Family defends pit bulls
By Brandy Nance (Contact)
Originally published 01:22 p.m., May 29, 2008
Updated 01:22 p.m., May 29, 2008
Kayla and Tim Burton of Americus love their 2-year-old pit bull, Bella Sue, and take exception to people’s comments that the breed is bad or intrinsically vicious.
Bella Sue is an indoor family dog. The Burtons have another dog, a small Yorkie-poo named Sampson. They also have four children, Dalton, 10, Kaylee, 6, Chase, 9, and Wayde, 4. Bella Sue has never shown aggression to any of the children or the smaller dog, Kayla Burton said. So when the family saw the recent article in The Gazette about vicious dogs, they decided to speak out in defense of the breed.
Upon entry into the Burtons’ home, Bella Sue greeted some recent guests with a strong tail wag and a hearty lick. She calmed down after greeting people at the door, and upon command by the Burton family she sat at somebody’s feet, allowing the guests to talk to one another. She ignored the constant pestering by Sampson, who was tugging at her ears and barking at her.
“We actually have to get onto the little dog for harassing the big dog,” Tim Burton said, as Sampson continued to harass Bella Sue. Bella Sue continued to ignore the little dog.
The kids later played with Bella Sue. Bella Sue responded to commands of sit, lay down and several others. The kids enjoyed showing off her tricks.
“Real vicious, isn’t she?” Tim Burton said, making a point at Bella Sue’s calm temperament as the kids climbed on her.
Dalton chimed in about Bella Sue.
“When we got her she never even barked,” he said, as he petted the dog.
Kayla Burton said when they first got Bella Sue, Wayde used to jump off the couch on top of the dog.
Kayla Burton said she grew up with pit bulls and never had a problem with the breed.
“I’ve never had a vicious pit,” she said. “I think it depends on how it was raised. All the pit bulls we had were raised with family. They always have been really gentle.”
Burton said she has had problems with other breeds and had to put down a cocker spaniel because it was vicious.
“We wouldn’t have any breed of dog if it was mean,” she said. “It doesn’t matter what breed. Any dog can be mean ... you can have a Chihuahua outside that will eat your leg off. It doesn’t matter what kind of dog.”
Tim Burton expressed his concern about people’s perception of the pit bull breed.
“They want to ban the dogs,” Burton said. “They need to ban the (expletive) people that make them mean ... I’m really worried they are going to try to ban them in Emporia.”
Burton said if the breed is banned in Emporia, other towns, including Americus, could follow suit.
“There’s no way I’m going to get rid of my dog,” he said.
Kayla Burton said it’s not the breed.
“They are pinpointing a breed that some idiot 100 years ago decided to fight,” she said. “Quit hitting on the breed so much. It’s not the dog’s fault. ... To outlaw a breed of dog is ridiculous. You need to be outlawing the people.”
An article on the Humane Society’s Web site, www.hsus.org, agrees.
“While breed is one factor that contributes to a dog’s temperament, it alone cannot be used to predict whether a dog may pose a danger to his or her community,” the article stated. “Breed-specific legislation doesn’t work for several reasons. Communities that have banned specific breeds have discovered that it has not been the easy answer they thought it would be.”
The reasons the Humane Society cited against breed legislation are:
• There are inherent problems in trying to determine a dog’s breed, making enforcement of breed-specific legislation difficult at best.
• Fatal attacks represent a very small portion of bite-related injuries and should not be the major factor driving public policy.
• Existing non-breed-specific legislation already exists and offers promise for the prevention of dog bites.
The Humane Society cites these factors influencing whether or not a dog will bite:
• Early socialization, or lack thereof, of the dog to people.
• Sound obedience training for recognition of where he or she “fits” with regard to dominance and people, or mistraining for fighting or increased aggression.
• Genetic makeup, including breed and strains within a breed.
• Quality of care and supervision by the owner (is the dog part of the family or is she kept chained outside?)
• Current levels of socialization of the dog with his or her human family.
• Behavior of the victim.
• Whether the dog has been spayed or neutered.
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 create (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
".They are pinpointing a breed that some idiot 100 years ago decided to fight,” "
It goes far beyond "some idiot." The name Pit is there for a reason.
There is apparently no settling this as long as people say they refuse to get rid of their dogs. Fine. Just be prepared to pay insurance premiums and stiff fines without complaint. I am told that some insurance companies will refuse to insure you if you have a Pit Bull.
Here we go again.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
After reading this article, I'm convinced: convinced that people who own Pit Bulls are senseless and fanatical beyond reason. The breed was custom manufactured over centuries to tear flesh and crush bone with unwavering tenacity. Having one in a home with small children is akin to child abuse and endangerment. It's just a matter of time. And as "create" said above: be prepared to pay the damages when a serious, perhaps fatal, attack happens... and it will happen.
Posted by justamom (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bjnemp : thinking that a person or family who owns a Pit is senseless and fanatical is...well...just quite senseless and fanatical.
