FOX16 Community

I understand your point but are you not saying that its a owner problem ? Its not the dogs fault that they have not been taught better.Sounds like the ones you have come across have been taught to be plain mean....but once again its the person.Iam no expert but I don't think dogs like that can be re-trained and dogs that are a safty concern to animals or people should be put down.....not just pits.They are not the only dog that bites,just the ones we read about.But ban them........no way.

Peace

Banning a specific breed is the most rediculous thing I have heard. Last year I moved from Missouri and Greene County had tried to pass a pit bull ban. There are places that ban Pitts, German Shepards, and Rottweilers. I have had 2 Rotties and they were the most gentle creatures I have ever had. I now have dachshunds and let me say that my little doxie has quite a temper and if you cross him he will bite!! Here is what it boils down to people... Somebody has an unfortunate accident and then policticians feel the pressure to do something about the "terrible injustice" that has occurred. Unfortunately policticians are not the most reasonable sensible people on the earth and thus rash decisions are made. Dog fighting is terrible I agree. Failure to keep your pet on a leash while in public is also a bad idea, so it seems irresponsible pet owners is the real problem

I agree. It isn't the dog that is dangerous it is the person behind the dog. I also have a pitbull and so do all my friends. Not a single one of them have attacked anyone, and i believe it is because we treat our dogs like any other animal.  Again, It is the person behind the dog that should be punished and more than a 250 dollar fine that is ridiculous.  I saw today that michael vick (atlanta falcons) was in possesion of a dog fighting ring that involved pitbulls. If you ask me, anyone with a knowledge of fighting dogs should go to jail.  I would say as long as the sentence is for murder. They are killing another dog. That is murder!! I hate it when people say oh that type of dog is dangerous or mean. No, you moron, It isn't. It is only as mean as the person that makes it mean.

If you ban pit-bulls,  drugdealers will just hafta find a new method to scare away peeping toms LOL...besides; without them, the end of the world might have to be put off!~Denarky

I'm not sure what Vet, you go to, but he or she must be a few bricks shy of a load. Any person of any knowledge about animal's will tell you that PitBulls are not dangerous animal's. However they may have a "tendency" for aggression towards other animals. They are not viscous, or Wired Wrong. That is ridiculous. I have had APBT all my life and have never had a problem with any of them, well except being licked to death. My current companion is great with kids, and other animals.  Here is a side note. Any dog is prone to attack, and not one dog is instinctively more vicious than another. Try being around a Chihuahua, and not get Bit, good Luck.

NO NOT AT ALL. I have a pit. I also have a five year old son. I trust my dog tottaly. It is the dog owners not the dog that is the problem. It is all how you raise them. Any dog can be trained to fight. So i believe they need to leave the pits and pit owners alone

This subject draws a curious parallel to the gun-ban theory. Y'all know what I mean.....the belife that owning guns should be banned because: "guns kill people"! Well....whadd'ya know.....pit bulls kill and maim...everything from kids to grownups, to other animals....same as guns....so; how do you like your odds of getting[ PBdogs ] banned now?~Denarky

That is an emphatic NO!  A ban on pit bulls is not necessary, nor will it work to stop the attacks that are so widely covered in the news.  If you ban pit bulls, you are only hurting the responsible owners who love their pits for the loyal companions that they are.  The people who raise their dogs to fight will only go underground.  Obviously, these cruel owners are not upstanding pillars of the community who have respect for the law.  These breeders who go underground with their aggressive dogs will only breed more agressive animals.  We responsible owners with our beloved family pets will be the ones hurt.  I have a pit bull and 2 young daughters.  Never once has my dog shown any agression to any family member, or stranger.  No animal should be "banned".  All animals are God's creations, and God has given people the duty to take care of his animals.  I for one will be doing my part for these misunderstood beautiful animals.

