Chat Room: Should Pitt Bulls be banned?

Home » Pick Your Crowd » Pets » Should Pitt Bulls be banned?

Hello, guest
|

Name: luckey_in_life Title: Should Pitt Bulls be banned?

Some cities have banned pit bull ownership.
Other cities have required that owners register their pitt bull with the city and muzzle the dog while in public places. They will fine the owner and take the dog if owners do not comply. What do you think? Should there be restrictions on Pitt Bull ownership? ?

Name: candy • Date: 10/18/2006 08:30:06

In most cities in MI minorsunder 18 can not own/walk a pit bull and I think this needs to be applied for all medium and large breeds across the states. I think that if there was any bill passed directly on the pit bulls, it should be that any dog that showed human aggression should be looked at by a vet to rule out any health problems and then if its determined by a professional vet that the dog is not sound due to its nature and not from lack of training and or a health issue, it should then be destroyed. I say this because a pit bull that shows human aggression is a flaw in the breed, however if the dog was trained to be that way I would say a bill should be passed to charge the owner for animal abuse and or neglect since they trained the dog for aggression in one way or another.
Now I dont feel that theese bans and restrictions should apply to every pit bull and the alike owner only those who have ill tempered dogs. I allso beleive that a bill should pass stateing that all dogs, espicall pit bulls that do not have pappers should be fixed before 6 months of age to reduce the rateings of any potential dog bites and unwanted dogs. The the dogs that have papers I beleive should be reg. with a registry that holds shows and or weight pulls. The dogs that have pepers but with a reg. that dosen't hold any confrimation shows/pulls should fall under the line of a non papered dog and be fixed. thats just my oppion. =

Name: luckey_in_life • Date: 10/18/2006 08:45:43

Pitt Bull Legislation is like gun control. It requires the owners to be responsible. =

Name: luckey_in_life • Date: 10/18/2006 15:02:04

does anyone think they should be banned? =

Name: lindalu • Date: 10/18/2006 15:26:21

No I dont I think the dog should be banned the owner with lack of knowlage should not be allowed to own a dog. There should be more human educationl courses for the pet owner, forget pet training how about people training corses! You have those who go out on a whim, purchasing these animals not having a clue what they need to do to keep them happy healthy and a overal good dog. I really think that prior to purchasing there should be a law that you the owner should have to educate your self by attending basic dog behavior classes. If you really love the animal you will do that. =

Name: Tiffany_SPCA • Date: 10/18/2006 15:38:57

Absolutely! I don't think the dog should be muzzled if in public but I do think it should be muzzled at dog parks or pet stores... any place it is likely to come into contact with a strange dog. I don't think that they should ban the breed... I LOVE the breed. I do believe that the owners should have to register their pit with the city in order to own it. I also believe that you should have to have a special permit in order to breed and in order to get this permit you must A. Have OFA type certifications on your dog by the appropriate time. B. Have show quality animals. C. Have to take a test and pass with a 90% average over breeding, genetics, and pregnancy of dogs. D. Have an insurance policy. E. Have spay/neuter contracts drawn up for all puppies produced that are not show quality or do not fit the standards of the breed.

I believe all dogs not meeting this requirement should be spayed or neutered. I also believe that the test should be taken while the dog is still a puppy and only after passing the test should the owner be allowed to NOT spay or neuter the animal. I think they should be given until the dog is 9 mos. of age and NO older.

And no I don't just believe that for bully breeds. =

Name: Tiffany_SPCA • Date: 10/18/2006 15:40:13

Candy- I don't think that anyone should be banned from owning or walking a dog. I think that's a horrid thing to do. I loved taking my dogs for walks when I was younger. I started at the age of about 10. We both loved it. =

Name: gail • Date: 10/30/2006 12:54:55

no it all depends on how they are rasied i have a female she are very gently with children =

Name: T-rabbit • Date: 10/30/2006 15:05:20

"Pitt Bull Legislation is like gun control. It requires the owners to be responsible. "
I agree 100%! =

Name: Hiddy • Date: 10/30/2006 15:09:30

They should be banned. =

Name: T-rabbit • Date: 10/30/2006 18:39:33

Honestly, banning "pit bulls" only takes "pit bulls" out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Those who fight their dogs, or mistreat them in other ways obviously don't care about the law. Wouldn't it make more sense to punish the criminals who beak the law, rather than simply banning people who obey the law from having these dogs. =

Name: Bethany • Date: 10/30/2006 22:53:33

Banning Pit bulls is actually unconstitutional. It takes away the basic right of Americans to own "property". Anyway, now that we have the legal aspect out of the way...Breed Specific Legislation has already tried..and failed..to reduce the amount of bites by dogs. It takes animals out of the hands of responsible citizens, and fails to take into account the bad owners. The crack-dealing, dog-fighting scum won't be turned away..oh no...they'll simply chose another breed to ruin. We need a policy that will crack down on leash laws and reward good owners. That will work =

Name: Hiddy • Date: 10/30/2006 22:56:52

They have done it in Australia, they have labelled Pitbulls a dangerous breed. I think if your Pitbull is caught roaming the streets and is not registered, they can just put it to sleep without even making effort to find it here.

I also think, if your Pitbull is registered, you incur a greater fine than other owners too. =

Name: Hiddy • Date: 10/30/2006 22:57:34

Sorry...."effort to find you"
is what I meant to say. =

Name: momof3 • Date: 10/30/2006 23:23:54

I don't remember where it was but Rottweilers could not be inside of city limits. =

Name: T-rabbit • Date: 10/31/2006 06:02:43

They have been banned in small towns in Illinois. =

Name: un • Date: 10/31/2006 16:57:21

NO NO !!!!!!! IT'S NOT THE DOG IT'S THE OWNER!!!!!!!!!! =

Name: stephanie • Date: 10/31/2006 20:43:37

I believe that it is important to remember that you need to socialize your pets. There are many other dogs that have shown agressive behavior. That is a fact. It really boils down to the owner of the dog. If the owner chooses to make thier pet aggressive then they should be the ones that pay: by either a fine or simply stricting their rights to own a pet since they choose to make them dangerous =

Name: LadyB • Date: 11/01/2006 00:34:15

Banning ANY breed is not the answer. The answer is harsher penalty for irresponsible pet owners. The problem with BSL is that there will ALWAYS be a "dangerous breed" no matter how many you ban. First Pit Bulls...then what, Rottwiellers? Once Pit Bulls are banned, the responsible owners that love the breed, like myself, are screwed while the irresponsible owners and breeders just find another breed to misuse and overbreed. Then the cycle starts itself over.

People should NOT be allowed to just breed dogs and sell them in the paper. There should be strict guidelines. For ALL breeds. Spay and neuter laws should be put in place. Owners should be held liable for dogs that bite/attack...i.e. it should not be payed by homeowners insurance.

