Letters to the Editor
-
Legislation
Re: watneyjinx:
According to the article on the woman who was mauled while sleeping:
"Neighbors told KING-TV that they have had problems in the past with the two pit bulls running wild."
So according to your reasoning, since the dogs had not bitten anyone before, but just "ran wild," it is only NOW - after mauling someone close to death - that they should be muzzled. But the NEXT time they maul someone, boy watch out! Then we'll get serious.
My point is there was (at least according to this article, and at this stage of the investigation) absolutely no evidence that the dogs had ever attacked or bitten someone before. But, for whatever reason, today they decided to go crazy. There is no legislation that can take into account the unpredictability of any dog. And when the unpredictability involves a pit or similar breed, the results are always, always grim.
Therefore, I completely agree with poster "opinionated": make the owners criminally liable for any attack by their dogs. As opinionated says, if people want to defend these breeds with "it's the owners, not the dogs," fine - make the owners strictly liable for their dogs' action(s) - the dog assualts someone, assault and battery charges; the dog kills someone, manslaughter at the least, with prison/jail time. The same would go if that dog attacked another animal; obviously not criminally, but in automatic civil liability - no lawsuit necessary.
If such laws were actually enforced, I can't help but believe this would make people think twice before getting such a breed as a pit.
By the way, the people that owned the dog that killed that woman in SF did do time, as they should. But that really didn't erase the fact that a woman was killed by a breed of dog that was specifically bred for no other purpose than to be aggressive, and not stop when it starts an attack.
Finally, will people please stop comparing this to the issue of guns. A gun is an inanimate object. The comparison is ridiculous.
-
@ opinionated
I have no problem with this as long as a court trial is available and the usual standard of proof is required.
However, if you want to make it impossible to have the legal recourse of a defense, then I disagree. I am assuming that you know that that is the problem with Guantanamo detainees.
We should all get our day in court no matter what our dogs do, but it would be good if all owners who have owned their adult dogs for more than three months paid enough attention to their animals to know what measures they should take to make certain that their dog was safe around other people and pets.
For dogs under a year, it is impossible to know what their temperament will turn out to be. However, these youngsters are not the ones usually involved in attacks. If people want to have full grown unneutered male dogs, then they ought to realize that there is a potential for liability.
My adult dog is unneutered because I (once) had a reasonable need to have him for protective purposes. I would willingly assume liability if he attacked someone unprovoked. A provoked attack would be someone entering my private property (backyard or house) without my permission. Would he attack someone who broke into the house? You betcha. Pits who entered my house would have a fight on their hands before they ever reached my bed.
Hmm. Now I am thinking of buying a gun. I haven't had one in years.
There is one drawback to your idea, and that is people who are judgment proof. Half the people on the street two blocks from mine don't have enough money to sue for. These are the idiots who own several pits, keep them chained and as far as I call tell, never pay them any attention. The house looks like it is about ready to be condemned. White trash!
-
Responsible Pit Bull Ownership is the Key
I've had my rescued pit bull mix for over a year now. She was abandoned, with her two puppies, in a gutter near a park in San Francisco. She approached some friends of mine, and I took her in. We've spent the past year and a half in intensive training and cuddling. I love my little dog very much, with that fierce love that dog-lovers tend to have towards their pets. And yes, this love was probably intensified by the fact that I very likely saved her from euthanization. When you rescue a dog, the dog's desperation and dependence tends to strengthen the emotional bond you feel towards your pet. Of course, the love that people feel for their pets doesn't make their pets human, but it is very strong nonetheless.
This is what I have to contribute to this debate: I've learned in a year and a half of intensive training that my pit will probably never be a labrador. Her behavior, and her issues, are just different. Unlike a lab, she was bred (and possibly socialized) to be very "prey-oriented," as they say in the dog-training world. Frankly, she is not safe around squirrels, possums, cats, and other small animals. She has never yet done any damage to a small animal, but she expresses a keen interest in hunting. She is usually quite good around dogs, but we keep her muzzled when we take her on walks, just in case. I would be devastated if she harmed another dog, or even a field mouse.
BUT, she is rock-solid with people, and has never bitten or even growled at a person. She's great with kids. It turns out this is VERY common with this breed. As the historians will tell you, dog-fighters selected pit bulls for dog-aggression, AND human-friendliness (you didn't want the dog to bite the handlers). For more information about the history of pit bull aggression against animals and other dogs vs. aggression against people, I highly recommend the website www.BADRAP.org. This is also a great resource for pit owners in the SF Bay Area.
Yes, breeds have different characteristics. That is a reality, and it is silly to deny it. But since pit bulls were not bred for human aggression, most are very people-friendly, and make great pets. In my opinion, human-aggressive pit bulls should be euthanized, period.
By taking in our pit, we hope we rescued her from a much more sordid life, one in which it is possible she would have been fought. We love our dog, but we are constantly aware of her breeding and idiosyncracies.
Luckily, I live in the Bay Area where every other dog seems to be a pit, and people are generally quite friendly towards me and my dog. I do see vicious pit bulls in my neighborhood (I live in a tougher part of Oakland), and I keep my distance. I also see pit bull owners who don't take the necessary precautions with their dogs, and thus put other dogs and sometimes people at risk. Of course, many breeds bite. But we owners of the larger, stronger, guardian/fighter breeds have to be especially careful to take every precaution with our dogs.
I join the other writers in supporting leash laws and spay/neuter laws. But there is no sense in distinguishing some large, strong, powerful breeds with this type of breeding from others with similar backgrounds. Banning pits simply means that law-abiding, conscientious dog-owners like me will not have a chance to rescue and socialize these dogs. It won't stop dog-fighting (which is already illegal, so those owners are obviously not worried about breaking the laws), and it won't stop dog bites.
I hope they throw the book at Vick. The problem there was obviously not the dogs, but the humans torturing them.