is a legal status that would AUTOMATICALLY arise if one of these animals injures or creates a serious threat of injury to a child. The goal is prevention. If you knew that if your child is injured by your Pit Bull you would, for instance, lose custody....or if you knew that if your neighbor's child is injured by your pit bull you would virtually certainly get jail time, wouldn't that motivate you to protect children more and/or prevent them from being exposed without adequate safeguards to a breed that is strong, aggressive, and--based on my understanding that would have to be vetted by legislative hearings--more likely than many other breeds to engage in life threatening violence? And as for singling out this breed...if the scientific evidence shows that other breeds need to be added the list--SO BE it. But this is a start.
If I leave my lawn darts (which have been held to be unsafe as a matter of law) in the front yard and the neighbor's kid gets hurt playing with them...I'm responsible under both attractive nuisance and gross negligence or recklessness. Properly used with proper precautions, lawn darts won't hurt anyone...but we know how easy it is for them to cause harm, particularly to kids, so the law takes that into account and holds me to a higher standard. Why isn't it the same for this breed of dogs?
Way back up in #9, I recommended what amounts to a presumption--it is gross negligence and therefore potentially child abuse to expose a child of a prescribed size/age or smaller to a Pit Bull. This is NOT a breed ban, it is a legal status that would AUTOMATICALLY arise if one of these animals injures or creates a serious threat of injury to a child. The goal is prevention. If you knew that if your child is injured by your Pit Bull you would, for instance, lose custody....or if you knew that if your neighbor's child is injured by your pit bull you would virtually certainly get jail time, wouldn't that motivate you to protect children more and/or prevent them from being exposed without adequate safeguards to a breed that is strong, aggressive, and--based on my understanding that would have to be vetted by legislative hearings--more likely than many other breeds to engage in life threatening violence? And as for singling out this breed...if the scientific evidence shows that other breeds need to be added the list--SO BE it. But this is a start.
If I leave my lawn darts (which have been held to be unsafe as a matter of law) in the front yard and the neighbor's kid gets hurt playing with them...I'm responsible under both attractive nuisance and gross negligence or recklessness. Properly used with proper precautions, lawn darts won't hurt anyone...but we know how easy it is for them to cause harm, particularly to kids, so the law takes that into account and holds me to a higher standard. Why isn't it the same for this breed of dogs?
92
Matt in Denver - 84 here - how do you suppose breed bans work? If I live in Seattle, and you "ban" my breed of dog from living here, do I move to a different city? What happens to my dog, and my life here? What is the penalty, ultimately, for having a dog in the city wherein it is banned? Euthanasia is the answer I hear. What if my dog is half pitbull half bulldog? What is your plan for mutts?
93
The problem is that machismo-obsessed people who want a cool, bad-assed dog are also the most likely to have tons of kids and then dump them on elderly grandma while they go out and score more ringtones. Stupid people are going to have dangerous things in the house (violent dogs, guns), have the most kids, and have the least insight into how to protect them.
94
@ 92, look up Denver's breed ban. It's working out pretty well here.
@ 88, the dogs don't all have to be put down. But yes, many will be. I support that only insofar as it's the most practical solution available given the lack of resources and the small number of qualified rescue groups to take them in. The benefit to society (greater protection from unprovoked attacks by a breed of dog known for its propensity to commit such attacks) makes it the most utilitarian solution available, especially in light of the fact that the people on your side refuse to acknowledge that pits are both more aggressive than other dogs and more likely to severely maim and kill than other dogs. Once your side a) admits that and b) doesn't cost itself credibility by denigrating its opponents, we can try to work together to come up with a better solution.
I really don't want to just slaughter pits, which is what the guy @ 84 says I do. But unless we can come up with something better - and it will require efforts on your side's behalf - then I'm going to go along with it.
@ 88, the dogs don't all have to be put down. But yes, many will be. I support that only insofar as it's the most practical solution available given the lack of resources and the small number of qualified rescue groups to take them in. The benefit to society (greater protection from unprovoked attacks by a breed of dog known for its propensity to commit such attacks) makes it the most utilitarian solution available, especially in light of the fact that the people on your side refuse to acknowledge that pits are both more aggressive than other dogs and more likely to severely maim and kill than other dogs. Once your side a) admits that and b) doesn't cost itself credibility by denigrating its opponents, we can try to work together to come up with a better solution.
I really don't want to just slaughter pits, which is what the guy @ 84 says I do. But unless we can come up with something better - and it will require efforts on your side's behalf - then I'm going to go along with it.
95
KIDS are sometimes more dangerous than dogs. And the breed bans are total BS, and I'll make my case pretty solidly below: But...
DOGS are dangerous, as are many pets (snakes, lizards, birds, cats, certain fish...are all capable of killing people): animals come with defenses, impressive evolutionary steps, and they are better at using them than humans. 100,000+ years of hanging out with us homosapiens isn't going to 'breed' it out of them.
I was mauled by a lab when I was a little boy. As in LABRADOR. I had a wolf hybrid as a pet growing up: sweetest most gentle pet I ever had (though she'd tear the balls off any stranger, 4 legged or not, in our yard). I don't believe pit bulls or rotts or dobermans or any other breed is inherently bad: I think the attitude that a pet owner possesses, going into pet ownership, makes 75% of the difference: many people who want to own pit bulls WANT a singlemindedly bad-ass dog, and thus, choose a pit bull to fit their mental image. The dog's human owner's attitude rubs off on them! DUH. There are so few butch toy poodles because so few people train them to fight or even guard.
