Take out the brain or remove the head entirely.

Zombie rules apply loosely.

Oh yeah, I forget that there are backwards places that still allow pit bulls. Dumbasses. They deserve whatever they get.

You want to legalize a plant, but ban a dog. You want bars to be allowed to show porn if that's what the customers want, but you want the cops to evict dogs even if the customers want dogs. You want me to trust science when it says being gay isn't a choice or same sex couples make good parents, but you want me to ignore science when it says breed bans don't work. The drug war is stupid because it can't be won and it wastes resources, but a new law against pit bulls that we can't enforce is smart. Liberty to do what you like but the nanny state to run the lives of anyone whose tastes differ.

Probably missing a few, but I think we all get the idea.

I some times wonder what will it take for people to wakeup and realize that a ban for these type of breeds needs to be implemented for the safety of all of us.

i'd eat a dog right now if it was garnished properly

Well-Trained pit bulls are socially adjusted, friendly dogs. You can't blame the breed for bad ownership. Pit Bulls, by nature, are an aggressive and territorial breed of dog. Owning one is a massive responsibility, moreso than less potentially dangerous ones. The answer is not to ban pit bulls, the answer is to strictly licence pet ownership, period, and to severely punish people who don't take responsibility for their pets. I'm talking upwards of $15,000 fines for violating the terms of the licence, and jailtime for having an unlicensed pet.

Elanchos, you're a fuckwit and you're using a pretty common idiot's technique: "if he's wrong about one thing, he's wrong about everything, so don't listen to anything he says." Dan's a bit of a douchebag when it comes to dogs, but that doesn't mean everything he says or links to is inaccurate.

I had a really hard time fighting off this gay guy one time...

The Magic Lemur, in a second I will click the hide button that will make it so I never again have to read one of your comments. It makes a *plonk* sound.

The reason Savage is wrong about breed bans is that research by the CDC and American Veterinary Medical Association has shown that breed bans are unenforceable and ineffective. The hypocrisy is to argue for a reality-based apporach on drugs or porn or sex or teh gays, but to demonstrate the reasoning ability of Sarah Palin when it comes to dogs.

Bye, fuckwit. *plonk*

So ignorant. Blatantly.

Dan, you're full of shit on this one, and you can and should educate yourself. First, there's no such breed as "pit bull." The term usually refers to one of several breeds, the most common being the American Bull Terrier. Often when "pit bull" attacks are reported the dogs turn out to be a different breed, often one that people don't think of when they say "pit bull," such as a Boxer. (Why? Because people are bad at identifying dog breeds.)

American Bull Terriers are good dogs. They are very people oriented. They bond intensely with their owners, and are suspicious of strangers but fine once properly introduced. They are not aggressive. The American Temperament Testing Association, which creates the temperament tests used all over to assess dogs, keeps by-breed records and American Bull Terriers score above average.

I've witnessed temperament tests; to pass them, a dog must be non-aggressive and get along with a variety of types of dogs of varying age, size, and energy level.

"Pit bulls" became the dog of choice for people who abuse dogs - leaving them chained up outside (a sure way to develop aggression in any dog), abusing them, training them to fight, and so on. It's tarnished the reputation of a great dog - a lot of them have been mistreated, and when you mistreat a dog, you get a dangerous dog.

If you banned pit bulls, another breed would become the favorite of that crowd, and in a few years that would be the next breed targeted for bans. When I was a kid, it was German Shepherds (great dogs!) that everybody was afraid of, and pit bulls were known as the mascot from the Little Rascals.

Interestingly, the Netherlands put a pit bull ban in place, and recently got rid of it (after having it for years). Why? Because dog bite injuries went UP instead of down. It was just different breeds.

The problem isn't any particular breed; it's bad dog owners, and unless you figure out how to ban those, there will be some large breed of dog trained to be aggressive and antisocial.

