Nancy Grace has gone too far
- Thread starter adoptashelterpettoday
- Start date
No argument here on what they have earned, but once they have been trained to kill, they cannot be untrained. They are said to be unpredictable. This is the same argument being used against the pit. Because they were originally bred to fight, they cannot be trusted, nevermind the fact that MOST reputable breeders have long since stopped this practice. The thing that has not been bred out is the animal aggressiveness. But it CAN be controlled with work. The problem, as I've seen it here, is with the humans who either don't want to control (makes em better guard dogs...NOT, but they are too dumb or lazy to know the difference) or who aren't willing to put in the work and time necessary to control the aggressiveness.
Exactly, the problem is irresponsible owners. These people don't obey the law already so what makes you think they'll start obeying now that you've put another ban on them? The only people who will really be deterred are the people who could handle a pit.
The problem is so many people get pits for the wrong reasons, don't know how to care for them (or any dog for that matter) and this is what causes bites and attacks. I think we should encourage the responsible pit breeders and owners. By banning a breed, I can see no good coming from it.
Like I said, there's no profit in it. They come if there is a complaint. Most cities have a dog warden. Usually One. What would happen with a Panic Law, and that is exactly what that kind of law is: People would turn in every pit bull they see in the first month. The Pit Bull Squad, will come and round them all up. THe fines will be hefty and pay for the temporary squad to do the initial work. I am being tongue in cheek here only to a degree. Panic laws always smack of the KGB.
Pit bulls only as dangerous as their owners, ASPCA tells city
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emporia,KS -- A Web-based seminar on dangerous dogs had a simple message for Emporia city commissioners: Blame the owners, not the breeds.
"There is no data to support the idea that a particular breed of dog is vicious," said Debora Bresch, legislative liaison for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which held the seminar Monday afternoon. "It's the owner's behavior that needs to be addressed."
The city commission is set to look at its "vicious dog" ordinance on Nov. 22 at the request of Emporia resident Tricia Segobia. Recently, a Siberian husky-pit bull mix killed a dog Segobia had given to a friend, then killed a neighbor's dog after the mix was released from the animal shelter. The mixed-breed was not considered "vicious" under Emporia law because it had not harmed or killed a human.
Segobia has asked for Emporia to better enforce its animal-control laws and to tighten the laws it has. Among other things, she wants a dog to be considered "vicious" if it has attacked or killed a pet and she has asked that the city require owners of "notorious breeds" to register their dogs and insure them.
At the seminar, however, Bresch and ASPCA attorney Ledy VanKavage said that breed-specific legislation tends to be ineffective. One of the most sweeping examples, a nationwide ban of pit bulls that Britain adopted in 1991, had no impact on the number of dog bites in the country, a study found. And this year, a circuit court found a breed ban to be unconstitutional in Toledo vs. Tellings, which said a ban violated equal protection and due process rights since there was no reason to declare the American pit bull terrier to be inherently dangerous.
Requiring owners to insure dogs such as a doberman or a rottweiler tends to be tantamount to a ban, the two ASPCA representatives said, since few companies will insure them -- even though, they said, dog bites cost an insurance company far less than floods or fires and occur less frequently. Between 12 and 24 people die each year from dog bites, VanKavage said.
"More people are killed by lightning each year," she said. But the media quickly picks up on pit bull attacks, she noted, even when other, more severe dog attacks occur. On June 9, she said, 41 publications covered a girl who was seriously, but not critically, injured by two pit bulls. On the same day, a boy who needed 300 stitches after being mauled by a Labrador retriever-mix drew coverage from only two papers.
"In the '70s, it was the doberman," VanKavage said. "In the '80s, it was the German shepherd. In the '90s it was the rottweiler and now it's the pit bull. But getting rid of the breed doesn't get rid of the problem."
So if it's not any one breed, what makes a dog likely to attack? The two women listed three main factors.
• 90 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not spayed or neutered.
• 81 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not maintained as a pet, but were instead isolated from the family and regular human contact.
• 61 percent of those attacks came from animals that were not humanely controlled, or had in some way been abused or neglected.
Given those conditions, they said, communities have taken a number of different approaches. Some have partially subsidized the cost of neutering a pet for those unable to afford it. In Delaware, for example, the cost has been brought down to $10 to $20, paid for in part by a $3 surcharge on rabies shots. In addition, veteranarians are offered a $50 tax credit for each combined vaccination and sterilization they do.
It doesn't take long to recoup those costs, Bresch said.
