Council members considering regulations on vicious dog breeds

by

Owners of pit bulls and other aggressive dog breeds could find themselves subject to new restrictions in the future.

At its July 20 meeting, the public safety committee heard from animal control officer Robbie Bagby Hurst and Lt. Ross about the possibility of new ordinances for aggressive dogs. Hurst and Ross brought research about ordinances in other area cities, as well as recent dog attack incidents in Homewood.

While other Over the Mountain communities do not have any ordinances about specific dog breeds, Ross said they are a growing nationwide trend. Some cities ban aggressive breeds outright or require owners to register their dogs with the city. Other municipalities have housing restrictions, such as keeping these breeds indoors or within specific fencing types, carrying extra insurance for their ownership or using a leash or muzzle when walking their dogs.

Currently, Homewood ordinances state that owners of violent animals can be subject to a fine of up to $500 and up to 190 days in jail.

There have been several incidents in the past six months of loose dogs attacking people and pets in the city, Hurst said. Ross noted that police have had to use deadly force on attacking animals at least eight times in the past four years.

One of those occurred July 3 in the Parkside Circle area. A woman was attacked by loose pit bulls and the responding officer shot one of the animals. The second is still in city custody and displaying aggression, Hurst said. The owner was uncooperative and was arrested, awaiting trial July 28.

“I can attest to you that they can lock down on you and they don’t let go because I’ve been a victim of it on the job in the '80s," Hurst said.

She said an attack happened on July 6 and another earlier this week, though deadly force was not required in either instance. Hurst has seen dogs running loose in the evenings and weekends while she is off-duty.

Hurst said she supports an ordinance similar to the city of Gadsden, prohibiting tethering of aggressive breeds and regulating fencing types. She thinks these changes, with the possible addition of permit requirements for owners of these breeds, would reduce the number of calls she gets.

“My concern here is public safety," Hurst said. "There’s a lot of people that get out and walk their pets on a leash and they’re very responsible. And of course safety for myself and other officers.”

Other changes she mentioned included muzzle requirements and fines for violation of the new ordinance. Ward 1 Representative Michael Hallman suggested a limit on the number of aggressive dogs an individual can own.

Ward 3 Representative Patrick McClusky said the committee members will consider and continue to discuss the issue, and there will be opportunities for public input before an ordinance is approved. He also said a decision will not be made at the next council meeting.

Later that evening, the planning and development committee chose to form an ad hoc parking solutions committee. The committee consists of Ward 1 Representative Britt Thames, City chief of staff J.J. Bischoff, Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Meredith Drennen, and two business owners who attended the meeting, Kevin McCain and Mark Westfall.

The committee will seek solutions to the lack of downtown parking and will solicit input from other business owners and the department of engineering, planning and zoning. The ad hoc committee will report its recommendations back to the planning and development committee for action.

Tags

by

Comments (83)

Comment Feed

There are two smokey grey Pitts loose in my neighborhood. Yesterday a little girl was seconds from being attacked. My friend and I put the car between the 2 dogs and the little girl to save her. We put the girl in the car with us. Poor girl had 2 dilemmas. Do I get in the car with strangers or get attacked by the dogs. I spent most of yesterday calling animal control. The lady seemed pretty much unconcerned. She lied telling me that 1 of the dogs had been picked up. Well, to my dismay both dogs were asleep on my street Overdale.please place when I came home from work. I called 911 only to be brushed off. I started yelling and the dispatchER put me through to animal control. They were so unconcerned about people's welfare especially little children it made me feel sick. The story ends with the dogs still roaming the streets. Why does everything have to end in a trajedy to get some attention? Those dogs slept a few hours which gave animal control ample time to pick them up. What happens on Monday when the kids walk to the bus stop? By the way I even called several schools to inform them. I have truly list faith in our system. CAN YOU PLEASE HELP! !!

Help

PJ more than 4 years ago

BSL isn't proven to work and "jaw locking" is ridiculous

There is literally no evidence that BSL reduces the number of dog bites. None. Pit bulls dont have "locking jaws." Even the tiniest amount of research would tell you that jaw locking in dogs is a myth.

The number one first and foremost issue here is that owners aren't keeping their dogs contained. Any breed of dog is a threat when placed in an uncomfortable situation, and any breed of dog is nuisance when it's allowed to roam free. Dogs should always be leashed or fenced. That would fix every single issue addressed in this article.

If you can't even enforce a simple leash law, what makes you think you'll be able to enforce a breed ban?

Kaylynn330@yahoo.com more than 4 years ago

Jaw Lock

I hope to hear from you, our dogs were KILLED by our local community and the PEOPLE of the STATE OF NY while under and ACTIVE appeal!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Same Same on the how dare you uneducated people do this to innocent pit bulls

rebecca deangelis more than 3 years ago

Myths Get Kids Killed

Every time some irresponsible pit bull fanatic repeats the myth of the nanny dog, more children are placed at risk of dying. Read on for a complete debunking of this dangerous myth: thenannydogblog.blogspot.com

If they're knowingly lying about that, what else are the fighting dog fans lying about??

Elizabeth more than 4 years ago

Nanny Dog is a MYTH!

BAD RAP -- Bay Area Dog Owners Responsible About Pit Bulls:
May 20, 2013 ·

It's Dog Bite Prevention Week. Did you know that there was never such thing as a 'Nanny's Dog'? This term was a recent invention created to describe the myriad of vintage photos of children enjoying their family pit bulls. While the intention behind the term was innocent, using it may mislead parents into being careless with their children around their family dog - A recipe for dog bites!

Well socialized dogs may be highly tolerant of rough handling, but expecting them to be Super Beings is setting them up to fail. Watch this video to see how far one parent pushes his luck. From KC Dog Blog: "This 2 minute video is an excellent demonstration of why it's so important for people to understand canine behavior, warning signals, and why owner education is so important." Don't worry - the child isn't hurt in this video, but see how many times the dog tells his person how horribly uncomfortable he is.

Please discuss!

Liz Again more than 4 years ago

BAN DANGEROUS DOG BREEDS

There is very little cost difference no matter if you have a pit bull type dog BSL Ban or not.

There is a very impactful cost free indirect outcome as invariably the pit bull type dog owner will be far more careful and in fact go
underground to avoid the consequences of not adhering to a BSL Ban such as fines & or losing their dog or even having it put down, this tends to focus their minds and motivates them to be in compliance.

In effect out of sight reduces interaction with any pit bull type dogs
in general for both the 2 & 4 legged legitimate members of the
community which greatly increases their daily safety and dramatically reduces the possibility of pit bull attacks.

All this at not one cent of extra cost.

AC officers will be more available to carry out routine street and park patrols not having to deal with constant pit bull type dog mauling's.

This is their normal activity and will allow them to as they enforce the normal leash and dog at large laws to enforce the BSL Ban at the same time at no extra cost.

Simple they see a pit bull type dog they pick it up, a minor cost to
bring about increased public safety, & as they go more and more
underground this cost will drop sharply to the level of being moot from a budget perspective.

As well neighbors on the street will know if a pit bull type dog is
illegally present and can call the city AC to report this allowing the
animal to be removed, a simple, clean and efficient modality to find, fix and remove any pit bull type dog illegally in the community.

If the owners keep their pit bull type dogs in the basement or take them out only very early in the morning or very late at night this will
dramatically enhance the community's safety cost free as the possibility of the public interacting with a pit bull type dog is reduced to fractionally what it normally would be the case in normal daytime hours.

There would be no extras kenneling cost after you pick up a pit bull
type dog, you put down a stray right away, if there is ownership proof an immediate choice is given to the owner, give it up to be put down right away or if they appeal it in the courts they pay the kenneling cost.

If done this way the expense of kenneling is also moot.

Done this way any Pit Bull type dog BSL Ban is easily enforceable by any community, the only requirement to make this a reality is to have the courage to simply carry out said enforcement in the face of screams, rants and raves by the pit bull advocates.

Liz more than 4 years ago

Do you have enough employees to handle EVERY VICIOUS DOG BREED IN YOUR COUNTY???

Here are a few facts regarding Pit Bulls I felt you should read. During the Victorian Era the Bully Breed was a wonderful family dog and they were quite often called "Nanny Dogs" because they would stay with the children of the household and play and protect them as needed. The pit bull was also a favorite dog among politicians, scholars, and celebrities. Helen Keller, Theodore Roosevelt, and the "Our Gang" Little Rascals all had pit bulls. Many reading this website may have grandparents and great grandparents who kept a favorite pit bull as a pet. Today, this tradition continues with countless numbers of Americans who love and cherish their family pit bulls. Pit bulls are beautiful in their variety, but their most appealing features are their inner qualities. Strength, confidence, a sense of humor and a zest for life are all hallmarks of the breed. They also tend to be sensitive and get their feelings hurt easily. Properly socialized dogs are quite affectionate and friendly, even with strangers, and therefore do not make good guard dogs. They’re intelligent and eager to please and tend to remain playful throughout their lives. While some can be low key ‘couch potatoes,’ many others need a job to channel their enthusiasm and energy. They excel in dog sports, search and rescue work, drug and bomb detection work, and as therapy dogs. Severe shyness, fearfulness or human-directed aggression is not characteristic of the breed and highly undesirable in any dog. It's become public policy when law-makers misuse their positions to remove and destroy innocent pets from their responsible families in places like Denver, rather than adopt progressive policies that work to create safe, humane communities. Once again, pit bulls reflect back to us who we are: A culture of incredible contrast and conflicting beliefs about our roles and responsibilities as stewards of our canine companions. - See more at: http://www.badrap.org/breed-history#sthash.5aCGJ7Ed.dpuf Here is another source for you: embers of the media and other groups: please contact us
via: Mary@realpitbull.com She will be more than happy to
speak with you! Are you aware of the fact that there are over 75 different breeds that are considered vicious?? If not you really need to do more research before you ban certain breeds beause if you ban just a few of them it's not fair to all of the other breeds that should be included. Cocker Spaniels are one of those breeds that have a history of biting humans and fighting other dogs so I will be looking closely to your ban list to see whether or not you are including every breed or are just singling out a few specific breeds. And if you don't include every other breed that should be included I will make sure that I NEVER step foot in your county or purchase anything from there as well. Why would I want to help a community thrive when they don't care about their canine citizens. Banning a breed won't stop the loose dogs from running free you know.

