Pit Bullies

Advocates Scrap over Proposed Pit-Bull Ban


Amazing how these punctures show up over a week after the event. Especially when there was no mark found by either dog owner, the store owner, any of the witnesses or Animal Control THE NEXT DAY.
Often the wound is inflamed after an attack, the swelling and fur make it hard to distinguish wounds on the animal until a later date when the swelling has gone down. think about it.
For decades, pitbulls were among the most popular family pets in the U.S. The Little Rascals' dog? A pitbull. The RCA Victrola dog? A pitbull. Then stupid people started breeding pitbulls in their backyards for money and fighting, and thought that breeding dogs for aggressive behavior, and then beating the shit out of them, would be a good idea. The result - dangerous dogs in the hands of irresponsible owners and animal shelters overflowing with pitbulls that can't be adopted.

There are literally thousands of pitbull owners who will insist that their dogs are just as well-behaved as the golden retriever down the street. And they're right. (I'm one of those people - I have happily raised three passive, well-adjusted, baby-loving, pound-rescue pitbulls). And there are hundreds of pitbull advocacy groups that rightly argue that:
1) pitbulls are not, by nature, aggressive
2) aggressive pitbulls should be put down, no questions asked.

The source of the problem is not the dog, it's the jackasses who think of dogs as sources of income / status symbols / four-legged weapons. Legislation should punish (and prevent) irresponsible breeding and dog fighting, no matter what the breed of dog.

Don't get me wrong, dog attacks are horrific and should be prevented. But breed-specific legislation will not prevent dog attacks. Irresponsible breeders / owners will disregard the law and/or find other breeds to make aggressive.

Legislation banning - or regulating- the dogs themselves will no more limit irresponsible dog ownership / breeding then the "drug war" has limited drug crime. And just as the drug war has punished responsible, small-time, drug users, while doing nothing to curtail drug crime, breed-specific legislation will punish non-aggressive pitbulls and their responsible owners, while the real criminals (irresponsible breeders) continue unleashing dangerous dogs on the public.
Lets face facts...pitbulls are most often owned by drug dealers, thugs, gangsters, and other criminals in general. COPS HATE PIT BULLS...that's why they shoot them every single chance they get....... pit bulls are responsible for 33 fatal attacks last year in the USA, 2.4 a month and an estimated 100,000 bites every year. If the authorities will not make a law banning pitbulls, Americans should be allowed to kill them on sight if not under the direct control of their owner......Pit Bull owners should be made to pay a $1000 annual registration fee, and mandatory $100,000 liability insurance policy.
[quote]"They're just so dangerous we don't want to place them with the public," he says.[/quote]

Oh really?

Where are they now?

Pit Bulls are


Wallace the Pit Bull
2007 Purina IDC National Champion


Leo-Former Fight Bust dog abused by Vick

Some with titles(CGC,ATTS,AGILITY)

At least 4 Pit Bulls abused by Vick already have their CGC

Millions of Pit Bulls are beloved family members living with kids and other pets


For the truth about Pit Bulls visit
Animal Farm Foundation

For DOCUMENTED reliable Research visit
National Canine Research Council

Read the
Pit Bull Placebo by Karen Delise
The Media Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression.

Not a Single Credible Expert supports BSL

The "Pit Bull" Breeds outscore the All Breed Avg in Temperament testing YEAR AFTER YEAR

Pit Bulls do NOT cause injuries unlike other dogs!

Match the fatal injuries at the link above to the 15 Breeds listed.

[quote]Do Pit Bulls Inflict Injuries Unlike Other Breeds of Dogs?

Descriptions of the type of fatal injuries dogs have inflicted on their few unfortunate victims is a graphic topic that NCRC has been hesitant to address. Fatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare occurrences; and in light of the fact that many people already harbor a highly disproportionate fear of being killed by a dog, there seemed no useful purpose in addressing the nature and type of injuries a victim sustained during such an attack, nor do we wish to compromise the privacy of victims or sensationalize their tragedies.

Unfortunately, selected groups and individuals are making claims about the severity and nature of Pit bull attacks versus the severity and nature of other (non-bully) breed attacks and exposing victims' identities and descriptions of victims' injuries to forward their personal theories and agenda.

Virtually all of the claims about the "unique damage that Pit bulls inflict" are made by individuals or special interest groups with no knowledge or experience in analyzing fatal dog bite injuries. For this reason, the NCRC feels compelled to address these tactics and claims.

[quote]It is virtually impossible for anyone to match the breed of dog with the fatal injuries listed above - as such - claims that one breed of dog inflicts injuries unlike other breeds HAVE NO MERIT. [/quote]

Truly ompassionate people care about ALL dog bite victims not just the ones that can be used to further an agenda.

Community Dog Bite Prevention

Are Dogs a Danger in Your State?

[quote]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.

Of the 8 fatal attacks, the victims were: 2 adults and 6 children.

All the child victims were either left alone with a dog or had wandered off to the location of the dog(s).

In 2003, a mother visiting at the home of an "acquaintance" allowed her 3-year-old child to play, unsupervised, in the backyard with 3 unfamiliar dogs. The dogs were 2 intact males and 1 intact female that were reportedly "being kept at the premises as a favor for a friend." Only one of the dogs attacked the boy, the other two dogs, although able, did not participate in the attack.

In spite of the reckless and dangerous ownership practices of some owners and/or parents, dogs still pose an incredibly low risk for causing a fatality:

Fatal Dog Attacks in Washington as Compared to Other Selected Risks:

Snapshot of Washington: 2005

Persons killed by dogs: 0
Child hyperthermia death (left in hot car): 1
Death from contact w/ hornets, bees or wasps: 1
ATV-related fatalities: 16
Bicycle-related deaths: 20
Persons drowned in tub or pool: 20
Boating fatalities: 24
Alcohol-related traffic fatalities: 302
Total traffic fatalities (alcohol & non): 649
Tobacco-related deaths: 8,300

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. [/quote]

Now let`s see your "facts" that support Breed Bans and lets not use those "accurate" Media accounts and anecdotes.


I have only known three people, personally, who have owned pit bulls. All claimed their dogs to be non-aggressive, loveable pets that were well-trained. One attacked a child living next door, and had to be put down. One killed his owner's girlfriend's cats, and the third lives next door to me in Lynnwood. That one, just the other day, tried to break my fence by throwing himself bodily against it, growling and barking, while I was peacefully spending time in my own back yard. Or trying to. He didn't want to play.

That makes 100 percent of the Pit Bulls I have known to be violent and unpredictable. I hate them.
All dogs have the potential to bite. Certain breeds are more likely to do so under certain sets of circumstances--herding dogs are more likely to chase and bite anything that runs around, for example. Labradors, Saint Bernards, and Golden Retrievers--"family dogs" all--are well known by veterinary staffs to be unpredictable and potentially aggressive when stressed.

Pitbulls are, indeed, more likely than many other breeds to defend themselves when another dog acts aggressive towards them. They are also LESS likely to be the aggressors. They are markedly less likely than most other breeds to attack humans; breeds bred for aggression are usually breeds that, for the handlers' safety, have been bred not to attack humans, so people engaged in these horrendous "sports" have done the breed an accidental favor. It doesn't mean they never attack humans, but when such incidents occur, it's always because of inadequate care and training. If someone deliberately makes a dog vicious towards humans, or even just ignores his dog's aggressive tendencies, then that person is at fault and should not have a dog.

Unfortunately, pitbulls have become popular, probably temporarily, with people who should not have animals. They'll move on; in the 80s it was Dobermans and German Shepherds that were supposedly uncontrollably vicious, and when was the last time you heard of a Doberman attack? If we want to solve the problem, we need to work on keeping those types of individuals from having animals.

Then, too, "pitbull attack" is almost synonymous in the media with "dog attack", and a little research frequently reveals attacking dogs to be mixed-breed or some other breed entirely. Sensationalism sells, but it isn't always true.

My two pitbulls are the sweetest, most loving dogs I've ever had. I know for dead certain they would never attack a person or a dog. But I also know they will defend themselves from other dogs, and that other people and dogs sometimes see them as a threat and act preemptively aggressive towards them, so I know I have to be careful.

When out in public, my dogs are always leashed, and I avoid coming too close to dogs I'm not sure will be friendly, because I've had my leashed dogs attacked by other people's loose dogs, and it was terrifying. Responsible ownership is the only thing that keeps any dog, including the un-leashed 20lb spaniel cross that attacked one of my dogs a couple of years ago, from attacking and causing bloodshed.
"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)."

Ellen Taft and Collen Lynn are self promoting drama queens that care nothing about public safety or attacks on people by abused and untrained dogs.

They back down because someone said:

"you all ought to be neutered"????

Give me a break. NO one cares Colleen, no one cares Ellen, no one cares about you two...

FABB people? they care about finding solutions and discussing these solutions with our law makers...not responding to inflammatory rags like The Stranger. We don't care about self promotion. We're about 'doing".

We care about sane and reasonable solutions to control dangerous dogs in Puget Sound municipalities. We don't send out mass press releases' -or sponser a website that slanders and promotes lies and instills fear, (can yous ay Carl Rove?) - we work with our public officials to come up with solutions to protect the public and to educate current and future dog owners.

And...we don't "use" people like the owner of the lab that was supposidly "attacked" for our own promotion - (FYI-it wasn't an attack) - so she says a week later that there are puncture wounds. a week later?!?!? Sounds like neglect to me...or out and out lying.

My expereince with my dogs? They get a mosquito bite and I know it the day of.

I witnessed the owner of this lab massaging and "calming" her dog down after the corrrection and posturing of the two dogs involved. Oh the drama!

The touching, massaging and cooing went on for over 30 minutes. So you're telling me in that time that no puncture wounds were found???

As a former "vet-tech" I find this hard to believe.

Yup Irene, you're being used by Colleen Lynn and Ellen Taft.

They care nothing about solutions and public safety, but would rather play "Damsels in Distress."

Can we leave the playground now?
Love the photograph you chose but your agenda is showing.
I REALLY love Rufus the Pit Bull Therapy Dog but that doesn`t quite fit the agenda does it?


You will NEVER destroy these dogs!
I don`t own one but I`m intelligent enough to do my own Research.
The fact that Colleen Lynn and KoryNDenver won`t allow free and open discussion or factual links posted on their website should set off Alarm Bells!
What are they afraid of?
The Truth?
They wouldn`t even let an on scene Investigator correct some of their misinformation.

