Carroll County toughens rules for pit bulls

news_icon_greenAssociated Press

VAIDEN – Pit bull owners in Carroll County may keep their dogs, but they will have to obey stricter regulations.

The Greenwood Commonwealth reports a new ordinance will take effect Aug. 9 that will not allow pit bulls to be chained outdoors or run loose in yards.

The ordinance, approved in a 3-2 vote this week by supervisors, said the dogs must be securely confined indoors or, if outdoors, kept in steel cages of a certain size on concrete foundations. A pit bull must be muzzled when out on a leash and anyone walking the dog must be at least 21 years old.

Pit bull owners must also carry $100,000 liability insurance policies or post $100,000 cash bond with a reputable bonding company, and they must have their dogs spayed or neutered.

No dwelling may have more than three of the dogs, and they can’t be within 50 feet of a public school, park or church when activities are being held.

Penalties for violations include fines of $250 to $500 for a first offense, $500 to $999 for a second offense and $1,000 to $1,499 for third and subsequent offenses.

Cases will be heard in the justice court.

The call for a pit bull ordinance came in the wake of a fatal attack on a child by two pit bulls in Holmes County on March 31.

Sheriff Jerry Carver supported the ordinance. Carver said his office gets calls every day about loose dogs causing problems.

  • Karen

    Nice! Great job Carroll County! I’m glad to read you are protecting your citizens from the most dangerous dogs with sensible legislation.

  • Dbc

    Awesome!!

  • jim

    awesome , now we need this to be nationwide !!!! nothing unreasonable about this .

  • Lori K.

    Ottumwa, Iowa
    Population 24,998

    In July 2010, Police Chief Jim Clark said there had been no recorded pit bull attacks since the city’s 2003 pit bull ban. Between 1989 and 2003, the city had a pit bull ordinance, but still allowed pit bulls as “guard” dogs.
    “Police Chief Jim Clark says since the ban, there have been no recorded attacks by the animals.

    “We haven’t had any attacks since then for one thing because it is illegal,” said Clark. “Most people are keeping their dogs inside their house or inside their basement and not letting them out loose so therefore they’re not around other people to attack them.”

    “In the two-and-a-half years before the 2003 ban, Ottumwa police recorded 18 pit bull attacks, including the death of 21-month-old Charlee Shepherd in August 2002. There were at least three other attacks on children during this time.”
    ************************************************************
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Population 189,515

    When the City of Indianapolis was discussing a pit bull sterilization law in April 2009, Little Rock Animal Services Director Tracy Roark spoke about Little Rock’s successful 2008 pit bull ordinance:

    “There was a day when you could walk down any street in center city Little Rock, you could see several pit bulls chained up. You don’t see that anymore,” said Tracy Roark with Little Rock Animal Services.

    Roark told Eyewitness News over the phone that pit bull attacks have been cut in half and credits their new law with getting them there.
    “This is the most abused dog in the city,” said Roark.

    The Little Rock law passed last year and requires pit bulls to be sterilized, registered and microchipped. Also dogs – regardless of the breed – are also not allowed to be chained up outside.”
    ************************************************************
    Fort Lupton, Colorado
    Population 6,787
    When the City of Fort Collins was mulling a pit bull law in March 2009, Fort Lupton’s Police Chief spoke about Fort Lupton’s successful 2003 pit bull ban, including zero pit bull biting incidents since the law’s adoption:

    “Fort Lupton Police Chief Ron Grannis said the city hasn’t had a pit bull bite since the ban was enacted, but it still has the occasional pit bull that is picked up and taken away.

    Although he said the ban has not been well-received by every resident, he thinks it was the right decision for the city.

    “I believe it makes the community safer,” he said. “That’s my personal opinion. Pit bulls are not the kind of dogs most people should have. They are too unpredictable. … These dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be fighters.

    You can’t take it out of them. A lion cub may be friendly for a while, but one day it can take your head off.”
    ************************************************************
    Reading, Pennsylvania
    Population 80,560

    After an 8-year legal battle, pit bull advocates dismantled a pit bull law adopted by Reading in 1998. It was reported in the same news article, in February 2008, that the law had significantly reduced biting incidents:

    “Reading’s 1998 law required that aggressive or dangerous dogs, when outside the home, be muzzled and kept on a leash shorter than three feet long with a minimum tensile strength of 300 pounds.

    The law also punished violators with fines of up to $1,000 or 30 days in jail.
    The law is credited with helping to reduce dog bites from 130 in 1999 to 33 in 2006. As a result, the law – or at least elements of it – were not being actively enforced, the Reading Eagle reported last year.

  • Lori K.

    Effect of BSL in Spain in reducing dog attacks:

    Original article
    Decline in hospitalisations due to dog bite injuries in Catalonia, 1997–2008. An effect of government regulation?
    Joan R Villalbí1,2, Montse Cleries3, Susana Bouis1, Víctor Peracho1, Julia Duran1, Conrad Casas1,2
    + Author Affiliations

    1Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
    2CIBER ESP, Spain
    3Divisió de Gestió de Registres d’Activitat, Servei Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

    Correspondence to
    Dr Joan R Villalbí, Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona, Pl Lesseps 1, 08023 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; jrvillal@aspb.cat
    Contributors JRV designed the study. MC provided the CMBDAH data. SB, JD and VP provided the perspective on the regulations. JRV performed the analysis and drafted the manuscript. SB and MC wrote specific sections. All authors contributed to and reviewed the final manuscript.

    Accepted 21 June 2010
    Published Online First 30 August 2010
    Abstract
    Objective To analyse population-based data on hospitalisation caused by dog bite injuries after changes in legal regulations on dog ownership, including breed-specific regulations.

    Design Descriptive study.

    Setting Hospitals in Catalonia (Spain), 1997–2008.

    Subjects Persons hospitalised with injuries caused by dog bites.

    Results There has been a significant decline in hospitalisation caused by injuries from dog bites from 1.80/100000 in 1997–9 to 1.11/100000 in 2006–8, after the enactment of stricter regulations on dog ownership in 1999 and 2002. The magnitude of this change is significant (−38%), and has been greatest in less urban settings.

    Conclusions Government regulations were associated with a sizable decrease in injuries caused by dog bites in Catalonia. More evaluative studies in this field may provide criteria to focus future regulations and other preventive interventions.

  • Lori K.

    Aurora, Colorado

    Population 339,030

    Also in March, Aurora released statistical data showing a significant reduction in the volume of pit bull attacks and pit bulls euthanized after adopting a pit bull ban in 2005.

    “Since the ban has been in place, bites are down 73 percent from pit bulls,” said Cheryl Conway, a spokeswoman for the city’s animal care division.

    She described various problems the city encountered before enacting the ban in 2005 that included irresponsible owners letting the dogs run at large, and owners using pit bulls to taunt pedestrians.

    She added that the dogs placed a tremendous burden on city staff. According to city documents, before the ordinance was enacted in 2005, up to 70 percent of kennels in the Aurora Animal Shelter were occupied by pit bulls with pending court disposition dates or with no known owner. That number is now only 10 to 20 percent of kennels.

    “There hasn’t been a human mauling in many years. Complaints and requests related to pit bulls are down 50 percent. Euthanasia of pit bull dogs is down 93 percent. Of those few that are put down, they are primarily those that come in as strays and their owners don’t come to claim them,” she said.

    ************************************************************

    Omaha, Nebraska

    Population 415,068

    After the City of Omaha adopted a pit bull law in 2008, Mark Langan of the Nebraska Humane Society, who opposed the law, said in September 2009 that pit bull biting incidents were down 35% since its adoption:

    “Despite the attack of Haynes, The Humane Society’s Mark Langan says pitbull bites are down since new laws went into effect last year. Langan says so far this year 54 bites have been reported compared to 83 last year.”

    In September 2010, the Nebraska Humane Society provided bite statistical data to city council members and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the pit bull ordinance adopted by the City of Omaha in late 2008.

    “It is the position of the Nebraska Human Society that this ordinance has been effective in reducing bites involving dogs defined as “Pit Bulls” in the ordinance.”

    Judy Varner, President and CEO, Nebraska Human Society

    Varner’s attached statistical data shows that bites by pit bulls dropped 40% after one year of the adoption of the ordinance, 121 bites in 2008 down to 73 bites in 2009. The bite rate dropped even further in 2010.

    2008 Pit Bull Bites: 121 Total

    2009 Pit Bull Bites: 73 Total

    2010 Pit Bull Bites (through August): 28 Total

    In January 2013, the Nebraska Humane Society reported that pit bull bites dropped to 31 in 2012, down from 121 in 2008 (a 74% reduction), the year that Omaha enacted a progressive pit bull ordinance.

    2008 Pit Bull Bites Total: 121 (pre-breed specific ordinance)

    Level 2: 52; Level 3: 58, Level 4: 8; Level 5: 3 (69 were Level 3-5 attacks)

    2009 Pit Bull Bites Total: 73

    Level 2: 49; Level 3: 17; Level 4: 4; Level 5: 3 (24 were Level 3-5 attacks)

    2010 (through August) Pit Bull Bites Total: 28

    Level 2: 19; Level 3: 6; Level 4: 2; Level 5: 1 (9 were Level 3-5 attacks)

    2012 Pit Bull Bites Total: 31

    No bite level break down provided

    ***********************************************************

    Saginaw, Michigan

    Population 51,230

    In November 2012, Saginaw reported a reduction in dog attacks eighteen months after enacting a “Light” BSL ordinance1 requiring owners of the top 5 dangerous dog breeds2 to comply with new regulations.

    Eighteen months after Saginaw created its dangerous dog ordinance, put into effect in June 2011, Saginaw City Chief Inspector John Stemple said it has helped to lower the amount of dog attacks in the city.

    “It was the government reacting to a problem,” Stemple said. “And if you look at the numbers, it’s been very effective.”

    The ordinance requires residents to register dogs whose breeds are deemed “dangerous” at the City Clerk’s office, post a “Dog on premises” sign in the front of their homes and when outdoors, keep their animals either on a leash or within a 4-foot-high fenced area or kennel.

    The breeds included in the ordinance are pit bulls, presa canario, bull mastiffs, rottweilers and German shepherds.

    Stemple said he has heard from employees at Consumers Energy and the U.S. Postal Service that the signs and tethering rules have made their work safer. The number of reported dog bites fell in 2011 to nine, from 24 in 2009.

  • Lori K.

    Springfield, MO

    In April 2008, the Springfield-Greene County Health Department released data to a local TV station – following the City of Springfield’s adoption of a 2006 pit bull ban:

    “The Springfield-Greene County Health Department reports that dog bites and vicious dog complaints are declining since the implementation of the Pit Bull Ordinance in the City of Springfield two years ago. In 2005 the health department fielded 18 vicious dog complaints, but only eight in 2007. Bites were down from 102 in 2005 to 87 in 2007.”

    “The ordinance, which requires pit bull owners to register their dogs annually, has also resulted in fewer pit bull dogs being impounded at the Springfield Animal Shelter.

    In 2005 there were 502 pit bull and pit bull mixes impounded, compared to only 252 in 2007.

    According to statistics taken from the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, as reported in the News-Leader March 12, for the three-year period beginning in 2004, there were 42 “vicious” animal attacks recorded in the jurisdiction covered.

    After passing the local ordinance banning or strictly controlling the ownership of pit bull or pit bull types, the number of attacks has dropped dramatically.

    For the five-year period from 2007-2011, there was a total of 14.

    “Because we are impounding fewer pit bulls, we’ve also seen overcrowding in our shelter subside,” says assistant director Clay Goddard. “It is the natural tendency of pit bulls to fight, so our animal control staff are forced to segregate them in individual pens.

    When we have several pit bulls in the shelter simultaneously, this severely limits space for other dogs.”
    ***************************************************
    Washington

    In 2008, the City of Wapato passed an ordinance that bans new pit bulls, rottweilers and mastiffs. Nine months after its adoption, in March 2009, Wapato Police Chief Richard Sanchez reported successful results:

    “Nine months into the ban and police calls about vicious dogs have been cut in half. The Wapato Police tell Action News they’ve gone from 18 reports in January, February and March of last year to seven so far in ’09. “Seven calls in three months… that’s nothing,” says Chief Richard Sanchez, Wapato Police Department.

    Chief Sanchez credits local cooperation for the decline of dangerous dogs.”
    ***************************************************
    Rhode Island

    When the City of Woonsocket was debating a pit bull ordinance in June 2009, the animal control supervisor in Pawtucket, John Holmes, spoke about the enormous success of Pawtucket’s 2003 pit bull ban:

    “Holmes says he predicted that it would take two years for Pawtucket to experience the full benefit of the law after it was passed, but the results were actually apparent in half the time.

    “It’s working absolutely fantastic,” said Holmes. “We have not had a pit bull maiming in the city since December of 2004.”

    Holmes says the law also capped the number of legal pit bulls in Pawtucket to about 70 animals.”

    In July 2013, Pawtucket Mayor Donald Grebien and City Council President David Moran sent a joint letter to Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee asking that he reject a statewide anti-BSL measure before him.

    While they agree that some pit bulls can make good pets, said Moran and Grebien, “the number and severity of pit bull attacks against people and other animals in the early 2000s required us to take the action we did.”

    Prior to the 2004 city ordinance, Pawtucket Animal Control officers responded to many calls about serious pit bull attacks against people and animals, according to the letter. Two of the worst cases involved a nine-month pregnant woman and a child.

    While proponents of the bill argue that breed-specific bans don’t work, said Grebien and Moran, “the results in Pawtucket dramatically prove that they do work.”

    In 2003, the year before the local ban on pit bulls went into effect, 135 pit bulls, all from Pawtucket, were taken in at the Pawtucket Animal Control Shelter for a variety of health and safety reasons, with 48 of those dogs needing to be put down.

    In 2012, 72 pit bulls were taken in, only 41 from Pawtucket, with only six needing to be euthanized, according to the two officials.
    “That’s a tremendous improvement,” they state in their letter.
    ***************************************************
    Per section 8-55 of Denvers pit bull ban:

    A pit bull, is defined as any dog that is an APBT, Am Staf Terrier, Staff Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of anyone (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards set by the AKC or UKC for any of the above breed.

    Over the course of 22 years, the Denver ban has withstood numerous battles in state and federal courts. It has been used as a model for over 600 USA cities that legislate pit bulls, as well as US Navy, Air Force, Marine and Army bases ( so much for Sgt Stubby).

    without it, we’d see just what we see in Miss E’s lame replies. Every pit owner would claim their land shark was anything but a pit bull.

    Miami Dade county voted 66% to keep their pit bull ban, just as it is worded, last year.

  • Lori K.

    In a discussion of the Denver ban, Assistant City Attorney Kory Nelson recently told the San Francisco Chronicle that:

    “Since 1989, when that city instituted a pit bull ban, ‘we haven’t had one serious pit bull attack,’ said Kory Nelson, a Denver assistant city attorney. His city’s assertion that ‘pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds of dog’ has withstood legal challenges, he said.

    ‘We were able to prove there’s a difference between pit bulls and other breeds of dogs that make pit bulls more dangerous,’ he said.”

    Sources: Denver Post
    ***************************************************
    Toronto:

    In a November 2011, public health statistics published by Global Toronto showed that pit bull bites dropped dramatically after Ontario adopted the Dog Owners Liability Act in 2005, an act that banned pit bulls:

    The number of dog bites reported in Toronto has fallen since a ban on pit bulls took effect in 2005, public health statistics show.

    A total of 486 bites were recorded in 2005. That number fell generally in the six years following, to 379 in 2010.

    Provincial laws that banned ‘pit bulls,’ defined as pit bulls, Staffordshire terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and dogs resembling them took effect in August 2005. Existing dogs were required to be sterilized, and leashed and muzzled in public.

    Bites in Toronto blamed on the four affected breeds fell sharply, from 71 in 2005 to only six in 2010. This accounts for most of the reduction in total bites.
    ***************************************************

    Salina, KS

    Rose Base, director of the Salina Animal Shelter who lobbied for the ordinance, told the Salina Journal:

    The ordinance has made a difference, she said. Records at the Salina Animal Shelter indicate there were 24 reported pit bull bites in 2003 and 2004, and only five since — none from 2009 to present.

    Salina has 62 registered pit bulls, Base said. Before the ordinance she guessed there were “close to 300.” Since the first of this year three of the registered pit bulls have died of old age.

    “We definitely haven’t had the severity of bites that we had in the past,” Base said. “Our community has been somewhat safer because of the law that was passed
    ***************************************************
    Prince George’s County, MD
    Prince George’s County passed a pit bull ban in 1996. In August 2009, Rodney Taylor, associate director of the county’s Animal Management Group, said that the number of pit bull biting incidents has fallen:

    “Taylor said that during the first five to seven years of the ban, animal control officials would encounter an average of 1,200 pit bulls a year but that in recent years that figure has dropped by about half. According to county statistics, 36 pit bull bites, out of 619 total dog bites, were recorded in 2008, down from 95 pit bull bites, out of a total of 853, in 1996.”
    ***************************************************
    Salina KS (a second article)

    Note that they admit that the pit bull ban did not reduce the number of bites, but it did reduce the severity of bites reported by all breeds. Proof that when pit bull deniers find a jurisdiction that banned pit bulls, but reported no decrease in overall bites, is a moot point. Its death and dismemberment we are focusing on, not bite counts.