    I have heard the most rediculous excuses for wanting to pass breed-specific legislation against the American Pit Bull Terrior (APBT). They're vicious. They have lock-jaws. They're wired wrong. Only drug dealers and gang members own them. But guess what? These are all incorrect stereotypes.
    Our society seems to thrive from ignorance sometimes. However, my mother taught me a very important saying long ago, "Believe only half of what you see, and none of what you hear." And this saying can't be more true in this situation.
    The APBT can be a vicious dog. So can a German Shepard, Rottweiler, Dachshund, and Chiwawa. Dogs, just like people, are a product of their environment. What if you were beaten, kicked, fed gun powder, left outside for days with no food or water, forced to wear collars with spikes that cut into their necks, and never shown an ounce of love or affection? I suspect that you wouldn't be too fond of people yourself. When the only experiences dogs have with people are bad ones, they begin to believe that people are bad. That's all they've ever known. Furthermore, the APBT does not have a "locking-mechanism" for their jaws. I have one, and I can open his jaws. If they locked, I wouldn't be able to do it.
    As for the respondant that inquired of her vet for advice on the APBT, vets do NOT specialize in animal behavior. This is a different subspecialty. However, I took genetics in college. So please allow me to enligten you. Genes you receive from your parents affect your physical characteristics (the way you look, the way your body is made, disease processes), not your temper. You can't inheirit "mean." You can, however, learn "mean." It is impossible for a dog to be "wired wrong". Your vet is not only ignorant, but is practicing outside of his/her scope of practice.
    Drug dealers and gang members own pit bulls. But so do many educated, successful individuals. My APBT, Prince, has become a member of my family. He is the grand-dog to my parents, a son to my fiance, and a cousin to my neices. Every day that I come home from work, he gives me a great big hug and runs circles around the whole house to show me how happy he is that I'm home. He loves to be pet and to chew on rawhide bones. My dog is just like any other dog.
    Breed-specific legislation has already been turned down by the high courts. If you're going to ban a breed, and your excuse is because they are dangerous, then you also must ban guns, fast cars, alcohol...must I go on? This is imposing upon the personal freedoms that we are guaranteed as Americans.
    My advice to the APBT owners in Lonke, Jacksonville, NLR, and other areas? Get a lawyer. What they're doing is illegal.
    Finally, I must conclude with a call for responsibility. Impose unbelieveable fines for ANYONE allowing their dogs to roam free. Propose jailtime for known dog-fighting ring owners. Require owners to take their dogs to behavior training. But don't take away our beloved pets as punishment for things they aren't guilty of in the first place.
   

I agree with most of the posters here, pitbulls should not be banned, the trash that inbreeds them and abuses these animals should be the focus. Pits are fairly large and powerful dogs, but if bred and raised well they are extremely loving and an excellent family animal, I have owned one for nearly 6 years and she is a well loved part of our family.

People who buy a pitbull should be very careful and check the dogs lineage carefully, when you get lowlifes that will inbreed them to quickly turn a profit, those have a potential to be mentally unstable and attack people and even it's owners. Clearly not the breeds fault, but the breeders, and other garbage who have misused and abused these victimized dogs.

Good posts, Thadius and Ashleyscoggin.....The same trash that misuse guns...so I want to hear ALL PITBULL OWNERS sticking up for the right to bear arms from now on, and be sure to make the point....pitbulls don't kill people...neither do guns....but rather the same old trash(do) as always; that also seem to escape punishment!~Denarky!!

THIS SHOULD BREAK IT DOWN PRETTY GOOD........ ENJOY!!!!!!  

 

PIT BULLS - THE TRUTH

 

 

As such, common sense would dictate that if breed of dog was the primary determining factor in all dog attacks, it would stand to reason that the statistics on pit bull bites would be astronomically high.  They simply are not.

 

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the ruling of the Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama that pit bulls were not inherently dangerous, therefore, allowing four (4) pit bull puppies born in the custody of animal control to be released for adoption. 

City of Huntsville v. Sheila Tack, et al. (2003)

Supreme Court of Alabama

The Court affirmed the lower courts ruling that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous.  

State of Ohio v. Cowan (2004)

Supreme Court of Ohio

 

The Court determined that the statute that penalizes owners of dangerous dogs who fail to buy liability insurance and properly confine their dogs was unconstitutional for failure to provide due process.

 

 

Dr. I. Lerh Brisbin, Ph.D as well as other experts, testified that pit bulls do not have locking jaws.  Based on actual dog dissections and measurements of their skulls, the evidence demonstrated that pit bull jaw muscles and bone structure are the same as other similarly sized dogs. 

 

No evidence was presented to demonstrate that a pit bull’s bite is any stronger than other dogs of its size and build. 