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. Yes, Sam was attacked, no we did not see the wounds that day, yes the scab wounds became apparent afterwards, yes this has been verified and documented by the vet. (Incidentally, it makes no difference to the law whether or not there are puncture wounds). This citation went uncontested, with the owners describing the incident to animal control just as we did, just as baffled as to why their dog attacked ours, and they were fully, genuinely apologetic, completely owning up to their fault. As far as I have read, they seem to be the only civilized people in your organization. They have been through enough. I have to say, trying to make it seem like the attack did not happen makes the rest of you seem pretty weird, and desperate.

And, if you're dog is ever shaking uncontrollably for 30 minutes after being attacked, I hope that you will find it in your heart to massage and coo too.
I absolutely agree with what Pitbull Fan said about banning breeds. Its just as absurd as the drug war or even new gun legislation. I realize I am going against the grain in extremely liberal Seattle but the people that have dangerous dogs or that plan on using a weapon to hurt someone aren't going to register that dog or weapon. Just like the drug war. Drugs don't create violent people. Drugs being illegal bring violent criminals to reap the profits of illegal business. I am 30 years old and have had somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 dogs in my family throughout my life. 3 pitbulls, 6 labradors and 3 rottweilers. One of the labs broke two of my mothers fingers then attacked my uncle before being put down. Another lab attacked me biting me in my face, leaving me scarred then later attacked my dog before being put down. None of the pits or rotts EVER attacked anyone or any other dog.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Dogs do whatever they are trained to do. If you train them to be aggressive and hurt other people/animals then they will.
Fuck'em - Ban Pit Bulls Now!
What I also noted in Irene's letter was the fact that her dog was shaking uncontrollably and had a racing heartbeat for 30 minutes. Huh? Dogs live in the moment, stuff happens with another dog and as soon as the event is over the dog is done. He dusts himself off and moves on. Maybe the owner was shaking uncontrollably and had a racing heart beat (perhaps she also has an anxiety problem?) but I highly doubt the dog did. When I read that part of the letter, I knew I was smelling a rat. I wasn't there but it sounds like normal dog interaction to me. The fact that it involved a pit was an excuse to make a hyperexaggerated story out of probably nothing.
Yes, in normal dog interactions, "stuff happens" and they dust themselves off and move on. This was not normal dog interaction. Do you guys need a signed statement for everything? A licensed dog practitioner on the scene helped Sam from going into shock, yes he was shaking uncontrollably, and yes he had a racing heartbeat. You are also welcome to ask the owner of the pit bull who attacked Sam, she was with us, trying to help, and I'm sure she will tell you what Sam was like after the attack. There is no rat here, just what really happened. I'm not saying it happens with all pit bulls, I'm just telling you what happened with this one. I'm curious as to why you don't want to believe what happened?
Quoted From an email from Irene to Colleen Lynn:

"This past Sunday, September 7, my yellow lab Sam was viciously attacked..."

not true.

"the attack was witnessed by many, and all were horrified."

very few were horrified.

"...without any notice or provocation or visible signs of aggression whatsoever preceding the attack, their pit bull turned violently on our dog and locked his jaws on Sam's neck."

and your dog did nothing and was under your full control and you were completely aware...yes?

"After minutes (which seemed like hours) of watching our dog scream while their pit bull held Sam’s neck in his jaws, while no one, not even the dog's owner was able to release him, finally somehow he was freed."

The pittie was gently lifted off your dog without effort.

"They just happen to have a dog whose predecessors were bred to fight and to kill, and so there can be a predisposition in all these dogs that is genetic, and can lead to unpredictable, dangerous behavior."

And now you are a geneticist? This is only an opinion not supported by fact. More Pit Bull sensationalism.

The above are your, quotes Irene from Colleen's website. And there is so much more, but it is so distasteful and slanderous I don't want to repeat it here.

And now today you say this:

"This citation went uncontested, with the owners describing the incident to animal control just as we did, just as baffled as to why their dog attacked ours, and they were fully, genuinely apologetic, completely owning up to their fault. As far as I have read, they seem to be the only civilized people in your organization. They have been through enough. "

You are right, they are good people and I imagine as apologetic as one can be when your dog's actions are being lied about; when they made an effort to pay for any vet bills, help, talk to you; and still they didn't get any response from you...to this day - only to have a citiation show up at their door and have you write a slanderous email full of lies and misinformation to Colleen's website. Yeah, you are a sweetheart. Thanks so much for what you have done for them, you've supported a website that has published the owner's personal information putting them at risk. Thanks for that Irene. And I agree, they have been through enough.

And now? NOW? You want us all to think you are taking the high road?

If pointing out your lies, inconsistancies, poor judgement and passive/aggressive behavior makes me and others wierd and desperate? Then, indeed we are guilty Irene.

Remember, Labs are the second most likely to bite in the Seattle area...FABB is trying to protect your dog too...

....more importantly FABB is trying to use reason and intelligence to educate and protect the public from all dangerous dogs instead of pandering to nonsensical sensatioanlism.

"You are also welcome to ask the owner of the pit bull who attacked Sam, she was with us, trying to help, and I'm sure she will tell you what Sam was like after the attack. There is no rat here,..."

Yeah - there was a lot of human-created drama. Dogs will pick up on and act out your anxieties.

"She's" a friend of mine Irene "She" wasn't even there!!! Her husband was with her dog...I was there - your dog was not in shock!

"She" didn't show up until long after the incident...you are revealing yourself adequately Irene. Thank you for that. I need not say anything more.
I am greived by all this. By the attacks, by the media, by ignorant people, but most of all, by pit bulls being treated the way they have been for so many years.
I have a pit and she is sweet as pie. My cats attack her, and she won't even snarl at them in defense. I know not all pits are like this, and no lab is, nor a chihuahua (sorry, spelling issues.) ALL dogs can attack. We have a Pomeranian down the hall who tries to attack our lab every chance he gets. There are many vicious dogs out there but most of them attack because of 1) fear, for themselves or their owners, or 2) they are abused and trained to do so. Most people who treat animals like fighters are going to use pit bulls because they were bred to take down hogs and rats. But we should be watching out for those dogs to get them out of those owners hands, and into someone else's who will train and take care of them. We should put these people in jail. I don't know. I wish I could get through to everyone. I wish people would spend some time with a pitbull who is sweet and loving, like ours, and the many in FABB, because we train our dogs, we love them, treat them like our family. All dogs get territorial sometimes. My lab even does it. That Pomeranian does it. They want to protect us. Sometimes its to their demise. I know FABB is trying to do their best to educate people and that is what we can do. But what about praying? I am praying for every pit bull out there and the people who own them. I am also praying for you guys out there, who love and who hate pit bulls. Taking your anger out on pit bulls or whatever breed it is this century won't change anything for the better. Its only making it worse.
Colette, I am not thinking that way, about whether or not to 'reveal' myself. I am not trying to hide anything. So you don't have to create that strange threatening tone.

About your friend, I said that she was with us and Sam after the attack, while he was shaking. And I did not say that Sam was in shock. I said that someone was helping so that he would not go into shock.

Actually, I feel that I have said surprisingly supportive things about your friends, these owners of the dog that attacked ours. I'm sorry if it's difficult or embarrassing for your cause that this attack happened. I did not make it up, and you know that. My letter to the editor (which is the email you are quoting) was my account of what happened, and I believe it to be accurate. It sounds like your experience of the event was different from ours, and it is your right to express that difference. I felt that writing the letter was the right thing to do.

If the only way to be supportive of your cause is to deny or to hide incidents like this, you have a weak cause. Denying the incident will get you nowhere, I'm afraid. If FABB is really trying to protect the public from dangerous dogs, and I believe that essentially it is, then why won't you let anyone else do the same? Some dangerous dogs are pit bulls. I certainly would have reported the attack had it been by a different breed, or a different animal. But it wasn't.

Anyway, I don't really feel that you are discussing this with any kind of grace, and so I am not going to participate in these comments anymore.
You nailed it Irene -- desperation. Simultaneously it's, SUE, SUE, SUE to shut up the facts, and LIE, LIE, LIE to misconstrue the facts. I especially love the below quote:

"Virtually all of the claims about the "unique damage that Pit bulls inflict" are made by individuals or special interest groups with no knowledge or experience in analyzing fatal dog bite injuries..."

Medical studies of pit bull attacks have been used in Denver, and other cities, to offer evidence to Federal and State Supreme Courts as to the absolute validity that pit bulls do "unique damage" to their victims. This link shows the study that Denver used, which was created by MD's -- not "individuals" or "special interest groups:" http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/texas-medicine-report.pdf

The Detroit study, also by MDs, ought to really get the heart rate up of pit bull advocates (this one you have to purchase, but oh, it's a dandy!)

The terms "Hold and Shake," and "Sustained Attack," and "Massive Soft Tissue Loss" that are attributed to pit bull attacks are terms derived from medical reports by doctors. Read the reports (if you can stomach them). None of the victims survived.
I think its really outrageous that the owners of pit bulls will not do all they can to ensure that the public is safe and secure. By following the suggested procedures - chipping and muzzling - there would be less issues with pit bull attacks and the public would feel safer.

When inept owners do not take responsibility for the actions of the property, of course there are going to be problems. It sounds like the FABB group members, themselves, are acting like pit bulls: attacking at the slightest sign of aggression.

Look, we are not talking about wild monsters here. These are domesticated dogs. But whether all the facts are skewed or the bad rap they have is hogwash doesn't change any of the important facts; these are animals. No one can guarantee that their dog is 100% safe. Assumptions can be made based on behavior, breed personality, and past history.

So lets look at the pattern of facts. Pit Bulls are made out to be bad dogs and a lot of people are scared of them. Media reports dogs being bred for fighting, neighborhood bans, attacks on children and old people...local shelters report higher instances of attacks from pit bulls.

I have been to so many different shelters when I was looking to adopt a dog. What are in the shelters? Dogs that are pits and those that look like pits (breed standard is iffy, right?) It breaks my heart that I cannot adopt each and every one. I know they - like ALL dogs - can be sweet, loyal, wondering little friends. But I cannot afford to take on the risk of owning such a dog and I will not take responsibility for an animal I know I might have an issue controlling.

