Pitbulls must be banned

Published on April 18, 2005 By sushiK In Current Events

Enough is enough

What does it take to institute a National Ban on Pitbulls within the US?
Pitbulls are just too dangerous in the wrong hands.

Seems like every month I hear of a new mauling where a kid has been torn apart because of some careless owner.
Owners in these cases should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

I am using this forum to post each and every Mauling case that takes place.

Comments (Page 1)

sushiK

on Apr 18, 2005

Questions linger after deadly pit bull attack

PARTLOW, Virginia (AP) -- Dorothy Sullivan had been looking forward to St. Patrick's Day. The 82-year-old widow planned to whip up her family's favorite Irish soda bread, and her daughter made a festive green shirt decorated with shamrocks and a pot of gold for Sullivan's little dog, Buttons.

But the celebration never happened.

Three days before the holiday, Sullivan and Buttons, a Shih Tzu, were buried together in the same casket after they were mauled by three roaming pit bulls while Sullivan was out for a walk in her front yard.

Since the March 8 attack, a woman has been charged in Sullivan's death, a family has been ravaged by grief and community members who say they have been terrorized for years by wandering pit bulls want to know why more wasn't done to prevent the tragedy.

"I'm lost without her," Sullivan's 57-year-old daughter, Betty Greene, said softly. Her sister found Sullivan's body when she stopped by for a visit soon after the attack. "I used to always say, even when I was a kid, if there's a saint on earth, it's her."

Deanna Large, 36, who lives down the road from Sullivan, was charged with involuntary manslaughter and three misdemeanor counts of allowing a dangerous dog to run loose. If convicted on all charges, she faces up to 13 years in prison.

It's just the second time prosecutors in Virginia have sought involuntary manslaughter charges in a fatal dog mauling, but the case may reflect an emerging trend of prosecutors increasingly charging dog owners in attacks.

"It's almost routine now," said Karen Delise, a veterinarian who studied hundreds of such cases for her book, "Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics," which found that the number of fatal dog attacks nationwide has held steady at an average of 20 a year.

"Law enforcement and the judicial system are realizing that, but for the negligence, but for the disregard (by owners), these things wouldn't have happened," Delise said.

One of the most infamous cases happened in San Francisco in 2001, when Diane Whipple was mauled in the hallway of her building and died later in a hospital. Two neighbors who had been taking care of two 120-pound presa canarios for a prison inmate were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and served two years.

John Booker, president of The All-American Pit Bull Association, said there is no such thing as an inherently bad dog.

"Any dog is capable of doing anything -- it's just what kind of socialization and training the dog has had," he said.

Many of those who live in this rural, woodsy community between Washington and Richmond did not hesitate to blame Sullivan's death on the negligence of the dogs' owner -- and that of authorities who they say largely ignored repeated complaints about pit bulls roaming the neighborhood.

Large, free on $10,000 bond, declined to comment when contacted by The Associated Press. Authorities killed the three dogs involved in the attack.

Sullivan family attorney Ed McNelis said Sullivan had called authorities before to complain that dogs had chased her into her house.

"What's this world coming to when you can't even walk in your own yard?" asked Sullivan's neighbor, Mary Adkins. A few years ago, she said, two unleashed dogs ripped open the throat of her terrier, Pepper, while he was playing in her front yard. Pepper eventually recovered.

Shane Owens, who sports a large tattoo of his Rottweiler, Leila, on his left arm and lives a few houses away from Sullivan's, said his pregnant girlfriend was once walking up their driveway when a pit bull charged at her. Owens grabbed his pistol and shot the dog dead. He said he repeatedly called authorities to complain.

Eulah Baker said she was working in her yard

Mr_Frog

on Apr 18, 2005

You, sir (or ma'am) are just as stupid as the rest of the people in this nation that want to ban the breed. Do you not realize that "any" dog in the wrong hands can be just as dangerous as a pit bull? Too many people have stigmitized this breed due to the fact that some people decide to raise their dogs to be mean.

My brother has a pit bull that weighs at least 100 pounds, and he's a total pussycat. The guy that lives up the street has had several German Shephards, two of which attacked and hurt me pretty badly when I was in my youth. I have also been attacked by a Doberman Pinscher and that was not a fun experience either.

