Federal law leashes pit bull restrictions

Municipal governments from New York City to Miami, and from Council Bluffs, Iowa to Denver, have responded to fear of pit bulls and similar breeds of dogs, by severely restricting their ownership or banning them entirely from their jurisdictions.  Now, thanks to a rule issued recently by the U.S. Department of Justice, such actions are subject to being struck down.  Jurisdictions now considering such overreactions, such as Douglasville, Georgia, would be well-advised to review the Justice Department’s opinion before proceeding.

Dog owners and humane societies have long-opposed such arbitrary and overly broad laws that penalize thousands of pit bull owners who maintain their canine companions properly and without incident, because of a small number who fail to properly train and control the dogs.  Courts generally have permitted such ordinances to stand, based on deference to the so-called “police power” of local governments to protect the public “safety and welfare.” 

The 20-year old, federal Americans With Disabilities Act (”ADA”), however, may put a stop to such “breed-specific legislation.”  The ADA protects measures designed to help persons with disabilities, which includes dogs used by disabled persons for assistance.  Laws that outlaw ownership of entire breeds, including those that might be used for assistive purposes, would limit the ability of persons with disabilities to use such pets, and would therefore violate the ADA and be deemed by the Justice Department to be unlawful.

In what some might consider a rare example of the federal government recognizing that laws can be overly broad and therefore harmful to individual liberty, the Justice Department’s opinion on breed-specific legislation noted that such laws sweep too broadly; and that it is inappropriate to outlaw an entire breed of dogs because a small number cause problems.  Such problems are the result of owners not restraining their dogs properly or inadequately training them, rather than the result of a particular breed’s disposition, and can be addressed by more narrowly-crafted legislation.

Unfortunately, there are still those, like the mayor of Douglasville, Georgia, who favor overly restrictive measures.  The mayor recently noted in support of the city’s proposed pit bull ordinance, that he had no problem singling out pit bulls, because he sees them “on TV” causing “incidents.”    One would hope that local government officials might on their own possess some understanding of limited government and individual liberty; but if the Justice Department at least in this instance will ensure that they do so by way of a federal law, then the feds are serving as an important check on excessive government power.

402 comments Add your comment

carlosgvv

September 29th, 2010
7:05 am

In an ideal world we would know which people would abuse children and dogs and make certain they never had either. Since this is not possible it would be nice if the government would enforce the laws already on the books.

Eric

September 29th, 2010
7:25 am

I agree–taking personal responsibility (for one’s dogs) is the solution (like many other aspects of life).

selwyn marock

September 29th, 2010
7:41 am

Now lets hope that the Federal boys enforce this ruling.

The Common Man

September 29th, 2010
8:15 am

Right on Carlosgvv. However, Barr is off his rocker to say that these problems are the result of improper training and not the particular breed’s disposition. Wipe off your shoe Barr. These animals are as dangerous as a gun. And there are rules about gun ownership. Look at the history of this animal, it was bred for fighting and warfare in ancient Greece. Sure…not my dog (pitbull)…until it bites the face off your child. How many times have we heard that story. Some regulation is needed for these animals, in spite of the foolish comment of the Douglasville Mayor.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 29th, 2010
8:47 am

We have three dogs – a poodle-mix, a border collie/greyhound mix, and a pit-lab mix – plus two cats, all inside the house. The female hyperactive border collie is our alpha dog. The 90 lb pit – Mr. Snugglebuttons – is a passive, gentle creature. When he climbs the steps, the five lb cat sits on her haunches and slaps him in the face with both paws; Mr. Snugglebuttons merely whines, asking us to save him from the brutish creature.

Most people who rail against the breed are the 21st century equivalent of know-nothings, who would merely enact their prejudices into laws that restrict all of us.

Metro Coach

September 29th, 2010
8:50 am

Common Man….Read the Parade Magazine article about Michael Vick’s pit bulls, or the article by Dan Wetzel from Yahoo Sports abotu the,, and you’ll find proof that even dogs bred to fight, even those that do fight and survive can be retrained to be good canine citizens. The Wetzel article cites one of the best fighters of the group who recently received his Good Citizen certification. This is a dog who fought and won, and he was able to be retrained. Dogs can be trained to overcome their instincts, and they can be trained to ignore prior training.

