Does anyone know what this sign is about? Malcolm Gladwell wrote about the dangers of profiling people and pitbulls a couple of years back – a good read.
Post navigation
|Are Pit Bulls in Danger of Being Banned?
CHS Capitol Hill Seattle News
Community News For All of Seattle's Capitol Hill
Yes, the sign is referring to recent debate in Seattle between pit bull lovers and pit bull haters, spurred mainly by a woman who was bitten by a pit and is considering proposing a pit bull ban. She also formed a “support group” called Families and Dogs Against Fighting Breeds. In response, pit bull owners have formed their own group – Families Against Breed Bans http://apbt.meetup.com/253/).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004112928_b
Apparently Dan Savage of The Stranger also made some pretty ignorant comments about pits:
http://www.seattlecrimeblog.com/2008/01/articles/animals/pit
I’m a pit lover myself (and currently fostering one). There are dozens of loving pit bulls sitting in local shelters just waiting for someone to adopt one, so it’s sad that people are wasting time spreading misperceptions about the dogs instead of focusing their energy on owner responsibility laws that apply to all breeds.
I think the likelihood of Colleen Lynn getting any traction with her breed ban idea is close to zero though, so I’m not too worried.
The fact remains that pit bulls are the only breed I can think of which aggressively attacks other animals and people (usually children) without ANY provocation. And they don’t just inflict a little bite, but often massive injuries and even death. Hardly a week goes by when there isn’t a news report about such an attack.
I’m sure there are many gentle, nonaggressive pit bulls, but this does not justify/rationalize the actions of the nasty ones. If a ban is enacted, and I hope it is, the currently living animals could be “grandfathered in” so it would not be necessary for anyone to give up their dogs. Let’s be rational about this, and ban a breed which is a significant public health hazard.
Uh, Bob, you’re saying that you can’t think of any other breed which aggressively attacks without any provocation. All that’s saying is that you haven’t researched this and are going by a perception you’ve developed through anecdotal examples or media. Have you checked that there are in fact *no* other breeds that have ever done this? Because there are.
Breed is not a reliable indicator of a dog’s likelihood to attack. There are factors that have a much better correlation, like the amount of time the owner spends with the dog. Read this article for a really good explanation of this: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/06/060206fa_fact?cu
Here’s a quote from that article:
“Between the late nineteen-seventies and the late nineteen-nineties, more than twenty-five breeds were involved in fatal attacks in the United States. Pit-bull breeds led the pack, but the variability from year to year is considerable. For instance, in the period from 1981 to 1982 fatalities were caused by five pit bulls, three mixed breeds, two St. Bernards, two German-shepherd mixes, a pure-bred German shepherd, a husky type, a Doberman, a Chow Chow, a Great Dane, a wolf-dog hybrid, a husky mix, and a pit-bull mix—but no Rottweilers. In 1995 and 1996, the list included ten Rottweilers, four pit bulls, two German shepherds, two huskies, two Chow Chows, two wolf-dog hybrids, two shepherd mixes, a Rottweiler mix, a mixed breed, a Chow Chow mix, and a Great Dane. The kinds of dogs that kill people change over time, because the popularity of certain breeds changes over time.”
So, I guess we should ban all of those dogs?
If it turned out that Mexicans have a higher rate of committing murders, would you ban Mexicans in your city? After all, like you said, we should be rational about significant public health hazards. ;)
Sounds like a good plan to me. Seriously I generally only see people who look like total wanna be tough guy assholes walking around with pitbulls. “They are so safe” yet they are always being led around wearing thick steel chain collars and heavy duty leads. Yep, perfectly safe. Ban pitbulls, no reasonable dog owner will miss them.
Profiling people is a lot different than profiling an animal breed. Why aren’t you fighting for the right to own tigers and wolves and elephants on city property? Aren’t those bans as racist as a pit bull ban?
