Post by RealPitBull on Apr 21, 2008 7:51:15 GMT -5
www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/20/pit-bull-bans-yield-mixed-results/
Denver animal-control officials are lauding the city's pit bull ban after seeing bites drop from 39 in 2005 to nine last year.
But in other metro-area cities with bans, statistics on bites are spotty and hard to interpret, and some officials question how well breed-specific bans are working.
For example, Aurora last year saw a surge in overall dog bites, from 137 in 2006 to 172 in 2007, leading some City Council members to ask if that city's ban against pit bulls and eight other "fighting breeds" is targeting the right dogs.
"From what I'm seeing, we need to focus on dog attacks as a whole," said Councilman Ryan Frazier. "If all of the city's resources are focused on certain breeds, then what about the other dogs behaving badly?"
Aurora Councilman Larry Beer echoed Frazier's sentiment.
But in Denver, Doug Kelley, director of animal control, said there is no question the ban is effective.
One likely reason: "The word is getting out: Don't bring your pit bulls to Denver," Kelley said.
"This city is committed to the ordinance banning pit bulls passed in 1989," Kelley added. "What can be proven is that when a pit bull bites, statistically it's more serious than other dog bites."
Denver hasn't hesitated to enforce the ban.
From 2005 to 2007, the city euthanized 1,667 pit bulls - a number that doesn't sit well with animal rights activists.
"These laws layer irrational premise atop irrational premise and result in senseless destruction of companion animals," said Karen Breslin, an attorney who filed a failed lawsuit against Denver to stop the ban.
Effect debated
In 2005, when Denver reinstated its ban, Aurora, Commerce City, Castle Rock, Lakewood and Lone Tree adopted laws either outlawing pit bulls and other dangerous dogs or revising their vicious-dog ordinances.
They did it to protect themselves from becoming a dumping ground for pit bulls from Denver.
In the past three years, a review of dog bite data from those cities gives a mixed picture as to how much they're furthering public safety.
Bites by pit bulls and other restricted breeds have fallen some years and climbed others, and the number of overall dog bites is up in some places.
Lakewood, for example, recorded 217 bites in 2007 - 34 by pit bulls. In 2004, before the ordinance, the city recorded 183 bites (22 by pit bulls) and in 2003, there were 267 bites (21 by pit bulls.)
Commerce City's numbers mirrors Aurora's. In the years from 2005 to 2007, overall bites went from seven to 70 and 67, but breeds are not recorded.
"Can I sit here and say because of our ban the number of pit bull bites or incidents are down?" said police Detective Mike Sanders "No. I don't have clear documentation to say that."
But lawmakers in Commerce City and Aurora aren't likely to back away from their bans, given that some council members say pit bull incidents are down.
"Pit bulls are a demonstrably (vicious) breed that can inflict terrible harm," said Aurora Councilman Bob Fitzgerald. "As far as I'm concerned, the ban is having a positive effect on pit bull bites. I think we ought to leave it in place until I'm long dead."
Nancy Sheffield, director of Aurora Neighborhood Services, said complaints about pit bulls dropped from 532 in 2006 to 400 in 2007. Since the ban, bites by restricted breeds fell from 27 in 2005 to eight in 2006 before climbing to 15 last year.
"That's a significant improvement, and it's an indication that the ordinance is effective," she said.
'Outcast' treatment
Many pit bull owners remain angry about the bans, saying they feel like pariahs.
Three years ago, Florence Vianzon could walk her beloved pit bull, Isis, freely around Aurora without drawing disapproving stares.
Now she dresses Isis, which she rescued as puppy, in fluffy pink outfits and a pink muzzle, so people won't feel fearful.
"I'm basically treated as an outcast because of these irrational laws," said Vianzon, who filed a lawsuit two years ago challenging Aurora's pit bull ban. "I have to doll her up so people look past the muzzle and see her personality and not just view her as a so- called vicious dog. She's very much a loving part of my family."
Vianzon and others like her get support from the American Veterinary Medical Association and animal rights groups. They oppose breed-specific laws, arguing that dog-bite data is often skewed and fails to give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.
Karen Delise, a veterinarian who has written two books on fatal dog attacks, says breeding, neglect and abuse, environmental stresses, genetics and irresponsible owners can create aggressive dogs. She believes media reporting is biased against pit bulls.
