Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
City Councilman Learns the Folly of Breed-Specific Dog Bans
Aaron Rochester, a city councilman in Sioux City, Iowa, who led an effort to get pit bulls banned in the city is now appealing to prevent his own dog from being euthanized after it apparently bit a neighbor. His dog? A Labrador.
It's just an anecdote, but it's illustrative of the problems with breed-specific legislation. Bad owners create bad dogs, regardless of the dog's lineage. Bans on pit bulls don't prevent dog fighting, nor do they prevent people from raising vicious dogs. They just ensure that dogs fitting the pit bull description will be vicious, because the well-bred lines will be discontinued and good owners will stop raising them. Meanwhile, people who raise dogs for fighting will simply move on to another breed.
Moreover, the term pit bull isn't really a breed at all. It's a generic term that can and has been applied to just about any dog with bulldog and/or terrier traits (take the pit bull test here). The American Kennel Club-recognized breed that's generally associated with the term is the American Staffordshire Terrier. And the vast, vast majority of staffies are harmless (they're actually considered a child-friendly breed).
I hope Rochester's dog isn't put down, and instead sent to a trainer. But Rochester ought pay the approriate damages to his neighbor and perhaps take a couple of dog-rearing classes before he's allowed to own another dog. Maybe he'll even learn from all of this why specific breeds aren't the problem.
Xeones|7.1.09 @ 2:55PM|#
You're expecting a legislator to learn something? I never pegged you for the pie-in-the-sky type, Radley.
|7.1.09 @ 2:56PM|#
i usually agree with radley balko, but this piece doesn't make
any sense. did sioux city ban labradors? if not, then the fact that
this one particular labrador is in trouble is a non sequitur.
oh, and i support banning pit bulls, because i'm tired of reading
about mauled children.
..|7.1.09 @ 2:59PM|#
i'm tired of reading about mauled children
I'll trade you a pit bull ban for a repeal of children's helmet
laws. Deal?
Hugh Akston|7.1.09 @ 3:01PM|#
bruce, maybe you ought to learn how to read. The points that
Radley made were:
1) not all pit bulls are dangerous dogs
2) not all dangerous dogs are pit bulls
Radley Balko|7.1.09 @ 3:02PM|#
oh, and i support banning pit bulls, because i'm tired of
reading about mauled children.
Again, it isn't the breed, it's how the dog is raised.
Any dog raised to be aggressive is going to be a threat to "maul
children." Ban all dogs that could be described as pit bulls, and
people will raise Rottweilers and Dogo Argentinos in the same
manner.
Hold the owner responsible, not the breed.
|7.1.09 @ 3:05PM|#
Staffie's are about the sweetest, gentlest non-aggressive animals you could come up with. Which is why they are so popular with families. Your toddler, can yank on a staffies ears and tails, bite it, ride it around, even take food from it's mouth, and the staffie will just sit there with a dumb happy-to-have the attention look. The worst danger is your child will end up smelling like dog slobber from getting licked so much.
Cabeza de Vaca|7.1.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Bruce this might explain it better.
"Last year, Rochester led the council's controversial effort to ban
future ownership of pit bulls in Sioux City. Rochester supported
his position with Animal Control reports showing that type of dog
is the most apt to bite people."
..|7.1.09 @ 3:08PM|#
Hold the owner responsible
I've seen some of those owners on Spike TV.
They should be put down, if only for their stubborn
devotion to their mullets.
|7.1.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Bans on pit bulls are the same as bans on many other things -
shortcuts to avoid dealing with complicated issues. Most people
proposing bans are actually saying "I don't like this, I don't want
to think about it, I just want it to go away."
Bans are also dramatic. They make for better slogans for activists
to shout at people who disagree with them. "Ban the Bomb" is from
my era. Sounds much more decisive than "Enter a long, complicated
series of delicate negotiations aimed at gradually reducing the
number of thermonuclear weapons in the arsenals of historically and
ideologically diverse countries."