BullyBob

September 29th, 2010
9:02 am

Common Man…you are wrong period. The pit bull type dog was orginally from the UK where they baited bulls and were used as a farmers dog. There is not a breed called pit bull.. it is a slang term. There is the American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier which are the most common breed lumped into the pit bull term. However there are many other breeds that people will call a pit bull.
I probably have handled well over 100 pit bull type dogs in my life. I volunteer at a shelter and own dogs that most people would identify as a pit bull.. if they are so dangerous why have I never been bitten ? Could you possibly be wrong ?

Scott K

September 29th, 2010
9:03 am

Common Man, your analogy to gun control is more right than you know. Guns are not inherently dangerous, and pit bulls are not inherently dangerous; people misuse guns (and other weapons), and people mistreat pit bulls (and other dogs). Criminal control laws that targets specific guns make no more sense than breed-related laws.

Guns are not dangerous without a person pulling the individual trigger; dogs are not dangerous (as a group, or as a breed) without abusing or mistraining the individual dog.

Also, your history is completely bogus–the American Pit Bull Terrier’s existence only dates back a couple hundred years; whatever dogs they had in ancient Greece are completely immaterial to modern breeds, as is however they were treated–given that, as noted in other comments, dogs that were brought up and forced to fight only a couple years ago are now in loving family homes, therapy dogs, CGC-holders, and general breed ambassadors.

Hillbilly Deluxe

September 29th, 2010
9:28 am

Any dog will bite, under the right circumstances. They are animals, after all.

Mike

September 29th, 2010
9:34 am

We just need less government.

BullyBob

September 29th, 2010
9:36 am

To Mike,… could not agree more..

Drifter

September 29th, 2010
9:49 am

So all these pit bulls that maim and kill people have been mistreated? That’s just ignorant. Out of all the various breeds out there, approximately half of all dog attacks involve a pit bull. And after some child has been maimed or killed, you always see the nitwit owner saying ‘He’s never bitten anyone before’.

Tim

September 29th, 2010
9:55 am

Great. So now the dogs have more rights to be in my yard than my kids. I’ve called the police, city, congressman and no one will make my neighbors even put that pit bull on a leash. I’m glad we can all own pit bulls. How about my kids who would like to play in their yard and can’t?

Barry

September 29th, 2010
10:02 am

They can take away my pit bull when they pry her jaws from their cold, dead necks.

Cekker

September 29th, 2010
10:05 am

“Such problems are the result of owners not restraining their dogs properly or inadequately training them, rather than the result of a particular breed’s disposition…”

Hogwash.

Bad owners own all types of dogs and all types of dogs are inadequately trained. But when was the last time you heard of a chihuahua ripping someones face off? Or a schnauzer? Or a bassett hound? Or even a lab? They may bite, but they lack the killer instinct and locking-jaw mechanics that have been bred into the pit bull for centuries.

It’s simple: terriers chase things, retrievers retrieve things and pit bulls kill things. You may be able to contain some of that instinct through training, but it is still there and can be activated with no notice.

BullyBob

September 29th, 2010
10:23 am

Chekker… the last time I heard the locking jaw remark was from a retarded person.. pit bull dogs do not have locking jaws.. the jaw has been disected and they are the same as any other dogs jaw. In fact Rotties and GSD have a more powerful bite.
Did you know that the first human face transplant was done in France? The result of the person’s Labrador mauling her.

BullyBob

September 29th, 2010
10:28 am

Checcker…did you know pit bull is a slang term for American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier.
Just wondering because you sd. terriers chase things…

Ive owned pit bull type dogs for years and vol at a shelter and work with pit bull type dogs… you think I would be maimed by now if you are correct.

jrc813

September 29th, 2010
10:30 am

I own an American Staffordshire (pit bull). I have had him for over 8 years and he weighs right at 100lbs. He has never bitten anyone, however, I am not stupid. I don’t let him run loose and I don’t allow him to be with small children by himself. The biggest problem you have with my dog is his whining. He will jump up on you and because of his size, he is able to knock a small person down. I also own a chihuahua who will bite the crap out of you every time you touch him.
Pit bulls should no more be banned than anything else. People kill people every day, should they be banned. I do believe there should be laws on keeping your dogs under control and immunized but not on outlawing an entire breed. At some point people need to be responsible and not blame the dog. Oh and one more note, half the time when you hear about a “pitbull” attacking some one it isn’t even a pit bull.

