Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Monday, July 30, 2012

Do You Support a Citywide Ban on Pit Bulls and Other Fighting Breed Dogs?

Posted by on Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Both sides of the pit-bull debate seem to think that there's a massive silent majority on their side.

That's certainly the opinion of activist Ellen Taft, who, as I reported yesterday, launched a petition to ban pit bulls and other fighting breed in the city limits after a pit bull attacked a three year old in South Seattle last week. Taft says most people who agree with her are too scared to engage in a debate, but they would be willing to sign her petition and blast City Hall with emails. She says the city should pass a bill to: (1) spay and neuter fighting breed dogs already here, (2) prohibit bringing new fighting-breed dogs into the city, and (3) in the interim, require "safety precautions such as muzzles" for those dogs in public.

Let's see if Taft is correct. Take a sec to vote in this legally binding, totally anonymous lockjaw of a Slog poll:


Comments (98) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Zebes 1
I hear pit bulls eat meat.

Fuck you, vegans! Fuck you!
Posted by Zebes on July 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM · Report this
icouldliveinhope 2
I could see safety precautions, and maybe requiring owners to have enough space on their property/dwelling to properly facilitate that kind of dog, or go through a dog training education course, or something -- but I don't feel like I can get behind an outright ban still. Also, how would that apply to mixed-breeds, like dogs that are 3/4 a friendly, family breed like a lab and 1/4 pit?
Posted by icouldliveinhope on July 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM · Report this
balderdash 3
I have no idea if there's a silent majority, but as far as I have been able to find, there not good data on whether or not a breed ban would actually help anything, or perhaps more importantly, if there is another course of action that would be more effective and punish responsible owners less.

If a breed ban is the only step we can bring our lazy, category-obsessed electorate to accept, then I guess it's better than nothing, but it seems to me - based, I freely admit, on supposition - like there has to be a more effective and targeted answer.

But good job stirring the fuckin' pot, Dominic. Was last night's pitbull thread threatening to gutter out? Not enough flamewar going on to entertain you through the afternoon?
Posted by balderdash on July 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 4
Why do you hate French Poodles and Weimeraners so?

They keep the area free of Heffalumps and Lions ...
Posted by Will in Seattle on July 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM · Report this
mrbarky 5
A petition on Really? Can I get a Slog post if I start a petition that Slog staffers have to wear their underwear on the outside of their clothes?
Posted by mrbarky on July 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM · Report this
Kinison 6
Do we ban the breeding of these dogs? If not, then we should come to a compromise and just ban the breeding and sale of these dogs. These dogs can be hit or miss when it comes to being passive around humans or other dogs.
Posted by Kinison on July 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM · Report this
venomlash 7
HA! HA! I voted and I don't live in Seattle!
Time to disenfranchise brown people to stop my vote fraud.

@4: Heffalumps and Woozels, you ignoramus.
Posted by venomlash on July 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM · Report this
It doesn't seem practical because what's the procedure for determining the breed of any given dog?

Still, ban away, what do I care. If someone wanted to just plain ban dogs outright, wouldn't bother me a bit. People are generally pretty good about scooping but I still have to pick up turds from my sidewalk more often than I'd like (ideally zero times per year.) On the other hand, I have to clean up human turds left by the indigent mentally ill and chronic alcoholics from the back about as often and probably can't ban them.

That's life in the city.
Posted by Alden on July 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM · Report this
Better option: Make owners of /all/ dogs carry a $10 million liability policy (sometimes $7 million is used as an actuarial value of a life). Make the dog's owner criminally liable for the damage a dog does without the policy as we do with cars.

The market will take care of this instantly. For dogs that obviously won't/can't harm people, the policy will be trivially cheap that this won't deter anyone from owning a dog. For dogs that obviously will/can harm people, the policy will be appropriately priced so that dog lovers are forced to put their money where their mouths are. For dogs in the middle, the price can vary appropriately.

I don't know what the risk of owning a pit bull is, mostly because I don't care to own one. I think the vast majority of the people in the debate are either bizarrely worried about a statistically improbable event - serious injury from any sort of dog - or insanely in love with their own dog to the point of denying that animals are, in fact animals. The only way to take care of this is to allow a neutral third party to determine the risk of the dog in question. We already do that - it's called insurance, and it is a good thing.
Posted by saeculorum on July 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM · Report this
Baby Blue 10
"Pit Bulls and other fighting breeds"? Yeah, that sounds objective.

Who gets to decide what a "fighting breed" is? I'm not crazy about chihuahuas. Can I have them outlawed by breeding a few to fight?
Posted by Baby Blue on July 30, 2012 at 3:48 PM · Report this
Rather than an outright ban, what if there was a muzzle law for all fighting breeds when they are outside of their apartment or home? If a pitbull or other fighting breed is found without a muzzle the owner can be reported by neighbors and ticketed, and if they have more than one offense the owner can no longer have a fighting breed dog. This would dramatically reduce the chances of attack, and people could still keep their dogs.
Posted by kitaj on July 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 12

There are a thousand other kinds of dogs and pets that are not mortal threats to other people.

You want a pit bull or a rottweiler? Then move out to the country. They have no place in a crowded metropolitan area.

Most fatal dog attacks are by 'friendly' dogs of these two breeds.

Dogs are my primary reason for carrying a weapon.

People who bitch and moan about how it's 'only specific owners' are full of shit and should be banned along with their life-endangering stupidity.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on July 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM · Report this
Breed bans are dumb. I support a citywide ban on dogs.
Posted by SeanB on July 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM · Report this
blip 14
"Should Seattle attempt to divert its dog attacks from one arbitrary category of dog breed(s) to another?"

_I don't know
Posted by blip on July 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM · Report this
I've met some truly sweet-natured pitbulls who were really well socialized and loved, and I've come across a couple of bitpull owners who enjoyed the implied threat of having a fighting dog. *Any* breed of dog can by socialized to only bond with their "pack-leader" and fear all others; or when they're puppies be socialized to be comfortable with a broad range of people. If a chiwawa is poorly socialized and trained it can be a neighborhood annoyance, but it will not kill anyone. Fighting breeds are often bred to have very high pain tolerances, very powerful jaws and a temperment that is less trusting (unless their companion trains them well). Unlike a Chiwawa if these breeds are poorly socialized they have the ability to do enormous damage. Because we can't be sure of how they've been raised a muzzle is simple visual method to limit that possibility.
Posted by kitaj on July 30, 2012 at 4:05 PM · Report this
meanie 16
knee jerk bans work awesome. Its worked for drugs awesome.