And no, I don't have one, but I know a number of them, and know what wonderful dogs they are. An abused pit is handful and only fit for someone with experience dog training, but a puppy of one of the "pit bull" breeds is a great dog who will be a happy, reliable part of someone's family.

Your logic reminds me of the people who say that being gay is bad because it makes people unhappy; as you've pointed out, it makes people unhappy because of all the assholes treating gay people badly. It's flawed logic there, and I wish you wouldn't adopt in with regard to a dog breed.

Oh, and doesn't your kid have a poodle? Standard poodles are much harder to train and deal with than a bull terrier, and are big, strong and smart; they are quite capable of injuring people. If thugs decided they loved poodles, they'd be considered a dangerous breed.

I realize you don't like dogs and probably don't really care if a great breed of dog is basically wiped out, but others do, so maybe you should just shut up and stick to things you know something about?

Dan's just fishing for comments again. He's too smart not to realize that his stance here is bag-of-hammers dumb.

It's not the dog it's the owner. But at this point, you have to look at everyone who owns a pit and ask "Why did they get a pit?" A whole lot of them got it because they wanted a mean dog. These people should be blinded and turned out in the desert.

@7: I think @3's point is that if Dan applied the same (sound, in my opinion) logic that he applies to glbt equality and drug laws to pit bull bans, he'd come up with a different answer, and has a big blind spot here.

You are right, by the way, about the responsibilities of dog ownership, but you're wrong about pit bulls being "aggressive." They are guarded and will defend themselves and their homes and their humans, but a lot of dogs are. A non-abused pit bull will not just attack somebody at random.

@15 Or, as is the case with a woman I know, she fell in love with the breed when she was a girl (which is easy to do) and now, as a professional dog trainer, makes a point of working with them, because she doesn't want to see them put down.

The "why" is often what you say, but they are great dogs in so many ways that a non-asshole who understands the breed doesn't need any particular reason to want them.

Interestingly, a dog that I think shares a lot of personality characteristics with pits is the Rhodesian Ridgeback, an African lion-hunting dog that is bred and shown all the time. They are less common, but in terms of personality, they're not unlike pits - but people see them as handsome, loyal, and strong.

Strange. I see absolutely no mention of why this was done. From the 'article' it sounds like they just decided to take out the dog.

Disgusting.

And, yes, you're engaging in the same fallacy as those who think that you're indicting all youth pastors with your series. No one's saying that all individual dogs are safe, but to go after breeds like this is meaningless.

It's like I said - when faced with a pit bull, unload all your rounds at it, reload, and repeat until it stops.

actually, the magical lemur is very nice - or at least she is @ SLOG Happy.

The dog attacked a couple of cops who came through the front door with guns and got into it with the owner. Granted, the guy sounds like an asshole who needed to go to jail, but I am not so shocked that a dog would try to protect its owner from a hostile intruder.

@13, perhaps somebody should start a "Poodle Watch," something to deconstruct the notion that gay men, I mean pitbulls, are vicious creatures that prey on children. Here is the first entry chronicling a poodle attack that led to a child needing to see a plastic surgeon.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbur…

Dan,

While I agree with you on a lot of what you say/write, your P.O.V. on this topic is growing tiresome and unhelpful. Like poster #7 said above, why not focus on raising awareness around the need for effective licensing of pet owners, not pets? That would actually move the issue forward more than your stymied gaping at tragedies in the news.

My two cents: I've dealt with wonderfully gentle, well-trained, smart representatives of the breed. I've also dealt with maladjusted threatening representatives of the breed. I've met converted/rescued dogs, and on 1 or 2 occasions a dog who could not be. On the whole, that diversity isn't much different than what you find in people. I've met a larger number of mal/untrained 'purse puppies' (terriers & shitzus mostly) than I have poorly raised pits. This breed suffers from generations of bad care and training at the hands of people. Focus on the people, and what it takes to raise a dog, train a dog, integrate a dog into our community, and maybe you'll see some progress.

