The county policy currently is no different then what MIKE VICK did!! Think about it. Mike Vick killed dogs that did not perform and they were known fighting dogs! these dogs don't even have a history of being in or around fighting but they are being euthanized for simple mistakes "any puppy could make" Please tell me how that is any different then the slaughter that Mike Vick went to jail for?!?!? I think that all staff involved in the euthanizing of a dog that is not in dyer health or visibly vicious should be brought up on charges of animal cruelty as well as the politicians who base their opinions on media crap and misinformation! We had for or five monsters assault one and brutally kill another of our fellow Loudoun residents but do you lump all 20 year olds as monsters? NO because they are not all monsters! Just like humans dogs have their own personality and if we judge all by the actions of one you will be committing genocide. Some people make me sick!!

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bj: the policy is VERY DIFFERENT from what Vick did. The county does not hold dog fights for money, does not use weak dogs for bait or for practice, does not torture dogs that do not fight, does not beat and maim and drown dogs that lose fights. It is NOT AT ALL like what Vick did. I agree with you that the dogs are not monsters; people are monsters. But your statement is ridiculous.

Posted by markdino (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm so glad people are fighting against these type of ignorant laws. We need to give pit bulls a chance to be loving dogs just like any other breed. They've suffered long enough at the hands of cruel people, or monsters, should I say.

Posted by koqueta20165 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd be interested to hear what "several key mistakes" the puppy made. I like pit bulls, but they do have the potential to do more damage in the wrong hands, which unfortunately is where too many of them end up--With stupid white trash people and thugs who know nothing about dog training. Pit bulls are not inherently mean, especially to people, but a poorly-trained and under-socialized one around other animals can be very hazardous.

Posted by sickofit1 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Markdino, are they not killing defenseless dogs? Yes, in Mike Vicks case the dogs were not humanly euthanized but killed none the less, just as they are done here with our tax payers money. It is despicable!! After Mike Vick was busted the dogs were known to have been involved in fighting and the rescued dogs were not even euthanized EVEN THOUGH they were known to have been involved in fighting! And look at them now, check out Best Friends or the show DogTown, shoot even one of Mike Vicks grand champions has been rehabilitated and was on the Ellen DeGeneres show. I think that killing a defenseless animal is cruelty period. And I find it very hard to believe that with all the Pit Bull Rescues, as hard as they work to save the breed, they are all full and not accepting dogs from our shelter. In fact I will look into that myself.

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sickofit, I completely agree with you. But it is time to start holding the actual perpetrators responsible, the irresponsible owners. You're right, it is white trash people and thugs and gangsters that have given this dog breed a bad name. These people, if that's what you want to call them, use these dogs as a means of entertainment and to make money. They don't see them for what they can be, loving pets. Anything that gets in the hands of these criminals is used wrongly, just like guns. A gun is meant for protection, but in the hands of these criminals, all h*ll breaks loose. They are the ones to blame, not the animal. And what these monsters have put pit bulls through is unjustifiable. These dogs need help for what they've been through at the hands of humans, not to be put to sleep simply because of what breed they are.

Posted by koqueta20165 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man." -Mahatma Gandhi

Posted by koqueta20165 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

koqueta, you are dead on point!! great post, and good quote in the next post!

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How many maulings have you heard about that were committed by a Labrador? How many jack russel terriers have mauled kids to death? A LOT fewer than pitbulls, that's for sure. I see it quoted that 84% of the pitbulls were killed vs. 48% for all other dogs. Let's see, whats the percentage of pitbulls involved in maulings/killings? Would that also be somewhere around 84%?

Let's face it, pitbulls are a vicious breed. Outside of a law enforcement/military use, pitbulls have no place in modern society. This is one breed that should go extinct. Think I don't know what I'm talking about? My former coworker was chewed up pretty bad by a pitbull he rescued (he and his wife ran a dog rescue). He still didn't blame the attack on the dog, but he was in denial like most of the commenters here. These dogs are vicious bred to fight and kill. These are the only dogs that I consistently hear stories where the dog suddenly "snaps" from being a good and friendly dog to mauling the owner, the wife or child of the owner for no apparent reason (i.e. the person mauled was not abusing, playing or teasing the dog, one minute petting the dog, the next the dog is attacking or is giving the dog a treat exactly as the person has given the dog a treat many times previously but suddenly instead of grabbing the treat the dog attacks the person, etc.).

Posted by ATrueChristian (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is to ATrueChristian. You have your name completely backwards. It should be more like AFakeChristian. Supposedly, you of all people should or would understand, being a so-called "Christian," the plight these dogs have gone through. I didn't realize "champion fighting" female pit bulls themselves opted to have all their own teeth pulled so they could be bred over and over and not bite to protect themselves when they didn't want to be bred. Or that those same female pit bulls themselves conjured up and built with their own hands "rape racks" where they could strap themselves on so they could be unwillingly bred over and over. I also didn't know that pit bulls willingly fought to the point the skin is ripped from their face and then decided themselves, to not get medical treatment. I can't believe you call yourself "ATrueChristian." You can't be serious...

Posted by koqueta20165 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No dogs are born mean or vicious, people make them that way. And it is our job as humans to protect those that cannot protect themselves.

Posted by clintnbj (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is about not bad dogs, or dogs made bad by people with malicious intentions or even about ignorance. It is about some thing far more egregoius. This is about those people charged with the care of animals failing in their duty. The public is no safer because of their bias. Fine dogs are no less dead because of their incompetence. Puppies who dared to be puppies are being killed today, because this is a pound that is taking the easy route. Loudoun County has the most expensively run shelter in the State if not the Country, they have the resources many times over. They choose to kill animals that are placeable. The puppy noted in this story passed not one but two temperament tests. Why was she not allowed to be adopted? Because no one at the shelter would stand up and advocate for her. Because the shelter managment would rather the empty kennel. If you care about animals (all animals) and want a change in the county run shelter, please join Loudoun Shelter Watch.

Posted by T.Zaluzney (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ATrueChristian, your post shows an ignorance about the true nature of canine. Every dog on the planet has the potential to be vicious, poodles as well as pit bulls. People like to think that because they love their dogs that the animal isn't fully rooted in the nature. Mastiffs were bred and used as war dogs, sent into battle with spiked collars. Should we kill them out of hand? Greyhounds will kill cats if given half the chance and hounds will track, kill, or tree prey. Why aren't you screaming for Greyhound blood? The highest percentage of bites each year come from the most common breeds, labs and cockerspanials, but you certainly aren't claiming that those cute little white-bread dogs should be euthanized en masse, are you? Either all life is sacred or none. If your solution is to kill every pitbull in the country, I suggest you be the one to do it. You shoot them in the head, cut their throats, and take their blood on your hands. You take the responsibility. You destroy them. You be the killer and when you're all done, we'll pass judgment on you and you better hope we are much more fogiving and merciful than you have shown yourself to be. But I'm betting, like most people who claim somethign should be destroyed, you're not willing to do the dirty work yourself. Someone else should do it, right? Typical. You don't have the right to to extinguish an entire population of anything. You are not God, ATrueChristian!!!

Posted by moradrax (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pit bulls would be totally useless in military or law enforcement use. They were bred to fight in pits with other dogs. I don't think the breed should go extinct. I just think people whose pits maul (and that's the difference; maul is different than bite) another person or another animal should be prosecuted to the highest extent. This notion about dogs "snapping" and suddenly doing something out of character though--Dogs don't do that. The people may *think* that there were no signs, but there were, they probably didn't know what to look for or just missed them. I think there needs to be balance here, also, in admitting that pit bulls were bred to be fighting dogs. German Shepherds (my dog, and also a breed with a bad rep) herd. It's in their blood; they can't help it. But I also temper her natural instinct with discipline as in, "no you can't herd those children over there." I think a little realism on both sides is needed. They're not bloodthirsty time bombs, but they do have breeding traits in their history that can't be ignored.

Posted by sickofit1 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ATrueChristian, you’re the source of the problem. Spreading information you know nothing about. Your ignorance is scary! in fact you have no way of knowing the true statistics of pit bull attacks vs. other breeds as more often then not the breed pit bull is identified as the attacker when it was not a pit bull at all or a mix that resembled a pit bull. I challenge anyone to visit this link and correctly identify the pit bull http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/... I guarantee you do not identify the correct dog as the media does not report the correct dog either. In fact there are more dogs then this that resemble pit bulls so if you want to do away with the breed you should want to do away with over 30 different types of dogs. Just like the media your ignorance in identifying dogs breed could result in the unfair treatment of a chosen few. and I hope you screen name is a joke cause you are the furthest from a true Christian I could imagine!! I am really sick to my stomach thinking about your comments. I hope your are just an antagonistic that likes to stir the pot and don’t really feel this way.

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone who believes all dogs are born or created equally has never bred animals, let alone dogs.

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sickofit, you are creating a much more rational argument then most. and I do agree that certain dogs ie any dog over a certain size has the ability to do more damage then a smaller dog. in fact many small dog attacks don't even get reported but they hurt just the same. Not as life threatening though i do agree but this is not limited to one breed, there are many different breeds that are considered large powerful and determined. They can be trained to be vicious if the wrong HUMAN gets their hands on them. As for the military pit bulls have a very extensive history in American military contrary to your comment. Check this like if you would like to read up on your American history. The most decorated dog in military history was a pit bull, sergeant stubby! They make great military dogs due to their loyalties! Please read about these pit bulls. http://hubpages.com/hub/Famous_Pit_Bulls...

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I suppose Loudoun County would have euthanized these pit bulls also. please read

http://www.neatorama.com/2009/04/20/hero...

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AFF3, Breeding is another source of the problem. Why breed or buy while shelter dogs die???? There is no good reason, this day in age, to continue breeding. NONE. The overpopulation of homeless dogs and cats in this country is alarming.

Posted by koqueta20165 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

there are no bad dogs...just bad owners

Posted by janetleslie (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vastly more children die each year at the hands of their own parents than by all breeds and types of dogs put together. Should we ban parents? The whole of this arguement is stupid. The County is violating State Law and must stop. That our county employs people to run the shelter who would rather violate the law so to continue to kill animals, 12 week old, "lovey, wiggly" puppies, than save lives is an issue with which I have great concern. That the person responsible for making temperament decisions was recently suspended for killing animals without sedating them first (in violation of shelter policy) is also of great concern. Is this the type of shelter we want? You can like "pitbulls" or not, I happen to like them, but folks our tax dollars are being misused to fund a shelter that continues to fail the public on every level. When was the last rabies clinic offered by the shelter?

Posted by T.Zaluzney (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by ms1234 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 5:07 p.m.

Punish the deed, not the breed. AND the owner who caused it!!! Top three dogs on the bite list are German Shepherds, Chows and GOLDEN RETRIEVERS!!! I see no rush to get rid of the goldens. Not that I would want to, but you can't just blame one breed when another is worse. And as for ATrueChristian, you are a prime example of what sent me running and screaming to the other side.

Posted by magnetized (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cocker spaniels are the #1 biter. We used to have a chow -- he was the most beautiful and most tempermental dog in the world. We loved him - and he loved us, but you never knew how he would react to a stranger on any given day (he was also a rescue). That doesn't mean that he should've been put to sleep or mistreated (further) in any way. It means that we, as owners of a tempermental dog, had to make sure our dog was properly harnessed and stay on our toes to ensure the safety of our friends and neighbors. Pit bulls aren't a good pet for everyone -- but they make great pets for some. It's a real shame to see LoCo officials fall victim to the fear of a breed of dog. It's also a crying shame that are tax dollars support these types of decisions.

Posted by Libby2 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How long are we going to get bullied by pit bull breeders and fanatics?
Pit bulls attack and kill without provocation, with being abused, without being badly trained.
The pit bull lobby just LIES to cover up the pit bull problems.
They do not care if people get mauled and killed.

Posted by drWalter (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pit bulls are NUMBER ONE for killing and mauling people!!!

Posted by drWalter (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pit bull rescues are placing pit bulls that are attacking and killing children!! Look at http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/index.html to see some of their "work."

Posted by drWalter (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmm, is this perhaps the same T. Zaluzney who was recently drummed out as
director of the Harford County Humane Society amid allegations of horrible
animal abuses (I believe that an investigation by a national humane organization
revealed incidents where dogs killed each other in their kennels, where a dog
were injured jumping out of second story windows because of over crowding
conditions, etc., etc.)? Who was, according to the local Topix forum, taken out
of the shelter in handcuffs?? Who was hired and fired by Warren County Humane
Society within the same month (perhaps they were made aware of the allegations
of obscene animal abuses?)??? If so, it seems that you of all people would know
better than to make specious accusations against others. Let’s keep this debate
about the facts and about the animals, rather than trying to bolster your cause
by tearing others down.

Posted by k83058 (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear k83058,
Actually no,the person you describe is not me. That is the the toxic rubbish that anonymous posters post when trying to discredit people and has nothing to do me or my success in the animal welfare field. I post under my own name because I have nothing to hide. I have never in my life been fired from any position, nor have I been found in violation of any cruelty law or was I run out of anywhere. Quite to the contrary. It is your right to post whatever you want and to do so anonymously. You can choose to sling mud at me, but I will continue to demand change at the that Loudoun Shelter. This is shelter that is failing and has been for years.

Posted by T.Zaluzney (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think someone should maul drWalter. He is NUMBER ONE for being an idiot. Go back to your hole and hide from the evil pit bulls roaming your streets.

Posted by BurtReynolds (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is no set standard or way of confirming whether a dog is a "pit bull". There exist a wide array of "bully" breeds (anyone remember Spuds, the Budweiser dog?). One of them (the Staffordshire Bull Terrier) is actually nicknamed the "nanny dog" for its extreme fondness of and gentleness with children.

Dogs should be judged as individuals. 95% of violent crime in this country is perpetrated by males aged 18-30. Anyone lining up to put all of them away? Dogs each have an individual temperament no matter what the breed. Most people wouldn't know a "pit bull" from a Staffy from some random lab mix if it bit them in the arse. Anyone who would support such a blanket policy better hope their short-haired, muscular mutt doesn't land in the county shelter after a meter-reader leaves a gate open.

Posted by tracyaroche (anonymous) on May 7, 2009 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It was revealed on Wednesday May 6 in Leesburg Circuit Court during the Pit Bull breed-based killing trial that a Loudoun County animal shelter employee named Jenny Swiggart was recently placed on disciplinary suspension for knowingly and intentionally euthanizing dogs without first sedating them, in clear violation of shelter policy. Please email and/or call Tom Koenig, Director of Animal Care and Control, and ask him to confirm or deny this. Please also express your extreme displeasure, and request that Jenny Swiggart be fired immediately.

Tom Koenig email: animals@loudoun.gov
shelter phone: 703-777-0406 (ask to speak to Director Koenig)

Please also call and email the Loudoun County Administrator's office and make your displeasure known, and demand the Jenny Swiggart be fired immediately:

Linda Neary, interim county administrator: coadmin@loudoun.gov
Linda Neary phone: 703-777-0200

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 1:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is very tiresome for people to anonymously post BS, innuendo and assumptions as "fact". Anyone that quotes anything from that dogsbite.org website is also quoting BS, innuendo and assumption. Anyone who depends on gathering news accounts and holds them up as meaningful data to proclaim an entire race of dogs as dangerous is equally suspect.

A review of the Loudoun component of the Dangerous Dog Registry, located on the Virginia Dept of Ag website, revealed the following:

37 dogs are currently on the dangerous dog list, which means they have been declared dangerous after a court hearing adn judgement. It is estimated that there are 90,600 dogs in Loudoun County, so 00004% of Loudoun dogs are dangerous -- a miniscule number to say the least.

The breeds/mixes of dogs and the number of times they appear on the list are as follows:

LABRADOR RETRIEVER: 7 OCCURENCES

PIT BULL: 5 OCCURRENCES (ONE OFFENSE WAS A NON BITE)

ROTTWEILER: 3 OCCURRENCES

GERMAN SHEPHERD: 3 OCCURRENCES

JACK RUSSELL TERRIER: 3 OCCURRENCES

Other notables include Weimeraner, Beagle, Border Collie Chihuahua, Shi tzu, Husky, Maltese, Fila, Bichon, Great Dane, doberman, Chow, Kuvasz

And all but two were bites to people (two were bites to other animals).
The fact that LABS top the list is neither unique nor unusual.

The bottom line is: using such a small sample of the dog population as is found in the Loudoun dangerous dog registry is not a reliable way to make guilty an entire breed of dog, unless you’d like to declare that the LABRADOR RETRIEVER is the most dangerous dog breed in Loudoun County. Or unless you’re willing to misrepresent the facts.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 2:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you know that animal control/the shelter gets about $2.5 million taxdollars a year and only takes in about 3,000 animals a year? That's a pretty astronomical amount per animal per year and I believe is the highest per animal or per capita cost in the region. I believe Loudouners should demand more for their animal control and shelter dollar. And should accept no less than a model shelter and animal control staff with no less than the highest degree of compassion. Right now, you're not getting it.

Hats off to the legal team and to the plaintiffs - and all you concerned citizens -- for taking the shelter to task. I hope it has a favorable outcome, which will only serve to save more innocent pets.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Somebody further up this chain wondered what "key mistakes" the puppy made to get himself killed.

The puppy's biggest mistake was simply being a puppy. Second biggest mistake was winding up in the Loudoun shelter. It played with toys, displayed all of the appropriate submissive puppy behaviors, and used the only language it knew to communicate with the evaluators. Actually, for a puppy, it was doing a good job of communicating. Unfortunately, the Louduon shelter evaluators were looking for a reason to declare the puppy unadoptable. Instead of considering typical puppy mouthing to be a "teachable moment" for the puppy, it became a death sentence. Pat Miller, a trainer from Washington County, MD, and the expert witness for the Loudoun shelter, stated under oath during the trial that she would have no problem imposing a death sentence on puppies displaying normal puppy behavior. I find not only the trainer's statements, but the shelter's "rather Kill-em first" philosophy, unconscionable.

In another review of the shelter evaluation reports that came out at trial, another pit bull puppy was evaluated with an outcome of "easy", which means it's suitable for most adopters. Don't you know the Loudoun shelter folks decided didn't like that and tested it YET AGAIN? It still received an "easy" rating.

Guess what happened to that puppy folks? Thaaaaat's right. Dead puppy. After all, a dead puppy doesn't eat, drink or poop, and you don't need to go through the trouble of adopting it out...there's so much less to do to take care of a dead puppy than a live one. And if it's unlucky enough to be a "pit bull" puppy, the shelter hopes the community will believe it is as disposable as they believe it to be and, therefore, condone it. The Loudouners I know don't condone killing innocent animals! I believe we have got to stand up and demand a better philosophy from this wealthy shelter run by very high paid folks that do more to protect their own jobs than to protect the animals. Loudoun is a compassionate county, so we must demand that our animal shelter reflects the county's compassion.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone whose ever seen a child after it's been mauled by a pit bull knows that pits are not like cocker spaniels or most other dogs. They lock onto their victim with their massive jaws and tear at them until they are dead or nearly so. It's disingenuous to compare a simple one-off dog bite from a cocker spaniel to the kind of relentless mauling attacks pit bulls are well known for. Yet some make it sound as if the shelter just spun the wheel to pick a breed to harass.

Judges, lawyers and animal control wardens have seen case after case of severe attacks and killings by pit bulls. That's why we have these laws. No one decided out of the blue that pits are to be killed. Their own track record has condemned them. How many children have to be mauled to death before pit bull apologists realize there's something very different - at birth - about pit bulls?

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

pgdog911--I know for sure if the shelter staff had been evaluating my girl (GSD) as a puppy she would have been euthanized. She was WILD. I shudder to think how she might have turned out without someone as dedicated as I was to her socialization and training. I agree that it's people who often turn good dogs into bad dogs. I also think that bully breeds in general (or strong breeds like shepherds, rotties, briards to name a few) may also not be for everyone. They do take time and commitment, and not everyone is suited for that.
bjstocks4--thanks for the link. I meant when I said "useless for police or military use" that they wouldn't be good for protecion/bite work, as ATrueChristian was inferring--basically using pit bulls that way. I didn't mean to imply that pits arern't brave and willing. Very few breeds are suited for police work where they actually have to let go (lol!) on command. Pits and other bully fighting breeds were originally bred to NOT let go.

One of the calmest sweetest dogs I've ever seen is Daddy, Cesar Milan's pit. He's nice to people AND other animals.

koqueta20165, please get the "shelter dog versus bred dog" out of this conversation. There are excellent breeders out there, including the one where I got my German Shepherd. There are bad breeders. Obviously, if this article is true, there are bad shelters too. So shut the f up

Posted by sickofit1 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Peggy M: Do you know that the first full face transplant in France a few years ago was on a woman whose face was destroyed by a dog? That dog was a Golden Retriever. It's disingenuous at best to base this discussion on what you read in the news. Breed bias in the media is well documented. The vast majority of any breed of dog never inflicts injury. So let's not try to say that only one breed of dog can cause injury. Peggy M, how many "pit bulls" have you ever known personally? I've known hundreds and hundreds and been in close contact with them. I still have all my fingers and toes. Later on I will post the results of a 15 year study of one county's severe bite statistics....gotta go now.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sickofit, why should I shut the f up??? Is what I'm saying not true??? We have an overabundance of ALL kind of dogs in shelters all across America. There is no need to go to a breeder. Just go to Petfinder.com and you will see for yourself. Though breeding is not what the topic of this article or case is about, breeding and/or overbreeding is still a huge problem.

Posted by koqueta20165 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AFF3's quote was:
Anyone who believes all dogs are born or created equally has never bred animals, let alone dogs.

What you were doing was using a point someone was making that all dogs are different based on that person's breeding experience and you turned it into "people shouldn't breed dogs in the first place". I was merely saying that discussion doesn't have anything to do with the article, and I'm tired of shrill, self-righteous people who equate all breeders as wrong. I AGREE with you that there are a lot of unwnated pets. Too many. But that's NOT responsible breeders' faults, it's the fault of people who either don't spay/neuter their dog or get a dog and get rid of it when it's turned inconvenient for them. Over-breeding at PUPPY MILLS is bad. Good reputable breeders don't overbreed and are very selective as to where their dogs go. And no, no one NEEDS to go to a breeder. I WANTED to go to a breeder, because I love German Shepherds. To all the people who make the argument that no one NEEDS to go to a breeder, I always ask if they have children, and if they're adopted. No one NEEDS to have children, either, with all the unwanted ones in the world.

Posted by sickofit1 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sickofit, you say "useless for police or military use" well trust me there are many more uses in military and law enforcement then attack dogs or protection which is known as schutzhund training. Very few dogs are used in fact for schutzhund in military and law enforcement agencies. The Pit Bulls are very useful in many of the military/police needs as drug dogs, rescue dogs, search and recovery, explosion detection, tracking, and cadaver dogs. You know how many pit bulls were used in the attacks on the world trade center? We are on the same side so I don’t want to argue with you but “useless” is a strong term considering we have many pit bull dogs currently working for law enforcement all across the country and the history of the pit bull in the military is prevalent. This is because they are very intelligent, trainable, and loyal dogs. They will do what the human trains them to do just like attack when the wrong human gets their hands on them. Anyone who believes it is simply because of their breed and they are vicious from birth is drinking the cool aid the media is serving. But ignorance is bliss so enjoy your narrow minded little life. It’s truly a good thing there are more open minded people in this world genocide would be common practice!

And just to clearfy the last little rant is NOT directed at you, sickofit.

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Peggy-M and any other people that feel the way she does, I challenge you to come out and meet some of the pit bulls in our community. I will volunteer myself and my dog to meet anyone who really and truly believes that dogs are vicious by nature. I have no fear that my pit bull will resolve any hard feelings you may have about the breed. Sure he may bark at strangers but also has the gentlest demeanor of any other breed you can find. And please don’t tell me that barking at strangers is a vicious act!

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bjstocks4--Agreed. I was arguing that they are "useless" in bite/protection work, because they weren't bred for that the way other breeds have been utilized for it. Waaay back ATrueChristian was (the way I read it) implying that because they're "fierce", pits would be good for military police use as in, bitework/defense. I know they have many many uses and are trainable intelligent dogs. Actually, one of their under-reported uses and the opposite of what many people think of them is their therapy work. A well socialized, exercised pit bull makes an excellent therapy dog due to their calm biddable nature.

Posted by sickofit1 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bjstocks4--glad you brought up Schutzhund btw. My GSD did it for a while. That was my point exactly. While a pit bull doing Schutzhund isn't unheard of, Shepherds (German and Belgian varieties), rotties, dobies and giant schnauzers are more represented in "bitework".

Posted by sickofit1 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

100% agree with you and great point on the therapy work as I forgot to use that in my argument. I am glad we have come to an understanding.

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

German Shepherds are the most common dogs to have Schutzhund training and do very well with it. Shoot it was invented in Germany for testing of German Shepherds to see if they in fact had the skill set to be law enforcement dogs. But two things scare me about that. 1. People who have no idea what they are doing and try to train their dog for schutzhund and 2. Those who don't stick with it to the end. When these two factors are considered you have just created a dangerous dog no matter the breed.

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bjstocks4--Yeah I've seen some pretty big idiots who buy a sleeve and think they suddenly can train their dog in bitework. My girl and I worked with Pedro Jimenez, one of the top "helpers" on the East Coast. Honestly, we only did it for about six months. She LOVES to bite and hold, but she doesn't have a "hard" temperament, more of a high "prey and play" drive. She saw the sleeve as one big toy lol. Schutzhund also tests obedience and tracking. It was developed actually to train the character of the Shepherd, not just for police work, but for its mental toughness under stress (which is what it really is about--it's not to make a dog mean). I know you know that, i'm just putting that there for anyone else who may catch this convo.

Posted by sickofit1 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have two APBT's trained and titled in Schutzhund. They are now 8 & 9 years old, retired, and both with Schutzhund III's. I have an other up and coming bull-breed that is ready to be certified in narcotics detection. I am also on the BOD for the Working Pit Bull Terrier Club of America (WPBTCA).

Pit Bulls working in law enforcement and sport are out there! They are excellent workers, and love what they do. The President of WPBTCA won 1st place SchII at DVG Nationals, 2008, in fact. My dog placed 3rd SchI at AWDF Nationals in 2006.

Really, all of this is off-topic, however. This is not about me and my dogs, or our other responsible owners and thier dogs out there. This is about Loundon County, and dogs that HAVE NO HOMES or OWNERS! These are the dogs who, up until this point, have not had the opportunity to live thier lives, much less the opportunity to get out and work at anything. . .

Posted by ajasage (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sickofit, absolutely, nice work!

ajasage, hats off to you and your dogs and you are correct on all accords!!

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My sole purpose for this post is to defend Tom Koenig, director of Loudoun County Animal Care and Control, and his staff. Tom and his staff lead a team that recommended the Loudoun County policy on pitbulls be changed. They worked with Pitbull rescue groups to gather materials to advocate for the dogs. Unfortunately a decision was made by County officials to vote against this recommendation. Since then Tom and his staff have called our SPCA many times to request that we take some of their pitbulls. They had also requested information on other rescues that would take pitbulls and followed up with those rescues. When we have taken their pitbulls, they drove the hour and a half drive to bring them to our SPCA. I have heard many things questioning the dedication of the staff at Loudoun county, especially with respect to the issue of pitbulls. In my experience with them, the staff has done what they can, within the limits of what was allowed by the county, to help the dogs.

The issue in this case should be the challenge of a County policy, and not the character of the staff. I encourage Loudoun county to change this policy.

Posted by puppysusanne (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

puppysusanne, great post. This is such an emotional issue that I think people are forgetting they can literally destroy a person's life by printing unfounded allegations. Let's protect our puppies and our people.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, other breeds bite, but it's disingenuous to point to those cases to try to disprove the basic facts: Only one dog can match the pit for mauling humans to death:

http://www.dogsbite.org/bite-fatality-ci...

“Over 150 dog breeds populate the US. Studies show that two breeds account for nearly 70% of bites that end in death and serious injury . . . According to a well-publicized CDC report, between the years of 1979 to 1998 pit bulls and rottweilers made up 60% of attacks that ended in death. DogsBite.org reports that in 2007, this same combination inflicted 71%.”

Pits aren't discriminated against because of some imagined news media bias. They've earned their reputation and the CDC statistics about fatal dog bites makes that crystal-clear.

Pit bull apologists can say whatever they want about bad humans, bad environment, bad training, etc. but the statistics tell the story. Pits are notorious for biting, mauling and killing people. Although by far NOT the most popular dog, they are the “bitingest” of all dogs except Rotts.

It’s their own track record that makes shelters euthanize them. They have repeatedly killed other dogs, cats, children and full grown adults. Certainly other breeds kill, but few match the aggressiveness and viciousness of pits. That’s why PG County has a total ban on the breed. Aren’t their enough other breeds for dog-lovers to rescue and love?

I’m looking at this from a judicial standpoint. When month after month, year after year, you see pit bulls involved in case after case of severe mauling, you realize they are vastly over-represented in dog attack cases. There’s a reason for that, and the reason is their propensity toward “snapping.”