The demographic of douche aggro dog owner would *totally* adhere to a ban, or some insurance requirement.

keep clutching them pearls.
Posted by meanie on July 30, 2012 at 4:07 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 17
Just shoot the fucking things.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on July 30, 2012 at 4:07 PM · Report this
balderdash 18
@9, really, man? Somebody with a 13-year-old Shih Tzu that never leaves the apartment should have to carry a ten mil policy? I think maybe a hot topic has got you a little overexcited.

@12, you got numbers to back that up (that don't come from interest groups)? I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong but that's a pretty bold claim, especially with the aggro tone you're taking.
Posted by balderdash on July 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 19

Many insurance companies won't insure household that own a fighting breed. So, I'm not sure how that policy would work out.

I'd rather impose criminal penalties on any owner whose dog loses its shit and causes serious injury to any pet or human being, regardless if it's otherwise a "really good dog" or any other excuses the dog owner coughs up.

Those people who are so convinced their dogs would never harm anyone will have to take their chances.
Posted by keshmeshi on July 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM · Report this
Paul Constant 20
@5: No need for a petition! I've been doing that for years.
Posted by Paul Constant http:// on July 30, 2012 at 4:23 PM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 21

Pit bulls, the most commonly reported breed, were involved in 24 deaths; the next most commonly reported breeds were rottweilers (16) and German shepherds (10).…)

At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths.

Neither of these two papers recommend breed-bans, and I do not at a regional or state-wide level, but it is absolutely appropriate for a metropolitan area to ban these dogs or impose uniquely strict licensing and training requirements for their ownership.

There is a huge difference in the severity of bite wounds from pitbulls and the like compared to say labs and the like which are more prevalent by number but much less likely to be fatal. The genetics matter. Anybody who tells you otherwise is full of shit. And there is absolutely no reason for children to be permanently maimed and killed for the selfish stupidity of a small group of idiots who swear that their little babies wouldn't hurt a fly. Any ER physician knows pit bulls quite well by what comes in their doors.

I love dogs, but the assertion that people in a city have the right to endanger others, particularly children, for their own pure selfishness is ridiculous. Get another type of dog, or go live on a farm that isn't surrounded by thousands of people.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on July 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM · Report this
Forget the breed ban-mandatory neuter/spay for all dogs without purebred papers AND the owner having a business license for breeding. I don't worry about pits, I worry about male pits with nuts. Thats they key component in aggression. just like humans, actually.
Posted by whomever whilst have me on July 30, 2012 at 4:48 PM · Report this
What's everyone so afraid of? Just shoot them as Fifty-Two-Eighty said. Shoot them with a hand held rocket launcher I say.
Posted by sall on July 30, 2012 at 4:50 PM · Report this
@21: a whole 109 deaths in 10 years?? The horror, The HORROR!
Posted by NateMan on July 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM · Report this
I definitely support spay and neuter policies. If you're living in a big, crowded city, there's no reason for you to ever own an intact dog. It's just inviting trouble.
Posted by j.lee on July 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM · Report this
reverend dr dj riz 26
at least ban em on metro buses..actually i'd be fine with banning all dogs on metro buses , except the service dogs.
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on July 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM · Report this
balderdash 27
@21, entirely fair, but that still leaves the assertion that "[m]ost fatal dog attacks are by 'friendly' dogs of these two breeds," or, as you put it, dogs of "idiots who swear that their little babies wouldn't hurt a fly."

Additionally, one of those papers you cite says the following in its conclusions:
Breedspecific approaches to the control of dog bites do not address the issue that many breeds are involved in the problem and that most of the factors contributing to dog bites are related to the level of responsibility exercised by dog owners. To prevent dog bite-related deaths and injuries, we recommend public education about responsible dog ownership and dog bite prevention, stronger animal control laws, better resources for enforcement of these laws, and better reporting of bites.

And the conclusion of the other is:
Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.

Did you actually read what you were citing?

Again, I'm one of the few "I don't know"s on the poll up there. I'm not trying to take a side here, I just wonder if there's anything behind the sound and fury, because so far breed bans kinda look they're based in poorly-informed outrage, and not the best option.
Posted by balderdash on July 30, 2012 at 4:57 PM · Report this
Pit Bulls aren't so popular in the country either, as they are frequently involved in small livestock predation. And unlike most wild predators, domestic dogs will often kill as many sheep/goats/chickens/calves as they can get their jaws on. So if you plan to move to the countryside to indulge your love of dangerous carnivores, be prepared to spend thousands on fencing, or expect your dog to either be shot or crushed under a truck tire.
Posted by oljb on July 30, 2012 at 5:05 PM · Report this
@27: Well yeah, but when was the last time we banned anything on something other than poorly-informed outrage? If it wasn't for poorly-informed outrage, people would have to go out and actually accomplish shit that matters.
Posted by NateMan on July 30, 2012 at 5:05 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 30

I'm one of the "I don't knows" as well, largely because, while regulation of breeding, enforced spaying/neutering, better education/licensing, and more crackdowns on dog fighting and the like would be effective, I honestly don't trust the city government to fund those things adequately or to use the full force of the law to crack down on people who disobey those new regulations.

A breed ban, on the other hand, is a pretty easy way to get the cops involved and the banned dog seized. I believe Denver has a breed ban, and there are otherwise law-abiding people who flout that law, but, by flouting the law, they have to do several important things to avoid getting caught: never letting the dog escape from the house/yard; staying on good terms with the neighbors.

