Wednesday, September 10, 2008
"Several dozen pit bull owners wandered through the downtown pet boutique, their muscular dogs sweetly approaching one another without the aggressiveness often associated with the breed."Hours later, Huong Le, 71, was violently attacked in her front yard by two pit bulls. As Le's adopted son pointed out, "This was not a dog bite, it was attempted dismemberment. There is no way to describe the savagery and carnage." The next day, the Seattle PI declared their stance on the pit bull issue. DogsBite.org hope's Le's family avoids this publication at all costs.
"We don't know enough to be sure, but we seriously doubt a ban on pit bulls or any other breed would work. The CDC points to what it says are "many practical alternatives" to breed-specific bans."
Proposals Raised by Seattle Activists to Prevent Future AttacksFighting Breed Ban
Families and Dogs Against Fighting Breeds created legislation modeled after the UK's 1991 Dangerous Dog Act. It seeks to prohibit "new" ownership and tightly restrict "existing" ownership of the following breeds: Akita, American Pit-Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Dogue de Bordeaux, Juvasz, Presa Canario and Tosa Inu.
Mandatory Pit Bull Sterilization
As reported back in July, the founder of DogsBite.org, Colleen Lynn, submitted a 21 page white paper to the Seattle City Council that outlined the history of the pit bull problem from a national perspective, offered a detailed view of Seattle's pit bull problem and recommended 4 key options to consider (pages 13-14).
- Mandatory licensing and microchipping for identification purposes
- Liability coverage of $250,000 for victim medical recourse
- Mandatory sterilization to reduce attacks and pit bull euthanasia rates
- Prohibiting felons to own pit bulls
09/13/08: Coverage of the Seattle Area Pit Bull Attack and Activism
Please donate to support our work
DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »
| 9/11/2008 7:01 AM |
"Dog bites will always be a risk, but it's possible to reduce their numbers and severity." It's never been about dog bites, it's always been about severe attacks.
"A Seattle P-I computer analysis early this year showed that pit bulls form a disproportionate share of problems, but they are still only about one-fifth of all dogs who bring warnings or citations of owners." One fifth? Is that all? There are only 160 breeds of dog out there! One fifth is a lot! How many does it have to be until they feel something should be done?
"Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics have found pit bull attacks to be the cause of seven or eight fatalities annually, about a third of all dog-bite deaths in the country." Why are they using old statistics instead of reporting that pit bull killed over 20 people last year alone? I guess it's easy to backup your point of view when you cherry pick information.
| 9/11/2008 7:30 AM |
I don't live in Seattle but for heavens and safety sake just do a little research. This includes the paper. Breed specidic laws have and DO make a difference. The entire State of Ohio has breed specific laws on pits. Denver, San Francisco, Little Rock, Ak. many many cities can tell you this makes a difference. Over 200 cities and growing in the U.S. The cities are large, and small, Liberal and Conservative. They just want their citizens to be safe and they have! Look at their stats! Paper do some research!