A group working to ban potentially dangerous dogs from
Seattle
has abruptly canceled plans to submit a citizen
initiative after
receiving threatening e-mails from pit-bull enthusiasts, group members
say. “You should be publicly executed for your actions against our
beloved pets,” one e-mail reads. “You all ought to be neutered,” says
another.
“The harassment was so bad, we decided it wouldn’t be safe to send
out signature gatherers,” says Ellen Taft, a spokeswoman for Families
and Dogs Against Fighting Breeds (FDAFB).
As the FDAFB regroups, pit bull advocates, organized as Families
Against Breed Bans (FABB), are scrambling to downplay a recent attack
by a dog owned by one FABB member, Faith Hynoski, and her husband Joel.
The pit-bull supporters at FABB did little to promote their cause when
one FABB member wrote The Stranger a letter, complete
with smiley emoticons, threatening to sue the paper if it revealed
Faith Hynoski to be the owner of the pit bull that attacked another
dog; the letter went on to warn that “it would be advisable to run
NOTHING pertaining to the events of Sunday, September [7],” the date
the attack took place.
The move to ban fighting breeds comes after a number of grisly,
high-profile attacks around the country, including several in the
Seattle area. Most recently, two pit bulls savagely attacked a
71-year-old SeaTac woman who is recovering from shredded ears, a
crushed right arm, and a broken jaw. More than a dozen U.S. cities have
already banned or severely restricted pit-bull ownership, which has led
groups like FDAFB to push for an initiative that would ban fighting
breeds, including pit bulls, from Seattle. According to the Seattle
Animal Shelter, pit bulls make up just 4 percent of Seattle’s
registered dog population but account for nearly a quarter of all
attacks.
While the FDAFB’s initiative wouldn’t have required current
fighting-breed owners to have their dogs euthanized, it would have
required owners to muzzle, insure, and have microchips implanted in
their pets. The measure would have been funded by a tax on pet food and
luxury pet items such as Halloween costumes and diamond-studded
collars.
“Most people are ignorant about how to handle a dog,” says Taft, who
likens FDAFB’s proposal to handgun registration. “If everybody put
muzzles on their pit bulls, we wouldn’t have a problem.”
But while Taft and her group are working to limit the pit-bull
population, groups like FABB are doing everything they can to keep
fighting breeds legal.
“I think [FDAFB is] a support group run amok,” says FABB member
Julie Russell, who owns two pit bulls. She blames the breed’s poor
image on an overzealous media, which she believes overreports pit-bull
attacks.
In defense of pit bulls, Russell argues, somewhat
counterintuitively, that the only reason pit-bull incidents have spiked
is the breed’s increasing popularity. “As [the pit bull] is becoming
more popular, of course you’re going to see an increased amount of
activity,” Russell says.
One such incident was the attack on September 7, during the grand
opening of the Zak and Zoe pet store in Phinney Ridge. A large crowd of
owners and their leashed dogs were milling around the store when,
according to a report from the Seattle Animal Shelter, the Hynoskis’
pit bull Zack attacked a yellow Labrador named Sam. The report says the
Hynoskis’ pit bull became aggressive, wrapped its jaws around Sam’s
neck, and would not let go.
After the attack, Sam’s owner, Irene Mitri, called the Seattle
Animal Shelter, which issued the Hynoskis a $269 citation for what
shelter director Don Jordan calls “an unprovoked attack.” While it
initially appeared Sam was not injured, Mitri says a veterenarian later
found “scabbed puncture wounds” on Sam’s neck. The report also says
that Joel Hynoski told a Seattle Animal Shelter officer that he was
guilty and would pay the fine.
The Hynoskis did not respond to phone and email requests for
comment, but Russell says they plan to appeal the citation.
According to the animal shelter’s Jordan, the shelter had to put
down 300 pit bulls or pit-bull mixes that were brought into shelters.
“They’re just so dangerous we don’t want to place them with the
public,” he says.
Despite the fact that pit bulls account for more than twice as many
bites as any other breed, Jordan isn’t sure a ban on fighting dogs will
be effective. “All dogs have the potential to bite, [and] all dogs have
the potential to fight,” Jordan says. “I think we need to focus on
legislation on all breeds out there. We focus on the deed and not the
breed.”
Although FDAFB has pulled its initiative, the group is now lobbying
the city council to amend Seattle’s dog laws. “As far as I’m concerned,
we don’t allow dogfights, [so] why are we allowing fighting breeds?”
Taft says. 
