Pitbulls

Great Debates
401

cite:

"Dogs such as pit bulls account for 5 percent of the dogs in the US but 86 percent of the dogs involved in fatal attacks, Herbie Christmas, Florence County Environmental Services director, said.

EFFINGHAM, S.C. – A 5-year-old girl, Arianna Jolee Nerrbach, died late Tuesday morning after being attacked by a pit bull at a relative’s house.

photo of the land shark that killed the girl:

http://wbtw.images.worldnow.com/images/2606113_G.jpg

Still need pedigree doc’s, Miss E?

How many more people? 40 a year? 50? 200?

402

the pit bull belonged to the girls mother.

403

3rd fatal pit bull attack in South Carolina this year.

404

Yeah… no one cares.

405

And yes, for all your stupid stories to have any sort of value whatsoever, I do need pedigrees. I also understand you are too dumb to get why that is.

406

I’m sorry to hear that. How is your relative taking this tragedy?

407

wrong.

Per section 8-55 of Denvers pit bull ban:
A pit bull, is defined as any dog that is an APBT, Am Staf Terrier, Staff Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of anyone (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards set by the AKC or UKC for any of the above breed.

Over the course of 22 years, the Denver ban has withstood numerous battles in state and federal courts. It has been used as a model for over 600 USA cities that legislate pit bulls, as well as US Navy, Air Force, Marine and Army bases ( so much for Sgt Stubby).

without it, we’d see just what we see in Miss E’s lame replies. Every pit owner would claim their land shark was anything but a pit bull.

Miami Dade county voted 66% to keep their pit bull ban, just as it is worded, last year.

408

Let’s recap:

Solid evidence has now been presented that breed specific bans DO NOT WORK. They do not reduce the fatality rate or the injury rate. Maimi Dade had no Pit Bull associated deaths in the period before the ban and none after, neither did Denver. Both did have a non-Pit Bull associated dog bite death each after the bans went into effect. Portland OTOH, about the same size as Denver, had no dog bite fatalities in roughly the same time period without banning specific breeds. Miami Dade has more dog bite injuries than does the breed specific ban free rest of Florida. New York has 1/4th the incidence of dog fatalities as many breed specific ban areas. The U.K., 20 something years into breed ban law and many fewer Pit-like dogs, has the same number of dog fatilities per dog as does the United States.

Stating the untrue statement that they do work could have been ignorance on your part initially; any continued claim of such given the evidence presented in multiple posts here would be a lie.

The cost of attempting to enforce these ineffectual breed specific laws is significant.

Miami-Dade voted for it. Given what I know of Florida and of Miami-Dade that is good reason to assume it is a stupid idea.

No debate that a majority of the 32ish deaths per year from dog bites are associated with large strong breed dogs and are currently often labeled as Pits, no matter what their actual heritage may or may not be. Some of that of course is who owns these mixed breed muscular dogs, how they care and do not care for the dogs (e.g. chained and/or isolated from regular human social contact), the fact that some significant number are owned for protection or to project a tough image rather than as loved and socialized family pets, the shear number of mixed breed dogs that could easily be called Pit-like, and the fact that big dogs of any breed or mix thereof will be more likely to cause serious harm when they bite, even if they bite very rarely.

The majority of those incidents are not with family dogs but with “resident dogs” kept isolated from routine human socialization. Most were non-neutered males. Some were chained.

The number of fatalities associated with ownership of large Pit-like dogs is small but non-zero. Targetting irresponsible ownership and “encouraging” the neutering of male dogs would likely be moderately effective at reducing those risks to even lower numbers.

The number of lives saved by Pit Bulls (some anecdotes already linked to but sure here’s another) is also small but non-zero. The number of home invasions deterred by the presence in the home of a protective loud and scary looking dog is also some real number, likely small, maybe as small as the number of dog bite fatalities, maybe not.

409

Here’s an interesting graph. 1991 the U.K. passes the breed banning dangerous dog act. Since that time the rate of admissions to the hosptal for serious dog bites has increased there by 551%.

That’s how well breed bans work.

410

cite that Canadian pit bull bans work:

A new Canadian study, however, suggests the controversial laws may work, pinpointing a drop in the rate at which people are sent to hospital with serious canine-bite injuries.

The key here is “SERIOUS” canine bite injuries.

The University of Manitoba-affiliated authors analyzed two decades of data before and after pioneering dog legislation in their province. They caution that the results do not prove a cause-and-effect relationship, but do point to a significant link between the laws and bite-related hospitalizations.

“I was surprised at the result at first myself,” said Dr. Malathi Raghavan, an epidemiologist at the university and the lead researcher. “It leaves me with a positive impression [of the laws]. There’s something in it.”

The study of cases from 1984 to 2006, was published in the journal Injury Prevention

411

The actual study btw was from 3.47 per 100 000 person-years to 2.84, an apparent 18% decrease in hospitalization rate in the same 20 plus year time period that the British ban’s being in place was associated with a 551% increase in serious hospital admission dog bite injuries. Hmm. What to make of that?

Interesting thing about Canada and fatal dog bites: 51 total dog bite fatalities since 1964 and only one Pit on the list. Also no decrease in fatality rate since laws passed.

412

Being the (exhausted) guardian of a now 14-week-old female pitbull, I found myself needing reassurance from my trainer a week or two ago. This woman has decades of experience with dogs of all kinds, and she Has, in the last decade left regular training to her young associates while she focused on aggressive dogs.

I asked her: in your entire career, have you ever known of even one dog that “bit out of nowhere”, meaning: the dog was properly trained and socialized by competent, canine aware owners, it was not suffering from any illness, injury or genetic defect, and it still bit without any prior warning?

Her answer was no, not one.

I feel much better now. Carry-on.