So really, I think that there should be restriction on all dog ownership. I think that rules should be in place for all dog owners just like there are rules for driving a car. And, I think that there should be more effort put forth in enforcing them. =

Name: T-rabbit • Date: 11/01/2006 01:33:47

I agree we do need some laws on breeding. This would help some with the number of unwanted and abused dogs. =

Name: bladerunnerx16 • Date: 11/01/2006 15:40:31

T-rabbit I actually agree with you for once lol ! There are far too many unwanted dogs and cats in shelters becuase of people's carelessness and ignorance.

pit Bulls should not be regulated, but the owners should be.
They can be really nice pets if they are trained right and not taught to fight with other dogs/people. =

Name: T-rabbit • Date: 11/01/2006 16:39:28

Yes they make great pets. I have took in some really abused dogs. Out of nine years of doing this I have only had one I put down there was no rehabilitating him he was 3-4 and fought, starved, beat. He did't trust people at all. Had him for 3 mo before I put him down.
He was a 90 lb dog healthy when I got him he was 23 lbs. Pretty close to death.But in 9 years one dog is good. =

Name: Hiddy • Date: 11/01/2006 17:01:05

Thats ridiculous, There is NO way they can enforce legislation like that. Some moron will always want to have one. They should just ban the breed outright, problem fixed.
Its not like people HAVE to have Pitbulls or Rottweilers or German Shepards for that matter. They are the breeds of choice. There are so many WONDERFUL breeds out there to choose from that are not as dangerous.

They have also replaced the German Shepard with another breed here in Australia, with a Beligan Sheepdog as a police dog. You people just cant get it through your thick heads. We dont NEED these breeds. Its not like I want to see an endangered species wiped out. These are DOGS! =

Name: T-rabbit • Date: 11/01/2006 17:10:39

ha ha ha your a funny one you are =

Name: Randi02 • Date: 11/01/2006 18:33:01

Pit bulls are illegal in some parts of Canada. They are put down immediately if they end up in shelters and people who owned them are fined huge. Even if you have a pit cross here, most municipalities do charge you extra for licensing. =

Name: Bethany • Date: 11/01/2006 22:53:44

Wonderful breeds Hiddy? Oh..like what? Ankle-biters? Be reasonable. To wipe out an entire breed because of ignorance is just wrong. Not to mention it is easier to enforce mandatory spay/neuter laws than to enforce BSL. All you have to do is fix the dog before you sell it, case closed. They have already tried BSL...and found out that it FAILED miserably. Banning a breed is not the answer. The Asshats that misuse these "dangerous" dogs will simply ruin another breed, and another, and another, until ALL dogs will be illegal. Until we can start cracking down on irrisponsible owners and educating the public, there will ALWAYS be dog bites, regardless of breed =

Name: LadyB • Date: 11/02/2006 09:48:42

Once again, banning a breed isn't goind to help. People who are giving the dogs a bad name to begin with will just continue to keep them...illegally. The only people who get fucked are the good pet owners.

And you keep saying that there are "so many wonderful breeds". In my opinion, no matter what your distorted view is, Pit Bulls are a wonderful breed. I don't care for yappy little breeds like Chihuahuas, Shelties, and Shih Tzus. And it shouldn't be your, or anyone elses, choice what kind of dog I own.

And since you don't think that breeding and other laws can be enforced...what on earth makes you think that a Pit Bull ban could be enforced? It goes right back to the fact that it will only effect law abiding owners, most of whom are good owners with friendly, well behaved Pit Bulls. =

Name: luckey_in_life • Date: 11/02/2006 10:32:06

Lady B Quote:
"what on earth makes you think that a Pit Bull ban could be enforced?"

******************
Response:
This is how a Pit Bull ordinance is being enforeced in Denver, Colorado:

Pitt Bull Ban Enforcement
Denver will renew enforcement of its Pit Bull ordinance. Having a Pit Bull in the city is against city code. Beginning Monday, May 9, all Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, or dogs displaying their major characteristics, are banned from Denver. Officers will enforce the city statute. Information on the ban and on breed standards is available from the Denver Animal Shelter, 303-698-0076. =

Name: T-rabbit • Date: 11/02/2006 15:25:56

The truth is the people that enjoy fighting dogs for self profit are going to do it no matter what the law. After pits it will be rotts then boxers,doberman,Shar-Pei, american bull dog, english bull dog,and so on. So I say go ahead with BSL. Soon you will see that it did nothing but hurt all the pretty little dogs every one wanted to protect from the APBT! When you go to the animal shelters and see your grandmas Pekinese skinny, fought and untrusting of humans how are you going to fix that? =

Name: Drew • Date: 11/03/2006 13:41:58

HELL YES. BAN ALL PITT BULL DOGS. PITT BULLS ARE DANGEROUS AND VICIOUS DOGS. =

Name: Bethany • Date: 11/03/2006 20:14:47

Hullo there Drew...or should I say "Hiddy". At least you sound as uneducated as her =

Name: page_e • Date: 11/03/2006 21:02:26

Pit bulls can be loving pets............. but to be fair alot of dick heads buy them to look hard.
I'm sorry but this is ture..
Also bad onershipe off the dog can get it put down.
Because in alot of case's the owner is a f**k wit.
Now these really f**ks me off!!!!!
I'm a owner of a stafford bull terrier.
Pit bulls are bread that are with the right love and training can be Ace dogs, good family pet s and a lot of fun to be with.
Train them right and they will be a freind for life.
page_e x =

Name: LadyB • Date: 11/04/2006 02:27:39

luckey....

That still doesn't mean that people aren't going to own them. It's called breaking the law. People do it every day. That's why I said that a ban will only affect law-abiding citizens who own them. You know, the people who are the good owners...

It all goes back to the fact that the government can ban them, but there just aren't enough resources to effectively enforce the ban. Seriously, do you think that enforcing a breed ban is on the top of the police officers priority list? Hardly. It's probably enough work keeping all of the murderers and rapists off the streets.... =

Name: Hiddy • Date: 11/04/2006 02:36:36

At least they have started somewhere. As far as Im concerned, thats good enough for now. =

Name: LadyB • Date: 11/04/2006 12:30:59

Yeah...because it's of the utmost importance to get rid of all the lazy, hang out on the couch all day, wouldn't hurt a fly, afraid of their own shadow Pit Bulls.

You are about as thick as they come.