You can’t imagine how many times I’ve heard “but she was the sweetest dog and never bit anyone” said in a courtroom about a dog that flayed some poor little kid down to the bone. It’s cases like those that resulted in pit bull laws getting passed, not some sort of dog-hating breed conspiracy of tiny-minded people.

I think few people can imagine the grief when a pit bull kills one of its owner's young children. Those parents would do anything to change the outcome. And I guarantee you, they no longer believe that it's bad training that's the cause. They were of the same persuasion as some here - before their child was killed - but their opinion sure changed after the attack. Lawmakers see these cases time and time again; hence the anti-pit laws.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Puppysusanne, momof2: I don't think your statements jive with the facts. At best, Mr. Koenig and his Shelter Manager are ill-equipped to handle their positions and run the shelter in a way that puts the animals first. I do not believe for a minute that the BOS is responsible for current policy, and as a matter of fact, the current policy has been in effect, because of the SHELTER management, for far longer than the 2007 BOS edict. the shelter WANTED, no, lobbied, for that edict in order to maintain the status quo. It is CLEAR in the shelter's layers and layers of alleged behavior evaluations are designed to give them a reason to kill dogs. Why? Let's face it. Think of how many more they'd have to feed and take care of if they administered their behavior evaluations fairly and correctly? As I said before, it is easier to kill dogs than to care for them until they are adopted.

Loudoun is not an anomaly. It's not unusal for shelters with a similar philosophy to have a "culture of killing" mentality.

As mentioned before, Loudoun animal control/the shelter gets about $2.5 million taxdollars a year and only takes in about 3,000 animals a year? That's a pretty astronomical amount per animal per year and I believe is the highest per animal or per capita cost in the region. I believe Loudouners should demand more for their animal control and shelter dollar. And should accept no less than a model shelter and animal control staff with no less than the highest degree of compassion.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Listen up, y'all. You too, pgdog911.
.
The Loudoun Board of Supervisors voted back in December 2007 to reject the Shelter's request to allow pit bull terrier adoptions and instead affirmed that the Shelter was not supposed to put pit bull terriers up for adoption. Of the six Board members that voted against adoptions, five are still on the Board, which means a majority is still against pit bull adoptions by the Shelter.
.
If you want the policy changed, you are going to need to elect new Board members who agree with you; ranting on and on about the evil Shelter staff will not bring you one jot closer to your goal, since it is the Shelter staff who work for the Board, and not vice versa. BTW, have you considered that emotional rants about County employees are probably not the fastest way to get Board members to pay serious attention to you? Just a thought....
.
Personally, I think my tax dollars have better things to do than pay off people who are mauled by County-adopted pit bull terriers, so if you folks who want the county to adopt out pit bulls are so sure about the breed, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and indemnify the county from any lawsuits that may result when a pit bull terrier that is adopted out by the County severely injures or kills someone. That way you can get what you want without forcing everyone else to pay for it.

Posted by Pablo01 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PeggyM: As a Johnny-come-lately on this subject, it's understandable that you do not really know that the "hysterical heyday" of breed bans has long passed. When exposed to the facts, most legislators who contemplate breed bans as a method of protecting the public realize they are ineffective, costly, do nothing to protect the public, and hurt innocent dog owners and their pets. Most breed specific proposals wind up being breed neutral dangerous dog law.

Your characterization of the CDC study is wrong. The CDC website's dog bite prevention page makes no mention of banning breeds as a public safety policy.

Here's the url so you can check yourself: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/bitepreven...

The CDC and AVMA have issued a number of clarifications and caveats in response to the many people (like PeggyM) who have misrepresented the study…

“In contrast to what has been repotted in the news media, the data contained within this report CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweiler can be said to be more "dangerous" than any other breed based on the contents of this report). To obtain such risk information it would be necessary to know the number of each breed currently residing in the United States. Such information is not available.”

“... Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.”

“Data in this report indicate that the number of dogs of a given breed associated
with fatal human attacks varies over time, further suggesting that such data should
not be used to support the inherent "dangerousness" of any particular breed.”

And finally, “Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning
dangerous dogs.”

So, PeggyM, I hope you will remember to include these statements from the CDC and the AVMA whenever you misquote or misrepresent their study.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pablo01: Please refer to my previous post regarding the Loudoun County dangerous dog registry (May 8, 2:51pm). There is simply no evidence to support that "pit bulls" are a problem in the county. There are SEVEN Labrador Retrievers on the Dangerous Dog Registry and FIVE "pit bulls" (one was declared dangerous without a bite). Perhaps that should be criteria for not adopting out labradors due to liability avoidance.

Furthermore, the number of "pit bulls" that go through the shelter are but a small percentage of the number of that breed that are already owned in the county, so there's little additional liability over and above the county's current liability exposure. If liability is such a driving force in shelter activities, perhaps they should simply not adopt out ANY animals to limit their exposure to a level that they are comfortable with. That would be in keeping with their "culture of killing" philosophy.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 11:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

-Peggy-M and any other people that feel the way she does, I challenge you to come out and meet some of the pit bulls in our community. I will volunteer myself and my dog to meet anyone who really and truly believes that dogs are vicious by nature. –

I believe that your dog, and hundreds more, are nice, loving family dogs that in all probability will never attack anyone. But that doesn’t change the fact that pit bulls are involved in more dog bite fatalities than any other dog except Rottweilers. For those dubious of the dogbite site, here’s the government’s stats:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds....

-I have no fear that my pit bull will resolve any hard feelings you may have about the breed.-

You would have to erase hundreds and hundreds of evidentiary photographs from my mind of little kids with half of their face ripped off after a mauling, of small dogs with their heads nearly bitten off and of adults with wounds so severe they required 100’s of stitches to close. The testimony of successful pit bull owners does not negate the breed’s involvement in horrific attacks on human beings and animals rarely matched by any other breed. You need only look at their massive heads and their incredible jaw and shoulder muscles to realize the damage they are capable of. Your well-behaved dog can’t erase testimony from weeping grown men who could not stop a vicious attack on their wives without killing the attacking pit bull. There’s nothing short of a prybar that can open a determined pit’s jaws. That’s an instinctive reaction. It’s involuntary on the part of the dog and that’s why they are so dangerous. Only grizzly bear mauling photos have sickened me more than pit bull attack pictures.

There is a problem with the breed. They are too large and powerful to be owned by untrained citizens. We regulate all sorts of dangerous devices and require training and tests for many such things, like cars and guns, before a citizen can obtain one. The shelter workers are not monsters. They are most likely people who have seen firsthand the damage that the breed can do – and probably more than once – and they believe they are doing a good thing for some poor soul who might be mauled in the future.

They also know how many pit bull attacks there are relative to their representation in the general dog population. To say that there were 7 lab attacks compared to 5 pit bull attacks is meaningless unless we know how many dogs overall were labs and how many were pits. If there were 700 labs and only 50 pits, the numbers are only 1 in 100 bites were by labs but 1 out of every 10 bites were pit.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and by the way, Pablo01...it was the shelter that demanded that the BOS vote on the shelter's kill-em-all policy. There was no requirement that the BOS vote on it in the first place! The shelter did it because they knew that the citizen oversight committee convened to "watchdog" the shelter was going to vote to recommend that the shelter change the policy. If the shelter wanted to change the policy, then why didn't the shelter just let the Animal Advisory Committee vote? I'll tell you why...because the shelter bureacrats did not want to change the policy. Instead, Mr. Koenig and Ms. Fricke went over the committee's head and took it to the BOS...again, because the shelter bureaucrats DID NOT WANT TO CHANGE THE POLICY. The shelter was confident that the BOS would nix ANY change in policy; afterall, it is safer politically to maintain the status quo. So trying to exonerate the shelter by blaming the BOS is highly disingenuous.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 8, 2009 at 11:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PeggyM: Exactly. You don't know. That blows your argument right out of the water.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

pgdog911,
.
I'm sorry, but the number of dogs of any kind in the dangerous dog registry, and the number of pit bull terriers currently living in the county, is irrelevant to whether the County could be held liable for adopting out a specific pit bull terrier that later severely injured or killed someone.
.
The only thing that will matter is if a jury believes the County should have known that it was adopting out a specific pit bull terrier that could later maimed or killed someone. If so, then the County will be paying lots of tax money to the victim(s) or their survivors that would be better spent elsewhere.
.
The Board has decided to avoid that risk, and I say, "good for them." If you think it's so important for Loudoun to adopt out pit bull terriers, then put your money where your mouth is and post a bond (say, $10-$15 million) and accept responsibility and accountability for the policy that you advocate.
.
Better yet, run for the Board of Supervisors yourself on a platform that advocates adopting pit bull terriers into the community and see how many people will vote for you. That seems to me a much more accurate way of counting your supporters than counting the number of rants that respond to a story in a newspaper.

Posted by Pablo01 (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

PeggyM: And by the way, the "government report" you cite is the very report the CDC is trying to stop you from misquoting and misreprenting!! In other words, the CDC and "AVMA" are telling us you're wrong.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 12:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Peggy_M, I can no longer argue with you as you don't have a clue what you are talking about. First of all you have no possible way to prove that all of the attacks or any for that matter were caused by the APBT! there are over thirty breeds of dogs that resemble the APBT and not to mention mixed breed dogs. to pick out one dog and decide to euthanize is crazy. you even said it yourself, in your words "I believe that your dog, and hundreds more, are nice, loving family dogs that in all probability will never attack anyone." there you have it! why euthanize every single one if you concede that it depends on the dog not the breed! and you mention rotts and pitts but there are many more breeds with just as powerful tools to do damage when the wrong HUMAN gets around them. as many above have said we need to hold the HUMAN RESPONSIBLE not banish the a entire breed. and what's next if this were to happen, would everyone lobby for rotts next. it is just crazy to start down this road. and i'm done with this as some are so ignorant and narrow minded to even continue the discussion.

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pablo01: Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A normal dog will display certain behaviors physically that will give a person an idea of how the dog feels (lifting its tail up or putting it between their legs, rolling over and exposing its belly, laying its ears flat, hunching its shoulders and putting its head down, curling its lip and growling). Pit bulls have been bred NOT to show these signs, which is why people who have been attacked say the pit suddenly attacked without displaying any signs of aggression.

They are unpredictable and have the ability to go off at any time. Google the family in Kentucky whose 3 year old pit they'd had since it was a baby went berserk on them, biting off Mom's thumb and attacking the face of her son -- it took TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED stitches to close up his face. By all accounts, it was a family dog that lived in the house with them -- not chained and kept for fighting.

If you want to take a chance w/a dog like that, it's your funeral. Unfortunately, it's your neighbors who are usually the victims and it should be the job of the government to ensure the protection of its citizens. If that means banning pits, then so be it.

Posted by fmbtn (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

fmbtn: It is simply not true that "pit bulls" do not use body language to communicate. They most certainly do. You obviously have not had enough experience in this regard to offer an educated opinion on this matter. Reading equally misinformed newpaper articles doesn't count as expertise.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, here's some breaking news...

Dutch government to lift 25-year ban on pit bulls

The Dutch government says it will lift a long-standing ban on pit bulls because it did not lead to any decrease in bite incidents.

Instead, the country will focus on enforcing local leashing laws and owner education programs.

or....

"Hawaii Breed Ban Denied"

or....

ITALY SCRAPS DANGEROUS DOG BLACKLIST

(ANSA) - Rome, March 3 - Italy is to scrap its blacklist of dangerous dogs, replacing it with a law making owners more responsible for their pets’ training and behaviour, Health Undersecretary Francesca Martini said Tuesday.
The new law, which will come into effect in April, will wipe clean the current list of 17 breeds which are considered potentially dangerous, including Rottweilers, pit bull terriers, bull mastiffs and American bulldogs.

Under the current law, owners of these breeds are required to keep them muzzled in public places and ensure that they pose no danger to others, while failure to respect the law can result in the animal being put down. The new law works on the theory that any dog could be potentially high-risk and puts the onus - morally and legally - on owners, or the person who happens to be in charge of the dog at any one time, to control the pet`s behaviour.

``This is a historic day because we have established for the first time the responsibility of the owner or the person who is momentarily in charge of the animal,`` Martini said. ``The measures adopted in the previous laws had no scientific foundation. Dangerous breeds do not exist. With this law we have overcome the black list, which was just a fig leaf (over the larger problem), and we have increased the level of guarantees for citizens,`` she said.

or....

January 3, 2009: ...the Montana House Local Government Committee voted 17-1 against a bill to ban "pit bulls" in the state.

or......

Ohio bill would remove pits from “vicious” list
A proposed bill in the Ohio State House would remove breed specific language from state’s ”vicious dog” law.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And...

If it is the "government's responsibility" to protect it's citizens, I would like to note that Prince George's County, Maryland, a municipality that has had a breed ban in place for over a decade, has achieved the following results:

The number of dog bites in the county in the last 4 years have INCREASED by approximately 40%

The number of dangerous dog cases heard by county animal control commission have not decreased commensurate with the ban.

The number of dogs belonging to "banned breeds" is STILL estimated to be 20% to 40% of the entire dog population (as determined by a 2007 review of the stray dogs coming into the shelter).

Even the chief of Animal Management states that 80% or more of the banned breed that comes into the shelter are "nice dogs". He would know since he's seeing them at their worst.

Breed bans have been proven ineffective everywhere. Breed neutral dangerous dog laws, when enforced, protect the public.

Posted by pgdog911 (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The pit bull good/bad debate is likely to go on forever - but I'd like to remind everyone that the lawsuit I brought isn't about that - it's about the Virginia state code, which was clarified by the Attorney General's advisory opinion, which stated that county-run animal shelters may not kill dogs based on breed. Depending on how the judge rules, the actions of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors may have been illegal - so the residents of Loudoun *don't* have to convince the BOS to change their position. If the judge decides to uphold the AG's opinion, then the Loudoun Board of Supervisor's action was in violation of state law. If you don't agree with the law, take it to Richmond. The Loudoun BOS chose to defy the law, and this is the result - and they have wasted tens of thousands of *our* tax dollars with their arrogant defiance of state law.

Posted by ronlitz (anonymous) on May 9, 2009 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An advisory opinion is just that: advisory. Is THIS the pillar upon which the plaintiffs based their case? ROFL!

Posted by Pablo01 (anonymous) on May 10, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The amount of misinformation and outright ignorance of the facts in some of these posts is breathtaking. "Pit bull" isn't a breed of dog, but rather a not-very-accurate description of a group of breeds with similar characteristics. They were not bred to fight other dogs or people. Pits are not likely to attack without provocation. Pits are excellent candidates for both military and police work (check out www.lawdogsusa.org for some amazing stories). And quoting someone's brother's neighbor's nephew isn't providing fact or evidence. It's providing anecdotal information, worth no more than my testimony about my son who was bitten 17 times, all in the face, by a Labrador retriever.

I have two bullies, a 9-month-old APBT male and an almost-2-y/o AmStaff female who is currently training to be a service/visitation animal for our local hospital. I trust them no more and no less than I do our yellow Lab, but I recognize the potential for any given scenario to play out. Any responsible bully owner does that, which is why most of us do not stop training, socializing and introducing new and different experiences to our pits throughout their lives. Sure, you hear about pit bull maulings from time to time. With the massive strength that these animals have, they have the potential to cause great injury. Their bites, rare as they are, will most likely require medical attention. The same cannot be said about the poodle down the street from me, though it bites, on average, two people a day. The statistics you quote all have the same problem -- they are based on *reported bites, and most people aren't reporting the nip they got from their cocker spaniel. Give the bullies a break. They're great animals, and deserve better than what they often get from us.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 11, 2009 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you use Google ("pit bull attack 2009"), you can find lots of news accounts of pit bull maulings in 2009 alone that seem to happen a lot more frequently than just "from time to time."
.
I guess that's the crux of the matter: pit bull advocates point to the number of bites and say, "this breed (or group of breeds, if you prefer) is not so bad in comparison"; pit bull opponents point to the number of people that pit bulls have bitten and put into emergency rooms, reconstructive surgery, or morgues and say, "Enough. You can own pit bull terrier-type dogs if you want to, but don't think for a minute that we want our tax dollars to pay for making them more widely available, or to pay out for lawsuits if dogs that our government adopts out turn around and maul people from time to time."

Posted by Pablo01 (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I may be an advocate of pit bulls; more than that I'm an advocate of avoiding stupidity. You can't declare that you don't want our government to "pay out for lawsuits" for bully breeds (by the way, *where does that happen?) unless you want to discourage *all government-sponsored animal adoption. Pits are no more likely to participate in unprovoked attacks than any other breed of dog. The responsibility for training and socializing any animal should lie with those who adopt them. My son was mauled by a Labrador retriever. Should we prohibit those from being allowed to be adopted through government-run shelters? Or should we just get rid of all those shelters completely? Pit bulls test significantly higher in temperament testing than the average score for all breeds. Pits passed the test 82.5% of the time compared to 77% which is the all-breed average, the fourth highest passing rate of all 122 breeds that were tested. An article on Discovery.com talks about the "fiestiness" rating of many breeds. The three dogs most likely to attack by nature, according to a study performed by the University of Pennsylvania, are dachshund, chihuahua, and Jack Russell terrier, three breeds which are common family pets and who, despite being prone to more aggressive behavior than other breeds, are often adopted specifically for children. According to nopetsleftbehind.com, the statistic you might want to be concerned about is how many attacks are by unaltered (not spayed/neutered) dogs. 92% of all dog attacks are by unaltered dogs, regardless of breed, and 95% of that 92% are unaltered males. And, for the record, 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts, 40 children drown in 5-gal. buckets, 50 babies are killed by their cribs, 350 people drown in their bathtubs, and more than 2,000 children are killed by their parents. Want to outlaw any of those? Given that pit bulls are blamed for 2.48 deaths per year, you're clearly safer with them than you are with cribs, bathtubs and parents.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 12, 2009 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is Peggy_M still around? If you are, could you please link me to the documentation that substantiates your following claims, please:
*"They lock onto their victim with their massive jaws and tear at them until they are dead or nearly so.";
*"Judges, lawyers and animal control wardens have seen case after case of severe attacks and killings by pit bulls. That's why we have these laws.";
*"...there's something very different - at birth - about pit bulls?";
*"Pits are notorious for biting, mauling and killing people.";
*Certainly other breeds kill, but few match the aggressiveness and viciousness of pits
*"When month after month, year after year, you see pit bulls involved in case after case of severe mauling...";
*"And I guarantee you, [parents] no longer believe that it's bad training that's the cause. They were of the same persuasion as some here - before their child was killed - but their opinion sure changed after the attack." (I recognize that you started out stating this as an opinion, but since you qualified your statement saying you can "guarantee" that your opinion is fact, you must surely be able to provide evidence of your vast experience with the grieving parents of pit-bull victims.);
*"You would have to erase hundreds and hundreds of evidentiary photographs from my mind of little kids with half of their face ripped off after a mauling, of small dogs with their heads nearly bitten off and of adults with wounds so severe they required 100’s of stitches to close." (Hundreds and hundreds of photos? Faces half ripped off? Really? How?);
*"They are too large and powerful to be owned by untrained citizens."
*"There’s nothing short of a prybar that can open a determined pit’s jaws."
And to save time, please remember that "documentation" is very, very different from "anecdotal evidence provided by your nephew's neighbor's sister's friend," 'k? Thanks in advance.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 13, 2009 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pits are like assault rifles. There are plenty of other dogs and guns the public can own if they want to. Some things are just too inherently dangerous to be allowed loose in society. Pit bulls, bears and assault rifles all fall into the same category.

For those in total denial about horrific pit attacks, just go to Google images and enter "pit bull attacks children"

http://images.google.com/images?q=pit+bu...

Faces ripped off. Is that the kind of “direct evidence” someone tried implying didn’t exist? It's not hyperbole, it's horrible. I’m stunned that anyone would imply this isn't happening. When pits go bad, unlike many (perhaps most) other breeds, they go VERY, VERY bad.

How can anyone see such brutality on helpless little children and be so selfish to still demand to own such a dog? Aren't there enough wonderful breeds of smaller dogs in shelters? Can't we can afford to "let this breed go" as PG County, MD has?

In PG, you can own your pit until the die, but not buy, import or breed anymore. What's wrong with that? If any shelter dogs are to be euthanized, pits go to the top of the list. That's fair, too, at least to the little kid who could end up in that pit's jaw, getting shaken like a rag doll until he or she is “degloved?”* We KNOW all pits DON'T end up in good homes. We know they will never be 100% controlled. We can see what they often do to small, defenseless kids. If you think that still photos are revolting, some pit bull cases have videographic evidence showing the absolute tenacity of an attacking pit bull. You can’t witness such things and say “well, not ALL pits” with a straight face. It’s enough of them that some jurisdictions have decided enough is enough. Just watch one of AP’s animal warden shows. They exercise great caution dealing with pits, and for good reason.

Pablo is correct. The economic cost of owning a pit: special license fees, bonding, home owner insurance premium increases, landlord prohibitions or increased security deposits, cost of fencing and other fees will price the pit bull breed out of existence. Then, people can return to owning dogs more suited for life among human beings and other animals.

Some of us can't wait that long and will continue to work to outlaw the breed and all dogs whose physical makeup, breeding and temperament make them a danger in modern urban settings. If banning pit bulls saves just one kid in those pictures from a mauling like that, then I say "Ban Away." I don't believe anyone's desire to own something that's been proven terribly dangerous outweighs society's need to protect its citizens from harm. The pictures say 10,000 words. Pit bulls are proven problems to urban society and they need to be banned. There is no shortage of other, far less lethal dogs that need saving.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degloving

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 5:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Peggy, and others that take the stand, "If killing all Pitt's [unfortunate enough to find themselves in a shelter by preventing their adoption] saves one child from being maimed or killed I am all for it [good riddance].", consider the following.

More children are maimed or die from drunk drivers, car accidents, swimming pools, drug addicted mothers, etc, than Pitt bull attacks. Shall we ban all cars? drop the speed limit to 20 everywhere? ban swimming pools?

I know, a couple hundred sheep/cattle are killed by wolves [while 100's of millions are killed for human consumption] so lets ERADICATE the wolves.

Or a few babies are killed by mountain lions so lets ERADICATE them [and with out predators more people are seriously hurt by collisions with deer].

There is something horribly flawed in your logic. Yes mauling's are horrible, no one is arguing that point but some (I'd say most) Pitts pose no risk of harm and to propose eradicating them all because of a few just does not make sense in the face of all the other potential [far worse] risks children face.

Heck peanuts kill more kids than Pitts.

Posted by mikem0469 (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pablo wrote:

<If you want the policy changed, you are going to need to elect new Board members who agree with you; ranting on and on about the evil Shelter staff will not bring you one jot closer to your goal, since it is the Shelter staff who work for the Board, and not vice versa.>

There you go, injecting facts AND reality into a heated debate!

<BTW, have you considered that emotional rants about County employees are probably not the fastest way to get Board members to pay serious attention to you? Just a thought..>

Now you’re injecting common sense, too? Have you no shame? (-:

<Personally, I think my tax dollars have better things to do than pay off people who are mauled by County-adopted pit bull terriers, so if you folks who want the county to adopt out pit bulls are so sure about the breed, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and indemnify the county from any lawsuits that may result when a pit bull terrier that is adopted out by the County severely injures or kills someone. That way you can get what you want without forcing everyone else to pay for it.>

PB lovers want society to take on much of the risk for their desire to own a large, potentially dangerous animal. Local pols adopt anti-pit policies not out of thin air, but because they know of the potential liability. Euthanizing pit pups seems very much an attempt to reduce the county’s liability for the adoptees. People who have seen photos or video of the aftermath of a pit bull attack truly believe they are doing a good thing for society by trying to remove the threat. The county legal staff knows that multi-million $ verdicts are entirely possible with pit bull cases. A severely mauled child could require $100Ks of plastic surgery to recover physically and may NEVER recover mentally. If a bad enough attack on a child gets to the right jury, and willful negligence can be shown, it’s Katie bar the door!

The BOS has looked into their potential liabilities and decided this is one they just don’t need. Aren’t there enough homeless dogs of other, less powerful breeds that need to be saved first? Dogs who don’t have the track record of pit bulls? Why this fight to perpetuate this breed or type? I don’t want my neighbor owning a large, powerful “bred for fighting dog” just like I don’t want them owning a bear. As society grows ever more urban, aren’t there some things that have to be denied to a few people in order to protect everyone?

I think that’s why the BOS made the rule, even if it was hard for some to swallow. I suspect the end will come for pits and their lookalikes, on a nationwide basis, when several small children are mauled to death in a single attack and there’s surveillance camera footage and crime scene photos of their demise that get leaked to the Internet. Loudoun is just trying hard not to be the place where that grim future history gets made. I think that’s a very good move.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 22, 2009 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it fascinating, Peggy, that in the course of two rambling, inaccurate, silly and uninformed posts, you didn't manage to address one single question I raised regarding documentation of any of your assertions. You *did, however, manage to insert your special brand of idiotic drama into your posts. At least you're consistent. When you didn't answer, I went looking for where you might've found the nonsense you posted earlier, stuff like the "pits' jaws lock" and "pits are different at birth" crap. Next time you're going to plagiarize someone, you really ought to look for someone a bit brighter than good ol' Fern, or at least not quote her verbatim. So, again, I ask you: where is ANY documentation to support your claims? And, no, your Google videos aren't what I'm asking for. I can Google UFOs and come up with photos and video showing them, too. I'm looking for unbiased facts, something I understand you struggle with but should be able to provide, given your penchant for posting as an expert. And before you pin too much hope on the breed-specific legislation that you seem to count on so much, you might want to dig a little deeper and find out how much of that legislation has withstood legal challenge. As of 7/2000, the latest data I could find, a total of 38 breed-specific laws were in effect, for the entire United States. That's not really an overwhelming majority in my world.

You're more than welcome to try to outlaw my dogs. You may be in for quite a fight, though. There are entire organizations devoted to protecting our animals from morons, and we seem to prevail more than you'd evidently assume. In return, and following your edict "I don't believe anyone's desire to own something that's been proven terribly dangerous outweighs society's need to protect its citizens from harm," I'll work on outlawing your car, 'k? I mean, far more children have fallen to the perils of motorized vehicles than have *ever been menaced by a pit bull. And as for you not wanting your "neighbor owning a large, powerful 'bred for fighting dog' just like [you] don't want them owning a bear," I think your control issues are showing. It's no more attractive than your inability to separate fact from fiction.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 23, 2009 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com:

"May 22, 2009 — A floppy-eared, innocent-looking breed may be one of the world’s most aggressive dogs, according to a new study that found English cocker spaniels tend to be more hostile than other breeds.

“In our country and according to our database, the English cocker spaniel is the breed that shows more aggression problems,” lead author Marta Amat told Discovery News.

Amat, a researcher in the School of Veterinary Medicine at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and her colleagues analyzed 1,040 cases of canine aggression brought to a nearby veterinary teaching hospital from 1998 to 2006. Of those cases, the majority of cases were attributed to English cocker spaniels, Rottweilers, Boxers, Yorkshire terriers and German shepherds.

Probing the data further, Amat and her team discovered that English cocker spaniels were more likely than other dogs to act aggressively toward their owners as well as unfamiliar people. In contrast, dogs with reported behavior problems from other breeds tended to act aggressively toward other dogs. Among the English cocker spaniels, golden varieties and males were found to be the most hostile."

Go figure.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 12:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

<More children are maimed or die from drunk drivers, car accidents, swimming pools, drug addicted mothers, etc, than Pitt bull attacks. Shall we ban all cars?>

That’s pretty convoluted logic. Because we have other, more serious vectors of child endangerment, let’s just completely overlook the growing “fighting dog” problem.

<I know, a couple 100 sheep/cattle are killed by wolves . . . so lets ERADICATE the wolves.>

We don’t let folks own wolves in most areas of the US, AFAIK. That’s what I propose for pits and other large fighting dogs. When a beagle has an accident, it’s usually a simple dog bite. Pit and Rottweiller attacks leave people horribly maimed because they can (and do) inflict massive damage when they clamp down hard and deliver a couple of powerful neck-breaking shakes.

<Or a few babies are killed by mountain lions so lets ERADICATE them.>

If that lion strolled into a mall, his life would not be long. ML’s are too powerful a predator to allow where humans congregate. So are pits.

The consequences of a pit going loco is so severe compared to other breeds, that sub/urban areas have become unsuitable for them. Young gangtas have adopted them as a power/status symbol. Society has the right to draw a line and say: Rifle OK, machine gun, not. Normal dogs, OK, large fighting breeds not OK.

<There is something horribly flawed in your logic.>

I’d say the reverse. You seem to think other threats to kids mean we should ignore the growing PB problem. All big fighting dogs need to be phased out of sub/urban areas. Lots of other dogs need love - dogs that can’t maim a child within seconds.

<Yes mauling's are horrible, no one is arguing that point>

Sounds to me like you are.

< but some (I'd say most) Pitts pose no risk of harm>

Then let them live out their lives neutered in the wide open spaces. Don’t let them live near children. When a pit goes bad, it goes VERY bad. I’ve seen grown men, in tears, talk about being totally unable to pull a pit in the attack mode off of a small child. No pit lover has yet explained to me why, with 150 other breeds of dogs, society must indulge the people who “wanna have” a dog that far too often turns into an unstoppable mauling machine.