Pit bulls are the #1 killer in the dog world. It doesn’t matter if 99% of pit bulls are cuddly and nice and 1% are evil killers. 1% is far too much. We shouldn’t have to worry about kids being mauled to death by a pit bull when they walk down the sidewalk.
Also, in the past 5 years there were 361 people bitten by pit bulls in Seattle (only including bites bad enough to be reported to hospitals and police). There are only about 1,500 pit bulls in Seattle. A lot more than 1% of pit bulls are dangerous.
Part of the reason pit bulls and related breeds get so much negative attention in dog bite situations is that they have what is called a “hard mouth” — easily inflicts damage. Another issue I see is where the media identifies a biter as a pit bull, and then you see a photo fo the dog and realize it’s not a pit at all, which leads me to believe the stats are inflated.
My female greyhound has been bitten twice by other dogs — the first time by a border collie and the second time by a cairn terrier. Let me tell you that border collie inflicted a lot of damage. The pits we’ve met in our travels have been great, well socialized dogs with responsible owners. Instead of banning a specific type of dog, the city needs to come down hard on the bad owners.
Just my 2 cents.
this is a very touchy subject. But can’t there be some kind of legislation about mandatory altering of this breed? Mike, you said that (unfortunatelY) many pit owners are wanna-be tough guy assholes. That said, they also tend to not neuter or spay their animals. This can cause aggression, in ANY breed. Perhaps there can also be some type of strict adoption process when it comes to pits. ie, background check, home check, vet references etc.
When it comes to pit bulls, people tend to point their finger at the wrong end of the leash.
Dog “breeds” were CREATED by people. WE created “Pit Bulls”, “Collies”, “Rottweilers”, you name it. A breed has no inherent rights. It’s a human construct. It’s not like “Pit Bull” is a naturally evolved species that needs to be protected under some government regulation.
So to make some weepy-eyed argument that pit-bulls are discriminated against is just silly. We created the breed and we can destroy it.
We should kill the breed (not the dogs). The AKCC and other organizations of that type (which, by the way, I think are inherently flawed and promote un-necessary in-breeding and genetic problems) should ban the breed and work to modify it based on cross-breeding with a non-fighting breed for something new and non-problematic.
It’s as easy as that. The whole concept of a “breed” of dog is dumb anyway and causes unnecessary suffering for dogs.
Patrick, I didn’t mean to say that pit bulls are the only cause of severe dog attacks, but you cannot deny that they are in fact a major part of the problem. The quote from the New Yorker article is misleading, because it does not mention the numerous breeds which only rarely cause problems. And the statistics cited in that article are way out-of-date (only covering up to the “late 90s”). As pit bulls have become much more popular in the last 10 years, and as they are high on any list of “frequent offenders,” it is logical to assume that they have caused alot of mayhem since the late 90s. One only has to read a newspaper to know that this is true.
I think a reasonable approach would be to compile a list of the “top 10 offenders,” e.g. those breeds which are responsible for the vast majority of severe injury/death (to other animals as well as humans) over say the past 20 years, and to ban all these breeds. This would be an effective public health approach, and would prevent alot of disability, suffering, and death.
Again, no one is talking about taking dogs away from anyone. The legislation could be written in such a way as to ban future breeding/sale of the “top ten.”
It is simply beyond me to understand why anyone would choose to own a dog which has a much-above-average chance of injuring someone (regardless of how it is trained or cared for!), when there are so many other breeds available which are non-aggressive and safer for the general public.
maybe we’ll get a delete button soon?
Just because other tigers have attacked humans doesn’t mean my tiger is dangerous!
Let’s get serious here – some pitbulls with fantastic owners still attack. They snap. And the statistics bear out the “breed profiling.” You don’t have a right to have any pet you want in the city – we already ban much more passive farm critters because they smell bad or make noise.
And banning Mexicans? Are you kidding me? That crosses a lot lines and, while you were trying to make a point, it’s racist and inhuman to compare dog breeds (which are dramatically different) to human races, which have very, very little genetic differences. Are you suggesting that pit bulls have a different pigment than other dogs? Or that they have a huge capacity to kill with their powerful jaws?
