Pit bulls only as dangerous as their owners, ASPCA tells city
Commissioners view Web-based seminar on "dangerous dogs"
By Scott Rochat
Monday, November 13, 2006
A Web-based seminar on dangerous dogs had a simple message for Emporia city commissioners: Blame the owners, not the breeds.
"There is no data to support the idea that a particular breed of dog is vicious," said Debora Bresch, legislative liaison for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which held the seminar Monday afternoon. "It's the owner's behavior that needs to be addressed."
The city commission is set to look at its "vicious dog" ordinance on Nov. 22 at the request of Emporia resident Tricia Segobia. Recently, a Siberian husky-pit bull mix killed a dog Segobia had given to a friend, then killed a neighbor's dog after the mix was released from the animal shelter. The mixed-breed was not considered "vicious" under Emporia law because it had not harmed or killed a human.
Segobia has asked for Emporia to better enforce its animal-control laws and to tighten the laws it has. Among other things, she wants a dog to be considered "vicious" if it has attacked or killed a pet and she has asked that the city require owners of "notorious breeds" to register their dogs and insure them.
At the seminar, however, Bresch and ASPCA attorney Ledy VanKavage said that breed-specific legislation tends to be ineffective. One of the most sweeping examples, a nationwide ban of pit bulls that Britain adopted in 1991, had no impact on the number of dog bites in the country, a study found. And this year, a circuit court found a breed ban to be unconstitutional in Toledo vs. Tellings, which said a ban violated equal protection and due process rights since there was no reason to declare the American pit bull terrier to be inherently dangerous.
Requiring owners to insure dogs such as a doberman or a rottweiler tends to be tantamount to a ban, the two ASPCA representatives said, since few companies will insure them -- even though, they said, dog bites cost an insurance company far less than floods or fires and occur less frequently. Between 12 and 24 people die each year from dog bites, VanKavage said.
"More people are killed by lightning each year," she said. But the media quickly picks up on pit bull attacks, she noted, even when other, more severe dog attacks occur. On June 9, she said, 41 publications covered a girl who was seriously, but not critically, injured by two pit bulls. On the same day, a boy who needed 300 stitches after being mauled by a Labrador retriever-mix drew coverage from only two papers.
"In the '70s, it was the doberman," VanKavage said. "In the '80s, it was the German shepherd. In the '90s it was the rottweiler and now it's the pit bull. But getting rid of the breed doesn't get rid of the problem."
So if it's not any one breed, what makes a dog likely to attack? The two women listed three main factors.
• 90 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not spayed or neutered.
• 81 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not maintained as a pet, but were instead isolated from the family and regular human contact.
• 61 percent of those attacks came from animals that were not humanely controlled, or had in some way been abused or neglected.
Given those conditions, they said, communities have taken a number of different approaches. Some have partially subsidized the cost of neutering a pet for those unable to afford it. In Delaware, for example, the cost has been brought down to $10 to $20, paid for in part by a $3 surcharge on rabies shots. In addition, veteranarians are offered a $50 tax credit for each combined vaccination and sterilization they do.
It doesn't take long to recoup those costs, Bresch said.
"In New Hampshire, they saved $3.15 in impoundment costs for every dollar spent on low-income pet owners needing assistance," she said.
Other avenues to pursue, they said, include an anti-tethering or chaining law, since animals tied up for long periods of time tend to become antisocial; mandatory microchipping of pets, so that loose dogs can quickly be recovered; offering responsible pet owner and bite prevention training; and adopting a "tiered" system of punishment for owners of dangerous dogs.
As an example of the last, Bresch and VanKavage described an Oregon community which started with relatively minor penalties for an animal at large that displayed menacing behavior up to possible euthanasia for an animal that bites a person or kills a pet or farm animal. After a one to two-year period, the animal can be deemed no longer dangerous, though confinement is still required in the more severe cases.
Commissioner Bobbie Agler said he found the presentation interesting, though he also wanted to hear from anyone who might have evidence to support a different viewpoint on breed bans.
"If there's opposing studies out there, it's critical that we don't get blindsided," he said.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by ammitnme (anonymous) on November 14, 2006 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So Segobia is asking that Siberian Huskies be registered and insured as a notorious bred?
