Ok, I know that pit bull owners don't like the constant attention that the media gives their dogs when someone is killed or injured. And they'll argue back and forth that it's more pit bull mixes than pure breed dogs doing the maiming and killing. But when all is said and done, it's one breed that is over represented in the dog bite that causes a fatality, and yes...it remains the pit bull.
And BSL is going to be the political answer if the breeders don't police themselves, which seems unlikely.

http://www.workingpitbull.com/fatalbook.htm
But.......devoting an entire page to "The dog attacks you won't hear about because they didn't involve bulldogs" is just dumb. It's going to further alienate pit bull owners from main stream dog owners and lead to more and more dog owners giving consent to BSL.
And it's a pretty feeble attempt to use the "Hey look! Other dogs are doing some killing too!" That's just a sorry way to try and defend your breed and it makes pit bull owners look desperate and foolish.

And here's a little hint for that site owner...when you post in blazing red letters a bold statement that "you won't hear about" these attacks because they're not pit bulls....yet you post multiple *newspaper* articles about the very thing that you say no one is hearing about ( I guess they don't count people that read or keep up with current events ), a smart person is gonna say, "looks like those attacks were heard about to me".
Duhh. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

QUOTE from Will: ...when you post in blazing red letters a bold statement that "you won't hear about" these attacks because they're not pit bulls....yet you post multiple *newspaper* articles about the very thing that you say no one is hearing about ( I guess they don't count people that read or keep up with current events ), a smart person is gonna say, "looks like those attacks were heard about to me". END

Amen. It's like saying "How come THESE aren't in the news stories?" as you quote the news stories about them.

I personally think the pitbull folks have a point in their position that it's the mixes and disreputable breeders that help contribute to the "bad dog" problem. And yes, I understand it's not the dog fault...but it takes an exceptional owner to handle some of the genetic messes being bred accidently or on purpose (dog fighting), and some of the dogs bred shouldn't have been.

My argument is still the same: any time money changes hands for a product it's a "business". Breeding is a business. If *some* of the production being offered to the public is defective, dangerous, or too difficult to use/own and the industry is unable/unwilling to manage it's own producers, then there are two ways it will eventually be handled: controls on the manufacturing, or controls on the sales. Both are put in place in an effort to make it more difficult for the product to find a market.

AKC with it's breed representive clubs, and as *THE* industry org, seems unwilling to control production. So what you see happening now is control at the point of sale: insurance companies are making it very difficult for the public to own certain breeds that have been deemed to "cause problems"...and the goverment is starting to issue controls in municipalities that allow the production/sales of such breeds (ie, BSL)

IMHO, a strong protective breed is better off when only those REALLY interested in it, willing and able to handle it's particular issues, will take on the expense and effort to own one. The real Doberman folks were never happier than when their breed dropped out of the "top ten most popular"...

QUOTE from Ann: AKC with it's breed representive clubs, and as *THE* industry org, seems unwilling to control production. END

The AKC -- oh, I should not even START on the AKC. The AKC's indirect support of puppy mills (because of their lack of effective screening) makes me crazy. "Control" production is the opposite of the AKC's effect. Their policy statements are just not translated into policy, in my opinion.

But yes, controlling production (using terms of commerce), would seem to be the most effective solution -- the other end of rounding up grown dogs, some of which just happen to have the wrong looks. Wouldn't registration, which I believe Mike mentioned as being tossed around in Central Florida, be an excellent control of production as well as of transfer/sale?

 Quote:

Wouldn't registration, which I believe Mike mentioned as being tossed around in Central Florida, be an excellent control of production as well as of transfer/sale?

That would be a start. Since this is a free country, and scam artists can sell anything to anyone willing to buy, to control the production of a problematic product (and keep the ACLU at bay) the only option is to put up road blocks to sales/ownership. Unless of course the product itself is deemed as illegal; ie, one can get arrested not only for selling but for growing pot.

I'm not advocating it, but BSL's are not breaking new ground: product specific laws abound, based on the danger to, or potential for misuse by, the general public. ie, Only qualified repairmen with recovery systems were allowed to add the old style Freon to AC systems; 111 solvent is heavily taxed as are cigarettes; and some products are only allowed to be used under a license, by certain groups tested for their ability to handle them. (Lots of examples of this last, but a commercial drivers license comes quickly to mind...)

Connie, I deliberately use commerce language because way too breeders get caught up in the "I'm only producing to better the breed" aura, and seem to forget that selling a puppy is a COMMERCIAL event. Money changes hands, liabilities do not stop at the door, and the existance of every puppy eventually impacts society... with bad results (crowded shelters, bites, abuse), or good (SAR, therapy, LE, family pet, etc). When the perception that the bad is starting to outweigh the good, then controls are bound to come. Breeders screem when there is any talk of making the breeding of dogs a bit harder, or more expensive...but that's what other manufacturers have had to face when they are unable to control poor quality or mistakes that anger the public.

