Town Square

Post a New Topic

Time to ban pit bulls

Original post made by Diana Diamond on Aug 29, 2006

The deadly attack of a small Maltese dog by three pit bulls last Saturday is yet another in a seemingly unending series of maulings by pit bull terriers over the years.

This time the pit bulls unexpectedly attacked a small dog that was walking with its owner on Colorado Avenue at Middlefield Road. Other times the victims are children or adults.

It's time to ban pit bull terriers in Palo Alto. They are notoriously vicious dogs who unexpectedly turn on people and animals — even their owners. They have been known to jump fences, go after bicycle riders, and lunge after passersby. When they attack, their huge jaws grab and lock onto the victim.

This Maltese dog mauling is not an isolated incident; over the years I have read about hundreds of similar attacks.

Pit bull owners say their dogs are being unjustly labeled as vicious — that in reality they are kind and gentle dogs. It's some of the owners that are the problem, they say, because a few owners actually train these dogs to be aggressive.

That's only partly true. Some owners do delight in raising a vicious dog, and encourage their pet to be as aggressive as possible.

But case history also shows many pit bulls simply turn on people and other pets without provocation. There are number children who are maimed or killed each year by this breed of dog.

The only solution is to ban pit bulls in Palo Alto. Many other communities have already done so. Yes, there are a few other breeds that also are known for unprovoked attacks, but pit bulls lead the list.


Comments (392)

Posted by Of Course You Advocate That!, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:25 am

I KNEW you'd have one of your elitist, poorly-informed opinions all ready to be swallowed by the NIMBY folks who love your dreck.

Your're a journalist who does her research by reading back issues of the SJ Merc. Ugh.


Posted by John, a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:43 am

Diana, Is it even possible to define just what a pit bull is sufficiently to pass legal muster? I seem to recall that beyond "dog" the legal system stops. Did you check?


Posted by Old Yeller, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 11:31 am

This article is somewhat superficial, to say the least. There is no scientific evidence to support the banning or restriction of any breed. There is also no evidence for any of the media-generated myths about a nonexistent breed. There is significant evidence to the contrary.

I would love to receive any references you may have which show that 'pit bulls' turn on people without provocation, that 'pit bulls' (a group of three to six breeds depending on where you live plus an unknown number of mixed breeds) top the stats with respect to fatalities or attacks, that the old locking jaw fish story is true or any of the rest of it.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but it is not based on fact.


Posted by POOPeGIFTS_com, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 11:55 am

Do you seriously consider yourself to be a journalist?? Please let us know where pitbulls are banned, what the definition of a pitbull is, and site some real sources that describe cases of pitbulls "turning" on their owners.

Last i heard, these proposals were getting rejected left and right, i.e. Web Link.

You lady, are the type of person I've come up with my website Web Link. My pitbull would love to give you a gift.


Posted by Mojorizen, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 12:38 pm

Do you sit around all day and think up untruthful stories to post so that you feel like someone is paying attention to you? Everything about the "Pitbull" in your post are lies except for the fact that they attacked a Maltese. Even then who is to say that is what they actually were. I didn't see pics of them. I would love to know where you get your facts from other than the toilet. Can you define a "Pitbull"? Hopefully you know there is no such breed. "Pitbulls" are about an half a dozen different breeds or mix of these breeds all lumped together being called as such. There are no case histories that they simple turn on people without provocation. It is a known MYTH that they lock their jaws. Your only solution is to get your facts straight and to enforce the leash laws that already exist to take care of troublesome dogs of any breed in Palo Alto.


Posted by Meaghan Edwards, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 12:50 pm

Please do your research on bred specific legislantion and on pit bulls. You are doing noting but blindly believing the myths, not the facts. It has even by proven by the Supreme Court of Alabama that ther is no such thing as an inherently dangerous breed of dog.

Some facts here:

The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of Pit Bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any [other] breed of dog. There is absolutely not evidence for the existence of any kind of 'locking mechanism' unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier, says Dr. I. Lerh Brisbin of the University of Georgia (from the ADBA booklet, "Discover the American Pit Bull Terrier.)

Pit Bulls have a higher success rate in passing temperament tests than "family friendly" breeds, such as the Golden and Labrador Retriever.

Dog attacks INCREASED in Great Britain following the ban on pit bulls. This has happened in several areas where there are breed bans, as the real problem is being ignored -- irresponsible ownership. Do you really want more people being attacked?

More pit bulls help people, than harm them. Many are used as therapy dogs, and many have rescued their owner from certain death.

Please visit the following links:

Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link


Posted by Bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 12:53 pm

HAHAHA.. this is a joke, right?? The same people who believe your riduculous non factual statements in this "article" probably still believe Iraq has MWD's..
Oh now I get it.. YOU are the joke.


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 1:01 pm

Lady,
You look like a pit bull. Therefore, by your own logic, I'm deciding that you lock your "jaws" around maligned topics and don't let loose.

You said, "a seemingly unending series of maulings." What would those be? I'm guessing, with menopause your memory is going and your predilection to exaggerate which you've developed your whole life has taken over. Could you site some facts?

You said, "This time the pit bulls unexpectedly attacked..." Unexpectedly? Was the "Maltese" loose or on leash? Did the owner walk through another yard or stay on the sidewalk? Did the unknown dogs that attacked give any warning signs that the owner was ignorant enough to ignore? If you knew anything about canine behavior, you would know that one or all of these issues were at play.

You said, "When they attack, their huge jaws grab and lock onto the victim." This is actually laughable. Except that you are published in a paper. Do you have scientific evidence of the size of a "pit bull's" jaws? or the "fact" that they lock? You will probably be surprised to learn... oh well, I'm guessing you aren't really interested in learning anything. Waste of breath.

You said, "They are notoriously vicious dogs who unexpectedly turn on people and animals — even their owners. They have been known to jump fences, go after bicycle riders, and lunge after passersby.

Clearly, you've never owned or trained a dog. Or ridden a bike. Or taken a walk. Otherwise, you'd know that ALL dogs chase moving objects, protect their territory, and confuse the jerky movements and high-pitched sounds of children for prey. ALL dogs need to be trained. ALL dogs need to be contained and leashed. ALL dogs can be "vicious," whatever that is - I would certainly define it differently than you. Dogs are not people. Dogs are animals similar to wolves and have to be trained to live amongst us in a society that is not similar to theirs. If you had any social responsibility or intelligence, that is what you'd be blogging about.

But, we know that you don't. We know it from your words which are not fact-based but hysteria producing and Nazi-like. And we know it because people like you in print sell papers. Oh, didn't they tell you that when they hired you? Gosh, you do live in fantasy land, don't you?
Lisa M.







Posted by Meaghan Edwards, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 1:07 pm

An example of how breed bans are supposedly keeping people safe?

Web Link

*rolls eyes*


Posted by T E Johnson, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 1:08 pm

Funny how people lways refuse to go to the easily accessed websites of the HSUS Web Link

the AVMA
Web Link

the ASPCA
Web Link
Web Link

or the AKC
Web Link

to get information on dogs and specific breeds, relying instead on sensationalistic reporters. Educate yourself, the information from REPUTABLE animal experts is out there. I dare to say these organizations have more expertise on the subject matter than Ms. Diamond ever will.



Posted by Heidi Goldsberry, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 1:25 pm

It's really sad that you wrote such an article filled with no facts what so ever! Why would you want to start banning breeds of dogs, watch out yours might be next. I know some of the sweetest pit bulls ever, it would really be a shame to be judged on appearance alone and that is what you are calling for. What Country are you from? Take care of your business and don't worry about other people's dogs. I walk my big dogs and have little dogs barking and yipping at them all of the time, running up barking behind them. My dogs don't do anything but those dogs yippy little dogs sure are annoying to some of us and I'm most certain they annoy my dogs! That should be a crime!


Posted by Dawn Capp, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Aug 29, 2006 at 1:27 pm

As an alumna of Palo Alto High School, I'm saddened but not surprised to see such discriminatory and nonsensical jibberish coming from Palo Alto. While many Palo Altans are quite enlightened and take the time to educate themselves on subjects before speaking about them, it's obvious this author is amongst the other class of Palo Altans I never could stand -- those with too much money and too little depth.

By the way, state law prohibits banning Pit Bulls.

-Dawn Capp, M.S., J.D.-


Posted by D. P., a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 29, 2006 at 1:30 pm

Banning pitbulls sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea, after all it does wonders at keeping our communities safe. Just look at Miami. They have a pitbull ban, yet they have had TWO fatal dog maulings in the past 2 weeks. Pitbull bans work great at keeping our communities safe, don't they?


Posted by Putagirl, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Aug 29, 2006 at 1:40 pm

As a responsible American Staffordshire Terrier owner, I take offense at this article and what you imply here. Just because some owners are to lazy or stupid to take the time to train, socialize and remain in control of them does not mean MY RIGHT as a tax paying, voting citizen should be stomped on.
I am all for generic dog laws that hold owners responsible for their dogs, I am all for laws that are enforced / enforceable and do keep the public safe- that would not include breed specific legislation.
BSL gives the local a false sense of security, its very costly & almost impossible to uphold in a court of law.
Pit bulls are not a specific breed of dog - they are a mix of many different breeds that look similar. NO DNA test can define what breed of dog is derived from. There is also NO locking jaw on any dog, this is an untruth portrayed by many and believed by the ignorant.

In reality many many places have repealed their BSL because they have found it simply doesn't work. They have also not enacted it places because they are elected officials that have sworn an oath to protect the Rights of their citizens, not just a certain fraction.
Dog owners across the world are standing up for their rights and we will be heard, we will take your jobs if you take our dogs!
Inquire about past public officials that voted for such idiotic laws, you will see their careers have been banned as well.


Posted by AB, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 29, 2006 at 1:48 pm

"Closed minds should come with closed mouths..."


Posted by Lil Rascal, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 1:51 pm

I urge to to post accurate statements based on Pit Bull FAQ's, not myths. You're article not only hurts the breed, but hurts me, a responsible owners like me that know and love the breed. Please do your research, before you hurt the breed and hurt us.

Taken from Badrap's website...

"Today, a properly bred Pit Bull is so exuberantly happy upon meeting her owner's friends (or even friendly strangers) that new owners sometimes worry that their dog is too sweet and fun-loving to protect their home and family... A multitalented companion, the well-trained Pit Bull is suited for a variety of exciting activities. He excels at obedience, agility and weight-pulling competitions, events which showcase intelligence, trainability and strength. In addition, the Pit Bull's pleasant nature makes him an ideal candidate for therapy work with people." - Ian Dunbar


Posted by Janine, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 1:55 pm

Please educate yourself from a reputable source before spewing any more baised and discriminatory articles.


Posted by John, a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 29, 2006 at 2:46 pm

Diana,

I bet you wish you would have taken on racial profiling, compared to pit bulls!

You're correct, Diana, pit bulls should not only be banned from Palo Alto, but they should be eliminated from most of society, except as war dogs.

Their owners are a true-believing set of egomaniacs that only care about themselves.

It's time for the rest of us to fight back!

Thanks, Diana.




Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 3:44 pm

Sigh... another neo-Nazi.
John said, "I bet you wish you would have taken on racial profiling,"
meaning that the corresponding racial point of view is that racial profiling is necessary and right. Not that each individual human should be evaluated on their own merits, or be able to have their constitutional rights like everyone else. No, no. Let's stick to eliminating whole groups of people and animals. What about sharks? Should we kill all of them also? And bears. There have been bear maulings recently...

Or, say, what about drunks? They maul lots more people and children than dogs. Let's kill them all. Anyone who drinks and owns a car. Gas 'em.

John said, "Their owners are a true-believing set of egomaniacs that only care about themselves."

As a bully breed owner, I take offense at that. You know nothing about me, or my ego, or my dogs, for that matter. You are probably one of those who walk their dog without a leash thinking that you AND your dog have it all together, impairing the safely of the rest of the world. Would that qualify as an egomaniac?

Does wanting to kill anything you perceive as different or intolerable qualify as an egomaniac?
Lisa


Posted by VK, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 29, 2006 at 4:06 pm

How tiresome that yet another lazy "journalist" jumped on the "let's ban it" bandwagon, feeling secure in her ability to churn out some unsubstantiated dreck without actually doing any research. Is this supposed to rally support among the uneducated masses?

Please...do me, and other real journalists a favor: stop writing about things you are too lazy to research. Really--it's embarrassing. Your substandard efforts and questionable ethics in providing no support for your viewpoint reflects badly on the industry and most of all, yourself. If you want to prove a point, whether it be about Pit bulls or Pomeranians, then show your audience the respect they deserve by researching your subject and offering supporting evidence.

"Op-Ed" is not simply an excuse for ego-maniacs to drone on about whatever ill-informed opinion they hold, and you insult your audience by pretending that it's so. I can't believe your Editor allowed this piece to go to print: maybe he should think about boning up on his job skills a bit, too.

Bottom line: Learn how to actually function as a credible journalist, or shut your mouth.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 4:12 pm

Traditional animal husbandry practices are under political attack in the United States of America. Domestic animal ownership, and use is being stripped out of our hands by city, municipal, county, state, and federal legislatures at the urging of politically powerful, and moneyed animal rights groups. Animals are being blamed by legislative bodies for human failure to be responsible. The following list of dog breeds are named in breed specific dog ordinances that have been proposed, passed, or tabled across the United States. Some of these breeds are listed in wolf-hybrid bans, actually wolf-hybrid bans are more all encompassing due to common theory placing all dogs as descending from wolves. The other breeds are listed under "pit bull" bans. The latest addition to this ever growing list is the Caucasian Shepherd, added in July, 2005 bringing the breed total to fifty-six breeds in the USA, plus any mixed breed that contains any of these breeds. There are no stopgaps in breed specific legislation to prevent the addition of any, or all other breeds of dogs, or even domestic species. Breed specific legislation sets a legal precedent that allows for any or all other breeds of dogs to be added with no public notice, or input. We support reasonable laws that are directed at the dog owner. No dog has the capacity to know it's breed. No dog has the capacity to understand law. No dog can operate outside of it's owner's parameter of responsibility.

Fairfield, Iowa has banned any dog that weighs over 100 pounds.

Protect animal ownership, and use rights. Protect traditional animal husbandry practices. Join the fight to repeal breed specific dog legislation by becoming a proactive member of BSL 56 at; Web Link



*AIREDALE TERRIER * AKITA * ALASKAN MALAMUTE * ALSATIAN SHEPHERD * AMERICAN BULLDOG * AMERICAN HUSKY * AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER * AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER * AMERICAN WOLFDOG * ARIKARA DOG * AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG * AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD * BELGIAN MALINOIS * BELGIAN SHEEPDOG * BELGIAN TERVUREN * BLUE HEELER * BOERBUL * BOSTON TERRIER * BOUVIER DES FLANDRES * BOXER * BULLDOG * BULL MASTIFF * BULL TERRIER * CANARIO DE MAJORCA * CANE CORSO * CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG * CAUCASIAN SHEPHERD * CHINESE SHAR PEI * CHOW-CHOW * COLORADO DOG * DOBERMAN PINSCHER * DOGO DE ARGENTINO * DOGUE DE BORDEAUX * ENGLISH SPRINGER SPANIEL * ESKIMO DOG * FILA BRASILIERO * FOX TERRIER * FRENCH BULLDOG * GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG * GOLDEN RETRIEVER * GREENLAND HUSKY * GREAT DANE * KEESHOND * KOTEZEBUE HUSKY * LABRADOR RETRIEVER * MASTIFF * PRESA DE CANARIO * PUG * ROTTWEILER * SAARLOOS WOLFHOND * SAINT BERNARD * SAMOYED * SIBERIAN HUSKY * STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER * TIMBER SHEPHERD * TOSA INU * TUNDRA SHEPHERD * WOLF SPITZ *



Cherie Graves, chairwoman

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES

323922 N. Hwy 2

Newport, WA 99156

509-447-3231

Web Link


Posted by RebeccaJeeper, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 4:20 pm

This is such an ignorant piece of writing, put forth by someone who obviously know nothing about dog breeds, dog training, dog behavior, dog socialization or the fact the BSL does not work! This has been proven time and time again! Look at the links other here have provided! Irresponsible and negligent dog OWNERS SHOULD be punished and laws should be in place to protect citizens from ANY vicious dog! A dog's breed should not determine whether or not it is vicious! Shame on you for perpetuating this hysteria that has no factual basis and is very much like racism!


Posted by Ban Them All, a resident of Stanford
on Aug 29, 2006 at 4:24 pm

All ferocious dogs, not just pit bulls, should be banned. However, both the owner and the dog should be given one fair chance before the ban.

In real life, there's the three-strikes-and-you-are-out rule against repeat offenders of peaceful coexistence with others. There's no reason why, also in real life, we can't have a rule against ferocious dogs, except we can't afford to give them three-strikes as the fatal mauling that just happened tells us. It was revealed that a warning had been issued two years ago on the pit bulls now in confinement.

Clearly, what we need for the dogs is a one-strike-and-you-are-out rule. You might say that is too harsh but I say the rule is necessary to rein in not the dogs but their owners. The dogs, especially the ferocious ones, are nothing more than wild beasts under restraint. Their behaviours are to a large extent the result of their upbringing and training. If the owners do not know how or care to train their dogs to peacefully co-exist with others, then the society must take over and break that bondage.

If this one-strike-and-you-are-out rule was in place, then the latest mauling tragedy did not have to happen. The three pit bulls would have been taken away from this irresponsible owner two years ago at the time of the warning. Yes, in this situation, one warning equals one strike. One more thing. Since the one warning stays with the dogs, there is no choice but to destroy them at the time. You just can't afford to pass them on to another owner because you never know when they will unleash their aggressive behaviour again. End of story.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 4:31 pm

Every year approximately four million people across the United States are bitten by dogs. That number makes up less than 1% of our population. Approximately sixty-five percent of American Households have dogs. The vast majority of dog bite victims are unattended children who are bitten by their family dog at home, or the unattended child is bitten by a dog that is at large while the child is off of the family property. The number of fatalities resulting from dog attacks across the United States average from twelve, to fifteen in any given year.

SB 861 analysis quotes figures that there have been forty-seven human deaths in California that were attributable to dogs from the years 1965 through 2001. That averages to one death a year out of a population of some thirty-five million, eighty-four thousand, four hundred and fifty-three people. Subtract one from the figure 35,484,453 and you will see how many people did not die from dog bites in California each year... San Francisco averages three hundred and sixty two reported dog bites per year, approximately one bite per day, from a population of seven hundred fifty-one thousand,six hundred and eighty-two (751,682) people. In any given year in San Francisco 751,320 people are not bitten by dogs.

Far more people are killed by any number of other things than by dogs. Venomous snake bites kill an average of fifteen to twenty Americans per year. Bees kill one hundred, to three hundred persons a year on average. In 1989 fire-ant stings killed thirty two people in Texas. Lightening strikes one in every six hundred thousand persons killing one hundred, to three hundred persons annually.According to the U.S. Department of Labor there were five thousand, five hundred, and seventy-five work related fatalities in 2003. There were thirty eight thousand fatal automobile crashes in 2003 across the U.S. Sadly, an average of fifteen hundred children are killed each year in the United States by a parent, or guardian. The leading cause of death among pregnant women in the U.S. is murder at the hand of the father of her unborn child.

Given these figures, the restrictions of dogs by breed make no sense. Dogs are certainly not the threat to public health, and safety that the news media would lead us all to believe. Shocking, and horrifying as these dog related fatalities are, there are many, and far more serious threats to human life here in the United States. There can only be one answer as to the reason for the movement of governments to ban dogs by breed, that is, as a way to set legal precedent to doing away with all dog ownership, and use.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link


Posted by John, a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 29, 2006 at 4:34 pm

Diana,

You are under attack by a group of dog fanatics. They don't care about us. Forget about them.

My definition of a pit bull:

1. If a bird has feathers, webbed feet and quacks: I call it a duck!

2. If you have a toddler, and you are crossing the street, do you feel comfortable with what is approaching you?

Solution: Ban them!

Diana: Great job! Keep it up!!!!




Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 4:39 pm

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES MODEL DOG OWNER REGULATIONS

1. Dogs are Personal Property

(a) The (city) (county) (state) of _____________ recognizes that dogs are personal property.

(b) No city, county or state authority shall restrict, or prohibit the ownership of dogs by breed.

(c) No breed specific ordinances enacted in _________ shall stand.

(d) The (city) (county) (state) of _____________ recognizes the right of the people to own any breed of dog in a responsible manner.


2. Containment

(a) All dogs shall be securely contained to their owners premises. The dog owner shall protect the public from his/her dogs. The assumption of liability is upon the dog owner.

(b) All dogs shall be securely leashed when off of the owners premises, and under the of a supervision of a person who is physically capable of controlling the dog.

(c) Parents who allow their child to lead a dog in public access areas, assume all liability for any accident, harm, or injury caused.


(d) Dog owners who allow a child to lead their dog in public access areas, assume all liability for any accident, harm, or injury caused.

(e) Owners walking their dog(s) in public areas are required to pick up, and properly dispose of stool waste deposited from their dog(s).

(f) Owners of dogs found at large by animal control authorities must produce documentation, upon demand, of the dog's immunizations as required by the state.


3. Standard of care

(a) It is the responsibility of each dog owner to provide for their dog(s);
1.) Ownership for the entirety of the dog(s) life.
2.) Nutrition on a regular daily basis, and clean potable water readily available.
3.) Containment to the owners premesis
4.) Training
5.) Immunizations as required by state law, and veterinary medical treatment as necessary for maintenance of health

(b) If the owner cannot provide for the dog, it is the owner's responsibility to;
1.) Find the dog a new owner.
2.) Pay for euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian.
3.) Pay a local animal shelter to provide for the dog until a new owner can be found.

(c) Failure to meet any of the standards of care are violations, and shall be considered cruelty to animals.
1.) If found guilty the Court shall fine the owner, and/or order or jail time commensurate with the harm done to the animal.
2.) The Court may remove the animal from the custody of the owner.
3.) The Court shall cause the property of dog owners who have been found guilty, to be posted with warning signs that are clearly visible on all perimeters that state, "IRRESPONSIBLE ANIMAL OWNER".
4.) The signs may be removed after five years with no violations.

4. Noise Nuisance

(a) It is the responsibility of the owner to prevent his/her dog from causing a noise nuisance by barking. Incessant barking indicates lack of care.
1.) Owners may be ticketed for noise nusiance, and fined.
2.) This section does not apply to dogs barking to alert their owners.

5. Dogs At Large

(a) Any owner who allows his/ her dog to run at large shall be fined one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation

(b) The second violation shall incur a fine of two hundred dollars ($200.00)

(c) The third violation shall incur a fine of four hundred dollars ($400.00)

(d) The fourth violation by the owner shall cause the dog to be confiscated by the Animal Control Authorities and, after evaluation of temperament by qualified personnel, either placed into a responsible home, or humanely euthanized.

(e) Nothing in this section shall pertain to owners hunting with dogs.


6. Owner Liability

(a) A dog owner will be charged with negligence for any property damage, or harm, or injury done by his/her dog when the dog was at large, off of the owners premises, and out of the owners immediate control. If the dog's owner is found guilty in a Court of law, then he/she shall be held liable. This liability shall include remuneration, fines, and/or jail time, at the Court's disgression, and depending upon the severity of the damage, harm, or injury done by the dog.

(b) A dog owner shall be charged with negligent homicide, whose dog kills a person when at large, off the owners premises, and out of the immediate control of the owner. The dog shall be confiscated by the authorities, and humanely euthanized, and tested for rabies at the cost to the owner.


(c) A dog owner shall be charged with reckless endangerment, whose dog injures a person, or causes an accident while at large, off the owners premises, or out of the immediate control of the owner. The dog shall be removed from the owners custody, and be evaluated on temperament by qualified personnel, and either be placed in a responsible home, or humanely euthanized.

(d) A dog owner shall be charged with aggravated nuisance, and animal cruelty if he/she is found facing off dogs in any public area with the purpose of simulating a dog fight, or promoting a dog fight, or planning a dog fight, and fined five hundred dollars ($500.00). The dog owner shall be placed on strict probation for the period of one (1) year during which time if any violations occur, the dog owner shall be fined one thousand ($1000.00), and he/she shall lose custody of the dog. The dog shall be evaluated by qualified personnel, and either be placed in a responsible home, or be humanely euthanized.

(e) A dog owner shall be charged with aggravated nuisance should his/her dog menace a person when at large. The owner shall be fined five hundred dollars ($500.00) and placed on probation for six months, during which time if any violations occur he/she shall lose custody of the dog. The dog shall be evaluated by qualified personnel, and either be placed in a responsible home, or humanely euthanized.

f) A dog owner shall pay remuneration, and fines, if found guilty of negligence in a Court of law, when his/her dog being at large, and out of the owner's control, trespasses upon another's property, and injures, or kills an animal, or animals belonging to that person(s) whose animal(s) were contained to their property. The dog owner shall be placed on strict probation for the period of one(1) year, during which time should any further violations occur, the dog shall be removed from the custody of the owner. The dog shall be evaluated by qualified personnel, and either placed into a responsible home, or humanely euthanized.

(g) Any dog owner, by whose violations has caused his/her dog to be removed from his/her custody, shall not be allowed by the Court to own another dog for a period of ten (10) years.

(h) No dog owner will be held liable if the dog bites, injures, or kills an intruder, a burglar, a trespasser, or anyone who threatens the owner, or his/her safety while on, or off of the owner's premises while the dog is under control of the owner.

(i) Any person who is bitten as a result of teasing, or tormenting a dog that is contained to it's owners premises, or who is bitten while teasing, or tormenting a dog that is contained to the owner's premises shall have no legal recourse for damages.

(j) Any parent whose child is bitten, or mauled by a dog, due to the parent's inattendance to his/her child shall be charged with reckless endangerment of a child.

(k) Any parent whose child dies as a result of a dog mauling, due to the parents inattendance, shall be charged with negligent homicide.

7. Dog Abandonment

(a) Any person who is found guilty of abandoning a dog, or dogs by dumping it/them alongside any thoroughfare, or by moving away and leaving the the dog, or dogs shall be subject to a one thousand dollar fine ($1,000.00)per dog, and three months jail time, or a one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) per dog fine, and community service not to exceed six months, per dog abandoned, at the discretion of the Court.


8. False Reporting

(a) Any person who makes a false, or malicious report to Animal Control shall be charged with a gross misdemeanor.


Posted by Laura, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 4:40 pm

Ask any local animal care and control manager about breed-specific legislation. They will tell you it does not increase public safety. It's an unfunded mandate that takes away resources from public education, spay/neuter and vaccination clinics, and officers on the street who enforce leash laws and animal neglect.

These things really bring down dog bites, not feel-good legislation.


Posted by Nathan G, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 29, 2006 at 5:00 pm

Hey John I wouldn't feel comfortable walking any child across the street with you coming in the opposite direction, so does that mean I can ban you?


Posted by T E Johnson, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 5:01 pm

For "John" the Barron Park resident, and "D.P." of Palo Alto Hills - while it's okay to have a personal opinion on any subject matter, you should look to REPUTABLE sources for facts.

The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) on dangerous dog breeds:
Web Link

The AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) on breed banning:
Web Link

The ASPCA on Pit Bull information:
Web Link

The ASPCA on Dangerous Dog Laws:
Web Link

The AKC on the myths of the dangerous dog breed:Web Link


Try looking to actual animal experts for facts, instead of letting the media be your only source for information.


Posted by John, a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 29, 2006 at 5:21 pm

T,

I am TIRED of your excuses! You hide behind definitions and "expert" explanations.

T, PLEASE answer my question: If you have a toddler cossing the street (or in the city park), would you be more afraid of chihuahuas or pit bulls? If you need me to define the difference, then this is NOT a rational conversation!

A simple question deserves a simple answer.


Posted by GLEN BUI, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 29, 2006 at 5:34 pm

Three Pit Bulls most likely did not maul anything and lady, you are not only a bigot, you are causing with your agenda of which you have been well schooled is what we call hate crimes that are starting to take place in our country against dogs and their owners. Your description of the American Pit Bull Terrier is not only a big lie but I would guess you were payed or bribed to write your pathetic story.

Submitt proof of your statement and I'll give you 24 hrs from the time this post is posted, or our lawyers will do what they are doing to other media sources that are publishing false data !!! You and other like you are responsible for citizens poisening dogs, beating them and killing them, in many communities these type of crimes are starting to take place.

Glen Bui
MS Genetics
BS Biology
Legal Assistant
Canine Behavior Consultant
Professional K-9 Trainer
Board of Directors
American Canine Foundation
americancaninefoudationlaw.com


Posted by Mikie On Maui, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2006 at 5:39 pm

Wowsers!! You sure woke up the residents of another community. If you do another doggie blog, it should require a $1 fee to post responses that would be contributed to a good charity. You'll clean up!


Posted by Nathan G, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 29, 2006 at 5:49 pm

John I would not be afraid of either. But I would be afraid of anyone walking any breed that shows signs of being an irresponsible dog owner. An animal that shows poor temperment, lots of lunging and pulling of the leash, and no obvious training from the handler.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 5:55 pm

HATE TECHNIQUES FOLLOW SET PATTERN



1.) Isolate the victim from the rest of it's kind

2.) Ascribe the victim supernatural powers

3.) Confer upon the victim vile traits

4.) Proclaim the victim untrustworthy

5.) Vilify of all members of it's kind

6.) Create a mythology for the victim of hate

7.) Call the protectors of the victims, apologists

8.) Detract the victims in the media

9.) Call for extermination of the victim of hatred

10.) Spread the hatred at every opportunity

11.) Of the 9100 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2003, not one included a dog owner of one of the target breeds

12.) Targeting breeds of dogs for hatred reflects back upon the dog owner, making him/her the true target


Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link


Posted by St. Francis, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2006 at 5:56 pm

Hi John,

Let me see if I can apply your "logic" into common sense.

If you were walking down the streets would it make any differences who were coming towards you? Would you feel more or less threatend depending on the race of the person? Would you cross the street if it was a black, Asian, Hispanic, White, or Native American coming towards you?

See John, unlike you I don't care about race, as long as that person don't harm me, and if a person of a certain race were to hurt me, I wouldn't judge the whole race based on that experience.

That's the difference between you and I.

You are ignorant and narrow-minded. Have a nice day.


Posted by John, a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 29, 2006 at 6:06 pm

St. Fran,

You are nuts!

If I see a pit bull coming towards my toddler, I'm outta there!

Go choke on your PC BS.


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 6:27 pm

Sigh. So three pit bulls killed a maltese. Pit bulls were (and often still are) BRED to kill other dogs. Historically, a pit bull's function was to run across a pit and attack another dog without provocation and keep on attacking until one of the dogs was dead. They were selectively bred to ignore the signals of submission that normal dogs honor (a pit bull who stops attacking is "not game" and therefore not valued) and to keep on attacking. The poor maltese never had a chance and I am sure that anybody who witnessed this will have nightmares for a long time.


It is not, in any way, the pit bull's FAULT that he wants to kill other dogs. Just like a labrador's retrieving instinct, his behavior is the product of many years of selective breeding.
The trait of being dangerously aggressive to other dogs unfortunately attracts a lot of lowlife scum to pit bull ownership. They, in turn, often breed pit bulls to be even more dangerous to dogs (yes, dog fighting is alive and well in this country), and to be dangerous to people as well.

Sometimes pit bull owners are well meaning but clueless people who adopt a pit bull from a shelter, not having any idea of what they are getting. They may luck out and get one that is not dangerous to either dogs or humans. (Although the majority of pit bulls ARE dog aggressive...) Or they might get one bred by a person who thinks it is cool to have a dangerously aggressive (to dogs and/or humans) dog and they might have a nightmare.

It is true that responsibly bred pit bulls should not be dangerous toward humans (although they may still be dangerous toward your maltese). Sadly, however, there are almost no responsible breeders of pit bulls in this country. The VAST majority of pit bulls are bred by completely irresponsible breeders. Indeed, the pit bull community has a FIT when laws (such as that passed in San Francisco) are passed that limit the ability of irresponsible breeders to churn out more pit bulls, most of which will lead wretched lives before they die in some shelter's euthanasia room.

And don't believe everything you read. No, Meagan, pit bulls don't pass "temperament tests" in higher percentages than goldens or labs. If you are referring to the American Temperament Test Society Test, that test doesn't even test for dog aggression. The pit bulls who mauled that maltese to death might easily be able to pass the test with flying colors. Is that the temperament you want in a dog who lives next door to you? Anyway, last I checked, 91% of labs passed that test, only 83% of pit bulls did.

Pit bull people will continue to make us laugh (Glen Bui, you are such a card--threatening to sue everybody!) but it is the pit bulls who continue to suffer. Them and their canine victims and the occasional human being (yet another person was killed by pit bulls in Texas yesterday).




Posted by St. Francis, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2006 at 6:32 pm

John,

Just the answer I was waiting from you.

Have a nice day.


Posted by Katya, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2006 at 6:43 pm

Betsy, can you kindly provide a link to a fatal Texas mauling. I have scanned the news sources but couldn't find anything.

ALSO, just for the sake of the argument (John), lets not compare pit bulls and chihuahuas. There are hundreds of other breeds out there that have the size and the teeth to put a human into the hospital.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 6:48 pm

This article was geared toward elevating fear, and toward instilling the belief that human beings are incompetent, and inferior when compared to those mystical, magical, evil creatures, known to us as dogs.

Think of the movie Jaws. Human beings with all of our technology were incompetent in comparison to that shark. Writers who use the ubiquitous "pit bull", to bring attention to their poor journalistic efforts, are fear mongering. They are pushers of urban myth, and taking uncommon occurances, and turning them into headline news. Just think, if drive-by shootings were as uncommon as dog related fatalities, then we would be congratulating ourselves for making our streets safe once more. If drug related deaths were as few as dog related fatalities, then we would have won the war on drugs. If fatal auto crashes were as few as dog related fatalities, then our insurance rates would be back within the cost of everyone.

Let's us look at the side, by side figures for dog related human fatalities, and for human related human fatalities. Dog related human fatalities may be the headline grabbers, but they constitute a very tiny number when compared to human deaths at the hand of a fellow human being. It is simple, just run a search for Vital Records, Cause of Death, and your city. Dogs do not even make the statistics.

Dogs, and human beings have the same number of chromosomes, and they inherit their genes in exactly the same manner as do human beings. That is why dog models have been successfully used in perfecting all types of surgical procedures, and why they are used in medical trials before being tested on human beings.

If a dog is bred to be used as an assistant for a handicapped person, would it's offspring inherit those genes? NO!! There are no genes that function in that manner. If there were such genes to inherit, then each one of us would be born knowing how to do the job that our parents do.

Dogs, as we humans, learn behavior patterns. Dogs differ from us in that they have no moral code. They do not think about the future, they live in the moment. Dogs are a product of their training, or their lack of training.

Dogs have far heightened senses of hearing, and of scent. What may seem to us as unprovoked behavior may, in fact, be a provoked reaction to the dog's senses picking up something that is not registerable to our limited range of scent, or hearing.

There is truth in the Newtonian finding that for every action there is an equal, and opposing reaction. Everything happens for a reason, whether or not that reason is discernable to us. Was the reason for this hysterical article to gear up for the removal of animal ownership?

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 7:01 pm

Here is a link to the story of yesterday's fatal pit bull mauling in Texas: Web Link\

Of course, if this story gets much media coverage (pit bulls killing poor people hardly ever warrant much more than a few paragraphs from the media...) we will get the usual responses from the pit bull community, claiming that there is no "proof" that the pit bull is really a pit bull, that probably it was just an accident, or maybe the guy was murdered and somebody was trying to frame the dogs, or maybe the guy was abusing the dogs or the dogs knew that the guy was the real killer of JonBenet Ramsey and they took it upon themselves to avenge her death. (I made that last one up myself, pit bull community, but feel free to use it if you think it is necessary).

The reality is that virtually all instances when dogs kill human beings are quite well investigated, and the breed of dog is determined partly because the OWNER identifies the dog as being a pit bull and partly because experts do. It is true that the dog is rarely an AKC or UKC registered AmStaff or American pit bull terrier, but the vast majority of pit bulls in this country are NOT UKC or AKC registered. They are bred by breeders who are too irresponsible and too scummy to even bother with registration, or they register with some of the registries that are more closely linked to dog fighting.

If pit bull people cared to clean up this mess, they would be lobbying hard to get breed specific regulations in place requiring the spay/neuter of all pit bulls produced by these irresponsible breeders, only allowing AKC or UKC-PR dogs to stay intact. This law would not adversely affect a single responsibly owned pit bull or responsible pit bull owner. Or =pit bull people can sit back and claim there isn't a problem (after all, they pass temperament tests at the same rate as labs!...well, maybe not) and wait for the absolute breed bans that will happen when people notice that there IS a big problem.


Posted by Observer, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 7:07 pm

Maybe there is something to the idea that it is the owner who is the cause of the dog's misbehavior. The pit bull owners who have written here provide ample evidence that they are angry, ready to attack, impetuous, dangerous people. They are ready to threaten anyone who says a bad word about their animal. Ban them along with their dogs.


Posted by John, a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 29, 2006 at 7:33 pm

St. Fran (and other dog fanatics):

Diana Diamond is right on. You all can try to organize a national response, but you are not very effective. True believers are beyond rational response.

Pit bulls should be eliminated from the the urban, everyday environment.

Just ask the everyday pedestrians walking in Palo Alto. They will, overwhelmingly, agree, especially if they have small dogs or small kids.

St. Fran: You ain't no saint! You are a self-absorbed person. You should be ashamed of yourself.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 8:29 pm

It's almost(that's ALMOST) funny how the people with pit bull phobia use the victims of pit bull attacks to push an agenda while ignoring the vast majority of victims of dog attacks, fatal and non-fatal. I guess a dead child is only worthy if he/she was killed by a pit bull.

How selfish can one be when they allow irresponsible ownership to flourish and blaim breeds? How many children will be killed by other breeds before we realize this isn't a breed issue? How many more people will allow irresponsible and/or dangerous owners to get off because "it was the breeds fault"? How many people actually care about ALL the victims and not just the victims of pit bull attacks? How long will we be debating pit bulls while the victims keep adding up by other breeds? When will the anti-pit bull people put our children's safety before their own mis-guided fears? How many more beloved pets will be destroyed in this witch hunt that has not made anyone any safer?


Posted by Ban All Pit Bulls and Their Owners, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 29, 2006 at 8:48 pm

Note to pit-bull-rights extremists: I didn't know that Palo Alto is the home of the Marjorie Knoller fan club. Apparently your position is:

1. I have every right to parade in public an animal that is physically capable of killing small children and dogs. The risk that my dog might kill your child or dog does not concern me. The fact that my dog, unlike most other dogs, is physically capable of inflicting mortal injuries despite my best efforts at restraining it does not in any way distinguish it from other dogs.

2. If I approach you in public with my dangerous dog, it is your responsibility to have trained any small children with you so they are not "ignorant enough to ignore the signs" of impending fatal attack (to quote the ever-reasonable Lisa M). I don't care how young your children are. Stay far away from me and my vicious dog, or suffer the consequences!

Substitute "tiger" or "grizzly bear" for "pit bull" in the forum messages above by the pit bull lovers and you will get a pretty good sense for how ridiculous your position seems to sane people.

Three cheers for Diana Diamond, John of Barron Park, and Betsy!






Posted by Nathan G, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:08 pm

Yes let's all have three cheers for ignorance and fear mongering. Not to mention the slaughtering of an innocent breed while ignoring the real problem of irresponsible ownership.


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:11 pm

asdfg,

You don't get it. I don't "blaim breeds." I don't even blame breeds. I blame people. And pit bulls are EXACTLY what (evil) people made them. Evil, cowardly people bred pit bulls orginally because these evil cowardly people loved the "entertainment" of watching two dogs tear each other to bits. Many people still enjoy the notion that their dog is capable of killing other dogs. It absolutely wasn't the fault of the dogs that they killed that maltese. They were only doing what their genes dictated. And evil people continue to breed pit bulls, both for the (original) trait of dangerousness to other dogs and for the (new, improved!) trait of being willing bite any cop who comes into the crack house.

Even if a dangerous dog is "only" dangerous toward other dogs, dog aggression is a completely worthless and entirely negative trait in a dog that leads to tragedies and headlines. Dog aggression survives in pit bulls because so many pit bull breeders are so ridiculously irresponsible that they frankly don't CARE that they are breeding dogs that present a danger to other peoples' family members. In fact, they kind of like it. And, of course, many go further and also don't CARE and kind of like the fact that they are breeding dogs that are dangerous to kids and old people and the occasional healthy adult.

If one of you pit bull "advocates" can tell me a way to get this epidemic under control short of strong breed specific legislation (a la the excellent law recently passed in San Francisco that requires the spay/neuter of all non-show dog pit bulls), I'd be mighty interested to hear it. But all I hear from pit bull "advocates" is whining that other breeds of dog have problems too....

Go into any urban shelter and look at the dogs on death row. They will, overwhelmingly, be pit bulls and pit bull mixes. NO breed dies in shelters in anywhere near the numbers that pit bulls do. NO other breed kills people in anywhere near the numbers that pit bulls do. Your aunt matilda's pekingese isn't causing the problems with either canine overpopulation or dangerousness in this country. It makes sense to regulate dogs where the problem is, not where it isn't. And the problem, overwhelmingly, is with pit bulls.


Posted by T E Johnson, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:25 pm

John, I'm not "hiding behind expert explanations". I'm giving actual, linkable facts to known organizations with expertise in animal behavior. All you have is hysterics. When you become more of an animal expert than the AKC, the ASPCA, the HSUS, and the AVMA, show me your credentials, and I'll be happy to listen to you. Same goes for Ms. Diamond.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Community Center
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:30 pm

"I have every right to parade in public an animal that is physically capable of killing small children and dogs".. well if that is so then, John, no human animal should be allowed to walk the streets as they kill small chidren (often their own) every day and of course dogs are killed every day by humans.. in fact because of nasty and ill-informed articles like yours "pit bulls' are tortured, killed, burned , hung, stabbed and shot.. why.. because they are "pit bulls" and EVERYONE knows they deserve no sympathy and"get what's coming to them".. why.. well "just becasue of the way they look" Can you imagine if we applied this same "logic" to humans.. well I guess you can .. it already happened in Nazi Germany.. and is still happening around the world Genocide.. not for people.. not for dogs.. WAKE UP.. no species is 100 percent "bad' except for bigots.. hmmmm
By the way.. Palo Alto CANNOT BAN "pit bulls" and you, Diana, are mistaken in your "ASSumption" that they can. Breed specifc bans are one thing that IS "banned" in California.. so do some research and perhaps gather a FACT or two before spewing you vitriolic comments. You know nothing about animal behavior. Betsy.. there will never be any 'proof" that a dog is a "pit bull" as there is no such breed. I have not seen any commets from John, Diana or Besty that addreses the "Model Dog Laws". Do any of you think that perhaps laws should be in place for everyone.. or just for the "select few"? I call that"imperfect justice".. as do most people who think laws should apply to ALL. What happens when there are no more "pit bulls" and a child is bitten in the face by say.. a cocker spaniel.. or a Bernese Mountain Dog.. or a Great Dane.. or a St. Bernard.. what then.. another call for a Ban".. or will we just call that dog a "pit bull" and be done with it.
PS Glenn Bui is 100 percent correct.. law suits will be filed


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:36 pm

"I didn't know that Palo Alto is the home of the Marjorie Knoller fan club"
John.. please don't show your out and out ignorance. Marjorie Knoller did not own a "pit bull". Whoops..I have changed my mind.. John .. PLEASE SHOW YOUR OUT AND OUT IGNORANCE.. what ??.. ok.. you're right.. you already have!!!


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:49 pm

Hello Betsy.

I'm sure the numbers in shelters(or attacks for that matter)are simple. 4.4 million registered pit bulls, 8 million estimated total...

The A.K.C. made a list of America's most popular dogs, it was labs with just a few hundred thousand registered. This is understandable considering "pit bull" is not a breed so they didn't list "pit bulls" on the list but, truth is with an estimated 8 million, they make up nearly 10% of the estimated 54 million canines in this country, now consider how many "mixes" you hear about...

Secondly, why don't we list "retrievers" or "labs" on attack statistics? Those ar groups of breeds like "pit bulls". You people are comparing SEVERAL breeds covered under a generic term(pit bull) to SINGLE breeds, sure that's real accurate...

How about the fact that IN EVERY SINGLE COURT CASE trying to determine if the entire group of "pit bull" breeds were dangerous have concluded NO, not any more dangerous than any other breed of it's size and, the injuries inflicted by pit bulls fall well within the range of canines.Not to mention pound for pound a poodle has pulled MORE weight than ANY single pit bull ever has...Yeah real tough guys aren't they.

You people make me sick hiding behind the victims of only one breed. People like me see right through your agenda and it's disgusting. How could you ignore the fact that THE OVER ALL VAST MAJORITY OF VICTIMS ARE NOT VICTIMS OF PIT BULLS? The "tough guy" breed changes over time and statistics reflect that...Breed bans are prolonging a real fix to the problem...WTG, our victims are waiting because we are argueing about breeds and not doing a thing about irresponsible ownership.

Pit bulls were bred from terriers and bull dogs and share their history with MANY of today's breeds, the comparison to bears and what not is ABSURD!!!!!!!We're talking about canines.

33 breeds bred for fighting.
Over 100 breeds bred for protection.
Dozens of breeds bred for hunting.
Even friggen greyhounds are bred to chase small animals, that drive to chase is a drive to KILL!!!!!

Attack statistics reflect breed popularity and irresponsible ownership and, EVERY SINGLE group and/or organization says this. You people mis-use the numbers to ease you're phobias while the victims keep adding up. How thoughtful of you. Keep hiding behing the victims, some of us no better!!!


Posted by Ban All Pit Bulls and Their Owners, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:50 pm

Ralph, if you wish to have three cheers for your ignorance, help yourself.

So as not to be an ignorant fear-monger, I decided to take a look at www.badrap.org which all the pit bull advocates insist is the definitive rebuttal of the evil myths about pit bulls. Here are some quotes from the site:

"We might not like it, but there is no denying that pit bulls are among many of the breeds (sic) that were originally bred for dog-to-dog combat."

"Because we dog people tend to be optimists, many of us let ourselves get lulled into a false sense of security after months or even years at the parks." (I'm an optimist too, but I choose not to express optimism in ways that threatens the well-being of others).

"The first day your pit bull gets in a fight is usually a big shocker. Sadly we hear it again and again. 'But he's never done anything like this before'" (Editor: pit bull owners are generally not the sharpest tools in the shed.)

"I had always thought I was a responsible dog owner. The fact that I jeopardized the life of someone's cherished pet was awful. It was also awful because it looked terrible for my favorite breed." (Editor: it didn't just "look" terrible. Sometimes appearances are not deceiving)

"Because pit bulls have been selectively bred for dog-dog combat ..."

Ralph, I'm sure hand grenades can make fine toys in the hands of "responsible owners". Why make any distinction between hand grenades and other toys? Because hand grenades were designed to kill people, just like pit bulls were designed to kill other dogs. That's why non-sociopaths refrain from carrying hand grenades down the streets and in the parks.



Posted by M.S., a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:51 pm

The pit bull terrier breed is the most dangerous of all since they had fighting as an actual desired trait bred into their makeup generations ago in the UK. The breed will always be unstable and dangerous to humans, other dogs and small creatures it can dominate! Catch a clue and ban this breed!!!!


Posted by jan dykema, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:52 pm

"Even if a dangerous dog is "only" dangerous toward other dogs, dog aggression is a completely worthless and entirely negative trait in a dog.."
Bestsy:
ALL dogs are naturaly aggressive.. it is not a "trait" that can "bred out'.. Dogs are carnivores, hunters, and prey driven. It is not a "worthles trait".. it is the reason that dogs have survived. Dogs that did not have these traits were soon dead dogs. Why do even the smallest dogs play with squeeky toys and destroy them.. think that they "know they are "toys"?.. how would a dog survive without a human? by killing things and eating them.. I know most people don't want to believe this but dogs are aggresive to each other.. BUT.. do you think for ONE minute that dogs "know" that they have done something "wrong'.. they don't.. the same dog that bites a dog will sleep with it on the same bed five minutes later.. DOGS DO NOT HAVE MORALS.. "pit bulls" or chihuahua.. they live and survive on "instinct" alone./ We are the ones who put moral "behavior" on dogs.. when it should be in one place nad one place only.. ON THE OWNER..


Posted by Kristi, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:53 pm

Oh, Betsy, Betsy...

Please, do walk into that shelter yourself. Play with the poor pitbulls dumped by their unloving and irresponsible owners. See how overtly aggressive they are, that they wag their tails and lick you through their prisons.

Ask the shelter workers why more pitbulls are dumped than other breeds. Ever think it's because there are more of them? For example:

Go into a black neighborhood. Go to that local jail. Oh my! The population is overwhelmingly black! Obviously because all those darn blacks are the murderers and rapists!

By your logic, anyway.

The abundance of any breed or race or what have you will therefore result in the numbers being higher in EVERY WAY. Not just more pitbulls registered, but more pitbulls sick, more pitbulls healthy, more pitbulls eating certain types of dog food, more pitbull attacks, more pitbulls in shelters....do you get the point yet?

I'm not trying to ban non purebred cats, just because every cat that has ever bitten me was a 'mutt'. There's just more of them, so it happens more often.

WE are TRYING to control the epidemic through community outreach-spay and neuter clinics(instead of outright laws), vaccination clinics, rescue groups teach responsible ownership and care...there are a million things we can do to eliminate the PROBLEM without eliminating the DOGS.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:59 pm

I just wanted to burst everyone's bubbles that think pit bulls are the toughest dogs around. Pound for pound, I would agree, you don't get much tougher than a game bred pit bull, but we don't live in a pound for pound world and pit bulls are far from a largest breed, especially game bred pit bulls. I would also agree that many of these dogs don't posses the gameness that fighting pit bulls have, but, once again, pit bulls being a smaller sized fighting breed, their gameness gets the life shaken out of them and doesn't get a chance to come through.

These are the dogs that could be considered consistent "pit bull killers"

Tosa Inu- King of all tough dogs!!!
"keep the Tosa away from other dogs that may want to fight, because the Tosa will most certainly win".
Web Link

Pressa Canario-
"They want a pit bull on steroids," said Mac Harris, a New York breeder. "And these dogs can be just that if they're raised the wrong way....the Presa Canario -- a breed that some law enforcement officials have nervously eyed as the next big thing in the seedy world of dog fighting -- may have gotten the push it needed to send sales skyrocketing. "This could be the next dog of choice among criminals," said Det. Bob Beals, a dog-fighting expert with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Breeders voiced the same fears.
Web Link

Dogo argentino-
"so ferocious, that they were said to attack the bitches while mating with them. This dog, but with more bulk and superior physical strength, and capable of hunting big game(Pumas, cougars, wild boars, etc...)...superdog"


American Bandogge-
"The last thing we want is for dogs like the American Bandogge Mastiff and the Dogo Argentino to become popular."


Bully Kutta-... Image Google "bear baiting" und see the Bully Kutta fight bears, Those ARE NOT pit bulls as some sites claim!!!!-
"This great breed is still used today for what it was created centuries ago, which is the ever popular "sport" of dog-fighting and bear-baiting...A pure Bully Kutta is also known for its movement, which sets it apart from other breeds."


Fila Brasileiro-
"Meet the world's most unstoppable guard dog, the Fila Brasileiro, a pure-bred superdog from Brazil that is capable of protecting his family and property and impressing all those with whom he comes in contact"

"Most people do not need and likely are unable to handle a dog of this caliber..."

Cane Corso-
"This breed can be naturally aggressive with strangers unless well socialized from an early age. The Corso's ancestors were bred as guard dogs and large game hunting dogs"

These are the breeds that could be considered inconsistant "pit bull killers" Some are not considered "fighters", but do VERY well.

English Bull terrier
American Bulldog(several blood lines)
Caucasian Ovtcharka
Neopolitan mastiff
Spanish bulldog
Gul dong
Ca De Bou
Dogue de Bordeax
Guatemalan Bull terrier

Then we get to the more common breeds whom have individuals that WILL with out a doubt give a pit bull one hell of a fight. Some are not considered fighters but will when trained. When I say "pit bull" on here I'm talking about game bred fighting dogs, some of these breeds(due to their larger size) would destroy a family pit bull.

German shepherd
Rottweiler
Shar pei
malamute
Bull mastiff
wolf hybrids
chow chow
akita
thai ridgeback
tibetin mastiff
boerboel

This is just a quick list. There are many more. Probably MANY, MANY TIMES more!!

Last but not least, I remember a news story from Chicago that said "toughest dog on block is a black lab". I can't find the story anymore, but it was about a black lab that beat the hell out of a troublesome pit bull in the area.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 10:00 pm

LOL, maybe I should of added poodles to that list...

"A poodle attacked a pitbull near Gothenburg in southern Sweden and then bit the pitbull's owner in the leg when she tried to protect her dog, the Swedish TT news agency said Tuesday.

The poodle's owner said her dog had greeted the pitbull in a friendly way but turned into a fighting canine because the pitbull disliked it, TT said.

Poodles are normally regarded as docile dogs while pitbull terriers have a reputation for being aggressive. ( WhiteBoard News/1/10/01)"

Web Link

I love how they put "Poodles are normally regarded as docile dogs"!!If that isn't the biggest crock ... I ever heard. Poodles and almost all the other breeds bred for looks alone are the most unstable breeds around. Almost 100% of the time, in these "pretty dogs", temperament is NOT considered when breeding. It's a good thing dogs bred for looks are usually tiny!!!