You must remember that *all* dogs retain their pack and hunter instincts and there is nothing that we as humans can do to remove those traits from dogs characters. The best thing we can do is raise our animals in a loving and people friendly environment to make them more conducive companions for other humans.

Rather than ban an entire breed of dog, why don't we institute restrictions on people who are known to raise their animals in a destructive environment?

-- B

Ionolast

on Apr 18, 2005

I found this here Link

"THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001 *

The study covers 431 documented human fatalities from a dog attack.

Location of Attack
25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs
25% resulted from dogs loose in their yard
23% occurred inside the home
17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their property
10% involved leashed dogs or miscellaneous circumstances

Number of Dogs
68% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by a single dog
32% was the result of a multiple dog attack

Victim Profile
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
12% of the victims were the elderly, aged 65 - 94
9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old

The age group with the highest number of fatalities were children under the age of 1 year old; accounting for 19% of the deaths due to dog attack. Over 95% of these fatalities occurred when an infant was left unsupervised with a dog(s).

The age group with the second-highest number of fatalities were 2-year-olds; accounting for 11% of the fatalities due to dog attack. Over 87% of these fatalities occurred when the 2-year-old child was left unsupervised with a dog(s) or the child wandered off to the location of the dog(s).

Boys aged 1 - 12 years old were 2.5 times more likely to be the victim of a fatal dog attack than girls of the same age.

Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).

Reproductive Status of Dogs
Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unaltered males.
From 2000-2001 there were 41 fatal dog attacks. Of these, 28 were attacks by a single dog and 13 fatalities were caused by multiple dogs.

Of the 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000-2001;
26 were males and 2 were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were found to be intact (the reproductive status of the remaining 5 males dogs could not be determined).

States with the Most Fatalities - 1965-2001
California, 47; Texas, 32; Alaska, 26; Florida, 22; New York, 19; Michigan, 18; Illinois, 18; North Carolina, 17; Georgia, 16.

While at times informative, statistics on fatal dog attacks can also be misleading. For example, a number of cases were a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or GSD were counted as causing a human fatality were in reality the direct result of gross human negligence or criminal intent (i.e. discarding a newborn in the yard where the dogs were kept, or cases of extremely emaciated animals, or cases were the dog was ordered or encouraged to attack the victim).

This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value, only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events."

While I agree that any breed can become vicious, I wonder why a few certain breeds are used that way.

Ionolast

on Apr 18, 2005

Rather than ban an entire breed of dog, why don't we institute restrictions on people who are known to raise their animals in a destructive environment?

But how will we know about those people before there's a fatal attack?
Everytime a child is killed by a dog, at least in the news report, they say the child did something to the dog that the dog didn't like. Are other breeds more tolerant, or is that also part of the way they're raised? Do kids need more education about the dos and don'ts? Are the parents responsible because of the way they tease the dogs and the kids see that and do the same thing? My neighbors recently got a young pit bull which so far they have kept chained. They also have a child of about 8. The dog has been friendly. I hope it stays that way.

dharmagrl

on Apr 18, 2005

Enough is enough.

What does it take to institute a National ban on cars in the US?
Cars are just too dangerous in the wrong hands.

Sorry for the mockery, but c'mon.....you can apply this particular sentiment to a lot of stuff.

I had an AmStaff/Pit mix, and she was the sweetest, gentlest dog I ever had (not to mention the stupidest...but in a funny kind of way). I also had a weimerarner that snapped, my parents had a Jack Russell that bit, and my granparents had a corgi that took a chunk out of my uncle's ankle.

As Froggy said, it's more about ownership and temperament combined than it is about breed.

sushiK

on Apr 18, 2005

Tell you what,

You post every German Shepard or any other dog mauling accounts you can find here with the pitbull attack accounts I find, and we'll see how we compare in a few weeks.

"why don't we institute restrictions on people who are known to raise their animals in a destructive environment?"
- This would basically again be responding after the fact to an owner who has let their dog maul someone.

