All pitbulls in Denver to be killed.

[missy]

gonzo - I'm sorry you had a bad experience......

You do realize that the type of person who raises and owns a mean pit bull will again own a mean XXX if they can't have the pit bull? Rotty, Doby, Boxer - any breed that is big and muscular has been "turned" and used poorly. If someone is determined to own a mean dog, they will own a mean dog.
As to the idea that a pit bull bite is so much worse than any other dog - I certainly wouldn't want to test that by letting a Rotty or one of my boxers have at it (although Wyley would just lick you to death). All of the breeds with a squared mouth have been bred to "bite and hold" - and can do significant damage.

You either must push to ban ALL dog ownership, or put laws in place to prevent BAD dog ownership. Banning a specific breed does nothing but give someone a false sense of security.

Talk to a mail carrier and see what breeds THEY don't trust. The large, muscular breeds are usually way down on their lists - the ankle biters are usually the ones they have the most trouble with.

Missy

[susnfx]

We've got two dogs and take them regularly to local dog parks and areas where they can be off leash. Yes, it's the "bad" owners who have a tendency to own pit bulls...the macho thing, I'm sure...and I feel sorry for those dogs, but the fact is that pit bulls ARE owned by that type of person and they ARE encouraged to be tough (my daughter and I have seen this over and over and over at the dog parks). Nobody loves dogs more than we do, but it crossed my mind the other day that I wish they'd ban pit bulls here. I would guess about 50-60% of the time there's a fight at the dog park, a pit bull is involved. It's gotten to the point where we avoid letting our dogs get around them as much as possible.

I don't know that killing the ones that are there now is the answer, but I would probably support a ban on them. Poor things.

Susan

[The Weekenders]

Many around here, and several recent brutal attacks. It's painful to admit, but I have considered purchasing a handgun exactly because of these beasts. I am very concerned for the children in the neighborhood, not to mention my own hide..

I see people walking them in the canyon. In some cases, they can hardly keep them on the leash when the dog spots another dog and wants to "investigate."

I have similar feelings about Rottweilers, having seen a loose one attack and kill a cat right before my eyes in front of my previous house.

[Redwolf]

I wish there were some kind of test you had to pass to get a dog...because it's true: If you ban pit bulls and rottweilers, by this time next week, the people who gave those dogs a bad name will have another breed in their yard. Such people will always find a way to turn dogs into killers, because that's what they get off on. No pit bulls? Well, next they'll take the boxer, or the German shepherd, or they'll go back to dobies, or maybe they'll even use the ubiquitous Labrador. Dangerous dogs, unfortunately, are a people problem, not a dog problem, and getting rid of pit bulls in your community will ensure nothing other than heartache for the good, loving, responsible owners of these dogs. Your children, your pets, and your lives will still be at the mercy of the bad dog owners and whatever breed they decide to pick up next.

There's a problem, yes, but the answer is to go to the ROOT of the problem, which is not the dogs themselves, nor any specific breed, but the kind of people who use these animals as weapons.

Redwolf

[Cayden]

This all sounds a bit like the arms discussion, it's not the guns that kill but the people. Still it's best to get them banned even if people who shoot other people may (or may not) be wielding an axe instead.

When I lived in Rotterdam pitbulls and the like were pretty much the rage with a certain kind of person. I once saw one literally tear another dog to shreds while the owner kept insisting he'd never done that before and that he was in fact a very sweet dog. Several children were mauled during my time there and at least one killed.

I won't shed a tear for them, good riddance.

[Scott McCallister]

Being a resident of the Denver area, I am reluctantly on the side of the state on this one. I don't relish the idea of a law passed on a group of individuals (even if they are dogs) based solely on their genetic makeup. But there are problems with this breed that cannot be ignored.

Yes, It is the owner's responsibility to care for and mind their animals. That charge doesn't reduce this particular breeds' responsiveness to aggressive training techniques.

