Letters to the Editor
-
Pit Bulls: The young black males of the canine world
Pit Bulls commit a disproportionate amount of fatal attacks. Young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crimes. Some people therefore mistrust and dislike all young black males, even though the majority are law abiding, nice people who just want to get by in life just like you and me. And some people mistrust and dislike all Pit Bulls and want them all killed, even though the majority are sweet family pets who wouldn't hurt a fly.
So here is the conclusion. If you hate Pit Bulls, you are a raging racist who also hates black people.
-
Wow
That's quite a leap.
What about black people who hate pit bulls? Do they also hate all black people?
-
Sorry
You're just being funny. I must go to bed.
-
Me too
Like anonymous and domini, I would like to hear from some of the good owners about preventative and punitive measures.
-
Domini: regarding your vigilante option.
I don't endorse vigilantism, but if you were to do it, I hope you would do it right: shoot the scumbag owners and rescue the pit bull puppy. You'd be doing two good deeds at the same time.
-
It's ALWAYS the Owner
FACT:
With Pitt Bulls, it is ALWAYS the owner, not the dog. A Pitt Bull, almost like a person, can be trained from infancy to be loving or violent.
I often have the privilege of doing hand-ons therapeutic work on dogs for physical and emotional disorders. (Often, it's the owners that need the healing-work more!)
The Pitt Bulls, AND Pitt Bull mixes, that I have worked on are among the kindest, and most compliant, of "patients."
It all comes down to how they are treated by their owners: End of argument.
-
It does come down to the owner...
but there seems to be a huge number of bad owners.
In this article about the terrible attack on the disabled sleeping woman in Washington: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/328568_pitbulls22.html, the director of Seattle's municipal animal shelter says that half of all dogs turned into the shelter are pit bull purebreds and mixes and that only 20 percent of them pass the temperament test that dictates whether they can be put up for adoption (which she says has to do with the former owners).
That must be A LOT of unfortunate dogs that are killed. I can't understand why pit bull lovers wouldn't welcome some changes in the law that could prevent bad owners from ruining these animals and victim's lives. Do these people exist?
-
A regulatory/enforcement alternative from one of the breed's defenders
Breed-specific legislation is not the way to address the issue of pit bull abuse, animal abuse in general, or safety to humans. Instead, we should be looking at the things to
-
A regulatory/enforcement alternative from one of the breed's defenders
Sorry, hit send too early on the first letter. I'm going to do this one in two parts because it's too long:
We should be looking at more statistically significant factors than breed to determine our course of action here. A disproportionate number of pit bulls are abused, which leads to poor temperaments in *some* of these dogs, in spite of the fact that the breed scores very highly on temperament tests in general, when you're not talking about the most abused individuals. All this debate about whether pits are inherently more vicious or more likely to not back down is very emotionally charged and borders on superstition rather than actual statistics, which don't even put pits in the top five breeds of likely biters. I recognize also that my position - that pits are wonderful dogs, often in spite of horrific abuse, is also emotional and wont to emotional and anecdotal arguments. I think such arguments are valid, and also that there are rational - statistical - arguments showing that pits aren't the vicious characatures of violence and chaos that some of the commenters have portrayed them to be.
But leaving those arguments aside, let's look at what really leads to the problems people are ostensibly trying to address with breed-specific legislation, and the issues I think are important surrounding pit bulls. In no particular order, these are: homeless animals, abuse to pit bulls, other breeds, and other animals, dog bites to humans, and "euthanasia" - i.e. killing of a massive number of dogs (disproportionately pits) in shelters.
Dog bites to humans seem to be the most frequent issue coming up surrounding this issue. We know certain things make dog bites much more likely than other things: chaining a dog makes the dog several times more likely to bite, as does having an intact male dog. Dogs that are off-leash or wandering because they were improperly contained are also more likely to bite. Dogs that are unsocialized, abused, neglected, or fought are also more likely to bite.
1. We should start implementing laws against chaining dogs - dogs are pack animals and they are territorial animals. Leaving a dog on a chain for prolonged periods of time is a perfect formula for creating a vicious (and very unhappy) dog. There are nonprofit groups working on that issue - trying to get municipalities and counties to institute anti-tethering laws and enforce the laws in the areas where they exist. This is for the welfare of the dog and to reduce the risk to humans. Incidentally, dog fighters--especially of the more organized variety like the Vick-type fighters--use tethering as a way to isolate the animal and make him or her mean. Anti-tethering laws, if they were enforced, would target likely biters in general, including dog fighters.
2. Leash laws should be enforced. There are many enclosed dog parks to take your dogs if they need to run around. When walking on the sidewalk, leash your dog. My pit mix has never injured another dog, but essentially every time I have felt uncomfortable about my dog with another dog is when my dog is on a leash and someone else's dog runs up to him. Create more fenced in areas for dogs to exercise in parks and enforce leash laws, simply.
3. Spay/neuter and breeder permit regulations should be in place on all dogs. This goes to the overpopulation issue as well, but unneutered male dogs are very likely to bite, and to roam (also a factor for likely biting). Some places have steep discounts on licenses for altered animals. That is a good start, but underground fighters and other abusers don't have an incentive to license their dogs or bring them to vets in the current regulatory climate, so simple spay/neuter requirments would help reduce aggression, provide a basis for police to find a violation on a potentially aggressive dog, and reduce breeding within these fighting communities and elsewhere. At the same time, anyone who wishes to breed dogs should be required to have a permit. Permits should be given based on meaningful things like ability to care for dogs, expertise on dogs, and of course, no previous record of abuse to animals. I personally think there is no need to be breeding animals while we are in the midst of an overpopulation crisis, but I understand that is a very controversial viewpoint, and I think this is a very reasonable compromise.
4. Registration/licensing requirements, plus microchipping. If a dog fighter or other abuser has an unregistered dog, and there is a law in that jurisdiction requiring licensing, that would be grounds for fines/seizing of the animal, or whatever other remedies the law provided. We should have to register our dogs the same way we register cars, and require those "titles" to be transfered if the animal changes hands. And enforce those laws. In addition to being a disincentive for clandestine operations, abused animals could be traced back to the person who should be responsible for him or her. That's how you target the "bad owners" rather than punishing the dog, who already likely has a pretty rough life and bleak prospects for the future. This would also make people accountable for roaming animals, and incentivize good fencing and disincentivize abandoning animals.