Janice Wambold more than 4 years ago

Pit bulls were never nanny dogs:

There are still too many pit-bull advocates repeating the nanny myth. It was started by a pit bull breeder as an advertising gimmick in the 70's to sell more pit bulls. Stop spreading misinformation: UPDATE 5/21/13: Two years and nine months after the Nanny Dog Myth Revealed was first published, BAD RAP, a major pit bull advocacy group publicly announced that it will no longer support the Nanny Dog myth because it endangers children. While it is too late for many children, hopefully many will be saved in the future. http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com/2010/08/nanny-dog-myth-revealed.html

From Bad Rap: Did you know that there was never such thing as a 'Nanny's Dog'? This term was a recent invention created to describe the myriad of vintage photos of children enjoying their family pit bulls. While the intention behind the term was innocent, using it may mislead parents into being careless with their children around their family dog - A recipe for dog bites! https://www.facebook.com/BADRAP.org/posts/1015146077447239

191 children killed by pit bull type dogs. http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com/children-killed-by-pit-bulls.php

Julie more than 4 years ago

Pit bulls alter the future

Three years after friendly neighbor pit bulls tortured my beautiful, gentle dog to a long, painful death, I know now that pit bull attacks cost in lives, futures, and finances.

When I was still in shock from the gruesome injuries Bleu suffered before dying, I found the link to dogsbite.org. As a mother, grandmother and as a nurse, I was engulfed in the overwhelming data documenting trauma and deaths from pit bulls and other fighting breeds, and I didn't know how I lived so long without knowing anything about pit bulls.

Since then, the daily pit bull maulings resulting in severe trauma and frequent deaths continue unabated as pit bull lobbyists push their throngs of followers to disregard and minimize the deaths and traumatic injuries by pit bulls. At the root is dog fighting. Federal law prohibits dog fighting so pit bulls must be portrayed as family pets to allow hiding in the open by dog fighters.

When all fighting breeds are prohibited as domestic pets, only fighting pits will exist...and those owners go to prison. Dog fighting is a multimillion dollar business, they don't care who suffers or dies.

Homewood has the opportunity to protect their citizens and their pets by banning pit bulls altogether or by placing strict regulations such as Gadsden and ENFORCING the regulations.

Every human being has the responsibility to care for each other. Pit bulls have ruined and killed human beings and animals. The medical and funeral expenses are devastating. The PitSTD from pit bull attack sends big children back into their parents' beds, and never lets them play in an open playground ever again.

Homewood, do the right and ethical thing. Make Homewood a safe community free from pit bull ambush. John Harvard, Daxton Borchardt, Levi Watson, Braelynn Coulter, Betty Todd, Beau Rutledge, Ryan Maxwell, Justin Clinton, Darla Napora, are but a few who died while eaten alive by family pit bulls that the owners insisted were nanny dogs.

I am a nurse in Birmingham and I spend thousands of hours and dollars supporting victims of pit bull attack. Please donate to dogsbite.org, Daxton's Friends for Canine Awareness, Animals24.7 to help with the millions of dollars in medical and funeral expenses from pit bull attacks.



Pam more than 4 years ago

Pit bulls are bred for blood sport.


Pit bulls were bred over 200 years ago in England by combining strong, determined bulldogs with small, agile and quick terriers. The purpose for this? Creating a perfect pit fighting dog was the one and only purpose for the bull and terrier's creation. Dog fighting was made a felony in all 50 states of the USA in 1976, but that did not change the pit breed's genetics in the slightest. DO NOT BE FOOLED by the ignorant pit pimpers who would insist that "they are just like other dogs". They are NOT. Pits are NOT pets, were not bred to be pets, never have been pets and never will be appropriate pets. NEVER ADOPT A PIT BULL. Pit bulls maim and kill more people, pets and livestock animals than ALL OTHER BREEDS COMBINED AND BY FAR.


Most pit bulls want to eat other neighborhood dogs for lunch. 20,000 beloved pets killed by pit bull types every year in our neighborhoods. I'm so tired of hearing "he's ONLY animal aggressive"... only?!? As if that isn't enough? Other people's beloved pets and livestock have every right to live and not be torn to pieces too. You don't get to have one breed that imperils all other animals because you feel sorry for it.

This is a typical pit attack on another beloved pet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZTiGWgQubA Too many children & adults have watched their beloved pets be mauled to death by pit bulls. Many develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder after watching a horrific pit attack: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=684_1405912995

Julie more than 4 years ago

Pit bulls are bred for blood sport.


Pit bulls were bred over 200 years ago in England by combining strong, determined bulldogs with small, agile and quick terriers. The purpose for this? Creating a perfect pit fighting dog was the one and only purpose for the bull and terrier's creation. Dog fighting was made a felony in all 50 states of the USA in 1976, but that did not change the pit breed's genetics in the slightest. DO NOT BE FOOLED by the ignorant pit pimpers who would insist that "they are just like other dogs". They are NOT. Pits are NOT pets, were not bred to be pets, never have been pets and never will be appropriate pets. NEVER ADOPT A PIT BULL. Pit bulls maim and kill more people, pets and livestock animals than ALL OTHER BREEDS COMBINED AND BY FAR.


Most pit bulls want to eat other neighborhood dogs for lunch. 20,000 beloved pets killed by pit bull types every year in our neighborhoods. I'm so tired of hearing "he's ONLY animal aggressive"... only?!? As if that isn't enough? Other people's beloved pets and livestock have every right to live and not be torn to pieces too. You don't get to have one breed that imperils all other animals because you feel sorry for it.

This is a typical pit attack on another beloved pet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZTiGWgQubA Too many children & adults have watched their beloved pets be mauled to death by pit bulls. Many develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder after watching a horrific pit attack: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=684_1405912995

Julie more than 4 years ago

CDC on BSL effectiveness

"In 2000, the CDC looked at 20 years of data regarding dog bites and fatalities in the United States. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of total dog bite injuries, and that it’s impossible to calculate the bite rates of specific breeds. No evidence supports the idea that a specific type of dog is more prone to attacks. Furthermore, breed specific laws have not succeeded in reducing overall bite-related injuries in any area where they were implemented."

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

The cost of enforcing BSL

Administrative Costs

Prince George’s County: The Most Thorough Assessment of BSL To Date

In 2003, Prince George’s County, Maryland, authorized a task force to examine the results of a 1996 pit bull ban in the county. The task force findings were shocking. They estimated that

The cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit bull was around $68,000.
In the fiscal year 2001-2002, expenditures due to pit bull confiscations totalled $560,000. Income from pit bull registrations during that same period totalled only $35,000. Therefore, the county spent over half a million dollars enforcing their ban.
The county had lost an unmeasurable amount of both direct and indirect revenue due to the “dramatic reduction” in number of dog shows and exhibitions held in the county.

Perhaps over half a million dollars a year is an acceptable expense to ensure public safety. But was Prince George’s County’s ban actually doing what it was supposed to? Was the community making a sound investment?

Apparently not. The task force found that

The “public safety benefit is unmeasurable.”
Across the board, dog bites had decreased among all breeds at about the same rate. The ban did not appear to have had any noticeable effect on public safety.
What’s more, the task force expressed concern that the ban might actually be having a negative effect on public safety; animal control facilities and workers were stretched thin because they were constantly having to respond to “pit bull” complaints and house alleged pit bulls. The task force felt that this had a negative effect on animal control’s ability to respond to other types of violations.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

"Punishing the deed” costs twice as much as banning dogs of fighting breed

Breed Specific Legislation saves people and other people's beloved pets from being mauled and killed. There are 400 dog breeds and only a few breeds that continually kill humans. The problem with targeting "irresponsible"owners is that you only know they're "irresponsible" after the death or mauling has already occurred. That's too late for somebody. Good BSL or breed bans eliminates the problem before it happens.

From 2005-2015, 217 people killed pit bull type dogs. When a consumer product injures and kills that many people, and generates comparable liability history, that product is taken off the market. You can read their individual tragedies here: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2014.php

“Punishing the deed” costs twice as much as banning dogs of fighting breed. Punishing just three people whose “bully breed” dogs recently ran amok, causing two human fatalities, may cost the taxpayers of Iowa, Michigan, and New York state upward of $1 million, according to the Vera Institute of Justice’s 2012 estimate that the annual cost of incarceration in the U.S. is $31,286 per inmate.