413

Toronto:

In a November 2011, public health statistics published by Global Toronto showed that pit bull bites dropped dramatically after Ontario adopted the Dog Owners Liability Act in 2005, an act that banned pit bulls:
The number of dog bites reported in Toronto has fallen since a ban on pit bulls took effect in 2005, public health statistics show.
A total of 486 bites were recorded in 2005. That number fell generally in the six years following, to 379 in 2010.
Provincial laws that banned ‘pit bulls,’ defined as pit bulls, Staffordshire terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and dogs resembling them took effect in August 2005. Existing dogs were required to be sterilized, and leashed and muzzled in public.
Bites in Toronto blamed on the four affected breeds fell sharply, from 71 in 2005 to only six in 2010. This accounts for most of the reduction in total bites.

Salina, KS

Rose Base, director of the Salina Animal Shelter who lobbied for the ordinance, told the Salina Journal:
The ordinance has made a difference, she said. Records at the Salina Animal Shelter indicate there were 24 reported pit bull bites in 2003 and 2004, and only five since – none from 2009 to present.
Salina has 62 registered pit bulls, Base said. Before the ordinance she guessed there were “close to 300.” Since the first of this year three of the registered pit bulls have died of old age.
"We definitely haven’t had the severity of bites that we had in the past," Base said. "Our community has been somewhat safer because of the law that was passed

414

Prince George’s County, MD

Prince George’s County passed a pit bull ban in 1996. In August 2009, Rodney Taylor, associate director of the county’s Animal Management Group, said that the number of pit bull biting incidents has fallen:
“Taylor said that during the first five to seven years of the ban, animal control officials would encounter an average of 1,200 pit bulls a year but that in recent years that figure has dropped by about half. According to county statistics, 36 pit bull bites, out of 619 total dog bites, were recorded in 2008, down from 95 pit bull bites, out of a total of 853, in 1996.”

415

Rhode Island

When the City of Woonsocket was debating a pit bull ordinance in June 2009, the animal control supervisor in Pawtucket, John Holmes, spoke about the enormous success of Pawtucket’s 2003 pit bull ban:
"Holmes says he predicted that it would take two years for Pawtucket to experience the full benefit of the law after it was passed, but the results were actually apparent in half the time.
“It’s working absolutely fantastic,” said Holmes. “We have not had a pit bull maiming in the city since December of 2004.”

416

Washington

In 2008, the City of Wapato passed an ordinance that bans new pit bulls, rottweilers and mastiffs. Nine months after its adoption, in March 2009, Wapato Police Chief Richard Sanchez reported successful results:
“Nine months into the ban and police calls about vicious dogs have been cut in half. The Wapato Police tell Action News they’ve gone from 18 reports in January, February and March of last year to seven so far in '09. "Seven calls in three months… that’s nothing,” says Chief Richard Sanchez, Wapato Police Department.
Chief Sanchez credits local cooperation for the decline of dangerous dogs."

417

Springfield, MO

In April 2008, the Springfield-Greene County Health Department released data to a local TV station - following the City of Springfield’s adoption of a 2006 pit bull ban:

“The Springfield-Greene County Health Department reports that dog bites and vicious dog complaints are declining since the implementation of the Pit Bull Ordinance in the City of Springfield two years ago. In 2005 the health department fielded 18 vicious dog complaints, but only eight in 2007. Bites were down from 102 in 2005 to 87 in 2007.”

418

Salina KS (a second article)

Note that they admit that the pit bull ban did not reduce the number of bites, but it did reduce the severity of bites reported by all breeds. Proof that when pit bull deniers find a jurisdiction that banned pit bulls, but reported no decrease in overall bites, is a moot point. Its death and dismemberment we are focusing on, not bite counts.

In the monthly city newsletter, In Touch, published in September 2006, the City of Salina reported that the pit bull ban adopted in 2005 significantly reduced pit bull biting incidents in just a 12 month period.
The number of pit bull bites depicted in the “Salina Pit Bull Bites Reported” graph shows 2002 with 13 pit bull bites, 2003 with 11 pit bull bites, 2004 with 15 pit bull bites and 2005 with only one bite. The newsletter notes that "animal bites reported have remained constant, but the severity of bites have decreased dramatically" since the enactment of the pit bull ban.

419

cougar58: maybe you should consider a kitten or a goldfish?

ETA: fiches, canaries, or budgerigars are options as well.

420

Well, looks like there’s a bunch of dueling data. So the question becomes: how much is it fair to impose on the many because of the few?

I got a pitbull because all the pitbulls I’ve met in recent years were delicious dogs. Sweet, loving, affectionate, adorable. What I learned about them convinced me that a pit was exactly the kind of dog I was looking for, in ways and for reasons that completely surprised me.

I am a very conscientious and competent dog guardian and trainer, and I’m doing everything in my power to make sure my pit makes Golden Retrievers look vicious by comparison. So far it’s going very well.

The overwhelming majority of pit bull owners are something like me, and the overwhelming majority of pit bulls are lovely dogs. To the extent that they are not, due to selective breeding, that has been breeding for animal aggression, not human, and yes, there is a difference.

Do those of you who support bans on pitbulls support bans and restraints on anything and everything which has ever harmed anyone? What is the line you won’t cross, and why?

I’m sincere in my questions. Because if you could impose BSL on the entire continent of North America, would you? Would you insist on the death of so many beloved family pets?

And if you succeeded, do you really believe that the kind of people responsible for the dogs causing harm won’t create problems in other breeds? Do you really not recognize that the problem is people, not dogs?

What about neutering instead? The vast majority of severe dog bites are caused by unneutered males and requiring all males to be neutered while puppies would have an enormous impact without forcing people to give up dogs they love.

BSL is just a really cruel, bad solution to a problem that is entirely created by people, not dog breeds.