I say Ban Pitbulls now and and remove the problem from the stem since people cannot be trusted nor monitored closely enough to make sure their Pitbull is raised properly.

I am serious, post all the non Pitbull related maulings here and prove me wrong

bakerstreet

on Apr 18, 2005

There are physiological reasons pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds. I witnessed an attack on a little girl where the dog had latched on and wouldn't let go. The dog's jaws practically lock in place. Once the dog was killed, its jaws had to be cut in order to separate it from the little girl.

This is an uncharacteristic opinion coming from me, but I think rots and pit bulls should both be heavily restricted dogs to own. This isn't like gun control, it doesn't take a criminal act to turn a inanimate object into a deadly weapon. These dogs, sometimes for no reason, often owned by good owners, just "snap", killing and maiming the people they attack.

If a lab or a spaniel bites your child, they are harmed. When the same child is attacked by a rot or a pitbull, they are as easily killed. We restrict ownership of big cats and other predators, and we should do the same for dogs who prove to be just as dangerous.

ParaTed2k

on Apr 18, 2005

Just a variation on the "blame an inanimate object" theme.

First of all, banning something doesn't make it go away. Next, there are millions of pit bulls out there that have never attacked anyone.

Governor Doyle (Wisconsin), and other politicians love to lead by ignorance, don't encourage them by doing it also!!

bakerstreet

on Apr 18, 2005

" Just a variation on the "blame an inanimate object" theme."

If guns or knives could by themselves break their leash, wander on to someone else's property and kill their kids, I'd tend to agree. I have been bitten by dogs, I have owned dogs, I don't have a problem with dogs.

I do, however, have a problem with dogs who show, time and again, that they are apt to attack and when doing so they are far, far more likely to kill than other breeds.

This isn't "out ot the blue". We don't allow people to own a lot of animals. There are lots of big cats that are privately owned that have never harmed anyone. Tens of thousands in the US. We still restrict their ownership, though.

Ionolast

on Apr 18, 2005

I both agree and disagree with BakerStreet. I saw a news report about Pitbulls. They are bred to fight. Two of them had locked their mouths together. They refused to let go. And I do agree that it seems like they sometimes "snap".

Dobermans and Rotweilers used to be more dangerous than they are now. Maybe someday the same can be said for Pitbulls.

But as for the fact that we ban big cats, etc., those are wild, exotic animals which people have no business keeping in their homes in the first place. Like the idiot in New York who had a tiger in his apartment.

Ionolast

on Apr 18, 2005

there are millions of pit bulls out there that have never attacked anyone.

Yet.

Ionolast

on Apr 18, 2005

there are millions of pit bulls out there that have never attacked anyone.

So far.
I didn't stop the previous post in time. Feel free to delete it.

bakerstreet

on Apr 18, 2005

The real determination should be the odds of surviving an attack, wouldn't you say?

You are more likely to be bitten by a cocker spaniel than almost any other breed. Yet, we don't have substantial numbers of people calling for their ownership to be restricted. People might be able to keep big cats with no more attacks than pitbulls, but we understand that even a slight attack from a big cat has catastrophic effects to the victims.

The propensity to attack isn't the issue, but that is what most people who defend these animals lean on. It is the average survivability of the attack that is the main theme. Like I said, thousands and thousands of people are bitten by small dogs every year, but you don't see a grass-roots campaign to get rid of them.

Given the choice between of suffering an attack a 200 pound Rot or a big cat, I have to say I don't know what I would pick.

Ionolast

on Apr 18, 2005

Ban the internet, because some people use it to post moronic articles like this. It's harmful and it needs to be stopped immediately!

Blog sites are the problem, not the Internet.

KarmaGirl

on Apr 18, 2005

When I was young, we had a pit bull. I used to ride her around like a horse. I'd stick my arm in her mouth when she was eating. She was a completely gentle dog.

Yes, they have the ability to be killers, as do all medium-large dogs (all dogs can be trained to kill something). Yes, they are large, but there are other breeds that are as large or larger. The problem is that too many of these dogs are purchased and raised to be vicious. The problem isn't the breed- the problem is the people who buy them then abuse them.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!