Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« 19th & Roy | WaMu Up for Auction »

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Snarling, Frothing, Gnashing, Nasty Pit Bull…Owners

posted by on September 17 at 16:58 PM

A local group working to ban pit bulls in Seattle has nixed its plan for a citizen initiative after receiving threatening emails from pit bull lovers.

You’ve heard that people sometimes look like their dogs, right? Well, it appears that pit bulls also share some aggressive, nasty traits with their owners.

CitysLead-570.jpg

Here are a few choice comments sent to members of Families and Dogs Against Fighting Breeds (FDAFB) and Dogsbite.org:

You should be publicly executed for your actions against our beloved pets.”
“You all ought to be neutered
We forwarded your information, address, name, Myspace blog, etc to the Seattle FBI because you could be one of those AR {Ed note: Animal Rights?] terrorist type[s]

This comment was also left on dogsbite.org, under the name of a member of Families Against Breed Bans (FABB), after dogsbite.org linked a story I wrote about a pit bull owned by a FABB member that attacked another dog, which I posted on Slog last week.

The FALSE information you posted will seal our case. Again, our attorney is Allen Ressler of Ressler &Tesh. NO CITATION WAS filed against FAITH [Hynoski, co-owner of the pit bull that attacked another dog, and wife of Joel Hynoski, who was named in the citation] ..check the record. You are GOING DOWN.

The citation … is being Contested.

One person’s account of an alleged event does not make the info you posted true. See you in court.

Adorable, aren’t they?

These are the same people who are defending animals that, as Dan mentioned earlier, mauled a 6-year-old boy in Moses Lake on Friday night.

According to the AP:

The boy was bitten on the face and head before the mother and other relatives pulled the dog off.

An aunt, Alissa Gonzales, says doctors reattached the boy’s nose and ears. He faces more surgeries.

But wait, there’s more:

In the last week or two, pit bulls also did this:

Alfred Roberts was walking his wife’s service dog, Vinny, an English Labrador, when it was attacked. Roberts said that [a pit bull] charged and latched onto Vinny’s throat. Roberts tried to beat the pit bull with his cane as bystanders came to help.

A police officer who was inside the restaurant eventually sprayed the pit bull with Mace, but it did not deter the dog. One of the bystanders used a fire extinguisher to stop the attack,

And this:

An 82-year-old woman is hospitalized after being seriously injured in a pit bull attack in Hasbrouck Heights.

Police say Stella Torti was hurt while trying to protect her own small dog, a Shih Tzu, from the larger animal.

Which led to this:

Someone broke into the Bergen County animal shelter overnight and snatched up a pit bull that had attacked an 82-year-old woman in Hasbrouck Heights hours earlier

Pit bull lovers absolutely refuse to admit that their beloved animals are dangerous.

They’ll tell you that irresponsible owners were responsible for these attacks.

They’ll tell you all dogs are dangerous, but according to statistics from the Seattle Animal Shelter, pit bulls are responsible for twice as many bites as any other breed.

Legislation isn’t likely to happen anytime soon—the city council’s gearing up to work on the budget, so issues like this tend to get pushed to the side—but if you want to see these fucking monster dogs regulated, call council member Jean Gooden, who will be meeting with breed ban activists soon.

RSS icon Comments

1

NEUTERED pit bulls are not as dangerous.

dollars to donuts the kid in moses lake got bit by an intact male pit.

Posted by max solomon | September 17, 2008 5:07 PM
2

Seriously, they should not be pets. If they're so high and mighty, or "tough," they can survive in the wilderness without having to face extinction. Instead we use this banjaxed tolerance for them, where we let them run around and attack the (mostly) vulnerable people, like children and the old. For. No. Fucking. Reason.

A friend of mine who loves pits even told me, to my face, that she would never have one because she'd be worried about what it would do to her, or someone else. Does that worrying not say something to you? Why do you have it? Because they're unpredictable, like a lot of dogs, but unlike most dogs, they have a fucking lion's mouth. It doesn't take much for them to seriously injure or kill.

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 17, 2008 5:12 PM
3

...and you can enforce neutering?

Sorry. I actually defended these dogs for a long time, but I'm no longer convinced that a ban is unwarranted.

Posted by seattleeco | September 17, 2008 5:13 PM
4

i'm not a big fan of pitbulls, but posts like this make me want to buy a litter of them and move in nextdoor to you.

Posted by brandon | September 17, 2008 5:14 PM
5

WAAAAAH I am scared of something, lets make a law. I don't care about facts, or conditions. We were right about darkies being terrorists, and gays spreading aids, this is logical we should ban something over emotion, again.