In fact, I can think of no more direct change that you could affect than to adopt one yourself...;-) Often, I find, those most opposed to dogs are the ones who could most benefit from the unconditional love they're capable of...

i am absolutely willing to carry elenchos's child.

@12...Well said.

#10, how long is your ignore list? Probably longer than mine, which is saying something.

Then again, I was about to start blanket ignoring anyone that replies to Loveschild and ensures that yet another thread will be ruined.

Instead of adding my two cents, let me post some links in which you will be able to hear from the experts/advocates that make a living working with this breed:

http://www.badrap.org/rescue/
http://badrap-blog.blogspot.com/
www.bulladelphia.org

There are many other organizations and professionals out there that unequivocally agree that such incidents as the one highlighted here are caused by the specific dog, not the breed.

Stanley Coren, a psychologist who has done extensive research on canine psychology, wrote some very interesting things re: aggression in dogs. He even visited some dog-fighting rings and saw how aggression is bred into certain breeds of dogs. If the most aggressive dogs are allowed to breed, those traits are carried forward into future generations. The more timid dogs are used as bait.

Just like aggression, height, scent ability, etc., you can breed things into or out of animals, and unfortunately a lot of people have bred a lot of strains of aggressive animals. It has ruined the reputation of the non-aggressive strains of those same breeds of animals.

So what everyone is saying is correct--it's about training. A well-socialized animal is rarely a threat. Unfortunately, some breeds have purposely been bred to be more aggressive and it would take generations to breed that out of them, if you could even stop all the illegal dog-fighting that feeds the frenzy.

A really good example is Doberman pinschers. In America, they trend has been to breed more docile dogs as family pets. In Europe, they are bred more for their aggressive stance to be guard dogs. It's all in the choices you make when you breed them.

Fuck all you breed ban advocating pieces of shit. You are ignorant! The problem with "pit bulls," aka american bull terriers, american staffordshire terriers, and another one I can't remember the name of this second because you people piss me off so much, is that as their reputation has grown, they attract the wrong people. A well disciplined, well raised, loved "pit bull" is one of the most loving, charming, and beautiflu breeds of dog there is. Mix one with lab and you have as good of a dog as there is to be had. I have friends who have had numerous pit mixes, and I would take them and trust them over any of those dogs that wouldn't be covered by your dog-racist breed bans.

Dan Savage, you in particular need to be singled out for your wrongness on this. When I was about your son's age, it was doberman pincers who were the problem, they're still around, they never faced widespread bans like you are advocating (that I remember) and you really don't hear about them anymore.

They aren't even the most dangerous breed, but they get all the bad press (dobermans have a worse record and I'm currently holding a children's book about one). It's all in the conditioning. Or do you enjoy huge piles of dead puppies?

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/this_…

Enjoy.

Get a cat.

@30: And feed it to your pitbull.

@20 So is Elenchos. But I understand his frustration: he has a good point here, one which he's made many times, and one that Dan will never acknowledge.

@31 ftw

@25

Almost 70 at the moment. Also block all the unregistered comments. Sometimes in a thread with 10 comments I only see one. This pitbulll thread is relatively civil, I guess-- 20 out of 32 are showing up.

A feature that blocks the name of those who reply to those you're blocking would be nice. The first pass of the script did block any mention of their name, not just in the "Posted by" field...

I have failed to see Dan explicitly in this posting call for the destruction or banning of this dog breed. Many tirades in this thread focus on what, they assume, Dan must be thinking, rather than what can be clearly deconstructed (at least from this posting--alone). It is therefore a little unfair to put words in his mouth in this manner; it would be more profitable to better focus this discussion then to each other's arguments, as Dan has not given an argument as much as a sense or opinion of the matter.

Dan is certainly allowed to possess his own consensus on certain matters; why must he always bow before the majority? I've just been noticing from the comments I've been reading recently that a certain "cult of personality" is centered here in the Slog around, unsurprisingly, Dan Savage, which seeks just as much to compel him to adopt its viewpoints as it does to adopt his--a peculiar will to homogenization.