Shitty owners who let their badly trained, dangerous dogs loose get taken out of the equation.
Posted by keshmeshi on July 30, 2012 at 5:48 PM · Report this
Breed bans don't work because thugs and other low lifes don't follow the laws. And they are the people who create dog problems. What we need is a law that holds dog owner responsible for what their dogs do.Now when a dog goes on a rampage the stupid owners turns the dog in to be PTS and they walk away free as a bird. If we start throwing these dog owners asses in jail to be Bubba's girlfriend for long vacation, just maybe they will think twice about using some poor dog to boost their self esteem.
Pit Bulls are not bad dogs anymore than other breeds in the right hands. We have a stupid human problem who really never get held accountable for abusing animals.
Posted by Janedoe100 on July 30, 2012 at 6:08 PM · Report this
Ian Awesome 32
No. Let's just shame irresponsible pet owners, preferably by throwing dog shit on them in public.
Posted by Ian Awesome on July 30, 2012 at 6:25 PM · Report this
veo_ 33
Prohibition doesn't work. Period.
Posted by veo_ on July 30, 2012 at 6:27 PM · Report this
raku 34
#33: Uhhhhh, the city and county already have a breed ban on the books on wolfdogs, which were popular in the 80's. There are no more wolfdogs in the city.

Regardless, "prohibition doesn't work, period"? When was the last time you saw lead paint or horse meat or grenades for sale?
Posted by raku on July 30, 2012 at 6:42 PM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 35
@27: Yes I did read them, apparently you didn't bother to read my post where I specifically pointed out that neither paper argued for a breed ban. I do, at least within urban areas.

A ban doesn't infringe on anyone's right to own another kind of big dog that does not have the same biological propensity to KILL PEOPLE by biting and NEVER LETTING GO.

Go get a fucking great dane or a big labradoodle or husky or something. You can have a house cat, you just shouldn't have a pet cougar in the city. This isn't fucking rocket science.

Pit Bulls are not bad dogs anymore than other breeds in the right hands.

I wish people would stop spouting this bullshit. There are certain breeds of dogs which are unquestionably and inherently more violent than others, along with physically more capable of wreaking excruciating harm on people (lost limbs, faces, organ damage, death). No amount of training will *ever* change that. "In the right hands" means NOT IN A FUCKING CITY with a zillion people around.

Bulls are a LOT more dangerous, aggressive, strong, and violent than a milk cow. There are plenty of people who can handle bulls just fine, BUT THEY DON'T DO IT IN FREMONT OR FIRST HILL.

There is no reason at all for people to be maimed by pits and rottweilers.

/cue the "oh we can't do anything about it: prohibition/bans/laws don't work for anything" bullshit Seattle whining about everything's just too hard and complicated and oh people's feelings and their PRECIOUS LITTLE ANGEL PETS. Fuck that.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on July 30, 2012 at 7:01 PM · Report this
Trouble 36
Pitbull jaws do not actually lock. Carry on.
Posted by Trouble on July 30, 2012 at 7:07 PM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 37
@36: Say that to the people who have crushed their skulls with metal bats or shot them in the face before they let go of a child. Carry on.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on July 30, 2012 at 7:20 PM · Report this
When I lived in the CD with my 2 bullies I was told point blank that with them i didn't NEED a gun. So you tell me which you'd prefer, me with bullies or me packing?
Posted by Ron P. on July 30, 2012 at 8:08 PM · Report this
Trouble 39
@37 Sorry you find facts distasteful.
Posted by Trouble on July 30, 2012 at 8:26 PM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 40
@39: you were responding to a claim no one made, btw. And it's rather irrelevant. They don't shoot lasers either.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on July 30, 2012 at 8:28 PM · Report this
I bet half the people on here insisting that prohibition of anything is pointless spent last week posting about how assault rifles shouldn't be covered by the 2nd amendment. Animal lovers are annoying.
Posted by Amanda on July 30, 2012 at 8:36 PM · Report this
Trouble 42
@40 "lockjaw of a Slog poll"
Posted by Trouble on July 30, 2012 at 8:49 PM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 43
@42 Oh right, so now we have a tetanus problem too? lull.

Posted by Captain Wiggette on July 30, 2012 at 9:12 PM · Report this
Stop calling Ellen Taft an "activist". She's a loon with an unbridled phobia about all dogs who has found an angle that will resonate with with people and give her a shred of legitimacy.
Posted by genevieve on July 30, 2012 at 9:52 PM · Report this
balderdash 45
@35, you'll forgive me if I trust the opinions of the people who actually did the research more than the person doing the hysterical name-calling on the internet who erroneously cites the research to support a position it explicitly does not support.

I mean, the researchers who compiled that data think that it does not indicate breed bans will be effective. Can you explain to me why you think differently?
Posted by balderdash on July 30, 2012 at 9:56 PM · Report this
Fistique 46
Dogs. In the 70s you had your Alsatians--you know, your German Shepherds. Then in the 80s you had your Doberman. You know, your Doberman Pinscher. In the late 80s and 90s you had your Rottweiler, and now it's your bull terriers--your Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier.

It's just totally out of control, innit? So what the government did--and this was a while back, you won't remember this--was they got in touch with the Kennel Club, and they said "No more. If you breed any more of these dangerous dogs, then we're not letting you breed any."

And the Kennel Club said, "Are you sure about that?" See, after a moment's thought, the government backed down. Because they knew they could ban every kind of breed of dog that there is...but they couldn't ban dogs altogether. Because what people would end up doing, is they would swap out their old dogs for a breed of dog that WASN'T a breed of dog.

And do you know what that is?


Picture one of these pitbull owners with a wolf.



(Limmy's Show)
Posted by Fistique on July 30, 2012 at 10:18 PM · Report this
Requiring them (dogs) to wear muzzles would be an improvement.
fyi, in London dogs are allowed on buses, but must wear a muzzle.
Posted by slugbiker on July 30, 2012 at 10:34 PM · Report this
I realize that comment threads at The Stranger can be expected to be a bit like the Wild West, but truly, I'm amazed and disturbed at the ignorance shown here. If people don't know better than to reject BSL in every form in progressive Seattle, what hope is there for the dogs of Denver and of the other cities and counties -- including, in our own state, the City of Everett and Snohomish County -- where they are discriminated against?

Requiring forced spay and neuter, muzzling, registration, special insurance policies, bans, or ANY OTHER FORM OF SPECIAL TREATMENT is saying that these dogs are different. They are not different. What they are is demonized and misrepresented. Shame on anyone here who is endorsing discrimination. Shame especially on the editors of The Stranger for their flippancy in framing this poll. Governments across the country, and in other nations as well, murder dogs and devastate their human families based on exactly this kind of easy dismissal of fair treatment.