<to propose eradicating them all because of a few just does not make sense in the face of all the other potential [far worse] risks children face.>

It makes perfect sense to the mother of the little girl who must live her life with a monstrously scarred face. Couldn’t that pit owner have made do with a smaller, less powerful animal? Wouldn’t that be better for everyone if society says: No more big fighting dogs where they have easy access to kids? The worst irony is that there’s no shortage of pit owners whose own kids have been mauled.

<Heck peanuts kill more kids than Pitts.>

I’ve never seen a peanut remove half of a little girl’s face but I’ve seen pits do it. A pit doesn’t have to kill to ruin a life.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 5:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>Because we have other, more serious vectors of child endangerment, let’s just completely overlook the growing “fighting dog” problem.<
---And *that doesn't address what he asked. If your goal is to get rid of whatever poses the greatest threat, pit bulls are *way the hell down the list.
>Pit and Rottweiller attacks leave people horribly maimed...<
---You can say the same about almost every dog bigger than a spaniel. Since none of them, including pits, pose a danger just by virtue of being what they are, are you also proposing to just get rid of all dogs that don't fit in your lap?
> ML’s are too powerful a predator to allow where humans congregate. So are pits.<
---You might want to check your statistics on human-predator populations and how much they overlap.
>The consequences of a pit going loco is so severe compared to other breeds, that sub/urban areas have become unsuitable for them. Society has the right to draw a line and say: Rifle OK, machine gun, not. Normal dogs, OK, large fighting breeds, no.
---Like plane crashes, pit bull maulings don't happen often enough to lend credence to your hysteria. Society has the right to draw their lines, but they better come with something more more useful as reasoning than anything you've put forward.
>Then let them live out their lives neutered in the wide open spaces. Don’t let them live near children.<
---I need to get this straight: you do *not want responsible owners to keep their animals in controlled situations, but you *do believe that we should release roaming herds of them somewhere? Alrighty, then. How will that keep them from coming into contact with anyone who might wander off in that direction? Let me guess -- you want to legislate where people can go, too, right?
>I’ve seen grown men, in tears, talk about being totally unable to pull a pit in the attack mode off of a small child.<
---Sure you have >wink<. Where the hell do you live that you have such constant and life-threatening contact with pit bulls?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>No pit lover has yet explained to me why, with 150 other breeds of dogs, society must indulge the people who “wanna have” a dog that far too often turns into an unstoppable mauling machine.<
---I think we have explained that. You're just not listening. Maybe you're spending too much time Googling things that aren't much of a worry. Anecdotally, however, I can explain why *I have pit bulls. My AmStaff is a service dog, medically necessary for me, as it were. When I discovered how smart and companionable they were, we got another. And if you're going to get rid of anything that can hurt someone, why don't you start with those things much higher on the list than pit bulls?
>It makes perfect sense to the mother of the little girl who must live her life with a monstrously scarred face.<
---As the mother of a child who was attacked by a Labrador retreiver and who sustained significant injury and scarring to his face, I suggest that you're not all that good at mind-reading. Should I advocate the destruction of all Labs based on this one aberration?
>Couldn’t that pit owner have made do with a smaller, less powerful animal? <
---No. Empirical and anecdotal evidence shows that smaller dogs bite *far more often.
>Wouldn’t that be better for everyone if society says: No more big fighting dogs where they have easy access to kids? <
---No. Society doesn't get to determine those tiny details for me. You're not real big on personal freedom unless it's yours, are you?
>I’ve never seen a peanut remove half of a little girl’s face but I’ve seen pits do it. A pit doesn’t have to kill to ruin a life.<
---You've SEEN it? "Pits?" Multiple? Really, Peggy, you need to move. Start packing now. As for peanuts, "prevalence of peanut allergy in primary-school children in Montreal found the prevalence of peanut allergy to be 1.5%. A random telephone survey in the United States found that peanut and/or tree nut allergy affects approximately 1.1% of the general population, or about 3 million Americans" (peanutbureau.com). Allergy to peanuts affects 1.3% of the general population. Peanut allergy affects 7 percent of brothers and sisters of persons with the allergy. (British Medical Journal 1996;313:518-521.) If one percent of all pit bulls in the U.S. bit or mauled someone, there would be approximately 15 reports every single day. You'd better put peanuts on your eradication list. They're far more dangerous than pits.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 24, 2009 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>No pit lover has yet explained to me why, with 150 other breeds of dogs, society must indulge the people who “wanna have” a dog that far too often turns into an unstoppable mauling machine.<

---I think we have explained that. You're just not listening.

I’m sorry but I’ve listened hard for a breed trait that demands preserving. Mostly what I have heard comes down to: “because I want to.” I’ve heard grotesque OJ-esque evasions regarding maulings that claim “some other dog did it.” But the discussion has lacked a succinct explanation of “why pits?” Why must someone be allowed to own a dog capable of doing such disastrous damage to OTHERS? A dog that moves so quickly that they often can’t be pulled off their victim in time to prevent terrible, permanent, scarring injuries?

No one has yet explained why true dog lovers couldn’t make do with a less powerful breed, one without the terrible track record of pits and Rotts. I’ll admit to being deaf if you’ll please try one more time to explain why this breed is so important to society that it must be allowed to live freely among us as other, far less powerful and dangerous dogs do? We all know that although you can (mostly) own a gun, you can’t own a bazooka.

Why should you be able to own the canine equivalent of a bazooka?

---Maybe you're spending too much time Googling things that aren't much of a worry.

I never imagined someone could so casually trivialize the mauling and killing of small children – until now. “Not much of a worry?” Are you so numb to humanity that you can look at those photos and not have doubts about your own pit?

http://images.google.com/images?q=pitbul...

People have breakdowns through no fault of their own. Dogs go bonkers, too. My college roommate’s lab put 40 stitches in his girlfriend’s hand for no reason. Had that dog had been a pit, she might well be dead. Pits are often oblivious to pain while they are attacking their victims:

http://www.todaysworld.com.au/images/ouc...

Pits jaws are much stronger than nearly any other dog and have been bred for fighting. That’s what makes their attacks so much more severe than most other dogs.

http://z.hubpages.com/u/124278_f520.jpg

Their power and breeding makes them different and unsuitable for life in sub/urban areas. A large fighting dog is the biological equivalent of a loaded gun that could someday chew itself out of the gun safe and go trotting down the street looking for someone to wound or kill. When they revert, they become exceptionally dangerous animals. They’re just too powerful to coexist with humans in densely populated areas w/o tragic results. PG County MD is right. Let the current adults live out their lives, but breed or allow no more. Like it or not, those laws are on their way to a jurisdiction near you . . .

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>>But the discussion has lacked a succinct explanation of “why pits?” Why must someone be allowed to own a dog capable of doing such disastrous damage to OTHERS? A dog that moves so quickly that they often can’t be pulled off their victim in time to prevent terrible, permanent, scarring injuries?<<
---Nononono. The discussion has lacked, evidently, anything that will satisfy *you, and frankly, you're not important enough for a decision like you're proposing to hinge on. Nothing we say will change your opinion -- that often happens with people who think they know more than everyone else. I do not care that you don't like my dogs. Hell, I'm looking at that as an indicator that I'm going in the right direction. The fact is that "because I wanna" is more than enough of an explanation in this country to be able to obtain and own the dog in question. You don't approve? Well, sweetie, tough. As we've pointed out too many times to mention, there are way more things that can cause "disastrous damage," and you flatly refuse to address *them. Dodge and deflect can only work for just so long, and you've run out of time.
>>No one has yet explained why true dog lovers couldn’t make do with a less powerful breed, one without the terrible track record of pits and Rotts. I’ll admit to being deaf if you’ll please try one more time to explain why this breed is so important to society that it must be allowed to live freely among us as other, far less powerful and dangerous dogs do?<<
---I'll try, but you won't listen anyway. You're not interested in fact. Your attraction to the lurid is almost pathological. FACTUALLY, the incidents of dog bites overall, not just pits, has been *declining over the years. You seem to be pinning an awful lot on the idea that there's someone out there that collects and delivers the "data" you keep spewing. You are evidently unaware that there isn't a single agency in the US that does so. No one monitors animal aggression. There *is a databank of "animal exposure." In it is contained reported incidents of any time a dog's tooth or nail comes into contact with a human and breaks the skin. This would include, obviously, dog bites. It also includes K9 officers biting criminals and veterinarians scratched by injured or frightened animals, as well as many others. Add that to the fact that pits are more intelligent, calmer, less likely to be involved in biting incidents than many, many other dogs and take training and obedience very seriously, well, there's your answer. I don't want a less powerful, dumber, more excitable dog. But, really, thanks for your concern.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>Why should you be able to own the canine equivalent of a bazooka?<<
---For the same reason that I can own a flame thrower, salvia divinorum, tannerite, The Ragnar Benson Collection, the mini-gun (one of the most lethal weapons ever devised), thermite, and yes, improvised weapons, many of which can be as lethal as your bazooka (thank you, cracked). Oh, and if you're interested, you can get directions on how to build a bazooka from Amazon or your beloved Wikipedia (nice documentation you got there, by the way). Ta-da. You gotta love America.
>>I never imagined someone could so casually trivialize the mauling and killing of small children – until now. “Not much of a worry?”<<
---I never imagined someone could go so far off the deep end by becoming hysterical over something that is unlikely to happen. Yes, ma'am, "not much of a worry." You can unclench now.
>>Are you so numb to humanity that you can look at those photos and not have doubts about your own pit?<<
That should make you feel *better, what with being so numb to actual knowledge and fact. And no, I have no doubts about my pit, no more than I have about any other dog I've owned. In fact, knowing what I do about pits, and from personal experience with the Lab that tried to eat my son's face, I'm *more confident about my pits. Feel better?
>>My college roommate’s lab put 40 stitches in his girlfriend’s hand for no reason. Had that dog had been a pit, she might well be dead. Pits are often oblivious to pain while they are attacking their victims<<
---Your story is anecdotal. Do you have any factual statistics regarding roommates and Labs? No? Then we don't need to discuss it beyond pointing out that if it had been a pit, it might not have happened at all.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>Pits are often oblivious to pain while they are attacking their victims:<<
---I'll give you that one. However, many other dogs have the same physical characteristic. All field dogs have extremely low skin sensitivity, for example. They could run through a barbed wire fence and not feel it. It's not exactly a fatal flaw.
>>Pits jaws are much stronger than nearly any other dog and have been bred for fighting. That’s what makes their attacks so much more severe than most other dogs.<<
---BZZZT! Wrong again. In fact, pits jaw pressure tests *below several other breeds. Will they bite harder than your average poodle? Sure. So do I.
>>Their power and breeding makes them different and unsuitable for life in sub/urban areas. A large fighting dog is the biological equivalent of a loaded gun...blah blah blah...<<
---Why is it that your pit bull expertise does not include any knowledge whatsoever about pit bulls? You keep referring to them as "fighting dogs." You have continually referenced the "growing pit bull problem." You consistently pin lots of hopes on breed-specific legislation. Pits are not born fighters. They can be trained as such. Even then, those dogs are trained NOT to bite humans. Did you know that in fighting situations, each dog is typically held by it's opponent's handler? It they were likely to be bent on human destruction, wouldn't that be the place to start? There is no "growing" problem. In fact, statistics indicate that the "problem" has been dropping steadily. See the numbers at http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com.... It's an unbiased source so you probably won't like it, but I deal better in facts. And your loaded gun metaphor doesn't hold any water, either. An loaded gun can go forever without shooting itself. That's kind of a gimme, isn't it? What seems to be a much better question, of course, is this: exactly how much time have you spent in the company of pit bulls? On what, other than the dubious websites you keep citing, are you basing your ridiculous claims? An expert who doesn't know her subject isn't exactly an expert, is she?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>Let the current adults live out their lives, but breed or allow no more. Like it or not, those laws are on their way to a jurisdiction near you . . .<<
---Actually, like it or not, they're probably not. There are many reasons why breed-specific legislation is doomed to fail, not the least of which is that people who have upwards of two or three thousand dollars to spend on obtaining a dog have pockets deep enough to fight vigorously for a very long time. There are well-funded organizations that help owners protect their animals. We also have those pesky facts on our side, and courts, unlike *you, tend to like those. There are far more compelling reasons, however, that make BSL a losing proposition. Like many states, the state in which I live, in an effort to protect citizens from sanctimonious goobers who don’t know much of anything, has a law prohibiting cities, towns, municipalities and counties from discriminating against certain breeds or types of dogs. Some of those areas can claim home rule, but that will trigger another long and expensive court battle during which they will have to prove that their law is not unconstitutional. Perhaps the only entity with more money to waste than a local government is the federal government, and may explain the tremendously low number of breed-specific laws currently in existence. It's a ridiculously expensive proposition, one which has a less-than-stellar history of succeeding. Breed-specific laws, aside from being, you know, idiotic, also give residents living with them a false sense of security. Suddenly, they believe they're free from worrying about dogs attacking or biting, and become less vigilant. Further, "pit bull" is not a breed of dog but a type, and not always an easy type to identify. My AmStaff is a mix, though her grin would indicate nothing but pure pit bull while my APBT is full-blooded but often mistaken for a Labrador retriever. Who gets to determine which dogs are pit-bull enough to warrant destruction? My dogs spend a lot of time in public; often the AmStaff has kids crawling all over her. The most common response I get from their parents when I tell them she’s a pit bull is, “You’re kidding? I never thought a pit bull would *be like that.” Go figure. Inevitably, though, what it all boils down to is this: we live in a land that celebrates the freedom of her citizens, and folks like me will continue to exercise those freedoms fight for them fiercely, even with – perhaps in spite of – the prospect of dealing with massive stupidity in the form of delusional busybodies.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well folks, the Judge has spoken and the County's position (no adoptions of pit bull type dogs) has been upheld. You can find the news, broken by the Loudoun Times-Mirror, here: http://www.loudountimes.com/news/2009/ma...
.
I point this out since no one commenting on this article since the story broke on May 23 has mentioned it. I just thought it might be helpful to inject some indisputable facts into the discussion.

Posted by Pablo01 (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>I point this out since no one commenting on this article since the story broke on May 23 has mentioned it. I just thought it might be helpful to inject some indisputable facts into the discussion.<<
What "indisputable facts" is it that you imagine you supplied? That a judge made a poor decision based on fiction? Congratulations, I guess. On the other hand, judges' decisions are overturned each and every day; nothing makes jurists infallible. And that which is deemed unlawful today and upheld to be so may find it fall out of favor later on, when clearer and smarter heads prevail. As documentation I'll submit the Three-Fifths Compromise (and if you don't know what that is, shame on you), which was, of course, eventually proven to be absolute crap. Truth be told, I'm in favor of limited adoptions through county facilities overall. I believe these wonderful animals deserve so much better, that homes and owners should be scrutinized with a jaundiced eye. I worry that people will look for low-priced breeding stock in these kinds of places, so that they can perpetuate the bad things associated with pit bull ownership. I've not been advocating for a lack of control in certain arenas. I've been advocating for people being informed, to deal in fact rather than urban legend, and to encourage those who clearly have not even the most tenuous grasp on the realities of these dogs to either get educated or get gone, at least as it pertains to my dogs and others of their breeds and types. :::shrug::: I've maintained all along that I'm working to protect my rights and the rights of others like me, who will continue to own pit bulls, regardless of whether folks like Peggy like it or not. I would be unlikely to get involved in a battle such as the one in Louden. You can believe that I'll fight tooth and nail, however, to keep my dogs, and all pits, safe from the moron contingency.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An addendum: the aside about being ashamed if you don't recognize the Three-Fifths Compromise was definitely not aimed at anyone here, but at someone close to me who often reads the boards on which I participate, a scholarship-bearing, honors-graduating, gonna-be-a-doctor young person who, hearing me reference it in relation to something else, promptly responded, "What's that?" Please accept my apologies if you were offended. He's the only one I was slinging arrows at. ;)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 25, 2009 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

<Well folks, the Judge has spoken and the County's position (no adoptions of pit bull type dogs) has been upheld . . . I point this out since no one commenting on this article since the story broke on May 23 has mentioned it. I just thought it might be helpful to inject some indisputable facts into the discussion.>
---What "indisputable facts" is it that you imagine you supplied?

Careful, Pablo. Apparently you "set this pit owner off" and if that old saw is true: "like owner/like master" you're in for a verbal mauling. (-:

A wise old man once told me that people will accuse others of what they are most guilty of themselves. It's pretty easy to figure out which posters have the most active imagination when it comes to facts. You've stayed out of the fray, posting only what really are "indisputable facts" only to have both the facts and your integrity impugned.

The judge saw this case as an attempted end-run around the powers of the board of supervisors: "“Although couched differently in the pleadings, this case is really an attempt to attack a policy decision of a legislative body,” McCahill said."

I wonder how much tax payers had to shell out to defend this nonsensical suit? I feel certain these tactics and the derisive, insulting attitudes like those we see here will undo their cause. Arguments conflating peanut butter and pit bulls seem doomed by their very nature. When was the last time you saw a kid with a pitbull and jelly sandwich? Apparently pit lovers will say anything to divert attention from the real issue: Why do we need such powerful dogs in modern society? Dogs that have repeatedly mauled small children, other dogs, other animals and full grown humans with devastating results?

Fortunately, jurists and legislators are waking to the truth so we'll see more and more rulings like this one as the fiscal risk associated with pit bulls is better understood. The judge wisely stated, as you did early on in this thread, Pablo, that it's the BOS that makes the decisions. There's been a sea change in all America in the last few years and the tricks that once worked for special interest groups are becoming less and less effective. I wouldn't be surprised that at the next pit bull hearing that there are people with signs decorated with the horrible mauling photos I've linked to on the Internet. PB apologists need a constant reminder of how potentially destructive a pet pit bulls can be. It's obvious they think it's all a myth despite the mayhem. The CDC stats say that many of these dogs have bitten their owner's children, so it's clear they're putting their own families at risk in a mistaken belief that nothing could ever happen. Far from being an urban legend, pits are becoming an urban nightmare in places like Detroit.

With so many other loving dogs destined for death row, why must we save those bred for fighting and whose attacks are often impossible to stop?

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>if..."like owner/like master" you're in for a verbal mauling.<<
Not at all. I think you'd find both of my pits to be more pleasant than I am. I have a fatal flaw that they don't -- I do not suffer fools well. But if you want to try smart once in awhile, I'll give nice a try from time to time.
>>It's pretty easy to figure out which posters have the most active imagination when it comes to facts. <<
So...you're accusing me of being partial to fact rather than fiction? In a debate? About something real? I'm guilty *every time. You, I assume, will stick with stupid.
>>I feel certain these tactics and the derisive, insulting attitudes like those we see here will undo their cause.<<
Mmm, I doubt it. We're still gonna have those facts that you find so offensive. But let’s do it this way: When we purchased the home we now live in, we bought insurance. Insurers’ entire business is based on statistics, the numbers that account for (a) Things That Have Already Happened, (b) Things That Could Happen In The Future, and (c) How Much Will It Cost Us If Any Of Those Things Occur. Based on those criteria, our insurer, a well-known, well-respected nationwide carrier, tailored policies to meet our exact needs. Shortly thereafter, we put a swimming pool in our backyard. Our insurer raised our premiums based on the above criteria. Sometime later, we added a trampoline, and our premiums were raised again. A couple of years later, our insurer told us we had to install a stockade-style fence and we complied. We have two children, and our pool and trampoline and house were always full of kids. There was always someone here; our own kids didn’t necessarily need to be present for my yard to look like the world’s oldest Gymboree class. We never once had an incident requiring usage of our insurance policies, but we paid them happily based on criterion (b) up there. My kids aged; my son began collecting classic Mustangs, and our premiums rose again. Some time later, my son began collecting pit bulls named after classic Mustangs. My insurance company was notified and...didn’t bat an eye. Now, criterion (a) up there is rock solid, as opposed to (b), which is somewhat more elastic. Yet they weighed both of them, along with (c), the one that is probably most important to them, and determined there was absolutely no reason to care. Evidently, it’s more likely that my trampoline will eat someone than my pit bulls would do the same. This begs the question – if *they don’t care, Peggy, why the hell do *you? I mean, it’s obvious that you’re not going to spend one single minute in the presence of the actual animal you have such a hatred for. My pits are going to affect you not one whit, and one assumes that’s true for *everyone’s pit bulls. You spend a lot of time wishing they would go away; I spend a lot of time wishing you would. Neither of us is likely to get our wish – there’s just no basis to fulfill them. So, really, what’s your motivation?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

::banging head on keyboard::
>>Apparently pit lovers will say anything to divert attention from the real issue: Why do we need such powerful dogs in modern society?<<
--See, here's the problem: it's not that *we'll say anything. We want to stick with factual information. You seem to be standing alone, trying to rouse whatever rabble you can find, attempting to divert attention from the fact that you haven’t addressed a single issue on which you’ve been challenged, citing information that could've been written by the 9 year old next door, and which should be trusted just as though it were. I give you unbiased websites who do not, as it were, have a dog in this fight, and you give me Wikipedia. No wonder you're losing. I'm sorry that you're not very good at this. I fear there's no help for it, though.
>>Dogs that have repeatedly mauled small children, other dogs, other animals and full grown humans with devastating results?<<
--Have you ever seen the devastating results of a collision between a bike rider and, say, an SUV? Which of those are you putting on your eradication list?
>>Fortunately, jurists and legislators are waking to the truth so we'll see more and more rulings like this one as the fiscal risk associated with pit bulls is better understood.<<
--Well, no, given the 39 breed-specific laws on the books, none of which mandate destruction of the dogs in question across the board, out of the thousands and thousands and thousands of cities, towns, villages and counties in this country. Does it make you feel better, though, to pretend you have a point?
>>The judge wisely stated...it's the BOS that makes the decisions...<<
--ROFL! Seriously, pick one argument to lose at a time, will you? You've been demanding the destruction of pit bulls. You cannot be delusional enough to believe that a BOS has the kind of jurisdiction you're longing for, can you? Dear god.
>>There's been a sea change in all America in the last few years and the tricks that once worked for special interest groups are becoming less and less effective.<<
--You think? Could you explain the *lower instances of this legislation across the US, then?
>>I wouldn't be surprised that at the next pit bull hearing that there are people with signs decorated with the horrible mauling photos I've linked to on the Internet.<<
--I wouldn't either. I assume they'll be sequestered in the Moron Section. Do you suppose they’ll set up a section for those of us who have something worthwhile to share, you know, like our actual dogs?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>The CDC stats say that many of these dogs have bitten their owner's children...<<
--See, Peggy, here's where you're going to want to be more careful about the citations you choose to use, and the sources you draw them from. I visited the CDC website too. Your selective presentation of the information is very telling. How does that cherry-picking forward your position in any way? You *must know that people are going to check, right, especially given your penchant for playing fast and loose with the truth. I spent some extra time on that site, too, since you like it so much. They seem to have a rebuttal for your “growing pit bull problem.” Near as I can tell, we have an impressive *shrinking pit bull problem. Their chart of dog-bite fatalities included numbers for every two years from 1983 through 1996. During those years, pits caused the following number of deaths: 10, 9, 12, 8, 6, 5 and 3. I’m no mathematician, but even I can recognize that those numbers are going down, not up. Rotts numbers for the last two sets of years, on the other hand, exploded: 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 10 and 10. And German Shepherds seemed to go in spurts: 5, 1, 1, 5, 2, 0, 2. Those numbers were for full-blooded animals. In mixed-pit breeds, the numbers were even better: 0, 3, 2, 3, 1, 1, 0. If I’m not mistaken, *that’s a set of declining numbers, too, isn’t it? The numbers I really like, though, come from the National Canine Research Council. They report “There is no national system in the United States for tallying reports of dog bites. The often-repeated numbers that inspired some to declare a dog bite “epidemic” were estimated on the basis of a telephone survey conducted in 1994. From among the 5,328 persons who responded to this survey, interviewers obtained reports of 196 dog bites within the previous 12 months. (Only 38 of those sought medical attention). Alarmists quote the numbers extrapolated from this 14-year-old telephone survey as evidence that dogs are a growing threat. However, communities across the country report the good, less publicized news that actual (not estimated) reports of dog bites are decreasing, and have been for years.” And *their information regarding bite incidents in five major cities comes directly from animal control and/or public health offices. You don’t mind if I believe them just a little more than I do you, right?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I offer this as a caution and a rebuttal to those who assure us that "their pit bull is loving and protective" and would never hurt anyone for any reason. Anyone who thinks they can predict animal behavior with such certainty is almost certainly fooling themselves and trying to fool everyone else, too. This report, as many of you probably know from your own research, is typical of so many serious pit bull maulings:

LAKE ELSINORE---- Jennifer Ruckel never saw it coming, she said on a recent afternoon. One minute she was sitting on her bed talking to her sister Robin, laughing and watching her 18-month-old son Taylor dance on the rug at their feet ---- the next, their 30 seconds of terror began.

With no provocation or warning, the family's 5-year-old pit bull, Molly, suddenly lunged across the room and grabbed Taylor's head in its jaws and began shaking the boy like a rag doll.

"The dog just snapped; it changed from a protective, loving dog to a beast within a second," Jennifer said of the March 31 attack.

read more at:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/...

"No provocation or warning"

If pit bull attacks aren't really a problem, then why is it so damn easy to find article after article about them? Why is there no shortage of photos of the gruesome injuries that often result?

It's clear from the recent trial in LC that at least some people have had enough and want to lock down the pit bull problem before too many more kids are maimed. The way to do that is to control and slowly eliminate their breeding, which is what Loudoun County officials are doing. Bravo! If pit bull owners are true dog lovers, they can get by with a less dangerous dog.

There's an old saying: Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. Well, too many pits have bitten off too many noses to be ignored and I don't want mine to be next. Three cheers for Judge Cahill for upholding the right of the animal shelter to refuse to add to the growing pit problem by adopting out any more of them.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>I offer this as a caution and a rebuttal to those who assure us that "their pit bull is loving and protective" and would never hurt anyone for any reason.<<
--Can you show me a single instance where I suggested my pit bulls "would never hurt anyone for any reason?" I can think of any number of reasons my pits would bite, and most of them would center on being loving and protective of me and my family. Having said that, however, I can't help but notice that, once again, you have offered *anecdote instead of *fact. I have begun to believe you truly do not understand the difference between the two. There is something so sad about that that I could just weep for you. And I have to tell you that I would not be able to accept a caution or rebuttal from you if it came wrapped around a pair of diamond shoes.
>>If pit bull attacks aren't really a problem, then why is it so damn easy to find article after article about them? Why is there no shortage of photos of the gruesome injuries that often result?<<
--Because, like you, there seem to be people who are pathologically drawn to the melodramatic and ghastly. Have I suggested that pit bull attacks *never happen? No? Then why are you so very insistent on beating that particular dead horse?
>>The way to do that is to control and slowly eliminate their breeding, which is what Loudoun County officials are doing<<
--Dear god, you *can read for comprehension, can't you? The Loudon County officials are doing no such thing. They are refusing to adopt this particular type of animal through their facilities. Pit bulls are service animal. There are K9 pits. They serve in the military. There are breeders with enormous investments in their stock. Do you suppose we’re going to roll over for someone like *you? You simply cannot be so delusional that you believe that your personal A-to-B scenario is going to come true, can you?
>>If pit bull owners are true dog lovers, they can get by with a less dangerous dog.<<
No, thank you, I'm sticking with pit bulls. And, I suspect, *that is the real crux of the problem for you, isn't it, Peggy? I started out believing you have pit bull issues. What you *really have is control issues, don't you? You want us all to conform to your outline of ideal. And, I'm sorry, but on the Big List of People I'm Willing To Follow, you just do not appear.
>>Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. Well, too many pits have bitten off too many noses to be ignored and I don't want mine to be next.<<
--Great advice. Have you considered taking it? Your right to control what kind of dogs populate a household ends with *your household. As for mine, well, there will always be a pit population here.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>>Three cheers for Judge Cahill for upholding the right of the animal shelter to refuse to add to the growing pit problem by adopting out any more of them.<<
--Yep. But you *do realize, don't you, that that is the entire extent of his ability? That he has managed to stop adoptions in a jurisdiction of --what?-- less than 300 thousand people? Out of the country's population of nearly 310 million? I'm going to sit on the unimpressed side of the aisle. You seem to think he's working toward eliminating pits everywhere rather than simply eliminating specific adoptions in certain places in exactly *one location in the U.S. And I'm very afraid that you do not recognize the difference. In addition, while you continue to ask questions, I’ve yet to see you answer any. Nor do you seem willing or able to counter any of the factual information from neutral websites – some of them websites you have used yourself – that has been posted. Now I wonder why that is… ;)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems so strange that anyone could believe labeling those who disagree with them as a "moron, hysterical, idiotic, delusional or a busybody" could help their cause.

If an advocate for pit bulls can't behave in a civil manner online, why should we believe they're capable of teaching their dog proper behavior and restraint?

