Two pit bull attacks leave youngster dead, toddler critical

64
Shares
Share with your friends










Submit

A pit bull similar to this one mauled a 4-year-old child to death in the second serious pit bull mauling this week in Texas. Photo via jusone.

A Willis, Texas, toddler is in critical condition after he was mauled by a pit bull his family had chained up outside.

The dog apparently attacked the boy in his yard while his mother went inside for a quick glass of water. When she returned, a pit bull was attacking her baby, biting him in the face, neck and side. The mother was also attacked as she tried to fend off the dog.

The toddler is recovering at a nearby hospital, in critical condition. The boy is expected to survive.

While the dog was chained up in the family’s yard, it did not belong to them. According to the Montgomery County Police, the dog is owned by a man who is currently in jail.

advertisement

The attack marks the second serious attack on a child in the area within the last few days. On Saturday, a 4-year-old Montgomery County boy was mauled to death by a pit bull after the youngster climbed a neighbors fence. The dog was chained up, but broke free and attacked the boy. The boy’s 9-year-old sister was eventually able to pull the boy to safety and call for help. The boy was rushed taken via flight-for-life helicopter to a Houston hospital where he died from his injuries.

While Texas laws require dogs who attack outside their personal property to be euthanized, this dog may have been saved given it was on its own property and restrained, however, the owner handed the dog over to authorities saying he couldn’t bear to live with the dog knowing that it killed someone.

64
Shares
Share with your friends










Submit

Best of the interwebs:

  • kat

    you shouldn’t have pitbulls chained up in a yard… any dog that’s chained up is going to be more energetic and less friendly. And four year olds shouldn’t be climbing fences. This is sad but avoidable… I worry about dogs attacking my toddler, but I never leave her unsupervised near a dog I don’t trust.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Clay-Hund/100002306427660 Clay Hund

      No dog should be left chained up all day. Recipe for disaster!!!

      • ARParent

        owning a pit bull is a recipe for disaster!

        • http://twitter.com/JoannaMcGinn2 Joanna McGinn

          if they are such a recipe for disaster, why do people continue to have them… to breed them… to train them to scale fences, pull over 5000 lbs, for ‘gameness’ (aka attack propensity) or ‘hang time’ (the ability to hold on to the prey)…. check these feats out on YouTube and you will be amazed an appalled.

    • http://twitter.com/JoannaMcGinn2 Joanna McGinn

      No one NEEDS to have a PitBull. Toddlers are toddlers and NOT adults and not all adults are perfect in supervising children. WHY can’t people choose a dog that needs a home that isn’t one bred to be aggressive and attack to rip and savage? I keep asking this but not one answer has come up. WHY do people deliberately choose a dog that has a history and breeding to kill?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Smith/100001692954703 Jan Smith

      When I was a kid, we were outdoors all day. The older kids looked out for the younger ones. We climbed trees and fences, roller skated, bicycled, had a grand time. It never occurred to anyone that a neighborhood dog might kill us, it was so rare that strays ever bothered anyone. This outdoor play was good for our motor development, for the development of social and cognitive skills. Various studies show that it’s important for children to have a certain amount of play together without adults around.

      Come the pit bull fans after the umpteenth child death by pit bull, saying we should keep four year olds in the broom closet and supervise all children every second of the day…because these fashion conscious consumers think it’s ridiculous (unfair!) for them to have to supervise their pit bulls every second of the day.

      Here’s an example of how the pit bull people supervise their children (and pit bulls), which makes it rather strange that they reproach us for letting our children play in their own yards:

      http://www.freep.com/article/20130120/NEWS/130120048/Royal-Oak-Township-girl-taken-hospital-after-multiple-dog-bites

  • ARParent

    Authorities need to focus on dog fighting in this area. People don’t use beagles, they use pits,EXCLUSIVELY!

  • Dennis Baker

    PETER ANTEVY, pediatric E.R. physician, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital
    Dr Antvey sees at least five dog-bite victims a month in his emergency room. Unfortunately, he said, “the biggest offender is the pit bull.”

  • Thomas McCartney

    Marines tighten leash on pit bull policy.

    By TERI WEAVER.

    Stars and Stripes.

    Published: October 5, 2009.

    Each year, dogs bite 4.7 million Americans, according to Gail Hayes, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On average, 386,000 of those bitten go to the emergency room. About 16 people die, according to the CDC. The CDC does not keep statistical data on bites by breeds, Hayes said.

    TOKYO — Last year, a pit bull fatally attacked a 3-year-old boy at Camp Lejeune, N.C.

    In August, a pit bull mix at Yokota Air Base in Japan climbed out of its enclosure at the base kennel, killed one dog and wounded another.

    During the past year, military bases and privatized military housing began banning certain dog breeds and types.

    Now, the Marine Corps has issued the first worldwide policy banning pit bulls, Rottweilers, wolf hybrids and any dogs with “dominant traits of aggression” from all U.S. Marine Corps bases and housing facilities.

    The policy, issued in August, allows Marines and families currently living in base housing to keep their pets if they apply for a waiver by Oct. 10 and if their dogs pass a behavior test. That waiver will last only as long as the family remains at the same base or until Sept. 30, 2012, at which time all Marine housing and Marine-controlled housing should be free of any full or mixed breeds considered pit bulls, Rottweilers and wolf hybrids, according to the policy.

    The policy comes as more local governments and public housing facilities are instituting similar bans, said Daisy Okas, a spokeswoman for the American Kennel Club in New York.

    “We’re seeing breed-specific bans pretty regularly,” she said. “We’re very against it. We look at how a dog behaves. It’s a frustrating topic.”

    It can also be a terrifying one, some say.

    “It’s pretty horrifying to see the jaws of one of these dogs ripping into you,” said Colleen Lynn, who was attacked by a pit bull two years ago and now runs a Web site, http://www.dogsbite.org, dedicated to tracking attacks. “It never goes away.”

    Marines living on a base where another service controls housing will continue to follow that base’s rules. On Okinawa, where housing for all services is controlled by the Air Force, Marines may keep their dogs in family housing, at least for now, 18th Air Wing spokesman Ed Gulick said last week. The base is reviewing the policy, however.

    Tiffany Jackson works for Marine Corps Community Services on Okinawa and volunteers with the Okinawan American Animal Rescue Society, a series of foster homes for abandoned pets in the military community there.

    Currently the network is caring for 30 dogs and 30 cats. Jackson is the only one who will take pit bulls.

    She can care for three abandoned pit bulls at a time, and her house is currently full. Many dogs she sees had owners who wanted the dog as a token rather than a pet. That neglect, she says, leaves both their bodies and their temperament in need of much care.

    “Yes, it’s an aggressive dog,” Jackson said. “It takes a lot of patience and trust. It’s a step-by-step process. They learn you’re not there to beat them.”

    She’s been able to find new homes for all the dogs she’s cared for in the past.

    Even though the ban might not affect Okinawa Marines, Jackson and her fellow volunteers are worried about a wave of abandoned dogs as news of the policy spreads. When asked what the Marine Corps is doing to discourage abandoned dogs, a Marine spokesman said that would be up to each base commander.

    “I think the calls will come more,” Jackson said of dogs needing homes. “We’ve already talked about it. And we don’t know how we’re going to handle that.”

    Waiver application deadline Oct. 10

    Policies and changes.

    MARINES

    Under the Marines’ rules, anyone seeking family housing after Aug. 11 may not house a Rottweiler, pit bull or wolf hybrid with them, according to a Marines spokesman. Anyone in family housing before Aug. 11 with those dogs must apply for a waiver by Oct. 10.

    The dog then must pass a “nationally recognized temperament test” by a certified tester at the owner’s expense, the policy states. The waiver must be approved by base commanders.

    Owners of banned dogs will still be able to bring their pets on base for veterinary care, the policy states.

    The ban covers mixed breeds, and it will be up to a military or civilian veterinarian to determine classification if registry papers do not exist, according the Marine spokesman. Installation commanders may ask for a basewide exemption from the policy, though that had not happened as of the middle of last week, the spokesman said.

    ARMY

    Early this year, the Army endorsed a similar dog ban at its privately run housing facilities, according to William Costlow, a spokesman for U.S. Army Installation Management Command.

    There is no ban for Army family housing in.

    traditional on-base settings, Army spokesmen said.

    NAVY

    The Navy’s policy allows that certain breeds may be prohibited, though local commanders have jurisdiction, according to Navy spokeswoman Rachelle Logan.

    AIR FORCE

    The Air Force allows each base commander to decide on the issue, and some have banned the same breeds, according to Air Force spokesman Gary Strasburg.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Only a stupid Owner of dogs would own a pit bull in the first place.But even if the owner is not an idiot the pit bull is still a time bomb waiting to go off at any time for no reason, a land shark that no matter the training will express I.

    t’s DNA and rip some unsuspecting kids face off, that is just what they are and what they do.

    I am sick of hearing this blame the owner not the dog mantra, a.

    ll that does is get the dog off the hook so it can do no wrong and is never held accountable or stopped from doing again what it has criminally already done.

    Nothing is ever done to the owner and in with this mantra the dog is untouchable so both get off scott free when it has attacked someone.

    Pit Bull’s are naturally breed killers and have no place in a city or where they can interact with humans period.

    The best solution to this is what happened in Powell River where a tan pit bull was drowned, most likely after it attacked someone.

    The only good Pit bull is a dead one.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Pit-bull owners say many things in defence of their dogs: they’re loyal family pets; when properly trained, they’re safe to be around; and they’re no more likely to bite than other breeds. All true.

    But when they attack, no other breed can inflict as much destruction on its victim, far too often small, innocent children who are left with devastating injuries – if they live.

    Despite what owners claim, even well-bred pit bulls regularly “snap,” such as the terrible case involving four-year-old Emma-Leigh Cranford, whose throat was ripped open by the pit bull of a family friend during a White Rock barbecue.

    While many pit-bull owners are decent people, too often they are owned by young men, who keep the dogs to appear tough while terrifying those around them. Watch a dog park clear when a pit bull arrives or watch others walking their dogs cross the street to avoid confrontation.

    Enough is enough. As many are saying, it’s time for B.C. to follow Ontario’s lead and ban the breed. We’ve had too many little Emma-Leighs for Victoria to keep ignoring the issue.

    Pit bulls were bred to fight, to have ridiculously destructive bites and to inflict maximum damage on their prey. They are weapons that are not welcome in our neighbourhoods.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Great post by a Pit Bull ban advocate, I agree them.

    Re: Proposed pit bull ban.

    I am in full support of banning this vicious breed. This past weekend my brother’s small dog had her face torn off in an unprovoked attack in Chicago.

    The nature-versus-nurture debate does not apply to these animals. I’m positive the downtown lawyer that owned the dog was not training him to be a fighting dog. Replace “small dog” with “his two-yea.

    r-old daughter” and perhaps this might hit home for any moron suggesting these animals are a peaceful breed.

    I’m still sick at the thought that it could have been my niece. What is worse is that the dog is still alive and is only required to wear a muzzle moving forward. What a disgusting response to an unprovoked and vicious attack.

    Why do we need to wait until humans have been mauled and mutilated before we put down these animals?

    Pit bulls are no more misunderstood than grizzly bears or serial killers. Justifying an attack in any way is senseless and offensive. These animals are unstable.

  • Thomas McCartney

    These Dangerous and Widely Banned Animals. In one study sponsored by the US Governement Centers For Disease Control it was reported that 32% of all dog related killings of human beings in the United States are caused by Pit Bulls attacks, yet Pit Bulls constitute only 2% of all dogs.

    70% of those mauling deaths were of children.

    According this large federal government study conducted over a 2.

    0 year period the Centers for Disease Control concluded that Attacks by pit bulls accounted for one third of the fatal dog attacks in the United States. This study also cited the disproportionate threat these dogs pose to children.

    Children, according to the study, are the most vulnerable victims in dog attacks, with those under the age of 14 accounting for 42 percent of all dog bite injuries. Most of the mauled victims are between the ages of five and nine. The ownership of pit bulls should be opposed. This breed of dog is dangerous to children, adults, police and erodes community safety and order.