Xeones|7.1.09 @ 3:13PM|#
oh, and i support banning pit bulls, because i'm tired of
reading about mauled children.
...
If I ever have a female dog I am so naming her Karma.
...
Or "Life"
Or, if she's little, bruce.
Tomcat1066|7.1.09 @ 3:17PM|#
Chihuahua's - now those vicious little fuckers ought to be
banned...
Now THAT is a ban I could get behind. Those little bastards are
MEAN!
NotThatDavid|7.1.09 @ 3:22PM|#
Can we just have a ban on making them wear clothes? For humanity's sake?
|7.1.09 @ 3:24PM|#
Let's not forget that the horror stories about pits are produced
by, wait for it, journalists.
Why on earth would you believe that a given dog attack was
committed by a pit? Because you read it in the paper?
Most journalists don't know dick about dog breeds. What they do
know is that "Pit Bull Mauls Child" is a headline they want over
their byline.
|7.1.09 @ 3:25PM|#
Oh, and as the proud owner of two rescued pits, bringing my
lifetime total to six, I totally concur with domo's take on
Staffies.
Once you've gone Staff, you can't go back.
|7.1.09 @ 3:34PM|#
Having, at one time, been a newspaper journalist, I can tell you
that if a story came into our newsroom about a Lab/any other breed
biting a child, it wouldn't get a sniff.
If the breed could even loosely be described as a "pit bull," it
would most likely have been front page news.
Rich|7.1.09 @ 3:35PM|#
I may be creating a monster here, but do certain elements ever pursue a *serious* "breedist" approach?
|7.1.09 @ 3:36PM|#
I often thought that dog owners ought to have licenses according to the size of their breed.
Kyle|7.1.09 @ 3:40PM|#
I don't agree with banning them, either.
However, "its the owner not the dog" only goes so far. Pit bulls
often have the physical ability to kill. Labradors generally do
not.
True, a lab or golden retriever or poodle might bite you or even
"maul" you. But compared to dogs and people that I've seen mauled
by pit bulls, there is really no comparison. Spend six hours in the
waiting room of your local emergency vet this Saturday, and you'll
see my point quite vividly.
MNG|7.1.09 @ 3:51PM|#
As usual, well said Radley. Balko provides an invaluable service...No other area should be more concerning to anyone who values liberty and freedom than law enforcment, since while it's bad to be denied a permit to sell hot dogs on the street, the government is at is most oppressive when they use force on folks to lock up and possibly kill them...
Publius|7.1.09 @ 3:53PM|#
However, "its the owner not the dog" only goes so far. Pit
bulls often have the physical ability to kill. Labradors generally
do not.
Sorry, but this is nonsense.
Pit bulls have strong jaw muscles compared to hunting dogs like
Labs, but Labs can still kill any unarmed human that they have a
reason to.
The 85 pound Lab I grew up with nearly killed a guest one Chrstmas.
She took the arm clean off of his military parka in less than 10
seconds. Had he been wearing just a shirt, he would have died from
blood loss before we would have been able to do anything about
it.
Any dog that weighs more than 70 pounds or so can kill a human
without even trying very hard.
My Chihuahua, on the other hand, is the friendliest dog that I have
ever owned.
|7.1.09 @ 3:54PM|#
domo, how about a ban on misusing apostrophes?
Dick.
What am I, a fucking english major now!? You ought to know that I
can't spell/use grammer worth crap!
|7.1.09 @ 3:55PM|#
My Chihuahua, on the other hand, is the friendliest dog that
I have ever owned.
You are obviously not kicking it enough.
Rich|7.1.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Still workin' out the repercussions of "Pit bulls don't maul people; *people* with pit bulls maul people."
|7.1.09 @ 4:00PM|#
My Chihuahua, on the other hand, is the friendliest dog that
I have ever owned.
You are obviously not kicking it enough.
Domo, I would say that a friendly Chihuahua is one that has been
kicked enough. Enough to break its natural viciousness.