How credible is a PB advocate when they repeatedly charge that their opponent's evidence is anecdotal/worthless but then constantly cites their own anecdotal Lab dog bite experience as highly relevant? How can we believe someone who writes: "no one collects dog bite figures [that] . . . you keep spewing" when they subsequently claim statistics show: "There is no "growing" problem." It blows my mind that someone can say whatever comes to mind, and expect people to believe it, even when they directly contradict their previous posts? How can anyone can be so unaware of their own logical inconsistencies? If this is the best that the PB lobby has, it’s going to be a short fight. Eventually, pits will maul enough people that everyone will know a pit bull victim personally. People aren't so stupid that they can be duped into believing day is night, black is white and pit bulls never hurt anybody. <sigh>

Sadly, there can be no reasonable discussion with a person who can't cite one single special trait that a pit or Rott has that couldn't be found in a slightly less powerful, less dangerous and more socially acceptable dog. This was never a great legal debate about civil rights. It has always been about a bunch of folks who believe their selfish desire to own a large, powerful dog with a history of severe, unprovoked maulings trumps society's right to protect its most vulnerable members. More incredible, still, some PB owners seem to believe they have an apparently inalienable Constitutional right to own as dangerous a dog as they please. While gun ownership has a Constitutional foundation, I challenge anyone to find any reference to the right to own the dog of your choice in that document. The Constitution only assures no one will take a dog (which the law considers property) without due process. PG County's pit bull law "you can own yours until it dies, but you can't get another" seems to fall within that due process clause. Not letting someone own a new pit is not depriving them of their property. As Judge Cahill ruled, not letting people adopt them from the LC shelter does not violate due process, either.

The task will be to write laws that are immune to court challenge. Fortunately, the litigation that took place here in LC and elsewhere is advancing that process. The law in PG County banning pits is still in full force and many more jurisdictions are adopting rules like the ones mentioned in this article. The downturn in the economy will accelerate the process as more people abandon dogs they can't afford to feed and those pits "go bad."

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 26, 2009 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>It seems so strange that anyone could believe labeling those who disagree with them as a "moron, hysterical, idiotic, delusional or a busybody" could help their cause.<
--It seems strange that anyone living in the information age would continue to spout nonsense, urban legend, myth and outright lies in the face of fact. And if you recognize yourself in any particular description, well, that's not really my fault, is it?
>How can we believe someone who writes: "no one collects dog bite figures [that] . . . you keep spewing" when they subsequently claim statistics show: "There is no "growing" problem."<
--The key there, Einstein, is in the words "dog bite" as it specifically applies to animal aggression. This is a topic you have beaten to death. I do believe I went on to say that they do collect dog-human incidents, gave examples and provided the neutral website where the information could be found. Since this is very different from your Wikipedia approach, I can understand why you're struggling with it.
> It blows my mind that someone can say whatever comes to mind, and expect people to believe it...<
--So you're upset that the statistics proved my claim? I'm sorry. And I do not simply expect people to believe anything, which is why I've documented every claim I've made. You should try that sometime.
>Eventually, pits will maul enough people that everyone will know a pit bull victim personally. <
--Know what scares the bejeezus out of me, Peggy? I truly believe that you're hoping this happens so you can finally jump out from behind a tree and shriek, "Gotcha!" Fortunately for the innocents, statistics indicate that this is extremely unlikely.
>How can anyone can be so unaware of their own logical inconsistencies?<
--Dear god, is it possible for me to die of irony poisoning...?
>People aren't so stupid that they can be duped into believing...pit bulls never hurt anybody.<
--I'd appreciate it if you could provide me with any post in which I claimed this. TIA.
>there can be no reasonable discussion with a person who can't cite one single special trait that a pit or Rott has that couldn't be found in a slightly less powerful, less dangerous and more socially acceptable dog.<
--You mean other than the one's I cited? The fact that they're smarter, train better and easier, are one of the best family dogs one can have, that they're gorgeous, that their personalities lend them to good works? How many reasons would you like? And seriously? That *you don't find them "socially acceptable" doesn't make it true. I'm not sure *you meet that description but I'm not counting on anyone locking you away.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>This was never a great legal debate about civil rights. It has always been about a bunch of folks who believe their selfish desire to own a large, powerful dog with a history of severe, unprovoked maulings trumps society's right to protect its most vulnerable members.<
--Y'know, in some ways it *is a civil rights issue. No one's making you own a pit bull. And we expect you to leave ours alone. Win-win, no? I mean, to believe otherwise would simply be the very definition of selfish. And you *do know that your overwrought and under-informed descriptions border on the ludicrous, don't you?
>While gun ownership has a Constitutional foundation, I challenge anyone to find any reference to the right to own the dog of your choice in that document.<
--You didn't pay attention in Civics class, did you? Those rights not mentioned or enumerated in the Constitution are outside the purview of the federal government.
>The task will be to write laws that are immune to court challenge.<
--Given your depth of knowledge about Constitutional rights, I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about you helping to advance that cause. ;)
>many more jurisdictions are adopting rules like the ones mentioned in this article.<
--Documentation, please. Not anecdote, not Wikipedia, not opinion. Just any simple, neutral substantiation will do. Again, TIA.
>The downturn in the economy will accelerate the process as more people abandon dogs they can't afford to feed and those pits "go bad."<
--Is there someone who can help you read the big words in that documentation I keep offering? See, pits don't just go bad, and I've offered countless pieces of proof. Now I just feel sorry for you.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>>If an advocate for pit bulls can't behave in a civil manner online, why should we believe they're capable of teaching their dog proper behavior and restraint?<<

--When one is reduced to complaining about the tone of the debate, it is most certainly the strongest indication available that one has nothing of substance to offer that debate. Not to worry -- I didn't expect otherwise. Tell me, though...are you comfortable with your desire to be the arbiter of *everything that people might want to say or do or own or participate in? At what point did you develop this need to exercise that kind of control? How much is enough for you? And, really, don't you find it at all odd that you're so passionate about your compulsion to command and bully the behavior of people and threaten the very existence of animals you will never, *ever encounter in real life? You don't like the information I provide, you don't care for my tone, you want my dogs destroyed, and you would extend that to anyone like me, as well as their pets -- none of that seems a little over the top? I mean, in the line I quoted from your post, you ask why you should "believe [I'm] capable of teaching [my] dog proper behavior and restraint." This presupposes the notion that I give a rat's ass what you believe, and indicates that you think I should. *That is a control issue, and I suspect it will cause you more trouble than any pit bull you might ever run across.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 1:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Holy Toledo. I am chastised repeatedly for using (allegedly) anecdotal evidence by someone who then turns right around and submits their own "case history" as supposed proof that insurers don't consider pits a problem. Unscramble these words: "Her Coy Pit" to find the word that best describes accusing others of what you're most guilty of yourself.

Although one *particular* insurer may not charge pit owners higher rates for the greater risk exposure, many insurers do:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/insuran... says:

“Insurers say when they identify dog breeds that tend to bite, it helps bring down the cost of homeowner policies . . . Large dogs that can inflict a lot of damage are prime "no-insure" targets.”

Insurers constantly review the claims that they have been forced to pay out, especially large jury awards that are 5 or 10 times as large as the insurer's settlement offer. One of the sad reasons someone might not get charged a higher premium is that many insurers don't pay out at all when a pit bull mauls a family member.

The article also lists 11 breeds insurers most frequently charge higher rates to own or refuse to insure altogether.

The extreme intransigence of so many pit owners to even admit that there's a serious societal problem has forced others to address the issue for them. In the past, insurers would just raise premiums for pit owners; now many won't even offer them home insurance. Insurers have also started to withdraw coverage to shelters which accept pit bulls for adoption. There was conjecture that the Loudoun county shelter is under the same gun. So far, the purported deep pockets of PB dog lovers aren't so limitless they are offering to find a way to indemnify the county's taxpayers if the shelter loses its insurance protection? Self-insurance like that can be prohibitively expensive.

If pits are of no alleged concern to insurers, then why do “bully” fans keep a list of the pit friendly insurers who don't charge pit owners more?

http://saveabull.com/2008/insurance-for-...

Despite the single data point we were offered, it's quite evident that some insurers see pits as a serious risk and therefore charge pit owners extra or refuse them coverage. There are also jurisdictions that mandate special dog liability insurance, too, and confiscate and kill dogs whose owners do not comply.
Pit owners are getting a free ride off dog-less people who have the same insurer. I'll bet those other customers probably don't know they're carrying pit bulls on their backs. I'll get on it right away, though. If enough non-pit owners learn they're subsidizing pit bull payouts, they'll demand that free ride comes to an end.

Even the AKC maintains a list of which insurers ban what breeds and why:

http://www.akc.org/insurance/insurance_c...

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 27, 2009 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>I am chastised repeatedly for using (allegedly) anecdotal evidence by someone who then turns right around and submits their own "case history" as supposed proof that insurers don't consider pits a problem.<
--God, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. You are chastised repeatedly for using (absolutely) anecdotal evidence in an attempt to support your ridiculous, mythical claims of fact. I, on the other hand, submitted that personal example in an effort to elicit from you the answers to questions that are pertinent only to *my situation. Mine, Peggy. *My pits, *my insurer, *my experience. Since you've made this debate very personal, I was looking for your views in that respect ONLY. If you'll read it again, and please feel free to follow along with your finger if it helps you concentrate, you’ll see that I did not suggest that my experience was universal. I did not say that other insurers would do the same as mine. I did not claim anything was fact other than those details that belong strictly to me. Tell me you *do recognize the difference between those, because I’m genuinely afraid at this point that you lack that capacity.
>Unscramble these words: "Her Coy Pit"<
--Oh, my hell. If this is what passes for clever in your world, I weep for those who have to deal with you on a daily basis.
>Although one *particular* insurer may not charge pit owners higher rates for the greater risk exposure, many insurers do<
--True. And…? The flip side of that, of course, is that many do *not. There are many things that will make one’s insurance costs rise; pit bulls are not unique in that respect. I imagine that’s why policies are tailored to each specific customer. If it was a one-situation-fits-all prospect, you could buy insurance from a vending machine.
>The article also lists 11 breeds insurers most frequently charge higher rates to own or refuse to insure altogether.<
And yet you continue to shriek for the elimination of pit bulls. Do the other ten get a pass or are you just going to work on destroying them in order?
>The extreme intransigence of so many pit owners to even admit that there's a serious societal problem…<
--A “societal problem? Really? Poverty is a societal problem, Peggy. The lack of quality education in the inner city is a societal problem. Health care access is a societal problem. Pit bulls don’t even rate a blip on the screen. You should try to unclench your colon.
>There was conjecture that the Loudoun county shelter is under the same gun. <
--Ah, conjecture. It’s about as useful in a debate as anecdotes. No wonder you’re drawn to it.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 3:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>So far, the purported deep pockets of PB dog lovers aren't so limitless they are offering to find a way to indemnify the county's taxpayers if the shelter loses its insurance protection?<
--I don’t know, but perhaps that’s because it’s so unnecessary? I searched every way I could think of to find lawsuits filed against cities or counties due to a pit bull adoption. I found exactly three of them, and not one matched the circumstances of this particular case. I would like to believe that the reasons for the lack of lawsuits is twofold: there simply aren’t many of them and/or, unlike *you, most folks believe in personal responsibility, and realize that even if something should go wrong with the dog – *any kind of dog – they adopted, the decision was ultimately theirs, and forego litigation because they don’t blame others for that decision.
>If pits are of no alleged concern to insurers, then why do “bully” fans keep a list of the pit friendly insurers who don't charge pit owners more?<
--Is that a real question? Is the answer “because people want to save money” something that just didn’t occur to you? Anecdotally, I found this on a website: “I am insured with State Farm, and in the state I live in, they do not/can not ask what breed of dog you own, only how many and if they have ever bitten anyone. If that is the case with your carrier, you may not see a rate increase at all, unless they increase for the number of dogs…If your company asks breed and wants to raise rates or drop your coverage, you may want to call around and ask for new quotes from other insurance companies. Tell your current company you are doing so and will leave them if they raise your rates, you may find the rate mysteriously drops to keep you as a customer.” Interesting, no?
>It's quite evident that some insurers see pits as a serious risk and therefore charge pit owners extra or refuse them coverage. <
--And it’s evident that some insurers do not, or are prohibited by law from doing so. Your turn.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 3:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>Pit owners are getting a free ride off dog-less people who have the same insurer<
--Following that logic, people whose homes catch on fire are getting a free ride off fire-less people. People who are robbed are getting a free ride off thief-free people. Shall I gather up some arsonists and burglars for you to round things out and make it more even?
>I'll bet those other customers probably don't know they're carrying pit bulls on their backs. <
--I wouldn’t take that bet. I’m guessing that there are far fewer folks like you out there, and far more that have comprehension skills beyond that of your average second grader.
>I'll get on it right away, though.<
--I hope you mean that. I believe you are one of the best pro-pit tools I’ve ever run across. The more you talk, I’m guessing, the more people will recognize that you are fundamentally unable to grasp this issue and deal with it like an adult, and will work hard not to be like you. Hurry, ‘k?
>If enough non-pit owners learn they're subsidizing pit bull payouts, they'll demand that free ride comes to an end.<
--I think you have a fundamental lack of understanding of how business works. Apparently your expertise there is in line with your mastery of Constitutional issues. But as long as you brought it up, documentation please. May I see the numbers on the amounts of insurance company payouts due to pit bull incidents? Can you include the information comparing those to payouts attributed to all other breeds of dogs, please? And it would be helpful if you could provide information about total expenditures for claims so we can see what percentage of those payouts is due to animal aggression problems.
Now, I suppose it’s outside the realm of possibility that you’ll set aside your dodge-and-deflect/baffle-them-with-BS method of participation and answer any of the questions I asked in previous posts? I'm guessing that you'll keep avoiding them, but hope springs eternal. ;)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 3:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We've recently been told all the attack horror stories about pits being more aggressive by nature are just lies. We've been told the pit problem isn't escalating and the real problem is "delusional busybodies." Those claims are false and have been fabricated so that pit owners can continue to own a dog that has no place in society. There are scientific reasons that many jurisdictions, including one bordering DC, have made new pit ownership difficult or outright illegal. The real truth is well known; you can read it for yourselves and make your own decision:

http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/dog-care/d...

The ASPCA says pits were "selectively bred to participate in an inhumane blood sport called baiting." Pits were trained to attack a bull's face and to stay locked on hard. Sane people are right to wonder if it's wise to preserve a breed created to commit inhumane acts on other animals. Most of us know a dog that can hang on to a terrorized bull for as long as it took to bring them down is quite capable of killing much smaller human beings. Most of us know pits HAVE killed. Repeatedly. Pits were bred as relentless, fearless killers and EVERY PIT ALIVE carries those same genes. The ASPCA piece describes how breeders select only the dogs that were the best at killing to produce offspring. That meant the meanest, most tenacious dogs were selected and bred over and over until we reached a dog that seemingly endless news report tell us can grab onto a child's or small dogs head and shake it as if it were a bull's lip or a chew toy.

Here's the clincher, in their words: "pit bulls can easily be encouraged to be aggressive toward other dogs" and that "it takes less to arouse a pit bull than many other breeds to be aggressive toward other dogs." We've heard pit advocates make a huge point of how "sweet" pits don't maul people, just other dogs, conveniently forgetting that people and dogs are usually together in dog parks, backyards and city streets. Many victims have been seriously hurt and some killed trying to protect their small dog from a vicious pit attack. "The pit bull is genetically predisposed to react aggressively to dogs." Something everyone but the pit lobby seems to have known all along. They say that most non-pit dogfights are rituals designed to show dominance with little or no bloodshed. But then they add that pit bulls behave quite differently in a fight. "They rarely give any warning that they are about to act aggressively (some people call them “stone-faced”), and they seldom back down against an opponent. They are more often involved in fights that end in injury, suggesting that a pit bull’s aggression more closely resembles predatory behavior."

That about sums it up.

"They rarely give any warning . . ."
"A pit bull’s aggression more closely resembles predatory behavior."
Pits are "more often involved in fights that end in injury"

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you bother to read your own documentation, Peggy? I did. How, exactly, did you manage to miss this part: "we must tell you that a well-bred, well-socialized, and well-trained pit bull is one of the most delightful, intelligent, and gentle dogs imaginable." Or this: "The majority of pit bulls are still ambassadors for their breed, serving as loving companions, family members, and therapy dogs, working in search and rescue, narcotics and explosives detection, and police and sentry duty. Unfortunately, we often hear more about the exceptions than the rule." It couldn't be that you're cherry-picking again, could it? That you're selectively choosing bits of information to share and hoping no one will take the time to investigate or challenge you? You say, “Pits were bred as relentless, fearless killers and EVERY PIT ALIVE carries those same genes.” Indeed. Much like, say, the children of sociopathic and psychotic human murderers carry the genes of *their parents. Would you like to start gathering them up for extermination?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The basic problem, Peggy is this: your arguments are weak-to-nonexistent, based on, at best, junk science, and at worst, plain fiction. It is clear that you have not thought your arguments through to their logical and inevitable conclusions. I imagine that, inside your head, your argument sounds something like the following. “Pit bulls are bad! Pit bulls must be eradicated to make everyone safe! I wonder what’s for dinner! There’s a squirrel!” For those of us on the other side of your skull, we are left to extrapolate your arguments for ourselves. Here’s what it sounds like inside *my head: Peggy doesn’t like pit bulls. She has never been in the presence of an *actual pit bull-type dog, but she *does like her lurid and sensationalized internet nonsense, so she has taken the hysterical path toward presenting her thoughts. In the wake of such immature behavior, I am left to figure out the consequences of her ill-advised actions on my own. And so I have.
Imagine for a moment, Peggy, that we entertain your notion. We decide to simply destroy all pit bulls. Oops, here’s our first roadblock. Pit bull isn’t a breed. How are we going to determine which dogs meet your rather lax qualifications? Should we go by bloodlines? Or how they look? Are we going to destroy them when they’re still puppies? That could lead to a lot of canine murder, given the fact that many dogs would be misidentified, causing us to kill dogs with no ties to the problem while missing animals that might otherwise make the hit list. Maybe we should wait until they grow up and try to identify them then. Of course, as they age and begin to cause exactly no problems, you might find it difficult to pry them away from their owners. Assuming there’s no Peggy Principle under which the government can just sail in and appropriate your pets for no damn reason, this is going to cause any number of expensive, time-consuming legal problems, some of them those pesky Constitutional issues that courts have strong feelings for and which you have trouble understanding.
Let’s say, in a rare moment of lucidity, we approach Peggy for advice on how to deal with this thorny issue. Shall we stop just destroying animals willy-nilly to focus on those that are causing *genuine problems? Well, hell, we already do that. What’s the point of whining about this anymore? But, Peggy says, we must be prepared for what *may happen, y’know, for the chiiiiiiiiildren. Ok, I think. But maybe we should identify all those things that substantially threaten children and do something about them in a better-ordered manner. I mean, there are so many, many things that can and *do hurt kids, and you seem to be able to overlook them.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In fact, I believe you said something along the lines of “just because there are worse things out there, should we ignore the pit problem?” Um, *yeah, Peggy, I think that’s pretty close to what we should do. Making risk assessments is supposed to, well, assess risk. One assumes, then, that anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size would *want to invest their time in preventing that which is most likely to happen, and in descending order. For example, “there are 73 to 85 million bicycle riders in the US, including 45 million over age 6 who rode more than six times in 2008. 700 bicyclists died on US roads in 2007. Over 90 percent died in crashes with motor vehicles. The "typical" bicyclist killed on our roads is a sober male over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major road between intersections in an urban area on a summer evening when hit by a car. About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized. Bicycle crashes and injuries are under-reported, since the majority are not serious enough for emergency room visits. 43,000 cyclists were reported injured in traffic crashes in 2007. 1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries had a brain injury. Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury. A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent” (www.bhsi.org). I have to wonder, Peggy, given the way you gush over your desire to protect kids, why you aren’t jumping on *this particular bandwagon? To do otherwise suggests to me that you don’t *really give a tiny little damn about kids, that you’re simply interested in exercising your will in venues that are none of your business, that you are in *way over your head, treading water madly, but still going down for the third time anyway. It is, again, a strawman argument that you’re pinning your hopes on, and one of those control issues we’ve spoken about before. Well, that, or you are simply congenitally unable to follow the debate from A to B to C, in which case you should probably just go color until someone comes along who can help you.
If a child loses a lip or an ear in a dog attack, is she more disfigured if that dog is a pit bull rather than a Labrador retriever? If an infant, god forbid, is killed by a dog, is the baby more dead if killed by a pit, or is he just as dead having been killed by a cocker spaniel? Could you *possibly expand your thoughts to include the *end of the situations you keep scampering around the internet to find? Because, I gotta tell you, you keep singing the same old song, and even the band isn’t with you anymore.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on May 28, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Today's Pit Bull Attacks from Google News:

http://news.google.com/news?&q=pitbu...

Two days ago in Fairfax:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/... --- Pit bull attacks 3-year-old boy; woman charged By: Scott McCabe Examiner Staff Writer 05/30/09 10:05 AM EDT A woman was charged after a 3-year-old boy was attacked and seriously injured by a pit bull terrier, according to Fairfax Cty police. Police arrested 24-year-old Erika R. Williams on 9 charges, including abuse and neglect of children, failing to get medical attention for an injured child, obstruction of justice, and withholding information about a possibly rabid animal.

http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Pi... --- Syracuse (WSYR-TV) - The number of pit bull attacks is growing in the city of Syracuse. The city's dog control department has responded to 19 pit bull bites so far this year. That's nearly double the amount during all of last year.

http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/local... --- HAVERHILL, Mass. -- A pit bull attacked a toddler in Haverhill. 1-year-old Bianca Zangari and her mother were at a home in Haverhill Thursday with some friends when a young man sat on the pit bull, which is when the dog lunged at Bianca. Bianca was bitten on her face and needed surgery. She has more than 50 stitches in her mouth.

http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/45821... --- Pitbull Attacks 6-year old Girl
WOWT - ‎May 21, 2009‎ The children were playing with a plastic ball when it landed on the other side of the neighbor's chainlink fence. Aliyah went to get it. When she leaned across the limp fence, the dog bit her. The family says the dog's owners … had to repeatedly punch the dog just to get him to let go of Aliyah.

http://www.examiner.com/x-3118-Boston-Do... --- Gloucester times reporting of pit-bull attack leads to breed-ban . . . two pitbulls escaped a fenced yard and attacked a pair of miniature horses.

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/2009... --- Monday, June 1, 2009 at 4:30 a.m. To The Editor: Will your child or loved one be next? How many more tragically disfigured children, by pit bull attacks, must there be before something is done? Much too often we read, or see on the nightly news, another such attack, and much too often, a denial of any previous aggression. What is the answer? Perhaps some specific laws regarding pet restraints would be in order and perhaps by contacting our representative we could get more laws passed.

Joyce Youngblood
Hendersonville

Amen, Joyce! Write to your representatives to encourage them to take control of the situation.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 5:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The trend toward more serious regulation of pits and other large, potentially dangerous continues. On Friday, May 15th, Huntsville passed a new animal control law after two pits mauled a blind teenager:

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/l...

If a dog is legally declared dangerous, its owners can be ordered to neutered it and house it in an escape-proof pen. Like other cities, Huntsville can now order the animal muzzled when out in public. Owners would have to pay a $100-a-year fee once the dog was declared dangerous. This stronger and breed-neutral law was passed after two pit bulls attacked a legally blind teenager out for a walk, sending him to the ER for wounds on his hands, arms and head.

There's still a problem with that approach: It means that at a mauling (or two) has to occur before real action is taken. I suggest that large dogs like pits be aggression tested yearly, either by the animal control wardens or by a vet, to assure that they are not already a "dangerous dog." After all, we have vehicle inspection and animal inoculation laws. The larger the dog, the more mayhem it is likely to be able to commit. We can register and test all pits, Rotts and other animals that are on the insurance companies "most likely to cause serious harm" list to make sure their owner is properly socializing the animal and treating and caring for it properly. The process could be paid for by a special assessment on dogs over a certain number of pounds. We already do that with other dangerous property, motor vehicles. It's a reasonable way to keep serious dog attacks in check.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>The trend toward more serious regulation of pits and other large, potentially dangerous continues<
--Odd, this, at least from *you, Peggy. I have seen exactly zero suggestions from you regarding the disposition of pit bulls outside your hysterical "we have to rid the world of all of them" diatribes. I cannot imagine for a moment that those who love these animals would be *opposed to those things that would keep their animals *and their communities safer. You have been asked, repeatedly, what *reasonable measures you would be interested in pursuing. I don't know if you read them and ignore them, or if you just don't read anyone's posts since you *looooove the sound of your own voice. But if you *had bothered to do so, you might have found a veritable fountain of cooperation on this side of the pit bull fence.
>If a dog is legally declared dangerous, its owners can be ordered to neutered it and house it in an escape-proof pen<
--Imagine *that -- a logical, well-reasoned law that doesn't automatically insist that the dog be destroyed. I have a hard time believing that *you, of all people, think that *this is a good idea.
>I suggest that large dogs like pits be aggression tested yearly, either by the animal control wardens or by a vet, to assure that they are not already a "dangerous dog."<
--*Really? You haven't thought that one through, have you? Unless you think you'd *like to see Chihuahuas and poodles being designated as dangerous based on those kinds of tests. ;)
>The larger the dog, the more mayhem it is likely to be able to commit.<
--DOCUMENTATION, PLEASE. I know you don't believe in substantiating your outlandish claims, but hope springs eternal.
>It's a reasonable way to keep serious dog attacks in check.<
--It's a patently absurd suggestion, which is why *you thought of it. The vehicle inspection laws you spoke of don't end up costing the SUV owner more than the guy who drives the Prius. It's idiocy at its best; a law designed to protect no one from nothing, something that only those completely lacking in rational thought would approve of.
Having said that, are you *ever going to actually debate on the debate board? Are you going to answer those questions posed and submit your documentation for your statements of fact? Because, I gotta tell you, I'm pretty much finished with your lecture series, and if you're planning to continue it, I'm gonna be done.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 1, 2009 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We're told pits are the most loving, kind dogs in the world. So why are news stories of ferocious pit attacks just so easy to find? It's obvious they are happening every day in America. The articles paint a chilling picture of the breed: "Came from nowhere" – "No barking or warning" – "Went for the face" – "Had to be beaten off" – "Would have killed if not stopped"

Just this Monday on Jun 1st a pit mauled the great-granddaughter of the Accomack County supervisor.

http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20090...

"Thornton stated the attack came so fast that there was no time to stop it . . .“I think they would have killed her . . . people . . . responded by pulling the dog off the 6-year-old child . . . dog got the little girl on the ground and went for her face"

Here's another little girl mauled by a pit:

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/jun...

Pit bull attacks 3-year-old San Angelo girl

"girl was sent to a hospital with serious injuries after a pit bull attacked her . . .Soria Estrada, 3, suffered bites to her head . . . other person, Ashley Rios, 18, was also bitten . . .

Most telling was a note in the comment section from a 45 yr old man that said although he's owned pits all his life, he has concluded "that pits are naturally aggressive breeds." He says he won't own another pit because he has grandkids. He asks, point blank, "Why put your babies at risk? These animals can kill so easily."

http://www.oakridger.com/news/x117599714...

"saw the pit bull attack the other dog . . . found the pit bull covered in blood . . . dog became aggressive and …shot the dog six times . . .tried to get up, got aggressive and tried to bite . . . shot the dog five more times"

In another part of the country, a pit reverts to its bull baiting days and once again goes for the face:

http://cbs4.com/local/Pit.Bull.Attack.2....

Two Pit Bulls To Be Euthanized After Deadly Attack Dogs Killed A Yorkie, Mauled A 2nd Dog And Bit Woman In The Face

more about the same attack:

http://www.news-press.com/article/200905...

Even though his dog bit a woman's face, seriously mauled one of her dogs and killed the other, this pit owner obviously felt little responsibility or remorse saying, "I have enough pain, don't you think?" Pit owners seem to believe that having their killer dogs put down is enough to excuse them from paying for the often significant damage their dogs have done.