There are people throughout the country fighting desperately to keep their dogs from being seized, incarcerated for months or years without due process, murdered, or otherwise treated "differently." The resources available to straighten out the poor thinking on display in this thread are extensive:

And that's just for starters.

I realize that many people simply don't understand what breed discrimination actually means. Please read some of these resources, and then imagine yourself in the place of a family with a loving and loved dog, that is TREATED DIFFERENTLY, simply because of its appearance.

Breed discrimination of any degree whatsoever is utterly wrong and must be fought by every decent person.

Posted by 40thousandleaves on July 30, 2012 at 10:37 PM · Report this
Ziggity 49
We're still really busy fighting this War on Cars - I'm not sure we have the resources for a War on Dogs.
Posted by Ziggity on July 30, 2012 at 10:48 PM · Report this
KJamesinSigHillCA 50
I think this is a bit silly--guns don't kill people, people kill people by using a gun the wrong way--dogs don't attack people just because they can, they attack because they think their territory is being invaded and they have an instinctive way of responding appropriately to that trespasser. It falls back onto the training given that dog by its owner--require dog training if the dog's temperament-by-breed is questionable--there are also plenty of "pretty" dogs (which I note she hasn't acted against) such as poodles (used for hunting boar), chihuahuas (the mexican "rat chaser"--oh, that's a hunter, too, right?), even Shuh Tzus and Lhasa Apsos which become very close to their owner/handlers and will bite when approached by others; will she ban all the "pretty" dogs too? Or was she just going to pop one in her purse when she goes to work?
Posted by KJamesinSigHillCA on July 30, 2012 at 11:28 PM · Report this
Breed specific laws unjustly target family pets, ripping them from loving homes, forcing them to their untimely death. This must stop. Therapy dogs, service animals, and military pets are not even safe. You dog does not have to be a pit type dog to be murdered! Discrimination and hate should not be tolerated.

Breed bans have been proven to be ineffective in combating dog bites and deaths. Strict laws on animal abuse, neglect, fighting, and leash laws do lower dog incidents. The cost of breed bans is also another reason to oppose them. The cost to tax payers can be over 3 million a year.

There are approximately 78.2 million owned dogs in the United States and on average there are about 30-35 dog bite fatalities per year in the US.
Posted by battered&bullied on July 31, 2012 at 12:06 AM · Report this
sirkowski 52
Kill all dogs. Kill them all.
Posted by sirkowski on July 31, 2012 at 12:46 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 53

You are either totally insane or the best example of Poe's law I have ever seen. Bringing up how it is unfair to discriminate against breeds of an animal that does not even have the faculties to understand discrimination or even care about it? Comparing it to discrimination against humans?

Genius (or insane).

Ban the damn breed in urban centers, no lost human life is worth one person's extremely selfish and irrational desire to own a dog with specific genetic markers and DNA lineage. The "prohibition does not work" line is crap when you are dealing with something that someone walks around outside for all to see.

Go to the pound and get the best breed there ever was: an unwanted mutt.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on July 31, 2012 at 7:13 AM · Report this
Baby Blue 54
@53 When is the last time you were at the pound? What do you think those "unwanted mutts" are?
Posted by Baby Blue on July 31, 2012 at 8:42 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 55
@54: Ok, for you and everyone who needs extra instruction, do not adopt a dog who is vicious or trying to bite/kill you. Also, chew food before you swallow, rather than try to ram the food items down your throat with a broom handle.

And actually, most dogs are at the pound because they were originally bought by morons who could not take care of them, not because they were vicious or attacked people. Those dogs are reconditioned before they are put out to be adopted, and if they are too far gone to be safe, they are put down or taken by people who can handle them. You do not know what you are talking about.

Posted by Theodore Gorath on July 31, 2012 at 9:13 AM · Report this
blip 56
@55 Right. But *a lot* of the dogs that are still considered adoptable are pits or pit mixes. I can't speak for Seattle (nor Baby Blue, but I'm pretty sure this is the point they were making) but that's the case here at the city shelter in SF.
Posted by blip on July 31, 2012 at 9:40 AM · Report this
Baby Blue 57
@56 Thank you, that's exactly what I was saying. The pound doesn't (intentionally) adopt out vicious dogs (they do testing to prevent that very thing), but most of the dogs in shelters are pits or pit mixes. It is pretty rare to find one that isn't.
Posted by Baby Blue on July 31, 2012 at 9:52 AM · Report this
Baby Blue 58
By the way, thanks for reminding me to chew before swallowing. I knew I was doing something wrong.
Posted by Baby Blue on July 31, 2012 at 9:53 AM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 59

There are several reasons I hold a stricter view than the authors of the two studies I cited:

1) I live in a city.

2) I'm not a conservative scientist practicing in a field whose default posture is cautionary and generally non-prescriptive, rather than founded on advocacy. That's their role as scientists, as it should be. That's not my role as a citizen.








10) I'm not batshit psycho like post 48

WARNING: Videos contain real and graphic violence.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on July 31, 2012 at 9:55 AM · Report this
blip 60
@59 Scientists' default posture is to draw sound conclusions based on the evidence they presented. The discussion section of a scientific paper is considered an open space to offer suggestions for applications of its findings. You don't have to agree with those suggestions, but unless you work in the same field it's rather presumptuous of you to hold up someone else's data as supporting evidence for a completely different conclusion than the scientists who did the work.
Posted by blip on July 31, 2012 at 10:23 AM · Report this
Are we going to try to ban certain races next or handicapped people? There is no reason to ban certain breeds this is just plain nuts!!!!!
Posted by dominoebarb on July 31, 2012 at 10:44 AM · Report this
BSL is the most RIDICULOUS thing I've ever heard of! ANY dog will fight if it's FORCED to! A Chihuahua will fight if it's FORCED to! In fact, why don't you check the stats on how many Chihuahua bites happen every year?
Posted by Ellentis on July 31, 2012 at 11:01 AM · Report this
keshmeshi 64
BSL is the most RIDICULOUS thing I've ever heard of! ANY dog will fight if it's FORCED to!

Tell that to any child whose face has been ripped off by a pitbull. That child was just asking for it, right?

P.S. Fuck you and your fucking dog(s).
Posted by keshmeshi on July 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM · Report this
balderdash 65
@59, point of order, "Here, go watch a whole bunch of videos because I am too lazy to make my argument in words" is never a winning debate strategy. I am not wasting my lunch break doing video homework to support your evidence-deprived appeal to emotion.