Kyle|7.1.09 @ 4:02PM|#
"Labs can still kill any unarmed human that they have a reason
to"
Hence the use of the term "generally" above. Labs have killed
people, as have pomeranians. However, if a lab, pom, and pit were
to each have equally heinous owners, the dog most statistically
likely to harm someone, by a long shot, is going to be the
pit.
Or, stated by Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. &
Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006:
"If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten,
but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk
is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler
has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has
now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as
well as their victims are paying the price."
The Angry Optimist|7.1.09 @ 4:05PM|#
Kyle - so do rights rest on statistics now? I mean, guess what? When the meathead at the gym has a "bad moment" at the bar, he's more likely to kill or disfigure someone than little ol' me will if I have a bad moment. Does that mean you should have to get a license to lift?
Big B|7.1.09 @ 4:06PM|#
I have a 95 pound lab. If you are ever around me and the dog,
you'll agree its the friendliest animal you've ever met.
But I've seen him when he feels threatened or the need to defend,
and I'd wager he'd kill you as fast as any 95 pound animal could if
given the chance.
Big B|7.1.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Kyle, on your argument, guns, and heck, most cars, would be banned. I mean, a guy having a bad day can certainly do more damage with a car than horse and buggy.
|7.1.09 @ 4:08PM|#
TAO,
not that I agree with Kyle, but I'm not sure I think dog ownership
is a right.
Big B|7.1.09 @ 4:11PM|#
TAO - not to mention the educated. I mean, a survivalist with
trained in knowledge of guns and explosives would be much more
dangerous than your average person.
Maybe you should have to get licensed to to obtain any type of
education. Or any knowledge for that matter.
Govt. can firewall the entire internet and to gain access to
information, you have to apply for a permit. Wouldn't want anyone
to be at a greater risk to other than any other person.
The Angry Optimist|7.1.09 @ 4:14PM|#
animals are property. The right to property is (tautologically
speaking) a right.
Case closed.
Bill|7.1.09 @ 4:17PM|#
It is worth pointing out again that 'pit bull' is not a breed of
dog, but a very broad, very loose designation. Most legal
definitions of 'pit bull' in breed bans name at least three
discrete dog breeds, then go on to include mixes of those breeds,
and--here's the big one--any dog with 'a majority of
characteristics' of any of those breeds. (Please go read a breed
standard and tell me how you quantify a 'majority of
characteristics' of that.)
People are strongly disposed toward IDing mean dogs as 'pit bulls,'
so if you actually look at some of the dogs involved in well
publicized attacks, you'll see a lot of Labs, Boxers, bulldogs, and
other breeds being called pit bulls just because they bit
someone.
Kyle|7.1.09 @ 4:19PM|#
As I mentioned earlier, I am not a proponant of the ban, for
exactly the reasons Mr. Balko outlines.
I really do f---ing hate pit bulls though, and for that matter,
rottweilers. I used to have a rottweiler, and as friendly as it
was, it got plain mean when visitors came over unexpected. That was
after I had the dog put through two years of dog socialization and
obedience classes, as well as daily exercise and dog-park
time.
I'll stick with my yellow lab now, who prefers lick unexpected
guests.
Can a rotty or pit be non-violent? Of course, which is why a ban is
non-sense. But the facts are simple- some breeds are more prone to
aggression and attacks than others.
Jason|7.1.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Aaron Rochester owned a pit bull and didn't even know it (see
picture #8 in the pit bull test).
domo, you have to watch out for a Staffie's tail. I don't think it
ever stops and whips back and forth with such force it could leave
bruises.
|7.1.09 @ 4:20PM|#
TAO,
I obviously agree that animals are property, and that people have a
right to their property. However, animals present a special case in
that they are capable of doing damage independantly of their owners
action. I think that reasonable regulation is probably acceptable.