Posted by Norma J., a resident of Los Altos
on Aug 29, 2006 at 10:18 pm

Excuse me---but have you been fraternizing with Kory Nelson? He says exactly the same things, has banned dogs, has killed dogs, and is proud to say that anyone is justified in shooting a pitbull in the street. Maybe you can top that.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 10:29 pm

Did anyone ever think that HOUSE cats(pets) are responsible for killing millions of birds and small animals and it's considered normal? Then they get all up in arms when a pit bull kills one cat...Placing a different value on species isn't rational. Why is it okay for you guys to let cats roam and kill?

Is aggression really just a pit bull thing...Hardly, WAKE UP!!!!!


Posted by bestvuall, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 29, 2006 at 10:52 pm

"And when such a ban is proposed implying that only bad people (e.g. burglars and other criminals) smoke, it feels to me like this is a new way for government to control people's behavior under false pretenses.

In these troubled times, our governments, whether they be federal or local, can overreact in their zeal to keep people safe"

Diana.. just like the "Prez" we can sometimes "forget" what we have said before.. This is a statement from your "blog" on smoking. you know the one where you said your son was "addicted" to tobacco but so what.. he is still an OK guy.. and I happen to agree wiht you.. NOW.. if your son owned a nice sweet well behaved "pit bull" and the govenment
overreacted' and took his dog and KILLED it would you be saying the same thing. "our governments, whether they be federal or local, can overreact in their zeal to keep people safe"... I think you would..just insert the words "own a "pit bull' for the word "smoke"


Posted by Glen Bui, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 29, 2006 at 10:55 pm

How about if I just for those individuals that do not suffer from ignorance or the animal rights syndrome place the real facts out here.

ACF wins in court, we have the data base thats been proven in court to be accurate and scientific supported by documentation that will withstand any challenge anywhere.


4.8 million APBTS = AKC/UKC/ADBA data bases
Apx. 900 reported pit bull maulings in the last 3 years
NEISS report shows us in the last 3 years over 1.2 million people have been treated in ER rooms for severe injuries by canines.

Fatal Attacks ? In California in since 1965 ??

Mixed breeds - 24
Rottweilers - 15
Shepherd - 10
Pit Bulls- 6
Boxers - 5
Malamutes - 3
Husky - 2
St Bernard - 2
Great Dane - 2
Hybrid - 1
Australian Shepherd - 1
Ridgeback - 1
Pomeranian - 1
Presa - 2

The media lables everything a pit bull, a canine is what it is !

They have teeth, they have no other defense and there is not one fatal attack where there was not a provocating factor. Breed means nothing, the canine has only one genetic makeup, it has four legs, two ears and a tail. It does not speak english and communicates differently than we humans do !!!!!

Last year 37 people died from standing in a bath tub and using an electric hair dryer, people get bit by dogs because they provoke them or do not understand how to communicate, or they abuse them and make them mean.

People who support breed bans suffer from racism, ignorance, mental illness, lack of knowledge, hate, or they are bribed by AR organizations and brainwashed.

Breed bans do nothing but support genocide, they are no different then being jewish and living in Germany in WW11

Where there are breed bans dog loving people hide their dogs,they keep them locked up in basements, attics, garages and they only let them out at night, every day they live in fear and then one day the dog catcher comes along, the police show up and they seize the dog, they charge its owner with a crime, they take the dog, a family pet thats never bitten anyone down town to the local shelter and they
put it to death. Breed bans are supported and promoted by hate groups and individuals who would of been working for the NAZI's in WW11.

This is America and we are a free country not a communist controlled country.

There is no breed of dog that inherently dangerous, its impossible, all canines can fight, all canines can hunt, all canines can protect.

Cities are attempting to ban all dogs over 30-40 lbs.

In 2004/2005 the FBI investigated the first hate crimes directed at dog owners. 2004 Dodge City Kansas - 2005 Denver Colorado


A CHILD AT THE AGE OF 6 YEARS OLD COULD READ THE FATAL ATTACK DATA I PLACED ON HERE ??? If he was asked do you think we should ban Pit Bulls his response would "no" [Sentence removed as personal attack/insult. -jt]


Glen Bui




Posted by Precious, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 10:59 pm

*ATTENTION DIANA*
I am an American Pit Bull Terrier owner. For starters "Pit Bull" desribes a number of different breeds. One this breed is not human aggressive unless there owners make them. HUMAN and ANIMAL aggression is two different things. With the right training and socialization these dogs will be FINE around animals. Most of this article is FALSE on the breed! Why dont you take this test called find the Pitbull and post your results! I'm sure we'd all would love to know how many times it took you to get it right. Since you think you know what a American Pit Bull Terrier looks like.
Web Link


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 11:11 pm

What's really amusing is, it's the pit bull crowd who is sounding rational, logical and, providing more than just opinions and mis-used statisitics.

They call us the losers or whatever. Their post sound hateful, they lie, mis-use quotes from organizations against breed bans,forget to metion the full truth about the statistics and what is said about breed bans by the groups who conducted them and feel it's okay to kill our beloved family pets.They also ignore the vast majority of victims in a pursuit to feel more secure. They hide behind(and flat out USE) victims to push an agenda that hasn't worked any where and, possibly makes things worse by placing larger, more people aggressive breeds in the wrong hands. They are sad and they disgust people like me who spent years researching this. Don't let them fool you, it's a phobia and the courts will continue to agree.


Posted by Glen Bui, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 29, 2006 at 11:30 pm

Oh I almost forgot !

For the record, I notice on this topic the allegations of APBTS being responsible for killing other canines ? Accurate dog bite data bases show us the German Shepherd is responsible for killing alot more canines than the American Pit Bull Terrier. In fact we just received the dog bite date for Pierce County Washington and 4 German Shepherds were listed for killing other other dogs, 2 Mixed breeds were listed for killing other dogs, several Pit Bulls were listed for attacking other dogs but no deaths.

How is it that the German Shepherd is listed on dog bite data bases for killing other dogs, it was not bred for fighting ? Actually in the real world you can't breed a dog for fighting.




Glen Bui
American Canine Foundation


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 29, 2006 at 11:42 pm

Pit Bulls should be banned, period. Thanks, Diana, for taking this on. Obviously, some citizens would rather risk human and animal tragedy rather than have their preciosuly-bandied-about 'rights' frustrated.

What I see here is a lot of "I want my candy, NOW!" behavior. It reflects poorly on an otherwise educated community.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 29, 2006 at 11:59 pm

"some citizens would rather risk human and animal tragedy rather than have their preciosuly-bandied-about 'rights' frustrated."

Evidence and links to credible sources that back this up please...


Posted by Beth, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 12:25 am

Oh dear columnists, when will you get the picture?
STOP FOCUSING ON THE BREED OF DOG. FOCUS ON THE MONSTERS WHO MISTREAT THEM.
Your silly pit bull bans will NOT keep the wrong type of people from owning pit bulls, only drive them further underground and deeper into crime. A ban will drive up the value of the "taboo" animal, making the criminals/thugs who own them even more apt to use deadly force to protect their assets.
INSTEAD, step up forces/agricultural regulations to keep thugs/idiots from breeding them in backyards and regulate ownership. Uh Oh. Someone actually suggested the authorities ENFORCE something in the field other than a simple "ban the doggies" proposition from a desk man (Lord no! Work?!).
For the ten MILLIONTH time- breed bans ONLY punish responsible owners! Criminal Monsters don't care if you try to take their dogs away- they will only be more careful/devious so you don't find their dogs.
So go ahead: ban the pit bull. Create a black market with high stakes and dangerous people. Put your citizens at risk for rabies (how is a banned dog supposed to get his rabies vaccinations?). You'll be the first one crying to the public in your column about a loved one getting shot over the high cost of an illegally traded dog, or lamenting to the world when they get exposed to rabies from a pit mix puppy who couldn't get vaccinated because of your breed ban.
Get it straight people. You CANNOT BAN A BREED successfully! You MUST regulate the OWNERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 12:28 am

First of all, "Ban All..," thank you for saying I was resonable. lol

John said, "If you have a toddler cossing the street (or in the city park), would you be more afraid of chihuahuas or pit bulls? If you need me to define the difference, then this is NOT a rational conversation!"
Funny, because I WOULD like you to define the difference. Small dogs HAVE killed children. Any dog can kill a child. So, am I to understand that the reason you want to kill pit bulls is because they are bigger than small dogs? So, are small dogs the only ones that are "safe?" (Maybe you should check out your dog bite statistics. Chihuahuas are up there.)

I agree with Nathan. First thing I look for when I see a dog approaching me is whether it is leashed or not. If not, I immediately start looking at behavioral signs as well as breed (there are a lot more breeds out there that raise my concern more than "pit bulls"). If the dog is leashed, then I look at the owner, same as Nathan. Does the owner have control of the dog? If not, I cross the street. How about a dog in a front yard, unsecured? Is the fence high enough? The dog athletic enough to climb it? Any breed dog will attempt to get over a fence at a person/person with dog if you pass their yard. The fact is, a dog is a dog. They will behave according to their "rules." It is our responsibility to make sure they have been properly trained to integrate safely into society. No matter what size they are. It galls me to see people with small, unruly dogs that do nothing to train acceptable behavior in them just because they are small.

Betsey writes well-written, thoughtful, knowledgable posts - up to a point. She wrote, "Sometimes pit bull owners are well meaning but clueless people who adopt a pit bull from a shelter, not having any idea of what they are getting." What she should have said is, "the majority of people adopting dogs of any breed from shelters are ignorant of canine behavior and clueless about animals in general." I'd guess 97% don't have any idea of what they are getting - no matter what breed it is. I watch dog owners in veterinary waiting rooms and am amazed at the "accidents" that are avoided second by second. It is just a matter of pure dumb luck, I've decided. Betsey, I think, for the most part, responsible bully breed owners are very aware of their dogs' propensities. I know I am. What bugs me is the owners of other breeds that are NOT aware of their dogs' propensities. For me, that is where the dangerous variable lies.

Betsey also knows enough to talk about the American Temperament test. She said, "If you are referring to the American Temperament Test Society Test, that test doesn't even test for dog aggression." But that is incorrect. My dogs would not be able to pass that test due to dog aggression. In that test, you must walk up to and stop across from another owner with another dog. You must be able to stand there and talk with the other owner with your dog showing no signs of aggression or even interest in the other dog. That is a dog aggression test. In the ATT there is also a human aggression test. The dog breeds that are supposed to be human aggressive have ranges of response allowed. That is not the case for bully breeds which are not supposed to be human aggressive (which would include the supposed "pit bull"). In addition, failing that test may not be because of aggression at all. It would predominantly be because of an inability to adjust to circumstances and stabilize response in the face of unfamiliar circumstance. So, "pit bulls" that have failed the test have probably failed for the same reasons other dogs breeds do - an inability to recover from stress (wonder if John would fail because of that too). In addition, the difference between 91% and 83% is small. I wonder how that statistic adjusts when numbers of dogs tested per breed is taken into account .... just a thought.

Despite Ban Them All's reference to my reasonableness, he/she seems unreasonable to me. He says, "The dogs, especially the ferocious ones, are nothing more than wild beasts under restraint. Their behaviours are to a large extent the result of their upbringing and training. If the owners do not know how or care to train their dogs to peacefully co-exist with others, then the society must take over and break that bondage." Since he acknowledges that it is the owner's responsibility for the dog's behavior, he should acknowledge that is where the reaction from society should reside. But unreasonably, he does not. He goes on to advocate wiping out a whole breed despite his knowledge that it is the owner's responsibility with each individual animal. He also gives a piece of misinformation. The correct information is: it is a rare, rare dog that cannot be rehabilitated from mistreatment or lack of training, and then placed safely in an appropriate home.

Ban Them All then goes on to say that bully breed owners "parade" their animals in public. I assume he means taking our dogs out for walks? Actually, I have stopped doing that with my dogs. I am tired of the stress I feel walking my dogs past unleashed animals, improperly contained animals, etc. I have conceded to the stress of dealing with a world where I do not have the same rights as a law breaker.

He also seems to feel that animals that are "physically capable of killing your child or dog" are "pit bulls." How myopic. Once again, just about any dog is physically capable of killing another and/or a child. So, which dogs should be allowed to be "paraded in public" and which not? I am confused. (I am also confused about what "parading in public" is... but that is a minor point.)

He seems to mock every parents' responsibility to train their children how to properly behave around animals - a very dangerous position to take! I am constantly educating children how to behave around my dogs, who both love children, by the way. My female gets beside herself with joy around children and has to be restrained so she doesn't hit them with her wildly wagging tail. ALL PARENTS should educate their children how to behave around ALL animals. ALL PARENTS should take the time to learn enough about dog behavior that they can teach their children to be safe. It is not incumbent upon the dog owner to educate another parent's child, although many do. It is part of the responsibility of good parenting. ALL PARENTS should watch their children around dogs at ALL times.

Ban All says, "Substitute "tiger" or "grizzly bear" for "pit bull" in the forum messages above by the pit bull lovers and you will get a pretty good sense for how ridiculous your position seems to sane people." He forgot to suggest substituting "drunk driver" for pit bull. I guess that is ridiculous also then, right?

And he says, "The fact that my dog, unlike most other dogs, is physically capable of inflicting mortal injuries despite my best efforts at restraining it does not in any way distinguish it from other dogs." Again, this is an ignorant, unreasonable characterization. If a dog is physically capable of inflicting mortal injury (and most all dogs are) but the owner is making his/her best effort to restrain the dog from doing so in the unlikely circumstance that a restrained dog would be attempting to inflict mortal injury, then therefore that dog must be a "pit bull." That reasoning defies all logic and also defies a logical reply. Ridiculous. What fantasy does that come from? The only circumstance I can think of where a restrained dog would be wanting to inflict mortal injury would be a protection scenario. If that were the case, I wouldn't attempt to restrain my dog. I'd let him loose and thank god I had him and that he would be willing to absorb injury to himself in order to protect me and my family (as most dogs are).

Betsy says, "And evil people continue to breed pit bulls, both for the (original) trait of dangerousness to other dogs and for the (new, improved!) trait of being willing bite any cop who comes into the crack house." Betsy, you are just plain wrong about this. You would have to go to GREAT lengths to train an American Pit Bull Terrier to be a guard dog. In fact, in dog protection sports, you will be hard pressed to find any bully breeds that are titled. Bully breeds have centuries of breeding to NOT bite humans. It is pretty hard to go against that. They are not the breed of choice for guarding or protection.

Betsy says, "Even if a dangerous dog is "only" dangerous toward other dogs, dog aggression is a completely worthless and entirely negative trait in a dog that leads to tragedies and headlines." Well, again, that sounds good, but isn't entirely true. Dog "aggression" is a perfectly good trait for dog survival. It isn't a good trait for our society. But someone forgot to tell the dogs that. They are just dogs, after all. They don't know that their genetic programming is worthless for our society. She seems to think that dog aggression is unique to "pit bulls." I hate to break it to you, Betsy. Dog aggression is an inherent part of dogdom.

Betsy also says, "If one of you pit bull "advocates" can tell me a way to get this epidemic under control short of strong breed specific legislation (a la the excellent law recently passed in San Francisco that requires the spay/neuter of all non-show dog pit bulls), I'd be mighty interested to hear it." This is such a disappointment, Betsy. Apparently you have failed to "hear" the many informative and constructive voices just in this forum alone. Cherie Graves posted an extensive proposal to solve the problem. Did you "hear" it? In reality, you are just an educated John, aren't you?

Betsy also says, "Go into any urban shelter and look at the dogs on death row. They will, overwhelmingly, be pit bulls and pit bull mixes." Again, she is skewing information. Now the majority are pit bulls. Ten years ago the majority were Rottweilers. Ten years before that the majority was... pick your breed. Labs, German Shepherds, Dobermans. Whatever the popular breed was at the time. The fact is, as several others mentioned, there are just MORE bully breeds at the moment.

But, the best point, I think, has been made by asdfg. Dogs have been bred to DO A JOB. I have one of the breeds he has listed (which by the way was incorrectly described). I own Dogo Argentinos. They are a hunting breed, bred to hunt wild boar and puma. Their temperament is SUITED TO THEIR JOB. As is every breed's. ANY dog breed that has a job has the potential to be "game." To have the drive to do their job NO MATTER WHAT gets in their way. To not recognize that about dogs is to make a fatal mistake in some cases. Dogs are not furniture. They are not babies. They are powerful creatures with drives to match. We need to educate ourselves about them and respond accordingly. Killing them all is not an appropriate response.
Lisa





















1. I have every right to parade in public an animal that is physically capable of killing small children and dogs. The risk that my dog might kill your child or dog does not concern me. The fact that my dog, unlike most other dogs, is physically capable of inflicting mortal injuries despite my best efforts at restraining it does not in any way distinguish it from other dogs.

2. If I approach you in public with my dangerous dog, it is your responsibility to have trained any small children with you so they are not "ignorant enough to ignore the signs" of impending fatal attack (to quote the ever-reasonable Lisa M). I don't care how young your children are. Stay far away from me and my vicious dog, or suffer the consequences!

Substitute "tiger" or "grizzly bear" for "pit bull" in the forum messages above by the pit bull lovers and you will get a pretty good sense for how ridiculous your position seems to sane people.








Posted by Melissa, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 3:21 am

"But case history also shows many pit bulls simply turn on people and other pets without provocation."
Apparently,you have not actually studied "case history" concerning the breed.When in actuality,the Pit Bull is the MOST stable breed with humans.Pit Bulls (unless trained to be agressive) NEVER turn on people,there is always a trigger that causes the unwanted behaviour.
And it is a total MYTH,that they lock on to their victims. A pitbull does have a strong determination. But their jaws lock about as often as you read PitBull books.
Please study their History,and talk to some reputable PitBull owners,before you again post such negative, half truths for the public to read.
My job since 1984,has been to protect our breed from people like you.


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 4:55 am

Sorry, Lisa, but you are significantly out of touch when you claim that people aren't breeding pit bulls specifically to be aggressive to people. It is true that few dog sports people use them, but that is because dog sports people want stable dogs, and these dogs aren't stable. Go here: Web Link to read about a disturbing example. (Note: Everything this guy is doing is completely legal most places). Katie Dineen, co-founder of BADRAP (Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pitbulls) is more honest about the problem, being quoted as saying "A lot of the [Pit Bull] community don't want to acknowledge that these dogs can be aggressive to people. But in the Bay area shelters it's become a significant problem." She goes on to say "in the past 20 years, unethical people have not only tolerated aggression toward people but have encouraged it and been breeding for it..."

Too bad.

Dog aggression to the point of killing other dogs is NOT "an inherent part of being a dog." Dogs are just domesticated wolves and a wolf who charged across a line at any other wolf without provocation and started fighting and continued to fight until one or the other was dead (the behavior specifically bred FOR in pit bulls) wouldn't survive to breed because the pack would be destroyed by this behavior. Naturally occuring levels of dog aggression can involve a lot of posturing for rank, and often a lot of show, but when the other wolf (or dog) submits, there is no permanent damage done because the victorious dog accepts the submission and stops the fight. For pit bull breeders, historically, a dog who stops fighting short of death (before being physically separated) is "not game" and was "culled" (i.e. killed) as a "cur." Dog fighters bred (and still breed) pit bulls for completely UNnaturally heightened levels of dangerous dog aggression, (just as the labrador is bred for UNnatural levels of retrieving drive).

Many authorities comment that some pit bulls actually DON'T posture (snarl, growl, show teeth, raise hackles) much at other dogs. This is because a dog who is posturing is doing so in order to impress the other dog enough so that that dog will back down without a fight. The pit bull doesn't want to avoid a fight any more than a labrador wants to avoid a tennis ball. And when he starts fighting, he doesn't stop. This isn't his FAULT, (he didn't choose to be bred) it is the fault of pit bull breeders who continue to breed dogs with the temperament flaw of high levels of dog aggression and the desire to pull the leash out of their owners' hands and kill a passing maltese.

Lisa is correct that dogs are "bred to do a job." Unfortunately, the job that pit bulls are bred to do (historically) is kill other dogs. There is NO REASON to continue to breed dogs who have the inherent drive to do this. It is a totally useless and destructive trait that puts other peoples' dogs in danger. If responsible pit bull breeders are agreeable to breed for a different temperament (i.e. not dog aggressive) then perhaps pit bulls can survive (in MUCH smaller numbers) as companion dogs. Properly bred, they certainly can be agreeable to people. Alas, hardly any of them are remotely responsibly bred and even the ones that are tend to be dangerous toward other dogs.

Of course, it is true that if a highly dog aggressive pit bull is properly restrained 100% of the time for his entire life, it may not get the opportunity to kill other dogs. So, dog owners out there, how many of you have NEVER had a loose dog? Even for a few seconds? I am a HIGHLY responsible dog owner and I have had dogs get loose more time than I can count. And just a glance at any urban shelter's death row proves to me that there are many, many, many pit bull owners who are a whole lot less responsible about their dogs than I am about mine. So please don't argue to me that dog aggression is "only" dangerous if the owner is irresponsible. Pit bull owners do tend, alas, to be irresponsible as the pit bulls waiting to die at my shelter (and yours) prove.




Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 5:08 am

By the way, Kristi, I agree that there are things that the pit bull community can do to start to eliminate the problem without eliminating pit bulls. Breed specific legislation, such as that passed in San Francisco, that requires the spay/neuter of ALL pit bulls except registered show dogs would allow EVERY responsibly owned pit bull to go on living, and EVERY responsible pit bull owner to keep his/her pit bull. It would also eliminate unbelievable amounts of pit bull suffering and would save the lives of some kids and some old people.

Pit bull people tend, unaccountably, to be against this proposal. (I believe that they have filed lawsuits against it). Go figure. I guess they care more about their unfettered right to breed unregistered, dangerous pit bulls than they care about pit bulls OR kids OR old people.


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 5:30 am

Also, Lisa M, you are wrong when you say that the American Temperament Test Society (the test that purports to have an 83% pit bull passing rate and a 91% lab passing rate) tests for dog aggression. You are confusing the AKC's "Canine Good Citizen" test with the ATTS test. The AKC's CGC DOES require that the (onleash) dog be approached by another (onleash) dog and not react aggressively. The ATTS test has no such requirement. Go here: Web Link to read the requirements of the ATTS test.

I am unaware of any breed specific statistics regarding pass rates for the AKC's CGC.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 5:53 am

By the way, the suggestion that there are upwards of 8 million pit bulls in this country (made by several posters) and that there are more of them than labs is insane. I have no doubt that the posters believe some of this (a lot of misinformation gets transferred from one pit bull owner to another and repeated on the internet), but it just isn't true.

As a reality check, both responsible breeders of labradors retrievers and responsible breeders of pit bulls (all kinds) get breeding dogs' hips certified as hip dysplasia free by the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals before breeding. There are a LOT of irresponsible breeders of both pit bulls AND labradors, of course. But OFA has certified the hips of 176,444 labradors and only 3036 AmStaffs, American pit bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers COMBINED. I certainly can believe that pit bull breeders are, on average, a whole lot more irresponsible than (even) lab breeders. All those totally irresponsible pit bull breeders are, after all, why pit bulls are in the horrible mess they are in. But if there were just AS MANY pit bulls as labradors bred (rather than many, many times more as the pit bull people would have us believe), that would require us to say that pit bull breeders are FIFTY times more irresponsible about getting hips OFAed than are lab breeders. Even I can't believe that pit bull breeders are THAT bad.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 5:53 am

By the way, the suggestion that there are upwards of 8 million pit bulls in this country (made by several posters) and that there are more of them than labs is insane. I have no doubt that the posters believe some of this (a lot of misinformation gets transferred from one pit bull owner to another and repeated on the internet), but it just isn't true.

As a reality check, both responsible breeders of labradors retrievers and responsible breeders of pit bulls (all kinds) get breeding dogs' hips certified as hip dysplasia free by the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals before breeding. There are a LOT of irresponsible breeders of both pit bulls AND labradors, of course. But OFA has certified the hips of 176,444 labradors and only 3036 AmStaffs, American pit bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers COMBINED. I certainly can believe that pit bull breeders are, on average, a whole lot more irresponsible than (even) lab breeders. All those totally irresponsible pit bull breeders are, after all, why pit bulls are in the horrible mess they are in. But if there were just AS MANY pit bulls as labradors bred (rather than many, many times more as the pit bull people would have us believe), that would require us to say that pit bull breeders are FIFTY times more irresponsible about getting hips OFAed than are lab breeders. Even I can't believe that pit bull breeders are THAT bad.


Posted by Amy Parker, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 7:27 am

The first (and maybe most important) rule of journalism is "Cite your sources". Diana Diamond must have forgotten this very basic rule, because she failed to back up any of the information she gave with source information....Or maybe she didn't forget the rule...It could be that she didn't cite where her information came from simply because SHE IS PULLING IT OUT OF THIN AIR AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HER WEAK AND IGNORANT STATEMENTS!

Any person can make up any story they want. Diana Diamond is obviously a prime example of this. Just because she feels the need to blurt it out, however, does not make it fact.

There is no such breed as a "pit bull" or "pit bull type". The term "pit bull" refers to several different breeds of dogs that may have similar appearance. This may include, but is not limited to, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Bull Terrier, Caine Corsos, as well as many other breeds and mixed breeds. Many of these dogs are lumped together simply for the fact that it is too hard for most people to tell them apart.

There is no evidence to support Ms. Diamond's statement that "pit bulls" are naturally viscious dogs. In fact, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that there is no evidence to support that ANY dog is inherently viscious.

But while we are on the topic of "viscious" dogs, let's talk about viscious dogs. Ms. Diamond has no problem harping on "pit bulls"...but I didn't see anywhere in her blog where she addressed any other dog attacks. Surely "pit bulls" aren't the only dogs to have ever attacked another animal or a person. So three "pit bulls" attacked and killed a maltese...What about the pomeranian that killed a six-week old infant, or the dalmation that bit off half of a little girls left cheek? (I have personally been attacked by a dog, but it wasn't one of my APBTs that bit me...it was my aunt's CHIHUAHUA)

There have been numerous newspaper and magazine articles about dog attacks in the recent past. The III states, however, that the number of reported incidents has not gone up. The number of dog attacks per year stays relatively the same. The only thing that really changes is the rampant willingness for people to sue each other. I would imagine that the media's willingness to jump on the bandwagon and sensationalize every little thing doesn't do much to help the matter either.

Believe it or not, many of these dogs, especially APBTs, are still referred to as "nanny dogs" in some parts of the world. That's right, nanny dogs. They were given this particular nickname because of their loyal and caring behavior towards humans...i.e. children.

Apparently, Ms. Diamond also needs to add "Biologist" right next to her "journalist" title. She obviously knows so much about the anatomy of an imaginary breed of dogs that it is astounding! "Their huge jaws grab and lock onto the victim..." Just so you know, the whole "locking jaw" assumption is just that...an assumption, and a bad one at that.

I would encourage anyone who actually listens to Ms. Diamond to seriously reconsider how much of her "facts" they retain. Any level-headed, reasonable person will seek out the real facts on their own. I recommend visiting the HSUS webpage, as well as the American Temperament Testing Society page. Even Wikipedia has a vast wealth of information on the true nature (and physiology) of these dogs. In case you are wondering, those are the sources that I used, in addition to some others.

You simply cannot assume that all "pit bulls" are viscious dogs and should be banned. Not only is it unfair, but it is illogical. Saying that all "pit bulls" are inherently viscious because of the actions of a small percentage is like saying that human beings are inherently evil because we share a genus/species name with the likes of Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer.

The fact of the matter is that ignorant people propose and then enforce Breed Specific Legislation when they lack the necessary information or expertise to do so. And ignorant people, like Diana Diamond, perpetuate the stupidity by regurgitating whatever they feel whenever they feel like doing so. Ignorance kills.

Check Wikipedia and the HSUS...There is no evidence to support that breed bans work. To the contrary, they make things worse. Do you really think that passing another law to keep people from raising bad dogs is going to help? If you do, you need a reality check. The people that are responsible for those bad dogs are already breaking the law! What is one more law to them? Even at that, if you ban one breed, they will just move on to the next willing victim. That's what the dogs are...victims. They want so badly to serve people, that they will do anything they are asked to do. Anything a "pit bull" has ever done wrong was most likely in the service of a person. Maybe you should leave the dogs alone and focus on the real problem- the incompetent and viscious owners.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Mahatma Gandhi

Punish the deed, not the breed!


Posted by Ashley Voris, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 7:41 am

You know, I have been bitten by more of those little dogs than by any other breed on the planet. I say ban the little dogs. My sister was in the hospital for two weeks because of a pomeranian. It was normailly a friendly dog and all of a sudden it turned on her. It shredded her knee. She was 7 years old. Two year previous, she was bitten by a bichon mix and had to undergo a series of rabies shots. I was bitten on the arm by my grandmother's Pomeranian when I went to give her a hug goodnight. I was bitten again, by said Pomeranian when I went to take her food bowl away. A pomerainian and a bichon. My experience with pit bulls? Nothing but kisses and snuggles. Never once have I had one growl at me or snap at me or even thing about biting me. You need to look to the owners and not the breed. Before you make public accusations, you need to do research. After all, that's what a journalist is supposed to do right?


Posted by Amy Parker, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 8:00 am

Just out of pure curiosity, have any of you obviously misinformed people ever even owned an APBT or other so-called "pit bull-type" dog? If you did, you must not have paid much attention to them at all. They are sweet, loyal, loving, and very well-tempered. I have three of them, I should know.

AND JOHN...THIS IS JUST FOR YOU

For starters, what parent would let their toddler cross the street?! If you mean "If you were crossing the street with your toddler...", then this is my answer...
I would be more afraid of my child interacting with the chihuahua. Smaller dogs seem to be less frightening because of their size. But size is not an indicator of temperament. Children are attracted to smaller animals because they SEEM safer than big animals. They are unknowingly setting themselves up for nasty situations...because the "cute little doggy" seems so safe.
More than that, though, you should ask yourself this- What kind of parent would let their child around any strange animal? What parent doesn't teach their children to be wary of strange animals? An irresponsible parent, I would say.
On a more personal note, I would choose to go the pit bull's way (assuming that the dog is not exhibiting aggressive behavior)...I have three pit bulls...they have never so much as growled at me or my children. My aunt's "cute little doggy" (a chihuahua), on the other hand, got me pretty good when I was younger. And she still snarls at me (and my kids) every time she sees us. I blame it on the fact that she was not trained well....
Maybe you should keep things like that in mind before you start trying to peg every pit bull and their owner as bad or aggressive or whatever you are saying. Training and environment are huge factors in how a dog's temperament develops. No dog consciously decides "I am going to be a bad dog and bite other dogs and people". Training, or lack thereof, should carry the brunt of the criticism.
Maybe if you weren't so quick to insult people (I believe you called us dog fanatics), people would not be so quick to attack you.
Is that rational enough for you?

Amy Parker, mother of two human kids and three apbts.


Posted by Flip, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 8:01 am

Locking jaws hmmm some1 playing into the myths here. Y do u people always attack the dog s why don't u ever look @ the owners? Hmm theres an idea!! BAN IGNORANCE NOT PIT BULLS!!!!!!!


Posted by JAKE Lee, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 30, 2006 at 8:28 am

THERE WERE NOT 3 APBTS AND THEY DIDNT KILL A MALTESE DOG. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER FAKE STORY PROMOTED BY PETA EXTREMEISTS THAT WANT TO STOP APBTS FROM LIVING..............

IF WE COUNTED EVERY SO CALLED PITBULL ATTACK, WE WOULD FIND THAT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER ARE FAKE AND SET UP BY EXTREMISTS.

IT IS UNBELIEVABLE HOW MANY PEOPLE BUY INTO THE NOTION THAT THESE ALLEGED "ATTACKS" ARE EVEN REAL....THE PUBLIC LOVES THIS NONSENSE.

ALL THE TIME SPENT ON EDUCATING ONE PERSON HERE, WHILE MANY SEEM TO BE PRETTY WELL VERSED ON THE ANTI BSL CRUSADE....WHY NOT DIRECT ALL THIS ENERGY TOWARD KORY NELSON OF DENVER WHO HAS DONE MORE DAMAGE THAN 1,200 PITBULLS IN HIS LIFE, BY POSTING A GOVERNMENTAL WEBSITE AND TELLING GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES AND ANIMAL CONTROL FALSE AND MISREPRESENTED FACTS?????????????? BY PARADING AROUND THE COUNTRY AND GIVING OUT INCORRECT FACTS? THE MEDIA BELIEVES WHATEVER HE GIVES THEM.

BY CALLING ANTI BSL ADVOCATES FRONTS FOR DOGFIGHTERS? LAUNDERING $$ FOR DOGFIGHTERS? DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY WOULD ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS? APPARENTLY A LOT OF THEM. IT APPEARS MOST PEOPLE WOULD JUST RATHER BELIEVE THE MEDIA AND KEEP THEIR OPINIONS, RATHER THAN FIND OUT THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH IS APPARENTLY TOO HARSH FOR MANY. PREJUDICE DOES DIE HARD. I LOVE IT WHEN THE GOVT DOES A STUDY AND USES DATA THAT IS VERY INCORRECT, BUT STILL PASSES A LAW. THEY FIGURE PASSING THE LAW WILL SHOW THEY DID THEIR JOB, JUST LIKE SEIZING THE LOUIE'S 2 DOGS, AND TAKING HER SON AWAY FOR OVER 6 MONTHS..........PUTTING HIM IN FOSTER HOME AND SUBJECTING HIM TO SEXUAL ABUSE.

WHENEVER ANTI BSL PEOPLE RESPOND TO ANY ALLEGED DOG ATTACKS, THE PUBLIC ALWAYS SAYS THE PEOPLE ARE DOG CRAZY. THE PEOPLE THAT STAND UP FOR THE DOGS ARE ATTACKED JUST LIKE THE DOGS. WHAT A SAD DAY IN THE UNITED STATES, WHEN PEOPLE WHO STAND UP FOR SOMETHING RIGHT, ARE ACCUSED OF DEFENDING DOG FIGHTERS AND SCORNED.


Posted by voter, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 30, 2006 at 8:49 am

Diana, John, Betsy, Ban Them All -- Thank you for saying what most of us feel. Will you please use your energy and get some kind of referendum so we can just vote on it? Our streets will be safer, and perhaps the weird defender of dangerous dogs who is spamming this list can go spout and shout to his/her heart's content somewhere else.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:20 am

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog owners of the Western States
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156
509-447-2821

The United States of America, home of the brave, land of the free? This country was founded upon the ideal of free people taking responsibility for their actions, participating actively in the political process, being citizen statesmen, and women, and being self governing. The following statement exerpted from the Declaration of Independence, and incorporated into the Washington State Constitution expresses exactly what our framers envisioned for we the people;
"All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights." The Constitution guarantees that we would be able to protect ourselves, and our property with the following words; "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Every household in the United States of America should openly display, and study the Constitution before we have acquiesced all of our rights and liberties away.

A license is a temporary, revocable permit issued by a governmental agency to have something, or to do something that is otherwise illegal. If you live in a city, town, municipality, county, or state that requires dog licensing, then the act of dog ownership has been made illegal without permission of government.

Some licenses are reasonable. To drive upon public streets, roads, and highways your drivers license is proof of proficiency. Drivers licenses are regularly revoked, or suspended for failure to show competency. It's reasonable to license for the practice medicine, or law. Licensing has been carried to the extreme in the USA. We supposedly live in a free enterprise system, yet every business must be licensed. We must have a license to marry, to fish, to hunt, to own firearms, which is how our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms was undermined to the point of illegality.

When we agree to license our dogs we agree to give over our ownership right to the licensing agency, which can at any time revoke our use rights. We grant them absolute control over our animals. They can come onto our real property, and remove our transitory property (dogs) without due process of law. Ostensibly cities, counties, or states which require licensing could refuse to issue further licenses, and revoke the privilege of dog ownership. Mandatory dog licensing was the initial step in removing dogs from our ownership.

The secondary step was the introduction of breed specific dog laws that limit, or prohibit the ownership of dogs based solely upon their breed. To the inexperienced, or uneducated citizen BSL appears to be a way to control dogs. Far from that simplistic view, it is government exerting control over the rights of human beings to have the full use and enjoyment of his/her property as is granted under the US Constitution. Breed specific dog ordinances set up the owners of the named breeds for exceptional treatment under law. As citizens we are guaranteed equal treatment, and equal protection. As owners of these breeds we are treated as though we have committed a crime, again without due process of law. We are labeled as being less responsible, less capable, of having less rights than our fellow dog owners whose breeds have temporarily escaped the restrictions, or prohibitions. Are we not tax payers? Are we not property owners? Do we not participate in our political processes? Are we secondary citizens? If we do not stand up for ourselves we will all become slaves to an out of control government.

In the limited , or restricted permission to own a "dangerous breed", another license was brought to bear upon the dog owner, plus the added burden of having to post an exorbitant surety bond, or liability insurance that was unavailable.

All law is based upon supporting, and upholding the rights granted to us under the Constitution. Laws must be able to stand up to the Constitutional challenge. Local, state, and federal agencies have circumvented law by initiating "regulations, ordinances, codes," etc., which we citizens blindly agree to abide by, thus making these regulations, codes, and ordinances enforceable. Once we comply, we must ever comply. Compliance is agreement. If you have ever paid for and received a license to own a dog in your local, and you refuse to re-license at the end of the period that the license was issued you can be cited, and taken to Court. The Court can sentence you for not continuing to abide by the agreement that you entered into with the licensing agency.

Obviously the third and final step in removing our property rights in animals is the complete ban on ownership. A retirement community in Florida has already made the proposal. It was soundly trounced. The USA is not yet ready for an all out ban. But the chipping away process is in full speed ahead. Breed specific ownership ordinances have been with us for over thirty years. It takes time for radical ideas to begin to sound reasonable. They must be bolstered with heavy doses of propaganda. They must be propped up with legal precedent. Most importantly they must be acquiesced to by the people.


Posted by JAKE Lee, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:22 am

[Portion deleted by Palo Alto Online staff]
Why do you want to destroy freedoms from which I so willingly gave my blood, with countless others, to protect? You should move to a communist country, and leave the land of the free, the home of the brave, because people like you a tainting the very essence of this country.
Is this the first step to you to rid the world of domestic animals, because that is where this sort of thing will end. I bet you'd say, get rid of guns as they kill people, yet in a well known country who did just this, the crime rate has raised.
How about this, the greater danger is simply this, more people are killed and harmed through the use of automobiles. Why not ban automobiles first, then get to the dogs? No, you want to ban what means nothing to you. Who cares if there are other people here who are passionate about these animals.
As to the dogs turning upon their master and children. I have had these dogs for 22 years, have never had one turn on me, and have numerous times seen children literally beat the dog in the head with a stick, and the dog just sit there and take it, never acting in the least bit aggressive towards the child.
Now, you want to ban a dog for biting people, go and ban cocker spaniels. They bite more humans than any other breed. That is fact, not fiction. Or do you consider a cocker spaniel a "Pit Bull".


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:33 am

you're going to count breeds by hip certification and not registration numbers...sure, lol. If that isn't biased I don't know what is.

How about the fact that pit bulls are known for bad hips and the majority of the breed CAN'T be certified. Use registration numbers.


Posted by Melissa, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:34 am

By the way, I own a "Pit Bull" and a Chihuahua and if you don't have to worry about the Pit, she loves everyone...but my chihuahua will try to tear your ankles off.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:40 am

LOL, if we used hip certification numbers to identify breed popularity, than certain breeds who are prone to hip problems wouldn't exist at all according to these numbers...Get real. This absurd suggestion shows your common sense.


Posted by Jeanne, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:44 am

Wow....we have it all here. Conspiracy theories, threats against the journalist who wrote the piece, insults, threats of lawsuits, comparing pit bulls to Jews and blacks, and the usual misinformation. Ah, the "pit bull community" at its finest.

First off, people, this is an op-ed piece. Repeat after me....Op-Ed. That means it's an opinion piece. The journalist has a right to her opinion, especially when she is writing about an issue in her locality. Regulating/banning domesticated animals happens all the time. I can't own a horse in my suburban back yard. And if a game warden can legally shoot a dog for running deer, then you can't assume that banning or regulating a specific breed of dog is not worthy of public discussion.

Now lets look at some of the misinformation thats been bandied about. I didn't have time to slog through all the posts, but one poster claimed that the APBT is still referred to as the "nanny dog" in some parts of the world. False. Many years ago, the English Bull Terrier that was referred to as the Nanny Dog, not the APBT. Different breed of dog.

Also, I keep seeing that tired old statistic about the ATTS tests. The ATTS test was originally developed to evaluate dogs for shutzhund....bite work. It was not developed to evaluate dogs as family companions, and the tests are subjective by breed. Aggression displayed in the test is "checked against the breed standard" and the dogs training; so one can assume that guarding or fighting breeds are allowed to display more aggression than a Lab or a Golden.

In addition, the test is statistically insignificant....in some breeds, only a handful of dogs have been tested. Only one Bluetick Coonhound was tested, and he passed....so now Bluetick Coonhounds show a 100% passing rate, which, according to you people, makes them far "safer" than APBTs.

What the test shows is this.....a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% of APBTs owned by folks who participate in obedience/dog sports/schutzhund, etc. pass a temperment test which shows they are not fearful or overly aggressive with non-threatening strangers. That leaves the rest of us to deal with the millions of poorly bred pit bulls living amongst us.

You all insist on talking about what pit bulls were/should be/are supposed to be. Open your eyes. Pick up a copy of any supposed "legitimate" dog magazine and look at the breeder ads for APBT's. Then do a google search for "Breeders American Pit Bull Terrier" and see what you find. Start counting how many ads advertise them for "protection", or advertise fighting bloodlines. The vast majority of the dogs that show up in our communities are being bred by criminals, thugs and idiots. Responsible breeders are outnumbered by about a thousand to one. These dogs are not being bred to be safe and loving family pets.

And here's a news flash for you all.....its not the fatal maulings that have folks in an uproar...its the many, many non-fatal attacks that happen every day. In my community, and in many others. You can talk all you want about responsible dog ownership, and, by all means, lets pass the laws you outline. But the paradox here is that the breed you champion is a MAGNET for bad owners....Pit Bulls attract a far greater percentage of irresponsible owners than other breeds.

And for all your posturing about being dog-lovers, REAL dog lovers are tired of living in fear of your dog aggressive dogs. I would like to see a statistic regarding how many family pets are maimed or killed by pit bulls each year. Based on what I see, in my community and on the news, the numbers would be staggering. If you all love dogs so much, you would deal with the very real issue of dog aggression in your breed. A woman in Boston had part of her finger bitten off trying to save her own dog from a neighbors "responsibly owned" pit bull who just slipped out the door while the owner brought in groceries. Owning a fighting breed selectively bred to kill other dogs in an urban or suburban area surrounded by other dogs is just plain stupid. But pit bull owners don't really care about other people's pets.

Certain breeds of dogs require an owner with advanced handling skills, and pit bulls are one of them. They need to be regulated, because the so called "defenders" of the breed have failed miserably as stewards of the breed. Until this happens, the public is at the pit bull owners mercy.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:48 am

"Now lets look at some of the misinformation thats been bandied about. I didn't have time to slog through all the posts, but one poster claimed that the APBT is still referred to as the "nanny dog" in some parts of the world. False. Many years ago, the English Bull Terrier that was referred to as the Nanny Dog, not the APBT. Different breed of dog."

Are you suggesting that the english bull terrier doesn't fall into the pit bull catergory? If one attacked, it would be called A PIT BULL!!!!!You can't pick and choose breeds for each stat.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:49 am

"Also, I keep seeing that tired old statistic about the ATTS tests. The ATTS test was originally developed to evaluate dogs for shutzhund....bite work. It was not developed to evaluate dogs as family companions, and the tests are subjective by breed. Aggression displayed in the test is "checked against the breed standard" and the dogs training; so one can assume that guarding or fighting breeds are allowed to display more aggression than a Lab or a Golden"

As the president of the ATTS has stated, pit bulls didn't even fail for aggression.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:50 am

"In addition, the test is statistically insignificant....in some breeds, only a handful of dogs have been tested. Only one Bluetick Coonhound was tested, and he passed....so now Bluetick Coonhounds show a 100% passing rate, which, according to you people, makes them far "safer" than APBTs"

You mean like only a handful have attacked?


Posted by Mr. Smith, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:51 am

Wow, that's rich, Jake Lee. I'm not taking sides in this debate. But I can't seem to recall ever reading about a cocker spaniel mauling another dog or person to death. But "pit bulls" do. And I doubt it's some vast media conspiracy that we often read about it, too. It's a blog, ladies and gents. Stop treating it like it's World War III and put a lid on the nasty, ignorant comments. Based on all the bile and hatred I'm reading here, you lot are just as guilty of spewing the same biased, unsupported opinion you accuse Diamond of. Time to move on and get a grip.


Posted by Jeanne, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 11:05 am

"Now lets look at some of the misinformation thats been bandied about. I didn't have time to slog through all the posts, but one poster claimed that the APBT is still referred to as the "nanny dog" in some parts of the world. False. Many years ago, the English Bull Terrier that was referred to as the Nanny Dog, not the APBT. Different breed of dog."




Are you suggesting that the english bull terrier doesn't fall into the pit bull catergory? If one attacked, it would be called A PIT BULL!!!!!You can't pick and choose breeds for each stat.

You are so right.....I was wrong. The nanny dog was the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. AKC registered Staffie Bulls are actually rare in this country. The AKC shows only 856 registered in the entire country in 2005. And if one attacked, yes, it would be called a pit bull, even though, unlike the APBT people, the Staffie Bull breeders seem to care enough about their breed to not let it fall into the hands of the thugs and drug dealers.





Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 11:05 am

"But I can't seem to recall ever reading about a cocker spaniel mauling another dog or person to death"

Is it so wrong to look at the statistics kept rather than media reports?

"And I doubt it's some vast media conspiracy that we often read about it"

Once again refer to my above statement.

I really wouldn't call it a media conspiracy against pit bulls. It's just "pit bull" gets hits on media sources. It's a very good way of creating headlines...Notice the attention this has recieved?


Posted by John, a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 30, 2006 at 11:20 am

There's a hilarious comment over on Backfence Web Link referring to this exchange and saying that the majority of posters here are tearing Diana Diamond "a new one over not doing her homework and pulling her opinions largely out of her posterior."

BTW, there is another poster using the same name and neighborhood as I am. Only the second message in this thread and this message are from me.


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 30, 2006 at 11:40 am

asdfg said ""some citizens would rather risk human and animal tragedy rather than have their preciosuly-bandied-about 'rights' frustrated."
Evidence and links to credible sources that back this up please..."


Just take a look at this forum. It's right in front of your eyes. Sources? How about the dog that was killed the other day? How about the many others that are mauled or ohave been mauled by pit bulls? Ban them!


Another example? how about SUV's, known for years to be exceedingly dangerous, yet their owners insist on friving them?


How about smoking in public places, insisted on by millions,, until laws were made?


Ban pitt bulls!



Posted by Perriann, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 11:51 am

To all of you wanting to ban these dogs, here's a question. Other than media reports and personal experience, what evidence do you have to support your claims?

As for the ATTS testing dogs, it is true that labs scored in the 90's. Golden Retrievers, however, scored the same as pit bulls. Please explain how this is possible.

As for the past hundred years of pit bull breeding, yes, they have been bred to fight other dogs. Yes, they have strength and determination, and have also been bred for the same amount of time for these traits. However, simultaneously, while being bred to fight dogs, they were also bred to be extremely human-friendly. One had to be able to separate two dogs in the heat of battle without so much as a scratch. Any dog showing the smallest amount of human aggression was immediately dispatched. Try separating two labs in the heat of a fight without ending up with stitches.

Not to mention that if you are a responsible dog owner and you raise the dog from a puppy to be socialized around other dogs, even if you have a pit bull type, you won't have to worry about dog fights. I have a dog that picks and chooses which dogs she likes. However, I have never once had an incident with her, because she is always leashed in public, she is not allowed to meet other dogs face to face, she NEVER gets loose as she is in the house with me, and if for some reason she HAS to be close to other dogs (like at the vet), if I even see her tense up, I show her how to behave.

It is entirely possible to have a dog aggressive dog and never have an incident if you know what you are doing, and you practice what you preach. No dog should ever be out of control and lunging on the leash, no matter what breed it is. When I see people with their labs and cockers just running around letting the leash jerk them back, I just shake my head. Those dogs are totally running the show, and THAT is dangerous.

While we're on the subject of dog aggression, let's take a look at some breeds that are known for it:
Airedale Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier, (let's just say all terriers or else this could get tedious), Rottweilers, Chihuahuas, Chows, and pretty much any other breed not specifically bred to work with other dogs (i.e. retrievers, scent hounds, etc.). The difference? When these dogs fight, it isn't breaking news. People don't drop everything to report these things because they have been happening and witnessed since we domesticated dogs.

I remember growing up and getting bit by all kinds of dogs. Most of the time, instead of the dog getting blamed, it was me. I must have done something to provoke the dog. Back when there was accountability. Thirty years ago, the idea of a lawsuit from a dog bite would have been laughed out of court.

Let's take a look at the non-pit bull types that have caused fatalities so far this year:

Husky cross 6/17/06
Great Pyrenees and lab mix 6/17/06
Great Dane 3/4/06
English Mastiff 2/4/06
Lab mix 2/2/06
Old English Sheepdog 1/24/06
Alaskan Malamutes 1/19/06
Boxer mix (reported as pit bull but never corrected) 7/06
Boxer 8/27/06
Presa Canario 8/17/06
Husky mix (again!) 7/27/06
Wolf hybrid 7/18/06
Rottweiler 3/20/06
Boerbel 3/23/06
Border collie and pack 1/19/06

Those are just what I found in one hour of looking. There are many more, but this is just to show how many people would still be dead if all pit bulls were banned.

Here's an interesting statistic: There are approximately four million dog bites every year in the U.S., but only a fraction of them get reported. That breaks down to 300,000 every month.
Pit bull types REALLY DO account for about 10% of the entire population of dogs right now. They are ranked in most cities either the first or second most popular dogs, usually right next to Labs and Retriever types. This is fact and can be easily researched. The actual number of dogs is not 54 million, but closer to 76 million right now. Doing the math shows that pit bull types would have to be around 7 million or so strong right now.

Knowing these key facts, one can come to the conclusion that it cannot possibly be a breed problem. There are far more pit bull types than there are even attacks, and you can bet your bottom that any incident at all involving a pit bull will be reported to authorities and on the evening news. NO reporter will turn down a pit bull story, at least until the Presa Canario takes over as the next monster dog.

Considering these things, it should be surprising to know that in many cities, the dog breed that bites most often is the labrador. In some cities, to be fair, the number one dog is the pit bull, but (gasp!) in each city that has statistics to be reported, the number of dog bites per breed is directly proportional to the popularity of said breed, and a percentage can be found. Of every breed that is popular (of the top 10 breeds), it is found that only 0.000002% of them will bite. Whether it be labs or pit bulls, the percentage of bites compared to actual population always comes out to the same number.

Lastly, I can remember a time when the American Pit Bull Terrier was the most popular breed of dog, and also lauded as our symbol of pride. They used to be war dogs, farm dogs, family pets, working dogs, and they were in many films. Their loyalty, bravery, determination, and goofy, fun-loving nature made them great assets to this country.

To this day, it is still easy to find them. They are in commercials and movies, and many celebrities have them (Trident White, Dodge, Lil Rascals, President Roosevelt, Michael J. Fox, Leonardo Di Caprio, James Frey, John Stewart, Alicia Silverstone, Ray Romano, Don Cherry, Fred Astaire, Jack Dempsy, Thomas Edison, Madonna, Brad Pitt, Bernadette Peters, Sinbad, Linda Blair, Humphrey Bogart, Usher, Mel Brooks, Ann Bancroft, Jan Michael Vincent, Pink, Kelli Williams, Ken Howard (Father in Crossing Jordon - his Pit Shadow saved his life), Malcolm Jamal Warner, Stephan Jenkins, Rosie Perez, Ananda Lewis, Amy Jo Johnson, Mary Tyler Moore, Steve and Terrie Erwin (the Crocodile Hunter), Jack Johnson, Bill Berloni (Broadway show dog trainer who has said that the Pit is the breed of choice for training), Anthony Robbins, Molly Price, President Woodrow Wilson, Frankie Muniz, AJ Mclean, Barbara Eden, and even Helen Keller. Rachel Bilson and Adam Brody (from the OC), Roy Jones Jr. (boxing champion), Serena Williams, Justin Miller (Toronto Blue Jays), Cozy Coleman (Tampa Bay Bucs), Jessica Alba, Veron Haynes (Pittsburg Steelers), Hugh Douglas (Philadelphia Eagles), Kamal (Roots Crew), Usher (Recording Artist), Jermain Dupri (Producer), Richard "Rip" Hamilton (Detroit Pistons), Rachel Ray (Food network), Sinbad, Malcolm Jamaal Warner, Diane Keaton, Paula Abdul, Veronica Mars (Backup is the dog), Don Cherry, Jeremy Irons, Laura Wilder, Jessica Biel, Desmond Mason, Michael Vick, Kevin Federline (as sad as that is), Redman, Chris Pontius (MTV's Jackass), Orlando Bloom, Ashley Olson, Cole Hauser, Jeremy Piven, Jamie Foxx).

