Letters to the Editor
-
@ tamaro
You said: "As someone who has lived with the ban I can tell you it doesn't work."
Unfortunately, there are some people who have never met a law they didn't like. No matter how absurd the law, how unjust the outcome, or how utterly ineffective, they will only respond by wanting more and more UNEXAMINED laws. They probably also lead unexamined lives.
What can you do? Let us hope some of the more rational solutions will be considered. Would that people would listen to your voice of experience.
-
Great letter DurianJoe.
I agree with you in every particular. Many dogs are naturally and reasonably protective. People who abuse dogs only make them mean.
I wish it were against the law to use dogs in the manner which Allie described. Dogs need to be loved and around people. They don't need to be isolated, guarding people's businesses. Let those people hire security guards and install cameras.
-
Sharks are innocent, even the ones that bit USS Indianapolis sailors in half
Cobras are innocent. Man-eating tigers in India are innocent. Crocodiles that eat golfers looking for their golf ball are innocent. They are just being themselves. And so are dogs. And that's why I don't have a shark in my swimming pool or a pit bull in my back yard.
Pretty friggin profound, huh? Ok, maybe not.
-
@ I envy us
Not.
-
For anybody who is interested...
these are very good, from a lawyer who is regarded as the nation's leading authority in dog bite law: http://www.dogbitevictim.com and http://dogbitelaw.com.
-
Not so innocent
Based on the news from Gig Harbor, WA these pit bulls are some bad bad dogs.
They came in through an unlocked pet door and attacked a lady while she was sleeping, killed another dog and injured her seriously.
No one teased the dogs or even looked at them funny.
The dog owners were supposedly nice to the pit bulls that made the attack.
Not sadistic Michael Vick types.
Ken foster's article makes no sense.
-
AKA Smith that was a joke!
The link you posted re: a ban on labs is actually a satire which you did not make clear in your post: http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/8/23/2257176.html
I hate for someone to get worried that is a Lab or Lab mix owner. That is just a joke site.
-
@Alvador
As you requested, here's one study for you that was cited in some other articles I had read online (as evidence of pit bull aggression re: dog bites): http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf
As you mention Cockers do bite a lot also I have read and agree with you, but the difference is that when cockers bite, the severity is much less than with pit bull bites which usually are quite severe, more of the kind requiring hospitalization or possibly even death (thus pit bulls are classified as more dangerous dogs because of the severity of injuries they cause). Thus, cockers are not usually mentioned as one of the most dangerous dog breeds (although they do bite more often than some other dogs as you relate).
-
Spin, spin, spin
But it's just an anti pit bull conspiracy, karen35. You should know that.
-
The Humane Society
Both man and beast fear a Humane Society. Whether pit bull or hamster, their fate is sealed should they be captured. Humane Society will kill some, sell other for bizarre experiment and them what get released got their dam balls cut off.
-
more details from latest attack
http://www.kirotv.com/news/13951853/detail.html
This happened this week here in Tacoma WA. The dogs involved were "loving pets." Now I'm not saying that a cocker spaniel or lab might not also bite somebody - but has anyone heard of a cocker attack with the ferocity of these pits as described by the survivor?
-
@ mysteryb
Thanks for that update. It is indeed a horrifying attack because people want to be safe in their homes. It is still unclear what the little dog Romeo was doing with this group. Did he pack with the pits and they turned on him? Or did he enter the victim's house to get away from them.
What is confirms for me by reading this is that the pit bulls were dog aggressive. It appears that the woman became a target when she tried to save Romeo (which is not her service dog).
When I am out by myself or with people and I see pits, I never worry. When I am with my dog, I always worry.
I would bet anything that most attacks by pit-type dogs involve the following:
1. Dogs loose that are usually chained. (Chaining makes dogs aggressive.)
2. More than one "pit" or a pack attack involving another type and a "pit."
3. An unneutered male.
4. That the whole thing usually begins as a "spree" in which they are actually looking for another dog to attack.
Strangely enough, I have some thoughts about what to do about these problems, but I would include many bully breeds and not just pits and none of my ideas involve euthanasia.
1. Male bully breeds of the more assertive types who live within the city limits proper must be neutered. All of them. No exceptions. Neutering to be done by age six months.
2. Make it against the law to own more than one within the city limits.
3. Bully breeds not from show lines and intended for show purposes cannot have their ears cropped or their tails docked. The purpose of this is two-fold. First, to make them less attractive to people who want them mainly because of their tough reputations. Fighting dogs always have their tails docked. Make it against the law to give them this fighting "look" and they will be less attractive to gangsters and idiot macho types. Second, a dog signals much of his intention with his tail. I can tell is a dog is feeling aggressive or fearful but looking at his tail. If people know aggression is likely they can steer clear.
4. Require that people who keep bully breeds in their backyard actually have a 6 foot brick or stone fence surrounding the entire dog enclosure with a secure gate and a metal grate sunk into the ground below the gate so that it is impossible for them to dig out.
5. Make it illegal to chain them (or any other dog) routinely for more than an hour a day.
6. Require registration of all dogs (most cities already do) but make it have teeth. Initial registration should be affordable. However, levy a really stiff fine against all unregistered dogs. Registration should not be designed to punish people for having dogs or even making personal choices about their dogs (neutering vs. not neutering); rather its purpose should be to make certain all dogs are vaccinated, have ID, and can be identified by an expert as to actual breed. This will allow a city to keep better statistics concerning dog bites/aggression.
7. In conjunction with trainers subsidized by the city offer introductory training classes for all pups from 6 to 9 months. Dogs cannot be good dogs if they are not socialized around other dogs and people. Trainers would probably be willing to do this at less cost because, once people start training their dogs and see how much fun it can be, they are more likely to spring for more training.
8. Make cities dog friendly instead of dog adverse. The advantage of this is you build a community or dog owners watching out for each other and watching out for each others dogs and participating in making regulations that are positive for everyone. Socially responsible people have socially responsible animals and bring pressure to bear upon those who are irresponsible.
9. People could keep an existing couple of bully breeds. They just could not acquire more (of any breed). One should be the limit thereafter. Therefore, there should be no need to euthanize dogs and the pack problems with bully breeds would diminish.
I think the above -- if strictly enforced -- would cut down on bully breed attacks on both humans and dogs. In fact, I think it would cut down on dog bites altogether.
I realize that neither side is likely to agree with me, but the above would allow RESPONSIBLE OWNERS to have the breed they love. They just cannot have a whole pack of them.
As for dog breeding, it has no place in a densely populated city in any case.