A ban will not get rid of the "nasty" Pit Bulls, just the ones that are loyal and trustworthy family pets. Stating the obvious is getting very old...do you have the mentality of a four-year old, or what? =

Name: owl • Date: 11/08/2006 09:23:31

Media Lies About APBTs

Borrowed from http://www.coldsteelpits.com/c
oldsteelmedia.htm

Newspaper
& Media
Accounts of Dog Attacks...
The media has vast influence over our perceptions of which breeds of dogs are dangerous, as they decide which dog attack stories to publish. With over 4.7 million dog bites recorded each year in the United States and with over 800,000 of these attacks serious enough to require medical attention, the resources for dog-bite stories appear unlimited. Yet, the media seems to delight in Pit bull related stories, so much so, that in their haste to report the latest Pit bull attack story the truth often takes a backseat to sensationalism.

Listed below is a small sampling of inaccurate and misleading media accounts that have caused irreparable damage to the image of Pit Bulls:

Killer Pit Bulls Rip Granny to ShredsNew York Post (NYPost.com) Dec. 11, 2002
Pet Pit Bulls Kill Woman, 80, in Her HomeThe New York Times (nytimes.com) Dec. 11, 2002
[The victim's daughter and granddaughter (owner of the dogs) could not believe the dogs, a female Pit Bull and a male Lab/Pit mix attacked and killed the elderly woman. The family hired a forensic pathologist to review the case. It was determined that although the victim had sustained some dog bites, all the bites were non-lethal and post-mortem. The grandmother was not "ripped to shreds" by the dogs but died from cardiac arrhythmia. Both dogs were eventually returned to their owners.]

Pit Bull Attack Victim Leaves Hospital WTVO (Channel 17) April 25, 2003
Man Struggles to Recover from Pit Bull Attack WTVO (Channel 17) April 29, 2003
[The man in this case was never bitten by a Pit bull. Indeed, there is no mention of the dog making contact with the man at all. Instead, the man was running from the dog and he ran into the road and "slammed" into a passing van. He sustained serious injuries from the collision with the vehicle.]

Pit Bull Horror New York Daily News February 7, 2004
Pit Bull Mauls 3-Year-Old's Face New York Newsday February 6, 2004
[A Bronx family owned a Boxer dog and a German Shepherd puppy that usually were kept in the basement as guard dogs. Two days before the girl was bitten, the family took in a Pit Bull. The 3-year-old was alone playing with the three dogs when a dogfight started. At this point the girl was bitten in the face by the Boxer (also reported to be an American bulldog). It was later acknowledged that the Pit bull (also reported to be a Pit bull mix and a "pet bulldog") was not involved in the attack on the girl]

Cortland Pit Bull Mauling Death WBNG.com (Channel 12) Dec. 9, 2002
[It was later determined that although the Pit bull participated in the death of 24-year-old Eric Tallman, the dog did not inflict the fatal wounds. The victim died from blunt force injury. It was later revealed that the victim was beaten to death by an acquaintance over a drug debt.]

Barstow Trial Opens in Boy's Death: Pit bulls fatally mauled Cash Carson, 10. The
Press-Enterprise May 5, 2001
Murder Charges Filed in Pit Bull Mauling The Associated Press June 17, 2000
[This tragic case of a 10-year-old boy killed by dogs was carried extensively in the media. The dogs were repeatedly headlined as "Pit Bulls". Neither of these dogswere "Pit Bulls". One appeared to be a Pit Bull Mix and the other dog (the male that inflicted the fatal wounds) was clearly a mixed breed dog. Animal Control and photographs of the dog more accurately identify him as a possible Chow/Pit Bull mixed breed.]

Vancouver Girl Badly Injured in Pit Bull Attack CTV News Dec. 23, 2002
[This was a very severe attack and as such garnered much media attention. As a result of more in-depth coverage the breed was later correctly identified as a Mastiff/Rottweiler mixed breed]

Family's Pit Bull Kills Boy, 20, months The Gainesville Sun May 8, 2000
20-month-old Killed by Bull Terrier Naples Daily News May 9, 2000
[This child was not killed by a Pit Bull, nor a Bull Terrier, nor a "family" dog. How the dog came to be labelled a "Pit bull" is unexplained. The owner described the dog to be a Labrador/Mastiff/Rottweiler cattle dog. The dog was used to herd cattle and was kept chained on the property. Animal control and the Alachua Sheriff's office confirm the dog was a mixed breed. Photographs of the dog reveal no discernable breed.]
___________________________________
_________________________

Anothe
r
serious problem with the image of Pit Bulls is the over-reporting of Pit Bull attacks vs. other breed attacks. Unquestionably, a disporportionate amount of media attention is given to Pit Bull attacks. One example of this is a recent fatal attack in Detroit by a Pit Bull. This story ran in over 30 separate national newspapers and was also picked up by FOX news, CNN and two British newspapers. Two weeks earlier a man was KILLED by his German Shepherd Dog and this story ran only in the local community newspaper.

Pit Bulls in particular have been in a firestorm of bad publicity, and throughout the country Pit Bulls often bear the brunt of breed specific legislation. One severe or fatal attack can result in either restrictions or outright banning of this breed (and other breeds) in a community. While any severe or fatal attack on a person is tragic, there is often a tragic loss of perspective as to degree of dangerousness associated with this breed in reaction to a fatality. Virtually any breed of dog can be implicated in a human fatality.

From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and
families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.

There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise,
maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.

_________________________________
___________________________

CANINE
AGGRESSION - AN OVERVIEW
It is important to emphasize that dogs bite today for the same reasons that they did one hundred or one thousand years ago. Dogs are no more dangerous today than they were a century or millennium ago. They only difference is a shift in human perception of what is and is not natural canine behavior and/or aggression and the breed of dog involved.

Examination of newspaper archival records dating back to the 1950s and 1960s reveal the same types of severe and fatal attacks occurring then as today. The only difference is the breed of dog responsible for these events. A random study of 74 severe and fatal attacks reported in the Evening Bulletin (Philadelphia, PA) from 1964-1968, show no severe or fatal attacks by Rottweilers and only one attack attributed to a Pit-Bull-type dog. The dogs involved in most of these incidents were the breeds that were popular at the time.

Over two thousand years ago, Plato extolled a basic understanding of canine behavior when he wrote "the disposition of noble dogs is to be gentle with people they know and the opposite with those they dont know...." Recently, this fundamental principal of canine behavior seems to elude many people as parents allow their children to be unsupervised with unfamiliar dogs and lawmakers clamor to declare certain dogs as dangerous in response to an attack.

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.

Addressing the issue of severe and fatal dog attacks as a breed specific problem is akin to treating the symptom and not the disease. Severe and fatal attacks will continue until we come to the realization that allowing a toddler to wander off to a chained dog is more of a critical factor in a fatal dog attack than which breed of dog is at the end of the chain.
________________________________
____________________________

MEDIA LIES
The media is so slanted, readers practically need
climbing equipment!
It can't be stated any more plainly:

"If you only know what you hear or read in the media,
you really don't know much."