Check your premises before making generalizations. Everyone here who is saying pit bulls are more dangerous is basing their conclusion on anecdotal evidence and statistical correlations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_caus).
Can you prove scientifically that it is the breed of the dog that makes it more dangerous? Because an alternate possibility is that statistically more dangerous owners could be buying pit bulls and that’s the cause of the higher rate of attacks.
Bob, banning the top 10 dangerous breeds would do you little good. What would happen after the breeds were successfully banned? Dog violence would be eradicated? No, more likely the small percentage of irresponsible owners would just get new breeds that aren’t on the banned list, and then those breeds would become the new top 10 dangerous breeds.
That is the intention of them, after all.
Bob, MANY other breeds of dogs attack and kill. It just so happens that the media prefers to showcase the pit bull stories.It’s called SENSATIONALISM and it gets them ratings and an incrcreases reader #s. If you do a bit of research you will see that recently in our state a YELLOW LAB bit the face off a 6 yr old girl in Vancouver WA (March 2008 Portland Herald) and In West Seattle a German Shephard Attacked a citizen without provocation in Lincoln Park and the owner fled the scene (West eEattle crime blog May 2008).
The issue is Responsible Ownership, not breed specific aggression.
There are no danngerous breeds of dogs…just irresponsible, lazy people.
If you look into Pierce County’s recently adopted Dangerous dog policy, you might like what you see. It hold’s the owner of ANY dangerous dog accountable, targeting the owner, not the breed. The consequences are stern,severe and enforcable… & most importantly FAIR. If a dog (of any breed) attacks another being (in a severe but non-fatal manner) it gets a tattoo and is marked as a Dangerous dog. In the following 10 yr period(i believe) if any other dog owned by the same individual is responsible for another attack, that person loses their right to own pets for 10 yrs and has to pay a hefty fine of 5000 dollars.
This policy seems simple and effective.
PITs are NOT the #1 killer in the dog world. Get your facts straight. As Sir Francis Bacon once stated…There Are Lies, Damn Lies and then there are Statistics.
I’m curious to know where your statisttics came from? Oh, right, probably your own deluded mind:)
We are after all, ALL animals…ask Socrates… Humans are simply animals with the ability to reason (in some cases, anyway).
Racism and Breedism go hand in hand and prejudice is prejudice. Period.
361 TOTAL dog bites occured by ALL BREEDS in Seattle. Some say 16% were by pits. Others say 21% and still others say 12%. You are either truly stupid or a liar who likes to sling mud at those beneath you. AGain, Get your facts straight before you shoot your mouth off.
This is all I ask,
Please actually do proper research before you make statements about this breed or any other.
The facts are a.)pit bulls are not the most common biters b.) a pit bull cannot do any more damage when they bite than any other large dog c.) many attacks are attributed to “pit bull mixes” that don’t actually have any pit bull in them, therefore totally skewing statistics from unreliable sources (which many people follow) d.)while a Grandfather clause in the legislation would be good, there is not necessarily going to be one. In Denver, Colorado they have a ban on pit bulls and ANY DOG THAT APPEARS TO HAVE PIT BULL IN THEM and in practice and law if you bring a pit bull (or a dog that could be mistaken for one-such as a boxer or a bull terrier)into the city your dog will be taken away and destroyed almost IMMEDIATLY with no recourse.
Don’t take my word for it please, but look into it for yourself, without a bias.
Im 14, I am a resonable dog owner with my whole family and we own 2 Pit Bulls and my female is pregnant. I would miss my dogs to death. Tyson (the male) is the best dog you can have he is the most loving and he would never bite, he would bite as much as any other dog. Blue (the female) is calm, lovable and is going to give birth to 7 awesome pitbull puppies. Maybe you should be resonable and get your facts straight, that not all Pit Bull or anyother dogs for that fact are mean. Yes, some Pits are trained for that but any resonable owner wouldnt do that.