If the four convicted dog owners each serve the maximum time under their sentences, the total cost of their prison time could potentially be several times higher. http://www.animals24-7.org/2015/07/18/punishing-the-deed-costs-twice-as-much-as-banning-dogs-of-fighting-breed/

Julie more than 4 years ago

More on BSL in Ontario

"The City of Ottawa says it will act when a dog of any breed presents a threat to public safety, but the city is not trying to crack down on pit bull-type dogs because it doesn't have the resources to do so, and the law pertaining to the dogs is difficult to enforce."

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=215f060b-f8f2-4b36-

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

BSL Ontario/Toronto

Ontario/Toronto

They claim success based on some rough numbers published in the Toronto Sun Newspaper.

Reality: There has been no statistical change in the number of dog bites in the province of Ontario since the ban went into effect. The numbers have simply fluctuated by about 1-1.5% per year since the ban went into effect.

Meanwhile, cities throughout the province have killed over 1,000 'pit bull-type' dogs and spent a fortuneharrassing people with look-alike type dogs, and struggling with the unenforceable law. Several municipalities in Ontario have simply decided to no enforce the ban and ignore it.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

BSL in Little Rock

Little Rock

They say: Success, because animal control officer Tracy Roark says that pit bull bites have decreased and that you don't see pit bulls chained up all over the city any more.

Reality: Again, this is a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for 'pit bulls', not a ban. In the first six months of the ordinance being passed, the city saw a 44% increase in the number of pit bulls killed at the shelter (nearly 400 total dogs).

Bite numbers declined about 9% -- so that impact there was positive.

The cost was about $100,000 in increased animal control fees for the city.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

BSL in San Francisco

San Francisco

Their claim: based on a quote from a newspaper article is that the number of pit bull bites has gone down and the number of complaints have dropped.

Reality: San Francisco's law is not a ban, but does mandate that all 'pit bulls' be spayed or neutered. And I wrote a detailed report on San Francisco's "success" here. According to the numbers I received from the San Francisco Animal Control, the number of 'pit bulls' euthanized did decrease in the first 18 months of the ordinance being in effect (some friends I know in the Bay Area note that this hasn't necessarily been the case, but I'm just reporting what I have).

Meanwhile, the total number of bites increased by 13.4%. This is considered success by dogsbite.org.

Meanwhile, a Professor at the California State University- Sacramento also did research on the San Francisco case - -and her results were similar to mine.

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/06/truth-deceit-why-breed-specific-legislation-fails-regardless-of-what-some-might-say.html

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

BSL in Iowa

Council Bluffs, IA

Their claim: success, because the number of 'pit bull' bites has gone down from 19 to 0.

Reality: Here are the total # of dog bites in Council Bluffs by year since 2003. The ban was passed in 2005.

2003: 85

2004: 131

2005: 115

2006: 132

2007: 98

2008: I don't have 2008 number

2009: 97

So the year with the highest number of bites was after the ban, and the lowest was before the ban. And pretty much everything shows that numbers are leveling off right around where the average was before the ban. It certanily isn't a sign of a steady decrease. The breeds involved have changed with now the majority of bites coming from Boxers, Labradors and German Shepherds -- all larger breeds of dogs than 'pit bulls'.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

more on the efectiveness of BSL

"Why Doesn’t BSL Work?

Banning specific breeds fails to get to the root of the dog bite problem—irresponsible ownership. Any dog can bite, especially a dog that is in the hands of an abusive, neglectful, or irresponsible owner.
Many dogs labeled as 'pit bulls' in the media are actually other breeds or breed mixes.
Enforcing this legislation is costly, and even when the county or state has the manpower and funding to enforce BSL, those areas do not see an increase in public safety. In fact, many areas see a surge in dog bites and attacks after the enactment of BSL.
Breed specific legislation rips dogs away from responsible pet owners and drives irresponsible owners further underground."

- See more at: https://positively.com/animal-advocacy/breed-specific-issues/breed-specific-legislation/#sthash.Eit6vS9p.dpuf

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

Peer Revied Study on "Effectiveness" of BSL

October 1, 2010 -- For years, evidence has mounted that breed specific legislation (BSL) fails to reduce dog bite incidents. The data supporting this conclusion has come from cities and counties all over North America, and from four European countries.
An insightful new analysis, recently published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, explains why BSL has consistently failed to reduce dog bites. The authors, Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD, and Amy Marder, VMD, CAAB, of the Center for Shelter Dogs, Animal Rescue League of Boston; and Margaret Slater, DVM, PhD, of the ASPCA, have applied one of the most valuable and well-recognized tools of evidence-based medicine to this question.
Number needed to treat (called NNT) measures the effectiveness of new medicines or treatments. It asks the question: How many patients have to take the medicine or get the treatment in order for one patient to avoid a bad outcome? The fewer patients that have to be treated in order to avoid a bad outcome, the more effective scientists consider a medicine or treatment to be.
But what if we had to treat thousands of patients to avoid even one bad outcome? Would we bother with a new medicine if the number of people we needed to treat to prevent one bad outcome, was 10,000? If we could only identify 9,900 people suffering from the disease, we could not treat enough people with the new medicine to be sure that even one of them would avoid the dreaded symptom.
This is precisely the result that Patronek and his colleagues obtained when they applied this evidence-based method to estimating how many dogs a community would have to ban to prevent a single, serious dog bite. They called their mystery number the number needed to ban (NNB). Using dog bite injury data from the Centers for Disease Control, the State of Colorado, and other, smaller jurisdictions, along with guestimates of the population of various breeds or kinds of dogs, the authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community, in order to prevent even one serious dog bite. For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to ban more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted breed.
To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number.

Dog bite-related fatalities are so extremely rare that not even a state could ban enough dogs to insure that they had prevented even one. (Consider: in Denver, Colorado, after they banned “pit bull” dogs in 1989, they had another dog bite-related fatality in the Denver area, involving another type of dog.)
Spain, Italy, Great Britain and the Netherlands have all reported that their breed specific regulations have not produced a reduction in dog bite incidents....

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/full/10.2460/javma.237.7.788
i Patronek, G., Slater, M., Marder, A., “Use of a number-need-to-ban calculation to ill

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

BSL

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.

In ALL BSL's all existing pit bull type dogs are grandfathered in with restrictions 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 if they are registered.!

When a BSL is brought in you usually have 30 days to register your pit bull type dog covered by the Ban and it is grandfathered in and you are allowed to keep it with restrictions like short leash by an adult, muzzled, kenneled, 6 figure insurance, fixed, chipped,signage etc.

If you don't register it in 30 days or you bring one in after the Ban is in effect it is confiscated and put down, as it would be evil & sick to ship a dangerous threat to public safety off to another community and be fine with that as long as your community was safe from them, that would simply be wrong.

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 in very small numbers it is not a naturally genetic reality for them to carry out such horrifying attacks.

Simply put, border collies do not herd sheep because they are raised on sheep farms; rather, they are raised on sheep farms because they herd.

In addition pointers point, retrievers retrieve, and mastiffs guard, all because those traits are part of their breed expectations, meaning strong and continuous selection in the underlying breeding program "

Pit bulls do not attack because they are raised with dog fighters and drug dealers, dog fighters and drug dealers use pit bulls because they attack!

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 where every year a third of their numbers are put down in animal shelters.

Thomas more than 4 years ago

BSL Works

There is very little cost difference no matter if you have a pit bull type dog BSL Ban or not.

There is a very impactful cost free indirect outcome as invariably the pit bull type dog owner will be far more careful and in fact go
underground to avoid the consequences of not adhering to a BSL Ban such as fines & or losing their dog or even having it put down, this tends to focus their minds and motivates them to be in compliance.

In effect out of sight reduces interaction with any pit bull type dogs
in general for both the 2 & 4 legged legitimate members of the
community which greatly increases their daily safety and dramatically reduces the possibility of pit bull attacks.

All this at not one cent of extra cost.

AC officers will be more available to carry out routine street and park patrols not having to deal with constant pit bull type dog mauling's.

This is their normal activity and will allow them to as they enforce the normal leash and dog at large laws to enforce the BSL Ban at the same time at no extra cost.

Simple they see a pit bull type dog they pick it up, a minor cost to
bring about increased public safety, & as they go more and more
underground this cost will drop sharply to the level of being moot from a budget perspective.

As well neighbors on the street will know if a pit bull type dog is
illegally present and can call the city AC to report this allowing the
animal to be removed, a simple, clean and efficient modality to find, fix and remove any pit bull type dog illegally in the community.

If the owners keep their pit bull type dogs in the basement or take them out only very early in the morning or very late at night this will
dramatically enhance the community's safety cost free as the possibility of the public interacting with a pit bull type dog is reduced to fractionally what it normally would be the case in normal daytime hours.

There would be no extras kenneling cost after you pick up a pit bull
type dog, you put down a stray right away, if there is ownership proof an immediate choice is given to the owner, give it up to be put down right away or if they appeal it in the courts they pay the kenneling cost.

If done this way the expense of kenneling is also moot.

Done this way any Pit Bull type dog BSL Ban is easily enforceable by any community, the only requirement to make this a reality is to have the courage to simply carry out said enforcement in the face of screams, rants and raves by the pit bull advocates.

Thomas more than 4 years ago

Pit Bull Bans work

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.

Thomas more than 4 years ago

Pit Bull Bans Work.!!

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.