After one too many slanted, misleading, grossly
inaccurate or just plain dishonest dog bite reports in
the media, we thought it high time to 'pull back the
curtain on the wizard' and prove 'the emperor has no
clothes.'

The headlines screamed: another ghastly 'pit bull'
attack in Ontario. In this case, a Shih Tzu was the
intended victim. It's owner, a hapless casualty.

Pretty much every media agency in the region covered
the following story. ...Repeatedly. ...Ad nauseam.

"Those awful 'pit bulls'; attacking innocent people
and dogs. You never hear of a Labrador or a Golden
Retriever involved in these kinds of incidents."

On February 14, 2006, Tarra Barnett was walking her
'pit bull' along Danforth Rd. in Scarborough, when it
bolted and attacked a Shih Tzu being walked by its
owner. The Shih Tzu didn't survive. Its owner also
suffered minor injuries in the attack.

According to neighbours, Ms. Barnett's dog was known
to be aggressive. According to witnesses, the 'pit
bull' may have been off-leash and unmuzzled prior to
the attack.

March 11, 2006, Ms. Barnett was charged with
'unlawfully causing bodily harm' and 'common
nuisance', in relation to this incident.

Sounds alright, huh? An important story that deserves
reporting.

Well...it would be...if the media was truly unbiased.
It is obvious that, like so many stories before it,
this one was headline news for some time, because it
involved a 'pit bull'. Want proof?

March 2, 2006, two Labrador Retriever mixes, known to
be aggressive, were again "terrorizing the
neighbourhood" in Port Colborne, Ontario. The two
dogs attacked and killed a Pomeranian chained in its
yard, then moved on to attack a 'pit bull' before
being corralled.

Only two local (Welland area) newspapers carried this
story...once. Only a muzzle order for the dogs and
talks of a fine were mentioned as possible punishments
for the owners. No headlines. No criminal charges.
No media blitz.

So, do you still think the media is a reliable source
for information? If so, we have a lovely bridge that
might interest you.

These two stories are nearly identical. They both
involved unprovoked attacks that led to the death of a
dog. They both involved dogs with a known history of
aggression. They both involved negligent owners. The
story involving the 'pit bull' was headline news. The
one involving the Labs? Well...it never made any
headlines, and is all but forgotten, just a few days
afterwards.

The media picks and chooses its stories, not for their
"newsworthiness", but for their ability to attract
readers/viewers/listeners which, in turn, allows them
to claim higher ratings, and charge more for
advertising space. It's business. Plain and simple.
We've been told outright,

"If it doesn't involve a 'pit bull', it's not 'news'."

In reality, non-'pit bull' dogs are responsible for
90-100% of bites, attacks, and fatalities in Canada.
...But you'll never hear that on the evening news.

In order to provide a more balanced view of dog biting
incidents, below is a sampling of stories you probably
didn't see reported in the media:

March 10, 2006, a Jack Russell Terrier was ordered to
attack a man, nearly severing his penis, which was
successfully reattached by doctors.

March 8, 2006, a 17-month-old was mauled by the
family’s Labrador Retriever.

March 7, 2006, a police officer shot a Ridgeback mix
dog after it attacked another dog and menaced the
officer. There was a brief report in the media, in
which the owner-confirmed “Ridgeback mix” was
described as a “pit bull look-alike”. (Good grief!!!)

March 6, 2006, a man and woman were sent to hospital
after being attacked by their German Shepherd Dog.

March 4, 2006, two Labrador Retriever mixes killed a
chained Pomeranian, then attacked a ‘pit bull’, during
a neighbourhood wide rampage in Port Colborne,
Ontario. The dogs were frequently at-large, and known
to be aggressive. No penalties against the dogs’
owner has been announced since the attacks, despite
provincial law allowing up to $10,000 in fines, or six
months in jail for this kind of offense.

March 2, 2006, a 6-year-old girl underwent surgery to
repair injuries suffered in an attack by her
grandparents’ Husky/Chow mix.

March 2, 2006, a Great Dane killed its owner and
severely injured her relative, while he was chained to
the porch, in a small Texas town.

March 1, 2006, a 16-month-old girl was attacked by her
family’s St. Bernard.

March 1, 2006, a Springer Spaniel suffered severe
injuries after being attacked by a mixed-breed,
off-leash dog in a conservation area. The owners of
the attacking dog refused to identify themselves or
offer assistance before fleeing the scene.

A police dog, a Belgian Malinois, was accused of
excessive force after refusing to let go of a suspect
in 2003, only to go on to attack a police officer in
October of 2005. In that incident, the dog simply
attacked the officer unprovoked while she was guarding
evidence at a crime scene. When the officer was
unable to shake free, she pulled her weapon and shot
the dog. Still, the dead dog’s jaws had to be pried
off the officer’s arm.

February 26, 2006, an Edmonton boy was mauled by his
family’s Golden Retriever, leaving him in serious
condition in hospital.

February 24, 2006, a St. Bernard/Mastiff mix attacked
an American Eskimo dog and its owner.

February 22, 2006, an Alabama girl had to undergo
hours of surgery to close the gaping wound that
exposed the victim’s jaw bone. A Labrador Retriever
attacked the girl while she was petting it at a pet
expo.

February 17, 2006, a third grader required 68 stitches
to repair the damage caused by a Golden Retriever that
attacked the girl on her way home from school.

February 9, 2006, a six-year-old was knocked to the
ground and attacked by a roaming Labrador Retriever.

February, 2006, a 4-year-old boy had to be placed in a
drug induced coma in hospital after being attacked
mauled by stray dogs in Waswanipi, Quebec.

February, 2006, a man was bitten by one of two
Weimaraners being walked by their owner.

After several biting incidents, a man’s Border Collies
have been deemed “dangerous”. No charges have been
filed against the owner.

An Alameda County Deputy District Attorney’s mixed
breed dog (Lab/Shepherd mix) may be ordered destroyed
after numerous biting incidents.

A 2-year-old was left with cuts and puncture wounds to
the face after being attacked by a Jack Russell
Terrier in February, 2006.

In February, 2006, an 18-month-old girl was seriously
bitten by a relative’s Australian Cattle Dog tied on
the property.

In February, 2006, a five-year-old boy required 190
stitches to repair damage to his throat after being
attacked by 2 German Shepherd Dogs on the owner’s
property.

February, 2006, a Garden City, Idaho, police officer
had to shoot the police dog he was training, after it
attacked him and another officer.

In early February, 2006, a 2-year-old girl was left
with a 15cm long gash after being attacked by her
grandmother’s Border Collie.

January 26, 2006, a 2-year-old had her jaw broken and
most of her lower face torn away in an attack by a dog
described only as “a large dog”, in Prince Albert,
Saskatchewan.