    These dogs should be banned and the public educated about the dangers these dogs pose. We can work to end the pit bull threat only by speaking out against them and their fanatical owners. Become active in your community and work on laws to ban pit bulls to protect our children and to promote a safe community for all.

    Incident in the US:

    Terrier Attacked by Pit Bull. At the dog park we go to every weekend, we brought both of our dogs to get some playtime. We own a terrier mix, and a ridgeback, who get along with all other breeds of dogs. A pit bull was at the park and was very aggressive with many of the dogs, and finally got a hold of our terrier’s neck and would not let go.

    We had to take her to the vet and she received 10 stitches. Every time we go and there is a pit bull at the park there is inevitably an attack, just last weekend a pit bull attacked four dogs before everyone at the park made the owner leave. It took a group of 20 other dog owners to convince this particular pit bull owner that his dog was not safe, nor welcome there.

    If you wish to own one of these dogs please leave them at home in you fenced in backyard, we should not be punished for other people’s lack of common sense. My least favorite, but most commonly heard defense of pit bulls is “it’s all in how you raise them”.

  • Thomas McCartney

    75% of all Animal Shelters in the US will euthanize all pit bulls, pit crosses or any dogs that even looks like one immediately with no attempt to adopt them out.

    The other 25% will also euthanize within a few days to a week if adoption doesn’t take place.

    Why is this?, because nobody wants any of the evil disgusting Mutants, they can’t give them away, that is why 93% of all Pitts in Animal Shel.

    ters in the US are killed , over 1.1 Million Pit Bulls every year are killed in this manner every year after year after year after year in the US alone.

    Over 100 a day are killed in animal shelters in LA county alone, 73,000 a year after year after year after year.

    That is over 12 million pit bulls killed in Animal Shelters in the US in the last decade alone.

    The Idiot Pit Nutters who are playing their rescue game are losers and losing the battle as the few hundred they save is a pittance compared to the Million plus killed the same year.

    They show their support for these mutants by fighting against laws against their breeding that could prevent this as a result much needed mass slaughter of pit bulls, they are responsible for all of this and show their ignorance and hypocrisy by continuing fight against what is actually in the best interests of this perverted breed.

    That’s 2,750 a day or 345 every hour, right this moment somewhere in the US a pit bull will rip, ravage and maul no more and instead is feeling the loving sting of death, oh what a lovely truth and reality that no pit loving pervert can deny or combat, how does that feel pit nutters……Now the pit bull will find it’s true forever home, the deep dark forever night, all that it warrants or deserves, bye bye mutant and don’t come back!

    A Good Pit Bull is a Dead Dog Walking!

  • Thomas McCartney

    About 4 months ago in only 5 days there were 4 children attacked by Pit Bulls for no reason in four separate areas of the Prov. and badly mauled with severe facial injuries, a child’s throat was literally ripped open, another child’s face looked as if it had been ripped off.

    Calls from their parents, Miss Universe Canada once attacked by a Pitt Bull as a child and others have come for a Prov. ban

    on all Pit Bulls and Pit Bull crosses in BC.

    The Prov. Govt. will be presented with these concerns with the intent being that said ban be in acted throughout the Prov. as soon as possible.

    The facts below illustrate the positive outcome of such a ban for all members of society and their safety.

    The number of dog bites reported in Toronto has fallen since a ban on pit bulls took effect in 2005, public health statistics show.

    A total of 486 bites were recorded in 2005. That number fell generally in the six years following, to 379 in 2010.

    Bites in Toronto blamed on the four affected Pit Bull breeds fell sharply, from 71 in 2005 to only six in 2010. This accounts for most of the reduction in total bites.

    The fall in bites blamed on the four breeds tracks a reduction in the dogs themselves,

    Some 1,411 Toronto dogs were in the four breeds in 2008, as opposed to 798 in mid-2011.

    The severe mauling’s & crippling attacks almost disappeared after the Pit Bull ban took effect.

    You can’t walk a Lion, Tiger, Bear or a Wolverine down a street, neither should a Pitt Bull be allowed in public or within city limits.

    Pit Nutters say it is the owner, crazed gangster types that create monsters, the vast majority of Pit Bull owners are everyday dog owners, the Pit Bull creates itself and is what it is, a Genetic Monster & it needs to go now.

    • Jaloney Caldwell

      It is what it is.. Exactly.. It is not a pet worthy pet.. Pitbulls go bonkers and they do much more than bite. They can be sweet and then….. Only a moron would own a pitbull. Of course a lot of morons follow UNreality t.v. shows that promote the mutants.

  • Thomas McCartney

    The law does not go far enough even in Ontario as actually owning a pit bull and letting it interact with the public is not illegal and takes place and the laws forcing them to be leashed and muzzled are not enforced so of course the number of dog bites are not going to change.

    The ban on importation and breeding of them is not enough, the ban needs to include actually owning one of the evil lan.

    d sharks and actually enforcing that ban, then the number of dog bites and especially deaths and maiming’s would drop drastically.

    Owners are part of the problem but the actual animals are hardwired to kill and maim and will do so when given a chance to as that is their nature just like it is the DNA and nature of a great white shark, same difference.

    So what if it is not a pure breed pit bull but a cross between one and another dog type, a pit bull is a pit bull no matter if it is a cross or a pure breed with the same basic DNA & nature and danger therein for the public as was the case with pit bull cross and the beaver.

    prey drive or aggression drive is semantics, same difference in the act and outcome of the act.

    Any dog with any pit bull in them is the same in danger to the public as a pure breed pit bull and must be banned from existence.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Miss Universe Canada has joined the fight for a pit bull ban in B.C., and plans to make the effort a major part of her reign.

    Sahar Biniaz, 26, was crowned Miss Universe Canada on May 19, and thinks the provincial government should adopt either a pit bull ban or at least require that pit bulls must be leashed and muzzled at all times.

    The Richmond resident was a victim of a pit bull attack herse.

    lf at the age of 14, a year after her family adopted a five-month-old pit bull from a breeder.

    The pit bull “came from a really nice environment,” she said, but “then I ended up getting 16 stitches.” Biniaz still bears the scars on her chest to this day.

    “I was just sitting down and it just kept staring at me, and I don’t know what aggravated it,” she said. “It just all of sudden… went off.”

    Biniaz said her parents ended up getting rid of the pit bull as opposed to putting it down, but every time she hears of a pit bull attack she remembers that day.

    “This is something you hear all the time, over and over again,” she said, noting that with her Miss Universe Canada title she now has “a voice… to bring more awareness to this [issue].”

    Biniaz said recent pit bull attacks — like the one on Emma-Leigh Cranford, 4, on Aug. 23 in White Rock — spurred her to act.

    Cranford survived with 40 stitches across her jaw, but not before a two-hour surgery at B.C. Children’s Hospital.

    Biniaz said she has already spoken with White Rock Coun. Alan Campbell, who said he would bring up the possibility of a ban when council reconvenes Sept. 17.

  • Guest

    No link between owners, aggressive dogs: Study.

    Nanaimo Daily News [Nanaimo, B.C 24 May 2012.

    People who love tough dogs may be as misunderstood as the animals themselves, if a new academic study is any indication.

    Reporting in the journal Anthrozoos, researchers from Canada and the U.K. find an affinity for breeds perceived as aggressive – think Staffordshire bull terriers and boxers – isn’t lin.

    ked to delinquent behaviour, despite stereotypes of such people as gangbangers, criminals and garden-variety dirtbags.

    The only cliche that held true was one of anti-social tendencies: folks who were suspicious, unfriendly or competitive were likelier to desire an intimidating dog than their more affable counterparts.

    Credit: News Services.

    Copyright CanWest Digital Media May 24, 2012.

  • Guest

    Pitbull or Pitbull cross, same difference same outcome same reality as to what they are.

    And all Pitbulls or restricted dogs including pitbull crosses by law must have leashes and Muzzles which they never have and all to often you seem them running around as such unmuzzled, this is an even greater problem then them being unleashed and that is bad enough.

    Certain breeds like Pitbulls etc.are fun.

    damentally evil in nature and action and do not deserve the freedom of action to carry out their DNA.

    The point is, other dogs bite, Pittbulls and Pitbull crosses and others like mastiffs, Rotts etc. attack and kill and maim, that is the big difference in the outcome and should result in a completely different additude towards these dogs and why they should be banned outright. The stats are very clear and accurate and show this reality even if you want to put your head in the sand, it still is what it is.

  • Thomas McCartney

    The simple reality is that small dogs bite more but restricted large dogs like pitbulls maim and kill more & do all for more then any other breed proportionally speaking % wise.

    A 1993 Toronto study found pit bulls accounted for 1 percent of licensed dogs but 4 percent of bites.

    More ominous is a 2000 study by the Centers for Disease Control looking at 20 years of data on fatal dog attacks in.

    the U.S.

    Of 238 such incidents in which the breed of the attacking dog was reported,

    “pit bull-type dogs” were involved in 32 percent, versus 18 percent for rottweilers and rottweiler mixes.

    and 11 percent for German shepherds and mixes.

    one study found 94 percent of pit bull attacks on kids were unprovoked, as opposed to only 43 percent of attacks by other breeds.

  • Thomas McCartney

    RSPCA Victoria president Dr Hugh Wirth blogs on the pit bull problem in Victoria.

    THE RSPCA has renewed calls for a ban on American pit bulls after a man was attacked and his pet dog killed yesterday.

    RSPCA Victoria president Dr Hugh Wirth said the dogs were a menace and were not suitable as pets for anyone.

    “They are time bombs waiting for the right circumstances,” Dr Wirth said.

    “The American pit bull terrier is lethal because it was a breed that was developed purely for dog fighting, in other words killing the opposition.

    “They should never have been allowed into the country. They are an absolute menace.”

  • Thomas McCartney

    Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to December 26, 2011.

    By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2011,1 Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, shows the breeds most responsible for serious injury and death.

    Study highlights

    The combination of pit bulls, rottweilers, their close mixes and wolf hybrids:

    77% of attacks that induce bodily harm.

    73% of attacks to children.

    81% of attack to adults.

    68% of attacks that result in fatalities.

    76% that result in maiming.

  • Thomas McCartney

    The pit bull drooler’s don’t get it, they are in effect demanding that they be able to walk around with a loaded.

    hand gun, round chambered, safety off with a hair trigger & that we all smile when they point it at us.

    Pit bulls or Pit bull cross, same difference, same outcome, same reality as to what they are.

    And all Pit bulls or restricted dogs including pit bull crosses by law must have leashes and Muzzles which almost never have and all to often you seem them running around as such unmuzzled, this is an even greater problem then them being unleashed.

    Pit bulls and Pit bull crosses and others like mastiffs, Rotts etc. attack and kill and maim while normal dogs bite, that is the big difference in the outcome and should result in a completely different attitude towards these dogs and why they should be banned outright.

    The stats are very clear and accurate and show this reality even if you want to put your head in the sand, it still is what it is.

    Certain breeds like Pit bulls etc.are fundamentally evil in nature and action and do not deserve the freedom of action to carry out their DNA.

    “Pit bulls are different; they’re like wild animals,” says Alan Beck, director for the Center for the Human Animal Bond at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, IN. “They’re not suited for an urban environment. I believe we should open our eyes and take a realistic approach to pit bulls.”

    A 1993 Toronto study found pit bulls accounted for 1 percent of licensed dogs but 4 percent of bites. More ominous is a 2000 study by the Centers for Disease Control looking at 20 years of data on fatal dog attacks in the U.S.

    Of 238 such incidents in which the breed of the attacking dog was reported, “pit bull-type dogs” were involved in 32 percent of them while being 1% of the population.

    Pit Bulls should be banned from inside city limits anywhere.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Get used to it as this is sweeping the country and coming to a town near you, Bye Bye Pitty Boo Boo’s in a Tutu and DONT comeback.!!!

    Family forced to send pit bull-mix away.

    January 07, 2013 07:36 AM CST.

    CHARITON, Iowa –

    A Chariton family is forced to say goodbye to their beloved pet.

    Pit bulls have been outlawed in Chariton for years, but the name pit bull applied to more dogs, which was why one family was caught off-guard when their mixed-breed was ordered to leave town.

    Zanny is a 10-month-old dog that first joined her family in June.

    “When I got her, they told me she was a mixed dog. When she was a puppy, I didn’t think much about it. She was really small,” said owner Jenny Connery.

    As Zanny grew larger, Connery said the dog started to look more and more like a pit bull, which is a big problem in Chariton.

    “It’s pretty common knowledge, I think within the city, that you can’t have one in town,” said Chariton police Chief Jeff Johnson.

    On Friday, two police officers showed up at Connery’s door to tell her Zanny needs to be removed from town.

    “They said that they would have her put down,” Connery said. “I can’t believe a dog should be put down if they have not done anything wrong.”

    Authorities said the ordinance that outlaws pit bulls has been around since 1988, and even though Zanny is not a purebred pit bull, the law applies to her because she looks like one.

    “Anything that has the characteristics of being predominantly of the breed,” said Johnson said. “It was mentioned that the dog could be disposed of, but that’s a worst-case scenario.”

    “That would be like saying any mixed dog cannot be in town, because honestly, you don’t know what’s in their bloodline,” Connery said.

    The dog owner said she understands why pit bulls have a bad reputation, but she wants other to understand something as well.

    “You can either train a dog to be nice and loving and caring, or you can train a dog to be mean or aggressive, and that’s any dog. That’s not just a pit bull,” Connery said.

    Zanny is staying in the country with relatives while Connery tries to gather support.

    “She’ll be out there either until I can move or until I win the battle of trying to get the rules changed up a little bit,” Connery said.

    Connery’s first step to fight the ordinance will be in front of the Chariton City Council. She said she knows a lot of pit bull lovers in the area, so she thinks she stands a good chance at getting the old law at least reviewed and possibly changed.

  • Thomas McCartney

    A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks – of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%)

    A 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%)

    Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were most often involved in these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls.

    One 5-year (2001–05) review of dog attack victims admitted to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia determined that pit bull terriers were implicated in more than half of bites. Of the 551 patients treated, the breed was identified in 269 cases.

    One review of the medical literature found that pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds were involved in between 42 and 45% of dog attacks.[37] Fatalities were most often reported in children, with 70% of victims being under the age of 10.

    Percentage of pit bulls named bane, duke or other authoritative name (73%)

    Percentage of pit bulls named fluffy, daisy, fido, spot, rover or other non authoritative name (0%)

  • Thomas McCartney

    Pit bulls have been proven dangerous

    Jan 24, 2013

    Re: “Local woman continues fight to muzzle pit bulls,” Jan. 11

    Dear Editor,

    The fight to muzzle pit bulls in Airdrie is a stepping stone to a more controversial matter in the specific legislation or banning of the animal that has touched cities, provinces and countries globally.

    In the continuing account from the article “Local woman continues fight to muzzle pit bulls” in the City View dated Jan. 11, another article appeared the following day Jan. 12 in the Calgary Sun. Dog owners charged in attacks in which two separate pit bull attacks on people lead to multiple charges against four people.

    Medical attention was required for one victim in the Whitehorne area of Calgary after two pit bulls attacked the one victim. Each animal had a different owner.

    Still another recent attack in the Calgary Ogden area on Dec. 31 involving the death of a Pomeranian dog by a pit bull, and charges including three unlicensed dogs laid against the owner of three pit bulls. The pit bulls were under the care and control of the owner at the time of the attack stated the animal and bylaw services.

    Adding further to the controversy is the article appearing in the Calgary Sun Jan. 16, “Vicious Attack” where an unprovoked pit bull ripped a portion off the face of a seven-year-old boy, obviously leaving a scar for life. The boy, attacked in his own home needed two blood transfusions and four hours of surgery.

    There is much support regarding the animal and without a doubt “emotional support” as noted in the article “Local woman continues fight to muzzle pit bulls,” which states:

    “..since launching the petition she has received several angry phone calls and emails from people opposed to her idea.” This woman’s idea is mild and should not stir such a response.

    It has been noted that animal aggression, especially dog aggression is common with the pit bull breed and should be considered normal. It is also said that proper training will prevent the aggressive behaviour. Is this so and is there evidence, and can the owners control the dog?

    The evidence indicates this is not so. To appropriately train any dog takes a dog training expert and most persons are not equipped in this area, as can be seen in the pit bulls that attack even when under the care and control of their owner.
    A teenage boy biking a pathway in east Airdrie last summer was bitten on the leg by a dog and needed stitches, while the two owners did nothing but watch.

    Children are the most vulnerable in pit bull attacks. The difference with pit bulls, as compared to other sometimes aggressive breeds as the rottweiler, shepherd, doberman and husky is the manner of attack, which is vicious, which is why pit bulls were bred for dog fighting.

    They fight with little or no provocation and have a high tolerance for pain. Unlike guard dogs like German shepherds they don’t attempt to simply restrain their opponents by biting and holding, they try to inflict maximum damage by biting, holding, shaking and tearing.

    There are many more attacks by this breed than other breeds. In a widely-reported case, Toronto police fired more than a dozen bullets into two pit bulls that had turned on a man who was walking them as a favour for a friend. In another attack in London, Ontario, a woman and her seven-year-old son watched in horror as a pit bull latched onto her husband’s arm as he tried to keep the family puppy out of the reach of the dog.

    The matter involving pit bulls are global and encompasses many other countries. Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals promised a banning of the pit bulls after a series of high-profile Ontario attacks. “Mark my words, Ontario will be safer,” Attorney General Michael Bryant, who introduced the bill, said after it passed.

    The United States federal government has not enacted breed-specific legislation, but one state government and several hundred municipal governments in the United States have enacted breed-specific legislation banning or restricting pit-bull-type dogs and a few other breeds.

    The Canadian federal government does not regulate pit-bull-type dogs, but one provincial government and some municipal governments in Canada have enacted breed-specific legislation banning or restricting pit-bull-type dogs.

    The issue regarding the pit bull is supported by global facts and are supported because of a predisposition toward aggressive and dangerous behaviour.

    Muzzling and or banning the dog falls under breed-specific legislation and should be considered. Canada’s Constitution as contained in the Charter guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
    The issue is the freedom to move about without fear. Reflecting on Constitutional principles of law suggest that cities should not have unleashed areas and to enact legislation through government to protect society.

    Lorne Peterson, Airdrie

  • Jaloney Caldwell

    Wake up folks. Turn off the reality t.v. Those
    “stars” are PAID to promote pitbulls.. just like t.v. celebs promoted
    cigarettes for money for decades on the t.v. Wealthy dog fighters promote this
    fad because they don’t have to worry about getting caught and can keep their
    barbaric sport going with pitbulls popularized. The it’s the owner not the
    breed mantra sounds logical but it’s not. This repetitive slogan is illogical.
    Other dog breeds owned in much greater numbers
    have equal chances of getting neglectful and abusive owners, yet they
    adapt to human shortcomings and don’t maul people or pets at anywhere near the
    rate that pitbulls do. Labs are routinely forgotten and chained in backyards
    and they are the most popular dog breed in America, Labs are not the top
    killers, pitbull are. Mortality, Maiming and Mauling by Vicious Dogs, Annals of
    Surgery, April 2011, is study of dog injuries in hospitals spanning the last 15
    years. The study found that you have a more than 2500 times higher chance of
    dying if attacked by a pitbull. The statistics on pitbulls seriously
    harming people at a much higher rate than other dogs are
    overwhelming. You can’t love out genes or untrain genes. Family owned and loved
    pitbulls can turn on a dime. If you
    believe that pitbulls are just like any other dog, and regurgitate the false
    “its the owner not the breed mantra” you might of believed the world
    was flat, too Just because something sounds good doesn’t make it true.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Remember that Pit Bulls make up 4% of all the dogs in the US:

    One review of the American medical literature found that pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds were involved in between 42 and 45% of dog attacks.

    [ Journal of Forensic Sciences (American Academy of Forensic Sciences) 57 (2): 370–374,2011]
    Fatalities were most often reported in children, with 70% of victims being under the age of 10.

    Courts in the United States and Canada have ruled that expert identification, when using published breed standards, is sufficient for the enforcement of breed-specific legislation.

    A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%).

    A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.

    A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.

    A 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%).

    Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were most often involved in these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls.

    All other dogs combined accounted for the remaining 65% of attacks. In 44.8% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim’s family.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Barbara Kay: Delusional pitbull owners and their predictable denials.

    Barbara Kay | Jan 2, 2013 10:12 AM ET |.

    It’s happened again. In southeast Calgary on New Year’s Eve afternoon, three dogs savagely attacked two other dogs. Can you guess the breed of all three attacking dogs?

    Pit bulls, of course. Tip: anytime you read a story in which animals end up dead or needing to be euthanized after being attacked by a dog, or children being wounded seriously enough to need hospital attention, you’ll be right most of the time if you guess the attacking dog was a pit bull. Even though pit bulls only represent 3% of the dog population.

    In this case, Scott McDowell and his teenage children were walking their Pomeranian, Patrick, and their Great Pyrenees, Max, in an off-leash park — that is, a park meant specifically for dogs to socialize and exercise with other dogs — when they met up with Stephen Jaquish, walking three pit bulls on leashes.

    One was his own, the other two belonged to a friend. They attacked McDowell’s dogs, and could not be subdued. Patrick had to be euthanized; Max was badly injured. McDowell’s daughter needed stitches for a gash to the hand when she tried to intervene..

    It was reported that Jaquish was horrified, but “suggests his dogs were provoked.” He said: “[My] dog would never hurt anybody. She’s being deemed dangerous, but I think she was just protecting like any other dog would do.”.

    As surely as I would have predicted the breed of the attacking dogs, I would also have predicted this response. Just as their canine-shark pets are a breed apart from normal dogs, pit bull owners are themselves a human breed apart from other dog owners.

    Pit bull owners live in a dream palace, where all dogs are good, and when they are bad, it can be attributed only to bad ownership or the dogs being “provoked” by the animals or people they ravage. Never to genetics, never to the fact that pit bulls were bred for impulsive aggression of exactly this type.

    At a certain level, pit bull owners understand very well that their dogs are programmed for joy in fighting. They understand very well that when pit bulls attack, it is almost always suddenly and randomly, almost never defensively.

    But they can’t admit that. So when their pit bull lunges at a cat and bites its head off, they tell themselves this is the way it is with animals, even though it is rare for any other breed to kill any other animal for no reason. They tell themselves, for a real-life example, when their pit bull attacks and practically scalps a three-year old girl climbing out of a car, that the sudden opening of the car door was the trigger — in other words, the kid had it coming. It’s never the dog’s fault.

    Of course real dog fighting men have no such illusions. Dog fighters want pit bulls precisely because they are “game,” because they know that this is the only naturally aggressive breed that can be counted on to fight to the death. They’re not pets, they’re weapons. As the famous, revered, pit bull-loving dog whisperer Cesar Milan put it, when explaining why pit bulls cannot be treated like ordinary dogs:

    “This is a different breed … the power that comes behind bull dog, pit bull, presa canario, the fighting breed — They have an extra boost, they can go into a zone, they don’t feel the pain anymore. … So if you are trying to create submission in a fighting breed, it’s not going to happen.

    They would rather die than surrender. … If you add pain, it only infuriates them … to them pain is that adrenaline rush, they are looking forward to that, they are addicted to it. … That’s why they are such great fighters. … You’re going to have these explosions over and over because there’s no limits in their brain.”.

    Mr. Jaquish likely doesn’t want to know the statistics on pit bull attacks relative to other breeds. If he took seriously the fact that pit bulls or pit bull crosses were responsible for more than a third of dog bite related fatalities, or that in the first 8 months of 2011, nearly half of those killed by pit bulls were the dog’s owner, he might have to admit that he was putting his own children at special risk. He doesn’t want to go there.

    The dogs have been seized by Animal Services and will undergo “behaviour testing” to see if they can go back to their owner. What’s to test, dude? They’re pit bulls. They get “explosions” in their brains. Q.E.D.

    National Post

  • Thomas McCartney

    Pitbulls are responsible for over 65% of all fatal dog attacks and, of all hospitalizations requiring more than 8 days from dog attack, 100% are from pitbull attack…100% – Annals of Surgery, 2011, and CDC, Atlanta, GA.