 

Dr. Brisbin testified that contrary to information relied upon and perpetuated by earlier case law and law review articles, assertions that a pit bull can bite with a “force of 2,000 pounds per square inch” have absolutely no basis in fact or scientific proof.  The testing of dog bite strength has never been done and would be difficult, if not impossible, to perform.   Toledo v. Tellings, 2006 WL 513946 (Ohio App. 6 Dist), March 2006

Dr. I. Lerh Brisbin, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist with Savanna River Ecology Laboratory and University of South Carolina professor; Expert in behavior, training and handling of pit bull terriers and their anatomy)

There is no scientific evidence showing pit bulls to have a stronger bite than other large dog breeds.  In fact, when Dr. Brady Barr of National Geographic (Dangerous Encounters: Bite Force, 8/18/2005) measured the bite forces of three dog breeds (Rottweiler, German Shepherd Dog and American Pit Bull Terrier) using a computerized bite sleeve, the American Pit Bull Terrier generated the least amount of pressure out of the 3 dogs tested.   

 

 

 

 

 

Toledo v. Tellings Birth to New Legal Standing?   On March 3, 2006, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, in and for Lucas County, issued an opinion in the case of City of Toledo v. Paul Tellings.  This case is monumental to the fight against BSL as it found breed specific legislation to be unconstitutional and it rendered expert testimony that was both relevent and up-to-date, dispelling many of the past notions on pit bulls and BSL.  Below are several general quotes taken from the March 3, 2006 Opinion of the Court.     As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's to the early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. FN1.    These cases, due in part to (1) unavailable, scientifically based evidence or (2) expert testimony about the breed, branded all pit bulls as vicious on the basis of what was known or believed at the time.  FN2    Extensive, competent and credible evidence was presented by the experts [on both sides] which showed many of the beliefs and "myths" about pit bulls to be simply untrue and unsupported by now accepted scientific, genetic, medical or canine behavior principals.  FN3   Although Dr. Wright testified [on behalf of the city of Toledo] that pit bulls have some sort of "trigger mechanism" which makes their behavior unpredictable, he acknowledged that he had done no studies, had no scientific data, proof or other evidence in support of his theory.  FN4     FN1  Opinion p.20; State v. Anderson, 57 Ohio St.3d 168, 566 N.E.2d 1224, citing to Singer v. Cincinnati (1990), 57 Ohio App.3d 1, 566 N.E.2d 190; State v. Robinson (1989), 44 Ohio App.3d 128, 541 N.E.2d 1092; Hearn v. Overland Park (1989), 244 Kan. 638, 772 P.2d 758; American Dog Owners Assn., Inc. v. Dade Cty. (S.D.Fla.1989), 728 F.Supp. 1533, 1537; and State v. Peters (Fla.App.1988), 534 So.2d 760. FN2  Id. FN3  Opinion, p. 20-21 FN4  Opinion, p. 11

 

	Legal Terms - Definitions   The following terms are used in the below section on the unconstitutionality of breed specific legislation.  In order to make sound, intelligent arguments, its necessary to understand these basic concepts of constitutional law.    Procedural Due Process is based upon the concept of "fundamental fairness."  Among the rights ensured is the right of individuals to be heard with respect to proceedings against them.  The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property arbitrarily and without the opportunity to effect the result.   Substantive Due Process:   If the right at issue is considered a fundamental right, the government is prohibited from infringing that right unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. The concept of a 'compelling interest' has never been well defined, but generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. The concept of 'narrow tailoring' essentially means that the restrictions must fit the goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. Finally, even if the government intrusion is narrowly tailored, it still cannot be more restrictive than other effective means of achieving that interest.    Equal Protection is a guarantee under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  It provides that no state shall deny to any person equal protection of the law - meaning state governments cannot deprive citizens of rights guaranteed by federal law, i.e., the Constitution.

 