I say this to all responsible pit bull owners: If you love your dogs and you don't want to see other pit bulls getting a bad rap, attacking other dogs, abused by the wrong people, or wasting away in shelters or bad homes you need to DO THE RIGHT THING. Set a good example to the people that buy and own these dogs for the wrong reasons. Volunteer to have your dog chipped, keep them on a muzzle, offer up other suggestions for non-muzzled leashing (behavior analysis?). If you argue that other dogs are just as bad, start a movement to protect and ensure all people and dogs (training, chipping, whatever). In the story above, the people that refused to take responsibility for their pit bull's attack are just making things worse. Even if the dog was innocent (unlikely considering evidence) the behavior afterwards just makes you look guilty, irresponsible, and not just a bad pit bull owner but a bad dog owner.

And FABB: By threatening scores of humans over the antics of one dog (and putting the freedom of one breed over the protection of all other dogs and humans), you are just fueling the flame of pit bull resistance into a bigger fire and giving reason that further measures need to be taken in the future...proving the opponents that only criminals and lunatics own such aggressive dogs. Do the right thing now, prove to the public that the dogs are as good as you say they are and maybe more little animals won't waste away in shelters. Maybe more people, in time, will adopt pit bulls and not shy away from the breed.
To clarify: I am not suggesting all pit bulls are bad dogs. I am saying that there are a few bad owners that create bad dog situations. Since you cannot convince the public that pit bulls are safe with personal stories - but in reverse, you can create panic and frenzy with negative stories - why not take the measures now to ensure that in time, pit bulls will be an accepted breed one day where the average person will have no issue in adopting one.

My dog's best friend was a pit bull. She was such a lovely dog. There are also pits around my neighborhood that are mean as hell (and their owners have to wrestle with to stop them from lunging at my dog). Its just goes with the territory. I do think that there are way, way too many of these dogs in shelters and while the owners probably love their pit bulls, why encourage more breeding and re-homing of the animals? If they were more widely controlled, there would be fewer problems, fewer reasons to complain about the breed - in short, by putting the humans through some trouble now, you might save scores of little animals that cannot choose to live by our standards.

And in speaking to the FABB, I am not referencing all members but merely the ones that are sending out threats. But to the ones that are arguing on forums such as these, you are fighting a losing battle. When the public hears of a pit bull attack, the damage is already done. Fighting about the details afterward just increases the negative attention on your little furry friends. Do them a favor and act like a rational human being and stop attacking and start taking steps to help prove your cause and maybe you can make things better for everyone.

[I am not in any way affiliated with this whole story nor any of the people involved. I am just a person that cares about the dogs involved now and in the future.]
Due to breeding and mishandling, which includes simply not training a pitbull, they are unpredictable. How many people claimed their dog was sweet and lovable after it killed or attacked another dog or killed a kid? How many pitbull attacks have happened with clueless owners standing by, or owners who couldn't control the dog? Sure, chihuahua's can be nasty and can inflict bites, but their jaw doesn't match what the jaw of a pit can do. Pitbulls are powerful, intelligent dogs. Nobody debates this fact. But honestly, how many of the owners here have taken their dogs through advanced training? Talk to animal control workers. They don't want to put down any dog. It's the last thing they want to do. If they're killing pits in greater numbers, they have cause to do so.

We need a breed ban, or incentives to make pitbull ownership for the very few. There exists a whole class of dogs that can kill people. Very few people should be allowed to own them, neglect them, name them Pookie and threaten anyone who wants to take their dog away. You do realize that by threatening a critic you've all but admitted that you're too incompetent to own a dog that routinely kills, unprovoked.
Ever wonder why Cesar Milan's top dog is a pitbull. Because of the balanced energy he brings to his pack. He says that pitbulls are victims of a form of breed racism. We lump all pits into one category, so on one hand they can be sweet & loveable and on the other hand, watch your back because they can turn on you and attack. That is just not the case. I don't personally own a pit but have been around enough of them to know that what he says is true. Breed bans don't work, what will work is regulating who can own this dog. How many reports do we read where the owner is held highly accountable for a dog bite. All we see is the dog either shot on the street or being taken away by animal control to be put down. Okay, what about the owner. Let's hear more about them. Who are they, what previous behavior has the dog shown, do they have a criminal record, has the dog been loose in the neighborhood before. I would really like to know more facts about the owners and you will see an emerging trend. This will help identify what kind of owner they are and ban them from ever owning the breed again. There is surprisingly little covered about the owners and all about the dog.
Yes, there is surprisingly little said about the owners of pitbulls when it comes to attack stories. It's because they all say the same freaking thing: "Gosh. He's never done anything like this before. I've had friends over, and he's always been real sweet." That's the extent of their analysis. And it sounds really similar to what is currently coming out of the mouth of the FABB zealots. I DO NOT care how loving your personal pitbull is. Come on down to the South End, watch the pitbulls hang from trees by their jaws and then tell me to give them the benefit of the doubt. Honestly, I don't give a shit about who is to blame for pitbull attacks. The dog breed, the owner, the system, whatever... by the time I puzzle that one out, it'll be too late to pry their jaws off my 3 year old's head. Public safety trumps personal preference, in my book. That's why we all wear seatbelts, despite how safe and loving drivers we claim to be.

If donkeys were prone to bursting through fences and knocking innocent people down and tearing off their ears, I'd speak out against those too. There are lots of pets out there. I suggest getting a non-lethal one. Problem solved!
200 years ago they outlawed bear and bull-baiting in England. The fighting dogs then (what we now know as the English Bulldog....think Meaty from the show Rob & Big) were put through the same hate and discrimination that these "pit bulls" are now.

"[English]Bulldogs are generally docile, friendly and gregarious but occasionally willful. Breeders have worked to breed aggression out of the breed, and as such the dog is known to be of generally good temperament"

Good breeding, training and handling are all that is needed to erase the problems that "pit-bulls" face today. I use the quotes on "pit-bulls" because it is not actually a breed but rather is a catch-phrase used by the media because they know it will grab headlines. "In the media the term is vague and may include other breeds with similar physical characteristics, such as the Perro de Presa Canario, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Alano Espanol, Japanese Tosa, Dogue de Bordeaux, Cordoba Fighting Dog, Bull Terrier, Antebellum Bulldog, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, American Bulldog, Boxer, Valley Bulldog, Olde English Bulldogge, Renascence Bulldogge, and Banter Bulldogge. These breeds are rarely listed by name in breed-specific legislation, but they are sometimes included when the term is defined broadly and based on physical appearance."


Each fatal attack backed up with a link to the news article...look at the graphs
Hey "givecatsatry" your statement:

"Yes, there is surprisingly little said about the owners of pitbulls when it comes to attack stories. It's because they all say the same freaking thing: "Gosh. He's never done anything like this before."

Agreed, THAT is what the media reports, failing to look past the obvious and past history of the owners involved - like the horrible Sea-tac case; it behooves the media to quote irreponsible owners:

"They were so sweet..."

The fact of the Sea-Tac case and others involving legitimiate dog attacks? There's always a history of abuse and refusal to control the dogs. Dogs don't just suddenly "snap". It serves the media to promote that stereotype concerining pit bulls, it reads good.

FABB is not made up of zealots, but rather intellligent caring people that prefer to quelch lies about our group, lies about our dogs and work with public officials to make changes to protect the public and hold dog owner's responsible for their dog's actions BEFORE tragedy occurs. We will not stand by however and allow a website or a person to slander and lie about our members or our dogs, its that simple.

And to Irene, as far as "grace"? I doubt you even know what that entails; it surely doesn't involve lies and it doesn't involve the traits of passive aggressive individuals i.e: learned helplessness, procrastination, stubborness, and resentment, all of which you have displayed with your actions/lack of and change midstream in your tactics.

There are a couple of ways Irene to "call BS".

One can do it behind the viel of disingenuine "grace" with soft words and what appears to be a non-threatening voice - but then do the opposite in one's actions - to hurt others with passive/ agressive actions to hide one's real and true intent, (as you have).

Or one can be straightforward with words so there is no confusion in the digging out of the truth using calm, reasonable, actions that are in line with the words - this is what FABB does. We have no cognitive dissonance. We are open. We are finding solutions to protect the public, and you bet we will protect anyone legally who is lied about in the media or in a crazed, sensationalized web page that threatens the safety and privacy of one of our members.

We are not the zealots.

The zealots lie in your and other's false pretense of grace Irene.

In other words, I will not lower myself to your level of disingenuine care.
1) There is a lot of good information out there about dog handling and how dogs learn (Ian Dunbar/Dog Star Daily, Iain Macdonald/Modal Theory), and I tend to value the opinions of people who know what they're talking about more than people who don't, but that's me. It's my understanding that dog experts who support BSL are very hard to find. Another thing- if you massage and coo at your dog for half an hour after such a minor incident with a puppy, or you imply things like in this article without making relevant observations about the interaction, it seems to me like you haven't bothered to learn very much about dogs. That's your perogative I guess, but how can there be an intelligent debate if most of the participants can't interpret what's going on?

2) I have read a number of differing stats on the percentage of pit bull (versus other breed) bites in Seattle. The most was 50%, and I might be pulling that out of my ass. How come only the pitbull attacks are bad? Is protecting people from attacks at most half the time really the best you guys can strive for? Is that the best legislation that can be passed in these circumstances? Yall are in trouble then, seriously.
nice picture...........
Breed history lesson for you don't h8:

The ENGLISH BULLDOG was NOT a bull baiter! The Olde Country Bulldogge was the bull baiter and it closely resembled the APBT.
After bull baiting was banned, the brits had no use for the bull baiter bulldog, they crossed it out with other breeds like the Pug to get that freaky little deformed English Bulldog that you see today, which is physically incapable of bull baiting. It can barely breathe or reproduce on its own let alone fight a bull.
The Olde Country Bulldogge had made its way to America but was extinct in Britain.

By ZEALOTS, you mean like this?

Or like this?
Pit nutters LOVE to cite Diane Jessup's lawdogs. I really wish they would read her book or her website. Great info out there for pit bull owners, wish they would actually read and adopt her advice, the world would be a better place for people and dogs.

excerpts from

"It's all how you raise them!" - NOT!

Some people assume - incorrectly - that a dog's temperament is primarily shaped by how it is raised. You have heard these people say "It's all how you raise them!"