Every year (really! EVERY year) there are a couple or three news stories in Colorado about someone's pit bull that-has-never-caused-any-problems-and-wouldn't-hurt-any-one chewing up a little kid or mother who is protecting her little kids. And a couple more stories about dogs that have had previous "run-ins" with the law in areas where pit bulls are not outlawed.

I never hear these stories about Pugs, Poodles, Great Danes, Golden Retrievers, Dachshunds, Newfoundland hounds, Greyhounds, St. Bernards, German Shepards, Dobermans... you get the picture. I hear them about Pit Bull Terriers.

The Malamute story in the Rocky Mtn News, while unfortunate, doesn't seem to me to be outside the norm, and after a bit of searching, I found these statistics on attacks per breed: (statistics in bold , my interpretation immediately follows)

Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%) Pit Bulls-- the most likely to attack breed by far
Mixed breed dogs (16%), Pit Bulls 1.3125 times more likely to attack than all forms of mutts combined
Rottweilers (13%), Pit Bulls 1.6153 times more likely to attack
German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Pit Bulls 2.3333 times more likely to attack than the most common military and police dogs
Wolf Dogs (5%), Pitt Bulls 4.2 times more likely to attack than a wild animal/domestic hybrid
Siberian Huskies (5%), Pit Bulls 4.2 times more likely to attack
Malamutes (4%), Pit Bulls 5.25 times more likely to attack
Great Danes (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
St. Bernards (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
Chow Chows (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
Doberman Pinschers (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%). Pit Bulls 1.4 times more likely to attack than all other remaining breeds combined

Combine this proclivity for attack with this breed’s ability to physically lock its jaw, bite strength, increased stamina, muscularity and strength for its size and you have the most dangerous breed of dog on the planet.

For the record, I read Bill Johnson's column on a regular basis. His standard take on any topic is the diametrically opposing view-point from popular opinion. It is good. It makes you think. It frequently outrages and ruffles. On the rare occasion it is so utterly backward that it reinforces public opinion but it is good thought provoking stuff.

I think the pit bull problem is not unlike our issues with nuclear waste or guns. (not to hijack this threat to a different hot topic) It is a problem we have created and there is no good solution for undoing what has been made. It has to be recognized that there would be fewer injuries, deaths, and potential for injuries and deaths if these problems we have created were not here now.

[Redwolf]

And in the 1970s, you heard all the same terrible stories, only THEN it was German Shepherds and Doberman Pinchers that were killing people and pets and that communities were screaming about banning. They were the "bad dogs" du jour. When the heat got to be too much for the bad owners, they switched to pit bulls and rotties. Banning any breed WILL NOT ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM. Next time, I project, it will be chows, akitas or shar pei...all of which are dogs with fighting backgrounds that look impressive and are capable of causing serious damage. Or perhaps the bad owners will pick up on the real bad boys of the dog world: Presa Canaria or Fila Braseilera (it was, by the way, Presas who killed that poor woman here in San Francisco last year. They are big among the drug and dog fighting crowd here in California).

Really, the only way you can fix the problem, outside of banning dog ownership entirely, is by requiring and ENFORCING strict licensing laws for dog ownership...ALL dog ownership.

Redwolf

[Joseph E. Smith]

Breed specific legislation is NOT the answer for animals who have been raised poorly or are neglected. All dogs have the potential to be vicious, it is NOT a problem specific to Pits.

If people are going to own animals with teeth, then these people are responsible to and for their fanged friends. I feel bad for the children and adults that have suffered greatly or died as a result of a dog attack, but the real issue is how in the hell did it happen? What were the circumstances that put that dog and that child in close quarters? The answer, IMHO, is simply human error or neglect, 110% of the time.

I seriously doubt that this BS will end with Pits... Rotties, Shepards, Bull Terriers, Beagles, Wolf Hounds, Sheep Dogs, Bull Dogs, Cocker Spaniels (a breed which can be really viscious... seriously) Labs... etc... etc... will be next.