No matter what some people might say, this is a breed created to commit cruel and horrible acts on large animals like bulls and bears. Pits are a living monument to a time when people thought there was nothing wrong with breeding dogs to torture and kill other animals. They have no place in modern society.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 3, 2009 at 5:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>They have no place in modern society.<
Funny, that. That's pretty much how I feel about *you.
And there's my answer about your inability to debate and your desire to subject everyone else to the sound of your preaching. Maybe folks should forgo Jesus and just gather around *you on Sunday mornings...?
I have encountered other people like you, people who are either irretrievably stupid or congenitally insane, on debate boards all over the net, but not many. In the Land of the Obnoxious, I believe you might just reign supreme. It's clear, given your desire to make decisions for others and remove from them the freedom to choose for themselves, that you believe in the whole "it takes a village" line of thought. Why is it *always the Village Idiot who wants to be in charge? In closing and as I exit, I want to say I am very, very *truly sorry about whatever is *wrong with you, and I will continue to hope a cure is found soon. Having said that, though, I also have to admit that if I were to learn that you had been eaten by a Shih Tzu, I would be unable to stop myself from doing a little dance of glee. It's been, um, interesting, and if I never bump into you again in any forum for the rest of time, I think I will die a happy woman.
Keep tilting at this windmill, Peggy. It will reduce the time you have to annoy people in person. ;)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 3, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oops! Almost forgot...
"A pack of angry Chihuahuas attacked a police officer who was escorting a teenager home after a traffic stop, authorities said." (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1599611....)
"A pack of 13 dogs is terrorizing their South Plymouth neighborhood, residents say, chasing children on bikes, attacking homeowners getting their mail or walking their dogs, and barking at all hours of the night. ... The dogs, mostly Maltese terriers along with a poodle and several mixed breeds..." (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-9361801....)
"A 14-month-old Cortez boy may have been partially blinded when he was attacked by a dog Tuesday...Then Fuller heard her 5-year-old son, Logan, scream. She looked up just in time to see 14-month-old Levi being attacked by a dog. According to his mother, Levi had several lacerations to the face, his eyelid was ripped. He will have to undergo reconstructive surgery on his tear duct, and there is some speculation about whether or not he can see out of his right eye. [The owner] assured her multiple times that her children were safe with the dog, a heeler/shih-tzu mix." (http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Article...)
"Former French president Jacques Chirac was rushed to hospital after being mauled by his own 'clinically depressed' pet dog. The 76-year-old statesman was savaged by his white Maltese dog..." (http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php...)
Idiot.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 3, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm confident most people can tell the difference between France and the US, stale news from current news and BS from the truth. When you see cites without dates and URLs that don't seem like credible news sources, you're right to wonder if they're relevant. Here are some more *recent* articles about this week's "loving" pit bull attacks:

Boy gets 30 stitches after pit bull attack -- http://journalstar.com/articles/2009/06/... -- Jun 03, 2009 - 09:33:06 pm

A 10-year-old boy riding his bicycle was attacked . . . by a pit bull that got away from its owner . . . it knocked the boy off his bicycle, biting him on his face, head and arms . . . his injuries required 30 stitches.

http://www.news-press.com/article/200906...
June 3, 2009
A Lee County Sheriff’s Office deputy shot a pit bull . . . named Red in the neck, after he was bitten in the upper right thigh . . . Gary Hale, who . . . owns Red, said his dog was tied up on a 20-foot rope.

Here's the exasperating kicker, so common of the deep denial pit bull owners live in: Hale said “They said he got bit, but my dog doesn’t bite." Until, it seems, that he does. Pits and law enforcement officials don't mix well, according to the following report:

http://www.pr.com/press-release/155895

The report shows that in 373 pit bull shooting incidents, 40% resulted in pit bull bite injury; in 6 cases, the injury was fatal. DogsBite.org, a national dog bite victims’ group, report on pit bulls shot for public safety reasons tracked 373 incidents where 626 bullets were fired and 319 pit bulls were killed. 148 people suffered bite injury in these incidents as well. In at least 3 instances, the bite injury resulted in amputation. In 6 instances, the bite injury resulted in death.

http://www.dogsbite.org/reports/dogsbite...

[The 6 deaths include: Isis Krieger, 6 (Anchorage, AK), Kelli Chapman, 24 (Longville, LA), Luna McDaniel, 83 (Ville Platte, LA) Cenedi Carey, 4 months (Las Vegas, NV) Tanner Monk, 7, (Breckenridge, TX) and Pablo Lopez Hernandez, 5, (Weslaco, TX).] Can you imagine the terror these little kids endured?

The difference between a pit and a Yorkie attack is pretty obvious to anyone but a pit bull apologist. Pit bulls kill and even when they don't, a single pit can do far more damage than a pack of snarling Yorkies. Pits were bred to kill. They lock on to prey weighing 10X their weight and slowly torture them to death by hanging onto their faces with incredible tenacity: The "we had to beat it with a shovel to make it stop" kind.

We've got lots of wonderful dog breeds that don't have the pits' horrible history, born out of animal cruelty unthinkable in the modern world. Pits have lost their place in this world because of their own horrific maulings and killings of small children and other animals.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 4, 2009 at 1:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dammit. I really would like to get out of here. Is there any chance you'll stop spouting idiocy so that I can *do that? As for this: "The difference between a pit and a Yorkie attack is pretty obvious to anyone but a pit bull apologist," you must have me confused with someone else. I am not a pit apologist -- I have absolutely nothing to apologize *for. I am a pit bull lover and owner, and will continue to be so. And, when it comes down to brass tacks, Peggy, *that's the part that really pisses you off, isn't it? Pits are thriving in community after community, all across this country, and are enjoying a resurgence in popularity. They are working K9 officers, and are in the military. They are visitation dogs in hospitals and schools. And there are more and more families every day that are discovering that pits are one of the best family dogs one can have. Poor Peggy. :( You can't make anyone follow your lockstep, no matter how many anecdotal stories you dig up. We're winning, and all you can do is run around, shrieking that the sky is falling. I'd commiserate with you, but I doubt I could keep the smile off my face, the giggle out of my voice and the skip out of my step. Got any pit bull neighbors yet, Peggy? If you don't, I'd be willing to bet you might...soon. Is that why you keep insisting they've "lost their place in this world?" I got news for you -- even if you keep saying it out loud, it *still won't be true. ;)
Also, just for argument's sake, when you say, "I'm confident most people can tell the difference between France and the US," are you suggesting that dogs are fundamentally different from one country to another? If so, congratulations -- every time I think you've reached the pinacle of stupidity, you manage to outdo yourself. It's amazing how low some apexes can be.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 4, 2009 at 2:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's today's pit bull mauling, just like clockwork:

http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/s...

<< A pit attacked and mauled two people, one of them a four year old child. Her rescuer needed 20 stitches to reattach her ear after the incident. . . . "I remember him jumping up and being in my face," said Shroeder. . . . the 4-year-old froze and that's when the dog went after her. . . "When he pushed her down and got on top of her I knew he was going to kill her . . . The owner says he's had Samson for 6 years and he's never bit, harmed or even shown any signs of hurting someone.>>

It sure sounds like some of the dogs we've heard about in this thread. "My dogs never bit anyone!" is the standard refrain, but that claim flies in the face of the reports we read. Pit owners want so HARD for us to believe that pits never "go loco" but every day we read the same stories, with different victims that put the lie to that claim.
In this case, the owner was charged for allowing the dog to be at large. All the elements of the standard pit bull attack are here. Going for the face, going for the kill, attacking little children in their own backyard that were showing absolutely no aggression toward the animal. When you read this same story over and over again, you have to ask yourself: "Wouldn't a smaller, less powerful, less spontaneously aggressive breed of dog suffice? The answer is "of course it would" unless you're a breed fanatic and for some scary reason want a muscle dog that can tear little kids apart whenever the mood strikes them.

Check out the pit picture on the news site and ask yourself if you'd want to hear a rustling in the shrubbery and turn to be facing a threat like this:

http://www.kutv.com/media/news/5/d/1/5d1...

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 5, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Peggy. Reach out with both hands and try to get even the most *tenuous grasp on reality. What you keep on posting, ad nauseum, isn't proof of *anything other than the already-accepted fact that, from time to time, dogs bite. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why you find that so surprising. They're *animals, for god's sake. Animals bite. And...?
You say, "Pit owners want so HARD for us to believe that pits..." Where on *earth did you get that idea? I seem to be the only pit owner on this board, and I do not give a hairy rat's ass WHAT you believe about my dogs. Pit owners with whom I've shared your rants have found you both extremely amusing and terribly sad (sometimes both at once), but not one of them seems to spare a nanosecond worrying about what you believe.
>In this case, the owner was charged for allowing the dog to be at large.<
Sweetie, *any dog that is "at large" is a ticket waiting to happen for their owner. Try to unclench your colon.
>Going for the face, going for the kill,<
Going for the face, Einstein, is instinctual. And if that dog wanted to kill her, I suspect she'd be dead. That *has been your most common refrain, after all, hasn't it?
>you have to ask yourself: "Wouldn't a smaller, less powerful, less spontaneously aggressive breed of dog suffice?<
No. That's what *you have to ask *yourself. Since you're not all that good at telling us what's going on in *your head, you really should try to stay out of others' heads. And "spontaneously aggressive?" ROFLOLOL! You are going to OD on hysteria one of these days.
>Check out the pit picture on the news site and ask yourself if you'd want to hear a rustling in the shrubbery and turn to be facing a threat like this:<
Oh, dear god, now I just feel so sorry for you. :( I could post a photo of the 80-pound pit bull currently sleeping across my legs, curled around one of the cats. Why is my photo worth less than yours?
I know this is an exercise in futility, but could you PLEASE try to pound the difference between documentation and anecdote far enough into your brain for you to FINALLY understand what it is? You keep posting anecdotal crap, primarily repetitive anecdotal crap, but you somehow fail to make any point at all, other than "Peggy truly loves the macabre and icky." On the rare occasion you manage to bring *actual documentation here, more of it supports my side of the argument than yours. Do you get a cookie if you manage to strengthen the belief that you're a drooling idiot with every post, or do you just enjoy looking like one?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 5, 2009 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have two pit bulls of my own. I got them when they were three months old and I started socializing from day one. My dogs are so friendly they would rather lick you then bite you. Trust me, I play rough with my dogs and not once have they ever placed their teeth on me or my husband. Just last night I sat on my couch with my female in my lap and my male by my side with his head on my chest sleeping away. Not once have they shown an aggressive bone in their body. I even bring my dogs to the dog park every weekend and they get along with everyone. Thats including dogs, children, elderly people, everyone. They LOVE everything!!! Truth be told my dogs are the ones normally getting beat up and pushed around by LABS, RETRIEVERS, and your "perfect" FAMILY PET. I have brought my dog home with chunks of fur missing from their sides from getting beat up and you know what my dogs do? Roll over and lay on their backs while your family friend picks on my dog. All you Pit Bull haters need a reality check. The AMERICAN Pit Bull Terrier was NOT bread for fighting. They were bread to be the american family dog. They were used in military posters and advertised our great american culture. Its people like Michael Vick, Pit Bull haters and ignorant people who go off what they hear and not the facts that give Pit Bulls a bad name. I have been around so many dogs and to be honest the two dogs I will never have around and never own because of their temperament are Dalmatians and Chihuahuas. I have been attacked by both breeds of dog. No one is putting them down. I would never trust a small child around a Chihuahua. Look back at the movie "The Little Rascals," Pete, he was a Pit Bull and was in a movie with many small children. Ay dog can be aggressive, any dog can kill another animal or person, any dog can do anything it is trained to do. The county doesn't need to regulate what kind of dogs come through the shelters but regulate what kind of people adopt pets. The shelters should be better about following up with the people who adopted their pets. The problem with people today is they are always looking for someone to blame rather than taking responsibility for themselves. So instead of harshly punishing people for these awful crimes, people are judging the breed and judging the dog harshly. Bottom line, get all your facts straight before your start making incorrect statements about a breed you know nothing about. Oh and one last thing, I actually for at a doctors office and when we have patients come through with dog bites they normally happen from your unprovoked family lab, golden retriever and lap dog. I have not seen one patient come in with a bite from a pit bull.

Posted by mrscallahan08 (anonymous) on June 13, 2009 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrsC, you may be preaching to the deaf. I've found the small-but-very-vocal opposition to pits and pit-bull types have no interest in learning anything about the breed, will not relinquish their stranglehold on urban legend and playground myth in favor of fact, and lacks the capacity to genuinely understand that they've doomed their own side of the debate to failure with their all-or-nothing stance on this issue. Don't get me wrong -- that works for me. It just means that no one with the power to effect change will *ever take that faction seriously. It's just been frustrating to try to have a dialogue with someone who to simply stand in front of dog owners like me, shrieking nonsense.
I have two pits, as well, an APBT male and AmStaff female. We tend to adhere to a couple of different rules than you do with yours. Dog parks are out of the question for us; although normal pits will not pick a fight, they won't walk away from one either, and I don't want to put my dogs in the position of getting into trouble for defending themselves. We train religiously, and will do so for the lifespan of each dog. Both dogs are neutered, but the male has a higher natural prey drive, so he's kenneled when we're not home to protect the cats (although I regularly have to save him *from the cats). We use pronged collars in public because they respond so quickly and easily with them, and never use retractable leashes. No wrestling is allowed, either with humans or each other, though *that's a bit harder to control. I would never leave children unattended with them. Of course, I would not leave children unattended with my yellow Lab, either, so that's certainly no indictment against the pits. Enjoy your dogs, and help them be ambassadors for their breeds.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 14, 2009 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I had no idea pit bulls and peanut butter were even REMOTELY fungible. Nutritious wonder food with no equal vs. huge muscle dog & gangsta favorite w/150 other options. Now that's conflation! As the military is now close to total ban on pits and other "listed" breeds shows, the campaign against BSLs may be backfiring. Pits were created to inflict horrible cruelty on bulls. Now thugs are breeding pits not to kill bulls, but other dogs and people. This Frankenmutt doesn't just give kids a nip that sends victims to the ER for stitches, but a mauling that sends them to the ICU for reconstructive surgery. Shelters are swelling with pits. At least some insurers are reducing exposure by charging shelters that handle "listed" breeds enough of a premium that the pits are killed instead of adopted out as future lawsuits.

The uber-hostile bullers make me wonder if a human's desire to own a large, killing-capable dog shouldn't be seen as an early indicator of anti-social tendencies and to own one means a mandatory psych eval. Some bullers are very sick people:

ESPERANZA ARSONIST RAYMOND LEE OYLER SENTENCED TO DEATH

http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/artic...

"Oyler had wanted to hit out at the emergency services after they seized and destroyed his dog, a pitbull."

I can easily imagine other bullers going similarly berserk if their dogs are eventually confiscated based on the "from my cold dead hands" arguments we've endured. This thread should make anyone think about who should be able to own such dogs, if anyone. The bullers have turned me from a grandfathering solution to total ban. Heckuva job! For the anecdotal record, here's the latest Google mauling roundup.

Today's Daily Pitbull Attack:

http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&q=p...

Police push pit bull law
Providence Eyewitness News
all 4 news articles »

KOMO News - ‎Jun 14, 2009‎
A pit bull attack on a favorite town pet - a gray donkey - has the shoreside community of Anacortes…calling for a ban on that dog ...

Pitbull Attack Victim Out of ICU (!!!) 6/15/09
KOSA - ‎9 hours ago‎
recovering from a pitbull attack while visiting her grandmother near Dallas. ...

Athens Pit Bull Attack
News/Talk 750 WSB - ‎Jun 15, 2009‎
a pit bull jumped out of an apartment window, knocked him down and started biting him. Mauled teen faces long recovery

Wilmington Toddler Hospitalized After Dog Attack
WDEL 1150AM - ‎Jun 11, 2009‎
Wilmington Police are looking for the owner of a pit bull that bit a 2 year old girl Wednesday night.
all 9 news articles »

Pit Bull Attacks Walker County Girl
WRCB-TV - ‎Jun 12, 2009‎
one of the worst attacks he has ever seen. Family members said the girl went looking for her dog ...

Dog attacks mailman, officers
Times-Journal - ‎14 hours ago‎
Fort Payne Police officer shot ... a pit bull …after the dog broke…its chain, attacked a mailman

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Peggy, you are so far from the truth. The only thing you are right about is the fact that everyone is banning Pit Bulls from everywhere. The only reason why this breed is being picked on is because of people like you who make judgments based on the media blowing something out of proportion. Think about everything else the media has blown out of the water; look at our soldiers in Iraq that the media made them look like killers and not the heroes the truly are. This is exactly what the media is doing to these dogs. The true history of this breed is quite noble. The APBT came from England. They were the only breed sturdy enough to handle herding the bulls in the field. They are the only dogs who could protect their owners from the bulls. The Pit Bull PROTECTED his owner, not attacked his owner. When times got hard and the LOWER CLASS used this poor animal for their sick entertainment. You can’t sit there and call people insane for wanting to own such a beautiful breed of dog. There was only a short amount of time in the past where these dogs where used for bull baiting. Think of all the other sick things people have done, look at cock fighting, people still own chickens and roosters. Look at boxing, UFC and Wrestling. We watch people beat the day lights out of each other, to the point where their faces need reconstructing, they need fake teeth and are brought to the hospital for broken bones. What makes that any different and yet we pay thousands of dollars to watch that displayed all over the television. No one is banning that. Again, the only reason why people are picking on this defenseless breed is because of people like you Peggy are making these dogs out to be something they are not. I’m sure if I googled lab dog attacks or any other breed of dog attacks I could find just as many dog attacks. Posting them up here on the internet is a waste of time. Peggy you must have no life to sit there in the internet all day long and try to find ways to put down an animal you are too afraid to meet. Grow some balls and grow up and learn something. Stop being so ignorant.

http://dogs.about.com/cs/breedprofiles/a...

Posted by mrscallahan08 (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Article...

here is a website show multpul RECENT dogs attacks NOT done by Pit Bulls.

Posted by mrscallahan08 (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>the campaign against BSLs may be backfiring.<
ROFL! Yes...as all 39 cases in the US can prove.@@ Dear god, Peggy, you *can read, can't you? Even *this case that you seem to be pinning all your wishes on falls more on our side than yours. The shelter in question used to (a)euthanize pit bulls and (b)refused to move them to no-kill shelters or pit rescues. More recently, the shelter (a)still refuses to adopt out pits and (b)has them moved off site to places where they can find new homes. The judge at NO TIME gave any indication that he believed one way or the other about pit bulls themselves; he simply rendered a (questionable) decision about whether the shelter had the *legal right* to euthanize any particular dogs.
>Pits were created to inflict horrible cruelty on bulls.<
Um, *no. But I'm not surprised to find that you have something *else wrong. At least you're consistent.
>This Frankenmutt doesn't just give kids a nip that sends victims to the ER for stitches, but a mauling that sends them to the ICU for reconstructive surgery.<
Really? Always? Proof, please.
>The uber-hostile bullers make me wonder if a human's desire to own a large, killing-capable dog shouldn't be seen as an early indicator of anti-social tendencies and to own one means a mandatory psych eval.<
I'd be much more interested in having people like you evaluated, people who have trouble distinguishing fact from fantasy, those who cling to urban legend in an effort to make a point even if there isn't one to be made. And I suspect you deal with a lot of folks you'd deem "anti-social," if running as far and fast from you as possible is your yardstick. One assumes that trying to avoid you is what most normal people view as job one!
And, one more time: you have again posted a list of anecdotal tales designed to excite those with double-digit IQs. Do you have any substantive documentation to support the idiocy you keep spouting? And is there any chance AT ALL that you're ever, ever, ever going to answer any of the dozens of questions I've asked you, or are you just gonna keep babbling nonsense?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>The only thing you are right about is the fact that everyone is banning Pit Bulls from everywhere.<
Actually, she's not. I can find evidence of less than 40 breed-specific laws on the books, and enforcing some of those is turning out to be difficult, at best. Not many of them are outright bans; more are like the Loudoun case, which simply settled the question of whether or not a county shelter had the legal right to euthanize dogs for a particular reason. In fact, pit bulls and pit-bull type dogs are gaining popularity in all quarters of this country. More and more of them are owned by people like me who have all the resources necessary to protect our animals. As I pointed out to Peggy earlier, people willing to pay several thousand dollars for a dog are not likely to hand that animal over to the people who are too irretrievably stupid or congenitally insane to understand the truth.
>You can’t sit there and call people insane for wanting to own such a beautiful breed of dog.<
Well, she *can. And, truth be told, I kind of hope she does. It's tremendously hard to take someone like Peggy seriously. She's clearly incapable of understanding anything truthful about these dogs. She's shrill, borders on hysteria most of the time, and has difficulty keeping up with the conversation. She avoids answering questions like the plague and hopes that we won't notice. Her failure to address *anything posed is an obvious indication that even *she knows her argument is weak, ineffectual, irrelevant and simpleminded. And, yet, even *that's not the worst of it. She has never spent a moment's time with the animals she seems to loathe, making her easy to dismiss, something that will work well for those of us who intend to have pit bulls in our homes forever. I'd like it if she'd keep on talking. Identifying the opposition is important, and knowing what they have to offer -- and that they obviously have NOTHING to offer -- allows us to know exactly what we have to fight. If Peggy is the best that side of the debate has to offer, I think the rest of us can relax. ;)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Owners of other large breeds are realizing they've been duped by pit bull lovers. Bullers happily point the finger at others for the misdeeds of pits. As a result, even MORE dog owners are finding their dogs on the "uninsurable" list. Bullers have been duping legislators too, claiming dogs need protection from "racial profiling." This logical fallacy was crafted to appeal to politicians' fear of being branded racist. But dogs are not humans and dog breeds are not races. Pits were created to kill large animals. Bullers proudly claim that these dogs were bred to kill ONLY bulls, not humans, but they know that plenty of humans have been seriously mauled trying to protect their beloved pet from a pit attack.

Eventually anti-BSL politicians will be associated with this:

http://images.google.com/images?q=pitbul...

and they will withdraw their support. There are plenty of other dogs to love and save from shelters. No buller yet has ever *convincingly" told us why only a pit will do. Bullers got to the statehouses early to pass their "pit protecting" laws, but that's no guarantee that they'll prevail in the end. As pit attacks continue, more people will support pit bull restrictions. Sneaking laws into place is easy but standing up to voter referendums after a serious attack is not. Even the bullers know that just one particularly horrible attack on several kids at once will stir national action. Sadly, statistically speaking that's just a matter of time.

Why am I still here? To show I won't be bullied. To expose the tactics of the Big (buller) Lie. To continue "giving rope" to the most bellicose bullers and reveal their utter lack of social skill as they hang themselves with their own vicious diatribes. To show that bullers are as hyper attack-oriented with other humans as pits are with other dogs. To show that bullers have little or no compassion for victims of pit attacks. To show that bullers are driven by a very suspect and quite egomaniacal need to own such a dangerous dog. To show that bullers excuse nearly every attack as provoked by the victim. That's why bullers foam when they see daily news reports about vicious pit attacks. They KNOW many pit attacks occur without warning; something they clearly DON'T want legislators to know.

But the word IS getting out and people know the days of the pit bull are numbered. I am truly sorry it has come to this, but moderate pit owners have failed to police their own breed and breeders. They can't seem to rein in the hateful rants of the most misguided of their advocates, either. One ray of hope it that at least some rational bullers realize those tactics are hurting the pit bull cause. They know that normal people watching a pit bull advocate foam at the mouth with hate for other humans is going to lead to more, not less, anti-pit advocacy.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 19, 2009 at 2:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>Eventually anti-BSL politicians will be associated with this...and they will withdraw their support.<
And herein, Peggy, lies your most fundamental problem. We pit owners do not *need the support of politicians. We have the Constitution and civil law on our side. Certainly, there are a few breed-specific laws on the books here and there, although they have not all held up to upper courts’ scrutiny. But even those that have been held to be enforceable do not achieve your stated goal: to eliminate pit bulls. The strictest of those laws have made it unlawful to own pits or pit-type dogs in tiny pockets scattered around the country. The vast majority simply hold owners to a higher standard of safety behavior; muzzle requirements, identification and insurance issues, etc. You have made it clear that you are confused at best and delusional at worst in terms of the scope of these laws with your steadfast refusal to recognize that your argument is deeply flawed in the most basic way. It's painfully clear that you simply do not understand the basic concepts of civil liberties and property ownership. You may find a tiny group of zealous local politicians here and there who will make noise and rattle their sabers at what you perceive to be a problem, but you will never, never, EVER be able to achieve that which you wish -- to rid the world of pit bulls. They're always going to be here, Peggy, and they're always going to have champions like me. Who do you suppose the vast majority of people, politicians and their constituents alike, will ultimately choose to learn from: the people who are able to present clear, cogent reasons why their dogs deserve the same protections as others and then demonstrate what we say with our pets, or the crazy lady who couldn't recognize the truth if it bit her, who is so attracted to the grotesque that it seems to be a pathology, who cannot even hold her own in a debate against *one other person? (Hint: I'm in the first group. Want to guess where *you fall?)
>There are plenty of other dogs to love and save from shelters. No buller yet has ever *convincingly" told us why only a pit will do.<
And why is it that you believe you have the right to determine for *me that I should want to have anything to do with those other dogs? I don't have to explain my reasons to you, convincingly or otherwise. That’s the part that pisses you off the most, I think. You just *can’t get your own way and make the rest of us fall in line like you want us to. We get to make grown-up decisions all on our own. Ain't America *grand?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 19, 2009 at 3:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>Even the bullers know that just one particularly horrible attack on several kids at once will stir national action. Sadly, statistically speaking that's just a matter of time.<
Can you afford therapy? Sadly, you desperately need it.
>Why am I still here? To show I won't be bullied.<
Thank god you have a plan. Up 'til now it appeared that your reason for being here was to show that you lack even the most rudimentary debate skills. ::headpat::
>To continue "giving rope" to the most bellicose bullers and reveal their utter lack of social skill as they hang themselves with their own vicious diatribes. To show that bullers are as hyper attack-oriented with other humans as pits are with other dogs. To show that bullers have little or no compassion for victims of pit attacks.<
That doesn't sound like you, Peggy. Are you plagiarizing again...?
>To show that bullers are driven by a very suspect and quite egomaniacal need to own such a dangerous dog.<
Dear lord. Is it possible to die of irony poisoning? How, exactly, does one who wants to be able to decide what breed of dog *someone else* should own come to accuse another of being egomaniacal? Seriously, you need help.
>But the word IS getting out and people know the days of the pit bull are numbered. <
Sweetie, even if you keep saying it out loud, it *still isn't going to be true. What would you propose to do with all the pits currently serving in the military? How about K9 officers? Whatcha gonna say to the breeders who have tens of thousands of dollars invested in their stock? Are you going to send the Pooch Police to pick up my two pits? In all seriousness, do you have *any freakin' idea how crazy you sound? I actually feel sorry for you, Peggy. I really don't think that even *you believe the crap you keep posting over and over. I think you just don't know how to extricate yourself with any kind of grace or dignity. It's okay, hon'. We really, *really don't have many expectations for you, and those that we do have are astonishingly low. ;)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 19, 2009 at 3:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's clear at least some pit advocates see their own, loving, seemingly normal dogs and extrapolate that behavior to all pit bulls. That's absolutely normal behavior. It's equally clear that animal wardens, shelter executives, trauma surgeons, reporters, cops and insurers see the very opposite pole of pit bull behavior. They see what happens when a pit "turns." Many are especially weary of the near universal refrain "he never bit anyone before." They tend to think all pits are dangerous. That's normal behavior, too.

I can understand why the owner of a loving, properly raised and trained pit finds it hard to believe the savagery attributed to their breed. I wonder if they realize that it's also very hard for an animal control warden or a cop to be called to repeated scenes of a vicious dog attacks before they reach opposite conclusions. Most believe the frequency and severity of dog attacks are increasing and that the dogs most often implicated in serious maulings are pit bulls.

We have one side say: "My pit never even nipped anyone." Yet on the other side trauma surgeons say that they are sick of rebuilding kids savagely mauled by pits and families that own them are taking big risks.

Pity the poor pit that had the serious misfortune to be adopted by the very worst kind of owner: Gangstas. These dogfighter thugs have polluted the pit gene pool by burning, beating, shooting or drowning dogs too meek to maraud or too kind to kill.

That leaves one answer to the problem: to ban the breed anywhere it has been shown that a pit has savagely mauled a child or another dog without provocation. Anywhere. One serious unprovoked attack is proof of a problem. Google for yourself: bans are gaining ground as belts tighten.

The dogs in the news are not Our Gang's lovable Petey. Those days are decades gone. The situation is so out of control in some areas that banning/confiscation is the only choice left. No matter what hype you hear, that will leave plenty of breeding operations in place where pits aren't a problem.

Bans also make it much harder for dogfight rings to prosper since they can't care for their dogs in the open. You always have to consider motive. When someone so combative comes down so hard in favor of preserving pits, isn't it possible we've found an as yet uncaught Michael Vick, looking to preserve a stock of champion killer dogs?

We've heard "I want my pit because no one can tell me what to do!" There's never, ever a hint of acknowledging what most people know in their hearts: "If you *really* love dogs, why not something that's not as vicious when, for whatever reason, it goes off?" Normal people just can't help asking themselves "Why does some one want, no DEMAND, to own a dog that could bankrupt them and kill someone else in just a few short seconds?" Why do they want a dog first bred to commit horrible animal cruelty? Their answer never seems to be quite right.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 19, 2009 at 4:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see, in today's roundup of pit bull news we see anti BSL legislation has backfired, because now, at least in this part of Texas, it can be a felony when *any* dog kills someone. The bullers have spread the blame to all dog owners fairly, except, it seems, it's once again the pits that did the killing. What a great strategy: Expose other dog owners to liability that's been caused mostly by pits and have them help foot the bill for pit-caused harm.

Pit bull owners could face charges -- June 16, 2009, 10:27PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/t... --
KILGORE, Texas — grand jury...to consider charges against the owners of 2 pit bulls who fatally attacked a 10-year-old ...they could face charges under the state's Lillian Law, which makes unprovoked dog attacks on a person who dies a second-degree felony.