"With little coverage or no coverage given to other breed attacks, it is easy to understand how the perception that pit bulls are responsible for the most severe and frequent attacks has come to be accepted as fact by many people," Delise said.
Dogs cause fewer than 30 deaths annually in the U.S., but pit bulls may get disproportionate blame because of their sheer numbers - they are among the most popular breeds in America, experts say.
Additionally, some owners still raise pit bulls to be aggressive and breed them to fight, giving all pit bull owners a black eye, experts say.
Fleeing the ban
Denver has successfully withstood a number of legal challenges since it adopted its ban in 1989.
Last month, a federal judge dismissed a suit by three Denver women who claimed the ban was unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit challenging Aurora's ban filed by Vianzon and the American Canine Foundation is expected to go to trial this summer.
Attorney Karen Breslin said Aurora and Commerce City should follow in the footsteps of Parker and Lakewood and focus on irresponsible owners, not certain breeds.
Lakewood and Parker councils rejected breed-specific bans three years ago.
Instead, Lakewood revised its vicious dog laws to give judges wide latitude to fine owners or remove their dogs.
And a task force in Parker is currently proposing revisions to the town's ordinance that would provide incentives to pet owners who have their animals spayed or neutered to limit aggressive behavior, said Tawny Albright, a task force member.
"The council here is sensitive to the public's opinion, and 90 percent of the town is opposed to breed-specific bans," she said.
washingtonam@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5086
A tale of two cities and two bans
DENVER'S BAN
No pit bulls or pit bull mixes. On first offense, city puts microchip in dog's ear and owners must move dog outside city. On second offense, dog is destroyed.
HISTORY
* 1989: Denver adopts ordinance making it illegal for any person to own, harbor, transport or sell a pit bull mix in the city.
* 1991: Law survives Colorado Supreme Court challenge.
* 2004: Ordinance is suspended when a state law prohibits breed-specific bans.
* 2005: Ordinance is reinstated after the city successfully challenges the state law.
* 2008: Court dismisses suit challenging the constitutionality of ban.
STATISTICS, 2005-07
Year Total bites Pit bull bites
2005 504 39
2006 493 14
2007 429 9
* 2,318 pit bulls or mixes impounded
* 1,668 euthanized
AURORA'S BAN
No pit bulls, American bulldogs, Canary dogs, Tosa Inus, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Presa Mallorquins, Fila Brasileiroser.
STATISTICS, 2005-07
Year Totalbites Pit bull/restricted breed bites
2005 137 27
2006 137 8
2007 172 15
* 1,027 pit bulls and restricted breeds impounded in 2006 and 2007
* 809 pit bulls and restricted breeds euthanized
Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News
Comments
Posted by BKindel on April 20, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will grant that some breeds are on average more aggressive than others, but it makes no sense to me for cities to enact selective bans by breed. What is much more to the point is to ban harmful bahavior, regardless of breed (or species, even), and make pet owners fully responsible for the consequences when their pets scare or injure others.
Any bite of a certain severity should mandate increased containment (perhaps within an 8' fence) and permanent loss of access to public areas -- even when on a leash. I'm not above euthanizing a repeat offender, but any such punishment MUST be based upon actual behavior -- not stereotypes et al.
Posted by DogPressOrg on April 20, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are some significant problems with dangerous dog laws and euthanasia execution solutions.
1. They do not reduce the number of dog bites. By focusing on the after-effects of a bite, these laws do not take any measures to prevent bites. In theory, the risk of punishment is a motivation to change behavior. But most dog owners do not believe their dogs to be dangerous. So the perception is that these laws are for other dogs, problem dogs, but not their dog. Then, when a bite occurs, that particular owner may face additional liability, but his friends and neighbors will not change their habits regarding their own dogs
2. The laws do not take into account the severity of the incident. Most dangerous dog laws cover a huge range of behavior from "threatening displays" to actual bites. What this means is that you may be as liable for your goofy social dog rushing out the door and charging gleefully at a neighbor as another owner is for an undersocialized, aggressive dog who bites a child on the face. Are these equal? Under many dangerous dog laws, they are
What it comes down to is this.
Dangerous dog laws are a feel-good attempt to show the community that we are taking action, even with a goat bite incident.
Unfortunately they do not provide any protective effects, merely punishment after the fact. There are many things this community can do to prevent dog bites, including educating parents, rural families or farmers, and citizens how to supervise and when to intervene in kid-and-dog, or dog-and-coyote, interactions, teaching owners how to socialize and train their dogs with methods that encourage friendly behavior and providing some basic education about canine body language so the many misunderstandings we have with dogs each day can be reduced.
Where's the 'outrage' to save an owner's alleged 'innocent' dog?
Additionally, repulsive is the alleged fact (from a source of anonymity), that various animal control officers and/or animal control authorities are spending only 10 minutes with a file and issuing a dog the death sentence, and this should 'outrage' those of us who follow the Constitution and regard dogs as more than chattel.
TheAlamo.biz/
and
AnimalRights.biz/
Posted by Golden on April 20, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pit bulls have no redeaming qualities. If the owners want loyal, family-oriented dogs, which is what pit bull owners say attraks them to the breed, they should get Golden Retrievers. They are loyal, family-oriented dogs that don't kill children and other dogs.
Yes the owners are to blame. Yes bad breeders are too blame. But so is the breed itself. What normal, law abiding, tax paying, good solid citizen cares about this breed! None. Zero.
Kill them all. Who cares! Enough already.
Posted by DogPressOrg on April 20, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem is, some people, often media, seize on the breed of the dog and THAT’S IT. End of report. End of listening to the facts. And that does a disservice to all of us, and to all breeds of dogs included.
All Dogs and breeds can bite, especially when improperly socialized, and handled, to include leaving unsupervised children, like infants or toddlers around dogs. BSL does nothing to stop this issue of bad human behaviors in leaving children around dogs unsupervised.
Irresponsible owners tend not to spay and neuter, tend to chain their animals out for extended times with little or no socialization, and that Pits are currently popular with owners who maintain their animals with less wisdom and care than most of us. Once again, it's the two-legged problem behind the four legger that precipitates the problems.
More sinister is the use of breed statistics to establish “proof” that just isn't there. Sure, a dog that bites or attacks someone may be a Left-Handed Chilean Truffle Hound or a Golden Retriever left unattended around a toddler, but how much does that breed have to do with the attack? Usually not much.
The reality is that all dog attacks are strongly multi-factorial. Not Breed only specific as the primary 'cause and effect' in the dog attack or bite.
Looking at the dog fatal attack numbers for the year 2007 there were 33 fatal dog attacks in the USA, and a few things jump out.
Twenty-six of thirty-three involved intact animals.
Fifteen of thirty-three involved Pit Bulls.
Ten of thirty-three involved chained animals.
Does that mean intact Pit Bulls are chained up and waiting to kill? Not hardly.
Yet listing breed, as I did in this post, leads to people seizing on that factor and twisting the data to fit their pre-conceived notions.
If we give irresponsible dog owners of all breeds, an opening to seize on any easy explanation, even if it is wrong, they will.
The various news media boil it down to an eight second sound bite and move on. And then politicians and enemies of dog ownership use that to further their arguments.
Bottom line: BSL is bad for everyone with a dog of any breed.
AnimalsClubFreedom.us/
Posted by MichaelClark on April 20, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What kind of evil has overtaken such a large segment of our society that it would relish vicious dogs like these? My impression of Denver is improving: ban on pit bulls and loud motorcycles. They're moving in the right direction!
Posted by DogPressOrg on April 21, 2008 at 12:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No one Sir, who raises their dogs in a loving 'extended family' environment, participates in protecting vicious dogs.
And to make allegations that responsible dog owners of all breeds, are 'evil' for attempting to stop BAD legislation based upon faulty data justifications, is just using emotional 'trigger' words to incite a 'bias' manner against dogs without facts to back up your comments.
Your completely 'emotional' response, or bias/hatred for this breed or people who do care to raise their dogs in a loving extended family and in a responsible manner, is also THE PROBLEM, and your emotions are not based upon any facts presented. This is ALSO the problem as stated above with BSL legislation. It's all based upon emotions, not facts relating to the problem.
THE DOG PROBLEM IS: The Dog OWNERS who are NOT responsible in ownership. You never even touch on THAT ISSUE! The 2 legged problem.
When you base dog BSL legislation and tyranny animal control laws, based upon bias emotional statements, you reap what you sow.
DogOwnership.org/
and
DogOwnershipOrg.blogspot.com/
These web sites discuss the LAW, not emotion of dog issues, using facts without bias.
Denver animal-control officials are lauding the city's pit bull ban after seeing bites drop from 39 in 2005 to nine last year.
But in other metro-area cities with bans, statistics on bites are spotty and hard to interpret, and some officials question how well breed-specific bans are working.
For example, Aurora last year saw a surge in overall dog bites, from 137 in 2006 to 172 in 2007, leading some City Council members to ask if that city's ban against pit bulls and eight other "fighting breeds" is targeting the right dogs.
"From what I'm seeing, we need to focus on dog attacks as a whole," said Councilman Ryan Frazier. "If all of the city's resources are focused on certain breeds, then what about the other dogs behaving badly?"
Aurora Councilman Larry Beer echoed Frazier's sentiment.
But in Denver, Doug Kelley, director of animal control, said there is no question the ban is effective.
One likely reason: "The word is getting out: Don't bring your pit bulls to Denver," Kelley said.
"This city is committed to the ordinance banning pit bulls passed in 1989," Kelley added. "What can be proven is that when a pit bull bites, statistically it's more serious than other dog bites."
Denver hasn't hesitated to enforce the ban.
From 2005 to 2007, the city euthanized 1,667 pit bulls - a number that doesn't sit well with animal rights activists.
"These laws layer irrational premise atop irrational premise and result in senseless destruction of companion animals," said Karen Breslin, an attorney who filed a failed lawsuit against Denver to stop the ban.
Effect debated
In 2005, when Denver reinstated its ban, Aurora, Commerce City, Castle Rock, Lakewood and Lone Tree adopted laws either outlawing pit bulls and other dangerous dogs or revising their vicious-dog ordinances.
They did it to protect themselves from becoming a dumping ground for pit bulls from Denver.
In the past three years, a review of dog bite data from those cities gives a mixed picture as to how much they're furthering public safety.
Bites by pit bulls and other restricted breeds have fallen some years and climbed others, and the number of overall dog bites is up in some places.
Lakewood, for example, recorded 217 bites in 2007 - 34 by pit bulls. In 2004, before the ordinance, the city recorded 183 bites (22 by pit bulls) and in 2003, there were 267 bites (21 by pit bulls.)
Commerce City's numbers mirrors Aurora's. In the years from 2005 to 2007, overall bites went from seven to 70 and 67, but breeds are not recorded.
"Can I sit here and say because of our ban the number of pit bull bites or incidents are down?" said police Detective Mike Sanders "No. I don't have clear documentation to say that."
But lawmakers in Commerce City and Aurora aren't likely to back away from their bans, given that some council members say pit bull incidents are down.
"Pit bulls are a demonstrably (vicious) breed that can inflict terrible harm," said Aurora Councilman Bob Fitzgerald. "As far as I'm concerned, the ban is having a positive effect on pit bull bites. I think we ought to leave it in place until I'm long dead."
Nancy Sheffield, director of Aurora Neighborhood Services, said complaints about pit bulls dropped from 532 in 2006 to 400 in 2007. Since the ban, bites by restricted breeds fell from 27 in 2005 to eight in 2006 before climbing to 15 last year.
"That's a significant improvement, and it's an indication that the ordinance is effective," she said.
'Outcast' treatment
Many pit bull owners remain angry about the bans, saying they feel like pariahs.
Three years ago, Florence Vianzon could walk her beloved pit bull, Isis, freely around Aurora without drawing disapproving stares.
Now she dresses Isis, which she rescued as puppy, in fluffy pink outfits and a pink muzzle, so people won't feel fearful.
"I'm basically treated as an outcast because of these irrational laws," said Vianzon, who filed a lawsuit two years ago challenging Aurora's pit bull ban. "I have to doll her up so people look past the muzzle and see her personality and not just view her as a so- called vicious dog. She's very much a loving part of my family."
Vianzon and others like her get support from the American Veterinary Medical Association and animal rights groups. They oppose breed-specific laws, arguing that dog-bite data is often skewed and fails to give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.
Karen Delise, a veterinarian who has written two books on fatal dog attacks, says breeding, neglect and abuse, environmental stresses, genetics and irresponsible owners can create aggressive dogs. She believes media reporting is biased against pit bulls.
"With little coverage or no coverage given to other breed attacks, it is easy to understand how the perception that pit bulls are responsible for the most severe and frequent attacks has come to be accepted as fact by many people," Delise said.
Dogs cause fewer than 30 deaths annually in the U.S., but pit bulls may get disproportionate blame because of their sheer numbers - they are among the most popular breeds in America, experts say.
Additionally, some owners still raise pit bulls to be aggressive and breed them to fight, giving all pit bull owners a black eye, experts say.
Fleeing the ban
Denver has successfully withstood a number of legal challenges since it adopted its ban in 1989.
Last month, a federal judge dismissed a suit by three Denver women who claimed the ban was unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit challenging Aurora's ban filed by Vianzon and the American Canine Foundation is expected to go to trial this summer.
Attorney Karen Breslin said Aurora and Commerce City should follow in the footsteps of Parker and Lakewood and focus on irresponsible owners, not certain breeds.
Lakewood and Parker councils rejected breed-specific bans three years ago.
Instead, Lakewood revised its vicious dog laws to give judges wide latitude to fine owners or remove their dogs.
And a task force in Parker is currently proposing revisions to the town's ordinance that would provide incentives to pet owners who have their animals spayed or neutered to limit aggressive behavior, said Tawny Albright, a task force member.
"The council here is sensitive to the public's opinion, and 90 percent of the town is opposed to breed-specific bans," she said.
washingtonam@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5086
A tale of two cities and two bans
DENVER'S BAN
No pit bulls or pit bull mixes. On first offense, city puts microchip in dog's ear and owners must move dog outside city. On second offense, dog is destroyed.
HISTORY
* 1989: Denver adopts ordinance making it illegal for any person to own, harbor, transport or sell a pit bull mix in the city.
* 1991: Law survives Colorado Supreme Court challenge.
* 2004: Ordinance is suspended when a state law prohibits breed-specific bans.
* 2005: Ordinance is reinstated after the city successfully challenges the state law.
* 2008: Court dismisses suit challenging the constitutionality of ban.
STATISTICS, 2005-07
Year Total bites Pit bull bites
2005 504 39
2006 493 14
2007 429 9
* 2,318 pit bulls or mixes impounded
* 1,668 euthanized
AURORA'S BAN
No pit bulls, American bulldogs, Canary dogs, Tosa Inus, Cane Corsos, Dogo Argentinos, Presa Mallorquins, Fila Brasileiroser.
STATISTICS, 2005-07
Year Totalbites Pit bull/restricted breed bites
2005 137 27
2006 137 8
2007 172 15
* 1,027 pit bulls and restricted breeds impounded in 2006 and 2007
* 809 pit bulls and restricted breeds euthanized
Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News
Comments
Posted by BKindel on April 20, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will grant that some breeds are on average more aggressive than others, but it makes no sense to me for cities to enact selective bans by breed. What is much more to the point is to ban harmful bahavior, regardless of breed (or species, even), and make pet owners fully responsible for the consequences when their pets scare or injure others.
Any bite of a certain severity should mandate increased containment (perhaps within an 8' fence) and permanent loss of access to public areas -- even when on a leash. I'm not above euthanizing a repeat offender, but any such punishment MUST be based upon actual behavior -- not stereotypes et al.
Posted by DogPressOrg on April 20, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are some significant problems with dangerous dog laws and euthanasia execution solutions.
1. They do not reduce the number of dog bites. By focusing on the after-effects of a bite, these laws do not take any measures to prevent bites. In theory, the risk of punishment is a motivation to change behavior. But most dog owners do not believe their dogs to be dangerous. So the perception is that these laws are for other dogs, problem dogs, but not their dog. Then, when a bite occurs, that particular owner may face additional liability, but his friends and neighbors will not change their habits regarding their own dogs
2. The laws do not take into account the severity of the incident. Most dangerous dog laws cover a huge range of behavior from "threatening displays" to actual bites. What this means is that you may be as liable for your goofy social dog rushing out the door and charging gleefully at a neighbor as another owner is for an undersocialized, aggressive dog who bites a child on the face. Are these equal? Under many dangerous dog laws, they are
What it comes down to is this.
Dangerous dog laws are a feel-good attempt to show the community that we are taking action, even with a goat bite incident.
