April 21, 2008 7:26 AM
Are dog bans' bark worse than their bite?
Dog bites are down substantially in Denver since a ban on pit bulls was reinstated in 2005, but other metro cities with similar bans are having mixed results.
April Washington reports:
For example, Aurora last year saw a surge in overall dog bites, from 137 in 2006 to 172 in 2007, leading some City Council members to ask if that city's ban against pit bulls and eight other "fighting breeds" is targeting the right dogs."From what I'm seeing, we need to focus on dog attacks as a whole," said Councilman Ryan Frazier. "If all of the city's resources are focused on certain breeds, then what about the other dogs behaving badly?"
Aurora Councilman Larry Beer echoed Frazier's sentiment.
But in Denver, Doug Kelley, director of animal control, said there is no question the ban is effective.
One likely reason: "The word is getting out: Don't bring your pit bulls to Denver," Kelley said.
"This city is committed to the ordinance banning pit bulls passed in 1989," Kelley added. "What can be proven is that when a pit bull bites, statistically it's more serious than other dog bites."
Denver hasn't hesitated to enforce the ban.
From 2005 to 2007, the city euthanized 1,667 pit bulls - a number that doesn't sit well with animal rights activists.
"These laws layer irrational premise atop irrational premise and result in senseless destruction of companion animals," said Karen Breslin, an attorney who filed a failed lawsuit against Denver to stop the ban.
In 2005, when Denver reinstated its ban, Aurora, Commerce City, Castle Rock, Lakewood and Lone Tree adopted laws either outlawing pit bulls and other dangerous dogs or revising their vicious-dog ordinances.
They did it to protect themselves from becoming a dumping ground for pit bulls from Denver.
In the past three years, a review of dog bite data from those cities gives a mixed picture as to how much they're furthering public safety.
Should cities revisit their bans of specific breeds? Would the public be better served by focusing on irresponsible owners instead?
April 21, 2008
9:35 AM
rickg19611 writes:
Why do you limit the choice to one or the other?
Why not target BOTH?
April 21, 2008
10:12 AM
Alisa writes:
I think the owners should be targeted for compliance, not the animals. As an animal owner, I am responsible for the behavior and consequences of my animal. Although the argument is that certain dog breeds are "bred to be more vicious," any dog will turn vicious if treated with abuse, neglect, and fight training.
I had a wonderful border collie/standard collie mix, very loving and gentle towards anyone she knew. I'd had her since she was a puppy, so I knew her history (no abuse, lots of love and obedience training).
But, she would snap at any stranger reaching for her. We realized that it was a form of protectiveness, because she would do this when she was with one of her people, but not alone. As soon as she was introduced, the new person was accepted and no longer a "stranger."
Later, it was also the fact that she was losing her eyesight due to undiagnosed diabetes, which we didn't realize at the time. Once we got her diabetes diagnosed and treated, she continued to lose her eyesight until she was completely blind. She was snapping because she was being startled by movement or by suddenly being touched when she didn't know someone was there. We learned to talk to her as we approached, and taught others to do the same.
Was she a vicious dog? I would definitely say no. Was she in the "dangerous breed" category? Again no. But if she'd bitten someone, I would have been responsible. It would not have been her fault, since she was what she was. I knew her tendencies. So, I made sure to keep her on leash when we were in public, warn people to not pet her unexpectedly, muzzle her if we were in crowds (she was so pretty, people would just reach down without asking), and made sure that she was not alone with any children that she did not know.
I knew that if she had injured someone, I could be sued or fined and she could be destroyed as a "dangerous animal." I just made sure that didn't happen. I was able to keep her until she died of cancer at a ripe old age of 12. It was my responsibility as her owner and substitute mom to make sure she was well treated, loved, and if necessary, to protect others from her tendency to snap.
April 21, 2008
10:13 AM
PMSXpress writes:
"Would the public be better served by focusing on irresponsible owners instead?" BINGO!
Any dog is capable of biting. People should be made more accountable for how they handle (or don't handle) their dogs.
April 21, 2008
10:18 AM
JMH writes:
As someone who actually owned a pitbull, I can say it should be the owners who should be targeted. Pitbulls aren't born mean, they are raised that way by stupid people who think a mean dog makes them look tough somehow...
I have known a quite few pit bulls that were very friendly and wouldn't hurt a fly. They are not a bad dog, they are just raised badly sometimes...
I mean really, I have seen some chiwawas that were 10 times as mean as my old pitbull!
It's the old question - hereditary or enviroment?