    Just this week in Pennsylvania, there was a judgment awarding a pitbull attack victim and his mother who was injured trying to save her son over $500,000.00. These high dollar awards are occurring more often now that the truth of pitbull genetic tendencies and the refusal of pitbull owners to acknowledge those traits and restrain their pitbulls from attacking people and animals.

    If you own a pitbull, are you really willing to be fined over half a million dollars because your pitbull did what it was bred to do? Or, if you just “love the breed” so much, wouldn’t it be smarter to keep it double fenced, muzzled and short leashed off property, carry liability insurance in the event it does attack, and spay/neuter it to stop the hormone-surge that happens with unaltered dogs of either sex in mating heat?

    And, in the split second before the pitbull’s teeth grip onto a victim, the pitbull owner who socialized it, took it to obedience school, loved it, slept with it, and defended its breed, suddenly is “the bad pitbull owner” that all blame will be thrust upon by every pitbull owner everywhere and this status change happens every time a pitbull attacks to the stunned owner that never thought their nanny dog was capable of such horror.

    The reason pitbulls are banned in Ontario is because smart people didn’t put their hands over their eyes and wish pitbull attacks don’t happen; they actually looked at the statistics, the injuries, the medical expenses, the fatalities, and the lack of justification for endangering the public with these dogs and made a prudent decision to protect the public and gentle animals from living in fear of attack or suffering through the post-trauma effects of pitbull attack.

    The money pitbull advocates will spend to listen to a man who pushes false security on owners of a killer breed could be used instead to educate pitbull owners on ways to keep their pitbulls from having access to attack (fencing, muzzling, etc). If you don’t want to muzzle your dog, then get a non-fighting breed dog and you won’t have to.

    Lastly, to the ever present Pomeranian and chihuahua mauling quoters, if you have news links and victim pictures and proof to substantiate regulating these dogs, then I’ll support your cause too. But, I am the victim of pitbull attack and I am part of a large, growing group of pitbull attack victims who are done with taking it lying down.

    Barbara Kay echoes the sentiment that everyone who knows the gruesomeness and grief feels. Sometimes the grief is from loss of life of a person or a loved pet and sometimes the grief is for the loss of the beauty of a face or arms or legs.

  • Thomas McCartney

    The TRUTH About Pit Bulls.

    Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams, U.S. president 1797-1801

    8.04.2010

    The Nanny Dog Myth Revealed.

    From 2004 to 2010 59 US children were killed by the family’s, babysitter’s, neighbor’s or friend’s pit bull.

    The pit bull apologia would have you believe that their fighting bred dogs are just like any other dog in many ways, but so superior in their unparalleled love and devotion for children they were commonly known as “The Nanny Dog” throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    If pit bulls are held in low esteem today, it is only due to ignorance and the gullible acceptance of biased news reporting because, once upon a time, pit bulls were the most beloved dog in England and the United States.

    A google search brings up 77,100 results for the term “nanny dog.” While some sites bestow the Nanny Dog mantle on the American Pit Bull Terrier or the American Staffordshire Terrier and some lead you to productions of Peter Pan, most of the results lead you to 21st century blogs and news articles about the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

    120 sites dedicated to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier include this phrase in support of the fighting nanny dog mythology,

    “These dogs were renowned for their courage and tenacity and despite their ferocity in the pit were excellent companions and good with children. In fact it was not unknown for an injured dog to be transported home in a pram with the baby!”

    Frankly, even if this anecdote were plausible, let alone true, this doesn’t support a nanny dog claim so much as it supports a sociopathic, baby abusing, dog abusing, parent claim.

    Dig as hard as you want, the pram story is all you’ll find to support the Nanny Dog myth in any of these sites. You won’t find a single citation, quote or reference of any kind to a 19th century, or early 20th century text. Since the Staffordshire Bull Terrier enthusiasts didn’t see fit to support their claims, I decided I would have to find the origin of the Nanny Dog myself.

    Meet the Nanny Dog – the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, England’s ultimate fighting dog and, inexplicably, the supposed dog of choice to care for England’s children in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

    It is not hard to find old references to the Bull Terrier. The various histories and descriptions of the breed largely agree with each other. After bull baiting was banned in England, Coalminers in various cities including Staffordshire were at a loss for blood sporting alternatives for their beloved, courageous bulldogs. So, they developed another blood sport – pit dog fighting. Sadly, they soon found their bulldogs were not suited to win in the pit.

    According to a 1908 New York Times article,

    “The old lovers of the bulldog found to their dismay that sometimes a terrier, with only quickness and a pair of punishing jaws to recommend him, would kill a bulldog while the latter was merely hanging on.

    The bulldog would be brave to the death of course, and would withstand pain that the terrier would never endure, but that was poor consolation when the terrier had killed the dog.

    The dog fighters were, however, as persevering a set of men as were the bull baiters, and they set to work to remodel their favorites for their new occupation.

    They began to cross their bulldogs with the white English terrier, a breed now practically extinct, but the same in every respect, save color, as the modern Manchester or black-and-tan. The progeny was named the bull terrier, the greatest fighting machine, pound for pound, on four legs. The bull terrier had the courage of the bulldog and the jaws and quickness of the white terrier.

  • Thomas McCartney

    MELANIE PFEIFFER, veterinary assistant
    Working in a veterinary hospital, you are exposed to all kinds of animal trauma. One of the more common ones is dog fights. I can honestly say that in three out of four cases, an American pit bull terrier is involved. Many times, we are able to save the life of the afflicted, but yesterday, we were not.

    I propose that all owned American pit bull terriers be registered and all breeding be halted indefinitely. How many mutilated faces, mangled limbs, butchered pets and even human deaths does it take to convince us that this breed needs to be phased out?

  • Thomas McCartney

    No link between owners, aggressive dogs: Study.
    Nanaimo Daily News [Nanaimo, B.C 24 May 2012.

    More proof that is the breed not the owner, it is nature not nurture that creates a mutant undog killer like a pit bull.

    People who love tough dogs may be as misunderstood as the animals themselves, if a new academic study is any indication.

    Reporting in the journal Anthrozoos, researchers from Canada and the U.K. find an affinity for breeds perceived as aggressive – think Staffordshire bull terriers and boxers – isn’t linked to delinquent behavior, despite stereotypes of such people as gang bangers, criminals and garden-variety dirt bags.

    The only cliche that held true was one of anti-social tendencies: folks who were suspicious, unfriendly or competitive were likelier to desire an intimidating dog than their more affable counterparts.

    Credit: News Services.

    Copyright CanWest Digital Media May 24, 2012.

  • Thomas McCartney

    L.A. NOW
    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA — THIS JUST IN
    Lancaster’s dog ordinance is cited in helping to drive down gang crime January 21, 2010

    A Lancaster ordinance imposing stiff penalties on owners of “potentially dangerous” and “vicious” dogs is reaping positive results, and may have even helped to drive down gang crime in the city, officials said.

    The law, adopted in January 2009, was primarily aimed at preventing gang members from using dogs, such as pit bulls and Rottweilers, to bully people or cause physical harm, officials said.
    City officials said that 1,138 pit bulls and Rottweilers were impounded last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. Of those, 362 were voluntarily surrendered by their owners in response to Lancaster’s ordinance.

    “A year ago, this city was overrun with individuals — namely, gang members — who routinely used pit bulls and other potentially vicious dogs as tools of intimidation and violence,” Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris said in a statement.

    “These individuals delighted in the danger these animals posed to our residents, often walking them without leashes and allowing them to run rampant through our neighborhoods and parks. Today, more than 1,100 of these animals have been removed from our city, along with the fear they create. Lancaster is now a great deal safer because of it.”

    Parris believes there is a correlation between the results of the dog ordinance and a drop in the city’s gang crime rate. Lancaster’s violent gang crime, which includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, fell by 45% last year, and there was a drop in overall gang crime by 41%, Parris said, citing statistics from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

    Under the dog ordinance, a hearing officer can deem a dog to be potentially dangerous, for example, if the animal becomes aggressive when unprovoked.

    The dog can be impounded, and the owner must have it properly licensed, implanted with a microchip and vaccinated at his own cost before the animal’s release.
    Dogs deemed to be vicious can be destroyed if they are determined to be a significant threat to public safety, according to the ordinance.

    It also requires owners of potentially dangerous dogs to ensure proper leashing and muzzling, complete a dog obedience training course, spay or neuter their animals, and pay a fine of up to $500 for each offense.

    Owners of dogs deemed to be vicious face fines of up to $1,000 per offense, and they could be prevented from possessing any dog for up to three years.

    Though city officials praise the dog law, some residents continue to challenge its fairness. They argue that “breed-specific” legislation is an injustice to canines, because irresponsible owners are to blame for a dog’s behavior, not the dog.

    — Ann M. Simmons

  • Thomas McCartney

    This is a great post by Luke Russell and speaks to the absurd contention by Pit Nutters that their pitty boo boo in a tutu would never harm anything:

    Luke Russell · Top Commenter · Knox Technical School
    I was savagely attacked by two pitbulls whose owner said all the same things Michael Wade does, even after the attack, they still say the same thing. Never trust a pitbull or the people who own them.

    You will never get the truth from them. They will minimise or deny aggression or attacks and blame the victim, this is their modus operandi.

    Everyone knows a dogs behaviour is predominantly determined by it’s bloodlines, even rampant Pitbull Nutter Groups like the UKC acknowledges this with the title of their magazine

    “BLOODLINES” Greyhounds are fast not because they are trained to be, it’s because of their genetic predisposition, Pointers point, not because of training, it’s because of their genetic predisposition, Heelers nip at livestock not because of training, it’s because of their genetic predisposition, and Pitbulls maul, maim and kill not because of training, it’s because of their genetic predisposition.

    If you own a Pitbull that doesn’t do this, you have received a Pitbull that good breeders over time have successfully managed to breed the game out of it, it has nothing to do with the Owners super magical ability to give extra special love and concern.

    (although the owners just LOVE to think this, I think this is part of the attraction to Pitbulls, if they can own such a known dangerous breed and it doesn’t maim or maul, it must be attributed to their SUPERLOVE – not!).

    Can you imagine when DOGMEN sold their Pitbulls (as they do) for large sums of money, only to have the buyer return the dog and say it wasn’t game.

    Can you imagine the Buyers response if he was told by the DOGMAN you have to train the Pitbull to be game.

    The DOGMAN would have been laughed at and a prompt refund would have been demanded. Nothing has changed, the GAME of a Pitbull has always been in it’s BLOOD.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Pit Bulls Lead ‘Bite’ Counts Across U.S. Cities and Counties
    Dog Biting Incidents: 2008 to 2012

    Animal control departments in at least 25 U.S. states report that pit bulls are biting more than all other dog breeds. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

    The oft-quoted myth by pro-pit bull groups that pit bulls “do not bite more than other breeds” is categorically false. In addition to leading bite counts, the pit bull bite is also the most damaging, inflicting permanent and disfiguring injury.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Woman Calls for Pit Bull Ban
    By Bill Rodgers / Journal Staff Writer on Tue, Nov 20, 2012

    Police have filed charges of keeping vicious animals and allowing them to run at large against the owner of two pit bulls that mauled a disabled woman and killed her pet Chihuahua on a Santa Fe street last week.

    Police Capt. Aric Wheeler said Monday police filed the misdemeanor charges in Magistrate Court against Gerard Mathews, 23, who police say had been cited previously for letting dogs run free.

    In the next couple of days, Wheeler said, Mathews will likely receive a criminal summons ordering him to appear in court to answer for misdemeanor charges of keeping vicious animals and letting animals run at large.

    The charges against Mathews offered little comfort for Anne Stills, 62, who was bitten on her thigh, elbow and hand during the pit bull mauling but couldn’t save her long-haired Chihuahua named Lillie.
    Stills said Monday that she still misses Lillie, her companion for more than eight years.

    “I’m having nightmares,” she said. “I can’t sleep. My wounds will heal. My heart will never heal. You cannot bring back a loved one like that. She was more than family to me.”

    Animal control officers also are seeking a judge’s order to keep the two female pit bulls, Roxxy and Nyla, in the Santa Fe Animal Shelter and Humane Society until Mathews appears in court.
    The dogs have been under a 10-day quarantine since the attack on the 600 block of West Alameda on Nov. 12. They could be euthanized by a judge’s order.