In any case, your right to own a dog is lower down that my right to
not get bitten. This is a terrible discussion to have using
pitbulls which are usually really sweet, so do the math using my
pet tiger instead.
The Angry Optimist|7.1.09 @ 4:23PM|#
domo - isn't that true of children? And I am disappointed to see
that you used the "my right NOT to be X" to try to "trump" the
right to own a dog.
I have the right to own a dog. you have the right not to be
attacked. These two things are not in conflict with each other.
After all, you have the right not to be killed by a car, but that
doesn't mean you can claim that car ownership is a nonright.
|7.1.09 @ 4:23PM|#
I have two staffies that come to my office every few days. both (60 lbs each) try to get in my lap at once - it's like a shopping bag full of kittens. huge, slobbery kittens.
|7.1.09 @ 4:27PM|#
I often thought that dog owners ought to have licenses
according to the size of their breed.
Good in theory, but impossible in practice. With pure bred dogs you
can make a reasonable guess as to how large a puppy will grow, but
with mixed breed dogs, particularly those of unknown parentage,
this is impossible to guess with any accuracy. Also, weight is
hugely dependent on how much and how well the owners feed and
exercise the dog.
|7.1.09 @ 4:30PM|#
I see your point here, and I am willing to be wrong in
principle. But going to my tiger example - if I walked around the
neighborhood with Mufasa, you wouldn't say that the potential risk
to the people in the neighborhood was great enough to overwhelm my
individual right to own the tiger? I can't control the tiger if it
goes apeshit and starts tearing people, so doesn't my walking
around with him violate peoples rights at some level just by the
level of risk?
This is an argument that is often used to ban guns - and I do not
accept it in those cases, because guns don't shoot themselves. But
animals, to my mind MAY present a grey area.
|7.1.09 @ 4:33PM|#
and FWIW, I don't consider ANY dog breed to be possessed of a level of risk like that. I am speaking generally to the question of "is all animal ownership an overriding property right" now.
The Angry Optimist|7.1.09 @ 4:38PM|#
domo - I think once you talk about "violating people's rights" based on statistics, you've lost the war. After all, isn't that the same logic behind the Drug War? That the "odds are" that you're going to lose control?
|7.1.09 @ 4:42PM|#
My basset hound preferred to lick his nether regions, THEN kiss unexpected guests.
|7.1.09 @ 4:44PM|#
I'm not a black and white adherent to rights - mostly because I recognize how peoples legitimate rights can conflict. I know there are purists here who are going to say "rights can never conflict, if they do, one of them is not a right" or "there is no conflict that can't be resolved with strict liability and payment of damages" - but I'm not an anarchist, I think minimally invasive public safety regulation is a legitimate use of government power. In the case of a tiger, I'm ok with the government saying "that's really dangerous, you can't have one of those and walk around with it on a leash."
|7.1.09 @ 4:52PM|#
I see your point here, and I am willing to be wrong in
principle. But going to my tiger example...
Which is a really bad example. We're talking about dogs here, not
tigers. Dogs as a class are domesticated, tigers are not. This is
an important difference.
|7.1.09 @ 4:52PM|#
I don't think the drug war analogy holds up - I use drugs that may harm me, if I lose control, I am a) hurting myself, not you or b) assuming I go apeshit and hurt someone am still a legal entity that can be punished for my moral turpitude - not so much the tiger.
|7.1.09 @ 4:57PM|#
Which is a really bad example. We're talking about dogs here, not
tigers. Dogs as a class are domesticated, tigers are not. This is
an important difference.
Fair enough, but I already stipulated that at 4:20. So then my
response is: Is dog ownership a right, but tiger ownership not? Is
the distinction, then, that of domestication? What about wolves
which are genetically identical to dogs? How about 1/2 wolves? How
about wild animals that are nevertheless harmless?
What rule would you propose?
Charles|7.1.09 @ 4:57PM|#
There's no need for a pit bull ban, if nothing else then because that's someone that private industry can handle. Or am I the only person who has had, or knows someone who has had, trouble getting home insurance because of owning a pit bull-type dog?
