There's no place for pit bulls or rottweilers around children,"

Make that "... around PEOPLE!"

Wait. Now rottweilers too? I think this is the first time we've seen anything about rottweilers; before it's been all pit bulls all the time.

Any other breeds? Chows? Dobermans? What about crosses? Can we get a complete list of which breeds are Stranger Approved and which aren't? And is the Stranger still lobbying for some kind of breed ban? Or only sort of complaining in a general kind of way with no specific end in mind?

I'm confused too. I thought this was where we just bashed on pits. Now you're going for Rotties too? No fair.

This topic infuriates me to two reasons. 1) your dog will treat people how you TEACH it to treat people 2) Notice how most of these incidents are in large cites on the East Coast where dog fighting is not yet illegal and still profitable and therefore....

Rotties? He's out of his Wulkan mind.

There's no place for UNSUPERVISED dogs of ANY BREED around children. And I will agree that dogs who have historically been bread for fighting are a particular danger, one that parents need to be aware of. The answer to that is for people to LEARN about the breed they're getting, and make a decision based on their own lifestyle about what breed is appropriate.

@5: Dog fighting is not legal anywhere in the U.S., and is, in fact, a felony.

Hmm... call me crazy but... I think Dan Savage may dislike pit bulls...

Personally I think we're better off keeping our kids away from black people. And swimming pools. And priests (well, that one I actually do). And schools. And other kids. And dingos.

Seriously, the hate-on for pit bulls is a little silly. You don't like them, don't get one. I volunteer at an animal shelter and I've known some great pit bulls. I've also known little yappy dogs that would bite you as soon as look at you. And if you think it takes a pit bull to rip a kid's face off, you'd be surprised.

Animals are as good as their owners. Any--I repeat, any--animal is dangerous if handled improperly. Yes, some are more dangerous than others. People with small kids probably shouldn't own pit bulls. On the other hand, they probably also shouldn't talk on the cell phone while driving or feed their kids fast food for every meal or own unlocked guns or vote Republican. But we still haven't voted in breeding laws, so stupid people are gonna keep squirting them out. And yep, stupid people's kids are gonna keep getting bit or mauled or killed, and we're gonna keep being outraged. Ahh, the joys of cyclical problems.

My brother's dog got mauled by a pit bull in his front yard - in front of his children - last week. The owner of the pit bull got a ticket. My brother got a ticket (for being off leash in their own front yard), a vet bill and a dead dog. If you have an agressive and powerful breed, you should be aware of the possibility of devastating attacks and take precautions. Or be responsible for the consequences. It could have been one of the kids.

By the way, what makes a surgeon a reasonable source for deciding which dog people should buy? That's kinda like asking a mechanic's opinion on what material to build your house out of.

My sister was attacked by a rottweiler when she was a baby. It picked her up and swung her around before its owner managed to get it under control. Then, about a year later, our neighbour's yippy little rat-dog bit her on the face when she held out her hand for it to smell. She still has a scar on her lip, 17 years later. I think that it's a combo of some breeds or individual dogs being bad with children, and some owners not having proper control of their dogs.

Remember the good old days, when responsible parents told their children not to play with strange dogs except under close supervision?

And when responsible dog owners kept their animals away from strange kids except under close supervision?

Perhaps dog licensing should require a competence test, like driver licensing. And people, DON'T BUY PUPPY MILL PUPPIES! Irresponsible breeding + ignorant owners = mauled kids.

You think that's bad? My cat licks HER OWN ASS! And then kisses my CHILD! Something must be done.

Remember the good old days, when responsible parents told their children not to play with strange dogs except under close supervision?

I used to have a large dog, and I was constantly shocked when parents would let their young children toddle up to pet her without even asking me. She happened to be gentle and tolerant, but I would never allow a child in my care to approach a strange dog, especially without speaking to the owner first. It is also obvious that most children aren't taught the proper way to approach and behave around dogs: they waggle their fingers in dogs' faces, swoop down on them from above, pet them too hard, try to get the dogs to chase them... all pretty big no-nos, especially when it's an unfamiliar dog.

Yay! Now do Schäfers!

Hey, lay off the Rotties. A well-socialized, well-trained Rottie is great with kids.

And of course don't leave a toddler alone with ANY dog. How is that not common sense?

It's not just dogs, Dingo. The last time I was at the Denver Zoo, I was petting one of their turkeys through the chicken wire. They're reasonably tame, but notoriously bitchy birds, and unless you really know what you're doing I wouldn't recommend it.

Anyway, some fucking six-year-old saw me doing that and ran up to do the same thing. I reamed him a new asshole. And sure enough, Daddy's standing there about six feet away looking at me like I'm some kind of colossal jerk because I dared to keep his kid from needing stitches.

Sometimes I just don't understand parents any more.

5280: I seem to remember reading once about a dog bite-prevention program for either kindergartners or 1st/2nd graders where coordinators would take dogs in and teach kids about how to interact with them safely that was having really good results, but I can't remember if it was in the US or Canada.

"Animals are as good as their owners" is not necessarily true. Some dogs (individuals, not necessarily a breed as a whole) DO have inherited crappy temperaments. People who own these dogs and who wish to KEEP owning them must keep them under control.

@ 20, the Denver Zoo attracts some real winners. My brother-in-law had taken his kids there, and got to overhear some jackass dispute some of the evolution-education signs - "We ain't descended from monkeys!!" That probably doesn't happen at Cheyenne Mountain Zoo* because they likely don't have any signs like that posted.

If it were my kid, my reaction would depend on how you did it. "Reamed him a new asshole?" If that means what it sounds like, then I'd probably look at you like you were a jerk too, injury prevention notwithstanding. Firm but not mean? You'd have my thanks.

* That's in Colorado Springs.

@ 22, probably Canada. I've seen education announcements about "ask first before you pet a strange dog" on some of the cable children's channels, but I never heard one way or the other as a kid. I just avoided all dogs except the ones my friends owned.

The overwhelming majority of dogs involved in human fatalities, irrespective of breed or type, are dogs which had not regularly interacted with humans in positive ways, that were not obtained and kept as pets, and that were poorly managed and controlled.

See this report: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com… which states that "91% of all fatal dog attacks from 2005-2007 were due to one or more of these critical factors. Tabulations of fatal dog attacks by breed yield no understanding of human/canine interaction and offer no remedies to enhance community safety. Forty years ago, Pit bulls and Rottweilers combined were involved in less than 2% of all fatal attacks. Nevertheless, one or more of these same critical factors was evident in 90% of all fatal dog attacks during that time."

The take-home message is that dog attacks on humans are directly related to how humans view certain breeds and to how they treat them and for what reason they acquire them.

Matt, it was probably a little closer to "reamed him a new asshole" than "firm but not mean." Though, in my defense, I really was a lot more concerned about the kid needing stitches (or maybe losing an eye) than I was about being a "nice guy." Turkeys really do have a serious mean streak - and they don't express it verbally.

Dingo, I'm a dog person - hell, I'm an animal person. Enough so that I understand that there are some pretty extreme subtleties of non-verbal communication that need to occur if you're going to have a successful encounter with a strange dog/cat/turkey/you-name-it.

But here's what I have a problem with: Even the mellowest, most-friendly pit in the world bites. A lot. It's what they do. It's inbred in them. Even a six-week-old puppy deals with its world by biting first and asking questions later.

Nothing else I've encountered in the animal world displays that kind of behavior. Get past that and I'm on your side, but I don't think you can.

@21 pretty much nailed it. Plus, there were far more Goldens and Labs in the last 24 years than pit bulls, yet pit bull attacks are far more common.

The damage pits and Rots can do with a simple bite is far greater than most other breeds. They are also bred to fight and usually have more of a fighting temperament.

Dan, I don't know if you read these comments on a regular basis, but it looks to me like the tide is turning against your ignorance. Yes, pit bulls can be dangerous. So can Rottweilers. So can any dog, even toy breeds. It's not about the breed, Dan, it's about the owners. So please, please, please stop being so goddamn ignorant about this issue.

Question for you Dan - when a little child gets hold of its parent's gun and shoots someone, who do you blame? The child? The gun manufacturers? Or do you blame the parents?

I hope you said the parents. Now apply that same level of thinking to pit bulls.

Oh Noes! Not Good Dog Carl!!!
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Dog-Carl-Alex…

And yep, #21 has it right - your sweet loving pit whom you've handled and socialized well for years, the same dog who has let your little nephew ride around on his back many times - that same dog could one day, out of the clear blue and with no provocation, rip the face off the mailman or the little old lady down the street. And you had no indication of any aggressive behavior, EVER, and no explanation for why your little sweetie has suddenly turn murderous, and why cops and EMTs and camera crews are suddenly at your door. Such Good Dogs.

You can stick your head in the sand all you want, obfuscating with your bad irresponsible dog owners, your unsocialized dogs, yadda yadda yadda.... But it is vitally obvious that there. is. a. problem. with. pit. bulls.

A particular problem with that particular "breed" (scare quotes because, yes, I know that it's not a 'true' breed), a problem that WE CREATED with these animals that WE BRED to be EXACTLY the way they are today. If every pit bull breeder on the planet agreed to breed only to gentle traits, in 10-20 years this problem would be history. But we all know that's not gonna happen, 'cause people want intimidating dogs.

So, there ya go.

@ 31 - Yes, any dog can be dangerous. Cocker spaniels, for instance (like the one in my avatar), are known to be bitey around children. Any dog can do damage.

But there is a perfect storm of factors with regard to pits. They were bred specifically to be fighting dogs, and so we engineered them to have those massive jaws with that incredible power, we bred them to latch onto something (another dog, the nose or neck of a bull, a child's face) and not let go. They exhibit the traits we bred into them, just as border collies exhibit the herding instincts we bred into them.

Then you have the asshole owners, the thugs who want a big scary dog, just for the street cred they think it gives them. These people don't give Fuck One about socializing or properly training their animal, they want a big scary dog. They will never be proper dog owners, but it's a free country, right? Anybody can have any dog, regardless of their ability or inclination to care for it properly.

Then you DO have the responsible owners, the people who socialize and train their pits and don't ever let them run loose, etc etc... We hear from these people all the time, through their tears, as they try to comprehend what went wrong when their precious little Scooter went all crazy-ass on the neighbor. Other dog breeds will give indication that they might act out, but there seems to be a switch in that bony pit bull head and no one knows what makes it flip. Sadly, usually blood is the result of that switch flipping.

So, yes, you are right when you say that any dog can be dangerous. But you are wrong when you say that pits are unfairly singled out for this attention. There is a real solution (see my post above), but it's not practicable. It won't be until we humans decide that we've had enough.

5280: the point I'm trying to make is about breed-specific legislation; it doesn't address the problem.

33: why don't you relax and take it down a few notches. Yes, kids need to be taught how to behave around dogs, parents need to be vigilant with their children, AND dog owners need to be responsible for their animals, as I've been saying all along.

34: The point, again, is that bad owners often make bad dogs. Obviously that makes no difference to the victim of a dog attack, but the focus should be on owners and on breeders rather than on breeds.

Yes, the American Pit Bull Terrier IS a breed, and has BEEN a breed for a couple hundred years now. The United Kennel Club was specifically founded in 1898 to register APBTs. American Staffordshire Terriers are essentially the same dog, but split off for AKC registration (they were first registered by AKC in 1936). Staffordshire Bull Terriers are cousins of both breeds as well, but generally smaller.

However, there is considerable confusion about exactly what a "Pit Bull" is. "Pit Bull" is often used as a generic term that can include American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Boxers, Bulldogs, Bull Mastiffs, dogs that are mixes of these breeds and even dogs that just "look like" "Pit Bulls." Even experts can't tell reliably what is and isn't a "Pit Bull," even through DNA testing, and anyway identification often comes from newspaper accounts which sometimes refer to dogs involved in attacks as "Pit Bulls" even when they aren't one of the above breeds. This is a serious problem for breed-specific legislation.

@28, many dogs of all breeds bite when they're six weeks old, and no, not all adult Pit Bulls bite, and it's certainly not "inbred" in them. It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

@ 42 - Are you seriously suggesting that the inclination to bite (and not let go) has NOT been engineered/bred into the pit bull?

What do you think the 'pit' in their name refers to, then, if not the fighting pit?

Note the quotes, please. What I'm suggesting is that the poster doesn't even have the correct terminology to try to pass his ignorant opinions as fact.

what about pomeranians? (this is an old story, but one of the most notorious dog + child = disaster stories.)

http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2…

@44: Free advice - spend more than a week hanging around here before you go calling long-standing members of the community "ignorant." Otherwise, you just come off as a dumbass.

You have no idea how long I've spent around here, and how long you've been commenting on a blog doesn't make you any less wrong or poorly spoken.

Ah, well, in that case I guess I was wrong - you're an even bigger fuckwit than I thought.

Cool, tell me some more about how Pit Bulls biting as puppies is extraordinary dog behavior and how all mellow, friendly Pit Bulls bite. A lot.

Those are your (incorrect and ignorant) opinions, not facts.

You know, I've actually been around a lot of pit bulls. Last week I was walking down the street, and a guy was walking his pit bull puppy (yes, in Denver, where it's certain death for the dog if he gets caught), and the dog was spending more time biting at his pants leg than walking. On second glance, I noticed that both legs of his pants were just absolutely shredded.

And I had to laugh, because that's entirely consistent with my own experience with many, many pits. Can you disagree with that?

Why would I have any interest in agreeing or disagreeing with your "own experience" when your personal experience is anecdotal at best and completely irrelevant?

@51:

"Anecdotal experience" when correlated over a large enough grouping becomes the basis for statistical analysis (see @21 above).

It's not 5280's "own experience" that makes him right; it's the collective experience of literally thousands of other people who corroborate his individual experience that makes him right.

@53, there is no evidence that shows that all Pit Bulls bite (a lot) or that biting as a puppy is Pit Bull specific activity. Quite the opposite.

@31 - it seems more like the tide is turning in Dan's favor.

In the past, posters would deny that fighting dogs even have an innate propensity towards aggression. I know, I know - ruthless killing is what they were bred specifically for, but magically those particular centuries of breeding didn't result in an innate behavior, like it did for hunting and herding dogs.

You are, however, probably the only one left comparing them to toy breeds. A Pit Bull can bite straight bone; a Shih Tzu's jaw, on the other hand, was not bred specifically for destructive force. I bet they bite all the time - maybe as much as Pit Bulls - and you might end up needing some serious stitches. But you won't need to have your bones pinned back together.

@3: Not too sure where rotts came to the table, but to attempt to answer the question about crosses:

Some states' breed-specific legislation (which I can't really figure out as far as how to determine which breed is which, from a legal standpoint) regulate or ban a short list of breeds which are legally presumed to be dangerous or vicious, along with any animal who's sire or dam is on the list.

a. Pit bulls are bred to fight.
b. Pitt bulls bites inflict more damage than other dogs.
c. Animals can act inpredictably
d. Children are stupid around animals.
e. Lots of owners are retards.

This suggest to me some simple solutions.
a. Ban the breeding of dangerous dogs, (IE those who bite more often, those whose bites inflict more damage)
b. keep your stupid children away from dogs AND/OR train them to interact with animals properly.

It's not the dogs fault for being a dog, or the childs fault for being a child. It's the ADULTS fault for HAVING a dangerous animal and a stupid tiny human in the same area, and of SMART adults to continue to allow dumb adults to do so by not legislating against it.

I remember once being swayed in the direction of the dog owners on this one. But, aside from "the locking jaw" being a myth, I cannot remember why. I know plenty of sweet-as-candy pits, but I also have observed and heard of unpredictable violent behavior. It is just this unpredictability (along with incredible strength and resistance to pain) which earns the pit breeds their distinction of being dangerous. Yes, many dogs can have some of the traits which pits demonstrate, but few with that trademark ability to "snap", and as Dan won't let us avoid reading, the attacks tend to prove this.
The whole point of domesticating dogs from their wolf cousins was/is to make them safer as pets. Wolf mixes are illegal in most states, so I don't have a problem with well-written breed specific dog laws.

I donated to fight Prop 2 in Florida, and asked Dan this question: "Is there a later scientific peer-reviewed study supporting the efficacy of breed bans that forms (in part or whole) the foundation of your opinion?"

As part of my preamble, I explained that I have searched online for such a study, but could not find anything. I could only find the CDC study of 2000, which actually states that there is no such evidence. I was hoping that there might be a later study I could read.

Dan's response was
"breed bans have worked in the UK, and they work well in Denver. i don't trust the studies you cite.

all the best,
dan"

Now, I am ecstatic that he did NOT simply tell me off. However, he didn't really answer the question, as he doesn't cite any study in the UK or Denver. So I am left with the conclusion that No, Dan Savage does not base his opinions of breed bans on any scientific evidence.

What I find interesting is that he "doesn't trust the studies [I] cite." I believe there was a study in the UK that also concluded that there is no supporting evidence of the efficacy of breed bans. But he doesn't trust scientific research? What does he trust? His gut?

I find that his response, while deservedly terse, spoke volumes. His opinions on breed bans are simply that: opinions. He is neither more nor less correct than the rest of us. In fact, his opinions can be said to be faith-based, since he chooses to discount evidence that does not agree with his ideas.

And breed bans have most famously failed in Italy, where at their height fully 92 breeds were banned with no reduction in the incidence of attacks. Breed bans are particularly ineffective in cases where it is difficult or impossible to positively or definitively identify a given breed, as is the case with Pit Bulls.

Banning specific breeds doesn't work because people are to blame, not animals. People who breed dogs to be aggressive or for other traits they euphemistically call "independence," "tenacity," or "spirit" are to blame when the animals they produce attack other animals or people. People who choose certain breeds to boost their own tough-guy image are to blame for encouraging such breeding practices and such behaviour on the part of their animals. Eliminating anything that might be a "Pit Bull" will simply mean that people will choose another breed to turn into fighting dogs or scary arm candy -- when I was a kid it was Dobermans that were supposed to be vicious and unpredictable, not because they are, but because people encouraged that image, chose that breed because of it, and raised those dogs to behave that way; now Dobermans are yuppie dogs, and considered beautiful, elegant, reliable family pets.

As someone said earlier, while millions of people get bitten by dogs every year, nearly none are killed. Obviously anyone being attacked (let alone killed) by a dog is a problem, but we can't keep banning breeds in the deluded hope that that will be the solution; Italy tried it and the result was what the kids these days call an "epic fail" -- they had even banned Welsh Corgis at one point. Banning large breeds won't work either; some of the worst behaved and most aggressive dogs I've ever encountered have been small breeds. The only solution is legislation that holds owners accountable. If cities must persist in the ridiculous scam of dog licensing, then they should use it to make training mandatory for owners as well as for dogs. Any person whose dog attacks a human should be banned from keeping dogs for at least 5 years, and required to undergo training before they can be relicensed. People will always keep dogs, and frankly, we domesticated them so they have every right to be here. But people need to be educated in how to behave around dogs, and breeders and owners must be held responsible for the animals they produce and keep.

Dan, is this series some kind of intentional demonstration that even groups who are oppressed or stigmatized cannot have empathy for groups outside their own, that there will always be a scapegoat?

How, exactly, does this series of posts differ from when Focus on the Family cherry-picks specific incidents to suggest gays should be kept away from children?

Can you not see the similarity? Or do you not care? What is your issue with dogs?

"breed bans haven't worked"

What if the end goal were different than to simply have an immediate effect on the number of reported dog attacks?

That is, what if we could regain control of breeding tactics for the betterment of human/dog relations? The solution is obviously going to be more involved than simple bans. But the problem is the breeding. Blaming humans doesn't change anything -- of course this is a human problem. We created them. Whichever breed is the most popular will be the least trained, this much is agreed on. What about a campaign to popularize a less dangerous breed?

One breeding effort in the last 1600 years was to make dogs safe. Another was to make dogs obedient. A third was to make them the toughest fighters possible. Originally using normally accepted techniques, but more recently devolving into backyard hack jobs, which ignore some of the basics of genetics and husbandry. The more you fuck up this kind of thing, the more erratic the animals behave. As I stated earlier, erratic is bad because a known dangerous animal wouldn't be allowed near a baby.

Proper breeding is as important as proper ownership.

It is a scientific fact that some breeds have stronger jaws than others. When a yorkie or a chihuahua bit you. they might puncture the skin. WHen a rott or a pit bite, they hold on for dear life until you stop thrashing. Dobermans are strong, as are German Shepards, but some dogs have been bred for generations to become fighting breeds. They were bred for aggression and strength and the refusal to stop until the prey is dead. You can train your widdle doggie to be as nice as you want, just like I can train my grizzly bear to be nice, but when their basic nature comes trhough and they kill someone, it's the fault of the ownders for having them around people.

This irritates me so much because, otherwise dan's an intelligent guy. it would be stupid of me to say that pits aren't potentially more dangerous than chihuahuas- in the same sense that it would be stupid of me to say that ford F150s are no more dangerous to pedestrians than smart cars. but no one has outlawed F150s (inspite of the lower average IQ of both F150 owners and pits). it is a myth though that pits are naturally more agressive. people tend to get them for fighting and TRAIN them that way, unlike chihuahuas, so you may see more attacks because of that- plus no one ever bothers to REPORT chihuahua attacks because it doesn't perpetuate an alarmist stereotype. but in general, certain small dog breeds tend to be more apt to bite. either way, a properly raised dog is not dangerous. i think im with 5? on the licensing for own a dog! because while i like dogs, nothing is more annoying than someone's stupid fucking untrained dog in my face- i dont care how big it is!

The "pit bull controversy" strikes me as alarmist and unproductive. In America there are huge numbers of dogs in general, huge numbers of pit bulls, rottweilers, bull terriers, american bulldogs, chows, and other breeds with a reputation for aggression, huge numbers of irresponsible dog owners, and huge numbers of people who don't know how to act around strange dogs. Yet there are very, very few serious dog attacks. These attacks are tragic and I don't want to downplay that, but I feel safer petting a friendly pit bull than I do biking in traffic.

Do you guys know the author Malcolm Gladwell? He has an interesting perspective: http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_06_…

As one who has an interest in police science, shilonikelle, I think that was an awesome article. Thank you for linking to it!