Old war posters show pit bulls ready to defend the country, and one of the greatest war heroes was Stubby, a pit bull that won many medals for his bravery. The RCA dog was a pit mix. Many old time postcards feature pit bulls with (gasp!) children, and many old movies had pit bulls as the stars. I have a few movies on my computer that were made using nothing but dogs as the actors, all of them dressed up in clothes, walking around on their hind legs and moving their mouths with human voice-overs. Many, many of these movies have pit bulls as the stars because of their extremely high trainability and their ability to focus on something for hours at a time without tiring.

There is no reason to ban an entire breed of dog, most of which have never, and will never bite anyone (99.999998% of them never do). The best we can hope for is fair regulations for all breeds. There is no reason why we need millions of any dog in shelters. Why not make it extremely unprofitable to breed dogs? That way, the only ones breeding will be doing it for the betterment of the breed, and not for profit. It's time we put our selfish desires aside and start focusing on a solution that will not only make everyone satisfied, but actually help keep us and our dogs safe.


Posted by Erik, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Aug 30, 2006 at 12:02 pm

As a pitbull enthusiast, and the owner/operator of the pro-pitbull websites Web Link and Web Link , I must say that I am appalled by your article and your ignorance. You throw off a vibe that you think you are an expert on dogs, but you have no statistice or anything else to back up your opinions. I'm guessing that the reason for this is just that; the 'facts' you present are nothing but your own uninformed opinion.

If 'pit bulls' were vicious by nature, why would they pass the ATTS (American Temperment Testing Society Web Link ) evaluations with flying colors? 83.5% of APBTs passed this test, which is much higher than many other breeds tested, and which is also considered a very respectable score.

In fact, according to the ATTS, the Maltese breed, which you mentioned in your article, passed 83.3% of the time.

If you're going to ban my breed, then ban those trouble-causing Maltese also. After all, APBTs do score .2% higher than them.


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 12:14 pm

Betsy said, "Also, Lisa M, you are wrong when you say that the American Temperament Test Society (the test that purports to have an 83% pit bull passing rate and a 91% lab passing rate) tests for dog aggression. You are confusing the AKC's "Canine Good Citizen" test with the ATTS test. The AKC's CGC DOES require that the (onleash) dog be approached by another (onleash) dog and not react aggressively. The ATTS test has no such requirement. Go here: Web Link to read the requirements of the ATTS test.

I am unaware of any breed specific statistics regarding pass rates for the AKC's CGC."

Yes, thank you for correcting me. It is the CGC that my dogs would have trouble passing. The pass rate for the Dogo Argentino is 90% on the ATT test. While I was at the site I was looking for the "pit bull" stats you are quoting. Of course, there aren't any stats for pit bull. What bully breed were you using to get your figures??

The fact is, Betsy, I'm respecting your posts less and less. You pick and choose what you address. You did not address the fact that the ATT test has nothing to do with aggression at all, but with recovery to stress and stability of temperament, as I posted. You did not address the fact that dog aggression is just that - it is not aggression to the point of killing other dogs past the indicators of submission. You did not address any of the positive suggestions for solving problems with all dogs and their owners. You are distorting facts to make a breed and that breed's owners evil. Which is solely for the purpose of hysteria, misinformation, and fanatical conclusions. I am surprised that someone seemingly educated about dogs such as you takes the positions you are. I can only speculate about the motivations. Which organization did you say you worked for????
Lisa


Posted by Andrew L. Freedman, a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 30, 2006 at 12:26 pm

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!

Pht. Pht Pht! (cat swatting)

Hauuuughghghghghghghghghg (cat spitting)

My god! I've never seen this kind of reaction (and does Diana REALLY look like a pit bull?).

I guess an appropriate question is whether Diana was writing as a journalist or otherwise.

I think our present laws (both case law and statutory law) already address this issues. While, in some cases, there is a "one free bite" provision under neglegence when it comes to dogs and their owners, some dogs are considered inherently dangerous and are not entitlted to this. I'm not saying that all pit bull-type dogs are, however, many courts have held this.

In the attack and death of the Maltese, more detailed facts are needed to find out whether the person who was walking the attacking dogs was neglegent in some way. For example, whether she knew her dogs (if they were her dogs) had a propensity for attacking other dogs. Also, whether she was unable to control her dogs.



Andy Freedman
Palo Alto, CA


Posted by Novice, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 12:30 pm

Taking an objective look at the arguments presented here I'd have to give this one to the pit bull people. The detractors simply haven't countered much of the logic or statements presented by the pit bull folks. For the most part they don't seem to be trying to. They just seem to be reflexively asserting their fears and advocating a response to the problem that doesn't take into account the interestes of anyone. Including themseves when one considers the apparent failure of breed bans to effectivley promote more safety.

However one piece of information seemed to be of particular weight in this discussion.

The assertion that pit bulls are statistically not even the most dangerous breed in the country. I don't know if this is or is not totally true but if it is, it seems to me the entire conversation is moot, we're talking about the wrong breed. At the very least.


Posted by Perriann, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Ooh yes, forgot to mention some other things. One, the UK has banned pit bulls for some time. Their dog attacks have gone up. Denver, Colorado has banned them for years, and they still have more pit bulls in their shelters than any other breed, and their attacks have not gone down either. Ontario, Canada has recently banned pit bulls, and since then, two children and a man have died from dog attacks (none of which were pit bulls). The thing about banning a dog is that you actually have to be able to enforce it, which as of yet has not happened.

One important thing to remember aside of the fact that people will just turn to another dog when a ban rolls in: The responsible pit bull owners simply move away rather than have their dog killed, but the ones that either cannot afford to move away, or don't care about the law and keep their dogs are also the same ones that caused the problems to begin with. So now, in areas where the dogs have been banned, instead of having a mix of mostly good, well cared for pit bulls and a few bad ones due to neglect or bad training, you only have the ones owned by criminals. So instead of removing the dangers, these cities and countries are finding they have weeded out everything but what they intended, making the situation MORE dangerous, percentage wise.

If we could just get enough funding in every city to actually enforce the laws already on the books, (leash laws, registration, proper confinement, proper care, no fighting, no drugs, etc.) we wouldn't even have a problem. Notice that none of the deaths and maulings happen in nice neighborhoods, or by veterinarians, dog behaviorists, or trainers. There is always a pattern of sorts to every attack. One of three things is present: An intact dog (70% of all attacks are from un-neutered dogs or bitches), a chained dog, or a dog running loose. Simply enforcing the leash law and proper care laws would eliminate 30% right off the top. The other 70% could be handled with legislation allowing only purebred, papered, health-tested, temperament-tested dogs to breed, period. In a world of overfull shelters and overworked Animal Control, there is no need for "just one litter" anymore.


Posted by Brandi Trejo, a resident of Community Center
on Aug 30, 2006 at 2:06 pm

I think that it is people like you that should be banned , I have raised pitbulls, for over 25 years and had Never NEVER NEVER NEVER had one turn on my , growl at me, or snap at me, OR ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER.. My dogs are well respected and loved by all my neighbors, friends , and the vet where I take them, I have such confidence in my dogs character, and temperament that with each puppy that I sell I include a Guarantee of temperament, if the dog ever growls at you, or (with proper socialization) anyone and you want to put it to sleep for aggression issues than I will pay back double your money and take the dog back... I do believe that a lot of the problem are irresponsible owners, and I don't believe that it is "OK" that pit bulls maul children... BUT more than 75% of the time the dog in question is not even a pit bull, there are so many different types of dogs that resemble them to the point that the normal person cant tell them apart, that it is ridiculous.. so when the everyday person , or people see the attack they just automatically assume PIT Bull, with in all actuality it has been proven and documented that in a study of over 100 dogs the pitbull is 3rd FROM THE BOTTOM, many many dogs are more likely to bite, and they never make the news just last week my God daughter was attacked by a German Shepard and Is still in critical condition, What was she doing? Eating a piece of bologna...Never made the news.. Whatever people like you with your One channel mind are never going to open up your eyes, that's why this world is so ignorant now, Ban Ignorant people... My pit bull Chato has saved my daughter life 2ce... How many times has your dog saved you..


Posted by Brandi Trejo, a resident of Community Center
on Aug 30, 2006 at 2:12 pm

oh and i almost forgot about the chihuahua and pit bull thing, like I said I have been raising pit bulls for over 25 years, and I have 3 children 12,7, and 2 the 12 year old has been bitten 2ce, not by one of my pit bulls or any other pit bull but by what a chihuahua, and the 7 year old has been bitten 3 times by what , a chihuahua, a Pomeranian and a min pin...HMMMMMMMMMM that was all at local parks, walking down streets, and just doing every day things, My pit bulls, Chato has been bitten by 4 other dogs, 2 chihuahuas, and a beagle, and a mix breed, what did he do NOTHING!! he listened to my every command to IGNORE... as the other owner picked up her dogs and ran away from my ferocious pit bull... LOL what a crock ... the size of mount rushmore


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 2:12 pm

Lisa,

Sorry for not addressing your statement that the ATTS test has nothing to do with aggression. I actually agree with that. A dog can be VERY dangerous to people under many circumstances and still pass the ATTS test with flying colors. And, of course, this test doesn't even PURPORT to test for dangerousness toward other dogs so the pit bulls that tore this maltese apart may well have been able to pass this "temperament" test. While the ATTS test might be helpful in starting a discussion about the temperament of an individual dog, I don't believe that the ATTS test stats tell us ANYTHING meaningful about the temperaments of different breeds, but it is simply an error of FACT to assert (as did some long ago poster) that pit bulls pass this test at a higher rate than do labradors.

For my score for "pit bulls" I used a combination of the scores of AmStaffs, SBTs and APBTs, all of whom hover around 83% passing--the SBT was the highest at 84% and ALL were lower than the labrador. Since only ten dogos (total) have taken the test, I think it is fair to consider the results for dogos to be even less meaningful than those for other breeds.


Posted by Jeanne, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 2:15 pm

Lisa, you have been quick to rant, but have presented much false information, about APBTs and dogs in general. You confused the ATTS test with the CGC. You confused the APBT with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as the "Nanny Dog". You also made the following statement....


"in dog protection sports, you will be hard pressed to find any bully breeds that are titled. Bully breeds have centuries of breeding to NOT bite humans. It is pretty hard to go against that. They are not the breed of choice for guarding or protection."

Apparently you have never heard of Diane Jessup? She is an author and often regarded as the premier expert on the breed. According to her, APBT's can excell at French Ring and Shutzhund...do you even know what those sports entail?

Also, try googling "APBT shutzhund"...you will get several hits of bulldog sites claiming that the dogs excell at protection sports.

You also state...

"ALL dogs chase moving objects, protect their territory, and confuse the jerky movements and high-pitched sounds of children for prey"

Really? All dogs chase moving objects? You haven't met my dog. He could care less about tennis balls and frisbees. Won't even look up at a kid on a bike or a skateboard whizzing by. His prey drive is limited to squirrels and birds; he's a bird dog. And all dogs do not "protect" their territory with aggression. I have friends who bring their dogs to work every day...these dogs don't bat an eye when strangers walk through the door. My vet has a dog that lives at the office...she ignores pretty much everyone who comes through the door. And no, all dogs DON'T confuse children for prey. That is ludicrious. If all dogs did, we would be unable to keep dogs as domestic pets. All dogs don't have the same level/degree of prey drive....it all depends on what they were bred for. Properly bred retrievers have the bite and kill drive bred out of them....you obviously are a single person who hasn't spent a lot of time around children. I can think of a dozen times I've sat and watched a gaggle of small kids running and screaming and playing in the backyard while the family dog snoozes on the porch.

You also made the following statement....

"Any breed dog will attempt to get over a fence at a person/person with dog if you pass their yard. "

Really? Because my best friend is a professional dog walker who walks about 40 dogs a week, in three different cities, and she would disagree with you. I walk my dog several miles each day, I pass dozens of dogs on a typical walk, of all breeds, and no, 99% don't try to "get over the fence to get at" us. They may bark a warning, but most aren't trying to hurt us. A dog that behaves that way to a passerby is a ticking time bomb.

It seems you have a very disturbing view of what constitutes "normal" canine behavior. Are your dogs obedience trained? Titled in anything? I tend to think not, since you didn't know what the CGC test was all about. You are posturing as an expert. If you want to help pit bulls so much, how about advocating mandatory spay and neuter for all non-registered non-titled dogs? How about getting involved in educating PIT BULL OWNERS on the breed, not the rest of us. How about going out and getting your CGC and advocating that ALL pit bull owners get a CGC on their dogs?

Stop blaming the victims...the frightened public, and making excuses for the irresponsible owners. Start blaming the real culprits...idiot pit bulls owners who make these headlines, and the breeders who breed dogs with unsound temperaments and sell them to anyone.


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 2:24 pm

Lisa,

Sorry, but apparently you don't understand what pit bulls (historically, and often still today) were bred to do. I AGREE with you that "natural" (i.e. the level of aggression seen in the wolf pack and seen in dogs not bred to have enhanced levels of dog aggression) does not often result in a dog's death, but pit bulls are bred NOT to respond to the signals of submission that another dog gives. A pit bull who stops fighting short of killing his opponent or dying himself is deemed "not game" and that is an INSULT in the dog fighting community. Additionally, "normal" dogs don't start fights without reason and use doggy social skills to try to AVOID fighting. Pit bulls were (and still are, in many cases) BRED to charge across a pit to engage a dog they have never seen before and start fighting to kill immediately. A dog who fails to do that (fails to "scratch" in dog fighter's lingo) is disqualified.

Pit bulls have a mess of problems, and the fact that so many of their fanciers actually LIKE the fact that they are dangerous to other dogs, and continue to breed for this worthless, negative trait is a huge one. Probably pit bulls won't survive unless there is a concensus in the pit bull community that NO pit bull with dangerous levels of dog aggression should be bred. (Which, I have been assured by many pit bull people, won't happen). Because, honestly, responsible people don't want to own dogs who want to kill the neighbors' dog. So (inexorably) fewer and fewer responsible people will own pit bulls and more and more headlines will occur and breed bans are inevitable.

So who here would feel comfortable living next door to a pit bull who wants to rush across the lawn and kill your dog? (Just doing the "job" he was bred to do). Even if my neighbor was the most responsible dog owner in the world, (and he's not) I know that mistakes happen in dog ownership. Gates are left unlocked, leashes or collars break, front doors are left ajar. And, frankly, I don't want my dog to end up dying in the jaws of a pit bull just because pit bull breeders are too irresponsible to stop breeding dog aggressive dogs.


Posted by GSB, a resident of Stanford
on Aug 30, 2006 at 2:28 pm

I can't help but wonder if Diana posted this op-ed piece as an experiment to expose a bigger issue:

that more people will post and get bent out of shape over their beloved dogs than they will about public safety, education and housing...combined!

if that was the case, the results speak for themselves


Posted by Brandi Trejo, a resident of Community Center
on Aug 30, 2006 at 2:46 pm

this is the actual link... Anyone Please Please take a look

Web Link


Posted by Meaghan Edwards, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 3:31 pm

Something EVERY dog owner needs to read:

Web Link

"The American Pit Bull Terrier was the first breed of dog to serve as a war dog for the United States of America in World War I."

Keep that in mind. If you truly love your dog, fight BSL. Now, not when your breed is on the list. It's not a question as to IF your "media friendly" breed will be on that list, but WHEN.


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 3:52 pm

"The owner of the maltese dog was told repeatedly to keep her dog on a leash."
In my opinion, then, it was inevitable that the dog would end up dead. And the owner should be penalized in some significant way for torturing their own dog. I cannot walk my dogs safely through my neighborhood because of dogs such as that Maltese. Disgusting. And people want to kill the bully breeds. Even more disgusting. Leash laws are to protect YOUR OWN dog. People are idiots for not realizing that. You know how often I hear, "Oh my dog is friendly!" as their dog is running directly for my leashed and obedience trained dogs, while I'm shouting, "control your dog! Leashes are for YOUR protection." Unbelievable. And if there were a problem, it would be blamed on my dogs, not their disobedience of the law. It is exactly as I said in my first post then. The responsibility for the situation was in the Maltese owner's lap. I know a Malinois (police trained) owner who lets his Mal loose when another dog runs up. He doesn't need to worry if his Mal kills the other dog - he doesn't have a bully breed. No one will notice and the responsibility will be properly placed on the owner of the unleashed dog's head.

Betsy, I understand far more than you think. I'm still wondering what organization you work for...

Oh, and by the way, I think you mentioned this faulty logic in one of your posts also: I've never had any accidents with my dogs. They've never gotten out of a dead-bolt locked yard. The door has never been left open accidently. The leash has never not been double-collared and has never gotten loose. The neighbors have never not been informed. The fence has never been in need of repair - on MY side. The dogs have never been chained in the yard while I'm not home, or worse, left loose in the yard while I'm not home. The vet has never not been called ahead to say we are in the parking lot waiting for them to create a safe space to go into an exam room. In fact, I carry a means of keeping other dogs away from us for THEIR protection. In my experience, bully breed owners go far, far further to be responsible than most.

Jeanne, sorry you feel I'm ranting. I don't. Yes, my dogs are trained in French Ring - a dog sport that does not push a dog into a defensive mode to teach bite training, unlike SchH. Most bully breeds titled in SchH are American Bulldogs, which are a guardian/hunting breed, unlike the bull terriers which are not a guardian breed. The few APBTs that compete in French Ring struggle to get passing scores and are generally considered a joke. I know several of their owners who admit they do the training because it is fun for them and the dogs. They fully realize they are not competitive with the herding breeds.

One of my dogos is competition obedience trained. It is true, I did mix up the CGC and ATT. It has been a couple years since my female has been very sick and we no longer train for testing. Frankly, I think temperament tests suck and are no measure for temperament anyway. It would only be a piece of paper to either stick on the wall or under ignorant people's noses who couldn't determine a dog's head from tail. I agree with Betsy that it is totally irrelevant how Dogos have scored on the ATT. It is no measure of reality or real temperament.

But, the fact of the matter is, that Dogo Argentinos are included in every bully breed ban list, so I'm wondering why Betsy didn't average in their scores into her bully mix. And every other bully cross breed that has been tested. They are all banned. Shouldn't they all be considered? LOL I'm guessing that would give them a higher average than Labs.

Jeanne, I never spoke about nanny dogs - you are confusing my posts with someone else's. And I don't know what neighborhoods you walk through but when I walk with my dogs or by myself, every house that has a fenced-in front yard with an unsupervised dog loose there has that dog running straight to the fence to bark and/or growl along the fence as we pass by, regardless of breed. That is normal. Where do you live? As for all your other examples that are supposed to challenge my statements, they are all explainable by normal canine behavior. And if you have a bird dog that doesn't chase tennis balls, you have either trained your dog not to do that, or your dog is not game. Get another dog. You probably have one of those breeds which has had all the drive to do its job bred completely out of them and is now a furniture decoration in the shape of a dog. That's definitely a way to keep it off breed banned lists.
Lisa










Posted by Jason, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 4:33 pm

I live in a small town and I have 4(3 homes) pit bulls on my block. I've been a home owner here for 15 years now and 1 of the houses has always had pit bulls. I've always been concerned because of what I hear but, to be honest we've never noticed any problems. Until one day one of the pit bulls was loose in my yard while my children were out side. The dog had yet to see my child and I was going to make sure he didn't so I ran out side to scare it away. Before I had the chance my son called the dog over and was petting him. The dog seemed very friendly so I put a leash on him and took him back home. I asked my neighber if he could please keep a better eye on his dog. He apoligized and said they were moving a new couch in and didn't realize he got out. The whole time inside his house I watched his pit bull eating out of the same dish as a cat and that really got me curious about what I have heard...I found this site. Just thought I'd share that, not sure if the breed as a whole is dangerous but I have no problems with the ones around me.


Posted by Pete, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 30, 2006 at 4:39 pm

First, some questions about the three "pit bulls":

--Are they spayed/neutered? The answer to that should appear in any news article or commentary.
--What do the dogs weigh?
--What sort of leashes/collars was the owner using?

Second, a comment that can be summed up in one word : Dreadful.

It's dreadful that avoidable circumstances led to the death of a dog.
It's dreadful that the event has provoked such hostility on both sides of the issue.
It's dreadful that reasonable people can't seem to find a middle ground.

And finally, a plea for dog owners: Please follow the rules and dog etiquette.

Regarding the rules: When my neighbor and I walk our dogs in Mitchell Park, we often encounter owners with dogs off leash. This is frustrating to us as we follow the rules and are concerned about the off-leash dogs approaching our dogs. If Animal Care & Control wants to stop the off leash activity, just show up at the Park early on weekday mornings on the lawn near the soccer fields, or weekends in the late afternoons/evenings on the soccer field.

Regarding etiquette:
When owners have dogs that shouldn't interact with other dogs, they should simply turn around and walk the other direction or cross the street. Smart, responsible owners with all sizes of dogs do this: large, medium (like mine) or small. And another simple, responsible action is for the owners to ask one another if it is okay for the dogs to greet when they have comfortable distances of a few yards. A yes response can result in sniffing, smooches and play, whlle a no response can stave off adverse consequences.


Posted by Dog Owner, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 30, 2006 at 4:44 pm

You need to get your facts straight. NO dogs have locking jaws, but all dogs have strong jaws. The larger the dog, the stronger the jaws. Ask any veterinarian and they will confirm this. I think all dog owners should be more careful. I have a German Shepherd and many times small dog owners have come up to me when I have asked them not to. Likewise when my dog and a friend's dog have been in one of the park dog runs, small dog owners have just come up and started to come in without asking if it was okay. All dog owners should ask before they let their dogs go with other dogs. Dogs can be aggressive with each other, even dogs who are never aggressive with people.


Posted by Jason, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 4:47 pm

BTW, the issue shouldn't be about "these dogs turn", that's non-sense no matter what breed we are talking about. The issue should be about, Are they more prone to attack and is the damage beyond what canines are capable of.

I feel the damage is horrible but is it really worse than what other breeds are capable of? I'm not sure, if so they should be banned, if not, than we should look at if these dogs are more likely to attack. If so than they should be banned but, if not than this isn't an issue.

The whole comparison to wild animals and such should be ignored. You're talking about canines...domesticated pets and if they are more dangerous than other canines.

I must admit (as much as I question it) that the pit bull owners provide a much better discussion, with the exception of a few real losers on here. It would be a shame if these dogs are normal and we are destroying family pets. This needs some real serious and open minded discussion. So far, I'd say the pit bull owners have provided some very real thought provoking challenges to this mess. I can't just jump on the band wagon just yet. Can anyone provide evidence a pit bull attack is worse than say another large breed? Can anyone provide evidence other breeds don't attack as much as pit bulls? The rest of these claims against pit bulls shouldn't even be considered. The real issue is(once again), are they more prone to attack and is the damage out of range for canines. Please answer because with 4 around me, I want to get to the bottom of this.


Posted by Brandi Trejo, a resident of Community Center
on Aug 30, 2006 at 4:52 pm

Please Watch this video !!!!
The Pitbull Problem.....
Web Link


Posted by Jason, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 4:58 pm

Wow, I just finished reading everything on here. I can't argue about pit bulls because it's not my thing but I will say this:

The anti-pit bull people haven't proved a thing. All they have done is stated opinions.Please Anti-pit bull people, I need the facts. Are these dogs more likely to attack or not? Is the damage beyond what some other canines are capable of? Please answer these, not with opinion but, the facts. If it's true than it should be rather easy...The proof is in the pooding so to speak. If what I've seen so far is all you have to offer than I'd say this discussion clearly went to the pit bull owners.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 5:23 pm

Dr. Brady Barr of National Geographic (Dangerous Encounters: Bite Force, 8pm est 8/18/2005) – Dr. Barr measured bite forces of many different creatures. Domestic dogs were included in the test.


Here are the results of all of the animals tested:

Humans: 120 pounds of bite pressure

Domestic dogs: 320 LBS of pressure on avg. A German Shepherd, American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) and Rottweiler were tested using a bite sleeve equipped with a specialized computer instrument. The APBT had the least amount of pressure of the 3 dogs tested.

Wild dogs: 310 lbs

Lions: 600 lbs

White sharks: 600 lbs

Hyenas: 1000 lbs

Snapping turtles: 1000 lbs

Crocodiles: 2500 lbs

To see a diagram of the skull, dentition, and mandible of an American Staffordshire Terrier click on this link, and scroll to the bottom of the page;Web Link
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link






Posted by Suzanne, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 5:25 pm

According to another blog on this site, two witnesses said the lady with the Maltese crossed the street to come over to the lady with the pit bulls. As someone who has had a similar experience, I'd like to know why any small dog owner would come up to ANY large dog no matter what breed it was. I used to have the world's clumsiest golden retriever and one time it stepped on a small dog and injured it. Let's hear from small dog owners - why would you cross a street to a large dog you did not know?


Posted by Tracy Doyle, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 5:53 pm

Wow...

So much has been said, I don't know what to add. All I ask is that people considering this issue from either side, please read the opinions from organizations of dog professionals - people who work with dogs, and especially those who train dogs and work with behaviorial issues for a living. I'll make it easy for you, and you may research this for yourselves, but every single one is opposed to banning breeds. Even the Centers for Disease Control, which wrote the very study many ban proponents cite as "proof" that "pit bulls" are more dangerous than other dogs, has discontinued the study on the basis that the numbers were too small to draw any useful conclusions about any particular breed. And please keep in mind that the term "pit bull" is a catch-all term for not one, but actually a combination of three breeds or up to six or more if you consider different registries, and which includes an unidentified percentage of mixed-breed dogs which resemble them. The CDC study was not performed in a scientific manner - it was a survey of newspaper reports, which is troublesome on a number of levels. Did they read every newspaper in the country? Were the breeds accurately reported? Was every dog bite fatality included?

For those who followed the links to the professional organizations with position statements on breed bans, I'd like to add two - that of the International Association of Canine Professionals and the Associataion of Pet Dog Trainers, of which I am a member:

IACP - Web Link
APDT - Web Link

While I agree that some pit bulls are naturally aggressive toward other dogs, many are not and even those which are, when they are obedience trained, will focus on their owners and not threatening other dogs or small animals. Dog-to-dog aggression is not unique to pit bulls - I see it every day across many different breeds. That said, NO dog of ANY breed should ever be allowed to roam freely, unsupervised and off-leash, and allowed to be a nusiance or a threat to anyone. Dogs that behave badly on-leash should be trained or contained. Responsible owners understand this and make sure that their dogs are socialized, trained and under control and non-threatening, regardless of breed.

Responsible pit bull owners do become understandably upset when they are characterized as "a front for dog fighters," or low-life, dope-dealing scumbags. I resent that a bit myself. I'm in my mid-40s, am a professional writer and part-time dog trainer (volunteer for a community service organization). I detest dog fighting, I do not do, much less deal, dope, I'm involved in many volunteer projects, and among my dogs happens to be a deaf pit bull that came to me as a puppy that I was supposed to foster for only two weeks. She is now a movie star - playing the lead role in a film called "Dog Jack" which is still in post-production. Needless to say, she is extremely well-trained and socialized. During the making of the film, this poor dog had to get used to gun and artillery fire, being led, dragged, grabbed and carried around by actors, chased by men on horseback, bloodhounds, mobs carrying torches, and has been stressed, accidentally fallen upon, and subjected to extreme heat, bugs, long hours and extensive travel in the course of making the film. I don't know a whole lot of dogs of any breed that would take all that in stride and remain friendly to the entire cast and crew at all times, but this one did. Now some column writer is going to call her dangerous and demand she be destroyed? Has she ever even MET a pit bull? Patted one on the head? Talked to real people who own them (and I don't mean street scum and gang bangers)? I would think not. We remain invisible because you won't be reading in the papers about the peaceful pit bull curled up on someone's couch or winning obedience ribbons.

Here's my photo albums, which include one of our filming experience:
Web Link

Please visit it to understand what the real pit bull in the hands of a loving family looks like. I urge you all to consider laws which punish the owners of any dog of any breed that causes trouble. NO ONE should allow their dogs to threaten or hurt someone, and the owners should be made to pay dearly for it should they allow it to happen. But tearing my well-trained, well-socialized and friendly pit bull from my couch will not make my neighborhood one iota safer, but one heck of a lot sadder.

Kind Regards,

Tracy L. Doyle
IACP #2497
APDT #68826
Certified AKC Canine Good Citizen Evaluator #24481
Director of Training, Northern Illinois Dog Club


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 5:55 pm

Lisa,

I am not getting where you are getting the notion that the maltese was off leash. The article I read said that "all the dogs were on leash." To me, however, it really doesn't matter much. If I have a dog who is going to kill a small dog (or bite a small child) it is MY responsibility to control that dog in the event that some small dog is off leash and approaches or some small child unexpectedly runs up to my dog. These things happen in this society. Kids and dogs are everywhere, and they are not always properly supervised. It isn't the fault of the kid or the dog yet they are the ones who are going to suffer if you can't control your dangerous dog. The fact that it is sometimes hard to control a dangerous dog is one of the reasons it is so difficult to live safely with a dog who has dangerous levels of dog aggression.

I'm glad that your dogs have never gotten loose. But that isn't true for most dog owners, and the number of pit bulls on death row at virtually every shelter confirms that (contrary to your assertion) pit bull owners are far LESS responsible than the average owner. (Responsibly owned dogs don't end up on death row at shelters). And, guess what? You are human too, and you aren't infallible and tomorrow your dog (the one you have to warn your vet about when you are coming so they can clear a path because he is so dangerous to other clients' pets and the one who, despite a lot of training still can't pass a darn CGC because he is so dog aggressive) could be the one making headlines when something happens. How would you feel if he accidentally got loose and killed a dog in front of a child? Wouldn't it be FAR better if he wasn't dog aggressive?

How could including the pass rate of ten dogos (well, nine of them passed) make the average for "bully breeds" "higher than labs?" Labs have a 91% pass rate. Do the math. I didn't include dogos for the same reason I didn't include cane corsos (pass rate, um, 76.6%)--I don't consider them to be pit bulls.


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 6:21 pm

asdfg writes (in support of the crazy idea that there are four million pit bulls registered annually):

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

you're going to count breeds by hip certification and not registration numbers...sure, lol. If that isn't biased I don't know what is.

How about the fact that pit bulls are known for bad hips and the majority of the breed CAN'T be certified. Use registration numbers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Uh, so your argument here is that pit bull breeders are so grossly irresponsible that there are literally MILLIONS of pit bull breeders annually who breed dogs that are dysplastic?

Of course, the facts don't support that there are four million pit bulls registered anywhere annually in this country, much less 8 million pit bulls total. Where, exactly are you claiming that these dogs are registered? Can you cite us to a reliable source claiming four million pit bulls registered annually? We KNOW that the AKC only only registered 1677 AmStaffs and 856 staffordshire bull terriers, total. So you are claiming that some other registry (ADBA or UKC) registered, um, 3,974,437 pit bulls in 2005? Remember, AKC only registered 137,867 labs in 2005, so you are claiming this other organization registered almost THIRTY TIMES more pit bulls than AKC registered labs?

Of course this isn't true. Interestingly, there are far MORE AKC AmStaffs (2223) and staffordshire bull terriers (330) who are OFAed than there are American Pit Bull Terriers (330). Even assuming (and I do) that AKC pit bull breeders represent the most responsible faction of pit bull breeding (which, I know, isn't saying much), it simply defies logic to assume that non-AKC APBT breeders are so incredibly grossly irresponsible that they are breeding 3 million dogs a year despite having almost no dogs whose hips are OFAed.

Or maybe you are right and things are even worse than I believe in terms of how grossly irresponsible pit bull breeders are. All the more reason to regulate them and get most of them out of business with San Francisco like rules.



Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 6:30 pm

Who said anything about annually? Are you delusional or just a liar?

The city of Los Angeles issued licenses for 3,040 pit bulls in the fiscal year that ended in June — more than twice as many (1,664) as the city gave out four years ago. Los Angeles County, which licenses 265,000 dogs in the unincorporated parts of the county as well as 49 cities, has registered 10,708 pit bulls.

Web Link

How is it just the city LA has more licensed pit bulls than you account for being registered? Give it up lady, thisa is pathetic!!!

I'll find you your 4 million registered just so everyone sees!!!!Hold on!!!


Posted by Lisa M, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 6:34 pm

I got that the Maltese was off-leash from a post on this site, which I put in quotes so that would be obvious.

"If I have a dog who is going to kill a small dog (or bite a small child) it is MY responsibility to control that dog in the event that some small dog is off leash and approaches or some small child unexpectedly runs up to my dog. These things happen in this society."
Betsy, this is wrong logic again. An owner can have the responsibility to control their dog but a small dog running up can be displaying very aggressive behavior to a bigger, stronger dog that might produce a reaction that an owner, despite experienced handling, could not prevent. I once had to deal with a small Chihuahua who attacked (literally) my 110 lb. male Dogo on a walk in front of its owners who did nothing to prevent it. Of course, it was easy for me to prevent. I simply stepped out in front of my dog, who responded to my command to sit, and used my foot turned sideways to push away the Chihuahua (whom I was prepared to kick had he bitten me). The owners got incensed at me protecting their dog! LOL

But, in any case, small or large dogs can be fast, can pursue an owner who turns to walk the other way or cross the street - anything can happen. Of course, it is far easier to prevent a child from approaching. They are familiar with human behavior patterns. I always stop children from approaching and teach them how to approach after I have commanded my dog to sit, so they can come up and be kissed by both my dogs. You are making up unrealistic hypothetical situations to prove your point, which has no merit.

In addition, the laws in this society are for all citizens. There is a leash law in my community. Just as there is a law that I cannot turn left into oncoming traffic, even if I have a car that is fast and counters well. If I did so and the oncoming car was unable to stop and hit me and killed me, that driver would not go to jail or be killed for NOT violating the law. The law violator would bear the brunt of their unlawful action. That is exactly the way it should be for owners of unleashed dogs also. Of course, the driver in the right would feel terrible - as would I were anything to ever happen, which is why I do everything in my power to insure it does not, despite the fact that I am dealing with law breakers.

I do not find it hard to control my dogs, nor is it difficult to live with them. In fact, the more educated I become about dog behavior, the easier it is.

I do not call my vet and ask her to clear a path for my dog because he is dangerous to other dogs. I take him muzzled to the vet so no "accidents" can happen (with other people who do not watch or monitor their dogs behavior). I call and ask for a path because I am aware of others' discomfort around my dog and I want to minimize it. Should my dog growl, it scares some people. His size scares other people. Some look at a Dogo and are enthralled with their beauty and others are horrified by their own projected fears and ignorant beliefs. I am aware of that and I make adjustments for it. My female, on the other hand, makes a fool out of herself at the vet's because she loves everyone so much she thinks they all should consider her the center of attention. But, when you insulted my dogs by wrongly assuming things from my posts, you didn't realize that.

You also didn't realize that it was my male who couldn't pass a CGC. He would easily be able to pass an ATT exam. My female could pass both but, as I said, has been too sick to train. Maybe now that I see how people like you interpret those scores, I'll be more motivated to go back and do the work to pass the tests. It really is nice to be lazy and just live happily with my dogs though. I am smart enough to realize that many dogs that pass those tests have been trained specifically for those tests, and may not exhibit the same behavior in unusual circumstances.

As for whether or not it would be FAR better if he were not dog aggressive... that is a very difficult question to answer because if he were not, he wouldn't be the dog that he is, or the breed that he is, or be capable of doing the job he is supposed to do. I disagree with people who think watering down breeds is the answer. I think training and owner education is the answer.

And on that thought, I asked you what breeds you used to make your stats because I don't consider any of the bully breeds to be pit bulls. I know the differences between the bull breeds. One thing I know, for instance, which has been bandied about a lot here, is that American Pit Bull Terriers should not be over 50 lbs. (even less in fact) and therefore are not a large breed dog but on the border of a small breed (not toy, not medium). They are not large dogs. But it is a common misconception that they are, because people do not know what a "pit bull" is. Anyone who thinks they do know should take the test for which a link was posted earlier in this thread.

As for the fact that I am human and therefore fallible, that is certainly true. I would feel terrible if my dogs ever caused a problem and made the news because of their breed. That is why I am ultra responsible about them. And if I make a mistake ever, why, it should be MY responsibility, not theirs.

In the meantime, I will allow the people who can give the facts without responding to the insults, which I am not so good at, to speak for me. I'm sure my opinion has been fully expressed and understood at this point.

I sincerely hope you will consider those facts and reverse your opinions. Neither I nor my dogs are "evil."
Lisa






Posted by asdfg, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2006 at 7:04 pm

Web Link

According to this site, it's 4.8 million

Anyways, I think someone else on here said it best when he/she was looking for advice...

Do you have evidence pit bulls are more likely to attack?
Do you have evidence pit bull attacks are out of range(injuries) for canines?

One thing you have to consider is, a fatal attack is a fatal attack is a fatal attack, it doesn't get any worse than a fatal attack, right? Are pit bulls the only dogs involved in fatal attacks...Not even close so to claim pit bull attacks are worse is absurd. How much worse than dead can you get?


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 7:09 pm

A little off topic here but I have a question.

Betsy, are you really Diana trying to cover your butt? I bet you feel foolish now. Look at the attention you recieved from concerned people who now have had the chance to see both sides. Thank you!!!


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 30, 2006 at 7:12 pm

One pathway toward keeping Pit Bulls would requiring that the OWNERS be licensed to own that dog. Come to think of it, more pet owners should be licensed. There shuold be a fee, and some coursework should be required. (maybe online?). A license should be required for EVERY pet. (e.g. three dogs, three licenses) Again, these are NOT animal licenses, they are pet OWNER licenses.

Too many pets are bought and disgarded or mistreated. Many more have owners that have no business owning a pet.

Either require STRICT, ENFORCEABLE licensing rules for owners of dangerous breeds, or make it illegal to own those breeds.

Serious fines shuold be levied on those who break those licensing laws. Another thing; ALL owners shuold be required - BY LAW - to have their pets neutered. ONLY licensed dogbreeders should be allowed to breed animals.

It's absurd that living animals continue to be owned and mistreated by owners, or left untrained to wreak havoc on otherwise innocent others (including other pets).


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 7:18 pm

*******BETSY********

I think you missed a post that someone had some questions in for you. I'll post it again for you, lol.

Wow, I just finished reading everything on here. I can't argue about pit bulls because it's not my thing but I will say this:




The anti-pit bull people haven't proved a thing. All they have done is stated opinions.Please Anti-pit bull people, I need the facts. Are these dogs more likely to attack or not? Is the damage beyond what some other canines are capable of? Please answer these, not with opinion but, the facts. If it's true than it should be rather easy...The proof is in the pooding so to speak. If what I've seen so far is all you have to offer than I'd say this discussion clearly went to the pit bull owners.
Posted by Jason, a resident of another community, 2 hours ago


Posted by Carol, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 7:31 pm

You people won't understand till it's your dog thier after. Were not saying every pitbull owner is responsible, yes there are some responsible owners, but the majority of pitbull owners are responsible and have never had anything bad happen. I am sure this has been said a million times, their are pitbulls that work in law enforcement, their therapy dogs etc. It's time to start hearing those stories. Thier are stories out there that pitbulls save lives, but we don't here about those. Why, because heaven forbeid someone actually say a pitbull was a hero. Think about it people what if it was your dog?????


Posted by Dani, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 8:07 pm

It's prohibited by California state law to pass any legislation which would single out one particular breed as dangerous.

So, regardless of what you would like to do to pit bulls, no community within California can ban pit bulls.

So sorry for the fearmongers of your city.


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 30, 2006 at 8:15 pm

Work to change California State Law.

Fearmongers? Sounds naive to me. People are already concerned, and afraid.

Tell you what, are you willing to assume personal financial responsibility for any further pit bull mauling that takes place in Palo Alto? If not, I submit that what you have put forward is disingenuous.

Easy to call names when it's not your kid, oro your pet.


Posted by David O, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 30, 2006 at 8:28 pm

We've had this conversation for years now, and we'll continue debating while more and more people and pets are mauled by these monsters. It's funny to see people quoting bite statistics, claiming "such and such" dog is more dangerous than a pit bull because of bite statistics.

All dogs bite. Only pit bulls maul. Only pit bulls can take a shot from a police officer's gun and keep coming and coming. They're bred for high gameness, and once they have it in their mind to kill something, they will NOT stop until either the prey is dead or they are.

Pit bull owners: Which part of owning a notoriously dog-on-dog aggressive dog do you enjoy? Even the most apologetic pro-pit bull sites (like badrap) will tell you NOT to trust a pit bull not to fight.

What part of getting denied insurance because of the dog breed you own do you enjoy? Getting to play "the victim"?

Your dogs are ugly, misbred and dangerous. I hope one day you'll know the joy of owning a dog and not a political movement.

Ban them. Ban the heck out of them. And please, stop sending me links about a chihauhau that killed a baby 6 years ago, or pictures of your kid leaning up against one of your monsters. Nicholas Faibish had such pictures as well.

"It's the ooooooowners!" you howl. Why is the penalty for a poorly raised pit bull so much higher than for other breeds?

Ban them, ban them, ban them!


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 8:40 pm

There is a vast chasm that separates ignorance, and stupidity. Ignorance begs for an education. Stupidity shuns it.


Posted by Crystal, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:11 pm

I find this sad, how is this different than race discrimination. " Excuse me sir, your race has been know to hurt people so we are going to ban you from our province, state or country"
Ok, you may think that people and dogs aren't the same, and I agree, but to alot of us these dogs are members of our family.
Your opinion is very one sided if you've never owned a bully breed or known any one whom has a properly socialized and well adjusted one.
You have missed so much. They are comical playful dogs, with a bound determination to please thier owners, like no other dog.
My dog comes to work with me, in a high traffic area, with different people, and horses that are worth a min of 10 grand. Her gentleness and good nature makes her well loved by everyone.
Did you know that you have more of a chance being bitten by a little dog than a pitbull? Human aggression is against thier nature, your a reporter do your research.
What about banning German Shepherds? They can be both human and dog aggressive, mine almost killed my Japanese Chin in front of my daughter.
Have you guys ever thought about the fact that most large dog attacks are on "defenceless little dogs"? Hey little dogs are called ankle bitters for a reason, they are yappy, and many are aggressive especially to other dogs.
You stand there and have a little dog biting and yapping at you long enough and lets see how long it takes you to snap. Dogs don't have the problem solving and reasoning skills, us humans claim to have.
And as far as human aggression, any and ALL dogs (they all have teeth and nails) have the potential to kill and/or injure a human. Socialization is the key. I was bitten in the face as a child by a dashhund, the owner laughed as I was brought bleeding to her door by my mother.
Which brings me to my other point, parents should teach thier children not to run up to strange dogs. You don't know how many times my dogs have been on leashes, and parents bring thier kids within leash range, thank god my dogs are socialized.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:20 pm

June 2005
Paris Hilton's Chihuahua Tinkerbell attacks TV Producer
Pointer attacks child
The Jackson's Husky bites woman
GSD-Husky mix attacks child - Breed confirmation email
Dalmatian lunges thru car window to attack two pit bulls
Dog attacked in her yard by three Bernese Mountain dogs
Family's Great Dane attacks 2 yr old
7 yr old bit by family pet GSD/Great Dane mix, Hernando FL
German Shepard shot and killed trying to attack an officer
14 yr old bitten by family hound dog,Hernando FL
Two Labradors and a Chow attack woman
Grandparents Akita bites 2yr old, Ohio
Hound attacks child, San Diego CA
Chow mix attacks 7 yr old girl, Texas
Shepard kills family pet, Arizona
Bull Mastiff attacks 4 yr old
Coyote attacks pet dog and bites owner

May 2005
Mastiff kills dog
Boerboel attacks owner
Mixed Breed dogs attack pets
Girl attacked by possible Dalmatian or Springer
Talk Show host bitten by Doberman
Mastiff Mauls JRT
Great Dane / Mastiff mix attacks dad and daughter. This dog had already attacked it's owner a couple times.
Boxer attacks owner in her Kitchen
Pomeranian in Brisbane declared dangerous
German Shepard attacks and kills families pet
Poodle attack
Husky attacks child
Two dogs maul sheep, Rhodesian Mix and Red Heeler mix
Golden Retriever attacks mother and Child / Breed ID from TV STation
Akita attacks mailman, owner arrested, Kansas City, MO

Two attacks by Mastiffs in two days - Australia

1) Mastiff attacks 12 yr old Jack Russel Terrier

2) Bull Mastiff attacks woman, the dog calmly walked over and the proceeded to drag the woman down.
Labrador Mix sends girl to the hospital
Milo the Pomeranian declared Dangerous dog in Brisbane
Bull Mastiff attacks six yr old boy
Lab-Chow mix attack animal control officer
Mixed breed dog bites 2 yr old
Police K9 dog attacks officer, Charlotte, NC
Bichon killed by what appeared to be a German Shepard and a Labrador
Boy attacked by 4 dogs, 2 Labradors, Doberman and a bulldog mix, Georgia
Boy attacked by suspected Huskies, KY
German Shepard and Doberman attack man, Orange County, FL
Golden Retriever attacks 2 yr old, Kansas
Families two Siberian Husky's kill 2 yr old - Michigan Another story
Family Pets, Labrador and Dachshund attack elderly woman.
English Bulldog Attacks, May 2005
Family Briard kills 8 yr old girl. Also mentioned in the article is an attack in Finland about a lady killed the day before by a Bull Mastiff. (Article is in Swedish) May 2005 English translation
Doberman attacks child in Sweden, May 05 - English translation
Heeler attacks and injures 3 children and 1 adult.
Rare Asian Jindo attacks woman
Dalmatian attacks postman for the second time, May 2005

April 2005
Golden Retriever attacks
Chow attacks
Police Dog (German Shepard) bites woman
Elderly woman killed by her mixed breed dogs, GA
Dalmatian bites Jogger
Families Dachshund and Labrador maul elderly woman
Two Mongrels kill a couples Shih-tzu
Court orders Husky destroyed after 3 yrs of escalating attacks, Chippewa Valley, WI
Husky at large attacks woman and dog

Texas K-9 dog "fired" due to biting people without being told including a child.
Toddler mauled by Heeler/Shih-tzu mix
Husky attacks 7 yr old boy in Astoria

Retired Police Dog mauls neighbor
Siberian Husky attacks Mailman
Siberian Husky attacks 3 boys in Delaware

Akita/Shepard attacks child, April 05

Possible Labrador attacks child

March 2005

Two Boxers attack 71 yr old woman, March 2005

Shar-pei mix attacks pre-schooler, March 2005

Labrador attacks child while she's playing, March 2005

Boy mauled by Shar-Pei, March 2005

Mastiff attacks meter man, March 2005

Family Labrador-Bloodhound attacks 6 day old infant, March 2005

German Shepard mauls woman, March 2005

Toddler attacked by Husky/Shepard mix

Rhodesian Ridgebacks attack woman

Golden Retriever mauls 7 yr old March 2005 (2nd incident for this dog)
For the third time in about a year the city council has declared a dog "vicious". A blue heeler mix was banned from the community after it bit a small child and chased other
children. March 2005
Labrador attacks worker
Chihuahua terrorizes mail carrier

February 2005

Briard attacks child

December 2004
Black Shaggy dog bites man

November 2004

St. Bernard Attacks Neighbor

October 2004

Dalmatian bites of 1/2 of toddlers nose - October 2004
English Mastiff attacks child

Mutt kills 5 week old infant - October 2004
Bouvier kills Yorkie at dog show

Bull Dog attacks owner - October 2004

May 2004

Alsatians (GSD) guard dog attacks student, May 04

February 2004

Basset/Shepard mix kills 17mnth old boy. February 2004
2003
Mixed-breed Bouvier
Akita's attack child
Grandparents Golden Retriever mauls visiting granddaughter
Mix breed
Cocker Spaniel attacks guide dog
Akita attacks 3 month old infant

Golden Retriever attacks toddler
2002
Bloodhound Mix Mauls toddler
Malamute Attacks
Family Dachshund attacks family infant
Poodle attacks Pit Bull
Husky Mix mauls infant
Would be Police K9 kills 4 yr old boy
2001
Family Pomeranian kills infant Another Story

Police K-9 attacks girl

2000 and earlier
Cattle Dog
Black Labrador attacks neighborhood children


Miscellaneous stories

Italy declares Corgies, St. Bernards and Border Collies as dangerous
Minneapolis woman attacked by Tigers, April 05
Article title reads "Rapid Dog" but reading the story it's a Racoon.




Posted by Crystal, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:22 pm


P.S.
What's your definition of an unprovoked attack? Were you there during any of these attacks to properly access the dogs' behaviour to
determine these attacks were in actuality unprovoked. If not then you are ignorant of the facts and are just basing it on your opinion that these attacks were unprovoked.
You better hope your never accused of something falsely or not, and the jury makes a decision, the same way you made your about pitbulls. Which is loosely, lacking in facts and knowledge.


P.S.S sorry about my above post, I meant wanna be reporter, writer whatever. You should really try writing Non fiction.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:29 pm

Our first instinct when BSL is proposed, is to want others, especially legislators, to see our dogs as we do. We rush to write letters to the government body, extolling the virtues of our dogs, and wonder why they just don't understand. They do not care about your dogs. They don't care if you care about your dogs. Breed specific dog laws appear on the surface to be about dogs, but upon closer examination we discover that BSL is all about we human owners of dogs. It's about government invading the sanctity of our homes, and our property, and removing animals that we consider to be a part of our family. It is about government criminalizing dog ownership by breed. It is about fifty-six breeds, plus mixed breeds of dogs now named in breed specific prohibitions, or restrictions across the United States at this very time, that we, the people may not own.

The taking of dogs by breed is only the beginning of the eventual removal of all animals from our ownership, and use. Animals are among the most ancient of our traditional property, when government decides to remove our ownership rights, it will be piecemeal, not whole hog. Think for a moment what would happen if your city, or county government stipulated that all dogs must be forfeit. People would stand up and put an immediate stop to that. Those of us who own the target breeds are set apart, we are vilified, and made to look like criminals, so that the rest of society will not be troubled by the taking of our dogs. They will actually endorse the taking of our dogs, not realizing that their dogs are going to be added to the growing list of restricted, or prohibited dogs. Our dogs are purportedly endowed with mythical powers that no other breed of canine can match. The surrounding myth would make our dogs so omnipotent that no mere mortal could possibly outsmart, control, train, contain, or to have a normal owner relationship with them. Realistically all domestic animal breeds were developed by human beings. When we come to the realization that it is us that these laws are truly aimed at, then we can shed the blinders, and get down to the real business of protecting our rights. When we stand up for ourselves as citizens, when we refuse to have our rights, and our property stripped from us then we will be invincible.

If a baddie killed another person with a baseball bat, would the city fathers gather away all of our baseball bats? Of course not. In fact, in Lancaster, CA a thirteen year old boy beat a fifteen year old boy to death with a baseball bat. We don't see Mike Antonovitch, LA County Supervisor, standing in front of a poster of a snarling thirteen year old boy, wielding a baseball bat, with the words "BEFORE THEY BAT!". No city government would take our cars if a person committed vehicular homicide with the same make, and model that we drive. Think of the outcry. It is equally as unreasonable to prohibit the ownership of dogs by breed.

Laws must be reasonable. It is unreasonable to write animal behavior into laws that no animal has the capacity to understand, or to function under. It is unreasonable to mete out criminal labels to animals, i.e. dangerous, or potentially dangerous. It is unreasonable to proscribe punishments to animals under our laws. Laws must give us the right to due process of law. BSL in Denver, Kennewick, and many places across the United States remove animals for no reason other than breed, from responsible owners, with no charges of negligence, and no opportunity to have a case, or a case heard in the Courts. BSL allows warrantless searches and seizures of private property for no reason other than the breed of dog involved. BSL violates the Constitutional right to recompense for property taken by government for public use, i.e. public safety. Animals must not be criminalized under laws that are intended to protect human rights, and to control human behaviors. The act of criminalizing animals elevates them to a legal status of human beings under our laws. At the same time it devalues humans.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
323922 N. Hwy 2
Newport, WA 99156

Web Link
Web Link


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:33 pm

Web Link


Aug 30, 2006 3:46 pm US/Eastern

Dog Mauls Man To Death In Southwest Dade


Posted by David O, a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:43 pm

Thank you, Cherie Graves, for that excellent post showing the "media" does NOT call every dog that attacks someone a pit bull.


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 30, 2006 at 10:36 pm

Cherie Graves..."The act of criminalizing animals elevates them to a legal status of human beings under our laws. At the same time it devalues humans."

What? Who's criminalizing animals? The law would say that HUMANS can own pit bulls. Like HUMANS can't own lions (unless they're in a circus).

Get real. You sound like the NRA.

btw, I love dogs, but it doesn't sound like you love humans...


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Aug 30, 2006 at 11:44 pm

Bow-wow said, "One pathway toward keeping Pit Bulls would requiring that the OWNERS be licensed to own that dog. Come to think of it, more pet owners should be licensed. There shuold be a fee, and some coursework should be required. (maybe online?). A license should be required for EVERY pet. (e.g. three dogs, three licenses) Again, these are NOT animal licenses, they are pet OWNER licenses.

Too many pets are bought and disgarded or mistreated. Many more have owners that have no business owning a pet.

Either require STRICT, ENFORCEABLE licensing rules for owners of dangerous breeds, or make it illegal to own those breeds.

Serious fines shuold be levied on those who break those licensing laws. Another thing; ALL owners shuold be required - BY LAW - to have their pets neutered. ONLY licensed dogbreeders should be allowed to breed animals."