This statement is not only inaccurate, it is unfair to the animal, which, in reality, is influenced primarily by its genetics. You cannot raise a border collie to be a champion fighting dog, and you cannot raise a cocker spaniel to work rough stock. A retriever won't win at the dog track, and a greyhound won't lead the blind. Environment can and does influence a dog's behavior in so much as certain traits can be encouraged or discouraged, but a genetically shy or aggressively unsound dog cannot be "fixed" no matter how much that high priced "behaviorist" tries to convince you that it can.

Bottom line - if you chose to own a fighting dog breed, don't foolishly be surprised if the animal expresses aggression toward other dogs. Respect the animal's genetic history and treat it accordingly. You woulnd't be surprised if you bought a German shepherd and it was aggressive toward strangers, would you?
Excellent observations Gin.

You see the Pit Bull haters don't want solutions, (Colleen Lynn and Ellen Taft) - if this was solved, then they would have no reason for their self-promotion and no outlet for their hate.

And they really don't care about the other dog attacks and bites, like this one:


or even this:


Because to them - babies that get killed by Pit Bulls are more important than babies that get killed by Labs.

I'm so glad you can see their obvious flaw Gin.

These "crazies" don't really give a damn about dog attacks at all or protecting human life.
"In the media the term is vague and may include other breeds with similar physical characteristics, such as the Perro de Presa Canario, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Alano Espanol, Japanese Tosa, Dogue de Bordeaux, Cordoba Fighting Dog, Bull Terrier, Antebellum Bulldog, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, American Bulldog, Boxer, Valley Bulldog, Olde English Bulldogge, Renascence Bulldogge, and Banter Bulldogge. These breeds are rarely listed by name in breed-specific legislation, but they are sometimes included when the term is defined broadly and based on physical appearance."

Well, I should hope the Cordoba Fighting Dog would NEVER be listed in BSL. IT IS EXTINCT!
I agree with Jordan from animal control, "we need to attack the deed, not the breed."

BTW. the Victrola dog is a Fox Terrier, not a pit bull.
Honestly folks, I know that dogs are like children to many people (mine certainly are) and it's hard not to get emotional about things that we love, but can we put aside the vitriol and act like adults. Irene- I appreciate your thoughtful tone and I appreciate your giving credit to the pit bull owners, for owning up to their dog’s behavior. No doubt that we all use our experience to gauge our world. But we’re only one person, and if we want to get an accurate assessment of the situation, we HAVE to rely on the wonderful thing called statistic and demographics. Each year in the US, about 25 people re killed by dogs. About half of them are Pitts. Most of the dead are kids. Little kids.Wait! Don’t get excited breed ban folks! In the 70’s and 80’s about 25 people per year were killed by dogs. Almost none by Pitts. How come?- because irresponsible, anti-social people owned German Shepard’s and Dobermans back then. Pitts have replaced them as the dog de jour of the irresponsible, anti-social people of the 90’s and 00’s. Not to say that Pitt owners are bad people, just that bad people tend to own Pitts. (correlation, not causal, ya dig?).
I thought this was an excellent article on the subject

As an pit bull advocate I was not suprised by the ignorace that was displayed in this article.
"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." This should say it accounts for a quarter of REPORTED attacks. Not all dog bites are reported and not all reported "pitbull attacks" are actually pit bulls. After reading your article I was furious but then I realized that attempting to educate you would be futile. The articulate comments before mine prove a much better point. There is a wave of incompetancey sweeping the world and the parties involved in this article are right in the middle of it.
My Pit Bull was attacked and bitten on the muzzle by a Beagle during their dog obedience training. My dog's reaction? Submit by rolling over and showing her belly. Why? Because a responsible owner of a Pit Bull, Doberman, Rottweiler, etc. will train his or her dog that it is NEVER ok to be agressive toward man or beast, even in self defense.

I hate that people want to take my loving family pet away - and make no bones about it, registration and high fees are a front for a ban - because ignorant people train some of them to fight and other ignorant people don't bother to look into the bloodlines of their dogs and buy a "pet" that turns out to be descended from an agressive dog.
Obviously Jonah Spangenthal-Lee forgot that part of being a journalist is fairly presenting both sides of the argument. He blatantly favors breed specific legislature in this article. Find a more professional journalist who knows how to write a balanced story, and then perhaps I will read your paper again. And Mr. Spangenthal-Lee, save your opinions for the editorial section or find a new job.
"Because a responsible owner of a Pit Bull, Doberman, Rottweiler, etc. will train his or her dog that it is NEVER ok to be agressive toward man or beast, even in self defense."

See what I mean?
I'm of the opinion that there are good pitbull owners and bad ones. The former train their dogs well and have few if any incidents.

The latter group walks around with them in the same way someone carries a sawed off shotgun as if to say, "You wanna fuck with me?"

The same used to be true about Dobermans years ago.

It's not so much the dog as it is the owner of any breed.
Wow how ironic....My pitbull was attacked by a yellow lab outside the Lockspot a couple years ago....What does this mean? Sure pitbulls have the ability to inflict more damage then a poodle, but so do dobies, rots, and german shepards...It is all about training, love, and supervision. These are the three things all dog owners should abide by. Always use a leash and pick up the poop to....
I am an educated, professional 30 year old woman who owns a Pit Bull (Canine Good Citizen certified) and lives in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. I fell in love with this breed after spending 2 months volunteering at Hurricane Katrina and handling hundreds of Pit Bulls.

I do not agree with a breed ban but I do agree that Pit Bull owners need to accept increased responsibility (and perhaps some of my points could be incorporated into a law governing ownership of this breed). This includes:

- Mandatory spay/neuter of all Pit Bulls. Pit Bull breeders can submit an application to breed their dogs along with proof that at least one of the breeding parents is CGC (Canine Good Citizen) certified and the breeding is to promote the improvement of the breed in regard to both temperement and health.

- Pit Bulls are the #1 stolen breed in the US. Do NOT leave your Pit Bull tied up in front of stores or unattended in your yard unless you have a 6' wood fence with padlocks on it. Stolen Pit Bulls are subject to horrendous torture. Protect your dog!

- DO NOT let your Pit Bull off-leash in public. The public (including myself) is scared to death when they see a loose Pit Bull coming towards them. The public is more likely to shoot and or harm a loose Pit Bull than say, a Pomeranian. Even if you know your dog is perfectly trained and gentle, there is no need to scare the public and risk your dog's life.

- If your Pit Bull is CGC certified, he/she should be allowed to walk on leash in public without a muzzle (your Pit Bull must wear his CGC tag in public). If your dog is the slightest bit aggressive, it needs to be muzzled in public. Muzzling Pit Bulls will not be a huge factor in preventing attacks because most reported attacks occur when the dog escapes the yard. But it may prove helpful in dog to dog attacks on the street. (Any aggressive dog should be muzzled in public).

- Pit Bulls should not be allowed at off-leash parks. Pit Bulls makes people nervous and will always be blamed for causing a dog fight even if they are defending themselves. Socialize Pit Bulls in a controlled environment with familiar dogs.

We need more government funding towards the hiring of Animal Control Officers and we need additional officers available in areas (do I dare say lower-income neighborhoods?) where Pit Bulls are commonly free-roaming and owners tend to be less responsible with their pets (this isn't necessarily lower income areas). We need stricter penalties against owners whose dogs are found free-roaming (steeper monetary penalty?) and animal control needs to confiscate the dog if it appears dangerous. We need severe consequences for owners whose dogs have attacked people and other dogs.

Because the Pit Bull is only registered through the United Kennel Club (if at all), the breed itself varies tremendously in temperement and appearance. Many Pit Bulls are like Golden Retrievers and some Pit Bulls (game bred dogs) have a very high prey drive and can be very dangerous.

Pit Bulls are now the 4th most popular breed registered in Seattle. Their growing popularity is sure to guarantee that we continue to have these issues unless we take immediate steps towards regulating the responsible ownership of this breed.
>"The RCA Victrola dog? A pitbull"

No, he was a mix of Fox Terrier and Bull Terrier. Got the word "bull" in it, yes, but rather different. See http://www.agilitynut.com/critters/dogscats.html
My dog has been attacked on three occasions as as I walked him, twice by a raging spaniel whose owner refuses to keep leashed and once by a an out of control Jack Russell Terrier. BTW I tried to approach the Spaniel, he proceeded to snarl and would have bitten me had the owner not gotten to it first. My dog might be mistaken for a PB, he's a mixed breed, stocky fellow-my point is that the owners need to be held responsible. I would NEVER leave my dog alone in our yard, I will not take him into close spaces like pet boutiques or to dog parks with random dogs. I am very responsible for my very loving and yes challenging pet. I adopted him and have payed for training. He is leashed or in my yard under my supervision. Why should I be penalized for what some asshole does with their dogs. I am being a decent citizen, I would like to understand what the breed ban, make them pay $10000 for insurance have to gain from scapegoating me and several other citizens like me. Are they in the insurance industry?
I love dogs and all the pit bulls I've known personally are sweet well socialized canines. But the pit bull advocates get very little sympathy from me because they ignore some simple realities about the breed.

1. Pit bulls may not bite more than other breeds on average but their large muscular jaws are capable of doing more damage than a cocker spaniel or jack russell. That's why pit bull bites are considered more serious.

2. Being dog aggressive is a trait that has been selected for in the development of the breed. I don't think this is even a debatable point. Yes, proper training and socialization can help with this, but it's still there and it requires more work than socializing a basset hound.

That being said, a breed band is not fair to the responsible owners who take the time to properly train and care for pits.

But the truth is the surge in the breed's popularity is a result of irresponsible owners who want an intimidating status symbol and not a dog.

One of the saddest results, which pit bull activists surely know, is the amount of pit bulls in shelters and the amount euthanized over the year because these owners think it would be cool to run a little back yard breeding operation. I would support a breed band solely because it could result in less animals being homeless and destroyed. But I doubt these people wold adhere to that or they'd switch to german shepherds.
Everyone says their pit bull is passive and loving until it eats some kids face. If you're so sure that your gentle little monster wouldn't hurt anything, then you shouldn't mind some legislation that makes the owner criminally liable if it does.