The Common Man

September 29th, 2010
10:31 am

I am glad that Mr. Snugglebuttons likes cats and I am sure there are a lot of playful loveable pits around with cute names that are owned by responsible people that make wonderful pets. But the facts are that this breed of animal did originated and evolved for purposes of fighting and warfare (sorry Bully Bob). Michael Vick was not raising poodles to fight. Just like guns, these animals require some regulation because of certain irresponsible OWNERS. Unlike Mr. Snugglebuttons family.

Cekker

September 29th, 2010
10:41 am

“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)
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.”

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

Pompano

September 29th, 2010
10:42 am

Unfortunately the vast majority of the owners of these dogs are missing a few important screws. When you take a dog as powerful as this breed (and prone to violence – despite the statements to the contray by their owners) and place them in the hands of these individuals. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. Of course, even if you ban the breed, these brain-dead owners will still find some way to terrorize their neighborhoods.

Also, the law currently limits us from ownership of many types of animals for public safety reasons.

BullyBob

September 29th, 2010
10:49 am

Checcker are you kidding the Clifton study… he used newpaper articles to gather his evidence. This study has been litterly laughed by the American Medical Veternarian Assoication.. here are there comments on the study:
In a statement, the American Medical Veterinary Association (in whose journal the CDC report was published) said: “In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data contained within this report CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities.”

“Data in this report indicate that the number of dogs of a given breed associated with fatal human attacks varies over time, further suggesting that such data should not be used to support the inherent “dangerousness” of any particular breed.”

http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2010/07/03/news/doc4c2fab7309d7d996640777.txt

Ragnar Danneskjöld

September 29th, 2010
11:02 am

I perceive there will always be Pompanos among us, willing to supply screws even where not needed. Our first pit died in 2004, age 13 – never even growled at anyone, much less bit. I will not affirm the pit breed has the best most loving disposition I’ve seen – we once had a Basenji-mix who deserves that title – but I think the pits rank with Golden Retrievers, and with much less shedding.

Drifter

September 29th, 2010
11:05 am

A study for 2006-2008 showed pit bulls caused 59% of human deaths due to dog attack. If it isn’t the breed, it tells you something about the kind of people owning them. But some of you won’t believe any research no matter where it comes from because your lovable ticking time bomb hasn’t bitten anyone yet. At the very least, we ought to hold the owner responsible for any damage done, including criminal charges.

nelson

September 29th, 2010
11:08 am

Now, there is a right way and a wrong way when it comes to pit bulls. A little known way, do not show fear, let the dog know who is in charge. Take Buddy Dyer, the mayor of Orlando, one day he was out jogging and a pit bull was attacking a small poodle. Buddy ran over and grabbed the pit bull by the ears and pulled it away. Now, that is the right way, and this was one of those big pit bulls. Buddy got named man of the year by the dog lovers of America.
Now, the wrong way is to have federal legislation, that only encroaches on the rights of the individual.
Warning; do not go out and grab the first pit bull you see, by the ears, speak soothingly first and let the dog take a whiff of your hand, and it is better if the dog has already eaten.

Cekker

September 29th, 2010
11:08 am

Bhully, I think if chihuahuas and boston terriers were ripping peoples faces off, the media would be all over it.

My sister has owned a boarding kennel and been working with dogs, horses and cats for 30 years. I take her word as gold when she says that she has to be extra careful with pit bulls due to their unstable nature and potential for great harm to other animals and herself even going so far as refusing a few of them that turn out to be particularly vicious.

If you love this breed so much, more power to you. Just don’t kid yourself about their potential for harm.

Kevin

September 29th, 2010
11:09 am

I often agree with Mr. Barr’s positions, but I wholeheartedly disagree with him on this one.

Pit Bulls are genetically pre-disposed to aggression, and are ticking time bombs. This whole “it’s the owner” line of reasoning doesn’t fly with me. When was the last time you read about someone being killed by a poodle or mauled by a Chocolate Lab? Are bad owners limited to one breed of dog? Of course not.

