Letters to the Editor
-
Thanks AKA Smith
I'm glad to see we're on the same page about breed bans.
But I stand by my analogy. Whether we're talking about a breed of dogs or a race of people, to hate an entire group because of one incident is wrong. Period.
The cynophobes posting here are no different that any other bigot in my book. Breed specific ordinances are no different than ordinances that were once designed to keep blacks, Jews and other minorities out of certain communities.
As a Rottweiler owner, I stand with pit bull owners.
I've never owned a pit bull, but I've known too many who were incredible sweethearts. I have a friend who owned two pit bulls, named Madelyne and Scarlett, and provided foster care to countless dogs and cats through the years.
NOT ONCE did those pit bulls harm or threaten any guest in her house, whether human, canine or feline.
As far as I know, I'm the only person to sustain any injury from one of her pit bulls. I sprained my thumb catching Madelyne when she jumped into my lap for a hug.
-
This article is inane
Pit bulls may or may not be "innocent" (snort), but they ARE statistically more likely to cause death or serious injury, whether through behavioral or anatomical reasons (e.g. powerful jaws). Why do you think they are SPECIFICALLY chosen as fighting dogs? Why aren't, say, golden retrievers chosen as fighting dogs? Yes, pit bulls are *trained* to fight and kill other dogs, but why are they such apt pupils?
Look at the stats below from http://letters.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/08/20/pit_bulls/new/form.html
"From 1979 to 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these incidences."
"In a study reported by a retired professor from California State University at Chino, Robert Plum, it was found that one dog in 55 will bite someone seriously during the course of a year. With respect to breed differences in the tendency to inflict serious injury, Plumb estimates that when a pit bull bites a human, one in 16 (e.g. 1/16) will inflict serious injury; this contrasts with a ratio of 1/296 Dobermans, and 1/156 German shepherds."
It's not just poor neighborhoods that see damaging attacks by pit bulls. In my hometown, a wealthy suburban community, a woman was bitten on the hand by a pit bull. She has had to undergo major and repeated surgeries to restore proper functioning to it.
It's just a conceit that some people have that they are the ones who can deal with a violent animal, that they are the ones who understand it when others don't, blah-blah. Much like Timothy Treadwell and his grizzlies. Well, it may seem like they're right. For awhile.
There's a simple solution to the pit bull problem: extermination. They were *bred* to be what they are. They can be unbred. Nobody has a right to endanger other people.
Now I know some idiot dog person (possibly even the writer of the article) is going to pop up and say that's just what the Nazis did to the Jews. Go ahead, you twit, we're waiting.
Dave
-
Innocent Perhaps, But Not Harmless
I owned one for 15 years that was my best friend. I never taught him aggression, but he definitely had it inside. Simply put, they like to attack things, not all the time, but often enough. I've compared it to owning a thorobred and thinking it doesn't want to run. The trick to owning a pitbull is obsessively careful supervision; I trusted mine with my neck but not with anyone else's, and there's no way I would ever leave him alone with anyone who wasn't completely familiar with him, and certainly not a child. And that's the overall problem, as it is with so many other dangerous things - the human factor. While it's true that you can't blame the dogs for their innate behavior, the product of centuries of breeding, people have to know that pit bulls are a powerful and aggressive breed that needs to be kept in check. We can't read their minds to know when they feel the urge to lunge at a passing bicyclist or snap at a neighbor walking the opposite direction, however infrequently, so we have to be responsible enough and diligent enough to prevent those things from happening. Of course it's ridiculous to advocate elimination of the breed for all the reasons the author states, but ownership of a pitbull requires, and should be legislated if necessary, a higher level of human responsibility, because of the higher level of possible danger, as well as the higher level of damage when their owners drop the ball.
-
Aw, what a pretty white pit bull in the picture!
Wassamatter puupee! Come here to daddy, that's it. Aw, you want to lick my hand through the bars of your cage, aw isn't that sweet! Come here baaa beee, let daddy pet your cute little head.
CHOMP!
Ahaaaa! He's got me! Somebody, get him off me! Aghaaaaa! Get him off, get him off! He's got my hand! Awwwww! He's just ripped off my ring finger and he won't let go! Yeeeeehhaaaaaaa!
-
Why are people so ready to control other people's lives.
To anyone declaring this article as false, I think you are missing the point. I.E. that some people have and love wonderful dogs that are considered pit bulls and some bad examples does not give the state the right to legislate what you can and can't have for a Dog. I am confounded by supposed liberals who think legislating the hell out of people's personal life is the answer to a better society. If someone has a dog that is out of control and biting neighbors etc... then and only then, once a boundary has been crossed, once something harmful or wrong has happenned does the state have the right to take action. Invasive preventative measures are among other things, unconstitutional. Whether Pit Bulls are or are not genetically predisposed towards violence, does not give us, or anyone the right to say you can't have one. Perhaps people don't want to live under that threat, but in that case don't live in a free society. And don't get self-righteous over something as silly as a pet, you have no idea why people love thier animals and you have no right to try and control that.