I am also not going to reply by posting a hundred links to videos of people petting puppies because I am entirely too lazy for that level of spiteful smartassery.
Posted by balderdash on July 31, 2012 at 12:59 PM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 66
I already made my argument in words, fuckwad.

You're the one who entered the thread not aware of the statistics of fatal dog attacks and asked for references. Oh, and now you're too important to do your homework or even bother to use the google machine.

Go argue with a poodle.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on July 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM · Report this
Blaming the owner after the fact does not help the victim, It doesn't prevent the attacks because pit bull owners tend to blame the victim and never associate the attack story with their dog. Suing the owner does nothing if the owner has no money.Having insurance is a MUST! The last thing these poor disfigured horribly injured people need to worry about is how they are going to pay their medical expenses and other bills.I hate how people baby these dogs and pretend they aren't dangerous.Being dangerous and being vicious are 2 different things.While your dog may not be vicious THEY ARE ALL DANGEROUS.Don't compare them to small dogs."With great power comes great responsibility" These dogs are extremely powerful.All dogs are not the same, it is not racist (dumbest comparison ever btw) or because of hate or ignorance that people are afraid of these animals.It is because if this dog turns it will kick your a**.If it locks on to your child,YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT LET GO! If you want one,you HAVE to be willing to accept that extra responsibility or the pit bull is NOT the dog for you.PS People cannot raise their neighbors dog.So laws need to be in place to protect us and ensure the owner of the dog is being responsible BEFORE it attacks some one. If people refuse to have breed regulations then I guess i am a yes for the ban.
Posted by pinkninja1 on July 31, 2012 at 3:49 PM · Report this
balderdash 70
@66, will the poodle understand that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim? Because that would actually be preferable. Poodles are pretty chill, generally.
Posted by balderdash on July 31, 2012 at 5:48 PM · Report this
Both breed bans and training requirements do little to mitigate IRRESPONSIBLE dog ownership. Ban bully breeds, and the people who disrespect their dogs will just simply refuse to register them (not like they register them now). Require training, and you get the same result, except that already responsible owners will complete the training. Require spaying/neutering, same result with responsible owners living up to the regulations and irresponsible owners just doing as they please.

Therefore, it's best to harshly punish irresponsible owners and institute monitoring. Your dog bites someone, you're punished harshly, you can't own another dog, and the authorities know where you are and WILL check up on you. I know, I know, that's reactive and people want something proactive, but the "proactive" option here is pretty useless. All it does is prevent responsible owners from having good won't stop irresponsible owners from having bully breeds, not training or controlling their dogs properly, or allowing their dogs to go unfixed and breed. Even if we poured boatloads of money into dog enforcement, it still wouldn't be enough to prevent the irresponsibility before-the-fact.

Also, the biggest terror of a dog in my neighborhood is a dachshund/collie mix. He's not fixed, he's allowed to roam, and he has never been properly socialized to people OR dogs. So when he runs up and starts nipping at my dog, who won't even defend himself except for growling, I have a heck of a time getting away from him without getting bitten myself. Since I HIGHLY doubt their dog is current on his vax, this is a MAJOR problem, and they should be punished for failing to control their dog the same as any owner of a bully breed who didn't take responsibility for their dog. While he's unlikely to instantaneously kill me or my dog, *I'M* at risk from this dog being at large and unvaccinated (my dog is current on vax, so he's safe, if not comfortable, at least).
Posted by Ms. D on July 31, 2012 at 6:02 PM · Report this
FWIW, my dog is an 18-pound schnauzer, so I'm not arguing my "big, bad" dog is intimidated by a little yapper. He's little himself, though not much of a yapper.
Posted by Ms. D on July 31, 2012 at 6:08 PM · Report this
Psttttt 68 it is the same thing as banning a race it may not be banning a dog race but it is banning a dog breed hence the same ideal. I have a 116 pound mix pit/lab/dalmatian who is dog aggressive and you know why? It's not her breed its the person who had her before me that locked her in her kennel as a young pup and let her drink her own pee and never took her for walks or gave her any loving and yes she has fought with our other dogs and I have learned how to control the house so there are no fights. Yes I can handle 116 pound dog its called me being the pack leader. No I am not abusive. I do not hit, scream or neglect but I am a strong pack leader. People need training if they want to own a dog and learn how to become the Pack leader. It's not the breed its the owner
Posted by dominoebarb on July 31, 2012 at 8:37 PM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 74
Right, because biology simply doesn't exist.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on July 31, 2012 at 9:34 PM · Report this
73 It is not racial. Dogs are not a race. duh. This is not rocket science the only difference between different races of people is the color of their skin.Obviously that is not the case with dogs. It has NOTHING to do with fur color. Its about size and strength.and the way a dog attacks. Do you think pit bulls know what breed regulations are? do you think a pit bull would be offended that there are certain rules he must follow that the neighbors smaller dog or cat does not? THE REGULATIONS ARE ABOUT THE OWNERS! the rules are set in place for the PEOPLE to follow. lol. wow.
Posted by pinkninja1 on July 31, 2012 at 9:40 PM · Report this
Breedism is discrimination based on appearance, based on opinion. That is why it's called canine racism. BSL is never about DNA tests . . . it always allows an animal control officer to discriminate against a dog based on his/her OPINION of the dog's appearance. It's subjective, steeped in bias and bigotry, and leads to extraordinary amounts of violence against dogs.