After no penalties were laid following a biting
incident involving a 10-year-old girl and a Chow/GSD
mix in December, 2005, the dog bit a second child in
January, 2006; disfiguring the boy’s face by tearing
away a portion of his lip.

In December, 2005, a 90-year-old woman suffered bite
wounds and a broken bone in her back while attempting
to defend her own dog from attack by a Dalmation.

An infant suffered severe head injuries after being
attacked by the family’s Golden Retriever in November,
2005.

In January, 2006, a woman was critically injured in
Del Rey, California, after being attacked by a German
Shepherd and a Chow. Police shot and killed the dogs.
The owners were not charged.

In January, 2006, an 11-year-old girl was savagely
attacked in the face, by an Alaskan Malamute, while
visiting her friend’s home.

A 5-year-old girl was left with severe gashes and 4
missing teeth after being attacked by her
grandmother’s chained, mixed breed (non-‘pit bull’)
dog.

February, 2006, an RCMP police dog has been involved
in its second attack, this time the victim was radio
host, Paul McMullen.

In Boston, in December, 2005, two Boxers mauled a
woman so severely, authorities believe she narrowly
escaped death, thanks to the assistance of a good
Samaritan.

In 2004, an Ontario family's Chesapeake Bay Retriever
savagely attacked one of their children, leaving over
140 stitches in the child's head and face.

In May of 2005, a family's 5-year-old daughter was
mauled to death by their two Siberian Huskies.

While visiting her grandparents, a 3-year-old girl was
mauled by their Golden Retriever.

In Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, a child was bitten
severely in the face by a non-descript "small dog" she
was petting in 2005.

In Bedford, it took 3 attacks before a Poodle was
declared "vicious" by municipal standards.

In 2005, every local media station covered a scuffle
between two dogs (one of them being a 'pit bull') yet
not one media agency covered an attack that occurred
within hours of the doggie dispute, involving the
family's own Golden Retriever, and their child left
with over 20 stitches to the head and face.

A Pomeranian was declared to be a "Dangerous Animal"
under municipal statutes, after several aggression
incidents.

A veterinarian testified, in 2005, that not one of her
'pit bull' patients is aggressive, but several other
patients, including several Chihuahuas, are required
to be muzzled before they're permitted to enter the
clinic.

November, 2005, French woman is recipient of world’s
first face transplant, after being attacked by a
Labrador Retriever.

A 2-year-old boy was mauled so viciously by his
grandfather's Labrador Retriever in December 2004, he
required treatment at two Ontario hospitals. (One
television station carried this story in just one
broadcast.)

A 19-month-old toddler was sent to hospital with
injuries to the face and head, after being attacked by
her grandmother's Pointer.

A neighbour's Labrador Retriever and Dachshund
attacked an elderly woman, leaving her in a coma in
hospital.

Paris Hilton's Chihuahua was involved in an unprovoked
bite that witnesses called, "Not a little nip. It was
a very nasty bite."

The New Mexico politician that called for stricter
penalties against the owners of dangerous dogs was
mauled by his own dogs, a Boxer and two English
Bulldogs.

A 4-year-old Nevada girl was attacked late in 2005 by
a roaming Labrador Retriever.

In 2005, in Georgia, a Jack Russell Terrier so
severely damaged its owner's 2-month-old infant's foot
in an attack; the poor child's foot had to be
amputated.

A Golden Retriever was finally put down after a second
savage attack on a child. In the first case, the
victim was the owner's own child. In the second case,
the victim was a child visiting the owner's home,
leaving wounds to the cheek and back of the head.

In Denver, in late 2005, a police officer was treated
for bite wounds after having been bitten by a
Miniature Pinscher. The owner was only charged with
allowing the dog to be 'at large'.

In Rhode Island, in the summer of 2005, a family's
Siberian Husky killed their week-old infant in an
attack.

A two-and-a-half-year-old boy needed 65 stitches to
close the gaping wounds caused to his face and cheek,
after being attacked by a neighbour's Golden
Retriever.

A Trenton police officer suffered several bite wounds
after being attacked by a German Shorthair Pointer, in
July 2005.

A family's Great Dane attacked their 2-year-old child,
leaving minor wounds to the head and body.

In May, 2005, a 7-year-old Colorado girl was killed by
her family's Alaskan Malamute.

Despite their valiant efforts, doctors were unable to
repair the severed nose of a 5-year-old after he was
attacked by a neighbour's Dalmation.

A 6-week-old infant was in critical condition after
being mauled by the family's Dachshund.

A neighbour shot a rampaging Lab/Chow mix dog, after
it escaped its yard and threatened the public early in
October, 2005.

Several children were bitten, and one has to undergo
rabies shots, after being bitten by a Chihuahua mix
that wandered into a schoolyard.

In March 2005, postal workers couldn't deliver mail,
and residents were afraid to retrieve their mail in
one Indiana neighbourhood, where a vicious Chihuahua
was allowed to run loose, and terrorize residents.
After numerous incidents, and once the dog's conduct
had halted mail delivery, the owner was finally cited
for allowing the dog to be 'at large'.

A 2-year-old boy wandered into his neighbour's yard in
mid-August 2005, and was bitten in the face and neck
by the Collie/mix chained there.

A woman received bites requiring stitches, after being
attacked by a Catahoula Leopard Dog.

A chained Briard killed an 8-year-old child visiting
the owner's property.

After his second attack by the same Dalmation, a
postal worker described the dog as "the most
aggressive dog" he'd come across in 16 years.

In July, 2005, a boy finally admitted that his report
of being attacked by a 'pit bull' was false. He had
actually been attacked by a friend's German Shepherd.
He says he filed the false report because he wanted to
protect his friend.

April, 2005, a 6-year-old boy in St. Joseph,
Saskatchewan, had to undergo plastic surgery to repair
the damaged caused when he was mauled by a neighbour’s
German Shepherd dog.

Source: GoodPooch.com independent research, asst'd
news services, reader input, & Understand-a-bull.com
__________________________________
__________________________

Only
when we become more knowledgeable, humane and responsible in our treatment of dogs can we hope to prevent future tragedies!
This article was written in 1987.....almost 20 years ago, but it still reads as if written yesterday.

Nothing has changed in 20 years, people still don't think for themselves, and the media uses the same tactics to sell their papers or get you to watch their news.

It would be interesting to come across this article in another 20 years and see if things have changed yet.

"PIT BULLS ARE LATEST FAD SCARE"

DLCC NOTE**This article came from the San Francisco Chronicle Panorama Section. It was dated Thursday, July 30th 1987. It was written by Debra J Saunders who has never owned a pit bull.**

The man actually agreed to talk about it on television. He had his pit bull killed. The pet had never acted violently, he said, but his wife was so scared by TV news stories that she was suddenly afraid of their dog. In Northern California, over two dozen pit bull owners have had their pets put to sleep because neighbours were pressuring them or they had become suddenly fearful of pets whom many had loved and nurtured for years. TV is so powerful that it is more trusted than man's best friend.