I’m all for personal responsibility. But it’s abundantly clear the personal responsibility model isn’t working as it relates to this breed. How many more people (including children) must die or be mauled before we collectively realize this breed should be severely restricted?

[...] original post here: Federal law leashes pit bull restrictions | The Barr Code Post a [...]

chris

September 29th, 2010
11:20 am

The people who demonize these dogs need to get their facts straight. Notice where information about these dogs comes from? Television and poorly written “studies”. Do a bit of research and don’t hold your personal vendetta up as overwhelming proof that pit bulls are dangerous. For further enlightenment, go to your local shelter and maybe walk a few of these dogs (I’ve worked with hundreds of dogs and have only been bit by spaniels!) and/or read the Pit Bull Placebo:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/pit-bull-placebo-text1.pdf

BullyBob

September 29th, 2010
11:24 am

Checcker I board my male pit bull all the time..His last report card was ” he likes soft toys and giving kisses.. Jack weighs about 85 lbs and is rock solid.
Here is a bit more about your clifton study:
Clifton’s study is based entirely on “press accounts” and includes “only attacks by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry.” This means that a wide swath of attacks for which the dog’s breed is unknown or unreported go unaccounted for. Also, attacks not reported by media are not included.

Pit bull advocates often cite a media bias against their dogs, claiming that news organizations sensationalize pit bull attacks and leave others unreported.

No study of media bias toward any specific dog breed is known to the writer of this article, but the fact that pit bull attacks are reported in media at a higher rate than attacks by other breeds does not seem totally unfounded.

Therefore, the high rate of “pit bull terrier” attacks included in Clifton’s study may be at least partially explained by media bias against pit bulls.

Harm Reduction

September 29th, 2010
11:25 am

Simple solution:

Dog owners should be tried for crimes when their dogs injure/ kill someone.
If you kill somone with your car you can get charged with vehicular homicide or vehicular manslaughter. Same situation. New laws/Charges at Dog owners. No need to penalized the animals – they are animals. The owners – though they act like animals, are humans and should be held accountable as such.

Harm Reduction

September 29th, 2010
11:27 am

Dr. Pangloss

September 29th, 2010
11:30 am

“Laws that outlaw ownership of entire breeds, including those that might be used for assistive purposes, would limit the ability of persons with disabilities to use such pets, and would therefore violate the ADA and be deemed by the Justice Department to be unlawful.”

Now when was the last time you saw someone using a pit bull as a seeing eye dog? Never, right?

When was the last time you read about a pit bull killing a small child? Not long ago at all if you watch the news regularly.

Sure, all dogs may bite, but not all dogs can take your foot off.

b.c.

September 29th, 2010
11:41 am

Nelson @11:08

That’s fine for one pit bull (or any strange dog). Can’t necessarily handle it that easily when there are two are three together which often seems to be the case in the attacks reported in the media.

Local laws like leash/restraint laws and registration requirements for certain breeds, plus fines for not keeping your pets under control work pretty well for our county.

I have know people who owned one pit bull as a pet and loved them. I personally would not choose that breed for a pet. Our neighbourhood until recently was open, few fences. Kids could walk through neighbours yards to catch the school bus. Then a new owner moved in with two pit bulls. Fences went up all over the place. Including the pit bull owner who (by law) had to install fencing for his pets. My hobby is gardening. I’m not willing to take a chance that the neighbours pit bulls are friendly and won’t attack if the spirit moves them. The man that installed our fence and several others in the our neighbourhood within a couple weeks of the dogs arrival told us. “My boss loves pit bulls. Good for business.” I bet he does.

Cekker

September 29th, 2010
11:48 am

“Therefore, the high rate of “pit bull terrier” attacks included in Clifton’s study may be at least partially explained by media bias against pit bulls.”

Why would the media pick on pit bulls?

Like I said, if another breed chewed people up the way pit bulls do or another breed was being trained to fight in ‘pits’ a la Michael Vick, I think the media would be all over it.