A forthcoming documentary, "Beyond the Myth," due for release in October, examines the stereotyping of pit bulls. The trailer, a little over 2 minutes long, is available here:

In the trailer, there is reference to the media's role in stereotyping pit bulls. You can see perfect examples of the problem not only on the page we are on right now -- which presents discrimination as morally equivalent to fairness -- but also on The Stranger's election endorsements page. I looked up the endorsements, as I always do, to learn more about the candidates and the issues. And there, staring at me, was a snarling dog. I'm guessing The Stranger's editors didn't mean this drawing to be of a poodle.…

Once you become aware of the stereotyping, you see it everywhere. Stereotyping leads to discrimination, and discrimination creates violence. BSL must be opposed.
Posted by 40thousandleaves on July 31, 2012 at 11:05 PM · Report this
LEE. 77
so humans decide to play God and manipulate nature...and now their creation seeks to destroy them? I wonder if any science fiction writers have ever tackled this topic before?

personally, I'm rooting for the dogs. we bred monsters on a hair trigger and now we want them gone. maybe they're not the problem.
Posted by LEE. on August 1, 2012 at 12:08 AM · Report this
If Seattle bans all "Pit Bulls" because one of them "MIGHT" go and bite somebody, then they need to ban all African Americans because one of them "MIGHT" go out and rape and murder somebody, OH and don't forget to ban all Muslim Americans too, because one of them "MIGHT" go hijack another plane and crash it into a building. Get real people. Stop sterotyping, because it's ignorant. I've been bitten by more Chihuahuas and Miniature Schnauzers (INCLUDING MY OWN), but I've NEVER been bitten by a Pit Bull, never even had one growl at me.

Posted by DogMom3710 on August 1, 2012 at 2:45 AM · Report this
As a trainer, I know that any dog can bite, so it's important to focus on behavior, not on breed. Rarely does a dog that is properly socialized, trained, and managed on a leash, ever bite anyone. Most dogs that bite are un-neutered male dogs that are roughly in the 9 month to 2 year old age bracket whose owners have either not correctly socialized and trained them, or have used aggressive training methods. A 2009 study showed that the dogs of aggressive owners are more aggressive. So, clearly this is a people problem, not a dog problem. We need stricter enforcement of leash laws, and we need to educate the public about EARLY socialization and the use of modern positive training.
Posted by DogDiva on August 1, 2012 at 4:59 AM · Report this
79 saying that a dog who in the wrong hands could hurt someone is nothing like saying "we need to ban all African Americans because they might rape someone" your comparison makes me sick and IS RACIST!" the point i was making is that you pit bull advocates keep saying its not the dog its the owners? so lets put some laws in place to make sure these owners are doing right by these dogs AND their neighbors.Its not about what dog can bite and what dog bites more.Pitbulls are killing people AND being over bred. Nobody can do anything about it because you guys keep acting like your protecting the from bsl YOU ARE KILLING these dogs. Anybody and their mother right now can get to pits breed them and breed them again with their pups in dirty horrible conditions.These are pro pit people doing this. One of the laws people who support bsl are asking for is a special licence to breed them,which would ensure a healthy happy start to life and a way for police to shut down and punish these abusive breeders. BSL does not mean ban, it doesnt have to. If you guys would get over this stupid (racism thing) which your dog does not care about btw, we could work on the dogs reputation by dealing with BAD OWNERS> Punishing after the fact is great and im all for it but preventing these horrific injuries and deaths are what im interested in.
Posted by pinkninja1 on August 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 82
@76: There is nothing wrong about discriminating against animals. We also discriminate against mountain lions, tigers, wolf packs, elephants, hippos, bears, and alligators; all animals which would be pretty dangerous (or illegal) for an average schmoe to keep as pets in a city.

@79: You suck at life.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on August 1, 2012 at 11:51 AM · Report this
#81 suggests that it's okay to require special licensing to breed pit bulls, and implies that somehow the problems that pit bulls have are due to backyard breeders.

In fact, the problems that pit bulls have are:

-- Being constantly stereotyped as "different"
-- Being demonized by the media and, as a result, by the general public
-- Being kept hidden in no-public-allowed areas of shelters, and then killed, by shelter directors and BSL instead of being marketed to responsible, middle-class adopters
-- Being deliberately made too expensive for adoption by BSL that requires fencing and insurance

Pit bulls are dogs, and dogs are overwhelmingly safe. Serious dog bite cases are rare. They correlate strongly to poverty, to not supervising children (who are usually the victims), and to keeping dogs on chains or otherwise not socializing them. They actually have nothing to do with breed.

The only hope for these wonderful dogs is for them to be marketed to responsible, middle-class adopters, the vast majority of whom spay and neuter their pets.

BSL that is presented as "precautionary" or "just a little bit" or "this aspect would be okay" is unacceptable. It is wrong to claim that pit bull owners need special regulation because the dogs are special, i.e., different. They are not different. They are TREATED AS IF they are different, which is not the same thing at all. BSL of any kind, to any degree, is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong.

Posted by 40thousandleaves on August 1, 2012 at 1:33 PM · Report this
Nah. The breed bans have racists overtones. Definitely classist overtones, for sure.

Most breed ban goofballs are entitled white people and I bet the majority of pit owners in most American urban areas are minorities (until very recently, anyway). Specifically young black men. Even more specifically young poor black men that dress in those scary hoodies and baggy trousers.

I guarantee you when most of the pearl clutchers picture a pit bull they ALSO picture some gangsta'd out kid or meth-head in a wife beater right out of an episode of C.O.P.S.
Posted by tkc on August 1, 2012 at 1:52 PM · Report this
@84, agreed. (And I heart you.)

As you point out, more middle-class adopters are warming to the pit bull. A charming and funny blog about life with pits is Two Pitties in the City, written by 30something husband-and-wife schoolteachers, which charts the adventures of two hilarious dogs in Chicago. Two Pitties is part of a blog ring called the Pittie Posse, and we will see many more of these kinds of owners in the future.

Also, a PSA in support of the current effort to repeal Miami-Dade's 20-year BSL shows that middle-class pit bull adopters aren't always young. The vote in Miami-Dade is on August 14th. Out of 400 breeds of dogs, 75 are banned or restricted in Miami-Dade. So if you think a little bit of BSL is okay, you're wrong. This is where it leads.
Posted by 40thousandleaves on August 1, 2012 at 3:21 PM · Report this
Several people have pointed out that any dog, regardless of breed, is capable of biting and doing damage. Others have pointed out that a bullie's unique strength and jaw pressure make a bullie bite more dangerous than, say, that of a Golden Retriever. Both are true.

I don't think breed specific bans are right, or particularly effective. And I agree with whoever said dog owners should be held liable - criminally and financially - for the damage their dogs do. We hold gun owners responsible when their toddler accidentally shoots the mailman, why not do the same for Fido?
Posted by Hannah in Portland on August 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM · Report this
They should ban the assholes who make the dogs fight! Not the dogs!
Posted by Azure on August 1, 2012 at 5:56 PM · Report this
@86 Pit's don't have any more "jaw pressure" than any other breed of a similar size. It's a myth.

But you're correct that Pits are, pound for pound, incredibly athletic and strong. More so than most breeds. And why people love them.

So the issue becomes not the bite itself, but the enormous strength of the Pit's neck and legs and their tendency to shake when they bite.

This action, and the Pit's tenacity and high pain threshold, are what can make a Pit attack devastating. It's a potential that owners need to cop to. Pit owners then need to take the steps necessary to ensure the dogs are trained and socialized. That's what should be legislated. Once pit's are trained and socialized they are fine.

But a ban? It's impractical, idiotic, and yes, probably rooted in racism.
Posted by tkc on August 1, 2012 at 6:26 PM · Report this
@88 -- So now anyone who's afraid of being attacked by a pitbull is racist?

I saw an unleashed pitbull at Pike and 7th yesterday being fed by a homeless woman. Even a number of people on this thread who oppose a ban have conceded that pitbulls are stronger and potentially more dangerous than other breeds if they aren't cared for properly.

@87 -- Several people have already made the point that we can't ban idiots who don't care for their dogs. Wouldn't a more practical solution be to ban a breed that's been shown to be extremely vicious when neglected?
Posted by Amanda on August 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM · Report this
Why don't we outlaw black labs then too ??My daughter who is now 16 yrs old was 15 months old and got attacked by my uncles black Labrador retriever (all american family dog..right ??) got 38 stitches in her face and that's not including the defense wounds to her hands I know have 2 pit bulls a root and a beagle and a puggle (the only dog who bites of course is the puggle who was abused ?? And now I have a 5 yr old (who loves furbaby sisters my 2 pit all you pit bull haters can kiss my ass !! I can speak from both perspectives (unlike you idiot pit bulls haters who think you know it all)..its how you raise them ....considering how many children are harmed my men (pedophiles) every year friend 2 yr old daughter was raped and murdered by Scott Dean Harberts (who was on death row here in Oregon..but now is as free as a bird)because the courts overturned his conviction all because his case took too long to go to trial !!! Can we ban men too ??? You pit bulls haters sicken me
Posted by HeatherMilwaukieore on August 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM · Report this
# 83 what I said is backyard breeding is one problem both advocates and anti pits agree on. The special licencing i spoke of was as much for the dogs benefit as anyone, but hey if its more important to you that dogs are all treated the same and your happy with those dogs being abused and living in squalor good for you.Im not so cool with it. Im sure the pit bulls appreciate that your fighting to keep them abused. (yay you!)Just as long as no one treats them different! lol. P.S.They are different, all dogs are NOT the same, some are big some are small... to say an angry small dog poses the same threat as an angry pit bull is beyond dumb.You should have had a v8.
Posted by pinkninja1 on August 1, 2012 at 10:46 PM · Report this
Do not judge the 4 legged animal, judge the 2 legged animal holding the leash! I have 3 male pits. They are all huge lap dogs. They are very socialized with other dogs, all have been rescued from horrible situations. Yet, they show only love and playful energy. So for all of you pit haters, I suggest educating yourself on the breed. In the 1900's they were used as nannies for kids. That's right, parents left their kids with their pit. Because a pit will protect their owner. They will protect children from harm. Do your research, stop listening to the idiot fear mongers! And help change laws to go after the low life's that fight these dogs. That abuse these dogs. It's not the dog! It's the human!!!!!!
Posted by Furrykidsrule on August 2, 2012 at 9:26 AM · Report this
@91 is right. Not all breeds are the same. Some require more training than others. Some are ill-suited to cities.

Dog owners should train their dogs properly and they should be responsible for any negligence. If the three-year old was running loose and got into the fenced-in yard with the pit bull, then it's the parents' fault. If the pit bull was running loose and got into the yard where the kid was playing, then it's the dog owners' fault. If everyone was in the park, then it could have gone either way.

There should be awareness programs so that people know that certain breeds require more training than others. And IF AND ONLY IF pit bull attacks become so frequent that action must be taken, regulations should be passed to require training certificates as part of dog owner licenses for certain breeds.
Posted by DRF on August 2, 2012 at 10:58 AM · Report this
wilbur@work 94
be easier just to neuter all gangsters, and kids of gangsters. Only way to be sure.
Posted by wilbur@work on August 2, 2012 at 12:03 PM · Report this
A startlingly large percentage of dog bite victimes are children. If you watch children interact with dogs, you will know that this is not because dogs target children - it is clearly because children frequently behave inappropriately toward dogs and dogs feel threatened.

Now, does a responsible dog owner teach her dog that he must accept without aggression a strange small person approaching face first, shrilly screaming "DOGGIE!", and reaching towards eyes and ears with both hands? Yes a truly responsible dog owner does, but let's be honest that's not most dog owners.

An important part of dog bite prevention is teaching children how to approach (and how not to approach) dogs.
Posted by Thisbe on August 2, 2012 at 12:09 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 96
SLOG needs to do a story on what Seattle residents are planning to do with their dog poo now that plastic bags are banned.

Maybe a poll?
Posted by Will in Seattle on August 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM · Report this
amyinnewyork 97
Breed bans DO have racist overtones.

Also: Being bitten by ANY dog is relatively unlikely, and fatal dog bites are extremely rare. You are much more likely to get struck by lightening.

Also: It is my understanding that the ACTUAL breed of a dog that bites or otherwise causes problems is never recorded. It is PERCEIVED breed. Famous story about a woman getting her lab (famously family-friendly, gentle, obedient dogs) taken away because her neighbor had some beef with her and told the powers that be that said dog was a pit.

Re: "Fighting" breeds in the city: I live in NY (Manhattan), a much bigger city than Seattle, and I have a pit mix (mostly pit and almost always perceived as pit). I live in a studio apartment. It is absolutely not a problem, and my dog has a great life and has never harmed any human or animal (she has been attacked by other dogs - "safe" breeds - twice and both times just froze and let them bite her until their owners pulled them off). The reason bigger dogs can be fine in a city is: NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE LAZY. We go on runs and walks, and to the many parks and off-leash areas. Seattle has better dog parks than we do, plus nearby places to hike and otherwise get exercise.