Thomas more than 4 years ago

Dangerous Dogs Need Regulations

It's time to admit that pit bulls aren't poodles, and that dogs were deliberately bred for specific purposes. Pit bulls, Rottweilers, Cane Corsos, Presa Canarios -- none of these were developed to babysit children! They are fighting and guarding breeds and need to be regulated just as other potentially dangerous animals are. Considering the death and mayhem dogs of these breeds are inflicting in communities everywhere, something must be done. I appluad legislators for stepping up to the plate. Don't let the dangerous dog zealots push their narrow and dangerous agenda on the rest of the citizens. And I don't want to hear any comparison to guns! Guns don't get up on their own, break out of the house and devastate or end people's lives. Dangerous dogs do, every day.

Liz Marsden more than 4 years ago

Responsible Owners Benefit from BSL

Requiring permits, insurance, sterilization and education for owners who choose to keep fighting breed dogs will ultimately benefit everyone. It will reduce the number of attacks while also protecting owners from devastating lawsuits and public shame, and the needless killing of more pit bulls.

The only reason I can think of that a pit bull owner would be this vocal against BSL is that they simple don't want to be inconvenienced or held accountable for owning a dog that poses a public threat. I have yet to read a post by a "pro-pit-bull" advocate who suggests solutions to the overpopulation problem or safety concerns. It's just straight up denial of the problem and posturing to protect and defend their own personal freedom to own, breed, and treat their dogs any way they like, public (and dogs) be damned.

My suggestion to everyone: bring solutions to the table, listen, and try to see this issue from all sides so that a humane and responsible ordinance can be put in place that keeps everyone safe, including your dogs. There is nothing humane about keeping this breed unregulated. It results in pit bull overpopulation, overrun shelters, and the unnecessary euthanization of these dogs more than any other breed. If you love them, help them be better by being responsible for a solution.

Jo more than 4 years ago

Riddle me this

If the attacks attributed to pit bull types dogs is all due to genetics, how do you explain the rest of the deaths and attacks from other breeds of dogs?

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

Julie

There are around 400 dog breeds and most of them have never, ever killed a human. This site tracks fatalities by dogs breeds.
Ignorance comes from those who ignore FACTS. Pit Bulls are the most unpredictable and aggressive breed with the most number of kills. PERIOD. Your FEELINGS don't outweigh facts. These families know exactly what type of dog killed their loved one. From 2005-2015, 217 people killed pit bull type dogs, many by their beloved pit bull. http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2014.php

Julie more than 4 years ago

ANd the reward for not answering the question goes to...

Perfect example of the "victim's" advocate who only cares about those attacked by pit type dogs. If a child is killed or mauled by a chow, a mastiff, a lab, a mix breed, a rottie, its is every bit as tragic as one killed or mauled by a pit bull. So my question is that if pit bulls attack due to genetics, what about the other breeds that also attack? What is the cause for those dogs? Are they all pit mixes? Is every dog that bites or attacks somehow related to pit bulls? It is a logical, rational question that instead of offering an answer to, you default to being intellectually dishonest and deflect. The question contained no "opinion" or "emotion". However as usual, you react to a post rather than read, reflect and offer up a rational and reasonable response.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

It's common place for pit bulls to kill with other breeds it rare

You are an obfuscator to imply that wanting to get rid of 6% of dogs that cause 80% to 90% of all serious dog attacks means one does not care about other attacks, that is not rational nor cognitive and is merely a poorly used beard to hide your attempts at silencing the truths that we present to you and the public.

It is like saying if only 85% of all cancer patients can be cured by a drug that must mean you do not care about the other 15% suffering from cancer and should not try to cure the 85% by getting rid of a small part of what is causing the cancer in general.

The only reason people are coming to the assumption that people speaking out about pit bull attacks only care about pit bull victims is because of their own bias: they want these people to be seen as bad, heartless people, they want to demonize them, so they make this leap in order to paint them as cruel and heartless people. Then they can just be ignored and the real issue of the facts doesn't need to be addressed. It doesn't help pit bull advocates to treat people this way or to be seen acting like this. I have never seen a quote from anyone saying they only care about pit bull victims because they don't only care about pit bull victims. People are simply pointing out the biggest issue that is way out of proportion with all other dogs and want to deal with that in a different and separate way while also combating general dog issues with all breed laws.

Julie more than 4 years ago

Still not answering the question...

Thank you for still evading the question as to why dogs of other breeds attack.

Another funny thing I notice about your paragraph of deflection is that you seem offended that it is clear by your focus and obsession that other victims of dogs are not part of your agenda and then go one to say that making that claim is to paint" BSL supporters as cruel and heartless". Yet in all the posts I have seen of yours on these articles you guys flock to, I have never once seen you address the extreme rhetoric from your side claiming that pit bull owners do not care about victims or worse, somehow find joy in them. I have never seen you address statements from the people who you associate with who claim that " a parent of a disabled child would get a pit bull as a legal way to eliminate the child because they have tired of dealing with the disability". I have never once seen you address your associates fantasizing about killing dogs in graphic manners, about leaving bowls of poison out that children could get in to, or the comments regarding rounding up all pit bulls and owners and gassing them, I have never once seen you comment on a thread where your associates are "happy to hear a pit bull squeal in pain", or that a member of your group said he would poison every pit bull in his neighborhood, ect. I
I look forward to seeing evidence of you new found conscious in reining in your more extreme "colleagues".

All victims deserve respect and compassion. All owners should be held responsible for what their dogs do. Laws should address the actual issue, be enforceable, treat all as equal. BSL by its very nature sets up two classes of victims, the ones who matter and can be used to push an agenda and those who are attacked by dogs who - apparently should get a free pass on mauling. It wastes time running down otherwise responsible owners rather than spending limited resources on the problem dogs of ALL breeds, an irresponsible owner of practically any breed can make a menace of that dog.
BSL is like many of the "zero tolerance" laws out there today. On the surface they sound like a good idea.For example, who wants drugs in school? Until your child is expelled for carrying an aspirin or a multi vitamin. Who wants kids to have weapons on campus? Until your boy scout is expelled for having a "multi tool". These laws over simplify a complex issue and in doing so make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens while in actuality doing very little to curb the actual criminal behavior it seeks to address. Zero tolerance for drugs in school has not stopped children from accessing drugs, but it *sounds* good and people can go on about their day thinking they have solved a problem when in actuality they have not.
BSL does exactly the same thing. Otherwise responsible owners either adhere to ridiculous laws if they can afford to, give up their family pets or have them euthanized all for looking a certain way.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

Pitbull protectionist STILL purposely confusing bites with DEATHS in order to mislead

Jennifer, I see you are still using bite statistics in your quotes even though the biggest problem with pitbulls and the main reason why pitbulls need BSL is because they KILL people at such a high rate.

This is typical of all your arguments and its very misleading to the reader when you switch bites for DEATHS.

Pitbull advocates commonly use the tactic of obfuscating the high risks of pitbulls by deliberately confusing bites with DEATHS. I've asked you pitbull protectionist multiply times in the past to explain why pitbulls have killed people 216 times times since the year 2005, yet all the retrievers (Labs, Goldens, Chesapeake Bay, etc) have killed 5 people. Other groups of dogs like hounds, setters, spaniels herding breeds, etc. also have very low rates of fatalities to humans, so why is it that pitbull type dogs are killing at such a high rate?

WHY are pitbulls 211 times more likely to kill a human than retrievers?

Hint: it's the breed. The mixture of bulldog and terrier makes for high risk of prolonged gripping attacks which lead to FAR more maimings and deaths.

Christy more than 4 years ago

What BSL DOES Accomplish

What does happen under breed-specific legislation?

Innocent people continue to be threatened, bitten, traumatized, disfigured, and killed—by non-targeted breeds and types of dogs.
Innocent dogs are killed because they look a certain way.
Millions of dollars are wasted and animal control resources stretched thin in order to kill dogs and not save people.
Abusive and irresponsible owners carry on with “business as usual.”
Good owners and their families are outcasts (if they keep their targeted dog) or devastated (if they give up their targeted dog).
Reason, science, and expertise gets ignored or, even worse, scoffed at.
Nobody learns anything about the real reasons why dogs bite and attack, safety around dogs, or responsible dog ownership.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

BSL FAIL COLORADO

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.
Aurora, CO

Aurora passed a breed ban on “pit bulls” and seven rarer breeds (e.g. Dogo Argentinos) effective 2006. The most recent statistics from Aurora demonstrate that the annual total of dog bites, including severe dog bites, has not decreased. The bites are primarily inflicted by non-banned breeds and types of dogs. Statistics also indicate that severe bites have not decreased, and non-banned breeds of dogs have been overwhelmingly responsible for those—putting lie to the oft-repeated claim that banning “pit bulls” reduces severe bites.

Perplexingly, after passing their ban, Aurora changed the way they tally dog bites—along with some other poor data collection procedures that make their numbers extremely difficult to compare from year to year. In 2011 discussions about the breed ban, city officials carefully ignored the city’s collected data on dog bites; possibly this was due to the data’s flaws, but more likely, the numbers were just plain embarrassing. The data shows that citizens of Aurora are no safer from dog bites today than they were before the breed ban was instituted.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

Misleading

Denver has higher intake of patients due to the fact it receives patients from outlying counties that are not covered by BSL, they are all breed neutral hence the heavy number of attacks in those non BSL counties that are flown into the hospitals in Denver by the pit bull type dog special the life flight to ICU.