BullyBob

September 29th, 2010
11:50 am

Dr. Pengloss therapy dogs are not necessarly seeing eye dogs. It is a proven fact people that have seizures have therapy dogs that can detect if a seizure is coming on. That is one reason Denver Co is having to re-write its BSL law…
I hope you are not a Dr. if you do not know this.. maybe you should be called Dr. Quake

REP

September 29th, 2010
12:04 pm

“Such problems are the result of owners not restraining their dogs properly or inadequately training them, rather than the result of a particular breed’s disposition, and can be addressed by more narrowly-crafted legislation.”

Bob, you are just flat wrong here. Pit bulls are constantly mauling folks and at a much higher rate than other breeds. I know b/c I’m an attorney and see these dog bite cases all the time. Most of them (clear majority; it is not even close) arise from either pit bulls or mixed pits. If it was up to me, it would be a felony to own or breed one. There are plenty of other dogs and breeds out there that can assist folks. Come to think of it, I’ve never seen a pit used as an assistive dog. Have you?

duward

September 29th, 2010
12:04 pm

Buster Brown’s Tige, Our Gang’s Petey, and even the RCA dog were all pit bulls/pit bull mixes. This is a dog that was the pre-eminent American family dog 75 years ago. Historically, it has even been a symbol of our country’s bravery, determination, and loyalty. That these dogs have somehow evolved into mad maulers is nonsense. People treating dogs like toys or accessories or ignoring them altogether are the problems.

Liz Henderson

September 29th, 2010
12:07 pm

There have been studies about media bias against a breed of dogs. My group’s statement at http://www.atlantapitbullparents.com/pages/statements.html shows the results of that study as well as others. There are several reasons other than media bias why you see so many reports of pit bull bites. One is that “pit bulls” as a group are one of the most common types of pet dog in the US based on the data available from places that actually bother to collect this data – some states Dept’s of Agriculture and Animal Control as well as humane societies. However there is no comprehensive database tracking numbers of dogs, so that is why “bite statistics” are unreliable. If you think there are no pit bulls in your neighborhood that is because their owner is a responsible person who keeps them behind a tall fence. Another is that dogs that have no “pit bull” in them are frequently referred to as pit bulls AFTER they have done something terrible. There are several accounts of police or animal control re-identifying a dog’s breed days after a big media story. You just don’t hear about those like you do the headlines. There are actually many accounts of dogs as small as Chihuahuas and Pomeranians who have inflicted serious and even fatal injuries. Also the breed has become a favorite with people who want their dogs to intimidate other people. For decades we villainized the German Shepherd, the Rottweiler, the Doberman. Those dogs eventually fell out of favor with people who wanted aggressive, intimidating dogs because these dogs don’t take a lot of crap from people, including their owners. Pit bulls have come in to favor with these thugs because pit bulls are inherently human friendly – people who bred fighting dogs did not want to get mauled – and so the dogs are willing to put up with a lot of abuse from their owners without turning on them. I by no means advocate anyone using a pit bull for protection, intimidation, or anything of the sort. Those of us who love our pit bulls will defend them with OUR lives, not the other way around!

VM

September 29th, 2010
12:09 pm

As a American Pit Bull Terrier owner, I know full well that my dog is strong, has prey-chase instincts, and is a heavy dog. This does not, however, make him a bad dog, in fact, he is incredibly kind, and has been thoroughly trained (responsible ownership). He also is not let off his leash unless he is in a safe environment, and is never let to run about the yard without control. My neighbors kids love Boomer, but he is always monitored any time the kids play with him.

What people need to realize is that dog breeds are easy to demonize, especially highly identifiable ones. German Shepherds, Rotties and Pit Bulls have all been targeted by the anti-big-dog sentiment. Poodles are well known for having nasty dispositions and for attacking people and other dogs, but you do not see the media target them. It’s sad that the dog that once represented the United States Army as a mascot is now demonized so thoroughly.

In urban environments where Pit Bulls are trained for fighting (due to their muscular and solid nature) and then abandoned as strays people notice the Pit Bull “problem” with greater regularity. A disproportionate number of stray dogs are Pit Bull breeds, due to the misconception that they are fantastic fighting dogs and they proliferate in low income areas thanks to illegal activities where people want these “fierce killers” as guard dogs and personal weapons. These people are ignorant about how to train a dog and abuse them, and they often get free. These people are one of the many problems contributing to the overall Pittie issue.