This says some sad things about America. The pit bull scare illustrates how skittish we have become..... skittish and ineffective, because this fad scare will do next to nothing to lessen dog attacks. The sociopath louts who train their dogs to be attack machines aren't curbing their dogs. It's Good Neighbour Sam who responds to the pressure. He will be a sad Sam in a year's time when the hysteria has passed and only the guilt remains.

Since the Gary Hart/Donna Rice scandal, there has been a lot of talk about a new direction in American journalism. It's the old direction, sunken lower, that is truly terrifying.

"If it bleeds, It leads" has been a long time standard for TV news directors. In this decade, local TV has gone from leading with disasters to teasing with hysteria. Fad scares have been on the rise since we first learned about AIDS. Stations found that their ratings shot up whenever they ran AIDS expose or the dangers of crack cocaine. They saw that scaring viewers sells. The pit bull story is especially good because, like crack, it's easy for local TV news to cover and exploit. Any airhead can hit the streets and find a drug addict or a dog . Shake a stick at the dog and you can get it to growl and look real menacing. If it's visual it makes good TV.

Wait a few days and in any populated area, somebody is bound to get bitten by a dog. If its a German Shepherd, you ignore it. If your not sure what breed it is, you might call it a pit bull. If it is a pit bull, you can call the networks and see if they want the package too.

TV news has slunk to such a low that "Dog bites man" is actually a story. Pit bulls make for good local TV because they require no expertise. No need for facts; just get the best teeth shot.

So the public remains unaware that there is no hard evidence that pit bulls attack more frequently than other breeds. In 1984, Los Angeles County estimated that German Shepherds were responsible for 35.8% of the city's dog bites The pit bull estimate was 4.6% half that of Labrador Retrievers. These facts don't make it onto many small screens.

Pit bulls offer all the main criteria of a fad scare. There aren’t a whole lot of pit bull owners to alienate. There are no pit bull advertisers. Fad scares scare and soothe at the same time. If we stop taking crack or get rid of a near by pit bull we're saved.

Unlike the Middle East or acid rain, the pit bull problem is easy: Get rid of pit bulls. It won't upset an ecological food chain. No jobs will be lost. Most people won't be offended. This time, the price for a false sense of security is animal sacrifice: Families offering their pets to the altar of television news. The big question is who's next? Killer rabbits, junkyard dogs, autistic children, bicyclers? What is truly horrific is how readily the public has embraced pit bull hysteria. One year ago, most people didn't know what a pit bull is. Today they're ready to send the breed to the doggie gas chambers.

__________________________________
_________________________________

Statistics
can lie, here's the real truth

Between the years of 1965 and 2001 there were 101 fatalities atributed to "pit bulls" and pit bull crosses. This number is about twice as much as the next highest dog on the list. Sounds really scary, doesn't it? Those simple numbers are blared across the media and pointed to with fervor in courthouses looking to get the "pit bull" banned. The real truth of the matter is much more complicated than a single number.

First of all let's address the issue of breed. As I have stated before , the "pi t bull" is not a breed, but a 'type' of dog. There are 5 different breeds classified as "pit bull", and approximately another 13 or so that look similar enough to be mistaken for a pit bull even by a more experienced dog-lover. The problem arises when under the stress of an attack the victim or witness incorrectly identifies the breed. In the heat of the moment, any medium-sized short-haired muscular dog is a "pit bull". The dogs in the pictures were called a 'pit bull mix'. See if you can identify the pit bull HERE, and then think how hard it would be to pick if you were being attacked by one of these dogs, or were witnessing an attack. "Because there are so few fatal dog attacks, any error in breed identification can critically affect a breed's reputation. With only approximately 20 fatal attacks in any given year, inaccurate identification of a conservative three or four breeds can result in an approximate 20% margin of error"(1). For example: in 1989 in CA, a man was attacked by a pack of Shepherd/Doberman/unknown mixes that were originally identified as pit bulls, and in 2000 in FL a medium-sized reddish dog chained to a doghouse attacked and killed a child. The newspapers claimed the dog was a pit bull, but the shelter workers and sheriff's department classified the dog as a mixed breed dog, with no predominate breed. That being said, of the 101 fatal bites that occurred, an astonishing 57%, more than half, were inflicted by "pit bull type dogs (this includes anything that was reported to be a pit bull, but was unconfirmed)", 32% by pit bulls, 13% by pit bull crossbreeds, and only 2 bites are attributed to American Staffordshire Terriers. One attack was by a pack of 6 bull terriers that were allowed to roam free, although this attack is so old (1947) it is not included in the statistics. There are NO attacks attributed to the Staffordshire Terrier. (percentages are approximate)

Chart 1: summary of breeds

57% "pit bull" type dogs
32% pit bull terriers
13% mixed breed dog with "pit bull" apparant in breeding
2 attacks American Staffordshire Terrier
1 attack Bull Terrier
0 attacks Staffordshire Bull Terrier
Now let us turn our attention to the reasons behind the bites. There are several factors that contribute to a bite. One of the largest impacts on the numbers are chained dogs. "Chaining a dog creates an unnatural and unhealthy environment. Dogs require excercise, mental stimulation and social interaction with either other dogs or with the humans who aquired them. None of these requirements can be met living at the end of a chain."(1) Chained dogs make up 36% of all fatal "pit bull" attacks. The next largest group is dogs running loose, at 21%. (by "running loose" I refer to dogs allowed to run around the neighborhood frequently, not a dog that has simply gotten out). Shortly following this is visitors to the house, at 17%. Almost all the attacks in this category are small children that were left unattended with the unfamiliar dog. Another 9% of attacks occurred when the victim entered the property where the "pit bull" was housed, in most cases by climbing over the fence (or into the kennel in one case). In these cases the dog was defending its territory. There are 9 cases involving dogs used for fighting, 5 cases of dogs used as guard dogs, 2 cases of dogs guarding a place of business, 1 case of a dog used as a murder weapon, 1 case of gross human negligence (mother abandoned days old baby in yard with 2 "pit bulls"), and 1, yes only ONE case of pit bulls turning on thier owner. If you understand the cruelty these dogs are subjected to, it is supprising the numbers aren't higher. "Dogs are tortured, teased and abused in hopes of making them mean. Those refusing to fight or those who lose are horribly killed or left to die in alleyways... People from the worst segments of our society seek these animals out to guard drug houses, intimate other gang members, thwart police action and enhance thier vacuous self-esteem. Any real or imagined viciousness on the part of the Pit Bull breeds pales in comparison to the brutality, callous disrespect for life, and inhumanity of many of thier owners."(1) Also take into consideration the sheer numbers of "pit bulls" and pit crosses there are across the country. Although it its basically impossible to guess the actual population, you can get an idea how many there are, and the type of "quality care" they receive, from these few examples: New York City reports the Pit Bull to be its 3rd most populous dog in 2001, Los Angeles CA reports that 40% and San Francisco CA reports 1/3 of all dogs entering thier shelters are pit bulls or pit crosses, in 1999 the Pennsylvania SPCA reported finding over 4000 pit bulls wandering the streets, most scarred and/or abandonded, and the Michigan Humane Society reported that in only 3 of its shelters over 1,820 pit bulls were destroyed in 2000. It is estimated that there are at least 250,000 pits involved in dog fighting nationwide. The ADBA registered 220,000 American Pit Bull Terriers in 1999, making them the #1 dog in America. It is estimated that The American Pit Bull Terrier and other Bull Breeds make up 9% of the total canine population in the USA, which is more than 55 million dogs in the USA.