This accounts for the numbers you reference, when looking at and comparing where they come from the numbers they treat in Denver are overwhelmingly from non BSL outlying areas.

When it comes to deaths and the really serious maulings they have all but disappeared with the Ban where prior they ere quite

This issue has never been about which breeds bite the most.The issue with pit bulls is the degree of damage they inflict, and their attacks being more likely to result in fatality. Appellate courts across the United States have recognized the dangers of the pit bull breed for over 25-years. We've listed excerpts from court decisions that demonstrate this. http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-appellate-court-decisions.php

Julie more than 4 years ago

BSL FAIL MD

Prince George’s County, MD

In 1996, Prince George’s County, Maryland, instituted a pit bull ban. In 2003, a task force set out to determine whether the ban was having the desired effect in a number of areas, including public safety.

The task force found that

The “public safety benefit is unmeasurable.”
Across the board, dog bites had decreased among all breeds at about the same rate. The ban did not appear to have had any noticeable effect on public safety.
What’s more, the task force expressed concern that the ban might actually be having a negative effect on public safety; animal control facilities and workers were stretched thin because they were constantly having to respond to “pit bull” complaints and house alleged pit bulls. The task force felt that this had a negative effect on animal control’s ability to respond to other types of violations.

The task force urged Prince George’s County to rescind the ban and institute non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

BSL FAIL UK

The United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s Dangerous Dog Act bans the American Pit Bull Terrier and three other breeds of dogs and their crossbreeds. Yet reports from the U.K. indicate that dog bites requiring hospital treatment have not decreased. Rather, 4,328 dog bites were reported treated by U.K. hospitals in 1999, whereas in the year ending April 2011 there were 6,118 such treatments—an increase of 41% over ten years [HES data]. The U.K. also continues to experience approximately four dog bite fatalities per year.

The media and many others have noted a sharp increase in the number of “status dogs” being obtained and ultimately abused. A Dogs Trust press release from 2012 noted that numbers of stray “status dogs” had increased by 148% from the previous year. One contributor to a 2011 roundtable debate on the DDA observed: “Banning breeds inevitably makes them more desirable for the wrong kind of person. Pit bulls and Staffie crosses are now so common that people are inevitably moving on to the next thing – huskies, molosos, presca canarios. We can’t add every dog to a banned list. We need to look at why people are getting these dogs.” The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has repeatedly observed that the Dangerous Dog Act does not address the ownership and management issues that lead to the creation of dangerous dogs.

Following a fatal attack in early 2013, a select group of MP’s formed a committee to review the Dangerous Dogs Act and the changes officials proposed in response to this incident. The ultimate outcome of this committee is a report that concludes the banning of certain breeds in the UK is accepted as a failure in reducing bites by both targeted dogs and all others.

The U.K. has been struggling for at least half a decade to decide how to handle their continued problems with dangerous dogs. Most officials and organizations agree that the DDA is not protecting the public, but very few agree on exactly what should be done about it. In February 2011, Scotland officials took matters into their own hands by revising their laws to remove BSL (but unfortunately, as part of the U.K., Scotland cannot get out from under the DDA).

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

Status dogs are popular because of Internet exposure, not because of breed bans

The popularity of "status dogs" has more to do with Internet exposure than anything else. Status dogs also very popular in the USA, even in areas with no type of BSL, and status dogs are popular in most any other country which has citizens that are wealthy enough to attain them.

The UK's Dangerous Dog act is not going to be repealed. Like what happens after passing other common sense laws, there is usually amendments made later which refine the law as loopholes are noted. The only changes to the Dangerous Dog act have been to ADD regulations which strengthen it. The current loopholes are that English staffies and American Bulldogs haven't also been banned. Most all of the fatalities which have happened after the DD act was passed were due to illegal pitbulls being passed off as (currently legal) English Staffies/American Bulldogs. Most BSL bans the English staffies and American bulldogs. When the UK closes the loopholes on those two aforementioned pitbull type breeds, the death rates will sink even further.

Christy more than 4 years ago

Just an example

http://www.dog-bite-law-center.com/pit_bull_attacks.html

Jackie more than 4 years ago

CDC on Breed Specific Legislation

Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humansappear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-typedogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite andcause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficultiesinherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises con-stitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks representa small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,therefore, should not be the primary factor drivingpublic policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practi-cal alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist andhold promise for prevention of dog bites.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf.

Sera more than 4 years ago

AVMA Position on BSL

"Any dog can bite, regardless of its breed, and more often people are bitten by dogs they know. It’s not the dog’s breed that determines risk -- it’s the dog’s behavior, general size, number of dogs involved and the vulnerability of the person bitten that determines whether or not a dog or dogs will cause a serious bite injury. Dogs can be aggressive for all sorts of reasons. A dog that’s bitten once can bite again, and a dog that’s never bitten could still bite.

Don’t rely on breed stereotypes to keep yourself safe from dog bites. A dog’s individual history and behavior are much more important than its breed, and since you don’t always know a dog’s history or behavior, it’s not a good idea to make assumptions. Instead, concentrate on prevention: educate yourself, teach children about proper interactions and behaviors with dogs, and learn how to recognize risky and escalating situations with aggressive dogs. These steps -- not BSL -- will lead to fewer dog bites"
https://www.avma.org/public/Pages/Why-Breed-Specific-Legislation-is-not-the-Answer.aspx

Sera more than 4 years ago

AVMA Dog Bite prevention Role of Breed

Conclusion
Dogs who bite can seriously injure or kill people43. It is natural for those affected to seek to address what they perceive to be the immediate cause, and it is easy to blame breed. However as Duffy et al (2008) wrote of their survey based data: “The substantial within-breed variation…suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog’s propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed.”34 Factors relating to the individual animal (eg, training method, sex and neutering status), the target (e.g. owner versus stranger), and the context in which the dog is kept (e.g. urban versus rural) have been shown to be more predictive of dogs bites than has breed. Also the nature of a breed has been shown to vary across time, geographically, and according to breed subtypes such as those raised for conformation showing versus field trials.33

Breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites. Controlled studies reveal no increased risk for the group blamed most often for dog bites, ‘pit bull-type’ dogs. Accordingly, targeting this breed or any another as a basis for dog bite prevention is unfounded. As stated by the National Animal Control Association: “Dangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed.”

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

Sera more than 4 years ago

Eaten Alive

DETROIT, MI -- It was about 9:30 p.m. on Oct. 2 when a pack of up to 12 pit bull and mixed-breed dogs mauled 50-year-old Steven Constantine to near death in Detroit.
He spent almost a month in Intensive Care.

"It was worse than your worst nightmare," Constantine's sister, Katherine Hawley of Shelby Township, told MLive Detroit Monday.

Constantine, who narrowly survived, remains hospitalized facing numerous surgeries.

"He lost his left arm just below his shoulder; they tried to reattach his left leg but they had to amputate that four days ago ... " Hawley said. "They managed to save his right arm ... The dogs literally ate the large muscle and tendons in his forearm ... They reattached the foot to see if they can save it."

The dogs bit off Constantine's right ear, but fortunately did not impact his ability to hear and did not disfigure his face, Hawley said.

Constantine received skin grafts and the numerous bight marks on the crown of his head continue to heal.

The Attack

Constantine told police when interviewed 11 days after the attack that he was walking past a house on the 4500 block of Pennsylvania in east Detroit and saw the dog owner, Derick Felton, opening a large bag of dog food for his pack of dogs.

Constantine knew Felton, whom he referred to as a friend, from the area and referred to him by the nickname "Butch."

Felton said, "just seen him around the block and at the liquor store," when asked by police how he knew Constantine.

Mark Bernstein, an attorney for Farmington Hills-based Sam Bernstein Law Firm is representing Constantine in a $25,000-plus lawsuit against the dog owners, Derrick and Elizabeth Felton.

Bernstein provided MLive with statements made to police after the attack by both Derrick Felton and Constantine.

"I asked if I could help feed the dogs," Constantine told police. "He said, 'Yeah.' I started opening the bag, then the dogs started attacking and eating me alive."

Felton said he couldn't get the dogs off Constantine and went inside his home once medics arrived. The medics, fearing the dogs would attack them, stayed in their ambulance until police arrived, shooting and killing one. The gunfire ended the attack, sending the remaining dogs scurrying back into Felton's house.

"When you look at the way this mauling occurred, it suggests that the dog owner did nothing to assist our client," said Bernstein," that he essentially left the scene ... while Steve was pleading for help."

Detroit police killed one animal at the scene and 11 were subsequently euthanized by Detroit Animal Control. Police identified the dogs as pit bulls.

Felton admitted to owning "about 15" dogs, with the puppies included.

"Because I want to," Felton told the investigator when asked why he owned so many.

Jackie more than 4 years ago

Eaten Alive

DETROIT, MI -- It was about 9:30 p.m. on Oct. 2 when a pack of up to 12 pit bull and mixed-breed dogs mauled 50-year-old Steven Constantine to near death in Detroit.
He spent almost a month in Intensive Care.

"It was worse than your worst nightmare," Constantine's sister, Katherine Hawley of Shelby Township, told MLive Detroit Monday.

Constantine, who narrowly survived, remains hospitalized facing numerous surgeries.

"He lost his left arm just below his shoulder; they tried to reattach his left leg but they had to amputate that four days ago ... " Hawley said. "They managed to save his right arm ... The dogs literally ate the large muscle and tendons in his forearm ... They reattached the foot to see if they can save it."