This couple was sentenced to 7 years. Anti BSL legislation didn't help them a bit.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/pets...

"GRAHAM — A couple whose pit bulls fatally mauled their 7-year-old neighbor were sentenced to seven years in prison...owners responsible if their dogs injure or kill someone."

All dogs are now included in the new law, although oddly enough, this case involved - you guessed it! - only those darn pit bulls again. Anyone who can't see a clear pattern emerging has blinders on. Bullers may proffer peanuts, poor puppyhoods, prevarication or persecution as the real problem, but whenever you hear of a child being mauled by a dog, chances are, it's our lovable national hero, the pit bull.

The bullers *are* doing *one* good thing. Now it's easier for any victim of a dog attack to get justice, no matter what the breed. Now insurers are realizing they can boost premiums for a whole list of dogs, not just pits and that the bullers insist that's the only fair way. Non-pit owners can thank pit bullers for dragging your dogs into the fray as cover.

Maybe there's another, darker hidden benefit. When pit bulls eat their master's children, it's got to mean fewer people are left dumb enough to leave young kids alone for a second with an animal that can snap and kill them. And no matter how much bullers delude themselves, ANY animal can snap at any time for any reason, real or imagined. Experienced animal handlers know this for a fact. Bullers wishfully think their way around it and put their kids and the neighbors at risk.

As for the couple that got their neighbor's little girl killed, they may ask to stay in jail for life because Texas extralegal justice could be waiting for them. Wouldn't surprise me if someone found them both mauled to death in a pit bull cage at the shelter. People get so darn emotional when you savagely kill their children. Texas is well known for its rough justice, in and out of the courtroom. Might be hard to find a jury that would convict a man avenging the mauling death of his little girl. At least in Rusk County, Texas.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 19, 2009 at 5:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>[animal wardens, shelter executives, trauma surgeons, reporters, cops and insurers] tend to think all pits are dangerous.<
DOCUMENTATION, PLEASE.
>I can understand why the owner of a loving, properly raised and trained pit finds it hard to believe the savagery attributed to their breed.<
Please do not speak for me. I can assure you that the thought does not exist which, having floated through *your pointy little head, would give *me any problem at all. You may be simpleminded. I am not. The one and only thing I find hard to believe is that even *you take yourself seriously.
>Most believe the frequency and severity of dog attacks are increasing<
DOCUMENTATION, PLEASE.
>Gangstas.<
Dear god, you racist moron. You really should try saying things quietly in your head before committing them to perpetuity on the internet.
>These dogfighter thugs have polluted the pit gene pool by burning, beating, shooting or drowning dogs too meek to maraud or too kind to kill.<
Um...would you mind explaining exactly how a dead dog can "pollute the gene pool," please? One imagines that a dog, having been drowned or shot, would find it a tad difficult to reproduce.
>When someone so combative comes down so hard in favor of preserving pits, isn't it possible we've found an as yet uncaught Michael Vick, looking to preserve a stock of champion killer dogs?<
The Logic Fairy doesn't spend a whole lot of time at your house, does she?
>"If you *really* love dogs, why not something that's not as vicious when, for whatever reason, it goes off?"<
I'm guessing that the obvious response: "because you've set up a strawman argument and presented fallacy as fact so you're easily dismissed" isn't as clear to you as it would be to anyone else, huh?
>Normal people just can't help asking themselves...<
How would *you know what normal people would ask?
>Their answer never seems to be quite right.<
That's categorically untrue. Their answer simply fails to meet with your approval because it's different than what *you would choose. That pretty much puts them squarely on the right path. You don't care for the answer? Tough.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 19, 2009 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>Let's see, in today's roundup of pit bull news we see anti BSL legislation has backfired, because now, at least in this part of Texas, it can be a felony when *any* dog kills someone.<
Nooo. That's what we call a "success." The law now stands exactly as it should. That legislature has acknowledged that there is not a "pit bull problem," as you like to put it, but a problem with vicious dogs. They have acknowledged that ANY dog has the capacity to do that which you keep attributing only to pit bulls. We win again!
>Anyone who can't see a clear pattern emerging has blinders on.<
You poor thing. The “emerging pattern” can be found on any unbiased website. The emerging pattern proves that pits who bite are an ever-decreasing issue. Keep pointing that out for us, wouldja?
>Now it's easier for any victim of a dog attack to get justice, no matter what the breed. Now insurers are realizing they can boost premiums for a whole list of dogs, not just pits and that the bullers insist that's the only fair way. Non-pit owners can thank pit bullers for dragging your dogs into the fray as cover.<
So...you're *unhappy that someone attacked by a German shepherd or Labrador retriever can legally seek a remedy in the courts? Brilliant. And has it occurred to you that those insurance companies understand that which you cannot -- that pit bulls are not the problem, bad owners and bad individual dogs are the problem?
>it's got to mean fewer people are left dumb enough to leave young kids alone for a second with an animal that can snap and kill them.<
You *are aware that's true for any dog, right? I wouldn't leave kids with my pits. Or my Lab. Or my neighbor's terrier. Or my brother's mutt. That's kind of a gimme, no?
>ANY animal can snap at any time for any reason.<
And, yet, statistically speaking, hundreds of millions of people avoid getting bit by any kind of dog at all, each and every single day. Is this the pattern you're talking about?
>Wouldn't surprise me if someone found them both mauled to death in a pit bull cage at the shelter.<
Why do I get the feeling that you'd *like that to happen? Are you seriously promoting the deaths of people with whom you disagree? On a board where you’ve spent countless hours lamenting death associated with dog attacks? And do you have ANY idea just exactly how insanely creepy you sound?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 19, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's what it comes down to, Peggy: we pit owners aren't going anywhere. You are as ineffectual in changing that as you are here on this board. You can't present a clear, cogent argument *here, a forum that affords you the opportunity to get every word just right before you state your opinion. I can just imagine how lost you'd be in real life if you were called to defend your ideas about eliminating all pits and pit-types. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you’re so eager to keep proving over and over that you simply lack the ability to discuss and debate this issue like an adult. How is it possible that, day after day, post after post, you reject the easily-verifiable proof that you are completely and utterly wrong about almost everything you say? So, *please, do us a favor. Owners of pits like me would absolutely *love it if you would keep preaching this particular gospel. You can't answer questions, you can't support your debate points, you apply dodge-and-deflect to all substantive points on which you're challenged. You are pathetically repetitive and tend to focus on the lurid. Worst of all, you have no working knowledge of your subject. Who, precisely, do you imagine will be able to take anything you say seriously? But, truly and from the heart, I thank you. You're doing more to keep my dogs safe than *I do. ;)
Now…I don’t imagine there’s any point in waiting with bated breath for you to answer any of the questions I asked or to supply the documentation requested for proof of your declarative statements, huh?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 19, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Today's pit bull news brings us full circle and describes why the Loudoun County shelter faced a potential fiscal disaster from adopting out pit bull puppies. Once again we hear the by now worn-out refrain: "He's such a sweet dog, he never hurt anyone."

http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=1...

"COEUR D'ALENE -- A pitbull adopted from the Kootenai Humane Society attacked its new owner a day after it was adopted…Legaard, who lost nearly two pints of blood in the attack is now angry because he had been told by the Humane Society the pit bull could be a family dog. "The lady's like he's so sweet, so sweet, so sweet," Kip said."

I am sure that in this downturn, 100's of starving lawyers are scanning the newspapers like I am, looking for customers. I think they've found one here. Shelters across the country, already suffering from a huge shortfall in donations and public funding, will be forced by their insurers to not take chances with pits and Rotts. Most likely any potentially dangerous dog will no longer be going to anyone who is not already familiar with the breed and able to care for it. Or, as in the case of Loudoun, they will simply be put down. This latest case proves that even with temperament testing, pits are often bad news.

An update on the Kilgore, Texas pit bull mauling death of a young boy that happened last week:

http://www.kilgorenewsherald.com/news/20...

"It's time to do something about pit bulls. It's time for somebody to take a stand. And that somebody — or more than one person — should be our state senators and representatives."

He calls pits "living, breathing time bombs waiting to explode on someone."

He asks that we "either put tough, tough restrictions on ownership of pit bulls, or ban owning the animals altogether."

He suggests some of the standard mitigation tools that fall short of a ban like permits, high fees, inspections and very heavy fines. But he admits the best solution is to ban pit bull ownership outright.

He's clearly heard from the bullers before, because he warns anyone seeking to "educate" him about pits "you'd better have an outstanding argument other than "this is America" and "I can own and do what I want."

That's the bottom line. You can't own a wolf – it's too dangerous. Slowly, the country is coming to realize that a large, powerful dog that has been bred for generations to attack and kill is an animal whose ownership needs to be banned as well. It's just too bad that a lot more children will have to die before the whole nation wakes up.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 20, 2009 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Readers were asked after a recent mauling in Florida:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loca...

Should the recent pit-bull shower mauling spur restrictions on the breed?

YES: 77.1% NO: 22.9%

What's the shower mauling they're talking about?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loca...

This article shows once again the amazing ability of pit owners to go into total denial about the acts of their dog. The victim was air-evacuated with multiple puncture wounds and a life-threatening loss of blood pressure, but the dog's owner said "she's fine." They quote the local animal control director who tells us something that pit bullers happily gloss over when spouting bite statistics: "a Chihuahua biting someone is totally different than a powerful dog biting someone," Boyd said. "Big breeds can do a lot of damage quickly." And they do. So quickly that passersby aren't able to pull the dog off a victim in time to prevent horrible injuries.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo...

Tells us a story that directly contradicts the lies, double-talk and wishful thinking of the bullers.

A elderly woman was attacked by pits. Surgeons had to reattach her ears, both of which had been ripped from her head. Her jaw was broken and her right arm and wrist were crushed beyond complete repair.

The story adds some statistics that bullers will certainly refute.

The Seattle Animal Shelter, however, does keep statistics on bites by breed.

According to the shelter, pit bulls account for a disproportionate number of reported bites in Seattle. While pit bulls make up only 4 percent of licensed dogs, they make up 22 percent of reported bites.

Everyone but the bullers seem to know that pits are more aggressive than most other breeds.

A friend of one of the victims of a pitbull attack so savage he called it an attempted dismemberment said: "An attack like this is an attack on all of us. There is no room for this breed in our society, our city, our county, our state. It's a matter of public safety."

The owner of the dog repeated the refrain: " I just don't understand why they'd go and attack. They've never attacked anybody."

It's why society has to take action. Apparently pit bull owners are totally unaware of the propensity of their dogs to just "go off" and maul someone. They're leaving it to us to explain it to them.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 20, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The war against pit bull attacks took a giant step forward in Canada last week when their Supreme Court muzzled attempts to overturn Ontario's pit bull ban. The court refused to even consider a challenge from a dog owner claiming the provincial law is unconstitutional, paving the way for other provinces to enact similar laws. Canadian bullers tried to convince the court the law was too vague because it captures half-breeds, mutts and look-alike dogs. Sound familiar? It's the same tired rhetoric we've read elsewhere. Even a 15 year old wannabe gangsta can tell whether he's getting a pit puppy or a cocker spaniel. The argument, often used by US pit bullers, didn't hold any water with the Canadian justices. It's also failed when it's been tried in the US.

DOLA, or The Dog Owners' Liability Act prevents Ontario residents from owning "pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and any dog "that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar."

"Pit bulls have a tendency to be unpredictable and that even apparently docile pit bulls may attack without warning or provocation," said the October 2008 decision. "This evidence of unpredictability provided the legislature with a sufficient basis to conclude that the protection of public safety required no less drastic measures than a total ban on pit bulls."

Here's another testament to what everyone BUT bullers know. The breed is unpredictable. It seems that the only time pit owners learn that is AFTER their dog attacks someone without provocation. That's, of course, when we hear the worn-out, same old BS "but my dog never bit anyone before!"

Violating the ban carries a possible $10,000 fine and six months in jail.

Called "ticking time bombs" by the government, the law came after a number of particularly brutal maulings in the province. When enough pits have killed enough children in the US, we will probably come to our senses in the US and decide that dog lovers will have to do with a dog that has a less checkered history of unpredictably aggressive behavior.

From a few months ago, another story illustrates a recurring theme among bullers: everyone and everything else is responsible for their dog's actions and not the pit:

http://www.vancouversun.com/Life/Fight+i...

"A man given a week to get rid of his dangerous dog or face eviction says he's being wrongly portrayed as the owner of a vicious pit bull.
Dale Douglas admits Baby, his Staffordshire bull terrier, savagely attacked Sabrina, a neighbor's Maltese, but said it could have been avoided if Sabrina's owner had kept the small dog under control."

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 20, 2009 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>I am sure that in this downturn, 100's of starving lawyers are scanning the newspapers like I am, looking for customers.<
I doubt it. While lots of lawyers are scummy, I doubt *any of them are as batsh*t insane as you are.
>Or, as in the case of Loudoun, they will simply be put down.<
You need to read for comprehension, Peggy. Try following along on the screen with your finger. Don't be afraid to ask for help with the big words. In the article that started this debacle, this appears: "We're moving toward placing more dogs with rescue groups..." Further, if you bother to read the judge's ruling, you'll find that all he did was say *that county has the right to ban pit adoptions through its shelter. He said nothing about putting them down, and the state of Virginia protects the rights of her citizens to own pit bulls.
>He calls pits "living, breathing time bombs waiting to explode on someone."<
So *what? I could call you "a living, breathing testament to why abortion should be encouraged in some cases." That wouldn't make it true. Well, not for anyone else, anyway...
>Slowly, the country is coming to realize that a large, powerful dog that has been bred for generations to attack and kill is an animal whose ownership needs to be banned as well.<
Really? How does that explain the fact that there are more and more pit bulls joining families every year? In my world, that’s pretty much the opposite of “coming to realize [this dog] needs to be banned as well.” Wishful thinking won’t make it true, Peggy.
>The war against pit bull attacks took a giant step forward in Canada…<
Wait, what? When I posted information about a Maltese in France, you dismissed it with the comment that you were certain people could tell the difference between France and the US. The same surely holds true for Canada, so I feel certain you’d like to retract this, correct? ;)
>Dale Douglas admits Baby, his Staffordshire bull terrier, savagely attacked Sabrina, a neighbor's Maltese, but said it could have been avoided if Sabrina's owner had kept the small dog under control."<
And this is undoubtedly true. Pits don’t often start fights, but they’ll rarely walk away from one, either. Should a pit bull be expected to behave *differently than another breed? Why is the initiating behavior not important in the scenario? If, in fact, a Maltese approached one of my pits in the manner that I’ve seen *most Maltese behave: yapping, snapping, biting, I wouldn’t be surprised if my dogs took exception to it. That the idiot Maltese was too small to stand up to the pit it went after doesn’t remove or reduce its culpability or that of its owner in the outcome. While my AmStaff has the patience of Job and tends to simply suffer through episodes like this, my APBT might one day decide after awhile to suggest with his teeth that the damn dog *stop. ::shrug::

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 20, 2009 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

. You know, Peggy, I wondered if I was being too hard on you. I will also admit that I've stopped reading most of your posts, given the repetitive drivel you seem to thrive on, your outright refusal to provide documentation for any of your ridiculous statements, and the fact that I've begun to grow bored with you. I read a sentence or two and no more, so I thought maybe I'd been unfair. I asked my adult kids to read some of your stuff and give me their opinion. My son, who not only lives with two pit bulls but deals with a large population of pits at his veterinary clinic, started to chuckle within seconds and got to laughing out loud when he found your brilliant suggestion about neutering them and releasing them to the wild. (An animal expert, he's a little unsure of where you'd have to go to find the natural habitat of the domestic pit bull.) Finally, he became downright hysterical when he found your use of "gansta." He promises an answer, as soon as the laughter in his head dies down. He did manage to choke out a question about where one would find the “pit bull cage” you spoke of and asked if you would point us toward where we might find one? My daughter was more pragmatic and scolded me. She said, "Mom, quit picking on her. She's obviously mentally handicapped," and went to take our "vicious mauling machines" -- she *loves that; thank you! -- for a long walk in public.
. So let's do it this way. It's clear you lack the capacity to debate the usual way, as sub-topics come up and the discussion branches one way and then another. Instead, tell me what you suggest we do here in the US in relation to the substantial pit bull population. Please provide unbiased documentation from neutral sites for that which you state as fact. Websites like "dogsbite.org" will not cut it. Since you bitched about me using a French Maltese as an example, you cannot submit anything from Canada. And, if you can, please try to remember that we live in a country that guards the civil rights of its citizens zealously. If you are unable to do any of that, just tell me and I'll be happy to withdraw from the conversation. But I will not waste any more time trying to debate with someone who seems to lack the ability to do so.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 20, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right in the middle of a pile of propaganda about pious pit bulls that we're assured wouldn't hurt a fly, little Jody Clinton died last week, mauled to death by a pair of pitbulls. You only need to search Google News:

http://news.google.com/news?&q=pitbu...

and ask yourself, who are you going to believe? Pit nutters bent on protecting their property at all costs or your own lying eyes?

As more children are maimed and killed by pits on a daily basis, the pit nutter PR machine has gone into overdrive. The letter below shows that people have obviously heard and dismissed the nutter's standard list of excuses. They insist it's time to act.

http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...

June 21: When Will People Learn? Sharon writes:
"…outraged to read about another pit bull attack resulting in the death of a 10-year old…unprovoked attacks leave injury and death in their wake…ownership of these animals should be banned…How many more innocent people will have to suffer"

She rejects the standard propaganda from the pit nutter peanut gallery. She doesn't want to read "ridiculous praise" of pits nor does she care about reports of how cute they are as puppies or how loyal they are. She cares about what I care about. She cares about what the people who help pass dangerous dog laws care about: The victims of these attacks.

"I wanna" is just not a good enough excuse for people to own dogs that can drag a 10 year old from his bike and bite him to death. This isn't the first time. Pits have done this again and again. Pit nutters don't realize how fearful parents are that some pit-obsessed nut job will move into the neighborhood with an off-balance pit and they'll find out about it only after one of the local kids has been mauled, maybe even to death like Jody.

What really stunned me was how little empathy at least some pit bullers show towards parents who suffered the most profound loss a human can experience, the death of a child. I can only wonder what poor Jody was feeling as he was torn apart by powerful dogs. No one NEEDS to own dogs that powerful, and nationwide people are beginning to realize that. Psychiatrists say that a sociopath is a person who can only feel their own pain. I see some serious sociopathology in people who could learn the details of such an attack and still let a pit come near their kids or anyone else's.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 21, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>ask yourself, who are you going to believe? Pit nutters bent on protecting their property at all costs or your own lying eyes?<
ROFLOL - pit nutters. You are a very special kind of moron, you know that, Peggy, right?
>She rejects the standard propaganda from the pit nutter peanut gallery. She doesn't want to read "ridiculous praise" of pits nor does she care about reports of how cute they are as puppies or how loyal they are. She cares about what I care about. She cares about what the people who help pass dangerous dog laws care about: The victims of these attacks.<
And I would give a rat's ass *what you believe...why? What you or she care about is of so little consequence to me that it fails to register.
>"I wanna" is just not a good enough excuse for people to own dogs that...yada yada yada.<
Y'know, it *is. It's absolutely enough reason, in this country at least, to own that dog. If I *wanna. You're not gonna be able to change that. Now what?
>What really stunned me was how little empathy at least some pit bullers show...blah blah blah.<
I'm stunned that you're still singing this song. You are categorically wrong about almost every single thing you say. At least you're consistent. Congratulations, I guess.
>see some serious sociopathology in people who could learn the details of such an attack and still let a pit come near their kids or anyone else's.<
Well, hon', that's because you're a blithering idiot. You obviously lack the ability to understand the written word, at least if those words run contrary to your own twisted opinion. If you were genuinely trying to protect children, you'd start with those everyday things that cause *much more harm to kids than pits could ever do. You don't care about kids. You just don't like my dogs. Oh, well. ::shrug::
The fact is, Peggy, that you're simply not important enough to cause one whit of change regarding this issue. You are your own worst enemy, tilting at windmills that don't exist. Those of us who have pit bulls now and will have pit bulls next week, and pit bulls next year and the year after that and the year after that, forever and ever amen, simply do not CARE what you choose to accept or dismiss. If you think you can do anything to remove the right to own pit bulls, you're dumber than I think you are and that would be going some. People like you can keep shrieking at the big blank wall in front of you forever for all we care. Our dogs are here to stay. Sucks for you, huh?
And I will assume your latest set of comments answers any question that still lingered about your ideas about pits. The simple fact is that you don't *have any ideas, do you? You talk just to hear the sound of your own voice, and I suspect that even *you don't believe you anymore. Congratulations. You've given the people on your side of the debate one hell of a reputation. Good job!

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 21, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The process of paring down the pit population proceeds. There are new teeth in Fayette's attack on dangerous dogs. They just passed a pit bull ban:

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20...

The new law came about after a horrific attack on a local resident so vicious it prompted the Fayette Police Chief to say it was the worst dog attack he had ever seen. The new law passed by a 5-1 vote and bans new pit bulls or dangerous dogs from city limits. In addition, there are now strict requirements, including containment structures, liability insurance and registration for pits.

"I’d seen dog bites before, but I’d never seen a mauling" said the Chief. His comments echoed what I've written before: very few people seeing the horrific result of a pit mauling can ever look at pits the way their owners do. The councilman who helped passed the law said: "We have been having too frequent issues of dog attacks over many, many years. And when I say dog attacks, I mean specifically pit bull attacks."

Pit lovers already know the Catch-22 such laws present. Officials demand liability insurance be in place for a pit to qualify to live in certain areas. But what do you do if no one will sell you any? You move out of the city and you take your dog with you. Eventually, there will be no place to go. It's just a shame that it takes a serious mauling to get sensible and tough dangerous dog laws in place.

Ban the breed and PREVENT the deed!

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 22, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The extinction of the pit bull breed will probably come not from government regulation, but by insurer strangulation. Here are some posts from an ASPCA website that illustrate how pit bull owners are faring trying to get insurance for their canine kiddie crunchers:

http://aspcacommunity.ning.com/group/pit...

One poster in Louisiana bought a house but couldn't find anyone to insure her and her pit bull. She describes herself as a responsible pit bull owner (is that an oxymoron like "military intelligence?) She laments that "everyone hears about the "bad things" that our breeds do" but apparently she doesn't quite understand those "bad things" are what caused her insurer to decline to insure her in the first place.

She was referred to the same article I cited a while back:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/insuran...

They say a typical insurer has a 'bad dog' list based on frequency of dog bites, the reputation of the breed, actuarial research and information from the CDC. On Nationwide's list are Rotts, pits and wolf hybrids. Customers can get a Nationwide policy, but claims related to listed dogs won't be paid.

The Insurance Information Institute estimates that the industry paid out $310 million in 2001 dog bite liability claims, compared to $250 million in 1996. In five years, claims jumped $60 million.

The insurer said something critical to understanding the BFD (Big Friendly Dog) problem: "it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to determine the true disposition of these dogs." That's the heart of the matter. Their actuarial studies tell them that big dogs bite, and they bite hard taking a chunk out of both victims and the insurer's profits.

The insurers' experience tells them something that's invisible to many pit advocates: even the best, most well-behaved dog can lapse into its primitive state if it feels threatened enough. Insurers are beginning to ignore temperament testing. If anyone remembers the original Loudoun county shelter article, it's the failure of this test that doomed those pit puppies. Even this testing will fade as insurers tell shelters "we don't care if you test them when they are puppies because temperament testing is not a good enough predictor of future behavior."

The bottom line is that a dog's future actions are essentially unknowable. That's not so bad with Jack Russells and Cocker Spaniels, but when a pit goes nuts, it's got the natural equipment to maim and kill humans and time and again, pits have done just that.

The shelter that adopted out this dog claimed to have 15 pages of temperament testing documentation "proving" that the dog was not aggressive:

http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=1...

Yet the allegedly docile pit sent its new owner to the hospital, chasing him all the way up the ambulance door. So much for temperament tests.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 22, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I suspect that the real problem, people like you who haven't the foggiest clue about the subject you spend so much time babbling about, is the one that will eventually face extinction. The *fact is that there are tens of thousands of pit bulls wandering around this country, and they -- and their owners -- aren't going *anywhere. You are pinning your hopes on fallacy and fiction. Insurance companies don't give a rat's ass what kind of dog I own, they care about profit. Do you really think you know more about this subject than *they do? Pits aren't new. They've been around forever. Add to that the fact that discrimination is still illegal in this country, most states protect it's citizens' rights to own the dogs of their choice, and we pit owners are still just *fine. Veterinarians will not euthanize a healthy, otherwise normal animal. What are you planning -- a government agency arriving on my doorstep to pry my pets out of my arms? And then there's that pesky factual and empirical evidence that pretty much proves that you have not even the most tenuous grasp on reality, and there goes your case. I have a strong mental image of of you arriving at a breeder's door. "Hi, I'm Peggy, I hate your dogs. I'll be taking your three sets of breeders and all the puppies on the premises." Gonna drop a personal check in their hands for the $100,000 of property you just appropriated? Perhaps a better approach would be for *you to figure out how to fit into *our world. There's more of us than there are of you. You can adopt a pit bull at hundreds of shelters across the US. Let me know if I can provide a phone number for you. ;)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 22, 2009 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“I recommend not having a pit bull, whether the dog is friendly or not...They will turn on you.”

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/jun...

That warning comes from a Texas woman after a pit bull terrier mix attacked her two nieces, a 3-year-old and an 18-year-old, after breaking free from a handler a week ago in the family’s backyard.

The 3-year-old suffered severe bite wounds to her head, face and scalp and her nose broken. Two adults had to pry the dog's mouth open with their hands to force it to release the little girl.

“It was just horrible,” JoAnn Cruz said. “After the attack, we found what we thought was just a piece of hair on the rocks. It was her scalp.” Although doctors tried to restore the scalp, they fear it won't take and the girl will be scarred for life.

Animal services said the dog had no reported history of biting.

And so it will ever be. Attacks like this are why the people who clean up after them just shake their head when proud pit owners say "My dog NEVER bit anyone." And they say it as if the dog never could or never will bite anyone. These attacks are why trauma surgeons warn people that having a pit means putting your family at risk. They are just too large and too powerful. When attacks like this occur without anyone around to pull the dog off the victim, the outcome is considerable worse than permanent scarring. This child would likely have died if there weren't two adults to force the dog's mouth open so they could pull it off.

As bad as these attacks are, there are even more stupid things going on the pit world. Those are the people who insist on trying to rehabilitate dogs that have tasted blood.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09171/978...

On May 20, a family pit bull bit Steelers linebacker James Harrison's 2 year old son, mother and a family friend. Now, a "Dog Whisperer" wannabe has taken the dog under her wing to try to reclaim it. Look at the picture. The dog's head is bigger than his rescuer's. Don't people understand how easily an animal this size can kill them?

I wonder if this dog reclaimer has told her insurance company that she harbors biting pit bulls? Or is she hoping to fly under the radar and let other people pay for an eventual claim? Is she really allowed to do this kind of dangerous dog work by her local zoning laws? Probably not. Maybe an investigation is in order.

There are so darn many lovable non-pit puppies in shelters that haven't bitten anyone that need homes before they're killed. Wasting time with a massive dog that has bitten three people is the height of folly and wasted resources. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for a spectacular rehab pit failure before the world gives up trying to reclaim dogs that should never have been born in the first place.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 22, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And, yet, there will still always be pit bulls, tens of thousands of them, in homes all over this country. Yay! I noted with interest that you failed to answer any questions again. It occurs to me that *that's a much stronger pattern than the non-existent one you keep pinning on pit bulls. So I'll ask again: what are your ideas for dealing with this "problem" that only you seem to recognize?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 23, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The perpetual "OJ-like" claim that "some other dog did it" doesn't stand up to scrutiny in areas where bite statistics are kept by breed:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/407494_pi...

Seattle shelter statistics demonstrate why people are up in arms against pits.

The Seattle Animal Shelter says of 40,136 licensed dogs in Seattle, 1,298 of those were pit bulls. Here's the kicker. Although they represent less than 5% of the licensed dogs in Seattle, they are responsible for nearly 20% (547)of the 2,914 reported incidents in the last 8 years. We still can't tell much about the severity, only that pits have racked up pretty big bite numbers for such a small slice of the dog population. Common sense tells us that out of nearly all the breeds of dog, a pit bull's bite is likely to be among the worst.

They quote another starry-eyed pit nutter: "she's a highly emotional dog...I could not imagine her harming anything or anyone." <sigh> Too bad she has such a limited imagination. I hope her children and her neighbors don't suffer because she believes that she can know the heart and mind of an animal whose breed mates have been proven time and time to attack without provocation.