Do you own a Pit? Have you been around a family who does? My family bred and sold Pits for the entire 19 years I lived at home. Not one of them ever turned on me, my sister or my brother. Nor did they ever attack any other animals, either cats or dogs. In all those years not one of the pups we sold attacked or turned on anyone. Since that time my husband and I have owned 2. And we have 3 children. My children pulled their ears, rolled on them, stepped on them and as small children do they teased them with food and toys. We recently lost our oldest Pit at the age of 15 and it was a devastating loss. We will be acquiring another Pit and it will be raised around our children and hopefully our grandchildren.
I am tired of the "senseless" people who believe they will attack at some time. They will not. If raised in a loving, caring, nurturing environement. Where they are treated as they should be and given food, attention and proper vet care they are no different then a small poodle. Any dog can attack at anytime if mistreated or in fear of their safety or owners safety. You are completely wrong and shame on you for trying to make owners of Pits feel as if they are abusing their children by having a family pet.
Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I had a bad experience in jr. high when a friend's pit bull had to be put down for suddenly turning on their cocker spaniel. Up to that point she was sweet and loving. She just snapped without warning. What if if had been a person? It seems you hear more about pits and rotts biting than other breeds. Maybe it's the media but maybe not. I wonder what the stats are for percentage of different dog breeds biting people. It would be interesting to find out. Maybe an insurance agent or something would know.
Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just a thought.....Any animal, humans included, will attack. Sometimes with little or no provocation. It would appear that Pit Bulls attack no more often than other breeds. The problem lies when they do attack. Because of their size/strength/ and genetics, the severity of the attack is far more dangerous than that of other breeds. This does present a moral dilema.....do we punish the dogs or their owners?
Posted by kansasgirl (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When I was growing up everyone was always afraid of doberman pincers. These dogs were thought of in the same way then as people feel about pit bulls now. Again, I believe that animals behave the way they are raised, just like a child. A child that is abused generally becomes an abuser. A animal that is raised to be mean and agressive will of course end up hurting a person or another animal. My mother who still lives in Emporia was attacked and bitten by a pack of wild dogs that were roaming while she was out on her walk. None of the animals she described to me were a "pit". Why isn't the city doing something about these animals that are roaming free and attacking innocent people. Who is responsible then? Seems to me that it isn't about the breed but how the dogs are taken care of. I agree with "justamom".
Posted by WZWRGWPEPL (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We are all allowed our own opinion. In mine I believe the viciousness is IN the breed of the pitbull. Just like a labrador is to point for hunting and the colie for herding. It is in their blood and just because you haven't been attacked doesn't mean it won't happen. If I was hearing all the stories about pits attacking I wouldn't have one. Taking the chance and having one of your children hurt severly is not worth it. You have to wonder in the back of your mind if it really is the breed. I think they should be outlawed. I am an animal lover, but I also love people, especially children.
Posted by Evega (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All I have to say is Wow.
People belive everything they hear on T.V. I never had a pit. But all I can say ANY. I mean ANY dog can turn on their Master/trainer/owner. This is outrages. People need to open their own eyes insted watching T.V. And read the facts about pitbull. Come on the little "Cute" Chihuahua was made to hunt mice and snakes. Just imagen your little "cute" Chihuahua brings a week old dead mice/mouse. To your child. Uuhhh come on. Open your eyes Americans think before you act.
Posted by heloves (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I worked with dogs for years, never was bitten. I was bit by a bull mastiff, years after I quit working. Not sure why he bit me. He was a pup, he may have misunderstood my gesture of submission and friendliness. I had been holding a friend's dog not too long before. All dogs have a common ancestry of non-domesticity. Can they snap? Yes. Some of the most vicious dogs I know of are dachshunds and dalmatians. Banning dogs based on breed, we may as well lock up all the human race also. We never know what may happen? Yes, owners should be prepared for "what if", no matter the breed, if they abuse the animal deal with the owner. A "shotgun" approach is not the best answer.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Justamom: No, I don't own a Pit Bull. I'm not brillliant, but I'm not stupid. After all, I have a family to think about. I did once live a few blocks from some irresponsible folks in Junction City, back in the 90s, who owned two Pits. They got loose one morning and mauled a 7 year old boy to death who was waiting for a school bus. You may have seen the news reports on TV. I'm sure it was great comfort to that little boy's parents to know that up until then the dogs were "raised in a loving, caring, nurturing environment" and were "no different than a small poodle." There was hardly enough left of that little boy to identify and bury. I bet you also defend those with small children who own 12 foot Pythons or jungle cats as pets. I fear for your children, and if I was your neighbor, I would keep a loaded gun handy at all times.
Posted by newme314 (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When my kids were little my now ex husband's cousin owned a pit bull and that dog was the sweetest dog I had ever been around. I have to agree with that fact it is not the breed of the dog it is how the dog is raised and treated. We now own an Akita and that breed is also supposed to be an agressive breed. This dog is afraid of smaller dogs and sometimes his own shadow.