Oh well, I can't resist. Bow-wow, I was with you on licensing humans up to the point that you made the distinction that it is only owners of "dangerous" breeds that need licensing. So, I have a question for you. Could you define "dangerous" breed?

And another, "How will neutering change the situation?"
And another, "What would be the characteristics of a breeder that would qualify them for licensing?"

Curiously,
Lisa


Posted by ILOVEMYPIT, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 31, 2006 at 12:55 am

Diana, what we need to ban is poor journalists who write articles based on lies. I know the owner of these dogs and they are well behaved and very friendly. I have also talked with the owner and various witnesses. Three dogs did not attack the Maltese at all, in fact two remained very calm and behaved throughout the entire incident. Also how do you know that the dogs were pitbulls? None of the dogs have papers, as well as two of the dogs are a mixed breed and were adopted from a local vet hospital. Proposing a ban on pit bulls in palo alto is not only racial profiling, but is also illegal. I believed what happened is tragic and I feel for the owners; but I can't possibly comprehend why anyone would approach any animal after the owner has asked twice for you to keep your distance.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 4:32 am

All you folks who think you can prove something with your long lists of other breeds that attack really aren't getting it. Nobody is saying that other breeds of dog don't sometimes attack people and other dogs. Pit bulls just do it, um, better. When they attack they cause more damage and they are bred to WANT to kill other dogs. Remember, the purpose of a pit bull is to rush across a pit and attack and try to kill another dog, totally without provocation. No other common breed of dog has any significant number of people who are intentionally breeding them for a huge temperament flaw such as this. Many pit bulls are also bred for human aggression, sadly.

Pit bulls (as they are being bred today) tend to be unreasonably dangerous to other dogs because that is what they were (and often still are) BRED FOR. The trait of being dangerous and wanting to kill other dogs attracts owners/breeders who, frankly, are pond scum. They tend to make the dogs even more dangerous by the way they raise them. They also breed them to be more dangerous still, and often to be dangerous to people as well as other peoples' pets. The complete lack of responsibility in the pit bull breeding community is seen in virtually every urban shelter in the country--they all have many, many pit bulls waiting to die because of temperament problems and just because they aren't wanted.

So-called "responsible" pit bull people mostly seem to think that the way to respond to this crisis facing the dogs they claim to care about is to deny, deny, deny. It is all the media's fault. Uh...no. The media didn't breed a single one of the pit bulls waiting to die at your local shelter, not even the several who are throwing themselves against the front of the run trying to kill every other dog who walks by or the one who clearly wants to kill every child who passes. Pit bull people can either decide to support the kind of breed specific laws that will get this miserable situation under control, (San Francisco-like breed specific regulation) or they can watch when total breed bans come to THEIR community and their dogs are taken away from them and killed (as in Denver). Because it isn't acceptable what pit bulls are doing. And it also isn't acceptable what is happening TO pit bulls. And many people are waking up and seeing that.

The thing that I find most amazing about this is that so many pit bull people seem to care so little about the dogs themselves. It seems that they only care about THEIR rights to have what they want. (the unfettered right to breed any pit bull and make money selling the puppies). Why wouldn't there at least be some of them who actually care about the dogs and see what is going on here and are SCREAMING for regulations to stop all the pit bull breeders who are causing the destruction of the breed by their completely irresponsible practices?


Posted by ILOVEMYPIT, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 31, 2006 at 4:57 am

Betsy, or Diana, or Nazi, Pitbulls are not the number one dog that atacks in the states, read gain some info learn, until then stop posting.


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 5:20 am

asdfg,

Thanks for providing the link to this website: Web Link

This link is an EXCELLENT example of the way that pit bull people exchange misinformation. This link is to the "American Canine Foundation" (sounds impressive, doesn't it?) website. I didn't read all of it, but along with other ridiculous claims, (such as that there are four million registered pit bulls in the country) it says that the the results of the American Temperament Test Society pass rate "...means that the pit bull has the best overall temperament." We have already discussed the many reasons that is a COMPLETE LIE. The site also says that the American pit bull terrier "rates high" in the AKC's Canine Good Citizen test. Again...I am unaware of ANY breed specific statistics kept on what breed pass the CGC. Please cite to your sources The only pit bull I have tested for the CGC (I am a CGC evaluator) flunked, unfortunately.

Perhaps most amazingly, this site claims, flatly "The pit bull type dog has to be trained to fight." This does is a horrible disservice to pit bulls, whose potential owners NEED to know what they are getting into. Pit bulls don't need to be trained to fight. In fact, diligent training to try to get pit bulls NOT to fight is unlikely to be successful. Pit bull expert (and, um, dog fighting apologist) Richard Stratton in his book "This is the American Pit Bull Terrier" writes that to condition a pit bull to get along with other dogs "I suppose a dog could be negatively conditioned to fighting by the use of an electric 'stinger' but that strikes me as being akin to kicking a bird dog on point! A vet once told me that he successfully contitioned a Staff not to want to fight, but he ened up with a very unhappy and neurotic dog." ("This is the American Pit Bull Terrier" p. 133).

This site also makes the idiotic claim that pit bulls actually cause less damage when they bite than other breeds. Uh, so why have (according to Karen Delise in the book "Fatal Dog Attacks") pit bull type dogs been responsible for 90 human deaths (add two more for AmStaffs) between 1965 and "retrievers" (that would be goldens and labs, who, for many years, have been the number one and number two most popular dogs in the country plus chesapeakes), uh, nine deaths. Add in the one death attributed to the generic "hunting dog" and you still have only 10 deaths attributed to that kind of dog.

So pardon me if, on the evidence, I don't give much authority to the claim that this website makes about four million pit bulls. As with all this other stuff, they are MAKING IT UP. They don't cite to anything other than the Washington Canine Foundation. Both the American Canine Foundation and the Washington Canine Foundationa are linked to...(drumroll please) Glen Bui! This would be the same Glen Bui who early in this discussion was threatening to have his "lawyers" (heeheehee) do something (not quite specified) to the original author here within 24 hours. His crack team of lawyers (ever standing by to respond to Glen Bui!) apparently haven't quite gotten the message that it is okay to have and publish opinions in this country. (Which is a good thing for the "American Canine Foundation" because, as we have seen, much of what they publish is frankly a lie).




Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 5:30 am

asdgf,

As to your comment about licensed pit bulls in Los Angeles, virtually NONE of those pit bulls are AKC AmStaffs or Staffordshire bull terriers. In fact, as I have noted, the city of Los Angeles KILLS 120 pit bulls A DAY in shelters. (Source: Fatal Dog Attacks, by Karen Delise and Missouri Pit bull Rescue website) Interestingly, this means that, monthly, Los Angeles kills about as many pit bulls as the AKC registers in a year. If all those dogs were AKC registered, obviously we would be getting into negative numbers in a very short time. But virtually none of them are.

Don't get me wrong. There are a TON of pit bulls out there. Most of them lead very short, very brutal lives. Look around at the pit bulls you see being held on chains by young men. How many of these kids do you think will still own that dog in two years? Alas, for the most part, their lifestyles are not compatible with longterm responsible care for an animal. The pit bull on the chain is the cool fashion accessory of the week, only to be dumped at the shelter (if the dog is lucky) when the next thing comes along.


Posted by Jeanne, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 6:00 am

Well, Lisa, you are now backtracking. Let me quote you again.

"Any breed dog will attempt to get over a fence at a person/person with dog if you pass their yard. "

You didn't say run at the fence barking. You said "attempt to get over a fence AT (emphasis mine) a person (which means a very human aggressive dog) or a person with dog (which could be just dog aggressive or both.) So yes, we must live in VERY different neighborhoods. I live in a middle class suburb. Most people here don't have a need to own, or want to own, a dog so aggressive that it charges the fence and attempts to get over the fence and "get at" and attack every person or dog that walks by. Maybe your Dogos behave like that. There are only a few people in my community who own dogs like that, and guess what, Lisa? Those are the folks who are causing the problems.

You also have stated, based on a post you read here, that the Maltese was off leash. Now it's been taken as fact by the "pro-pit" faction, despite news reports that all dogs involved were leashed.

You also state...

"And if you have a bird dog that doesn't chase tennis balls, you have either trained your dog not to do that, or your dog is not game. Get another dog. You probably have one of those breeds which has had all the drive to do its job bred completely out of them and is now a furniture decoration in the shape of a dog"

That's right, Lisa, my dog ain't "game". Know why, Lisa? Because he is a companion animal. Repeat after me. Companion animal. That is what 99% of dogs in the United States are. I don't hunt. Why on earth would I want a dog from working lines? Dogs from working lines don't make good pets....field bred dogs are the ones dying in shelters because their drive is so strong, they fail as house pets... they are too "birdy", they are restless, will tear your curtains off the wall to get outside. They scale fences and become destructive and neurotic when denied an outlet for their drive. People who want to keep "cool looking" dogs from working lines as "pets" are stupid and cruel.

The truth is, Lisa, the "job" most dogs have today is "family companion". And it appears that lots of dogs who have been bred to "do a job" (like kill other dogs in a pit fight), are failing at this precisely because their working drive is not appropriate for life in the cities and suburbs. I don't need a "game" dog...I don't need a dog to impress other people, to frighten or intimidate my neighbors, to draw attention to myself, to project an "image", or to make a political statement. I need a companion animal that will integrate peacefully into my family and community. Its the folks who want "game" dogs that are screwing life up for the rest of us, getting dogs banned from parks and public places, because they can't reconcile the fact that their Hunting/fighting/guarding breed can't hang out off leash like the Lab next door does.

You don't really "need" a Dogo, Lisa...you are not hunting wild boar in your backyard. If you choose to channel your dog's working drive into French Ring, well, good for you. But, as a fellow dog owner, I won't fight for your right to keep a Dogo....the pro-bull breed lobbyists have done nothing for other dog owners except jeoprodize our rights by supporting the irresponsible breeding of dangerous dogs. I won't fight for the right of any idiot to own a pit bull or a Dogo or an American Bulldog. Bull breed lobbyists like yourself are offensive bullys, who troll the internet threatening and insulting other dog owners. Let the people of Palo Alto decide for themselves if they want to ban pit bulls.


Posted by kyle katai, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Aug 31, 2006 at 8:07 am

It's sad to see someone who has a media out let like your self, be so ignorent. It is a big responsabilty you take on by posting a "artical" like this one. there are a lot of people who will read this and consider it fact. That is a shame. The true facts to not back up anything you have stated. Please do your homework before you try to use my dogs to better your public image.

"Let the people of Palo Alto decide for themselves if they want to ban pit bulls. "

This is true, but i only hope they do so with the right facts...


Posted by Steve Evans, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 8:18 am

I have written to the editor demanding that Ms Diamond come back to tell us how sorry she is for her lack on knowledge on this topic. I also questioned the editor as to how she was allowed to publish something so unfactual, and why she should be allowed to continue.
As the owner of an American Staffordshire Terrier, I have to say I will cross the street when I see little ankle biters coming my way. The only time in my 54 years that I've been biten is by these little snapping out of control dogs that most often are dressed in cute little clothes and are treated by there owners like a little human being. If you know anything about how dogs behave, you will have control of your pet and it will not cause problems for anyone.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 8:24 am

Last time I checked, Betsy, it was Glen Bui who won in court with those "crack pot" lawyers. You're going to dis-credit him...I don't think so, we see right through you Betsy.

Who cares what spcific breeds the pit bulls were in LA, they were still pit bulls were they not? Who do you think you are fooling? It still shows you're numbers are wrong...again, does it not?

Give it up lady, you sound desperate!!!!!!Sorry, but you lost this one awhile ago...

Answer this...Has you're point of view EVER won in court? I'm not talking about individual dogs being tried, the whole breed/s...Who's winning Betsy? Just say it, it won't hurt that bad.

Do you know what integrity is?


Posted by Ben, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 8:25 am

"All dogs bite. Only pit bulls maul. Only pit bulls can take a shot from a police officer's gun and keep coming and coming."

This statement is flatly incorrect and is representative of the hyperboly that is the basis for the argument to ban any particular breed of dog.

"I don't need a "game" dog...I don't need a dog to impress other people, to frighten or intimidate my neighbors, to draw attention to myself, to project an "image", or to make a political statement. I need a companion animal that will integrate peacefully into my family and community."

You don't "need" any dog period. If you're going to determine which breeds to ban based on "need" then the only logical course of action is to ban them all.

Purpose bred dogs should be owned by people who wish to engage in that particular activity WITH THEIR DOG (dogfighting not included). A much more fullfiling life than sitting around the house all day and vegetating I might add. Unless one can PROVE that any particular breed of dog represents a disproportionate threat than any other, there is no logical basis for banning that dog. This has not been accomplished in the case of pit bulls. In fact available evidence suggest that pit bulls are in fact less of a danger than some other common breeds and many more rare but easily accesable ones.

It is unfair and inapropriatly intrusive for the Gov. to prevent people from acquiring an active, drivin dog for the purposes of campanionship AND legal recreational activity, unless significant independant research can prove that the dogs in question consistantly repreasant a disproportionate hazard. There has been some research done and it does not support that argument. Pit bulls often have high levels of drive as do many other dogs. That drive can be used to engage succesfully in a number of positive activities. Here are some examples.

Pit Bull competition frisby dog:
Web Link=

Pit Bull professional search and rescue dogs:
Web Link

Law enforcement:
Web Link

Weight pull compatitions:
Web Link

Agility:
Web Link

and there's many more.


Posted by Midtowner, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 31, 2006 at 8:54 am

Come in Palo Alto Online staff, calling Palo Alto Online staff... are you out there?? Please monitor this thread and delete completely inappropriate comments such as the one from umakemesick above!


Posted by Tyler Hanley, online editor of Palo Alto Online
on Aug 31, 2006 at 9:09 am

Tyler Hanley is a registered user.

Thanks...we just made several deletions from overnight posts. This topic is a challenge to keep up with since we have posters from around the country in all time zones. We will lock it if posters continue to make personal comments toward others rather than focus on the issue.


Posted by Jeanne, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 9:48 am

For the record, does anyone have any statistics regarding what percentage of American dog owners engage in organized activities and dog sports as posted by Ben above? I am not including law enforcement dogs, they are not "pets". I am talking about people who do things like agility, flyball, tracking, herding, field trials, free style, weight pull, competative obedience, pet therapy, etc. Is it even one percent of all dog owners?

I ask this because I am sure that people involved in formal training and dog sports are NOT causing the problems in our communities. Obviously, the owner of the pit bull that killed the Maltese had done no formal obedience with her dog. If she had, she would have been able to put him in a sit/stay and given him a "leave it" or "watch me" command when she saw the Maltese approach. That's what you do when you have a DA dog. You work hard on attention getting excersizes, so that if you are ever in a position like this, you can redirect your dogs attention away from the other dog. Also, her dog was not trained in a "drop it" or "leave it" command, or else there would not have been a struggle to get him off the Maltese.

The real anger in this forum should be directed at the irresponsible pit owner, but all I hear is people defending her. If the pit bull lobbyists want to tell us how we can keep people who can't control or train their dogs from owning strong, high drive fighting or guarding breeds, lets hear it. Punishing dog owners after their dogs attack does little to help the victims, and won't be a deterent to many people.....especially losers who don't own property and have no money; they are judgement-proof in a civil suit.


Posted by JUNA GUZMAN, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 9:53 am

I AM REALLY GLAD YOU ARE SPENDING ALL THIS TIME ON BANNING PITBULLS.LETS NOT WASTE TIME ON IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE CHILD RAPIST RAOMING THE STREETS.OH JOHN I'VE HAD 10 PITBULLS AND 4 KIDS ONLY SCARY THING IS WHOS LIVING NEXT DOOR NOT MY BACK YARD!


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:09 am

Mandatory spay/neuter is based upon numerous erroneous suppositions. The first of which is that the government has a proprietary interest in privately owned animals, especially the genetalia of those animals. We do not live in a communist country. The government has no legal ownership interest in our animals. If the government is going to usurp ownership rights over the genetalia of privately owned animals, the U.S. Constitution says that we owners must be recompensed for the loss of our property. The state of California, and Los Angeles County have been served with a federal lawsuit following the passage of SB861, a monumental taking of the property rights of Californian's in their animals. (Thank you, ACF)

Another erroneous supposition is that it is legal to charge some dog owners higher fees based upon their dogs intact genetalia. We could actually call these ovary and testicle taxes, except that these are not taxes. A tax is only levied against property. The state of California has endeavored to remove ownership rights in animals, so that they are not private property in anything but name. A license is not a tax, but it is a form of blackmail, or ransom that is paid by people to their government that allows them to have something, or to do something that is illegal to have, or to do without the license.

Manditory spay/neuter ordinances erroneously suppose that registering bodies are the conveyers of quality. A registry is nothing more, or less than a record keeping body. It is not only wrong, it is elitist to think that a registered dog has more value than a non-registered dog. The proof of this statement is that the American Kennel Club is considering registering non-purebred dogs. It's all about the money. The value of any dog is in it's ability to please it's owner. The so-called designer dogs, which are just mongrels, fetch a fine price, please their owners, please their sellers, and satisfy the market for the customer who cannot be tempted by the provably pure-bred, or the pound mutt.

Mandatory spay/neuter doesn't address the real problem. It is based upon the lie of pet-overpopulation that is vociferously spread by the mis-named animal rights movement. Responsible dog owners listened. They spayed, and neutered beyond the wildest expectations of the perpetrators of the over-population lie. Breed clubs set up rescues for their respective breeds. Suddenly intake numbers dropped at "shelters" across the country. there was panic in the ranks. Of course the animal rights groups set up rescues, too. They started breeding to fill the shelters. Dogs are being shuttled from shelter to shelter to pad intake, and kill figures. Diseases are being transported along with the dogs. Shelters, and rescues as run by the animal rights movement have become BIG BUSINESS!!! Of course they are exempt from mandatory spay/neuter.

Manditory spay/neuter heaps even more fees upon the pure-bred breeder/owner/exhibitor. These people are already paying far more to participate in the sport/hobby/avocation of pure-bred dogs. It forces people to join a dog club, not just any dog club, but a dog club that is acceptable by the state. How about the state forcing people to join a car club to own/drive a car? Or how about California forcing every motorcycle owner/rider to join the Hells Angels? Next the state will force every person over the age of 55 to join AARP. Have our lawmakers gone crazy?

Human beings have been animal owners every since we have been. Dogs are our most ancient property. They are our companions and, helpers. Dog ownership allowed us to change our lifestyle from hunter, gatherers who nomadically followed herds, to becoming settled agrarians, to forming villages, towns, cities, states, and governments. It is outrageous to assume that we the people will allow government to dictate the severance of our most ancient traditional property, dogs, and our ancient and traditional practice of animal husbandry, dog breeding. The ownership, and use of dogs has allowed us to domesticate all of the other animals that we utilise in our lives today. Our whole basis for our economy rests upon our ability to feed ourselves. That economy rests firmly upon the great animal/agriculture industry. Within the animal industry is the pet industry, it alone generates approximately $50 BILLION into our annual economy. Much of this money is generated and spent in animal health areas.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156


Posted by Meaghan Edwards, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:27 am

Dogs bite woman, kill her Chihuahua
Owner cited and her pets are euthanized

Published August 31, 2006

A Bartlett woman was hit with a misdemeanor citation after two of her dogs bit another woman and killed one of her dogs this week, police said Wednesday.

Susan Latsis, 34, of the 300 block of Donna Court is charged in Monday's attack with having a vicious animal at large, having dogs running at large and not having animal licenses, said Bartlett Police Sgt. Michael McGuigan.

She voluntarily euthanized both adult dogs, which were German shepherd and Labrador mixes, Tuesday, McGuigan said.

Police said that on Monday the dogs attacked a woman walking two of her Chihuahuas near Latsis' home.

One of the Chihuahuas was killed and a second needed veterinary attention, police said.

The woman, who also received puncture wounds on her face and hands, was treated and released from St. Alexius Medical Center in Hoffman Estates, McGuigan said.

The attacking dogs were not leashed and Latsis was not nearby when officers found them, police said. The dogs ran into Latsis' home when police tried to capture them.

The dogs were involved in another biting incident in 2004, police said. Latsis also was cited in that incident.
Web Link



Woman injured in dog attack

SARAH SCOPELIANOS
August 30, 2006

A VICIOUS dog attack left a woman with leg wounds and a chunk of flesh ripped from her arm yesterday near Colac.

The woman, who works for an aged-care facility, was visiting a Larpent property about 1pm when the border collie attacked.

A Colac police spokesman said police received a call from the ambulance service to attend the scene.

``The victim was taken to hospital.

``It is a pretty vicious attack.

advertisement

advertisement

``The dog bit up her arm, ripping the flesh off, and also bit her leg,'' he said.

The dog is believed to have escaped its enclosure on the property and was protective of its owner, police said.

An investigation into the attack is continuing. A Rural Ambulance Services spokeswoman said the woman aged in her 30s was taken to Colac hospital with leg injuries.

A WorkSafe spokesman said the authority was aware of the incident and would be speaking with the woman's employer about work practices and procedures.
Web Link

Man Fatally Mauled By Dog

MIAMI -- For the second time in August, a South Florida resident has died after a dog attack.

Police said a dog killed a man behind a home in the 20200 block of Southwest 190th Street. Officers found the dog covered in the man's blood.

"This individual apparently entered a dog pen that had two dogs inside -- boxers, one 6-year-old and one 6-month-old pup," said Alvaro Zabaleta of the Miami-Dade County Police Department.

The victim worked as a handyman on the property and also lived there. The homeowner, who did not want to be identified, said the dogs belonged to the family.

"At this time it's unknown how he entered the dog pen or why he entered the dog pen, but once the homeowner checked the back yard at 9:30 at night of that evening is when he discovered (the man) in the dog pen, severely injured and suffering from what looked to be a dog attack," Zabaleta said.

According to witnesses' statements to police, the victim had been drinking heavily all day. Outside of the home, there were several recycling bins full of beer bottles, NBC 6's Tom Llamas reported.

"The investigators are waiting for autopsy results to find out the cause of death and the toxicology report to confirm the fact of intoxication," Zabaleta said.

Miami-Dade Animal Services put the dog down. The rabies test results will be available next week.

The mauling came less than two weeks after a Coral Springs woman was killed by her Presa Canario. In that case, the police killed the dog at the home after it became aggressive with officers.
Web Link

So, only pit bulls attack, huh?

Another link to check out, to prove your theory wrong:
Web Link


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:31 am

An Addendum; I got side tracked, and forgot to add another erroneous supposition that Mandatory spay/neuter makes. That is the supposition that spayed/neutered dogs are rendered docile following surgery. This is no doubt the biggest lie of all. No matter how one slices, and dices a dogs genetalia, if the dog was pre-disposed to bite, and it still retains a full mouth of teeth following the surgical procedure, it will bite if given the opportunity. Spay/neuter does not change personality. Dogs that were pre-disposed to humping, still hump after neutering. The things that do change are that male dogs will lose their musculature after neutering. Females will no longer go into estrus. Females frequently become incontinent. Early spaying/neutering causes early onset osteo-porosis, a weakening of the joints, and a general weakening of the skeletal structure.


Posted by Katya, a resident of Mountain View
on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:35 am

Meaghan Edwards, you are fast! I was going to post that chihuahua link :)

BTW, what Meagan posted is not old news. This is what has happened in the past few days only. And will continue to happen. Do you know why? Because it has nothing to do with the breed of a dog!! But everything with who holds the leash.


Posted by Jilly John, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:41 am

I'm sorry Lisa, but Betsy done owned you. And Cherry, we got tired of seeing you trot out your tired statistics every single time people dare to point out that decent people would not want to own pit bulls or want them in their community. The bite statiscs on the Nat'l Geo program would be relevant IF people kept hippos and crocs in residential areas. I am much more afraid of a dog with less bite power that wants to bite me then the dog with more, who doesn't.

It seems like pit people argue not what IS but what WAS. It's time for your breed to go the way of slavery, women not being able to vote, indentured servitude, bull baiting and other unsavory examples of what humanity has done before it evolves.


Posted by Susan, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:54 am

I have both a chihuahua and American Staffordshire Terrior. I will assure you that the chihuahua WILL BITE YOU and the AmStaff will lick you to death. Dusty doesn't like anyone and Nitro is the most loving dog on earth. By the way, Dusty rules in our home and when Nitro invades his space he is bitten. Small children are just the right height for a 9 inch terror. I have to put him away when children are in my home. Nitro takes them for rides and lets them sit on him. So now, which would you fear more. I have pictures to back up what I am saying if you are interested in seeing another side of a PITBULL, which is not a breed.


Posted by Katya, a resident of Mountain View
on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:06 am

Quote: "decent people would not want to own pit bulls"

Jilly John, be careful what you say. What makes a decent person?

Education? Money? Being responsible? Am I not a decent person? Do you even know me? How about a very nice family of Ph.D.'s with a beautiful pit bull I have met yesterday? Are they not decent people?

To me there are only two types of people: Responsible with their animals and irresponsible. I have invested several thousands of dollars into my dog training. She is a perfect canine citizen. I continue training with her to see if she has interest in agility or competitive obedience. She is not a yard ornament and she is not a neusance to my neighbors. That's responsable. Responsable is decent. Breed has nothing to do with it.


Posted by Meaghan Edwards, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:14 am

Dog officer bitten
By MALCOLM WEATHERUP
01sep06

A TOWNSVILLE City Council dog control officer was attacked by a great dane while he was interviewing the dog's owner about his pet's attack on a woman and her dogs, a Townsville court heard yesterday.

Andrew John Timms, a soldier who lives in West End, pleaded guilty to charges of failing to restrain his dog from attacking a person and not keeping it under control.

Townsville City Council legal officer Tony Bligh told the court in November last year that Timms' dog attacked two smaller ones being walked by a woman along Townsville Street.

As the woman tried to fend off the dog, she suffered bites and scratches to her hands.

Timms was on the scene almost immediately, restrained the dog, locked it in his yard and then gave the woman what assistance he could.

Some days later, a council officer arrived to talk to Timms about the matter at an arranged meeting, but when he reached out to shake Timms hand in greeting, the dog lunged at the officer and bit him on the hip.

Mr Bligh said it was fortunate for the owner that the council had not had the opportunity to declare the dog dangerous for the initial attack on the woman, or otherwise, under the council's two-strikes-and-you're-out rule, the dog would have been destroyed. The officer was seriously injured, though the dog was quickly restrained.

Timms, who expressed extreme remorse to the court, was fined a total of $650, but with court fees, professional costs and vet fees for the woman's injured animals. His great dane's attack cost him all up $1027.

Timms partner, Sarajane Elizabeth Morgan, who was holding the dog's leash when it bit the officer, pleaded guilty to a charge of not controlling the animal, and her fine and costs amounted to $482.

Several cases in the council court session again sent the message to dog owners about their responsibilities and the cost of ignoring them.

A Wulguru dog was put down after attacking a neighbour's cat, breaking its back and forcing it to be destroyed.

The episode cost the owner $992.

And even small dogs can attract big penalties. A jack russell at Nome which killed a chicken and mauled several others cost its owner $757.

In Aikenvale, an owner is refusing hand over his dog after it attacked a disabled pensioner and his dogs.

Mr Bligh said the owner claimed the dog has been relocated, and later said it was stolen. The man was fined $992, and his partner, whose dog had a lesser role, was fined $792.
Web Link

Brandi Winningham gets her dog back

by ANDREW MATLOCK
Staff Reporter

James and Erika Richardson were dismayed and frustrated when Riverside County Animal Control Officer Tammy Belfonte contacted them this week with the results of an Animal Control Hearing that was held on Aug. 10.

The hearing was held as the result of an attack that occurred when James was walking his 16-month-old miniature Schnauzer, Liebe, on the morning of Aug. 1.

James and Liebe were attacked by Xena, a 100-150 pound Great Dane owned by their neighbor, Calimesa City Council Member Jon Winningham, who lives next door to the Richardson's on Holmes Street.

*

During the attack, James sustained at least 10 bites to both hands and had to punch Xena in the face several times before the dog retreated.

Liebe meanwhile sustained a broken rib and severe internal damage as a result of the attack.

During the Aug. 10 hearing held to determine if the dog should be destroyed as requested by Animal Control officials, the Richardson's testified this was not the first time a dog of theirs had been attacked by Xena.

During the hearing, Marlene Hekman, who also lives next door to Winningham, testified to numerous occasions when Xena attempted to attack her and others at her home.

Hekman also testified that she was afraid to leave her home for fear of attacks by Xena.

However, Winningham, and his daughter Brandi, who was identified as the dog's owner, also appeared at the hearing and had a different interpretation of their dog's behavior.

According to the Notice of Decision issued by Animal Services Hearing Officer George Dickerman, who presided over the Aug. 10 hearing, "Mr. Winningham and his daughter do not believe that Xena's actions warrant her destruction. They feel that Xena is a loving, playful dog and that the fear expressed by the Richardson's and Mrs. Heckman are exaggerated."

Winningham also submitted several testimonials as to Xena's "friendly demeanor" as well as what the report categorized as "rather voluminous documentation" including a staff report from the city of Calimesa, a letter from the city and a memo from the law firm of Richards, Watson and Gershon which employs the city's attorney Peg Battersby.

In the Notice of Decision Dickerman also noted, "Mr. Winningham also believes that the California Food and Agriculture Codes do not apply to this case because the City of Calimesa has never adopted the applicable Riverside County Codes relating to the issuance of restraint orders, impoundments, and/or humane destruction of dogs."

In his findings, Dickerman discounted this assertion indicating "whether the City of Calimesa has properly adopted any of the applicable County Codes appears irrelevant, as the California Legislature has enacted various Food and Agricultural Codes to govern the definition of a 'vicious dog' and the grounds upon which such a dog can be destroyed."

The findings indicated the injuries suffered by Richardson and his dog were not severe enough to warrant having the dog put down.

Dickerman did however note the dog's history of unprovoked aggressive behavior and agreed with Animal Services officials that the dog should be declared a "potentially dangerous animal."

Dickerman determined the dog could return home once Winningham had complied with four required preventative measures. These included building a five foot high wrought iron fence with self-closing gates in front of the two entrances to Winningham's home as well as a six foot chain link fence around the entire perimeter of the back yard secured at the ground with tension wire, cement or another material to prevent the dog from digging under the fence.

The order also called for Winningham to post a sign "at or near the entrance of his premises" reading "Beware of Potentially Dangerous Dog." Ironically, the sign posted by Winningham warns of a "vicious" dog even though he and his daughter argued this point during the hearing

Finally, Xena is required to be leashed and muzzled whenever she is off Winningham's property.

According to Belfonte, Animal Control officers conducted an inspection of Winningham's property last Saturday and determined he was not in compliance with the order because he hadn't installed the required self-closing gates in the front yard wrought iron fence.

She did indicate, officials were scheduled to inspect the property again on either Wednesday or Thursday, and if they sign off on it the dog will be allowed to return home. It has been in the custody of Animal Services since the attack.

Belfonte indicated Animal Services would not be appealing the decision but said any future violation of the order issued by Dickerman would result in removing the dog again; this came as little consolation to Erika Richardson who was not only dismayed but also disappointed by the decision.
Web Link

And check out all these vicious dogs:
Web Link


Posted by jeanne, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:19 am

Ahhh, now I get it...Cherie Graves is a shill for the puppy mill industry....euphemistically called "commercial dog breeders". I went to the web-site. Her organization wants to protect the rights of commercial kennels, pet shops, and back yard breeders.....the very people who have a HUGE financial stake in fighting any and all regulations against dog breeding.

Now all her posts make sense. She is not really concerned with the dog owners or Palo Alto at all.


Posted by Meaghan Edwards, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:22 am

Good thing Gaston County, North Carolina doesn't have a ban on pit bulls, or this man wouldn't be alive this morning.

Steve Carpacca, 41, was asleep in his mobile home at 3:15am when his pit bull ran into the bedroom and started barking frantically.

The man awoke to a room filled with smoke and immediately ran outside. When he realized that his dog had not followed him, he rushed back into the blazing trailer, armed with two 5-pound fire extinguishers, but the fire was already out of control.

Four fire departments responded to the call, and it took a total of 15 firefighters to douse the flames. The dog never made it out; fire crews found the little hero's body in the hall just outside Mr. Carpacca's bedroom.

Mr. Carpacca was devastated at the loss of his dog.

"The dog saved his life, absolutely," said Chief Dicky Harris with the Community Volunteer Fire Department. "If the dog hadn't been in the house, [Mr. Carpacca] would have been overcome by smoke."

It is believed that the fire was caused by an electric heater in the kitchen. Mr. Carpacca never heard any of the smoke detectors sound.
Web Link


Posted by Jeanne, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:23 am

I would also respectfully request the moderators at PAO to perhaps delete some of these ridiculous, lengthy, cut and paste posts of news articles and statistics that are making the forum difficult to read. Lets stick to discussing the issue. I am not here to read a book on animal attacks, or every news report of every dog attack for the past five years.


Posted by Katya, a resident of Mountain View
on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:39 am

Jeannie, while I agree that there shouldn't be cut and pastes here (people can we stick to links?), the attacks presented is not for the past five years, but for the past five days. Point being, other animals attack with as much frequency. It is not the breed.


Posted by Carol, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 12:27 pm

Pitbulls were bred for bull baiting. They weren't breed to fight!!!! Humans beings trained there dogs their dogs to fight. They feed them gun powder and lock them in dark rooms with no animal or human contact. Wouldn't you become agrressive??? Also them poor dogs who do get fought, do you know what happens when one loses, they get tossed aside like a piece of trash. Dumped on some abandened road, tied up to a tree and never fed again and left to die, or hell shot by the owner. And we wanna ban the dog, because it's the dogs fought??????


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 12:34 pm

Jeanne,
I am not a shill for anyone. Do not seek to slander me, or my objectives. Not one of my websites is sponsored.
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
I have the courage to post my full name, address, and telephone number. I am easily accessable, and anyone who is interested can run a search engine on my name. Your personal attack on me is typical of a person who cannot intellectually respond to the facts presented. Consider this post to be a cease, and desist.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156
509-447-2821


Posted by Tyler Hanley, online editor of Palo Alto Online
on Aug 31, 2006 at 12:41 pm

Tyler Hanley is a registered user.

Please do not paste articles from publications on this forum; by doing so, you are infringing on their copyright. The proper way to refer participants to such articles is to post a link to the web page with the article.
Thanks for your cooperation.


Posted by Steve, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 12:48 pm

Ahhh, now I get it...Cherie Graves is a shill for the puppy mill industry....euphemistically called "commercial dog breeders". I went to the web-site. Her organization wants to protect the rights of commercial kennels, pet shops, and back yard breeders.....the very people who have a HUGE financial stake in fighting any and all regulations against dog breeding.

Jeanne, with all due respect to you, I just spent time at Cherie's website and it is in no why what you say it is. PLEASE, this topic is a hot button for many folks, but you need to stick to the facts and only the facts in these discussions. Your comments about her website and the goals of her organization are way off base.

Steve
Elizabethton, TN
A lover of all dogs, and a proud owner of an American Staffordshire Terrier. I've been around dogs my entire life and have never known a more gentle, loyal breed of dog. There is a reason why not all that many years ago these dogs were the most popular dogs in this country..it is only recently that bad folks have become involved in this wonderful breed. These dogs are used for rescue work, they provide comfort to people in the hospital, nursing homes..they are a remarkable breed. Just because you don't happen to like them doesn't mean they are all bad.

Posted by jeanne, a resident of another community, 1 hour ago


Posted by Nick, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 1:05 pm

Someone needs to explain to me how a positive community is created by bannnig dogs, creating stricter ordinances, and essentially punishing the masses for the deeds of the few...who, by the way, could be better reached by having more open and active communities rather than harsher and punitive ones.

If you really want to see what is behind it all, please read this: Web Link

I own the copyright, so it isn't a problem. Plus, education is good. The more informed we become, the better we'll enjoy our pets.

Nick Van Duren


Posted by Heidi Goldsberry, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 1:08 pm

John, Your mind is closed and there is no way that you will open it at this time. I'm sorry for that closed minds = Ignorance.


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 31, 2006 at 1:20 pm

Bow-wow, I was with you on licensing humans up to the point that you made the distinction that it is only owners of "dangerous" breeds that need licensing. So, I have a question for you. Could you define "dangerous" breed?
--------------------
OK, ALL breeds - you just helped make the legislation better


And another, "How will neutering change the situation?"
-------
It will keep people from breeding dogs on their own, without a license, and keep wild pack populations down in rural areas (a real concern).


And another, "What would be the characteristics of a breeder that would qualify them for licensing?"
-------
Someone who is licensed by the state after an exhaustive exam that takes real study, not just buying some rural property and putting in dog pens. Also, they should be compelled to put up a bond, and be further compelled to make sure that anyone buying their dogs are themselves licensed. Heavy fines or revocation of license would follow for those in violation.

I would also argue for the complete elimination fo pets of ANY kind being sold in standard retail environments. This is a barbaric practice.




Curiously,


Lisa


Posted by Nick, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Lisa,

Very interesting. So let's replace the retail "barbaric practice" as you call it, with an all-powerful barbaric practice of the STATE. According to this line of argument, it is okay to "protect" animals by using a cop with a gun to exploit everyday honest and decent people who simply enjoy having pets.

Folks, this is why strict animal ordinances never produce the desired result. They only end up compromising the integrity of animal control, animal services, and the police. The consequences of this is ALWAYS a failure. Period.

In contrast, when communities are enjoying lots of activities and people are not criminalized (ie. now they'll hide) everyone will have more fun. Pets are a wonderful part of our lives. Anything that hinders that presents a clear and present danger to honest government, honest people, and a great standard of living.

But animal rightists already know that don't they?

Hmmm...or do they?

I wonder how many of the animal rightist rank 'n file acually approve of importing shelter dogs from out-of-state, from Mexico and South America, from Asia, etc so they can meet their own demand?

You want to talk about a barbaric practice? Well there ya have it!


Posted by WANT2KNOWMORE, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 31, 2006 at 1:58 pm

Glen Bui, do you think you could give me an Email address so I could get in contact with you. I think I could use your knowledge for some advice on the incident that took place last saturday in Midtown. I could really use some help, thanks.


Posted by Katie, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Aug 31, 2006 at 2:05 pm

The statements from this 'journalist' are laughable and completely unfounded. Every single organization involved with dogs or human/canine interactions (including the CDC, HSUS, AKC, National Animal Control Org and dozens more) agree that all attacks, whether on animals or people, are the fault of bad owners, not bad dogs. If a dog is poorly socialized, completely untrained, or, worse still, ENCOURAGED to show aggressive behaviors, and then this dog ends up running loose and hurting somebody/someone - WHO is that the fault of? If pit bulls are eliminated (emphasis on 'if', since lawbreakers will just hide their dogs) then people who want dogs for negative reasons will just find another breed. Germany is proof that you can keep banning dogs until there are hardly any unrestricted breeds left, and dog attacks will continue.


Posted by Heidi Goldsberry, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 2:19 pm

Katie, I couldn't agree with you more! My dogs are beautiful loving creatures. They've taught my daughter so much! I wish that people could look at the good and not only report their distorted interpretations of the negative. It would really be a shame if breed banning hit where I live because my dogs are huge part of our families. We've taken the time to properly socialize them with other animals and humans. We take time daily to attend to their needs. I get complimented on my dogs by all of my neighbors on how well behaved they are, comparing them to the loud yippy dogs that are driving everyone crazy. Their owners don't take time to teach them correctly but people tolerate that just fine???? I don't get it..


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 2:28 pm

Yesterday I posted Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States Model Dog Owner Regulations. You may have noticed that our regulations, if inforced protect the public, as well as preserving dog ownership, and use rights.

Compare our Model Regs with the proposals that have been posted by Bow Wow, and others who want to destroy pet ownership, and to make pet ownership unaffordable to the ordinary person.

These ideas are pretty much enacted in communist China. Beijing has only recently allowed people to own dogs within the city. We recently read about the Chinese government dog killing raids upon the rural villiagers.

This is what the animal rights promoters have in mind for we people of the United States, and for our dogs. Think about what the cost of a dog would be with all of their governmental involvement in dog breeding would be. Think about the animals already being smuggled in to California from Mexico, because they are cheaper and in demand NOW!! Think about the black market that grows up from overly regulated products that people want. Think about prohibition on alchohol, and all of the problems with demand until prohibition was overturned. Think about buying cigarettes off of the reservations until the government cracked down. Think about the drug trade, and apply the trade to pets. This is what we will face if the animal rights agenda gets passed.

Animal rights? What a load of smelly manure. They want animals to have every right, EXCEPT the right to live, and to reproduce, and to have a future. Animal rights advocates advocate for the legislated extinction of all domestic animals.


Posted by J.L, a resident of Ventura
on Aug 31, 2006 at 3:00 pm

Amusing. Are you making the case for animal rights, or animal welfare?

The pet INDUSTRY hasn't done a thing to protect pets from ignorant, irresponsible, mean, or otherwise unsavory owners.

We need MORE licensing, period. Earlier on this thread I sawa plea for LESS licensing, and "why can't we all just get along". That's naive.

ALL owners and breeders shuold have to pass TOUGH tests to own ANY pet. I wonder if the pet INDUSTRY would support that. I doubt it.

The NRA makes similar arguments about guns. They say "it's not the gun, it's the owner of the gun that is the problem". It's apretty weak argument.

An ARGUMENT can be made that all breeds are equal, in terms of the damage that they can cause, but it doesn't allow for variables like who the owners are, etc. etc.


Posted by Nick, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 3:31 pm

"The pet INDUSTRY hasn't done a thing to protect pets from ignorant, irresponsible, mean, or otherwise unsavory owners."

If you're able to make that statement, than I guess you have not bought a pet or show-quality pet from a Fancier in the last 30 years. Our contracts are strict. We self-police ourselves. We're not the ones operating kill-centers and importing sickly dogs from other states and overseas. We're not the ones claiming to adopt pets but are actually some of the most profitable pet shops around. We're not the ones that equate pet ownership with slavery. We love our pets.

The question is: why don't you?

What's more, if you think that more licensing is the solution, than perhaps you need to ask yourself why only about 10% of pets are licensed.

Why can't a 2 dollar tag from a pet shop do the same thing?

Why does it cost so much to enforce?

How could licensing contribute to open and active pet-ownership?

Answer: pet licensing is a pet tax that can't even pay for itself. It's a waste of time and only serves the interests of militant animal rightist organizations or animal services that have been intensely lobbied by those very organiziations.

Let us hope that rational minds prevail and Palo Alto does not become a PeTA-approved co-op.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 3:51 pm

Gee think we should have the same thing for "parenting'.. I do.. only even stricter.... mandatory vasectomies and hysterecomies for anyone who cannot pass the test.. and certainly for anyone who does not own their own home.. must have a suitable vehicle to be able to drive baby to doctor.or to school They must be inspected by "officals"" on a routine basis with no prior appointments and be willing to have their homes searched without a warrant if a neighbor or someone else "complains" about their parenting. no child mey go anywhere unattended until they are of legal age.. parents must show "autorites where they children live and that they do not have to share a room with another..that their cupbaoards are stcked with fresh foods.. and that the rooms are warm in winter and air condiotned in summer... must have enough money in bank for college education. you know.. sort of like a "bond".. to make sure they are educated. Of course .. must pass the state exam which will be drawn up by "experts" in the field of parenting.. anyone who accidently becomes pregnant or causes an accidental pegregnancy will be forced to undergo mandatory sterlization by the state at their own expense and will not be considered "responsible enough" to have children in the future.. and of course if any child is put up for adoption the adopting parents must pass the same tests...if a child is found committing a crime.. it is one strike and they are out..
And of course.. no one may have more than the "allowed" number of children


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 3:57 pm

asdfg asks me if my "point of view" has ever won in court, and says that Glen Bui and his "crackpot" (I don't know why she puts that in quotes--I never used that word, but I'll take her word for it) lawyers have won. She says I "lost this one a long time ago."

Sadly, it is the pit bulls who lost, and are continuing to lose, because they don't have a reasonable base of people willing to do what is necessary to protect them. But in terms of laws that are being passed (and being upheld by the courts), pit bull bans are spreading like wildfire. Independence Missouri is the latest big city to decide that they don't want any pit bulls.

When I first started to look into the constitutionality of breed specific legislation, I had a vague impression that it was usually overturned on constitutional grounds. I had gotten this idea from lots of wildly optimistic dog owner/breeder websites, often put up by people and organizations who were trying to solicit money and who often claimed some grand precedent was right around the corner (if gullible people would just send them money). But when I actually read the decisions in appellate cases, I learned that pretty much every appellate decision on the issue has UPHELD breed specific legislation except (where else?) in Massachusetts where an early case held it to be unconstitutional. This is why total pit bull bans are still in place all over the country and more are being passed every week.

I have seen MANY references to the supposed great victory in Georgia that was going to mean that there would be no more breed bans. I haven't ever been able to find the opinion (does somebody have a citation?) but my IMPRESSION (I could well be wrong about this, and please feel free to correct me) is that it was a lower court ruling, perhaps even a trial court ruling, on a narrow issue (whether some pit bull puppies at a shelter had to die, or whether they could be adopted by people eager to adopt them). Sorry, folks, but that isn't exactly going to change how they are doing business in Denver.

As to whether my "point of view" is prevailing, I am against breed bans (but if the only choice is between a ban and no breed specific regulation at all, a ban might well be better for pit bulls), so the fact that they are spreading like wildfire doesn't represent my point of view. I was gratified to see the effort that went into enacting the breed specific policies in San francisco, especially since state law had to be changed to enact a law requiring the spay/neuter of all non-showdog pit bulls. That law is a huge victory for pit bulls and for the community and comes very close to reflecting my point of view.



Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 4:09 pm

Off an other topic.... the original one.. what I have read states that the mixed breed dogs ( who were adopted from a vet rescue) were ALL on leash. How did the small dog get close enough to them to be bitten.. after the person with the three dogs had asked the person with the small dog to stay away? Did the person with the small dog just ignore the persons warnings? Did they speak English?? I am being serious here.. many Californians do not..was the Maltese on a leash? If so how was it that these dogs crossed paths? When I walk my dog I always watch for others and if someone says.. please don't let your dog come close.. I don't..why did this person not heed the warning..when I read the "story" by Diana I thought all of the dogs were off leash.. or at least that the three mixed breeds were loose. This is a tragedy that could have been easily avoided if the Maltese owner had just paid attention. and if her dog was off leash she was breaking the law.. ( if you have a leash law in Palo Alto) and I would certianly hope that a town this enlightened would have something as simple as a leash law.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 4:16 pm

Cherie,

Are you seriously advocating that domesticated animals should have the "right" to reproduce? Uh...sorry about that but our responsibility to domestic animals (both as individuals and as a society) absolutely includes preventing them from reproducing when it is necessary to do so.

Somebody (above) was saying that mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls (except for show dogs) would not make them unable to bite. Of course it wouldn't. What mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls (except for show dogs) WOULD do is make them rare. And if pit bulls are going to survive as a breed, it will because pit bull puppies will not be available for $40 on every street corner to every thug who just made a drug sale. The worst kind of pit bull owners do not have registered show dogs. And they aren't going to spay/neuter their dogs. So mandatory spay/neuter of non-show dog pit bulls (which EVERY responsible pit bull owner is already doing) protects the responsible owners and their dogs and provides an easy, economical way to get pit bulls away from dog fighters, irresponsible breeders and other pond scum owners.








Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 4:30 pm

"I was gratified to see the effort that went into enacting the breed specific policies in San francisco, especially since state law had to be changed to enact a law requiring the spay/neuter of all non-showdog pit bulls. That law is a huge victory for pit bulls and for the community and comes very close to reflecting my point of view."
Bestsy:
What breed do you think will be next on the spay/neuter list when "pit bulls" as you call them become extinct? and they have to if all are spayed and neutered except the few dogs who meet the show "criteria" .. and which "pit bulls" would you like to see spayed and neuterd.. I mean let's call a "pit bull a "pit bull".. can you describe one for me?? I am an AKC licensed judge for bull breeds.. I could not describe a "pit bull " to you,.. and truthfully.. I am an expert in this field.. so let us know.. what is a "pit bull"...size, color,, coat, ears, movement.. eye placement. tail placement..bone and substance.. proper front assembly.. proper rear and turn of stifle. proper lips and cheeks. what exactly describes a "pit bull".. any one else.. John?? how about you.. just write it down.. I will be very interested..

By the way the law was not "changed" It was a new law.. and it allows for ANY BREED to fall under the mandatory spay/ neuter clause.. it does NOT require the spay/neuter of all "pit bulls' but allows cities and towns to decide WHAT breeds will fall under this law SB861 ( by the way.. this "law' was brought to the table by the now OUT OF OFFICE Jackie Spier.. guess she learned.. MY DOG VOTES the hard way).. so let's not lead anyone astray here and let them think that this law was just for "pit bulls"...it can be for ANY BREED.. including "birdy type dogs".. and those who look like "birdy type dogs".. or any mix of a "birdy type dog"..
hmmmmmmmm








Posted by Christina, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 4:40 pm

Wow, like this type of article hasn't been done a thousand times before. Hey Diana, why don't you try and come up with something a LITTLE more original for your next article eh? Yes, let's all jump on the bandwagon and ban pit bulls. Just look at what good it's done for Ontario. Oh wait, it hasn't stopped dog maulings there has it? A child was killed not too long ago by a husky mix so yep, banning pit bulls will definitely solve the problem...


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 4:51 pm

Bestuvall,

Good questions. My ideal law would mandate microchipping of all pit bulls and spay/neuter of all pit bull type dogs (and mixes) UNLESS the dog was an AKC or UKC-PR registered dog and was the owner could provide proof both of registration and that the dog was participating regularly (say, once a year, at a minimum) in AKC or UKC events. This would allow every single responsible owner or breeder to keep his/her dogs intact with just a tiny bit of effort. Even if a particular pit bull wasn't conformation quality (but for some reason which I don't understand, just had to be bred anyway), the owner could train the dog and show it in obedience or rally or even weight pull.

Dog fighters won't get AKC or UKC-PR Amstaffs and APBTs (much less stafforshire bull terriers) and neither will drug dealers because these are not the dogs they WANT. Responsible UKC and AKC breeders could even protect their dogs more if they followed the Parson Russell Terrier folks lead and made dog aggression a disqualification in the ring. (Okay...that isn't going to happen, because too many of them LIKE having a dangerous dog, but I can dream, can't I?)

As to what is a "pit bull," I know what a pit bull is. So do lots and lots and lots of other people. And the very cool thing about having mandatory spay/neuter (rather than a ban where the dogs are seized and killed, as in Denver) is that misidentification doesn't really matter much. If the local animal control person identifies your beagle/boxer mix as a pit bull and you think that is in error, all you have to do is microchip and spay your dog and since you are a responsible dog owner, YOU ALREADY ARE DOING THAT ANYWAY. If on the other hand, he identifies your prize winning dogo argentino as a pit bull, you just have to show the registration papers from a reputable registry, and the ribbons the dog has won, and you win your case.

So the dogs are protected, and the responsible owners are protected and dogs are protected and the breed(s) are protected. The only people left out are the irresponsible breeders who make a buck at the expense of pit bulls and of the community. But why would anybody want to protect them?


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 4:59 pm

*********Betsy, *******************************

Nice spin, now provide links to just one court case that has determined all pit bulls to be dangerous, not individual pit bulls or, weither it's constitional. Show us a case that determined that pit bulls are dangerous. If what you say is true, I would think it would be easy for you.

Here's one of ours for you. It states:

"First, the Court ruled that the laws violated an owner's right to equal protection since there is no rational basis to single out pit bulls as inherently dangerous. It stated that breed-specific laws "have in the past been enacted based on outdated information that perpetuates a stereotypical image of pit bulls." The Court found no new evidence to prove that these breeds are any more dangerous than others. Regulating or limiting pit bull ownership was therefore "arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory."
Web Link

I think some points need to be clarified here Betsy, I hope you can do that for us. Let's forget about all the emotional opinions and get staight to the facts.

A- Do you have any evidence that hasn't already been refuted in a court room that pit bulls are more prone to attack?

B- Do you have any evidence that pit bull attacks are out of range or above and beyond what other breeds are capable of that hasn't already been refuted in court?

If you have evidence that we haven't dis-credited yet that shows pit bulls do fall into one of those two catergories, I would think a good person like yourself should have a moral responsibilty to show us. Not attack and degrade pit bull owners, help us. Show us how are dogs are out of range for canines please.

After thousands of years of co-existence between canines and humans, several court cases with the best experts from both sides and hundreds of dead victims, thousands more still alive, I would think this should be a clear cut case for you if pit bulls really were more dangerous. It should be an open and shut case. Or are you suggesting we haven't had enough pit bull attacks to make it conclusive? If it were true, how has it been disputed so well, why are we able to win anywhere, let alone every where?

If you people really were concerned about more victims you wouldn't be de-moralizing us, you would show us what you know as fact to try and help us. That's why people like myself find this to be disgusting. You pick and choose victims of dog attacks(My god, you USE dead children) and pull parts of the pit bulls history out of context to try and alieve what you fear. I find it sicking that people think it's okay for other breeds to kill people and only pass laws for pit bulls. It's irrational and some of us know better than to for this.

Ask ANY psychologists what group of people who attack their fears by de-grading and insulting them with out any signifigant reasons fall into. It's a phobia, I hate to be rude here(really I do) but, I don't know how else to say this, it's a mental disorder and pets are being taken from families and killed why you now ignore the fact JUST AS MANY PEOPLE AND MORE ARE NOW BEING KILLED BY CANINES. But that's okay, right? So long as those damn "evil" pit bulls are gone, right? It's disgusting and one day everyone will see this for what it is.






Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 5:04 pm

By the way, Bestuvall, you ask what breed will be next. My best guess is presa canarios. After all, this is an extremely rare breed that has been involved in two incredibly well publicized attacks on adult humans, both of which resulted in death.

We know that after Diane Whipple's death, presa canrio breeders experienced a TENFOLD increase in the number of puppy inquiries they got. I am sure that it is happening again, in the wake of the most recent tragedy in Florida.

So, pretend you are a presa canario breeder. You know that 90% of the calls you get for puppies are going to be people who are attracted to owning the breed precisely because they like the notion of owning a dog that can kill people. Some of these potential puppy buyers (admittedly) are going to be so overtly psychopathic that they won't be able to con a breeder, but some will know the right stuff to say ("yes, I want a family companion and I plan to intensively train and socialize it") to get a puppy. So there is a good chance that you are going to end up selling puppies to psychopaths who LIKE the notion that this dog has the potential to be a killer.

Even if the puppy buyer is fairly responsible, what kind of person wouldn't take a presa canario's reputation into account before they sought one out? Who is going to let their kids come over to play with your kids without knowing whether your presa canario might be a littermate of the dog who killed his owner because he didn't want a bath?

If it were me, and I bred presas, I'd spay and neuter everything I have. Of course, there are some people who won't do that. They will continue to sell presas to people who are attracted to them precisely because they terrify people. And these people will be the worst of the worst owners. So the breed is probably doomed.


Posted by Jeanne, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 5:10 pm

Communities have the right to pass ordinances regarding restrictions on domestic animals if those restrictions improve the quality of life/increase public safety for residents. Local officials who draft these ordinances should not respond to bullying by out-of-state special interest groups representing the commercial interests of breeders and/or dog fighters.

I would suggest that the residents of Palo Alto take a good look at "Cherie Graves" proposed "laws". They are ridiculous. Cherie Graves dog "regulations" don't regulate breeders AT ALL. So if your neighbor the drug addict decides to keep 10 pit bulls in his 3 room apartment, and breed his 110 pound human aggro pit bull for drug money, selling the puppies out of the back of his truck in the K-Mart parking lot for 50 bucks a pop, Cherie would make sure he was protected. And dog fighting? Cherie's "laws" protect them. She is careful to word her "regulations" to stipulate that fighting dogs in "public areas" is punishable...so that leaves dog fighting on private property legal. Her suggested punishment for people who particiapte in this barbaric and cowardly sport? Probation! And a fine!

News flash for Cherie...dog fighting is a FELONY in most states. If you are here to advocate for fewer restrictions on dog fighters in Palo Alto, please come out and say so.

And parents, pay special attention...according to Cherie's law, if your child is bitten by a dog because heaven forbid, he tried to pat one at the park, YOU will be charged with child endangerment, not the dog owner. So when Joe six-pack brings his muscle dog to a park 10 feet from a child's playground, and some 5 year old impulsively tries to pet his dog and gets her face ripped off, the dog owner will get off scott free and THE PARENT will be charged. And if his dog is IN the playground, and you are "innatentive" and your child gets too close, and his dog kills that child, YOU will be charged with negligent homicide, and the dog owner will walk. Sounds like a GREAT way for gang members to terrorize neighborhoods by threatening kids, huh?

Oh, and because Cherie and her organization "care" so much about dogs, she wants to fine people for dog abandonement....but her organization is AGAINST microchipping. So, Cherie, how are you going to know who abandoned the "abandoned" dogs? Is the dog going to tell you?

Cherie's regulations protect dog fighters, backyard breeders, puppy mills, and owners of dogs who attack children. Palo Alto residents should ignore the lunatic fringe who seem to represent the "pit bull lobby" and do what's best for their community.


Posted by Nick, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 5:32 pm

Sounds like we've got a few PeTA "No Birth Nation" activists runnin' loose 'round here. And that's a sad thing. They too are being used by the heads of these militant organizations, exploited, even brain-washed. When all is said and done, they'll be used and dispensed with. Animal Rights is all about power and control...or feelings of helplessness.

However, since when did pet ownership become so distastful that erasing a tradition that goes back thousands of years become the primary goal of these people?

I don't get it. Surely humanity is not so evil that this relationship with animals should be regulated out of existence. It should be honored. If we truly care about our animals today, we should care about them tomorrow. A dog that should be bred, should be bred...otherwise it should take its place as an honored pet, loved, and cared for. And you know what makes me feel good?

Most pets are. Very few aren't. That's a beautiful thing. Don't let anyone tell you that we othewise. Open and active pet-freindly communities are much more fun and rewarding to live in.

Let us hope that cooler heads prevail because living with pets SHOULD be fun and rewarding.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 5:39 pm

Not all my comments in the above post were directed at you Betsy, sorry for any confusion.


Posted by Katya, a resident of Mountain View
on Aug 31, 2006 at 5:43 pm

Noone wants pets to dissapear. I have not heard many Peta-esk remarks here.

One has to really be in denial not to see what a huge dog overpopulation problem we are having. It is pretty much out of control. I think it would be wonderful if pet population was being regulated. Leave pet breeding to qualified professionals, who would do it to better the breed. To breed best dog to best dog to produce correct dogs with stellar temperaments. We have problem dogs because of two reasons only:

1. Crappy breeding practices (oh, this dog has such a pretty eyes. I will breed her to the neighbors dog because he has such a big head) Temperament and health are usually out of the window with this one.

2. Crappy owners. Irresponsible owners are to blame for untrained, neusance dogs, who are dangerous to the surrounding.

It is not about the breed.


Posted by J.L., a resident of Ventura
on Aug 31, 2006 at 5:44 pm

If you're able to make that statement, than I guess you have not bought a pet or show-quality pet from a Fancier in the last 30 years. Our contracts are strict. We self-police ourselves. We're not the ones operating kill-centers and importing sickly dogs from other states and overseas. We're not the ones claiming to adopt pets but are actually some of the most profitable pet shops around. We're not the ones that equate pet ownership with slavery. We love our pets."

So, then what are you afraid of? if you're above board, and can meet requirements, go pass the test and pay the license fee. Simple.

Sounds like another NRA argument. It goes like this:mI've been buying guns for oyears and haven't killed anyone; why should I have to get a license?"
--------------------------------
--------------------------------


"What's more, if you think that more licensing is the solution, than perhaps you need to ask yourself why only about 10% of pets are licensed."

Because there are no MANDATORY licensing laws. You just proved my point - thanks!
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------


"Why can't a 2 dollar tag from a pet shop do the same thing?"

Because it's optional.
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------


"Why does it cost so much to enforce?"

Because there is no political or social will to deal with the problem. Why? because they're "Only" animals. You'd think the pet INDUSTRY would be thinking hard on this one- they're out to lunch.

---------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------


"How could licensing contribute to open and active pet-ownership?"

It would make breeding FAR more transparent, gurantee that people are getting what they pay for, keep more dishonest and abusive breeders out of business, insure that owners know how to care for a dog (or any pet) before they buy it - early development, training, feeding, socialization, etc. etc.) Currently, ALL this is optional, at GREAT personal cost to pets and society.



"Answer: pet licensing is a pet tax that can't even pay for itself. It's a waste of time and only serves the interests of militant animal rightist organizations or animal services that have been intensely lobbied by those very organiziations."
--------------------------
-------------------------
It's convenient to answer yor own question with preconceived answers. That really takes a lot of thought. How about opposing what I just put up, above?




"Let us hope that rational minds prevail and Palo Alto does not become a PeTA-approved co-op."
--------------------------------
"Rational minds"? It's interesting to see you take the high road of reason on this. Do you have a monopoly on that?

This isn't about "reason" or "argument", it's about the ignorant behavior of even well-meaning pet owners when it comes to understanding whattheir pets need, why they want a pet, how to protect their pets from becoming a danger to others and themselves, and on and on.

I have a friend who is a dog walker, and she tells me that most of her clients don't know the first thing about their pets; they just feed them. Sad.



Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 5:59 pm

Jeanne,
Post your organization's dog regulations. Lets see them side by side.
It is all very interesting to see your slanderous, bordering on liable remarks, without showing one shred of evidence. I know about dogfighting being illegal. I have the federal law in my file, as well as numerous state laws. I am also one of the founding members of the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Southern California, whose by-laws against dogfighting were written by me back in 1974. I am opposed to governments mandating the insertion of foreign objects into the bodies of my privately owned animals. The dogs that are most likely to be abandoned are those obtained from shelters. I have no objection to all animals coming out of shelters being microchipped, and spayed or neutered. The difference being the throw away animal versus the privately owned animal. Our Model is directed at dog owners. Let's see, I believe that the topic of this conversation was about banning specific breeds of dogs in Palo Alto. You are running way off topic.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156




Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 31, 2006 at 6:06 pm

All animals should be chipped, and maybe some humans. It's the safe and prudent thing to do. Show me one reason why animals shouldn't be chipped. (We'll save the humans argument for another time)


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 6:31 pm

As to what is a "pit bull," I know what a pit bull is.

I will ask again.. what does a "pit bull" or "pit bull mix' look like?. what is YOUR description of a "pit bull" or a "pit bull mix"// Your "knowing" does not answer my question.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 6:34 pm

All animals should be chipped

agreed .. as long as it is voluntary.. gee that goes for "humans" too


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 6:38 pm

Are you seriously advocating that domesticated animals should have the "right" to reproduce?

Bestsy:
Animals don't have "rights" .. at least not yet.. their owners do


Posted by Hermine Stover, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 7:25 pm

Has it only JUST reached the point where a person who is employed as a journalist can say just about anything as a valid opinion without having a scintilla of fact to back it up? ANYONE can have an ill- founded opinion. Many people do. But an opinion based on ignorance and vitriol becomes a dangerous thing when it is set in ink on paper, because it had the colour of credibility where none exists. Between "Locking Jaws", a call for extinction, a criminalizing of a dog breed or breeds, and the folks who own them and the general stench of hysterica, this is simply AWFUL JOURNALISM. In the largest sense it could be argued that many people die as the end result of bad journalism. so merely to be OP-ED is not a license to be BRAIN DEAD. May your life be saved, someday, by an American Pit Bull Terrier. I bred a dog who saved his owner's life. One of my dogs drove out an armed intruder. They have been in our family for three generations and have to date, killed nobody, even the armed intruded was not damaged. What is WITH you WITCH HUNT MENTALITY people? Don't you learn from history? I grieve for the future of the true United States Of America!


Posted by Nick, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 7:45 pm

Unfortunately, there will always be those who treat their pets as a lawn ornament. However, the best way to reach those people is to encourage them, engage them, educate them, have fun with them, befriend them, earn their trust, be worthy of that trust, and most of all, love their pets too.

The worst thing we could do is license them, regulate them, prohibit them, demonize and degrade them, and systematically destroy them.

You want an unsafe community? Then that is exactly what you do. Now THAT is sad...

So this is entirely about "reason". It is absolutely about being rational! There is nothing virtuous about stamping out another human being's property ownership, humanity's relationship with its pets, or being inherently destructive.

Animal rightism is destructive by its very nature. It does not create or think of the future in positive terms. And those who subscribe to its philosophy end up hurting a lot of people and doing communities a huge disservice. In the end, have they created anything? Do they end up feeling better about themselves?


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 7:46 pm

The difference between Jeanne, Betsy, BowWow, and a few other posters to this blog, and Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States is that we are established, respectable, honest, intelligent, capable, law abiding, and responsible. From our point of view the majority of people are also established, respectable, honest, intelligent, capable, law abiding, and responsible.

Those few mentioned above hide behind anonymity, they attack, they think that the majority of people are just like them. They must think that they, themselves are not capable of being good pet owners without the interference, and interdiction of government in their personal lives. They must be tempted to abuse, and mis-use animals in the very same ways that they accuse the rest of us. We are not of that category. We belive that education is far superior to the snatch-grab of human rights.

We look at our fellow citizens and we see good people. We treat others with due diligence, and with respect. They look at their fellow citizens and they see exactly what have been described in their posts. We all tend to see others through our own filters.

Our Model Dog Owner Regulations have been passed in Hazleton, Pennsylvania. Our Model is being considered in venues throughout the United States. We believe that our elected officials are not fools to be manipulated, but that they are representatives of we the people. They did not rise to their positions based upon being manipulated.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156
509-447-2821


Posted by hermine stover, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 7:51 pm

I notice with no small dismay, a personal attack against Cherie Graves, a dog person I have known in the real world for about fifteen years, and the breeder of some of my dogs. How is it possible from reading what Graves has written, to diagnose her as in favour of the usual stereotype, the drug-besotted moron with dogs three times PLUS the real weight of an average American Pit Bull Terrier, selling them out of the back of a pickup truck. And who is Joe Six Pack? A man with well developed abdominal muscles? A Native American? I thought he was a drug addict---now he is a beer enthusiast. It is so STARTLING to read about a flesh-and-blood person and to see that individual depicted as a work of fiction by somebody who has no actual knowledge of that person, but that is exactly what BREED SPECIFIC THINKING IS ABOUT! you substitute how you feel for WHAT YOU KNOW and then act upon it. It is also covert racism, and not so covert classism, both of these things a form of BIGOTRY. a BIGOT often claims the target of his or her hatred is inherently dangerous. We all do remember that large black men lust after small fragile blonde women, do we not? Not that long ago, this image was even a staple in pulp fiction.
Right now, I am SO MUCH MORE DANGEROUS than my dogs, perhaps you have no idea.


Posted by Nick, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2006 at 7:52 pm

J.L,

One more thing: if you are trying to make breeding more transparent by making laws more strict, perish the thought. 70-80 percent of the general public already spay/neuter their pets. That means only a few people other than show breeders have intact dogs.

So by using a vast number of municipal resources and civic funds to punish the most responsible pet owners in the world, you'll accomplish the opposite intent. You will just make communities less active, less open, less involved, and even more ignorant than they already are. I feel bad for the Fancy; they've been kicked around by you folks for a long time. They've been blamed for problems not of their making. And communities have lost out on an invaluable resource.

If communities want to gain, they'll loosen up on the pet regulations, encourage activities (which are good for the economy, by the way) and ask the Fancy and dog clubs alike to be more involved in education.

But you can't have it both ways.

Or, as they say: "You can't have your cake and eat it too."


Posted by Truth, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2006 at 8:12 pm

If we can all sit here and compare good and bad examples of pit bulls, doesn't that mean pit bull owners already won? Think about it...If we can find just a few examples of good pit bulls(which we have many more than just a few),it's already proved pit bulls are what the owners make of them...Kind of sounds like a normal dog to me. Just not in normal situations.

I mean, if the anti-pit bull people were right, how could we even have good pit bulls. What about the vast majority of pit bulls that never hurt a thing? Are they just flukes and the ones doing police work, therapy work, etc, etc, etc, extreme mishaps of the breed? I don't think so, it obviously shows these dogs are what the owner makes them and they are far from just a dangerous breed.

And the people that won't acknowledge the good side of pit bulls are obviously biased. Should we just consider the biased side of this story or should we also listen to the people who have experience with the breed and most likely know much more about the breed.

Would you ask a plumber or a mechanic to fix your car? I would at least give the mechanic a little more credit for knowing more about it. Maybe you think a plumber can do the job but, what if the mechanic STRONGLY disagreed with the plumber on what needs to be fixed? Who would you trust more on the subject?


Posted by Truth, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 8:17 pm

One more part to my analogy.

What if the plumber already had his chance and "fixed" a few other cars(Denver, etc...) and the cars still had the same problems? Would you still let the plumber fix your car?


Posted by Truth, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 8:27 pm

Albert Einstein described insanity as "trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", Hmmm, I wonder what he would of thought about breed bans...INSANE!!!!


Posted by Julie, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 31, 2006 at 8:38 pm

There is not much to add at this point, but I still want to make my point.
I am a dog-lover myself, but I still believe that pit bulls should be banned.
I know it is not the dog's fault if they attack someone, because it is what they are bred for. No pit bull lover can deny that they are bred for fighting purposes. Once they decide to attack something, they will not stop until their prey (or they) are dead. But it also not a small child or dog's fault if they come up to a pit bull unaware of how dangerous these dogs are. Overall, it is the owner's fault if they cannot control their dogs enough to prevent them from killing children or other dogs. If we cannot come up with an idea to prevent such gruesome incidents, I feel there is no choice but to ban them.


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 31, 2006 at 9:04 pm

"The worst thing we could do is license them, regulate them, prohibit them, demonize and degrade them, and systematically destroy them.

You want an unsafe community? Then that is exactly what you do. Now THAT is sad..."
------------------------------------
Right. Like licensing drivers, doctors, attorneys, veterinarians, gun owners, atc. atc. atc. has made life more chaotic.

So far, all I see here are appeals to emotion about how this or that dog saved a life,, and/or "how it's a peaceful breed", and so on.

Not one word about how to change anything except for "educating" dog owners. This, even in face of the fact that psychopathic and criminal elements who buy (or steal) dogs prefer certain breeds. Why is this? It's because those breeds have a bred in reputation to take down a human or animal.

Then, when someone dies or gets maimed, it's "let's educate the dog owners", or it's not the dog's fault", etc. etc. and on and on it goes.

I love dogs, and I would have NO problem taking a serious course online that would require me to pass a test before I could own ANY pet. What are you afraid of? And please don't give this business about how licensing makes things worse. Say that to yourself the next time you see a physician, and save the emotional appeals for the tavern.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 9:32 pm

"I love dogs, and I would have NO problem taking a serious course online that would require me to pass a test before I could own ANY pet"

did you also get your college degree "online"...?? because that amke about as much sense..
if you want an "education' about pet ownership.. read the positive things said about here.. an "online test" ?? how would that work.. would you have a "virtual dog" to use?? come on now.. you are JOKING right??
By the way.. stil no answer on the description of a "pit bull" or "pit bull mix' from any "expert" out there.. come on Betsey.. come on John... let's hear it .. what does a "pit bull" and a "pit bull mix" look like.. I have a feeling it is like "art".. you don't know what it is.. but you will know it if you see it.. I love an "expert" with no credentials....they are so "full of themselves... PLEASE answer my question.. what does a "pit bull" look like.. after all you may have to take an "online" test to own one...


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 9:37 pm

"I am a dog-lover myself, but I still believe that pit bulls should be banned. "

This is an oxymoron


Posted by Juliette, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 9:39 pm

I have been reading the comments that this article has generated. It is going to be very difficult to say something original as so much has already been covered. However, I would like to address several points made by other posters here.

Observer, when referring to pitbull owners who have written here, described them as "...angry, ready to attack, impetuous, dangerous people..." I disagree with the hysterical overtones of those words, however I would like to ask you WHY you think these people are angry? I do not believe that it is because (as some seem to think) all pitbull owners have one brain cell that they share among themselves. People are angry because something that they have a passion for is under threat. How many of you posting here have become angry when something you love has been threatened? We have a lot of evidence in this thread of anti-pit bull persons becoming angry because something that THEY care passionately about is percieved as under threat. It is the same with 'pit bull' people. Just because they are angry does not mean that they are inherently evil or irresponsible. Nor does it mean that they are any more 'dangerous' than the next person when it comes to displaying anger. People tend to get angry when they get upset. It is a part of human nature and in no way exclusive to owners of 'pit bulls'.

I agree with Novice who writes: "...The detractors simply haven't countered much of the logic or statements presented by the pitbull folks. For the most part they don't seem to be trying to..."

An example of this lack can be found in J.L's post when J.L says, "...The NRA makes similar arguments about guns. They say "it's not the gun, it's the owner of the gun that is the problem". It's a pretty weak argument..." J.L. are you REALLY trying to compare animals to guns? To my knowledge a gun is not a living thing. It sits in a safe (or wherever)and does not do anything (usually) until someone picks it up and attempts to use it in some way. How many dogs, which happen to be living things, do you know who sit in a safe (or wherever) doing absolutely nothing until they are taken out and are attempted to be used in some way? How is it possible (or helpful) to compare a non-living thing with a living thing in this instance?

And then there is Betsy, who countered Bestuvall's very reasonable request to describe a Pit Bull with [paraphrasing here] "I know what pit bulls look like. So do a lot of people". Betsy seems to 'know' a lot, including the reason why persons choose to own particular breeds of dog. Betsy claims that they are "psychopaths who LIKE the notion that this dog has the potential to be a killer". How do you KNOW that, Betsy? How can you claim to know 1) that a person is a psychopath (which is a clinically diagnosable mental disorder that can only be diagnosed by psychiatric analysis, and the term 'psychopath' is no longer used with any freqency as a definition within the Mental Health Disciplines anyway)and 2)that the reason they have chosen a particular breed is because they "LIKE" the idea that this dog can kill? That is a very bold statement to make. It assumes an omnipotent and omnipresent ability that you have in your own personal arsenal. I have had herders all of my life. As you seem to know WHY a person selects a particular breed I would like you to tell me why *I* chose herders as you seem so well versed in the workings of other peoples' minds.

It seems to me that a lot of the arguments put forth by 'anti pit bull' persons here are based on stereotypes about both 'owners' and the dogs, themselves. I have lost count of the number of times I have read words like 'evil' and 'killing machines' and 'irresponsible' and 'thugs' and 'drug dealers' and 'scum'. I could go on, but I think I have made my point. How many of you, when you think about 'pit bull' owners, have an image in your mind of a gangster of some description? How many of you, when you visualise an image of a 'pit bull' see a snarling dog, all teeth and muscle with a slight tinge of red to the eyes? If you answered "Yes, that is what I see", then I think you have been an unfortunate victim of 'stereotyping'.

I have seen a picture of Cherie Graves, for example. And I can tell you all that there is not a 'do rag' in sight. I also saw no tattoos to speak of, although she was fully dressed in the photo! And I have seen plenty of pictures of 'pit bulls' too. I cannot recall any that stand out in my memory as 'all teeth and muscle with glowing red eyes'. There was ONE photo I saw that showed two such dogs licking a gent half to death. He had fallen asleep as a result of this attack upon his person; obviously tired out by the struggle for his life.

It seems that statements such as "all dogs have the potential to be dangerous" goes largely unheard by those whose agenda appears to be to eradicate 'pit bulls' from society. Any 'pit bull' person who points this out seems to be accused of hiding behind some kind of 'excuse' or 'whining' that other dogs attack too. It is not an excuse, and it is not 'whining'. It is true. Will it make any difference that a 'herder' person (rather than a 'pit bull' person) is telling you all the same thing?

ALL dogs have the potential to be dangerous, given the right (or wrong) situation. To ignore the reality of this and focus only on the 'pit bull' across the road is to ignore an important point to remember when the next door neighbour's labrador is sizing up your toddler!

Juliette.


Posted by asdfg, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 9:47 pm

"even in face of the fact that psychopathic and criminal elements who buy (or steal) dogs prefer certain breeds. Why is this? It's because those breeds have a bred in reputation to take down a human or animal."

I wonder where half these dim witted thugs heard about the reputation from?...

I wonder how many of the dogs were killed because they didn't live up to this mythological super beast that we all hear about that seems to defy everything we know about genetics, canine behaviour, biological canine mechanisms, and domesticated pets. Tell me, how is it possible?

Think about this. This whole breed thing is still a new idea in the canine evoulution. Up until around 150 years ago dogs were known not by breeds but for the job they performed. Our dogs shared hundreds of thousands of years of evolving togeter. They really didn't even start becoming strictly companions until they started becoming breeds. They ALL were work dogs. Do you honestly think we somehow drastically altered a breed of canines, seperating it far from the likes of other canines in even a few hundred years? All our dogs still live by "wolf pack" psychology for god sakes after hundreds of thousands of years of domestication. How did we all the sudden create a monster when all we have learned to do is manipulate a canine using that ancient "wolf pack" way of life. C'mon people.

Besides, the most common gun used in crimes is a 9 mm. Are thugs choosing the most deadly gun? Are they even using quality guns? They use whatever is available, cheap, abundant and has a reputation. even if the reputation is known to be false by the gun fanatics or the pit bull fanatics.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 9:56 pm

"If the local animal control person identifies your beagle/boxer mix as a pit bull and you think that is in error, all you have to do is microchip and spay your dog"

Bestsy Betsty Besty .. a dog cannot be "spayed".. a dog is a male ,..a bitch is a female.. so since you cannot even get your "terms" about dogs straight I understand why you cannot describe a "pit bull" or a "pit bull mix" although i would still like to see you "give it a go"..as you have stated that you do know what one "looks like"..
would like to see this senario::
the bitch is 13 and cannot undergo surgery.the dog is 14 and it a risk to put them under ... or has health issues.. or you just don't want to spay/neuter them even though they have NEVER produced a puppy.. Yes Betsey.. there are dogs who have gone their whole lives intact with a responsible owner who has never spayed their bitch or neutered their dog.. they have just been RESPONSIBLE and not bred them and not allowed them to be in a situation where an "accident" can happen. .. can you IMAGINE THAT???? a responsible person.. just because a dog or bitch is "intact' deos not mean it HAS to reproduce..no matter what PETA or the HSUS says.. DUHHHHHHHHHH and by the way.. the "animal control" persons are less likely to know what any breed of dog is.. just like you.. they are "guessing'... mixed breeds CANNOT be indenified without DNA


Posted by me, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:10 pm

this article is based on the authors opinions, no proven facts were used in the false statements made. such as huge powerful LOCK jaws. sounds like a comic book. pit bulls DO NOT have lock jaws. hundreds of pit bull attacks have not taken place in palo alto. do some research before you open your mouth about something you know nothing about. dont jump on the ban wagon when it's the cool thing to do, stories are are not hard to come by. try to find something else to write about next time or at least get your facts (opinions) straight. you dont know a pit bull until you own a pit bull. they are individuals just like me and you. whats next? human banning! you dont judge an entire race of people for what a few have done. do you?

pit bulls are strong animals with big hearts the breed has been loyal to me for 23 years. weak


Posted by me, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:11 pm

this article is based on the authors opinions, no proven facts were used in the false statements made. such as huge powerful LOCK jaws. sounds like a comic book. pit bulls DO NOT have lock jaws. hundreds of pit bull attacks have not taken place in palo alto. do some research before you open your mouth about something you know nothing about. dont jump on the ban wagon when it's the cool thing to do, stories are are not hard to come by. try to find something else to write about next time or at least get your facts (opinions) straight. you dont know a pit bull until you own a pit bull. they are individuals just like me and you. whats next? human banning! you dont judge an entire race of people for what a few have done. do you?

pit bulls are strong animals with big hearts the breed has been loyal to me for 23 years. weak


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:15 pm

"If it were me, and I bred presas, I'd spay and neuter everything I have. Of course, there are some people who won't do that. They will continue to sell presas to people who are attracted to them precisely because they terrify people. And these people will be the worst of the worst owners. So the breed is probably doomed."

I know a few Presa owners.. remember I am an AKC judge.. I see them at shows with their dogs.. they seem to be nice people and their dogs are well behaved in and out of the ring.. but I am sure they go home and feed them little children for dinner because they are the "worst of the worst owners".and only bought the dogs to "terrify people" not to show them and have them as pets... funny I don't think they know that.. perhaps you should call some Presa breeders and let them know their bred is "doomed".as you seem to know best.. . oh and I guess if you were to have children and one committed a criminal act you would have the rest sterilzed right away..right after yourself and your mate.. after all ..It's in the genes..and why should your extended family be "allowed to reproduce".. in fact as a citizen . I would INSIST upon it. I would be terrified of your whole family.. even your grandparents,, after all.. one of you is a criminal.. doesn't that make the rest of you the same.. sure it does..


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:45 pm

"My ideal law would mandate microchipping of all pit bulls and spay/neuter of all pit bull type dogs (and mixes) UNLESS the dog was an AKC or UKC-PR registered dog and was the owner could provide proof both of registration and that the dog was participating regularly (say, once a year, at a minimum) in AKC or UKC events."

Bestey:
Can you say "elitist".??. cause you sure can point it out why should people have to show their dogs in order to breed them...?? I am an AKC judge and I encourage the "hobby of showing excellent specimens of the breed".. BUT showing dogs is a VERY expensive hobby .. some who would like to "participate regularly" may not be able to do so in a years time.or at any time. They might not be able to afford to travel to a show.. there may be no shows in their locale.. (not everyone lives in Palo Alto.. nor do they have the means of the "plain folks" in Palo Alto) Just coming to the show is not "showing".. there is special equipment, entry fees. grooming.travel expenses .. and more.
BUT why try to explain it to you.. you don't even know what a "pit bull" looks like... or do you..?? sure would like to have just a sentence or two from you on this very simple question....I just don't seem to be able to get an answer.

By the way I am an AKC judge AND a Director for the Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States. and the vice president of my local breed club.. do you have an "credentials" that qualify you as an expert.. any that you would be willing to share.. that is???


Posted by Hermine Isabel Stover, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 10:53 pm

People who have wrongful opinions which they hoist here as FACT are asking for substantiated PROOF that they are wrong. Now, how do I prove my dogs do not have a special and unique mechanism for locking their jaws? Everyone is invited to my house to stick their hands in the mouth of any of my dogs, and look for the special locking mechanism. HONEST! feel around in there. The dogs won't mind, I clean their teeth often and have inspected inside their mouths since puppy hood. find me one locking mechanism. Find one anatomical piece of evidence, one rotten little Xray showing such a structure.

As far as I KNOW...Cherie Graves is not tattooed. But I am. Does this matter? How broad a brush does it take to smear a breed of dog, or a dog presumed to be a member of a breed, in whole or in part, or bearing any substantial resemblance to that breed (which is not the name of a breed anyway, but I am going along with it for NOW).
How many people do my dogs have to NOT BITE in order for them to be non-biting dogs? and one more thing, is RACIAL PROFILING turning into the new national pastime?

hermine stover
Secy and Media Liaison
Responsible Dog Owners Of The Western States
23280 Stephanie
Perris CA 92570
951 943 0990


Posted by Hermine Isabel Stover, a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:04 pm

I noticed this statement made here: "Ahhh, now I get it...Cherie Graves is a shill for the puppy mill industry....euphemistically called "commercial dog breeders". I went to the web-site. Her organization wants to protect the rights of commercial kennels, pet shops, and back yard breeders.....the very people who have a HUGE financial stake in fighting any and all regulations against dog breeding."

Well, what with one thing and another, it took me about ten years to move up to the top of Cherie Graves wait-list for the right pup. you who know NOTHING about her, do her a great disservice, because I know that she thinks long and hard before doing a breeding, they are few, far between and planned three generations in advance. Her organization is also MY organization. the name means what it says, it is not a coverup for some unscrupulous piece of business.

However, the loons of the PETANS have set breeder against breeder, the ancient game of divide-and conquor, by saying some are back yard breeders, (as if the front lawn is the proper place to whelp a litter), and still others are "puppy millers".

What point would there be in breeding these dogs at all, when to hear tell of it, the shelters are all bursting at the seams with them? You could get one dirt cheap for the asking.
Somebody also said, these were once "dogs of war" and thus have no place in our society. So tell me, when our soldiers in combat return home from duty, do THEY have a place in society?
hermine stover
Secy and Media Liaison
Responsible Dog Owners Of The Western States
23280 Stephanie
Perris CA 92570
951 943 0990


Posted by Brian, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:48 pm

Maybe, it just happened to me that everytime I heard news about dogs killing people or other anamals, it's always the "Pit Bull"??


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:56 pm

Nick,
I agree with all of your reasonable and informative posts. I just wanted to clarify that I was not the person who wrote the post you attributed to me earlier today. That was "Bow-wow."
I don't take offense - his/her post was confusing. Just wanted to make sure you knew I was not of the same opinions as him/her.

Betsy and Jeanne - take a pill. I have never read so many inflammatory, insulting statements. If I were to believe anything either of you has written I would also have to buy into your lofty position above the rest of us peons. Oops! I don't.

Cherie Graves,
Thank you for such informative articles and links. It was your posts that first made me realize that there are far greater issues involved here than just banning breeds. The right to own and use property, to not be subjected to search and seizure, etc. Those are weighty issues and for people to not realize they are at play here is a grave oversight.

Can't remember if it was Nick or Bestuvall who pointed out that a dog's vote counts. I am proud to say that I was one of the voices that succeeding in preventing Speiers from holding office, and I'll be doing my part again in the upcoming election/s. Can't wait to check off a box near, but not on, our dear Governor's name, who signed SB861 into law. I've let him know that I'll be voting against him for that reason alone, as I will continue to do so for any politician I can vote against until CA is safe from the tyranny of breed bans. I'm proud to say I was one of many who were successful in my area from keeping several people who participated in pushing that bill through from taking office again. Of course, we all let them know why we did not vote for them.

Oh, and for the folks that want Betsy to reveal her qualifications for "pit bull," give it up. She's already stated that pit bulls can be over a hundred pounds. The only thing she can describe accurately is her prejudiced, hateful view of humanity.

Lisa

PS. Jeanne: I rescued both of my Dogo Argentinos. The first before I had ever heard of the breed. Yeah, you're right. It was my genius IQ and my ego that made me do it.

PPS. To the editor who apparently uses the same criteria for deleting posts as people who support breed bans: you should be deleting every one of Betsy and Jeanne's posts. I'm surprised you don't think their racist, insulting, slanderous, and disrespectful posts qualify for your edit/delete button. But, of course, you haven't deleted Diana's blog entry either.


Posted by Lana, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 1, 2006 at 12:04 am

Scary!

Web Link

Web Link">


Posted by Lana, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 1, 2006 at 12:17 am



All these discussions are well summarized here:

Web Link


Posted by Lana, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 1, 2006 at 12:42 am

YouTube video news about pit bull attacks!

In Oakland:
Web Link

This video requires user login because it is too brutal. Web Link

If you are the Pit Bull owners and still click on the above link, even knowing it is brutal, you should know by now why you like your dogs subconsciously.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 3:43 am

bestuvall,

I agree that my knowing what a pit bull looks like doesn't adequately define pit bulls for the purpose of criminal prosecution for the ownerership of pit bulls. (Although state courts have uniformly--except for Massachusetts--rejected this "void for vagueness" argument, saying that dog owners know what kind of dog they have) But I don't (and never have) advocate criminal prosecution for the mere ownership of pit bulls. I advocate mandatory microchipping and spay neuter for all pit bulls and pit bull mixes (except for AKC registered and UKC-PR registered show dogs). If the enforcement here is a bit overbroad and an occasional lab/boxer mix is thrown into the net and required to be microchipped/spayed, too, so what? Either she is owned by a responsible person, in which case she is ALREADY spayed/neutered and microchipped, or she isn't. Either way she (and dogs in general and the community) are better off). Of course, there would have to be some kind of appeal built into the system where you could argue that your supposed "pit bull" really was a dogo or a boxer/beagle or whatever, but probably VERY few people would take advantage of that, unless they had a good reason to keep their dog intact because, frankly, arguing about it would be more trouble than just complying with the darn law.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 3:54 am

Juliette,

Please do not take what I write out of context. I wrote about the FACT that after the Diane Whipple killing, presa canario breeders reported that requests for puppies increased tenfold. The only logical conclusion is that 90% of those prospective puppy buyers were attracted to the presa canario BECAUSE they read how a presa canario launched an entirely unprovoked, sustained, horrific attack that resulted in the death of an athletic, healthy adult. Would you not describe people who think it would be fun to own such a dog as "psychopaths?"


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 4:04 am

The notion that the concept of racism has anything to do with regulating dog breeding is insulting, untrue and offensive. It also demonstrates that the writer doesn't understand what responsible dog breeding is about.

The responsible breeding of domesticated animals (particularly dogs) requires practices that would be horrific and racist if applied to groups of humans. Responsible dog breeders absolutely control the reproductive rights of the animals in their care and utilize involuntary sterilization to make sure that animals with health, temperament or conformation problems do not reproduce. This is not "racism" although it certainly would be racism (and worse) if similar practices were applied to humans. As applied to domestic animals, however, it is responsibility and stewardship.

So, please, let up on the "racism" comments....


Posted by Carol, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 4:13 am

Hey Brian

Becasue the media assumes it's a pit. But half the time there is never a picture, they just assume like everyone else!

I wonder if any of you haters actually spent time with a pitbull????? Probably not, because then you might change your opinion. You would definately be surprised!


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 4:26 am

Truth,

Re your argument about "good" pit bull owners with dogs that are not dangerous: I know some truly great, responsible pit bull owners who have a rescue pit bull (a very cute one, too) who desperately wants to kill other dogs. These owners have done everything possible right and taken the dog to multiple obedience classes, worked diligently with the dog, socialized the dog, spayed the dog (of course), but if this dog lived next door to me, I would be VERY concerned, because she absolutely would like to kill my dogs and is quite capable of doing it if she gets off leash.

This isn't the fault of her owners. They were, perhaps, naive when they adopted her and believed "it's all in how you raise them," but they really are great dog owners. They tell me, sadly, that they'd love to foster other dogs in need, but it would be impossible with the dog they have since the likelihood is that she would kill them.

The truth is that many pit bulls are going to be dangerously dog aggressive no matter how much effort people put into raising them. This is a breed that has been bred for hundreds of years specifically for the genetic predisposition to charge across a pit, attacking another dog without provocation. The United Kennel Club pit bull breed standard recognizes that "most" pit bulls are dog aggressive.

Pit bulls are also increasingly being bred for the genetic predisposition to be aggressive and dangerous toward people. According to Katie Dineen (co-founder of BADRAP) "A lot of the pit bull community doesn't want to acknowledge that these dogs can be aggressive to people, but in the Bay area shelters, it's become a significant problem...in the past 20 years, unethical people have not only tolerated aggression toward people, but have encouraged it and have been breeding for it."


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 5:14 am

Bestuvall,

You object to the notion that the only pit bulls who should stay intact are AKC and UKC-PR show dogs and call it "elitist."

Why are you so desperate to protect protect pit bull breeders? Why not focus a bit more on protecting pit bulls? Aren't there PLENTY of great pit bulls dying every day in shelters near you for want of a good home? If a responsible person wants a great pit bull to be a companion, wouldn't there be a pit bull rescue who would be overjoyed to snatch a appropriate pit bull from death row and give it to them?

Can you explain to the pit bulls on death row that they have to die because somebody who couldn't even afford to take his pit bull to one dog show a year ("showing is expensive" you say--entry fees are about $25...how is this person going to afford doing the health checks necessary for breeding, much less the c-section if the bitch has problems?) just HAS to breed his dog? If a breeder can't make his dogs enough of a priority to attend one dog show a year and spend $25 per year in entry fees, is he REALLY the kind of person you want to entrust the survival of pit bulls to?

I want pit bulls to survive, although whether they will survive is looking more doubtful every day since the pit bull community doesn't want to make any sacrifices on behalf of the dogs. If they are to survive, there will have to be breeders. As things stand now, with the crisis of so many pit bulls dying every day because of the glut of pit bull overbreeding, the best policy is the one which eliminates MOST pit bull breeding. Allowing only show dogs to be intact and (potentially) to be bred is a good way to do that and eliminates NO breeder who should be breeding dogs. Or, you can go with your "solution" and hope that the literally thousands of irresponsible pit bull breeders out there will all spontaneously stop pumping out puppies.


Posted by Jeanne, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 6:19 am

Well, according to the city website of Hazelton Pa, they haven't adopted Cherie graves regulations...here is a link to a partial listing of AC regulations Web Link

The city of Hazelton requires animals to be "vacinated and licensed", and also stipulates limitations on the numbers of animals owned, requiring those who own more than four animals to notify the health department and register. I don't see anything that indicates dog fighting should be considered a misdemeanor, either.

RDOOWS seems more interested in protecting breeders rights, and the website lists, among their enemies, Doris Day...apparently her foundation has the gall to promote alternatives to animal testing, advocate for the bittering of anti-freeze to prevent dog poisoning, push for a ban on slaughtering horses for human consumption in Europe, help people create trusts to care for their pets after death,...oh, and advocates against puppy mills and promotes a license vanity plate that will help fund spay and neuter campaigns.

Maybe RDOOWS should take five minutes and do a google search and see the many dog fighting websites and message boards, and all the breeders advertising and selling puppies from fighting bloodlines to fellow dog fighters. I would worry more about them than Doris Day.

And with that, I take me leave of you all. To the PAO staff, thanks for your patience and time moderating this discussion, but the word is now out in lunatic fringe of the pit bull lobby that there is a discussion taking place about regulating pit bulls, so you may as well close the thread. Most of these folks don't live in PA, anyway, and the discussion is degenerating into threats and insults, as it always does. I'm sure Diana Diamond and her family are receiving death threats by now.

For the record, I live in an east coast community that has no dangerous dog regulations. We have had some scary incidents, (several involving pit bulls), and I have been doing research on dangerous dog regulations in other communities across the country, in the hopes that we can find a good model that will pass our city solicitors muster.

What I have learned is that any local public discussions surrounding bull-breeds quickly degenerates upon the appearance of the "pit bull lobbyists", and all these shady psuedo-organizations that show up with their cheesy web sites and their talking points. Many of these folks are what dog lovers refer to as BYBers, (back yard breeders), who have a financial interest in blocking all dog breeding regulation. Some are probably dog fighters. These discussions all follow a similar pattern, with "experts" from these "organizations" here to educate us...then there is always someone posing as a "neutral observer", who will make several observations about how the "pit bull people" have a better argument and are "convincing him" that their view is the right one.(That's been done here) We will get the weepy, emotional pleas to watch the "pit bull problem" video. We will get a lot of young women with too much time on their hands, on the verge of hysteria, who have been convinced by pit bull lobbyists that because a lady journalist half way across the country does a brief OP-Ed piece on banning pit bulls, the local sherrif is going to come knocking on her trailer door any minute to drag away her pet pit bull. The words.."you people are so ignornat!" will be repeated a thousand times.

Then, as word of the discussion spreads, you will start to get the more menacing posts..like the one who assured me he/she was SO much more dangerous than his dogs.

Responsible owners and breeders of bull breeds are so overshadowed by the criminals, lunatics, extremists, and plain old bad owners and breeders, this topic can't even be discussed rationally in public.


Good luck to the people of PA, I hope you manage to find a way to keep your community safe for people and their pets.


Posted by Victoria, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:12 am

I am shocked by the ignorance and ill-will being spewed here, and even more so, annoyed by the characterization of this breed.

I AM a typical Pit Bull owner: both my husband and I hold Masters degrees, work in the corporate world at the executive level and pay an obscene amount of taxes on the six figure incomes we earn. We average 20-30 hours of non-profit, volunteer work on a weekly basis with 3 different organizations.

Despite the assessment that I own a dog like this to satisfy my secret inner criminal, I adopted this dog after fostering him when he proved capable of living peacefully with my children, cats, other dogs and horses.

All of you posting here with some uneducated, narrow-minded dribble about banning pit bulls, hear this well: Society would be lucky if you gave as much back as my family does, so perhaps instead of attempting to slander people like us, you should put your energy into actually making the world a better place. That is not accomplished by demanding that others surrender their legal rights, but by getting off your soapboxes and actually doing something other than shrieking your entitlement-oriented demands.

You think Pit Bulls are evil? Then go volunteer in a shelter and offer to hold them while they are euthanized, if you hate them so much. Even that would be an improvement over this tragically uneducated, action-less spewing of hate, misinformation and outright stupidity.


Posted by truth, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:33 am

Betsy,

I'm sure plumbers have driven cars too. I'm still going to take my car to a mechanic, how about you?


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:38 am

Link to Hazleton Ordinance

Web Link

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156
509-447-2821


Posted by Shadow, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:53 am

Befor you think of opening your mouth again and spewing out ignorant urban legends, maybe check the statistics with reputable agencies such as American Temperment Test Society.
Web Link
There are so many resources to get accurate information I can`t believe narrow minded people are still trying to kill this breed.
Yes pitbulls have been involved in bittings, but far fewer than most common breeds that are deemed "perfect family pets". Don't alway trust the media, some news agencies commonly report a pitbull attack when the dog obviously isn't, they just say that to get uneducated people wound up and make their ratings soar.
My advice to you is next time you want to say something, make sure you have at least some idea of what you are talking about.


Posted by Suzanne M., a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:42 am

MeadowMark makes a great point. I speak as someone who used to work for an Animal Services in the East Bay. Also, as a resident of Mountain View where I see many unleashed dogs in city parks - I'm sure Palo Alto is the same. Many people do not realize how common it is for dogs to fight. Many times no real damage is done, but the potential is always there especially if the dogs are different sizes. I've heard many people say their dog has never done this before and they are right, but there is always a first time. Even a very people friendly dog who has never before bitten another dog can do so because it suddenly feels threatened or wants to show dominance. Even small dogs can inflict a painful bite on a human or a dog and the hassle you will go through afterward is not worth it. Most Animal Control Services will recommend that any dog that bites a human or another animal be euthanized - especially if it is large. There are several reasons for this. One, it may mean that the animal will do it again. Two, it is simply easier than guessing at what may have been the cause of a dog fight. Three, if something else did happen, the city or county could be considered liable. It is not that animal services workers do not care for animals - they definitely do, but they quickly become used to putting many animals to sleep - they have to, or, like me, they leave the job. I did not want to feel that this was ever routine, so I went back to school to do something else. I realize that both the dogs in question were on a leash, but I write as someone who has dealt with dog problems and I'd like to remind everyone that since dogs can fight it is wiser to just keep your dog away from other dogs unless you know them, and if your dog is off leash the odds are it will run into other dogs.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:50 am

Uh, Truth, I have no idea what you are talking about with your references to plumbers and mechanics. You have lost me....


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:04 am

As Jeanne says, these discussions pretty much always take the same route, with the folks who are making money off breeding pit bulls (the vast majority of whom are irresponsible) citing to the same ridiculous "experts" and websites.

Glen Bui, have you sued anybody over this yet? If not, what were you threatening to do to Diana Diamond if she didn't come around to your way of thinking in 24 hours?

And, predictably, we have the middle class folks saying that they are "typical" pit bull owners. Uh, no, Victoria. As you note, there are plenty of pit bulls available to be held while they are killed at your local shelter. Did YOU breed any of those pit bulls on death row? Did any of your masters degree-holding, good deed-doing friends breed those pit bulls? No. So where did they all these thrown away pit bulls come from, if pit bull owners are "typically" such fine, upstanding, respectable people? Just because your own pit bull is well cared for, do you think it is okay not to advocate solutions for all the other pit bulls who are dying? (And, sometimes, killing other dogs because they have been bred NOT to get along with other dogs, unlike the one you were lucky enough to get. And, occasionally, killing children and old people, because--as Katie Dineen notes--there is a big problem with people breeding pit bulls for aggression toward humans, too).

And, finally, (predictably) we have Shadow, who links us back to the American Temperament Test Society website! We have already discussed why the numbers on this website proves NOTHING about the relative stability of various dog breeds.


Posted by Nick, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:41 am

Sorry 'bout that Lisa...my mistake.

To the person who posted the video:

The video posted here is just one more absurd example these animal rightists and their hysterical counterparts use to justify themselves. This is BY FAR the exception to the rule. Basing dog law on the number of incidents or attacks is pure intellectual laziness and political opportunism. As a population, they are rare. Based upon the dog population, they are rare.

And I have yet to see how BSL and stricter ordinances are going to help. In fact, they make it worse. Look at some cities with the worst offenders. They have some of the strictest laws in the country. (gasp!) Imagine that!!!


Posted by Whatta Sh*tSt*rm!, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 11:11 am

It's great to see all those posts, even if people like John are obviously off their rocker. None of it really matters, though, but it sure is entertaining!


Posted by bestvuall, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 12:59 pm

"the local sherrif is going to come knocking on her trailer door any minute to drag away her pet pit bull. The words.."you people are so ignornat!" will be repeated"

NOW REPEAT AFTER ME>>> I AM NOT AN ELITIST>> I AM NOT AN ELITIST... I will never again demean a person who lives in a "trailer".. or any other dwelling that I find "offensive".. I will not cast aspersions on those less fortunate than myself".. repeat this as a MANTRA to yourself elitist little selves thousands of times daily.. perhaps if you do you can begin to become a real human being... BEASTY and JEAMEAM.. your prejudice is showing (again)


Posted by Brett Fitzeger, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 1:18 pm

I've always just assumed pit bulls were a bad breed. After reading many of these posts, it's clear this is a ownership problem. I will now vote no to breed bans if they were to come up in my area. Thank you for allowing this forum for the best agruements I've heard from both sides. It was very interesting and I learned about people and the "fear factor". It certainly seems irrational.

As for the dogs that attacked. Does anyone else see the irony in the two pure breeds sitting on command, off leash, during an attack and, being good dogs while the mix attacked.

Brett Fitzeger
Republican but the the 'Bushy' kind.


Posted by Brett Fitzeger, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 1:19 pm


Brett Fitzeger
Republican but *NOT* the 'Bushy' kind.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 1:22 pm

"So where did they all these thrown away pit bulls come from, if pit bull owners are "typically" such fine, upstanding, respectable people?"
Dear Betsy.. aka ELITIST..
Where do ALL of the animals in the shelter come from.. Perhaps more "pit bulls"..whatever they are.. would be "ADOPTABLE"' if people like YOU spent all of your free time at the shelters working with "pit bulls' ONLY.. training them ..walking them.. taking them places to show people how wonderful they can be.perhaps even adopting one yourself... making sure they have good homes.. ( those who live in trailers.. or have tattoos need not apply.. right?)..and of course.. like ANY dog who is adopted from ANY shelter.. that they are spayed or neutered. The reason there are so many "pit bulls' killed is that "SOCIETY" had demonized them.. the media has vilied them.. most of us are rational humans .. we know that not every dog can be saved at the shelter.. some are sick.. some are old.. some are "PIT BULLS" and who is their "right mind" would want to dog that is a "MONSTER" so of course they are passed over.. and killed.. you just don't get it Beasty.. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM...to be a part of the "solution" you have to want to help.. and not just by spouting your Animal Rights rhetoric.. get out there and DO SOMETHING..


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 1:31 pm

"All of you posting here with some uneducated, narrow-minded dribble about banning pit bulls, hear this well: Society would be lucky if you gave as much back as my family does, so perhaps instead of attempting to slander people like us, you should put your energy into actually making the world a better place. That is not accomplished by demanding that others surrender their legal rights, but by getting off your soapboxes and actually doing something other than shrieking your entitlement-oriented demands."

Victoria:
I could not have said it better.. you must be a "master degreed" "pit bull" owner who lives in a trailer and has mass quantities of tattoo's.. by they way do you shave your head.. that would make it perfect.LOL. Thanks so much for giving a great home to a great dog.. and for being so rational in a sea of chaos.



Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 1:46 pm

Betsey
;

"I agree that my knowing what a pit bull looks like doesn't adequately define pit bulls"

AT LAST...becasue you don't have a clue....

" (Although state courts have uniformly--except for Massachusetts--rejected this "void for vagueness" argument, saying that dog owners know what kind of dog they have"

What if the dog is "adopted". or found on the street.. how could any one .. even the owner KNOW what kind of dog it is??? They have a "street dog'.. and the more shelters "import" for other countries as they do ALL of they time.. the more "unknowns" we will have..not only in "breed" but in Health as well..


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 1:54 pm

Betsy asks;"So where did they all these thrown away pit bulls come from, if pit bull owners are "typically" such fine, upstanding, respectable people?"

Betsy, how good of you to ask, thank you for opening a further door in the educational process that is developing here. Our research has shown that the vaast majority of these so-called "pit bulls" are being bred by the animal rights rescue groups for the specific purpose of flooding this nation's shelters. Run a search engine for "Animal transport", it will awaken all of this blog's readers to the fact that there is a huge dog transport of these poor animals to "shelters" all over the country. Some of these dogs are used to inflate intake figures, others are used to inflate kill figures to get ever more stringent local legislation passed against those of us who are good dog owners/breeders. Remember the "shelter" mantra? Adopt one until there are none. The only problem being, thay just keep pumping out those animals.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156
509-447-2821


Posted by Brett Fitzeger, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 1:56 pm

I wanted to add a little more since the boss is still on break, hehe.

I in no way intend to be insulting, I hope no one takes offence.

It seems to me that these people pushing for breed bans are ignoring some very important key parts to this debate. The posts are clearly fear driven. I would hope these people would just pause for a second and consider the fact that these dogs appear normal when in normal hands. I don't care much for pit bulls either, but we are talking about people's beloved pets, just like our own. It would seem to me, banning breeds is ignoring the fact that irresponsible owners will continue to be irresponsible owners of other breeds. When you attack the pit bulls and not the people that create the dangerous pit bulls and so on, you clearly are not looking out for the best interest of animals, people or, our rights by going after the certain breeds.

It's a shame, really. I hope you guys can look at this with an open mind because it would be nice to start addressing the real issues and helping animals and people alike.

Good lucj to you all.

Brett Fitzeger
Republican, but not the 'Bushy' kind.