You're naive and irresponsible if you own a pitbull. What're you trying to prove anyway???
actually, Salad, I'm not sure a breed ban would result in less animals being destroyed. It wouldn't stop douchebag backyard breeders, maybe they would switch breeds, but the problem would remain. Or they would keep at it. Quebec shelters get pit pups from Ontario, where there is a ban, all the time. Tons of them.
So how do you tell the difference between a Pitbull and an American Staffordshire? They are wildly different breeds in temperament but they look almost exactly the same physically.

The Amstaff has been bred specifically to be a family friendly dog and not to be aggressive, whereas Pitbulls are working dogs bred for their "gameness" - great for hunting wild pigs in Texas but not for walking around your upper middle class urban neighbourhood.

So how do you tell the difference? Papers? Good luck. Euthanise anything that resembles a pit? That's great, kill a lot of tame, docile family dogs. The UK has laws that are very restrictive concerning "dangerous breeds" and guess what? You can walk down the street nearly anywhere and see a Chav with a vicious, abused pit on a chain.

If we as a society decide that it's OK to own dogs then we are in a bit of a bind, there's no way to effectively legislate dangerous breeds. There are other subjects that warrant a lot more attention. Worry about bike paths and public transport, or health care, or nearly anything else that matters more than 22 deaths per year in a country of 300 million people.
So yeah pits get a bad rap, thats horrible. Its made worse because whenever anyone is attacked by one its in the headlines. Do you ever hear about when a chow chow(the most likely dog to bite you) bites someone? No. Banning a breed because of people stupid decisions is not the right thing to do. Its discrimination, ok so pits make up the majority of the real bad attacks but thats due to the dumb owner not being able to contain their dog, most owners however do know how to handle their pits. But if you want to discriminate against my dog because of its breed where will it stop. Blacks and hispanics make up the majority of crime, should Seattle ban them as well? Wouldnt it be for the better of the community?
My best friend has two Pitbulls and i have to say, I hate going to her house.
Sweet dogs don't accidently almost kill a mini winner dog. She is a PitBull finatic, and has been sued once due to her pit bulls behavior. I do not trust her to train the dogs correctly, and she has no control over either one of them. I feel bad telling her that I feel VERY uncomfortable around her "babies". I dont know if there should be a ban, I dont think thats very fair. But pit bull owners need to realize that owning a breed with a lot of bad press is going to have to make them extra vigilent against creating more bad press. And just like my best friend had to learn there might be a chance of getting sued if your dog is not properly contained. I hope to god I never encounter a pit bull just walking around unleashed. I do fear for kids who may get hurt because they may not know any better to approch a strange dog. I dont know, I do not want to sound like a "breed racist" but i dont want to be around them if i can help it.
I think the way FABB handles their business is very telling (i.e. threatening the FDAFB people and the Stranger staff) and ultimately undercuts their cause. Ditto the pit bull supporters who have posted here (with some exceptions). I've always been leery of pit bulls. But jeez after reading about FABB's shennanigans, and the posts here, I have to say I'm even more put off. If pit bulls are innocent and it's really the owners who are the aggressors, why should I support the right of bullies like FABB to own these dogs?
Was just forwarded this - jaw drop:

How embarrassing, the FABB trying to cover up the truth of the matter. Pit bulls are dog aggressive and they should be absolutely ashamed of their behavior in this matter. Either side should be ashamed of lying to convince people to join their cause but trying to cover up facts is just pitiful.

I'm glad that I'm moving to WA where there are plenty of BSL laws already passed.
Did anyone check the backgrounds of the "advocates" (esp. of FDAFB) before writing this article? Or is this "article" really meant as an editorial? If it was, next time, label it correctly, because as others have said this piece sure seems to have an agenda when you consider details like Ms. Taft's history and the chosen picture.

Any dog - that's ANY DOG - can be used for fighting if their owner so desires. I know enough foul tempered and openly aggressive chihuahuas that I'd suspect they'd make great fighting dogs. Should they be banned too? I've had several of them come after my dog. For what it's worth, in all my time and all my work with animals, I've never been bitten by or shown aggression by a Pit Bull (or other "dangerous" dog). I however have been bitten by several small dogs and the most aggressive dog I've ever known is a mixed breed that's around 50 pounds - he's attacked my dog 3 times.

The true problems are that Ms. Taft (and perhaps others with FDAFB) have what's not just an anti-Pit Bull but more correctly stated as an ANTI-DOG agenda. Read or view the other stuff Ms. Taft has had to say to other newspapers and television stations. Ok, sure, perhaps FABB is a little shortsighted and overzealous in their protection of Pit Bulls, but so is FDAFB shortsighted and overzealous in their attempt to paint them as a bad BREED. It's a problem of BAD DOGS and bad OWNERS.

The other problem is that Seattle has very lax laws when it comes to aggressive animals. There is absolutely NOTHING that Seattle Animal Control can do - nothing, not one thing - until the aggressive animal causes injury to human or animal. It can show signs of aggression, signs it's uncontrolled by its owner, it can even attack without provocation REPEATEDLY but if it doesn't cause injury they can't do anything more than advise you to "carry something for deterrence and call when the aggressive dog causes an injury". It's the LAW that's the biggest problem - and this can be fixed without banning any breeds.
I'm sick of the Strangers bad rap on pit bulls. I'll I ever hear from the Stranger and Dan Savage is how bad Pit bulls are. This is bull shit and you suck for printing your lies and propaganda. Stop the bad media hype and get your facts straight. Bad owners make and allow bad dogs. WHY ARE WE NOT HOLDING OWNERS LIABLE FOR THERE DOGS(PETS) ACTIONS. As an owner you make the discussions for your dog. Your in charge and should have to deal with your bad discussions. Blame the owner/dog not the breed.
Irene your an idiot and a drama queen. Pay attention to your dog and keep it out of everones face when you walk it. Not every one likes to have a dog in its face even another dog. Be a better owner not a drama queen.

After all of this you just had to get the word out, to the stranger? You have problems. Your dog is fine. Get over it
"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.

How exactly does one over-report an attack?
If I was at this event with my 12 year old black lab and had an altercation with the FABB dog, my dog would have at least attempted to give the FABB dog a Saturday Night Smackdown. She is no shinking violet so lets be reasonable here. This was a dog to dog altercation, it was the hysterical owner of the lab who has blown this all out of proportion and seizing the moment to make a case against evil pitbulls. My mini pin just stood up to one a few weeks ago at the dog park, what happened? The pit owner called their dog back over as my little warrior stood there waiting for a fight. He didn't get one that day but he will try again I am sure. I feel sorry for people so bent on banning pitbulls, their fear must be overwhelming to live with. I am just as vulnerable to get attacked by a pit or any other dog but I can put things into perspective and I don't allow FEAR (false evidence appearing real) to control my thinking and make outrageous demands like a breed ban. I am not a pit owner but I am not afraid of them either. I appreciate and respect the fact that they are a powerful breed and at the same time are wonderful pets and companions. They give far more than they get and I hope that the balance will shift back in their favor and we will start to take this breed back from irresponsible and neglectful owners.
ARmom: How many sides of your mouth can you speak out of at once? A pit wanted to fight with your dog, but they're such wonderful animals.

"He didn't get one that day but he will try again" just screams that you KNOW these dogs are dangerous.

Yeah you're right...I didn't word that correctly. Here is what actually happened spelllleedd out: we were at the dog park, a pitbull came over to sniff my mini pin, this gets my mini pin in high alert, the owner of the pit was watching and called his dog back over and off they went. My minipin stood there looking for a fight, my minipin didn't get one but I am sure he will try again another day. I purposely bring him to the dog park to help with his socializing. He is getting better though he still has his good days and his bad days. If you read my post, I said MY little warrior was waiting for a fight. Your response just screams "YOU NEED TO READ POSTS A LITTLE CLOSER" before responding.
I don't think I need to read anything closer, I think you need to explain it better (as you did, thank you)

When you say that a pit approached and then you say "He didn't get one that day but he will try again I am sure." one is automagically led to think you're talking about the pit, not your dog.

Basically this was a non-event, then.
Pit Bulls should not be illegal. A violent pitbull is the fault of it's owner, 100%. This can either be through actual abuse, or just ignorance.

Also, the pet store situation described is just begging for trouble, they should NOT have allowed pets at the opening. Dogs are naturally wary of dogs they don't know, and dogs should never be introduced on leash. Like humans, dogs work with a fight or flight instinct. If a dog is forced into a close proximity with another dog, and he gets nervous, normally he could and would choose to move away. But when he's restricted on leash, flight is not an option, so he has to choose fight.

My Dachshund will do the same thing, and once actually bit a pit bull on the nose. That was a situation I would have never allowed to happen, but it was the culmination of a series of bizarre events. Anyway, what did the pit bull do? Rolled him over and controlled him, could have killed him in one bite but didn't.

The point is, and dog experts agree, there are no "fighting dogs". Dogs don't want to fight, even the pitbulls that are bred specifically for that purpose have to be basically tortured and abused into fighting.
I find it disheartening that a fantastic liberal paper like the stranger would publish such a biased article. This was a straight up editorial full of opinion and incorrect information. The media gets so hysterical when it comes to pitbulls. There isd more to it than just "pitbulls make up a quarter of dog attacks". Are they actually pitbulls or a member of the other half-dozen breeds that get incorrectly ID'd as pits? How about the fact that losers bent on owning aggressive dogs and training them that way might be responsible, not the dog, who would be a lovely family dog if properly raised? And the legions of hysterical people who rush to report a "pit attack" but wouldn't say a thing to animal control if their nieghbor's lab bit them?
I work at the Whatcom Humane Society and we have had dozens of fantastic, sweet, well-mannered pits up for adoption. We make it mandatory for adopters to take their pits to obedience training and spay/neuter them before they go home. Why not legislation for training and altering, instead of outright banning?
All I'm saying is, look at the whole picture and get your info from varied and reliable sources and do a little critical thinking. This goes for the public and the staff at the stranger.
Yeah. They're all "sweet and well mannered" until they snap and chew somebody's face off.

Look at the real record.
From a history of pit bulls and Stafforshire terriers:

"Terrier-type dogs were bred with bull dogs in the 1700’s to create the commonly called “pit dog,” a term used to describe a variety of breeds that were used to bait bulls or bears in England. Much like the hog-dog rodeos currently being held in Louisiana, bull-type dogs were released to grab, hold, and take down a bull or bear before spectators. The sport was widely popular before England outlawed it in 1835. It was then that dog fighting emerged.

The miners of Staffordshire, England created the Staffordshire Bull Terrier specifically to fight in the pit. All of the bull-terrier type dogs today originated from the Staffordshire dogs. Consequently, the American Staffordshire Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier come from the same stock.

Over time, the American Staffordshire Terrier strain has been bred for show quality, not fighting ability, whereas the Pit Bull has been bred for fighting versus show traits."

Those who say "blame the deed not the breed" are missing the point. North American breeders have been selecting for fighting traits since the introduction of the pit bull. Yes, there are many admirable breeders selecting sires and bitches with sweet dispositions and no history of aggression but do you think all those hundreds of dogs rescued from cramped puppy mills are the offspring of such thoughtful, responsible breeding? No. Face it: North American breeders have corrupted this gene pool in their attempt to create winning fighting dogs. Your dog may be a sweet, child-friendly, cat loving animal, but, if so, it's fighting against the strong directive of its own genetics and it may just be a matter of time before it gives in. It's your choice to put yourself in that kind of danger but don't expect your community to assume that risk as well. I'll gather some signatures.
The thing I don't understand is what people find attractive about these dogs. Aside from the ability to tell the world that you're a badass without having to open your mouth.
Why not just spring for the neck tattoo from the get go?
Speaking as a disinterested observer from Australia (where pit bulls are, largely, a banned breed), it seems to me that Colleen attempted to be very reasonable in her comments to Irene regarding the pit-bull incident, and was abused, slandered and ridiculed in response by advocates. This seems to me to not be a very good way of getting pit bull advocacy to the masses. Surely you could dispute her points without being insulting on a personal level? I have owned dogs on and off since I was a child, and am currently in the market for another to join our family. having read these comments, I must say that a pit bull would be the very last dog I would buy. If you cant be decent and responsible on a forum, guys, you dont get my vote in terms of breed ownership.
la, I just recently moved back to the states after five years Sydney. Pits might be legally banned in Oz but that's hardly the reality, I lived in Newtown and couldn't walk down the street without running into one. All of the ones I knew were good natured.

Go out west and they're even more common but tend to be vicious because they're owned by westie trash. Which goes to show that you can't successfully ban them. As was pointed out in the comment above, the split in breed between the American Staffordshire and the Pit Bull is nearly impossible to tell just by looking at the dog. Want to breed Pits? Just put AmStaff on the certificate.

I reiterate the point I made earlier about the ridiculousness of approaching dog bans as a public safety concern and would point to statistics on deaths and injuries compared to more important issues.

(NOTE that American Staffordshires are not to be confused with English Staffordshires which are like a short, squat version of the AmStaff)
I live in Ontario, where pit bulls are banned. Do I feel safer? No. Any dog can be dangerous (yes, a Chihuahua is less likely to inflict a fatal bite, but the little buggers could put your eye out.) No dog should be left alone with a small child. Kids don't know how to treat animals properly, and even the mildest-mannered animal will bite if it's trapped and someone is causing it pain.

My sister and brother-in-law own 5 dogs, four of them pit mixes. They live in the country, they make sure their dogs are properly supervised, and they have never, in 20 years, had problems with anyone being bitten by their dogs.

I'd like to see a law banning anyone with a criminal record of drug sales, firearms violations, or assault convctions be banned from owning a pit bull or any other "gladiator" breed.

9 times out of 10, a "dog" problem is really an "irresponsible person" problem. How about a law to ban stupid, vicious humans? That'd have my vote.
I severely doubt that pitbulls make up 25% of attacks. People only report about pitbulls. I didn't report that my sister-in-laws jack russell tore the ear off my beagle for no reason. Should we start a petition to make all jack russels wear muzzles?? How about dalmations, or poodles (had one growing up that bit everyone in the neighborhood)?????? My pitbull is the most loving, non-aggresive dog I have ever seen. Being scared is no reason to ban a certain breed of dog!!!! But we humans love to categorize don't we?? Race, Religion, and now dog.......
I was once brutally mauled by...wait for it...a golden retriever at my little brother's daycare center. Goes to show any breed can attack. However, had it been a pit-bull, it would have killed me. I've met lots of nice pit bulls, but seriously, if a maltese goes nuts and tries to kill you, it will probably break its own teeth on your shoes. I think a sensible solution hat would make everyone happy would be to have their incredible jaw power bred OUT until they have the same physical capabilities as normal dogs. Then everyone who legitimately LIKES pitbulls for non fighting purposes can have one, and we wont have nearly as many nasty incidents..
Lets face it americans are just stupid. like with hand guns, dogs do not kill people people do. everything negative that happens is usually the direct response from the poor and irresponsible actions of an adult. i have had friends with pit bulls and they never once tried to bite me, even when we wrestled they would shy away from over aggressive behavior.

Forcing good dog owners to pay a licensing fee that is through the roof and carry insurance is unconstitutional, and i feel if one pet owner has to pay then any pet owner with a dog or cat (i include cats because they are allowed to roam free) should have to pay as well.

So to be totally serious stop being stupid punish the bad owners put down the confirmed bad dogs and leave the rest of us alone.
Americans are stupid? No, you racist bastard, people in groups are reactionary and illogical.

Pardon my exception to your racism but I've been on the receiving end of that sort of bigotry (and have the facial scars to prove it) too many times to let that slide.

I agree with your point but do it without the slur next time, mate.
In my experence Pits can be the best dog. IF the owner or owners are responsible people.
I was raised with 2 over grown sucks (Pitbull's), they were the most gentle dogs I have ever been around. I have been attacked by may Lassa-Apso's, Terriers and other small dogs more times then I care to imagine. Look up the stats on small dog attacks compaired to large dogs. Small dogs attack more often but do less damage, therefore less heard from. Should Pit's be banned due to their "agressive-ness" then should all small psycho breeds as well.
All dogs require love an attention. Perhaps we should consider mandatory dog training for all breeds and owners... what a concept!?!
Please take a few minutes out of your busy day to read my story. My name is Karla and I own a rescued pit bull named Lulu. Born and raised in King County, I have a college education from The Evergreen State College. My parents still live in the home I grew up in near Bothell, in the Lake Washington School District. I currently reside in West Seattle. Lulu and I live in a sleepy duplex in the Pigeon Point neighborhood. She socializes with the Golden Doodle named Romeo upstairs. Lulu also has a companion cat named Wanda, who is 15 years old. I am a law abiding and tax paying citizen who votes. I work as an outreach case manager with a well-known nonprofit. I serve only the most vulnerable women on the streets. I have been in this position for nearly eight years. Lulu was abandoned and left to fend for herself on the streets at five months old. She was picked up by animal control and I adopted her two weeks later. Like my clients on the street, she was very sick when she came home from the shelter. I took her in and helped her stay warm with blankets and affection. We had to postpone her spaying for almost four weeks while she was nursed back to health. Lulu is a licensed dog. I bought her the two year option last year. She’s good until August 2009, when I will buy her another two year license. The county never sent me one of those little tags, instead I was told it was on record somewhere? Unfortunately, breed specific legislation would affect me. By outlawing pit bulls, the county would be outlawing my dog. What would this mean? As in other cities, would officers come to my home and attempt to take Lulu away, only to euthanize her? Lulu is a peaceful dog. We go to the Three Dog Bakery and pick out treats. She really loves the Peanut Brindle. I only give her the pupcakes on special occasions because she has an annoying tendency to bury them in my bed. Lulu has been attacked while on leash by several Chihuahuas. A person would probably think ‘oh no! That pit bull is going to kill it!’ Indeed. Lulu backs away quietly and looks at me with this bewildered expression on her face. I reassure her that it’s alright and we keep walking. I am not the best dog trainer in the world. I can’t seem to leash train her to save my life. Instead, I have chosen the Halti brand gentle leader that wraps around her muzzle. I am an average dog owner. The kind that wishes I could spend more time walking her and playing with her, but has a 40 hour work week that keeps me away from home. We do celebrate the holidays though. Lulu has had two Halloweens with me. She has been a ladybug and a cowgirl. I’m not sure what she’ll be this year, if BSL continues to be a threat – maybe it would be most appropriate to build her a little wooden coffin to wear around town? Please review the Centers for Disease Control’s findings on BSL. Please review all the logical and reasonable information on this issue. I highly recommend the Pit Bull Rescue Central for information. Please do not respond to the pressure from the public that is being driven to react out of fear because of terrible news reports and the media frenzies that follow. I understand that people are scared and want action, but that action must be reasonable. Dogs are only as good as their owners. We have many of the answers already in place. For example; we know that dogs who are unneutered can act aggressively – why are dogs still running around with their balls? We also know that chaining dogs in yards will create angry and frustrated dogs that will behave unpredictably – why is it still legal to treat dogs this way? We also know that hoarding animals is a bad idea. Why do people still have a gross number of dogs left to behave as a pack when unattended? We also know that pit bulls are languishing in our shelters without homes. Why is it still legal to breed these dogs in dirt piles and backyards? Breeders should have a license that proves they are responsible to our communities and the breed standards, as outlined by either the AKC or the UKC. Most folks probably couldn’t identify the American Pit Bull Terrier out of a line-up with the American Staffordshire Terrier, the American Bulldog, the Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, a Mastiff or a mix of any of these breeds. Will BSL include all of these dogs? How many homes will BSL tear apart? How many citizens, like myself, will be forced to choose between giving up her beloved dog and breaking the law? I am available to consult with anyone about my dog. I am not an expert. I am merely a citizen who cares. Thank you for your time and patience. Karla
# American Veterinary Medical Association:

"The AVMA supports dangerous animal legislation by state, county, or municipal government provided that legislation does not refer to specific breeds or classes of animals."

# National Animal Control Association:

"Dangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed."

# Humane Society of the United States:

"HSUS opposes breed specific regulations because they do not address the underlying issues of owner behavior and responsibility."

# The American Kennel Club:

"Strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breed or phenotypic classes of dogs."