"In New Hampshire, they saved $3.15 in impoundment costs for every dollar spent on low-income pet owners needing assistance," she said.
Other avenues to pursue, they said, include an anti-tethering or chaining law, since animals tied up for long periods of time tend to become antisocial; mandatory microchipping of pets, so that loose dogs can quickly be recovered; offering responsible pet owner and bite prevention training; and adopting a "tiered" system of punishment for owners of dangerous dogs.
As an example of the last, Bresch and VanKavage described an Oregon community which started with relatively minor penalties for an animal at large that displayed menacing behavior up to possible euthanasia for an animal that bites a person or kills a pet or farm animal. After a one to two-year period, the animal can be deemed no longer dangerous, though confinement is still required in the more severe cases.
Commissioner Bobbie Agler said he found the presentation interesting, though he also wanted to hear from anyone who might have evidence to support a different viewpoint on breed bans.
"If there's opposing studies out there, it's critical that we don't get blindsided," he said.
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/...aspca_tells_ /
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emporia,KS -- A Web-based seminar on dangerous dogs had a simple message for Emporia city commissioners: Blame the owners, not the breeds.
"There is no data to support the idea that a particular breed of dog is vicious," said Debora Bresch, legislative liaison for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which held the seminar Monday afternoon. "It's the owner's behavior that needs to be addressed."
The city commission is set to look at its "vicious dog" ordinance on Nov. 22 at the request of Emporia resident Tricia Segobia. Recently, a Siberian husky-pit bull mix killed a dog Segobia had given to a friend, then killed a neighbor's dog after the mix was released from the animal shelter. The mixed-breed was not considered "vicious" under Emporia law because it had not harmed or killed a human.
Segobia has asked for Emporia to better enforce its animal-control laws and to tighten the laws it has. Among other things, she wants a dog to be considered "vicious" if it has attacked or killed a pet and she has asked that the city require owners of "notorious breeds" to register their dogs and insure them.
At the seminar, however, Bresch and ASPCA attorney Ledy VanKavage said that breed-specific legislation tends to be ineffective. One of the most sweeping examples, a nationwide ban of pit bulls that Britain adopted in 1991, had no impact on the number of dog bites in the country, a study found. And this year, a circuit court found a breed ban to be unconstitutional in Toledo vs. Tellings, which said a ban violated equal protection and due process rights since there was no reason to declare the American pit bull terrier to be inherently dangerous.
Requiring owners to insure dogs such as a doberman or a rottweiler tends to be tantamount to a ban, the two ASPCA representatives said, since few companies will insure them -- even though, they said, dog bites cost an insurance company far less than floods or fires and occur less frequently. Between 12 and 24 people die each year from dog bites, VanKavage said.
"More people are killed by lightning each year," she said. But the media quickly picks up on pit bull attacks, she noted, even when other, more severe dog attacks occur. On June 9, she said, 41 publications covered a girl who was seriously, but not critically, injured by two pit bulls. On the same day, a boy who needed 300 stitches after being mauled by a Labrador retriever-mix drew coverage from only two papers.
"In the '70s, it was the doberman," VanKavage said. "In the '80s, it was the German shepherd. In the '90s it was the rottweiler and now it's the pit bull. But getting rid of the breed doesn't get rid of the problem."
So if it's not any one breed, what makes a dog likely to attack? The two women listed three main factors.
• 90 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not spayed or neutered.
• 81 percent of fatal dog attacks came from animals that were not maintained as a pet, but were instead isolated from the family and regular human contact.
• 61 percent of those attacks came from animals that were not humanely controlled, or had in some way been abused or neglected.
Given those conditions, they said, communities have taken a number of different approaches. Some have partially subsidized the cost of neutering a pet for those unable to afford it. In Delaware, for example, the cost has been brought down to $10 to $20, paid for in part by a $3 surcharge on rabies shots. In addition, veteranarians are offered a $50 tax credit for each combined vaccination and sterilization they do.
It doesn't take long to recoup those costs, Bresch said.
"In New Hampshire, they saved $3.15 in impoundment costs for every dollar spent on low-income pet owners needing assistance," she said.
Other avenues to pursue, they said, include an anti-tethering or chaining law, since animals tied up for long periods of time tend to become antisocial; mandatory microchipping of pets, so that loose dogs can quickly be recovered; offering responsible pet owner and bite prevention training; and adopting a "tiered" system of punishment for owners of dangerous dogs.