Unfortunately they do not provide any protective effects, merely punishment after the fact. There are many things this community can do to prevent dog bites, including educating parents, rural families or farmers, and citizens how to supervise and when to intervene in kid-and-dog, or dog-and-coyote, interactions, teaching owners how to socialize and train their dogs with methods that encourage friendly behavior and providing some basic education about canine body language so the many misunderstandings we have with dogs each day can be reduced.
Where's the 'outrage' to save an owner's alleged 'innocent' dog?
Additionally, repulsive is the alleged fact (from a source of anonymity), that various animal control officers and/or animal control authorities are spending only 10 minutes with a file and issuing a dog the death sentence, and this should 'outrage' those of us who follow the Constitution and regard dogs as more than chattel.
TheAlamo.biz/
and
AnimalRights.biz/
Posted by Golden on April 20, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pit bulls have no redeaming qualities. If the owners want loyal, family-oriented dogs, which is what pit bull owners say attraks them to the breed, they should get Golden Retrievers. They are loyal, family-oriented dogs that don't kill children and other dogs.
Yes the owners are to blame. Yes bad breeders are too blame. But so is the breed itself. What normal, law abiding, tax paying, good solid citizen cares about this breed! None. Zero.
Kill them all. Who cares! Enough already.
Posted by DogPressOrg on April 20, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem is, some people, often media, seize on the breed of the dog and THAT’S IT. End of report. End of listening to the facts. And that does a disservice to all of us, and to all breeds of dogs included.
All Dogs and breeds can bite, especially when improperly socialized, and handled, to include leaving unsupervised children, like infants or toddlers around dogs. BSL does nothing to stop this issue of bad human behaviors in leaving children around dogs unsupervised.
Irresponsible owners tend not to spay and neuter, tend to chain their animals out for extended times with little or no socialization, and that Pits are currently popular with owners who maintain their animals with less wisdom and care than most of us. Once again, it's the two-legged problem behind the four legger that precipitates the problems.
More sinister is the use of breed statistics to establish “proof” that just isn't there. Sure, a dog that bites or attacks someone may be a Left-Handed Chilean Truffle Hound or a Golden Retriever left unattended around a toddler, but how much does that breed have to do with the attack? Usually not much.
The reality is that all dog attacks are strongly multi-factorial. Not Breed only specific as the primary 'cause and effect' in the dog attack or bite.
Looking at the dog fatal attack numbers for the year 2007 there were 33 fatal dog attacks in the USA, and a few things jump out.
Twenty-six of thirty-three involved intact animals.
Fifteen of thirty-three involved Pit Bulls.
Ten of thirty-three involved chained animals.
Does that mean intact Pit Bulls are chained up and waiting to kill? Not hardly.
Yet listing breed, as I did in this post, leads to people seizing on that factor and twisting the data to fit their pre-conceived notions.
If we give irresponsible dog owners of all breeds, an opening to seize on any easy explanation, even if it is wrong, they will.
The various news media boil it down to an eight second sound bite and move on. And then politicians and enemies of dog ownership use that to further their arguments.
Bottom line: BSL is bad for everyone with a dog of any breed.
AnimalsClubFreedom.us/
Posted by MichaelClark on April 20, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What kind of evil has overtaken such a large segment of our society that it would relish vicious dogs like these? My impression of Denver is improving: ban on pit bulls and loud motorcycles. They're moving in the right direction!
Posted by DogPressOrg on April 21, 2008 at 12:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No one Sir, who raises their dogs in a loving 'extended family' environment, participates in protecting vicious dogs.
And to make allegations that responsible dog owners of all breeds, are 'evil' for attempting to stop BAD legislation based upon faulty data justifications, is just using emotional 'trigger' words to incite a 'bias' manner against dogs without facts to back up your comments.
Your completely 'emotional' response, or bias/hatred for this breed or people who do care to raise their dogs in a loving extended family and in a responsible manner, is also THE PROBLEM, and your emotions are not based upon any facts presented. This is ALSO the problem as stated above with BSL legislation. It's all based upon emotions, not facts relating to the problem.
THE DOG PROBLEM IS: The Dog OWNERS who are NOT responsible in ownership. You never even touch on THAT ISSUE! The 2 legged problem.
When you base dog BSL legislation and tyranny animal control laws, based upon bias emotional statements, you reap what you sow.
DogOwnership.org/
and
DogOwnershipOrg.blogspot.com/
These web sites discuss the LAW, not emotion of dog issues, using facts without bias.
I look forward to learning much here