Posted by bestvuall, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 2:40 pm

Brett;
welcome to the world of "Anti Breed Specific Legistation" You don't have to like "pit bulls" or any breed to believe in peoples rights.. In fact, you don't even have to own a dog.. you just need to keep and open mind.. which it seems like you are doing.. thanks for the support.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 2:52 pm

"So where did they all these thrown away pit bulls come from"

Well Beastey:

Many of them come from people who have found their "pets" were banned and turned them in rather than pay stiff finess and be charged with a "crime" that of dog owership..IF you do any reading of the banning of breeds in towns you will see that the shelter number rise dramaticly with each and every new "law" that is passed banning animals ownership.shelters are overrun with "pit bulls" and what ever else someone thinks is a "pit bull"... by the way ..are you against EDUCATION of owners.. why do you think it doesn't work.. how will YOU enforce mandatory sapy/ neuter.. door to door canvassing.. secret raids on homeowners.. neighbor turning in neighbors.. just HOW will "it " be done.. and what about that whole new "layer" of criminals" you are creating.. what will become of them? will they pay the fines and go to jail.. or will they just turn their dogs into the shelter.. HEY!!!!!!!!wow.. that would really prove your point...EDUCATE>> DO NOT LEGISLATE.. it takes longer.. but it is more effective and longer lasting...


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 2:57 pm

"we are talking about peoples' beloved pets..." Um...that goes for the dogs that are killed by pit bulls, too, doesn't it? Aren't they often peoples' beloved pets?

Remember that because they were bred to want to kill other dogs, to attack other dogs without provocation, and to keep attacking until death, the MAJORITY of pit bulls are dog aggressive, often dangerously so. Let me issue a challenge to all the pit bull people on this board. Will you pledge to boycott and shun any pit bull breeder who breeds a pit bull who is dog aggressive and to agree that that person is irresponsible? Will you pledge to work to make dog aggression a disqualification (as it is with AKC Parson Russell terriers) in American Pit Bull Terriers and in the AKC breeds (AmStaffs and Staffordshire bull terriers)? Because if you won't, then I have to wonder how much you care about MY "beloved pets" while you are asking me to fight for your right to own yours.

By the way, if you take these few easy steps, you will also be making huge progress in making pit bulls appeal less to the slime mold owners who are making breed bans happen. So it would be good for you, too.

(Note to all: Let's see how many of the pit bull people here really want to protect pit bulls and really care about making the world safer for other peoples' canine family members and will take these pledges. My guess is that not many will...they will want to continue to breed dangerous dogs, and to support breeders who breed dangerous dogs, but will want to whine to us about how we need to support them in their fight against "unfair" breed specific legislation..)


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 3:30 pm

Betsy writes;"...they were bred to want to kill other dogs, to attack other dogs without provocation,"

Betsy,
Are you a geneticist? Please, using scientific terms, do tell us on which gene loci, and describe those alleles that are involved in this genetic mutation that infallibly occurs in these dogs that you have so much knowledge of, and which you make blatant statements about?

How does a class of stupid, beer guzzling, drug addicted, trailer trash idiots become such whizzes at genetic manipulation? Are these breeders secret MS in biology? How do these people that you have depicted in all of your posts as being inferior, knuckle dragging, Neanderthals become superior geneticists? Do, please, go into detail?
This should be no mean chore for you as you have portrayed yourself as being a superior being to all of us lowlifes.

While you are at it do please tell me where I have gone wrong in my breeding program, as in the past 39 years that I have been breeding, raising, training, and showing my dogs, not one has killed another, even,(GASP) when allowed to run, and play together.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius


Posted by Brett Fitzeger, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 3:31 pm

I don't think the pit bull owners should close to joining with you. It wourt most certainly hurt their side. They're doing just fine.

If those pit bulls that attacked were the result of irresponsible ownership, than banning breeds makes sense to you? If you truly cared about that dog, why aren't you doing something productive about what we KNOW will help, address irresponsible ownership. You're objective is clear, not to help, but to elimate a breed. I hope you can take a look at how silly that sounds. You guys truly are irrational and also blinded by an ignorance based on fear. It is very clear, if you check the links and see how pit bulls have been very productive canine citizens. The more I read, Im amazed you people take things this far, to the point we are probably making things worse by drawing attention away from the true problem. As someone else said, it's disgusting to think dead children( the result of irresponsible ownership as the EXPERTS tell us) are being used to spread an agenda the ignores the true problem no matter what you say about pit bulls. The true issue that could make a difference is completey ignored because of the fear and myths you are helping to spread. You people really should be ashamed. Sorry but, it is true...

Brett Fitzeger


Posted by Perriann, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 3:47 pm

"Remember that because they were bred to want to kill other dogs, to attack other dogs without provocation, and to keep attacking until death, the MAJORITY of pit bulls are dog aggressive, often dangerously so. Let me issue a challenge to all the pit bull people on this board. Will you pledge to boycott and shun any pit bull breeder who breeds a pit bull who is dog aggressive and to agree that that person is irresponsible? Will you pledge to work to make dog aggression a disqualification (as it is with AKC Parson Russell terriers) in American Pit Bull Terriers and in the AKC breeds (AmStaffs and Staffordshire bull terriers)? Because if you won't, then I have to wonder how much you care about MY "beloved pets" while you are asking me to fight for your right to own yours."

The majority of dogs in general have dog aggression to some degree. Just like breeding retrievers, extensive training is still needed in order to use whatever retrieving genetics that might be there. The same applies to pit bulls. Just because these dogs have been bred to fight, doesn't mean they are all DA. In fact, from what I have read about dogmen, they spend loads of money on training their dogs to fight. If it was so ingrained in their genes, why would these men spend so much money on treadmills, bait dogs, etc.? Why can't they just put two dogs together? The same reason my mother's labrador was scared of water. Not everything boils down to genes. Not to mention that any responsible, knowledgeable dog owner knows that even the most DA dog can be controlled.

I don't think anyone here that has a pit bull would like to applaud byb's. Most of the people here that are writing these epics are doing so because they genuinely care. I cannot say that for most byb's, irresponsible dog owners, or ANY dogmen. I highly doubt those people even bother writing, or learning, or educating. It is unfortunate, but there is a very large percentage of dog owners who don't want to get educated, who think they already know it all, who don't care because it isn't their dog.

THAT is the biggest problem. Not the well-meaning yet overzealous pit bull lover. Not the "ban 'em all" guy. The ones that don't come here are the majority. It is so sad because if some of these people even had a clue as to what their actions are doing, they might just change. I know I used to be one of those. Thank God I met someone with a pit bull and decided to do years of research, or else I would be breeding my dogs to make money too, or worse, jumping on the irrational bandwagon headed for the road to pit bull extinction.


Posted by Jilly, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Sep 1, 2006 at 4:02 pm

Cherrie,

Why does someone need a degree in genetics (which, I will wager, YOU don't have either) to read a breed description that says the American Staffordshire Terrier was originally bred for pit fighting? Or, conversely, since you must know the answers to the questions posed to Betsy, perhaps you could answer them and educate us all? You seem to feel that there is no way Betsy (or anyone else posting to this discussion) could answer your questions, but since the answers are obviously so important, please educate us with this incontrovertible truth so we can all turn off our PCs knowing that you have resolved "The Pit Bull Issue" once and for all.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 4:32 pm

Jill
I am simply asking Betsy to prove her statements. Anybody can make unfounded statements, but if Betsy, or you want people to believe what you are saying then offer some valid proof.

Show proof that "pit bulls" have a genetic predisposition by identifying the gene loci, and the allele(s) that produce this behavior. If your statement is true that "pit bull" breeders have the capability of infallably producing this genetic predisposition, then you should be able to prove it by giving the equation. Then name all of the breeds of dogs that this genetic equation occurs in without deviation from the norm.

Finally, name one fighting dog behind my breeding program? If you need help, pedigrees are available on my website.

Just give some proof to back up any of your statements.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius


Posted by Tracy Doyle, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 4:40 pm

Brett Fitzeger - Thank you for reading and for thinking with an open mind and compassion. I hope you have the opportunity to meet a wonderful pit bull with the *typical* loving attitude someday. I don't have time to engage in the head-to-head mudslinging here, but I hope that the post I made previously has had some little effect, even though no one thought it important or controversial enough to reply.

Cheers...
Tracy L. Doyle
IACP #2497
APDT #68826
Certified AKC Canine Good Citizen Evaluator #24481


Posted by Mojorizen, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 5:02 pm

Tracy I saw your post and thought it was wonderful. I also looked at your pics and enjoyed them a lot. Too bad some people can't see past their genocide. I guess they think if they ban "Pitbulls" then the low lifes which they think are the only ones that own them will leave their precious city of Palo Alto.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 1, 2006 at 5:32 pm

Besty
"Will you pledge to boycott and shun any pit bull breeder who breeds a pit bull who is dog aggressive and to agree that that person is irresponsible? Will you pledge to work to make dog aggression a disqualification (as it is with AKC Parson Russell terriers) in American Pit Bull Terriers and in the AKC breeds (AmStaffs and Staffordshire bull terriers)?"

SURE I WILL ..as soon as you answer a few of MY questions..

What is a "pit bull"??

How will YOU enforce a Mandatory spay/neuter law?

How will you "prove" that "pit bulls" have a genetic predisposition for agression?


and finally..

What is "slime mold"?


Posted by bestvuall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 1, 2006 at 5:38 pm

"You seem to feel that there is no way Betsy (or anyone else posting to this discussion) could answer your questions,"

Jill:
I wonder why we should feel that way.. maybe because she has NOT answered any of our questions.. starting with:
WHAT IS A 'pit bull"?
What does a "pit bull" look like??
seems a simple start.. how can we know what to spay and neuter and ban and exterminate and be afraid of if we don't know what "it " looks like..
Perhaps you would like to take on the task of answering a few simple questions


Posted by Victoria, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 1, 2006 at 5:53 pm

Bestsy,
Are you drinking?? Or have your meds not kicked in yet??

I ask that because I have no idea what you are talking about with your rambling tirade addressed to me about breeding pit bulls. Have you spend so much time on the defensive that you are just lashing out?

Where exactly do you get off assuming that you know my stance on anything other than what I have posted here? Not being in favor of breed bans, which would sentence my innocent dog to death, is not the same as advocating unchecked breeding by unscrupulous breeders. Try to read for COMPREHENSION, and stop projecting things that involve your own personal crusade, please.

Is it that you can't even remember who specifically you are attacking and why anymore?

I said NOTHING about who breeds what...I said that I represent someone who adopted a breed being vilified, and I am tired of the stereotypical garbage I hear about "only criminals would want one," or "why would you want a dog like that?"

Get off your soapbox and do something productive other than picking fights so you can feel justified in pursuing your own personal agenda. I don't CARE what your agenda is with your postings: mine was to point out that such an absurd characterizations of Pit Bull owners is complete and utter nonsense.

Now stop dodging the questions addressed to you. It's clear by now that you cannot answer, and all your coy "I know what a pit bull is remarks" make it clear that you are playing the expert for your audience here. If that is too difficult for your ego, then do everyone a favor and shut your mouth until you can answer those questions.


Posted by This is nuts, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 6:06 pm

Wow, this gets nuttier and nuttier! Now Cherie Graves is telling us that there is a nationawide conspiracy of rescue organizations and shelters who are secretly breeding dogs? Is she for real? And her website...is that her posing in what looks like a leather dominatrix outfit?

Local communities have the right to pass regulations and zoning ordinances that are in the best interest of their residents. When you live in an urban or suburban environment, you don't have the same freedoms as those who live on many acres in a rural area. I can't target practice with a crossbow in my tiny urban backyard. I can't own livestock. I can't decide to run an auto body shop, or another business,(like a kennel).

Animals can be regulated, period. No one NEEDS to own a certain breed of dog as a pet. If you are a hunter, you may need a retriever, if you are a rancher, you may need a herder, but if you are living in a densley populated area, and you want a pet to go for walks with and sit on the sofa with you at night while you watch TV, you don't need any particular breed of dog. There are lots of breeds and mixes that will serve your purpose.

So if pit bulls are causing a problem in a city or suburb, then it is within the rights of that municipality to regulate them.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 6:19 pm

Cherie,

I am surprised that you think that it takes an advanced degree in genetics, or knowing the exact location of a particular gene to breed for a trait in domestic dogs. If you are a dog breeder, (as you claim) you certainly should know that this isn't the case. I assume you would say that you breed for friendliness toward people in your dogs, right? Can you identify the exact genes and the alleles involved in producing a dog that is friendly toward people? If not, (and you can't) are you saying it is impossible to breed dogs for the trait of friendliness toward human beings? You do it simply by removing the dogs from the breeding program that don't have the desired trait, and breeding the dogs who do have the desired trait (and come from lines that have the desired trait), right? Dog breeders have done that with all sorts of traits for centuries. How do you think the border collie was developed with the ability and the drive to herd sheep? But then when somebody notes that pit bulls have historically been bred for the tendency to want to and the ability to kill other dogs, pit bull people suddenly act like they don't understand how selective breeding works.

Pit bull expert Richard Stratton is under no such illusions. He writes (in "This is the American Pit Bull Terrier") that the "normal" canid tends to put on a threat for the other dog, and then withdraw. However, the pit bull rarely puts on any threat and is (in Stratton's words), "...the end product of centuries of breeding of the dogs that were the most successful fighters" and the pit bull's "area of experties happens to be fighting and people have a tendency to play down that fact! But it is a fact and is of foremost importance in understanding the breed....Countless centuries have been involved in developing the American Pit Bull Terrier into a fighting machine beyond comparision"


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 6:42 pm

For all of you who ask me to define a pit bull, let me repeat myself (I have answered this question before). For the purposes of the law that I advocate (mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and mandatory spay/neuter of all non-show dog pit bulls) there is no problem with defining a pit bull as being whatever local animal control says is a pit bull, (or pit bull mix) giving the owner the right to appeal any such determination to a court, if they care enough to do so. I can identify a pit bull and I know a lot of other people who can, including some people who work for animal control. If your dog is some other breed, and you want it to stay intact, it probably should look enough like the other breed (if it doesn't even LOOK like the breed it is, why are you keeping it intact?) so there is no real dispute. And if it is a mutt, then microchip and spay/neuter it anyway (which you already should be doing) and you won't have to worry WHAT it looks like under my proposed law.

I won't, personally, be the one to enforce mandatory spay/neuter. But wouldn't it be great if animal control folks (many of whom are heartbroken about the number of pit bulls they have to slaughter on a daily basis and would love to do something to stop the need for this slaughter) could actually DO something about the owner of the incredibly people aggressive pit bull bitch who is bragging about breeding her to the meanest male he can find? Go to any "responsible" pit bull bulletin board and you will see gripe after gripe from pit bull owners about the bottom feeder breeders of pit bulls that are ruining the breed. But when push comes to shove, most of these people are against actually doing anything make it possible to protect pit bulls. Go figure.

As to "proving" that the pit bull has a genetic predisposition for dog aggression, I am surprised that anybody doubts this. After all, the UKC APBT standard acknowledges that most pit bulls are dog aggressive (and I doubt that they would say it is because most UKC owners train their dogs to fight). According to "Bully Breeds--All About America's Favorite Pet" "The largest problem...is the inherent tendency toward dog aggression" and "...the results can be deadly." This article goes on to say "[f]ighting, unfortunately, is a self-rewarding behavior for these dogs...."


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 7:04 pm

So Bestuvall says it is my fault (for not walking and adopting pit bulls and telling other people to adopt them) that pit bulls die in such horrific numbers in shelters and also that it is the "media's" fault. (They are always a good scapegoat--I am sure that CNN operates a pit bull puppy mill somewhere in the midwest to fill Los Angeles shelters with the 120 pit bulls they kill daily). Funny, I would have thought it was the fault of irresponsible pit bull breeders and owners but one of the mantras of the pit bull community is "pit bull owners/breeders are never to blame for ANYTHING." They not only shun personal responsibility, they refuse to accept that any other pit bull owner has any responsibility for anything bad.

Guess what? I have two shelter dogs, but I don't want a pit bull because I am informed enough to know that a pit bull adopted from a shelter has a very high probability of being dog aggressive, and I know enough to know that I don't want to have to deal with dog aggression among my dogs. When I tell friends who are looking to adopt dogs about pit bulls as an option, and tell them honestly about the dog aggresion problem, NONE of them decide to adopt one. After all, who in their right mind would choose a dog aggressive dog (or a young pit bull with a high probability of developing dog aggression) if they could have an equally delightful dog who wasn't likely to be dog aggressive? Since pit bull breeders adamantly refuse to breed away from dog aggression, and refuse to recognize dog aggression as a huge temperament flaw, pit bulls will continue to die because of it because responsible people don't want them.

By the way, I was joking about CNN breeding pit bulls to fill shelters, but it turns out that our own Cherie Graves actually, uh, believes something similar is FACT. She writes:

"Our research has shown that the vaast majority of these so-called "pit bulls" are being bred by the animal rights rescue groups for the specific purpose of flooding this nation's shelters."

Earth to Cherie: This is delusional.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 1, 2006 at 7:55 pm

bestuvall-

Yes, I know that what I said sounded weird, I should have explained it more in depth for those of you that cannot understand.

I love dogs. Several of my friends have dogs, but I do not own one myself. Many dogs are cute, friendly, and would never kill a small child. Pit bulls, however, are bred to kill, as I said before.

I love dogs, I really do. But if some people love dogs enough to put them before the lives of people, that is a little too far. What it comes down to is that if some people are so inconsiderate to not care to control their dog and keep it from killing people, we just have to ban them.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 1, 2006 at 7:59 pm

"No one NEEDS to own a certain breed of dog as a pet. If you are a hunter, you may need a retriever, if you are a rancher, you may need a herder, but if you are living in a densley populated area, and you want a pet to go for walks with and sit on the sofa with you at night while you watch TV, you don't need any particular breed of dog. There are lots of breeds and mixes that will serve your purpose."

Then I guess you would agree with the person who posted on another part of this paper that "Hummers" should be banned from Palo Alto.. why should you get to drive the car of your choice?? They guzzle gas that the rest of us "need".. they take up too much space.. they are dangerous.. ect.. WHO ARE YOU to tell me what will "serve my purpose"... only God can do that.. and hey I don't even own a Hummer but I am seriously thinking about getting one to drive my two dozen "Pit Bulls" around Palo Alto while wearing a total leather suit, except of course for my shaved head .. and the leg that is tattooed up to .. well you get it..so that they can find suitable mates who are not .. what did you call it Beasty.. "slime mold"???


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:08 pm

It all becomes clear. A breed ban, or breed specific mandatory spay/neuter is all based upon an arbitrary identification made by somebody who works for animal control. In other words, our rights as citizens of the United States of America to be afforded due process of law, and to be judged innocent until proven guilty, is stripped from us, and we are GUILTY of owning a "PIT BULL" unless we can prove that we don't. "Pit Bull", is a very convenient umbrella to use to ban numerous breeds, and mixed breeds under. (scroll back and see all of the breeds that I posted earlier)

It might be amusing to a casual observer to see how it is perfectly alright for these animal theiving zealots to use lies, myths, and fear to mold opinion, so that they can promote legislation to remove our animals. If one could but remain a casual observer one would see the twists, turns, doubling back, personal attacks, all of the trained devises that have been used on this blog to further the agenda of removing our animals from our nurture, and care. It would be amusing if they were not dead set upon taking your boon companion, and replacing it with another model of their choosing. It would be amusing if one was but a casual observer, and not engaged in a very real war to protect, and preserve our animal ownership, and animal husbandry practices.

Please note, that when I asked any of the real shills on this blog to provide proof of their statements, it gets translated into me asking for an "advanced degree". I did not ask for an advanced degree, I simply asked if Betsy was a geneticist. Apparently it was too difficult a question for her to give a "yes", or "no" answer. She must have had to get help to write her diatribe, as it took a while.

Pay very close attention all of you dog owners on this blog. You are getting a very good education on how the takers operate. They always put forth very bold statements, but they cannot provide proofs. When asked to provide ptoofs, they go directly into asking the asker to prove it for them, if this fails the personal attack follows. There is the attempted belittling of their opponent, me, and the cozy "our Cherie". Believe me, I am not one of theirs, nor do they want me. I have the information to blow great big holes in their plans, and have done so at every opportunity.

As to dog breeding this is fact, no two puppies in any given litter inherit the exact same genes from their sire, and from their dam, even if the parents are littermates. Each puppy inherits 50% of it's genes from it's sire, and 50% of it's genes from it's dam. No two puppies within a litter will inherit the same genes, in the same combination, unless those puppies are monozygotic twins. Monozygotic twins are exceedingly rare in dogs. Dogs are as individual within their breed, as we human beings are within our race. We breeders of pure-bred dogs have the ability to control physical appearance, size, eyesight, hearing, basic health, color, coat, and intelligence in our breeding programs. Working within a set gene pool gives even greater control to create the desired dog, BUT genes mutate, and physical uniformity is quickly degenerated. Temperament is mostly dependant upon early, positive socialization, and training.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius




Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:12 pm

"there is no problem with defining a pit bull as being whatever local animal control says is a pit bull, (or pit bull mix) giving the owner the right to appeal any such determination to a court, if they care enough to do so. I can identify a pit bull and I know a lot of other people who can, including some people who work for animal control. "

YADAYADAYDADA>>> Here we go again " I can identify a "pit bull " and so can my friends.." "we know what we are talking about.." I think not since you cannot even give a written description of a "pit bull".. just that you"know".. well Bitsy.. that's not good enough.. what does one look like??? why should I have to go to court?? why should I have to "prove" my dog is not what "animal control" (whoever that is)thinks it might be.. I love your statement ' "some people who work for animal control".so if "animal control" says a "pit bull" is a small 15 pound furry prick eared dog with a pointed muzzle that would be OK with you?? . LOL you are funny.. a "pit bull.. and especilly a "pit bull mix" should have to be described.. one should know what one is "dealing with"... Bests.. could I define you?? are you "mix" or a Pure bred".. .. could we descibe "what you are" and what makes you "that"??? It is no different with dogs..


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:20 pm

"If your dog is some other breed, and you want it to stay intact, it probably should look enough like the other breed (if it doesn't even LOOK like the breed it is, why are you keeping it intact?"

Perhaps because it is my CHOICE to do so.. perhaps because I choose not to put my dog through surgery. perhaps because I just don't feel like it.. if the dog never produces a puppy.. WHY DO YOU CARE???

Your "ASSumption" is that the dog/ bitch WILL be bred and that I.. dummy that I am.. will not be able to prevent my smarter than me dog/ bitch from reproducing.. Let me tell you something Besy.. It takes TWO.. a dog and a bitch to produce puppies.. and if you don't know this .. how will you ever understand how genetics work... aha .. you won't and you don't .


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:31 pm

"but I don't want a pit bull because I am informed enough to know that a pit bull adopted from a shelter has a very high probability of being dog aggressive, and I know enough to know that I don't want to have to deal with dog aggression among my dogs. When I tell friends who are looking to adopt dogs about pit bulls as an option, and tell them honestly about the dog aggresion problem, NONE of them decide to adopt one. After all, who in their right mind would choose a dog aggressive dog (or a young pit bull with a high probability of developing dog aggression) if they could have an equally delightful dog who wasn't likely to be dog aggressive?"


well bitsy:

if you are not a part of the "problem".. you will never be a part of the "solution" Gee.. I wonder why so many are killed..I can tell you..because of people like you with preconceived ideas.. ( even about young trainable dogs) If NONE of your friends.. and I am sure they are highly intelligent.. and listen to everything your "expert " mind has to tell them.. wold they NEVER have an with an open mind and do NO research on their own.and try to "adopt" one of the "killers"?? . NOW who would do that when they have YOU!!!!! So why do you think these dog are killed?? Want to know what I think??? Because of people like YOU.. not breeders.. not the media.. not caring person like my self.. people like you who would rather be a part of the KILLING instead of part of the SAVING...as we say.. Bestsy.. GET A GRIP....people like you cause dogs to be KILLED


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:32 pm

Bestuvall,

You DON'T "have to go to court." If you are a responsible dog owner, you will have already spayed/neutered and microchipped your non-show dog pit bulls and your mixed breed dogs. Haven't you done that?

Now that I have been to Cherie Graves' website, I understand better her objections to requiring that pit bull breeders be responsible. She is breeding AmStaffs who haven't been OFAed and haven't been shown. Not one of her dogs is OFAed for anything that I can see, (not even for hip dysplasia, which is a huge problem in AmStaffs) and some of her breeding stock hasn't even ever been shown. So regulations requiring pit bull breeders to be responsible (and education of puppy buyers to NEVER support pit bull breeders who don't OFA all breeding stock for hips, elbows, thyroid and cardiac at least) would cut into her bottom line and of course she is against them.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:34 pm

"Pit bulls, however, are bred to kill, as I said before"

Julie
"Pit Bulls" are not a breed of dogs.. they are not bred to kill.. there are MANY 'pit type" dogs that are loving friendly pets.. many are service dogs .. helping people in wheelchairs and some are search and rescue dogs.. take some time to do some research before you make statements like this.. it simply is not true


Posted by Victoria, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:40 pm

Betsy,
Why should only one breed be regulated? There are multiple "dangerous" breeds, as facts and statistics have established here--why aren't you promoting this for all breeds?

If you want to work towards mandatory spay and neuter, then make it the case for ALL dogs without whatever qualifications you believe they should have. By the way, what qualifications would those be, how were they determined and who determined them?

By the way, who will be covering the cost of checking these qualifications? Will there be financial aid to help defray the cost of this program for qualifying individuals? Who's paying for that?

And I assume that, like the childless are forced to pay school taxes, you will be taxing non-pet owners as well so that the burden is evenly spread across the board? If not, then I assume you will be providing discounts for the elderly and those with lower-level income? Who's paying for that?

I don't breed and only adopt, so I personally don't have an issue with mandatory spay and neutering, even though it's another of my freedoms removed, and another chance for the government to waste my money.

Like most people, I will view this issue solely from the perspective of how it effects me and only me, never considering what legal precendents are being laid for even greater restrictions in the future.

After all, I am a spoiled American, and the fact that people have died, and are dying now, so I can maintain those freedoms doesn't matter the slightest bit, does it? On the eve of September 11th, I can think of no finer way to celebrate the greatest country in the world then by building the framwork for destroying the ideals upon which it was founded.

And I might not even notice. In fact, I may even willingly surrender those freedoms, because it will never occur to me that legal freedoms, once surrendered, are not easily regained and I want to do what's best for me right at this moment.

And what does it matter? Since only criminals and scum are involved, the fact that we agree to it is okay. After all, we all know who's bad and who isn't, right? It's pretty clear that it's "us" and "them."

Maybe it won't be clear or okay by the time it's used as legal precendent for something we care about, but why not give in for now? Why not mock the idea of freedom by immediately attempting to pass laws against things that frighten us?

Of course, maybe you would prefer to ease into stealing my freedom one breed at a time to make it more socially palatable? Since I adopted the dog from the local shelter who best fit my household, not caring about the breed, why shouldn't I have to pay yet another special tax because you "know" he's evil?

I am not sure if you have figured this out yet, but simply saying that something needs to be regulated is worthless if you cannot explain how it will be done, who may qualify for exceptions and have a way to fund it all that does not involve abusing the average taxpayer one more time.

If you want to be taken seriously and have people believe that you are the expert you are imitating, then present a plan which incorporates all these elements. Until then, your proposal is worthless except as a way to draw attention to yourself, further restrict personal freedoms and promote an agenda of hate-mongering.


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:43 pm

Victoria said..."All of you posting here with some uneducated, narrow-minded dribble about banning pit bulls, hear this well: Society would be lucky if you gave as much back as my family does, so perhaps instead of attempting to slander people like us, you should put your energy into actually making the world a better place. That is not accomplished by demanding that others surrender their legal rights, but by getting off your soapboxes and actually doing something other than shrieking your entitlement-oriented demands.

"You think Pit Bulls are evil? Then go volunteer in a shelter and offer to hold them while they are euthanized, if you hate them so much. Even that would be an improvement over this tragically uneducated, action-less spewing of hate, misinformation and outright stupidity."
*********
*********

And THIS woman owns a pit bull? Watch out folks, looks like she found a breed that resonates with her personality. And Victoria, please chill with the holier-than-thou "I'm-better-than-you-because-I-volunteer-15-hours-of-my-time-per-week" baloney. Lots of people volunteer their time, and they do it without expecting status for doing so.

More to the point, pit bulls are not BAD or EVIL dogs, they're just more likely to do more harm than some other breeds IF they're mistreated. There are LOTS of IGNORANT dog owners out there.

Some ignoramus mocked me earlier for suggesting online tests for licensing. Does he know that many other specialized certificates and licenses are tested for online? Guess not, as he must be stuck in his Marvel Coomic Book world.

Pit Bulls should be banned from urban citizen ownership (as should some other breeds) UNLESS the owners prove that they know how to take care of the dogs BEFORE they buy or adopt them, AND take out a bond on any potential harm they might do.

Lest the condescending pit bull pet owner (Victoria) take issue with this, she might get clued into the fact that pit bulls and other dogs are often taken from shelters and USED for fighting.

This is a PEOPLE problem. One day, we will wake up and do something about irresponsible dog ownership, and start holding people entirely accountable for the harm their pets do. If their pets don't behave, it's a refelction on the OWNER. If a certain breeed of dog has a PROPENSITY toward mauling, or bad behavior, BAN it from urban centers.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:46 pm

"pit bull owners/breeders are never to blame for ANYTHING

No one said that Bisty:

since there is no breed as a "pit bull" .. let's use another breed.. Toy Poodles.. shelters have NO problem adopting them out to whomever shows up and wants one.. that is.. if the shelter can "keep them in stock".. their health problems are HUGE.. eyes, hips, ears,heart. teeth. coat..you name they have it.. but wow they walk out the door of every shelter for a good price. the more the merrier at the shelter because.. who cares if there are 15 nice "pit mixes" who are big and burly and need homes. who cares really..anything that come into the shelter that looks small and cuddly walks right out again..those nasty "pit bulls' that YOU WOULD NEVER ask one of your friends to adopt.. well they just get the needle and you can continue on your "rant"...


Posted by Victoria, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:48 pm

Quote: Animals can be regulated, period. No one NEEDS to own a certain breed of dog as a pet. If you are a hunter, you may need a retriever, if you are a rancher, you may need a herder, but if you are living in a densley populated area...you don't need any particular breed of dog."

Wow, it's good to know that you are here to make those decisions for me. Not only can I stop thinking for myself, but it brings me back to my traveling days and specifically, my memories of Communist China.


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:53 pm

I would apologize for being condescending, but you made that unnecessary by doing so youself in turn. So, to clarify, I do understand this is a people problem, and since you do also, perhaps you would like to answer the post I made to Betsy asking for the details of how such a plan would work and be funded?


Posted by Victoria, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:54 pm

Bow-wow, sorry, typed your name in the wrong field on above post.


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:02 pm

Hey! someone grabbed mu sig! I didn't post that last post :) I can see why someone would want to borrow my name and intelligence though. rufff, rufff :)))

now, as far as comparing domestic animal control with memories of Communist China, I can only say "please, get a grip". We're not talking about putting people in solitary confiunement for owning a pit bull :)

as for describing a plan, and costing it out, that's something I donb't have time for - other than that, I can say with some confidence that license fees would go up to help pay for it, which would guarantee that pet owners would be more serious than many are currently. I wonder how many HUNDREDS of thuosands of pets are euthenized or abused or "returned" after their impulsive and immature and ignorant (ignorance is usually correctable) owners "lose interest", or are "inconvenienced". That kind of behavior needs to stop. Testing and licensing could EASILY be accomplished online, with minimal infrastructure. There should also be a retesting period every five years.

And, all pets should be chipped, so that we can nail pet abusers and make them pay the consequences they deserve for irresponsible behavior.


Posted by Juliette, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:02 pm

Betsy,
You asked me not to quote you out of context. However, that is not what I was doing. I was summarising by choosing only ONE quote made by you. There are actually several that I could have chosen from in order to illustrate my original point:

In a post speaking about pit bulls in shelters you claim that a person adopting a pit bull may end up with one "... bred by a person who thinks it is cool to have a dangerously aggressive...dog".

In the same post, you go on to say:

"...so many pit bull breeders are so irresponsible that they don't CARE that they are breeding dogs that present a danger to other people's family members. In fact, they kind of like it..."

Then:
"...many go further and also don't CARE and kind of like the fact that they are breeding dogs that are dangerous to kids and old people and the occasional healthy adult..."

In a post about dog fighting, you wrote: ..."The fact that so many of their fanciers LIKE the fact that [pit bulls] are dangerous to other dogs..."

Therefore, I still stand by my original point. You are making statements from a position that claims to KNOW the workings of another person's mind.

This is actually quite an easy thing to fix. You could say "In my opinion, owners think x,y, or z". You could even say, "I think that most pit bull owners like the idea of owning a dangerous dog". But to say outright, "In fact, they kind of like it", etc suggests to the reader of your words that you have some kind of otherworldly authority and knowledge about the workings of another's psyche.

Hence my original question to you. As you seem to 'know' so many 'facts' about why persons like pit bulls, it stands to reason that you would 'know', quite factually, why I chose to have working dogs.

Juliette.


Posted by Victoria, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:03 pm

I don't agree that on-line testing would work if you want to enforce testing. In order to gauge the person's ability to handle the dog, a test would need to be done in person by a qualified animal profession, such as a behaviorist or vet. Otherwise, there is no way to verify the person has any actual comprehension of canine psychology and training techniques, let alone the issue of pack mentality.

So we're back to this: how can that be done, who will make the decisions about what qualifies and how will it be paid for?

And lest you think I am being nasty, I'm not. That is another restriction that it would disgust me to have to bend to, but I would. I just want to know how it can be brought from fantasy land into reality...because I don't see how it can without unfairly punishing people and abusing the taxpayers.

Hey, maybe PETA will pony up for this.... ;-)


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:09 pm

bestuvall (a doubtful sig): here's just a few...you can send me flowers as an apology :)

Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

and on and on and on

google it, and then google "dangerous pit bull", and compare how many hits you get with "dangerous german shepard", or "dangerous rottweiler"

then, ponder those numbers....


Posted by Victoria, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:11 pm

Bow-wow,
I think this is not unlike the argument against guns. It would be great if criminals registered their guns so these restrictions affected them, but they don't.

Irresponsible owners and breeders are not going to comply with new restrictions, since they don't with existing ones, which means you punish the responsible ones. How is that fair??

Why can't there be tougher criminal penalties for owners whose dogs display human aggression resulting in injury? Why do even the responsible owner need to be penalized? Dog aggression would still only be covered under the issue of property(civil suit the most likely to punish) though, unless the legal definition of pets as property is changed.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:15 pm

The personal attacks keep escalating. Come on Betsy give me all of your personal information. I put all of my information out there.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius


Posted by Victoria, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:17 pm

I am not trying to be nasty, but honestly, where are the well-thought out solutions and plans for this past a knee-jerk "ban 'em?" Do you really think it's reasonable to come here and demand that people's lives be altered irrevocably and not even be able to offer them one?

I don't think the statistics support it, to begin with, but without a strat plan, how can you think anyone will be interested in even listening?


Posted by Bob-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:17 pm

Victoria, you're making the same argument against pet licensing that the NRA makes against firearm licensing - i.e. that it's not going to command compliance. I simple don't agree with that.

If a society isi serious about protecting its members against certain kinds of danger, they can DEMAND that their lawmakers legislate, and ENFORCE that legislation.

It's really an empty argument to say that only some owners will comply. I wonder how many gun owners would comply with registration if ithey knew their was a $10K fine for every inregistered firearm in their possession, AND that the firearms were outfitted with chips that could be read at some distance (not possible yet with the chips used in amimals)

I'll bet you'd see more complaince. Same for pet owners. Make the fine $1K, and watch people line up at the licensing office, after they've taken their online test.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:19 pm

to read a breed description that says the American Staffordshire Terrier was originally bred for pit fighting?

Jill(y)
as an American Kennel Club judge I can tell you.. most breeds do not "do " what they were originally bred for.. how many Goldens do you know that come home every night with a dead duck in their moutb?.. how many Boxers pull a cart? How many "Rat Terriers" actully spend their day catching rats...? how many Border Collies herd sheep all day? how many Dalmations run behind a fire wagon? most breds that were "bred" to do "work".. and all dogs other that 'toys' and even some of those.. were bred for a "job"..do NOT do it now.. including AM Staffs and Staffy Bulls.. so let's not "go there".. mot dogs do NOT do what they were "bred for"


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:23 pm

bestuvall, please do look at teh web links I put up re: google, and make sure you take that test...Web Link

so far, you've managed to avoid the fact that yuo've been shown to be "ding! ding!" WRONG


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:28 pm

ANIMAL RIGHTS IN THE WORDS OF THEIR LEADERS, SOUNDS A LOT LIKE BETSY, BOWWOW, SILLY, and others;

"I don't use the word "pet." I think it's speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."
- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

Many organizations claim to be fighting for the "protection of all animals." However, what many people don't realize is that these organizations believe that mass-euthanasia is something to be viewed as a form of "protection". After all, if it's not alive, you can't abuse it.
In one year, PETA received 2,103 dogs and cats, killing 1,325 (62%) according to reports required by the state of Virginia. The data was disclosed in July 2000 by Michael Barakat of Associated Press. PETA in fact killed more animals than 80% of the animal control shelters in Virginia. When Ingrid Newkirk was asked her opinion of no-kill shelters, she responded by saying, ``It sounds lovely if you're naive.'' However, Terry Wagoner, president of the Animal Adoption and Rescue Foundation (AARF) in Richmond, said a no-kill philosophy is not as unattainable as detractors claim. AARF found homes for 1,062 cats and dogs last year. It euthanized none.

Many animal rights organizations not only support mass-euthanasia, but breed bans as well. Ingrid Newkirk has commented that, "people who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pits," and "those who argue against the euthanasia policy for pit bull dogs are naive." Breed bans have been proven ineffective and extremely difficult to enforce. A study done in England found that making three breeds of dogs illegal (Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and Dobermans) did not decrease the number or severity of dog bites that occurred (Injury 1996 Vol. 27:89-91).

Dogs considered "pit bulls" carry many stereotypes. Any time one of these dogs does something bad, the media makes sure we all know about it. The public never learns about the thousands of "pit bulls" that are cherished family pets, who are gentle with children and excel in obedience. Sure, these dogs require time, patience, and affection, but what dog doesn't? Unfortunately, many of these dogs are abused and exploited. They are used for entertainment and gambling in the form of dog fighting. This activity is illegal, but enforcement is very difficult. It is important to bear in mind that these dogs are not the villains, but the victims. They deserve to be rescued just as much as any other breed, from a chihuahua to a rottweiler.
- From BARK RESCUE


Adding to the issues of mass-euthanasia and breed bans, we have the issue of pet ownership. Elliot Katz (President of In Defense of Animals) commented (Spring of 1997) that, "it is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." Obviously, from the quote at the top of this page by Ingrid Newkirk, PETA agrees with IDA that pet ownership should be "phased out." Many teen (and some adult) animal rights activists disagree that this is something any animal rights group is looking to accomplish. However, the quotations and opinions of the people leading these groups are well known.

By supporting mass-euthanasia and breed bans, these groups are beginning their process of "phasing out" companion animals.

The animal rights movement is also working hard to feed our nation lies about the lives of Iditarod sled dogs. The Sled Dog Action Coalition (SDAC) is an organization claiming to want to "improve the lives of Iditarod sled dogs and provide truthful informaiton about their treatment." The Sled Dog Action Coalition is based in Miami, Florida. The Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race that they oppose is run in Alaska. The majority of the people involved in this organization (SDAC) are not people that work or have worked within the dog rescue, training or competition community. They are not behaviorists or veterinarians. They have never been involved in sled dog sports and have never spent a single day with a sled dog. Most of the articles on the SDAC website are from Florida newspapers, such as the Miami Herald. Many quotations on their website are excerpts from mushing books that are only partially quoted and taken completely out of context.



As a final point, PETA employee Gary Yourofsky was quoted as saying, "My whole goal is for humans to have as little contact as possible with animals."

And did we mention they don't like cats?
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear . . . We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." - John Bryant, FETTERED KINGDOMS.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:32 pm

sorry.. no flowers coming...these sites are about as useful as becoming a "preacher".. computer trainng for those who already know about computers..nothing about dogs.. ya know when I became a dog show judge... I ACTUALLY HAD TO JUDGE A FEW SHOWS so taking a course "online " about how to judge a show.. just does not cut it.. I get the idea that you may be thinking about offering such a "serice'.. how about a good online "parenting" course.. it would be very succesful.. and a lot more useful




bestuvall (a doubtful sig): here's just a few...you can send me flowers as an apology


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:34 pm

This has the familiar ring of numerous posts on this blog;

"One day we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals.
(Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild...They would have full
lives, not waiting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet
them and then sit there and watch TV."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
"Where Would We Be Without Animals?, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990

* * *

"...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return
to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
Harpers, August, 1988


Posted by Victoria, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:34 pm

Bow-wow
You still don't have reliable statistics to demand that at this point, which makes the demand onerous, unfair and questionable.

If some of these anti-pit groups want to fund a study which respected animal welfare groups (like HSUS and others mentioned earlier which do not endorse breed bans because there is no supporting evidence for them)can endorse as fair and unbiased, in which pit bulls, or any breed, is shown to be a public threat, then you can expect the right to legislate ownership.

Until then, I don't see how you will get any farther than arguing on public message boards. And statistically speaking, when you base it on media reports and not scientific data, you have no leg to stand on.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:36 pm

Pets?

"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."
-PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?

"I don't use the word "pet." I think it's speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship - enjoyment at a distance."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership."
-Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first step ... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'"
-New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p.20

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles -- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it."
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic, PETA, 1982, p.15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.

"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves."
-PETA's Statement on Companion Animals

"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats ... If people want toys they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship they should seek it with their own kind."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, "Animals," May/June 1993

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Washingtonian, August 1986

"One day we would like an end to pet shops and breeding animals [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild."
-Ingrid Newkirk, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990

Terrorism

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."
-Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA

"Andrew Cunanan, because he got Versace to stop doing fur."
-PETA's Dan Mathews reply to Genre request for "Men We Love"

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997

"Get arrested. Destroy the property of those who torture animals. Liberate those animals interned in the hellholes our society tolerates."
Jerry Vlasak, Animal Defense League, Internet post to AR Views list, June 21, 1996

"We have found that civil disobedience and direction action has been powerful in generating massive attention in our communities ... and has been very effective in traumatizing our targets."
-J.P. Goodwin, Committee to Abolish the Fur Trade, National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997.

"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors."
-Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front Leader

.. "Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers.I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all burning to ground. If I had a more guts, I'd light a match."
Ingrid Newkirk, after an underground group Justice Department mailed 87 razor-blade laced threats to medical researchers studying news drugs on primates.

"If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."
-Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Bruce Friedrich, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA).

While disclaiming involvement in violent activities himself, Friedrich devoted an entire presentation to the case for violence, starting with people's natural inhibitions against violence to justification for it "to end animal suffering." "If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands," Friedrich said, "then, of course we're going to be blowing things up and smashing windows. For the record, I don't do this stuff, but I advocate it. I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities."

"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who (sic) fund them exploded tomorrow," he continued to loud applause.

"I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through windows."


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:39 pm

PROOF THAT THE ANIMAL RIGHTS SHILLS HAVE AN AGENDA< AND THEY ARE SHOVING IT DOWN OUR THROATS

Institute for Animal Rights Law
Providing Legal Information, Analysis, And Guidance For The Animal Rights Movement

www.instituteforanimalrightslaw.org






MODEL MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER STATUTE



Introduction
Lest there be any question about the constitutionality of spay/neuter legislation in general, and the following statute in particular, it can quickly be laid to rest. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives the states (and thus political subdivisions like counties, cities, towns and villages) the power to enact virtually any laws they wish that are reasonably related to the public health, safety and welfare. On the other hand, neither at the state nor federal level is there any constitutional right to foster the breeding of countless numbers of unwanted dogs and cats.

Thus, a potentially effective weapon in the War on Dog and Cat overpopulation is the use of mandatory spay/neuter legislation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Model Statute

WHEREAS, there have been, and there are, within this jurisdiction a substantial number of unwanted cats and dogs lacking permanent homes, many of whom are healthy animals; and

WHEREAS, these cats and dogs through no fault of their own have an adverse impact on the public health, safety, welfare, and environment; and

WHEREAS the impact of these animals includes, but is not limited to, the transmission to disease, the injury of humans and other animals, the creation of hazards to vehicular traffic, and the drain of public finances; and

WHEREAS, many of these cats and dogs are euthanized by shelters, humane societies, and other similar organizations; and

WHEREAS, euthanizing cats and dogs, except for bona fide medical reasons, is inhumane and abhorrent to the residents of this jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, euthanizing cats and dogs, except for bona fide medical reasons, is not an effective, economical, humane, or ethical, solution to the problem of unwanted cats and dogs; and

WHEREAS, the most effective, economical, humane, and ethical solution to the problem of unwanted cats and dogs is to substantially reduce, or entirely eliminate, their birth; and

WHEREAS, by such reduction or elimination the [Council, Board of Selectmen, etc.] of the [Town, City, County, etc.] of the State of [name the state] seek to promote the health, welfare, safety and environment, of its residents;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained and enacted as follows:

Section 1. Prohibition

Subject to the express exceptions provided in Section 2 below, it shall be unlawful to harbor in this jurisdiction any unspayed cat or dog over four months of age or any unneutered cat or dog over four months of age. "Harbor" is defined to include legal ownership, or the providing of regular care, or shelter, or protection, or refuge, or nourishment, or medical treatment; provided however that this section shall not apply to any person who provides nourishment to a stray or feral cat or dog.

Section 2. Exception

(a) The prohibition set forth in Section 1 above shall not apply if a veterinarian licensed in this jurisdiction shall certify in writing, and under oath, that a specific cat or dog is medically unfit to undergo the required spay or neuter procedure because of a physical condition which would be substantially aggravated by such procedure or would likely cause the animal's death.

1. The age of the animal shall not per se constitute medical unfitness.

2. As soon as such condition ceases to exist, it shall be the duty of the person who harbors such animal to promptly comply with this ordinance.

3. Possession of the certification referred to in Section 2, a, above, shall constitute a defense to liability under this ordinance.

(b) The prohibition set forth in Section 1 above shall not apply to the animals harbored by a pound, shelter, humane society, or similar organization, whether public or private, whose principal purpose is securing the adoption of dogs or cats provided that such organization has a policy and rules requiring the spaying and neutering of all dogs and cats placed for adoption by such organization.

(c) The prohibition set forth in Section 1 above shall not apply to any animal temporarily harbored within this jurisdiction for less than fourteen days within any one calendar year. The burden of proving such temporary harboring shall be upon the person harboring the animal.

Section 3. Extension of time to spay or neuter.

Upon presentation of a written statement from a licensed veterinarian, under oath, stating that the life or health of an adopted animal may be jeopardized by spaying or neutering, the releasing agency shall, in writing, grant a 30-day extension of the period within which the spay or neuter procedure would otherwise be required. Further extensions, or permanent exemption, may be granted upon additional veterinary statements stating the necessity for such extensions or exemption.

Section 4. Forfeiture.

Kittens and puppies born to cats and dogs not spayed or neutered in violation of this statute shall be forfeited, and given to the care of a local shelter for adoption in accordance with the organization's usual policies and rules.

Section 5. Transition.

Persons harboring a dog or cat subject to this law on the date it becomes effective shall have 120 days from such date to comply herewith.

Section 6. Penalty.

Any person who violates the provisions of this act commits [here, include appropriate punishment under the jurisdiction's criminal laws].

Section 7. Repeal.

All other laws, or parts thereof, of this jurisdiction which are inconsistent with the provisions of this law are hereby repealed with regard to such inconsistency or inconsistencies only.

Section 8. Effective date.

This law shall take effect immediately upon being duly approved.







Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:43 pm

Victoria, anyone can make the case that action shouldn't be taken because "reliable statistics" aren't available. I hear the same weak arguments bandied about by pro-NRA apologists.

The fact is that a LOT of people get mauled or worse by pit bulls and other breeds. Do the google searches I suggest, for incidental statistics.

In any case, the word is getting out, and sooner or later we WILL see some regulation. It will take a while - but common sense, wisdom and experience will win out over the emotionalism trotted out by pit bull owners who continue to play defense. The game is almost over.

Web Link


Posted by Juliette, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:45 pm

Betsy,
In answer to the question you asked me:

"...Would you not describe people who think it would be fun to own such a dog as "psychopaths?"..."

My answer is simple. "No". I would not describe such people at all. Nor would I presume to know what they thought it would be (fun or otherwise)to own such a dog. But I do not claim to KNOW the motives behind anyone's decision making-processes or reasoning.

On top of which, I am not qualified to make a diagnosis of 'psychopathology', even with a copy of the lastest version of the DSMV, because I am not a Psychiatrist.

Juliette (not wishing to be accused of not answering a question)


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:46 pm

oh, and Cherie, I think we NEED a law that make sure that ALL domesticated animals are neutered, unless owned or bred by a breeder who is LICENSED to do so.

It's absurd that you're suggesting that domestic pets NOT be neutered. It's also irresponsible.


Posted by Katie, a resident of Gunn High School
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:01 pm

i love most dogs but pitbulls absolutely infuriate me!!!!!!!! they mauled my 2 year old cousin, which ended her short life after 3 months in the hostpital. i will never forgive some pitbull owners for such poor control over their dogs.
i know that this does not apply to all pit bull owners, but there are irresponsible people out there and we cannot possibly moniter all people who own pit bulls.
THE ANSWER...BAN THEM ALL!!!


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:06 pm

It is a very sad commentary on the United States of America to know that a woman, Svetlana Korina, who lives 200 km outside of Moscow, Russia, and raises American Staffordshire Terriers, has more freedom to own the dog breed of her choice, and to breed it, than does a U.S. citizen residing in Denver, Colorado, Independence, MO, Yakima, WA, and many other U.S. cities. My generation may be the last generation of free Americans.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:14 pm

Cherie Graves..."It is a very sad commentary on the United States of America to know that a woman, Svetlana Korina, who lives 200 km outside of Moscow, Russia, and raises American Staffordshire Terriers, has more freedom to own the dog breed of her choice, and to breed it, than does a U.S. citizen residing in Denver, Colorado, Independence, MO, Yakima, WA, and many other U.S. cities. My generation may be the last generation of free Americans."
-------
Awwww, geee, this really makes me want to cry. NOT!

There is also a lot more freedom in Russia to do other things, like pollute as freely as you wish, to discriminate against free press and freedom to assemble, etc. etc.

That's a WEAK argument, Cherie.

10-1 you're also a card carrying member of the NRA. Are you?


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:14 pm

FROM THE AR MODEL
"Lest there be any question about the constitutionality of spay/neuter legislation in general, and the following statute in particular, it can quickly be laid to rest. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives the states (and thus political subdivisions like counties, cities, towns and villages) the power to enact virtually any laws they wish that are reasonably related to the public health, safety and welfare"

Here is what the Constitution of the United States says;
AMENDMENT IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, or to disparage others retained by the people.
AMENDMENT X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Posted by Rupert, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:19 pm

Regarding Katie who lost her cousin in a terrible pit bull attack -- that is terrible! Isn't that enough to convince us all to ban these dogs forever? How about we put all the pit bull defenders and all the pit bulls in a pit together and see who survives?!!


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:19 pm

yup, Cerie's an NRA member. No doubt about it. Trotting out the same lame arguments that the NRA uses to defend the "right" of anyone to bear any firearm, no matter how dangerous.






Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:23 pm

We have all heard, and seen HSUS, and PeTA promotions to stop pet over-population. Many people accept without question that there really is a pet-overpopulation crises in the United States. They cite the numbers of animals that are killed in shelters as their proof. That "proof" will increase dramatically in shelters across the county that took in animals that were "rescued" from the areas hit by the Hurricanes Katrina, and Rita. These animals will considerably add to the shelter's kill numbers, and will lead to legislation to quell the crisis.

Let us take a real look at over-population. It is usually caused by an environmental situation that affects the whole population, such as drought, or crop failure, or even war. It means that there are no life sustaining resources to keep the populace alive. Over-population affects every living thing within the confines of the afflicted area. It would mean that there is no food, no potable water, no shelter, no medical supplies, no clothing, nothing to keep the whole population alive, and thriving. If we truly had a pet-overpopulation here in the USA, we wouldn't just be talking about the sterile killing of animals for disposal in so-called shelters. We would be eating those animals to save ourselves from starvation.

If there was truly an overpopulation, there would be empty super-market shelves. No medical supplies, or services. Lines for potable water. We would all look like the people who have honestly suffered from the real situation of no sustaining resources available. We wouldn't be a diet conscious nation, we would be in serious nutritional trouble. Over-population doesn't play favorites. It affects the entire population.

We live in the richest nation on the face of the earth. We lack for nothing. We as a society are so spoiled we do not value life. We get an animal on a whim, and dispose of it just as readily. That irresponsibility has nothing at all to do with over-population, and everything to do with our throw-away mentality. The animal rights movement relies upon our gullibility to foster their agenda. Look back about forty years, and see that before the manufactured crisis, there was not the huge need for shelters.

Animal rights groups basically built the shelters, and told people that they didn't have to be responsible for their animals anymore. Just dump them at the shelter. It's become big business, and the shelters are not only thriving, but they are getting bigger, and better multi-million dollar facilities. Interestingly the Humane Society of the United States operates no shelters at all, and uses a large portion of it's donations to make even more money. They recently have come under investigation by the Louisiana Attorney General for misuse of funds obtained after Hurricane Katrina, some $30,000.000.00. PeTA with all of it's millions in revenue operates one shelter where it kills 83% of all the animals that it brings in.