What total Pit BULLshit!
How many little kids and grandmas have to get chewed up before you EGOMANIAC RETARDS get it???
These dogs are a known menace in urban areas. The only people who can safely own pit bulls live in rural areas with lots of SPACE.
Thuglife BS poser attitude and pitbulls don’t make you a badass, just a dumbass.
If you had some respect instead of provoking everyone with deliberately menacing animals and behavior, the rest of us wouldn’t have to carry our sidearms like we were still in Afghanistan.
Sgt Slaughter
5th SOG
i had a pit bull who was found on the street of seattle, nearly dead from horrible abuse by someone who thought it a great idea to cut him with a knife all up and down his legs and face. in the five years i had him (he recently died), he was the center of my life-i loved him. he loved absolutely every person he met, despite abuse he nearly died from. he got on well with many dogs and had several “best dog friends”. but he wasn’t an angel. i kept my eye on him and his body language to keep him out of trouble *at all times*. if another dog gave him attitude, mostly he would ignore them–but not always. anyone who does not think their dog OF ANY BREED is capable of causing harm to another dog is a fool. Bruno was the light of my life, but i didn’t expect him not to be a dog.
As a person with a non-pit bull dog…..Banning the breed won’t work. The few who want aggressive dogs will just get another breed and train them to be agressive. ANY breed can be trained to be aggressive. I do wish people would be held more accountable for having their dogs off leash. I run into a lot of people who act like I am being unreasonable for asking them to leash their dog in public places. I would like to see backyard breeders stopped. I think a law to mandate most dogs to be neutered/spayed would be great!
Interesting comment about Dogsbite
[quote]… The author is not remotely interested in accuracy-I have sent several comments correcting ‘facts’ from having been on scene-and they never appear. So the author, when confronted by info that differs, just covers his/her ears and yells “La La La I can’t hear you”…[/quote]
Read the rest of Investigator Jim Crosby`s comment here
http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2…
[quote]How many little kids and grandmas have to get chewed up before you EGOMANIAC RETARDS get it???[/quote]
How many nonsense postings before YOU get it?
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil…
[quote]Washington
Are Dogs A Real Danger ?
Over the past 43 years (1965 -present) there have been 8 fatal dog attacks in Washington State, or approximately one death every five years.
At least six (6) different breeds/types of dogs have been involved in the 8 fatalities….
…Furthermore, in 2005, nine (9) children died as a result of neglect or abuse in Washington State.
*****In a SINGLE YEAR, 2005, more Washington children died as a result of abuse or neglect than the TOTAL of ALL children killed by dog attacks in Washington State over the last 43 years*****…..
So, are dogs a real danger? In fact, people in the State of Washington routinely accept far greater risks from ATV’s, bicycles, boats, and swimming pools than any that are associated with companion animals. [/quote]
I own a pitbull and she’s a great dog. She’s an angel with my four year old niece and eight year old nephew. She doesn’t seem fond of big dogs, but is very tolerant with my neighbor’s small dog. I rescued my dog from an intersection at 2am in the middle of the Michael Vick controversy. On our many walks we encountered all kinds of people, some of whom were wary but all of whom ended up loving Stella and thanking me for giving a home to an obviously deserving animal. Pets, like people, deserve to be judged on a case by case basis.
The first few weeks of a newborn puppy’s life are crucial to its future development. What happens to a puppy during those all-important first weeks can often determine whether a dog will lead a normal, healthy life or a life that is wrought with illness or behavioral problems. Besides health problems, the social and psychological development of a puppy also occurs during those all-important first weeks of life. Socialization in a puppy occurs during the period between 4 and 12 weeks of age. It is during this time period that a dog is most susceptible to training and establishes all the necessary responses to its social environment. For example, if it is not exposed to humans during this time period, it will have extreme difficulty adjusting to humans and interacting with them later in life. Likewise, if a puppy does not have a chance to interact with other animals (e.g. its littermates) during this time period, it will have difficulty getting along with other animals throughout its lifetime.
Approximately 50% of fatal attacks by dogs are done disproportionately by rescued, re-homed or shelter dogs. I say disproportionately because the categories of rescued, re-homed and shelter dogs only make up about 15-17% of all dogs. The total number of fatal injuries is a small number to begin with, but to find that more than 50% of those injuries involve re-homed dogs is alarming.