The lab that attacked me was a perfectly fine until I crossed some line that the other 25% governs: that 25% is the animal's own thoughts/desires/instincts. They aren't 'property', they aren't your 'baby' - they are a living creature with their own brain. You cross that line, you're on your own. Same is true of some people, really...
Dogs should be considered more dangerous, yes. Pets are some people's "children" - I totally get that too and agree : I've got both kids and pets - and love both as virtually same - as part of our family.
but Dogs, just like children, need restraint and caution and some forethought, (until they are about 20 years old - dogs and kids both): we don't let kids drive cars, -- and though the logic is holey I'm sure, just roll with the example for what it is, please -- we shouldn't let dogs off leash for the same reason: they aren't ready to go out into danger on their own. They can run into the street and cause accidents (at any size, any breed), they can get in fights and kill someone elses' pet (same) and bite or kill people.
I feel like leashes outside are as imperitive as seatbelts in the car: you're an idiot and an asshole if you neglect either: an Idiot for not recognizing that pets and children, as similar as they can be, are both NOT ADULTS and NOT able to make reasoned cautious and thoughtful choices as well as you should be able; and Asshole for thoughtlessly making someone else's day (from victim to EMT) a mess when you could have prevented tragedy. Dogs should be on ropes or in dog runs. Period. Then teach kids to stay out of dog areas. And grandmas.
I don't blame the Lab for the angry scars on my face these last 30 years, I blame the idiot that had that dog off-leash in a park and thought immaturely that "oh no, no one needs to worry about MY dog, MY dog's a sweetheart, just like me".
Breed Bans - NO. Dog RESTRAINT - yes.
More...
DOGS are dangerous, as are many pets (snakes, lizards, birds, cats, certain fish...are all capable of killing people): animals come with defenses, impressive evolutionary steps, and they are better at using them than humans. 100,000+ years of hanging out with us homosapiens isn't going to 'breed' it out of them.
I was mauled by a lab when I was a little boy. As in LABRADOR. I had a wolf hybrid as a pet growing up: sweetest most gentle pet I ever had (though she'd tear the balls off any stranger, 4 legged or not, in our yard). I don't believe pit bulls or rotts or dobermans or any other breed is inherently bad: I think the attitude that a pet owner possesses, going into pet ownership, makes 75% of the difference: many people who want to own pit bulls WANT a singlemindedly bad-ass dog, and thus, choose a pit bull to fit their mental image. The dog's human owner's attitude rubs off on them! DUH. There are so few butch toy poodles because so few people train them to fight or even guard.
The lab that attacked me was a perfectly fine until I crossed some line that the other 25% governs: that 25% is the animal's own thoughts/desires/instincts. They aren't 'property', they aren't your 'baby' - they are a living creature with their own brain. You cross that line, you're on your own. Same is true of some people, really...
Dogs should be considered more dangerous, yes. Pets are some people's "children" - I totally get that too and agree : I've got both kids and pets - and love both as virtually same - as part of our family.
but Dogs, just like children, need restraint and caution and some forethought, (until they are about 20 years old - dogs and kids both): we don't let kids drive cars, -- and though the logic is holey I'm sure, just roll with the example for what it is, please -- we shouldn't let dogs off leash for the same reason: they aren't ready to go out into danger on their own. They can run into the street and cause accidents (at any size, any breed), they can get in fights and kill someone elses' pet (same) and bite or kill people.
I feel like leashes outside are as imperitive as seatbelts in the car: you're an idiot and an asshole if you neglect either: an Idiot for not recognizing that pets and children, as similar as they can be, are both NOT ADULTS and NOT able to make reasoned cautious and thoughtful choices as well as you should be able; and Asshole for thoughtlessly making someone else's day (from victim to EMT) a mess when you could have prevented tragedy. Dogs should be on ropes or in dog runs. Period. Then teach kids to stay out of dog areas. And grandmas.
I don't blame the Lab for the angry scars on my face these last 30 years, I blame the idiot that had that dog off-leash in a park and thought immaturely that "oh no, no one needs to worry about MY dog, MY dog's a sweetheart, just like me".
Breed Bans - NO. Dog RESTRAINT - yes.
96
julie russell: "I don't need the whole world to love pit bulls...I just want there to be an awareness that they ARE NOT different from other breeds."
What do you think a breed is, if you don't think it's a collection of differences?
What do you think a breed is, if you don't think it's a collection of differences?
97
Personally, I can't think why anyone would entrust their children to someone (even their own parents) living with pit bulls or other dangerous pets. It's not a risk worth taking.
That said, at least Grandma was willing to take a knife to her own dogs rather than just whine that 'it's in Fido's nature, it's not his fault, he's my baby' like some other negligent owners.
That said, at least Grandma was willing to take a knife to her own dogs rather than just whine that 'it's in Fido's nature, it's not his fault, he's my baby' like some other negligent owners.
98
Dogs and Kids Don't Mix. I own two 'pure-breds'. (same breed)
One of the dogs hates childen with every bit of his 12 lbs of fury; the other could really give a fuck unless they'll hold still for him to pee on.
again, Dogs + Kids = Bite.
One of the dogs hates childen with every bit of his 12 lbs of fury; the other could really give a fuck unless they'll hold still for him to pee on.
again, Dogs + Kids = Bite.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (98) RSS