As an example of the last, Bresch and VanKavage described an Oregon community which started with relatively minor penalties for an animal at large that displayed menacing behavior up to possible euthanasia for an animal that bites a person or kills a pet or farm animal. After a one to two-year period, the animal can be deemed no longer dangerous, though confinement is still required in the more severe cases.
Commissioner Bobbie Agler said he found the presentation interesting, though he also wanted to hear from anyone who might have evidence to support a different viewpoint on breed bans.
"If there's opposing studies out there, it's critical that we don't get blindsided," he said.
http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/...aspca_tells_ /
Hi, so you dont think pitts are evil? How would you like it if you saw you dog riped apart by a pitt for no freakin reson?! Yeah thats what happend to me, I took my doog to my friends house and the nighbor dog picked him up and just riped his heart out, I dont care what you think about pitts, I HATE THEM!!
So.....using your logic, I had two twin sisters who were killed by one evil SOB of a white man when I was little....so thus all white men and evil killers?
To think because of one bad case that all pit bulls are evil is just plain crazy and dangerous for a lot of wonderful dogs. Your dog (and I am very very sorry to hear it happened) was most likely killed because its owner was either a fool or evil....not the pit bull
I wish I could introduce you to Sal and Athena, they have converted every person who has given them a chance and gotten to know them. There are a lot of very friendly and wonderful Pit Bulls out there!!
To think because of one bad case that all pit bulls are evil is just plain crazy and dangerous for a lot of wonderful dogs. Your dog (and I am very very sorry to hear it happened) was most likely killed because its owner was either a fool or evil....not the pit bull
I wish I could introduce you to Sal and Athena, they have converted every person who has given them a chance and gotten to know them. There are a lot of very friendly and wonderful Pit Bulls out there!!
I've skipped over a large portion of this thread, but did go on CNN's site, and I read the entire transcript of the pitbull episode with Nancy Grace. I am actually quite infuriated by the level of hostility and ignorance she exhibits regarding pits, and I am quite possibly on the same level of ignorance regarding this breed...I've never owned a pitbull, nor do I know anyone personally that has one. Now, I am all about child advocacy, and fully realize that the baby suffered a tragic and violent death...this could have been so easily avoided, that it truly sickens me...I also come from the standpoint that the father should not be held criminally negligent for the death of his son, as it was more or less completely unpredictable - can anyone honestly say that if he felt that the dogs were any kind of threat at all to the safety of the baby, that he would have left them alone for even a minute? Not that it can't happen, but really, it's doubtful. Chances are, he was just as ignorant about his dogs as Nancy Grace seems to be...and put a lot of stock in the notion that the dogs were trustworthy enough to be left alone for 5-10 minutes with the child. Tragically, this notion proved to be fatally wrong.
That being said, I am quite peeved that Nancy Grace was taking such an end-all-be-all attitude toward the breed in particular. It truly does come down to responsible pet ownership, and most genuinely responsible owners won't allow larger dogs access to their young child unsupervised. And it just isn't about being a responsible owner...it's more about being a responsible parent to the child.
It does sadden me that the media has chosen to target this specific breed, as I am well aware that pitbulls, among other breeds with supposedly-aggressive temperments (such as rotts, chows, etc.) make wonderful companions to those who understand the breed, and respect their pet's individual needs. I myself have a chow/rott mix, and although she can sometimes behave like a royal-patoot, I know that she'd never tear anyone apart, nor could she ever be deemed as "vicious." Patoot-yes...vicious...NO.
I feel quite badly for the dogs that were PTS in this situation as well. If they had been living under different circumstances (i.e. NOT being left out on a chain all day, with more individual attention, etc.), they each individually could have been superb pets to someone who respected the breed...
That being said, I am quite peeved that Nancy Grace was taking such an end-all-be-all attitude toward the breed in particular. It truly does come down to responsible pet ownership, and most genuinely responsible owners won't allow larger dogs access to their young child unsupervised. And it just isn't about being a responsible owner...it's more about being a responsible parent to the child.
It does sadden me that the media has chosen to target this specific breed, as I am well aware that pitbulls, among other breeds with supposedly-aggressive temperments (such as rotts, chows, etc.) make wonderful companions to those who understand the breed, and respect their pet's individual needs. I myself have a chow/rott mix, and although she can sometimes behave like a royal-patoot, I know that she'd never tear anyone apart, nor could she ever be deemed as "vicious." Patoot-yes...vicious...NO.