	The UNconstitutionality of Breed Specific Legislation   The following are quotes taken directly from Court Opinions and other relevant sources.    On September 22, 2004, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the [state] statute "violates procedural due process insofar as it fails to provide dog owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether a dog is 'vicious' or 'dangerous'"  Tellings, citing State v. Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144, 814 N.E.2d 846, 2004-Ohio-4777     Toledo v. Tellings, March 3, 2006 Opinion, pp.16-23   The constitutional rights which prohibit a state from depriving a person of "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" are derived from both the federal and [state] constitutions....  Where a statute under review does not affect a fundamental right, the appropriate level of scrutiny is the "rational basis" test.  FN1.  Under the "rational basis test," laws enacted...are valid if they bear a real and substantial relation to the object sought be be obtained, namely the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public, and are not arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or unreasonable.  FN2.   Citizens enjoy the property right to own dogs, and the Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized the special relationship that often exists between owners and dogs.  FN3.  ...[m]ost dog owners consider their pet to be more than a mere thing, and the ownership of it constitutes a valuable right.  FN4.  Regardless, however, of this possible, strong sentimental attachment, dog ownership is not a fundamental right.  FN5.  Consequently, when reviewing statutes which regulate dogs and ownership, we must apply the "rational-basis test" to any due process or equal protections claims.  FN6.   The object and purpose of all vicious dog laws...is obviously protection -- to prevent injuries to persons and property by dogs.   We agree that the protection of property and people from injuries by dogs is clearly a legitimate governmental interest.  Nevertheless, this interest must bear a rational or "real and substantial relationship" to the conduct being regulated...in this case, the mere ownership of pit bulls...Since the trial court found that the pit bull, as a breed, is not inherently dangerous or vicious, then the interest in protecting the health and welfare of citizens is no more rationally related to pit bulls than it is to any other breed.   What remains is a regulation and limitation on a specific breed for reasons unrelated to that breed, but rather related to human misconduct or negligence in ownership of the breed.    Once the finding is made that a specific breed does not inherently represent a greater danger than any other breed, a law that regulates that breed on the basis of mere ownership is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.    Therefore, we conclude that [the statutes], which relied on the now disproved presumption that pit bulls, as a breed, are inherently dangerous, are unconstitutional since they lack a rational or real and substantial relationship to legitimate government interest.      FN1  Clements v. Flashing (1982), 457 U.S. 957, 963, 102 S.Ct.2836, 73 L.Ed.2d 508; Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Dept. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 351, 354, 639 N.E.2d 31   FN2  Stave v. Thompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 664 N.E.2d 926   FN3

 

BSL and the Cost to Taxpayers

 

1.  Cost of additional animal control offers to enforce the ban or restrictions.  **Remember, most cities do not have sufficient animal control departments to enforce leash laws, which if enforced would reduce many of the problems that lead to bite incidents.

 

2.  Kennelling.

 

3.  Veterinary care of the animals.  (Hope you don't think the animals are confiscated and immediately euthanized).

 

4.  Legal fees, court costs, etc., associated with responsible owners lawsuits against ineffective and unconstitutional laws.

 

5.  Baltimore, Maryland estimated (in 2001) that it cost over $750,000 a year to enforce their breed specific legislation, and they were still unable to enforce the law effectively. 

 

6.  Prince George County, Maryland reviewed their existing dangerous dog laws, including a ban on pit bulls.  The task force recommended repealing the law and sited these cost factors:

 

     (a)  Loss of revenue - since the ban has been in effect, there has been a dramatic reduction in dog show/exhibits in the county.  Along with this comes some indirect loss of revenue such as hotel/motels, restaurants, gas stations, veterinarians, pet supply stores, grocery and drug stores, etc.

 

    (b)  Director of Animal Management Division estimated the County's cost for maintaining a single pit bull throughout the entire processs for one (1) year was $68,000.

 

    (c)  Fees from pit bull registration in 2001-2002 generated approximately $35,000 over the two (2) year period.  However, the cost to the Animal Management Division for maintenance of pit bulls over the same period was $560,000.  In addition, these figures would be higher but did not take into consideration utilities, manpower and overtime.

 

    (d)  It should be noted that these average costs to Prince George County do not include the expenditures of the of the County or Municipal police departments.  These cross-agency costs, while significant, could not be fully captured or adequately estimated.

 

Source:  Prince George County TAsk Force Report

 

 

Essential Quotes

 

 

We've experienced a continuing upward trend of pit bulls impounded since 2001.  The ban hasn't ended the popularity of the pit bull breed in Denver. There are still pit bulls, apparently more every year.  Doug Kelley, Director of Animal Control - Denver, Colorado  

 

I think it is wrong to generalize a specific breed as vicious because it is often associated with people who break the law.  In my experience, vicious dog problems are more about people than dog... Responsible dog ownership addresses the problem far more effectively than picking on a breed.  Dr. Shawn Webster (Ohio State Representative and veterinarian) addressing members of the Ohio House Agriculture Committee on May 18, 2005.

 

very dog is capable of attacking someone... People train [dogs] to fight and attack like in a *** fight. People should treat them with respect and give them some love and affection and kids like me would not get attacked.  Ryan Armstrong, courageous 7 year old victim of a dog attack and namesake of Ryan's Law.  (*To learn more about Ryan's Law, an exceptional non-breed specific dangerous dog law, please click here).