The tough dog laws in Seattle seem to be working. Last September, two pit bulls viciously attacked a 71-year-old woman as she walked her grandchildren through their SeaTac neighborhood. The bites on her arms, legs and neck put her in the ICU. The dog's owner Travis Dean Cunningham was recently sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for that attack. Throwing pit owners in jail when their "sweet" dogs go on a rampage is bound to send a message to all of them. And perhaps it has. For whatever reason, there has been a serious drop in Seattle's reported dog bites. Similar reductions have occurred in other areas that either ban or demand confinement and muzzling for dangerous dogs. Eventually, as dog bites drop in areas where breed bans are in effect, the pit bull propagandists will have no place left to turn. That's why they are scrambling so hard to get anti-Breed laws in place. Nutters know once people see that breed bans reduce serious bites, they'll vote to put them in place without paying any attention to pit buller propagandists.

If people need further evidence about the kind of tactics and social adjustment found in the pit nutter worlds:

Families and Dogs Against Fighting Breeds group member Ellen Taft said the efforts to create a pit bull ban were abandoned after group members received harassing and "threatening" e-mails. Anti-social pit owners threatening people? Who would believe that? They're just the nicest folks you'd ever want to meet. Just scroll back to the top and see where pit nutters are trying to get folks that disagree with their positions fired.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What are your suggestions, Peggy, to address whatever it is that you're lamenting? And who the hell are you preaching to? I think I'm the only one here with you and I certainly have made it clear that I no longer read your diatribes. Are you capable of answering the one question I have asked over and over and over? (If it makes you feel better, you can say no. It's okay. It's what I expect anyway. ::headpat::)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, Peggy. Is your nose growing? Are your pants on fire? Did you *genuinely believe you were gonna get away with your deception? Don't you know me at ALL?
You said, >Travis Dean Cunningham was recently sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for that attack.< Tch. Which would you prefer to be portrayed as -- someone whose capabilities do not extend to being able to comprehend something written in your native tongue, or someone who twists, distorts and lies about those things you read that don't fit perfectly into the way you want things to be? Pick one; go ahead, I'll wait.
Your statement of fact up there isn't entirely true, is it, Peggy? Mr. Cunningham was indeed sentenced to 11 years in jail. You seem to imply, however, that his sentence was imposed because his pit bulls attacked his neighbor. In truth, *this is why that sentence was given: >Travis Dean Cunningham, 36, pleaded guilty in February to possession of a dangerous dog and unlawful possession of a firearm after his unneutered, male pit bulls escaped from a fenced yard and attacked Huang Le in the front yard of her home. The King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office had asked for the 11-½ year sentence — 6 ½ years for the two felonies and five more because Cunningham violated terms of a previous criminal sentence. ... Prosecutors said Cunningham's negligence in allowing his dogs to escape led them to seek the rare felony charges against him.< (seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008855842_webpitbull13m.html)
Shall we add up the problems that initiated the attack? Unneutered male pit bulls: problem. Criminal owner: problem. Failure to properly train and socialize dogs: problem. Having a GUN, for god's sake: problem.
I'm going back to reading your crap now and then. *This is way fun.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why are pit bullers are so determined to dismiss the "dogsbite" website? It pulls back the curtain and exposes how the pit nutters ply their trade.

http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2008/07/com...

This page and the comments that go with it concern a fatal attack on Mary Berman, who was "scalped" and killed by a pit bull that was attacking her small dog.

A self-anointed pit nutter savior describes the attack in typical pit apologist terms, blaming the woman for trying to defend herself and blaming her for the escalating ferocity of the fatal attack. "The dachshund had received substantial attention, supplanting the dog Taz in many interactions…", he writes. "She picked up the dachshund because the two dogs had begun scrapping. When Ms. Bernal yelled at Taz and snatched the dachshund away, Taz went after the little dog. Bernal held the dog up and screamed. Taz's first bite was to Ms. Bernal's hand…Her screaming intensified, triggering further action by Taz. Ms. Bernal went down and Taz continued attacking the screaming, thrashing woman. Ms. Macias stuck the dog repeatedly with a shovel, intensifying the attack."

This "expert" goes on to say, unbelievably, "In nearly every attack I have investigated on scene-and that is more that any other person ever has-there has been a human related pattern of behavior or a human fault that has directly led to the incident." James W. Crosby www.canineaggression.org"

In the world of pit propaganda, it doesn't seem there was ever a pit that didn't have an evil human provoking it to uncontrollable madness. You also have to wonder when someone claims to have investigated more dog attacks than anyone else. Sounds like a typical, say whatever you feel like, fact-free buller boast to me. A comment at that site sums up quite succinctly the screaming lunacy of Crosby's "humans deserved what they got" analysis.

---Obviously, when a pit feels jealous, it's perfectly okay to attack and kill.
---It's the victims fault that she was killed because she took her dog away from the attacking pit.
---To scream when a pit bull is attacking is clearly an invitation to be killed.
---She should also have known further screaming would only make the poor little jealous pit attack more violently.
---Her sister-in-law should have known better that to try to save her. The "dog expert" claimed that the rescue attempt merely intensified the attack.

The capacity of pit nutters to deny plain "in your face" facts is only matched by another breed of loonies, the holocaust deniers.

Not since the Soviet Union have we seen such impressive rewriting of events to serve a particular political purpose, namely to keep pit bulls from being banned anywhere. It's unfortunate that by going so far overboard in trying portray pits as nature's perfect pooch, pit nutters just undermine the credibility of any real information they have to present.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm tired today, so I don't want to waste time reading whatever drivel you've posted. Could you save me some time? Are you lying today, or have you decided to plagiarize some more? And what measures do you suggest to address this issue?
Incidentally, I am *truly not encouraging you to stop your pathetic ramblings. The more you talk, the more people will realize that on your side of the argument lies madness. My pit bulls appreciate your efforts. ;)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The next time you run into your local mail carrier, ask them about pit bulls. It's doubtful that you'll find a lot of friends of pits among the people who have to visit every house in the neighborhood every day of the week. For an interesting read, go to Google News and type "pit bull postal" without the quotes.

Jan 8, 2008 ... DAYTON, Ohio -- A dog burst through a house door and attacked a mail carrier. Tuesday,
Feb 3, 2009 ... PHOENIX -- A female postal worker was bitten by two dogs Tuesday ... Police say two pit bull-type dogs left the rear yard of a home and ...
Mar 28, 2008 ... A female postal worker was bitten by a Visalia, CA, woman's pit bull last Wednesday afternoon.
Jun 16, 2008 ... The owner says this is the second time the pit bull has attacked a person.
May 3, 2009 - YouTube - 2 pit bulls maul postal carrier
Oct 10, 2008 ... Residents in a Dublin flat complex have been left without post for four weeks following a pit bull attack on their postman.
Jul 8, 2008 ... The three-year-old pit bull mastiff will be quarantined at Dallas Animal Services for ... The US Postal Service is also investigating the case.
Norwich Post Office Awards Veteran For Intervening in Pit Bull Attack. Good "Hammeritan" Norwich,
My friend started hitting the pit bull on its back and started yelling ... as Halt which postal workers are issued that are very effective. ...
Neighborhood still not getting mail over pit bull - KSN TV
Now, postal officials are explaining their decision. Max is a pit bull who is a family dog. He's high strung and recently broke his chain to go after the ...
Aug 23, 2007 Postman recovering after pit bull attack - The dog jumped a fence ...
The brindle and white pit bull was taken to the Los Angeles County ... Dog attacks have been a continual problem for the Postal Service, ...
Pit bull stops mail delivery
Today, the U-S Postal Service says it will no longer deliver mail to the house ... It's obvious that pit bull owners wouldn't want to respect the Second ...
Pit bull attacks Toledo woman, causing serious personal injury ...
Apr 30, 2008 ... [/quote] This "Pit Bull" hysteria fueled by the media,lawyers and people ... National Dog Bite Awareness Week in May is the Postal Service's ...
Highlands judge spares pit bull after postal attack - NJ.com
Rural Mail Carrier Postal News: Pit bull owner on trial for attack ...
News: Pit bull owner on trial for attack on postal carrier | moody, dog, mail, trial, carrier - OCRegister.com:

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

:;yawn:: What are your suggestions for addressing this issue, Peggy?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again, I have to offer thanks to you for your service to pit bulls. If you click on one of your links up there (NJ.com), you'll open to a page with a good article called "Preventing Dog-Related Injuries To Children." In it are 23 rock-solid tips for keeping yourself and your kids safe. It even offers links to the Humane Society and dogsbite.org. Know what's conspicuously missing from the very thorough article? Any mention of pit bulls. At all. Huh. One would expect that something so full of good information would include anything that offered a substantial threat of injury. I wonder why they left pits out of it.... Oh, I know: the person writing it isn't as batsh*t insane as you are. Here's where you can find it: http://www.nj.com/pets/index.ssf/2009/06.... And now I think I'll go for a walk downtown with my vicious mauling machines and see if I can't endanger some strangers and their children. ;)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ever wonder why animal shelters are overflowing with pits? Perhaps pit nutters, who present their precious pooches to the public as perfect pets, are to blame. When people find out that they're been lied to and their new pit is not anywhere near as perfect as pictured in the pit nutters propaganda, it's off to the shelter they go. If they really were the best, sweetest most loyal dogs in the world, they should be rushing OUT of shelters and not INTO them.

Nutters are desperate. They see BSL's going into place and they know they’re losing the fight. The overt hostility of many pit nutters is hard to miss. They oddly believe insulting and deriding anti-pit posters will win converts to their side (at least I think that's the motive – sociopathy could explain it as well). Perhaps they saw how well insults worked for the Republicans in 2008. Predictably, this nutter plan appears to be backfiring:

http://www.thestranger.com/gyrobase/pit_...

--"Speaking as a disinterested observer from Australia (where pit bulls are, largely, a banned breed), it seems to me that Colleen attempted to be very reasonable in her comments to Irene regarding the pit-bull incident, and was abused, slandered and ridiculed in response by advocates. This seems to me to not be a very good way of getting pit bull advocacy to the masses. Surely you could dispute her points without being insulting on a personal level? …having read these comments, I must say that a pit bull would be the very last dog I would buy. If you cant be decent and responsible on a forum, guys, you dont get my vote in terms of breed ownership." - Posted by la from Sydney on September 21, 2008 --

Followed by this post:

--"I've been considering the pros and cons of a Pit Bull ban, and having read through this thread, I'm now pro-ban. The general thuggery and aggressiveness of the FABB folks does confirm one thing -- it's not the dog it's the owners. So even while I recognize that, Pit Bulls' ability to attract idiot owners (and I have my share of "duhh, my Pit's never done THAT before" stories of my own) has done enough damage to the breed that a ban is now necessary. I feel for the responsible pit owners (however outnumbered) but I feel more for the family dog in my circle that was recently attacked and nearly killed in his own backyard by two wandering pits. I'm going to contact the FDAFB folks and see how I can help." Posted by off and running on September 24, 2008 --

I agree. I had a softer attitude towards pits, thinking a grandfathering system would be the fairest solution. But the more I read truly poisonous pit nut posts, the more I think that many pit owners can't control themselves, let alone their dogs. If pit owners can't behave well in groups, why should anyone believe they could properly socialize their pits?

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 26, 2009 at 4:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a little gem I picked up from an article that actually had some wheat mixed in with the chaff, but the chaff is SO bad, it casts the whole piece into a questionable light.

"I also worry about what the “experts” say because they tried to say this year that a DNA test can determine what breed(s) your dog is. Yeah, I don’t think so, and I sure as hell don’t believe the test would be with such accuracy that that breed determination would hold up in a court of law."

http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=582

Now if that's not looney-tune city, I don't know what is. If there's any forensic science that has proven itself beyond a doubt, it's DNA testing. Right now, it's prohibitively expensive to do the testing, but very soon they'll have a stick test for pits and their genetic cousins. I think this "prove my dog did it, prove it was a pit" approach will, pardon the pun, come back to bite the pit bull lobby in the butt.

We're asked to believe that even vets and animal control officers can't tell what dog is a pit. We know that's highly unlikely because Michael Vick, a football player with no particular experience in genetic testing or classification of dog breeds appeared to choose pits correctly on every of the over 30 dogs he selected as fighters. This "prove it's a pit" business is a red herring; a last ditch effort to divert attention from the maulings and killings.

Another genius at that same site makes this startling revelation:

"I don’t believe that unprovoked dog bites EVER happen"

Anyone who doesn't know of someone who was attacked out of the blue by a dog has been living in a dog-free cave. The attitude of the above poster shows why it's nearly impossible to reason with many pit bull lovers because they state as fact something that almost everyone knows is completely untrue. There isn't a breed that hasn't attacked someone out of the blue. That trait of dogs is not restricted to pits. The problem is that when a pit (or worse two, or more) attack, their remarkable tenacity leads them to want to finish the job. A Jack Russell attack might send you the ER, but a pit bull attack will send you to the ICU – or the morgue.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 26, 2009 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>They see BSL's going into place and they know they’re losing the fight.<
--Really? Where? I'm not finding *anything that will remove the ability of anyone to own *any kind of dog they wish. Ain't America grand?
>They oddly believe insulting and deriding anti-pit posters will win converts to their side...<
--Have I insulted you? I'm sorry. I just don't suffer fools well. Add to that your numerous and ever-constant litany of lies, plagiarism and distortion as well as your inability to answer any direct question asked, well, I just don't see any other way.
>Speaking as a disinterested observer from Australia (where pit bulls are, largely, a banned breed...<
--Yeah, about that. We're in America. Next.
>I'm going to contact the FDAFB folks and see how I can help.<
--Someone needs to help them. They've lost on every front that exists, and they haven't had anything new on their website in almost a year.
>But the more I read truly poisonous pit nut posts, the more I think that many pit owners can't control themselves, let alone their dogs. If pit owners can't behave well in groups, why should anyone believe they could properly socialize their pits?<
--Do you *really wonder why someone would speak to you the way I have? How can it be that you do not correlate that attitude with your outright refusal to answer questions? It's hard to hold a one-sided discussion, and you lack either the ability or the willingness to debate. Your lecture series is repetitive and contains more fiction than fact. Are you this dull in real life?
>Anyone who doesn't know of someone who was attacked out of the blue by a dog has been living in a dog-free cave.<
--Poor Peggy. You live in a black and white world, doncha? One would guess that everyone knows that provocation in an animal doesn't necessarily have to be overt or immediate. I'm sorry you can't understand complex concepts. Do you have someone in your life who could help you?
>A Jack Russell attack might send you the ER, but a pit bull attack will send you to the ICU – or the morgue.<
--And *this is why you'll never be taken seriously and why people who try to legislate my dogs out of existence are doomed to fail. A kid isn't more dead if he's killed by a pit bull rather than a Jack Russell. His lip isn't anymore gone if it's ripped away by a pit bull rather than a Jack Russel. Add to that the easily-verifiable fact that pits bite *less than many other breeds and, well, you're just spitting into the wind. Lucky for you that you're used to it. ;)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 26, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>If there's any forensic science that has proven itself beyond a doubt, it's DNA testing.<
--Sure. For humans. Unfortunately for you, even the folks who do the test say, "It should be understood that test results often do not appear in each category. If the dog has been mixed over many generations, it will most likely not show a very strong influence of any one particular breed. Thus its results will show up only In the Mix category. If, on the other hand, a dog has at least one purebred parent, it most likely will have a result in the Primary category. ... The Canine Heritage Breed Test can only determine if any of the validated breeds make-up your pet’s breed composition. If your pet’s composition contains non-validated breed(s), the test may identify a breed earlier in your dog’s ancestry. This may cause identification of apparent unlikely breeds for your animal’s composition."
-- This would, in fact, probably not stand up to the sniff test in legal proceedings. ::sigh:: You just make this too damn easy.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 26, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here are more stories about the mauling pit bull. I post these so that anyone who thinks that the CDC data accurately accounted for all pit bull bites can see that attacks by pits occur far more frequently than the CDC's 30 year old, pre-Google data suggest. There's never been a day without a pit attack since this thread began, and some days there are 5 or more attacks. There's even been a fatality from pits in the short time this thread has been alive. So when pit advocates tell you that their breed is no more apt to maul a child than a cocker spaniel, you have to ask yourself, who am I going to believe? Someone out to protect their personal property at any cost or your own lying eyes? (-:

MAULED GIRLS' DAD WANTS DOGS DESTROYED, OWNERS PUNISHED

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Life/Mauled...

Calgary Herald - Gwendolyn Richards - ‎12 minutes ago‎

"Two little girls are recovering from a mauling by two dogs, while their father is calling for the animals to be destroyed…"Suddenly, two dogs came from the back and started to attack them. They just cried," said Mahal. The youngest received bites to her face, all around her eyes and cheeks…Mahal thanked the two people who stopped and used a baseball bat and metal rod to scare off the dogs." [Another case where it took passersby and a baseball bat to break off the attack – these appear not to be wild dogs, but repeat offenders in a similar attack on a 78 year old man. No, pitbulls NEVER attack without provocation. Unfortunately, humans breathing air seems to be all it takes to set them off.]

GIRL BITTEN BY PIT BULL
http://www.theleafchronicle.com/article/...
Clarksville Leaf Chronicle - Tavia D. Green - ‎2 hours ago‎ " A Clarksville man was cited after a pit bull in his care attacked an 8-year-old girl Tuesday evening while she and her friend were riding a bicycle near her Friar Drive home.

DES MOINES COUNCILWOMAN BACKS CITYWIDE BAN ON PIT BULLS
DesMoinesRegister.com - Jason Pulliam - ‎3 hours ago‎

"The decision to investigate stronger rules for so-called vicious dogs came this week after the council voted unanimously to deny an appeal from Andrew Newsom, 1105 Euclid Ave., who sought to overturn a hearing officer's decision to destroy his pit bull. Newsom's dog on May 16 was running loose when it attacked a neighbor's dog and bit the owner's hand. Newsom's pit bull was unlicensed and uninsured at the time of the attack…Newsom was warned after a November 2005 incident that his dog would be seized and humanely destroyed if it was ever found unlicensed and running loose in the city."

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 26, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>I post these so that anyone who thinks that the CDC data accurately accounted for all pit bull bites can see that attacks by pits occur far more frequently than the CDC's 30 year old, pre-Google data suggest.<
--No, you don't. You post this crap because you are unable to debate the issue. Or you're afraid to try. Or maybe both. Whatever. You're as ineffective here as you clearly would be in real life, if you ever attempted to move from lecturing on a message board that no one reads to any kind of action aimed at ridding the world of pit bulls.
>Someone out to protect their personal property at any cost or your own lying eyes?<
--I'm going with my eyes. After all, my "personal property" is right, freakin' *here and please believe that I wouldn't take *your word for something if it came with a money-back guarantee. You have moved into the realm of the pathetic, Peggy. You can do nothing but bring other people's words to this venue, never offering any substantial suggestion about how to move forward. I'd feel sorry for you but I believe you actively *choose to be stupid, and I find it difficult to pity someone who simply doesn't want to avoid looking mildly retarded.
>No, pitbulls NEVER attack without provocation.<
--Now *this is probably true. We may be making progress. It's good to know you've learned *something from your time here.
As for me, it's a beautiful day, so I think I'll take my vicious mauling machines out to terrorize an old lady. :)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 26, 2009 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All across the country, people are fed up with pit bull attacks on their children and pets. They're gearing up to fix the pit problem. Remember, this hardly a complete account of today's pit bull bites since so many small papers aren't yet online…

HIGHLAND PARK, ELGIN CONSIDER RESTRICTIONS ON PIT BULLS

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...

"Elgin is reviewing its current animal ordinances to determine if there should be stronger penalties for owners of animals involved in biting incidents or deemed a public danger or nuisance,"…Highland Park Mayor Michael Belsky suggested a ban on pit bulls last month after a 14-year-old girl was attacked by a leashed, 9-month-old pit bull in a neighbor's yard…The girl suffered cuts on her face and shoulder requiring 100's of stitches." [Some poor kid suffers brutal mutiliation and 100's of stitches because someone just HAD to have a pit bull <sigh>] "There is no second chance when a pit bull or a Rottweiler attacks you," Norman Friedland, 72, said after the meeting. "I think they should be banned"

ARGUMENT OVER DOGS ESCALATES VIOLENTLY

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70531...

"An argument over 2 dogs not being on leashes turned into a fist fight Tuesday and ended with the arrest of a woman after police say she ordered her animals to attack…one of the pit bulls went after one of the other woman's dogs…that woman started arguing with the pit bull owner about not keeping her dogs on leashes…The verbal confrontation escalated…When the pit bull owner found herself losing…she ordered her dogs to attack the other woman." [Sounds like behavior completely consistent with contumacious comments made by pit bull apologists.]

ANIMAL ADVISORY BOARD CALLS FOR DISCRETION

http://www.theindependent.com/articles/2... --
"The Browns’ male pit bull aggressively attacked a German shepherd/lab mix being walked on a leash by its owner, Brian Litz. The male pit bull was so intent in the attack that it failed to release the victim dog even as Isaac Brown clubbed the pit bull with a baseball bat. [There it is again: baseball bat. Pit bull fans insist their dogs don't bite any differently than other dogs yet it always seems to take a baseball bat, an iron pipe or a shovel to break off their attack]

DOG ATTACKS LOCAL TEEN --http://www.koaa.com/aaaa_top_stories/x1974617365/Dog-attacks-local-teenager - ‎14 hours ago‎

The owner pulled the dog off, but it left a chunk of Tamera’s arm missing. The gash is 4" long, 2" wide…Tamera must undergo 4 hours of re-constructive surgery…co-pays alone will cost at least $500. The pit bull is currently impounded…“Dangerous dog” charges could result in a large fine." [Let's hope the pit owner is forced to pay for the medical bills, too.]

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 26, 2009 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How sad it must to be you. The only weapon in your pathetic arsenal is reports written by other people about animals you'll never encounter. In the meantime, my pit bulls get to thrive in a nurturing home, acting as ambassadors of their breeds, encouraging others to adopt one just like them. And they succeed at it, too. You'll never achieve that what you most want while *I get to live exactly the way I want to -- surrounded forever by pit bulls. Hell, one of mine even gets to go places other dogs are banned from, since she's a service dog. Life is good 'round here. What a pity you can't say the same. At any point you decide you'd like to actually debate on the debate board, just let me know. In the meantime, my pits and me are going to carry on with life. Enjoy scurrying around the internet, looking for foolishness to post so you don't have to admit that you're completely incapable of forming your own thoughts.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 26, 2009 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pit bull advocates frequently try to minimize the scope of the problem. They tell you peanut butter and bicycles are greater threats. Numerically, that *may* be true. But it fails to account for the major difference between a pit bull attack injury and an injury occurring doing something a person CHOSE to do. It's an important distinction. No one CHOOSES to be attacked by a pit. There's very little nutritional value (end of peanut butter argument) and there's very little cardio or recreational value in being mauled (end of bicycle comparison). A pit bull attack is something your nit-wit pit-owning neighbor inflicts upon you. That's why bans are evolving. People don't choose or want to be attacked by pits and they want the attacks to stop. It's not a risk they are willing to take on. They shouldn't have to, either. The attacks are being forced on them by their neighbor's perverse desire to own a dog that's a proven people killer.

Pit advocates cavalierly quote statistics "proving" the problem is too minuscule to care about as easily as they disparage any statistics to the contrary. Social scientists know that crime is seriously underreported. Legal and illegal aliens traditionally don't report crimes; they are afraid it will jeopardize their right to stay in the country. More than half of non-white US males can expected to be arrested in their lifetimes

http://www.jcpr.org/povsem/western_semin...

People who've been arrested tend to avoid contact with the law enforcement system afterward. People without insurance often don't report crimes because there's no financial incentive to do so.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/2164/Statisti...

Says: "There is evidence of substantial underreporting and nonreporting to the police by victims of crime; in fact, the majority of crimes committed are not reported to the police."

Criminologists disagree about the number, but some propose that as many as 9 out of 10 crimes are not reported to the police. That means that as bad as the daily Google reports of pit bull attacks seem, the reality is that things are much worse and the attacks are occurring much more frequently. You don't have to take my word for it. Just punch 'crime underreporting' into Google and you'll find 1000's of articles.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=crim...

Well, 463,000 if you want to be precise. So when we see 5 attacks occurring in one day, the reality is that perhaps as many as 50 attacks have gone unreported.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 26, 2009 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Somebody please kill this thread. Please.

Posted by dingus5 (anonymous) on June 26, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've been trying different searches in Google. Today I ran "pit bull shovel" and landed here:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf...

"Police said the dogs attacked Friesen about 6:40 a.m. after he left a friend's home to walk to his mother's home.

[Imagine the intolerable provocation of a human being *daring* to walk past two pit bulls]

"A larger, dark gray dog, described as the more aggressive of the two, attacked first, then a large brown dog joined in, police said.
The dogs took Friesen to the ground. One had Friesen by the arm and head, and the other had him by the legs and feet, a witness said."

[Why do so many pit bull attacks follow the same sort of horrible pattern? People might want to ask themselves "did they learn this behavior from their bad owners or is it more likely this is how they act when they haven't been trained HARD not to attack?"]

"Neighbor Charles "Chuck" Monnier heard Friesen yelling.
…'Help me, somebody help me!'" Monnier said Friday. "You could hear him two houses down." Monnier picked up a shovel and started swinging at the dogs while his wife dialed 9-1-1.
"They already got his shirt and jacket off him, and they were starting to pull his pants off him," Monnier said. "They were pulling him around and around in the snow."

[Aw, every pit bull lover knows they were just playing and it was only the stupid victim's inability to control himself from screaming as he was being mauled nearly to death that made the pits try to "lick him too hard."]

"The larger dog growled and challenged Monnier three times before leaving, Monnier said."

[I really have to wonder what levels of denial it takes for people to read these sorts of attack descriptions and then say "Darn, a pit sounds like THE dog for me!]

"Doctors reported that a smaller person could have been killed by the attack, police said."

[Gack! It's hard to conclude that pit owners aren't sadists given how often this story repeats itself. There can't be a person left in the US acquiring a pit bull that doesn't know their history as a fighting dog and their dubious mauling and killing record. A comment to the above article shows us that at least some people are "on" to the pit bull lobby and their tricks:]

Posted by neighbor97

My predictions on what the owner will say:

1. The dogs are friendly and even lick the face of
owner's (insert age and relationship of toddlers)
2. The dogs have showed no sign of violence.
3. The dogs are like family.
4. The breed cannot be criticized because criticizing a breed is like (insert reference to holocaust or civil rights movement).

[Bullers, apparently SOME people have your "number" and can read through all the denial and propaganda about "sweet" pits.]

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 27, 2009 at 1:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No one CHOOSES to be attacked by a pit. There's very little nutritional value (end of peanut butter argument) and there's very little cardio or recreational value in being mauled (end of bicycle comparison).
--Y'know, sweetie, just because *you say the comparisons are invalid doesn't make it so. As usual, you've completely missed the point of that argument. This is especially ironic since *you're the one who made it an issue. You wanted to protect the chiiiiiiiiildren. Okay, works for me. In order for you then to *not be completely full of bullsh*t, you'd have to extrapolate that argument to encompass all those (unnecessary) things that can hurt them. Pits would fall very near to bottom of the list. Duh.
>That's why bans are evolving.<
--Christ almighty. They're *really not. You aren't real familiar with the concept of civil rights, are you?
>Legal and illegal aliens traditionally don't report crimes; they are afraid it will jeopardize their right to stay in the country. More than half of non-white US males can expected to be arrested in their lifetimes<
--Oh, hon'. Previously you insisted that *all attacks by pits would result in time spent either in an ICU or the morgue. I suspect that even illegal immigrants would probably seek medical care if the attack was that severe. You really ought to pick a side and try to stick with it. Being you, it'll be a challenge but give it a shot.
>[Bullers, apparently SOME people have your "number" and can read through all the denial and propaganda about "sweet" pits.]<
--Okay. Sadly, for you anyway, that makes not one whit of difference. I live in a state that protects my dogs. I also have a pit bull that is covered under the ADA, a federal law. Civil rights groups think you need a crash course in Constitutional law. *I, on the other hand, just think you're a f*cking brain dead moron. Whichever it is, what it boils down to is that I get to keep my pit bulls, will certainly bring more of them into my home as the years pass, and I am not required to give a nanosecond's thought about your opinion or feelings about my pets. You get to keep screeching idiocy, lying and distorting whatever information you scamper around the internet to find, and will remain ever and always frustrated because you cannot *ever make us pit owners comply with your will.
>It's hard to conclude that pit owners aren't sadists...<
--You idiot hypocrite. I recall not too long ago when you were advocating the deaths of two pit owners at the hands of the parents of some kid who'd been bitten. Peggy, I'd like you to meet the kettle. Kettle, this is Peggy.
>I've been trying different searches in Google. Today I ran "pit bull shovel" and landed here:<
--Sweetie, you need a new hobby. Why don't you get a pit bull? It'll keep you busy.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 27, 2009 at 3:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>Somebody please kill this thread. Please.<
--Since you asked so nicely, I'll be more than happy to exit. I would be lying if I said that it wouldn't matter if I were going out on top or not, so I won't. It's definitely time for me to go; it's becoming harder and harder not to gloat anyway. Peggy is congenitally unable to debate. Or think. Or write her own thoughts and words. Her comprehension skills are poor. Sorry this went on so long, but I promise not to contribute to the debacle anymore. :)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 27, 2009 at 3:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, Dingus, I'd love to help you but it would be wrong. I don't mean to be rude but you *must* know the solution to "thine eye offending thee." So unless there's someone in your house forcing you to read this thread at the point of a gun I'll have to defer. Research is in progress!