Douglasville Dude

September 29th, 2010
12:10 pm

Enter your comments here

Douglasville Dude

September 29th, 2010
12:12 pm

Oh, great. Now everyone in Atlanta is going to know what a fool and a dullard we have for a mayor here in Douglasville.
It used to be our little secret.

duward

September 29th, 2010
12:15 pm

Statistically, there is an overwhelmingly greater risk of riding in a car than of being bitten by a pit bull terrier or any other dog. Paranoia, hysteria and hyperbole…I’m not buying it

Attacked

September 29th, 2010
12:19 pm

Recently a neighbor’s pit bull was loose in my neighborhood and charged me and my dog as we sat on our front porch. I was barely able to escape and run inside the house with my sweet female lab as the pit nipped at my heals. My dog and I were traumatized by the event. I have infant twins and can never enjoy my yard again for fear that the dog will get out again. My dog never leaves the yard, but can now never go out alone. I am an animal lover, but have no issues with any pit bull ban after the experience. Rarely do you ever hear of attacks by other dogs and statistic back this up. My response to the event is now to arm myself accordingly.

Cekker

September 29th, 2010
12:21 pm

‘There are actually many accounts of dogs as small as Chihuahuas and Pomeranians who have inflicted serious and even fatal injuries.’

Uh huh…sure.

Google ‘chihuahua kills’ and see what comes up.
Google ‘pomeranian kills’ – a 6-month old a few years back.
Google ‘pit bull kills’ and get an eyeful.

Lots of ostriches on here today!

Light

September 29th, 2010
12:24 pm

Let God will be done thru this blog http://lightoftheearth.blogspot.com/

ohmy

September 29th, 2010
12:25 pm

god spelled backwards is dog

Jimmy62

September 29th, 2010
12:29 pm

I don’t know enough about dogs to make an expert statement on this, but it does seem like the majority of dog attacks I read about are from pit bulls. I’m willing to accept that these are owned by people that don’t train them well. On the other hand, if I live in a house with my kids, and someone moves in next door and they are a really nice person and happen to have a pit bull, how am I supposed to know if it’s well trained or not? Just wait, and if my kid never gets torn apart, then it’s trained well, and if my kid does get attacked, then it’s trained badly?

Seems to me at a certain point the people who live next to a pit bull have some rights to live without fear of being torn apart. This might be different if dog attacks were more diverse, but it seems like 90%+ are put bulls. And how can you prove that your pit bull is trained well and would never attack a human? The burden of proof should be on the owner, not the neighbor who just wants their 6 year old kid to not be torn to shreds by a dog.

Jaques Cousteau

September 29th, 2010
12:31 pm

I had a tiger shark for a pet in my pool in Hapeville. Her name was Daisy. She was cute and cuddly and kids used to ride on her back by holding onto the cute little bow I tied around her dorsal fin. My neighbors got all upset about it. They were afraid she might bite someone. I don’t know why? I never let her out of the pool and she never bit me or any of the kids. And if she had, well she wouldn’t mean anything by it cause she was such a cute thing and she was well trained. I couldn’t afford to keep feeding her so I gave her to the aquarium and got a pit bull and named her Miss Daisy.

Tell Me Why

September 29th, 2010
12:32 pm

Would someone please explain why – with all of the hundreds of breeds of dogs available – would someone want to own an animal that has the potential to cause so much harm? What the heck is the attraction of owning a pit bull? Why would you want to own an animal that requires so much diligence to keep it from hurting somebody? Don’t give me the crap about how affectionate and lovable they are – so is a guinea pig. You own them because of stigma attached to them – and somehow by owning a ‘dangerous dog it makes you a somebody. Look at the control and fear you invoke – Neighbors refuse to walk by your house, because the dogs might be out. No one in your neighborhood knows your name – but they all know you own a pit bull. They are nothing more than an attention getting device that has the potential to be very dangerous. And then after every attack, you rush to defend the breed, and blame the incompetent owners. Until that incompetent owner is you. Then it’s always the ‘ I don’t know what happened – the dog never hurt anyone before’ sob story.