Posted by TaterSalad (anonymous) on November 14, 2006 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm, racial profiling ... Okay for dogs, but not humans?
Posted by Victim (anonymous) on November 15, 2006 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Saying that a dog is only as dangerous as his owner is like saying
a child is only as dangerous as his parents. Dog activists want to
do everything they can to have a dog treated like a human so that certain breeds are not discriminated against. It is a fact that all dogs bite. It is also a fact that when a Pit Bull bites it is a more viscious attack. There is no such thing as a perfect parent and there is no such thing as a perfect dog owner. We all know that all dogs bite, so all of us who have children feel very uncomfortable having a Pit Bull in the neighborhood. Especially when they accidently get loose running out the front door. You can not blame all these attacks on the owners because many of them are good dog owners.
Pit Bulls are dangerous because when they bite, they clamp down hard and naturally do not want to stop. Should this dog be accepted as a pet? This means I have to trust that the Pit Bull owner living next door to me will not let his dog loose. NO WAY!
I don't trust anyone with any dog and I certainly DO NOT want a Pit Bull in my neighborhood! This is definitely risky! THat is why the insurance companies do not want to offer insurance to Pit Bull owners or they want very high fees. I say, "Thank God for the insurance companies. This will help keep people from choosing Pit Bulls. A note to the Pit Bull breeders and activists: If you would stop promoting this breed as a good family dog, maybe we would not have such a problem. Face it. It is not the best breed because most dog owners can not be in 100% control of their dogs. I don't want to visit any ones house who owns a Pit Bull. Not after what I saw they did to Nick Folley (google Nick Folley and see for yourself) and not after I experienced first hand, my own sons face being ripped off!
It is too risky for our children. There are plenty of other great dogs out there!!! Why pick a Pit Bull? To put more children and people at risk? I don't get it. I love my dogs but children come first!
Posted by nanvaz (anonymous) on November 15, 2006 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Anonymous Victim,
You are totally right. We should never treat our dogs as humans. They have other needs than we do. BUT I am very sorry that you sent your comments before getting the right facts.
We, responsible parents and responsible dog owners, clearly understand the fact that the way we, humans treat an animal reflects the way we treat other human beings: http://www.psyeta.org/ The link between human violence and animal abuse has been studied for many years.
Pitbulls are the most abused animal in this planet and the most misunderstood. They do not plan attacks in order to be in the news nor organize illegal fights. ANY Intact dog (meaning not fixed), unsocialized, poorly trained or not trained at all dogs tend to bite the most. Why? Because they can't take themselves to the vet clinic to be fixed; they can't take themselves to a trainer to be trained. We, humans are the ones who must provide it for them. Catch my drift?
Click here so you see what Jeff Armstrong, founder of PAIDO: Parents Against Irresponsible Dog Owners) and father of Ryan (who was bitten by a dog) has to say about singling out dog breeds: http://www.geminiz.com/ArmstrongAct/Inde...
I am an adoption counselor at the local animal shelter and I see often that people do not want to take responsibilities for their dogs and that is a red-flag to me because they often do not take responsibilities for their children either.
A Pomeranian (small size dog) killed a baby in California in 2002: http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/... Did we hear it in the news? No. Why? Simply because it was NOT a Pitbull: http://www.badrap.org/rescue/myths.cfm
ANY dog is capable of inflicting trauma and death. Check again Jeff Armstrong son's story who clearly understands that owners must be responsible for their dogs actions.
I gave birth to the most precious little baby in the whole world but you will never get an invitation to our home to meet him. Why? We own four dogs: a Basset, a Mutt, a Shar-Pei and a Pitbull and we do not want uninformed yet ignorant people in our household who can harm the environment of our loving and caring human-animal bond
The best,
Nancy
Posted by murchins (anonymous) on November 15, 2006 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
An ordinance that works against any animal that commits a vicious act (regardless of breed) is not breed specific. I would support an ordinance that punishes owners as well as the animal who commits a vicious act on a person or other animal. A dog that hauls off and kills another dog just for the heck of it should not be around people or other animals.
Posted by pitbullspit (anonymous) on November 15, 2006 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it is par for the course that humans do not want to take a resposible approach to this problem of dog bites and attacks. Naming specific breeds opens doors to remove other breeds that a handful of folks fear. People who fear dogs not only fear Pit Bulls but most all dogs. As stated previously all dogs can bite. You do not have to live in fear because your neighbor owns a Pit Bull. Take a positive approach to learn more about the problem and you might take a different view. We need proponents and opponents of breed specific legislation to work together to come up with a reasonable, enforceable plan for prevention of dog bites and inhumane treatment of animals in general.
Posted by Ashton816 (anonymous) on November 15, 2006 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Any breed of dog is capable of biting and/or killing a human. Any animal is for that matter, be it a horse, cat, or bird. You cannot punish a certain breed based on witness breed identification which is, more often than not, inaccurate and statistics which are based on them. What people aren't looking at is the Labrador Retriever bite rate, the toy breed bite rate, and so on. Every time you hear about a dog injuring someone, it is always a breed that has fallen into the 'dangerous dog' category because it's easy to group and blame one breed. But, tell me, what about Pomeranian that killed its family's infant, or the Chihuahua that attacked other dogs and people. Why aren't these breeds banned?
One of the most simple things you can do in order to retrieve legitimate statistic information on breeds is to go to the American Temperament Test Society's website and view the passing and failing rates of every breed that has ever been tested.
If this was happening to a certain race of people, it would be called a genocide: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group". People seem to avoid that word with this situation, though. They also avoid the word "racism", but that is exactly what BSL is: "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races". No question about it.
I hope you will take all of this into consideration before you ruin the lives of anymore loving families and throw away the lives of anymore loving pets.
Posted by girlsbestfriend (anonymous) on November 16, 2006 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What starts as Breed Specific Legislation quickly escalates to All large Dogs -- I know from personal experience in a municipality that has a no pit bull ordinance. Each municipality that passes these Breed Specific Laws causes more public hysteria...
Today, dog owners have less rights than criminals in America. Where I live what started as Breed Specific Legislation has turned into an unfriendly place for all dog owners. One “bite” – as small as an abrasion or scrape – can cause a dog to be termed “Vicious” in my municipality regardless of the circumstances. One scrape and even a responsible dog owner can lose their insurance and be forced to get rid of their dog. Is that the kind of community you want to live in?
Our country is slowly becoming a Police State.
Any time any law has to be proven to be constitutional - all the way up to the Supreme Court my gut tells me that there's something wrong with it.
More laws are being forced into legislation by lawmakers And they all "sound like a good thing to protect the public interest"
In fact, Americans are giving their freedom away - inch by inch. We are becoming a country of laws - and the police and the courts are our dictators.
Americans may be unaware of what it means to be stripped of the protection of habeas corpus, or they may think police authorities would never make a mistake or ever use their unbridled power against the innocent. Americans might think that the police will only use its powers against bad people...
Dog owners are already responsible for their dog's behavior. Why do we need another law which gives Police more power?
_________________
"One of the greatest delusions in the world
is the HOPE that the evils of this world
are to be cured by legislation"
Thomas B. Reed (1886)
Posted by fleanbr21 (anonymous) on November 25, 2006 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm no expert on this topic, and that's why I'm doing a persuasive paper for my english project. I'm heavily into agility and obedience with my two dogs. One is a Papillon, and the other is a Doberman Pinscher. I could go on forever about the stories of our neighbors and the grief they give us for having this Doberman puppy and the way they treat him, and while everyone seems to love our Papillon, who frankly, is a nasty thing. She's just the steryotypical toy breed who snaps, yaps, and is just kind of a brat. I love her to death, but I recognize that if she were a bully breed, she would be gone by now. I can see that other people have already told the greusome stories that other people aren't learing about simply because they aren't centered around a pit bull, so I'm going to take a different approach.
Try these stories for change, and visit the site where I got them for even more stories.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/...
Popsicle, a pit bull who discovered 3,075 pounds of cocane hidden in a truck around the Mexican Border. This was the biggest drug discovery at Hidalgo, Texas.
Gabby, a pit bull who saved the life of a neighbor by getting help after he fell from a latter and wasn't able to move. (Notice the injured man's dog didn't get help, eliminating the arguement "any dog could do that, not just pit bulls.")
Dixie, a pit bull who saved children from an attacking Cottonmouth Snake. While protecting the children she suffered two snake bites to the face and had to be rushed to the animal hospital. She eventually recovered and was added to the Georgia Animal Hall of Fame for her bravery.
Buddy, a pit bull who rescued two women from a burning house early in the morning.
The stories go on and on of heroic saves, search and rescue dogs, service dogs, and the simple family dogs who saved the health or even lives of their owners, and best friends.
To think that people want to ban this breed for all the attention they get when one or two slip up makes me more than angry. If this breed were banned, think what would have happened in every story. Not every breed has the determination, loyalty, and intelligence of a Pit Bull, and if that were to go to waste because of un-educated people persuing something they don't know enough about, it sure would be a shame.
That's all I have to say :D
Posted by tina (anonymous) on August 3, 2007 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a fan of pit bulls. I think they are just the sweetest dogs with wonderful and patient personalities. I am convinced that it is truly owners poor decisions and judgement that lead to pit bull attacks. Pit bulls live purely to please their owners unconditionally, even if the task involves hurting another animal. It's easy to pass legislation that bans the breed, but harder to look within ourselves to see how much we are prejudiced against this breed.
A short story about my personal encounter with a pit bull: I was recently walking through a park when I saw a pit bull and his owner. The dog seemed to be relaxed and inviting. I walked over to the two and asked the owner if his dog was indeed a pit bull. As the owner explained that his dog was a pit bull, the dog walked over to me and rubbed against my leg with his head. I let him sniff my hand. I started to scratch his head as I was speaking with the owner about how poorly pit bulls are understood and what great pets they make. As I was letting him sniff me I started to think that there could be people around me in the park that may be thinking "How can she just put her hand out for that pit bull to sniff? Doesn't she know it's going to bit her hand!". He sniffed me hand and lowered his head almost asking to be petted.
This was a completely strange dog and he let me walk right up to him and pat him. As I was scratching his head I started to think of all of the other dog breeds that aren't as relaxed and accepting. Like smaller dogs that will often growl and bark and snap when they are approached or larger dogs that jump on people. This dog did not move an inch as I scratched his head. He permitted me, a complete stranger to not only approach him and his owner, but to touch him.
Do I belive that pit bulls are blood thirsty killers? No. What do I think they are? Oversized teddy bears.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on August 3, 2007 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There's got to be some middle ground here. I'm not a big fan of pit bulls, but I agree that the problems with them stem from how they are treated by their owners. My son has one and it is the gentlest dog I've ever seen. At the same time I realize that it is an extremely powerful animal.
The biggest problem here in Emporia is that we have too many irresponsible pet owners. I see lots of dogs running loose. I've even had one time when I was walking my dog on a leash and a pet owner opened the gate to her house as we passed by and let two dogs loose onto the street. They proceeded to attack my dog. Luckily mine wasn't hurt. The lady apologized. I asked her if it was her habit to have her dogs running loose and she said yes, "They wouldn't hurt anyone." That's irresponsible and I think there's a lot of that in Emporia.
The best preventive I can think of is fining owners who act this way very heavily. A fine of $50 isn't going to work. A fine of $500 would.
The other thing the city needs to do is to change the dangerous dog ordinance. If a dog has attacked and killed another dog it is dangerous and will sooner or later attack a person if allowed to roam free. With school starting up in a few weeks the city needs to consider what would happen if one of these dogs got loose and attacked a child walking to school.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on August 3, 2007 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I found the following study on the web, done by someone named Merrill Clinton, who is associated with a publication called "Animal People." The link follows:
http://dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%2019...
In the study of 2209 animal attacks in Canada and the U.S. from 1982 to 2006, it was found that pit bulls and rotweillers were responsible for over 1500. Of the 264 deaths recorded due to dog attacks, pit bulls were responsible for 104 and rotweillers for 58.
The study did not conclude that any legislation should be breed specific. In fact, it argued otherwise.
As I said before, the owners of these animals need to think of the rest of the community. I believe that when these animals are allowed to get free in our communities they can pose a significant danger. The study shows that. Pit bulls and rotweillers are responsible for over half the deaths that occured from dogs during this period of time. We should not ignore findings like that.
The penalities for these types of attacks must be high. When one of these dogs attacks a child or adult the owner must be held responsible. It's not good enough for people to say that the rest of the community is inhibiting their freedom or curtailing their rights. It's been said that our freedom to swing our fists ends where our neighbor's nose begins. I think the same principle holds true for dangerous dogs.
Posted by blulitespecial (anonymous) on August 3, 2007 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Pit Bull problem can be safely solved with a 12 ga.shotgun.
Posted by ksfarmer (anonymous) on August 3, 2007 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mandatory spay/neuter for all pits adopted through our local shelter would be a great start. The deposit required is less than the surgery, so most people opt for losing their deposit and begin breeding more and more and more.......
Posted by Firecracker (anonymous) on August 7, 2007 at 12:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe there is a newly upated vicious dog ordinance for Emporia, but quite frankly it all boils down to enforcement. Did you know that breeding dogs for sale is against the law within the city limits of Emporia? That is why the city does not sell breeder license permits. Do you know how many Pit Bull breeders showed up at some of the city meetings regarding the Pit Bull Ban? Three. So within the city limits of Emporia we have a minimum of 3 unlicensed and unmonitored Pit Bull breeders. I'm sure that is the TIP OF THE ICEBERG. Probably they are not even licensed with the State of Kansas which is also required. Turning a blind eye to the growing problem of Pit Bull overpopulation in our community and turning a blind eye to general pet overpopulation in our community is just making Emporia a more and more unsafe place to live. I've been curious enough about it to sit through city court proceedings to see what happens to people who are cited and fined for "dogs at large" and "vicious or nuisance dogs". City Prosecutor Laura Miser comes up with these great solutions like "judge - let's require them to build a bigger fence to keep the dogs in and waive the citations and fines". Guess what - no fences are ever built, those same dogs (Pit Bulls by the way) are still roaming that particular neighborhood (my neighborhood) Problem is, that when citations and fines are issued and the cases make it into city court you see what happens. They end up not required to pay. Irresponsible pet owners should be held accountable. Doesn't matter how many new laws they come up with in Emporia if they don't enforce the ones they already have - and get a decent city prosecutor who can catch a clue........ Maybe irresponsible pet owners whose dogs end up at the city animal shelter should be required to pick their pets up at the vet clinic after they have been spayed and neutered. I'm thinking that every dog adopted from the animal shelter should be spayed or neutered before settling into their new homes, but most especially breeds known to have dangerous tendencies.
Posted by Pollyanna (anonymous) on August 7, 2007 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, I'll go there with the typical stereotype, which by the way, I've seen NUMEROUS times up and down the streets of our fair city. I've noticed many owners of pit bulls in our area have a similar look about them. Allow me to elaborate if I may. He is usually a white skinny guy, pants to his knees, wife beater t-shirt, ciggy hanging from his lips, hat usually on sideways, all tatted up, usually being dragged by an enormous animal. The leash for this animal either being a giant piece of rope or large chain. Usually a toddler or two are in tow, diapers, no shoes..you get the picture. Many people are PC about these folks calling them "responsible dog owners" I call them an accident waiting to happen. Am I leery of pit bulls? He!! yes. Do I steer myself and children clear of these bozo's? He!! yes again.
Posted by Firecracker (anonymous) on August 7, 2007 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AMEN to the top 10 most dangerous breed listing!!
And Pollyanna, what our fair city's police department is in denial about is where there are Pit Bulls, there is a criminal element. I'm NOT talking about responsible pet owners. I'm talking about those folks who have Pits because it makes them appear more masculine, to protect their stuff (and their stuff is typically drug related by the way) etc etc etc.. The people you describe walking around our streets are the same "element" of a growing segment of the Emporia population who also feel the Pit Bull fighting is a cool sport. And by the way, there ARE regular Friday night fights just outside the city limits of our city of Emporia. These fights have been reported to the Sheriff's Dept and the Police Dept and they act like they have no idea what is going on. An animal cruelty investigator from KCMO told me that where there is a large population of Pit Bulls, there is usually Pit Bull fighting, and where there is Pit Bull fighting, there is almost always drugs, prostitution, and other crimes being committed.
Posted by ksfarmer (anonymous) on August 8, 2007 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not only does the city fail to enforce & prosecute animal cases........I believe the county has the same problem. Ask the lady who did a terrific job as Lyon Co. Animal Control Officer why she quit.........
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)