# American Humane Association:

"American Humane Association supports local legislation that protects communities from dangerous animals, but does not advocate laws that target specific breeds of dogs."
Is this jounalism or a lynch mob? Nice propaganda piece, Jonah and the Stranger staff. Statistics can be produced to back any argument no matter how ignorant it may be. Pick the stats, factual or in this case not, that back your argument and ignore everything else. Reverse science is great for spreading fear and hate.
Beware all you non-pitbull dog owners your dog will be next. The Brown-shirts will be kicking down your door next to take your family pet from your children. Take a look at the dogs listed in other breed bans, Italy for example, if you don't believe it.
Make it harder to own any dog, stop irresponsible breeding of any type of dog, and punish irresponsible dog owners. The dogs are innocent captives and need to be protected from abuse. Punish the deed not the breed!
Shame on the Stranger for this pseudo-journalism! Fear sells advertising, I guess. I won't be buying, though.
My malamute and my pit were attacked at the dog park by a very large,very aggressive black lab...my pit was terrified and hid, my malamute tried to run away but the lab latched on to him,i tried to pull them apart but the lab wouldnt let go,so I kicked him, he let go then, & attacked me. Thats when the owner finally decided to do somthin...by punching me. The point of this story is that ANY dog can be aggressive and any large dog can do serious damage or kill.Its not the breed, its the owner. Look at the rehabed Mike Vic fighting dogs...your viscious breed theory just went out the window
I've been considering the pros and cons of a Pit Bull ban, and having read through this thread, I'm now pro-ban.

The general thuggery and aggressiveness of the FABB folks does confirm one thing -- it's not the dog it's the owners. So even while I recognize that, Pit Bulls' ability to attract idiot owners (and I have my share of "duhh, my Pit's never done THAT before" stories of my own) has done enough damage to the breed that a ban is now necessary.

I feel for the responsible pit owners (however outnumbered) but I feel more for the family dog in my circle that was recently attacked and nearly killed in his own backyard by two wandering pits (story #1).

I'm going to contact the FDAFB folks and see how I can help.
I am owner of two dogs and in the last five years we have had several dangerous encounters with pitbulls and not ANY OTHER BREED. The last almost resulted in the death of our dogs but thankfully a neighbor was able to help us beat off two pitbulls (who of course had never, ever been aggressive before according to the owner). I have friends who are responsible pitbull owners. That means they recognize the tendency of this breed to be dog aggressive and the near impossibility of stopping a fight once it has begun. Anyone who says that pitbulls are not naturally aggressive has not spent anytime with the breed. They are not people aggressive but they are dog aggressive.Responsible owners should have no problem supporting regulations concerning the breed as all of our dogs would be safer.
As a pet store owner (I am choosing not to say where but, I will say very south of Seattle) and advocate for Bully Breeds I find all of this overwhelming and ridiculous. Dogs are dogs. I have never had a Pit Bull attack another dog in my store but, I have had my Chihuahuah attacked several times by Sheppard type breeds or labs. I know dog language and have a confident attitude. When I'm to busy to control my dogs they are not allowed to be out greeting other dogs. I'm so tired of they hype over bully breeds and the lack of attention humans are given in these situation. Albeit we all make mistakes but, the general population needs to understand dogs are dogs and it is our job to know our dogs limitations and keep them out of harmful situations. We currently own a pack of 5 dogs that range in size from 7lbs to 80lbs. None of our dogs are lookig for a scuffle and they are very well adjusted to other dogs and humans. As an owner I am very well of the limitations of my dogs and where they can get in trouble and I avoid those situations. I feel terrible for the folks whose dog was attacked but, feel worse for the dog who will now have his owners emotions pushed on him. Dogs live in the moment and it is people who will choose to say he has been traumatized by this event and force their fears upon their dogs. He was probably well over it 20 minutes later but, now most likely his family will be leary and he will pick up on these emotions. The best thing to do in this situation is for the dog to continue down the same path he was on and for the owners to know that sometimes dogs pick up on things in other dogs that they don't like and it isn't really our place to judge why that dog did what he did. But it is our place to demand that owners be responsible with their dogs and most people know if their dog is a little snarky and should be kept at a distance or if special requirements are needed for greeting another dog. There is nothing wrong with a dog who has other dog issues they just need a little more work and an owner who can handle it. Several months ago one of my customers dogs was killed in her front yard by her neighbors unleashed German Sheppard. This never made the news so I find a couple of puncture marks from a Pit Bull to be of little news or support for any kind of ban of the breed. Spend an afternoon in a dog park and start the ban where it really belongs....Lets Ban Bad Dog owners and demand spaying and neutering of pets!
it seems pit bull promoter types can't just admit the obvious. They were bred to bite, they often bite, its often catastrophic, its always "the first time" (or the dog would already be euthanized. They care more about their macho dog fetishes then if an occassional dachshund or old lady or kid gets mauled. Its not thier kid/old lady/puppy, so why should they care. Until their dog attacks, and then its all "its the first time.., the old lady should have played dead, the kid shouldnt have run...wha wha wha wha... grow up
No one has an inherent right to own a dog, dangerous or not. We have to accept regulation of our potentially dangerous playthings - cars, jetskis, Vicodin - because we want to all live together in relative security.

Yes, other breeds bite - Hell, aren't Cockers the worst offenders? But they simply don't have the massive jaws that allow pitbulls to inflict such grievous harm. Don't count the bites, count the stitches!

The pitbull owners I know may not be gangstas, but they're sure wannabes. All that carp about "loving pets" is preposterous - You wanna dog, get a dog, not a WEAPON.
as a licensed veterinary technician, i have encountered many more untrustworthy chows than pits. chows also have large jaws and they have even had a muzzle designed exclusively for them. we don't hear about this breed very often in the media eventhough they have just as much capability of inflicting harm as the pit bull. while i've seen pitbulls running loose in the past, i've never encountered an off-leash chow. i know that this goes back to the demographics of who is and who isn't a responsible dog owner. i think we should try taking other steps before considering a breed ban. if a pet escapes its yard, the owner should be heavily fined. all pets should be spayed/neutered. all dogs should be licensed. this and the leash law should be strictly enforced, which would require more money and staff for animal control. i don't want to live in a police state, but i would like to see people being held responsible for their dog and being able to provide documentation for it, regardless of the breed. back yard breeding should be illegal. by the way, i think even akc breeders should be breeding fewer dogs as we are seeing the number of breed-specific diseases escalate, not to mention the amount of unwanted pets in shelters and foster situations. we need to stop insulting each other like children and step up to being responsible pet owners.
My vote would be mandatory training classes, a "large dog" liability fee, and screening for any one who owns a dog over 30 or so lbs. If I get bit, I don't care if it's a lab or a pit or a chihauhau- the animal and its owner need to have more training and/or lose the ability to keep a dog.

My weimeraner became old, sick, and pain aggressive - we loved her but admitted she was becoming dangerous and had her put down. The other humans around us were worth more then our own convenience or our pet's life. I still miss her, but have made with any other decision and still thought of myself as a responsible person. Keeping a large dog isn't like most habits - that decision actually endangers others as much as or more than the decision-maker, like driving drunk. It comes with responsibility as well.

That said, small dog are more aggressive, in my experience with keeping pets, but large ones can do a lot more damage. To ignore that is to ignore physics and physiology and
Well I just joined the good fight to help stop BSL. Change definitely needs to take place but breed bans are not the answer, sorry folks. The picture at the beginning of this article is designed to strike fear in people who are already fearful and that dog is probably just barking like any other dog. Shame on you for exploiting that picture and exploiting this breed. I am going to do whatever I can to help stop any BSL from taking place.
I too, find it horrible the Stranger would run such a one sided story with the awful photo to back it up. I wonder how many Stranger staff members own a pit bull? And the photo is SO offensive..lets pretend that today...the main stream media started running storys that they have irrefutable evidence that gays and lesbians are the reason for all the worlds problems...would The Stranger then start running photos of men and women dresed in rainbow outfits being gay bashed???
While I find the whole "treating my dog like a human" movement in this country sickening and a sure sign of a society gone soft and fluffy, I do agree that the treatment and particularly the breeding of a dog have a great impact on it's potential for violence. That said...if a pit bull ever attacked my kids, i'm killing it right there and then...and possibly it's owners
It seems like Seattle's Liberal Crybaby Network is at it again. If pit bulls are dangerous breeds and attacks by pit bulls are on the rise, why are your hearts bleeding for the dog and not the victims? Sometimes all of you crybabies make me sick with all of your whining. The only reason why people are owning more pit bulls is because the have become the TREND! It is so hip and trendy now to walk around with a pit bull. Rewind the tape 20 years ago and you will see less tattoos and less pit bulls. At least the tattoos aren't hurting anyone.

This isnt the end of the word people, there are plenty of other breeds out there


What are you people thinking? Pit Bulls are beautiful and gentle creatures. It's you humans who need to be banned.
Yes, that is exactly what my sister was thinking when she adopted a Hurricane Katrina rescue pitbull. She wanted to be hip and have a trendy dog.

Politics & BSL (Breed Specific Legislation)
News Release: June 9, 2008
The Dutch government has acknowledged that their decades-long ban on Pit bulls had NO effect in decreasing bite incidents.
Dutch government to lift 25-year ban on pit bulls

The Dutch government says it will lift a long-standing ban on pit bulls because it did not lead to any decrease in bite incidents. *

Agriculture Minister Gerda Verburg has informed parliament of the decision, which follows the advice of a commission of experts appointed to review the policy.

Instead, the country will focus on enforcing local leashing laws and owner education programs.

Spokesman Koen Geelink said Monday the ministry hopes to have a new policy in place by year-end, in which dogs that have displayed aggression will be tested by an expert.

*In 1999, six years after the ban on Pit bulls in the Netherlands, the Dutch Consumer Safety Institute reported that dog bites continued with approx. 12,000 people being treated in emergency departments and with 220 hospitalizations.

Additionally, in the years after the ban, at least 3 children were killed by dogs in the Netherlands.

There is no evidence that breed-specific legislation has been effective in reducing the frequency or severity of attacks in any community, city, county or country.

However, canine aggression continues to be viewed by many as a breed specific trait and lawmakers and politicians persist on introducing dangerous dog legislation as a breed specific issue.

In addition to the fact that there is no evidence of the effectiveness of BSL, some politicians, in the process of defending their positions on the "dangerousness" of Pit Bulls, have made statements about fatal dog attacks and Pit Bulls that have no factual documentation.