Chart 2: summary of circumstances

36% chained dogs
21% dogs allowed to run loose around the neighborhood
17% visitors (usually unattended children)
9% entered dogs property or territory
9 cases of dogs used for fighting
5 cases involving guard dogs
2 cases of dogs guarding place of business
1 case of dog used as murder weapon
1 case gross human negligence
1 case pair of pit bull type dogs attacked and killed owner
Compared to the sheer number of 'pit bulls' present, the number of attacks is supprisingly small, so why then do we hear about 'pit bull' attacks in the news every other day?

The media has vast influence over our perceptions of which breeds of dogs are dangerous, as they decide which dog attack stories to publish. With over 4.7 million dog bites recorded each year in the United States and with over 800,000 of these attacks serious enough to require medical attention, the resources for dog-bite stories appear unlimited. Yet, the media seems to delight in Pit bull related stories, so much so, that in their haste to report the latest Pit bull attack story the truth often takes a backseat to sensationalism. =

Name: puppy_luv • Date: 11/29/2006 13:20:32

pitts shouldnt be bann how would you fell if some took ur sister/brother away???????????? =

Name: atomic snowflake • Date: 11/29/2006 16:37:56

I'd be quite happy! :-D =

Name: Bluies101 • Date: 11/29/2006 16:39:08

They should NOT be banned. But we as caring people should have more education available. And perhaps some regulations. I dont feel it is right to have them muzzeled unless they are known to be aggressive. LOVE is the key factor in any pet ownership. Then is education..... PIT BULLS ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE!!! =

Name: LauraAlexander • Date: 06/01/2007 12:38:46

Hiddy..... In short, if you don’t want to read the rest of this…. you are an IDIOT.

I am glad that you are not someone that is responsible for making important decisions that could not only effect animals, but people as well. Just by the statement "They are only DOGS!" tells me that you are an idiot.

You obviously have never had the privilege to own a dog, or maybe you have and you just took its unconditional love for granted, but a dog is more than just a dog, it is one of Gods living creatures that has an undying, unconditional love that is endless....no matter how many times you come home in a bad mood, it is there waiting to cheer you up. It doesn't hold grudges like people, it doesn't lie like people, and it certainly isn't prejudice like people. A dog will love you no matter what you look like, who you are, or how much money you have. They love and trust you because that is all they know how to do. So next time you use the phrase..."Come on people it is just a dog!" Remember... YOU ARE JUST AN IDIOT! Who, obviously does not have much regard or respect for any of Gods living creatures. To say that any animal should be banned is a slap in the face to God. You should be ashamed of yourself.

If our government used your mentality and way of thinking, "We don't need these breeds" and "They all need to be banned because they are vicious and cause attacks" they would be passing laws like "Hey, lets just wipe out all the children to end child abuse!" OR "Lets just put an end to everyone wanting to get married to stop divorces!" Doesn't that sound stupid? It's because it is not the children who cause child abuse it is the people who do it to them, and it is not marriage that causes divorces, IT IS THE PEOPLE! See a pattern forming here?... So, I think it would be safe to assume, that it is not the dogs that are causing the problem....IT IS THE PEOPLE! Hmm.... And it is the people like you Hiddy, that are wanting to punish the dogs, for this injustice and not the people! You really need to educate yourself on this subject BEFORE you just start shooting off your mouth because of what you hear on the news and through other media.

In fact, the breeds of dogs most likely to bite someone are SMALL breed dogs, and the most dangerous dogs are Dalmatians and Cocker Spaniels. Bet you didn't know that either. Look it up. Also, for every Pit Bull attack that you see in the news, there are at least 500 other dog attacks to people that you never hear about in the news or other media because it is not as eye catching as if a Pit Bull did it.

In fact... the first person in Europe who had the face transplant done about a year ago now, had her face chewed off while she was sleeping by her OWN LABRADOR RETRIEVER! I am not dissing any of these breeds that I have mentioned, I love them all, but these are the facts! And I still don't think that any of them should be banned. I think that owning a dog should be a privilege not a right. I wish that stupid people could be banned or at least sterilized so that they don't reproduce anymore of their ignorant DNA, or extra chromosomes to their offspring.

We have enough ignorance in this world already... These dogs go through enough pain as is it through idiots who try to fight them and other idiots who think that they should all be killed because of their breed..... Too bad ignorance isn't painful! =

Name: LauaAlexander • Date: 06/01/2007 12:39:36

Name: Joe Herndon • Date: 06/26/2007 13:26:47

Yes I think Pitt Bulls should be banned from all public parks if nothing else;they jump on other dogs for no reason and hurt little children. =

Name: Sarah • Date: 07/03/2007 10:05:14

The Pit Bull Awareness Center can answer all your questions about banning the Pit Bull. Also, see the Latest Update on Pit Bull Attacks, Maulings, Killings.
http://pit-bull-awareness-
center.christianfunfair.org/
=

Name: briseis • Date: 07/03/2007 11:18:15

They are banned here in Northern Ireland. If you own one, you'll be prosecuted, and your Pitt Bull will be destroyed. I think to own one you should have a licence, but they shouldn't be banned completely. Bad owners make bad dogs. =

Name: lindalu • Date: 07/03/2007 11:32:06

Bad pit owners should be banned, I say rehome the animal and put the owner to sleep! =

Name: briseis • Date: 07/03/2007 12:07:01

Agreed!!! :) =

Name: Brent powell • Date: 09/04/2007 14:52:02

you are a dumn ass i have 4 pitts 1 got put down because he walked up 2 someone and growled beacuse when he was a puppile some kids kicked him and broke 1 of his ribs trow rocks. the other one are loveable they will lick you 2 death so if enybody say's pitt bulss are evil bs and f u and fuck all the hisstory bs pittbulls are nice sooo all of you guys who say there mean f u in the butt =