I feel quite badly for the dogs that were PTS in this situation as well. If they had been living under different circumstances (i.e. NOT being left out on a chain all day, with more individual attention, etc.), they each individually could have been superb pets to someone who respected the breed...
If you read the breed standards for many German breeds, they don't equate dog aggression with aggression towards the judge, for example. Dogs will always harbor some aggression towards each other; that's just the nature of the canine. They fight for various reasons, albeit not as seriously as Pit Bulls may fight.
As for breeding the aggression out, I just don't see the point. If it diminishes with time, that's fine. A lot of lines in the breed have reduced dog aggression. A trainer friend of mine has numerous Pit Bulls and AmStaffs, and she says only one of her dogs can't run with the others. But eliminating good dogs from the gene pool based on the presence of DA is wasteful IMO.
As for breeding the aggression out, I just don't see the point. If it diminishes with time, that's fine. A lot of lines in the breed have reduced dog aggression. A trainer friend of mine has numerous Pit Bulls and AmStaffs, and she says only one of her dogs can't run with the others. But eliminating good dogs from the gene pool based on the presence of DA is wasteful IMO.
True. The irony is, when the spotlight gets turned on any breeds, Pit Bull owners are usually the first to start working against potential BSL. (The Rottweiler people came out in our fight against BSL here in Oklahoma, and God bless them.) If there were whispers of laws against Collies or GSDs or Coonhounds or any other breed tomorrow, I'd start writing emails and planning to appear at those public meetings. And these are not my breed, but I will strenuously defend others' rights to own them.
It is a shame that other dog owners can't show the same support for us in our battle that we show them when BSL expands to encompass their own breed. Frankly, if there were no APBTs left, I would lose interest in dog ownership in general; that's how important the breed is to me. Throw my breed into the meat grinder to protect your own if you must, but just remember that this sad, violently righteous little Pit Bull owner would be one of the first to go to bat for your right to own your breed, whether I like it or not.
It is a shame that other dog owners can't show the same support for us in our battle that we show them when BSL expands to encompass their own breed. Frankly, if there were no APBTs left, I would lose interest in dog ownership in general; that's how important the breed is to me. Throw my breed into the meat grinder to protect your own if you must, but just remember that this sad, violently righteous little Pit Bull owner would be one of the first to go to bat for your right to own your breed, whether I like it or not.
This is a true observation. Most dog laws which are written to include provocation usually only mention teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog. I've had children come up, stare my dog in the eye while leaning over at them, and then turn and run away screaming. That would equal provocation to another dog. But we expect the dogs to fit in with rules tailor-made to our species, not theirs. For the most part, they're very forgiving of our uninformed handling of them.
Before anyone accuses me of being callous, I am not in favor of dogs that attack without just cause. Nor am I in favor of dogs that use excessive force when a growl or perhaps interposing their body between their owner and the threat would suffice. I think these dogs need to be culled from the gene pool. But I would do the same thing to toy breeds which bite out of irritation or dominance, not just the large dogs. I think there needs to be a greater focus on temperament for all breeds.
Before anyone accuses me of being callous, I am not in favor of dogs that attack without just cause. Nor am I in favor of dogs that use excessive force when a growl or perhaps interposing their body between their owner and the threat would suffice. I think these dogs need to be culled from the gene pool. But I would do the same thing to toy breeds which bite out of irritation or dominance, not just the large dogs. I think there needs to be a greater focus on temperament for all breeds.
A
Here we have a law that you can't have any more than 2 dogs if you live in the city. Unless you're a registered breeder, trainer, fostering or can prove that you're showing your dogs. And not anyone can foster either. You have to be approved by our humane society, otherwise they just take the dog away.
You also have to have your dogs liscenced with the city. Otherwise they can be taken away. And I must say, the liscence isn't cheap. Well, the liscence itself is only 25 bucks for the year, but to get the liscence, they have to have all of their vaccinations up to date, and they have to be fixed, unless being used for show or breeding.
That's law here. And if you don't follow it, you can be fined. And it's a substantial amount too. Like if your dog gets caught without rabies tags? And you can't prove that they have their shots? We're talking like 1000 dollar fines.
Every place should have laws like that. Because here, you don't see puppy mills or anything like that. Backyard breeders, there are none. The only way I got my dog was accidental. Seeing something like that happen in the city almost never happens. On farms, that's a different story though.
You also have to have your dogs liscenced with the city. Otherwise they can be taken away. And I must say, the liscence isn't cheap. Well, the liscence itself is only 25 bucks for the year, but to get the liscence, they have to have all of their vaccinations up to date, and they have to be fixed, unless being used for show or breeding.