    In the monthly city newsletter, In Touch, published in September 2006, the City of Salina reported that the pit bull ban adopted in 2005 significantly reduced pit bull biting incidents in just a 12 month period.

    The number of pit bull bites depicted in the “Salina Pit Bull Bites Reported” graph shows 2002 with 13 pit bull bites, 2003 with 11 pit bull bites, 2004 with 15 pit bull bites and 2005 with only one bite. The newsletter notes that “animal bites reported have remained constant, but the severity of bites have decreased dramatically” since the enactment of the pit bull ban

  • Lori K.

    Wichita, Kansas

    In January 2009, the Wichita Department of Environmental Services released a number of pit bull statistics. The figures are based upon the Wichita Animal Control department’s investigation of 733 dog bites in 2008.

    Included in the data are pit bulls encountered by the Wichita Police Department. In the 1-year period, 95% of police encounters with aggressive dogs were pit bulls.

    The report also showed that the percentage of pit bull encounters had increased from 66% in 2004 to 95% in 2008. Subsequently, four months after the release of this data, the City of Wichita enacted a mandatory pit bull sterilization law.

    55% of all dogs deemed dangerous were pit bulls (41 pit bull dogs deemed dangerous).

    34% of attacks and bites involved pit bull dogs (246 pit bull attacks/bites).

    28% of dogs found running at large were pit bulls (1,279 pit bulls found running loose).

    25% of dogs impounded were pit bulls dogs (1,575 pit bulls impounded).

    37% of all dogs euthanized were pit bull dogs (1,255 pit bulls euthanized).

    23% of dog complaints involved pit bull dogs (2,523 complaints involved pit bull dogs).

  • Lori K.

    Council Bluffs, Iowa.
    Pit bulls are not only problematic in large cities; they threaten mid-sized cities and small towns as well. Located in the heartland, Council Bluffs, Iowa has about 60,000 citizens.

    After a series of devastating attacks, beginning in 2003, Council Bluffs joined over 600 U.S. cities and began regulating pit bulls.

    The results of the Council Bluffs pit bull ban, which began January 1, 2005, show the positive effects such legislation can have on public safety in just a few years time:1.

    Council Bluffs: Pit Bull Bite Statistics.

    Year Pit Bull Bites % of All Bites.
    2004 29 23%.
    2005 12 10% (year ban enacted).
    2006 6 4%.
    2007 2 2%.
    2008 0 0%.
    2009 0 0%.
    2010 1 1%.
    2011 0 0%.
    *******************************************************************
    From the CDC (1998 report, page 4):

    “Despite these limitations and concerns
    (about identifying the exact ‘breed’ of pit bull type dog responsible for a
    killing), the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted
    for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998.

    It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the
    United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a
    breed-specific problem with fatalities.”
    ****************************************************************
    In June 2013, after a Bay Area child was killed by a family pit bull, San Francisco Animal Care and Control cited the decrease in pit bull bites and euthanasia since the adoption of a 2005 pit bull law.

    After 12-year-old Nicholas Faibish was fatally mauled by his family’s pit bulls, the city adopted a mandatory spay-neuter law for the breed. The reasoning was that fixed dogs tend to be calmer and better socialized.

    Since then, San Francisco has impounded 14 percent fewer pit bulls and euthanized 29 percent fewer – which is a “significant decrease,” said Rebecca Katz, director of the city’s Animal Care and Control department.

    Another significant indicator, she said, is that there have been 28 pit bull bites reported in the past three years – and 1,229 bites by other breeds during the same period. In the three-year period before that, there were 45 pit bull bites and 907 incidents involving other breeds.

    Results of mandatory breed-specific S/N in SF: success in San Francisco, where in just eight years there was a 49% decline in the number of pit-bulls impounded, a 23% decline in the number of pit-bulls euthanized, and an 81% decline in the number of pit-bulls involved in fatal and disfiguring attacks.

    When the City of Auburn debated enacting a pit bull law in January 2010, Sgt. Bill Herndon of the San Francisco Police Department weighed in about the success of San Francisco’s 2005 pit bull law:

    “Since requiring all pit bulls to be neutered, they say they are finding fewer pit bulls involved in biting incidents.

    Sgt. Bill Herndon, of the San Francisco Police Department’s vicious dog unit, said the numbers and severity of pit bull attacks are down since San Francisco enacted an ordinance in 2005 after the mauling death of 12-year-old Nicholas Faibish.
    “The number of complaints of mean pit bulls has dropped dramatically,” Herndon said.

    San Francisco’s animal control department reports more than 30 percent fewer pit bulls at the shelter or being euthanized.”
    ****************************************************************
    Ed Boks, Executive director, Yavapai Humane Society (responsible Jan 2004 as director City Center for Animal Care & Control in NYC for trying to rename pit bulls New Yorkies; is pb owner)

    Pit bull type dogs represent 3000% the actuarial risk compared to other types of dogs.
    Insurance companies will have calculated the risks the other listed breeds represent based on what they’ve had to pay out through the years.

    This isn’t ‘prejudice’, this is cold statistical reality. Actuarial realities don’t yield to sentiment or a feeling of entitlement — they just are what they are

  • Lori K.

    9/10/2013

    Bites by pit bulls have dropped dramatically since 2004
    Hearing on Alix’s leash law violation put off to Sept. 20

    PAWTUCKET – The city has seen a dramatic decline in the number of attacks by pit bulls since a 2004 ban on the breed went into effect, according to data released by local officials.

    In response to an open records request by The Breeze, the Pawtucket Police Department and Pawtucket Animal Control, through City Solicitor Frank Milos, provided documents showing just how rarely pit bulls have attacked people or animals in the city since the ban was enacted.

    For the four years leading up to the ban, from 2000 to 2003, officers responded to 71 incidents of biting or scratching involving pit bulls in Pawtucket, a majority of those, 51, involving attacks on people.!

    In the 10 years since the ban was put in place, police responded to 23 total attacks involving pit bulls, with only 13 of those involving attacks on people.

    For three years, 2008, 2010, and 2012, there were no attacks by pit bulls reported, according to the information provided by the city.

    The following are the 71 pit bulls attacks separated out by year for the four years before Pawtucket’s pit bull ban went into effect:

    * 2000 – 20 incidents, 18 involving attacks on people, two involving other animals.

    * 2001 – 14 incidents, nine involving attacks on people, five on animals.

    * 2002 – 17 incidents, 14 involving attacks on people, three on animals.

    * 2003 – 20 incidents, 11 involving attacks on people, nine on animals.

    The following are the 23 pit bull attacks in the city for the 10 years since Pawtucket’s pit bull ban was unanimously approved by the Rhode Island General Assembly:

    * 2004 – Eight incidents, five involving attacks on people, three involving attacks on other animals.

    * 2005 – One incident involving a person being attacked.

    * 2006 – Three incidents, one involving an attack on a person, two on animals.

    * 2007 – Four incidents, one involving an attack on a person, three on animals.

    * 2008 – No incidents.

    * 2009 – Two incidents, both involving attacks on people.

    * 2010 – No incidents.

    * 2011 – Two incidents, both involving attacks on people.

    * 2012 – No incidents.

    * 2013 – Three incidents, one involving an attack on a person, two on animals.

    John Holmes, Pawtucket’s veteran animal control officer and the key proponent of the 2004 ban, said the numbers before and after 2004 “speak for themselves.”

    “The law’s worked,” he said. “We didn’t put this law in to destroy pit bulls, in fact, quite the opposite.”

    The last serious pit bull attack in Pawtucket was the day the bill was signed into law, said Holmes. Residents have been safer because of the ban, he said.

    “Public safety has always been the issue,” he said. “They’re just missing so much of what this is all about. We’re going backward here.”

  • Lori K.

    Last Summer, Riverside County supervisors unanimously passed an ordinance requiring pit bulls older than 4 months in unincorporated areas of the county to be spayed or neutered. Registered breeders, law enforcement and therapy dogs are exempt from the ordinance, which takes effect next month.

    In 2010, San Bernardino County supervisors passed a similar ordinance for unincorporated areas of the county, such as Mentone. Owners of non-sterilized pit bulls can be fined $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second and $300 for subsequent offenses.

    Highland and Yucaipa adopted the same ordinance, according to Brian Cronin, chief of the county’s animal control division, which handles animal control in those two cities.

    The San Bernardino County ordinance said pit bull breeds account for about 20 percent of the dogs at animal shelters and are put down more often than any other breed.

    Cronin emailed figures showing the county’s intake of pit bulls has decreased 28 percent since the ordinance took effect and that euthanization rates have dropped by 56 percent.

    In August 2011, San Bernardino County Animal Care and Control, which oversees unincorporated areas and Highland and Yucaipa, reported a 9.6 decrease in dog bites after enacting a pit bull sterilization law in 2010.

    The law, approved unanimously by the Board of Supervisors last week, expands upon an ordinance approved last year that requires pit bull owners to spay or neuter their pets.

    Supervisor Neil Derry introduced the original proposal in response to an increasing number of attacks by pit bulls in recent years that resulted in four deaths — two of them young children — in the last five years.

    The county saw a 9.6 percent decrease in dog bites in the year since the spay/neuter program was instituted, said Brian Cronin, the county’s animal care and control division chief.

    The ordinance was passed to reduce the number of dogs destroyed at taxpayer expense, Cronin said.

    HAS MANDATORY S/N FOR PITS WORKED FOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA?

    YES!!

    The following is the six (6) year trend for Pit Bull admissions and euthanasia of this specific type/breed of dog in County owned or operated animal shelter facilities:

    FY 2007-08 Admissions 1,623 Euthanized 1,276 (78.6% of intake)

    FY 2008-09 Admissions 1,705 Euthanized 1,321 (77.4%) of intake)

    FY 2009-10 Admissions 2,066 Euthanized 1,593 (77.1% of intake)

    FY 2010-11 Admissions 2,523 Euthanized 1,632 (64.6% of intake)

    FY 2011-12 Admissions 2,265 Euthanized 1,085 (47.9% of intake)

    FY 2012-13 Admissions 1,815 Euthanized 727 (40% of intake)

    You will note, the percentage of Pit Bull type dogs euthanized has been significantly reduced since the implementation of the San Bernardino County Mandatory Pit Bull sterilization ordinance.

    The ordinance was implemented in fiscal year 2010-11 in which Pit Bull admissions hit an all time high of 2,523. Last year Pit Bull admissions were at 1,815.

    This is a significant reduction in admissions for this type of dog after the ordinance was passed. You can not argue that spay/neuter hasn’t had a positive impact

  • Lori K.

    My Legislation Proposal to be enacted by all states,
    cities and counties in the US & Canada.

    All dogs must be:
    Or all dangerous dogs must be:
    Or all dangerous molosser breeds, including pit bulls (American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers, American Bulldog, Bull mastiffs, dogo argentinos, fila brasieros, presa canarios, Japanese Tosa, cane corsos and their mixes and any dog generally recognized as a pit bull or pit bull terrier and includes a dog of mixed breed with predominant pit bull or pit bull terrier characteristics), rottweilers, chow chows, Doberman pinschers, German shepherds, must be:

    * Licensed
    * All Pit bull type dogs Micro-chipped with any bite history in database for reference.
    * Insured: All dogs must be covered by mandatory liability insurance of $100,000 min. generic and $500,000 after a skin breaking bite with insurance companies based on actuarial statistic’s determining said rate.
    * Spayed/neutered (except for limited approved show dog breeders)
    * All breeds involved in any bite incident must be kenneled in a locked five-sided enclosure with concrete bottom.

    For all other dog owners language can be written that enclosure such as fences must be capable of containing your dog period, such generic language puts the onus on the owner, have the fines be so onerous that said owner will ensure this they make this so.

    1,000 the first time, double the second time and permanent confiscation the third time with a ban on said person from owning any dog within city limits, this will create an effective outcome directly or indirectly.
    * All dogs must be on leashes outside of home enclosure
    * All molosser breeds must also be muzzled outside of home enclosure

    * No transport of declared dangerous dogs for the purpose of re-homing. (Dangerous dogs must be dealt with where their history is known.)
    * All of the rules listed above also apply to rescues: rescued dogs must be licensed and subject to inspection.

    $1,000 fine for noncompliance
    Elimination of the one-bite rule in all of the 50 U.S. states
    Manslaughter charges for owner of dog that kills a human
    Felony charge for owner of dog that mauls human, dog, or other domestic animal.

  • Lori K.

    Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to May.25, 2013.

    By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2013, Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, shows the breeds most responsible for serious injury and death.

    Study highlights

    Pit bull type dogs make up only 6% of all dogs in the USA.

    The combination of Pit Bulls, rottweilers, their close mixes and wolf hybrids and other Pit Bull Type Dogs:

    84% of attacks that induce bodily harm.

    75% of attacks to children.

    87% of attack to adults.

    72% of attacks that result in fatalities.

    80% that result in maiming

  • Lori K.

    About 31,400 dogs attacked about 61,500 other animals in the U.S. in 2013, killing 43,500 and seriously injuring 18,100.

    The animals killed included about 12,000 dogs, 8,000 cats, 6,000 hooved animals, and 17,000 other small domestic animals, primarily poultry.

    The seriously injured included about 12,400 dogs, 4,000 cats, and 1,700 hooved animals. Few small mammals and poultry survived reported dog attacks.

    Pit bulls inflicted 99% of the total fatal attacks on other animals (43,000); 96% of the fatal attacks on other dogs (11,520); 95% of the fatal attacks on livestock (5,700) and on small mammals and poultry (16,150); and 94% of the fatal attacks on cats (11,280).

    About 30,000 pit bulls were involved in attacks on other animals, many of them killing multiple other animals.

    There are about 3.2 million pit bulls in the U.S. at any given time, according to the annual Animal24-7 surveys of dogs offered for sale or adoption via online classified ads.

    Thus in 2013 about one pit bull in 107 killed or seriously injured another animal, compared with about one dog in 50,000 of other breeds.

    Nationally, fatal and disfiguring attacks by dogs from shelters and rescues have exploded from zero in the first 90 years of the 20th century to 80 since 2010, including 58 by pit bulls, along with 22 fatal & disfiguring attacks by other shelter dogs, mostly Rottweilers & bull mastiffs.

    Altogether, 33 U.S. shelter dogs have participated in killing people since 2010, including 24 pit bulls, seven bull mastiffs, and two Rottweilers.

    The only dogs rehomed from U.S. shelters to kill anyone before 2000 were two wolf hybrids, rehomed in 1988 and 1989, respectively.

    • Karla Ely

      I’ve got a 10 shot .45 waiting for any pit bull/mix that even LOOKS at my dog

      • Mary Ann Redfern

        I also have a pit pistol.

        • Pam Loken

          you have a head problem, you probably shouldn’t have that gun in the first place

  • Lori K.

    24 People dead by dog attack in 2014
    Pit bull type dogs killed 21 of them.
    13 of the dead are children.

    Stars indicate people killed by a ‘family’ pit bull – ones that had
    been raised and cherished as an indoor pet, ‘never showed aggression
    before’, and knew the victim.

    Child fatalities by pit bull type dog (12)
    Kara E. Hartrich, 4 years old, Bloomington, Illinois. **
    Je’vaeh Maye, 2 years old, Temple Texas. **
    Braelynn Rayne Coulter, 3 years old, High Point, North Carolina. **
    Kenneth Santillan, 13 years old, Patterson, N.J. by a Bullmastiff
    Raymane Camari Robinson, 2 years old, Killeen, TX by a Bullmastiff **
    Mia Derouen, 4 years old, Houma, Louisiana **
    Christopher Malone, 3 years old, Thornton, MS **
    John Harvard, 5 year old, Riverside, AL **
    Kassi Haith, 4 years old, Felton, Del.
    Demonta Collins, 13 years old, Augusta, Georgia
    he dashed into traffic as he was running from a pit bull attacking him and was hit by a car and was killed.
    Davon Jiggetts,17 years old, Riverdale, Georgia
    he dashed into traffic as he was running from a pit bull attacking him and was hit by a car as was the pit bull, both were killed.
    Holden William Garrison-10 weeks old, Springfield Township, MI **
    Friends of family state that the dog is a Pit bull Mix a Catahoula Hound mixed with Pit Bull.

    Adult fatalities by pit bull type (8):
    Christina Burleson, 43 years old, Houston, Texas. **
    Klonda S. Richey, 57 years old, Dayton, Ohio. by two Bullmastiff’s
    Nancy Newberry, 77 years old, Phoenix, AZ. **
    Dorothy Hamilton, 85 years old, Kaufman, TX **
    Petra Aguirre, 83 years old, San Antonio TX **
    Betty Clark, 75 years old, San Antonio TX **
    Katie Morrison, 20-years old, Smiths Station, AL **
    Rita Pepe, 93 years old, Branford, Conn by a rescued pit bull

    That’s 88% killed by attacking pit bull type dogs.
    Pit Bull type dogs are only about 6% of the entire dog population.

    Summer Sears, 4 years old, Tallassee, AL by Husky/German Shepard Cross
    Nyhiem Wilfong, 1 year old, Caldwell County, N.C. by Rottweiler. **

    89-year-old Annabell Martin, Corona, CA. by her grandson’s three Rottweilers.**

    Non-bite fatalities:
    Carlos Eligio Trevina – 54 y.o. – Idaho Falls ID ** – [Jan 9] – Died of a heart attack immediately after breaking up a fight between his seven pit bulls / pit mixes
    *******************************************************************
    33 People dead by dog attack in 2013.
    Pit bull type dogs killed thirty of them. sixteen of the twenty-nine dead are children.
    Stars indicate people killed by a ‘family’ pit bull – ones that had been raised and cherished as an indoor pet, ‘never showed aggression before’, and knew the victim.

    Child fatalities by pit bull type dog (16):
    Christian Gormanous – 4 yrs old Montgomery County, TX
    Isaiah Aguilar – 2 yrs old Sabinal, TX
    Ryan Maxwell – 7 yrs old ** Galesburg, IL.
    Dax Borchardt – 14 mos old ** Walworth, WI.
    Monica Laminack – 21 mos old ** Ellabelle, GA.
    Tyler Jett – 7 yrs old Callaway, FL.
    Jordyn Arndt – 4 yrs old ** Prairie City, IA.
    Beau Rutledge – 2 yrs old ** Fulton County, GA.
    Ayden Evans- 5 yrs old ** Jessieville, AR.
    Nephi Selu – 6 yrs old ** Union City, CA.
    Arianna Jolee Merrbach – 5 yrs old Effingham, SC.
    Daniel (surname as yet not revealed) – 2 yrs old (Gilbert, Arizona) **
    Samuel Eli Zamudio – 2 yrs old** Colton, CA
    Jordan Ryan– 5 yrs old Baker city, Oregon
    Levi Watson-Bradford-4 years old** White County, Arkansas
    Jah’niyah White – 2 years old ** Chicago, Ill

    Adult fatalities by pit bull type (13):
    Betty Todd – 65 yrs old ** Hodges, SC
    Elsie Grace – 91 yrs old ** Hemet, CA
    Claudia Gallardo – 38 yrs old Stockton, CA.
    Pamela Devitt – 63 yrs old Littlerock, CA.
    Carlton Freeman – 80 yrs old Harleyville, SC.
    Linda Oliver – 63 yrs old Dayton, TX.
    James Harding – 62 yrs old -Baltimore, MD
    chased into traffic by two attacking pit bulls
    Juan Campos – 96 yrs old Katy, Texas.
    Terry Douglass 56 years old. **Baltimore, MD
    Katherine Atkins-25 years old ** Kernersville, NC
    Nga Woodhead-65 years old Spanaway, WA.
    Joan Kappen, 75 years old Hot Springs Ark
    Michal Nelson, 41 years old Valencia County, New Mexico **

    (1 non-pit type killing) [Rachel Honabarger – 35 yrs old – mauled to death by her own GSD mix] Coshocton, OH.

    (1 husky-mix killing, unknown if the other half of the dog was pit bull) [Jordan Lee Reed – 5 yrs old] Kotzebue, AK

    (1 Shiba Inu killing) Mia Gibson – age 3 months, of Gibson, OH – mauled to death by family Shiba Inu.

    Three of the pit bull type dogs were BULL mastiffs, ie 40% pit-fighting bulldog.

    If 27 of 33 dead were killed by pit bull attack, that’s 82% dead by pit attack, 9% dead by ‘molosser’, 3% by some kind of GSD mix, 3% by a husky + possibly pit mix, 3% by Shiba Inu.

    If you count the pit-mix mastiffs as pit bull types, that’s 91% killed by attacking pit bull types. Pit types are only about 6% of the entire dog population.

    The man who ran into traffic kept pit bulls himself. He knew perfectly well what the two stranger pit bulls that were chasing him would do if they caught him, so he preferred to risk a swift death by oncoming car.

    534 maimed by pit type dogs 2013 (as of November.28).

  • Lori K.

    Toronto dog bites fell after pit bull ban
    Patrick Cain, Global News : Monday, November 14, 2011 02:12 PM

    The number of dog bites reported in Toronto has fallen since a ban on pit bulls took effect in 2005, public health statistics show.

    A total of 486 bites were recorded in 2005. That number fell generally in the six years following, to 379 in 2010.

    Provincial laws that banned ‘pit bulls,’ defined as pit bulls, Staffordshire terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and dogs resembling them took effect in August 2005. Existing dogs were required to be sterilized, and leashed and muzzled in public.

    Bites in Toronto blamed on the four affected breeds fell sharply, from 71 in 2005 to only six in 2010. This accounts for most of the reduction in total bites.

    The fall in bites blamed on the four breeds tracks a reduction in the dogs themselves, data obtained separately by globalnews dot ca under access-to-information laws shows. Some 1,411 Toronto dogs were in the four breeds in 2008, as opposed to 798 in mid-2011.

    “It is encouraging to hear that fewer people are victimized by dangerous dogs,” Ontario Attorney-General John Gerretson said in a statement.

    About 1,000 Ontario pit bulls have been put down since the ban took effect.

    With totals of Toronto dogs by breed and ten years of bite data, it is possible to see which dogs are most likely to bite in Toronto based on a ratio between dogs of a given breed in 2011 and reported bites over the decade between 2000 and 2010. Below are the 20 most bite-prone dogs. The four prohibited breeds all appear in the top eight slots

  • Lori K.

    Over 700 Cities, Towns & 40 Counties in the US currently have BSL against pit bull type dogs as do over 40 other countries.

    Country’s,
    Cities, county’s, Provinces, Military Services & Towns where Pit
    Bulls type Dogs are Banned or severely restricted:

    http://www dot scribd dot com/doc/56495216/Estimated-U-S-Cities-Counties-States-and-Military-Facilities-with-Breed-Specific-Pit-Bull-Laws

    Animal Planet
    Pit Bulls Already Banned in a Dozen Countries
    By Terrence McCoy Wed., Feb. 27 2013

    Pit bulls have been banned the world over as well as 0ver 600 cities, towns and counties in the US alone.

    The prohibition on the pit bull type dog wouldn’t be anything unusual.
    In 1989, Miami may have been one of the first communities to ban pit bulls — but it sure hasn’t been the last, raising questions as to whether it’s only a matter of time before every municipality imposes some sort of regulation on the animal.

    Already, more than a dozen countries have banned pit bulls, making it, quite possibly, the most regulated and feared dog in the canine world.

    Composed from various online resources, here’s a breakdown of the bans and regulations:

    Countries that have enacted regulation on pit bulls (or some deviation):

    **In 1991, Singapore prohibited the entry of pit bulls into the country.

    **In 1993, the Netherlands banned pit bulls.

    **In 1997, Poland enacted legislation enforcing pit bull owners to display “clear warning signs” and keep the animal behind reinforced fencing.

    **In 2000, France banned pit bulls. The goal was to let the breed “die out.”

    **In 2001, Germany banned pit bulls.
    **In 2001, Puerto Rico banned pit bulls.
    **In 2003, New Zealand banned the importation of pit bulls.
    **In 2004, Italy banned pit bulls.
    **In 2009, Australia prohibited the imports of pit bulls.
    **In 2009, Ecuador banned pit bulls as pets.
    **In 2010, Denmark banned pit bulls and pit bull breeding.
    **In 2014, Venezuela will ban pit bulls.

    Nationwide, a ban on pit bulls is also far from exceptional.

    Cities that have laid down some sort of legislation:

    Sioux City, Iowa
    Council Bluffs, Iowa
    Independence, Missouri
    Royal City, Washington
    Denver, Colorado
    Springfield, Missouri
    Youngstown, Ohio;
    Melvindale, Michigan
    Livingston County, Michigan.

    • Bob Cronk

      That is less than 2 per cent of all towns and cities.. Carrol county is now a member of the stupid 2 per cent, with higher taxes, and the rate of dog bites will not go down.

      • Thomas McCartney

        What they are is part of the US where their children will be far more safer then they were before the Breed specific legislation, but then pit nutters such as yourself do not care about that and consider them expendable as long as you can keep your mutant undogs, till they get you.!!

        Attacks that Kill, Maul, Maim, Disfigure, Dismember, cause Life Flights or trips to the Intensive Care Unit will all but end which is what BSL is designed to do, not stop ordinary minor dog bites which pit bull type dogs never inflict.!!

        Actual costs are reduced by BSL as much due to not having to put thousands upon thousands down.

        DogsBite Blog ::
        Tuesday, May 27, 2014

        Missouri – Proposed Statewide Bill Prohibiting Breed-Specific Ordinances Fails During Legislative Session

        A total 63 county and city BSL pit bull type dog bans were at stake.!

        DogsBite dot org Clarifies Fallacy Arguments, Makes First Public Appeal

        bill fails in Missouri, hb 1116, representative hicks, breed-specific laws
        A victory for the health and safety of children, and you helped!

        Jefferson City, MO – The 2014 Legislative Session of the Missouri General Assembly ended on Friday, May 16. A bill sponsored by Rep. Ron Hicks failed to pass. HB 1116 would have prohibited municipalities in Missouri to enact breed-specific laws, including cities with home rule governance.

        Any jurisdiction with an existing pit bull ordinance would be null and void if passed as well. The legislation picked up quite a bit of steam in March after an Associated Press article was published.

        pit bull advocate Ron Hicks, who sponsored a bill in the Missouri House to forbid breed-specific legislation, said he was surprised when nobody spoke against his proposal last month at a committee hearing.
        “I figured a few parents would be there who would bring tears to my eyes,” the Republican said. “Would it have changed my opinion or what I believe in? No.” – Bill Draper, Associated Press

        On April 4, DogsBite dot org sent a letter to Missouri Senators explaining the “fallacy” arguments being hailed by Rep. Hicks and Best Friends Animal Society, et al. Then we did something that we had never done before.

        We posted the letter to our Facebook page and made a public appeal for help. “TAKE ACTION: Send this email to Missouri Senators and say, “I agree with DogsBite dot org” — Or it will become an anti-BSL state.” We included instructions and Senate email addresses.

        Many people responded, “Done! Thank you!” We received word from others in Missouri opposing Hicks’ bill that our campaign had helped.

        We want to thank all of the people who took action upon our request and showed Senators that a strong voice exists in support of the health and safety of people, and our beloved pets and livestock, all subjected to brutal attacks by pit bulls.

        And that a strong voice exists in support of local control; cities can best determine their public safety policies.

      • Mary Ann Redfern

        But, hopefully, Cronkie, the rate of PIT BULL maiming, mauling and killing WILL go down.

  • Lori K.

    Barbara Kay: Study proves pitbull ban is justified

    There’s nothing more humiliating for a journalist than pontificating on a subject with ardent conviction, and then being proved wrong. But there’s nothing more gratifying for a journalist than pontificating on a subject with ardent conviction and being proved right.

    At the moment I am doing a modest little victory dance as I type. One of the first columns I ever wrote for the Post (December 10, 2003) argued that pit bulls were a danger to society because of their nature. Naturally I backed up my claim with plenty of statistical ammunition. And today I feel vindicated.

    I was, even as a newbie, aware that readers who disagree with you can get pretty hot under the collar, but I had no idea how exponentially explosive the response is when you diss a dog breed. My column was distributed to dog-owner sites and I received a tsunami of hate mail the like of which I have never seen before or since. I was called unprintable names – and more than one pitbull owner spelled out in graphic detail what he would like to see a trained pit bull do to me. (One responder, curiously enough, expressed the hope that I would get all my fingers chopped off while playing the piano. Not sure what the connection to pitbulls is there.)

    Anyway, reasonable people shared my opinion.

    Well, all those pitbull owners can now turn their wrathful attention to Dr. Malathi Raghavan, a University of Manitoba epidemiologist, and author of a new study of dog bite cases between 1984-2006 in the journal Injury Prevention that suggests the controversial bans are having a positive effect. After “breed-specific legislation” was passed, Manitoba’s overall provincial rate of bite-related hospitalizations dropped from 3.5 to 2.8 per 100,000 people. A spokeswoman, commenting on the study, conceded that pitbulls “genetically hard-wired” to be combative, but diplomatically added the usual refrain that all dogs have the capacity to be nasty if they are ill-trained.

    The idea that pitbulls owned by nice people are no more dangerous than any other breed is a myth, of course. Dogs bite four to five million Americans every year. Serious injuries are up nearly 40% from 1986. Children are victims of 60% of bites and 80% of fatal attacks. Nearly half of all American kids have been bitten by the age of 12. Pitbulls or crosses alone account for more than a third of dog bite fatalities.

    Sure all dogs bite, but most dogs let you know before they bite that they have hostile intentions, and they let go after they bite. As I noted in my previous column, “Unlike other biting dogs, pitbulls don’t let go. They are impervious to pain. Neither hoses, blows or kicks will stop them. Other dogs warn of their anger with growls or body language like terrorists, pitbulls attack silently and often with no perceived provocation.

    The breeders, trainers and Kennel Clubs know all this. Yet dog civil libertarians resist “profiling” or penalties that impinge on the dog’s “right to due process” (their actual words). Gordon Carvill, (at the time of my 2003 column), president of the American Dog Owners’ Association, is implacable on breed profiling, falsely claiming, “There is no dog born in this world with a predisposition to aggression.” This is canine political correctness run amok. Disinterested experts overwhelmingly disprove this claim with ease.

    Just so pitbull owners shouldn’t feel lonely, Rottweilers aren’t always so cuddly either. In 1998 there were 1,237 reported dog attacks in Canada, and a full half of them were accounted for by pitbulls and Rotties. Some jurisdictions in Quebec ban both, and it doesn’t cause me a single minute’s loss of sleep.

    It’s a pretty strange society that imposes speed limits on cars (because we all know it isn’t cars that kill, it’s bad drivers) and doesn’t allow guns to be carried in the street (because we all know it isn’t guns that kill, it’s bad people), but (even though we all know it’s pitbulls that kill, whether their owners are good or bad), won’t take the simple step of reducing harm to our citizenry, especially children, their easiest prey, by banning high-risk dogs

    • Winston Smith

      This is America sweetie, you can carry guns in the street here..

      • Thomas McCartney

        Children and toddler’s can’t snookieukums.!

        Do you want school kids to need an armed guard while walking home from school.?

        Sadly one does not even have to search for the many attacks of these savage mutant undog’s on humans and pets, there are literally hundreds of new incidents every day carried out by these disgusting creatures, here is another.

        These are all major daily newspapers and network TV station accurate factual reports with direct access to Doctors, ER’s Animal control officers, Police, the victims family, witnesses, the guilty pit nutters, all in news reports from major city newspapers and TV stations, as legit therefore as it possibly can be.

        There is only one breed that has every been or is a threat to public safety and that is the pit bull, the sooner they are exterminated the sooner tragic attacks like the one below will be ended.

        Ban the breed and end the deed.

        Dogs are not humans, there is every reason to be threatened by a pit bull just because of what it is, no different then it would be to feel threatened by ANY bear, lion, tiger, wolverine, cobra etc. that you encountered, if they charged you then there would be justification to kill any of them if you were carrying, same thing with a pit bull, any pit pit bull.

        You can no more be biased or prejudiced against any pit bull then you can be so against any bear, lion, tiger, wolverine, cobra etc. so that is an absurd argument on the part of the nutters.

        That 6% of the dog population carries out 70%+ of the killings, mauling, crippling, disfiguring and dismembering attacks to such a disproportionate extent speaks for itself and to the genetic truth and reality that exists in any pit bull type dog, it is what it is and does what is in it’s DNA.This has been breed into them over 600 years and is their truth, they must therefore become extinct.

        • Winston Smith

          I think the problem lies more with irresponsible owners than the breed itself, no large dog (or any dog really) should be allowed to roam off leash. You’re judging an entire breed based on the bad actions of a few. I could turn around and say that black people make up 30% of the population but make up 60% of the prison population, so are black people genetically predisposed to commit crime? Of course not.

          I don’t think breed specific legislation would solve the problem of irresponsible people raising people aggressive dogs and then turning them loose on the streets.

          • Thomas McCartney

            Behaviorists/veterinarians

            RANDALL LOCKWOOD, PhD

            Randall Lockwood, who said he has witnessed the best and worst of pit bulls, said illegal dog-fighting is perpetuating dogs that are hazards to humans and other animals. Shaped by dog-fight enthusiasts, they are “a perversion of everything normal dogs should do. What they’ve created is a canine psychopath.”

            “Fighting dogs lie all the time. I experienced it first hand when I was investigating three pit bulls that killed a little boy in Georgia. When I went up to do an initial evaluation of the dog’s behavior, the dog came up to the front of the fence, gave me a nice little tail wag and a “play bow” — a little solicitation, a little greeting. As I got closer, he lunged for my face.”

            The pit bull, in its purebred or mixed form, has been responsible for most of the fatal dog attacks on humans in the last two years. In 1987, there were eight deaths from dog attacks in the country, and seven involved pit bulls. In 1986, there were 13 deaths, seven involving pit bulls. But pit bulls have been victimized by hype.

            The dogs are no strangers to ordinances. A pit bull ban was passed in London in the 1400s.

            These dogs can be canine crocodiles. They have a dark and bloody history.