Name: stacey myrick • Date: 10/17/2007 13:23:50

noyou should band pitbull dogs i have one and iam starting a patition a gutest this =

Name: louise mctaggart • Date: 10/26/2007 07:04:28

my friend had a bitt but had 2 get ride of it as it bit her 2yr old son... =

Name: louise mctaggart • Date: 10/26/2007 07:05:40

my friend had a bitt but had 2 get ride of it as it bit her 2yr old son...i have 2 rotties and they are get with my kids and cats over dogs couldnt wish for but dogs =

Name: Brittany Deming • Date: 10/29/2007 10:40:41

No absolutely not its not the breed its the deed i have had mainly Pitt bulls my entire life and never...NEVER have we had a problem with he/she being around our children nephews baby's. I think this law is simply ridiculous and it is for the government to make it look like they are doing something about the people who train their dogs to be that way...Period! =

Name: Channin • Date: 10/30/2007 10:52:39

I think that is crazy i have 10 pitt bulls and all of them are lovley dogs they would never hurt anyone. besides if pitt bulls should be banned then ban cocker spaniels, dalmations, labs, rott weilers, chihuahhas, and huskys becauses theses breeds are just as likley to attack as a pitt bull is =

Name: Madison • Date: 11/13/2007 11:28:23

YES! =

Name: T-rabbit • Date: 11/13/2007 12:34:23

NO!
LOL =

Name: lindalu • Date: 11/13/2007 16:14:30

Yah right..... lets ban a whole breed because of stupid people! =

Name: T Money • Date: 12/22/2007 04:58:17

i have 5 pitt bulls thay are so bad ass i wight pull them and run them on the tredmill have them pull me on a skate board for a few miles i think its the best bread ever =

Name: BECKI • Date: 01/17/2008 21:25:16

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER DOG. I HAVE 2 PITTS AND 3 CHILDREN PLUS RUN A DAYCARE IN MY HOME AND I HAVE THE MOST LOVEABLE PITTS IN THE WORLD. IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW THEY ARE RAISED. I DONT SEE WHY EVERYONE TARGETS PITT BULLS. SO NO I DONT BELIEVE THE RESTRICTIONS ARE OK. =

Name: Lucia • Date: 01/20/2008 19:15:42

I am the owner of 3 pitts I am so sick of the retards out there. One of my dogs were bit by a golden ret but they dont ban that breed. So sick of the BS around here. Last time i checked i lived in the United Stated home of the free. =

Name: snowball112 • Date: 02/01/2008 20:34:57

Yes they should be banned throughout the country. A few days ago I had my 2 little pomeranians on their leashes outside my door and had my hand on the door knob and opened it when a pitt bull came up behind me and never barked. He went for one of my dogs. I grabbed their leashes before he had a hold on one. He went to the other and locked on the other's throat severing his jugular and God only knows what else, He came into my house. My 2 little granddaughters were right there. If the owner of the dog hadn't heard my screams he would have attacked the other dog and probably all of us in the house. The dog pound only wanted to give him a $100.00 ticket because he was not on a leash. This attack occurred in my own home. I do not feel safe any more because Pitt Bulls are known to come through windows to get what they want. Ban them hroughout the county. It should be a felony to own one. If lions and tigers are not allowed in the cities, then what makes a Pitt Bull any different? =

Name: Zach • Date: 04/02/2008 17:44:55

5 wrds 4 all of u ppl out there: PITBULLS SHOULD NOT BE BANNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
End of discussion. PERIOD. done. no more. zip. nada. its over. GD DAY.......... I SED GD DAY PPL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
=

Name: Zach • Date: 04/02/2008 17:47:58

wats their reason 4 dis......................exactly, they hav none except 4 da fact dat the ppl train the dogs wrong. DATS IT PPL..... DATS IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! =

Name: andrei tataru • Date: 04/04/2008 17:37:45

stupid it should all be up to the onwers =

Name: briseis • Date: 04/06/2008 08:41:17

Pitt Bulls are already banned here in Ireland where I live. If you own a Pitt Bull here, or even a Pitt Bull cross, that dog must immediately be destroyed.

I don't believe there are 'bad dogs' or a 'bad breed', although admittedly Pitt Bulls are capable of doing more damage than most breeds if they are trained to do so. Which is my point. It's 'bad owners' which must be banned. =

Name: patchesbabysowner • Date: 04/08/2008 01:33:14

in most place they are used to do fighting but i dont think they should banned them cause as long as a pitt bull is put to work like caring a pack and is treated right they will not bite or hurt anyone they can be a very kind dog it is the owner who trains them to be that way but i understand the city rules i have 7 dogs and 5 of the 7 are blue heelers or blue heeler mixs they are can be trained to be mean or good too all dogs are that way that how i feel but i live in a small town that dont care if even ur dogs have thier shots as long as they dont run lose all over but my do have their shots =

Name: ste234 • Date: 04/21/2008 13:25:33

they should be banned because one jumped its back fence and got lock jaw on my kerry blue terrier bue i had hold of my dog and she just needed a tetiniss =

Name: Xiomara • Date: 04/28/2008 21:45:33

no they shouldn't be band because they are just dogs like the other dogs. =

Name: zz • Date: 05/28/2008 13:44:42

i think as with other issues like children under age commiting crimes the parents are held responsible i feel the owners of these animals should be held responsible =

Name: zz • Date: 05/28/2008 13:51:13

rottweiler and pit bulls make up over 50 percent od ALL dog attacks just be aware of what you have in your home =

Name: Ashley • Date: 06/03/2008 14:44:41

NO BSL, I think if a og is aggresive then that is necesary but i think it is wrong to say all pitt bulls sould do this. If people stop miss treating the breed then their would not be a proble. =

Name: Ashley • Date: 06/03/2008 14:52:27

I am so sick of all the shit people say about pitts, I have 2 and when i walk them i get dirty looks. Not all the people who own pitt bulls are terrable owners. The ass hole who think pitts should be banned can go to hell. =

Name: Shyan • Date: 07/02/2008 07:24:10

Pittbulls shouldent be banned because it's the owners foult for raising it up to be aggresive. =

Name: Shyan • Date: 07/02/2008 07:38:14

No the pittbulls shouldent be baned because:Its not the

gun thats dangerous but the handler or the owner. =

Name: lisasing • Date: 07/02/2008 12:57:13

www.singleparentloving.com A single parent personals, dating and marriage site that assists single mothers and single dads to find marriage and long-term relationships. Free join to meet single parents in your area ! =

Name: Erica S • Date: 07/04/2008 18:15:00

Pitt Bulls get a bad rap, they should be treated on individual bases. It has beed proven that some dog bites that were alledgedly a pitt bull, was another breed looking like a pitt bull. I honestly believe this hysteria is just another witch hunt. They deserve respect, just like every other breed of dog. =