A few days ago I knew little to nothing about pit bulls, but a guy who lives a few houses down owns two of them and they're really nice dogs, so the idea of banning the breed felt really off to me.
I did send a private email to the original author but since the is still going with a fair amount of support, I spent some time and did some research which ended up reinforcing my opinions. In http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2002-August/015828.html - - - Chris B. wrote (excerpt) - - - First, let's blow a fallacy out of the water: There seems to be an unspoken, rather naive faith in the syllogism that because dogs make good pets and pit bulls are dogs, pit bulls therefore make good pets. - - - end excerpt - - - That would be a fallacy if that were the thought process taken. The reason I believe that pit bulls can make good pets is I know pit bulls who are good pets. The two pits that live a few doors down from me are great dogs and a lot of fun to play with and watch play. They're socialized and well behaved, the owner keeps them on a leash or indoors, and they are no more prone to an unprovoked attack than any other dog. Am I more careful with them than I would be with a beagle? Yes, just like I'm more careful with a dog than with a cat - if they get nervous or angry, they can do more damage. I'm also more careful around cars than around bicycles. That's part of the reason why pit bulls are so focused on - due to their strength, if they attack, they are easily able to cause major injury or death. Additionally, they have become popular with people who tend to want a dog for intimidation purposes (often these people will also intentionally mistreat the dog to make them mean). Rottweilers have suffered from similar unethical treatment. While doing research, I came across something called the American Temperament Test Society which evaluates canine temperament and has statistics by breed. Failure is recognized when a dog shows unprovoked aggression, panic without recovery, or strong avoidance. American Pit Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terrier (two of the more common pit bull breeds) were both heavily tested and passed 82.x% of the time beating Australian Shepherds, Beagles, Border Collies, Bull Dogs, Chihuahuas, Cocker Spaniels, Dalmatians, German Shepherds, Golden Retrievers, Pomeranians, and Toy Poodles among many more. (http://www.atts.org/stats1.html) - - - Chris B. wrote (excerpt) - - - Concerning the claim that if we banned pit bulls, we should in turn ban dobermans, rottweilers, etc, or God help us, that we can't ban pits bulls because we don't even really know what a pit bull is - this is nothing but a silly rhetorical shell game. The CDC seems to have no trouble telling us which breed leads statistically in the number of attacks on human beings. (No guesses there!) - - - end excerpt - - - Based on my research, it's not so cut and dry. According to dog-bite-law-center.com, 44% of reported dog bites are from German Shepherds. The CDC researched dog-bite-related fatalities. Between 1979 and 1996, Pit Bulls did account for the highest number of fatalities (60 in the United States over the 17 years), but it is interesting to note that in the final years of the study (1993 - 1996), Rottweilers accounted for more than Pit Bulls did (20 were from Rottweilers and 8 were from pit bulls). (http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm) Incidently, I've been randomly attacked by unleashed dogs twice. Both were Shepherds. As to what a Pit Bull is, I believe there are six breeds that are commonly considered Pit Bulls. Boston Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The American Pit Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier are the most commonly thought of Pit Bulls. - - - Chris B. wrote (excerpt) - - - So, given the odds, anybody care to wager the house payment on what kind of dog will be cited next time there's a local report about a canine attack? - - - end excerpt - - - Well, I'd guess a animal control/police report would be more factually significant than a media report. I'm not a gambling man, but for a fatal attack, I'd put 50 cents on it being a Rottweiler. For a non-fatal attack, I'd put a dollar on it being a German Shepherd. Of course, German Shepherds and Rottweilers are among the best large dogs available for pets. The breeds that the CDC considers highest risk are Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Huskies, Alaskan Malamutes, Doberman Pinschers, Chow Chow, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. Are you going to ban all of them? Additionally, in attacks leading to fatalities, there is an 8 out of 10 chance that a biting dog is male. (Humane Society of the United States.) Maybe we should just ban males... In http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2002-August/015838.html - - - Emilie Q. wrote (excerpt) - - - > I'd rather see a "One bite and you're out" law > for animals. One bite should result in euthanasia. - - - end excerpt - - - While some dog bites come from animals that are truly viscous, there are cases where it is a situation where the animal is nervous and/or was not being properly handled by the owner. Under the (im)proper circumstances, almost any animal will attack a person. Typically, this is a situation where the animal feels that it, it's family, or it's territory are threatened. I had a dog when I was a kid - great little beagle/springer spaniel/mutt. He bit people twice. The first one was me. Lesson learned - don't put your face by the dog and shake him awake when he's having a bad dream (let sleeping dogs lie). The second time was when he growled at a guy getting too near his donut (in our yard) and the guy kicked him. The guy got what he deserved. In neither case did the dog do anything outside of what dogs do. I couldn't support a blanket rule like suggested. In a case where someone doesn't know how to deal with animals and the animal is not being out of line, the animal should not be put down. If you have a dangerous animal that attacks unprovoked, then it should be prevented from being able to hurt anyone else. This may require euthanasia, but I've met enough dogs that have been "rescued" to think that often the solution is simply getting the animal out of the situation. They'll always have triggers (often boots or rolled papers or something like that), but as long as the person taking responsibility for them is aware of this, the animal should be fine. The answer is going after the people who through intentional training or simple brutal treatment turn a dog into an animal that will attack unprovoked. There a guy that lives in a house at the other end of my block who owns a dog. One night, we saw him brutally kicking his dog, who had just returned from running off, in front of my house! We confronted them, called the police, and called animal control. Nothing can legally come of it unless the dog shows visible injuries or signs of neglect. The dog seems like it's still a pretty nice animal, but it's only a matter of time. It's not the dog that needs to be euthanized. - - - Emilie Q. wrote (excerpt) - - - I'm sorry that we can't cage the owners for more than a hand slap. - - - end excerpt - - - There DOES need to be much more serious repercussions for irresponsible owners. A dog is a potentially lethal animal and a dog owner has as much responsibility for their dog as they would for their gun or their car. (by the way, if you're concerned about the kids, how many get injured or killed by cars compared to dogs? According to the CDC, between 1979 and 1996 two Minnesotans died from dog attacks. How many died from cars in that time period?) I would support requiring dog owners to licensing their dogs and be legally responsible for any action of the dog resulting from owner abuse or negligence. If you train your dog to attack and then let it run loose, you have committed the same crime as firing a gun into crowd. Sure, you may not have meant to hit anyone, but chances are pretty good that someone's going to get hurt. A trained attack dog is a weapon. A dog beaten to be mean is a time bomb. The gentleman that owns the pit bulls near my house treats his dogs well and makes sure they are not a danger to the community. Neither he nor his dogs have done anything wrong and his right to own his pets should not be limited because of what other people do. If you want to make sure that your children aren't endangered, teach them to look both ways when crossing the road, teach them not to take candy from strangers, and teach them how to behave around and handle animals. If you want to decrease the threats that dogs present, make certain that leash laws are enforced and prosecute animal abusers and animal owners who allow their pets to endanger the public. Focusing legislation on breeds that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners. - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE, not a dog owner. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
