Fidos against the ban
Posted on 07/20/2005 3:56:48 PM PDT by Redcitizen
DENVER - A few weeks ago, two police cars and two animal control vehicles pulled up at the home of Stef'ny Steffan looking for her beloved 4-year-old pit bull, Xena. Seven officers hauled the animal off to the city shelter, putting her on death row. Xena became an outlaw after Denver won a court fight and reinstated one of the toughest pit-bull bans in the nation.
Since May, more than 380 dogs have been impounded and at least 260 destroyed — an average of more than three a day.
Dog owners are in a panic. Some are using an underground railroad of sorts, sending their pets to live elsewhere or hiding them from authorities. City officials would not estimate how many people might be violating the ordinance.
Some owners, like Steffan, have won a reprieve for their pets with help from a rescue group. The group got Xena released by signing an affidavit stating that the animal would never return to Denver. The group took the dog to Mariah's Promise in Divide, an animal sanctuary that has accepted more than three dozen pit bulls from Denver.
For Steffan and her partner, Gina Black, leaving Xena 60 miles from home was a lousy option but the only one they had.
"It's safer than animal control. Safer than keeping her underground — at least she'll be able to play now," Steffan said. "But she'll miss us. We're her pack."
Denver is one of three major metropolitan areas, along with Miami and Cincinnati, to ban pit bulls, according to Glen Bui, vice president of the American Canine Foundation.
Pit bull typically describes three kinds of dogs — the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. But Denver's ban applies to any dog that looks like a pit bull. The animal's actual behavior does not matter.
City Councilman Charlie Brown said that in his judgment, "pit bulls are trained to attack. They're bred to do that."
Critics of the ban use words like "annihilation" and "genocide," and the city shelter has received e-mails likening animal control officers to Nazis.
"Breed bans are just a knee-jerk reaction to something that happened in the community," Bui said.
Denver banned pit bulls in 1989 after dogs mauled a minister and killed a boy in separate attacks. The Legislature passed a law in 2004 that prohibited breed-specific bans, but the city sued and a judge ruled in April the law was an unconstitutional violation of local control.
Critics of the ordinance say that a blanket ban on an entire breed is misguided that the law should instead target irresponsible owners and all dangerous dogs.
"If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill — unless there's a study out there that I haven't seen — that's not based on scientific data," said Julie Gilchrist, a doctor at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who researches dog bites.
The CDC, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States examined 20 years of dog-bite data and concluded that pit bulls and Rottweilers caused the most deaths.
But the researchers also noted that fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog-bite injuries and that the number of bites per breed simply seems to rise with their popularity.
At the city shelter, pit bulls are cordoned off from other dogs in what has become death row. Nearly 100 pit bulls have been released to live outside the county. A nonresident must guarantee the dog will never return to Denver.
Sonya Dias, who is moving out of Denver because of the ban, said she was a little intimidated by her pit bull when she first saw him. But "when I said, `Hey little doggie,' his whole body just started wagging." Gryffindor is staying at Mariah's Promise until Dias sells her home.
"He's been dangerous to a couple of pairs of shoes and some mini-blinds," Dias said. "But otherwise he's a jewel."
Fidos against the ban
People choose to get on a horse or work with horses. people don't choose to be mauled by a pit bull. You are comparing apples to hand grenades.
This fool sounds like many on this thread who don't know diddly about Pits or dogs much it would appear.
Although a Shepherd guy myself, I have to agree with you...
...just like these lil' rascals...
....it's still liberal thinking.
You are correct. Forgive my lapse.
This is something that I've thought of often and it does influence my decision when I choose a dog, but others may not have the same concerns.
Enforce the laws that are already in effect, punnish abusive/neglectful owners and leave the people alone who are doing things right.
I would be perfectly satisfied with a compromise solution where a pet owner is responsible for the behavior of the pet as if the owner himself had committed the act of the pet. Anything less is a betrayal of the principle of responsibility that underpins our liberty.
Banning pits has nothing to do with banning guns.
That would suit my neighbor's dalmation perfectly.
Yep....but it's a waste of time with emotion and ignorance.
My first two dogs were Shepherds as a lad.
I have never been bitten by a dog but I've seen some that were ferocious looking and I didn't try them.
sorry but you are wrong, genetics play a large part. These animals have been selectively bred to perform specific tasks. Thats why Labradors retrieve ducks, i have never seen a pit out while duck hunting!!!
Of course you defend owning pit bulls if you have one. You're part of the problem. These dogs are not safe. They never have been. They never will be. You'll probably find out the hard way one day.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. He's dead right. You're dead wrong. They should be banned. period.
horses don't run the streets of the city stamping and trampling people. Those who CHOOSE to work with them and ride them get injured by them.
The two are not analogous and you know it.
they have them for a reason to act like big tough guys. Personally I think most that own pits are the biggest pussys on the face of the earth. These animals are bred and kept as fighting dogs for a reason. Cars have a driver controlling them. Pits can go off on their own free will and do alot of damage when they freak. A lab might nip someone a pit will grab a hold and not let go.
Replace the word "dogs" with "autocrats" and I'll agree that truer words have never been spoken.
Pit Bulls are much maligned. Actually, around little children, they are statiscally far less dangerous than Salt Water Crocodiles, Bengal tigers, Spitting Cobras and Kodiak Bears.
In fact, if Pit Bulls are raised carefully in a loving, home environment, properly trained, and brushed daily, they are apt to eat no more than one, or possibly two, children a year, and perhaps once in a blue moon, the odd small mail carrier or pizza delivery guy. This is an acceptable risk, especially given the hours of enjoyment they give their unfailingly attractive and intellectually gifted owners. In fact, IMHO, Pit Bull owners should be allowed to keep these charming pets in their cells.
Repeat: 06/04/2005
I've seen it in Seattle too.
Yet I know of an English Mastiff that is huge but not kept on a choke chain and is a big baby.
The pit bulls always seem to strain against their leash and the type of people that are at the other end of that leash are just as threatening as the dog.
No...you are mistaken....I see your debating style goes ad hominum rather quickly.
You are welcome to your rather emotive opinion but I don't share it....
No, it's risk assessment and common sense. The personality and traits bred into the breeds we've refined should make a difference when considering which one makes the best pet. Most breed fanciers will inform a family who is considering a dog, if the traits that make the breed unique might be detrimental... Why not pit bulls?
SUVs are directly controlled by humans.
Next.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.