This is not because the dogs are bad, but because it’s impossible to tell what the dogs have already been exposed to (especially during those crucial first weeks), and it is much harder to mold the behavior of a pet when you don’t know what it has been through already (e.g. what fears it’s already developed); and that is the clear disadvantage of a re-homed, rescued or shelter dog: You usually don’t know what their background consists of. It has already been shown that owners relinquishing dogs to shelters are less likely to disclose owner-aggression by the dog, because they don’t want to decrease the dog’s chances of getting a home. Unfortunately, many dogs are surrendered, re-homed or placed in shelters because they have faults; behavior faults, temperament problems, or other issues. The sad truth is; an animal with a good temperament and health is not usually placed in a shelter.
Does this mean we should ban adopted, rescue, and shelter dogs? NO!
The first few weeks of a newborn puppy’s life are crucial to its future development. What happens to a puppy during those all-important first weeks can often determine whether a dog will lead a normal, healthy life or a life that is wrought with illness or behavioral problems. Besides health problems, the social and psychological development of a puppy also occurs during those all-important first weeks of life. Socialization in a puppy occurs during the period between 4 and 12 weeks of age. It is during this time period that a dog is most susceptible to training and establishes all the necessary responses to its social environment. For example, if it is not exposed to humans during this time period, it will have extreme difficulty adjusting to humans and interacting with them later in life. Likewise, if a puppy does not have a chance to interact with other animals (e.g. its littermates) during this time period, it will have difficulty getting along with other animals throughout its lifetime.
Approximately 50% of fatal attacks by dogs are done disproportionately by rescued, re-homed or shelter dogs. I say disproportionately because the categories of rescued, re-homed and shelter dogs only make up about 15-17% of all dogs. The total number of fatal injuries is a small number to begin with, but to find that more than 50% of those injuries involve re-homed dogs is alarming.
This is not because the dogs are bad, but because it’s impossible to tell what the dogs have already been exposed to (especially during those crucial first weeks), and it is much harder to mold the behavior of a pet when you don’t know what it has been through already (e.g. what fears it’s already developed); and that is the clear disadvantage of a re-homed, rescued or shelter dog: You usually don’t know what their background consists of. It has already been shown that owners relinquishing dogs to shelters are less likely to disclose owner-aggression by the dog, because they don’t want to decrease the dog’s chances of getting a home. Unfortunately, many dogs are surrendered, re-homed or placed in shelters because they have faults; behavior faults, temperament problems, or other issues. The sad truth is; an animal with a good temperament and health is not usually placed in a shelter.
Does this mean we should ban adopted, rescued, and shelter dogs? NO!
I find this whole drama distressing. I once saw a golden retriever tear open another dog’s leg in a fight. The attacked dog had to have her wounded leg stapled shut. That’s not newsworthy, but if a pit bull did the same, it might just get reported simply because of the breed involved. The media sensationalizes pit bull attacks to an irresponsible extent, often failing to provide any context regarding the dog’s background and under-reporting incidents involving other breeds. My guess is that someone raising pit bulls for dog fighting or as attack dogs isn’t going to follow FDAFB’s proposed regulations anyways. The losers will mostly be responsible dog owners, family pets, and adoptable shelter dogs. After all, “pit bull” is not even a breed, and there is many a mutt that looks pit bull-ish but may or may not have any fighting breed in its ancestry. Strengthening penalties
Despite my opposition to this ban, I find the conduct of some of these pit bull “supporters” to be downright childish. Can’t we all have an intelligent conversation about this issue? Something needs to be done in the wake of these horrendous attacks. I think regulations that more heavily punish the owners of dangerous dogs, aggressive spay/neuter campaigns, increased enforcement of leash laws, etc. can go a long way towards preventing attacks without harming many innocent dogs. (And for the record, I’ve never owned a pit bull).
Hello. Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.
I am from East and now teach English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Moscow would visibly but synthroid.”
Regards 😀 Marli.
Do we deny what dogs were bred for? Some were bred for hunting, some for herding, some for guarding. So why deny what the pits were bred to do? And other pit types were bred for viciousness such in the sport of bull baiting. These sports that these dogs were bred to do are illegal. Why aren’t the dogs illegal as well? And I agree, if one didn’t support a ban before reading all these comments from pit supporters, after reading their comments, one would definitely not want these people owning these breeds. I say ban.
Boxers, also came from bull baiting bloodlines, as did the American Bulldog and other breeds that most people do not think of when they think dangerous dogs.
Its the people who continue to breed Pit Bulls to be aggressive that are going to be the doom of the Pit Bull.
I’ll admit I’m on the fence on this one.I see both sides.