    Stills said she wants a second person charged in the attack – a woman who, according to Stills, tried to hold back the pit bulls during the mauling and said they belonged to a relative.
    Stills said a 3-foot-high wall on the property where the pit bulls came from wasn’t enough to hold the dogs back, which she said makes the woman responsible, too.

    Stills said she has poor vision and did not notice a “beware of dogs” sign at the house until she stopped to leave a memorial to her dead pet.

    When Lillie was killed, Stills was walking the Chihuahua on a leash not far from her apartment in public housing.

    Stills said she also wants pit bulls out of the City Different.
    “I’m not going to let this go,” Stills said. “There will not be pit bulls allowed in the city limits. I am going to make certain of that.”

    She said she’s willing to search for reports of pit bull attacks across the country. “There is something wrong in the heads of these dogs; I don’t know if it’s in their DNA,” Stills said. “They can be the most loving things and just snap for no reason. They need to be eradicated.”

    Last year, a pit bull was euthanized after Santa Fe police said it killed its 74-year-old owner.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Pit bull crackdown lacks bite, says mayor
    Mark Buttler and Mitchell Toy
    Herald Sun
    December 17, 2012 12:00AM

    Christina Moyle, who suffered horrific injuries in a pit bull attack, with her husband Wayne. Picture: Kylie Else.
    THE mayor of one of Victoria’s prime pit bull zones says a crackdown on the breed is failing.

    Impounded high-risk dogs were being sent back to their owners, Cr Geoff Porter, of Hume City Council, said.

    Many of the animals seized became the subject of VCAT challenges by owners who were bent on keeping them alive.

    Cr Porter said some of the challenges were succeeding.

    He said he expected to face intimidation from owners of dangerous dogs for calling on the Government to tidy up the laws.

    It has also been claimed:

    COUNCIL staff are regularly threatened by owners of banned breeds.

    EXPERT witnesses are too intimidated to testify on behalf of councils.

    POLICE escort rangers to every confiscation because of fears for the safety of staff.

    SOCIAL media has been used to menace council staff involved in confiscations.

    Cr Porter said councils had to meet too many criteria to defend its confiscation of animals at VCAT, leading to technicalities that could see potentially dangerous dogs released.

    “It’s very frustrating for our officers,” Cr Porter said.

    “I think any sensible person would agree that if it looks like pit bull and it barks like a pit bull, then it probably is one.”

    The State Government introduced legislation in September last year empowering councils to seize and destroy unregistered restricted breed dogs following the fatal mauling of four-year-old Ayen Chol at St Albans.

    The minister responsible for the legislation, Peter Walsh, said current laws clearly defined which dogs were illegal.

    “The Government’s tougher laws … have forced owners of dangerous dogs or restricted breed dogs to control these animals appropriately or face severe penalties, including hefty fines and jail terms up to 10 years,” Mr Walsh said.

    “The Department of Primary Industries has worked with councils to provide information on identification of restricted breed dogs and compliance with the new laws.

    “This has included providing a Standard for Restricted Breed Dogs in Victoria to help council officers accurately describe and declare restricted breed dogs.”

    Cr Porter said Hume City Council had spent $100,000 paying legal fees related to dog confiscations this year and housing the animals.

    Pit bull ordeal lingers

    CHRISTINA Moyle received 100 stitches and suffered disrupted sleep every night since she was attacked by what was thought to be a pit bull cross in September.

    Adding to the Sunbury woman’s dismay is the fact the dog that mauled her is still alive.

    Its owners are fighting through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to save the canine.

    Mrs Moyle and her husband, Wayne, were visiting friends who owned the dog when it pounced without warning.

    The animal locked on to her face, causing horrific injuries.

    “It has been terrible for me,” she said.

    Mrs Moyle has returned to work but has trouble sleeping and remains fearful of dogs.

    Mr Moyle said he could not believe the dog was not put down immediately after the incident.

    “If a dog bites someone, it has to be killed,” he said.

    Mr Moyle said the impact on his wife had been severe and she was now reluctant to go out socially.

    The owners of the dog had not been in touch since the attack, Mr Moyle said.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Pitbulls are responsible for over 65% of all fatal dog attacks and, of all hospitalizations requiring more than 8 days from dog attack, 100% are from pitbull attack…100% – Annals of Surgery, 2011, and CDC, Atlanta, GA.

    Just this week in Pennsylvania, there was a judgment awarding a pitbull attack victim and his mother who was injured trying to save her son over $500,000.00. These high dollar awards are occurring more often now that the truth of pitbull genetic tendencies and the refusal of pitbull owners to acknowledge those traits and restrain their pitbulls from attacking people and animals.

    If you own a pitbull, are you really willing to be fined over half a million dollars because your pitbull did what it was bred to do? Or, if you just “love the breed” so much, wouldn’t it be smarter to keep it double fenced, muzzled and short leashed off property, carry liability insurance in the event it does attack, and spay/neuter it to stop the hormone-surge that happens with unaltered dogs of either sex in mating heat?

    And, in the split second before the pitbull’s teeth grip onto a victim, the pitbull owner who socialized it, took it to obedience school, loved it, slept with it, and defended its breed, suddenly is “the bad pitbull owner” that all blame will be thrust upon by every pitbull owner everywhere and this status change happens every time a pitbull attacks to the stunned owner that never thought their nanny dog was capable of such horror.

    The reason pitbulls are banned in Ontario is because smart people didn’t put their hands over their eyes and wish pitbull attacks don’t happen; they actually looked at the statistics, the injuries, the medical expenses, the fatalities, and the lack of justification for endangering the public with these dogs and made a prudent decision to protect the public and gentle animals from living in fear of attack or suffering through the post-trauma effects of pitbull attack.

    The money pitbull advocates will spend to listen to a man who pushes false security on owners of a killer breed could be used instead to educate pitbull owners on ways to keep their pitbulls from having access to attack (fencing, muzzling, etc). If you don’t want to muzzle your dog, then get a non-fighting breed dog and you won’t have to.

    Lastly, to the ever present Pomeranian and chihuahua mauling quoters, if you have news links and victim pictures and proof to substantiate regulating these dogs, then I’ll support your cause too. But, I am the victim of pitbull attack and I am part of a large, growing group of pitbull attack victims who are done with taking it lying down.

    Barbara Kay echoes the sentiment that everyone who knows the gruesomeness and grief feels. Sometimes the grief is from loss of life of a person or a loved pet and sometimes the grief is for the loss of the beauty of a face or arms or legs.

  • Guest

    The TRUTH About Pit Bulls
    Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams, U.S. president 1797-1801
    8.04.2010

    The Nanny Dog Myth Revealed
    From 2004 to 2010 59 US children were killed by the family’s, babysitter’s, neighbor’s or friend’s pit bull.

    The pit bull apologia would have you believe that their fighting bred dogs are just like any other dog in many ways, but so superior in their unparalleled love and devotion for children they were commonly known as “The Nanny Dog” throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    If pit bulls are held in low esteem today, it is only due to ignorance and the gullible acceptance of biased news reporting because, once upon a time, pit bulls were the most beloved dog in England and the United States.

    A google search brings up 77,100 results for the term “nanny dog.” While some sites bestow the Nanny Dog mantle on the American Pit Bull Terrier or the American Staffordshire Terrier and some lead you to productions of Peter Pan, most of the results lead you to 21st century blogs and news articles about the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

    120 sites dedicated to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier include this phrase in support of the fighting nanny dog mythology,
    “These dogs were renowned for their courage and tenacity and despite their ferocity in the pit were excellent companions and good with children. In fact it was not unknown for an injured dog to be transported home in a pram with the baby!”

    Frankly, even if this anecdote were plausible, let alone true, this doesn’t support a nanny dog claim so much as it supports a sociopathic, baby abusing, dog abusing, parent claim.

    Dig as hard as you want, the pram story is all you’ll find to support the Nanny Dog myth in any of these sites. You won’t find a single citation, quote or reference of any kind to a 19th century, or early 20th century text. Since the Staffordshire Bull Terrier enthusiasts didn’t see fit to support their claims, I decided I would have to find the origin of the Nanny Dog myself.

    Meet the Nanny Dog – the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, England’s ultimate fighting dog and, inexplicably, the supposed dog of choice to care for England’s children in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

    It is not hard to find old references to the Bull Terrier. The various histories and descriptions of the breed largely agree with each other. After bull baiting was banned in England, Coalminers in various cities including Staffordshire were at a loss for blood sporting alternatives for their beloved, courageous bulldogs. So, they developed another blood sport – pit dog fighting. Sadly, they soon found their bulldogs were not suited to win in the pit.

    According to a 1908 New York Times article,
    “The old lovers of the bulldog found to their dismay that sometimes a terrier, with only quickness and a pair of punishing jaws to recommend him, would kill a bulldog while the latter was merely hanging on.

    The bulldog would be brave to the death of course, and would withstand pain that the terrier would never endure, but that was poor consolation when the terrier had killed the dog.
    The dog fighters were, however, as persevering a set of men as were the bull baiters, and they set to work to remodel their favorites for their new occupation.

    They began to cross their bulldogs with the white English terrier, a breed now practically extinct, but the same in every respect, save color, as the modern Manchester or black-and-tan. The progeny was named the bull terrier, the greatest fighting machine, pound for pound, on four legs. The bull terrier had the courage of the bulldog and the jaws and quickness of the white terrier.

    Moreover, he has the terrier’s way of fighting. He does not simply take a hold and stay there. He takes a hold and begins to eat his way through and tear and worry. If his first hold doesn’t suit, he takes another. If he gets his adversary by the throat, he will tear out the throat in a minute or so and end the battle.”

    “There is perhaps no more beautiful illustration of the results of artificial selection than is provided in the history of the bulldog. It is a wonderful example of patient and skillful breeding for an object that is not wholly ignoble.
    We can agree to disagree on that last point.

    It is a bit confounding that the New York Times author neglected to mention the Staffordshire dog fighter’s even more stupendous genetic achievement, that of creating an unstoppable “fighting machine” that can also be used to nanny their children.

    Nineteenth century dog breed books, such as The Illustrated Natural History (Mammalia), by Rev. JG Wood (1853), and The Dogs of the British Islands, by J.H. Walsh (1878) very precisely describe the deadly nature of the Bull Terrier, including an account of a Bull Terrier’s attack on a rhinoceros by a dog “called Venus in derision of her ugliness.”(Wood, p. 311) Walsh suggests that, “unlike the bulldog, he (the Bull Terrier) is an excellent companion for the male sex, being a little too violent in his quarrels to make him desirable as a ladies’ pet (p. 221).” Nanny Dog? Not so much.

    In 1894, Rawdon B. Lee wrote A History and Description of the Modern Dogs of Great Britain and Ireland in which he explains that in the middle of the 19th century, fanciers began to breed bull terriers as “a gentleman’s companion” and began showing them. It was about this time that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier began to be recognized as distinct from the Bull Terrier.

    The Kennel Club in England recognized the Bull Terrier in the last quarter of the 19th century, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier became the pit fighting dog of choice. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was denied Kennel Club recognition until 1935 because of its reputation as a pit fighting dog.

    Lee illustrates the Bull Terrier’s unsavory past by revealing that Bulls-eye, one of the meanest dogs in literary history and Bill Sykes’ sidekick and alter ego from Oliver Twist (1838) was a Bull Terrier. Dickens describes Bull’s-Eye as having a face “scratched and torn in twenty different places…” and…”who by a certain malicious licking of his lips seemed to be meditating an attack up on the legs of the first gentleman or lady he might encounter in the streets when he went out.”

    Charles Dickens also seemed unaware of the Bull Terrier’s special powers as a nanny, but was aware of the pit bull’s capacity for human aggression.

    Lee (p. 23) contends, “our modern Bull Terrier is a very different creature from what he was half a century ago.” According to Lee, they had been perhaps the most popular dog in England, until they were recently supplanted by the Fox Terrier.