We need to question what we are being told by these animal rights groups, and not be so quick to accept what they tell us as truths. Look at their real agenda. They post it on their websites. That agenda is to liberate all animals from our ownership, use, and care. No more pets. If we can't own pets, there can't be an "over-population". No more domesticated animals of any kind. Wayne Pacelle of HSUS, said; "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would."
(Quoted in "Impassioned Agitator," Associated Press, Dec. 30, 1991)
"Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say that hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change."
(Quoted in Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Oct. 8, 1991)

"Only 7% of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."
(Full Cry, October 1990)

"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding"
(Animal People, May, 1993)

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:25 pm

Victoria...."And statistically speaking, when you base it on media reports and not scientific data, you have no leg to stand on."
---------
And what leg will you stand on as you make the same argument to someone who has just lost a loved one or pet to one of a number of dog breeds known for overtly agressive behavior?

A legal body or jury will OFTEN accede to an argument to emotion if it makes COMMON sense. The latter is where your argument falls down. We're talking about a community standard re: safety, and that will untimately triumph in this issue. Wait and see...


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:28 pm

Boy-o-boy, Cherie, that's quite an archive of material you have. How many card-carrying pit bull owners pay dues to your organization? I'll bet you really get the donations rolling every time a pit bull mauls a kid, or another animal, no?

In fact, yuo'll use this forum, and the local tragedy that just occurred to whip up more frenzied support among your members by pointing them to this thread. Clever.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:43 pm

WHAT LURKS BEHIND THE SHIELD OF ANONYMITY?

Animal Activists are terrorists as per FBI
Tue Aug 1, 2006 12:22 pm (PST) New FBI Smoking Guns Point To PETA

In December the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) made a big public splash 1777.html> by unveiling documents obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) under a Freedom of Information Act request. At the time, the ACLU released only a few dozen pages from its FBI treasure trove, selected to bolster its case that the
federal government was spying on groups including People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) despite what it called "a lack of evidence" that PETA was "engaging in or supporting violent action." But during the past few weeks, the ACLU's website has been quietly updated to include more than 200 additional pages of the FBI's files on PETA. And
this new material indicates a solid connection between PETA and the animal-rights
movement's violent underbelly.

The complete set of pages, finally available on the ACLU's website (look
for a link titled "Full set of PETA documents"), includes some disclosures
that PETA will not be happy about -- and which indicate that the FBI knows
exactly what it's doing.

If you don't relish the thought of wading through 227 pages of heavily
redacted FBI files, we've collected the most interesting material on our
AnimalScam.com website. Click here to read the FBI's conclusions that (among other things) PETA recruits interns from overseas for "the sole purpose of committing criminal acts." Web Link
One witness interviewed by the FBI (whom other sources have indicated was a former
long-term PETA employee) also told the feds that PETA was formed as a
cover for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 10:54 pm

THE USA IS ADOPTING THE COMMUNIST WAY OF TREATING IT'S CITIZENS. IT IS ILLEGAL TO KEEP AN ANIMAL WITHOUT PERMISSION OF GOVERNMENT.

Web Link


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2006 at 11:01 pm

NATIONAL CANINE RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Severe maulings occur with all breeds of dogs, contrary to what you might hear from the
media or other sources. See if you can pass the test below ?


Can severe or fatal dog attacks be predicted by breed?

As the public and politicians become increasingly ignorant
of the factors that contribute to canine aggression, they are
increasingly becoming dependent on relying on a breed's
identification to predict future behaviors or the "dangerousness"
of a dog.

For those who believe they can predict a dog's behavior by breed,
or for those who believe they can legislate away severe or fatal dog
attacks by banning certain breeds, the following questionnaire is offered:

(All the scenarios presented are actual cases of a severe dog attack.
The correct breed(s) responsible for the attack are listed at the end).

1. Feb. 2001 - A 1-year-old Pennsylvania boy was critically injured
by his grandmother's:

a. Intact female Akita
b. Intact Male Rottweiler
c. Female Pit bull w/puppies

2. Jan. 2002 - An 11-year-old Las Vegas boy sustained life-threatening
injuries when:

a. He was attacked in his yard by his neighbor's loose Pit Bulls.
b. He attemtped to feed the family's 4 kenneled Great Danes.
c. He tried to hug his grandmother's Chow Chow.

3. Sept. 2002 - A 5-year-old Ramapo, NY, girl lay in ICU for 3 weeks and
required over 400 stitches after being attacked by:

a. A Chow & 3 Jack Russell Terriers.
b. A Rottweiler & 4 Pugs.
c. A Pit Bull and 2 Cocker Spaniels.

4. Nov. 2002- A 10-year-old Connecticut girl was hospitalized for 4 days
and required surgery after she was found lying on the ground being
severely mauled by:

a. 4 Beagles
b. 5 Brittany Spaniels
c. 3 Boxer dogs

5. Jun. 1998 - A Tulsa, Oklahoma woman was severely mauled and
confined to a wheelchair after walking her 6-week-old puppy in the
park and attacked by:

a. Chesapeake bay retriever
b Pit Bull
c. German short-haired pointer

6. Nov. 2003 - A female jogger was severely attacked by:

a. A Rottweiler that broke loose from the yard it was chained in.
b. An K-9 police dog that escaped from his handler's yard.
c. A Newfoundland used in pet-therapy that barged out his owner's
front door.

7. A 48-year-old Tennessee woman was severely injured in her own
back yard by her neighbor's:

a. 3 Catahoula dogs
b. 3 Briards
c. 3 Border Collies

8. Dec. 2002- A 6-week-old Maryland boy was dragged out of his
playpen and so severely mauled that he needed to be resuscitated
on the way to the hospital after being attacked by:

a. The family's female Bullmastiff
b. The family's male Golden Retriever
c. The family's male Dachshund

9. April 2000 - A 7-month-old California girl needed to be hospitalized
after being severely bitten in the head by her grandmother's:

a. Labrador Retriever
b. Shar-Pei
c. Irish Setter

10. Jan. 2003- An Atlanta woman and her 7-year-old son received serious
bite wounds when:

a. The boy was attacked after tripping over the family
Doberman
b. The mother spanked 1 of 4 Pit bulls in the apartment for soiling
the rug
c. The boy attempted to ride on the back of the family's Rottweiler.

11. March 2004 - Two rescued stray dogs were being fostered at a home
in Preble County. The one dog attacked a 2-year-old boy that
wandered too close to the dog's food bowl. The other dog attacked
the first dog, causing it to release the boy. The attacking dog that
caused the boy to need over 300 stitches was:

a. Male Dalmation
b. Male Pit Bull
c. Male Samoyed

The dog that "rescued" the boy was a:

d. Female Chow X
e. Female Akita X
f. Male Lab X


12. Sept. 2003 - An 8-year-old boy need over 100 stitches after being
bitten in the face by:

a. St. Bernard
b. Labrador Retriever
c. Rough-coated Collie






Answers:
1. b) Intact Male Rottweiler
2. b) Attempting to feed 4 Great Danes
3. b) Rottweiler & 4 Pugs (the Pugs did participate in this attack)
4. b) 5 Brittany Spaniels
5. c) German short-haired pointer
6. b) K-9 police dog
7. a) 3 Catahoula dogs
8. c) Male Dachshund
9. b) Shar-Pei
10. b) Mother hit 1 of the 4 Pit Bulls
11. a) Male Dalmation & e) Female Akita X
12. b) Labrador Retriever


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 1, 2006 at 11:07 pm

I would like to see this forum locked, and the posts of Cherie Graves removed, because those same posts are used to spam almost every community board in America that has tried to protect its citizens against dangerous dogs.

do a google search on "Cherie Graves, pit bulls" just for starters. this woman is everywhere, doing everything she can to insinuate her and her membership's opinion on every community that tries to protect its citizens from dangerous animals

I suggest we use Cherie Graves posts as evidence to the degree to which she and others of her ilk will go to impose their selfish and irresponsible beliefs on communities she doesn't live in, but uses as fodder to her fanatical membership to prove that she's doing the job they're paying her to do.

Essentially, Ms. Graves uses local tragedy to garner emotional support for her cause from pit bull and other owners. She is far removed from these tragedies, but makes her living capitalizing on them by juicing up the debate with emotion, like her current efforts to spam this local debate with rants against PETA and other animal rights groups.

It's pretty paranoid stuff...


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 1, 2006 at 11:30 pm

but uses as fodder to her fanatical membership to prove that she's doing the job they're paying her to do.

PAYING????? proof please


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 1, 2006 at 11:32 pm

"but "makes her living" capitalizing on them by juicing up the debate with emotion


Proof please



Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 2, 2006 at 12:09 am

""but "makes her living" capitalizing on them by juicing up the debate with emotion
Proof please"
----------
look at this forum...then check out other forums...she uses tragedy as a way to endear herself to a fanatical membership. Pure conflict of interest, and emotional manipulation of dog lovers. Add to that a strong streak of real paranoia - - just look at the absurd accusations - - they're over the top. And you're defending her? hmmmmm......


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 2, 2006 at 12:12 am

"but uses as fodder to her fanatical membership to prove that she's doing the job they're paying her to do.
PAYING????? proof please"
---------
she's a breeder. what better way to "advertise" herself to her constituency. She makes her living off hyping and emotionalizing tragic incidents in communities she doesn't even live in. I wonder how many peoplep found out about her through those forums, and how she has capitalized on that , financially.

You sem to know quite a bit about her financial conditionl; that's implied in your question. Are you her parttner?


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 4:37 am

Victoria,

You ask why not mandatory spay/neutering of all breeds? The answer, of course, is that your Aunt Sophie's intact toy poodle isn't causing the problems, either with serious attacks (public safety) or with flooding the animal shelter with lots of unadoptable toy poodle puppies (animal welfare).

The reality is that virtually nowhere in this country are goverments willing to spend the money to seriously regulate dog ownership for animal welfare reasons. The glut of pit bulls in shelters is easily and cheaply dealt with with sodium pentobarbital. Killing them by the thousands is MUCH cheaper and easier than regulating their production and since nobody (least of all the pit bull community) seems to care much about all the pit bull suffering that proceeds all these senseless pit bull deaths, if that were the only problem, then pit bulls would go unregulated.

But, of course, that isn't the only problem. It is true that pit bulls are not the only dogs who inflict serious injury or kill, but it is also true that they are WAY disproportionately likely to do so. Karen Delise (who, by the way, is certainly not "anti-pit bull") reports in her book "Fatal Dog Attacks" that between 1965 and 2002, 90 pit bull type dogs and 54 rottweilers were involved in fatal attacks on people. (Two more if you add the two AmStaffs). Contrast that with the four labrador retrievers and four golden retrievers (the number one and number two most popular breed in the country for many of those years).

Perhaps most ominously, compare pit bull numbers with the fact that only 71 mixed breed dogs killed people. Since at least half the dogs in this country are mixed breeds (and the other half are obviously not all pit bulls), that means that pit bulls are WAY more likely to kill people because of either their nature or nurture than simply randomly irresponsibly bred dogs are. This is pretty conclusive evidence that pit bulls are being intentionally bred or trained for heightened dangerousness toward people.

And, of course, not even the pit bull community (at least the responsible faction of it, at least) doubts that pit bulls are way more dangerous to other dogs than are other dogs, on average.

It is true that there are other breeds (I have mentioned presa canarios, and fila brasileiros are certainly another strong candidate) who are genetically at least as dangerous, on average, as pit bulls. But, unlike pit bulls they are still rare enough not to be available to anybody who wants a dog to use as a weapon so their dangerousness is pretty much flying under the radar so far. It could be that fila owners are all so responsible that there will never be a fila-attributed human fatality. MOre likely, their time will come. And, at some point, it is quite likely that fila ownership will need to be regulated.

By the way, ANY dog, no matter how dangerous to humans or other dogs, can be safely owned if an owner is sufficiently committed and has sufficient resources. There are people who keep wolves who absolutely would like to tear out their throats as "companion animals," after all. But these animals live in zoolike conditions. The closer you get to treating dogs as actual companions, and living with and interacting with them, the more risks come from dangerous temperaments.

For those of you who want to talk about how you were bitten by your Aunt's toy poodle or maltese and "small dogs can bite too and it HURTS," that is perfectly true. But small dogs can't maul people or kill people, generally. (I know, I know, a "pomeranian" once killed a baby--it was a pomeranian mix, actually, and how many pit bulls have killed kids since that incident which was, frankly, a freak accident? Hint: Lots and lots). Parrots bite. Parrots can draw blood. It is inappropriate to let parrots interact with children without strict adult supervision because of this. But, like toy poodles, there is no need to REGULATE parrots because they are not likely to seriously maul or kill children.

What is really odd, frankly, is how pit bull people whine that it isn't "fair" that pit bulls are singled out for mandatory spay/neuter (except for show dogs) requirements. Of course it isn't fair, but the folks it isn't fair to are the people who are directly hurting pit bulls by breeding pit bulls that shouldn't be bred. Why is the pit bull community (and particularly, why are people like you, who DON'T breed pit bulls) so adamant about protecting these peoples' "right" to destroy pit bulls? The fact is that municipalities are willing to put the effort/resources into regulating pit bulls when they are willing to put the effort/resources into regulating poodles or portuguese water dogs because PIT BULLS ARE WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. If portuguese water dogs start flooding shelters and making headlines, they will (and should) face regulation too. And since the vast majority of Portuguese water dog breeders ARE responsible (unlike the vast majority of pit bull breeders), if 120 Portuguese water dogs were being killed per day at Los Angeles shelters, the PWD community would be SCREAMING for breed specific laws to protect the dogs they love. They'd want to get the pond scum who were hurting their dogs out of the dog breeding business.

It is just strange that pit bull people don't see it that way.








Posted by Steve Evans, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 4:49 am

Bow Wow, did you know that PETA wants to ban Pit Bulls from the face of the earth? Wow, now there is an organization that really cares and loves ALL animals.
I don't know how old you are, male or female but do you remember the TV series "OUR GANG"? Petey, the dog with the circle around his eye? Guess what kind of dog that was? Was Petey a loving, stable dog? Yes. LOVED KIDS..Buster Brown shoes mascot? Our country was in love with these dogs and they were so popular for a very good reason. They are wonderful dogs. Now, do bad people do bad things to good dogs? You bet they do. But that is in no way a reason to ban an entire breed of dog.
When I purchased my Amstaff I dedicated myself to the breed. I have a dog that is a model citizen. I go out of my way to make sure he makes a wonderful impression on whoever he meets. He adores children. When I do meet a family who like many is fearful by sight alone, I will talk to them and assure them he is of no danger to them and would love to have his head scratched. I have walked away from many a person and family who has met my dog with them saying, wow, he was so friendly, he didn't growl, he was so soft to pet, oh he loved the kids. You see, I really do want at least one person, every day, to have changed his or her mind about the Amstaff. I've been around dogs for 54 years, and have never ever had such a wonderful companion pet. I guess the moral to my story is this. It is not the dog everyone. It is the people who just don't care for them, love them, respect them who make it bad for people like me, who knows the true love of this breed.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 5:03 am

I definately don't want to see this thread locked, or Cherie Graves' posts removed. I believe that free speech works and like to see it doing its thing. I personally find Ms. Grave's posts difficult to read, so I don't read most of them, but they do sometimes contain interesting hints on how some pit bull "advocates" minds work.

Ms. Graves wrote: "Our research has shown that the vaast majority of these so-called "pit bulls" are being bred by the animal rights rescue groups for the specific purpose of flooding this nation's shelters."

Uh huh. With friends like Ms. Graves spreading "facts" like these, no wonder pit bulls are in such a mess of trouble.

Of course, Ms. Graves is an Amstaff (pit bull) breeder, and she wants to protect her right to continue to make money breeding. Alas, she is breeding dogs that shouldn't be bred. Amstaffs have a very high incidence of hip dysplasia, thyroid problems, cardiac problems and elbow problems. Ms. Graves does not OFA (Orthopedic Foundation for Animals, the gold standard that responsible breeders use to certify that their breeding stock is free from these problems) for ANY of these issues.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 5:13 am

Steve,

I dont' support PETA but it is completely inaccurate to say that "PETA wants to ban all pit bulls from the face of the earth." PETA doesn't want more pit bulls bred (but then, PETA doesn't want more dogs of any breed bred, so this isn't a breed specific policy on their part). PETA says that shelters should not adopt out pit bulls Many pit bull advocates say the same thing. Since shelters rarely have the resources to adequately screen adopters and since pit bulls who end up in shelters are, by definition, irresponsibly bred they have the potential to be very bad indeed. A badly bred labrador is likely to be nuts and wild, but nobody is breeding labradors FOR dangerousness. Unfortunately, one can't say the same thing about pit bulls and badly bred ones are likely to have been bred for dangerousness.

Note that the San Francisco SPCA has a breed specific policy (ONLY applying to pit bulls) that says that it won't adopt out pit bulls from unknown sources. They are hardly an anti-pit bull organization, but bad experiences have taught them that this is the only way to protect people and animals.

But PETA has no problem with responsibly owned pit bulls living out their lives. Again, they don't think that ANY dogs should be bred, but they support that responsibly owned dogs should live lives with loving owners.

Again,I am not a PETA supporter (I believe that the human/companion animal bond is advantageous for both sides, and isn't inherently exploitative), but it is unfair to misrepresent their position.


Posted by A local issue, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 2, 2006 at 5:42 am

Special interest groups have NO RIGHT to tell the locals what they can and cannot do. That should be left up to the people whose lives are affected by these laws. Cherie Graves and her crew should take a hike.

Let members of the local community hold meetings with resdients, dog owners, police officers, animal control.... and let THEM decide what the best course of action is.

These decisions affect local PROPERTY OWNERS, not you, Ms. Graves. I would have a hell of a time selling my liitle house in a quiet family neighborhood, if the guy next door had a yard full of snarling pit bulls. That effects MY property values, and no anti-goverment political group is going to tell me that my neighbors right to own and breed an animal takes precedent over MY rights as a property owner. The local laws are there to protect me, my children's safety, and my largest investment...my home.

So take your silly conspiracy theories and your private agenda and go home.


Posted by Jilly, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Sep 2, 2006 at 6:25 am

Cherie- Why should I go to the time and effort becoming an expert on researching AmStaff pedigrees when all I have to do is read any description of the history of your breed? Most breeders take pride if their dogs can still do, or at least demonstrate some instinct, to do what they were bred to do. How did you manage to remove generations of dog aggression from your lines? I am not trying to be snarky- I am seriously curious since if you have discovered how to do this, maybe you could pass on the knowledge to other AmStaff/pit bull breeders and this could go a long way towards solving your problem.

And bestuvall- Your question is disingenous. Just because most dogs don't do what they were bred to do, doesn't mean they can't. If your argument was logically sound, there would be no meaningful separating between the breeds; they would all just be generic "dog" and no one would/could select for any useful trait. Do you see Labradors being police dogs, English Setters herding cattle,Corgis pointing grouse, Lhasa Apsos going to ground to kill rats, or Bassets running lure courses? I sure don't.


Posted by Dog Lover, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 7:53 am

What really disturbs me about the pit bull community, and pit bull breeders, is that there is very little discussion about ending dog fighting. If you read the websites of the organizations and breeders, there are some general disclaimers about not "condoning" illegal activities, but a lot of rhetoric about honoring the dogs heritage, and keeping dogs "true to type". There is a nudge, nudge, wink, wink, attitude that, "yes of course, dog fighting was wrong", but many breeders will qualify that with statements that "but times were different then". Many breeders want to preserve the "original traits" of the breed, which include extreme animal aggression. There are a lot of carefully worded euphemisms about the breeds "courage" and the fact that they "will never give up"....in other words, they are game dogs, and if you have ever seen a pit bull go after another dog in an unprovoked attack and kill it (I have), you understand exactly what those words mean.

The APBT and Am Staff community has shown little to no interest in ending dog fighting...they are only interested in promoting ownership of the breed and protecting breeders rights. If these aggressive campaigns against BSL were focused on the dog fighters and byber's, communties would be far less likely to turn to breed bans because in the first place because you elimate the source of all these badly bred dogs to begin with.

I have never considered pit bull owners and breeders to be dog lovers...they are pit bull lovers, and that's it. If you want to see a group of folks who hate a specific breed of dog, just listen to the pit bull owners spew venom about small breed dogs...the "ankle biters". Apparently every pit owner in cyberspace has been attacked by a poodle, a chihuahua, or a cocker spaniel. They also seem to hate the "soft" breeds, popular spoting breeds like Labs and Goldens.
Whats worse, they can never see anything beyond their own dog...if they have a non-dog aggressive pit bull, they will fight like hell to make sure ALL pit bulls aren't banned from the dog park; despite the fact that most advocacy groups like Bad Rap beg bull breed owners not bring their dogs to dog parks because MOST pit bulls are dog aggressive. It's always all about them, and to hell with everyone else.

There is no logical, united, sane voice amongst breeders and owners in the pit bull community. They can't aggree how to end the suffering of pit bulls and protect the public from dangerous dogs.
On this board we have people who claim to volunteer in shelters helping pit bulls and adopting out pit bulls, along side an organization that has just accused them of being part of a dog-breeding conspiracy. We have owners pleading with us to look at pictures of dogs injured in dog fights arguing on the same side as a woman whose "dog regulations" would allow pit owners to fight dogs on private property, and only be charged a fine for doing it in public. We have folks who believe the dogs have to be "trained" to fight, arguing alongside those who reference Bad Rap, an organization who recognizes animal aggression is "part of the breed".

As a dog lover, I have seen far too many incidents of pit bulls harming other people's dogs, because the owners belived, naively, that if they just "raised them with love" everything would be just fine. Enough is enough.


Posted by watabunchacraptheyspew, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 8:34 am

**********************ATTENTION EVERYONE****************************

This whole insulting mess could be summed up and won if they just answered these 2 question...

1-Do you have ANY evidence THAT HAS NOT BEEN BLOWN AWAY IN A COURT ROOM that pit bulls are either more likely to attack?

2-Do you have ANY evidence THAT HAS NOT BEEN BLOWN AWAY IN A COURT ROOM that pit bull attacks are out of range for dog attacks?

But, instead of answering these questions, these people insult and slander.

They can say what a dog was bred for, they can insult the owners, they can say whatever they want, BUT, if they want to prove their point ASK THEM TO PROVE THEIR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!



HAHAHAHAHA you paranoid liars, we're winning. Sure you have city council meetings on your side...city councils have also approved Hitler type shrines in America. SHOW ME THE MONEY PEOPLE!!!

Shouldn't it be easy to prove if it were true? Shouldn't it?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

They have an opinion, we have the experts...
They have an opinion, we have the experience...
They have an opinion, we have the data...
They have an opinion, we WON in court!!!!!!!!!

SHOW US ALREADY, PEOPLE!!!!!! SHOW US HOW PIT BULLS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN OTHER DOGS IN THE SAME SITUATIONS!!!!!!SHOW US!!!!JUST DO IT!!!!WHAT AND WHY ARE YOU WAITING FOR????STOP THE SLANDER AND PROVE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY!!!!!!

You're not honestly going to sit here and tell everyone how pit bulls attack more often and have the worst attacks by slander are you? SHOW US WHAT YOU SAY!!!!!JUST DO IT!!!!!!


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!HA HA HA HA HA HA


YOU CAN'T........


***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************


Posted by LMFAO, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 9:13 am

No kidding!!!!Thought experiment:

If we allowed a dangerous animal such as a bear, tiger, badger or, whatever to have the same freedom of ownership as canines in this country, such as off leash in dog parks, going into pet stores, walked around in public, etc... Would we not have proof these animals are more dangerous in public than dogs? Wouldn't we? If an animal truly was more dangerous, would be able to debate it for dacades and win in court...I don't think so. The writing is on the wall. They have had PLENTY of irresponsibly owned pit bulls and attacks to gain evidence...NOW WHERE IS IT!!!!!!!!


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 2, 2006 at 9:46 am

...she uses tragedy as a way to endear herself to a fanatical membership

Oh I see you mean Diana??/ I get it now... casue Cherie has a waiting list for her puppies.. just like I do.. we do not use "tragedy"// only the "shelter workers" go that route..


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 2, 2006 at 10:00 am

"It's absurd that you're suggesting that domestic pets NOT be neutered"


BOBOBOWW WHY?? If they never reproduce why should you care??


Posted by bestvuall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 2, 2006 at 10:16 am

"Ingrid Newkirk has commented that, "people who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pits," and "those who argue against the euthanasia policy for pit bull dogs are naive."

Bts:
Do you think this statement sounds like Ingrid wants to let us keep our dogs?? ( and I don't even own a "pit type") sure sounds like she wants them gone.. her argument sounds much like yours:
Here is your statement:
"I dont' support PETA but it is completely inaccurate to say that "PETA wants to ban all pit bulls from the face of the earth"

Maybe you should read all of the posts before commenting.You are starting to trip on your own words..
Let me ask.. again:
Why does it matter if a dog/ bitch is neutered/spayed if they NEVER produce a puppy??


Posted by SME, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 10:16 am

Bestvuall,

I have a loving home. Great neighbors. Have a Bull Mastiff, An American Staffordshire Terrier, Amazon Parrot and some fish. Oh yes, have to include the wife and the child. I'm not a moron as you may claim. My dogs would no more kill me or my family than they would you. I'm proud of my family and the dogs love my child and all the neighbors as well. But you see, both dogs are of impecable breeding. I don't have to doubt where the mother or father came from, the grandparents, the great grandparents and even further back than that. Both dogs know that they are not in any way leaders of the household "pack". They submit to us, their pack leaders. They look to us for their every move. It is the way of the dog world. As members of our pack, they would not dare challange the leaders..dogs don't do that. So what I have here is a great "pack" if you will. Now, you can have big problems if dogs are allowed to be the leaders over their humans. All types of behaviour is to be considered if that is allowed to happen. I wouldn't call you a moron..I don't even know you. Please, not knowing me, don't call me a moron. I own a Bully Breed, but a moron I'm not.


Posted by bestvuall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 2, 2006 at 10:27 am

Do you see Labradors being police dogs, English Setters herding cattle,Corgis pointing grouse, Lhasa Apsos going to ground to kill rats, or Bassets running lure courses? I sure don't.

NO.. I see all of these breeds and "pit bulls" too being walked on leashes.. interacting with people .. and yes.. a few do "jobs" that they were not "bred for.. Like Labs being police dogs..German Shepards ( who used to herd).. now doing police work. Corgis doing drug sniffing work..Basset running agility courses.. and EVEN PIT BULLS doing POLICE WORK check it out here

Web Link

so I ageee with you.. most dogs don't do what they were "bred" to do.. and most can be trained to do something else.... even "PIT BULLS"
can you believe it?????????????


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 10:33 am

Although I live in Washington now, I am from California. I still have friends, and family in California. I come to California for dog shows, and to visit my friends, and family. I will always be a Californian at heart. My dogs heritage goes back to some of the great California breeders, like Mr. Roy C, Steele, who bred Lucenay's Peter, better known as Pete the Pup. Pete was owned by Harry Lucenay, the animal trainer for the Hal Roach Studios, and Harry was a member of the Staffordshire Terrier Club of America. We, my dogs, my family, my husband are invested in California, our roots are there. I care about California. I have history in California.

Every thing that I have stated in my posts, I have been able to back up with evidence that would stand in a Court of Law. When the anonymous posters to this blog could not discredit the evidence that I put forth, they resorted to personal attacks, lies, slander, and libelous statements not one of which they showed any proof for. I not only posted my full name, I posted my address, phone number, and URS for my websites. I have been open, honest, and respectful.

I didn't hide the fact that I am chairwoman of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States. It is a position for which I am not paid. None of the officers, or board members are paid. Each one of us is dedicated to preserving animal ownership, and use rights, and the practice of animal husbandry. We each have a deep love, and abiding respect for our animals, and for your animals, too. We want to ensure that there is no legislated extinction of our domestic animal breeds.

I believe that the people of Palo Alto are good, honest, intelligent. My purpose for posting to this blog was to arm the people with the truth, and to show them that there is a movement that is bent upon distorting the truth, and pushing an agenda that goes against the grain of California's rich history of animal ownership. I believe that the people of Palo Alto can see past the cheap shots that were made at those of us who came bearing the truth, and at our animals.

How could anyone who professes to love animals push such a vile agenda? It speaks volumes about the character of these human beings that would denigrate animals that have no concept of anything but love, and joy in their lives. What pathetic, mean, pieces of anonymous internet flotsam. I want to know who the person is that is trying to influence my thoughts, don't you?
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius




Posted by bestvuall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 2, 2006 at 10:40 am

SME.. I didn't call you a moron.. you sound like a great home with well bred animals and childrem (LOL) I am so glad to hear you say you know your dogs history. Most here would prefer that you adopt from a shelter.. and while I am not against adopting.. and do fostering and rescue for my own breed.. I admire person who buys a pet and does reseach to find out if it is they type of animal that will fit in to their lives. "Immpecable breeding".. that is what most of us do... I can't say for everyone.. but I can say it for those of us who are trying to produce healthy happy compaion and show animals.. oh and don't worry.. if you get a dog from me.. you will never have to worry if you want to return it.. MY dogs come back HERE and I would bet it is the same for your dogs and their breeder. So all of this rhetoric about "regulating' us is why we find it so amazing.. we are careful.. we do our homework.. and we are breeders..


Posted by SME, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 10:58 am

Bestvuall,
I too used to do fostering..for Pit Bulls. The reason i said you called me a moron i figured since I own one you would consider me one from your posting eariler. Thank you however for your comments on my being a responsible owner. I truly am. My breeder is as you are..the dog is it has to come back..ONLY comes back to the breeder. That is the way it should be. When it came to my family, I was not about to bring in animals of which I knew nothing about their breeding/background. I think you and I understand each other just fine. Someone earlier posted about Amstaff's being just full of genetic flaws..oh goodness, not if you work with a first class breeder who cares about their breeding program. My breeder does not do what he does for money..if he did he would breed more than every few years..he does it for the breed. I'm sure you agree.


Posted by Jilly, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Sep 2, 2006 at 11:06 am

Bestuvall- Of course they can, but that's not the point. German Shepherds did both herding and guarding, not that far a stretch to police work. I have never seen a Lab working in a K-9 capacity other than scent work. Bassets may well be trained, with much effort, to run an agility course but they will never be competitive with bidable, fast, light dogs like Border Collies, Shelties, or Aussies. (All herding dogs, coincidentally.)

Since you are an educated member of the dog owning population, you likely have a better than average grasp of the responsibilities and requirements of being a proper dog owner. Your dogs, as you have pointed out, do not get out, bite people, breed indiscriminately, they are trained, civilized dogs. You probably have better behaved dogs than the vast majority of of people without even really trying.Unfortunately, far too many pet owners struggle with training their dogs not to bark, dig, soil the house, nip at kids, or come when called. Therefore, having dogs with an instinct to kill other dogs as opposed to an instinct to bring you back sheep or ducks or point out where the birds are or trail rabbits or just be a lapdog is much more dangerous for the AVERAGE person. The AVERAGE person makes up the bulk of dog owners. Not the professional such as yourself.


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 11:13 am

I do not support banning pit bulls, I love them greatly, especially with a bit of salt and butter. Even though I was attacked many years ago in a location which I shall not mention, I know now that it was my fault that I was mauled. This was long ago, and I lost my ring finger on my right hand, two of my freckles, and my spleen was greatly wounded. So now I am having my butler Alfred type for me.

"When I was mauled, I was walking down the street and a pit bull and its owner came towards me. The dog snarled menacingly at me, and I foolishly took that gesture as a sign to frolic amongst the flowers. I began the dance of the lilies, and commenced to poke it fondly with a burrito. That led to the loss of several of my most cherished body parts. It was my resposibility to know what that growl meant, and I failed to fufill my resposibility.

Kudos to Lisa M, you inspire us greatly.

Posted by Doug, a resident of Los Altos Hills, 12 hours ago"

I'm confused. I inspire you because...?

While I feel tremendous sadness and empathy for both you and Katie, you have failed to disclose many facts, which presumably would shed light on both your situations. You were attacked by a dog an owner was walking toward you (leashed or unleashed)? You offered the dog food after it growled at you and the owner did nothing? You are blaming the dog, not the owner? I am confused.

To both of you... what if this had happened with a German Shepherd? Would you want to ban all of them also?
Lisa


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 11:28 am

Betsy said, "Why is the pit bull community (and particularly, why are people like you, who DON'T breed pit bulls) so adamant about protecting these peoples' "right" to destroy pit bulls?"

I think that question has been answered in abundance: it is because it is a right protected by our Constitution. Once you take away that right for some nebulously defined group, you take it away for ALL people.
Lisa


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 11:58 am

Jilly said, "Bestuvall- Of course they can, but that's not the point. German Shepherds did both herding and guarding, not that far a stretch to police work. I have never seen a Lab working in a K-9 capacity other than scent work. Bassets may well be trained, with much effort, to run an agility course but they will never be competitive with bidable, fast, light dogs like Border Collies, Shelties, or Aussies. (All herding dogs, coincidentally.)

Since you are an educated member of the dog owning population, you likely have a better than average grasp of the responsibilities and requirements of being a proper dog owner. Your dogs, as you have pointed out, do not get out, bite people, breed indiscriminately, they are trained, civilized dogs. You probably have better behaved dogs than the vast majority of of people without even really trying.Unfortunately, far too many pet owners struggle with training their dogs not to bark, dig, soil the house, nip at kids, or come when called. Therefore, having dogs with an instinct to kill other dogs as opposed to an instinct to bring you back sheep or ducks or point out where the birds are or trail rabbits or just be a lapdog is much more dangerous for the AVERAGE person. The AVERAGE person makes up the bulk of dog owners. Not the professional such as yourself.


Posted by Jilly, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, 22 minutes ago"

Jilly,
You have changed your criteria from your first post. First you posted these other breeds could not DO the work of some and that breeds are no longer used for that for which they were bred. NOW, you are saying they CAN BE TRAINED to do other work, but they are not competitive at it. Of course not! But they CAN BE TRAINED and CAN DO THE WORK, even if not competitively. That is the point we are all making. Thank you for conceding it.

As for your second point about AVERAGE dog owners, you are correct again and have again made our point. IF the kind of money being proposed to seize, regulate and kill whole breeds of animals (and by the way, it is not just pit bulls - It is 56 breeds so far with more coming), was used for television spots educating AVERAGE owners in dog behavior and proper, successful training methods, IF AVERAGE owners could go to any humane society and get free, qualified training, IF AVERAGE owners would have access to informative training sites on the internet, through schools, agencies, etc., IF adopting a dog also required training as well as neutering, IF , IF, IF people were EDUCATED instead of punished (mostly for no reason), THEN the money would be spent creating EXPERIENCED owners such as bestuvall, Cherie, Victoria, Steve and others who have posted here instead of AVERAGE, ignorant owners. That money would be well-spent in my opinion and I would support that. Cherie Graves has not advocated anarchy. She put up model regulations here that have penalties for irresponsible ownership, as there should be! BUT EDUCATION will be money well spent, whereas REMOVAL OF ALL OF OUR RIGHTS AND PETS will not. EDUCATION is enforceable but SEARCH AND SEIZURE is not. All of those facts have been presented already. Thank you for making our points again.

By the way, I was an average owner who rescued a cute puppy that looked like a Dalmation to me. The puppy was about four months old with a chewed up rope around her neck and no identification. She got into my yard through a small hole in my fence I have for my feral cat colony (neutered) to come in and eat safely in a corner of my yard. She was sweet, loving, and interacted well with my pet cats, which no other rescued dog had ever done, and which is why I have always adopted out every dog I've rescued prior to her. No one responded to advertising or a listing at the Humane Society to claim her so I kept her. I love her dearly, as does EVERYONE who meets her. She is overwhelmingly sweet and I have had vets who see thousands of dogs say that she is the most loving dog they've ever met. I was an AVERAGE owner. I had to learn a lot to learn to train and manage a Dogo Argentino (which is what she turned out to be) in order to turn into an EXPERIENCED owner, for which I still feel I have far to go since she is my first dog and she is only four and a half years old. But, like Steve, both my Dogos understand the pack heirarchy in my home. Neither of them is unsafe around other people or my cats - in fact, my cats like my male who is very dog aggressive far more than my female, who is less so. It was EDUCATION and the selfless time and advice given to me by many other bully breed owners that helped me become a responsible owner. That would not be wasted on other AVERAGE owners either, in my opinion.
Lisa


Posted by Property owner, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 2, 2006 at 12:09 pm

Cherie Graves is involved in these conversations all over the country, and Canada. She spams local message board discusions of dangerous dog ordinances with her lengthy cut and paste diatribes, a lot of the same stuff she posted here, verbatim. It's not about feeling "connected" to California. She is part of a group of anti-goverment fanatics that want to deprive local residents of their right to pass laws that regulate dog ownership and breeding in their own communities.

I elect local officials to make decisions on behalf of my community. I resent out of state special interest groups trying to pressure and bully local officials into serving their own fanatical agenda. Don't try and tell me that I don't have a RIGHT to enjoy my property free from the nuisance/noise/smell/potential danger to my family of a dog owner/breeder next door. I pay property taxes, and I expect my local goverment to regulate a LOT of things to keep me, my family, and my property safe.

Don't come in here and insist that MY community pass regulations that make ME liable if someone elses dog mauls my kid. Don't come here and insist that my neighbor has a "right" to have an unlimited number of aggressive dogs on his property. This affects ME and MY family. The local goverment is not the enemy, here....its people like bestuvall and Cherie Graves, who want to infringe on MY RIGHTS as a property owner.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 12:11 pm

To Katie,
I am so sorry to hear about the loss of your cousin. I keep track of all of the dog related fatalities that occur in the United States. I want to be absolutely sure that I have this information in my records. Would you be so kind as to post the date of the occurance, and the town, so that I can obtain a newspaper account. I hope that the dog's owners were brought to trial. If you have information on that aspect I would appreciate you sending that as well.
Thank you,
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius


Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 12:13 pm

Whatabunchofcraptheyspew,

I think you might have been listening too much to the Glen Bui theory of legal thinking when you gloat about how advocates of unfettered pit bull breeding are consistently "winning" in court. Not quite. Yes, there was a significant legal victory in a lower Ohio appellate court but the City of Toledo has appealed that case, didn't they? And the case will end up in the Ohio Supreme Court that has previously AFFIRMED breed specific regulation of pit bulls (State v. Anderson, 57 Ohio St.3d 168). (By the way, the Supreme Court of the US declined to overrule that decision).

So, while nobody can predict what a court will do, the smart money has to be on the City of Toledo in this one. And, alas, in the vast majority of cases brought by pit bull people against breed specific regulation, including total bans. Remember that the courts in colorado affirmed Denver's ban recently?

Of course, it typically isn't the role of courts to decide if pit bulls are so per se dangerous to require special rules (although the Maryland Court of Appeals pretty much did so in affirming a multi-million dollar tort judgment against a landlord who allowed a pit bull in his apartment complex after the dog killed a child. The Court of Appeals basically said that the landlord should have known that pit bulls were inherently dangerous animals). Typically the legislature (or city council or whatever) makes that determination and the court just decides whether there is a rational basis for making that determination. And in MOST cases brought challenging breed specific rules, including total bans, the breed specific laws have not been thrown out.

Sorry to burst your bubble.


Posted by Katie, a resident of Gunn High School
on Sep 2, 2006 at 12:38 pm

Cherie Graves,

Thank you for your concern for my cousin. Sadly, the attack took place 5 or so years ago in Europe somewhere which I would prefer to keep confidential.

Again, thank you for your concern, it is very much appreciated.


Posted by watabunchofcraptheyspew, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 12:48 pm

"Sorry to burst your bubble"

You didn't. You and I both know what's going on and when the supreme court sees this case, we will all see. Good luck. You can't prove something that's not true, as you have already proven, ohhh the irony! Sorry to burst your bubble.

Once again good luck, our day is coming and you all know you feel it deep down. If this crap were true you wouldn't have to try so hard, it would be obvious, would it not? If dangerous animals were allowed the same ownership rights as canines do you really think we could evem debate this?...Nope it would be very clear. Are you suggesting someone could even win a court case trying to say a badger or any other dangerous animal was not a danger to the public, I don't think so. Your claims are absurd and we will all see.


Posted by Doug, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 2, 2006 at 12:51 pm

Lisa M,

If you would enjoy more facts of my self-inflicted incident, I would be glad to be of service to you and your cause.

The dog was on leash, and the owner did try to stop it from mauling me. As I danced and poked it with a burrito, the owner stood, seemingly dumbfounded by my foolish ignorance of the dog's signs that it was irritated. Therefore, he was caught off-gaurd when the dog attacked me, and did all he could to try to stop it from attacking. I did appreciate the effort.

And why do you inspire me? You reveal the facts. You tell the truth. And you are protecting the lives of innocent dogs everywhere.


Posted by Perriann, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 1:01 pm

Please read this. I have posted many statistics throughout this thread that have been ignored, but perhaps my personal experience will help.

When I was younger, I feared pit bulls. I heard news reports and what my parents said, and I thought I was ahead of the times. I was on the up-and-up. Then, when I was just a teenager, I met someone who had four of them, along with a large family. They all died of old age after never having bitten anyone. The new dogs he had, three lhasa apso/shi-tzu mixes, were terrifying. One of them had to be locked up in the bathroom when guests came over. It would actually make its mouth bleed by biting at the fence when people walked by.

He was the first person I ever knew that had even been around these dogs, yet for some reason, I thought I knew better than him. I told him he had been lucky because I never heard of a nice pit bull, and all you ever heard on the news was how they were vicious and they would falsely present their best behavior before killing you. I totally believed wholeheartedly that I was right. After all, the news couldn't lie. They simply reported what happened. My parents wouldn't lie. They'd been around for ages, and obviously knew many things that I didn't. After months of knowing this guy, talking with him, and hearing his calm, confident answers to my questions about the "brutes", I decided that I would dig up some real statistics for him so he knew how lucky he was.

It took me four years. I ended up dating the man for seven years, none of which did we have pit bulls. But during that time, I learned so much. I couldn't find a single study done that proved the dogs were vicious. Sure, there were plenty of news reports and "personal experiences" that would make any sane person question their decisions, and the internet was full of breeder websites saying their pit bulls were tough. But no real facts.

In fact, all I found was to the contrary. Statistics on deaths by the CDC even went on to say that since the "pit bull type" was actually several breeds lumped together for convenience, and that they got their information for the compilation from the media, they no longer compiled these numbers due to the fact that they were unreliable and created worries where there shouldn't be any. They admitted that the wording they used would only make the numbers look worse. For instance, it would have been like combining all the herding breeds together and calling them "shepherd type". Of course, the numbers are going to look worse if you combine breeds. So much for statistical information. (By the way, according to another source, right now Rottweilers are leaving pit bull types in their dust when it comes to death statistics)

The American Temperament Test Society, who does testing on unprovoked aggression, made my argument even weaker. Their stats showed that pit bull type dogs ranked the same as Golden Retrievers, and much better than dogs like Miniature Poodles, Weimeraners, Collies, and Dalmations. They went on to say that of the average percentage, pit bull type dogs actually scored better. At this point, along with other things I had read that I cannot remember off the top of my head, I began to think I might be wrong about the breed.

When I went to book stores, whenever I was by the pet section, I made it a point to check out the pit bull parts and read their descriptions, histories, and everything. If you couldn't tell by now, I tend to get a little obsessive about things I want to learn. Even though all the books I read through said pit bulls were used for fighting, I also read that before they fought each other, they were used in the very beginning as a farmer's dog. They acted as catch-dogs, herders, and guardians of the animals meant for slaughter. They did these jobs so well that certain farmers began using them to contain the unruly bulls meant to be dinner. Then came the bragging and competition so prevalent in our human societies. The sport of bullbaiting was born, with pit bull types being the guinea pig of it all. For a time in England, I read, you could not buy bull meat unless it had been properly baited. These dogs were everywhere. Bullbaiting became illegal, and not wanting their working dogs to become furniture pieces, some of the people began to find "other" things for them to do.

Unfortunately, because of the drive and tenacity of the dogs, they could be trained to do pretty much anything. So began the "sport" of dog fighting. However, I read that back then, it wasn't AS cruel as it is now. For one, they didn't fight the dogs to the death. There were rules. If a dog didn't immediately want to fight within the first 10 seconds, it was disqualified. If a dog turned away from the other dog or stopped fighting, the fight was over. If the dog so much as growled at any person, the dog's life was over, and any puppies it may have fathered were also (with some of the so called better "dogmen")euthanized. They needed to be able to confidently get in between dogs without injury, and the only way to do that was to breed a dog that was fine with fighting other dogs, but completely against biting people. (The standard for the breed also says this, along with the fact that a properly bred dog will be an excellent playmate for children.)Several other breeds are purported to be involved in this transformation, such as the Spanish Pointer, and the extinct White Terrier.

By the time I was reading this, I was thinking there must be a mistake. There must be two kinds of pit bulls, maybe. Why else would the media and my parents hate these dogs so much? I continued to read these things until I found that no matter where I went, I had already read the books available. At this point, I had worked for a veterinarian and was also volunteering at an animal shelter in Iowa and going to Iowa State. I had, at this point, read pretty much everything that was available about the breed, and was working with them almost on a weekly basis.

I was shocked to find so many nice people not only had these dogs, but cared a great deal for them, and had even taught them tricks. The dogs weren't anything like what I thought they would be, including looks. They were rather small, from 35 to 60 pounds max, and their tails never stopped wagging. Of the ones with their ears intact, they all looked like cute, perfect little dogs. They seemed to be better at handling painful shots, procedures like removing porcupine quills, and generally had more patience than other breeds. The number one worst breed we worked with at the vet clinic was cocker spaniels. They were almost always the ones that needed muzzles, even for the most simple things, like nail trimming. The second worst was labs. There were a few happy-go-lucky labs, but most of them were extremely fearful, and being so large, were mandatory muzzle-dogs. It took two people to restrain them sometimes, as they would use their paws to dig at your arm and escape, and they would kick with their back legs. (By the way, I love labs, please don't think I am trying to make a point with this, just my experience)

Pretty much four years after I met Joe, the guy with four pit bulls, I had finally changed my mind. It wasn't immediate, and along the way I definitely had my doubts, but in the end, the facts clearly came out for these dogs. Seven years later, after going to college, working in many vet clinics and animal shelters, and reading literally every book available (under $95, hey, I have a budget), I decided once I settled down and had the money that I would get a dog. I also decided that I would get one from the shelter, since working there opened my eyes no only to the pit bull plight, but to the plight of even poodles and other popular dogs (which by the way end up there quite a bit more often than you would think, and are sometimes quite nasty). I wanted a young dog that was stable, smart, willing to please, pretty, athletic, great with children, basically a do-anything, go-anywhere kind of dog. I found a small, runty "pit bull x" at a shelter when I moved to California. She was brindle and white, cute as a button, and all over the fence trying to say hello to me. I adopted her, and a year and a half after, found she was apparently quite possibly purebred. (Her attributes are sriking, and she fits the standard to a tee, both physically and tempermentally).

Now on my second one, a papered, OFA certified dog, I cannot be happier. I must say that everything I have read about the dogs from reliable sources has been true. They are not the monsters the media makes them out to be. From the runty puppy I adopted to the purebred dog I bought, they both have their own unique personalities, but they also both fall within the range of normal dogdom. My older dog, Gabby, is my source of pride. I take her everywhere with me. Most of the time she is wearing a shirt (she gets cold pretty easily). She is so smart that I have actually witnessed her using tools to do things. She will come up to me and nuzzle my face when I so much as sneeze. And she is totally ruled by our cat. My papered dog, Kaya, is not as bright as Gabby, but she makes up for it by being the most goofy, fun-loving, caring dog I have known. She sits in my lap like a cat, and sometimes she will look up at me and just lick me in the face.

My husband was mauled by a dog when he was little. Apparently, he was trying to give the dog food when the dog thought he was taking the food away, and (where were his parents!)he got it. Poor boy, he just thought he was helping the dog. At first, he told me it was a pit bull. For twenty something years that was what he thought. It didn't phase him, though. He loves our dogs and would like to get more when we buy a larger acreage. It turns out the dog that attacked him was a Rottweiler, another dog everyone seems to fear. The dog was put to sleep, thank God, but he will never say anything bad about Rotties. There are just too many of them that are fine pets to try and make them all pay for a few mistakes.

Here's something to remember. The media, as needed as it may be in our society, is not run by the government. It is not a non-profit, good-samaritan type of organization. The media represents normal people who got a degree in journalism, who work for corporations that give them quotas to meet (aka, news stories). Their primary objective is to make more money this year than the last. It is not to educate the public, to keep the public safe, to help the public, or to better humankind. They thrive on these stories because people love a scary story. They love trauma, ill-will, carnage, and upheaval. How many of you are guilty of this? I would say most. I know I read way more bad news than good, not necessarily because I don't like good news, but I think we all read it because some part of us wants to witness a tragedy. It's like staring at a train wreck, and the media knows it. Notice that they put as much gore as they legally can into the details of some stories, yet leave out important information that is more pertinent to the situation. They do this because study after study has been done, and they have found that these stories are what sell the papers.

As for the arguments between Cherie and Betsy, I agree and disagree with both of you to a point. For one, I must agree with Cherie that there is a difference in what people perceive to be true and reality. Pit bulls are definitely no more dangerous than other dogs when in the right hands. Enter problem. The small percentage of thug pit bull owners is growing, and breeders are to blame. Not the responsible ones that do testing and show their dogs and try to better the standard. I am talking about the ones that breed their own dogs together and sell them to anyone. There are far too many of them now. I agree with Betsy that there should be a law to speuter all non-breedworthy pit bulls. But I would take this a step further and just do it for all breeds. Why? Because when I go to the animal shelter and see 60% of it full of pit bulls, I also see 40% of it full of labradoodles, shepherd mixes, chihuahuas, boxers, and every other dog breed or mix you can possibly think of. I have witnessed euthanasia of all these dogs, and believe me, there's nothing worse than seeing a dog's trusting eyes looking back at you right before the light goes out.


Posted by Jilly, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Sep 2, 2006 at 1:05 pm

Lisa,

No, I didn't. My point was that we don't see them doing these things, unless they are serving as the rare exception to prove the rule, not that they couldn't do them. If I want a dog to retrieve game, why reinvent the wheel and try to get an Afghan Hound or an Alaskan Malamute to do it rather than purchasing a dog like a Lab who has strong instinct to bring things back to people? I am not saying pit bulls are untrainable dogs.I am sure they are capable of doing a great many things- they are just MOST capable of dog fighting.

As for the second thing you bring up, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Dog trainers, vets, humane societies, breeders, and other canine professionals try all the time to help people. There are hundreds and hundreds of dog training books, DVDs, e-mail lists, and web sites. There is no excuse, if someone really wants the information, for them not to find it. People are, for the most part, too apathetic to care. In a perfect world, all of the things you advocate would be true and we wouldn't have these issues, but, the world we live in is far from perfect and we have a lot of the wrong people owning the wrong dog. Please, no one call me classist or racist. Wrong people come in every color, sex, religion, and national origin.

I appreciate the time and energy you spent on your Dogo. If most people did even a fourth of that, dog owners would not be in the mess they are in today.


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 1:20 pm

Doug said,
"Lisa M,

If you would enjoy more facts of my self-inflicted incident, I would be glad to be of service to you and your cause.

The dog was on leash, and the owner did try to stop it from mauling me. As I danced and poked it with a burrito, the owner stood, seemingly dumbfounded by my foolish ignorance of the dog's signs that it was irritated. Therefore, he was caught off-gaurd when the dog attacked me, and did all he could to try to stop it from attacking. I did appreciate the effort.

And why do you inspire me? You reveal the facts. You tell the truth. And you are protecting the lives of innocent dogs everywhere.

Posted by Doug, a resident of Los Altos Hills, 12 minutes ago"

Doug,
I am not trying to belittle or badger you in any way and I certainly don't enjoy hearing about any dog attacking and injuring a person. Having been bitten by a dog in a very minor way in the past, I can say that I can only imagine with horror what it must be like and I have the utmost "respect" for dogs and their power to hurt others.

Honestly, I couldn't quite tell exactly what you meant by your post and still don't really know if you are sarcastic or not. I hope not.

It makes me sad to hear of children who haven't been taught how to behave around dogs. I wasn't either and was knocked over by a German Shepherd when I was a kid who was probably just trying to greet me, but I didn't know that. It was the only time I ever fainted in my life!

I had a student whose mom was a realtor who took the five year old to an empty house she was selling. She put him in the back yard not realizing the previous owner's dogs were being "stored" there. A small pack of border collies (three or four, I can't remember). The boy, upon seeing the dogs, was scared and turned to run. Of course, the border collies gave chase and nipped him on his legs, also in a very minor way (he was lucky). The mom told me about it and I taught her everything I knew about dogs at that point and recommended that she take her son to a dog class so that both of them could learn about dogs and he could replace his fear with knowledge. I don't know if she did that.

It is tragic when this happens to children and could have been prevented.

I feel a lot of anger toward owners who certainly should know better (of which your situation is also an example). What owner would stand there??? AAAAHHHHH!!!! If my dog growled at a child no matter if the child was behaving in a confusing manner, I would, without another thought, risk the ire of every animal rights person and give it a SEVERE correction. All that owner needed to do was pull straight up on the leash and choke off the dog, to unconsciousness if need be. That sounds horrible, but it is far less horrible than what happened to you. It would have also taught the dog that the owner was the leader and the dog should look to the owner for its cues for proper behavior. I am so sorry that happened to you. (Just to anticipate all the attacks for what I just wrote, I do not believe that is the manner in which dogs should be trained normally!)

If, in fact, you are not being sarcastic, which again, I hope not, I am amazed that you have the attitude you do about dogs.
Lisa


Posted by Hermine Stover, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 1:23 pm

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as
sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public
justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be
sacred or liberty cannot exist." John Adams.

Hermine Stover
Secretary
Responsible Dog Owners Of The Western States
23280 Stephanie
Perris CA 92570
951 943 0990


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 1:23 pm

Katie wrote;
Thank you for your concern for my cousin. Sadly, the attack took place 5 or so years ago in Europe somewhere which I would prefer to keep confidential. Again, thank you for your concern, it is very much appreciated.

Katie,
Death, unfortunately is never confidential. Especially a horrific death. You have given me enough information to do a vital records search. I hope that I have not added to your pain, but as you chose to post this incident, I thought that you wanted to share your grief, and your outrage. Since I know which European countries have bans, and when those bans were enacted, it won't take me any time to track this down.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius


Posted by watabunchofcraptheyspew, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 1:24 pm

lol, when someone can win a court case saying it's not a dnager to the public to own mountain lions, bring them in pet stores, have them off leash in dog parks and, walk them out in public, then I will hear your side but, that would be impossible, wouldn't it? You can't prove a dangerous animal is not a danger to the public even once, it's absurd. It is very clear what animals are dangerous, you can't debate it and win in court, can you? Can you make a case for any dangerous animal?Nope, yet somehow pit bull owners, experts and, organizations have won...Just how is that possible? Please do tell...


Posted by Perriann, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 1:37 pm

Whatabunchofcraptheyspew, do you have any proof that pit bulls are more dangerous? I am not talking about a Google search, but real, hard facts? Speaking of google, anyone interested in this way of doing "research" should know enough to actually read the millions of articles about pit bulls. It turns out, one day, I read a few thousand of them, and they were mostly all about the same few incidents, only written slightly differently by different journalists and staggered over a few days so as to appear to be entirely different incidents. So really, when someone claims to know more about the breed than someone who is going on ten years of research and experience by their having read headline google hits, I laugh out loud.


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 1:39 pm

Jilly said, "My point was that we don't see them doing these things, unless they are serving as the rare exception to prove the rule,"
Yes, I agree. But the point is they can be trained to do things contrary to the purpose of their breeds. The exceptions happen with owners who take the time to do it. It is that simple. Not because the dogs themselves are exceptions.

Taking care of irresponsible people is a very grey area of a very difficult issue. I do agree there is a problem. I don't agree the solution is to lump thousands of individual dogs and owners into one category and erase them all. No society is a utopia. No society will ever be perfect. We have to do the best we can and have rules that spell out consequences for those who cause harm. But, these dog issues ARE minor compared to the enormity of other ways of causing harm or death to people or their pets and they have been blown out of proportion by the media to the point of hysteria and mass fear. As I said, if the media spent the same amount of money and time on education as they do on stirring up hysterical news and responses, we'd live in a different society in terms of dogs.

I'm happy to be a part of working out the knotty solutions that would be required for this issue. But I can't allow one of those solutions to be me losing my rights (or my dogs' lives for the sake of their breed). I just can't.
Lisa


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 2, 2006 at 1:46 pm

"I elect local officials to make decisions on behalf of my community. I resent out of state special interest groups trying to pressure and bully local officials "

Hey.. I am not "out of state'' .. I live very near you.. and MY DOG VOTES.. I follow the "regulations" that the govenment is trying to shove down the throats of every citizen of our locale .. and elsewhere

We managed to get Jackie Spier out of office and will continue to vote out those who would take away our rights.. and that is YOUR rights too. Bullying and pressuring our public officals is our civic duty..you know.. In Washington.. they call it "lobbying" Elected officials are not Gods.. they are not omnipotent.. they are ELECTED to do what WE want them to.. rememeber that little space called the "voting booth"?

WE also pay taxes.. did you forget that???? You are not the ONLY one who does. The very last thing I want to do is "infringe" on any thing you do.. just like I want it to be the very last thing you do to me..
and .. if you don"t think there are "special interest" groups on this list.. can you say PETA.. and the HSUS ... then you are not paying attention. I am not a "special interest group".. I am just me..


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 2, 2006 at 3:18 pm

what's amusing is that the "I-wanna-own-any-pet-I-wish" crowd is always asking those they disagree with to prove a negative. Unwilttingly, people fall into this trap. How can anyone PROVE something that MIGHT not happen, as a fundamental assumption for ANY argument.

What ends up happening is the above crowd trot out exceptions to rules, and try to close down the argument from that. Can they PROVE that the sun own't shiine tommorow? Of course not, but it's a POSSIBILITY. This is the core of their illogic.

What most people know is that there are dogs that are more dangerous than others (inherently), and owners who are more dangerous than others. Act on that. (now watch the shils for dog ownership freedom" who make money selling pets come forward with more spam, like bestuvall or Cherie, etc. etc. Notice that when you answer their questions and they get cornered, they change the subject - another evasive tactic.

How does common sense control for this? License dog owners and breeders, and keep pets with a propensity for doing the most harm out of the hands of urban pet owners.

Talk to your local legislator, and report dogs and other animals that are a nuisance. Make sure that OWNERS of dangerous pets are challenged and prosecuted as community nuisances. Most of all, make sure the enforcement side is funded. One animal control officer per community just isn't enough.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 3:33 pm

Having exhausted all searches for European deaths of two year old girl childern caused by pit bulls in Europe, I shall turn my attention to respond to watabunchofcraptheyspew who wrote;
"lol, when someone can win a court case saying it's not a dnager to the public to own mountain lions, bring them in pet stores, have them off leash in dog parks and, walk them out in public, then I will hear your side but, that would be impossible, wouldn't it?"

There was no discussion as to cougar posession. These mixed metaphors do not relate in the real world.

The topic of this discussion was banning the so called "pit bull", a conglomeration of at least twenty-five actual breeds, and any number of mixed breeds of domestic dogs. Many of these breeds having traceable pedigrees that extend back into the 1830's. Pedigrees mean selective breeding. Human beings put thought, care, effort, and love into the development of these dog breeds.

When I was a child my heart's desire was to own a dog like Pete. When I was eighteen years old I achieved that desire. It is not a whim, or a passing fancy, or a hobby, it is a lifes committment.

Back in 1968 there was no horrific reputation. Nobody called these dogs "pit bulls" back then, they were just called bulldogs, or ABT's. That did not come about until the 1980's, under the direction of the H$U$.

Bans had been tried before, against the German Shepherd Dog, and against the Doberman Pinscher. Those breeds were protected by their parent organizations that immediately put a stop to the banning of their breeds.

The H$U$ had found it's cash cow, it was going to put an end to dog fighting. Dog fighting back then was not illegal, it was a sanctioned sport, and there were rules, and regulations. Dogs were not fought to the death. It was not a wide spread activity. That is until H$U$ stepped in and got it made illegal. (Just as they are doing today with the legal sport of lure coursing, and hunting) Then it went from being an above ground backwater sport into being what it is today. H$U$ just announced this spring that they have hired a publicity agency to help in their fight against dogfighting, that has been going on for over 35 years, and growing. H$U$ has videos that they market that purports to show how evil dog fighting is, but in actuality it is a How To Primer for the wanna be dog fighter. H$U$ has raked in the millions of dollars given by people who think that H$U$ really cares about saving these dogs from a great evil, when in fact dog fighting is H$U$ cash cow.

Back in the 1980's H$U$ took a pseudo scientist on the talk show circuit claiming that this "scientist" had discovered the "pit bull" gene. That was a farce, and a fallacy, the so-called pit bull gene was a blur on the film. There is no "pit bull" gene.

In 1914 the American Pit Bull Terrier was so highly regarded in this nation that it was portrayed as the representative of the United States of America on WWI allies posters that were commissioned by the Department of War, and designed and executed by Wallace Robinson, a reknowned poster artist of the day. There were two posters commissioned, I own both of them. One shows head studies of the breeds that represent the countries at war, in the center is the APBT, with the caption, "I'm neutral, but not afraid of any of them." It was rendered in black and white. The other poster shows the APBT standing over a draped American Flag in which kittens frolic, standing between England represented by the Bulldog, and Germany, represented by the Great Dane. The Caption reads;"Safe under the right protection."

Interesting how propaganda, fueled by big money, and an agenda can wreak havoc upon pet ownership.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius





Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 4:08 pm

Web Link
ATE ANIMAL RIGHTA ACTIVISTS EXEMPT FROM TELLING THE TRUTH?


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 2, 2006 at 5:03 pm

Cherie.........."The topic of this discussion was banning the so called "pit bull", a conglomeration of at least twenty-five actual breeds, and any number of mixed breeds of domestic dogs. Many of these breeds having traceable pedigrees that extend back into the 1830's. Pedigrees mean selective breeding. Human beings put thought, care, effort, and love into the development of these dog breeds."
----------

More faulty logic. If we applied this logic to human populations we would be putting people who are related to criminals under scrutiny, or in jail.

It's not so difficult to legislate "no pit bulls" and start there. If other breeds begin to present the kind of problems we see with Pit Bulls, then they get added to the list. Simple.

Forget about using all your arguments by extension and generalization. That won't work.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 2, 2006 at 5:47 pm

." If we applied this logic to human populations we would be putting people who are related to criminals under scrutiny, or in jail."

Is there a reason you are opposed to this? Could it mean that you DON"T believe that if your brother is a murderer that you are "tarred with the same brush" and should be equally as penalized? Why not??? You are of the same "gene pool", have the same parents, have grown up in the same house, have been exposed to the same environment.. so why wouldn't YOU be a killer too?

So by following your logic I see that you are agreeing with us. If we don't put "relatives" of criminals under "scruntiny.. or in jail" why should we do it to dogs whose only "wrong doing" is having a certain "look" or being of the same family I just knew you would see the logic.. welcome to the land of the free...




Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 2, 2006 at 6:01 pm

bestuvall..."Is there a reason you are opposed to this? Could it mean that you DON"T believe that if your brother is a murderer that you are "tarred with the same brush" and should be equally as penalized? Why not??? You are of the same "gene pool", have the same parents, have grown up in the same house, have been exposed to the same environment.. so why wouldn't YOU be a killer too?"


Thannks for proving my earlier point that you and your equate people and pets, putting them on the same plane. Have you read Peter Singer? He makes a case for this, and not a bad one. Nevertheless, you're on very thin ice, and continue to show that common sense doesn't reign in that community of persons who use thin ogic and obfuscation to warp a very simple argument - i.e., that some dogs are more dangerous than others, and that some pet owners are more irresponsible than others.

And in your rabid, rather juvenile rants about "rights", seem to forget that you're a member of a larger body politic than you and those that agree with you.

That I'm correct will be shown over time as licensing of owners and pets becomes more mandatory, and some breeds are kept, by law, out of urban environments.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 6:21 pm

Perriann,

Sigh. We have been over this same ground, and you can base your opinions on whatever you want, but the notion that the American Temperment Test Society test is a good measure of aggression/dangerousness is complete and utter nonsense. I have no idea what percentage of dogs fail the "unprovoked aggression" portion of the test, but since ALL that is required of the dog is to not show aggression toward a person who is completely friendly and non-threatening, the most dangerous dog in the world (think Bane, the dog who killed Diane Whipple) could pass on a good day. I am a AKC canine good citizen evaluator and I have NEVER had a dog fail the equivalent tests in the CGC for aggression. (Stranger walks up and shakes hands with owner, and talks amiably with him, then pets the dog in the ATTS test and pets the dog and fools with his feet and ears in the AKC test). Any dog who was even minimally socialized who would exhibit unprovoked aggression toward the friendly stranger under these conditions would certainly not be participating in any temperament test, and probably wouldn't be alive, because he would obviously be dangerous.

I don't know of any stats about what part of the test causes dogs to fail, but I will wager any amount of money that failures for being aggressive to the friendly stranger are pretty nearly non-existent. It is true that shelties are probably less likely to touch the umbrella with their noses, (and therefore will fail, under some ATTS evaluators) or walk across the ex=pen on the ground but I don't quite see that that trait translates to ripping apart the kids.

Plus, of course, the test is subjective, and supposedly dependent on the breed standard, so grading varies depending on the breed being evaluated. Since some breed standards (such as that of the AmStaff) are silent about temperament, whatever the evalator wants to pass is going to pass.

Next, Perianne, you apparently believe the nonsense about how dog fighters killed dogs (and you think their puppies, too!) if they were aggressive toward humans. Type in "Chinaman" in a search engine and see how many pit bulls at least claim to trace their lineage back to this known human-biter. And Richard Stratton tells about how "Corvino's Blackie" had to be brought to the pit (which was surrounded by wire to protect the spectators) muzzled and with three handlers with three leashes. The referee carried a club to protect himself. Yet Stratton goes on to say that "the Corvino strain is still intact at the time of this writing and is the preferred strain among pit dog men of all the old strains" so "oldtime dogmen" couldn't have been TOO adverse to breeding to dogs related to human aggressive pit bulls. As Diane Jessup notes (debunking the myth that 'oldtime dogmen' somehow had high ethics about temperament) if a human aggressive pit bull was victorious in the pit..."he wasn't bred, he was INbred."

As to the notion that pit bulls fight because they are so easy to train, why is it that so many pit bull owners find it so difficult to train their dogs NOT to be dog aggressive? Should we assume that everybody with dog aggressive pit bulls TRAINED them to be that way, or were lazy about training them not to be that way? Of course, that would be ridiculous. The reason that pit bulls are dog aggressive is that that is what they have been bred to be. Says Richard Stratton "So strong is this love for battle that a well-bred individual of this breed will never cease fighting..."

I am happy that you are happy with your dogs. I would be a lot happier, though, if 60% of the dogs in your shelter were not pit bulls and if you supported measures to prevent the irresponsible breeding of pit bulls, which is rampant. I'll bet if you ask the shelter staff what percentage of dogs they put down are pit bulls, the number is a whole lot higher than 60%.




Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 6:55 pm

Cherie,

I was just curious why you, as a breeder of American Staffordshire Terriers, don't do the necessary health screens on your animals prior to breeding them. Surely you realize that hip dysplasia is endemic in AmStaffs (they rank 22nd out of 142 breeds evaluated by OFA in incidence of hip dysplasia) as is elbow dysplasia (11th out of 82 breeds ranked) and cardiac problems (3rd out of 52 breeds ranked) and thyroid problems (17 out of 60 breeds ranked).

Of course, like every backyard breeder, you will say that your lines don't have health problems, or that your local vet does your testing and assures you that your dogs are okay. But truly responsible breeders understand that they need to protect their breed from OTHER breeders, all of whom can make exactly those claims (whether or not they are true) so there needs to be independent verification by vets that are qualified. OFA exists for that reason and truly responsible AmStaff breeders OFA ALL breeding stock's hips, elbows, thyroid and cardiac (some do patellas, too).

So why don't you do it? If you aren't going to be a responsible breeder in every respect, aren't you just part of the problem?


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 7:05 pm

HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED IN AURORA COLORADO WHEN THEY INITIATED A "PIT BULL" BAN EXCERPTED FROM A REPORT BY SONIA DIAZ

As you know, Aurora's Code Enforcement and Redevelopment Committee held a public hearing regarding their proposed BSL.
I've already sent out the three options to you, but to summarize, they include: draft #1, a ban on Pit Bull dogs; draft #2, a ban with a grandfather clause for those dogs already there; draft #3, restrictions for keeping the breed in lieu of a ban. No matter which option you're looking at, it's all BSL.

Another thing about the proposed legislation that is important, but was not included in the three drafts they originally sent out is that they are talking about adding breeds to the banned list including American Bulldogs. Here is the paragraph from the information the Committee handed out yesterday:

"If Aurora places a ban or restrictions on Pit Bull-type dogs, Animal Care Division staff recommends the Committee consider the inclusion of the following additional breeds. These breeds share some physical characteristics of Pit Bulls, but are generally larger and therefore more powerful. Due to their larger size, these breeds do not meet the Pit Bull standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club: The American Bulldog, Dogo Argentino, Canary Dog (Presa Canario), Presa Mallorquin (Ca De Bou), Tosa Inu (Tosa, Tosa Fighting Dog), and the Cane Corso. Please see the attached pictures of these various breeds."

So...others need to know that six additional breeds are being considered for the ban. My thought is that they included these breeds, because they are often hard to differentiate from the Pit Bull breeds. I bet they want to avoid lawsuits and avoid people saying their dogs are, say, American Bulldogs, and not the Pit Bull breeds. People need to know this.


Posted by Nathan G, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Sep 2, 2006 at 7:21 pm

"Special interest groups have NO RIGHT to tell the locals what they can and cannot do. That should be left up to the people whose lives are affected by these laws. Cherie Graves and her crew should take a hike.




Let members of the local community hold meetings with resdients, dog owners, police officers, animal control.... and let THEM decide what the best course of action is.




These decisions affect local PROPERTY OWNERS, not you, Ms. Graves. I would have a hell of a time selling my liitle house in a quiet family neighborhood, if the guy next door had a yard full of snarling pit bulls. That effects MY property values, and no anti-goverment political group is going to tell me that my neighbors right to own and breed an animal takes precedent over MY rights as a property owner. The local laws are there to protect me, my children's safety, and my largest investment...my home.




So take your silly conspiracy theories and your private agenda and go home."

Wow that was uneducated. Noone here is telling anyone what to do. We are merely informing people on the other side of this debate. We would rather not see an innocent breed be wiped out by misinformed individuals such as yourself. Why would you want to harm innocent dogs when putting stiffer laws on owners of all breeds would help protect your home, children and entire neighbourhood, not just from one breed but all breeds of dogs?


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 7:42 pm

Betsy,
I do not offer my dogs for sale to the general public. I breed my dogs primarily for my own program. I have a private treaty contract with those persons who buy from me. I am more than willing to run any test(s) that a buyer wants, of course the costs of the tests are reflected in the price. If you looked carefully at my website you will not find one dog offered for sale. My program is based upon a very sound gene pool. I do not add extraneous genetic mixtures to my closed program. I am breeding on a known quotient. Since my dogs are not readily available, I have had people on a wait list for up to ten years. My dogs are well known in AST circles for being highly trainable, sound in body, sound in mind, and long lived. My buyers tend to be repeat clients they like what they get. Last year a lady came to me for another dog. She had gotten her first AST from me in 1978. They live in OC, and he just graduated from novice obedience. He's starting intermediate next month. Since I keep a very tight handle on the breeding program, even for those dogs that are sold, the line remains one of the healthiest, soundest, long lived, and most consistant in conformation. I will never sell another person a dog that I would not be proud to own, and to show myself. In fact I do show my own dogs, and have finished most of my dogs out of the Bred by Exhibitor class.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 8:12 pm

Sorry, Cherie, but you still haven't said why you don't OFA your breeding stock (Hips, elbows, thyroid, cardiac and, of course, CERF eyes). Moreover, it sure SEEMS like you are offering to sell dogs to "the general public." You claim (on your website) to have sold dogs to people you didn't know before they came to you to buy a puppy and you give contact information on your website, apparently soliciting puppy buyers "from the general public." Why do you tell people how to contact you "to get on a waiting list" if you aren't soliciting puppy buyers "from the general public?"

It is certainly too bad that you haven't been OFAing all along, since some of the dogs in your puppies' pedigrees are surely dead by now, and therefore couldn't be OFAed, even in the unlikely event that one of your puppy buyers wanted to take you up on your offer to let them pay for what you, as a responsible breeder, should be doing. Responsible breeders OFA everything before they breed (and CERF eyes, of course) because they care enough to do everything possible to ensure that the puppies they produce will have healthy lives. Too bad you don't care enough and aren't responsible enough to do that, but instead just churn more pit bull puppies....


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 9:18 pm

Betsy,
Let me put this in very simple words so that you understand what I am saying.
Apparently you are having great difficulty in grasping the following:
THEY ARE MY DOGS!!
I OWN THEM.
I KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR MY DOGS!!
There is nothing on my website that says to contact me about getting on a wait list.
The purpose of my website is to educate people about my chosen breed.
Because I have an informative website, I get calls from people asking for advice.
I have been more than patient with your slams, and your detractions, and your swipes at my dogs, and all of the other petty AR tactics.
I've had third dates that weren't so nosy.
It must be my turn, now. I will be nicer than you are.
Do you want to come, and live with me?
Are you getting ready to propose marriage?
Betsy, where do you live?
What group are you affiliated with?
What is your last name?
What is your phone number?
Why are you more particular about my dogs, than you are about your dogs?
Does the shelter/rescue that supplies your dogs test?
Does the shelter/rescue that supplies your dogs offer you a return guarantee for the life of your dog?
Or does it just offer you an endless supply?
Do you train your dog?
How many obedience titles have you put on your dogs?
How many of any kind of titles have you put on your dogs?
What is it that you do?
Why don't you want anyone to know who you are?

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156

PARAGON
American Staffordshire Terriers
"Home of the swinging, flying show dogs"
509-447-2821
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." —Marcus Aurelius



Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 2, 2006 at 9:39 pm

Cherie...."Another thing about the proposed legislation that is important, but was not included in the three drafts they originally sent out is that they are talking about adding breeds to the banned list including American Bulldogs. Here is the paragraph from the information the Committee handed out yesterday:

"If Aurora places a ban or restrictions on Pit Bull-type dogs, Animal Care Division staff recommends the Committee consider the inclusion of the following additional breeds. These breeds share some physical characteristics of Pit Bulls, but are generally larger and therefore more powerful. Due to their larger size, these breeds do not meet the Pit Bull standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club: The American Bulldog, Dogo Argentino, Canary Dog (Presa Canario), Presa Mallorquin (Ca De Bou), Tosa Inu (Tosa, Tosa Fighting Dog), and the Cane Corso. Please see the attached pictures of these various breeds.""
-----------------

See what I mean? Scare tactics. "Watch out, our YOUR dog will be included in the ban....blah, blah, blah"

It would not be difficult to START with Pit Bulls, grandfathering all current pb's that are owned here, and requiring registration. From there on, NO MORE PIT BULLS. If other bredds prove a CONSISTENT problem (not incidental), they get banned too.



Posted by Lisa M, a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2006 at 10:09 pm

Bow-wow,
I'm interested to know what your dog's breed is.

I'm also interested in Betsy's answers to Cherie's questions. Her tactics are making me sick as well.
Lisa


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 2, 2006 at 10:33 pm

I don't have a dog, as I'm too busy to properly care for one. I have had dogs as companiioin pets, and would own one now if I had the time. I've had three dog companion: a Beagle, Cocker Spaniel, and Shelty mix. The Shelty was a wonder; I get teary-eyed just thinking about her. They were all delightful.

I understand Cherie's motivations, but they really do amount to nothing more than spam. We need to do something about pit bulls, while respecting current owners of that breed. We need to phase them, and other potentially dangerous breeds, out of domesticated pet existance in urban areas.


Posted by Tom, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 3, 2006 at 12:32 am

I am quite sure if Palo Altans vote for this subject.
THE PIT BULL WILL BE BANNED IN PALO ALTO!!!

Thank you all who speak up in banning the pit bull!


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 3, 2006 at 1:56 am

Hey.. all of you idiots "out there".. Listen UP!!!!!!!! I had a dog that died today.. DIED!!! what??? .. some of you will rejoice and be GLAD.. Bestsy.. BOWWOW.. you should rejoice.. .. John.. Jilly who ever you are.. and I guess we will never know..as you refuse to say who you really are.. another "pit bull" has died.. another who will never "attack" without warning.. another who will never "turn' on his owner.. another who would have been killed at the shelter.. another "product of a back yard breeder'..
Yup.. that's ME.. a back yard breeder.. Mugsy was born at my house.. lived in the house. and the "backyard". and so did his MUM.. a "product" of a breeder.. both parents.. and theirs too were "tested" for defects.. all "clear' so all for the puppies.. (there were 6 all) in good loving homes..should live "forever" right???? according to Beasty.. BOWWOW and John sure.. so Mugs developed a lung tumor and died..I said..oh I must be a BAD breeder.. I must have done something wrong.. after all ..this dog.. who was the "apple' of his owners eye.. who told me this morning through his tears and mine that the last 5 1/2 years of owning this dog had been the happiest of their lives.. that he did not know how to tell his daughters soccer team that their mascot had died.how will he explain to "mugsy's cat Norman amd his parrot Elvis that he is dead.... I thought...after all it must be my FAULT... well guess what.. I AM NOT BUYING THIS BULL****

Then I went back and read more of this list.. You know what?? all of you can ... BITE ME..

Jan Dykema
Bestuvall Bull Terriers
Director, Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Licensed American Kennel Club Judge
Vice President , Barbary Coast Bull Terrier Club
Memebr Bull terrier Club of America


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 3, 2006 at 2:07 am

"Have you read Peter Singer? He makes a case for this, and not a bad one."

Oh yes.. Pete Singer is one of my favorites. check this out
Web Link

sex with a chicken???? sure .. ok with Pete.. no problem.. infantide?? sure Pete can go along with that too.. We love Pete.. what a guy...


Posted by Bow-wow, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 3, 2006 at 3:44 am

bestuvall, I thought you'd like Singer; that's why I recommended it. Your kind of read. :)


On an entirely different note:
As far as Mugsy goes, I'm sorry to hear of your loss, and I offer sincere condolences; it's very difficult to lose a friend. Know that Mugsy will llive in your memory and that in a very real way, through you, he will live on.


Posted by betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2006 at 5:25 am

Bestuvall,

I am sorry to hear about the death of the dog you bred. That has to be hard, especially at five and a half. Any history of cancer in the lines? I love bull terriers, by the way.

I apologize, but I don't give out identifying information on the internet. I particularly don't give it out to people who seem a little off. You wrote (about me)"...this person is out to kill your dog." Of course, I don't want to kill anybody's dog, (and never said anything that could lead any reasonable person to believe I did) and either you know that this is the kind of statement that could, possibly, cause people who are off to do stupid things (in which case, why are you writing stuff like that?) or you are so off yourself that you don't even know that. Which is it? Either way, I hope you understand why I don't think I want to get up close and personal with you. Sorry.

Similarly, your collegue, Ms. Graves, seems to either be intentionally spreading lies, or to just have a strange view of reality, when she writes: "Our research has shown that the vaast majority of these so-called "pit bulls" are being bred by the animal rights rescue groups for the specific purpose of flooding this nation's shelters." Uh, no...

And both of you clearly get MASSIVELY defensive when I ask why you are breeding (Amstaffs for her, bull terriers for you) dogs without necessary health screens.

But I will answer a few of your questions.

I have three dogs. Two are shelter rescues, one is a responsibly bred purebred. I am a member of my local kennel club (on the board of director and obedience chair at our show every year), and of my national breed club and of a regional breed club.

Every dog I have owned since age fourteen (including these three) has had at least one AKC (or the AMBOR equivalent) obedience title. The current dogs all show and are titled in AKC performance events(the two shelter rescues are both ILPed) and the responsibly bred dog is a champion, UD, MX, MXJ. She has OFA good hips, OFA normal elbows, cardiac OFA clear (tested annually), CERF (also on the OFA website, also done annually) and thyroid OFA clear (done twice, I probably won't repeat it since it is normal). Every dog in her three generation pedigree is a champion (many with performance titles) and all are at least OFAed for hips (stuff like elbows is more recently becoming the norm in my breed). I might breed her, because there are some wonderful performance dog people (although she finished with four majors, she is a better performance dog than conformation dog, in all honesty) who are interested in her puppies and since I love everything about her. If I do breed her, it will be to a similarly titled and health screened male.

All my dogs live in the house with me, of course, as did all the dogs of the breeder I got my bitch from.








Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2006 at 5:54 am

Cherie,

You write: "There is nothing on my website that says to contact me about getting on a wait list." Uh...yes there is.

On the "planned breedings" page of your website, you say: "for more information on these breedings OR TO GET ON A WAITING LIST, please call (your phone number) OR email (your email address)."






Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2006 at 5:59 am

By the way, Cherie, I dont' get it why you are so defensive about selling puppies. There is nothing wrong with selling puppies. I would rather than puppies go to some loving home than live out their lives in kennels owned by people who have too many dogs to give each one plenty of individual care and attention. What is wrong (in my view) is BREEDING any dog without doing it right. And doing it right includes doing health screens before breeding, as any responsible breeder will tell you.

I don't support irresponsible breeding of ANY breed, but when it comes to pit bulls (AmStaffs), it gets even worse, because pit bulls are teetering on the brink of being banned nearly everywhere. This is precisely because of overpopulation and totally irresponsible breeders. A pit bull breeder (like yourself) who doesn't do everything absolutely right (health screens, titles on all breeding stock, take back the puppies for life) IS the problem.








Posted by Victoria, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 3, 2006 at 7:19 am

Bow-wow,
Once again I will point out that googling news reports (which are generated and approved with the intent to sell papers--I can assure you of that, having worked in the media as a journalist before moving into the coporate world--if you have doubts, I suggest you seek out an honest source in the industry and ask) is not the same as having unbiased scientific evidence, nor will it hold up in court as such.

If you are so concerned, why not form a group who will fund an unbiased study as I mentioned before? That's not a taunt, but a genuine suggestion--if you believe a point so strongly, then you must be able to provide unbiased scientific evidence before you will have any success restricting people's rights. That is true no matter what issue we are talking about.

From the number of Pit-related breeds and mixes in this country vs. cases of aggrevated injury and death caused by such, you will have a hard time in your mission without providing that evidence, unless you rely on generating public hysteria and perpetuating misinformation.

Once again, we get to the heart of the matter: there is no statistical evidence to support the demands being made, and by saying that, I am not endorsing anyone but people like me-- responsible owners who happen to have a pit or pit mix with no history to warrant being taken from their homes and euthanized.

I believe the solution lies in increased enforcement of the existing dangerous dog laws, which are frequently ignored or not enforced based on the breed of dog. I do not believe there is room in society for ANY dog with aggression issues, whether a Pit or a Pointer. Size and breed are not the issue--temperment is.

In fact, I recently stepped down from a board position with a rescue because they willingly adopted out dogs with bite histories rather than euthanize them, and I refuse to take moral or legal responsibility for someone being hurt.

And if you choose instead to work towards a breed ban, then I hope you will remain objective and fair by offering owners in that area the opportunity to be given exceptions if they can provide testimony from experts in the field such as vets.

Banning something based on public hysteria with no evidence to support it is the action of irresponsible people, and just like irresponsible dog owners, leads to unfair restrictions on innocent people.



Posted by Victoria, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 3, 2006 at 7:26 am

By the way, for anyone wondering, the dogs with the bite histories were the following breeds or Mixes:
Chow
2 Labs
Mastiff
Shepard Mix
German Shorthaired Pointer
Golden Retriever

Not that I expect you to believe me, but there was not a pit or pit-mix in the bunch. Had there been, I have no doubt that it would have been euthanized without question. I have no problem with that, but feel those same standards of acceptable behavior should be fairly applied across the board for all breeds.

As one of my vets says, "Once a dog has a bite history, breed has no place in the discussion except among people with an agenda. Biting dogs need to be euthanized, end of story."



Posted by Betsy, a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2006 at 8:00 am

Victoria,

I have sought out honest sources of information about dog bites and (particularly) fatalities, and, um, pit bulls don't do so well.

The most meaningful statistics kept are kept on fatalities, since they are invariably well investigated and a lot of attention is paid to the facts. Investigating officers on the scene of a fatal dog attack know that they are likely to have to testify in some court proceeding in the future, so they don't just casually write down "pit bull" in their report, if the dog involved is a labrador. Plus, fatal attacks (particularly in the last twenty or so years) have generated ENORMOUS interest from people who are focusing on the breed issue. There is always debate and discussion about the breeds involved.

One of the people who has been paying attention is Karen Delise. Note that Ms. Delise is (perhaps overly) sensitive to the notion that pit bulls are maligned in the media. And she certainly isn't "anti-pit bull." She tallied fatal dog attacks in her book "Fatal Dog Attacks" and found pit bulls that were CONFIRMED AS purebred PIT BULLS, accounted for 32 (30 pit bulls and two AmStaffs) human deaths between 1965 and 2002. If she couldn't independently confirm the breed identification or if the dog didn't look precisely purebred to her or if the only source of breed identification she could find was the media (even though it might well be accurate) the dog was counted as a "pit bull type" dog. "Pit bull type dogs" accounted for 90 (plus two AmStaff) deaths. So even if you believe that the media was lying about every single case and that NONE of the dogs that didn't look exactly purebred to Ms. Delise had even a speck of pit bull in them (although if she could identify another breed other than pit bull, even if she could clearly see pit bull, the dog was catagorized as a "mixed breed" dog rather than a "pit bull type.") there is a big problem here. Labs (the most popular dog in the country) accounted for FOUR deaths in Ms. Delise's careful study. Pit bulls who were confirmed as pit bulls accounted for 32 and another 60 were "pit bull type" dogs, who may very well have been purebred pit bulls.

Note that Ms. Delise didn't apply the same stringent criteria to breed identification for any other breed. If her only source for identifying a German shepherd or a rottweiler as such was the media, she didn't id it as a "rottweiler type" dog. It got lumped in with the rottweilers.

Perhaps most compellingly, we know that approximately half of the 54 million dogs in this country are mixed breed dogs. Mixed breed dogs are, by definition, irresponsibly bred, but otherwise they are, by definition, pretty much an "average" dog, since (unlike purebreds) there is no concerted effort to breed mixed breed dogs for any particular purpose (hunting, aggression, pit fighting, etc.) Delise found that 71 fatalities were attributable to mixed breed dogs. If every breed were equally represented, and no breed were more dangerous and likely to kill than others, then the TOTAL number of fatailities attributed to purebreds should be around 71, since half the dogs in this country are purebreds and half are mixed breeds.

Are you with me, so far?

Of course, pit bull type dogs ALONE accounted for 92 fatalities in Ms. delise's careful study. So even if you believed that every single dog in this country that wasn't a mixed breed was identifiable as a "pit bull type" dog, pit bull types would be shown to be far more likely to fatally attack a person than just a generic mixed breed dog. And even if you only look at dogs that Ms. Delise CONFIRMED were actual purebred pit bulls, unless you believe that HALF the purebreds in this country are pit bulls (and maybe Glen Bui believes that, but nobody else does), pit bulls are more likely to kill people than are generic dogs.

This doesn't mean that there might not be some other breeds that are dangerous. As I have said, I believe that probably presa canarios, per capita, have killed more people than even pit bulls because they are an extremely rare breed. And wolf hybrids (which, to be fair, are banned many, many places for just this reason) are also extremely likely to be dangerous. But pit bulls have a big problem with dangerousness, and the pit bull community seems to be divided--some of them are in denial about the dangerousness problems in pit bulls and some of them are breeding for it. There don't seem to be many people who are taking it seriously (as a REAL problem, not just as a public relations problem) and doing something about it.



Posted by doesn't matter anyway, a resident of Stanford
on Sep 3, 2006 at 10:28 am

you said you've read about HUNDREDS of similar attacks, but can you even cite 10 attacks? what about the numerous attacks on children by other breeds? check your local animal control center and see how many REPORTED bites are actually from pitbulls. then check to see how many are from labs. you have littel or no experience with pitbulls judging from the way you write about them. pitbulls are not vicious animals on their own, just like ANY breed. how many dogs have you owned and socialized? dogs of any breed can be taught to be mean or are sometimes left untrained which can be mistaken for being mean. please do not be prejudice when you barely know the FACTS.


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2006 at 10:30 am

This is getting boring, but Betsy has given out some wrong info again that needs to be addressed. Now, she is haranging about testing prior to breeding. She's going on and on about hips, elbows, CERF eyes, etc.

But she knows perfectly well that testing for eyes does NOT include any indication of future lens luxations (something I have spent thousands on in one of my dogs), or anterior polar Y cataracts (genetic which do not appear until AFTER age two and which are not generally sight impairing and which my other dog got AFTER he would have been CERF tested had I decided to breed him). I am sure there are plenty of other expensive eye issues that are not covered by the CERF tests which are done in fairly young dogs as a rule.

She has gone on and on about OFA hip testing but failed to mention that now the standard is not OFA which lumps many breeds together, but Penn Hip which does not, and which tests for a range of "looseness" appropriate to the breed and their function - because of course, tight hips are NOT appropriate to every function.

She has also NOT mentioned that the AKC is the single-most important organization regarding the deterioration of every working breed in this country due to its emphasis on FORM and not FUNCTION, which determines form and temperament in all dogs that are used as they are supposed to be. Working breeds constitute the majority of all dog breeds, since there are very few legitimate "companion" dogs, although the AKC is trying to make them all that way.

She has also NOT mentioned that the AKC working tests are such watered down versions of anything remotely resembling actual field/guardian/hunting work that they are laughable certifications for people with pampered pets that like to train with treats for tricks.

And in her "statistics" that she quotes from Ms. Delise above, she mentions 32 pure bred pit fatalities in COUNT 'EM.... THIRTY SEVEN YEARS. ROFLMAO!! OH MY GOD! And this is what you all are fanatical about????? Unbelievable! Go work on killer bees and fire ants. Someone should send a package of them up to Palo Alto, they aren't getting there fast enough.

Give it a rest. All you've got is personality assassination from people who either don't own dogs for lack of "time" (yet have the time to slam others on the net in ways they would never do face to face), or own dogs they won't reveal, yet brag about without any chance of verification.

Oh, and Betsy, as for your AKC status as a CGC tester, I agree with Bestuvall. You should be reported. You failed one dog in your "career" as a tester? A pit bull. ROFL! What a prejudiced load of crap.

Almost everything you've said in this forum has been exaggerated, unsubstantiated bull. Your words are so wrong and so twisted it would take hours and hours to address them since every sentence goes awry. Give it a break. Go blow-dry your dogs.
Lisa


Posted by just, a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2006 at 11:11 am

"pit bull types" this is any dog that looks like a pit bull or appears by animal control or any other persons or witness in the case of a dog attack. there are many types of dogs that look like pit bulls to most people. this is a big part of pit bulls getting the short end of the stick in more cases than one might think. the case of a women who was killed by two Prescanario dogs in her san fracisco apt. about 4 years ago. pit bulls were giving the blame for that attack. this is just one case in which pit bulls took one for the team, there have been many other attacks in which pit bulls have taken the heat for other breeds. breeds that are often mistaken for pit bulls are mastiffs, american bulldogs, old english bulldoggies, cane corso, and prescanrio. thats just off the top of my head,and trust me there are more. with that said any one of the mentioned breeds mixed with other types of breeds will appear to us as a pit bull or "pit bull mix" when in fact are not at all pit bull. when you factor in all this info, and look at the statistics of dog bites pit bulls or pit bull mixes and any other time it appeared to be or looked like a pit bull. it's no hard for anyone to figure out that pit bulls are at the bottom of the list when it comes to dog attacks. not many pit bull attacks go unreported, there are how ever many other dog attacks involving other breeds that never make the six oclock news and for that matter are not even reported. hers one for you: last year in Palo Alto a 2 year was attacked and killed by the families dalmation(yes the cute spotted dog we all see at the fire station) how many of you knew about this? all dog owners have a job to make sure their dogs will not be in a position to harm other animals or people, and that includes all breeds, poodles to pit bulls and even those so called "pit bull mixes". the problem is the people not the dogs. and now you want to take away one breed? that does not solve the problem it just creates another problem for the next breed that will get picked on.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 3, 2006 at 11:29 am

"And both of you clearly get MASSIVELY defensive when I ask why you are breeding (Amstaffs for her, bull terriers for you) dogs without necessary health screens"

I did not say I do not health test my dogs.. can you find a place in the "blog" where i said that? I couldn't. I did not say my dog died of cancer.. you did.. I said you wanted to kill dogs.. not personally but through the extinction of non breed of dog that you call the "pit bull".. if, as you have stated here many times, all "pit bulls and 'pit bull mixes".. and oh if a few others are "thrown into the mix, no matter" are spayed and neuterd..what is the end result? Extinction.. and you and others in your "camp" have stated that if "other breeds" become a "problem" you will add them too.
I my little old crude way.. let me say this.. You are all Elitists..you have no problem called people "slime mold"., demeaning them for living in trailers, mocking the clothing they wear..calling them scum.. so I will leave it to you who figure out who is the crude one here.

My caustic attitude comes from reading through this diatribe written by people who care nothing for dogs.. They do not believe in educating dog owners through public forums,they will not take the time to train even one single "pit bull" at the shelter so that it could be rehomed.They turn their friends away from the "non breed". I guess to them it is better to kill than to adopt.. then they decry about the killing ... The goals they have set.."pit bull" extinction.. just is not happening fast enough for THEM so they must push into you home and take your rights as dog owners. They wamt to tell you what is best for YOU and for YOUR dog..Angry.. yes I am..I haven't even begun to become Hysterical..yet


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 3, 2006 at 11:56 am

). "Every dog in her three generation pedigree is a champion (many with performance titles) and all are at least OFAed for hips (stuff like elbows is more recently becoming the norm in my breed). I might breed her, because there are some wonderful performance dog people (although she finished with four majors, she is a better performance dog than conformation dog, in all honesty) who are interested in her puppies and since I love everything about her. If I do breed her, it will be to a similarly titled and health screened male."

Hello Betsy:
Now that sounds like a nice breeding.. a "popular" dog with lots of titles and heatlh tests bred to a similar "popular" dog with lots of titles and health tests.. All in the pedigree are Champions.. sounds like you have a "waiting list" too.like Cherie.. and occasionly like me.. although I refer to other responsible breeders or to rescue when I have no litters planned.. What could be better.. Who could be more responsible. I am sure all of the puppies will be microchipped with your name, have full sets of shots, have been examined by the vet.be on heartworm and flea prevention before they go to the axiously waiting new owners. and of course, you will have a "cradle to grave" return policy for what ever reason the owner my give you, illness, destructive pup..got too old.. had to move.. got a divorce.. tried to bite the kids.. whatever.. that dog comes back to you .. RIGHT? That's what we do.

Your reason for breeding all comes down to one sentence.."I love everything about her".. well so do many other people who breed their dog.. it isn't just about YOU.. and by the way.. I have been breeding dogs for 30 years..just because the parents "pass" everything does not mean the get will be the same.. it is called "breeding" not cloning. You sound like you are trying to do the right thing. How about letting the rest of us do what we think is right for us? Hopefully you will be busy with your new puppies and will give the rest of us a break.. we will continue to try to edcuate the world that dog ownership of any breed is a responsibility and a great joy.


Posted by George, a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Sep 3, 2006 at 12:01 pm

I decided to check out the posts about the pitbull ban, and I stumbled across the commentary posted by Lisa M. I am enraged that she believes that those who are attacked are ignorant to the signs of impending attack. Some of us are not familiar with the "signs" because we have not been around pitbulls. So for you to say that we are ignorant is indeed ignorant of you. I believe we should be aware of menacing dogs bred for fighting, but to say that the fault lies in the one who has been attacked is downright idiotic. Should everyone be trained to recognize the "signs" of every potential killer? Yes, we should be smart and not entice these animals, but according to your philosophy, even a child or someone not capable of recognizing these signs are asking to be mauled.


Posted by bestuvall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 3, 2006 at 12:20 pm

"A pit bull breeder (like yourself) who doesn't do everything absolutely right (health screens, titles on all breeding stock, take back the puppies for life) IS the problem."

Ah Bestsy:
You have taken on the wind of the lions.. Cherie does not breed "pit bulls" as you insist upon saying. Her dogs are among the most well respected animals in Am Staff world.. and other breeds as well.

Titles do not a champion make.. Many "long time" breeders have bitches or dogs that for one reason or another could not make it in the show ring. that being said.. they produced fabulous puppies..some key dogs in the history of my breed were monorchids... it was allowed then to breed them.. we would not have the incredible lines today if we didn't have those dogs..one of our "key" dogs was imported.. this was before BAER testing.. he had many litters and was then found to be a unilateral hearing dog...should we spay and neuter every one of his gorgeous puppies? I guess that would be the owners call.

My friend had a litter of puppies .. parents and grandparents tested clear for kidney function.. safe right.. sorry.. yes .. three of those pups had kidney failure.. who could have know that?? Only God.. we, as breeders, do our best.. educate ourselves ( and not by reading Pete Singer) about EVERY aspect of our dogs.. every bit of knowledge.. we go to shows..we judge.. we put on seminars.we try to educate others .. we work in rescue. and still we have to take abuse from people like you and John and BOWWOW and Jill who want us to "conform" ... and be "inspected".. and be "permitted"..and "spay and neuter" and give the names of those we sell puppies to..

This is not The McCarthy era.. We don't need "blacklists".. we don"t need legistaion.. we need EDUCATION.. and that is what we are trying to do.. no breed is inherently bad..no breed needs to be banned or to become extinct ALL BREEDS can be loving family animals.. some will require a larger couch!

Good Luck with your litter.. may they all be perfect and live forever

































Posted by bestvuall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 3, 2006 at 1:16 pm

"That means mandatory S/N of non-show dogs. If you are a show breeder, you would not be affected. You could continue to breed and show your dogs"

How would I not be affected.. how would YOU not be affected. Have you read the LA County MSN law? Puppies must be spayed or neutered before they reach four months. that's right four months..Veterinarins have decryed this practice. Bitches become incontinent ( another reason they are brought to shelters) and large breeds do not develop proper bone growth. (sort of like going a vasectomy on a five year old)

You cannot even show a dog until he is six months old. How will you pick "show stock"?.. you won't and that is the true purpose of these bills put forth by Animal Rights Rights Acitivsts.

I am "restriced" to breeding a btich only once a year.. my VET ( and many agree with him) tells me that is more healty for the bitch to bred "back to back" as we call it. The risk of pyomentra is greatly reduced.. "Pyo" kills bitches. But if I CHOOSE to do this for the health of my animal I will be a criminal. Even if I hadn't had a litter for the five previous years.. does this make sense? Do we want the government IN EVERY THING WE DO???

As for making Am Staffs and Satffy Bulls "rare".. The AKC reports Am Staffs as number 63 in registraion numbers.. Staffys are a real "popular" dog at 85.. Labs are number one.. 137,867 Labs registered.. 1677 Am Staffs and a whopping 856 Staffies.. so it would seem that Am Staffs and Staffs.. the number one breeds named in BSL are indeed,already, rare...


Posted by Lisa M., a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2006 at 1:30 pm

George,
Learn how to read. I have a genius IQ and assume the best about people before I make the kind of personality judgments and assassinations you do. Every child should be educated about dogs and to not do so is a lack of responsibility on the part of the adults.

Just,
While I appreciate your post and your intentions, it is not accurate. First of all, for the millioneth time, there is no breed called "pit bull."

Secondly, the molosser group of dogs include many breeds that are mastiff/bully crosses created for working purposes. The Presa Canario (or Dogo Canario), Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Dogo Guatemalteco, Boerboel, etc., are all mastiff/bully crosses. Both groups (mastiffs and bullys) are hundreds of years old and were developed (some are "natural" occuring breeds) for different purposes. Mastiffs are the "war dogs" and were used by armies to go out and fight. They are guardian breeds. Bullies are hunting dogs. Bully/Mastiff crosses are guardian-hunters. They have been developed in countries where there are huge amounts of space between families who have to hunt for a living. For instance, the Dogo Argentino (Dogo meaning Mastiff in Spanish) is a dog developed for hunting wild boar and puma (both of which were agricultural predators and presented danger to humans) and for guarding the home. They are notorious for loving children and taking any and all unusual behavior that children are wont to do. They are also notorious for their great courage all the way up to their last breath to protect their humans from harm when hunting. Presas are the same type of breed.

As the breed is taken further from its purpose, it changes and temperaments change. The Presas you are referring to were mixed breeds, not Presa Canarios. You might be surprised to find out Presa Canarios are not that big of a dog and are also very loyal and expressive companions.
Lisa


Posted by bestvuall, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 3, 2006 at 1:44 pm

"Mixed breed dogs are, by definition, irresponsibly bred, but otherwise they are, by definition, pretty much an "average" dog, since (unlike purebreds) there is no concerted effort to breed mixed breed dogs for any particular purpose (hunting, aggression, pit fighting, etc.)"

I would have to ask if you have read the "dog ads".These breeders certainly don't think they are being "irresponsible".. Many people in my affluent little burb proudly walk their "labdradoodles" through town ilke they have the next Westminster winner on the end of the leash.. can you say ,Labradoodle? Pekeapoo? Maltapoo? Puggle? Sheltdoodle? Scoodle, schnoodle..Pugapoo.. PetiteGoldendoodle?? this is just a start..there is a HUGE concerted effort to breed these mutts.. eveybody WANTS one.. they walk out of shelters before they hit the ground..no matter if they are biters or fighters.. they are just so cute.. and they don't shed.. what a bunch of bunk
As for cross breeding for fighting.. of course they do.. no "pit bull" is pure strain.. they are bred to what ever is biggest and baddest..so spay and neuter whatever.. you will still have fighters.. you will still have shedders.. will still have stupid people.. you cannot Legislate out stupidity.. hmm perhaps it is indeed a prerequisite to BE a legislator these days....

"since half the dogs in this country are purebreds and half are mixed breeds."
Interesting.. where did this "stat" come from?


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2006 at 2:28 pm


Here is the link to the California Constitution Declaration of Rights
Web Link


Posted by Hermine Stover, a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2006 at 2:53 pm

As I read and re-read the things posted here, I am reminded of something with which Hitler's minister of propaganda came up...this is a pretty good quote. He said, Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. When I read folks' words about an opinion, like, they turn on their owners, locking jaws, and all that other "stuff" about the American Pit Bull Terrier, and other dogs presumed to be that generic kind of dog, I have to AGREE with Hitler's minister of propaganda. I mean, you people say this stuff as if you have personal first-hand knowledge! But you are merely being parrots, who repeat what they have been taught, through repetition, with no concept of the meaning of the sounds.
Hermine Stover
Secretary
Responsible Dog Owners Of The Western States
23280 Stephanie
Perris
CA 92570
951 943 0990
You must be very angry to actually want to wipe out millions of people's harmless pets by sterilization and dog pogroms. The day MY DOG attacks you, you have the right to wipe my dog off the earth, but NOT BEFORE. If it were YOUR DOG, you would be saying the same.

I was thinking about how nowhere does it say in the Constitution, "this was written to apply ONLY to educated white men who own property"-------------- but it took an amendment for WOMEN TO GET TO VOTE in the USA. one day, I wonder if we will need an amendment making it legal for Citizens of the USA to actually OWN A DOG.


Posted by Cherie Graves, a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2006 at 2:56 pm

Remember the topic? Should Palo Alto ban "pit bulls"?

From declaring that all "pit bulls" are dangerous and untrustworthy, therefore they must be banned, the animal rights extremists have now determined that these self same "pit bulls", are not of the health, and vigor to be allowed to exist. If these numerous breeds that are lumped under the heading of "pit bull", and so unhealthy, and ill, how is it that they can possibly present a danger to others? Hip dysplasia, is not contageous, not are the other defects that these breeds are supposedly succumbing from. If it were true that these breeds are afflicted so uniformly, then they are already on their way out as viable breeds. The bottom line to the animal rights agenda is that they will tell any lie, promote any law, in order to take away our pets.

Lets just pretend for the sake of clarity that this blog is a Court of Law. All of the posts are testimony. Lets toss out all of the posts that are personal attacks, or question the personal lives of those who have posted, lets toss out all of the posts that have no verifiable proof to back up the statements made. Intent as betsy is on trying to sell my dogs for me, lets take all of those posts away, too. They are in the personal realm of my life, and are periferal to the topic.

The state law prevents the banning of any breed of dog. If Palo Alto did enact a breed ban, it would be in violation of state law. The residents that would be affected could immediately file for an injunction, and bring in the state Attorny General's office, to investigate.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Web Link
323922 N. Hwy. 2
Diamond Lake, WA 99156
509-447-3231


Posted by Tyler Hanley, online editor of Palo Alto Online
on Sep 3, 2006 at 3:39 pm

Tyler Hanley is a registered user.

Folks,
Sorry, but the posts being made have become repetitive and increasingly personal. We have been needing to delete more and more of them for violating our policies, and the debate isn't being advanced with any meaningful new information. We're now going to lock this topic.


Posted by Dog Lover, a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2006 at 3:53 pm

Bestuvall, I am not being sarcastic.....like Betsy, I like bull terriers, and I would GUARANTEE that bull terriers, much less ones from show lines, and and Am Staffs from show lines, are NOT the dogs making the headlines. So why are you all so willing to go down with the ship to protect bad breeders? Is the "principle" of BSL more important that the dogs themselves?

I agree with you about the regulations that require S/N by 4 months. I wouldn't do it, for the reasons you mentioned. But is the only answer no regulations at all? I don't support the rights of breeders to do whatever they want....thats what got us here in the first place. Can't the Fancy get together and unite and say look....this is what responsible breeding is all about; breeding titled dogs, OFA screenings, breeding AWAY from dog aggression, a cradle to grave puppy contract, mandatory s/n of all pet quality dogs, etc. This is the breed "gold standard" and we will police ourselves. We will all sign a code of ethics in order to belong to the breed club. Proof of membership in this breed club means that these breeders will be exempts from BSL legislation. But as for the rest of you....good riddence.

Wouldn't that mean that all the creeps selling dogs over the internet to anyone with the money to pay for them, would be out of business....eliminating the source of problem dogs and owners? Like you said, bull terriers are rare...why not keep them that way?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Indian street food and ... bitcoins?
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,152 views

Most Seniors do not Need Senior Housing But Could Benefit from other Choice to Remain in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 31 comments | 1,431 views

"The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden"
By Anita Felicelli | 0 comments | 1,133 views

I Spy
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 981 views

The Cinderella ride
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 787 views