While pit supporters will doubtless trot out the history of a very few pits involved in law enforcement, the overwhelming majority of encounters between pits and police ends badly. Why? Cops are first responders. They arrive at serious dog attacks quickly enough to witness them in progress. They see the terrible injuries these dogs can inflict and don't want to take any chances with proven people killers like pits:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregi...

"When they fire at dogs…most of their targets are pit bulls, with a smattering of Rotts and German shepherds."

Looking at the graph, you'll see statistics that will give pitties fits:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/0...

Of the dogs shot by cops in NYC, 72% are pits, 10% Rots and German Shepherds a measly 4%. Cops don’t see the lovey, cuddly pits that bullers always portray; they see the drug dealer's guard dog or the gangsta's fighting dog. They see a snarling canine weapon that can (and has) killed horses bearing down on them. And they see the victims of these maulings while they are down on the ground, bleeding and screaming from multiple bite wounds, not later when their ordeal is mere words on a page and so much easier to trivialize by bullers. This site collects pictures and articles about pits attacks:

http://pit-bulls.christianfunfair.org/at...

The pictures will sicken most people. It really doesn't matter who was responsible: the dog, the owner, society or sunspots. This kind of destruction has to be stopped. So many of these victims are kids that did nothing except to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. They fell victim to narcissist neighbors who just *had* to have a muscle dog. Most likely those same owners kept it cooped up in a space too small until the predictable happened.

Pit bull lovers could *easily* make do with dogs that just aren't capable of this sort of carnage. They just don't "wanna." You can almost hear the voice of a petulant child saying "you're not the boss of me" when they feebly try to justify owning dogs implicated in so many horrific attacks. Maybe their parents didn't let them have some toy they wanted growing up and they are acting out. Maybe they are just sadists. To select a pit after all the maulings and killings shows a serious indifference toward other human beings. Bullers seem to be some of the most selfish people you'll run into, putting their choice of a dog bred for killing ahead of anyone and everyone else.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 27, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@Dingus – I've always planned to stop posting on the day that my Google news search bot came back without a serious pit mauling. So far, no luck. Those darn "lovable, sweet, docile" pits just won't stop attacking young children no matter how lovable and docile pit bull advocates insist they are. Obviously they just aren't insisting hard enough.

FORT LAUDERDALE MAN PRIES OPEN JAWS OF DOG ATTACKING GIRL, 6

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/jun/27/f...

June 27, 2009 FORT LAUDERDALE — "Riding her pink bike in front of her house"
[Once again, the most extreme form of provocation or perhaps all that it takes to set some pits off?]
"6-year-old Nakaylah Smith says she noticed the neighbor's pit bull staring at her. Suddenly, the big dog apparently broke loose from its chain, bit the girl several times, and a man living nearby had to pry open the animal's jaws to keep her from getting seriously hurt Thursday evening."
[How do you think this would have ended had someone strong enough and fearless enough not been there?]
...bites on her legs and buttocks. "Mark Almy, a city beach maintenance supervisor who ran to put his hands in the dog's mouth and free her, is being hailed as a hero."
[Yes, he IS a hero. This is a man who is concerned about his neighbor's children, a strong counter-force to people who insist on putting kids at risk by acquiring and mistreating child-mauling pits.] "When he got there, 18-year-old Darryl Armstrong had grabbed the dog by its chain but couldn't free Nakaylah. Almy stuck his hands in the dog's mouth and forced open its jaws, which were clutching Nakaylah's pants."
[It took TWO GROWN MEN to pull this dog off its victim. TWO!!! And yet bullers *repeatedly* insist there's nothing different about their dogs or the ferocity of their attacks. Once again, whom do you trust? Pittie propaganda or your own two eyes? "Almy will be honored by the mayor" [as well he should. Thank God that they were there to pull that psycho pit off a six-year-old. There's a good reason the military has banned these dogs from on-base housing and many insurers won't insure them.]

"…in another part of Fort Lauderdale, police officers fired several 9 mm bullets at two pit bulls after the dogs charged at them today…officers were responding to a call from a Florida Power & Light worker."
[It's the poor postal workers, meter readers, assessors, utility workers, garbagemen, recylers, newpaper deliverers and cops that encounter pit bulls every day and they're tired of waiting to be attacked. I think it would be interesting to interview those types of workers in pit ban vs. non-ban areas to see how they feel about the value of pit bull bans. I'll bet they could tell us whether the bullers claim "ban pits and the bad guys will just switch dogs" has much merit. Hmmm...]

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 27, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Some humane groups have been manipulated by these pit bull factions to where they fight breed-specific legislation using scare tactics like 'your breed will be next,' So said County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon in 2005. "And for 13 years, their breed hasn't been next." That makes it nearly 17 years that pit owners have been trying to scare other breed owners into joining their cause. You can read more here:

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...

The article provides two numbers that show the incredibly fast-growing nature of the pit problem. In 1993, Skeldon's workers picked up 50 pit bulls. Almost ten years later, it captured 857. That's quite a jump. The increased demand is very likely NOT from people who want them as pets, but by animal abusers wanting them as status symbols or fighting dogs. Dangerous dog laws won't keep pits out of the hands of thugs, but bans do.

Another scare tactic popular with by pit bull advocates is that Breed Specific Legislation will cost the taxpayers a fortune and yet have little effect.

An article written by Adam Goldstein for the Aurora Sentinel on November 17, 2008 casts doubt on those dubious assertions: "… the city has offered data that points to lower incidences of bites since the ban took place. A report from earlier this year shows that the percentage of reported bites from restricted breeds dipped dramatically after 2006, with only 6 percent of reported bites coming from restricted breeds in 2006 and accounting for 7 percent in 2007. In 2006, the city reported 758 restricted breed impoundments, a number that shrunk to 269 in 2007, a decrease of 65 percent." To help pay for enforcement, a fee of $218 has been attached to a restricted breed license." Mr. Goldstein goes on to point out that the Aurora ban has already survived a challenge in court.

Most importantly, breed specific laws have passed muster with the US Supreme Court, who refused to hear an appeal of the Tellings v. Toledo case:

http://www.animallaw.info/cases/causoh87...

"The U.S. Supreme Court on February 19, 2008 upheld the constitutionality of breed-specific dog regulation by refusing to hear an appeal of Toledo vs. Tellings, a challenge to the Toledo ordinance limiting possession of pit bull terriers to one per person, and requiring that pit bulls be muzzled when off their home property."

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/08/3/wat...

Face it pit lovers, as much as you don't like to hear it, your dog is property, not a human being. It cannot be racially profiled, you cannot sue for lost of consort, it's just not a person in the eyes of the law. If the current Supreme Court sanctions the state's ability to take away a family's generational home for a shopping mall, what chance do pit lovers have claiming the state can't take one single dog the state has deemed a threat to the community's kids?

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 27, 2009 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>Dingus – I've always planned to stop posting on the day that my Google news search bot came back without a serious pit mauling.<
--Don't buy it, Dingus. Peggy has two modes: plagiarism and outright lies. For example, she claims she'll stop when she doesn't get a hit on her never-ending, indescribably pathetic searches that she seems to spend *way too much time on. This would leave one to believe that she's looking for *current pit attacks, no? Yeah, not so much. That citation up there for the Toledo Blade? The article informs us that "Article published February 21, 2005." She seems to talk to you. Congratulate her for me on being one of the pro-pit folks' best weapons, and tell her I offer thanks. Also, if you have a moment, would you ask her what reasonable, sane measures she would suggest to address the pit bull problem she keeps raving about?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on June 30, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those sweet, loving, "never hurt anybody" pits are still biting. If only they would conform to the rosy picture of pits painted by their apologists. Another child has been killed by pits. These articles confirm what everyone already knows about pits. Everyone except pit propagandists!

PIT BULLS TO BE EUTHANIZED AFTER MAULING DOG IN LEHIGH ACRES

http://www.news-press.com/article/200906...

A Lehigh Acres woman reported that two pit bulls attacked and mauled her pet Sheltie this morning…injuries were so extensive the pet…was euthanized by a veterinarian.

THREE YEAR OLD KILLED BY PIT BULL MIXES

http://www.mariondaily.com/news/x9312121...

Johnston City, Ill. The three family dogs apparently involved in the death 3-year-old Gabrial Mandrell-Sauerhage were destroyed by Williamson County Animal Control on Tuesday morning. Sheriff Tom Cundiff said the dogs – a collie and two pit bull mixes – were put down by euthanasia…following the June 27 incident.

ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES SHOOT PIT BULL IN TRAFFIC STOP

http://www.idahostatesman.com/1441/story...

06/30/09 Ada County sheriff's deputies killed the dog, which had been chained up outside a car pulled over in a traffic stop, after it broke free and attacked Bowzer, a Meridian K-9 dog. They tried first to shoo it away with a heavy flashlight.

"I HOPE AND PRAY THAT IT'S NOT ONE OF YOUR BABIES THAT GETS KILLED"

http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=1...

The family of Justin Clinton is now…trying to get pit bulls outlawed completely in Texas. 10-year-old Justin…was mauled to death by pit bulls outside a friend's home in Leverett's Chapel. "It's so important that people know what these dogs do. They seem to be loveable pets but in an instant, it's over. It's too late when your babies gone! It's too late to say, "oh they were so loveable." They were our pets," said Ford.

BUFFALO COP INJURED IN PIT BULL ATTACK

http://www.buffalonews.com/258/story/717...

A Buffalo police officer received 34 stitches to re-attach part of his right ear following an attack by a pit bull Saturday afternoon.

The attack occured as Officer James Hosking was in the process of arresting James Gardner, 19, of 36 Olympic Avenue, on a trespass charge. When Gardner resisted the arrest, the defendant's pit bull left his crate and attacked Hosking, according to a police report.

PIT BULL KILLED AFTER ATTACK IN MONTCLAIR

http://www.sbsun.com/breakingnews/ci_127...

06/29/2009 After attacking a 17-year-old, a violently rambunctious pit bull was shot and killed by police Thursday morning. The teenager was treated at Doctor's Hospital Emergency Room for the dog bite to his calf and was later released, according to a police statement…After biting the victim, the dog was cornered by police and was shot and killed after attempting to attack the officers…

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on June 30, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What are your sane, rational suggestions for addressing this issue, Peggy?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some good friends of ours have an AmStaf and she's the most loveable dog we've ever seen. I don't think it's a breed thing, it's an owner thing.

Posted by dingus5 (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Solution: lower the criteria for vicious dog status to one that has bitten, attacked or injured a person or killed a companion dog or cat. All vicious dogs would be euthanized.
Interesting remark about Mr. Cunningham, on June 24, 2009 at 3:36 p.m, “ Having a GUN, for god's sake: problem.” I agree, if the problem is that he did not use it on the dog before the attack. It was not his gun that escaped from a fenced yard and attacked Huang Le in the front yard of her home, sending her to 10 hours of surgery.
Also, I wonder what the outcome would have been had Mr. Cunningham owned a couple of pugs.

Posted by baraol (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

[Today's pit news shows why the "dangerous dog" won't work. These dogs weren't identifiable – no tags, no microchips. A pit bull ban would have allowed for them to be scooped up BEFORE they mauled someone. Dangerous dog laws give proven killer dogs their first bite (often more than that – see last item) free. That's a pass that the 3 children, killed by pits since April, would probably have preferred they didn't have.]

OMAHA POLICE INVESTIGATE PIT BULL ATTACK

http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1...

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) – "Police are investigating an attack by two pit bulls on a north Omaha street that left a small dog dead… a 15-year-old girl and her 5-year-old brother were walking their small dog…Tuesday when two pit bulls attacked."

[After pits killed a 10 year old in Texas last month, residents swarmed the local county courthouse demanding laws to ban pits; some residents want a nationwide ban.]

LEASH LAW APPROVED

http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...

"The meeting was packed with people calling for the county to take a tougher stance against pit bull dogs…60 to 70 people gathered on the steps of the Rusk County Courthouse calling for a pit bull ban. They hope what would be called “Justin’s Law” would outlaw ownership of pit bull dogs across the nation…vowed to take the fight to ban pit bull dogs to the national level." A former judge promised to speak with U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert about the prospect of national legislation…court also adopted a resolution calling for the banning of pit bulls throughout the nation."

[I found the next article about a previous attack shows that reporters are well aware of the standard pit advocate evasion techniques. Right at the top of the article it says "Yes, it was a pit bull." It seems reporters are getting a little tired of the OJ-like defense strategies of bullers, blaming everyone else for the action of their hyper-aggressive dogs. Accusing reporters of being part of some massive anti-pit conspiracy is not smart, bullers - you're going to need friends in the press, and soon!]

DEPUTIES SHOOT AND KILL A PIT BULL IN MERIDIAN

http://www.670kboi.com/Article.asp?id=13...

"The Ada County Sheriffs Office says officers had to shoot and kill a dog overnight. Yes, it was a pit bull."

PIT BULL TO BE EUTHANIZED

http://www.kptv.com/news/19870214/detail...

LONGVIEW, Wash. -- A pit bull that attacked a 7-year-old boy in Longview will be put down…he had skin hanging off his face "like he had just come off a war zone." Ten days earlier, the dog attacked another child. [Here comes the inevitable part of the story where the owners say:] "Deuce is actually a good dog," Johnson said. The dog's owners described Deuce as the best dog they have ever owned." [Except for his attack problem! When do you think Americans will get tired of this same old "he wouldn’t hurt a fly" crap?]

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's an interesting piece called "Could Fluffy bite?"

http://www.plamerican.com/news/general-n...

She tells us that 95 percent of the aggressive dogs she works with had never bitten before. That means dangerous dog laws are woefully inadequate in preventing a dog's first bite. That's not so bad with poodles and Jack Russells, but the first bite from a pit bull, unlike most other dogs, often turns out to be the last bite for them and for the human or animal that they kill.

She reiterates something I've said before: “People tend to generalize a dog’s behavior from one context to the next. “Just because a dog is great with your kids, or your sister’s kid, doesn’t mean he’ll be OK with unfamiliar children.” So when we're told that the sweet family pit has never threatened the family's children, this expert reminds us that's absolutely no proof the dog won't attack or kill a stranger's child.

She claims that "Pit bulls and other “bully breeds” get the most bad press" without entertaining the obvious reason: they are the ones doing most of the mauling and killing. The CDC data that dates back 30 years is too stale to be very useful. The database of pit bull attacks I'm creating using the same techniques as the CDC shows the current levels of pit bull misbehavior are far greater than what the CDC reported.

This dog expert tells us something most people know and that pit advocates try to dismiss as irrelevant: Pits are dog-aggressive. Why, exactly, does America need dogs that dog experts admit attack and kill other dogs? So far, the answer seems to be some bullers just don't care about anything or anyone other than their own little world. You can almost hear them say: "So what if pits mauled three kids to death in the last three months? They weren't MY kids." That selfish sentiment comes through in nearly everything they say. The only way, it seems that pit owners are capable of learning is when the family pit attacks and kills a family member as this dog did two months ago:

FUNERAL SET FOR EASTPOINTE BOY MAULED BY PIT

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090428/...

Eastpointe – "Funeral arrangements are set for an 11-month-old boy who died last week after being mauled by his family's pit bull-mix. Family said the child was standing on his parents' bed April 22 with his mother and father in the room when, without warning, the family's 5-year-old pit bull-mix suddenly grabbed him. Police said the boy's father fired eight shots at the dog with his .45-caliber handgun, killing it." The father had a concealed weapons permit to carry the gun.

[Without warning. How many times do pitters have to read those words in connection with pit bull attacks to realize no matter how much they think they can, there's just no predicting what an animal, bred for fighting, will do.]

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>I agree, if the problem is that he did not use it on the dog before the attack. It was not his gun that escaped from a fenced yard and attacked Huang Le in the front yard of her home, sending her to 10 hours of surgery.<
--I wasn't very clear with my meaning about the gun. I am not an anti-gun person. I *am anti-felon-having-a-gun person. And there would've been a far saner solution to shooting the dogs, as well. The report said he had two male intact pit bulls. I don't think a convicted felon is probably the brightest bulb in the lamp, but even *he should've known to neuter his dogs. I have pit bulls, and *I wouldn't go anywhere near an intact male pit.
>Also, I wonder what the outcome would have been had Mr. Cunningham owned a couple of pugs.<
--The report would've been on the sixth page beneath the article about the kidnapped garden gnomes, and the headline would have read "Woman Bitten By Dogs." Only pits or pit mixes seem to have their breed mentioned in newspaper headlines although they bite far less often than many other breeds.
As for your suggestion about destroying vicious dogs, I'm right there with you provided that it encompasses *all dogs that bite without provocation. If Grandma's poodle rips the ear off a baby, I want that dog euthanized along with the pit that finally attacks the kid who keeps throwing rocks at him.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on July 2, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

>Some good friends of ours have an AmStaf and she's the most loveable dog we've ever seen. I don't think it's a breed thing, it's an owner thing.<
--My 2-yr.-old AmStaff is a living doll. She's a service dog, and will soon be working as a visitation dog at our local hospital. She has that irresistible pit-bull grin, and is happiest when she's curled up in your lap. *I am far more likely to bite someone than *she is. She's also that exception that proves the rule -- she would fare just fine at a dog park. My 11-month-old APBT is a different story, at least for the time being. We neutered him early to keep his size down, but he's still a big boy. And, since he's still a puppy, he's rambunctious and still learning how hard play biting is as opposed to hey-that-hurts biting. His prey drive is a little higher than the AmStaff's, and since his jaws can pop tennis balls, he's not going to ever be a candidate for dog parks. We look for more opportunities for socialization for him, and I'm guessing that by the time he's the AmStaff's age, he'll be as calm as she is. Having said that, however, my dogs will always have restrictions on them that dogs of other breeds -- some of them way more dangerous than pit bulls -- will never have, and I'm fine with that. There *are, in fact, any number of rational limitations that could be reasonably imposed on all pit bulls that the vast majority of owners would be happy with. None of them include across-the-board sterilization or wholesale slaughter of the breeds. Unfortunately, as is shown on this board, the anti-pit crew is an all-or-nothing kind of group, and since breed elimination will never, *ever happen, I don't know how to start a dialogue between pit owners and whatever sane faction exists within the anti-pit community. They don't seem to understand that if they were not so irrational, pit owners would be more than happy to find resolution to the issues involved with pit bulls.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on July 2, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Aw, Peggy. Why do you do it? You have to know by now that, given your penchant for playing fast and loose with the truth, every word you say is going to be suspect. And, as usual, you've managed to twist and obfuscate the *facts you tried to use. You may be a propaganda machine, but *god, you're bad at it. You say "These articles confirm what everyone already knows about pits" and then post a link and excerpt (A Lehigh Acres woman reported that two pit bulls attacked and mauled her pet Sheltie this morning…injuries were so extensive the pet…was euthanized by a veterinarian.) What you *didn't share are the comments from neighbors who know the owner and the dogs. They tell us "The pit bulls in this story have been locked in the garage of the abandoned house at 214 Fireside Ct. The house has no electricity or running water. The entire neighborhood has lodged numerous complaints with Animal Control. All we wanted was for these dogs to be taken and adopted by a responsible owner. At one time these dogs had a loving home and were socialized but the owner moved on about a year ago and left the animals locked up. They would come infrequently to feed and water them." That sounds like an owner problem more than a dog problem, and would certainly give insight into why they behaved the way they did. Now, I wonder why you wouldn't bother to share *that part of the story...? ;)
You post part of a story about a K-9 officer getting attacked by a pit. What you *fail to mention is this: "But the [pit bull] needed to be placed outside the car. The owner clearly was not allowed to hold the dog to keep it under control." Imagine that -- a dog placed in an untenable situation that ends up protecting his owner. Yeah, *that's unusual. @@
In your ramblings about the "Justice for Justin" article you conveniently forget to mention this: "That same day, county commissioners will hold a meeting to decide whether a leash law will be passed in some areas of the county." Gee, I wonder what would've happened if people in that area had been held to the responsibility of leashing and/or containing their dogs.
In a long paragraph shrieking that pit bulls should be banned you offer the following as your proof: "...breed specific laws have passed muster with the US Supreme Court, who refused to hear an appeal of the Tellings v. Toledo case: "The U.S. Supreme Court on February 19, 2008 upheld the constitutionality of breed-specific dog regulation by refusing to hear an appeal of Toledo vs. Tellings, a challenge to the Toledo ordinance limiting possession of pit bull terriers to one per person, and requiring that pit bulls be muzzled when off their home property." Yeah, is it just me or did you also not notice one damn thing in that clip that suggests in any way that the SC supports pit bull bans? Because all I see is that they are limiting how many one can own and that they be muzzled. How you equate *that to a ban is beyond me.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 1:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In another rambling missive you state about an attack "It took TWO GROWN MEN to pull this dog off its victim. TWO!!!" Pity, that. Perhaps if the dog had been trained properly, it wouldn't have come to that. My dogs, for example, are trained to respond instantly to a clicker. The only things they do without permission from one of us is breathe and blink. Again, I see this as an owner problem, not a dog problem.
In yet another twist-and-lie you say, “”Here comes the inevitable part of the story where the owners say: "Deuce is actually a good dog," Johnson said.” The problem, of course, is that the owners didn’t say that. Rick Johnson did. And he probably knows good dogs from bad. Mr. Johnson works for the Cowlitz County Humane Society. Johnson said Deuce was merely reacting to his instincts. "If a kid would come running with his hands (out), the dog would have a defense mode," he said. "And that's probably why he bit." I doubt the man was making excuses for the attack, but he certainly would know provocation when he sees it.
And then in your clip from the article “Could Fluffy Bite,” you state “[Maureen Haggerty, a dog aggression specialist] claims that ‘Pit bulls and other “bully breeds” get the most bad press’ without entertaining the obvious reason: they are the ones doing most of the mauling and killing.” Um, *no, that’s not the obvious reason and it’s not anywhere *near what she said. In fact, her quote is, “Pit bulls and other “bully breeds” get the most bad press, but the fact is, pit bulls are notoriously people-friendly. They tend to be overly people-friendly and dog-aggressive.” Most often, Haggerty finds smaller dogs are the most likely to bite.” Huh. The dog-aggression specialist says *small dogs are most likely to bite. Who would’ve thought it? And in the same article we learn “In late 2008, a couple from Savage found out the hard way that any dog has the potential to bite. Their 7-year-old long-haired Dachshund, Bitsy, found herself branded a “potentially dangerous dog” after she allegedly bit a young girl walking to school.” What a *mystery it is that you didn’t see fit to share *that part of the article. ;)
You also say “you're going to need friends in the press, and soon.” Y’know, we’re really *not. We have laws that protect us, Peggy. We have the Constitution. We have the factual information supplied by those who actually *know what they’re talking about, as opposed to, well, you. Civil liberties aren’t subject to being granted or denied based on how may friends you have. You *really didn’t pay attention in Civics class, didja?
I have to tell you, Peggy, I've participated in countless debates on drastically diverse topics with a zillion people, all of them different, but you are absolutely the most dishonest poster I have *ever come across. I have truly never seen anyone who lies, twists, distorts and evades like you do. Congratulations, I guess.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on July 3, 2009 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just go to www.blindpitbull.blogspot.com and this pit bull might change your mind about how dangerous they are.

Posted by cliffdonovanonline (anonymous) on July 13, 2009 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Conn. officials may destroy vicious chickens
Updated: 07/14/2009 10:40:25 AM EDT

HARWINTON (AP) - A Connecticut agriculture official say the hundreds of chickens and roosters seized from a Harwinton home are vicious and aggressive and will likely be killed. (http://www.newstimes.com/latestnews/ci_1...)

::happy sigh::

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on July 14, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>Just go to www.blindpitbull.blogspot.com and this pit bull might change your mind about how dangerous they are.<
I appreciated the link to the stories on that website, but I have to take issue with this: "Blind pit bull with choke collar on. Can you imagine any dog especially a blind dog needing a choke collar. Choke collars do just that. They choke a dog while digging into it's neck with pieced prongs. Cruelty at it's best. (picture from Oslo, Noway)."
I can explain why a pit bull, most particularly a blind one, would need the pincher collar (which is not, by the way, the same as a choke collar). Pits have enormous muscles surrounding their necks. Pits have been injured by regular collars and choke collars (the chain link ones) when straining against it. Pincher collars allow their handlers to guide them by tugging gently but quickly in order to give them direction. The "pinchers" move in a manner that allows the pits to feel the pressure and release, and it alerts them to receive direction. There are little rubber prong covers available, but since the prong doesn't hurt the dog, they're relatively unnecessary. A blind pit bull might need that direction even more than a sighted one, since it may be more likely to startle. I use pincher collars on both my pits, and I've never had a problem.

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on July 14, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How many maulings and killings is it going to take before people get the message? No matter what BS pitbull lovers spout, these dogs are killers and they've killed again. Right in Loudoun county.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Man, 20, Died of Dog Bites, Officials Say

Authorities have confirmed that the 20-year-old man found dead inside a Leesburg house Monday died of bites from two adult pit bulls.

It's just a matter of time before a gruesome multiple infant mauling and killing occurs. That's when the Feds are likely to step in a create a nationwide ban against pits. Yes, all dogs bite, but pit bulls finish the job. Time and time again. The statistics I've gathered in just the last few months reveal that even dogsbite.org is undercounting. Pit attacks occur daily in the US. Deaths occur monthly, and are on the increase. Eventually the wall of pit propaganda will come tumbling down and people will finally decide that enough is enough.

Yes, pitbulls do have a special quality: They are the most determined killers of the canine world. They've been bred for that "gameness" and they demonstrate it every day. I suspect that this death will give the county the ammunition it needs to entertain a county-wide ban on pits. That's how other bans have come into being: ferocious maulings and killings that put the lie to "my dog wouldn't hurt a flea" claims made by pit apologists. No one can say that with certainty about any animal. They certainly CAN'T say it about pits who have demonstrated their lethality time and time again. Read the articles. Nearly every owner/victim says "but he was so gentle, he never hurt anyone!"

Now it's time to ban them completely and let pit people make do with a slightly less lethal breed.

Posted by Peggy_M (anonymous) on August 13, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>How many maulings and killings is it going to take before people get the message? No matter what BS pitbull lovers spout, these dogs are killers and they've killed again.<
*How many? More than you can count. You don't *really think that we're going to let some moron with an internet connection and not enough to do make even the smallest inroad in controlling what breed of dog we can have? Here's why you and your argument are such sad little losers: You would have to prove that only pits offer the potential for mayhem that can clearly and in documented fashion be demonstrated by actual *facts; y'know, those things you don't know much about. You'll trot in websites like dogsbite.org, perhaps the most one-sided and ill-informed collection of trash outside any of your posts, and the sane, stable side will bring thousands of pits, pit owners and breeders, law enforcement and military, trainers and people like them who, unlike *you, actually know what they're talking about. I'm not going to worry about who will win. You are, as I have told you before, one of the best pro-pit weapons I could hope for. No one will ever be able to take you seriously -- your control issues and need to have your own way are painfully transparent. So...you keep shrieking ineffectually on a message board that absolutely *no one* pays attention to, and I'm gonna go ahead and take my pit bulls downtown for a walk amongst children and old ladies. Want to wager on who's going to have the better day...? ;)

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on August 22, 2009 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>Now it's time to ban them completely and let pit people make do with a slightly less lethal breed.<

** Peggy: I was discussing this issue with a friend earlier today and some questions were raised. Would you mind explaining how your idea of a breed ban would be implemented, please? Since "pit bull" encompasses an enormous range of dog and knowing that pits are often misidentified, how would individual dogs be judged? Most importantly, what measures will be instituted to compensate the loss of these animals for their owners? One of my pits is a service animal; she would be tremendously difficult to replace. Other owners are breeders, with pit puppies selling for up to $3000. Who is going to replace the immediate loss of property, and who is going to replace the loss of livlihood for them?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on August 26, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

God, I forget once in awhile that you're such an accomplished bullsh*t artist. You quote an article saying, "Authorities have confirmed that the 20-year-old man found dead inside a Leesburg house Monday died of bites from two adult pit bulls." It's beyond interesting that you didn't bother to include the sentence immediately *after that one. Here it is: "It is the first human fatality from a dog attack in memory in Loudoun County, said Adrienne Lawson, lead officer with the Loudoun Department of Animal Care and Control." Huh. Now *why wouldn't you want to have *that particular piece of information available? Is it because the truth doesn't fit in with your lockstep-do-as-Peggy-commands plan for the pit bulls you hate so much. You know, the ones that are never going away.... ;)
And this? >It's just a matter of time before a gruesome multiple infant mauling and killing occurs." You're actually *hoping for that, aren't you. Sick. But this: >That's when the Feds are likely to step in a create a nationwide ban against pits.< Well, *no, as a matter of fact. There is no Constitutional provision for any such action. Maybe you could devote less time to complaining about other people's pets and more time learning about how the country you live in works?

Posted by xtina.m724 (anonymous) on August 31, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)