Posted by stevenlk (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
create, your not so bright are you? all dogs were bred to what they are now for a reason, like as u call them "pit bulls" are for fighting and so forth. NOW they arent used for that, they are companions. they dont just TURN for no apparent reason its the owner poorly raising it or raising to be aggressive. Irish wolf hounds were bred to kill and take down wolves. yorkies were bred to kill small pests. daschunds are bred to kill badgers. they are all bred for companion. and they arent call pit , pit bulls arent a BREED its just any dog you use for fighting. they are staffordshires and am staffs ect. first they try to ban rotwielers, dobermans, akitas, chows. :-/ now what u call "pits"...
Bjnemp as for you the people who own WOULD BE, they know their dogs' why would they be defending if they are viscious. Its the RESPONSIBLE owners that come out here and defend it, the irresponsible ones are the ones caring less!
madpoet was the dogs both the same sex, were either of them fixed? the dogs probably werent taught to stop when fighting (which all packs do to distinguish whos top dog). Also dogs wont turn on humans, or their master unless beat constantly and whom ever does beat their dog is another example of IRRESPONSIBLE pet owner!... but "pit bulls" have been obeying their masters since day one.
"Pitbulls are probably one of the breeds that have ran the gamit of the functionality of what they've been, but it has always BEEN the service of a human being. So even if its bull baiting it was people who have been betting on it."
- Karen Okura.
[Anti Cruelty Society Animal Behavior & Training Manager]
********************
******************
***********
******
****
**
http://www.myspace.com/antibslemp
**
****
******
******************
********************************
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Stevenik, my friend. You know why some people spend considerable time and energy defending certain causes? Because they have to. People don't spend all their time putting out fires if no flames exist. You would not have to waste so much time defending these dangerous animals if there weren't so many reasons to do so.
Posted by Absolute (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Note to self: Do not let children play at the Burton's house.
Posted by hottopics (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Absolute- Very good reply.
I wish people would knock it off. This has become a election for who knows best.
If anyone has really paid to the attention at hand, it is the fact that dog OWNERS should be made to take precautions when owing a animal with the potential to tear your face off. They are in the news because when they do attack, its brutal or fatal.
We need to put into a ordinance what will happen to the owners and the dog, NO MATTER WHAT THE BREED, if it ever attacks another person or domestic animal. Its called public safety and restitution to those victims.
Right now dog attacks are brushed under the City Prosecutors desk. She dismisses them before Judge Hollembeak even hears them to make a ruling. BAD, BAD, BAD. People are not being held accountable for this and it is why it is getting out of control.
So stop with the "bla bla bla, my dog is wonderful'. Its about making changes so that legally people cant walk away when their dog causes injury. I dont give a rats if it is a Pit or a poodle.
The sad thing that is just around the corner is that somebodys child is going to be attacked or killed by one of these dogs and it could have been prevented by hardcore ordinances that can and should be enforced. PERIOD!
Posted by witherdin2ition (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ANY dog can be vicious, it just depends on how they are treated. Personally, I wouldn't want to own a pit bull . My mom's dog was attacked by a pit several years ago (not in Kansas), but that dog's owner raised him specifically to fight. It's unfair to vilify an entire breed based on those types of incidents.
Posted by jennienbj (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, do we really always have to blame what dog you think is going to attack you. Seriously, get over it. Please come to my house and play with my dogs, yes they are pits, and see what they were like. I admit I was terrified of the breed before I got one, now I will NEVER EVER EVER own a different breed. My dogs are so smart and sweet. I get tired of my clients saying "Oh my gosh", " you own a pit", well why yes I do. I love my dogs, they have never snapped at anybody or any other dogs, in fact my neighbors little ankle biter has tried biting me several times for no reason. I am tired of people freaking out over a breed. There is an akc registered website that has a picture of 18 different dogs, it says can you pick out the pit? I could not and I am a pit owner and lover. Look up the site and check it out. And pits were not bred to be fighters and kill people, they were bred to help with moving cattle so the safety of our ancestors was not in danger. It is crap that I get told that I can't take my dog to the dog park because they are "viscious". Let's all get over it and accept the fact that the breed is not bad it is the owner. I will never change your mind on the fact that it is the owner. Oh well, I am not worried. The city is not going to change its policy.
When I first got my dogs, my mom called me and said did you hear that story about that pit that attacked? She was so scared of my dogs and for my safety. Since that time my parents have accepted my dogs and do not jump at everything they hear.
How many times do you hear a dog attacked and it was a pit mix? They do not know what kind of dog it was, but by golly lets just say it is a pit mix. What if it was a lab, boxer mix? But nope it has to always have a pit in the name so you can give them a worse reputation? How many stories do you hear in the paper that it was a lab or rot or dobie or an ankle biter that bit someone? Never, you know why because reporters will take the pit story farther because they know it gets everyone riled up!
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metr...
For those who think it's all how the dog was raised, do a google search and see how many owners and their kids are killed by their own dogs. Also check out this link.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds....
CDC 20 year study says of 238 fatal dog attacks on people, 76 were pit bulls or pit bull type dogs. That's almost one third of ALL fatal attacks on people. How many breeds of dogs are there? Any guess. If you add in Rottweilers (#2 on the list) you have 120 of 238. More than half of all fatal attacks by those two breeds.
