July 21, 2005

• IMHO the problem is a slew of trashy owners. Back in Austin we had some wanna-be gangstas on our street that liked to trot their pit bull around and get them worked up about people and other dogs passing by.
• How often do people acquire pit bulls for the sake of having a nice family pet?
• I'm predicting this thread breaks the 100 comments barrier.
• What I find most astonishing is that the dogs are being rounded up based on if they *LOOK* like a pit bull, not based on behavior or complaints or actual lineage.
• As Bob Seger once sang, "Go! Get out of Denver, better, go Get out of Denver, better, go, go Get out of Denver, better, go Get out of Denver cause you look just like a commie And you might just be a member Better get out of Denver Better get out of Denver" (A wise man breaks wind and is gone)
• My sister has a pit bull. She rescued it from an abusive owner. That dog is the most loving, loyal dog I've ever seen. rolypolyman is right it's the trashy owners
• I don't understand this at all. Most dogs respond to the way they're treated. Some have to be trained out of bad behavior, sure (bad behaviors usually caused by a bad owner somewhere down the line), but with patience they can be made into good dogs.
• ...dogs are being rounded up based on if they *LOOK* like a pit bull, not based on behavior or complaints or actual lineage. The fact of the matter is that dogs are an excellent example of nature vs nurture. Dogs have been highly bred over thousands of generations to favor specific traits. Even if those traits only found favor for a relatively brief period of time in a dog's lineage that genetic heritage is still lodged in a dog breed's DNA. It's simply a fact of nature. Thus the multitude of stories about 'pitbull-type' dogs who were loving family pets for years, then suddenly flipped out one day and mauled a familiar child, almost always leaving the dog as confused as the family. Are there 'pitbull-type' dogs out there that don't have any violence bred into them? I'm sure there must be some, as the Staffordshire(?) terrior fanclub professes, but unless you have documentation going back umpteen generations how can you know for sure? The vast majority of pitbull-type dogs will have violence bred somewhere in their family history, which is likely almost completely unknown. Plus there's the unfortunate fact that even if you put the requirement for such documentation into law, pitbulls are popular with the type of irresponsible owner who would happily forge the necessary papers so they could own a 'scarey' dog. So do I like the idea of taking dogs away from their owners and euthanizing them? No, I don't. I like dogs. Perhaps a better solution would be grandfathering existing dogs, telling owners that all pitbulls would be banned within one generation. We've lived with the risks of pitbulls for decades, we can survive another ten years. However, I can't see a realistic solution for the pitbull issue other than banning the breed in participating jurisdictions. It's no different than some of the even more dangerous breeds that are banned in numerous countries.
• Thus the multitude of stories about 'pitbull-type' dogs who were loving family pets for years, then suddenly flipped out one day and mauled a familiar child, almost always leaving the dog as confused as the family. This is exactly what's scary. It isn't always "trashy owners", pitbulls do seem to just snap sometimes and when they do they are often lethal. There's been a rash of attacks here in San Francisco recently, leaving several people dead. The dogs involved were sweet, loving family pets who suddenly turned on someone close to them. Our mayor's response has been to propose a mandatory spay and neuter program and ban the breeding of pit bulls, both to reduce their numbers and because there is some indication that females in heat have sparked some of the violence. I think that's a much more reasonable response than Denver's.
• This isn't right. These animals shouldn't be punished. Right now, at least in the area I live in, these dogs are seen as a statis symbol. I mean you hear people talk and they say " oh yeah my kid wears baby phat and has a pitt bull:". But the fact of the matter is that most of these dogs are victims of our trends. They are frequently under cared for.. .. I work at a vet clinic and people are a lot more willing to pay to get their pit bull's ear's cropped then they are to pay for the vaccines that will keep that dog alive and healthy. Most of these dogs live in terrible conditions, and shouldn't be seen as the enemy. I would also like to say that from my experience these are some of the most loving and affectionate animals that I have ever been around. And I should say that YES they are physiologically capable (because of their bite)of causing a lot of damage, but only because WE bred them to be so.
• Well, stop breeding them.
• Cali is correct - breeders working with breeds with good temprament will generally stop breeding from a sire or dam if their puppies have behavioural problems as they get older.
• It is sad to see such a ban. I have raised and owned many a pit bull over the years and not once have I had a bad dog. Loyal and loving each and every one of them. They are wonderful dogs if raised by someone who trains and socializes the dog properly. That said, these anecdotal stories I tell are just as effective in convincing those who believe that pits are evil as anyone else's stories are. That is to say they are not effective at all. Debating about banning pits is like debating politics.
• Or debating religion.
• Plenty of sweet, loving pitbulls out there. And quite often they will be adopted from the shelter by families looking for a companion animal. This ban is nonsense.
• Sorry, but I'd be relieved to have a similar ban in my part of the world. I'm a parent and a dog lover, but the former trumps the latter. I'd prefer that we not identify the dangerous pit bulls by seeing which ones eventually attack somebody's kid. If there was a practical way to ban (or perhaps euthanize?) bad dog owners, I'd back that instead...
• I like Nal's proposal: grandfather the issue and be done with it (if, in fact, people believe these dogs are a problem).
• I think the only solution is to train other breeds to attack ferociously, and turn them loose in the streets of Denver. Constantly.
• I lived with two beautiful, sweet pits for two years. They were some of the best dogs ever. Their dad was so big he could put his paws on my shoulders, and they loved everyone that came to the house. Never did anyone welcome feel threatened. I also lived in Denver for four years. Jack Kerouac voiced my sentiments perfectly: Down in Denver, Down in Denver, All I did was die
• Fuck Denver.