The dogs bit off Constantine's right ear, but fortunately did not impact his ability to hear and did not disfigure his face, Hawley said.

Constantine received skin grafts and the numerous bight marks on the crown of his head continue to heal.

The Attack

Constantine told police when interviewed 11 days after the attack that he was walking past a house on the 4500 block of Pennsylvania in east Detroit and saw the dog owner, Derick Felton, opening a large bag of dog food for his pack of dogs.

Constantine knew Felton, whom he referred to as a friend, from the area and referred to him by the nickname "Butch."

Felton said, "just seen him around the block and at the liquor store," when asked by police how he knew Constantine.

Mark Bernstein, an attorney for Farmington Hills-based Sam Bernstein Law Firm is representing Constantine in a $25,000-plus lawsuit against the dog owners, Derrick and Elizabeth Felton.

Bernstein provided MLive with statements made to police after the attack by both Derrick Felton and Constantine.

"I asked if I could help feed the dogs," Constantine told police. "He said, 'Yeah.' I started opening the bag, then the dogs started attacking and eating me alive."

Felton said he couldn't get the dogs off Constantine and went inside his home once medics arrived. The medics, fearing the dogs would attack them, stayed in their ambulance until police arrived, shooting and killing one. The gunfire ended the attack, sending the remaining dogs scurrying back into Felton's house.

"When you look at the way this mauling occurred, it suggests that the dog owner did nothing to assist our client," said Bernstein," that he essentially left the scene ... while Steve was pleading for help."

Detroit police killed one animal at the scene and 11 were subsequently euthanized by Detroit Animal Control. Police identified the dogs as pit bulls.

Felton admitted to owning "about 15" dogs, with the puppies included.

"Because I want to," Felton told the investigator when asked why he owned so many.

Jackie more than 4 years ago

NO such thing as a "vicious breed"

Except that they can't do that, because there is literally NO proven evidence that suggests there is such thing as a "vicious breed" of dog

Paige Marie more than 4 years ago

Save a life ban a pitbull

Too many people died from attacks in the last 10 years due to pitbulls. Making this just one more safe city people can live with their children is a smart move.

Jackie more than 4 years ago

Banning Pit Bull Type Dogs Saves Lives

Dogs have a great deal of instinctive behavior hardwired into their brains. If you want a dog to help you hunt ducks, one would select a Chesapeake Bay Retriever or a Labrador Retriever, these dogs are bred with the physical and mental characteristics to make them excel at these tasks. Selective breeding has given them webbed feet for more efficient swimming, a large thick tail for an effective rudder, thick undercoat for insulation from the icy waters they retrieve downed ducks from, and a love of retrieving. These dogs are genetically hardwired to perform these tasks, one would hardly expect to get a chow or a doberman to do the same work.

If you have a flock of sheep, one would select a border collie to look after the animals. Border collies are bred to herd animals, they have an incredible attention span and endurance that is not to be believed. These physical and mental characteristics have been carefully selectively bred into these dogs to make them suitable for these tasks.

Other examples; golden's retrieve, pointers point, and bloodhounds track, you get the idea.

Now on to pit bull type dogs. Today’s pit bull type dog is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting dog, a dog that was bred to bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head. When baiting large animals was outlawed in the 1800s, people turned instead to fighting their dogs against each other. These larger, slower bull-baiting dogs were crossed with smaller, quicker terriers to produce a more agile and athletic dog for fighting other dogs. All of these physical and mental characteristics have been carefully selectively bred into pit bull type dogs to make them suitable for these tasks. Seriously, are these the genetically hardwired selectively bred tasks you want in a dog that you expose your fellow citizens, friends and loved ones to?

I would hope not, steer clear of pit bull type dogs and other bully breeds.

When pit bull type dog apologists talk about how the dog is raised refer to this PBS documentary. The segment on the foxes demonstrates it is all about genetic, instinctive behavior.

https://vimeo.com/19472436


http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/genetics-of-behavior-and-performance.html

Lew Heifner more than 4 years ago

Breed Ban

I think it needs to be pointed at the other end of the leash, or lack thereof. You say you see loose or roaming pitbulls? There does need to be strict dog ownership. Period. Mandatory S/N, license for a dog breeder which have to pay fees to do so, Have to be leashed, ALL dogs, not just big dogs. A lot of people think it's okay for the smaller dogs to run freely.
I understand owners having to be insured, most of the responsible owners are insured anyway.
Placing a ban on a certain breed is not going to stop people from being bit in the face/mauled.

Reneé more than 4 years ago

Actually Enforce the Current Laws First

It seems that part of the problem at this point is lack of enforcement of current leash laws and other regulations. It makes no sense to pile on other regulations if the current ones are not enforced.

Breed specific legislation sounds like a quick and simple solution to a complex problem. However, it is ineffective and out dated. Municipalities that have had BSL are overwhelmingly overturning it in favor of breed neutral laws that hold all dog owners accountable for what their dogs do, encourage responsible ownership across the board, treat all victims with the compassion, dignity and respect they deserve (human and animal). Breed neutral laws focus on the individual people and animals that are the cause of the problem while BSL wastes time and money going after otherwise responsible owners and pets with no history of aggression.
Denver is often touted as the BSL utopia is still on the top 10 cities in the country for dog bites and incidentally has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation as well. While this is certainly not due to BSL, clearly municipal time and money could be spent addressing crime and not chasing dogs based on nothing but appearance.
The UK has had an increase in dog bites requiring hospitalization since they enacted BSL.

I would encourage the council first to enforce what laws are currently available and then look at regulations that hold irresponsible people accountable and leaves the responsible ones alone.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

BSL for pitbulls DOES work to reduce DEATHS

Bite rates are always gonna rise somewhat as the population grows. What you failed to mention is that the DEATH rates from pit bulls went down in the UK and Denver. Also, areas with pitbull BSL generally have reductions in fatal dogs attacks overall because pi ills are the main breed which kills humans routinely at high rates.

Christy more than 4 years ago

BLS!

I would love to know where you people get your information about this breed? And at least 98% of this Bullsh-t is NOT true of this breed!! These dogs are like any other and they want and have ever wanted was to love and be loved! Unlike most of the humans that want this breed and others like them banned or wiped off the face of this earth! Get real people and get a clue on what a bad dog is because that real bad dog only has two legs and talks!!!

Tess more than 4 years ago

There is no scientific evidence that BSL is actually effective

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.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BSL WORKS

And ample evidence that it does not. Focusing on breed does not address the root issues that dogs become aggressive, become a nuisance or bite.

Jennifer more than 4 years ago

Spam Commenters

If someone has enough inclination to continuously spam comments, then they must be unhinged. If they are unhinged, then their point of view is clearly the one to stay away.....

JuJuManga more than 4 years ago

Pit Bull Ban

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

All Pit Bull Type Dogs must be Banned:
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, Bandog, Boerboel, Rhodesian Ridgeback, & Catahoula Bulldog 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)

As well the following should be labeled as Dangerous dogs after single bite incident: rottweilers, chow chows, Doberman pinschers, German shepherds, they as well as all Grandfathered Pit Bull Type Dogs must be:

* Licensed

* 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.

* All Dogs Spayed/neutered (except for limited approved show dog breeders)

* All breeds involved in any bite incident and Grandfathered Pit Bull Type Dogs 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 Grandfathered Pit Bull Type Dogs 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.

Thomas McCartney more than 4 years ago

Pitbulls are dangerous - especially to children

Pitbulls are bred to maul their prey to death and they attack without provocation and without warning. Human lives matter more than those of a fighting dog breed. Please research all of the maulings and deaths from pitbulls and you will see that we need to make communities safe for families. It is a shame when people need to be so afraid of a pitbull attack that they can't even taken their children to a public park. Please go to dogsbite.org to review the FACTS about pitbulls. A trillion pictures of nutty owners hugging their pitbulls doesn't outweigh the sight of some of the children mailed to death by these monsters.

Linda more than 4 years ago

ASPC's view on Pit Bull type dogs.

The ASPCA says:

Can All Dogs Be Trained to Fight?

No. Much like herding dogs, trailing dogs and other breeds selected for particular roles, fighting dogs are born ready for the training that will prepare them to succeed in the pit, and are bred to have a high degree of dog aggression.

The ASPCA has no obligation to share safety issues about pit bulls with the public. On their "Pit Bull Information" web page, they write: "Sadly, pit bulls have acquired a reputation as unpredictable, dangerous, and vicious." Yet, spelled out in the ASPCA Shelter Guidelines -- designed to protect shelter workers -- are the unique risks attributed to pit bulls. One of them is that they "attack without warning," which is equivalent to unpredictable behavior.

From the ASPCA's The Care of Pit Bulls in the Shelter Environment:

There are "cases of experienced handlers who had developed good relationships with the dogs over a period of months still being attacked without warning or obvious provocation."

Pit bulls "ignore signs of submission from other dogs" and "give no warning prior to attack." They add that this is "different than normal dog behavior."

"Today’s pit bulls" have multiple names including: "Staffordshire Terrier (AKC 1936), American Staffordshire Terrier (AKC 1972, Am Staff), American Pit Bull Terrier or Pit Bull Terrier."

"These dogs can be aggressive towards humans and more likely to cause fatal attacks to people than other fighting type dogs."