MORE LAWS = MORE SAFER BETTER


Posted by meanie | September 17, 2008 5:19 PM
6

Come up with an ordinance that requires all dogs/cats be spayed/neutered. You could let those who insist on breeding animals buy a VERY expensive breeding license. Not only would you lower the rate of biting you would halt the obscene amount of healthy animals being put down at the pound.

It would have a better chance of passing than an outright breed ban.

Posted by Y.F. | September 17, 2008 5:22 PM
7

Ok - I have a nice female, fixed, pit. Great dog - great with kids, mellow, very loveable, cute. If you met her you wouldn't be scared a bit. She's been socialized well since she was a puppy, went to proper training, and gets lots of attention. Doesn't fit the scary portrayal of pits presented here at all.....until she freaks out, totally loses it over some weird thing like a skateboard, another dog looking at her the wrong way, or whatever.

It's sad, because I like this dog a lot. She's old and has cancer so will die soon. But I watch her like a hawk, have a fenced in yard and when she's out she's always on leash. Pits have a switch in them that when it goes off, they go into attack mode and want to fight to the death, and they are bread to be incredibly strong killing machines. It's sad, but anyone denying this is just not dealing with reality.

Posted by Meinert | September 17, 2008 5:24 PM
8

This post is only bound to illicit 2 or 3 types of responses, added by hundreds of different people. Here's mine anyhow.

Breed bans won't work - the breed they're targeting here have only been in fashion for 10 or so years now. A more effective idea is to simply enact and enforce more strict pet licensing laws. Registration fees and stiff fines for non-compliance (to pay for enforcement), mandatory neutering outside of being a licensed breeder, and actual accountability of a dog's (negligent) owner should he/she allow something unfortunate to happen.

I love dogs, but in the city they're a luxury item. It's only $75 to register a gun fer chrissake, that's peanuts compared to the money you'll spend raising your animal.

Posted by Dougsf | September 17, 2008 5:30 PM
9

....and I wish there was spell check here. Bred, not bread. Though I do like me some toast.

Posted by Meinert | September 17, 2008 5:31 PM
10

@5—We regulate guns and we regulate who gets to drive because both firearms and cars can both be deadly in the wrong hands. So why the fuck wouldn't we regulate a dangerous fucking animal?

Posted by Jonah S | September 17, 2008 5:31 PM
11

I used to be on the fence about pit bulls. Until I actually met some owners and their dogs. The ones I met seem to be over compensating about something. They were people who have an inner bully that gets expressed thru their choice of a dog. I now advocate a ban on this breed and I dare anyone to try and stop me from advocating such a ban. Pit Bull nuts are very much like the gun nuts of the nra.

Posted by Heather | September 17, 2008 5:32 PM
12

@5

I'm against bans as much as the next person with an IQ slightly above 40, but this is a ban I can get behind. Think about it outside of your box for a second. You're not allowed to own a leopard for a reason, and you should be grateful for that reason. It's illegal to own one, but just because it isn't illegal to own a pit bull doesn't mean it shouldn't be. We have the facts, and they involve dismemberment, torn faces, reconstructive surgery, death, dead kids, bad owners, good owners: all on a regular basis. If you're going to use the typically intelligent "bans are a trend again?" card with these almost weekly occurrences, you're obviously a Republican. In other words, you're obviously a moron.

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 17, 2008 5:35 PM
13

They are also going to vote Palin/McWhathisname.

Posted by elswinger | September 17, 2008 5:50 PM
14

It's interesting that you bring up the ban against dangerous drivers, Jonah. How's that law working out?

Posted by Eek, a mouse! | September 17, 2008 5:54 PM
15

Once pit bulls are banned whats the next dog that people with issues will get and train them to fight...you'll see increased bite rates for those too. Those owners wanting to compensate for something...they'll find another breed and raise it poorly too.

Perhaps instead of a breed ban...which inevitably will lead to another breed ban and another...because bad owners will keep finding another breed to own...why don't we just pass better licensing laws and make neutering mandatory.

As far as the rest of this post goes....when a crazy liberal person says something that embarasses all of us...do we say they represent us all?

So...if some crazy pit bull owners send nasty emails...should we assume thats how all pit bull owners are.

I swear...The Stranger is an amazing paper...but when it comes to pit bulls on this blog..all sense of journalism and integrity is tossed out the window.