 

 

If you ban pit bulls, I promise another breed will come along as the breed of choice.   Dr. Todd Towell, President of the Colorado Veterinarian and Medical Association, addressing the Senate's Local Government Committee, January 25, 2006. 

 

We need to come up with something that takes care of vicious animals, not breeds.  Councilwoman Karen Halva, West Union, Iowa, October 18, 2005.

 

Having this be breed-specific makes about as much sense as me being intimidated by Commissioner (Sam) Bullock here because he's a different race," said Jason Pierce, who is white, referring to Bullock, who is black. "That's all it is, is a different breed. I don't know why we're here talking about this when we should be talking about animal cruelty and animal fighting laws."   Commissioner Jason Pierce in response to why he voted against implementing BSL in Battle Creek, Michigan on August 17, 2005.

 

"It's really about education. It's really about getting out there and letting people know what's responsible pet ownership. Our number one priority is education."  Jill Hatfield, Animal Services Superintendent, Fayetteville, Arkansas, October 20, 2005.

Those areas across the country that have pit bull bans or regulations have found that defining and identifying pit bulls can be a subjective, expensive, and time-consuming task. Numerous breeds are mistakenly identified as pit bulls, including American bulldogs, boxers, mastiffs and many other lesser-known breeds.  Adam Goldfarb, Issues Specialist with The Humane Society of the United States, October 20, 2005.

 

I don't care what kind of animal you have, whether it's a pit bull or chihuahua, that owner should be responsible if it has caused damage.  Commissioner Bob Haake, in response to why he voted against BSL in Taylor Mill, Kentucky, January 14, 2006.

 

We had some extensive discussions about [a breed specific law] and decided because of the problems of trying to identify when you say ‘pit bull,' it's very difficult to prove in a court of law. The committee thought it should not be breed-specific. It could be a pit bull, a cocker spaniel, a chihuahua, a Rottweiler, so the ordinance opts to hold owners responsible - not breeds.  Patrick Fetherson, Director of Animal Control, Cassopolis, MI, addressing the problems associated with BSL.  Cassopolis voted against a pit bull ban. 

 

 

There is no data to support the idea that a particular breed of dog is vicious, It's the owner's behavior that needs to be addressed."  Debora Bresch, legislative liaison for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals addressing the Emporia, Kansas city council

I am a manager of a Humane Society.  People are so closed minded and don't do enough research themselves.  Pitbulls are not born mean.  People cause them to be that way.  Ban the people who shouldn't have any animal.  Pit Bulls are the sweetest dogs.  They are allot better animal to trust than Chows or Blue Healers even.  Pitbulls get a bad rap due to stupid people.  It's not fair to single out a breed when people make these dogs mean.  Years ago it was other breeds.  Look at the people first then you will know why the dog is that way.  If Arkansas would be smart enough to pass the Animal Cruelty Law we need so bad to protect our animals (dogs, cat, and horses) you could stop this type of problems.  Don't blame the dogs it's  the people.  If you want to ban something ban these commercial breeders who have 200-400 poor dogs living 6-8 to a cage and breeding is all they do to sell their puppies.  People who use animals this way to make their living is some pretty shallow minded and cruel minded people who can't love animals.  I will never put down a dog just because it is a  Pit Bull.  I see many wonderful pit bulls.  It's the people I watch who want them and I screen them well to make sure they get in a loving home.  

---

tjwanimalover

Your vet should be banned.  What a stupid vet.  People are the cause of all of this.  Laws not being stiff enough causes allot of this problem.  Lawmakers WAKE UP!  I don't blame law inforcement it's our judges who don't punish these drug dealers enough or hard enough and make it too easy to be repeated offenders.   BAN PEOPLE- ARKANAS NEEDS ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS-  WAKE UP LAW MAKERS.  God this drives me nuts.  

---

tjwanimalover

I agree that dogs are the result of bad owners, but pit bulls and rotweillers are different.  My labrador and I were taking a walk (on a leash) one summer afternoon and a rotweiller (untethered) attacked us for no reason!!  My dog and I both needed emergency medical attention!!  Were we on the wrong side of the street?  Did the rotweiller not like the color of my dog's leash and harness?  The dog's owner normally kept the dog tethered to a tree in her back yard for 'protection'.  How can a dog that is tied to a tree be used for protection?  The dog later hung himself on a fence.  I'd like to think it was out of guilt for what it did to us! 

It makes me sick to read of animal abuse.  Toughen the Arkansas abuse laws!!!!  Do it for the animals.