[generic pit bull defense]

It's a shame those dogs wasted their efforts on a mail carrier and not a, whiny, ignorant anti-pit advocate.

I can't wait until a story appears in which a youth pastor molests a kid whose hetero parents were neglecting him and then the pastor's pit bull attacks the kid afterwards.

does that mean that they had shown aggressive to other non-people items?

Jesus H on a popsicle stick! That guy is six three, three hundred pounds, and those two dogs got him down.

Sheee-ot.

@3 - Aahahahaha. Neither can I , now you mention it.

Hey Dan, can you identify the pit bull?

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/…

The article's mention of the owner's failure to leash dogs and failure to vaccinate pretty much tells me all I need to know about the dogs and their owners. This is a prime example of the kind of people that should not own a pit. Likely, they were neither altered, trained, or socialized around strangers in any kind of fashion.

I wish more of these dog attack stories would give the run-down on the altered and training status of the dogs. Why breed warrants a mention, but not whether they are neutered or spayed is beyond me. In my line of work (I'm a vet assistant), the number one indicator of likelihood of aggression was whether or not the dog was neutered. 80% of the dog/dog attacks I saw had at least one intact male. There was never any real prevalence of any one breed. Only extremely severe maulings had any breed prevalence. They dogs were all 100% unneutered males and either pit bulls or Jack Russell terriers.

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.