Yes, every dog has the ability to bite. Very few have the desire to kill.
Posted by jennienbj (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, does anyone remember when that sweet cute loving dalmation attacked its owners son and ripped its face to shreds. the husband did not want anything to happen to the dog and i believe they ended up in a divorce because they would not destroy the dog. dalmations can be very very mean. Ask anyone who works for KPL or another service that reads meters and ask them what dogs try to bite them the most and what they consider the most viscous. i am a hairstylists and what from what my clients tell me, it is other breeds not the pits.
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bite and maul are two different things. Old ladies with the little ankle biters will take a nip but that is generally it (and that is pretty common). I know someone who reads meters for REA. His observations are the same as mine.
I know someone will bring up the labs bite more people statistic. They also dont post that they are the most popular breed in America so yes, they will have more bites.
Posted by flexj66801 (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hear the term "fanatic" used to describe the defendants of the ABPT breed. Keep in mind these people are no more fanatical than you are in your pursuit to ban/outlaw this specific breed. In other words, We have a "pot calling the kettle black" situation based on what is a shaky at best foundation to pursue any breed specific law. You have heard from people who have owned this breed all of their lives, Bred them as companions, Even an animal behavior & training manager. These are all people speaking on behalf of their personal experiences, Not rumors or hearsay that surround a targeted breed during a certain time frame. Yes, Before ABPTs people were going after Rotties, Dobermans, Chows & so on.
I'm not voicing my opinion in complete opposition. I feel there are far to many irresponsible owners out there & those are the people that deserve to have their rights removed. I believe there should be more enforcement to protect the people of the community & the animals themselves from being mistreated but how do you go about that when you already don't enough animal control officers on staff & the city is down to one animal control truck because one was wrecked & not replaced as of yet. Which brings me to another question, If most of the irresponsible owners get away with their actions because of lack of enforcement (Which I believe it is), how would you enforce a ban if by some miracle one was passed?
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Emporian: Good comments. You are an outpost of reason in a desert of insanity.
Posted by firefly912 (anonymous) on May 29, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I grew up in the Kansas City metro area. There were "pit bull" attacks on the news EVERY NIGHT. Usually I would get up and grab a snack during this segment. Upon owning two dogs of my own and trying to be a good owner, I found myself paying more attention to these nightly reports. Instead of 7 different attacks of "pit bulls" on people or other dogs, the news channel would just keep bringing up the same one over and over again.
I lived in a very "doggish" area in Olathe. We had several dogs parks and almost every person on my street owned at least one dog. Through interactions with my neighbors and their dogs I came to realize that when it comes to banning breeds for the safety of the citizens, all breeds would have to be banned. I know poodles and schnauzers that are super high strung and will snap at anyone they are not REALLY familiar with. I know labs that are very food aggressive.
There will always be bad examples of each breed. Sometimes I think my parents schnauzer is a demon in disguise. Every breed was bred for a specific purpose, yes. But my Irish Wolfhound is not going to be chasing any wolves out of my yard and my shepherd mix won't be training to sniff drugs or something. Owners shape their dog's temperament and personality...not breeders. If any safety laws regarding dogs are being considered, why not make the dog owners responsible for the dogs instead of just blaming a while breed?
Don't we fine parents for providing alcohol for their underage kids? Don't parents have to answer for the things their children do until they become of age? Why aren't pet owners held to this level of responsibility?
Posted by pitowner1 (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
my sister and i both have pits, and have had many different kinds of other dogs. the only way you are going to have a mean dog is if you make it that way. a corgi bit my 4yr old niece, (if you don't know what a corgi is, their legs are like 3inches long, real big huh?look one up on the net) and guess what the pits haven't. so for those who want to say it is the breed you might want to do a little more research on the animal....if taken care of properly and loved and treated well, like any dog, they will treat you and others right. any dog is going to be mean if mistreated and trained to fight, but all dogs are unpredictable....so
40% of American dog owners acquired pets primarily for protection-including German shepherds, Rottweilers, mastiffs and Doberman pinschers. (Source: New York Times, 2/26/01) hmmm...no pits??
MIXED BREEDS and NOT PURE BRED DOGS are the type of dog most often involved in inflicting bites to people. The pure-bred dogs most often involved are GERMAN SHEPHERDS and CHOWS.
Rottweilers and Pit Bulls were involved in 60 percent of the 27 dog bite fatalities that occurred in 1997 and 1998. Rottweilers were involved in 10 deaths, and Pit Bulls were involved in 6.
From 1979 through 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human dog bite related deaths.
