Post by bamapitbullmom on Dec 29, 2008 4:52:51 GMT -5
www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2008/12/andy_parker_column_got_a_pit_b.html
Andy Parker column: Got a pit bull puppy for Christmas?
by Andy Parker, The Oregonian
Thursday December 25, 2008, 1:15 AM
Andy ParkerIn her recent e-mail, Lurella Friis, a former Oregon resident who now lives in La Center, Wash., hit on two points that I've been bombarded with in recent days from pit bull supporters.
First, like many others, she insists that because of media bias against pit bulls, journalists are purposefully refusing to identify the breed of "hero" pit bulls who protect or save their owners.
Secondly, she points out, as have dozens of other e-mailers in recent weeks, that small dogs bite as often as big dogs.
For some reason, none of the e-mailers reported how frequently the small dogs killed or maimed.
"What about the recent story of the dog that took three bullets in the defense of its family?" wrote Friis.
"I watched the story on TV news and that dog was definitely a pit bull. As far as I have been able to discern, there has been nothing in the local media to identify the breed of the canine hero ...
"I spent seven years as an animal control officer in a small town in Oregon in the '70s and '80s. In my personal experience, more people were bitten by small breeds than pit bulls."
On the other side of the debate, I received several e-mails about a 2008 incident in which a Labrador puppy killed an infant in Tulsa, Okla. The e-mailers said the story received far more press than many fatal pit bull attacks.
I also received several e-mails referring me to news stories about how pit bull advocates from across the country had attempted to pose as residents of a Virginia county in order to influence an online survey about pit bulls.
Carol Helfer, who identified herself as a Portland veterinarian, is one of many readers opposed to bans of specific breeds.
She wrote: "In my view, vigorous enforcement of current laws plus the addition of significant penalties for irresponsible dog owners would take care of the vast majority of dog-related problems.
"If people want to remove all risk from the situation we might as well ban all dogs, and cats, and reptiles, and birds.
"Any time there is contact between human and non-human animals there is the risk of damage to one or the other.
"The more basic question is whether the benefits from owning dogs outweighs the rare occurrence of injury to humans.
"In no way am I downplaying the tragedy on these incidents. But, is it worth banning all dogs? Because that is what it would take.
"The reason that reliable statistics (about serious dog attacks) are so hard to come by is because these attacks are so rare.
"There are many other aspects of modern life that are far more dangerous than dogs. But human beings evolved to be fearful of animals with big, sharp teeth and perhaps that is part of the reason there is such a ferocious response to these incidents."
Perhaps the most insightful thought came from Dennis Lively, a Tualatin reader, who e-mailed that I was basically crazy to wade into the endless pit bull debate.
"You are a brave man, Andy, to venture any opinion on pit bulls, especially a rational one," wrote Lively.
"How about if we find a group of lawyers who would offer free services in civil lawsuits designed to sentence the dog owner and their landlords to a huge judgment?
"If every property management company, trailer park and rental housing owner was shown that allowing these dogs to be kept on their property would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars then the number would be reduced.
"It might also be good to work with insurance companies to raise the cost of insurance sky high for properties not banning pits."
Got a response, a question or a column idea? Call or write Andy Parker: 503-294-5945;
daparker@news.oregonian.com
**********************************
Be sure to read the comments........................
Andy Parker column: Got a pit bull puppy for Christmas?
by Andy Parker, The Oregonian
Thursday December 25, 2008, 1:15 AM
Andy ParkerIn her recent e-mail, Lurella Friis, a former Oregon resident who now lives in La Center, Wash., hit on two points that I've been bombarded with in recent days from pit bull supporters.
First, like many others, she insists that because of media bias against pit bulls, journalists are purposefully refusing to identify the breed of "hero" pit bulls who protect or save their owners.
Secondly, she points out, as have dozens of other e-mailers in recent weeks, that small dogs bite as often as big dogs.
For some reason, none of the e-mailers reported how frequently the small dogs killed or maimed.
"What about the recent story of the dog that took three bullets in the defense of its family?" wrote Friis.
"I watched the story on TV news and that dog was definitely a pit bull. As far as I have been able to discern, there has been nothing in the local media to identify the breed of the canine hero ...
"I spent seven years as an animal control officer in a small town in Oregon in the '70s and '80s. In my personal experience, more people were bitten by small breeds than pit bulls."
On the other side of the debate, I received several e-mails about a 2008 incident in which a Labrador puppy killed an infant in Tulsa, Okla. The e-mailers said the story received far more press than many fatal pit bull attacks.
I also received several e-mails referring me to news stories about how pit bull advocates from across the country had attempted to pose as residents of a Virginia county in order to influence an online survey about pit bulls.
Carol Helfer, who identified herself as a Portland veterinarian, is one of many readers opposed to bans of specific breeds.
She wrote: "In my view, vigorous enforcement of current laws plus the addition of significant penalties for irresponsible dog owners would take care of the vast majority of dog-related problems.
"If people want to remove all risk from the situation we might as well ban all dogs, and cats, and reptiles, and birds.
"Any time there is contact between human and non-human animals there is the risk of damage to one or the other.
"The more basic question is whether the benefits from owning dogs outweighs the rare occurrence of injury to humans.
"In no way am I downplaying the tragedy on these incidents. But, is it worth banning all dogs? Because that is what it would take.
"The reason that reliable statistics (about serious dog attacks) are so hard to come by is because these attacks are so rare.
"There are many other aspects of modern life that are far more dangerous than dogs. But human beings evolved to be fearful of animals with big, sharp teeth and perhaps that is part of the reason there is such a ferocious response to these incidents."
Perhaps the most insightful thought came from Dennis Lively, a Tualatin reader, who e-mailed that I was basically crazy to wade into the endless pit bull debate.
"You are a brave man, Andy, to venture any opinion on pit bulls, especially a rational one," wrote Lively.
"How about if we find a group of lawyers who would offer free services in civil lawsuits designed to sentence the dog owner and their landlords to a huge judgment?
"If every property management company, trailer park and rental housing owner was shown that allowing these dogs to be kept on their property would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars then the number would be reduced.
"It might also be good to work with insurance companies to raise the cost of insurance sky high for properties not banning pits."
Got a response, a question or a column idea? Call or write Andy Parker: 503-294-5945;
daparker@news.oregonian.com
**********************************
Be sure to read the comments........................
I look forward to learning much here