    They were kept for pets and companions, they gained recognition in dog shows, and became fashionable to own among the undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge. If any pit fighting dog might have been called England’s Nanny Dog, surely it would have been the white Bull Terrier. And yet there is no mention of it.

    Mr. Lee is perhaps the first recorded pit nutter. He penned what might be the first known iteration of, “It’s how you raise them” (p.22, p. 26) which is hilariously followed by the woeful tale of the demise of Mr. Lee’s own beloved Bull Terrier, Sam.

    Sam was incredibly talented and an incomparable companion who, owing to fighting blood on his sire’s side, became increasingly aggressive. After killing at least two dogs, Sam was dumped at a warehouse to be a guard dog where he died of a broken heart.

    30 years later, Mr. Lee still laments the incredible and bloodthirsty Sam. But, I thought it was how you raise them…

    As for 19th century mentions of the “Staffordshire Bull Terrier” that can be found online, there is one. It is a want ad for a fighting dog:
    Pleshey Chelmsford Wanted a Staffordshire bull terrier dog must have an exceedingly long nose and thoroughly game to face anything and win A tried dog preferred PS For special purpose weight 34 lb 944 (1871 Exchange and Mart and Journal of the Household (p. 614))

    Archive searches of British, American and Canadian newspapers going as far back as the 18th century turn up not one single mention of “Nanny Dog” with regards to ANY breed until 1904 when the first stage production of Peter Pan opened featuring a nursemaid dog named Nana.

    Though J.M. Barrie patterned Nana after his Landseer Newfoundland, Nana has been portrayed by a St. Bernard, and an Old English Sheep Dog in subsequent stage and screen productions. No mention of Nana ever being a Staffie Bull. Not even in Never Never Land.

    So, where is the oldest known reference to the Staffie Bull as a nanny dog? In a New York Times article. In 1971, Walter R. Fletcher wrote an article entitled, “A Breed That Came Up the Hard Way” in which he interviewed William R. Daniels and Mrs. Lilian Rant, President and magazine editor for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America on the eve of the Staffie Bull’s being granted permission to be shown in the American Kennel Club’s miscellaneous class. It’s the first step to AKC recognition and the club wanted to polish their dog’s image.

    Daniels brings up Dickens’ villainous Bull’s-Eye again and Mrs. Rant acknowledges that the Stafford “had an unsavory reputation for fighting and violence and his name became associated with ruffians, who cared little for him as a dog but only for his ability in the pit.

    The Stafford we know today quickly becomes a member of the family circle. He loves children and is often referred to as a ‘nursemaid dog.'”

    Well, there it is. Mrs. Rant, lover and promoter of the Stafford, is clearly speaking in the present tense about the dog of today (1971) currently being referred to as a ‘nursemaid dog’ in the United States. She is using a variation of the argument that Mr. Lee used 77 years before about the Bull Terrier, suggesting that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier’s unsavory reputation as a fighting dog has been left in the far distant past.

    She harkens back to Dickens again, before the Staffordshire Bull Terrier even existed as a distinct breed. Her contention that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are OFTEN referred to as nursmaid dogs is a little bit of a stretch, too. In 1971, there were 99 registered Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the United States.

    As editor of the club’s magazine, she must have been at the center of all conversation about the breed. It is likely that she either coined the nickname or promulgated it through the magazine, and the term may have gained popularity among those few Stafford enthusiasts who subscribed to her magazine.

    A timeline search does not turn up a mention of the “nanny dog” until 1987 in an archived Toronto Star article entitled, Move to Outlaw Pit Bulls Under Study in Several Cities.

    “Breeder Kathy Thomas, president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Association said, ‘We’re aware of the fighting – there’s a lot of it in the Hamilton area. We only sell to family homes.'”

    “Thomas, mother of two young children, said her eight Staffordshires are ‘wonderful with children. In England, our Staffies were called the nanny-dog because they were gentle with kids.'”

    Here’s where the lie begins to get twisted into its most bizarre and current form and the Nanny Dog myth jumps on the crazy train. The Nanny Dog argument is no longer valid in the way that Mrs. Rant used it in 1971 when the general public was not aware of contemporary dog fighting.

    By the 1980s, dog fighting had become a generally recognized problem and initiatives to ban pit bulls were beginning. Kathy Thomas acknowledges that there is dog fighting going on all around her in 1987 near Toronto. She can no longer say that the Staffie was once, long ago, in Dickensian England a fighting dog, but has been transformed by many years of selective breeding to be a gentle nanny dog.

    The dogs are fighting all around her. So, the lie becomes that Staffordshire Bull Terriers were ALWAYS known as nanny dogs. They snuggled with the babies by day, ripped out throats and gutted each other by night and, returning from the fight, snuggled once again with the baby in the pram, this time ripped to shreds and soaked in blood.

    It took about 16 years for the story to mutate into the Nanny dog of England – historic fighter and lover of children. But, the myth did not really take off for another 4 years, when Mrs. Rant published her book in 1991, Staffordshire Bull Terriers: Owner’s Companion.

    She uses the term “nursemaid dog” three times and significantly says, ” He has a great affection for children, having earned the title ‘nursemaid dog’ many years ago.” (p.117) In this instance, “many years ago” means about 20 years previous, when she first coined or adopted the term.

    And how about the history of the term “America’s Nanny Dog” referring to the American Pit Bull Terrier or the American Staffordshire Terrier? 5,570 results come up for that query. Again, you cannot find one single citation, source or reference to a text from the 1940s that confirms this assertion.

    A google timeline search for “America’s Nanny Dog” shows the earliest online publication date is September 25, 2007 as an opinion piece in the online publication, Times-Standard entitled “America’s Nanny Dog” by Tyla Hafstrom. It is a complete fabrication and an utter lie.

    Go ahead and prove me wrong, not with a single primary source, but with a preponderance of evidence that demonstrates the incredible existence of the baby loving fighting dog that was so beloved and so popular in times gone by that it was commonly called the nanny dog.

  • Guest

    The Province, Vancouver B.C.
    Barbara Kay: Pit-bull owners are right. They are the problem
    October 24, 2012

    This Saturday in Tucson, Arizona, Pit Bull Awareness Day will commemorate the victims of dangerous dog attacks. It will be a heartfelt, but modest affair. Those sympathetic to the (mostly) children and elderly who have been mauled, maimed and killed by fighting dogs are not as well-funded or obsessive as those infatuated with the breed responsible for these tragedies.

    The pit bull advocacy movement (PBAM) never sleeps in its campaign to portray pit bulls and their close genetic kin as normal dogs unjustly maligned through media bias. In challenging breed bans, their spokespeople are well-versed in the discourse of civil and human rights (“racism,” “discrimination,” “profiling,” “genocide”). The result is widespread acceptance of the seductive dogma of “multicaninism”: There are no intrinsically dangerous breeds, just “bad owners.”

    Even brilliant thinkers are susceptible to this specious category crossover. Malcolm Gladwell’s pit bull defence in The New Yorker, later incorporated into his book, What the Dog Saw, argued that profiling dogs indirectly sanctions racial profiling. But to conflate line-bred dogs — the epitome of the eugenically constructed stereotype — with naturally evolved humans is intellectually untenable and insulting to African-Americans.

    Major dog-industry stakeholders — breeder associations, veterinarians’ associations and humane societies — all toe the multicaninist line, even though they know, and often privately acknowledge, that it is pit bull genetics — their inbred high prey instinct and impulsive aggression — rather than “bad owners” that account for a huge number of pit-bull euthanasias a year in North American shelters. A litany of “good owners” and their children, mauled or killed by their “loving” pit bulls, quashes the multicaninist mantra.

    Nevertheless, multicaninism is the prevailing wind in dog-policy sails. Edmonton’s councillors just voted to repeal their 25-year ban on pit bulls. And a private-member’s bill to repeal Ontario’s 2005 ban gathered bipartisan momentum before the House was prorogued last week.

    In his newly-published memoir, 28 Seconds, former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant says he enacted his province’s controversial 2005 pit-bull ban on principle: He was confident it would pay off in improved public safety and dramatically fewer dog euthanasias (it did, as all such bans do).

    The ban was international news. Bryant was vilified, threatened with violence and compared to Hitler on Facebook. (I sympathize; I also field Nazi tropes when I write about pit bulls.) Bryant writes: “The decision actually changed my political life. For years afterwards . . . the average person knew me as the guy who banned pit bulls.”

    What buoyed his spirits was grass-roots support. A poll reported the pit-bull ban was the most popular public event in Canada since Newfoundland premier Brian Tobin’s public spat with foreign fishing trawlers.

    It seems that when consulted, ordinary people would rather “offend” pit bulls than expose their children and pets to heightened risk. For example, Miami-Dade County recently endured a relentless PBAM onslaught in a referendum bid to repeal its 23-year-old pit-bull ban.

    The pro-ban population did little politicking. But PBAM spent a fortune on publicity, marshalling support from celebrity athletes and wooing compliant local media. It was quite a shock to them when their noisy repeal campaign was shot down in flames 63 to 37 per cent.

    According to longtime Animal People editor Merritt Clifton, pit bulls and Rottweilers are 11 times more likely to attack another animal or human than the average dog. Pit bulls have represented half the total actuarial risk for injury since 1982.
    Add in Rottweilers, he says, and it is 75 per cent of total actuarial risk.

    Since 1851, Clifton notes, in any given 10-year period, pit bulls alone have accounted for more than half of all fatal dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada, even though for most of that time they represented less than one per cent of the dog population. They are about three per cent today.

    The “domestic dog” is a species. But all dog breeds are artificial constructs. Since they were invented 200 years ago, pit bulls have never been bred for anything but blood “sport,” including hunting and savaging slaves. Their sole raison d’être is causing animal and human suffering. And therefore, those who are drawn to pit bulls above all other 400-plus breeds — apart from those naive souls who have been duped, and plenty have — are morally bound to interrogate their motivation in fetishizing this canine anomaly.

    It follows that those politicians charged with protecting the public, who see the numbers rising in pit-bull ownership with a concomitant rise in animal and human suffering, are morally bound to ignore anecdotal sentimentality and trickle-down political correctness alike in the creation of responsible dog laws.

    Barbara Kay is a columnist with the National Post.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Ban Pit Bulls: More Laws Needed: Already Banned in England- When will US Policy Catch Up? More enlightened countries such as England have already acted against cultural trends that led to widespread private ownership of pit bulls, a phenomenon we now have entrenched in the US.

    The Dangerous Dogs Act has been law in the UK since 1991! The law was introduced in response to numerous high profile incidents of serious injury or death resulting from attacks by aggressive and uncontrolled dogs, usually on children.

    These incidents received heavy media attention, which resulted in widespread public outrage over the keeping of dangerous dogs such as Pit bulls and led to the legislative response through passage of the Act banning them. Several breeds in particular were identified by the Act including those dogs identified as Pit Bull Terriers.

    It is illegal to own any of these dogs in England and the UK including Pit Bulls without specific exemption from a court of law. The dogs that are privately held are required to be muzzled and kept on a leash in public, they must be registered and insured, neutered and receive microchip implants.

    The Act also bans the breeding and exchange of pit bulls. The numbers of dog attacks and serious incidents has dropped dramatically all across the UK.

    If only the US had such laws we could save countless lives of children! I also note that not one of the hundreds of emails we received defending Pit Bulls mentions the fact that a country of 60 Million people voted to ban these dogs, nor do they bother to regard this as at all relevant.

    Such a ban is inconvenient evidence to their “defenses” of these dogs to say the least. You Disagree with the UK ban? Do you have any facts, studies, arguments about the ban and its results? Let’s hear them. Ban Pit Bulls!

    In Belfast Ireland they are executing Pit Bills and their cross breeds literally on site before they are all to do any damage, Tens of thousands of communities in North America have banned them, i guess that is just happen stance for the poor misunderstood Monsters, execution is the solution to the Cancer that they all are on this earth.

    The only Good Pit Bull is a DEAD one, like the tan colored one who was drowned in Powell River, who ever did that should get a medal. !!!

  • Thomas McCartney

    The Pit Nutters exposed credo:

    Media manipulation is their watchword, their attempts to give their mutants a make over can not hide the evil in their eyes nor the moral stench that exudes from their being, pit bulls are one of satan’s more natural creations, a set of horns and pitchfork would have been a far more appropriate visual reality presentation then the cute pitty poo farcical misrepresentations they present to the public.