Yes pits are involved in a lot of attacks, but they are not the only ones that do it...its just because they are a stereotype, and are more popular than most other breeds. and they have to be raised right
Posted by stevenlk (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 1:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
emporian , what makes you think the owners raised those dogs CORRECTLY. how dont you know they werent raising them to fight, how do you know the dogs hadnt been in the fighting ring. alot of "pits" kill because they are brought up wrong and are used as TOOLS for dog fights to get "reputation" and power from gangster/drug dealers.. they are mis-using and mis-treating these breeds. they DONT have the disire to kill unless are brought up that way.. if you get rid of pit bulls there are so many other breeds that these dog fighters/ drug dealers/ gangster will find to fight with. before like i and everyone has mentioned the rots, dobermans, chows, akitas, get rid of those there will still be irresponsible heartless people that will find another XYX breed just to raise into killers. why not punish the deed. b'4 they punish MORE breeds.. think out side of the stereotypes. hows it the dogs fault. tell us that now, how is it?
Posted by create (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Poor dear Stevenlk. Calm down, baby boy. You're sounding like what Bj describes as "senseless and fanatical" in your defense. For one thing, how can we distinguish those pets that are "brought up wrong" from the ones that are properly raised? Hire more animal control to go to every pet owner's house? Oh my.
As I said before, there doesn't seem to be any settling this issue so people who want to own these animals just need to be prepared to pay heavy fines and additional insurance.
BTW, has anyone here ever heard of any reports of chihuahuas or pekinese or Golden Retrievers attacking and mauling anyone to death?
Posted by nothing_but_angels (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I totally agree with it is the owners of the pits on how they was raised. My mother and step-father raised pit bulls for most of my life and not one of them was mean. People who have fighting dogs some of them feed them gun powder or inbreed them to make them very aggrisive. People need to study there dogs and then think about it nobody says anything about rotwiellers but they are also know to attack people so are very little dogs. I would own a pit bull anyday of the week as long as I had gotten it when it was a puppy and knew who the parents where and that is how I feel about it.
Posted by jennienbj (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
pitowner1~ great words. i own two pit bulls and i have never been mean to them or beat them, and guess what they are super good and nice. I raise them around people of all ages. My husbands grandma used to sit out on her porch and if my female got out of my pen, she would run to my husbands grandma and sit on the porch with her. My grandma-in-law is not a big dog lover but she was always happy when that dog ran up to her and licked her. It made her feel good. One day my female broke her chain and went to the school across from my house, she just licked and played with the kids. Never did she try to bite or attack any of them. I believe most people bring the bites or attacks on them selves. Dogs can smell fear on people.
Posted by create (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Words like "got out of her pen" and "broke her chain" bother me. Nice doggy.
Posted by Summer_Breeze (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to agree with so many on BOTH sides of this issue. First of all, I agree wholeheartedly that nurture, not nature, is the key to a dog's disposition. If you treat your pets well, just as with children, they will grow up to be sociable and gentle.
Having said that though, it seems to me that lycomu made the best point by saying "Because of their size/strength and genetics, the severity of the attack is far more dangerous than that of other breeds." Pit Bulls and Rottweilers have the capacity to kill humans more readily than most other breeds, because of their physical characteristics. That FACT cannot be ignored here.
Personally, I'm a fan of large dogs rather than the smaller breeds (someone called them "ankle-biters"), but I completely understand why large, potentially overpowering dogs generate fear, even hysteria in some people. It's because of their ability to take down a human--particularly a child. I think we all must admit that this chilling fact must be a consideration in this discussion.
We once owned a chow mix that our family dog brought home with him one day. She was obviously mistreated by someone in her previous home. She was skittish around all humans, but she never offered to bite or even growl at one. Her aggression manifested itself toward other dogs instead. We tried to keep her confined, but she was adept at "breaking out." We eventually had to put her down, because we concluded that we didn't want to be responsible for her harming someone else's pet during one of her escapes.
The point I want to make is that it is humanly impossible to supervise your dog at all times. We didn't want to take the chance that our unsupervised animal would cause harm to someone else. The burden of supervision of your pet is one that must be taken seriously. I think the reason we have laws is to ensure that there are means to hold accountable those people whose lack of vigilance results in harm to others.
I'm not advocating banning the ownership of any breed or breeds of animals. But I do agree with some others who have posted comments that the laws need to be stringent about how all animals are confined and supervised, and more importantly, what penalties inure to those who fail to properly manage their pets.
Lastly, as a grandmother, I must say that I believe people who own Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Chow-Chows, Akitas, and other large breeds that have been known to maul, not merely bite, should seriously consider whether they are 100% confident that their dog will NEVER bring its inherent ability to maim and kill to bear on a child. Personally, I don't think I'd ever be sure enough to take that chance.
Posted by etbmfa (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LET'S STOP CANINE RACIAL PROFILING!!! To begin with, there is no breed called "pit bull". Pit Bull was a term used for "many" breeds that were used to fight in the pits. Actually in 1989 when the AKC took NYC to the Supreme Court to over-turn the Pit Bull Ban in NYC, one argument they used was, there is no such breed as pit bull. I have been involved in canine legislation for approximately 20 years and have yet to have city council members, police officer, etc. correctly identify breeds when I show them photos of various short haired dogs. Anything with short hair is identified by the media as a "pit bull".
Our laws should identify illegal activities and define the penalties associated with breaches of the law. Domesticated canines are considered personal property and present problems in society only when owned or tossed out by irresponsible people. Our laws should address irresponsible canine ownership and should never refer to specific breeds.