            In the United States, pets are considered property in the eyes of the law. And one of the most hotly defended rights of the individual is the right to own anything, no matter how stupid or dangerous the choice — even when what someone wants to own is a threat to them, their family, and the community around them.

            FRANKLIN LOEW, dean of Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine

            I’m not aware of any other breed of animal that has ever been singled out this way. This is man biting dog.

            HUGH WIRTH, veterinarian

            RSPCA Victoria president Dr Hugh Wirth said the dogs were a menace and were not suitable as pets for anyone.

            “They are time bombs waiting for the right circumstances.”

            “The American pit bull terrier is lethal because it was a breed that was developed purely for dog fighting, in other words killing the opposition.

            “They should never have been allowed into the country. They are an absolute menace.”

            “The fact of life is that the community doesn’t want American pit bull terriers. They’ve said it loud and clear over and over again – they want them banned.”

            GRAEME SMITH, veterinarian

            My views about associating a breed with dangerous behaviours were challenged over time as I saw the impact of Pit Bull attacks. Talking to owners with dogs of this breed who have themselves been turned on, it became clear that these animals are unpredictable and when they attack they can cause serious injury or death.

            It is very hard to give Pit Bulls the benefit of the doubt.

            Avoiding the identification of dogs and their behaviours by their breed means the legislation in place can be such that allows these Pit Bulls “one free bite.” This “one free bite” can have fatal consequences.

            If it looks like a Pit Bull, it is a Pit Bull.

            What’s at stake is the safety of people and their own pets in the wider community, there is no room for gambling with an unpredictable animal.

            And that is so often the case. No one knows where these dogs are until they come out and cause some form of grief. My position is about protecting the public and other animals from these animals.

          • Winston Smith

            Calm down buddy. I’m not nearly as nutters as you are when it comes to pit bulls apparently. I could copy and paste a bunch of pro-pitbull arguments, but that’s not going to get us anywhere. It’s pretty obvious you care deeply about this topic, so I doubt my opinion will mean very much to you, but to clarify my point, in my opinion, every single dog attack comes down to one thing and one thing only, irresponsible dog owners. No dog should be allowed to roam around freely as this invites trouble no matter if it’s a pitbull or a golden retriever.

          • Thomas McCartney

            Yes i agree all dogs anywhere should be under control, fenced, kenneled and when off property leashed under the control of a teen or in the case of a pit bull type dog an adult.

            But why not make all pit bull type dogs and Rotties and even GSD’s have to wear a muzzle?

            It matters not to a dog as once they get used to it to them it is like wearing a ball cap is to us, it means nothing, yet public safety would be dramatically enhanced if this would be done.

            Your wrong though about ownership, with normal dogs yes but with pit bull type dogs it is the impact of genetics that is the determining factor.

            And the dogs are like humans trip just makes you look like a fool.
            This isn’t a Disney Movie it is Real life.!

          • Winston Smith

            How am I anthropomorphizing dogs? I’m not one of those people who treats dogs like people, a dog is a dog. I’d be fine with big dogs having to be muzzled when out on walks. I just don’t like the idea of rounding up every pitbull and exterminating their breed. Not only does that seem cruel to me, it also seems like an unrealistic goal.

            I think a more humane and achievable goal would just be to enforce responsible dog ownership across the board. And that would serve to protect people against all dog attacks, not just pit bulls.

          • Thomas McCartney

            When you ignore the genetic reality of a dog breed that they were ALL bred to be as they all are and try to say they are like a human ethnic group and to treat one differently is as if you were viewing a German differently because of his ethnic group.

            A dog is an animal no different then a lion, tiger, bear, cougar, cobra or a Croc, and if you tried to apply your racial analogy to then you see how absurd it is to do so likewise to a dog, any dog.

            Nobody is talking about doing other then mandatory S/N the pit bull type dog into oblivion.

            The reason i want a Ban is that it is preemptive and not reactive, after some kid is dead any action to the owner is moot to him don’t you think.!!

            In ALL BSL’s all existing pit bull type dogs are grandfathered in with restrictions to leash, muzzle, and S/N and in some cases kennel, signage, liability insurance until they die off naturally, only NEW pit bull type dogs are not allowed in.

            In NO case are they put down or even forced to leave the community if they are a grandfathered in pit bull type dog.!

            A pit bull BSL works EVERYWHERE it is useful in almost eliminating all serious dog attacks that maim, disfigure, dismember, maul, cripple.
            or kill, this is a simply proven fact in all cases.The number of pit bulls is dramatically reduced as are the numbers of them put to death.

            The need to have BSL is to have a preemptive capability to avoid a pit bull attack from happening due to it’s extremely savage consequences.

            It is enacted against all pit bulls as they all have the genetic DNA propensity to carry out these horrific attacks that are non existent in 99% of all other breeds, ban the breed and you ban the deed, simple as that.

            Dealing with an attack after the fact is simply not acceptable due to the horrific nature of said attacks.!

            With any other breed other then Rottweiler’s, wolf hybrids and Akita’s and a few others in very small numbers it is not a naturally genetic reality for them to carry out such horrifying attacks.

            Hence they need to be dealt with in an aggressive reactive modality where all of the breed are not looked on as one but rather based on the actions of the individual misbehaving dog.

            This can be done in a very aggressive proactive manner so that as soon as a dog like a lab lets say starts behaving inappropriately severe consequences can be brought to bare on the owner and their dog in an escalating manner as needed to deal with a situation that has developed.

            This duel track approach can deal with the pits issue as other normal dog breeds can be dealt with as well so vicious dogs of other mainstream breeds are also held accountable for their actions.

            There should be mandatory Spay/Neuter programs for all breeds but clearly the one that needs it the most and where the most change would be effected would be with the Pit Bull type dog.

          • Mary Ann Redfern

            Unfortunately, that is a problem caused by the pit bull lovers themselves. They want no part of any breed specific laws to protect the public welfare. They want to pretend that pit bulls are just like other dogs. Therefore, they do not want to short leash their dogs and have them wear a muzzle. They don’t want to have to keep their pit bulls in reinforced enclosures, even though the pit bull terrier is a notorious escape artist. They don’t want to have their dog singled out. So, the mauling, maiming and killing goes on. They are digging their own dogs’ graves by not admitting that their pits ARE different than other dogs and that extra precautions ARE necessary with this breed and a few others I might add. So what now?

          • Pam Loken

            you are quite a weird person Mary….maybe you need some therapy

          • Karla Ely

            Prisons are full of “law breakers” so trying to legislate “responsible dog ownership” will get you only so far. Eliminating the threat via eliminating the potential danger (i.e. pit bulls) WILL make communities safer. Nobody is talking about “rounding up” existing dogs. Rather, regulations regarding “responsible ownership” (including mandatory liability insurance) need to be more widely adopted. Existing pit bulls will be grandfathered in, with a ban on new ones entering the community. Nearly one million pit bulls/mixes are euthanized at shelters in the U.S. annually – how is that “humane”? Mandatory spay/neuter will mitigate this – a VERY humane solution.

          • Mary Ann Redfern

            You seem like a sensible guy. I won’t suggest or cut and paste, but you really need to read up on the bull terrier breed/s. You will find that they were BRED for fighting. They have traits bred into them that make them the best fighting breed, probably ever. If one grabs hold of you, it’s not letting go until YOU”RE DEAD or IT IS DEAD. True. Unfortunately for pits’ victims.

          • Thomas McCartney

            Count Me In As A Hater

            “That’s Canine Racism!”
            A common tactic used by the pit bull industry to shut down any public safety discussion is throwing out the pit bull race card. The Pit Bull problem is an entirely man made creation which could be solved by breeding safer dogs in responsible numbers.

            Instead, the breed community seems to be locked onto the blaming others and creating excuses for the situation they’ve created. Pit Bull attacks are always the fault of the owner or victim, and never caused by reckless breeding or the dog fighting industry.

            Then the tone deaf advocates hide behind the excess pit bulls they created and blame society for the “Hate”…. totally oblivious that the hatred is not toward these poor animals, but that it is aimed toward the grotesque and criminally irresponsible breed stewardship that they toil day and night to perpetuate.

            Race Card Phenomenon:
            Frederick Schauer, who teaches a course on the first amendment at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, was reading about some dog lovers who claimed ”canine racism” in response to measures to curb attacks by pit bulls in New York City.

            That particular race card, he said, was an extreme example of how society has become so obsessed with avoiding any stereotypes that it ignores reality.

            Pit bulls are more aggressive than other breeds, he said, just as statistics show older people have slower reflexes than the young, and there are more bad drivers in Massachusetts than in Vermont. A fair number of generalizations, he insists, turn out to be accurate.

            Let’s explore reasons to hate the $Billion dollar a year tax free Pit Bull Industry:

            I hate it when a kid is laying on the coroner’s table.

            I hate it when someone’s Grandmother is poured into the life flight helicopter.

            I hate it that dogfighters kill 250,000 pits a year…hell bent on engineering a better mauler.

            Fatal dog attack, Rosie Humphreys
            I hate it when a nice lady and her dog are killed by a chain breaking pit bull and the owner gets a mere $150 ticket

            I hate it that the dog lobby is behaving as corruptly as the tobacco lobby in the 50’s and 60’s.

            I hate it that Pit breeders pump out one Million excess dogs that the taxpayer has to euthanize….to top it off they don’t pay taxes.

            I hate it that only convicted felons seem to be able to properly identify Pit Bulls.

            I Hate it when well intentioned Dog Safety Legislation is perverted into a Pit Bull Breeder’s and Dog Fighters Bill Of Rights

            I hate the grotesque breed stewardship exerted by the Pit Bull community.

            I hate when family members of Officers in a state Pit Bull club are busted trafficking fighting dogs.

            I hate The Nanny Dog Lie

            I hate it that Law Enforcement is continually having to shoot these animals.

            I hate it that the Animal Control Professions and Animal welfare Community have abandoned their public safety responsibility

            I hate it when a pit bull owner leaves a blind person and their injured service dog helpless.

            I hate it when radicalized Humane orgs like the Toronto Humane Society spent in excess of $400,000 saving a Pit Bull that attacked on 4 separate occasions, yet this woman can’t get plastic surgery:

            Marie-Helene Tokar

            I hate it that Pit Bull mauling victims have to hold bake sales and blood drives to pay medical costs, while some Pit Bull advocates live in 500K plus houses.

            I hate it that nearly 130 Americans have been killed by Pit Bulls since the Vick Bust in 2007, yet they claim success.

            I hate it that Michael Vick’s Beagles have been erased from history.

            I hate it that Pit Bull advocates show zero respect to their victims by not wearing black on Pit Bull Awareness day.

            I hate it when the neighborhood Mail Carrier is put on the disability rolls.

            I hate it when a neighborhood dog is ripped apart by a Pit Bull.

            I hate it that Pit Bulls are approaching 500 world wide DBRFS yet their breeders insist they aren’t human aggressive.

            I don’t mind it so much when a consenting adult pit bull owner is attacked by their own animal, but I do hate the first responder costs…just being honest!

            Oh well…Hose the blood off the sidewalk and pump out another litter!

          • Karla Ely

            I’m a “lover”… a lover of safe and sane communities for ALL citizens. Fighting breeds have no place in today’s communities… the traits that have been bred into them over decades cannot be “loved out of them”… you are only deluding yourself and endangering others.

          • Pam Loken

            you are far from a lover… and you are very foolish to believe your world will be so much safer if all pits are gone….

          • Mary Ann Redfern

            How could the world not be much safer it all pit are gone? They are the deadliest breed of dog in existence, mauling, maiming and killing more people, pets and livestock animals than all other breeds combined BY FAR. You need to learn to love other dog breeds. There are so many. You CAN break your pit bull addiction.

          • Pam Loken

            Mary Ann….you and your kind, just plain need to learn how to love.
            You are so wrong about these animals, and so hard headed….go to a few classes once, learn some REAL truth….I have many other types of animals also, and your comment above, is so off…I have yet to have even a cat be killed by my pit-bull.
            If you only knew how much your kind make this world unsafe, your so concerned about safety, YOU put ME in danger every day when I go and walk my dog, because some crazy person could so easily try and shoot my dog, thinking they have the right, and end up shooting me. Or your insane rants gets the crazy dog killer, thinking he’s ok when he mauls, and beats these dogs, or fights them to the death, it’s ok, it’s just pit-bulls, nobody cares….that’s what YOUR kind promotes.
            I’d feel safer with your kind gone

          • Thomas McCartney

            ACKNOWLEDGING NEGATIVE TRAITS IN A BREED IS “RACISM”

            In recent years the term breed “racism” had emerged when addressing breed related issues and regulations.

            The concept is if you support dog breed regulations or acknowledge negative breed specific traits it is equivalent to the human form of racism. The error in the concept is that humans and dogs are very different creatures.

            Dog breeds exist because they are specifically designed for a purpose. Dogs are selectively bred for physical and breed trait aspects. Humans do not reproduce in that manner. Humans are not selectively bred and have a choice in their mate. To make this concept equivalent, humans would have to be purposely bred for certain physical or personality traits over the course of hundreds of years.

            It has not been determined that selectively breeding humans would actually work since there has not been any official scientific studies conducted. The closest humanity came to selective breeding was the concept of Eugenics, which was trying to breed out negative physical traits, such as mental illness, and breed in positive traits, such as a high I.Q. The concept has been abandoned by most cultures due to the difficulty of selective breeding due to the high incidence of unplanned pregnancies.

            Dogs have been selectively bred for many generations with great success. Since racism in the human culture is based solely on the color of one’s skin, hence the “race” in racism, and not personality traits, it does not accurately compare to dog breeding. To accurately compare, one would have to judge a dog based solely on fur color.

            Most breeds are judged on physical and personality related breed traits, so the term breed “racism” is equivalent to human forms of racism. It is surprising that more people are not offended by this comparison.

            Comparing breed struggles to the Civil Rights movement seems a little extreme and minimalizes the struggles of certain races in history. The comparison of dog breeds and racism has no basis.

          • Thomas McCartney

            One of the most common pitfalls, i say is anthropomorphising (attributing human characteristics to our pets).

            Humans are cognitive sentient beings with a capacity to determine it’s actions, dogs are not, they only know and are what goes in one end and goes out the other, simple as that, that is all they care about period.!!!

            Comparing a Human being to a dog is like comparing one to a snail.

            Man was made in Gods image, nothing else, no other animal is even in the same category.!!!!

            Because people are individuals with unique capacities to act for good or evil, a dog is a breed or type with a generic genetic reality and truth with a generic outcome the same as a wolf, a wolverine, a tiger, cougar etc.

          • Thomas McCartney

            Wednesday, March 17, 2010

            Radio Show Interviews Assistant City Attorney Don Bauermeister About Pit Bull Bans

            Browning: “Have you had any other nuisances in your community similar to the pit bulls?”

            Bauermeister:

            “There’s a lot of rhetoric and argument that these thugs that were responsible for the pit bulls, that they’ll just go out and grab another dog and we’re going to see a problem with some sort of replacement dog.

            That has not happened. That’s simply false, and it’s rhetoric, and it hasn’t happened in Denver either.

          • Thomas McCartney

            Just a Few???????????????????????????

            What about this do Pit bull advocates not understand.???????????
            over 45,000 killings last year of Human Beings, pets, livestock etc. is NOT acceptable, get it.!!

            If 45,000 cars were killing a person or pet or livestock a piece then that car would be banned even if there were 5 million more of them that harmed no one.!!!!!

            If there were 30,000 drunk drivers involved in incidents with over 17 million not involved
            (over 1.5 million drunk drivers arrested every year in the US) as over 30,000 pit bull type dogs were involved with attacks last year, with 3,170,000 pit bull type dogs that WEREN’T involved in attacks?

            Would there still be a BAN on drunk Drivers?

            Oh wait………………Hummmmmmmmmm there is one isn’t there, Ooops you be so busted.!!!

            More then 70,000 attacks by pit bull type dogs last year against people, pets and livestock of which resulted in over 45,000 deaths of Human Beings, pets, livestock etc. by over 30,000 pit bull type dogs in those attacks with the number likely double this year that Kill, Maul, Maim, Disfigure, Dismember, cause Life Flights or trips to the Intensive Care Unit.

            With a human being usually am child killed every 7 days this year, what about those numbers do you NOT understand Pit Nutters??????

          • Bob Cronk

            That is the problem with the pit bull haters…they use a number like 45000 and then make you think its all people… 30 people per year are killed by dogs.. its about the same every year. Statically you have less than a 1 percent change of being mauled to death by a dog.

          • Thomas McCartney

            No i clearly state the 45,000 includes Human Beings, pets, livestock etc.
            Time for your annual ESL course me thinks. :)

            And as many as 10,000 humans are mauled and horrible disfigured and crippled in pit bull type dog attacks, they survived but wish they hadn’t.

          • Mary Ann Redfern

            That’s why I myself prefer that the fighting breeds be allowed to die out. Fighting is illegal. Why have fighting dogs in existence? Good-bye, bully breeds. tah tah Good riddance.

          • Pam Loken

            this is what I don’t get with your kind…..what makes you think everyone that has a pit-bull wants them for fighting? I think it’s more like Good-bye bully haters….hating should be illegal, and if it was, Good riddance to you and your kind

      • Mary Ann Redfern

        You can where I live, in Louisiana. Can’t carry it CONCEALED without a permit which is inexpensive and fairly easy to obtain. I keep a loaded pistol for pit bulls losing their way and ending up on my property.