"Pit bulls will climb fences, chew up stainless steel food and water bowls, destroy copper tubing of automatic water systems and conventional cages, and attack other animals through chain link fences."

"Pit bulls can break through conventional cage doors and destroy typical epoxy paint on the floors and walls."

"Pit bulls require special housing considerations" and "isolation from other animals if dog aggressive or have a high prey drive."

"Install a panic button in rooms housing pit bulls along with other restraint equipment in any room housing pit bulls."

It seems unlikely that the ASPCA or shelters participating in the "Adopt-A-Bull Contest" will tell potential adopters to install a panic button in their home or that pit bulls attack without warning.

Thomas McCartney more than 4 years ago

Pit Bull Education: Ever heard of a break-stick??

Two words to prove pit bull type dogs are inherently dangerous, "BREAK STICK'.

Pit Bull Rescue Central recommends ALL pit guardians to have a "break stick", a wedge-shaped piece of wood used to pry open a pit bull’s jaw during an attack. RED FLAG! Does not sound like a safe family pet if you need a break stick on hand. "Since pit bulls have a strong fighting background, we recommend that pet owners also have a breaking stick as a precaution, even if they don't plan to use it in an illegal context. However, please be discreet. Breaking sticks are not something to brag about and the general public might have the wrong impression if you walk around with a stick in your hand. Breaking sticks are not illegal, but they are considered dog fighting paraphernalia in certain states and/or with certain law enforcement agents." http://www.pbrc.net/breaksticks.html

This person demonstrates how to use a break stick on a pit-bull: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMVH4wY5Pg

Pit-bull Rescue Central, the leading authority of pit bull types, admits MOST pit-bull types are not safe around other dogs because of their genetics. For that reason alone is why I do not consider them safe family pets for our neighborhoods. These are powerful animals that break away from their guardians all the time and maul & kill another beloved pet or person in front of a child or person. This is a typical pit attack on another beloved pet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZTiGWgQubA Too many children & adults have watched their beloved pets be mauled to death by pit bulls. Many develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder after watching a horrific pit attack: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=684_1405912995

According to Pit Bull Rescue Central, "It is a FACT that our pit bulls, AmStaffs and pit mixes come with a built-in fighting heritage.It doesn’t matter where we get them from, whether it be the pound, a stray we pick up, or a puppy we buy from a breeder. The majority of pit bulls will, at some point in their lives, exhibit some degree of dog-on-dog aggression. Yet, chances are that a "normal" pit bull will not share his affection with other animals.We cannot predict when or where it will happen and we can’t love, train or socialize it out of the dog. Pit bulls may not start fights, but they will finish them." http://www.pbrc.net/misc/PBRC_dogpark.pdf"

Families need to be better educated how to pick a safe family pet. Many people are being misled by the pit-bull advocates, claiming they are safe family dogs, they are nanny dogs, it's all how you raise them and they are no more dangerous than other dog breeds. I think legislators should make this a law. All pit bull type dogs adoptions should come with a mandatory warning label like on cigarette boxes that shelters and rescues by law have to disclose. "Pit bull type dogs are the number one canine killer of children, people, other people's beloved pets and livestock of all other dog breeds combined and of all time. All pit bull owners should own a break-stick and know how to use it. Temperament is not the problem with pits; they are generally pleasant to be around when raised well. The danger is the unprovoked aggression, gameness, and physical ability, that has been bred into them from day 1. This cannot be trained or loved away, and you never know when it will appear until it's too late." For those who say "not all pit bulls will attack or kill" -- yes, it's true. Not all will. But predicting which ones will is impossible. They pass shelter behavior tests, then go on to kill or maim people. They "never show any sign of aggression" then one day kill their owner. Out of the blue. This is why they are so dangerous. Who wants to bet their kids or other pets that the pit bull THEY adopt won't be one of the ones who "goes all pit" one day? "From 2005-2015: 217 people mauled & killed by pit bulls, many by their beloved pet. When a consumer product injures and kills that many people, and generates comparable liability history, that product is taken off the market. These families know exactly what breed of dog killed their loved one. http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities.php

As a safe dog advocate and victim's advocate, I follow dangerous dog attacks very closely on people and other people's beloved pets. Here is tragedy story out of 217. Kara who died on her 4th birthday was killed by her beloved pit bulls. She even picked them when they were puppies. They pulled her out of the grandmother's arms mauled and killed her. If the parents would have picked a safer pet like a beagle, she would be alive today. So heartbreaking people have to learn the hard way. Too many people have fallen for the pit bull lobby's lie that it's all how you raise them and they are just like other breeds. Other breeds do not need a break stick to have on hand in case of an attack. Please do your research for a safe family pet. Your first clue should be if you read about a certain type of dog killing people, best not to risk and pick a different breed. http://www.daxtonsfriends.com/kara-hartrich-bloomington-illinois-pit-bull/


Another unsuspecting family mislead by the pit bull advocates who state pit bulls are nanny dogs, it is all how you raise them and they are no more dangerous than any other dog breed. This family thought they had a safe pit bull, now has to come to terms that their 8-year-old pit bull raised around their other children too, NEVER showed any aggression, killed their baby. If this family would of picked a safer pet like a beagle their baby would be alive today. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/04/20/infant-killed-in-pit-bull-attack-in-dallas/ .



Angela Rutledge whose 2-year old son Beau was killed by the family pit bull of 8 years named “Kissy Face”, She fell for the pit bull propaganda that pit bulls are nanny dogs that I see pit bull advocates say all the time. She thought she had a safe pit bull. She was in shock she was not able to stop the attack. She saw her son be ripped into pieces. If this mother would have picked a safer family dog like a collie, her son would be alive today. http://www.daxtonsfriends.com/beau-rutledge/


Two words to prove pit bull type dogs are inherently dangerous, "BREAK STICK'.
Red Flag: Most insurance companies have come to the same conclusion and do no cover pit-bulls because they can't afford the risk. Insurance companies have a calculated actuarial risk of pit bulls of 3,000% compared with other dogs. Pit bulls are seven times more likely to attack their owners. Dog attacks are the third most common claim on homeowner's insurance. More evidence that people who have pit-bulls and certain other types of breeds are endangering people and other people's beloved pets in our communities. http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2014/09/15/homeowner-insurance-blacklist-dog-breeds/




It all starts with the ethical breeder willing to produce a dog with a stable inherited temperament. Domestic animals are selectively bred for certain traits, people are not. It is not possible to discriminate against dog breeds that are purposely bred for certain traits and characteristics. Dog breeding is the practice of mating selected dogs with the intent to maintain or produce specific qualities and characteristics. There are over 400 dog breeds and pit bull breeders are the only ones who are breeding for aggression, tenacity and power to create the ultimate canine gladiator. The reality is that it is not how you raise them, it is how they are bred. "Love" will not take away a pit bulls inherent drive to kill. They are supplying to dog fighters, drug dealers, gang members, people who want a guard dog or a dog that looks like a protection dog. Aggression is a dominant trait resulting in a 75% chance of inheritance. One needs to actively breed to eliminate it through selective breeding and deliberate attrition, things that back yard breeders never do. Another problem is the rampant inbreeding with pit bull that produces unsafe dog. Pit-bull type dogs are the number one dog surrendered to shelters, a million every year, mostly because of aggression issues. Then many are rehomed by irresponsible pit bull advocates back into our communities. Watch this clip of unethical backyard breeders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiZOj9o6jpE


Words from a Pit bull breeder "He says you don't train a pit bull to fight because they're bred that way."
"You can't teach a pit bull how to fight," he said. "Any dog man would tell you that is animal cruelty." http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3794480.shtml#.VVdd37lVikr


BENJAMIN HART, professor emeritus at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine and animal behaviorist. It's quite common for a pit bull to show no signs of aggression. People will call it a nice dog, a sweet dog, even the neighbors - and then all of a sudden something triggers the dog, and it attacks a human in a characteristic way of biting and hanging on until a lot of damage is done. Hart said pit bulls are responsible for about 60 percent of dog attack fatalities each year, which is "way out of proportion" compared with other breeds. Pit bulls make up less than 5 percent of the American dog population. "It's very poor policy to allow any child around a pit bull, in my mind, let alone climb on a dog." More info from pit bull experts: http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-one-can-be-great-thinker-who-does.html?m=1


From Rescue Train & the guru of pit bulls who has a national TV show called Pitbull & Parolees, Tia Torres /Villalobos Rescue Center "It's a mistake to think the fighting gene can be easily trained or loved out of a pit-bull." http://www.therescuetrain.org/pit_bull_education.php


This issue has never been about which breeds bite the most.The issue with pit bulls is the degree of damage they inflict, and their attacks being more likely to result in fatality. Appellate courts across the United States have recognized the dangers of the pit bull breed for over 25-years. We've listed excerpts from court decisions that demonstrate this.
http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-appellate-court-decisions.php

Julie more than 4 years ago

Julia Wall's break sticks

Julia Wall's break sticks arrive with 2D batteries in innocuous brown paper wrapping....satisfaction guaranteed! She will gladly return your money if not 100% satisfied. All for the low, low price of $19.95. Order now, and she will send you 2 break sticks for the price of 1, just pay separate S&H.

Jayce more than 4 years ago

Breadsticks are recommended by several well know pitbull organizations.