Breed specific legislation is an intolerable form of discrimination that has many undesirable far reaching consequences, including economic ones. Breed specific legislation is expensive and difficult to enforce; impacts people who both live in and visit jurisdictions; impacts vets, breeders, tourists, dog food manufacturers, and, in many cases, canine divisions of various law enforcement agencies. To make matters worse, canine racial profiling (breed specific legislation) is a total waste of time and money, as it will not turn irresponsible owners and breeders into responsible owners and breeders. Irresponsible canine ownership can only be prevented by addressing the problem directly: define the problem, define the penalty or penalties, and enforce the laws. Most urban jurisdictions have laws on the books now that, if enforced, would eliminate most dog aggression disasters.
Posted by create (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Key phrase here is "IF ENFORCED." But I don't believe laws themselves would eliminate "dog aggression disasters." Dogs don't know the law. Dogs get out of pens or break chains all the time. I will refrain from using the term "pit bull" and use the term vicious dog instead. Samey same.
Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
etbmfa brings up good points. We need to remove dogs from abusive owners regardless of the breed. We called a bunch of times on a neighbors vicious dogs (neither one were "pit bull" types) who would leave their yard and come out on the public road after us. These dogs would be snarling, had ears back and hackles up and would follow us well past their property line. I had to spray pepper spray in front of the big one to get it to back down. These jerks were asked to keep their dogs penned or inside (THE LAW!) but refused. The deputy would come out and talk to them but nothing was done. I don't think they ever got a ticket for dog at large or anything. They moved to town and the dogs were taken away from them. The little terrier was adopted out, I learned by sheer chance. THE NEW OWNER WAS NEVER TOLD IT HAD BEEN TURNED IN AS VICIOUS! I mean, I was prepared to let the darn thing bite my arm to protect my child it was charging just so I could grab it and end it's miserable life. THAT is why I would NEVER adopt an adult dog from the local shelter. The terrier, last I heard was doing just fine and not mean at all. That is a miracle to say the least and begs the question what they were doing to the poor thing to make it attack anyone who walked by. I don't know what happened to the big Lab mix. It had killed a puppy and bitten a person and just put in quarantine then returned to the owners that had made it vicious! I wonder what happened to it and pray it's not going to maul someone. We have a new head of animal control now. I sincerely hope he does a better job than the last one. We need to come up with a better system for punishing cruel and irresponsible owners and getting the dogs out of those homes.
Posted by sunshine72198 (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pit bulls are wonderful animals that deserve a chance to have a good life like any other dog. However, it's important to remember that pit bulls are not just any other dog - They are a little more of everything a dog can be.
Pit bulls are very adaptable and will even do well in urban living provided they have enough exercise or other positive outlets for their energy. Many pit bulls are easygoing couch-potatoes but can also be somewhat rambunctious until they mature. Maturity can come pretty late with this breed (2 to 3 years old in some cases). Pit bulls remain playful all their life and have a great sense of humor. Real clowns at heart, these dogs will make you laugh like no other.
Another very important characteristic of pit bull dogs is their amazing love of people. Many people are surprised by the loving personality of these dogs the first time they meet one. Pit bull dogs are indeed remarkably affectionate and truly enjoy human attention. They are wonderful cuddlers, and nothing beats a belly rub. In fact, most pit bulls think they are lap dogs!
Dunbar (1999) writes: "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 multi-talented 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."
\Like any other breed, pit bulls can develop behavior problems if poorly bred, mishandled, abused, unsocialized, etc., that could result in inappropriate aggression. Any large, strong, and powerful dog that attacks can do a lot of damage. This is why temperament evaluation is important when dealing with dogs of certain size and potential.
Unlike the myth propagated by the media however, human aggression is NOT a problem specific to pit bulls. In fact, pit bulls tend to do better than average in temperament tests
The American Temperament Test Society provides temperament testing around the country for dog breeds, and gives a passing score for the entire breed based on the percentage of passed over failed within total number of the particular breed tested. As of December 2003, the American Pit Bull Terrier has a current passing rate of 83.9%, and the American Staffordshire Terrier passes at 83.2%. In comparison, The Golden Retriever passing rate is 83.2%
Pit bull type dogs are wonderful, loving, and very loyal companions. It is important however, to understand the breed's nature, to provide a structured environment, and to establish a positive leadership role. In order to do so, pit bull owners must understand the original purpose of the breed, and respect its limits and potential.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sunshine: Your attitude toward Pit Bulls reminds me of that guy who moved to Alaska and lived with Grizzly Bears because he thought they were wonderful friendly creatures who were misunderstood by humans. A bear killed and ate him.
Posted by jennienbj (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Create~
It was a cheap chain, we fixed it immediatly after it happened and when she got out of her pen, she could actually clear the 5 foot fence. My fence now sits at 7 1/2 feet tall and there is no way that my dog can get out unless you come and open up the gate. But they are inside 80 percent of the time, and only go out to go potty or when it is nice enough. I am not taking my chances with people either stealing my dogs to have one or to kill it. I am not too trustworthy of a lot of emporia people and I am starting to see why.