Perhaps a screening system for perspective dog owners should be legislatively set in place... don't pass the screen, you don't get to own a dog... period. Stiff fines and mandatory jail time for those who disobey the law would go a long way toward making these rare, but tragic, occurances none existent.

[missy]

Peter wrote:
"This all sounds a bit like the arms discussion, it's not the guns that kill but the people"

Yep - and I'm against banning guns, too.

Dogs, guns, cars - you have laws on the books about the misuse of all of them. Enforce those laws to the fullest extent. If the laws aren't strong enough, make them stronger.
And if you ban one type of gun or dog, where will it stop? Banning all?
But "banning" any of these won't make the stupidity stop. It'll just mean that the only people that have dogs, guns or cars will be those that have them illegally.

Missy

[GaryKelly]

This all sounds a bit like the arms discussion, it's not the guns that kill but the people. Still it's best to get them banned even if people who shoot other people may (or may not) be wielding an axe instead.

Well, they banned lawful ownership of most firearms here on the mainland some considerable time ago. People are still shooting other people, Peter. Big surprise, armed crime is UP, not down, and the number of murders with firearms is up. So much for legislation and bans (which, let's face it, only the law-abiding take notice of).

I'd like to see Home Office figures on "dangerous dog" attacks, it'd be interesting to see if the legislation has had any effect on that too.

I'd wager that the word 'ban' has been uttered in parliament more times in the last 20 years than in the previous hundred years combined. To no significant avail, other than the temporary appeasement of the tabloids.

[GaryKelly]

Still, it could always be worse:

[Random notes]

And if you ban one type of gun or dog, where will it stop? Banning all?
But "banning" any of these won't make the stupidity stop. It'll just mean that the only people that have dogs, guns or cars will be those that have them illegally.

Well, it would reduce the number of stupid people with easy access to objects that are too dangerous for them to be trusted with. I'm sure it would help, I'm not sure how much or if the loss of freedoms would be justified. And I don't want to get into a gun laws/gun rights foofaraw here.

In any case, it is really up to the responsible owners to let people with dangerous animals know that what they are doing is socially unacceptable. I know it ain't easy and don't ask me how we are supposed to do that, but socialisition is the only approach short of using legal coercion.

As far as carrying a piece for protection against dog attack, I have carried pepper spray. It may not be as absolutely effective but a dog in a vicious attack is a rapidly moving object. I'm good with a pistol, but sorting out target from victim in a situation like that is kinda tricky. With pepper spray, hitting the wrong target is recoverable. And on the couple of occasions that a Pit off leash approached me and my dog and I reached for the pepper spray, staying cool and talking quietly defused the situation without problem. 'Course, there were skid marks when I got home but I didn't let the dogs didn't know that...

Roger

[Random notes]

Uh, Gary - those aren't dogs.

Roger

[Scott McCallister]

Yep - and I'm against banning guns, too.

It's kind of a Charleton Heston thing "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead, fingers." right?

So... I can have my pit bull when I pry it's jaws off someone's cold dead neck?

All dogs have the potential to be vicious, it is NOT a problem specific to Pits.

Really? You don't find this....

Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%) Pit Bulls-- the most likely to attack breed by far
Mixed breed dogs (16%), Pit Bulls 1.3125 times more likely to attack than all forms of mutts combined
Rottweilers (13%), Pit Bulls 1.6153 times more likely to attack
German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Pit Bulls 2.3333 times more likely to attack than the most common military and police dogs
Wolf Dogs (5%), Pitt Bulls 4.2 times more likely to attack than a wild animal/domestic hybrid
Siberian Huskies (5%), Pit Bulls 4.2 times more likely to attack
Malamutes (4%), Pit Bulls 5.25 times more likely to attack
Great Danes (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
St. Bernards (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
Chow Chows (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
Doberman Pinschers (3%), Pit Bulls 7 times more likely to attack
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%). Pit Bulls 1.4 times more likely to attack than all other remaining breeds combined

to be just a little bit of a breed specific thing?

[Joseph E. Smith]

Uh, Gary - those aren't dogs.

I think that was the point....