• I am stepdad to a boxer-lab mix that gets mistaken for a pitbull by all my trashyass neighbors. I would be really bummed if she was a Denver resident. On the other hand, my ex-next door neighbors used to have a pitbull. They chained a weight to it's neck and made it run on a treadmill. I knew the bastards were training it for dogfighting, but the animal shelter told us that they needed more evidence before they could seize the animal. I'm pretty sure I know who should have been put down.
• Having seen a lot of pit bulls in my vet's waiting room (I'm there once a month to get a sick cat treated,) I asked him whether he was afraid that treating them would scare them into attacking. He said that pit bulls were ok - what he really worried about was treating rottweilers. But, some years ago, one of my employees owned two doberman pinscers. One afternoon, her 12 year old daughter, who had grown up with the dogs, went out to feed them and something happened (no one knew what) which caused them to freak out. They tore off one of her arms. I think dogs bred to attack have their place in law inforcement or guarding junkyards, etc., but they do worry me when they're neighborhood pets, especially when they get out of their yards and come to visit me. My mother owns several rental properties in our part of California, and her insurance company has threatened to deny coverage when they've discovered that tenants have large or aggressive breeds of dogs. (They inspect each property every several years, and also insist that trees be trimmed, painting be kept up, roofs be repaired, and no junk be collected in the yards.) We've had to tell several tenants to get rid of pit bulls, rottweilers, etc., in order to keep the properties insured.
• roving street pitbulls and rottweilers are why i'll never again do census work. oh yeah, and the billy bob threatening with the shotgun.
• Wow, way to overreact there. The problem with pit bulls - and I am in no way advocating banning the breed - is that when they do attack, they do a hell of a lot more damage than say, a Chihuahua. (Which, in my experience, are the nastiest, foulest tempered little beasts on the planet.)
• Denver hates your Freedom!
• How often do people acquire pit bulls for the sake of having a nice family pet? Well, a family friend of ours has a really sweet one, along with a mini poodle, a parrot and several other birds. He's a very lovely dog.
• I think we must immediately round up all politicians, and also people who look like politicians and execute them on the grounds that even if they have not yet become politicians, they may in future do so. I think we should immediately round up all children and all who resemble children on the grounds they may grow up to become mass murders. I think we should immediately round up all lawyers and execute them on the grounds they may in future argue cases so well that guilty people are found to be not guilty. And so on and so forth. /the above are all instances of equally crap-brained thinking
• along with a mini poodle, a parrot and several other birds Dinner and snacks! Yes, it's trashy breeders, yes it's shithead owners, and yes, people are getting hurt. You can't legislate brains, but you can legislate behavior. I like dogs, but I don't have much use for vicious, nasty acting, badly trained and poorly socialized dogs. Our society shouldn't have to live with them. OTOH, it's certainly not fair to put this kind of penality on someone who has a nice dog, has trained it, treats it right, and keeps it under control. I say let the pit bull owners keep their dogs. And the rottie owners, the dobie owners, and all owners of dogs with "poor reputations." BUT! All dogs WILL be spayed and neutered--no exceptions. No people, DOGS DON'T NEED THEIR BALLS. Owner's egos need dogs with balls, and these people should be singled out on the street and laughed at. If you need balls because you're going to breed those kinds of dogs for fun and profit, then you need an expensive yearly renewable license, and your facilities need to be inspected. If you're caught breeding them without the license, all the dogs WILL be confiscated and put down, and you WILL pay a major fine and do jail time. If you choose to own a dog from a breed that has been implicated in severe bite and death cases, fine. The first time one of those types of dogs bites or gets out of control, the dog is put down, and the owner pays a $2500 fine. No ifs, ands, buts, half-assed or reasonable excuses. If the dog maims or kills someone, it's major jailtime as well as a $25000 fine, payable to the vic's family, or if no one's available, to an animal shelter strictly for spay/neuter. Don't moan to me that it's unfair and a hardship on the owners of good dogs. Good owners of good dogs will have them trained, under control at all times, and kept in a safe, confined environment. They post "beware of dog signs" to warn people coming onto their property uninvited. Don't whine to me that the little neighbor bastard repeatedly taunted your dog through the chain link and that's why your loving puppy tore out his throat. Build a damn good fence he can't get through to begin with. Call the cops on the little shit. Oh, and make it a stiff fine in the large thousands for teasing dogs and trespassing on property where a sign is posted. If a teenager or adult trespasses past the sign and over a 5-6 foot barrier fence and gets maimed or killed, sorry, the dog dies, but the stupid shit or the SS's family pays a thousand or so compensation to the owner as well as the above mentioned stiff fine. Nothing will change until people get kicked in the wallet. I like dogs, I feel bad for all the dogs and the good owners of good dogs. We bred the viciousness in, and we need to breed it out again. NO dog, or any breed of dog, is worth a child's life. Don't blather to me about your freedoms to do this and that, let's take a hard look at your responsibilities. /rant, onto the fun! MonkeyFilter: the nastiest, foulest tempered little beasts on the planet
• the above are all instances of equally crap-brained thinking Not the one about politicians, surely?
• Heh. Some days ye wonder, quidders.
• As long as some people nurture dogs as a projection for their own ego needs, we will have the bad and the ugly as well as the good. They have used the grandfather clause here in Ontario, Canada.
• Tigers are typically going to be tame if they are raised with love. Tigers that are treated poorly are much more likely to attack people and possibly maim or kill them. Therefore, it is the people raising them that are the problem and citizens should be allowed to raise tigers.
• Not all dogs attack because they're trained to. They're animals, and therefore unpredictible at times. I think VeraGemini's point is the main issue. When I'm out running, and I see some little kid walking a "family pet" dog that's physically twice as big as her, I go the other way. Sometimese I even stop running and start walking.
• Or, what bernockle said.
• How often do people acquire pit bulls for the sake of having a nice family pet? Ummm, very commonly? Dogs that meet this criterion, that look like pit bulls, are commonplace, popular dogs. The problem is that people mistreat animals into viciousness. If you ban breeds that look like pit bulls, then people will abuse mastiff breeds like bullmastiffs, presa canarios, fila brasiliera, rotties, and so on into viciousness and fight those (or use them to feel like big men). If you turn around and ban breeds that look like mastiffs, then people will abuse some other kind of dog. Maybe sheppies and malinois. Maybe Black Russian terriers. Maybe standard poodles. The part that really chaps my ass is that stuff like this is largely based on half-assed eyewitness declarations that the dog was a pit bull, or a rottweiler. I'll bet you my car that some serious percentage of the "Rottweiler" attacks were actually lab mixes, but, hey, a big black dog bit me so it must have been one of those vicious rottweilers. Likewise, lots of "pit bull" attacks are probably from mastiff-derived breeds or mixes. Your average jerk on the street is hardly skilled at differentiating breeds from each other, or figuring out what breeds went into a mutt. If you were going to come up with a list of "and then my sweetie turned on me!" dogs, you'd probably find English Springers on the top, though they're apparently getting this problem back under control, followed by any popular breed where bad/lax/backyard breeding is common -- goldens, labs, beagles, jack russels, and the like.
• Yes, life is filled with obstacles that threaten our ability to walk freely and breathe, no? Perhaps Denver should take measures to outlaw potholes, spiked iron fences, wading ponds, and the occasional Barnum & Bailey Circus. Oh, don't forget the zoo with all of their dangerous baboons, crocs, and polar bears. While they're at it, they may as well ban all automobile traffic (surely more children are killed in vehicular accidents than pit bull attacks?). And what about all of those politicians? Perhaps it's neutering time! This has got to be the silliest thing I've heard in quite a while. And I doubt that Denver's law will last long - if it does, then a big 'ol rotten thumb up Denver's swollen ass. There should be a system in place that keeps the breeding of pit bulls in-check. Accountability should be held to the owners of such animals. A general round-up of animals that appear to be pit bulls is just simple ignorance, and quite laughable.
• Pitbulls are not evil, and I own my pit because she is a good family companion. She is trained and socialized. She is spayed. I have "Beware of Dog" signs, a 6 foot fence and the dog is never outside without me. She is the playmate to my neices and nephews. She is the protector of my 3 pound pom. I also own a rot/malamute mix, that I rescued from an owner who was trying to teach the dog to be mean and aggressive by being mean and aggressive to him. He was not so trainable, nor was I able to socialize him beyond my immediate family. I am a responsible owner. As such, I have built him a seperate pen with 6 foot tall heavy duty chainlink fencing. There is a lock on the gate and several signs on his pen to beware. This is all behind another 6 foot fence that encloses my backyard. No one with a brain would try to pet Bear, unless they know him. All visitors are warned to stay away from him. I also have a pit/chow mix who lives in her own seperate pen too. Not because she is aggressive, but because she is too friendly and wants to kiss all people she sees. I adopted her because the people who had her thought she was a pussy because she wasn't aggressive and were going to have her put down. Yet her breed scares people so I keep her penned. She is the escape artist in the family, so to protect her from the shoot first ask questions later crowd I keep her penned too. The only aggression I have seen with my purebred pit was against my chow/pit mix. Two females fighting for dominance. Once seperated and they realized I am the dominant bitch in this family the aggression stopped. Although I keep one in the house and one out in the pen, still they show no aggression towards one another when they are near one another. My vet has no problems with treating pits, he too is more afraid of rots. I say if a dog is antisocial and aggressive and attacks people then that dog should be put down and the owners fined a hefty fine and perhaps jail time for not being responsible. OTOH an outright ban is totally wrong in my opinion. gets off soapbox
• Cool bratcat, but seriously.. most people aren't as comprehensive (I guess I mean that both ways) as you are with segregating your pets from others, and vice versa.
• xeny where did you hear that about springers? I'd be very interested to hear more - my then 14 month old daughter was badly bitten by my parents' Springer Spaniel, years ago. /offtopic Pits were never bred to be human aggressive, they're bred to be dog on dog aggressive. There's a big difference there as compared to a Rottie (and I have known some lovely kitten-like Rotties) or Doberman or German Shepherd who have been bred for generations to guard humans against other humans. That said, I used to live in East Baltimore, where I was regularly treated to the more delightful type of pit owner & my neighbor bred & trained fighting dogs & threatened to set them on my children. So pits scare me, even though I know most of them are totally fine, and one in particular, a good friends dog, was not only utterly sweet, but carried on an absurd and adorable love affair with one of my cats for several years. But banning a breed is ridiculous. Are they going to ban Springer Spaniels next? Or my old sheperd mix, who eventually did bite the plumber (the plumber apologized to me & my poor dog hid under my bed for three days, horrified at himself.) The problem is the owners and stiffer laws - what Bluehorse said - are necessary. Also, put some teeth on the animal abuse laws. Go ahead and let people know that if they neglect or mistreat an animal, it WILL be taken away. The ASPCA wouldn't take my neighbors dogs away, even though he was clearly breeding & training them for fighting. But they had food & water & that's all that matters in the eyes of the law.
• But hey, this isn't even banninng a breed, which could at least have some objective criteria attached to it (refusing to allow people to purchase or raise AKC registered animals,) this is banning dogs that "resemble" a breed. What the hell does that even mean? Your dog's head is too square, your dog is brindle colored, carries itself in such and such a way and it's out of here? Plenty of dogs resemble pitbulls (Boxer/lab mixes come immediately to mind). How about this instead? A crack down on dog fighting rings, an elimination of those "train your dog for home security" programs, and better screening of would-be dog adopters at the shelter? I have a story about dog fighting, next time a monkey buys me an ale...