#34 pretty good idea. It could block mentions of ignored persons, and try to look for "@N" or "#N" where the referenced comment was written by an ignored person.

I'll add it to the list of things I'm going to fix when I get around to working on it some more.

Poor Kitteh :(

Actually if I remember correctly, your first iteration had an issue where hiding "cho" would hide "elenchos", etc. If I looked for the name in the post itself I'd have to regex match on word boundaries or something like that. Might get hairy.

The list of known issues with 1.1.1 is at http://userscripts.org/topics/35633 by the way.

Any breed of dog can attack you and fuck you up. However, not every breed of dog is equipped with the jaw strength and tenacity of a pit bull.

If a chihuahua bites you, you may have to get a couple of stitches. If a pit bull bites you, you may lose a limb.

I don't necessarily think pits are more vicious than other dogs, I just think that they are capable of doing more damage. I had a pit bull for 15 years and he was very gentle and sweet. He may have had the capacity for violence, but if so, we never saw it.

Unfortunately, while some dogs are bred for herding, and others for retrieving, pit bulls are often bred for aggression, and in the hands of owners who encourage that side of their nature, they can be deadly.

I am opposed to a breed ban, but I think that we do need some stronger laws regarding irresponsible pet owners. If somebody is mauled by a poodle, the dog's owner should be held to the same standards of accountability as the owner of a pit bull.

All dogs have the potential to be the best friend you ever had or a killer or both just like humans. Be responsible Love your dog. ♥

Dogs >= Gay People

If you want to ban pitbulls, it's just as bad as wanting to ban gay partnerships.

Texan. You're my hero. Dan, you are being a douche bag. I have been rescuing these breeds for 12 years here in Seattle. It is the owner not the breed. Stop the ignorance and abuse of these great dogs.

All you posters calling for strict licensing of these animals, massive fees for violators..

The people who WANT to own a massive, intimidating canine are NOT the people who are going to meekly line up at the licensing department. They didn't do that when they bought their guns from their buddies in the 'hood, they sure as SHIT aren't gonna do it when they get that kick-ass macho puppy they've been wanting all their lives.

Who do you think you're kidding, besides yourselves???

I used to be so opposed to dissing on pit bulls. But I changed my mind a couple of weeks ago...

My back yard has a wooden privacy fence. For twenty years, it has restrained and protected my dogs. But then, my neighbor's pit bulls broke out of their wire enclosure, broke a board in my privacy fence, got in my back yard and killed my little Shetland Sheepdog.

My Belgian Tervuren puppy was so traumatized, she won't even go out in her yard without me.

The police had already been called because one of the pits attacked a woman who was trying to help them when she saw them loose in the street. Unfortunately, the police did not shoot the dogs until my sweet little Chancie was already dead.

I've definitely joined the ranks of those who fear and dislike pit bulls.

I still don't like the idea of breed bans - but I've bought a gun now and if I ever see a loose pit bull, I'll shoot it.

And I pray to a god I'm not sure exists that my little Chance is at peace...

the comparison of this 'controversy' to the civil rights struggles of actual bi-peds never gets old...keep 'em comin, Dan!

As usual, Dan fails to acknowledge that the dog had an abusive owner: "Deputies arrested a 32-year-old man who had been drinking and threatened his family."

a dog replaced my grandfather's love for me.
I will always hate them for that.
FUCK DOGS

LOL, sad but true

and while we are on the subject of dogs, seriously, FUCK DAWGS....who the hell thought it would be a good idea for UW's mascot to be spelled DAWG?
so so so gay

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.

I like how Dan so effortlessly backs otherwise rational people into right-wing talking points like "pitbulls don't kill people, their owners do" or "bans don't work" with little more than an opinion and some news clippings.

Whenever I ask myself how the anti-gay troop can be so easily whipped into a froth by whisper campaigns and misinterpretations, I should just look at this thread.

THE STRUGGLE OF PIT BULLS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS IS IMPORTANT, AND YOU, DAN SAVAGE, SHOULD BE ONE TO SUPPORT THEIR RIGHT TO EQUALITY. OTHERWISE, YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

@44 That's really horrible. I'm so sorry. But...

When I was a kid, a neighbor's German Shepherd came running into our yard. I was about 5; my sister and I were in the yard with our cat. The dog grabbed the cat and snapped her neck right in front of me. It was awful.

But I don't fear or dislike German Shepherds. I strongly dislike people who let their dogs roam, however.

Your neighbor kept the dog in a wire enclosure? That sounds like a recipe for disaster in any densely populated place - the dog will hear everything and everyone passing by and nearby yards, have no opportunity to check things out and feel comfortable about it, and feel trapped. I think any larger dog kept like that would become dangerous.

Again, I'm so sorry for what happened to your dog. I really hope that neighbor hasn't gotten any more dogs, because he or she will just be creating more problems. And to be honest I feel bad for their dogs; those animals never had a chance with such a rotten owner.

Well, I've just switched camps when it comes to breed bans. I used to be afraid of pits, even though i knew many friendly ones. I always thought they had some kind of "locking jaw" (which is a myth) and that kind of terrified me (terrier-fied?)
anyways, thanks for the pro-pit propaganda ppl.

I suppose the Founding Fathers - often cited by fortune tellers, necromancers and charlatans for possessing the wisdom to know what would work for us in the 21st century - should have included the right of pit bulls to maul bare arms, to eat the faces of defenseless old women and children and to tear the ass out of the occasional chihuahua. But they didn't. Why is that? (rhet.?)

Look, we're never going to have a breed ban on shit heads who love an aggressive dog, so the whole "IT'S THE OWNER! NOT THE DOG!!!" argument is a non-starter. Ain't gonna be no strict dog-licensing happening around here. Seriously.

Dan, this post makes me so mad. And woefully disappointed in you.

It's one thing for you to be so persistently ignorant, but do you have to advertise it? Making generalizations about dogs that ARE NOT EVEN A BREED is just ridiculous. Yes, that type of animal is predisposed to doing more damage when it bites. It's not a dog for idiots. But it is an type of animal that did nothing to deserve your disgust and condemnation. They people who bred it and didn't responsibly protect it do, and your attitude, such as it is, should be directed towards them.

I know you don't like dogs. Fine--I'm not a cat person. I get it. But this is ridiculous, and hurtful. This attitude leads to more dead dogs in shelters. Get over yourself. Do what you do for sex education and be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Lobby your legislators to close puppy mills. Donate money to spay and neuter programs. Support anti-dogfighting efforts. But stop crapping on a group of living beings who've are not in control of their destiny.

I noticed this too late to do much good, but here's a local TV station's article about the incident. Sounds like any dog owned by this guy would have turned out psycho...

http://www.krem.com/news/local/Deputies-…

I'm so sick of dog maulings. Why are people so blase about dogs that kill and maim? Dan's the bad guy for pointing this out? wha?

Dear Everyone,

The point is that a pit bull ban WILL NOT MAKE YOU SAFER.

So the idea is that you will ban a dog, use enforcement resources to enforce the ban, euthanize a whole bunch of dogs including some good ones, and when you do all that, YOU WILL NOT BE ANY SAFER. (Which is what they found in the the Netherlands and why they recently eliminated their pit bull ban - INJURIES CAUSED BY DOGS DID NOT DECREASE.

So, since you are proposing using up animal control resources and killing a whole bunch of animals - which are, yes, animals and not people, but which are still sentient beings that we as a society recognize should be treated properly - perhaps you can explain what the reason for it is, or what social good is achieved by having thugs abuse rottweilers and boxers instead of pit bulls, or why it's better if someone is mauled by an aggressive chow rather than an aggressive bull terrier, and why that's worth spending real money on.

These endless responses of "But people are more important than dogs!" are just irritating and stupid, because nobody disagrees or is arguing otherwise.

My 3 1/2 year old red-nosed pit bull is THE sweetest dog I've ever owned. Past breeds I've owned include a chow-chow and a Jack Russell terrier, both of which I had behavioral issues with (the JRT was a biter!). My pit has NEVER even come close to biting ANYONE. She thinks she is a lap dog, loves snuggling and is scared of balloons. Pit bulls are just like any other dog. If a human abuses a dog, teaches them to fight, starves them, etc., who is to blame? NOT the dog! My fiance's mom's Maltese is more likely to bite than my pit is.

Just a reminder: last year a 71 year old woman was mauled by two pit bulls in Sea Tac.

The dogs had run at large in the neighborhood several times, and the neighbors had reported them. Repeatedly. Current law should have taken these dogs and punished the owner. The police and animal control did nothing. Perhaps due to understaffing or mismanagement or I don't know what. King County Animal Control has been a disaster for years now, as is well known.

And that is why passing a breed ban, already demonstrated to be ineffective by the CDC and AVMA, is particularly a bad idea here. It is a harmful substitute for addressing the real problem.

Elenchos and w7ngman, here's an idea: Man up and don't hide anyone. Otherwise you two will just have an echo chamber going on, the two of you and a few you deign worthy, missing some interesting points from people you block just because they weren't nice to you once. (Like the two of you are such saints and fonts of wisdom...)

Sorry, they won't read that - they probably have you blocked (me too). But I agree. The fact that they feel the need to block so many people says more about them than about anybody else.

@61: "I'm tired of freerange untrained dogs roaming everywhere with owners, if and when they decide to turn up, getting stroppy with me for complaining."

As a dog owner who has happily spent many hours working with his dog - a high energy 70 pounder - since he was pup, I totally agree.

You don't need a farm to have a "working breed" but you do need a commitment to train your dog. And a dog left alone in a yard for extended periods in an urban area is a sign of a bad dog owner.

(They also, by the way, tend to get stolen, something for those of you who think that's OK to consider.)

It occurs to me that all this "pit bulls good!" "pit bulls bad!" stuff misses the point. Here's the really important question: Do bans on pit bulls (or any breed, for that matter) reduce dog bite injuries?

I've looked for an example of a place that instituted breed-specific legislation and saw reductions in injuries that fall outside the realm of statistical noise, and couldn't fine one. There are examples of places where they have been tried and the evidence has been pretty clear that no reduction in injuries took place (the Netherlands and the United Kingdom most specifically).

Anybody else found one?

@ 68, I hope not - I don't use this ID that much so it would be interesting if they already blocked me.

OTOH, the fact that they hide so many people means that they post fewer less-than-insightful comments since they have fewer comments which might prompt a reply from them. That's probably more of a good thing.

@67

Man up?

Shouldn't you be over at YouTube reading every single idiotic comment? I'm sure if you read one or two million of them you're bound to find one or two interesting points. If you're man enough.

@ 72, slog doesn't get that many comments.

I don't get it?

WHO is going to enforce said pit bull ban? We don't pay teachers enough let alone animal control. We dare not enforce a human breeding ban? How can you enforce a dog ban?

You can slow down the the sale and manufacturing of guns .... but can you stop the roaming dog wandering down the street ready to fuck anything in heat, perhaps the other pit bull in heat with shitty owners that didn't leash, spay, or neuter their pet.

While you are out banning breeds, why don't you try to sew Mrs. Dugger's breeding hole shut while you are at it ... I mean really ...

Am I taking crazy pills here?

f-u dan.

Sounds like a job for CESAR MILLAN!!

What can we say about these murderous animals and their useless troglodytic owners that hasn't already been said?

PIT BULL = MURDER DOG

For the pit bull lovers out there:

http://www.pitbullforum.com/index.php

Instead of sweating over anyone who has a problem with pit bulls, (which do require levels of care and upbringing beyond the skill and/or commitment of the average dog owner), people with pets need to own up to the far more significant matter of their complicity in the pet trade in general. What sort of regulation of breeders do you support? What sort of licensing and certification programs should owners be required to participate in? What should the penalties for non-compliance be? Not until these questions are answered will the moral responsibility for millions of euthanized pets --- the refuse and by product of the multi-billion dollar pet industry --- be lifted from you head.

Why should taxpayers have to pay for pound services to capture, concentrate and kill this constant flow of discarded pets while the owners and breeders who directly benefit from their sale are asked to do nothing of consquence to alter this gruesome status quo of waste and destruction? What's more, the pleas of animal rescue groups ring hollow and their gestures of concern come across as empty when they do not put the blame where the harm is greatest: on the unregulated or ineffectively regulated breeding, sale and ownership of living creatures on a massive scale, for profit.

If you like irony then here's one for you: The routine slaughter of millions of pets at "shelters" is the macabre outcome to our professed love for them.

Banning pit bulls is not the answer. Licensing and education - both for the public and the owners - is the best solution. You can casually dismiss a whole class of dogs if you'd like Dan, so long as you're fine with other people ignorantly and casually dismissing things that are important to you.

I wish we could have mandatory neutering of untrained dogs AND their asshole owners.

I agree with post number 7, owners should be licensed and fined for abuses. The truth about pit bulls is that they statistically bite less than most other popular breeds (I wish I still had that link to the numbers.) This thread has lots talk of breeding, which is why they bite less frequently, in the dog fighting world, when a dog turns on a human, its put down, taking it out of the gene pool. Pits are used for fighting because they are the only breed of dog that will fight to the death, all others will reach a breaking point and give up, this trait has obviously been exploited. This problem requires a humane, scientific solution, not a blind, blanket ban.

I've have seen and worked with literally hundreds of dogs over the years. "Pit bulls' made up a large percentage of those breeds since they are currently the "in" dog of the past 15 years. The vast majority of these dogs are fine animals if kept with responsible owners. It is true they are often dog aggressive, but they aren't any more or less aggressive than other terrier breeds. I've seen Jack Russell terriers kept in the same dismal conditions and with the same lack of responsible ownership turn out as dangerous and aggressive as "pit bulls". It's a terrier thing, and its a terrier thing that is not properly managed. The only reason pit bulls lead in human fatality cases is for the simple reason that they are extremely popular. When their popularity goes down, attacks will go down. When you look at mortality scale that adjusts for the popularity of a breed, you see that malamutes, huskies and German shepherds round out the top of highest mortality lists--not pits.

I would have to say that breed ban legislations are among the stupidest of ideas I've heard in the past few years. Even if you were able to succeed in banning "bully" type breeds, another generic mean dog would come to take its place. There will always be bozos out there who fancy a dog as a weapon, and will desperately want the hottest newest mean dog. It's bully breeds today, tomorrow it may as well be Black Russian Terriers or some other breed with a history of guarding or fighting (of which there is plenty--shar peis, kommondors, etc.)

*sigh* My shepherd is more wary of strangers than my pit. My shepherd is more aggressive than my pit. When I was growing up, I knew a girl who required massive facial reconstruction surgery when her family's beloved shepherd damn near took her face off, but I've never met anyone who had their face taken off by a pitbull.

As has been pointed out already, if you look at the number of attacks adjusted for the number of dogs of each breed in existence (much like breaking down human crime rates per capita by demographic group), you'd find shepherds are actually more likely to attack a human than pitbulls are. Clearly, we need to ban shepherds.

But hey, using your logic, since gay and bisexual men had by far the highest rates of HIV infection in the early days, clearly we should have quarantined and euthanized the lot of you, y'know, for public health reasons, right? The rest of us would be a lot safer today, wouldn't we? And how about Jeffrey Dahmer? Good lord, you gays are dangerous psychopaths!!! Yeeeeah. Perfect logic.