        • Pam Loken

          wow, cold biotch ….just remember, keep your kitty or poodle out of their yard, they may just have the same….I’m just saying.
          Have you never met a friendly pit bull?….have you ever even met a pit bull?…or are you just a *believe everything I read* kinda person

  • Lori K.

    The following is a list of the top 10 dog breeds involved in dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada involving humans from September 1982 to December 31, 2013, based on a larger table compiled by Merritt Clifton, former editor of Animal People, an animal rights charity/news group. Clifton now is the editor of Animals 24-7.

    A Bullmastiff is considered a pit bull type dog and a pit bull mix between a pit bull and a mastiff and is 40% pit bull.

    Breed ****** Attacks doing bodily harm ****** Maimed ****** Deaths
    1. Pit bull **********2792 ***********************677 **********263
    2. Rottweiler *******514 ************************294 **********81
    3. Bull Mastiff ******105 ************************61 ***********15
    4. German Shepherd 102 **********************63 ***********15
    5. Wolf Hybrid ******85 *************************49 ***********19
    6. Akita **************68 ************************50 ************8
    7. Boxer *************62 ************************29 ************7
    8. Chow *************58 ************************39 ************7
    9. Pit bull/Rottweiler mix 50 ********************15 ************15
    10.Labrador ********50 *************************39 ************3

    The report states that the numbers are compiled from press accounts dating to 1982. It only includes attacks by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, which have been kept as pets. All accounts are cross-checked by date, location and identity of the victim, according to the report.

    Attacks by police dogs, guard dogs and dogs trained specifically to fight are not included in the report.

  • Lori K.

    Merritt Clifton Editor Of Animals24-7:

    I have logged fatal & disfiguring dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada since September 1982.

    Of the 4,843 dogs involved in fatal and disfiguring attacks on humans occurring in the U.S. & Canada since September 1982, when I began logging the data, 3,309 (68%) were pit bulls; 551 were Rottweilers; 4,139 (85%) were of related molosser breeds, including pit bulls, Rottweilers, mastiffs, bull mastiffs, boxers, and their mixes.

    Of the 558 human fatalities, 294 were killed by pit bulls; 87 were killed by Rottweilers; 422 (75%) were killed by molosser breeds.

    Of the 2,934 people who were disfigured, 2,007 (68%) were disfigured by pit bulls; 322 were disfigured by Rottweilers; 2,493 (84%) were disfigured by molosser breeds.

    Pit bulls–exclusive of their use in dogfighting–also inflict more than 70 times as many fatal and disfiguring injuries on other pets and livestock as on humans, a pattern unique to the pit bull class.

    Fatal and disfiguring attacks by dogs from shelters and rescues have exploded from zero in the first 90 years of the 20th century to 80 in the past four years, including 58 by pit bulls, along with 22 fatal & disfiguring attacks by other shelter dogs, mostly Rottweilers & bull mastiffs.

    The only dogs rehomed from U.S. shelters to kill anyone, ever, before 2000 were two wolf hybrids in 1988 and 1989. 33 U.S. shelter dogs & one U.K. shelter dog have participated in killing people since 2010, including 24 pit bulls, seven bull mastiffs, and two Rottweilers.

    Surveys of dogs offered for sale or adoption indicate that pit bulls and pit mixes are less than 6% of the U.S. dog population; molosser breeds, all combined, are 9%.

  • Lori K.

    In ALL BSL’s all existing pit bull type dogs are grandfathered in with restrictions to leash, muzzle, and S/N and in some cases kennel, signage, liability insurance until they die off naturally, only NEW pit bull type dogs are not allowed in.

    In NO case are they put down or even forced to leave the community if they are a grandfathered in pit bull type dog.!

    A pit bull BSL works EVERYWHERE it is useful in almost eliminating all serious dog attacks that maim, disfigure, dismember, maul, cripple.

    or kill, this is a simply proven fact in all cases.The number of pit bulls is dramatically reduced as are the numbers of them put to death.

    The need to have BSL is to have a preemptive capability to avoid a pit bull attack from happening due to it’s extremely savage consequences.

    It is enacted against all pit bulls as they all have the genetic DNA propensity to carry out these horrific attacks that are non existent in 99% of all other breeds, ban the breed and you ban the deed, simple as that.

    Dealing with an attack after the fact is simply not acceptable due to the horrific nature of said attacks.!

    With any other breed other then Rottweiler’s, wolf hybrids and Akita’s and a few others in very small numbers it is not a naturally genetic reality for them to carry out such horrifying attacks.

    Hence they need to be dealt with in an aggressive reactive modality where all of the breed are not looked on as one but rather based on the actions of the individual misbehaving dog.

    This can be done in a very aggressive proactive manner so that as soon as a dog like a lab lets say starts behaving inappropriately severe consequences can be brought to bare on the owner and their dog in an escalating manner as needed to deal with a situation that has developed.

    This duel track approach can deal with the pits issue as other normal dog breeds can be dealt with as well so vicious dogs of other mainstream breeds are also held accountable for their actions.

    There should be mandatory Spay/Neuter programs for all breeds but clearly the one that needs it the most and where the most change would be effected would be with the Pit Bull type dog

  • ARParent

    Thank you for putting public safety first!

  • guest

    Hey Lori, any studies on chihahua’s with a big dog complex?

    • Thomas McCartney

      A chihahua you can boot threw a goal post if it gets an attitude, with a pit bull type dog you need a bazooka to accomplish the same thing.!!!

      Any other dog will bite and run giving you a few stitches, a pit bull will not stop till you are DEAD.What about that do you not understand, the difference between another dog’s bite and a pit bulls mauling and dismembering, disfiguring and killing.

      • guest

        I know a chihahua that thinks it’s a pit bull. Straight for the juglar while you sleep. Those little tiny razor sharp teeth. Those bug eyes filled with hate. I look deep into it’s eyes and can see the plotting and maneuvering waiting for that moment. Yes, that moment when you least expect it. You just fed it some kibble, maybe some boiled chicken and you are relaxing in your recliner and dose off. The next thing you know you have four pounds of terror latched on your throat. The humanity of it all.

        • Thomas McCartney

          The Pit Nutters exposed credo:

          Media manipulation is their watchword, their attempts to give their mutants a make over can not hide the evil in their eyes nor the moral stench that exudes from their being, pit bulls are one of satan’s more natural creations, a set of horns and pitchfork would have been a far more appropriate visual reality presentation then the cute pitty poo farcical misrepresentations they present to the public.

          • guest

            I can handle the pit bull. Simply shoot them. No problem. What about the subversive toy breeds that are going unchecked? People can hide these little vermin in their purse’s and bags. It is terrifying checking out at a store if there is someone in front of you with a large purse. At any moment a small canine could leap and create an inferno that will scar forever. It’s not fair to people that may carry coffee without the proper lidage in a public area. Every time I smell ginger spice latte I curl in a ball and pee a little. Damn those shitzu’s.

          • guest

            I could tell you a story about a Pekingese that will make you sleep with the lights on.

          • guest

            I once had a Pug that I carried every where. He thought he was human I think. I had some friends over and we decided to go out to eat. Pistol ran to the door. I said “no, you can’t go”. He pouted and ran off. We went to a new Indian place. I had never had Indian before. It didn’t sit well. When I got home Pistol had shredded every roll of toilet paper in the house. Think about that one.

          • Thomas McCartney

            The point is, other dogs bite and release causing a band aid or a stitch or two, it is only Pit bulls and Pit bull crosses and others like Bullmastiffs, Rotts etc. that attack and can not change their Genetic reality to Kill, Maul, Maim, Disfigure, Dismember, cause Life Flights or trips to the Intensive Care Unit.

            These are the kind of attacks that BSL is designed to stop and they do so very successfully, they are not meant to stop everyday minor fear bites from normal dogs as those are not the attacks that pit bull type dogs carry out.

            That is the big difference in the outcome and should result in a completely different attitude towards these dogs and why they should be banned outright.

            The stats are very clear and accurate and show this reality even if you want to put your head in the sand, it still is what it is.

          • Terry Holt

            OFFICIAL THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TO

            Ban and outlaw Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) in the United States of America on a Federal level!

            Breed-Specific Legislation Is a Bad Idea

            Thanks for your petition.

            We don’t support breed-specific legislation — research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.

            In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at twenty years of data about dog bites and human fatalities in the United States. They found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people and that it’s virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds.

            The CDC also noted that the types of people who look to exploit dogs aren’t deterred by breed regulations — when their communities establish a ban, these people just seek out new, unregulated breeds. And the simple fact is that dogs of any breed can become dangerous when they’re intentionally or unintentionally raised to be aggressive.

            For all those reasons, the CDC officially recommends against breed-specific legislation — which they call inappropriate. You can read more from them here.

            As an alternative to breed-specific policies, the CDC recommends a community-based approach to prevent dog bites. And ultimately, we think that’s a much more promising way to build stronger communities of pets and pet owners.

            Tell us what you think about this response and We the People.

          • Terry Holt

            Model Non-Breed-Specific Ordinances

            Studies have shown that dog owner (mis)management is frequently the cause of dog bites. Dogs that are not properly socialized, trained, and contained are often implicated in dog bites. Furthermore, dogs have no control over their environment—but their owners do.

            Consequently, dangerous dog laws should more properly be called dangerous dog owner laws, because the laws should focus on owner actions (and inactions) and owner responsibility (and irresponsibility). Dog owners are capable of—and should be held responsible for—safely controlling their dog, no matter what breed or type of dog they happen to own.

            Following is a list of model dog control ordinances compiled from various sources, as cited.

            Model Dog And Cat Control Ordinance (Appendix 2) and Model legislation for the identification and regulation of “dangerous” dogs (Appendix 4) from the American Veterinary Medical Association. Includes the following elements:

            Model Dog and Cat Control Ordinance (Appendix 2)

            Definitions

            Licensing and Rabies Vaccination

            Permits

            Issuance and revocation of permits and licenses

            Owner responsibility

            Impoundment

            Redemption

            Adoption

            Interference

            Repeals

            Severability

            Applicability

            Safety Clause

            Model legislation for the identification and regulation of “dangerous” dogs (Appendix 4)

            Actions allowed by authorized persons prior to hearing

            Definitions

            Hearing procedure

            Requirements for owners of dogs deemed dangerous

            Model Animal Control Law by National Animal Interest Alliance. A basic ordinance suitable for city or county level. Includes the following elements:

            Definitions

            Administration

            Animal Control: Dogs

            Animal Control: At-Risk Dogs

            Animal Control: Dangerous Dogs

            Animal Control: Cats

            Animal Control: Exotic Animals

            Animal Control Advisory Board

            Cruelty, Abuse, and Neglect

            Responding to the data: a guide to constructing successful pet-friendly ordinances by National Animal Interest Alliance. This goes hand-in-hand with the sample model animal control law and serves as a guide for those who wish to write their own legislation.

            Proposed Dangerous Dog Act by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers. Suitable for state-level implementation. Interestingly, provides a scale by which a dog’s aggressive behavior can be measured to aid in the determination of dangerousness or viciousness. Includes the following elements:

            Findings, Definitions, and General Provisions

            Judicial Process

            Severity Determination

            Disposition of Potentially Dangerous or Vicious Dogs

            Penalties

            Miscellaneous

          • Terry Holt

            Alternatives

            There are quite a few alternatives to BSL that promise public protection and bite reduction without as many drawbacks.

            What BSL misses—the role of the owner in creating a safe or dangerous situation—these alternatives tackle head on.

            View some model dog ownership laws.

            Consider the role of proper containment in preventing dog bites.

            Prevent dog abuse and dog fighting in your community.

            Educate children and adults about safety around dogs.

            Offer low-cost or free spay and neuter programs to encourage people to invest in their pets.

            Offer low-cost or free training or a behavior helpline to encourage people to understand their dog’s behavior.

            Regulate breeders to ensure that puppies start out on the right foot, behaviorally and health-wise.

            Prevent violent, abusive, and irresponsible people from obtaining any more dogs.

            SPREAD THE WORD:

            EmailFacebook25TwitterGoogleMore

            3 RESPONSES TO “ALTERNATIVES”

            Pingback: BSL Verdict: No Justice–But New Idea Inspired by Case « Pet Defense

            Pingback: Westwego Louisiana officials introduce strict breed discriminatory requirements | Stop BSL

            Pingback: Aurora Colorado may reconsider their ban | Stop BSL

          • Terry Holt

            American Bar Association

            Resolution 100

            (click above for direct link)

            Urges Adoption of Breed-Neutral Dog Laws

            Resolution adopted 8/6/2012

            RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges all state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless owner laws that ensure due process protections for owners, encourage responsible pet ownership and focus on the behavior of both dog owners and dogs, and to repeal any breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions.

          • Terry Holt

            AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDATION

            DOES BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION REDUCE DOG BITES AND

            FATALITIES ?

            In analyzing nonfatal dog bite injuries we find an increase in serious injuries each year. A

            study was done by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Center for

            Injury Prevention (view study here) which showed in 1994 that 333,700 patients were

            treated for dog bites in emergency departments (EDs) and in 2001 there were 368,245

            patients treated in EDS’s.

            A study was done by the American Canine Foundation which shows that where breed

            bans have been enacted dog bite incidents reports have increased. Based on current

            dog data, banning ten breeds of dogs from a city will not reduce dog bites given the ratio

            between mixed breeds compared to purebred dogs. Strong laws that penalize the

            owners, regardless of the breed are what is needed.

            These types of laws are valid, have merit and are not vague or capricious. ACF supports

            laws that hold owners accountable for their dog’s behavior. Laws need to declare a dog

            potentially dangerous when it menaces a human, or when they bite a human or

            domestic animal. The owners need to be cited and placed under restrictions. A second

            offense should automatically declare the dog dangerous and call for a misdemeanor

            charge against the owner.

          • Terry Holt

            PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS SHOULD COUNT FOR SOMETHING.

            Members of the National Animal Control Association, the ASPCA, the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, and many other canine welfare groups deal with aggressive dogs on a regular basis. So do these major animal organizations support breed-specific legislation? No. In fact, none of these professional groups do. Read their position statements and find out why not.

            (alphabetic order)

            American Bar Association (ABA)

            American Dog Owners Association (ADOA)

            American Humane

            American Kennel Club (AKC)

            American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

            American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

            American Working Dog Federation (AWDF)

            Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT)

            Best Friends Animal Society

            Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

            Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

            International Assocation of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC)

            International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP)

            National Animal Control Association (NACA)

            National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA)

            National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors (NADOI)

          • Terry Holt

            American Animal Foundation

            case law on bsl

            Zuniga v. San Mateo Dept. of Health Services (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1521,

            267 Cal. Rptr. 2d 755. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to prove Pit Bulls

            have an inherent nature of being dangerous.

            Carter v. Metro North Assocs. (1998) 255 A.D. 2d 251; 680 N.Y.S.2d 299 A New

            York appellate court determined that the alleged propensities of Pit Bull Terriers to behave

            more viciously than other breeds had not been authoritatively established.

            ACF litigated the city of Huntsville Alabama in 2002 in a case that was heard by

            the Alabama Supreme Court. Huntsville v. Four Pit Bull Puppies (Ala. 08-30-02), No.

            1010459, unreported. The court determined that American Pit Bull Terriers were not

            dangerous.

            In March 2003 ACF sued the city of Ottumwa Iowa for 750,000 for passing a

            breed ban, the case is in litigation. ACF v Ottumwa EQEQ 103700

            On July 16th 2003 ACF brought forth a constitutional challenge against

            Ohio’s state law that declares the Pit Bull vicious. The case was heard in the Toledo

            Muni Court and the court found the American Pit Bull Terrier was not dangerous and granted

            Pit Bull owners due process , the case is in appeal. Tellings v State of Ohio CRB02-15267

            In August 2004 a case ACF assisted in was heard by the Ohio Supreme

            Court. State v. Cowan 103 Ohio St. 3d 144 , 2004 – Ohio – 4777 The court found ORC 955:

            22 violative of the right to be heard as applied to ORC955:11 which declared the Pit Bull

            vicious in Ohio. The decision struck down Ohio’s breed specific legislation at the state level.

          • Billy Hunt

            Why Is BSL Ineffective?

            If an individual has a strong desire to train a dog to attack, no amount of BSL will stop that person. Golden Retrievers have been trained to seek out and attack human beings – the breed is not an issue, rather it is the lack of proper training/socialization and the dangerous practice of training dogs to be guard dogs (as opposed to watch dogs who are not trained to attack but merely ?watch?, as their name implies). Why are certain breeds more prevalent in dog attack statistics? Not because there are somehow more of those particular dogs existing but that more of the dogs are being owned by abusive or simply neglectful individuals who do not neuter their dogs, allow their animals to roam free and never socialize their animals, or who purchase their animal for the wrong reasons (ego).