  • Thomas McCartney

    God Bless you Barbara Kay!! :)

    Barbara Kay on Ontario’s Pit Bull ban: Pit Bulls are bred to maul — UPDATED

    Barbara Kay | Aug 1, 2012 | Last Updated: Aug 1, 2012

    Pat McGrath / PostmediaPit bull ‘Tia.’ Despite evidence that Pit Bulls pose a greater danger to humans than the average breed, Pit Bull supporters look to remove the ban on the breed in Ontario.

    A July 29 article in the Toronto Star, entitled “Ontario’s pit bull ban: The pit bull underground railroad,” compels my brisk re-entry into the debate over dangerous-dog legislation.

    The offensive Star title alone cries out for condemnation, implying as it does that rescuing dogs is morally comparable to rescuing human slaves.

    The article reports on a litter of seven illegally-bred “pirate puppies” by a mixed-breed bitch in Ontario. A pit bull (PB) activist “spirited” them to Halifax (home to several recent PB attacks). The activist’s greater purpose was to promote Bill 16 — a private members bill in its third incarnation — that would end Ontario’s PB ban.

    The article was dense with sentimentality (the innocent puppies “hadn’t done anything wrong”). It relied uncritically on PB scofflaws and apologists without balance from disinterested researchers. And it failed to challenge the puppy rescuer’s fallacious credo: “It’s the deed, not the breed.”

    Fact: When it comes to dog bites, it very often is the breed. Each year, about one PB in 100,000 kills someone, compared with one non-PB in about 10 million.

    About one adopted PB in 30,000 kills or disfigures someone after passing behavioral screening. (Other dangerous breeds, like Rottweilers and Huskies do plenty of damage too; more on them another time).

    For a preview of Ontario if it lifts the PB ban, harken to the experience of internationally acclaimed animal behaviourist Alexandra Semyonova, author of The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs (published in 2009).

    Semyonova worked for years at a humane shelter in the Netherlands. During their ban years, they took in four or five PBs annually (mostly collateral catch from drug raids).

    In 2008, the year of the ban lift, there were 180 PBs awaiting execution; all had hurt someone. Today, various dog shelters there are going bankrupt, because they can’t handle the tsunami of dumped PBs.

    PB advocates are passionate and verbally aggressive. When Semyonova spoke publicly about the inherent dangers of PBs, she was smeared through a methodical intimidation campaign so virulent that the Dutch Ministry of Justice acknowledged it as a pattern clearly constituting organized crime.

    “If you speak out about pit bulls, you are on your own,” Semyonova writes. She notes that confiscated PBs were never sent to their home-town shelters “in order to prevent the violent, histrionic break-in rescues that the pit bull lobby sometimes organized.”

    Her findings are borne out in the U.S. and Canada. According to Merritt Clifton, for decades a statistics-driven investigative reporter in this field, PBs accounted for 930,000 shelter killings in 2011, 60% of the U.S. total, even though they represent 3.3% of the dog population.

    PBs also account for 51% of dogs impounded for attacking other animals. Each year, from 33% to 45% of the total U.S. PB population enters an animal shelter, “a phenomenon never seen with any other dog breed.” Clifton says there are few accidental PB births, “because nothing resembling a pit bull occurs in nature.”

    In their unconditional love for PBs — there are apparently more PB advocacy organizations than for all other specific breeds combined — denialists all quote each other’s baseless statements in an endless loop, and parrot the same Manchurian-candidates mantras: “My PB may lick you to death”; “all dogs bite”; “It’s the owner, not the breed”; “the pit bull was the most popular family pet in America.”

    These are all myths. Dog-sales statistics show that PBs were never that popular in America; and they were never bred for anything but fighting. All dogs bite, but few do serious damage on a statistically consistent basis.

    Some PBs may lick you; others may maul you. Nobody can predict their behaviour — not even celebrated dog whisperer César Milan, as a recent YouTubed episode rather horrifyingly demonstrated.

    The fact is, even responsible owners cannot prevent PB attacks. Most killer PBs were raised in loving homes and seemed sweet — until they attacked. Semyonova says, “There is no temperament test or behaviour test that can predict or assure that a pit bull won’t suddenly do what it was bred to do.

    ” PB “impulsive aggression” is a genetically carried trait and strongly heritable. By seven months, those cuddly pups usually start attacking other animals without provocation. Small children are at particular risk for harm because they are easy prey.

    Yes, abused, starved, endlessly-chained or desperately cornered dogs of other breeds will fight, but not to the death like PBs. Once PBs attack (without warning, unlike other breeds), with their characteristic grab-and-shake death lock, they are so pain-insensitive they are almost impossible to dislodge.

    But the off-the-charts actuarial stats on PB harm are no match for the PB propaganda machine — of which the Toronto Star now has declared itself a part.

    So naïve people keep buying them. Then they find they can’t manage them. Typically, according to Clifton, they arrive in shelters at about 18 months, and unlike other dogs, have been through three homes: their birth home, the home they were sold to, and a third rehabilitation-attempt home that gave up on them.

    Since 1982, PBs and close mixes account for: 45% of all U.S. and Canadian human dog-attack fatalities, a total of 207; 51% of all dog-attack disfigurements of children, 850; and 66% of all dog-attack disfigurements of adults, more than 700.

    According to Clifton, media databases show that there has never been a time when PBs did not account for more than half of all fatal dog attacks over any given 10-year interval, even though PBs (by all their alias names) never amounted to even 1% of dogs in the U.S. and Canada until 30 years ago.

    Bans work. In 1989, Denver passed the strongest and oldest PB ban still in effect. The result is that Denver is one of few major U.S. cities that hasn’t had a dog-attack fatality in 20 years. Ontario adopted its law prohibiting PB possession in 2005 (with a provision grandfathering responsibly owned dogs).

    Ontario shelters now kill fewer PBs serving a population of 13 million people than does Detroit, with no ban, and a human population of 1.2 million. Lift the ban and Ontario will enable tragic, preventable human and animal carnage, while condemning thousands of dumped dogs to death every year.

    What is particularly disheartening about the “canine correctness” one constantly encounters in this debate is that so many influential people and organizations — including some veterinarians, kennel clubs and the SPCA — lend their credibility to the claim that no breed may be said to be more dangerous than any other.

    One e-mail denialist triumphantly held up a petition attesting to PBs’ good character signed by 4,000 veterinarians as proof of their worthiness. I replied that veterinarians cannot always be counted on to be disinterested observers; they have to be on good terms with all their clients and cannot afford to offend the PB lobby.

    Send me a petition from 4,000 emergency-room doctors insisting PBs are no more dangerous than any other breed, I wrote her, and I will reconsider my opinion.

    Still waiting.

    National Post
    bkay@videotron.ca

    On Wednesday morning, the National Post received this letter to the editor. At the writer’s request, we are withholding their name for the reason stated below.

    I am a regular reader of the National Post and Barbara Kay’s articles. Please withhold my personal information, as my workplace (a hospital) is a bit Orwellian and communicating with the media is frowned upon, and even punishable.

    The article today on pit bulls is absolutely 100% correct, and your invoking the opinion of emergency physicians’ opinions on the matter is also correct. I am such an emergency physician, having practiced full-time in ERs of eastern Toronto for some 17 years.

    I have seen many many dog bites over the course of 5-6 weekly ER shifts during the time. I have seen no deaths. I have seen 3 very severe maulings, and all were committed by pit bulls. One was a man mauled by a pit bull on the loose at 4 AM, and his face resembled hamburger. Another was a 9-year-old immigrant child whose family was (incredibly) given a pit bull by the Humane Society as a family pet; her shredded legs needed hours of surgery. All the other dog bite injuries I have seen have paled in comparison to those from pit bulls, though to be fair I have not seen a lot of injuries from huskies. And, yes, I ask every patient with a dog bite about the breed that bit them. And, yes, I remember very well all the bad ones. As well, I do not recall any pit bull bite that was in any way minor or incidental, for example from a bit of confusion over a chew toy or that sort of thing where there is a little nip.

    You may get a letter from some misguided or misinformed or wilfully disagreeable (for whatever reason) ER doc saying pit bulls aren’t so bad at all. I’m writing to you now to support your article, and allow you to disagree with any ridiculous support for pit bulls coming from such an ER physician.

  • Thomas McCartney

    The Province, Vancouver B.C.
    Barbara Kay: Pit-bull owners are right. They are the problem
    October 24, 2012

    This Saturday in Tucson, Arizona, Pit Bull Awareness Day will commemorate the victims of dangerous dog attacks. It will be a heartfelt, but modest affair. Those sympathetic to the (mostly) children and elderly who have been mauled, maimed and killed by fighting dogs are not as well-funded or obsessive as those infatuated with the breed responsible for these tragedies.

    The pit bull advocacy movement (PBAM) never sleeps in its campaign to portray pit bulls and their close genetic kin as normal dogs unjustly maligned through media bias. In challenging breed bans, their spokespeople are well-versed in the discourse of civil and human rights (“racism,” “discrimination,” “profiling,” “genocide”). The result is widespread acceptance of the seductive dogma of “multicaninism”: There are no intrinsically dangerous breeds, just “bad owners.”

    Even brilliant thinkers are susceptible to this specious category crossover. Malcolm Gladwell’s pit bull defence in The New Yorker, later incorporated into his book, What the Dog Saw, argued that profiling dogs indirectly sanctions racial profiling. But to conflate line-bred dogs — the epitome of the eugenically constructed stereotype — with naturally evolved humans is intellectually untenable and insulting to African-Americans.

    Major dog-industry stakeholders — breeder associations, veterinarians’ associations and humane societies — all toe the multicaninist line, even though they know, and often privately acknowledge, that it is pit bull genetics — their inbred high prey instinct and impulsive aggression — rather than “bad owners” that account for a huge number of pit-bull euthanasias a year in North American shelters. A litany of “good owners” and their children, mauled or killed by their “loving” pit bulls, quashes the multicaninist mantra.

    Nevertheless, multicaninism is the prevailing wind in dog-policy sails. Edmonton’s councillors just voted to repeal their 25-year ban on pit bulls. And a private-member’s bill to repeal Ontario’s 2005 ban gathered bipartisan momentum before the House was prorogued last week.

    In his newly-published memoir, 28 Seconds, former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant says he enacted his province’s controversial 2005 pit-bull ban on principle: He was confident it would pay off in improved public safety and dramatically fewer dog euthanasias (it did, as all such bans do).

    The ban was international news. Bryant was vilified, threatened with violence and compared to Hitler on Facebook. (I sympathize; I also field Nazi tropes when I write about pit bulls.) Bryant writes: “The decision actually changed my political life. For years afterwards . . . the average person knew me as the guy who banned pit bulls.”

    What buoyed his spirits was grass-roots support. A poll reported the pit-bull ban was the most popular public event in Canada since Newfoundland premier Brian Tobin’s public spat with foreign fishing trawlers.

    It seems that when consulted, ordinary people would rather “offend” pit bulls than expose their children and pets to heightened risk. For example, Miami-Dade County recently endured a relentless PBAM onslaught in a referendum bid to repeal its 23-year-old pit-bull ban.

    The pro-ban population did little politicking. But PBAM spent a fortune on publicity, marshalling support from celebrity athletes and wooing compliant local media. It was quite a shock to them when their noisy repeal campaign was shot down in flames 63 to 37 per cent.

    According to longtime Animal People editor Merritt Clifton, pit bulls and Rottweilers are 11 times more likely to attack another animal or human than the average dog. Pit bulls have represented half the total actuarial risk for injury since 1982.
    Add in Rottweilers, he says, and it is 75 per cent of total actuarial risk.

    Since 1851, Clifton notes, in any given 10-year period, pit bulls alone have accounted for more than half of all fatal dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada, even though for most of that time they represented less than one per cent of the dog population. They are about three per cent today.

    The “domestic dog” is a species. But all dog breeds are artificial constructs. Since they were invented 200 years ago, pit bulls have never been bred for anything but blood “sport,” including hunting and savaging slaves. Their sole raison d’être is causing animal and human suffering. And therefore, those who are drawn to pit bulls above all other 400-plus breeds — apart from those naive souls who have been duped, and plenty have — are morally bound to interrogate their motivation in fetishizing this canine anomaly.

    It follows that those politicians charged with protecting the public, who see the numbers rising in pit-bull ownership with a concomitant rise in animal and human suffering, are morally bound to ignore anecdotal sentimentality and trickle-down political correctness alike in the creation of responsible dog laws.

    Barbara Kay is a columnist with the National Post.

  • Thomas McCartney

    In an article dated 03/02/2012.
    SPCA executive director Bob Kerridge last week said pit bulls are the exception to the rule that dogs are not born bad.
    “The pit bull is the exception to the way we talk about dogs. No dogs are born bad, except pit bulls – owners make them bad,” he said.
    Kerridge was responding to a spate of dog attacks.
    Six children have been attacked by dogs in the last month – at least three by pit bulls or pit bull crosses.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Pit bull attacks on children lead to renewed calls for B.C. ban
    Recent attacks took place in White Rock and Kelowna.

    BY ZOE MCKNIGHT, VANCOUVER SUN AUGUST 30, 2012.

    Emma-Leigh Cranford, 4, nearly had her throat ripped out in White Rock by a dog belonging to a friend of the family, a responsible dog owner.

    METRO VANCOUVER — Recent and vicious pit bull attacks on children have renewed calls for a pit bull ban in the province.

    In a recent attack in White Rock, Elizabeth Cranford watched in horror as her four-year-old daughter Emma-Leigh nearly had her throat ripped out by a dog belonging to a friend of the family, a responsible dog owner.

    “I used to think it was the owner, but now I don’t. I think it’s the breed. I think there’s something in them, the way they were bred, they can just snap,” said Cranford, who wants to see a local or provincial ban.

    Her daughter survived with 40 stitches across her jaw, but not before a two-hour surgery at B.C. Children’s Hospital.

    Last Thursday, Cranford and her daughter had been at a family barbecue no more than 15 minutes when the two-year-old pit bull lunged for Emma-Leigh’s throat.

    “I heard a growl and the next thing I knew the dog was attacking my daughter. It went right for her neck,” she said. Her brother pulled the dog away from the child and it was later euthanized, according to a statement from the White Rock mayor’s office.

    Days later, local media reported a three-year-old Kelowna boy received 32 stitches in his face after he reached down to pet a pit bull. And a Calgary woman appeared in court Wednesday on aggravated assault charges after allegedly ordering her two pit bulls to attack another woman, who remains in intensive care with life-threatening injuries to her arms and face.

    White Rock city councillor Alan Campbell said he personally supports a municipal ban, calling the attack “a very unfortunate occurrence.”.

    He said he would bring up the possibility of a ban when White Rock council reconvenes Sept. 17.

    A statement from the office of mayor Wayne Baldwin said that tightened-up animal bylaws were to thank for dealing with the dangerous animal, but did not mention a ban.

    The BCSPCA said a pit bull ban wouldn’t work, and different steps should be taken to protect public safety.

    “We can certainly understand people wanting to take action. Especially when something this tragic happens, it’s so frightening,” said Lorie Chortyk, BCSPCA general manager.

    “We think [breed bans] give people a false sense of security. And we think municipalities need to address the root cause of the issue and take steps that are really going to protect families,” like breeding regulations, spay-neuter bylaw enforcement, breeder licensing and education or mandatory training for certain breeds.

    People who breed dogs to be aggressive will simply switch over to other breeds like German Shepherds or Dobermans if pit bulls are banned, she said.

    “In every breed, there are fabulous, gentle animals and then there are some that are going to be problems, and that’s true of pit bulls as well… the reality is they do have very strong jaws and they can do more harm.”.

    She said chihuahuas, terriers and Golden Retrievers are more likely to bite, but pit bulls can do far more harm.

    In Ontario, where pit bulls have been banned since 2005, it’s illegal to breed or otherwise bring them into the province even for a short visit. Pit bulls born before 2005 must have their dogs sterilized, muzzled and kept on leashes.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Myth: Pit Bulls have been called the Nanny Dog

    Truth: This myth was started by statements made by two people. Mrs. Lilian Rant, President, Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America, magazine editor said they are referred to as a nursemaid dog in an interview published in the New York Times in 1971.

    Second in 1987 Toronto Star article where Breeder Kathy Thomas, president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Association said “In England, our Staffies were called the nanny-dog”.

    No sources, citations or evidence just two biased people heavily invested in trying to change the image of Pit Bulls made these statements and started this whole myth.

  • Thomas McCartney

    Pit bulls are working dogs and the work they do is fighting,we dont need them or the kind of people living near us.

    Pit Bull type dogs kill, maim and seriously injure more people each year than all other type dogs combined. This means that one type dog that makes up less than 5% of the dog population kills more than 60% of all people who die in dog attack related fatalities.

    Pit Bull type dogs are notorious for actions unique to these type dogs.

    Pit Bulls turn on and attack their owners 6 times more often than other dogs.

    Pit Bulls escape containment 14 times more often than other dogs.

    A persons relative risk of death in a Pit Bull attack is 2500 times higher than a persons relative risk of death in a Lab attack.

    Pit bulls kill one person every 2 to 3 weeks in the US alone.

    Pit Bulls dismember a body part on average once every 5.4 days in the US.

    Pit Bulls once they start an attack will not stop even when subjected to intense pain in many cases.

    Pit Bull type dogs attack in the manner of many wild animals in that they grab, hold and shake the victim to do even more damage similar to the way large cats, sharks and other predators do.

    There have been several studies done over several decades and while the opinions of the authors may differ the numbers are generally consistent in proving that Pit Bulls kill more than all other type dogs.

    Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x1433774971/DENI-GOLDMAN-Dog-discrimination-breeds-ignorance#ixzz2K63YRMaf

  • Guest

    No matter what you identify them as or what you choose to call them if any dog has pit bull genetics in it then the outcome of said genetics are always the same, death, maulings, crippled and disfigured victims when their DNA is expressed into reality which it invariably will be the case. No matter what you identify them as or what you choose to call them if any dog has pit bull genetics in it then the outcome of said genetics are always the same, death, maulings, crippled and disfigured victims when their DNA is expressed into reality which it invariably will be the case. No matter what you identify them as or what you choose to call them if any dog has pit bull genetics in it then the outcome of said genetics are always the same, death, maulings, crippled and disfigured victims when their DNA is expressed into reality which it invariably will be the case.

    So you can call them something else to protect them but they are still pit mixes who are what they are and do what they do, who as a result have no right to ever come into human contact.

    Pitbull or Pitbull cross, same difference same outcome same reality as to what they are.

    And all Pitbulls or restricted dogs including pitbull crosses by law must have leashes and Muzzles which they never have and all to often you seem them running around as such unmuzzled, this is an even greater problem then them being unleashed and that is bad enough.

    Certain breeds like Pitbulls etc.are fundamentally evil in nature and action and do not deserve the freedom of action to carry out their DNA.

    The point is, other dogs bite, Pittbulls and Pitbull crosses and others like mastiffs, Rotts etc. attack and kill and maim, that is the big difference in the outcome and should result in a completely different attitude towards these dogs and why they should be banned outright. The stats are very clear and accurate and show this reality even if you want to put your head in the sand, it still is what it is.

    So you can call them something else to protect them but they are still pit mixes who are what they are and do what they do, who as a result have no right to ever come into human contact.

    Pitbull or Pitbull cross, same difference same outcome same reality as to what they are.

    And all Pitbulls or restricted dogs including pitbull crosses by law must have leashes and Muzzles which they never have and all to often you seem them running around as such unmuzzled, this is an even greater problem then them being unleashed and that is bad enough.

    Certain breeds like Pitbulls etc.are fundamentally evil in nature and action and do not deserve the freedom of action to carry out their DNA.

    The point is, other dogs bite, Pittbulls and Pitbull crosses and others like mastiffs, Rotts etc. attack and kill and maim, that is the big difference in the outcome and should result in a completely different attitude towards these dogs and why they should be banned outright. The stats are very clear and accurate and show this reality even if you want to put your head in the sand, it still is what it is.

    So you can call them something else to protect them but they are still pit mixes who are what they are and do what they do, who as a result have no right to ever come into human contact. No matter what you identify them as or what you choose to call them if any dog has pit bull genetics in it then the outcome of said genetics are always the same, death, maulings, crippled and disfigured victims when their DNA is expressed into reality which it invariably will be the case.

    So you can call them something else to protect them but they are still pit mixes who are what they are and do what they do, who as a result have no right to ever come into human contact.

    Pitbull or Pitbull cross, same difference same outcome same reality as to what they are.

    And all Pitbulls or restricted dogs including pitbull crosses by law must have leashes and Muzzles which they never have and all to often you seem them running around as such unmuzzled, this is an even greater problem then them being unleashed and that is bad enough.

    Certain breeds like Pitbulls etc.are fundamentally evil in nature and action and do not deserve the freedom of action to carry out their DNA.

    The point is, other dogs bite, Pittbulls and Pitbull crosses and others like mastiffs, Rotts etc. attack and kill and maim, that is the big difference in the outcome and should result in a completely different attitude towards these dogs and why they should be banned outright. The stats are very clear and accurate and show this reality even if you want to put your head in the sand, it still is what it is.

    Pitbull or Pitbull cross, same difference same outcome same reality as to what they are. No matter what you identify them as or what you choose to call them if any dog has pit bull genetics in it then the outcome of said genetics are always the same, death, maulings, crippled and disfigured victims when their DNA is expressed into reality which it invariably will be the case.

    So you can call them something else to protect them but they are still pit mixes who are what they are and do what they do, who as a result have no right to ever come into human contact.

    Pitbull or Pitbull cross, same difference same outcome same reality as to what they are.

    And all Pitbulls or restricted dogs including pitbull crosses by law must have leashes and Muzzles which they never have and all to often you seem them running around as such unmuzzled, this is an even greater problem then them being unleashed and that is bad enough.

    Certain breeds like Pitbulls etc.are fundamentally evil in nature and action and do not deserve the freedom of action to carry out their DNA.

    The point is, other dogs bite, Pittbulls and Pitbull crosses and others like mastiffs, Rotts etc. attack and kill and maim, that is the big difference in the outcome and should result in a completely different attitude towards these dogs and why they should be banned outright. The stats are very clear and accurate and show this reality even if you want to put your head in the sand, it still is what it is.

    And all Pitbulls or restricted dogs including pitbull crosses by law must have leashes and Muzzles which they never have and all to often you seem them running around as such unmuzzled, this is an even greater problem then them being unleashed and that is bad enough.

    Certain breeds like Pitbulls etc.are fundamentally evil in nature and action and do not deserve the freedom of action to carry out their DNA.

    The point is, other dogs bite, Pittbulls and Pitbull crosses and others like mastiffs, Rotts etc. attack and kill and maim, that is the big difference in the outcome and should result in a completely different attitude towards these dogs and why they should be banned outright. The stats are very clear and accurate and show this reality even if you want to put your head in the sand, it still is what it is.

  • Thomas McCartney

    No matter what you identify them as or what you choose to call them if any dog has pit bull genetics in it then the outcome of said genetics are always the same, death, maulings, crippled and disfigured victims when their DNA is expressed into reality which it invariably will be the case.

    So you can call them something else to protect them but they are still pit mixes who are what they are and do what they do, who as a result have no right to ever come into human contact.

    Pitbull or Pitbull cross, same difference same outcome same reality as to what they are.

    And all Pitbulls or restricted dogs including pitbull crosses by law must have leashes and Muzzles which they never have and all to often you seem them running around as such unmuzzled, this is an even greater problem then them being unleashed and that is bad enough.

    Certain breeds like Pitbulls etc.are fundamentally evil in nature and action and do not deserve the freedom of action to carry out their DNA.

    The point is, other dogs bite, Pittbulls and Pitbull crosses and others like mastiffs, Rotts etc. attack and kill and maim, that is the big difference in the outcome and should result in a completely different attitude towards these dogs and why they should be banned outright. The stats are very clear and accurate and show this reality even if you want to put your head in the sand, it still is what it is.