Unsubstantiated claims about the number of fatal attacks and the breeds involved in these incidents are becoming more frequent. Since, no other professional national agency is presently researching fatal dog attacks, erroneous statistics and comments from lawmakers are going unchallenged, thereby making it necessary for the NCRC to address factual errors about Pit Bulls, canine behavior, and dog attacks. Lakewood, Ohio

The frightening reality of breed specific legislation is how little effort, critical thinking, concern for the facts or commitment to solving the "problem" many politicians demonstrate in the introduction and passage of breed bans. Equally disturbing are comments made by politicians who have NO knowledge, training or expertise on dogs, dog attacks, breeds of dogs or canine behavior; yet present their personal opinions as "facts." This is clearly demonstrated by Lakewood Councilman Brian Powers comments printed in the Lakewood Observer on May 25, 2008:

Mr. Powers stated: "Unfortunately, yes, Pit bulls are very dangerous. When a Labrador, Collie or other dog bites, you might end up with a bruise, or in some cases, a puncture wound. When a pit bull attacks, you may end up maimed for life or, in many cases, dead."

NCRC comment: There is no truth to this statement. This is the personal opinion of a person who has little to no knowledge about the types, nature or frequency of dog attacks by other breeds of dogs and even less knowledge about attacks by "Pit bulls." There is no evidence whatsoever that would substantiate such a claim. Not only is there no evidence to support this claim, there is documented evidence which uniformly disproves it. Serious, severe and fatal attacks have been attributed to hundreds of different breeds - Mr. Powers simply has no knowledge of them.

With a population of approximately 74 million dogs in the United States, only 24 people a year, on average, are killed by dogs of all breeds combined. To state that in "many cases" Pit bull attacks result in death is highly inaccurate and irresponsible. Fatal attacks are exceedingly rare for ANY breed of dog.

Mr. Powers stated: "Every legitimate study conducted in America, including the study by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, has demonstrated that pit bull bites are more likely to result in a fatality than bites or attacks by any other breed."

NCRC comment: Mr. Powers has either misunderstood or misrepresented the study in question. In response to politicians, such as Mr. Powers, misquoting and misusing their study, the CDC has posted the following statement on their website:

"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years. It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."

The authors of the very study Mr. Powers uses to support his argument have issued a statement directly refuting his claim.

Mr. Powers stated: "Pit bulls account for less than 3-4% of the dogs in our country."

NCRC comment: Mr. Powers has seemingly acquired knowledge about the population of dogs which seems to have eluded all the epidemiologists and canine professionals. The CDC (see above comment) has clearly stated there is "no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed."

The NCRC has found, after a decade of research on the subject, that there is simply no way to accurately determine the number of any given breed within the total dog population.

Mr. Powers stated: "Another study conducted in 1982 through 2006 similarly concluded that 44% of all fatalities from dog attacks involved pit bulls."

NCRC comment: The study Mr. Powers is referring to has been soundly denounced as a scrapbook of newspaper articles collected and presented as a "study" by a newspaper editor.

For the NCRC's analysis of this "study" please see:


Mr. Powers stated: "Veterinarians and their staff are often specially trained to deal with aggressive dogs. Vets are understandably careful about publicly bashing any breed of dog, for fear of backlash from the public."

NCRC comment: It is troubling that Mr. Powers would make such a disparaging remark about the intentions, motivations, and "fear" of the entire veterinary profession.

Mr. Powers has apparently dismissed the entire veterinary profession as having an "agenda" and instead chosen to use a random collection of newspaper articles as his source of information on dog attacks and Pit bulls.

Mr. Powers stated: "Pit bull fans always point out that Helen Keller owned one, but they fail to mention that, more recently, Michael Vick owned 49 Pit bulls. And the Little Rascals was a fictionalized account of childhood in the Great Depression, not a documentary."

NCRC Comment: It is difficult to make an intelligent response to these rather bizarre comments. Yes, Michael Vick did own 49 pit bulls and some of those dogs suffered extreme abuse - yet, the dogs rescued from Vick's property proved to be docile despite the horrors that they endured. Many of them have gone on to be loving, gentle, grateful pets and even therapy dogs. How can this in any way be viewed or presented as "evidence" of the breed's temperament, other than how forgiving and tolerant these dogs are of human cruelty, abuse and violence? To imply that this is anything other than an issue of human cruelty is disturbing.

As far as the Little Rascals being a fictionalized account, this is true. But, the very obvious point Mr. Powers seems unable to grasp is that the dog playing in this fictionalized story, Petey, was real. Meaning it was not a Collie or Labrador dressed up as a pit bull - it was one of millions of real pit bulls that have played with children over the decades, this one just also happened to play in the movies.


Rep. John Lesch has expressed his intentions of introducing breed specific legislation in 2008 to ban five (5) breeds/types of dogs throughout the entire state of Minnesota. http://wcco.com/local/dog.attack.breeds.2.368167.html

The breeds/types of dogs personally chosen by Rep. Lesch to be banned from Minnesota are: Rottweiler, Chow chow, Akita, Wolf-dog and "Pit bull" and ANY dog that appears to have the "traits" of these breeds/types of dog.

Such a draconian ban and the devastating impact it would have on dogs and their owners is presented by Lesch as necessary to protect Minnesotans from the "very real threat" his constituents face from these breeds/types of dogs.

So what evidence does Rep. Lesch have of the "real threat" posed to Minnesotans from these five breeds/types of dogs and all their look-a-like brethren?

Over the past 43 years there has been only ONE human fatality in the state of Minnesota by any of these 5 breeds/types of dogs.

Of all the Rottweilers, Chow chows, Akitas, Wolf hybrids and "Pit bulls" that live, or have lived, in Minnesota over the past 43 years, only one of these dogs was involved in a fatal attack on a human. (And in this case the father was charged with involuntary manslaughter for failing to safeguard his son from a dog he mismanaged and maintained in a stressful environment).

While the number of fatal dog attacks in Minnesota is negligible and has not increased over the past 40 years, serious and severe attacks have actually decreased significantly:

Despite the unprecedented popularity of Pit bulls and Rottweilers in the past decade, reported dog bites in St. Paul are at historic lows:

In 1971 St. Paul had 1,346 reported dog bites
In 2004 St. Paul had 219 reported dog bites
In 2005 St. Paul had 212 reported dog bites

Minneapolis has also shown a stunning decrease in the number of reported dogs bites from the 1970s:

From 1971 - 1973 Minneapolis had 5,078 reported dog bites
From 2004 - 2006 Minneapolis had 794 reported dog bites

Additionally, Rep. Lesch's lack of knowledge about the frequency and causes of dog attacks, and his inability to analyze dog bite data can be demonstrated by a radio interview conducted in the fall of 2007. During the interview, Rep. Lesch adamantly insisted that the woman who received the first face transplant was attacked by a "Pit bull." It is widely known, and well-documented, that the traumatic injuries to this woman were inflicted by her Labrador Retriever.

Denver, Colorado

Kory Nelson, Assistant City Attorney for the Denver City Attorney's Office is quoted with making the following remark in his defense of Denver's ban on Pit bulls: ("City Plans to Fight for Pit Bull Ban")

"The fact we haven't had fatal attacks in years indicates it (the ban) may be working"

A person with any knowledge or understanding of the epidemiology of fatal dog attacks would know this to be a baseless conclusion.

The last fatal Pit Bull attack in Denver occurred in 1986. Denver instituted a ban on Pit Bulls in 1989. Mr. Nelson, unversed in the patterns, frequency andd circumstances of fatal dog attacks, draws a conclusion about the effects of the ban and the incidence of fatal dog (Pit bull) attacks with no evidence to support this claim.

Portland, Oregon, a city with approx. the same population as Denver, also reported a fatal Pit Bull attack in 1986. Portland, Oregon did not institute a ban on Pit Bulls after this incident, yet they have not had another incidence of a fatal Pit bull attack since 1986.
City/State Population
(US Census) Last Fatal Pit
Bull Attack Ban on
Pit Bulls
Denver, CO 554,636 1986 YES
Portland, OR 529,121 1986 NO

Fact: A city without breed specific legislation (Portland) has had NO fatal dog attacks after 1986.

Fact: A city with breed specific legislation (Denver) has had a fatal dog attack (non-Pit bull) after 1986.
It's funny - some of the nation's most important bomb and narcotics detection dogs work in Seattle.

They also happen to be pit bulls. It would be a shame if they had to be muzzled and couldn't search properly, now wouldn't it?
The Victrola dog, 'Nipper' was a FOX TERRIER, not a pit pull. Get your facts straight.
A pit bull is not a type of dog. If you check with the AKC you will find American pit bulls, Staffordshire terriers, American staffordshire terriers, and 4 or 5 other breeds that might be identified as "pit bulls" by the ignorant. This ignorance is amplified by the fact that if someone is bit by a mixed-breed dog with a broad chest, that dog suddenly becomes a "pit bull". Nationwide, statistics show that chows, labs, and even dachsunds are more likely to bite people.

What is a problem is that people tend to clip the ears of bully breeds, who already have especially sensitive hearing. This makes every sound much louder than it would be naturally, and so the dog becomes overstimulated and jumpy.

Ban canine tympanic mutilation, and instead prosecute the fools who train their dogs to be vicious. Even most of Michael Vick's dogs could be placed in homes after therapy.
I am a steward at a dog park, and all the breeds fight - pits, pomeranians, and everything in between. Dogs get bitten, sometimes they have a bad scare or a puncture, sometimes they even have to go to a Vet to get stitches. But for the most part, happy good people have happy good dogs. There are renegades of every breed and species. In my experience the pit bull is not any more dangerous than any other large dog. That being said, if you have a large male dog, whatever the breed, do us all a favor and cut his balls off. And please don't breed your females either. As unique, intelligent and beautiful as your dog may seem to you, there are enough dogs to go around. Really.
I think instead of banning the breed we need to require that all dog owners carry a minimum $100,000 liability insurance policy. I do, and I own a Boxer. If anything happened to another person or another dog because of my own negligence, I would be mortified and I want to make sure the person/pet is at least covered financially. IF my dog were to attack a person or dog, my insurance would cancel me and I would have a very hard time getting liability insurance for my dog again, as not many insurance companies even provide this kind if coverage. I would also lose my lease, as I was able to get an apartment with my dog because I carry this additional insurance. If this were imposed as law, or at least if landlords would require it, I think we would not only see fewer Pitt Bulls in the city, we would have more landlords willing to rent to dog owners and fewer dog attacks in general.