The Next Logical Step|7.1.09 @ 5:02PM|#
Aaron Rochester should be euthanized, after all his dog bit a neighbor.
|7.1.09 @ 5:05PM|#
Oh, and as the proud owner of two rescued pits, bringing my
lifetime total to six...
R.C., good on ya. My wife works in a shelter, and the pit types are
really hard to place.
I own a APBT and just love him. He's probably the most loving and
fun-loving dog I have ever owned. But I wouldn't leave him alone
with children. Children are great at finding a dogs "on" switch,
not so good at finding the off button.
Of course, I wouldn't leave children alone with any of the dogs
I've owned. Not even my previous dog, a bullmastiff. Bullmastiffs
are really, really hard to piss off, even for a kid, but the
downside is just too ugly.
The American Kennel Club-recognized breed that's generally
associated with the term is the American Staffordshire
Terrier.
Hmm. I think they are becoming distinct bloodlines, although there
is much in common.
Some would say only American Pit Bull Terriers are "pit bulls". The
AKC and the UKC are at odds regarding this. In my experience,
Staffordshire Bull Terriers are a bit shorter and wider, not quite
as good for a running companion. Some say Staffies are a bit more
easy going than the APBT, but my wife used to have a Staffie and
our experience was the opposite. YMMV.
MNG|7.1.09 @ 5:07PM|#
"domo - isn't that true of children?"
Er, yes.
And we don't consider children property, do we?
I'm curious as to what "makes" animals property. Wide-spread and
long standing agreement? Magic words? Because if that's it, I got
some other "rights" you guys are gonna love...
MNG|7.1.09 @ 5:09PM|#
In fact, we don't think parents have some inalienable "right" to
their kids in any sense, unless anyone here wants to argue that we
can't forcibly take a child from obviously abusive parents.
Bad analogy, TAO, bad!
|7.1.09 @ 5:11PM|#
One doesn't require an enumerated right in order to own a dog. I
think we lose perspective on where right abide.
I don't even license my dogs - why should I have to request
permission from the state/county/city to have a dog? I take better
care of my mutts than anyone I know of and a permission slip from a
city bureaucrat won't change that - neither will it change those
who don't take care of their dogs.
-K
Kyle|7.1.09 @ 5:20PM|#
Karl-
As far as I know, the prerequisit to a dog license is not
responsible ownership. It is a method for the city to keep track of
dog ownership, pay for catching stray dogs, and insure that bubba's
dog doesn't have rabies.
By your rationale, good drivers wouldn't need license plates.
|7.1.09 @ 5:26PM|#
Big B, Publius and others have posted that 70 pound labs and 95 pound labs can easily kill a person. Yes, but a healthy, adult male who knows how to defend himself should be able to put those dogs to sleep-after all, the healthy adult male is probably a lot bigger and smarter.
Colonel_Angus|7.1.09 @ 5:28PM|#
You should be held liable for the damgages caused if and when your tiger goes on a rampage. Don't punish the people who's tiger never hurt anyone during its life time.
Rich|7.1.09 @ 5:29PM|#
> Maybe you should have to get licensed to to obtain any type
of education. Or any knowledge for that matter.
Bite your tongue! On second thought, never mind -- this is one of
them "irrational logical fallacies" since you'd have to have *some*
knowledge in order to obtain the license. Ha ha!
|7.1.09 @ 5:33PM|#
Kyle - I agree with the "reductio ad absurdum" you are
attempting with the license plate example. I don't think drivers
should be required to have license plates.
On the more immediate issue of dog ownership - why does the city
have the right to track dog ownership? What business of it is
theirs whether I own a dog or not? I though we had a system that
did not pre-suppose guilt - ie. I pay to have my dogs tracked
privately to ensure that, in the unlikely case they get out, I can
find them before they come to harm. I pay to keep them up to date
on their shots because I'm very interested in their well-being. If
my dogs go stray or get rabies and I don't take care of it, then
punish me. Don't presuppose guilt.
-K
The Angry Optimist|7.1.09 @ 5:34PM|#
er, MNG, it's not an inalienable right to "own" children, but you do have an inalienable right to have children.
ยข|7.1.09 @ 5:37PM|#
Compromise!
Dogs are rightless property, and they're also dangerous in a way
that's significantly outside their owners' control, so anyone who
feels like it can lawfully contract for the assassination of your
dog, and you'll receive its depreciated replacement value in
Extenze coupons.
Another Phil|7.1.09 @ 5:37PM|#
I work one day a week at a large animal shelter. I'm really a cat person (a preemptive "screw you" to the inevitable cat haters), but pits have become one of my favorite types of dog. I can't imagine living with one because of their boundless energy, but, in general, they're big, goofy joy machines. Rottweilers, on the other hand....
|7.1.09 @ 5:52PM|#
What rule would you propose?
You can own any animal you want.
If you lose control of it and does damage, you are responsible for
the damage it does.
If it is threatening or attacking someone, they have the right to
gun it down on the spot.
If it has a history of threatening or attacking people, it is a
public nuisance and should be dealt with accordingly.
Is that so hard?
MNG|7.1.09 @ 5:55PM|#
Yes, the analogy of one's rights to have children and to own dogs is not a very apt one. In fact, they are not about the same thing at all...That's kind of my point though, right?
MNG|7.1.09 @ 5:56PM|#
"If you lose control of it and does damage, you are responsible
for the damage it does."
One problem with this is one can only address the problem after
damage has occurred. And we have to go through all of this because
of rights or magic or something...It's a pretty common problem in
Libertopia though...
|7.1.09 @ 6:02PM|#
RC Dean,
yeah, but I was asking Tonio: he thinks dogs are fine, but tigers
aren't - I was inviting him to explain what rule he would use to
draw the line.
|7.1.09 @ 6:03PM|#
It also assumes that the person doing the damages will be able to pay, or that damages will somehow make the family feel better that their loved one died.
|7.1.09 @ 6:09PM|#
MNG - You say problem, I say feature. Yes, problems should be
addressed after the damage has occurred, not before things go pear
shaped. That way lies tyranny. It won't happen today, nor probably
tomorrow, and dog licensing is not the tipping point. But it is a
symptom. One day you wake up and what is not expressly permitted is
expressly verboten (as I tip-toe cleverly along to the Godwin
line). In the real world, you end up with crotchety people like me
yelling "Get out of my swamp!" and everyone else getting on with
their "reasonable" restrictions, shaking their heads knowingly at
the silly absolutists - but without the crotchety, in the limit,
reasonable approaches tyranny.
-K
MNG|7.1.09 @ 6:17PM|#
Karl
I get your point. Punishing people for "capacities" or
"likelihoods" for bad things is a bad path to go down.
But I also worry about never being able to act to prevent a harm,
and in a case where somebody is doing something wrong anyway I
don't mind. For example, a regulation that says that you can't
serve rancid meat to an unknowing customer. Doing that is wrong
whether the guy who eats it got sick or not, so I don't mind a
regulatin that would fine someone for doing that before damage was
done.
Now, my opposition to dog bans is that such a small % of any breed
causes damage that you would be punishing every owner for the
negligence of about 1%. If the owners are the problem banning the
dogs seems like a stupid way to get to the problem (potential or
after the fact)
hmm|7.1.09 @ 6:29PM|#
There's a Bully Bash here in St. Louis. I have some pictures of
a small child hanging off a staffies ears and sitting on a Bull
Mastiff that was the size of a Honda Civic. At least 100 bull dogs,
terriers, mastiffs, dobbies, and other dogs (including "snacks,"
the lil' guys like chihuahuas) all running around and I didn't see
one snarl. Lots of barks and playing, but no aggression.
People make the dog. There is something to having a bull headed
working dog regardless of breed. But anyone that understands you
have to be the one in charge has no issues.
Dent county here has a kill law. There are two rescue shelters that
take the dogs and bring them to St. Louis County to find them
homes. Some hard working people with little funding right there.
It's basically two ma and pa outfits.
|7.1.09 @ 7:26PM|#
If you have privy to what a Labrador or another breed can do as far as killing goes you would change your mind as Labs, Jack Russels, and various other breeds can and do kill and more often then we realize. There have benn three incidents in North American and the Uk where Jack rs hav killed children and there have been incidents in the Us where Labradors have killed several times. This is reality, not fiction.
|7.1.09 @ 8:06PM|#
I was doing some research once into wolf hybrids (I really want a couple, but don't have the space), and someone bred a grey wolf with some kind of mastiff. The thing looked like a small bear and if I remember correctly weighed around 285 lbs or something like that. According to the owners it was the friendliest animal on the planet. It was incredible.
Zupf|7.1.09 @ 8:24PM|#
If only pit bulls attacks and maulings caused so little injury! "The neighbor suffered a scratch to his right leg as he tried to push the dog away, some marks on his chest and bites to his thumb that required five stitches at a hospital emergency room."
kinnath|7.1.09 @ 9:00PM|#
One problem with this is one can only address the problem
after damage has occurred. And we have to go through all of this
because of rights or magic or something...It's a pretty common
problem in Libertopia though..
This is a foundation issue with progressives; they feel compelled
to regulate all human endeavors to ensure that nothing bad can ever
happen to anyone.
For libertarians; regulation equals prior restraint. Prior
restraint is bad and must only be used in the most compelling
circumstances. Dog ownership is not one of those compelling
circumstances.
|7.1.09 @ 9:34PM|#
kinnath,
I'd agree with you - but some were arguing that NO circumstances
are compelling enough to justify prior restraint. That only actual
damages should serve as a trigger for restraint. I still say - no
tigers.
|7.1.09 @ 9:44PM|#
"Prior restraint is bad." kinmath, you should have left it at that. The moment we accept the ole "except in the most compelling circumstances" rationale, tyranny wins.
Puppy Love|7.1.09 @ 10:15PM|#
Bruce, thank you for making it easy to see your ignorance.
First off, there is no such thing as a 'pit bull" that is an
umbrella term used as stated above to cover a multitude dogs from a
similar breed line. Boxers fall under "pit"
I Own a Boxer and a pit mix. i keep them both leashed and on lock
down. Not to protect you from them.
But to protect MY dogs from people like you.
"pits" aren't the only dogs that"maul" children. While the
statistics at "dog bite" are interesting. they are not accurate.
90% of the reports of "pit Bull bites" are inaccurate breed
recognition. thats like saying...I don't know he looked Arab.
Ok...that doesn't narrow it down.
Go take the dog identification test.
I can personally name about 85% of the dogs on that list with out
looking at their names.
Why becasue I am a educated dog owner and studied in animal
husbandry.
Stop blaming the animals, and pin the owners.
All dogs bite, anything with a mouth has the potential to bite. And
when people start treating dogs like dogs, and not their baby, or
baby sitter. We will have less dog bites all around.
And by the way, small dogs have a higher incidence in bites than
large breeds.
hmm|7.1.09 @ 10:49PM|#
One of our cats has mauled the shit out of my foot, at 3am no less. I'm thinking of having it put down.
|7.1.09 @ 11:00PM|#
Actually, I highly doubt that Mr. Rochester trained his dog to
be aggressive and to bite. He's probably not a horrible dog owner,
but he had the misfortune to get a lab who wasn't typical of the
breed. Labs that bite are rare, but they certainly exist, just as
labs who hate the water and who hate swimming are not typical of
the breed but they exist.
Pit bulls are BRED for a propensity to race across a pit, attack
without provocation and keep on attacking until their adversary is
dead. Not surprisingly, they kill people a whole lot more than labs
do.
|7.1.09 @ 11:00PM|#
Have you guys ever seen the damage the animal called a human is
capable of,weight is not even an issue all he needs is a gun,knife,
the steering wheel of a motor vehicle after a good bottle of
bourbon,some of these creatures only need a box of matches to wreak
unholy havoc,buy a newspaper from any city in the world and you
will see what I mean WoW.
These creatures should definitely be banned.
|7.2.09 @ 8:33AM|#
Dogcentric, did you even bother reading the links in the
article? Even when the majority were being bred for
fighting/baiting, any dogs that showed aggression towards humans
were culled. A human, unknown to the dog, could walk into the
middle of the fight, pick up a dog, and hand him over to the owner
without being bitten. Any dogs that did bite were killed.
Bullies do have a very strong bite. Once they get fixated on
something, it is hard to break that fixation. They have a very high
pain tolerance. All that said, they are also very trainable, and
very eager to please humans. Are they dangerous? No more so than
any dog. Where they get in trouble is that when they do decide to
bite, they can do a great deal of damage. But so can any number of
dogs.
I have two bully mixes, and they are very sweet dogs. That said, I
take no chances with them - they are always on a short leash or in
a fenced yard with supervision. When we take them to the dog park I
keep a close eye on both them and the other dogs, and I know when
danger is brewing.
I am a firm believer that responsible owner=responsible dog.
Careless owner=dangerous dog.
|7.2.09 @ 10:33AM|#
If it is threatening or attacking someone, they have the
right to gun it down on the spot.
According to Mr. Balko, a lot of cops agree with you.
|7.2.09 @ 11:19AM|#
Very interesting, the comment about pit bulls being the animal with the most incidents of biting is incorrect. The dog who has the most incidents of dog bites it the German Shepard. I remember the days when people took responsibility for the actions of their children and animals. My neighbor call once to tell us that our doxie had bit her son. Well she did not call to complain about the dog bite she called to have her son apologize for being in our back yard throwing rocks at our dog. Maybe each individual case needs to be investigated, even a docile dog will finally get tired of being abused.
|7.2.09 @ 5:55PM|#
I like the fact you mentioned about the people who are fighting these breeds are going to continue to do so and continue to breed their dogs for those reasons which is a great point I have not thought of. But I do not feel 1 bit sorry for Rodchester, his family or the dog! It hurts me to say that but the fact of the matter is that Mr. Rodchester took this pitbull ban and ran it through the coucil as quickly as possible while citizens tryed to plead their case. They have know knowlege of what a "vicious" dog is and I asked on many occasions which "professionals" they consult and no one felt the need to answer any of my questions. Also the city coucil had no reguard to the little kids and families who cried and who were worried sick to hear an outcome of their ordinance. And the city had no remorse for the lady that had her 2 pits taken by animal control and put down in the same day. . . Notbecause they were "vicious". But because they were pitbulls who were not registered by the 1st deadline they set. Then like what 2 weeks later they reopen the registeration for people who didn't get their dogs registerd. Over 300 dogs were registered the 2nd time if that gives everyone an idea on how quickly this ordinance was thrown together and how much notice were givin to this city's citizens. And in Rodchesters own words . . . "A bites, a bite". I encourage all who has read this article to google "sioux city pit" and encourage you to read articles that include many ignorant statements about these breeds made but our councilmen. Its rediculious and saddens to say I'm from sioux city. In addition to Mr. Balko's statement about not putting the dog down I disagree. It does need to be because anyone else in this city wouldn't get the dicision overturned and be offered training as a consiquence . . . Regular citizens would be lucky for their dog to stay alive for the time period they say you get to oppeal to the courts because animal control is known for "accidently" putting dogs down.
|7.4.09 @ 10:02AM|#
Bruce: You are an idiot if you can't see the relationship between BSL and this incident. A non-sequitur? I believe you should look up the word. Moron.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245