April 21, 2008
10:51 AM
benn writes:
chihuahua
April 21, 2008
11:22 AM
jay writes:
nature vs. nuture
probably a little bit of both. any vet will tell you that certain breeds aren't good around kids because of the predisposition to bite...and anyone who's witnessed a bad dog owner will tell you that anyone can ruin a good dog
April 21, 2008
12:14 PM
KEEP the ban on pitbulls--the numbers speak for themselves writes:
While bad owners are trouble enough, certain breeds like pit bulls are so dangerous overall that they should still be banned. The numbers speak for themselves.
April 21, 2008
12:36 PM
Harry 2.0 writes:
Just get pitbulls that smoke and watch the loony left demand they all be killed instantly...
April 21, 2008
1:29 PM
primafacie writes:
Dogs are great -- as long as I don't have to hear or smell them.
April 21, 2008
1:46 PM
Shanyndoah writes:
Dogs have been domisticated for thousands of years, so the arguement of thier 'wild nature' breaking loose is a fallacy. We've broken this 'wild nature' in them, by making them housepets for generations. It's an issue of the owner raising a dog, if the owner is a violent, aggressive master, of course the dog is going to be an issue. The finger of blame ultimatly points to the owner, NOT to the animal.
April 21, 2008
3:02 PM
Brent writes:
Denver re-instituted its ban in May of 2005 -- so in order to see if bites were really going down we'd have to have to know the 2004 bite numbers. It would make sense that bites by "pit bulls" would have gone down with nearly 2,000 of these types of dogs killed in the past 3 years and hundreds more moved from the city. What would be more interesting is if they improved public safety with the ban. Most cities see results similar to Aurora's...it'd be interesting to see what Denver's 2004 numbers look like as that was the only year they haven't enforce a 'pit bull" ban since 1989.
April 21, 2008
3:05 PM
Brent writes:
Denver re-instituted its ban in May of 2005 -- so in order to see if bites were really going down we'd have to have to know the 2004 bite numbers. It would make sense that bites by "pit bulls" would have gone down with nearly 2,000 of these types of dogs killed in the past 3 years and hundreds more moved from the city. What would be more interesting is if they improved public safety with the ban. Most cities see results similar to Aurora's...it'd be interesting to see what Denver's 2004 numbers look like as that was the only year they haven't enforce a 'pit bull" ban since 1989.
April 21, 2008
3:05 PM
Brent writes:
Denver re-instituted its ban in May of 2005 -- so in order to see if bites were really going down we'd have to have to know the 2004 bite numbers. It would make sense that bites by "pit bulls" would have gone down with nearly 2,000 of these types of dogs killed in the past 3 years and hundreds more moved from the city. What would be more interesting is if they improved public safety with the ban. Most cities see results similar to Aurora's...it'd be interesting to see what Denver's 2004 numbers look like as that was the only year they haven't enforce a 'pit bull" ban since 1989.
April 21, 2008
3:25 PM
Pit Bulls Need to be banned--the numbers speak for themselves writes:
Attacks by pit bulls are down since Denver instituted the ban--yet there are still pit bulls within Denver's city limits. There may be one next door to you! You can still have Animal Control check out the dog to be sure--just call 311 to report your concern.
April 21, 2008
3:26 PM
Pit Bulls Need to be banned--the numbers speak for themselves writes:
Attacks by pit bulls are down since Denver instituted the ban--yet there are still pit bulls within Denver's city limits. There may be one next door to you! You can still have Animal Control check out the dog to be sure--just call 311 to report your concern.
April 23, 2008
11:49 AM
Anonymous writes:
"Attacks by pit bulls are down since Denver instituted the ban--yet there are still pit bulls within Denver's city limits. There may be one next door to you! You can still have Animal Control check out the dog to be sure--just call 311 to report your concern"
How many dogs have been seized and destroyed because some one at animal control decided the dog might be pit bull? I've heard several accounts of this happening in Denver, one to a co-worker who had a mutt terrier mix but because the shape of the dogs head might have been similar to that of a pit bull the dog was taken from the owner and put to sleep.
There are blood tests now that can determine what breeds might make up a particular dog. This might be the better way to approach it, obviously at the owner's expense.
I know I would not want my Boxer/Mastiff to be mistaken as a pit bull and yet on occassion I've had people ask me just that, is he a pit bull. I certainly wouldn't want to trust the intelligence of some animal control officer to make the decision and possibly make the wrong one. Better to spend the money on the blood work than loose my dog to ignorance.