There are several well know pitbull organizations which recommend that pitbull owners keep a break stick handy just in case their pitbull bites and doesn't want to let go. Why are you not taking their words seriously? There have been numerous fatal pitbull attacks that the people who tried to help the victim couldn't get the pitbull to release when trying conventional measures (water, kicking, punching) and many times pitbulls are even resistant to releasing their hold when being beaten with police batons or bats. People have had to resort to guns and knives to break the pitbulls grip and by then it was too late.

If you are gonna own a dog that was BRED to grip, hold and not let go, you need to have a breadstick handy to assure the safety of the public.

Christy more than 4 years ago

Julia Wall's break sticks

the only ones who suggest break sticks is your cult buddy and are not reliable resources. She belongs to dbo as you are well aware. This is a cult like organization of people, you being one, who recommend that all pit bulls be eradicated by all means necessary, up to and including clubbing, shooting, poisoning, stabbing etc. Just who do you think believes the garbage your organization spews? Your cult is the only ones who do!

Jayce more than 4 years ago

Yes, lets all listen to Julie

Please, Listen to someone who not only Openly HATES All animals that could POSSIBLY even LOOK like it could be a pit bull (Boxers, Lab mixes, any large terrier) But viciously advocates something not only dangerous to the ANIMALS, But to the human! I don't know about you, but I am not putting my hand anywhere NEAR an attacking dog's mouth, that is stupidity incarnate. as for Pit Bulls inflicting more damage, Obviously this person has never seen a Mastiff bite, or a Saint Bernard Bite, Just because the breeds are rarer does not make them less dangerous! Any large dog is dangerous! Small dogs can be too of course, I've heard stories of Chihuahuas getting in a good bite and killing people. (Jugular)

Cassy Bug more than 4 years ago

pitbulls kill other pets too

Pit Bulls were the breed responsible, in the death of other cats and dogs 95 percent of the time, when those deaths were due to animal attack. To allow pitbulls, is to disallow almost every other animal, pitbulls are known to attack other animals regularly, and usually with deadly results. To be an animal lover you have to love more than just pit bulls. the truthful owners of these breeds will honestly admit to you if a pit bull gets out, something's going to die. Known to be exceptional escape artists, pitbulls need an exceptional owners which does not seem to happen very often. the lack of concern shown by the people who own these dogs, and their callous disregard of the breeds background, is enough to cause concerns.

Jackie more than 4 years ago

Dont bother asking Jackie to cite her source on her stats

I find it extremely difficult to believe that of all the dogs in the world that are not pit bulls, kill 5 percent of animals. Balderdash. I would ask for her source on that but I am sure she doesnt have one and will just respond with her usual name calling shenanigans.

If your dog attacks and injures or kills an animal, breed should not be a factor. All owners should be held responsible.

Sera more than 4 years ago

Quit spreading false information. There's NEVER been a death from a Chihuahua.

First of all, there is not a death documented by a Chihuahua and you need to either retract that statement or provide a link which proves a Chihuahua killed someone.

Second of all, if YOUR dog attacks someone, you better have some way of getting that dog off of the victim. And if you own a pitbull, you are irresponsible if you don't have a breakstick because many times people have to kill a pitbull to get it to release. Sometimes it's too late and the person dies from the gripping bite. Breaksticks are a certain way to get a pitbull to release its biting hold. Respect the bulldog ancestry of the pitbull.

Christy more than 4 years ago

People who spend time praising dog fighters on facebook are on the wrong side of the issue

I am not sure the opinion of someone who talks about how well fed and cared for fighting dogs are is one that should be taken in to consideration when it comes to this topic. Anyone who has worked cruelty cases involving fighting dogs can attest that the "care" these animals get is deplorable and if a person takes the word of those who fight dogs and bases their opinion on such does not have an actual grasp of the issue.
Additionally, Breaksticks here, cherry picks information. None of the quoted organizations support breed specific legislation, and whats more neither does the AVMA, CDC, ASPCA,HSUS, AKC and on and on. Peer reviewed studies have shown that factors such as whether or not the animal was spayed or neutered, tethered, socialized, all have far more consistent effect on whether or not a dog bites than breed.

Sera more than 4 years ago

BSL is ending

Another city removing BSL and replacing it with non-breed specific guildines. www.wivotersforcompanionanimals.com/current-stories/hudson-st-croix-county-wisconsin-repeals-breed-discriminatory-legislation

Sandra Chlubna more than 4 years ago

Pit bull

The AVMA has a position statement regarding Breed specific legislation. Basically this breed is no more aggressive than any other based on scientific evidence. There is no evidence that breed specific legislation reduces dog bites. And the national animal control association states" dangerous and or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed" There is plenty of research showing that this is not a good idea.

Cindy Williams, DVM more than 4 years ago

DVM

Ate you really a DVM, if so, please explain to the people here that want to ban the bully breeds of you are in it for the $$ or not. They say all vets see bullies and their owners as "cash cows" per say

Reneé more than 4 years ago

LOL

Great job on stating "facts", the ability to produce fabrications at large is what is wrong with media in general...to say that they"lockdown" shows even as much of approfessional as you may be your insight is simply opinion. Please do everyone a favor and post the facts when it comes to bull breeds much less aggression in general.

Mike I. more than 4 years ago

Bully breeds.

They are NOT an aggressive breed! It s the idiot owners! I've been bitten by more freaking chihuahua s than any other dog!

Nan Duarte more than 4 years ago

Bully breeds

No such thing...its bully owners!

Susan Riddle more than 4 years ago

Difference between a bandaid and a body bag

Just the fact that you mention bring bit by a chihuahua shows you don't understand or that you are in denial about pitbull maulings.

Linda more than 4 years ago

dog ordinance

Perhaps you should look into the lawsuit that happened in Clay over breed specific laws. Breed specific laws do not work. Better to have leash laws enforced on all.

Teresa more than 4 years ago

Really?

Seems more like there is a problem with uncaring citizens and not one with dogs. We all know and it has been hotly debated for years that the problem is not the breed but the owner. A study by the journal Applied Animal Behavior Science actually shows the most aggressive breeds of dog are the dachshund, the chihuahua, and the Jack Russell. Pits and Rotts actually scored below average on the aggressiveness scale. Cocker Spaniels are known to be more aggressive that Pits. This is nothing more than fear based regulation and it usually based on some level of prejudice from an offended party serving on the city council.


Logan Rollo more than 4 years ago

Locking Jaws?

That is scientifically impossible. Some breeds have harder bites, but no breed has a jaw that locks. It seems to me you have a dog-at-large problem, not a dangerous dog problem. So please address the loose dogs issue and don't punish responsible owners with good dogs. BSL is slowly being eliminated, as cities learn that enforcement of leash laws work much better. All dogs may bite. Depends on the owner that trains (or doesn't) them.

Mary Nagy more than 4 years ago

"Locking" jaws argument is semantics

While it's true that pitbulls jaws do not technically lock, they can grip and hold their bites for a long time and with the pitbull's heredity (stubbornness of the bulldog, tenacity of the terrier) they have a tendency to hold their grip on a victim and not let go. This style of attacking is one of the reasons pitbulls are so deadly. Unlike other dogs which tend to bite and let go, pitbulls have a tendency to hold their bite, not letting their victims escape. To many victims of pitbull attacks, it feels like the dog has locked it's jaws, so that's how they describe the attack.

Christy more than 4 years ago

Kristy

semantics: dogliedotorg->killers->terrorists->cult->breedist->hypocrites->liars

Jayce more than 4 years ago

Dog restriction article

There are several items that I have noted in your article which caused me concern. From what I read of the problem with dogs in your area it does not seem to be a breed-specific problem, but rather a problem of general dogs-at-large, unrelated to breed. Also, early in the article it states that Breed Specific Legislation is the growing trend, however the opposite is true. More and more municipalities are passing breed-neutral ordinances after realizing that BS laws are ineffective, unenforceable and punish the GOOD dogs owners while the bad owners go unpunished. There are many studies which show that breed neutral laws are more effective in improving public safety.

Sandra Chlubna more than 4 years ago

Myth

It is a myth that pit bulls have locking jaws. That is a false statement. Please do research and speak with veterinarians. There is no such thing as a locking jaw on any breed.

Andrea more than 4 years ago

So sad.

So sad That people in her position are very uneducated when it comes to dog.

E. Silva more than 4 years ago

Locking jaw argument is simply one of semantics

While it's true that pitbulls jaws do not technically lock, they can grip and hold their bites for a long time and with the pitbull's heredity (stubbornness of the bulldog, tenacity of the terrier) they have a tendency to hold their grip on a victim and not let go. This style of attacking is one of the reasons pitbulls are so deadly. Unlike other dogs which tend to bite and let go, pitbulls have a tendency to hold their bite, not letting their victims escape. To many victims of pitbull attacks, it feels like the dog has locked it's jaws, so that's how they describe the attack.

The locking jaw argument is one of semantics. Other breeds do not typically attack in a way that is bite and hold. Most other breeds will typically bite and release. Bite sticks are recommended for pitbulls by many well known pitbull organizations. If a pitbull is determined to hold its grip, the only sure way to make it release, short of killing it with a gun/knife, is a bite stick.

When the animal control officer described the pitbull's attack on her, “I can attest to you that they can lock down on you and they don’t let go because I’ve been a victim of it on the job in the '80s," Hurst said.
, she simply said what she felt when the attack happened. Obviously she was trying to let people know how a pitbull attacking her was different than all the other dog types she's encountered over the years.

Christy more than 4 years ago