We should all come together and have all laws be the same for all breeds of dogs. If my dog attacks, he should be put to sleep if he attacked without being provoked. No if an ankle biter comes after me and bites me, that dog should be put to sleep. No matter what you will never destroy a breed of dog. I am sorry but that is the plain old truth.
etbmfa~ great points, i would have never of known all that stuff that you posted.
Posted by create (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jenniebj: Thank you for fixing your dog's chain and increasing the height of your fence. That is the exception rather than the rule. Not all people who have your kind of dog will do that.
Posted by Jorsher (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Emporian: Good comments. You are an outpost of reason in a desert of insanity."
If that was an outpost, I'm sorry to inform you that it's just a mirage.
Emporian's first point was look at how many people are attacked by their family pets. What does that prove? It doesn't mean that they were properly raised. When a child kills someone in their household (which happens more than dog-related deaths, by the way), would you use the same argument? The argument is completely pointless. The fact is, irresponsible people have pets too, and they aren't going to admit they barely gave it attention, kept it chained up, didn't feed it, didn't socialize it, didn't give it an outlet for its energy, or didn't pay attention to the warning signs. They're going to say "aw we treated it so well and it just snapped!" People "snap" as well (and more often I might add) and people always say "they seemed so nice," yet there are always signs things are going wrong.
Next, emporian brings up CDC statistics. Emporian, why didn't you mention that the CDC also states their statistics are all but useless and not for determining if a particular breed is more dangerous:
"to definitively determine whether certain breeds are disproportionately represented, breed-specific fatality rates should be calculated. The numerator for such rates requires complete ascertainment of deaths and an accurate determination of the breed involved, and the denominator requires reliable breed-specific population data (i.e., number of deaths involving a given breed divided by number of dogs of that breed). However, such denominator data are not available, and official registration or licensing data cannot be used because owners of certain breeds may be less likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their animals (3)."
You obviously didn't read the report very well, or are continuing your closed-minded rituals by avoiding to mention the facts that hurt the foundation for your beliefs.
"Procedure: We collected data from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and media accounts related to dog bite attacks and fatalities, using methods from previous studies (CDC Special Report on breeds involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998, September 2000)."
Hm, their data came from media reports. I've seen countless cases where people have been attacked by other breeds, and media showed no interest. We all know media is completely unbiased and doesn't have an agenda...
Posted by Jorsher (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner related issues. For example, less responsible owners or owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds."
Exactly. Media keeps showing they're vicious. People who want vicious dogs go for them. Idiots then mistreat them to be vicious. More news stories and more people to scream witch on them.
"(after 1998, the CDC stopped tracking which breeds of dogs are involved in fatal attacks; according to a CDC spokesperson, that information is no longer considered to be of discernible value)"
Looks like the CDC doesn't want to feel responsible for all of you that can't discern scientific data from inaccurate data...
"Another concern is that a ban on a specific breed might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply turn to another breed for the same qualities they sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression easily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive."
CDC seems to have common sense (or is it uncommon sense?).
"Other risk factors included dogs who roamed the neighborhood or dogs who were tethered. In other words, it appeared that the negligence of human guardians was a higher risk factor than the breed of the dog. learned breed-specific legislation is not the way to tackle the issue of dog bites,” said Dr. Julie Gilchrist of the CDC Injury Center in Atlanta, Georgia. “Instead, we should look at the people with those dogs responsible for the bites.”"
Odd, that's what all the "pit bull fanatics" have been saying the entire time.
Also, you'll notice on the statistics that "pit bull" is in quotations. Do you know why? There are 20+ breeds that are commonly called pit bulls. Is it really a surprise that 20 breeds collectively killed more people than one breed?
Emporian, good job on leaving out vital information and taking the information out of context that supports your opinion. The "fanatics" fight for their "vicious" pit bulls because we have experience with them and know they are GREAT dogs. I grew up with a variety of breeds (cocker spaniels, GSD, husky, papillon, cairn terrier). I used to have the negative view of pit bulls, until I did my own research, met ones owned by friends and coworkers, and found that their reputation is misleading. I have to say that I am VERY satisfied with my APBT and will continue to own them in the future. They are very willing to please, excel at everything you can throw at them (agility, therapy, protection, law enforcement, search and rescue, weight pull, obedience, etc), and have a great character.
Posted by Jorsher (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not a drug dealer or wannabe thug. I am an educated dog owner that follows laws and regulations. However, the day that government tries to tell me that I cannot have my dog will be the day that I will no longer be a law-abiding citizen (as far as the dog).
Please go tell all those that have been saved by search and rescue pit bulls, and the elderly and disabled that have been assisted by pit bull therapy dogs, and the millions of owners that know how to properly raise their dog that you want the dog taken from them.
I'm open to other opinions (otherwise I wouldn't have my APBT now), but only when it's backed up with factual information and supporting arguments. I don't support the opinions that are "proved" by television or information taken out of context.
Out post of reason? Far from it.
Posted by Jorsher (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Create, you don't see golden retrievers attacking?
http://www.whiotv.com/print/16256155/det...
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJo...
They're all pits, right?
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Article...
http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/20...
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Article...
http://www.lonokedemocrat.com/articles/2...
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Article...
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regiona...
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-...
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Article...
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Article...
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Article...
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Article...
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Article...
Yes, these mostly came from a pit bull advocate site. They get their data from the same places the CDC and your opinion come from though, so you can't deny it's validity.
Posted by jennienbj (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jorsher~
How many pits do you own? We have two of them and you have some awesome points on your posts. Thanks for all of the information. I am going to check out the websites that you posted. I will also be a citizen that does not abide by all of the laws if they ban the breed. I will stand up and fight for my dogs.
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To tell you the truth I dont care either way, just providing info I find. I dont support banning anything cause it doesn't work, Look a prohibition for example. If anything it becomes more popular. Either side can skew stats to make them fit your argument.
I live in a small town. If your pitbull (or any dog for that matter) comes in my yard and shows any aggression no questions asked it wont be coming home. It will just disappear. Thats the joy of living in a small town. We had a rot try to come into our garage to attack our Brittany. If the guns wouldn't have been in the safe the rotweiller would be dead.
I do think that the owner of any dog should be held criminally and financially liable for your dog in the event something happens.
Posted by emporian (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some more stats for you for both sides
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statisti...
The deadliest dogs
Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.
According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:
If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.
Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."
__________________________________________________
Avg Number of people killed in the US by
Cigarettes 440,000
Automobiles 42,336
Second Hand Smoke 35,000
Guns 29,338
Pitbulls 3
Posted by create (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jorsher, some golden retrievers may have attacked, but they are not as notorious for attacking and killing as the breed in question. See the statistics in the Clifton Study posted by Emporian in the above post. Very sad statistics for your good doggies.
But as I have said before, it doesn't look like this issue will ever be settled. So people with vicious dogs, ANY BREED, should just be prepared to lose their dogs if the damn things bite. They should also be prepared to do a bit of jail time themselves.
What I would like to see the city commission do is require the city attorney to stop shoving aside these loose dog cases. Attacks of any kind should be prosecuted for sure. HEAVY fines!!!
I'm with Emporian. If your dog comes into my yard and acts in an aggressive manner, it will disappear. Simple as that.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with create and emporian. Own your Pit Bulls, if you are that stupid, but if it comes in contact with me, or mine, on the streets it will go bye-bye and you will receive a summons to appear. I carry a concealed carry permit and a handgun at all times when I am walking the streets. I carry it not in fear of human predators, but to protect myself from Pit Bulls owned by deluded thrill seekers.
Posted by wyse_guy (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh boy that makes me feel better another idiot with a gun.It sounds to me like your making threats to everyone who owns a big dog.Your the man not.Barney do you have your 1 shell.Maybe you could get a big ballon and fly it off your belt loop and warn us all.It could say RUN IDIOT WITH A GUN.
Posted by wyse_guy (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like we got a butthead hillbilly doing walk by shooting.You better hope you have good insurance and a HUGE bank account if your going to shoot your gun in town.Well butter your butt and consider yourself a biscuit [in your own words]because you go shooting in my neighborhood you know where that guns going to end up.
First you said you started carrying a cancealed weapon to protect yourself againstgroups of young drunks flexing their muscles at the lake,now you say you started carrying one to protect yourself against PITBULLS.Whats next kids and people in wheelchairs.Sounds to me like anything that makes you insucure is your reason for carrying a gun.Looks like your a bigger problem than any dog.
Posted by jennienbj (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bjnemp~
You are the reason why i have pitbulls, to protect myself from dumb people with guns. If you ever shoot at my dog it better have been coming to attack you, not to play. So do not walk in my neighborhood because my dog could give you a bath, lol.
I own my dogs because they are good looking dogs, they are very loveable and are great people dogs. I always have people ask me what breed they are and i tell them pit bull, and then they tell me how good my dogs are and they can't believe how they act. Then they will precede to tell me that they always thought that pit bulls were mean, they would attack blah blah blah. All that crap that you are saying is what they say, then they realize that the breed is not bad.
Have you ever had a bad encounter with a pit?
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 1, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OUCH! Okay, I had that coming. I got carried away. I love dogs. I carry when I walk because it is often in the early morning when streets are deserted and it is dark. I have been attacked three times in the last 10 years by vicious dogs and, no, none were Pit Bulls. I have been assaulted once by a human. I would defend myself if attacked by animal or man but would never hurt an animal, especially a dog, for merely seeking attention or minding it's own business. I don't even hunt wild game. If your Pit ever gets loose and encounters me on the street it will be fine as long as it's teeth don't clamp down on my aging flesh. Pit Bulls make me very nervous, as they do many people, but I would never hurt one unless seriously endangered. Now quit picking on me. You hurt my feelings.
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on June 2, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
time to move to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...