Posted by Hunter | September 17, 2008 6:08 PM
16

jonah: so your saying we regulate the vehicles and drivers that have the potential to cause harm? So we ban young, old drivers and SUV's because they outweigh most cars by 4x?

This isn't rocket science. looking at one type/breed/look of dog and crying like little girls isn't going to fix anything. And asking for more laws in a city with one of the lowest police per citizen ratios in the country is laughable, its a typical loony liberal solution. Your complaining about a symptom and not the real problem.

How about raising license fees for unaltered dogs to thousands? there is no good reason to have a unaltered dog in a city, breeding dogs is 90% bullshit logic. Funnel the money back into real animal control, instead of the two dudes in trucks this city of 600,000 people has.

I own dogs, but no pit bulls, and they are both fixed. I could guess that nearly every sensationalist story that you and dan love to splash all over the slog involves an unaltered dog. If you want to fix the problem think of a real solution, and quit playing the bullshit emotional card like some batshit crazy pro-life republican.

mr poe: nice ad hominem attack, LJ called you forgot to update your feelings.

Posted by meanie | September 17, 2008 6:22 PM
17

Is this solely about emotion and not facts or conditions, @5? So you've seen the bite/kill statistics on neutered/spayed vs. non-neutered/non-spayed fighting breeds, yet don't consider that worth considering? Sounds like you haven't looked into it much.

I can see arguing against laws designed to protect the public. Such laws restrict personal freedom. (Live free or die, right?) But but it might be worth informing yourself before you say that this issue is baseless beyond the hysteria it raises, just so you don't look uneducated.

Posted by Free Lunch | September 17, 2008 6:23 PM
18

@10: I think it is time for our community and government to regulate gay people. How many more innocent people have to die in the hands of gay serial killers? Does Jeffrey Dahmer ring a bell Jonah! It can't be true that normal people can't walk the street without being stalked by a gay serial killer. Every year 1000's of normal people are killed worldwide by gay serial killers. Don't believe me? http://www.adherents.com/misc/hsk.html

Posted by St Francis | September 17, 2008 6:25 PM
19

I believe the public needs to be more thoroughly educated on the subject of pit bulls.

Specifically, what is the best method to incapacitate or kill a pit bull responsible for an unprovoked attack? Is it more effective to use a taser or to slit its throat with a hunting knife?

Posted by Dr. Savage Mudede | September 17, 2008 6:25 PM
20

@14: oh, look, it's the "it's not perfect, so why even try?" argument. Yes, even with laws against murder, murders still occur. Even with laws against reckless driving, reckless driving occurs. Does that mean that making murder and reckless driving legal is a good idea?

Right, didn't think so.

Ban the dogs now. And forcibly neuter anyone who's against it.

Posted by Fnarf | September 17, 2008 6:45 PM
21

I'd rather have a snarling fur-rocket of canine devastation like that one backing me up in a bar fight than some weak assed Golden Lab.

Posted by Bob | September 17, 2008 6:55 PM
22

Another approach:popularize "Big Pit, little dick" or "Big P, little D" for polite company. Point and jeer (from a safe vantage point), raise your curled pinky, start a known pit bull owner site the way they have for sex offenders. send them dog shit and rotten meat.

Make people ashamed to own them.

Posted by snarky | September 17, 2008 6:57 PM
23

"A local group working to ban pit bulls in Seattle has nixed its plan for a citizen initiative after receiving threatening emails from pit bull lovers.?

And Spangenthal:

You posted the scariest emails?
WTF?
Colleen and her minions love being victims. They want to be right more than they want to find a solution; more than they want to protect people from agressive, ill-trained and abused dogs.

They don't care about the boy in Moses Lake; It's become ego with Colleen, (I want to win! I want to win!)

So you're saying Colleen and her minons have backed down..by uh..these super scarey emails? (taken out of context I might add)....ummmmm,

But what about her self procalimed "tenacity" on her own website:

"We will not stop".

Yeah right.

The flip side?
The rational side?

FABB is working with city municipalities on ending attacks and finding a law that really works, - that will protect the public; because breed bans don't.

Keep on with the tabloid tactics and we'll keep working behind the scenes to help public safety and educate people about all dogs.

Junvenile reporting at best.

Posted by Colette | September 17, 2008 7:03 PM
24

About 80 people are attacked and 3 people die from Pit-mixed attacks per year. About 270 are injured and 90 people die from lightning strikes per year. How many will the viaduct kill when it heads earthward?

Posted by Matt in Philly | September 17, 2008 7:13 PM
25

@18: Well that had all the sophistication of rhetoric usually presented by a high school junior. Well done.

Posted by Darcy | September 17, 2008 7:32 PM
26

@25: Rhetoric?

Try facts. The truth hurts

Posted by St Francis | September 17, 2008 7:52 PM
27

Can someone explain to me why The Stranger has some kind of vendetta against Pit Bulls?

Thanks

Posted by Bandy | September 17, 2008 8:15 PM
28

@26: Using your exact same technique, one could make an argument against regulating anything, simply by substituting terms. The truth hurts more when it's actually the truth and not some bullshit logical fallacy, I guess.

Posted by Darcy | September 17, 2008 8:24 PM
29

@28: now tell me what is bullshit fallacy about gay serial killers? It is a fact that there are gay serial killers, and that they account for 90% of murders committed by serial killers. This is about public safety. Each year about 50 people are killed by dogs worldwide, and each year 1000's of people are killed by serial killers that happen to be gay. Who is the true danger to society?

Posted by St Francis | September 17, 2008 8:31 PM
30

One more thing - the supposed "Pit Bull Attack" in Moses Lake?....the 130# Pit Bull?!!?

Riddle me this:

You have Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and a 130# Pit Bull at an intersection - who will make it across the street faster?
.....................

....................


.....................

NONE OF THEM! They are all figments of your imagination!!!

Pit Bulls do not weigh more than 70# or 80# - most are under 60#.

It wasn't a PIT BULL!!!!

Posted by Colette | September 17, 2008 8:44 PM
31

"I'm not saying I'm violently opposed to banning the [plastic] bags. I'm just saying, don't get the idea you're making a big impact if you do." - Fnarf

Same way I feel about a pitbull ban. It's ludicrous, completely unenforceable in a free society and I simply will not accept the additional taxes required to pay "officials" to check the backyards and homes of suspected owners. We already have criminal laws and civil court processes to go after people who have violent animals, we don't need one more simply because of a few incidents of a year.

Posted by Eek, a mouse! | September 17, 2008 8:45 PM
32

@27: Because Dan Savage is irrationally afraid of dogs. It's his cause.

Posted by Mary | September 17, 2008 8:45 PM
33

Nice reporting Stranger.

The dog in Moses lake was 130 pounds. It was a Mastiff dog. Pitbulls are between 25-60 pounds according to the United Kennel Club http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/AmericanPitBullTerrierRevisedNovember12008

The truth hurts

Posted by St Francis | September 17, 2008 8:50 PM
34

Jonah, Fnarf, etc.

You're telling me you KNOW that pit bull bans don't work. In fact, they have no detectable benefit at all. But you figure it's good to just try anyway. Like Seattle is soooo different (hills!) that a pit bull ban will work here even though it doesn't work anywhere else. Have I got that right?

HOWEVER! You want to decriminalize pot because prohibition doesn't work! Brilliant. Why not keep pot illegal simply because we have to try? Why not do something even if it's useless? Why not waste resources on an unenforceable ban to show how much we care?

And Fnarf thinks the bag tax is a not worth it because it won't have a big enough impact. But a zero-impact breed ban is worth it? Hello?

This is not a healthy way to face problems, you know.

I'm going to continue to support spaying and especially neutering, because it is enforcable and has real data that shows it is effective, unlike breed bans. That's what you call a reality-based approach.

Show me that pit bull bans work, and I'll hop right on board though.

Posted by elenchos | September 17, 2008 9:00 PM
35

When someone says he has a lawyer and that he's suing you and he will see you in court, he's invariably lying.

Don't lawyers tell their clients, first and foremost, not to talk to the defendant outside of court?

Posted by Dan | September 17, 2008 9:07 PM
36

Jonah Spangenthal-Lee,

You are no Dan Savage.

Posted by whatever | September 17, 2008 9:25 PM
37

@21 - why exactly do you need to get into bar fights?

Seems protesters at the national conventions should've brought some pitbulls with them ... or even reporters trying to report.

Posted by idaho | September 17, 2008 9:31 PM
38

@30 & 33 -- The original story -- http://www.columbiabasinherald.com/articles/2008/09/16/news/news02.txt -- doesn't mention a weight, but it does mention the owner not having papers. Don't you think the reporter would've reported the owner denying it was a pitbull?

Animals that randomly freak out freak me out. Animals including people. It's not the pitbulls' fault, but that doesn't mean it's okay to keep breeding them.

Posted by idaho | September 17, 2008 9:45 PM
39

If we would just return to the good old days when owners of pit bulls that attacked people were just shot ... there would be no problem.

Well, at least if we charged them for the cost of the bullets.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 17, 2008 10:07 PM
40

We think nobody should ban pit bulls at all.

Because, once people start banning pit bulls, they might want to ban panthers.

And then how would our panthers hunt and kill pit bull puppies for sport?

Posted by Panther Puppy Pack | September 17, 2008 10:12 PM
41

Aren't Pit bulls and Hummers God's way of making those with little dicks feel important.

Posted by Sad Comment | September 17, 2008 11:30 PM
42

something else for people who think breed bans "don't work" for some reason. we have a seattle-area dog breed ban in effect right now and it's working great. wolf hybrids used to be very popular in the seattle area but have been banned since 1994.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19940703&slug=1918663

Posted by jrrrl | September 18, 2008 12:26 AM
43

!!!@34!!!

Elenchos, dude, what the motherfucking fuck are you smoking?

Recap:

@14: oh, look, it's the "it's not perfect, so why even try?" argument. Yes, even with laws against murder, murders still occur. Even with laws against reckless driving, reckless driving occurs. Does that mean that making murder and reckless driving legal is a good idea?

Right, didn't think so.

Posted by Fnarf | September 17, 2008 6:45 PM

@5—We regulate guns and we regulate who gets to drive because both firearms and cars can both be deadly in the wrong hands. So why the fuck wouldn't we regulate a dangerous fucking animal?

Ban the dogs now. And forcibly neuter anyone who's against it.
Posted by Jonah S | September 17, 2008 5:31 PM

And now you...

You're telling me you KNOW that pit bull bans don't work. In fact, they have no detectable benefit at all. But you figure it's good to just try anyway. Like Seattle is soooo different (hills!) that a pit bull ban will work here even though it doesn't work anywhere else. Have I got that right?

HOWEVER! You want to decriminalize pot because prohibition doesn't work! Brilliant. Why not keep pot illegal simply because we have to try? Why not do something even if it's useless? Why not waste resources on an unenforceable ban to show how much we care?

And Fnarf thinks the bag tax is a not worth it because it won't have a big enough impact. But a zero-impact breed ban is worth it? Hello?

This is not a healthy way to face problems, you know.

I'm going to continue to support spaying and especially neutering, because it is enforcable and has real data that shows it is effective, unlike breed bans. That's what you call a reality-based approach.

Show me that pit bull bans work, and I'll hop right on board though.

So...

(1) Your blasted "You're telling me you KNOW that pit bull bans don't work" doesn't really make any fucking sense. First, they didn't tell you they don't work. Second, the implication that they did has no room for substance, because (a) they didn't, and (b) how could a pit bull ban not work? These attacks are on a regular basis, and you know that, (c) hills have absolutely nothing to do with this. You're being ridiculous. I'm almost wondering if you're joking here. (d) pit bull bans are on a global level. The motherfucking dog--regularly proven--cannot be controlled. It doesn't matter if you're a "good" owner or a "bad" owner. The end result, when you're facing charges, will always be either "this was a bad owner," or "s/he was always so nice. We never saw this coming. Seriously, if you could only spend a couple minutes with her/him, you'd undershutthefuck up. If you don't already own a pit bull, you SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET ONE.

Really, let's be civil about this. I figure if we stop it here we only have 2,000 (or so) consistent, bloody and brutal attacks to deal with. Once your beloved "pet" either injure/kills your child, your neighbor, the old guy two miles away minding his own fucking business, or drops dead, we won't have to worry about your dumbass adopting/breeding another one. We'll call it "civil," but in reality it's actually incomprehensible idiocy.

I think the #1 thing that pisses me off with the pit bulls is how they never kill their fucking owners. I'd love it. Perfect obituary. No tears here. Oh, but those tears wouldn't even exist if they could, because they never kill you morons. They go after the vulnerable. It's their instinct. Playful, loving and friendly, and BAM, running cougar.

Y'all should be greatful for the "brothaz" and all of the terrible white-trash owners who harbor these monsters. It's the perfect ticket for you. "They're the reason this happens." No. They're not. They saw the opportunity and took it. Pit's didn't just up-&-become vicious. Here's an idea, stop being retarded, buy a shotgun, and murder your fucking neighbors pit bull.

You: "You like that? Yeah that's wussup."
Them: "OH MY GAWD YOU FUCKING PSYCHO HOW COULD--*gunshot*
You: "You were saying?"
(silence)

Justice.

In conclusion, your little parallel (or whatever) to "pot" is beyond ridiculous. First, decriminalizing pot has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with prohibition. We're not even attempting to regulate marijuana, it's completely illegal. Not to mention marijuana cannot do these things:
1) Tear you child's face off/kill your child
3) Rip your arm(s)/leg(s)/dick off
4) Tag-team your super-fun bloodfest dismemberment with fellow marijuana buds
5) Bust through a fence to fucking maul the shit out of you with their out-of-control stems and leaves
6) et al

And finally, Fnarf's opinion on the bag tax makes zero sense. So I'm with you on that one. But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really have a stance here. In conclusion (I think I said that already but fuck you), I'm drunk, I need to go to bed, I hate pit bulls, I thoroughly enjoy you and everything you have to say but I have to be Courtney Love for now and drag a sentence to the point where it's obvious I have no fucking idea what a comma is because I'm a fucking idiot just like pit bull owners and did I mention how much I hate pit bulls I love it when pit bull owners get injured it's like a warm load in my mouth did you watch Gossip Girl last night I've never watched it because that shit sucks. Fuck. Whatever that was, I typed it, and laughed, and laughed harder, so I'm happy. All is forgiven. God I hate pit bulls. Holy shit, this scroll length is ridiculously long and I don't even remember what I was saying. I hope I said something worth a shit. Whatever. *Post*

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 18, 2008 3:00 AM
44

@43

"Brothaz"? Racist.

Posted by brb g2g dogfighting | September 18, 2008 3:39 AM
45

I am a cat person. I fill my tiny apartment with slinky little runny jumpy meowythings and boxes full of wheat for them to poop in.

So I could never get behind any sort of breed ban.

Fact: Pit Bulls are dogs. They are artificially selected retarded tea-wolves force evolved by dog people.

Although I am a cat person, I've spent enough time around these other people's dogs to know that they're dogs and that the trouble with pit bulls is the asshole owners rather than this particular breed of dog's inborn visciousness.

Posted by Max | September 18, 2008 6:53 AM
46

Damnit. Where's Amy Kate when you need her?

Posted by ryan | September 18, 2008 7:23 AM
47

Mr. Poe, the main way I know pit bull bans don't work is that if evidence existed we'd hear about it. I searched high and low and gave up because it ain't there. If prohibition of a breed worked, it would be an open and shut case, and we wouldn't be arguing over these imponderables.

Imponderables like how a 130 pound dog got identified as a pit bull. Hello? Reporters are only interested in reporting attacks if the dog is a pit bull, and any scary dog looks like a pit pull if you're ignorant enough.

"So why the fuck wouldn't we regulate a dangerous fucking animal?" Because we have no intention of enforcing it. The dog attack last week was by dogs that had been terrorizing the neighborhood since forever. We already have laws against that, but no cops or animal control to go catch the loose dogs out there now. If we can't even pick up known vicious dogs that were known to be roaming free, how is Seattle going to get every pit bull out of everyone's house?

That anyone could oppose our stupid drug laws yet want to create a new and even stupider dog law is beyond me.

Especially since neither Denver and nor the Netherlands were able to find a way to do any good with their pit bull bans. Is Seattle really that different? The hills? The ship canal? What makes us different than them?

Finally, Amy Kate Horn is the last word on this. While the rest of the Stranger news team careens out of control like HST on a bender, Amy Kate is right and those who oppose her deserve everything they get.

Don't come crying to me with any of that "Oh, I turned against Amy Kate Horn and now my life is shit! Woe is me! Boo hoo hoo!" I'll just laugh.

Posted by elenchos | September 18, 2008 9:24 AM
48

You know what? I don't care anymore. I. DON'T. CARE. Please ban them. BAN THEM! For the love of GOD, if only to never see a pitbull post on Slog again, PLEASE BAN THEM!

Then all our troubles will go away, and all dogs will live in harmony, and we'll never ever have another dog attack story as long as we live, and life will be nothing but rainbows and cupcakes. Amen.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | September 18, 2008 9:33 AM
49

hmmmm?
wonder if we can all figure out how many posters work at the stranger?

the stranger NEVER advocates for a workable solution and is NOT interested in public safety.

No national human/canine organization supports breed bans.

The CEO of the Seattle Humane Society is quoted as saying:

"The fact that pit bulls account for a disproportionate number of reported dog bites in Seattle, according to the Seattle Animal Shelter, doesn't prove pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds. It does suggest pit bulls are popular. We know they account for approximately 30 percent of lost, stray and abandoned animals in our community's shelters."

Posted by dan scamage | September 18, 2008 9:35 AM
50

Has Mr. Poe gotten even more douchey lately? Between these comments and his extra hateful comments about dried up old gay men last week, he seems to have hit a new low...

Posted by Dawgson | September 18, 2008 10:06 AM
51

Bandy @ 27: Yeah, actually I can explain why the Stranger has some kind of vendetta against pit bulls.

It's because, whoa! check it! they're pets, right? Sweet little pets? And yet somehow they just seem to keep "snapping" and ripping the faces off of babies and old people.

Crazy, huh?

Posted by Anne | September 18, 2008 10:10 AM
52


*********!!!!HAVE A CHILD!!!*******

Then you won't be so obsessed with dogs.

Posted by fremontian | September 18, 2008 10:12 AM
53

WRT the service dog: There's no such thing as an English Labrador. There are english BRED Labradors, but an English Labrador isn't a breed. AND the dog pictured in the "video" link (which keeps crashing my browser, so I can't watch it) is neither a Labrador nor a pit bull. It could be a Lab mix. Which is not denigrating its usefulness as a service dog in any way, although I will ALSO point out that a) the ability to detect seizures is pretty common in dogs and b) the ability cannot be trained, only identified and encouraged and c) according to the Delta society "Training service dogs for people with seizure disorders is relatively new and lacks training guidelines and credentialing for trainers." Which, if you combine that with the number of "trainers" who claim to offer service dog "certification" or titles (I've run up against these people) makes me think someone is saying to themselves "I'm gonna make my dog more valuable by claiming he's an English Lab service dog!!!"

And combining THAT with the claimed "130-lb" pit bull (130 lbs is not a pit bull) in the other story does make me wonder about the veracity of these reported attacks.

Which is all not to say that I don't think pit bulls may not be more likely to attack than other dogs--although I remember when the "big scare" was German Shepherds, then Dobermans (every single Doberman I've ever met is a total wuss who wants to be a lap dog). Doesn't anyone else remember this?

At this point, I don't believe much of what the media reports. Why should dog attacks be any different? I wanna lay eyes on a dog and decide for MYSELF whether it's a pit bull or not.

And that said--I won't take my Shelties anywhere there might be unaltered male pit bulls.

Posted by Nora | September 18, 2008 10:39 AM
54

@52: So true!!

Posted by Sean | September 18, 2008 10:44 AM
55

I think it is time for our community and government to regulate gay people...

Youth pastors... Priests... Ex-Gay "touch therapy" advocates... GOP Congressmen... Or at least require neutering them...

Posted by Bruce Garrett | September 18, 2008 11:05 AM
56

I really would like to see the stats of altered vs. unaltered dog attacks and male dog vs female. I'd bet that the majority of attacks come from unaltered males.

I also wonder if more pits are left intact than the average for other breeds. The mindset that causes someone to choose an aggressive dog with the cache of a pit might also be the kind of mindset that makes them reluctant to alter.

As someone who lived with an altered pit my whole childhood, I had an entirely positive experience. But my good experience doesn't negate the fact that pits have a higher incidence of violence.

I'd like to see a mandatory neutering law go into effect for pits, and a ban placed on breeding them before a full breed ban goes into effect.

Posted by spondee | September 18, 2008 12:26 PM
57

@56

Right here. It says neutering has 5 or 6 times larger an effect on biting than breed. It's an excellent study, close by in Oregon and quite recent.

Posted by elenchos | September 18, 2008 1:16 PM
58

This is the REAL story:

FDAFB backed down b/c they realized that they did not have the Council votes to have their initiative passed. (See last week's P.I. article) Rather than accepting this, they decided to FALSELY accuse the so called "pit people" of threatening them.

In Colleen Lynn's FIRST interview more than 1 year ago, she said "I am prepared to be massively intimidated and threatened..and I won't back down (um, unless the council is full of intelligent, rational, kind people who regard me as the vengeful hate-monger I am and they shut me down)

Now she and Ellen Taft would love for the public to belive all pit owners are unsavory thugs who threaten and harass them on a regular basis.Just not the case. In reality we are busy making change happen while they bitch about pit bulls.

Intestingly, though, FABB members donning banners on their homes have: had their phone lines cut, recived veiled death threats, recieved dog poop in the mail,nasty text messages, hateful letters and on and on.

When these things happen, I just think..."Thanks Colleen". "Thanks Ellen"..for inspiring me to fight EVEN harder for what I know is right.

Posted by Julie Russell | September 18, 2008 5:50 PM
59

The media should start posting pictures of these "pit bulls" because all too often, dogs are identified as pits that are in fact another breed. I have many connections in the dog world and personally know people who evaluate these dogs and not all of them are actually pit bulls. "Pit Bull Attack" makes a better headline (and usually makes the front page) but if it is another breed, the story is buried pretty deep into the paper and the breed isn't mentioned until the end, if at all. The media is responsible for most of the negativity associated with the pit bulls. The owners are the ones who need to be blamed in all of these attacks. Dogs need to be raised with socialization and ALL dogs that are not socialized are dangerous. Pit Bulls (which is a blanket term for several breeds) are powerful dogs and need to be raised to be tolerant of people, places and things and they need to be taught Acquired Bite Inhibition just like all dogs.
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/media1.asp

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/canineaggression.asp

Posted by seattle dog trainer | September 18, 2008 10:43 PM
60

"These are the same people who are defending animals that, as Dan mentioned earlier, mauled a 6-year-old boy in Moses Lake on Friday night"

You hear that, people? ALL pit bulls mauled that little boy!! They are all killers of children, and no other dog is worth your attention, regardless of breeding and handling. That's all your tiny brains can handle, right?

I don't feel strongly one way or another about breed specific legislation, I'm not attached to any breed of dog that I might potentially want to adopt in the future, and it's my opinion that all human-aggressive dogs should be euthanized... unless complete remedial socialization would be a piece of cake. It's not like dogs are in such short supply that we need to keep the dangerous ones around with all the associated risks. But pit bull hysteria bugs the shit out of me, and articles like this one [transparently attempt to] insult my intelligence and yours. All dogs are animals regardless of breed and they all have the potential to be dangerous. That is why they must be under competent control at all times. I know this is possible, and I'm sure there are tons of qualified people who would be willing to put together the specifics.

With a ban, even if existing pits were "grandfathered" and sterilization was required, you would still have a lot of pups to get rid of due to mediocre compliance. I feel confident about this point because I live in Quebec, where we get many of Ontario's little pitling rejects. Logistically speaking, this isn't effective problem solving. If you want to protect people and address legitimate concerns instead of wasting resources, strict laws must be enforced regarding all dog breeding and handling, period. I'm not saying breed plays no part in any of this, but it's juuuust barely scratching the surface, and someone has got to grow a pair and tackle the whole issue.

Posted by Gin | September 19, 2008 8:59 AM
61

Julie@58: I'm just waiting to hear someone here attack you as a pit bull owner "compensating for your little d-ck."

Oh wait... some WOMEN own pit bulls?

Well, I'm sure you must be "lower class" then.

It's disgusting how much under the surface classism, racism, and elitism this debate has wrapped up in it.

Posted by Dawgson | September 19, 2008 9:20 AM
62

@ 61..they would have a case, I guess, for Penis Envy:) Mmmmmmm.... Penis:) Seriously though, I agree.

These are issues we battle daily.

Thankfully those in power locally understand the issues re:pit bulls.

Brenda Barnette, CEO of The Humane Society, wrote a great OpEd piece in the Times yesterday and 3 Seattle City Council members have e-mailed me (and FABB)voicing kind, rational, intelligent understanding of the issues before us.

Poor Jonah SL just got manipulated in to writing what he wrote.The headline was snappy, there was a bunch of hearsay and that's about it.

Mmmmm...penis.

Posted by Julie Russell | September 19, 2008 10:16 AM
63

Jonah- I have your follow up story:
Title: FOR THOSE ABOUT TO STALK.....(we not only salute you...we'll run a favorable article on you and say THEY did the unsavory acts:)

It can detail the following:

Julie Russell sits at home, eagerly awaiting the arrival of her new...lusted after Chocolate Brown Mulberry Maggie East West satchel from the New York store. (It's a handbag)

On that much awaited day she sees the package. Thoughts of beautifully co-ordinated outfits run through her head.Hmmm...a trip to Mario's is in order. But wait...That's not a Mulberry box.. Hmm maybe it's the shoes from Sonia Rykiel..They are early. She makes a mental note to order MORE Sonia Rykiel...but scoffs at their icky packaging.

Alas, she opens the box.

The only brown thing inside IS NOT a handbag.
Lovely.

Just a pitch, but let me know what you think:)

Posted by Julie Russell | September 19, 2008 11:17 AM
64

So it was you #22:)...I finally read all these posts.

Posted by Julie Russell | September 19, 2008 3:33 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.