            The banning of specific breeds has been shown NOT to decrease the number of attacks or maulings. Why? Well, those same individuals who would have owned a Rottweiler or a Pit Bull are simply turning other breeds of dogs into killers. Other breeds simply replace the banned breeds as top maulers. Any dog can be trained to be aggressive towards humans and any dog that is not properly socialized can become dangerous. The list of organizations that are against BSL is staggering – they are reputable agencies and groups who realize that owners of dangerous dogs need to be held responsible but that no particular breed is more or less likely to possibly attack. Some of the agencies/organizations are: AKC (American Kennel Club), UKC (United Kennel Club), AVMA, CDC (Centers for Disease Control), ASPCA, SPCA?s, most Human Societies, most Animal Control Facilities, ADBA (American Dog Breeders Association), ADOA (American Dog Owners Association), most breeders and rescue groups as well as reconstructive surgeons for children whose groups have stated that a bite to the face of a child can be devastating REGARDLESS of the breed of dog who inflicted the wound.

          • Terry Holt

            Breed Specific Legislation:

            Breed: (brEd) n. 1.a number of persons or things that are grouped together because they have something in common. 2.a number of persons of the same stock. 3.a Class or Kind. (a new breed of athlete).

            Race: (rAs) n. 1.a breeding stock of animals. 2.a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock. 3.a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics. (The English race).

            Racism: (rA-“si-z&m also -“shi-) n. 1.racial prejudice or discrimination. 2.the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races. 3.discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race. 4.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

            What exactly is Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)? It’s exactly what it sounds like, the regulation of your right to own a certain breed of dog. This actually poses many problems, First off, most of the people that are running “Pit Bull factories” are dumping many mixed breeds into America. So many, in fact, that most people can’t even tell the difference. Think you can tell the difference? See if you can, go here: Find the Pit. To find out what a pure bred Pit Bull should look like click here. Here are some quick facts. There are at least 20 other breeds of dog that look similar, if not almost identical, to Pit Bulls. Most of the excessively large pit bulls you have seen were originally (many, many litters ago) mixed with larger breed dogs, such as Mastiffs, American Bull Dogs, etc… I am not bashing any type of dog, I think they’re all great. It’s simply the fact that if most people can’t even tell exactly what a Pit Bull looks like, and easily confuse them with other breeds of dog then how can you ban that breed?! In all actuality “Pit Bulls” aren’t even a breed of dog, it’s a generic term for: American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or any mix of those breeds resulting in a similar looking dog. In America, it is illegal to be racist towards other people. Sure you can have your own opinion as long as its kept internally, but once you publicly display your thoughts and feelings you can be charged with hate crimes, racism, prejudice, and everything else under the sun. My point is, what’s the difference between being racist towards people and being racist towards dogs? Either way, you’re still being prejudice towards them because of how they look or what they are, because of ,mostly, falsely reported information. The people that are giving Pit Bulls bad names are, like I said before, the Fad Breeders, not the honest dog breeders. The media also does not help because most people will believe anything they hear and they report only the bad things. Most of the time the dog was misidentified as a Pit Bull in the first place. They should report the good things that Pit Bulls do too, the good comes with the bad, even though most of the time actual, true Pit Bulls did nothing wrong. Back to the Fad Breeders and people that breed them for fighting or buy them from shelters for that reason, as soon as Pit Bulls get banned they will change the breed of dog it is that they use or breed. They’ll put in a little more Mastiff and call it a Mastiff or a Mat Bull or something. Who knows? Or they may just pack up and switch to another breed entirely. They’ve actually busted people for importing Hyenas and fighting them now. So is that the dog’s fault? No! It’s the retards that imported them in to the country in the first place. My point is that if everyone has a different mental image of what a “pit bull” looks like then how can you ban them? I think Stanislaus County and Los Angeles came up with a great way to deal with B.S.L. Stanislaus County passed an ordinance on July 12, 2005 that is modeled after the Los Angeles ordinance. Citizens of Stanislaus County will have to pay high fees to keep their dogs of ALL breeds (and cats). These high fees will encourage more spays/neuters. Breeding restrictions now mandate required permits for breeding, with fines imposed for those who breed without them, as well as for selling under age animals, selling in flea markets, etc. In an era where politicians are vilifying breeds and calling for ineffective measures, we’re encouraged by those who’ve chosen to address the real problems, the overpopulation of pets, that is. It may not be the best solution, or the solution that pit bull lovers would prefer, but its the best one we’ve had so far. So before you go out and adopt a Pit Bull do yourself and the dog a favor and make sure that they are spayed or neutered and that they are legal to have in your city. You can do this by checking here: BSL Locations in America. Also, while these pit bulls are in need of our help, good breeders are not and should not be breeding right now, due to the excessive over population of the breed and their unfortunate reputation. They’re breeding dogs that have a better chance than any other dog of ending up euthanized in a shelter or anywhere else for that matter or in the hands of the wrong people. It’s just something to think about.

          • Thomas McCartney

            Recently nine-year-old Colby Price Price was the 28th person known to have suffered fatal or disfiguring injuries from a U.S. shelter or rescue dog in 2014, matching the previous record set in 2013. Twenty-five victims in each year were mauled by pit bulls.

            Thirty-five dogs from shelters and rescues have killed people since 2010. Among the killer dogs were 24 pit bulls, seven bull mastiffs, two Rottweilers, a Labrador retriever who may have been part pit bull, and a husky.

            The most recent victim, Rita Pepe of Branford, Connecticut, 93, died on May 25, 2014 from complications of injuries suffered in an attack on April 13, 2014 by a pit bull who had been adopted from the Dan Cosgrove Animal Shelter.

            No one is known to have been killed by a shelter dog from the opening of the first U.S. adoption shelter in 1858 until 1988. Wolf hybrids rehomed by shelters killed two children in 1988-1989.

            Three fatalities occurred in the 2000-2009 time frame, inflicted by a pit bull, a Doberman, and a bull mastiff.

          • Thomas McCartney

            Oh did you know that over 2,700 pit bull type dogs were put to death today in US animal shelters as they are every day 365 days a year?

            Oh yes indeed and today the world is a better and safer place for it being so…..Sigh……….it is so gratifying as well to know these mutant undogs will no longer be farting rainbows, green house gas emissions don’t you know.!

          • Pam Loken

            Thomas, get a life, leave these poor animals alone

    • Pam Loken

      Lori and here following are GROSS people, they go all over the net spilling their filthy hate

      • Bob Doone

        Why Breed Specific Legislation Does Not Protect Public from Dangerous Dogs

        Dec. 2, 2013 — Research conducted by animal behavior experts challenges the basis of breed specific legislation designed to protect the public from ‘dangerous’ dogs.

        Share This:

        13

        A team from the University of Lincoln, UK, concluded that rather than making people safer, current legislation could be lulling them into a false sense of security.

        Dr Tracey Clarke and Professors Daniel Mills and Jonathan Cooper from Lincoln’s School of Life Sciences set out to discover the source of people’s perceptions about ‘typical behaviors’ associated with different breeds of dog. Their findings were recently published in the journal Human Animal Interaction Bulletin published by the American Psychological Association, in a freely available paper “Acculturation — Perceptions of breed differences in behavior of the dog (Canis familiaris)”.

        Professor Mills said: “This work provides good scientific evidence to explain why the pursuit by governments of breed specific legislation to reduce the risk of harm to citizens is not only doomed to failure, but also giving people a false sense of security, which may actually be making the situation worse.”

        The researchers applied a theory known as the ‘contact hypothesis’ — used by sociologists to understand the origin of racial stereotyping and other forms of prejudice.

        They surveyed more than 160 people to examine if their contact with dogs influenced their tendency to believe populist and negative breed stereotypes.

        They found significant variations in attitudes between people who owned dogs or had regular contact with them, and those who did not. More than half (54%) of respondents who identified themselves as “experienced or knowledgeable” of dogs disagreed with the statement that some breeds are more aggressive than others. Only 15% of respondents who said they had little or no experience of dogs held the same view.

        Similarly, more than half of the “experienced” respondents felt there was no valid reason for breed specific legislation, whereas less than 1 in 10 of the inexperienced respondents felt the same.

        The results were consistent with the prediction that not just the level but also the quality of contact with dogs are major influences on the tendency to believe populist breed stereotypes, despite scientific evidence which challenges the validity of such generalisations.

        The variability within a breed is nearly always greater than the variability between breeds for behavioral traits, meaning while there may be differences on average, when it comes to assessing the likelihood that a particular individual will behave in a certain way generalisations are often unsound. The type of person attracted towards certain breeds and encouraging certain behaviors may be a much better predictor.

        It was discovered that a dog’s visible characteristics informed strong attitudes, resulting in over-generalization. Not only bull-breeds but also those with much more superficial characteristics such as being well-muscled, or even short-haired, were stigmatised more often as dangerous by those with less experience or knowledge of dogs.

        Attraction to certain types on the basis of their appearance, can then lead to these being preferred for use as a weapon or status dog, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about their behavior through environmental rather than genetic effects.

        The team suggest that further scientific research is needed to improve understanding of the origins and basis of negative breed stereotypes, and that this in turn should be used to inform future legislation.

  • Bob Cronk

    Get your dogs dna tested ASAP… tax payers wait to pay for more ‘services” because if the law is actually going to be enforced.. be ready to pay.

    • Thomas McCartney

      There is NO DNA test anywhere that can reliably test for breed, only for parentage and specific identity, this according to the U of Cal Davis in CA.

      In fact they specifically do NOT test got pit bull DNA as the capability to do so does not exist yet.

      Simple visual appearance is more then adequate to identify a pit bull type dog.

      Such modality has been use in dog shows like westminster for hundreds of years, dog experts can easily use it to make such determinations.!!!!!

      • Bob Cronk

        According to Fred Hutchinson Cancer Ctr. DNA testing does work for k-9’s. There is something called clustering. Certain breeds of dogs have different clustering of dna.
        I tried to post the link however this particular website does not seem to want anything linked to it.

        • Thomas McCartney

          Even the companies that do DNA testing state they will not test for pit bull terrier DNA period, and they clearly have been proven to be highly inaccurate in general, clustering is effective in testing HUMAN DNA not dog dna.

          • Bob Cronk

            sounds like at least one city in Ohio disagree:

            First, there’s the difficulty of even defining a pit bull. A Fort Thomas man had to get a DNA test to prove that his pet wasn’t a pit. In addition, dogs’ behavior and size – not breed – determine their risk for causing harm, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association.

          • Thomas McCartney

            What is a pit bull?

            All these pit bull type dogs have the same pit bull bred genetic truth and reality and outcome and danger and all should be considered with the same danger that they all represent.

            The legal definition of a pit bull is a class of dogs that includes the following breeds: American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American bulldog1 and any other pure bred or mixed breed dog that is a combination of these dogs.
            Weight and shape can vary significantly amongst pit bulls, from 35 to 100 plus pounds.

            Unlike the English and the French Bulldogs, the Olde English Bulldogge and the American Bulldog were not mixed with Pug or other purely companion breeds. The Olde English Bulldogge is a recreation of the original bear-baiting, horse-baiting, pit-fighting bulldog of Elizabethan England.

            The American Bulldog is a mix of these original bulldogs with a mastiff type.

            Breed-specific laws were invented to regulate pit bulls. This class of dogs is comprised of several breeds, including: American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier and Staffordshire bull terrier.

            The American bulldog can also be classified within this group; the two breeds share a common gene pool and are close cousins. The breed standard for the American bulldog, Scott-type, was developed by crossing early Johnson lines with the American pit bull terrier.

            Though pit bulls are by far the most popular “fighting breed,” several U.S. cities have expanded breed-specific laws to incorporate additional fighting breeds, including: dogo argentino, tosa (tosa inu), fila brasileiro (Brazilian mastiff), cane corso, presa canario and presa mallorquin. Yet, these instances are rare.

            The focal point of breed-specific laws revolves around pit bulls. This is because this class of dogs is the most common and negatively impacts communities the most.

            This is what an American Bull dog is, in effect a pit bull type dog, 6 of one half a dozen of another, same difference:

            Progressive pit bull legislation includes the American bulldog in its definition of a pit bull.

            The term Pit bull type dog refers to many variants with the same mutated genetic truth and reality and outcome.

            The American bulldog is one of them.!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Thomas McCartney

            The truth about The American Veterinary Medical Association’s position on pit bull sterilization and animal welfare issues.

            The AVMA position against legislation to mandate sterilization of pit bulls is subsumed within the assertion that, “Banning specific breeds to control dog bite injuries ignores the scope and nature of the problem and is unlikely to protect a community’s citizens.” This claim is, first of all, blatantly false.

            In truth, the few large U.S. cities which prohibit or restrict possession of pit bulls have had markedly fewer dog attack fatalities and disfigurements over the past 30 years than any others of comparable size. Also of note is that these cities––San Francisco, Denver, Miami, and New York City––impound and kill just a fraction as many pit bulls as those without breed-specific laws.

            Bluntly put, the AVMA appears to oppose breed-specific legislation by way of pandering to the same “fanciers” who popularized “cosmetic” surgeries and were long a big part of many veterinarians’ clientele, even if they didn’t have many dogs neutered.

            Though dogs have bred prolifically without human help since long before the rise of human civilization, canine obstetrics has become a lucrative branch of the veterinary industry, for example because dogs often need help to birth breeds with disproportionately large heads.

          • Terry Holt

            MARCH 10, 2008

            Miami Dade County Dog Bite Numbers

            I touched on this a bit in yesterday’s roundup but another article came out that means I get to bring it up again. In an article that Caveat brought to my attention last week, it was noted that the state of Florida is considering repealing its law forbidding cities from enacting BSL. In the article it notes that Miami Dade County, which enacted its breed ban 20 years ago, has failed to keep any statistics to give any indication about whether the ban has worked, or not worked.

            Later, the Miami Herald published the top 10 biting breeds for both Dade County (basically Miami and has a ‘pit bull’ ban) and Broward County (basically Ft. Lauderdale, and has no ban) based 0n 2007 statistics.

            Here are the numbers:

            MIAMI-DADE ANIMAL CONTROL

            Total dog bites: 992

            1. Terrier: 108, 2. Labrador mix: 95, 3. Shepherd mix: 90, 4. Mixed breed: 81, 5. German shepherd: 53, 6. Chow mix: 50, 7. Boxer: 39, 8. Rottweiler: 33, 9. Pit bull: 32, 10. American bulldog: 30,

            BROWARD COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL

            Total dog bites: 616

            1 Pit bull: 182, 2. Labrador retriever: 50, 3. German shepherd: 40, 4. Rottweiler : 36, 5. Shepherd: 29,

            6. Chow chow: 23, 7. Bulldog: 17, 8. Boxer: 14,

            9. Unknown (mixed): 14, 10. Jack Russell Terrier: 13

            I normally wouldn’t have given a lot of thought to this except some ‘pit bull’ hate groups, which are apparently really horrible at math, have decided to try to use this information to ‘prove’ that the ‘pit bull’ ban in Miami Dade County is a great success – -because ‘pit bull’ bites are lower in Miami Dade County than they are in Broward County. However, they’ve apparently failed to note that Miami Dade county has 61% more dog bites than Broward County. Even when you take the population differences (Dade County has 35% more people) into account, Dade County still has a higher bite rate per capita than Broward County.

            This doesn’t even begin to note the flaws in their logic. It should also be noted that there appears to be a significant difference in how breeds are reported when Dade County has 5 of its top 6 biting “breeds” being mixed breeds of some type, vs Broward County which has grouped all but 14 of their bites into nice, tidy breed categories which means a lot of the breed categories have become catch-all categories for mixes (which is fairly common for ‘pit bulls’ to get used as a catch all for any mixed breed Bulldog, boxer, bully etc).

            I don’t put a whole lot of stock in comparing numbers between cities — just because differences in demographics, lifestyles, ways bites are reported, etc can vary quite substantially. Howevever I thought I’d bring this up to show how ridiculous some of the anti-pit bull groups have become in trying to read numbers without having any earthly clue as to what they’re looking at.

          • Terry Holt

            “If you asked me if there was a predominance of pit bull bites versus other dogs, we don’t see a predominance of pit bull bites,” Munoz said. “Some say it’s that the ban works. Some say it’s just because they’re no different from any other dog.”

            Other experts concur. In a recent report on dog-bite prevention, published in April, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the nation’s leading veterinary organization, concluded: “Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma. However, controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous.”

            The report points out that pit bulls are not more prone to biting than breeds such as German shepherds, Rottweilers, Jack Russell terriers and even collies and St. Bernards, but some are made dangerous by owners who abuse them or use them for fighting. A pit bull’s size and strength can make its attacks more lethal, but that also applies to other large dogs, the report said.

            The AVMA concluded that because of the lack of solid data, “it is difficult to support the targeting of this breed as a basis for dog bite prevention.”

            The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agrees, offering this statement: “There is currently no accurate way to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.”

            The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) also opposes breed-specific legislation, arguing that such legislation is discriminatory and costly to taxpayers, and results in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent dogs.

            In Miami-Dade County, owning American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers or any dog “substantially conforming” to any of the checklist of characteristics has been illegal since 1989. A dog in the county shelter that is identified as meeting these characteristics – even if there is no DNA proof of “pit bull” genes – is only eligible for adoption outside Miami-Dade county boundaries. If the dog is not adopted, it is euthanized, regardless of whether it has any bite history at all.

