Bill Johnson has a good column in today's Rocky:
It has to be one of the dumbest laws, ever. And I don't even own or like pit bulls. It's nothing personal, only that I'd never keep any animal that eats as much or more than I do.Still, I can weep for the pit bulls of Denver, particularly for the puppies that never did anything other than get born into the breed.
[...]
It has been eight years since I last had a dog, God rest him. And the one thing I truly know is I would have never given him over to the dogcatcher to be killed simply because he was a beagle.I would hardly care if a judge in the city where I lived said it was the rule and the law. Yet this has been happening since Monday in Denver, when a state law prohibiting bans of "breed-specific" dogs was overturned and the city's moratorium on pit bull confiscation and killing was lifted.
And no one much is saying a thing.
It is why we need to speak with William Suro. He is a veterinarian of 45 years, who in 1988 started the MaxFund, a nonprofit that provides medical care for injured animals with no known owners, which seeks new homes for them.
It is a shelter that has never killed a single dog.
[...]
Yes, I tell him, but aren't pit bulls actually the human flesh-ripping monsters they are portrayed to be?Bill Suro snickers at my naivete.
"I've been a veterinarian for 45 years, and I've never once been attacked or bitten by a pit bull. There are other breeds where I have gone into an examination room and really been on my guard. I will not tell you which, but they scare me."
Cities like Denver, he says, whip up pit bull hysteria. And that is all it is, he said. People now all believe every pit bull "is a coiled and snarling attacker. It's nonsense."
[...]
"It should know there have been fatal attacks in the U.S. by Pomeranians, that half a dozen attacks that caused death or serious injuries were by cocker spaniels."And then he raises an issue I had not contemplated, and which I do not lend much credence to. But I will give him his say because it matches what has happened the last two days in the city:
"There appears a racial end of this," Bill Suro says.
"Look at the dogs that have been impounded, and the surnames of their owners. . . . They aren't killing dogs from Cherry Creek. They pick on the easiest people to pick on, the ones who give up easiest," he said, adding that he has forwarded this claim to the American Civil Liberties Union.
What happens, I ask, when all of the Denver pit bulls have been rounded up and put down?
He would not want to be a Malamute, he said.
A male Malamute attacked and killed a 7-year-old girl in Fruita last Saturday night.
"It is not the breed," an unsmiling Bill Suro said.
When reached for comment, Edgar, my 11+ year old Malamute, wagged his tail and laid back down to continue his nap.
Posted by Walter at May 11, 2005 11:18 AMHaving never been bitten by a dog, even the most 'vicious' whenever I hear about a dog attacking someone I have to wonder, fairly, what provoked the canine in question to attack.
As to Pit Bulls, many of them are high-strung, so has anyone bothered to check the temperment of the dog before it attacked?
Posted by: James C. Hess at May 14, 2005 06:07 PMThis message is for the other comment writer: who are you to be saying pit bulls are high-strung? Have you looked at temperament testing results? Pits test better than many "family dogs." Really, look it up: www.badrap.org.
Posted by: Jennifer Northcutt at May 17, 2005 12:03 PMIt IS the breed. I have several personal experiences with this inbred type of dog that point up the reason they should definitely be destroyed. The jaw lock is the main reason, besides the mental (retardation?) irregularities that have nothing to do with upbringing, and cause them to be very precarious pets. I've seen a 2week old puppy lock onto a child's finger and not let go. I've seen a female brindle that would be gentle as a lamb with women try to eat men. The mutt versions are different yet still unpredictable.
I had a mutt version until this weekend when my neighbor shot it. He was the biggest baby, so sweet and gentle around me, kids, and cats, inside the house. But outside i could not get him to stop harrassing people. He got loose, snarled at the neighbor woman and she shot him. I grieve for him but I understand her feelings, too. He was smart (Labrador & ?) but doomed.
All of his siblings were hard headed and some of them tore into each other badly.
It IS the breed. It may have been a worthy breed once, like the Rottweilers, but it's complete crap now. And most people i've seen who own them are on some ego trip about them. I support any law against them. I've worked at pounds where the worst of them were kept. Bad news.
Do some reading, find some facts. Your personal experience with 12-15 dogs does not have sufficient weight to condemn the 10's of thousands of American Pit Bull's nation wide. What of the other Bull breeds, or pit type's of dogs, is it only the American Pit Bull Terrier who has turned into a viscous flesh eating breed. That hardly makes sense, and yet a Bull breed, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the most single most popular canine pet in all of London. Hmm, I'm sure soon London streets will be rivers of blood, when that breed to succumbs to it's viscous flesh eating tendencies that must be buried deep inside it.
Posted by: Tristan at May 27, 2005 10:54 AMI initially had a strong bias against pit bulls until I did some research. The Nature vs Nurture argument does not have a clear cut answer in this case.
What I found is that there is no "genetic attack" gene, BUT Pits were bred to be fighters, so given the right "nurture" (or lack thereof), they are capable of more devestating results if there is an attack. If a miniature poodle were raised by an owner who did not socialize it with other dogs or humans, and treated it poorly, it would have the same tendancies as a pit raised in the same family... but let's face it, a pit is going to wreak a whole lot more havok than that mini poodle. Ankle bites, or mutilation by a dog bred to be a fighter? Which one will get more press?
I am confident that with a good owner, a pit presents no more danger than anyone else. In my opinion, the problem is that due to the 'reputation', the issue of antisocial or violent pitbulls is perpetuated because they DO NOT get socialized with humans or dogs, and 'bad owners' are self selected based on this reputation. A ban only makes this worse. I would anticipate MORE, not LESS pit bull attacks due to this ban.
Posted by: CoffeeGuy at June 1, 2005 10:02 AMNash, you're a f***ing idiot. I own 4 pit bulls and they have been around small children and other dogs, not once have any of them even raised a single back hair. And by the way, most dogs used for fighting are inbred, it doesn't matter what breed it is. There is only a few inbred pit bulls, you're a jackass if you think they all are. In my experience with them, I've found that if they can be accused of anything it would be that they play or eat too much. Anyone who thinks that the breed is dangerous or should be treated any different than any other breed can rot in hell.
Posted by: DMB at June 7, 2005 12:36 PM