As you point out, AKC is not going to provide the answers; one could say there is a big conflict of interest in that over half of their assets($69 mil) are derived from puppy registrations ($36 mil). It covers their payroll and benefits ($29 mil in '04). Who among them is going to kill, or even just restrict, the platium egg producing goose!?

Wish I knew a better answer, but I can see the government controls a-coming...

Thanks, Ann. QUOTE: I'm not advocating it, but BSL's are not breaking new ground: product specific laws abound, based on the danger to, or potential for misuse by, the general public. ie, Only qualified repairmen with recovery systems were allowed to add the old style Freon to AC systems; 111 solvent is heavily taxed as are cigarettes; and some products are only allowed to be used under a license, by certain groups tested for their ability to handle them. (Lots of examples of this last, but a commercial drivers license comes quickly to mind... END

Your whole post is solid info and good points. It would be great if you and other like-minded people could get letters printed on the OpEd pages of local newspapers --- this kind of non-inflammatory letters that don't add fuel to the wildly emotional debate (if one can call it "debate," at this point.)

I understand where BSL comes from, I am not saying that it is what will solve the problem it is only ONE way of handling some aspects of a bad problem, I also am not going to focus on the over breeding and disreputable business people because they are a factor as well....this is such a simple issue, people need to take responsibility..."don't punish the breed, punish the deed"..yeh, yeh -- but the solution to such a simple problem is enormously complicated, I would liken it to gun control, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and it appears to me that the laws we have to SOLVE this problem are equally as ineffective as thinking BSL will solve the "bad dog" problem. So what to do???

There are aspects of BSL that could be useful...why not have a 6 foot high fence for a terrier that likes to chase things and jaws that are like a machine, I accept this, this is useful, why not make a license to own a Pit more expensive than a toy poodle, this might weed out the folks that really arn't committed to having a Pit (not the $750/dog per year like they once proposed in NJ), why not make a home owners premium higher (resonably) if you own a Pit - it is if you own a pool. These are all useful things that could be done to force a person to be committed to be responsible for their Pit.............Now lets get to the NOT USEFUL, who walks a dog on a 3 ft lead, what if you are 6'3" (not useful, designed to discourage taking the dog out), some stranger entering your home if it is suspected you have a Pit mix so they can examine your dog and make an assessment without your consent....if you have a lab/pit mix and big brother decides more pit than lab, well it sucks for you. And how do you address all those cooperative shady characters that get these dogs and ...what, they don't lisence them??? I'm shocked!

And what about stiffer penalties for the irrisponsible owners of vicous dogs that hurt innocent people or pets...REGARDLESS of the breed.

IMO the solution to this is "bad dog" problem is going to be a process not a quick fix, we Pit Bull owners have to put our money where our mouth is and help resolve this issue by compromising where ever we can without giving up all our rights...but the proposed solutions should target a collaborative solution, not a hysterical one

QUOTE: So what to do??? END

GET INVOLVED. Read Will's post and others on that thread about positioning yourself to get public education going in your community.....BEFORE something happens and the topic becomes an emotional quagmire.

Yep, you have to get involved and not by whining and saying "well other dogs bite too".....we all know this, but for every tatic that is proposed design a counter position, then be prepared to petition your proposed solution....we have found the law makers dont want to debate, they want a quick fix, we as Pit Bull owners want real solutions, and that is how we have been able to stay unreasonable tactics so far in my neck of the woods.............

I have some more conclusions on the information presented in this report on other breeds involved in serious bite incidents.

http://www.workingpitbull.com/fatalbook.htm

The Spaniard's Bay, Newfoundland, Canada incident occurred an hour from where I live.

Apart from the coverage here, in other reportage the RCMP assigned blame to the teen age baby sitter for failure to supervise the toddler, who wandered onto private property where a GSD was tethered.

They found that the owner was compliant with the law by tethering his dog. Never mind he had no fence, and in my estimation almost certainly had neglected his dog and left it untrained.

In another section further down a coroner failed to recognize indications of homicide.

Conclusions:

1. In Newfoundland "tethering" or enclosure in a pen is legally required.

IMO with any large or potentially dangerous dog having a fenced area and kennel should be a legal prerequisite. It would certainly be an expense that would dissuade the uncommitted and uninformed.

2. Police and other authorities (legislators) just aren't always "seeing" the criminal negligence of dog owners that is so obvious to many of us, especially those who have read the Delise book on Fatal Dog Attacks.