• If you were going to come up with a list of "and then my sweetie turned on me!" dogs, you'd probably find English Springers on the top.xeny xeny where did you hear that about springers? I'd be very interested to hear more - my then 14 month old daughter was badly bitten by my parents' Springer Spaniel, years ago. /offtopic Probably off of Springer lists. First, a springer spaniel is reputed to be the dog most likely to bite its owner. There are two common factors. Resource guarding (common to a lot of dogs) and "springer rage," a condition that is hard-wired in to some springers. Breeders will advertise "soft springers" to indicate that the lineage has few if any "ragers." We became familiar with this after rescuing a springer that, according to the shelter, had been abandoned by the side of the road. With our dog, it was resource guarding, and even after hundreds of hours of training, he still bit the hands that fed him. We put him down. Turned out later that the shelter knew he had bitten before. Cocker spaniels are reported to be the breed most likely to bite other than the family. Pits and Rotts are less likely to be biters, but they are capable of doing so much damage. People close to me have a pit from a breeder that (in my opinion) trained fighting pits. This dog has bit children twice, and as someone else said, it would have been minor if it were a chihuahua, but in the last incident, it resulted in over 60 stitches in a girl's face. We have strongly urged them to put their dog down, but they buy into the "pits are persecuted" mindset. Any dog can be dangerous. The ones that have put others in danger should be put into situations where they are no longer a threat. For many, that means putting them down.
• they're putting down the owners too, right?
• The solution would be to euthanize all trashy-looking owners of pit-bull looking dogs.
• Count me as another dedicated owner of two rescued pit bulls. I've had dogs my whole life, and these two pits are the sweetest creatures I've ever known. I have a 10 month old son who adores our dogs as well; our dogs have also adopted our son, making the whole thing somewhat reciprocal. I've seen a real dark side to the stupidity and evil of people relative to pit bulls. One of our dogs (before we rescued her) was apparently beaten to a pulp by humans. She had one leg fractured in about 8 places and it was twisted backwards making the whole things useless. After we adopted her, we paid to have the leg reconstructed which took a lot of work from everyone. Now, she is the happiest dog that I have ever known. She has been in a delayed puppyhood for four years now, and her past is all but forgotten. Recsue a pit. Best Life Experience Ever.
• My sister was attacked from behind by a Chow when she was 12. She was jumping on a trampoline, had never seen the dog in her life, and it dragged her off the trampoline and attacked her. If its bites had been even a little differently placed, she'd have died. Pit bulls are FAR from the only dangerous, crazy breed out there. I still don't think it should mean they're all killed. I like the "just spay/neuter all of them and don't allow any new ones" idea.
• Take the "spot the pitbull test", it might be enlightening. Historically, there have been many other breeds accused of being no-good-shits-due-to-their-genes. Laughably, at the turn of (last) century, the popularly understood to be evil breed was ... the bloodhound. [1] People are reacting to anecdotal evidence and perpetrating a genetic crime, trying to wipe out this breed. Even if the pit bull bigots are 100% successful in destroying the genetic line, I can with certainty predict that the overall dogbite rate will not change in the slightest. It is the owners, stupid. [1] Source, "Adam's Task" by Vicki Hearne, professional Dog Trainer, Professor (of english, IIRC), and philosopher. Unreservedly recommended.
• Yeah, I was thinking of springer rage. Not that I keep up with it, but ISTR that it's probably a no-kidding neurological condition and that at least some of the national breed clubs have been pretty good about getting rid of it.
• Vicki Hearne is one fantabulous author, Invoke. Have you read Bandit: Dossier of a Dangerous Dog? Every pit bull owner should read this one. Fantastic story by an excellent writer. She writes a great deal on the ethics of our relationships with animals. You may not agree with all of what she says, but it will at least get you thinking.* However, not everyone behaves in an ethical fashion toward their animals. Those that don't should be prepared to find sanctions in place. Yes yes yes. Other breeds and individual dogs of different breeds are/can be vicious. We need to control the owners, since we can't control the dog. Howsomeever, if a Pom or Min-Pin attempts to savage me, I'm going to be a heckofalot less worried than if a rott or a pit comes after me. *Ho Hum. Never mind, go ahead and play a video game where you can screw hookers and then kill them. Oh my, is my belief in a certain stereotype showing?
• You lost me at howsomeever.
• I am both a Denver resident and a dog lover. I hate the idea of rounding up dogs just because of their breed and destroying them. I remember seeing this story in the local paper a couple of weeks back and being horrified by it. How about a compromise? Instead of rounding up the dogs and destroying them, issue each owner a muzzle for their owner. Any dog that is either pure-bred or of mixed breed that has been identified as a "dangerous" breed must be registered with local Animal Control, and must wear a muzzle while outside, as long as they are on public property. It would certainly be cheaper than euthanizing hundreds or thousands of dogs, and you can offset the costs with fines from owners not muzzling their dogs. I live about 3-5 miles from a huge dog park, and it saddens me to think that a city that considers themselves so dog-friendly would resort to something as ridiculous as this.
• This might sound like an odd question, but I've never heard a straight answer to it: What exactly is a pit bull? When these dogs first became controversial, the term was being used to describe Staffordshire and American Bull Terriers interchangabley, even though a)they're very different dogs, and b) up until the mid eigthies I seem to recall both breeds being highly recommended family dogs because of thier even temperments. And niether breed really looks like the pitbulls I've seen. Is it because of overbreeding, or are pitbulls a specific mix of several terrier breeds?
• The problem is that people mistreat animals into viciousness..."springer rage," a condition that is hard-wired in to some springers...Pits were never bred to be human aggressive, they're bred to be dog on dog aggressive Amazing how many people just don't seem to get it. Certainly animal abuse is an issue, but it's the DNA, people. We don't allow discrimination of the basis of genetics in humans, but humans are sentient. No matter how much I love dogs, I'm not extending them the same rights as humans. They serve us. They are not equals, much as they deserve respect. Do you honestly think those breeding pitbulls for violence care about the subtleties of dog/dog vs dog/human attack response? They want the most vicious dog they can manage, damn the details. Most of those scum would likely laugh their heads off if their 'pit' mauled some annoying neighbour. Why do so many people who casually accept 'springer rage' have trouble accepting that pit bulls can have similar (but potentially far worse) genetic issues? Especially since in pitbulls it was deliberate breeding, rather than the inadvertant twist in the springer DNA (IIRC). You want to rescue pit bulls? Accept a ban of the breed so that there'll be less of them bred and mistreated. Then you can focus on all the other abused dogs. Euthanizing all existing pitbulls might well be needlessly cruel, but I see no reason to allow the 'breed' to continue with all its inherent dangers.
• Well thanks for making me cry, Denver. Thanks a fucking lot. Pit bulls have a reputation for being dangerous because the people who buy them want them to be dangerous. When you don't have the money to buy a well-trained guard dog, the best way to keep him aggressive is to treat him badly, and that's when they go mad and maul babies, etc. But I bet I can get a golden retriever to maul a baby if I raised it the right/(wrong) way. As soon as I can afford it and am settled down enough, I'm getting a Rottweiler - another dog with a terrible reputation that is actually a very loyal family dog. They're actually really good with children (::GASP!::). Banning the dogs I would be upset with, but fine, you can't have wolves as pets either, I could see their logic. But KILLING the dogs? I f'real want to cry. They're just so damn pretty...
• Nal, you don't have a clue. Prove the danger without "everybody knows" anecdotes and baseless speculation about what you believe motivates "scum" and then I *might* agree with you that something should be done. The point is, you can't do it, because it isn't true. Basically, what happens is that many dog bite accidents are reported as "pit bulls" regardless of the true breed of the offending dog. I saw a list once where someone had collected a list of the true breeds of attacks misreported as "pit attacks", and saw a freakin' Golden Retriever. But, your "everybody knows" ignorance trumps my actual research, I suppose. BlueHorse, yup, I read that one. Adam's Task is my favorite of hers, but that's a great one too.
• I agree with the statement that stupid people will abuse a dog of any breed looking to make it into a fighter or "guard dog." When I was a little kid my family rescued a weimeraner who'd been abused and then abandoned by his owners. The dumbasses had named him "Satan" and had beaten him hoping to make him an agressive fighter (never mind that weimeraners are physiologically unable to latch on like a bull dog). When he just got scared, they stopped feeding him and abandoned him. We got him as a 45 pound sack of bones covered in ticks. He had an intense phobia of newspapers (we think they hit him with them), his old name, and being left alone. We renamed him "Fred," spent a whole weekend picking ticks off of him, and several months loving him and building up his trust. (We also built up his belly. He was a big dog who could put his paws on my 5' 10" mom's shoulders and ended up weighing 75 or 80 pounds.) After he trusted us, he was a super great dog -- very devoted and affectionate, and he guarded me like I was his puppy. (He never did get over his fear of newspapers and being left alone. If we left him outside too long he'd literally jump through a closed window to get inside.) I think Fred was able to overcome his past because of a combination of our care and his basic good nature. I've had friends who had similar success with rotties and chow mixes, but other friends who had to put down a purebred chow because he never got over his aggression. I think some dogs are salvagable and some are not, and it's difficult to make blanket statements about which dogs are and which are not.
• I live in Denver as well, and as a home rule city, we are highly protective of our local control. We are also thumbing our nose at the rest of the state on this issue. While I favor banning pit bulls (many reports of people breeding vicious dogs and holding clandestine fights to bet on), I tend to be with the grandfather-them-in camp. But I understand that the city has seen too many attacks, and is trying to be proactive. But the animal control people should at least give the owners some due process and actually establish that the dogs seized are in fact pit bulls, according to a clear definition. I personally loathe pit bulls and chows, because until my neighborhood finally got cleaned up, we had loose packs of them roaming around snarling at people. But still.
• I don't recall writing a single 'everybody knows' comment, nor did I ever try to single out pitbulls as the only dangerous breed. My point has been the level of acceptable unpredictability. Continue to cling to your own illusions.
• Nal, I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I was conflating you with others who argue for what I believe to be foolish and ill-founded bans. However, I still believe you are too ready to accept anecdotes as proven fact. "Its the DNA, people" you say, with no evidence to back you. DNA doing what exactly? Causing these dogs to be more likely to attack people? Prove it, and prove that it happens at a greater rate than any other similarly sized dogs, and I'll agree that something might need to be done. I just don't think you or anyone has proved that. When I talk about "everybody knows" comments, I am pointing out that without proof, I reject what many seem to be taking as fact, that pit bulls are a danger to humans (moreso than other dogs of a similar size). You seem to be starting with that as a base assumption, but again I may be reading into your statement more than you are intending.
• Ironically, more innocent citizens are killed by the rogue Denver police force than by pit bulls in their little police state city. Denver is a "combined city and county" so there is actually very little accountability.
• I seem to recall a number of vicious attacks, not all of them in Denver, though.
• ...and maybe we should refer to our cops as Brad Pitt bulls.
• Interesting. The history behind Denver's ban dates back more than 20 years. From 1984 to 1989, according to the city's website, Colorado saw 20 pit bull attacks. In Denver, that included the 1986 death of a 3-year-old boy and the 1989 mauling that left the Rev. Wilbur Billingsley, 59, with more than 70 bites and two broken legs.The same year as Billingsley's attack, the City Council passed a resolution banning the dogs from Denver. The ban survived a prompt court challenge, but ran up against state law. In 2004, Governor Bill Owens signed a bill prohibiting local governments from regulating a specific breed, though a pit bull technically is not a single breed, but a catch-all term for a variety of breeds. From: http://tinyurl.com/85rmu While 20 attacks over 5 years seems terrible, I wonder how many other cities have a larger amount of attacks per capita. I still think this is wrong. I plan on donating some money to local shelters, like MaxFund.org, who are helping people find new homes for their dogs, or who are fostering their dogs while they make arrangements to move out of the metro area.
• Pit bulls are dangerous because some are bred to be aggresive. If we "ban the breed" (still a meaningless idea, since we all know by now that *there* *is* *no* *pit-bull* *breed*) those that breed dangerous dogs will simply breed a dangerous dog with enough superficial physical differences that it doesn't register as a "pit bull". Through selective breeding *and* training you can make *any* breed dangerous. Rounding up people's dogs because they look a certain way does nothing to alleviate the problem
• sorry techsmith: I was talking about reading a book and reflecting on animals with regard to ethical breeding and treatment, but I'm willing to be that those folks getting their dogs ready for ths weekend's pit bull fights would be more likely to play violent video games. Just a snark, probably unjustified.
• Why do so many people who casually accept 'springer rage' have trouble accepting that pit bulls can have similar (but potentially far worse) genetic issues? Because APBTs, Staffordshire terriers, Am-staffs, and other "bully breeds" don't go *snap* with any marked frequency, while springers do. Similarly, I don't have trouble accepting that Cavaliers are prone to mitral-valve defects, but I'd think you were a loon if you said that meant that APBTs were prone to them too, or that that meant APBTs were genetically prone to attacking humans.
• Yes they would, but one is not the cause of the other. Both are more likely caused by the overall violent tendencies of the person. Thus, correlation does not equal causality.
• (above refers to: I'm willing to be that those folks getting their dogs ready for ths weekend's pit bull fights would be more likely to play violent video games.)
• 34 more to go, rolypolyman!
• Since western society has not been able to either legislate or enforce effectively the prevention of abuse and exploitation of our children, then it's a bit of a displaced issue, imo, to generate so much emotion over the secondary recipients of our care. In the same spirit, we have not yet made peace with the defined fate of the incorrigibles of our own genus. Capital punishment is far from settled issue in many circles, regardless of it's legal status. I'd kill for my dog, but really feel that I should be more strident about other, more imminent social needs. *confused*
• Nal, I apologize for putting words in your mouth I apologize as well for an overly sour response. Not quite sure what brought that out. Upon re-reading my original post I realize it could be read as anecdotal. Perhaps better wording would be 'I have personally read numerous news reports over time of confirmed pitbull-type dogs suddenly attacking family members after years of loving docility.' You bring up a good point that your earlier post already had me thinking about. I do lean towards believing that the majority of pitbull-type dogs have genetic pre-dispositions towards violence. However, it would definitely be nice to see some solid, reliable stats comparing dog breeds and types of attacks over time. I'm certainly prepared to change my mind. However, if the evidence shows that not just 'pitbulls', but a small number of other breeds are responsible for the vast majority of dangerous attacks, I'd be willing to consider bans, or perhaps strict mandatory licensing, for all the breeds in question. On the other hand, if the evidence showed that attacks were spread relatively evenly amongst breeds, it might actually promote greater respect for dogs in the public mind. If we "ban the breed"...those that breed dangerous dogs will simply breed...enough superficial physical differences that it doesn't register as a "pit bull" Except the pitbull-type is chosen for physical characteristics that lend themselves to ferocity, deadliness and dog fighting. The fact that there are a number of crosses that will give you a pitbull-type indicates that what we're really talking about are certain general dog traits. If we ignore the obviously wrong idea of a pitbull breed, and focus on the idea of 'pitbull' as a description of certain traits that appeal to those breeding dangerous attack/fighting dogs, then it might well be possible to limit the choices and ability of such breeders to simply switch 'breeds'. I'm not claiming it will eliminate such breeding, but it might well reduce it, just like if only pink .22 calibre guns were sold. Similarly, the resulting dogs of such breeding, even if they were still prone to violence, would not be as dangerous or deadly because of the limits placed on their physical characteristics. The pitbull discussion bogs down as soon as people start arguing about breeds and crosses, but almost anyone with some dog familiarity can recognize a pitbull-type by looks.
• Thanks dxlifer for putting this thread into context for me. I couldn't quite articulate it, but you did it for me.
• Nal, what the hell? Not the dog discussion ... I think we are actually quite close on that question now. What I'm reacting to now is your offhand comment about pink guns. In short: Never heard that one/might work/extremely silly/made me laugh.
• but almost anyone with some dog familiarity can recognize a pitbull-type by looks But others have pointed to studies showing that people routinely misidentify labs and goldens, or crosses thereof, as "pit bulls" when they bite someone. However, it would definitely be nice to see some solid, reliable stats comparing dog breeds and types of attacks over time. This is actually a hard problem, because it's an all-else-equal or all-things-considered problem. To do this right, you'd have to control for the numbers of the breed, and for the propensity of jackasses to mistreat the breed into viciousness, and so on. Comparing apples to apples means comparing the frequency of bites from one kind of well-treated house dog to those from another kind of well-treated house dog, as opposed to comparing bites from well-treated house dogs to mistreated junkyard-"guard" dogs. It would be neat to see, but it would be hard, and probably expensive to get the data.
• Yes, kudos to DX for saying something I was thinking, but hadn't articulated.
• While it's not that I disagree with DX--those things are arguably more important--you could say something like that as a response to almost anything. Get emotional about oil drilling in animal reserves? What about the children? Pissed off about government spending? What about capital punishment? I don't think we let the 'little' things slide just because we don't have the big things handled. Besides which, this is not just a case about whether or not people misjudge pitbulls as a breed. Grabbing any dog even resembling a pitbull violent history or not and euthanizing it with little or no recourse for the owners is a violation of rights. Is the government allowed to seize any position if it looks like something that is illegal without determining whether or not it is what they think it is? (Hide your oregano! And your baby powder! And your fertilizer!) Obviously I'm being facetious, and if I saw a pitbull coming my way tail wagging or not, I would do everything I could to avoid it. But this is clearly action being taken from a basis of hysteria rather than rational consideration. And I don't think it's a waste of energy or emotion to care about it.
• Hey people, easy on the Denver bashing. I live here, it is not a 'police state'. Yes, the police have problems with shooting people, but they have always acted polite and professional when I've dealt with them. There is a problem in Denver and that is the recent (within the last 10 years) immigration of a large number of people. Denver is going through 'growing pains' if you will. The new residents have brought a lot of jobs, but the Californians have brought traffic problems (GD SUVs everywhere and no one knows how to drive in the snow even with 4WD. But that's another rant) as well as their 'hard' attitudes and their damn attack dogs. There have been several incidents of owners unleashing their attack dogs on their neighbors in recent years. A couple of people have died. Yes, this is a owner problem and not necessarily a dog problem, but laws don't prevent the attack, they just punish afterwards. Fine, all dogs bite, but these are large dogs with powerful jaws that are capable of killing people and they should be legislated. I'm not in favor of this law, I think its ridiculous and won't get passed, but these dogs/owners need guidelines and if that means a law of some sort, then I'll support one if its well though out. This one isn't. So put away your Denver=Crazy Town torches. Bad laws get drafted in your town too.
• p.s. I was not serious about immigrants and californians. I wanted to make a point about the knee jerk nonsense and unfounded theories that have been flying around on this thread.
• I'd be curious to see if those in favour of banning ownership of dangerous (statistically speaking) dog breeds are generally in favour of banning gun ownsership. Same for the reverse... Also, I can't recall *any* incident where a person was attacked by a "family pet" german shephard (identified as a dangerous breed in a previous comment) but have heard of *many* such attacks by pit bulls.
• I live in Denver. I love Denver. I think the whole pitbull fiasco is ridiculous though. (Although I moved here from California so I might be wrong ;)~ )
• I'm in support of banning dangerous dogs, but not in support of banning guns. Guns are not alive and can't think or operate on their own. Also, gun(owner)s are required to be registered so there is some legislation regarding them.
• Also, I did a little research since there are a lot of dog owners hanging around the state capital (where I work). The law is a ban on the dogs. The owners get a notice telling them that their breed isn't allowed in the city limits and that they have to get rid of it. If the owner doesn't comply, the dog is taken into the custody of animal control and eventually destroyed. It's not like animal control is crusing the streets euthanizing every dog they come across.
• I can't recall *any* incident where a person was attacked by a "family pet" german shephard I have been attacked by a "family pet" Shepherd, which bit through a glove and lacerated my hand. (I thought that this dog knew me, so I extended my hand for it to sniff. I was wrong.) Changed my dog approach protocol, this did. Sample of one, but there you go.
• I've been attacked by a family dog more than once. Once by my Dad's blue-tick coonhound, usually a very friendly dog. Once by a Cocker spanial, that I owned. Once by my rottie/malamute mix, who is blind and is likely to bite anyone and everyone who approaches him without speaking to him first. Three times by the neighbor's Shepard, who was a mean-ass dog. I wasn't bit but once, pepper-spray is good shit. Then there were several chihuahuas, but I guess they don't count because they are small. I suppose most wouldn't count the cocker either, although I would, especially if it attacked a child. I have never been bitten or attacked by a pitbull. My point is, even though I live in an area where many pitbulls live too, I have rarely heard of a pitbull attack in this area. I know of lots of other dog attack, as I pointed out. Those are the attacks I can give a first hand account of. It is breed profiling, not unlike racial profiling. Both ideas are wrong in my opinion. Like I said earlier, this debate is not winnable. It seems there is no hard data to go by. Makes me want to hurt the idiot people out there who have made this come about. Those idiots who, think they need a guard dog or a tough dog as a status symbol. Those who think fighting a couple dogs for sport and money is the best thing since ice-cream. Those who have laid the foundation for this breed hatred, who continue to build on it, by breeding only the most vicious animals, so the next dog will be even more aggressive. Those idiot people who get a pit, who have no clue how to train it or socialize it and consequently wind up with an unpredictable dog. /end rant.
• Kimberly, I must quickly acknowledge respect for what I personally call the fear. I have watched in a horror when one of my dogs has responded to it, either through my negligence or from someone deciding to test their reserves. I have a friend who is horrified of all dogs. My post more concerned that people are passionately debating the care and protection of their possessions, /yes, I'll throw that word into the arena. /and I am a passionate animal companion/keeper. and if we haven't resolved the spiritual and ethical and legal issues around human lives and care, we are hardly likely to get anywhere debating Breed Specific Legislation. /like, try another lifetime, OK? I guess that is a more succint way to express the response I had as I read the posts. *sudden hot flash* /goes to find more pills.
• Oh and those idiot people who get a pit so they can breed it and sell the pups to the other idiots I mentioned in my previous post. Its a quick 100 to 150 bucks here. seriously /end rant
• What's the law (local or otherwise) for owning a hand grenade? You want to own something that's potentially dangerous, fine with me. If you let it get out of control, and someone gets hurt, or badly hurt, or killed, I think the community ought to fall on you like a tone of bricks.
• That would be yer B flat, I'm guessing.
• Relay, I agree with you, if a person owns a dangerous dog, which can be any breed btw, and they fail to keep the dog under control and someone gets hurt or killed then that owner should have the community and the law fall on them like a ton of bricks. My point is, my pit is not dangerous. I keep her away from the general public for two reasons. One, I love Piglet. She is family. I wish to protect her from people who would wish her dead for no other reason than what breed she is. Two, I do respect others irrational fear of my dog. So I choose not to subject them to her presence. On the other hand, I think others should respect my wishes and not try to outlaw my family member. If she ever hurt another, I would put her down myself and take the consequences. The chances of her hurting anyone are minimal or don't exist. Why? Because I am a responsible owner. But that is just me. I have had this debate too many times with others over the years, some come around to my way of thinking, others just continue to demand an outright ban on the breed and look alike dogs. I think time and money would be better spent regulating and licensing the ownership with the goal towards mandatory training and socializing, through a certified training school or through certified private dog trainers. Enforcing and reinforcing existing laws and ordinances pertaining to animal control and licensing would be a good start. Mandatory spaying and neutering for any animals not owned by a licensed breeder. Inspections of breeder's facilities on a regular basis. Spend some time and money on going after those who practice the cruel "sport" of dog-fighting. I guess it is time for me to go away form this thread. I think it is bad for my blood pressure. If you come to my house, BEWARE the dogs. Even if my cat is more likely to hurt you. :)
• Training is everything.
• bratcat, I need to do the same thing with my big German Shepherd. I know he could hurt someone badly in the very wrong circumstances, even though he's mommy's big baby. The biggest concern for me is keeping him away from foolish people who let their kids run straight towards him or, usually young men, who will stare in his eyes to kick him off. /This has happened while in traffic and the sudden outburst from the back makes me jump sky-high. Then I look around to see some jerk grinning at me in pleasure of what he's accomplished. Yes, he could be a dangerous dog, but the biggest need is to keep him away from foolish and dangerous-to-him people, and their dogs and kids, so I won't have to risk him being put down due to some a**hole deliberately bouncing on my dog's innate behavioural triggers. So... Why don't we take this whole discussion generic? We have a group of lives that have smaller sub-groups causing problems due to the intervention and/or largesse of another group. Who defines the proscribed behaviour? Who enforces it? Who applies the sanctions? What are those sanctions? Who do those sanctions apply to anyway? Dogs, children, historic buildings, trees... Lots of groups and smaller groups... They say go back to the code of Hammuabi, but who knows where the first behavioural dictates came from. No doubt a man. Women would have been more sophisticated than an eye for an eye sort of thing. /goes to look for more drugs.
• Good lord! I hate the thought of being considered responsible for a traffic accident because a passing dog thought I was making eye contact. People see animals in cars, they look at them. Yikes.
• The biggest concern for me is keeping him away from foolish people who let their kids run straight towards him or, usually young men, who will stare in his eyes to kick him off. This makes my logic blood boil!! My kid runs straight towards your dog, so it's my fault your dog "could hurt someone badly"? Your dog interprets my gaze towards him as an attack trigger and I'm the "dangerous... [person]"??
• Well, if you don't know how to interact with dogs, maybe you shouldn't.
• Oh, get off your high horse wee-wee - those last comments were clearly addressing unintentional "interaction".
• *opens eyes wide* /tsk. people get so emotional. I refer to fellows who deliberately stare intensely into the dog's eye until they get a challenge response. Dogs will either drop their eyes or bark when someone does this intentionally for long enough. I assume full responsibility for my dog's behaviour, and as a herding dog, he will respond to motion, especially anyone or thing that rapidly comes at him as a surprise. I don't want to see any problems with children. Instructing kids on how to be introduced to strange dogs properly is how I prefer to do it and have done so often when someone suddenly comes yelling 'look at the big puppy,(shameless dog-link). I brought him home knowing the breed, and fear losing him in a situation that I lose control of. A thought that's always there in the background. I do wish that all parents would teach their kids how to approach any strange animal. /but then there's all those adults who don't seem to know. And now I refuse to say any more as this subject is getting forever twisted out of context. I'm gonna dummy up and go play with my critters.
• MonkeyFilter: Oh, get off your high horse disclaimer: in no way is this a reference to me, horse's asses, my username, and ponies in general or particular
• Hey, dx, it wasn't my intention to twist things outta context! But, well, if a toddler runs towards a dog during a moment of the parent's inattention, one would like to believe that if the dog *is* the sort of beast likely to misinterpret this genuinely innocent gesture and start biting off body parts, then perhaps the beast should be at least muzzled, and maybe be more thoroughly confined. Likewise, if I innocently gaze into your vehicle, admiring your handsome doggy, and if he starts to react violently, I am certainly *not* going to take my eyes off him, lest he should somehow escape your vehicle and invade mine, with bloodthirsty intentions. It seems that putting the onus on strangers to know how deal with a 'sensitive' dog is vaguely similar to suggesting that rape victims shouldn't have dressed that way, walked that way, etc. I'm not baiting you here, just trying to defend the viewpoint of one who is not keen on getting eaten by 'domestic' animals. If a grizzly bear or a cougar eats me, that's a different matter- no 'keeper'.
• I don't think anything was twisted out of context.
• Ah. That's a rather extreme example, fish stick. I wouldn't want that either and there is no potential for anything like that with my boy. Shepherds are nippers, though. It's part of their herding instinct and has helped give them a bad rap in the past. My worry is always that silly accident, and it's what keeps me a responsible dog owner. I hope. The issue of victimology though, I'd love to debate. I don't agree that anyone has carte blanche for dismissing responsibility. For anything in life. When talking of 'exceptions to the rule', I've dealt with a lot of ditzy women who went out blissfully trolling and didn't like what they caught. Then fall back on the current assumption that all sexual victims are blame-free. I haven't found many arenas where women truly have that kind of freedom of behaviour yet, desirable as it may be in theory. The best defence is assuming some of that onus and acting accordingly. imo. Yes, I expect all people to try to be just a wee bit aware. *mutters to self to stay out of this thread*
• #100, to validate RPM's prediction.