            This means that any “pit bull” that winds up in the county shelter, even the most gentle family pet, faces almost certain death.

            The HSUS points out that killing innocent dogs fails to address the real issues of irresponsible dog ownership, animal abuse, and public safety.

  • Pam Loken

    all the *haters* gathered in their *little* place

    • Mary Ann Redfern

      You’re in a minority, Pam Loken. WE are the majority. I know you don’t get it even when it is explained to you, but WE are the majority.

      • Pam Loken

        *WE* …knows where they can go…in your case, stay where you live Mary Ann, Louisiana deserve your kind…have any idea how many rescue dogs come from your area to mine,

      • Billy Hunt

        A new national survey commissioned by Best Friends Animal Society reveals that 84 percent of those polled believe that local, state or federal governments should not infringe on a person’s right to own whatever breed of dog they choose.

        This survey*, conducted by Luntz Global, is consistent with a growing trend by many state and local governments that have repealed breed discriminatory provisions and enacted behavior-based, breed-neutral dangerous dog laws. Of the 850 polled, 59 percent were dog owners. Only four percent of those polled believed the federal government should dictate what breed of dog a person could own, while six percent supported state government restrictions and 11 percent local government limits.

        Supporting the survey is the fact that 17 states have passed laws that prohibit cities and counties from banning or restricting dogs because of breed. Even the American Bar Association passed a Resolution 100 in August, 2012 calling for all political subdivisions to repeal breed discriminatory provisions.

    • Bob Doone

      10 Common Misconceptions About Pit Bulls

      10 Common Misconceptions About Pit Bulls

      No other dog has had so much media coverage in the last 15 years as the Pit Bull. It’s tough not to be emotional one way or the other about these canines, especially if you’ve owned one or two or three, or if you or a loved one has been involved in a bad incident involving a Pit Bull. One side says Pits are dangerous and should be banned. The other side says they are loving, safe dogs and it’s the owners who are to blame for any “bad” Pits. What is the truth? Somewhere in between.

      “Pit Bull” can refer to either the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) breed or a type of dog who has Pit Bull traits. It’s all muddled at this point with Breed Specific Legislation, which bans or restricts some breeds, lumping Boxers and Dalmatians in with pits and other bully breeds (such as the American Staffordshire Terrier. Most Pit Bulls on the street are mixes though there is still breeding of the APBT. Responsible breeding produces a stable, talented dog while breeding for dog fighting must, of course, be stopped.

      It gets more confusing when trying to identify just how many Pit Bulls are responsible for dog or human attacks. When you see the term “Pit Bull” in the press, it can refer to any type of dog. More often than you’d think, a dog who attacked someone and is labeled Pit Bull, is actually a mutt or a different breed altogether. Even if a picture is attached and it looks like a Pitbull, it could be any number of mixes which produce similar characteristics.

      Really, when you think about it, condemning a dog based on his physical traits is declaring his guilt based purely on his appearance – this is what BSL is about.

      But there are the sensible people who honestly feel that Pitbulls, and any dog that resembles one, are a danger to society. Often, these folks don’t know much about dogs and certainly not much about Pits. But they are being bombarded with almost all bad press about these dogs. It is evident that the media fuels misconceptions about Pits and stirs up the public. And the statistics behind the fury are less than accurate. Even the Center for Disease Control, which puts out many of the stats, states that dog bite and dog attack data cannot be gathered accurately.

      But, still, the section of society that does not feel safe with Pit Bulls has a right to be heard. And, considering the bull they are fed about Pits, it’s no wonder they don’t believe the Pit Bull supporters.

      Below are 10 common misconceptions about Pit Bulls which both support and contradict the general views of either “Pit Bulls are dangerous” or “Pit Bulls are just like Golden Retrievers.” Just as it’s tough to be unemotional about these dogs, it’s also tough to be unbiased (especially when the author of this article owns three of them) but a valiant effort has been made.

      10 Misconceptions About Pit Bulls

      1. All Pit Bulls Are Bad – Dogs do not have a conscience; they cannot be “bad.” Pit Bulls react to their world based on their breeding and training. You can’t breed a dog to fight other dogs for almost 200 years and expect those instincts to vanish.

      2. All Pit Bulls Are Good – No dog is not innately “good.” They simply act as their instincts and owners tell them to. To try to sell the Pit Bull to the public as a fluffy bunny does a disservice to the public, to potential Pit Bull owners and to Pits themselves.

      3. Pit Bulls Are Human Aggressive – Since Pits were bred to fight dogs in a ring, the owners had to make certain they would not turn on them when they went in to stop the fight. Imagine a dog, so riled up from fighting and very aggressive, who was able to then turn it off when his human appeared in the pit. When a Pit Bull attacks a person, there are always other factors involved, such as protection of food. Any dog may bite if provoked.

      4. Pit Bulls Can Cause More Damage Than Other Dogs – Sorry, Pit Bull lovers but this is sometimes sadly true. Myths such as the locked jaw have been disproved but a Pit Bull’s traits make him naturally more driven. Consider these: tenacity (they often fought til death in rings), gameness, prey drive, a compact, strong, muscular body (pits can pull up to 7,000 pounds) and centuries of fighting instinct. But, there are too many factors involved in dog bites, such as the size of the animal and where the bite occurred, to make a blanket statement. In their favor, a Pit Bull will likely listen and obey better than other dogs if properly trained.

      5. An Aggressive Pit Bull Cannot Be Rehabilitated – This was disproved by the Michael Vick case where some 50 pit bulls were rescued from a fighting ring. Of those, 49 dogs were rehabilitated. Some went to shelters such as Best Friends and many are well-loved family members today. The testing used to determine these dogs’ ability to fit into society was exhaustive and excellent and successful.

      6. Anyone Can Own a Pit Bull – Pit Bulls are different from other dogs and their owners need to be told the facts before rescuing or purchasing one. A dog lover who has had Bichons all her life will be sorely surprised unless she does her homework and understands the bully breeds. Pits need a lot of structure, a very pronounced human alpha, training, exercise and lots of attention. The owner needs consistency, time, energy and maybe some muscle.

      7. Pit Bulls Will Always Fight Other Dogs – Some Pits are so dog aggressive that they should be the only dog in the house. They also should not go to dog parks or areas where dogs run off-leash. Any Pit Bull could get into a fight with another dog. Any dog could. But breaking up a Pit Bull fight is much harder than a tiff between a Shiba Inu and a Sharpei Inu. If you have a Pit Bull, learn about his body language and the signs that he is getting ready to fight. This will prevent many incidents.

      8. Pit Bulls Are Lovers Not Fighters – Since it’s been established that they can be fighters, what about lovers? Absolutely! Pit Bulls give more kisses than any other type of dog (it’s proven!). They love humans and human interactions. They feed off positive attention. These dogs are loving, friendly creatures. And they are the kings of clowning.

      9. Pit Bulls Are Badly Behaved – Any dog who has this much energy and motivation coded into his DNA can cause problems if he doesn’t get enough attention and exercise. Pit Bulls put their whole hearts into destruction – of couches, beds, pillows, or your $200 boots. But all they need is to have that energy redirected. Pit Bulls are highly trainable but they do need to be trained. Their intelligence, focus, gameness, loyalty and desire to please makes them one of the most teachable dogs.

      10. Compromise is Unthinkable – Unfortunately, both sides of the Pit Bull debate are often stubborn about their views and solutions. For those who think BSL is wrong, they need to be realistic about how to end it. For those that think Pit Bulls are dangerous, they need to recognize that banning Pits tears loved pets away from their families and what they propose will not stop all dangerous dogs. Giving in a bit on both sides, such as allowing muzzling of Pit Bulls in public places in exchange for no BSL, may prove the only hope. Pitbulls are like other dogs yet they’re also unique. Their gameness, focus, desire to please and boundless energy

      can be seen as either productive or unproductive traits. The trick is to utilize these characteristics in focused play and work, such as agility, weight pulling, rescue work or nose work.

  • Pam Loken

    you people and your hate filled world…please stay where you are, keep your own community dirty, leave mine alone!….your worse then any pit bull will ever be

    • Mary Ann Redfern

      Pit but owners are a very tiny minority of Americans. When Miami-Dade County’s pit bull ban was put to a public vote, the BAN…….STOOD by a two-thirds majority vote. I have no reason to think that it would be much different if it were put to a vote in any jurisdiction in the country.

      • Pam Loken

        Well then the people that are so filled of *pit-bull* hate where I live must keep it to themselves then, when I got my girl I had the *groans n moans* of people that had no first hand idea, they went with all the *haters* warnings…long story short, I proved them all wrong about my girl.
        Mary Ann, what bothers me, is nobody agrees that it’s the *human* that has made these poor animals suffer, they are not born mean…I believe the same about people, something in their lives has made them what they are. and then you have the people like BSL Karen that go to every site she can find to do with a pit-bull, and spreads her fear and lies, check it out for yourself, she sounds like a victim that needs some serious help.
        I have every reason to believe the *ban* wouldn’t fly here, there are too many good people, that take care of their animals that own them (pit-bulls)

      • Terry Holt

        In DOG (CANINE) BREEDS, PIT BULLS, ENGLISH BULL TERRIERS
        What is the population of American pit bull terriers?

        Dr.QAnswered First
        The American Pit Bull Terrier makes up 9.6% of the total canine population in the USA, which is more than 55 million dogs in the USA.

      • Bob Doone

        Denver enacted its breed ban in 1989. As mentioned above, in 1998, a Denverchild succumbed to injuries inficted by a dog identified as other than a pit bull.It is no surprise that Denver has not seen any appreciable difference in the number or severity odog attacks compared to cities without breed bans.

        Breed bans endorse the profoundly mistaken notion that the breed of dog is the driving force behind an attack. Attempting to identify the breed of dog involved in an attack and then “classifying” the inci-dent to be a result of a breed-specific behavior will never prevent dog attacks. It offers no useful infor-mation. We need to hold dog owners responsible or humanely controlling their dogs, and we need toeducate parents/dog owners about dog safety, and the importance of supervising their young children when interacting with dog

        The City of Denver continues to squander publicresources deending its breed ban against legal challenges led on behalf of the City’s responsible dog owners. In 2008, responding to public outcry From 1994-1999, 39 children were admitted to a single Denver hospital (Children’s Pediatric) for injuries associated with dogs bites. One of these children died. Of the 38 non-fatal incidents, 82% were not reported in the media at all. Denver offcials have never discussed–correctly, in our opinion–banning the breeds/types of dogs that were alleged to be involved in the 38 cases. Nor have they considered banning the breed/type of dog dentified in connection with the 1998 fatality. In fact, Denver authorities continue to dedicate public resources to enforcing their pit bull ban and defending it from legal challenge, while citizens continue to suffer the same type of dog attacks asthey did prior to the ban

      • Bob Doone

        International Association of Canine Professionals

        (click above for direct link–PDF doc)

        Position Statement on Breed Specific Legislation

        The International Association of Canine Professionals strongly opposes legislation which discriminates against dogs and their owners by labeling certain dogs as “dangerous” or “vicious” based on breed or phenotype. Breed-specific legislation does not protect communities nor create a more responsible dog owner. Instead it negatively affects many law abiding dog owners and dogs within the targeted breeds.

        Breed or breed type is only one factor which determines an individual dog’s temperament. Many other factors also influence behavior. In the case of aggressive acts by dogs, factors may include, but are not limited to: genetic predisposition; irresponsible handling; lack of animal management; general care; improper socialization and training; poor housing conditions; physical ailment, and lack of education and supervision.

        A common and serious error in the ‘assumption of risk by breed’ is the inability to identify individual dogs by breed, according to an established breed standard or breed type. Purebred dogs which are registered with national clubs may or may not fit the ideal standard for their breed. As dogs are further distanced from the

        “ideal” standard by phenotype, especially in mixed breeds, it may become all but impossible for accurate identification.

        The vast majority of dogs typically affected by breed-specific legislation are not “dangerous” by any standard. Their physical appearance alone cannot be used as an indicator of an aggressive nature. Breed-specific legislation creates an undue burden on responsible owners of targeted breeds – dogs which are most often not dangerous to their communities.

        Enforcing breed-specific laws is extremely difficult. It requires funding which would otherwise be available for the enforcement of more effective laws which target truly dangerous dogs on an individual basis. It is also costly to the court system.

        Limiting the risk of dog bites should be the legal responsibility of the dog owner. The IACP believes in the importance of educating owners in the proper selection, care, socialization and training of dogs. We also recognize the importance of teaching the general public, and especially children, in bite prevention skills and techniques.

        The IACP supports the creation and enforcement of laws which protect responsible dog owners while at the same time promote the safety of all. We support laws which penalize irresponsible dog owners on an individual basis. Current animal control laws should be enforced. In many communities, laws allow officials to confiscate the individual dog who has proven dangerous. This, along with the education we advocate, will help the public not to simply feel safer, but actually to be safer. A very small minority of dogs pose any significant threat to humans. Dog ownership, on the whole, improves quality of life for countless families.

      • Terry Holt

        DENVER, CO

        Denver’s ban on “pit bulls” has been in place since 1989, and has long been touted as a success by a handful of Denver officials, but it turns out that the results of the ban have been unclear.

        Since the ban, there has been…

        But…

        no fatal attack by a pit bull Fatal attack by a chow mix

        fewer bites by pit bulls Dog bites by all types of dogs have declined

        fewer pit bull-related complaints Pit bull population is not believed to have decreased in Denver

        Thousands of “pit bull”-looking dogs have been killed by animal control for no reason other than appearance.

        Bites by other types of dogs now exceed the number of bites by pit bull types

        Recent press coverage has also noted: “Between 1995 and 2006, Denver had almost six times as many dog-related hospitalizations compared to Boulder, even though Denver’s population is less than twice that of Boulder.” Boulder does not have BSL.

      • Terry Holt

        Miami Dade County Dog Bite Numbers

        I touched on this a bit in yesterday’s roundup but another article came out that means I get to bring it up again. In an article that Caveat brought to my attention last week, it was noted that the state of Florida is considering repealing its law forbidding cities from enacting BSL. In the article it notes that Miami Dade County, which enacted its breed ban 20 years ago, has failed to keep any statistics to give any indication about whether the ban has worked, or not worked.

        Later, the Miami Herald published the top 10 biting breeds for both Dade County (basically Miami and has a ‘pit bull’ ban) and Broward County (basically Ft. Lauderdale, and has no ban) based 0n 2007 statistics.

        Here are the numbers:

        MIAMI-DADE ANIMAL CONTROL

        Total dog bites: 992

        1. Terrier: 108, 2. Labrador mix: 95, 3. Shepherd mix: 90, 4. Mixed breed: 81, 5. German shepherd: 53, 6. Chow mix: 50, 7. Boxer: 39, 8. Rottweiler: 33, 9. Pit bull: 32, 10. American bulldog: 30,

        BROWARD COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL

        Total dog bites: 616

        1 Pit bull: 182, 2. Labrador retriever: 50, 3. German shepherd: 40, 4. Rottweiler : 36, 5. Shepherd: 29,
        6. Chow chow: 23, 7. Bulldog: 17, 8. Boxer: 14,
        9. Unknown (mixed): 14, 10. Jack Russell Terrier: 13

        I normally wouldn’t have given a lot of thought to this except some ‘pit bull’ hate groups, which are apparently really horrible at math, have decided to try to use this information to ‘prove’ that the ‘pit bull’ ban in Miami Dade County is a great success – -because ‘pit bull’ bites are lower in Miami Dade County than they are in Broward County. However, they’ve apparently failed to note that Miami Dade county has 61% more dog bites than Broward County. Even when you take the population differences (Dade County has 35% more people) into account, Dade County still has a higher bite rate per capita than Broward County.

        This doesn’t even begin to note the flaws in their logic. It should also be noted that there appears to be a significant difference in how breeds are reported when Dade County has 5 of its top 6 biting “breeds” being mixed breeds of some type, vs Broward County which has grouped all but 14 of their bites into nice, tidy breed categories which means a lot of the breed categories have become catch-all categories for mixes (which is fairly common for ‘pit bulls’ to get used as a catch all for any mixed breed Bulldog, boxer, bully etc).

        I don’t put a whole lot of stock in comparing numbers between cities — just because differences in demographics, lifestyles, ways bites are reported, etc can vary quite substantially. Howevever I thought I’d bring this up to show how ridiculous some of the anti-pit bull groups have become in trying to read numbers without having any earthly clue as to what they’re looking at.

    • Bob Doone

      Excerpts From The Source: Science Daily

      Research conducted by animal behavior experts challenges the basis of breed specific legislation designed to protect the public from ‘dangerous’ dogs.

      A team from the University of Lincoln, UK, concluded that rather than making people safer, current legislation could be lulling them into a false sense of security.

      Dr Tracey Clarke and Professors Daniel Mills and Jonathan Cooper from Lincoln’s School of Life Sciences set out to discover the source of people’s perceptions about ‘typical behaviors’ associated with different breeds of dog.

      The researchers applied a theory known as the ‘contact hypothesis’ — used by sociologists to understand the origin of racial stereotyping and other forms of prejudice.

      They surveyed more than 160 people to examine if their contact with dogs influenced their tendency to believe populist and negative breed stereotypes.

      More than half of the “experienced dog owner” respondents felt there was no valid reason for breed specific legislation, whereas less than 1 in 10 of the inexperienced respondents felt the same.

      The results were consistent with the prediction that not just the level but also the quality of contact with dogs are major influences on the tendency to believe populist breed stereotypes, despite scientific evidence which challenges the validity of such generalisations.

      The type of person attracted towards certain breeds and encouraging certain behaviors may be a much better predictor.

      It was discovered that a dog’s visible characteristics informed strong attitudes, resulting in over-generalization. Not only bull-breeds but also those with much more superficial characteristics such as being well-muscled, or even short-haired, were stigmatised more often as dangerous by those with less experience or knowledge of dogs.

      • Bob Doone

        Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

        (click above for direct link)

        HSUS Statement on Dangerous Dogs and Breed-Specific Legislation

        The HSUS opposes legislation aimed at eradicating or strictly regulating dogs based solely on their breed for a number of reasons. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a common first approach that many communities take. Thankfully, once research is conducted most community leaders correctly realize that BSL won’t solve the problems they face with dangerous dogs…

        Read entire text here.

        • Bob Doone

          International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants

          (click above for direct link)

          Position Statement on Breed-Specific Legislation:

          The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) is an organization representing professional animal trainers and animal behavior specialists. The IAABC strongly opposes any legislation specifically designed to target or discriminate against dogs based solely on their breed or appearance. The IAABC does not believe that a dog poses a danger to society solely because of its breed. Dogs can become dangerous as a result of faulty socialization, inappropriate training, poor living conditions and other factors having nothing to do with their breed. The IAABC believes that the objectives behind breed specific legislation can be met more effectively through rigorous enforcement and, where necessary, the strengthening of existing laws. We fully understand and support the need for laws to protect society, human and animal alike; however, our organization feels that any new legislation should be based on specific behaviors or actions and should not discriminate based on breed alone.

          • Phill Mcracken

            AMERICAN CANINE FOUNDATION

            DOES BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION REDUCE DOG BITES AND

            FATALITIES ?

            In analyzing nonfatal dog bite injuries we find an increase in serious injuries each year. A

            study was done by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Center for

            Injury Prevention (view study here) which showed in 1994 that 333,700 patients were

            treated for dog bites in emergency departments (EDs) and in 2001 there were 368,245

            patients treated in EDS’s.

            A study was done by the American Canine Foundation which shows that where breed

            bans have been enacted dog bite incidents reports have increased. Based on current

            dog data, banning ten breeds of dogs from a city will not reduce dog bites given the ratio

            between mixed breeds compared to purebred dogs. Strong laws that penalize the

            owners, regardless of the breed are what is needed.

            These types of laws are valid, have merit and are not vague or capricious. ACF supports

            laws that hold owners accountable for their dog’s behavior. Laws need to declare a dog

            potentially dangerous when it menaces a human, or when they bite a human or

            domestic animal. The owners need to be cited and placed under restrictions. A second

            offense should automatically declare the dog dangerous and call for a misdemeanor

            charge against the owner.

          • Phill Mcracken

            Sadly, the pit bull has acquired a reputation as an unpredictable and dangerous menace. His intimidating appearance has made him attractive to people looking for a macho status symbol, and this popularity has encouraged unscrupulous breeders to produce puppies without maintaining the pit bull’s typical good nature with people. To make matters worse, irresponsible owners interested in presenting a tough image often encourage their pit bulls to behave aggressively. If a pit bull does bite, he’s far more likely to inflict serious injuries than most other breeds, simply because of his size and strength. A pit bull bite is also far more likely to draw media attention. Many dogs of other breeds bite people, but these incidents almost always go unreported. They’re just not exciting enough fodder for television and print.

            Despite this bad rap, a well-bred, well-socialized and well-trained pit bull is one of the most delightful, intelligent and gentle dogs imaginable. It is truly a shame that the media continues to portray such a warped image of this beautiful, loyal and affectionate breed. Pit bulls once enjoyed a wonderful reputation. Some of the most famous dogs in American history were pit bulls. A pit bull named Stubby, a decorated hero during World War One, earned several medals and was even honored at the White House. During duty, he warned soldiers of gas attacks, found wounded men in need of help and listened for oncoming artillery rounds. Pit bulls have been featured in well-known advertising campaigns for companies such as Levis, Buster Brown Shoes and Wells Fargo. The image of a pit bull, which was considered a symbol of unflagging bravery and reliability, represented the United States on recruiting and propaganda posters during World War One. Many famous figures, including Helen Keller, President Theodore Roosevelt, General George Patton, President Woodrow Wilson, Fred Astaire and Humphrey Bogart, shared their lives and homes with pit bulls.

            Modern pit bulls can still be ambassadors for their breed. Some are registered therapy dogs and spend time visiting hospitals and nursing homes. Some work in search-and-rescue. Tahoe, Cheyenne and Dakota, three search-and-rescue pit bulls from Sacramento, California, worked tirelessly at the World Trade Center during the aftermath of 9/11. Others, like Popsicle, an accomplished U.S. customs dog, work in narcotics and explosives detection. Still others serve as protection or sentry dogs for the police. The majority are cherished family members. Pit bulls become very attached to their people, and most love nothing better than cuddling on the couch or sleeping in bed with their pet parents (preferably under the covers)!

  • Terry Holt

    Excerpts From The Source: Science Daily

    Research conducted by animal behavior experts challenges the basis of breed specific legislation designed to protect the public from ‘dangerous’ dogs.

    A team from the University of Lincoln, UK, concluded that rather than making people safer, current legislation could be lulling them into a false sense of security.

    Dr Tracey Clarke and Professors Daniel Mills and Jonathan Cooper from Lincoln’s School of Life Sciences set out to discover the source of people’s perceptions about ‘typical behaviors’ associated with different breeds of dog.

    The researchers applied a theory known as the ‘contact hypothesis’ — used by sociologists to understand the origin of racial stereotyping and other forms of prejudice.

    They surveyed more than 160 people to examine if their contact with dogs influenced their tendency to believe populist and negative breed stereotypes.

    More than half of the “experienced dog owner” respondents felt there was no valid reason for breed specific legislation, whereas less than 1 in 10 of the inexperienced respondents felt the same.

    The results were consistent with the prediction that not just the level but also the quality of contact with dogs are major influences on the tendency to believe populist breed stereotypes, despite scientific evidence which challenges the validity of such generalisations.

    The type of person attracted towards certain breeds and encouraging certain behaviors may be a much better predictor.

    It was discovered that a dog’s visible characteristics informed strong attitudes, resulting in over-generalization. Not only bull-breeds but also those with much more superficial characteristics such as being well-muscled, or even short-haired, were stigmatised more often as dangerous by those with less experience or knowledge of dogs.

  • Terry Holt

    Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

    (click above for direct link)

    HSUS Statement on Dangerous Dogs and Breed-Specific Legislation

    The HSUS opposes legislation aimed at eradicating or strictly regulating dogs based solely on their breed for a number of reasons. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a common first approach that many communities take. Thankfully, once research is conducted most community leaders correctly realize that BSL won’t solve the problems they face with dangerous dogs…

    Read entire text here.

  • Terry Holt

    International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants

    (click above for direct link)

    Position Statement on Breed-Specific Legislation:

    The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) is an organization representing professional animal trainers and animal behavior specialists. The IAABC strongly opposes any legislation specifically designed to target or discriminate against dogs based solely on their breed or appearance. The IAABC does not believe that a dog poses a danger to society solely because of its breed. Dogs can become dangerous as a result of faulty socialization, inappropriate training, poor living conditions and other factors having nothing to do with their breed. The IAABC believes that the objectives behind breed specific legislation can be met more effectively through rigorous enforcement and, where necessary, the strengthening of existing laws. We fully understand and support the need for laws to protect society, human and animal alike; however, our organization feels that any new legislation should be based on specific behaviors or actions and should not discriminate based on breed alone.

  • Terry Holt

    International Association of Canine Professionals

    (click above for direct link–PDF doc)

    Position Statement on Breed Specific Legislation

    The International Association of Canine Professionals strongly opposes legislation which discriminates against dogs and their owners by labeling certain dogs as “dangerous” or “vicious” based on breed or phenotype. Breed-specific legislation does not protect communities nor create a more responsible dog owner. Instead it negatively affects many law abiding dog owners and dogs within the targeted breeds.

    Breed or breed type is only one factor which determines an individual dog’s temperament. Many other factors also influence behavior. In the case of aggressive acts by dogs, factors may include, but are not limited to: genetic predisposition; irresponsible handling; lack of animal management; general care; improper socialization and training; poor housing conditions; physical ailment, and lack of education and supervision.

    A common and serious error in the ‘assumption of risk by breed’ is the inability to identify individual dogs by breed, according to an established breed standard or breed type. Purebred dogs which are registered with national clubs may or may not fit the ideal standard for their breed. As dogs are further distanced from the

    “ideal” standard by phenotype, especially in mixed breeds, it may become all but impossible for accurate identification.

    The vast majority of dogs typically affected by breed-specific legislation are not “dangerous” by any standard. Their physical appearance alone cannot be used as an indicator of an aggressive nature. Breed-specific legislation creates an undue burden on responsible owners of targeted breeds – dogs which are most often not dangerous to their communities.

    Enforcing breed-specific laws is extremely difficult. It requires funding which would otherwise be available for the enforcement of more effective laws which target truly dangerous dogs on an individual basis. It is also costly to the court system.

    Limiting the risk of dog bites should be the legal responsibility of the dog owner. The IACP believes in the importance of educating owners in the proper selection, care, socialization and training of dogs. We also recognize the importance of teaching the general public, and especially children, in bite prevention skills and techniques.

    The IACP supports the creation and enforcement of laws which protect responsible dog owners while at the same time promote the safety of all. We support laws which penalize irresponsible dog owners on an individual basis. Current animal control laws should be enforced. In many communities, laws allow officials to confiscate the individual dog who has proven dangerous. This, along with the education we advocate, will help the public not to simply feel safer, but actually to be safer. A very small minority of dogs pose any significant threat to humans. Dog ownership, on the whole, improves quality of life for countless families.

  • Terry Holt

    SURELY SOMEONE HAS HAD SUCCESS WITH BSL?

    The effects of BSL on public safety are seriously understudied, especially by the scientific community.

    The few scientific studies that exist have indicated that BSL has little to no effect on public safety. In some cases, as in the U.K., dog bites appear to be a growing problem in spite of BSL.

    To date, there are no scientific studies anywhere that confirm BSL or breed bans have had a significant positive effect on public safety.

    The reasons for this lack of data are numerous:

    Some cities that pass BSL fail to collect bite data after passage of the legislation. They assume that the problem is solved, and do not look into the issue again.

    Or, as with Aurora, the city changes its method of bite data collection so that it becomes difficult if not impossible to compare pre- and post-BSL dog bites.

    Sometimes the city only tracks bites by “pit bulls” and not other breeds, so it is not possible to discern whether another breed is causing more problems after passage of BSL.

    Often, the city does not make its dog bite data freely and easily available upon request. The reasons why are unclear. One could surmise that this may be because of improper or outdated methods of record-keeping, overburdened office workers, or embarrassment over unfavorable statistics.

    Breed identification and many other issues raise questions as to the accuracy and validity of many dog bite statistics.

    There is no uniform method for collecting dog bite information, nor is there a primary organization to which all dog bites are reported.

    In the few cases where sufficient data has been scientifically gathered and analyzed, BSL has not been shown to reduce dog bites or improve public safety

  • Phill Mcracken

    AMERICAN ANIMAL FOUNDATION

    ARE FATAL DOGS ATTACKS ACCURATE WHEN WE READ ABOUT THEM IN THE MEDIA ????

    The Center for Disease released a study on fatal dog attacks from 1979 – 1998.

    The CDC study assistance from the HSUS an organization supporting the end to domestic

    pet ownership. The CDC study was bias and serves no scientific purpose. The study was

    done intentionally to support breed specific legislation by making claim that Rottweilers and

    Pit Bulls were responsible for the majority of fatal dog attacks during 1979 – 1998. The CDC

    study failed to include the populations of breeds responsible for fatal attacks and without

    populations of breeds to make a statement that specific breeds are responsible for the

    majority of fatal attacks is intentional.

    The CDC has been used by organizations lobbying to pass breed specific legislation in an attempt to target Rottweilers and Pit Bulls.Data shows us apx. 22 people die each year from using hiar dryers while standing in bath tubs filled with water. For the last 40 years

    between 12 -25 people each year have died from dog attacks and the numbers have not changed even though the populations of canines has increased.

    The main cause of fatal dog attacks is irresponsible dog owners who do not properly train

    and socalize their dogs which leads to aggressive behavior and irresponsible parents who

    leave young children unattended around dogs.

    Breed is not a contributing factor to fatal dog attacks and spay and neutering does not reduce canine aggression.

    DR POLLEY DVM

    Addressing The Testosterone Issue

    “Testosterone plays a role in modulating certain behaviors such as roaming, urine marking in-doors, sexual mounting and aggression toward other dogs (versus playful activity or dominance). Neutersol reduces the male hormone, testosterone, by 41-52% while surgical castration reduces testosterone by 95%. These behaviors may persist after either neutering method.

    While testosterone plays a role in affecting certain sexually dimorphic behaviors, it is not the only factor. In fact, the veterinary behavioral textbooks point out that there are multiple contributing factors with regard to these behaviors. Surgical castration does not completely eliminate these behaviors. The controlled scientific studies that have assessed the effects of surgical castration with regard to behavior have shown that most dogs continue exhibiting these behaviors. Aggression toward humans shows little

    significant effect after surgical castration. Surgery can have an effect in some of these, but is far from absolute. The FDA has reviewed the data for both surgery and Neutersol and included wording in the prescribing information of Neutersol addressing this fact, “As with surgical castration, secondary male characteristics (roaming, marking, aggression and mounting) may persist.”

    There is no scientific process available to identify the American Pit Bull Terrier and over 30 breeds that look like the Pit Bull. We find the media only reports what they call Pit Bull attacks labeling dogs that are not even related to the American Pit Bull Terrier. Of the fatal dog attacks in the last 40 years very few dogs labeled as Pit Bulls were actually purebred American Pit Bull Terriers registered

    with dog registries with pedigrees.

  • Phill Mcracken

    American Bar Association

    Resolution 100

    (click above for direct link)

    Urges Adoption of Breed-Neutral Dog Laws

    Resolution adopted 8/6/2012

    RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges all state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless owner laws that ensure due process protections for owners, encourage responsible pet ownership and focus on the behavior of both dog owners and dogs, and to repeal any breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions.

  • Terry Holt

    Potential for skewed population due to breed misidentification

    The study author does not explain how breeds are identified, but the reader supposes that the breed is taken off either license or citation paperwork. This means that, in the case of a license, the owner decides what a dog’s breed is. In the case of a citation, an animal control officer probably decides what a dog’s breed is.

    This naturally leads to a serious question about identification accuracy, especially since most dogs are not purebred. For instance, animal control officers may have been inclined to over-identify troublesome dogs as “pit bulls” because the category is broad and vaguely defined, and because Ohio’s state law at the time gave animal control more tools to deal with problematic “pit bulls” than with other types of problematic dogs, thus encouraging them to declare dogs “pit bulls.”

    Barnes also observes that “some owners license a HR [high risk] dog such as a Pit Bull as another breed, such as Boxer” to avoid the automatic designation of “vicious” that Ohio placed on pit bulls. Obviously, this suggests that Barnes’s population may be skewed due to the effects of BSL; some dog owners were intentionally misidentifying their dog’s breed, and Barnes has no ability to correct for this problem. This means that data for the other breeds tallied by Barnes may actually have been data for pit bull mixes that were intentionally recorded by the owners as a different breed.

    Barnes also includes two “breeds” that aren’t recognized by any reputable kennel club—the “Ahra” and the “Terripoo.” It is not clear what an Ahra is, but Terripoo might be a mix of poodle and terrier, so the latter, at least, should have been included as a “mixed breed.”

  • Joanna Mcmole

    A new national survey commissioned by Best Friends Animal Society reveals that 84 percent of those polled believe that local, state or federal governments should not infringe on a person’s right to own whatever breed of dog they choose.

    This survey*, conducted by Luntz Global, is consistent with a growing trend by many state and local governments that have repealed breed discriminatory provisions and enacted behavior-based, breed-neutral dangerous dog laws. Of the 850 polled, 59 percent were dog owners. Only four percent of those polled believed the federal government should dictate what breed of dog a person could own, while six percent supported state government restrictions and 11 percent local government limits.

    Supporting the survey is the fact that 17 states have passed laws that prohibit cities and counties from banning or restricting dogs because of breed. Even the American Bar Association passed a Resolution 100 in August, 2012 calling for all political subdivisions to repeal breed discriminatory provisions.

  • Distrubance

    To be effective dog laws must have both proactive and reactive (punishment) elements. They must control and remove dogs that are known to be dangerous from the community. Some dog are just mean and no sane people would poarch it. But Pit Bulls and other dogs breed to fight on the other hand can appear kind and loving, but in a moment kill pet or seriously injure someone. Laws must encourage people to choose saver dog breeds.