That's law here. And if you don't follow it, you can be fined. And it's a substantial amount too. Like if your dog gets caught without rabies tags? And you can't prove that they have their shots? We're talking like 1000 dollar fines.
Every place should have laws like that. Because here, you don't see puppy mills or anything like that. Backyard breeders, there are none. The only way I got my dog was accidental. Seeing something like that happen in the city almost never happens. On farms, that's a different story though.
G
I actually have seen my dog (a PIT) MAULED by two Akita's. Yes, my EVIL pit was torn to pieces (not literally, but had to undergo intensive medical procedures) because she didnt know how to defend herself. Hmm, I think and EVIL dog would have fought back a little harder than she did.
Throwing a little tantrum just makes you look very immature. You can hate whoever or whatever you want. But mind you that many people DO have these horrible creatures you speak of and you are insulting them and their loving companion. Just as you loved your dog, people who have pit bulls love their dogs as well. And your opinion is NOT more valuable than theirs just becuase you were a victim of a vicous pit bull attack. Making comments like "I hate them" is not very mature and I would hope that you would take other people's feeling into consideration next time before you say something so tactless. Not trying to be harsh,
.
Throwing a little tantrum just makes you look very immature. You can hate whoever or whatever you want. But mind you that many people DO have these horrible creatures you speak of and you are insulting them and their loving companion. Just as you loved your dog, people who have pit bulls love their dogs as well. And your opinion is NOT more valuable than theirs just becuase you were a victim of a vicous pit bull attack. Making comments like "I hate them" is not very mature and I would hope that you would take other people's feeling into consideration next time before you say something so tactless. Not trying to be harsh,
.
B
I actually have seen my dog (a PIT) MAULED by two Akita's. Yes, my EVIL pit was torn to pieces (not literally, but had to undergo intensive medical procedures) because she didnt know how to defend herself. Hmm, I think and EVIL dog would have fought back a little harder than she did.
Throwing a little tantrum just makes you look very immature. You can hate whoever or whatever you want. But mind you that many people DO have these horrible creatures you speak of and you are insulting them and their loving companion. Just as you loved your dog, people who have pit bulls love their dogs as well. And your opinion is NOT more valuable than theirs just becuase you were a victim of a vicous pit bull attack. Making comments like "I hate them" is not very mature and I would hope that you would take other people's feeling into consideration next time before you say something so tactless. Not trying to be harsh, .
Throwing a little tantrum just makes you look very immature. You can hate whoever or whatever you want. But mind you that many people DO have these horrible creatures you speak of and you are insulting them and their loving companion. Just as you loved your dog, people who have pit bulls love their dogs as well. And your opinion is NOT more valuable than theirs just becuase you were a victim of a vicous pit bull attack. Making comments like "I hate them" is not very mature and I would hope that you would take other people's feeling into consideration next time before you say something so tactless. Not trying to be harsh,
.
Recently a dog park opened next to my home and a few Pit Bulls visit the park several times a week. I have noticed that when a Pit Bull heads for the fenced in area with it's owner ,where the dogs run free, all the owners in that enclosed area ( including yours truly), head for the exit gate. Maybe this is silly, maybe it's biased, or maybe it's a prudent decision, but frankly I am not taking a chance with my dog's or my own safety and the other people feel the same way. One of the the PB that visit this area that is about a year old has bitten two different dogs on their ears requiring trips to the vet, despite the fact that the owners asked the person to leash their PB and not allow it in the fenced in area while they were in there.
I see all the posts here defending the PB, and I also would be concerned if I owned a good dog and it was banned for some reason, but the point of my post is that some people have what they feel are legitmate fears about these dogs due to things that they have experienced or heard about and people should understand that too. All the lectures and explanations by PB owners are not going to change that, in my opinion. The idea of penalizing the owner to solve this problem is not really a viable solution in my opinion, since in the event of an attack, the damage is already done.
Not to far from where I live we have teenage gangs, and the dog that many of them own are Pit Bulls. The police tell me that they are chosen because of the tough guy image that the dog has, plus they know that police will be less inclined to raid their homes to make a search or a drug bust, with 2 of these dogs in the yard. This just helps to solidify people's concerns about this breed in the community.
And to tell someone that they Are not "very mature" after they saw their own dog mauled and killed by another dog right in front of them ( by a breed that is know to be dog aggressive) , shows a total lack of compassion.
Last edited by a moderator: