2005-07-20 - 11:25 p.m.
I can�t believe that I just found this guy, but I am definitely a fan. Check out his site:
www.toothpastefordinner.com
Sucks to be a pit bull in Denver.
A new city ordinance has completely banned pit bulls.
From Yahoo news:
Since May, more than 380 dogs have been impounded and at least 260 destroyed � an average of more than three a day.
For complete article go to:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_re_us/denver_dog_ban
I can imagine if they were to outlaw sales, and new dog purchases ect, but to go around and take away dogs that have been in the family for years?
I�ve got two dogs, and I would put up a hell of a fight if animal control were to show up and try to take them away for no reason. Because some self-important city councilor decided that he didn�t like the breed? That his Labrador was A-OK, but my Shepherd had to go?
This is actually a very complicated subject. I was pretty confident of my position on this issue until I started looking around for real scientific data on dog attacks. Here is a good place to start
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/index.html
I have always been of the impression that all dogs are good dogs until someone teaches them to be vicious. I�ve also believed that some breeds have more aggressive tendencies than others, but that no breed was inherently dangerous.
But, now that I�ve done some looking around at statistics, I have to redefine my position.
I still believe that people bear most of the responsibility for vicious dogs. So does the US government by the way. Still, every source I found for dog bit statistics has placed certain dogs as the most dangerous. Pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman Pinschers, Chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas
Now as husband to someone who studies statistics for a living, I have learned several important things about drawing conclusions from statistics. The most important is to understand the deeper facts behind the numbers.
If there were an equal number of all these breeds, and they were all raised in a similar fashion, you could safely say that pit bulls were simply the most dangerous breed of dog.
But it is never that simple. There are a multitude of reasons why these statistics can be misleading, and I would like to explore some of them.
1. People who go out with the express purpose of buying guard dogs buy Pit bulls and Rottweilers, not Labradors and Pomerians
2. The dogs that end up on the list are the most popular breeds of guard and attack dogs, for example if there were more Presa Canario dogs in the US, they would certainly make the list.
3. These breeds, epically the pit-bulls and Rottweilers, are very popular amongst the illegal dog fighting community, and have become popular �thug� status symbols. They are brought up and trained specifically to be vicious. It is no wonder that these dogs are most responsible for attacks on people. Here is a recent example, April 16, 2004, Charlotte, NC. Third-grader Roddie Philip Dumas was in the fenced-in backyard of his father's home when the latter's four pit bulls mauled the child to death. The father and his girlfriend were inside and did not respond to the boy's screams. A neighbor and a mailman did, but could not save the youngster. When police searched the house, they found an AK-47 assault rifle, two shotguns and ammunition -- along with crack cocaine and marijuana. The father was arrested on drug charges.
4. Pitt-bulls are often misidentified. There is really only one true American Pitt Bull Dog, but many other dogs are misidentified as pit-bulls. When someone is bitten by a dog that they don�t recognize, or that looks like it might be a pit bull, they assume it was a pit bull. This means that real pit bulls are over represented in the statistics. Take this quiz to see for yourself.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
So, here is my primary question. Are some dogs inherently more dangerous, or is it simply a matter of how they are conditioned by their owners.
Here is what I have come up with.
Any dog is potentially dangerous. Some breeds, because of their physical characteristics, are more dangerous than others. Jack Russell Terriers can be very aggressive, but because of their small size, the threat they pose to people is minimized. (Small dogs do pose a serious threat to small children)
Breeds like the Pit bull, Rottweilers, Doberman, and Akita also have a tendency towards aggression and because of their large size and powerful build can be deadly.
I used to believe that it was all a matter of conditioning, but now that I have read the facts behind the fatal dog attacks from 1989-1994, I have to conclude that while owner conditioning, and negligence play a major factor in many of the cases, the same breeds always top the list; Pit bulls, Rottweilers, and German shepherds.
From 1979-1996, 199 people were killed by dogs in the US.
(1241 people were killed by lighting in the same time period.)
But in 1994 alone over 800,00 people sought medical attention for a dog bite. I can�t find the break down for breed on the bites, but I would be surprised if almost every breed wasn�t represented in the list. While all dogs can be dangerous, only certain breeds kill people.
Since all dogs have the potential to be mistreated by their owners, but only certain breeds kill people every year, I have to come down on the side that certain breeds are much more dangerous to keep as pets. But lets not be naive, people buy these dogs for a reason, and that reason is that they have the potential to be dangerous. They are bought as guard dogs, dogs that will ward off strangers while walking, , they are bought by people who don�t feel safe living alone ect� we cannot be surprised when they sometimes attack the wrong people.
I�ve so often heard this, �But I owned a Rottweiler, sweetest dog I ever had, wouldn�t hurt a fly�
Unfortunately that is exactly what most of the owners said about their dogs in court after they had just killed the neighbors kid.
Nicholas Fabish -- parents' pit bulls killed their son inside their apartment
June 3, 2005, San Francisco, Ca. Nicholas Faibish, a 12-year-old boy who was left alone with his family's two pit bulls, was mauled to death by the dogs inside their apartment. As is common in such cases, neighbors reported that the dogs were friendly, affectionate and well behaved. One neighbor stated, "The dogs were sweethearts. I never thought they were vicious. They were really nice. I would pet them, and my wife would kiss them on the forehead.'' The mother of this child has been charged with felony child endangerment.
I love my dogs, but I will be very careful from now on. I don�t have any reason to believe that they are dangerous in anyway, but I don�t ever want to be on the witness stand explaining why my dog bit someone.
So now what? I still don�t support the city of Denver rounding up people�s pets based on a breed wide ban, I think certain breeds should be treated as more dangerous.
Many cities already do. In some parts of the country require pit bull owners to carry a certain amount of insurance and place strict controls on where and how they can be kept.
I think that breeds that have a reputation for deadly attacks on people should be treated like firearms. Legal, but you must go through a certain amount of training and background checks to own one.
Pretty strange opinion coming from a libertarian, but when 7-10 dog attack victims are children, and the vast majority of victims are not the dogs primary owner, (kids, friends and strangers get attacked, not the owner) it�s something I can readily support.
(Your right to do your thing ends at the tip of my nose.)
So I�ve learned something today, my overall understanding of dogs remains the same, but I do now believe that some dogs are more dangerous to keep as pets, regardless of how they are trained.
Justus