Because of the breeding that, unfortunately continues, pit bull attacks continue to make up a disproportionate number of dog attacks in America.All Bully Breed lovers need to get involved in supporting laws cracking down on dog fighting. Here are a couple of websites you can go to if you love your Bully breed and want to see a change in the future breeding of these breeds.
BikersAgainstAnimalCruelty.org and of course ASPCA.com
Something else to consider, if we outlaw the American Pit Bull, you know how our government can overreact, what breeds will they go after next?
And no, I dont own a pitbull, I do however own a Boxer, who , I guess, you run the risk of being licked to death if you meet him.
well my dog fits the “pit bull” description – powerfully built, short hair, blocky head and a HUGE yawn lol. His blood lines? 1/2 weimer (from dad) 1/4 lab 1/4 pit bull (from the mom). So would my “weimer” mix be part of this ban? how much “pit” look makes a dog a pit bull? Are we going with the 1/16th rule? the “one drop” rule?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_drop_ru…
I’ll muzzle my Service Dog in public (who has over 100 training hrs) the same time mr/ms joe public does the same with their pets who might have NO training what so ever. And yes, this includes ALL yappie little dogs.
I know my dog would appreciate it since he has been bit (nipped) by a pom, min-pin & chi. What did my fierce, scary “pit bull” do? Cocked his head and had this look “really? dude that is NOT how you are suppose to act in public.
So yeah, I’m o.k. with the bill if ALL dogs have to be microchiped AND muzzled with NO regard to breed or SIZE; not just my weimer cross 😉
I guess I have a pit bull. After all my Rat Terrier mix is athletically built, is short haired and medium sized. What so many people assume every shorthaired, medium sized, athletically built dog is.
Daft Taft and her lynch mob followers are breedists, the canine equivalent of racists.
Clearly daft Taft and her cronies are incapable of grasping that all dogs can bite and the problem of dangerous dogs is not remedied by the quick fix of breed-discriminatory laws. Aggression is not a breed issue, it is a dog issue. Any dog can be “trained” to behave aggressively and BSL provides the public with a false sense of security. BSL has been proven ineffective time and again which is why so many communities both nationally and internationally have repealed their BSL in favor of stronger dangerous dog laws. However, daft Taft and her followers would still like to see a myriad of dog breeds pay for the bad acts of a few.
In a lame effort to make those who oppose her seem dangerous daft Taft on her site writes “Due to continued threats and intimidation by oppositional groups and individuals, FDAFB.org, has cancelled our plans to submit a citizen initiative. We decided that it would not be safe to send out signature gatherers.” This is not a very original move made by taft in order to create a false perception by the general public that those who oppose BSL are aggressive.
Daft Taft and her lynch mob followers are breedists, the canine equivalent of racists.
The groups motto according to their website is “We don’t allow dog fighting, why do we allow fighting dogs?” Clearly daft Taft and her cronies are incapable of grasping that all dogs can bite and the problem of dangerous dogs is not remedied by the quick fix of breed-discriminatory laws. Aggression is not a breed issue, it is a dog issue. Any dog can be “trained” to behave aggressively and BSL provides the public with a false sense of security. BSL has been proven ineffective time and again which is why so many communities both nationally and internationally have repealed their BSL in favor of stronger dangerous dog laws. However, daft Taft and her followers would still like to see a myriad of dog breeds pay for the bad acts of a few.
In a lame effort to make those who oppose her seem dangerous daft Taft on her site writes “Due to continued threats and intimidation by oppositional groups and individuals, FDAFB.org, has cancelled our plans to submit a citizen initiative. We decided that it would not be safe to send out signature gatherers.” This is not a very original move nor was blurring her image during one television interview in order to create a false perception by the general public that those who oppose BSL are aggressive.
http://bslnews.org/2011/08/31/seattle-wa…
I know few haters will bother reading anything that goes against what they believe by watching the news, and selective statistics, but here is a good site with a lot of good information against breed specific legislations, and pit bull statistics.
http://www.lawdogsusa.org/whypitbullspag…
I know few haters will bother reading anything that goes against what they believe by watching the news, and selective statistics, but here is a good site with a lot of good information against breed specific legislations, and pit bull statistics.
http://www.lawdogsusa.org/whypitbullspag…
the only reason “pit bulls” attacks are so high is because the media has no way of actually telling weather the dog is an ACTUAL pit bull or a mix breed. shame shame shame.
I will enthusiastically vote for and support a pit bull breed ban.