Anyway: There are bad dogs of any breed, and good dogs of any breed. Breed specific legislation seems pretty illogical to me. If dog bites are a real problem, all dogs should be given temperament tests and the dogs banned should be the dogs who are actually aggressive or dangerous.
Posted by amyinnewyork on August 4, 2012 at 8:23 AM · Report this
amyinnewyork 98
Breed bans DO have racist overtones.

Also: Being bitten by ANY dog is relatively unlikely, and fatal dog bites are extremely rare. You are much more likely to get struck by lightening.

Also: It is my understanding that the ACTUAL breed of a dog that bites or otherwise causes problems is never recorded. It is PERCEIVED breed. Famous story about a woman getting her lab (famously family-friendly, gentle, obedient dogs) taken away because her neighbor had some beef with her and told the powers that be that said dog was a pit.

Re: "Fighting" breeds in the city: I live in NY (Manhattan), a much bigger city than Seattle, and I have a pit mix (mostly pit and almost always perceived as pit). I live in a studio apartment. It is absolutely not a problem, and my dog has a great life and has never harmed any human or animal (she has been attacked by other dogs - "safe" breeds - twice and both times just froze and let them bite her until their owners pulled them off). The reason bigger dogs can be fine in a city is: NOT ALL PEOPLE ARE LAZY. We go on runs and walks, and to the many parks and off-leash areas. Seattle has better dog parks than we do, plus nearby places to hike and otherwise get exercise.

Anyway: There are bad dogs of any breed, and good dogs of any breed. Breed specific legislation seems pretty illogical to me. If dog bites are a real problem, all dogs should be given temperament tests and the dogs banned should be the dogs who are actually aggressive or dangerous.
Posted by amyinnewyork on August 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM · Report this
I have to add this comment-- Pit Bulls are not a breed, they're a type. Breeds would include Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, etc. -- An American Bulldog crossed with a Lab would probably look exactly like an APBT ---

Bully Breed dogs WERE the all American, friendly family dog. Even those forced to fight or those bred to be other dog aggressive should be good with people -- that's two different things.

People need to know their dog's background breeds so that they can care for them properly and responsibly, Bully Breeds are not for everyone-- but then, neither are Labs or Goldens. I am terrified of a lab/Golden cross who lives in my neighborhood and breaks out periodically -- she tries to attack my dogs (leash walked only) and is one of the meanest dogs I've ever met.

You can't, and shouldn't judge a dog by it's apparent breed.
Posted by Lileem on August 5, 2012 at 9:16 PM · Report this
So now anyone who's afraid of being attacked by a pitbull is racist?

@89 This is an idiotic distortion of what has been said.

BREED BANS notoriously have racist roots because they disproportionately effect and criminalize the legal activities of people of color based upon the illegal behavior os a few individuals.

A fear of being attacked by a pit bull, while exaggerated, irrational, and possibly pathologically paranoid—depending on what you mean by "fear"—is not racist. It's just that more black people tended to have pitbulls.

There is a clear difference and you fucking well know it.

It's interesting that as the fallacious reasons for this ban are systematically dismantled with facts— IE: The Myth that Pits have more jaw power; The Myth that Pits bite more often; The Myth that Pits are naturally agressive to people—All proven bullshit. Instead of admitting: "Hey, I didn't know that pit pulls didn't have more jaw power than other breeds!" We are simply confronted with more fallacious exaggerations. It's like a cognitive dissonance Olympics.
Posted by tkc on August 6, 2012 at 2:35 PM · Report this
Ursusarctos 101
Like many modern breeds, it is impossible to be completely sure of the details of the American Pit Bull Terrier's long history. However, many pit bull enthusiasts believe the origins of the breed can be traced back to antiquity and the Molossian family of dogs. The Molossian family of dogs bears the name of the people with whom they were most often associated - the Molossi tribe, a group of people who lived in ancient Greece and favored the use of robust, muscular dogs in warfare. Officially termed canus molossi (dogs of the Molossi), these animals were reknowned for their fierceness, and for their innate ability to intimidate the enemies of the tribe.During this same time period, it is also believed that the Molossian dogs were used for other purposes. In fact, early Phoenician traders may even have used the Molossians as a bargaining item in their commercial transactions. The Molossians gave rise to another family of dogs known as the Mastiffs. The early Britons employed a variation of the Mastiffs as pugnaces - fighting dogs that could be used in either a guardianship or warfare capacity. When the Roman emperor Claudius defeated the Briton Chief Caractacus in 50 AD, the powerful pugnaces piqued his interest. He quickly seized on the opportunity and began exporting select quantities of the dogs back home to satiate his countrymen's appetite for entertainment in the arenas and coliseums of Rome.Once in Rome, the British dogs were crossbred with their Roman counterparts. From the years 50 AD to 410 AD, the breed was widely disseminated throughout the Roman Empire for use as fighting dogs. Along the way they mixed with other indigenous breeds throughout Europe, creating a genetic melting pot for the bulldogs that are thought to have been the immediate antecedents of the American Pit Bull Terrier. I am disabled and ride the bus every day, I avoid Pit Bulls, if one is getting on, I take my service dog and get off, ditto If I see one on the Bus, I wait, Wapasha is two now, and has been attacked 6 times on Metro, 5 by Pits, and once by a cross Pit/mastif. Breed ban, I dont think thats a good idea, and any dog can bite, but not any dog was trained for war! and not just to fight, no trained to kill. so the best answer right now is to avoid pits if you can, and also to avoid Ellen Taft, as she is just as dangerous as her arch nemisis.
Posted by Ursusarctos on September 8, 2012 at 3:10 AM · Report this
To the person that keeps classifying pits and rotts as " fighting breed" are you stupid or just severly mis lead? I am a proud rott owner and anyone that does the homework before owning surely knows that these dogs were bred for pulliing carts...hence " working breed " . My rott does not have an agrressive bone in his body and i would trust him with the lives of my children more than anybody else. So get off your high horse and actually educate yourself on the subject before throwing untrue and unfound speculation and opinions around. Fighting breed? I dont profess to know about pit bulls but how dare you throw down on a breed like a rottie who would die for his family if need be. Your an idiot thru and thru
Posted by roxx64 on October 28, 2012 at 9:16 PM · Report this

Add a comment

In an effort to keep the discourse respectful and on topic, commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy